Using the new Monocle of Clarity
James O'Rance
I've been planning to use it in tournaments. Now that it's legal,
using it carefully can really help with those critical decisions. I've
put two into my HoS deck.
However, I've found that using the Monocle requires some care. In a
social game on Monday night, my prey had a problem with the question
that I asked; she wasn't able to answer it perfectly with a Yes/No,
because I was just a *little* too vague.
I agreed - I was being a bit lax about my wording - so said she didn't
have to answer if I didn't get the question right. Fortunately this
didn't happen during the tournament, when I was a bit more careful.
The biggest problem that I've had with the Monocle is actually
remembering to use it during untap. There were a few rounds during one
game where I would play a master then remember that I hadn't used the
Monocle... oops. :)
But I am always a blond during tournaments.
Some of the questions that I ask:
"Based on the cards in your hand, can any of your minions possibly
block an action that I take this turn?"
("possibly" allows for untaps provided by Guard Dogs; this question is
simpler when Animalism is not involved)
"Based on the cards in your hand, are you able to change the target of
a bleed that I direct at you this turn?"
"Do you have a Blood Sweat in your hand?" <- very specific obviously,
but it was good to know!
Any other suggested questions?
I find that putting "based on the cards in your hand" at the beginning
of any question is a good safeguard to ensure that the question is
legal. It doesn't cover cards in play, but if I can't figure out what
they'll do then I deserve to be surprised.
james o'rance
http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer/wraith
Frederick Scott
> Some of the questions that I ask:
>
> "Based on the cards in your hand, can any of your minions possibly
> block an action that I take this turn?"
Mmmm. I don't think that's a fair question because I feel it either
calls for information the opponent does not have (do you hold a
Day Operations or will you draw one?) or leaves a latitude for
interpretation (answer depends on whether an action you choose to
take is bleed or not if holding a Pack Tactics). I'd call the judge
on that one.
In general, I'm curious whether a question that the opponent might not
know the answer to is legal at all, as it is not a yes or no answer.
> ("possibly" allows for untaps provided by Guard Dogs; this question is
> simpler when Animalism is not involved)
Maybe. The trouble is that it's a question of human interpretation
whether you meant for him to take this into account. For that matter,
with a question that complex, he might simply forget that he could untap
with Guard Dogs and tell you 'no'. Then where would you be?
> "Based on the cards in your hand, are you able to change the target of
> a bleed that I direct at you this turn?"
Again, open to interpretation or information he doesn't have. What if you
Kindred Spirits bled your predator and your predator held a Redirection?
Would a Direct Intervention count?
> "Do you have a Blood Sweat in your hand?" <- very specific obviously,
> but it was good to know!
Much better.
> Any other suggested questions?
I'd suggest you ask him plain, easy to figure out stuff like the third
question.
Fred
Derek Ray
<180986e3.02111...@posting.google.com>, James O'Rance mumbled
something about:
> However, I've found that using the Monocle requires some care. In a
> social game on Monday night, my prey had a problem with the question
> that I asked; she wasn't able to answer it perfectly with a Yes/No,
> because I was just a *little* too vague.
*snip*
> Any other suggested questions?
>
> I find that putting "based on the cards in your hand" at the beginning
> of any question is a good safeguard to ensure that the question is
> legal. It doesn't cover cards in play, but if I can't figure out what
> they'll do then I deserve to be surprised.
I think a safer preface is possibly:
"Do you have a card in hand that will let you..."
...just because it's even less of an "opinion" question.
I also like:
"DYHACIH to gain pool in your next Master phase?"
"DYHA Sudden Reversal in hand?" (You'll need it =)
"DYHACIH that grants intercept?" Informational for vote decks.
"If I played no cards at all in a combat, is it possible for (name a feared
minion) to torporize (name one of your own minions)?" Be careful; don't
pick a minion of your own with too much blood.
"DYHACIH to prevent damage taken in combat?" Most useful when you either
don't have any combat cards in hand, or have a totally non-combat deck.
Closely related to "Can you end combat as a strike?" and "DYHACIH to grant
a press?" Prepare for retaliation later. =)
"Are you wearing a thong?" Only viable against Mike Ooi.
"DYH more than one card in hand that would let (name one of their tapped
vampires) block a zero-stealth bleed this turn?" More informational than
if they have ANY untap, usually; I tend to assume that someone can untap
once anyway.
-- Derek
Halcyan 2
>calls for information the opponent does not have (do you hold a
>Day Operations or will you draw one?) or leaves a latitude for
>interpretation (answer depends on whether an action you choose to
>take is bleed or not if holding a Pack Tactics). I'd call the judge
>on that one.
Agreed. "Based on the cards in your hand" isn't necessarily a good phrasing.
