Cactus Game Design Message Boards

When I play Persistent Pestering does my opponent have to show me what he underdecks to prove they were good cards?

Kirk

I would assume that it is the same as showing what you search for, but I know there have been questions on when that "prove yourself" concept applies. I'm not certain that the opponent would have to show his hand if he couldn't underdeck two (i.e. he had one or fewer good cards in hand) as the only mention of that is when you force your opponent to discard a certain type of card from hand.

Personally, I don't think any of those kinds of rules should be necessary, and if people feel so compelled to cheat to give themselves an advantage, then not only do they risk having to deal with "being caught" by abilities that reveal hands (and I would rule would have to have some sort of consequence by a judge if not an all out forfeit if caught) but they also have to deal with their own consciences. But I also understand that some people would say they are necessary, and I guess I don't really mind over all as I am pretty used to it.

Whoa, now. Since when has this changed? Of course you would have to show the cards to prove that they are good cards. And, if the opponent had no good cards, then they would have to reveal their hand for verification. I'm glad that you don't have a problem with dishonest players in your tournaments, but we need to have game rules to cover the rest of the population.

Nothing has changed as far as I know, but I know that the REG only gives the provision of revealing a card from hand when a card type that you don't have is targeted for discard; other abilities are not explicitly given that provision.

FWIW, you were one of the people I was referring to when I said that many people would disagree with me, since you seem to have had the most unfortunate tournament experiences in regards to cheating (or at least you are the most vocal host about it). I don't think it will change, but there does need to be a line somewhere (i.e. should you have to show your opponent your entire deck to prove that you don't have a Genesis Fortress with SYoP, or your entire discard pile to prove that you don't have a good Isaiah card, or each Artifact you put in your pile to prove it's not an LS, etc.). This is often important when it comes to cards like RBD/Foreign Wives/Golden Cherubim/etc...I recently had an opponent use an Archer to shoot his own Angel to stop him from having to draw with Isaiah when I had GC active. I agree that if it is something easy as a single-card search or a discard from hand, it's not a big deal, but we do also make cards like Escape to Egypt more powerful than they should be by allowing them to be a "look at hand" ability (one of the most powerful abilities in the game IMO) oftentimes. It's a tricky situation for sure.

Also, wouldn't this qualify as a "do as much as you can" scenario? If they only had one good card, it would still have to be underdecked, right?

Yes, all I was saying is that you would underdeck the one, and have to reveal the rest of your hand to prove you don't have another.

Can someone show me where in the rules it says that you have to reveal to prove you're not cheating? I know it's found under the search entry because it applies to all search abilities that specify what they can search for. I can't find anything that says we must apply that to any other situation though.

The very fact it exists for search abilities should mean it applies to any other applicable situation where verification is necessary. I honestly do not understand why such a concept would not exist for other abilities if the purpose of doing it for search abilities was to preserve the integrity of the game objectively as a whole. Let's not make this a double standard.

However, claiming that you have no good cards to underdeck can be easily verified if that person plays any good cards before the next time he draws, or if the opponent uses a look at hand ability, etc. And if the person is caught, then a suitable punishment could be instated.

The logic there does not follow with the amount of drawing in this game, and PP is not the only card that this rule affects.  Further, it is consistent with all other conditions where you must reveal your hand if you cannot complete the action.

I don't see this as being about stopping cheating at all.  I see this as being consistent with the application of the rules and allowing all players to make sure that as-much-as-you-can is being enforced with all abilities.

On a side note, I'd also agree that changing Search to allow for a choice of failure would be a good idea, as that is also an inconsistency (since we don't show the whole deck when we fail the Search), and it is a little silly otherwise.

You can always search for a card even if you know its not in your deck.

Wasnt there some rule stating that you could call a judge over to verify that there are no evil cards in hand with say I am Holy?

If you use I Am Holy and they don't have any evil cards you get to see their hand anyway.

Further, it is consistent with all other conditions where you must reveal your hand if you cannot complete the action.

As Gabe pointed out to me at a recent tournament, (and several posts ago in this thread) there is no where in the rules that says all abilities wherein you cannot complete the action require a reveal. The only ones that are specified are Search abilities, where you are searching for a specific card. I think that the reveal in place of discard (as spelled out on I am Holy) might also be a rule, but I can't find that, nor any other similar abilities for underdeck/shuffle/etc. I agree that we should be consistent, the issue is just what side should the consistency tilt towards.

Quote from: RTSmaniac on July 22, 2013, 08:29:50 PM

Wasnt there some rule stating that you could call a judge over to verify that there are no evil cards in hand with say I am Holy?

If you are implying that a judge would replace the reveal, then I would oppose this idea. Hosts/judges do not have time to verify every instance in every game, especially for large tournaments. This would be an unnecessary burden for an already busy person.

Actually, I think just the ability to call a judge over if you are at all suspicious, paired with a suitable consequence for a discovery of cheating, would deter cheating enough to make it okay. I have often seen people experiencing soul drought call a judge over to count the LSs in an opponents deck (even against very good and honest players who may just be missing LSs stuck in their opponent's deck from the previous game). I also think there are probably few enough instances that would occur in a single game where the person would not only use the type of ability that would cause such a situation, and even fewer that would result in the player claiming that he cannot fulfill the requirement, such that if a judge were to be called over, it wouldn't be too much more taxing than having to answer general ruling questions. But that's just my perspective, I have never hosted a tournament of more than 20 people without at least 1 or 2 other capable judges as I'm sure you have, YMT, so I understand if you don't share my optimism. But really, other than Persistent Pestering and Escape to Egypt, I can't think of any commonly used card that would cause a player to require a reveal, and I would guess that PP would more often than not want to be fulfilled so that the player has the ability to play other good cards during the battle that it is played (since you are obviously cheating if you claim you have no good cards but then play a good card during that same battle).

Keep in mind that my only aim here is to keep discussion going, not to rule certainly one way or the other. But it's clear that we do need some consistent rules on the issue, and while my preference would be to allow other parts of the game (abilities that could catch cheating, having a judge verify a claim, etc.) to keep things fair, I understand if most would prefer the other side. But then we just need to figure out what types of potential "cheating" need to be proven false, and what types we just have to trust that players won't attempt.

Could this instance be resolved with a quick flash of evil symbols and not an actual "reveal hand"?  Enough to satisfy the incapability of completing the action, but not so much that cards are read and memorized.  That's what I do with my kids and playgroup.

FWIW, I assumed that PP was similar to search in that one must show if they claimed they couldn't complete it since it specified "good."

There's something¹ about this thread that makes me want to keep arguing my point...






¹ Oh yeah.... the title...