Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Strictly speaking, yes, I am sure. Then, you can't be cheating, and you don't have to get anyone else to verify it.

I have advocated this rule for a long time, but the current rule is that you DO NOT have to reveal if you cannot perform a mandatory task.  The only reason you do with IaH is because it says you do.

Sorry.  I'd like it changed too

Actually do you even have to reveal with IaH? When I brought up the ruling question on whether the second part of the ability (reveal hand if there are no evil cards) it was ruled that that was just clarifying text (a ruling I still disagree with, but I digress).  If it is indeed clarifying text, shouldn't it have no effect on the actual ability of the card, and thus have IaH ruled in accordance with how the rules currently work on its type of card?

Quote from: Drrek on October 01, 2014, 02:06:05 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on October 01, 2014, 01:33:21 PM

I have advocated this rule for a long time, but the current rule is that you DO NOT have to reveal if you cannot perform a mandatory task.  The only reason you do with IaH is because it says you do.

Sorry.  I'd like it changed too

Actually do you even have to reveal with IaH? When I brought up the ruling question on whether the second part of the ability (reveal hand if there are no evil cards) it was ruled that that was just clarifying text (a ruling I still disagree with, but I digress).  If it is indeed clarifying text, shouldn't it have no effect on the actual ability of the card, and thus have IaH ruled in accordance with how the rules currently work on its type of card?

That thread established that it is clarifying and therefore happens at the same time, such that you would not have to reveal AFTER discarding the evil card if no others remain.

You still have to reveal if you have no evil when it activates.

However, I still want to know how that could be clarifying text when that isn't the default rule state...

That's exactly my point. If it is clarify text, you should never have to reveal because that's not the rule.  If its not clarify text, you should have to reveal if you have no evil cards after the discard.  What we have now is a weird hybrid that is consistent with neither way of ruling it.

The rule had always been that you must reveal your hand if you do not have what the SA targets.

Actually I don't think this is the rule in a general case, though it definitely should be (and its kinda really silly that its not).

A player does not have to reveal with a card like Apprehended. However, an opponent may most certainly ask a judge to verify that the player does not have an EC in hand. If the judge discovers that the player is cheating, they could then disqualify that player.

A player does not have to reveal with a card like Apprehended. However, an opponent may most certainly ask a judge to verify that the player does not have an EC in hand. If the judge discovers that the player is cheating, they could then disqualify that player.

So if I am judging a tournament with 30 players under the age of 18, I need to check this for every game at every instance? Surely you jest.

Why exactly are you so resistant to this proposal, Justin? Do people in Minnesota really never cheat, or are you content to just let them ("turn the other cheek" style)?

I have had people cheat at my tournaments on more than one occasion. The playgroup I am currently grooming for future tournaments include students that cheated on my Bible Quiz. They will indeed reveal their hand to their opponent, with or without a judge.

So if I block with Herod the Great but don't have Herod's Temple in my deck should I have to reveal my entire deck to my opponent since Herod's search isn't optional? I would certainly hope not, and I'm not sure how that would be much different than a card from hand. I've never seen anyone in our MN playgroup cheat so I can't completely understand exactly what you've experienced as a host YMT, but I do think that the best solution is to have a judge come over to verify if you want to be sure. There really aren't a whole lot of cards that require a target from a place unknown to your opponent so checking if someone wants shouldn't be all that common and therefore not very tasking.

Obviously if you were to implement such a rule you'd have to make sure players wouldn't take offense if someone wants to have a judge check their hand or deck. And also, if you let people know that their opponent has the option to have the judge check it would likely keep them more accountable.

In conclusion, clearly people need to start utilizing Urim and Thummim more often.

So if I block with Herod the Great but don't have Herod's Temple in my deck should I have to reveal my entire deck to my opponent since Herod's search isn't optional?

Failed searches have never fallen under the reveal umbrella.

In conclusion, clearly people need to start utilizing Urim and Thummim more often.

That would also require adding a High Priest and a way to get that priest out of your deck before Urim & Thummim.

So if I am judging a tournament with 30 players under the age of 18, I need to check this for every game at every instance? Surely you jest.

No, only when a player requests it.

Why exactly are you so resistant to this proposal, Justin? Do people in Minnesota really never cheat, or are you content to just let them ("turn the other cheek" style)?

I'm opposed to giving cards implied abilities that they do not have. "Look at opponent's hand" is an ability that certain cards have. Cards that do not have that ability should not allow that to happen.

I have had people cheat at my tournaments on more than one occasion. The playgroup I am currently grooming for future tournaments include students that cheated on my Bible Quiz. They will indeed reveal their hand to their opponent, with or without a judge.

That's unfortunate, but why should honest players be punished because dishonest players are trying to gain an unfair advantage? I mean no disrespect, but if I were a player in your tournament, I would only reveal my hand to you (presumably the judge) and not my opponent. I would even reveal it to another player in the game next to mine (or a random person picked by my opponent) before revealing it to my opponent.

That's unfortunate, but why should honest players be punished because dishonest players are trying to gain an unfair advantage?

The chances of you having to reveal are miniscule compared to how frequently cheaters could cheat. From my tournament experience, a cheater could bring Ethiopian Treasurer out over and over again to search for SoG, NJ, AoTL, CM and whatever else they needed because there is no rule in place to verify that they actually searched for a non-SA enhancement. Whereas, your opponent would have to play a card that targets a specific card in your hand, and you would have to not have it. Based on pure probability, the cheaters have a decided advantage.

Ultimately then, your main concern is that you don't want to lose because your opponent saw your hand at one instance in the game (maybe). I, on the other hand, do not want my 12-year-old players to lose because their 20-year-old opponent is using ET to get dominants.

YMT, it is at least a rule that you must reveal a card searched for if the ability gives any specifics beyond just "a card" so that shouldn't be a problem.

Justin just said that he was "opposed to giving cards implied abilities that they do not have." Search abilities do not have a reveal default listed on the card.

Cards should say, for example: "Search your deck for a good enhancement and reveal it." or "Opponent discards a good card from hand. If he or she has none they must reveal their hand."

We define plenty of abilities through the ability instead of the card.  We absolutely should not spell everything out, that is too long and cumbersome.  Exchange has an inherent search in it, and it is defined as such.

Using key terms is something that is beneficial to the game, and is standard practice for CCGs for good reason.  Explicit text is too long, too clunky to write, and too hard to change after the fact.