What happens if you ask if they can gain any intercept "based on the cards in
their hand." They don't have any cards that provide intercept, but they do have
some valuable cards that can be traded to the guy across the table with the
Succubus Club and London Evening Star. Based on those cards, they could get
intercept from someone else's media outlet. It just gets too confusing. Better
to just ask "do you have any Wakes, Forced Awakenings, Animalism-reaction cards
besides Cat's Guidance, Crimson Fury, and Falcon's Eye, etc. Or asking if they
have a Deflection, Redirection, Telepathic Misdirection, or My Enemy's Enemy in
their hand.
Halcyan 2
Mike Ooi
[ssnipp]
Kevin M.
"James O'Rance" <dragon-...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:180986e3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> Since I pulled a Monocle of Clarity from my very first CE booster,
> I've been planning to use it in tournaments. Now that it's legal,
> using it carefully can really help with those critical decisions.
I dread being the judge and having to rule on this card. I just dread it.
I'd be interested to hear from LSJ, as well as anyone else that has ever had
to officially or unofficially rule on something that happened with MoC, just
so I can get some feeling for what has been happening with this card, if only
so that I wouldn't dread it so much.
Kevin M.
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
LSJ
> James O'Rance wrote:
> > "Based on the cards in your hand, are you able to change the target of
> > a bleed that I direct at you this turn?"
>
> Again, open to interpretation or information he doesn't have. What if you
> Kindred Spirits bled your predator and your predator held a Redirection?
> Would a Direct Intervention count?
Direct Intervention doesn't change the target of the bleed.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ
>
> "James O'Rance" <dragon-...@geocities.com> wrote in message
> news:180986e3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > Since I pulled a Monocle of Clarity from my very first CE booster,
> > I've been planning to use it in tournaments. Now that it's legal,
> > using it carefully can really help with those critical decisions.
>
> I dread being the judge and having to rule on this card. I just dread it.
>
> I'd be interested to hear from LSJ, as well as anyone else that has ever had
> to officially or unofficially rule on something that happened with MoC, just
> so I can get some feeling for what has been happening with this card, if only
> so that I wouldn't dread it so much.
So far, it has been used to ask yes-no questions which were answered either
"yes" or "no" depending on which answer was truthful.
:-)
Angus, the Unruled
> > a bleed that I direct at you this turn?"
>
> Again, open to interpretation or information he doesn't have. What if you
> Kindred Spirits bled your predator and your predator held a Redirection?
> Would a Direct Intervention count?
In that case it wouldn't be a directed bleed at the answering
methusela, nor would he be the one changing the target of the bleed.
I think this question is pretty clear.
FC
>"Based on the cards in your hand, can any of your minions possibly
>block an action that I take this turn?"
Question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding.
>("possibly" allows for untaps provided by Guard Dogs; this question is
>simpler when Animalism is not involved)
>
>
>"Based on the cards in your hand, are you able to change the target of
>a bleed that I direct at you this turn?"
Question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding.
>"Do you have a Blood Sweat in your hand?" <- very specific obviously,
>but it was good to know!
Good question
FC
Snapcase
> "DYHACIH to gain pool in your next Master phase?"
I'd rephrase to "DYHACIH that will increase your pool total" or
something. Blood Doll doesn't actually say "gain pool".
> "If I played no cards at all in a combat, is it possible for (name a feared
> minion) to torporize (name one of your own minions)?" Be careful; don't
> pick a minion of your own with too much blood.
The word "possible" is a bit of a trap. If you take it to mean >0%
chance of happening, then the answer to your above question is going
to always be "yes"; because 3 people cross table could play a Frenzy
each for 3 rounds in a row or some other "stars are aligned properly"
sequence of events.
I guess the question arises:
How much of a stickler/literalist do people plan to be when asked a
Monocle question? Especially in a tournament setting...
-Snapcase
LSJ
>
> >"Based on the cards in your hand, can any of your minions possibly
> >block an action that I take this turn?"
>
> Question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding.
The question must be answered truthfully.
The present contents of one's hand is not a future event.
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > James O'Rance wrote:
> > > "Based on the cards in your hand, are you able to change the target of
> > > a bleed that I direct at you this turn?"
> >
> > Again, open to interpretation or information he doesn't have. What if you
> > Kindred Spirits bled your predator and your predator held a Redirection?
> > Would a Direct Intervention count?
>
> Direct Intervention doesn't change the target of the bleed.
Actually, James included the clause, "that I direct to you this turn" so
Direct Intervention wouldn't qualify, I guess. But if I play Direct
Intervention against another player's Redirection, I have effectively changed
the target of the bleed - depending on how you interpret the question.
Oh, ye who think language is a cut and dried thing...
Fred
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > Direct Intervention doesn't change the target of the bleed.
>
> Intervention against another player's Redirection, I have effectively changed
> the target of the bleed - depending on how you interpret the question.
>
> Oh, ye who think language is a cut and dried thing...
