Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Again, this is something that is in place in every game that doesn't involve lying, and I honestly don't get the hard-and-fast position here.  "You have to X."  "Oh I can't."  Do I call the 'bluff' and call a judge over?  That's not how this should work, you shouldn't be able to lie through that and just hope you draw before they see your hand again (which is generally going to happen) if you want to cheat, and I shouldn't have to seem like I am calling a babysitter-judge over to make sure things are on the up-and-up.

And as much as we all agree that the vast majority of players are going to play this right, cheating happens.  If you don't know 'that player' in your extended tournament group or at larger tournaments who might 'fudge the truth' a bit, that doesn't mean they aren't there (I know of some).

Beyond that, it's just a common-sense rule that is very logical to implement.  The cases where this matters and the hand is revealed are few, but the possible effect of 'misplaying' in those cases is greater.  I would go with the logical rule that also resolves a potentially larger problem (and removes the temptation).

This proposal is unlikely to find much, if any traction with the vast majority of my fellow elders and I.

It is the reason that this proposal will not find any traction that I find most disturbing. At its root, it is simply selfishness. I realize that this seems harsh and I will get my fair share of -1's (as I already have so far in this thread), but let me clarify.

The concern is about a "competitive edge" that may be gained. Normally when this is the case, the elders create counters (i.e. to weaken pre-block ignore). Yet, in spite of the success of hand-control decks at the highest levels, we still do not have very many counters that protect the hand (which would make this thread moot). This proposal instead is simply met with very strong resistance, even though there is no technical basis for it. I have already illustrated that we currently use "unwritten" defaults to prevent cheating. As stated by others, I am not the only one that sees that cheating is a problem even in Redemption, yet that is not a "competitive edge" the elders want to counter.

I also have already stated that the mathematical probability of the supposed "competitive edge" this proposal would bring is very low, since there are too many dependent variables:

1.) Your opponent would have to have a card that targets a specific card(s) in your hand.
2.) Your opponent would have to get that card out of their deck before the game was over.
3.) Your opponent would have to have the opportunity to play that card.
4.) You would have to not have the targeted card(s) in your hand at that moment.
5.) The reveal would have to change the outcome of that battle.
6.) You would have to ultimately lose the game because of that outcome.

Now, I have never actually played any of the Alstads, but I am fairly certain that any one of them could play an entire game with their hand face up on the table, and they would still win 9 out of 10 games they play. So, ultimately, we are only talking about that one game where this may make a difference.

There is a bigger picture here (cheating) that this proposal is trying to address. But the resistance is based off the low probability that certain individuals may lose that one game. To me that is selfish, but we do what we have to do.

Interestingly, ...

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 personally would allow this in lieu of the proposed rule during a tournament, if a player requested it. I actually have no problem with letting the competitive players make these types of requests, and making exceptions for them. But, as a general rule, I think we need to look at the bigger picture, and do what is best for the game, not for individuals.

The rule that a card must be shown after a specific search (i.e. Ethiopian Treasurer searching for a no-SA good enhancement) has long been in place and I am in no way saying it should be changed or is a bad rule.

I am Holy's ability has been ruled as "clarifying text." That would mean that the reveal is the default and no longer needs to be printed on the card. Perhaps it is regional, but I have always known the reveal of hand to be the existing rule.

KoalaKing brought up a good point with the deck searching example. If I use a mandatory search ability such as Herod the Great but don't have Herod's Temple in my deck, should I be required to show my opponent my entire deck? That is the logical extension of the proposal dealing with the hand.

Redoubter already stated that a "failed search" option would simultaneously be implemented, in that all searches will inherently be optional.

but still every ability that searches a deck for a specific card says "reveal it" explicitly.

What? That's not true at all.  Here's Herod the Great for example

Search deck for Herod’s Temple. Return all but one Hero in battle to territory. Prevent good banding abilities. Cannot be prevented by a Hero.

there's no reveal it in there.

To be honest, I thought that revealing your hand if you have the target card was a rule too before reading this thread, however, now that I know it's not, I don't think it needs to be changed that way. The way I see it, here are the benefits of each side so far:
Having to Reveal (HtR)
-Prevents cheating

Not Having to Reveal (NHtR)
-Keeps your hand unknown from your opponent
-Prevents cheating

I say that the NHtR side prevents cheating because if a player wants to he can call over a judge, or, as Justin said, ask the guy next to him, to confirm. Now, if I was one to cheat then I wouldn't either way (if my opponent got to see or my neighbors got to see) so I believe that the NHtR side is better as a whole because it would prevent cheating (possibly with a little more work on the judge's end) and it would give competitive players, such as myself, the edge they want.

Now, I have never actually played any of the Alstads, but I am fairly certain that any one of them could play an entire game with their hand face up on the table, and they would still win 9 out of 10 games they play. So, ultimately, we are only talking about that one game where this may make a difference.

Yeah, but you're leaving out the common instances where we play each other.

This is not exactly related to the topic of revealing your hand, but I would like to add my observations about the topic of cheating.  I have only attended two local events and both times as a guest (non-player).  In each of these events while I casually observing I witnessed two minor instances of a player cheating.

The Bible teaches that in cases of discipline or dispute among fellow believers when confronting the person another witness is recommended (Matthew 18:16).  Therefore, using a judge or neighbor would be appropriate.

Before the part you quoted he said "in MTG." 

I have zero idea how my brain skipped over that part of the sentence.+