No. Direct Intervention doesn't change the target of the bleed.
If you DI the Redirection, then the bleed was never redirected and
is still targetting the original Methuselah, as it was before the
Redirection was played.
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Direct Intervention doesn't change the target of the bleed.
> >
> > If I play Direct
> > Intervention against another player's Redirection, I have effectively changed
> > the target of the bleed - depending on how you interpret the question.
> >
> > Oh, ye who think language is a cut and dried thing...
>
> No. Direct Intervention doesn't change the target of the bleed.
>
> If you DI the Redirection, then the bleed was never redirected and
> is still targetting the original Methuselah, as it was before the
> Redirection was played.
But the target of the bleed may well wind up being different than it would have
been had the DI not been played. If you go back and look at the question he
asked:
"Based on the cards in your hand, are you able to change the target of
a bleed that I direct at you this turn?"
(...and drop out the clause, "that I direct at you" because it precludes
another player's Redirection from affecting the bleed unless the bleed had
gotten retargeted in the first place. So for argument's sake, let's ignore
that clause...)
...you have to admit that he _was_ able to change the target of a bleed. You
are assuming a more strict definition of "change" than others might necessarily
use.
Fred
LSJ
No. You are assuming a definition of change so lax as to be incorrect.
If you change the target of a bleed, a new blocking opportunity results.
No new blocking opportunity results if you DI the Redirection, therefore
you did not change the target of the bleed.
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> >
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > If you DI the Redirection, then the bleed was never redirected and
> > > is still targetting the original Methuselah, as it was before the
> > > Redirection was played.
> >
> > But the target of the bleed may well wind up being different than it would have
> > been had the DI not been played. If you go back and look at the question he
> > asked:
> >
> > "Based on the cards in your hand, are you able to change the target of
> > a bleed that I direct at you this turn?"
> >
> > (...and drop out the clause, "that I direct at you" because it precludes
> > another player's Redirection from affecting the bleed unless the bleed had
> > gotten retargeted in the first place. So for argument's sake, let's ignore
> > that clause...)
> >
> > ...you have to admit that he _was_ able to change the target of a bleed. You
> > are assuming a more strict definition of "change" than others might necessarily
> > use.
>
> No. You are assuming a definition of change so lax as to be incorrect.
>
> If you change the target of a bleed, a new blocking opportunity results.
> No new blocking opportunity results if you DI the Redirection, therefore
> you did not change the target of the bleed.
I think we've been down this road before. You are assuming: 1) an unambiguous
meaning of "change" as defined in the context of the game; and 2) that a player
will understand that definition exists, what exactly it is, and that it must be
used at this time. Number 1 is a fair enough statement, though not particularly
obvious except by rigorous study of the rules and/or the tutelage of someone
experienced in interpreting them. Number 2 is likely to be a pretty risky in a
lot of players' cases, leading to errors and (if the errors are unearthed)
judging controversies. If I ever use a Monocle of Clarity, I'll probably be
avoiding questions as complex and nebulous as the one above like the plague for
just this reason.
Fred
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > > But the target of the bleed may well wind up being different than it would have
> > > been had the DI not been played. If you go back and look at the question he
> > > asked:
> > >
> > > "Based on the cards in your hand, are you able to change the target of
> > > a bleed that I direct at you this turn?"
> > >
> > > are assuming a more strict definition of "change" than others might necessarily
> > > use.
> >
> > No. You are assuming a definition of change so lax as to be incorrect.
> >
> > If you change the target of a bleed, a new blocking opportunity results.
> > No new blocking opportunity results if you DI the Redirection, therefore
> > you did not change the target of the bleed.
>
> I think we've been down this road before.
I don't think so.
> You are assuming: 1) an unambiguous
> meaning of "change" as defined in the context of the game; and 2) that a player
> will understand that definition exists, what exactly it is, and that it must be
> used at this time.
I do not assume 2.
> Number 1 is a fair enough statement, though not particularly
> obvious except by rigorous study of the rules and/or the tutelage of someone
> experienced in interpreting them.
Actually the problem is that you are assuming that preventing change is itself
a change. It is not.
Preventing the target of the bleed from being changed means that the target of
the bleed is not changed, as illustrated by the blocking opportunity stuff
above.
> Number 2 is likely to be a pretty risky in a
> lot of players' cases, leading to errors and (if the errors are unearthed)
> judging controversies. If I ever use a Monocle of Clarity, I'll probably be
> avoiding questions as complex and nebulous as the one above like the plague for
> just this reason.
That could be.
That has nothing to do with DI being unable to change the target of a bleed,
however.
Jack Ryan
>
I tell anybody that they can answer anyway they please...lie or tell
the truth. The user beware...
James O'Rance
> FC wrote:
> >
> > >"Based on the cards in your hand, can any of your minions possibly
> > >block an action that I take this turn?"
> >
> > Question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding.
>
> The question must be answered truthfully.
> The present contents of one's hand is not a future event.
That's what I thought; that's why I always base the questions on the
present contents of another Methuselah's hand if relevent.
Asking if it is currently possible for a minion to react is pretty
safe. I generally assume that if a minoin *can* redirect a bleed then
it will, unless there is a compelling reason not to (eg, I bleed for 1
while a minion with Legendary Vampire has not yet taken an action). If
the Meth *cannot* currently redirect the bleed, then I simply have to
bleed before the contents of his hand changes.
I don't just ask this of my prey; I've asked my predator/grandprey the
same question (if only three players remain), to warn my prey that
bleeding him will be ineffective (and so that my predator/grandprey
cannot bounce the bleed back to me.
However, I might change the wording of the question:
"... can any of your minions block a bleed directed at you this turn"
to
".. can any of your minions *attempt* to block a bleed directed at you
this turn"
to deal with the stealth/intercept issue. If my prey can attempt to
block and I don't have any stealth, then that's all the information
that I need.
I don't like having too many "ands" and "ors" in a question, though.
james o'rance
http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Frederick Scott wrote:
> > > > But the target of the bleed may well wind up being different than it would have
> > > > been had the DI not been played. If you go back and look at the question he
> > > > asked:
> > > >
> > > > "Based on the cards in your hand, are you able to change the target of
> > > > a bleed that I direct at you this turn?"
> > > >
> > > > ...you have to admit that he _was_ able to change the target of a bleed. You
> > > > are assuming a more strict definition of "change" than others might necessarily
> > > > use.
> > >
> > > No. You are assuming a definition of change so lax as to be incorrect.
> > >
> > > If you change the target of a bleed, a new blocking opportunity results.
> > > No new blocking opportunity results if you DI the Redirection, therefore
> > > you did not change the target of the bleed.
> >
> > I think we've been down this road before.
>
> I don't think so.
I do. We were arguing about whether there was any latitude in what it means to "play" a
card. I notice you have distinctly more confidence in terms of words having exactly correct
meanings than I do. Not that I think words don't have exact _intended_ meanings...
sometimes. (Other times you query a speaker and discover that he didn't have a terribly
strong intention for what he wanted to communicate in the first place.) It's just that
often the meaning gets misconstrued between the speaker's encoding of it and the listener's
decoding of it because the word (or words) do not symbolize precisely the same meaning for
each. This is a classic example.
I agree that in the context of VtES, to "change" a target does have a special and rather
unambiguous game meaning. And frankly, I had missed that. But it only exists because it
was required to allow new blocking attempts after each redirection. Otherwise, you likely
wouldn't have that argument to fall back on.
> > You are assuming: 1) an unambiguous
> > meaning of "change" as defined in the context of the game; and 2) that a player
> > will understand that definition exists, what exactly it is, and that it must be
> > used at this time.
>
> I do not assume 2.
OK. I think 2 is important but it's not directly germane to this dispute.
> > Number 1 is a fair enough statement, though not particularly
> > obvious except by rigorous study of the rules and/or the tutelage of someone
> > experienced in interpreting them.
>
> Actually the problem is that you are assuming that preventing change is itself
> a change. It is not.
> Preventing the target of the bleed from being changed means that the target of
> the bleed is not changed, as illustrated by the blocking opportunity stuff
> above.
Change means to affect or to alter. One of Merriam-Webster's definitions is, "To replace
with another". Your insistence on looking at the situation only from the standpoint of,
"Where was the bleed going before/where is it going afterward" is a limited one. I am
looking at it from the standpoint of, "How would the end result differ with vs. without
the card in question". It is different, therefore the card 'changes' that result.
Preventing a change *IS* a change, yes. That seems like a perfectly valid statement to
me.
Fred
Jason Liang
James O'Rance <dragon-...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:180986e3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> I've been planning to use it in tournaments. Now that it's legal,
> using it carefully can really help with those critical decisions. I've
> put two into my HoS deck.
>
> However, I've found that using the Monocle requires some care. In a
> social game on Monday night, my prey had a problem with the question
> that I asked; she wasn't able to answer it perfectly with a Yes/No,
> because I was just a *little* too vague.
>
Is there any point in using Monocle besides gaining information about your
prey/ predator's hand? Besides the occasional Storage Annex or something
similar. There are a couple of ways of simply looking at another
Methuselah's cards, such as Revelations, Sleight of Hand, Cull the Herd,
Fleurdumal and such, I find these cards simpler, more reliable and more
accurate.
Is there a question you can ask with Monocle that isn't about the contents
of their hand?
Cheers,
Janus, Childe of Chronus
FC
>> >block an action that I take this turn?"
>>
>> Question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding.
>
>The question must be answered truthfully.
>The present contents of one's hand is not a future event.
I got it wrong it would seem.
I wouldn't want to argue linguistics (English being my second language).
But how can you demand that an answer must be truthful, yet allow it
not to be binding?
How about this question: "If I call an political action will you support the
vote?"
No matter what the answer is the "victim" can vote as he please, correct?
FC
LSJ
>
> >> >"Based on the cards in your hand, can any of your minions possibly
> >> >block an action that I take this turn?"
> >>
> >> Question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding.
> >
> >The question must be answered truthfully.
> >The present contents of one's hand is not a future event.
>
> I got it wrong it would seem.
>
> I wouldn't want to argue linguistics (English being my second language).
> But how can you demand that an answer must be truthful, yet allow it
> not to be binding?
?
There is nothing "binding" about the current contents of your hand.
If you have a card of type <X>, then you have it. You aren't bound
to play it nor to discard it nor to keep it. You are simply truthfully
answering that you have it.
Similarly, if the current contents of your hand are such that you could
do <x>, then you could do <X> with the current contents of your hand.
You aren't bound to do <X> or not to do <X>. You are simply truthfully
answering that the contents of your hand could do so.
> How about this question: "If I call an political action will you support the
> vote?"
>
> No matter what the answer is the "victim" can vote as he please, correct?
Correct. His future actions are not bound by his answer.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > Frederick Scott wrote:
> > > LSJ wrote:
> > > > Frederick Scott wrote:
[LSJ wrote: DI doesn't change the target of the bleed]
> > > > > ...you have to admit that he _was_ able to change the target of a bleed.
> > > I think we've been down this road before.
> > I don't think so.
>
> I do. We were arguing about whether there was any latitude in what it means to "play" a
> card. I notice you have distinctly more confidence in terms of words having exactly correct
> meanings than I do.
Ah. Some other topic is similar to a road we've been down before. Great.
The current topic is "Direct Intervention doesn't chang the target of the bleed".
> Not that I think words don't have exact _intended_ meanings...
> sometimes. (Other times you query a speaker and discover that he didn't have a terribly
> strong intention for what he wanted to communicate in the first place.) It's just that
> often the meaning gets misconstrued between the speaker's encoding of it and the listener's
> decoding of it because the word (or words) do not symbolize precisely the same meaning for
> each. This is a classic example.
This is a classic example of a case where a player can "play from his chair instead of from the table [dsr]" and attempt to purposefully "misunderstand" a clear question and attempt to apply spurious logic to defend giving a false answer.
I'm sure that there a such players, yes. See several recent threads on this forum, for example.
But that is a different topic.
It doesn't change the fact that DI doesn't change the target of the bleed.
> I agree that in the context of VtES, to "change" a target does have a special and rather
> unambiguous game meaning. And frankly, I had missed that. But it only exists because it
> was required to allow new blocking attempts after each redirection. Otherwise, you likely
> wouldn't have that argument to fall back on.
It existed in any event. It wasn't invented for the blocking opportunity ruling.
Canceling an effect is not the same as undoing the effect.
Preventing damage doesn't heal damage. (Although some players "miss that" as well - the fact that some players miss something doesn't alter reality.)
Suddening an Ascendance doesn't make the Methuselah lose pool. It prevents the player from gaining pool.
Canceling a card that would change the target of the bleed means that the target of the bleed isn't changed.
>
> Change means to affect or to alter. One of Merriam-Webster's definitions is, "To replace
> with another". Your insistence on looking at the situation only from the standpoint of,
> "Where was the bleed going before/where is it going afterward" is a limited one. I am
> looking at it from the standpoint of, "How would the end result differ with vs. without
> the card in question". It is different, therefore the card 'changes' that result.
> Preventing a change *IS* a change, yes. That seems like a perfectly valid statement to
> me.
Yes, DI changes something. That isn't the point. What it changes is not the target of the bleed. That is the point. DI changes the card it is targeting from having an effect to being canceled. Looking at it from strained standpoints won't change the fact that preventing the target from being changed means that the target isn't changed.
Example:
I'm watching channel 4. I grow tired of the show. I pick up the remote to change the channel to channel 5. But the batteries are dead (canceling my attempt to change the channel). Now, did having dead batteries change the channel?
Halcyan 2
>prey/ predator's hand? Besides the occasional Storage Annex or something
>similar. There are a couple of ways of simply looking at another
>Methuselah's cards, such as Revelations, Sleight of Hand, Cull the Herd,
>Fleurdumal and such, I find these cards simpler, more reliable and more
>accurate.
You can ask questions about cards in his deck and crypt too. Do you have
Immortal Grapples in your deck? Is the vampire in your crypt with 8 pool on it
Arika? Etc.
BTW: Can someone remind me what happens if you ask a question that the
Methusaleh simply doesn't konw? For example, if you ask your prey if he has
more than 6 Deflections in his deck and he honestly doesn't know...
Halcyan 2
LSJ
>
> >Is there any point in using Monocle besides gaining information about your
> >prey/ predator's hand? Besides the occasional Storage Annex or something
> >similar. There are a couple of ways of simply looking at another
> >Methuselah's cards, such as Revelations, Sleight of Hand, Cull the Herd,
> >Fleurdumal and such, I find these cards simpler, more reliable and more
> >accurate.
>
> You can ask questions about cards in his deck and crypt too. Do you have
> Immortal Grapples in your deck?
It could be that the player in unable to answer this.
The player is not allowed to look through her library during the game (unless
an effect allows her to, of course).
Best to keep to things that can be known in order to get meaningful answers.
> Is the vampire in your crypt with 8 pool on it
> Arika? Etc.
Note: vampires in the crypt do not have pool on them.
Try "Is the vampire in your uncontrolled region with 8 pool on it Arika?"
> BTW: Can someone remind me what happens if you ask a question that the
> Methusaleh simply doesn't konw? For example, if you ask your prey if he has
> more than 6 Deflections in his deck and he honestly doesn't know...
She answers truthfully, where "truth" is as according to her knolwedge of
the deck. If she "thinks" she doesn't have more than 6 Deflections, then
she'd answer no. If it turns out that she had 7, well, OK.
Best to stick to things that can be "known".
Angus, the Unruled
other possible questions relate to the future, and are not binding.
W. Mark Woodhouse
<jli...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Is there any point in using Monocle besides gaining information about your
>prey/ predator's hand? Besides the occasional Storage Annex or something
>similar. There are a couple of ways of simply looking at another
>Methuselah's cards, such as Revelations, Sleight of Hand, Cull the Herd,
>Fleurdumal and such, I find these cards simpler, more reliable and more
>accurate.
>
>Is there a question you can ask with Monocle that isn't about the contents
>of their hand?
>
You could also ask about the contents of their deck ("Does your deck
contain any Archon Investigations"), the state of their uncontrolled
region ("Is the uncontrolled vampire with 3 blood on it able to be
brought out with a single turn worth of influence, assuming no other
influence effects are used and you do not gain additional transfers"),
or information the player has about the game state that you do not
("When you looked at your prey's hand last turn, did you see any cards
that could be used to gain intercept?")
You can also _ask_ questions about future events, the answers just
aren't binding. Depending how good you are at Jedi Mind Tricks, this
can even be useful.
Mark Woodhouse
Prince of Minneapolis
(adjusting his monocle)
Halcyan 2
the Monocle before asking the question? I'm tempted to say that it's a
formality but isn't required. The reason I ask is:
#1. If you do not have to explicitly state that you're using the Monocle, it
can get a bit hairy if the controller asks some other question that wasn't
intended to be his Monocle question. For example, untaps his card, asks someone
across the table "is that Dragos untapped over there?" and then the question is
answered, satisfying Monocle's ability for the turn.
#2. On the other hand, if you do need to explicitly state your using Monocle's
ability to use it, you might have unscrupulous players who ask questions (not
using the Monocle ability), while giving others the impression that they are
using the ability. Then they state that they were "just asking a question, not
using the Monocle" and want to explicitly use the Monocle to ask another
question.
Any thoughts?
Halcyan 2
Wes
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
>
> Note: vampires in the crypt do not have pool on them.
> Try "Is the vampire in your uncontrolled region with 8 pool on it Arika?"
This is probably just an annoying thing to add to this thread...
...but wouldn't you need to ask how many *blood counters* are on the alleged
Arika? The blood counters are not considered to be pool when on an
uncontrolled vampire, or are they?
Geez... I already hate this card and I haven't even seen it played yet.
Cheers,
WES
LSJ
If you want a truthful answer, indicate that you're using the Monocle.
If you indicate that you're using the Monocle (by whatever methods pass
for such indication in your setting), then you use it. If not, you don't.
Kevin M.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3DDCDFCB...@white-wolf.com...
> FC wrote:
> >
> > >> >"Based on the cards in your hand, can any of your minions possibly
> > >> >block an action that I take this turn?"
> > >>
> > >> Question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding.
> > >
> > >The question must be answered truthfully.
> > >The present contents of one's hand is not a future event.
> >
> > I got it wrong it would seem.
> >
> > I wouldn't want to argue linguistics (English being my second language).
> > But how can you demand that an answer must be truthful, yet allow it
> > not to be binding?
>
> ?
> There is nothing "binding" about the current contents of your hand.
>
> If you have a card of type <X>, then you have it. You aren't bound
> to play it nor to discard it nor to keep it. You are simply truthfully
> answering that you have it.
>
> Similarly, if the current contents of your hand are such that you could
> do <x>, then you could do <X> with the current contents of your hand.
> You aren't bound to do <X> or not to do <X>. You are simply truthfully
> answering that the contents of your hand could do so.
This is one of the potential problems that I see. What if an inexperienced
player doesn't understand the possible interaction of certain cards in his
hand? He will therefore answer "falsely". The Monocle Methuselah takes some
action(s) based on this faulty information -- factually false information --
and his plans are upset. He calls a judge (you) over... and now what do you
do?
It wasn't as if some kind of cheating/lying/bad sportsmanship took place. The
inexperienced player answered to the best of their ability, and yet gave
factually false information. The Monocle Methuselah wants some kind of
reparations. You're in a lose-lose situation.
IAMLSJ, but the way I see it, either the answers to *some* of this card's
questions are going to have to be given by a judge and NOT by the player being
asked the questions, or LSJ is going to have to make some kind of ruling, as
he has hinted at in another thread, that the answers given to the Monocle
Methuselah are not required to be factually correct, but only "to the best of
my ability to understand card interaction" correct. I'm all for fixing and
unbanning cards, but do we really want a card like this available for
tournament play?
> > How about this question: "If I call an political action will you support
the
> > vote?"
> >
> > No matter what the answer is the "victim" can vote as he please, correct?
>
> Correct. His future actions are not bound by his answer.
>
> --
> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
> Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Kevin M.
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Kevin M.
So, in this example, she isn't allowed to say "I don't know" as her answer?
She certainly SHOULD be able to give that as an answer, since it is the truth,
which is what the Monocle requires from the answer.
> Best to stick to things that can be "known".
Agreed.
> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
> Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Kevin M.
Xian
Woodhouse) wrote:
>You can also _ask_ questions about future events, the answers just
>aren't binding. Depending how good you are at Jedi Mind Tricks, this
>can even be useful.
You're going to have to get better at Jedi Mind Tricks *fast*. :)
Xian
W. Mark Woodhouse
Heh. I don't even OWN a monocle. I know my limitations. Actually, I
rather agree with Kevin's concerns about the Monocle being a judging
nightmare in tournament play - Geoff used one in his Setite deck the
other week and it drove all of us nuts.
Mark Woodhouse
Prince of Minneapolis
(Xian's padawan, at best)
LSJ
> So, in this example, she isn't allowed to say "I don't know" as her answer?
Card text: He or she must answer "yes" or "no" truthfully
--
Alex Broadhead
> > So, in this example, she isn't allowed to say "I don't know" as her answer?
>
> Card text: He or she must answer "yes" or "no" truthfully
...and what is your favorite color?
Blue. No, yelloooooooaaaaarrrrrgh...
I can see this card really causing problems for me and another
adherents of pragmatic philosophy. (Which argues that there is no
such thing as 'truth' or 'reality' which is separable from the
subjective context of human perception.) I can never claim to know
the 'truth' (in an objective sense) about anything - only to attempt
to represent my understanding or perceptions to the best of my
ability.
Do I have any 'bounce' cards in my hand? I think so, but it's
entirely possible that someone traded me a cunning forgery which just
looks like a Deflection, though it is, in 'reality' a Hurloon Minotaur
which has been dramatically altered.
Thankfully, for the purposes of Jyhad, I can generally simulate
certainty. <insert smiley thing here>
So, anyway, if you 'honestly' don't know the answer to the yes or no
question, what happens? Does it involve spontaneous combustion? That
would be cool.
Ni!,
Alex
LSJ
>
> Howdy,
>
> > > So, in this example, she isn't allowed to say "I don't know" as her answer?
> >
> > Card text: He or she must answer "yes" or "no" truthfully
>
> ...and what is your favorite color?
>
> Blue. No, yelloooooooaaaaarrrrrgh...
Card text: question pertaining to the game
> So, anyway, if you 'honestly' don't know the answer to the yes or no
> question, what happens? Does it involve spontaneous combustion? That
> would be cool.
Per previous post, answer to the best of your knowledge.
Kevin M.
> Alex Broadhead wrote:
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > > > So, in this example, she isn't allowed to say "I don't know" as her
answer?
> > >
> > > Card text: He or she must answer "yes" or "no" truthfully
> >
> > ...and what is your favorite color?
> >
> > Blue. No, yelloooooooaaaaarrrrrgh...
>
> Card text: question pertaining to the game
>
> > So, anyway, if you 'honestly' don't know the answer to the yes or no
> > question, what happens? Does it involve spontaneous combustion? That
> > would be cool.
>
> Per previous post, answer to the best of your knowledge.
As the targetted Methuselah, if your "to the best of your knowledge" answer is
factually false, then the terms of the card have been fulfilled?
Kevin M.
> Alex Broadhead wrote:
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > > > So, in this example, she isn't allowed to say "I don't know" as her
answer?
> > >
> > > Card text: He or she must answer "yes" or "no" truthfully
> >
> > ...and what is your favorite color?
> >
> > Blue. No, yelloooooooaaaaarrrrrgh...
>
> Card text: question pertaining to the game
>
> > So, anyway, if you 'honestly' don't know the answer to the yes or no
> > question, what happens? Does it involve spontaneous combustion? That
> > would be cool.
>
> Per previous post, answer to the best of your knowledge.
It's clear then that the card will be more useful against more experienced
players; while I'll accept Joe Jyhad answering factually false and yet "to the
best of his knowledge", I won't accept that from any "name" player.
James O'Rance
> You could also ask about the contents of their deck ("Does your deck
> contain any Archon Investigations"), the state of their uncontrolled
> region ("Is the uncontrolled vampire with 3 blood on it able to be
> brought out with a single turn worth of influence, assuming no other
> influence effects are used and you do not gain additional transfers"),
I think that it would be simpler to ask "Is the uncontrolled vampire
with 3 blood on it of 7 capacity or less?"
> or information the player has about the game state that you do not
> ("When you looked at your prey's hand last turn, did you see any cards
> that could be used to gain intercept?")
Ooh, that's good. I'll keep that one in mind.
james o'rance
LSJ
> > > So, anyway, if you 'honestly' don't know the answer to the yes or no
> > > question, what happens? Does it involve spontaneous combustion? That
> > > would be cool.
> >
> > Per previous post, answer to the best of your knowledge.
>
> As the targetted Methuselah, if your "to the best of your knowledge" answer is
> factually false, then the terms of the card have been fulfilled?
Per previous post, yes.
Best for the asker to stick to what can be "known".
--
Jason Liang
Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message
news:3DDC89C8...@removethis.com...
snip
>
> Change means to affect or to alter. One of Merriam-Webster's definitions
is, "To replace
> with another". Your insistence on looking at the situation only from the
standpoint of,
> "Where was the bleed going before/where is it going afterward" is a
limited one. I am
> looking at it from the standpoint of, "How would the end result differ
with vs. without
> the card in question". It is different, therefore the card 'changes' that
result.
> Preventing a change *IS* a change, yes. That seems like a perfectly valid
statement to
> me.
>
I once saw a High School debate final that came down to the definition of
"change." The resolution was something about "The US Govt should *change*
its policy towards such and such..." The argument of the negative was that
the affirmative's plan created a new US policy where none existed before.
They argued that creating a new policy is not changing a policy, you can't
change something that doesn't exist, and won because of that argument.
Cheers,
Janus, Childe of Chronus
> Fred
Halcyan 2
>"change." The resolution was something about "The US Govt should *change*
>its policy towards such and such..." The argument of the negative was that
>the affirmative's plan created a new US policy where none existed before.
>They argued that creating a new policy is not changing a policy, you can't
>change something that doesn't exist, and won because of that argument.
Then again, high school debate team was always rather quirky. Instead of making
*good* points, you're drilled to speak as fast as humanly possible because if
you make 100 quick points and your opponent does a really super job responding
to one of your points, you've pretty much won since by not addressing them,
your opponent is conceding those other 99 points...
Halcyan 2
Sanabas
> >block an action that I take this turn?"
>
> >simpler when Animalism is not involved)
> >
Don't know. I have no idea what actions you might take, or if you'll play a
day op, seduction, etc. Assuming I'm completely tapped out, otherwise you
wouldn't be asking the question, shouldn't the question be "Do you have any
cards in your hand that will allow you to untap and/or attempt to block a
basic bleed action?" rather than vague concepts like based on the cards in
your hand. Or remember the full list, and ask "Do you have any WWEF, forced
awakening, guard dogs, 2nd traditions, rat's warnings or special reports
(did I miss any?) in your hand?"
> >
> >"Based on the cards in your hand, are you able to change the target of
> >a bleed that I direct at you this turn?"
I'd have to be more pedantic to do it, but again I'd say don't know. What if
you play a misdirection? Call a consanguineous condemnation before you
bleed? Again, I think the question should be "Do you have any cards in your
hand that allow you to change the target of a bleed directed at you?" Or
again, list the cards.
>
Matt
Jason Liang
Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021126034504...@mb-cs.aol.com...
But part of the skill of debate is being able to come up with a response to
all 100 quick arguments, and learning to use quick rebuttals for quick
points. A lot of the time I see debaters grouping arguments inappropriately
and losing the point that way. Worse comes to worse, you group the arguments
you don't have time for, throw up a weak rebuttal against them, and
counterattack with a strong negative case. The affirmative won't have time
to argue too many of his weak arguments through your weak rebuttal without
dropping anything from your case. The most important rule is to not drop
anything, it doesn't make intuitive sense but once you become more
experienced you realize that is the easiest way of losing a debate.
Cheers,
Janus, Childe of Chronus
> Halcyan 2