Tournament rules regarding different backs on cards.

Kushiel wrote:

I'll try rephrasing this question one last time in hopes of getting an answer from you: Given that these rules have been in place for the 10+ years of VEKN's history, and there haven't been significant issues with them, why is this an issue now?

It might always have been a problem. Most of these arguments would have been the same 15 years ago had anyone brought the discussion up. Open discussion should be encouraged, no?

I don't plan to, but the advantage is only significant if you intend to cheat when you build the deck.

I can illustrate with an example: I want to oust my prey, if I succeed with my bleed I will win the game. If I attempt and fail the bleed I will lose the game. If I do not attempt the bleed I might win the game. (common scenario, by all accounts) But the only card which can make me succeed is an Elder Impersonation, and I know I need to top-deck one. If I look at the top of my library and I see a Jyhad back, I'm sure I won't draw an Elder Impersonation. I don't need to intend to cheat to have this happen to me.

"Significant" has a specific meaning in statistics.

The 'advantage' of knowing what the next card is likely to be is so small that no one but Bakija plays with Tusk, the Talebearer .

How often do you see Maris Streck take her re-ordering ability?
(I've seen it twice in the last 4 years.)

How often do you see Anatole, Prophet of Gehenna in play?
(He's even more scarce than Tusk.)

When was the last time you played with The Marrakesh Codex ?

Clearly, if knowing the possible next card was a 'significant' advantage, you would already be playing with these cards.


No sleeves on my cards, and I'm not cheating and my cards are not marked.

henrik wrote:

I'm presenting a problem with the current tournament rules (they allow playing with marked cards).

This is what I'm taking issue with (ignoring the fact that it's been explained to you multiple times that the tournament rules do not actually allow you to play with marked cards). You keep saying that there is a problem with the current tournament rules as though it's obviously true. But you're begging the question when you do that, because it isn't an a priori a fact that there's a flaw with the tournament rules. In fact, given that there's been so little proven cheating involving those rules, I can't see why you're assuming that a system of rules that's been in place for this long has always been a problem, because history flatly contradicts your argument.

Adonai wrote:

"Significant" has a specific meaning in statistics.

Do tell the whole story instead of keeping us up all night waiting for more.

Adonai wrote:

The 'advantage' of knowing what the next card is likely to be is so small that no one but Bakija plays with Tusk, the Talebearer .

How often do you see Maris Streck take her re-ordering ability?
(I've seen it twice in the last 4 years.)

How often do you see Anatole, Prophet of Gehenna in play?
(He's even more scarce than Tusk.)

When was the last time you played with The Marrakesh Codex ?

Clearly, if knowing the possible next card was a 'significant' advantage, you would already be playing with these cards.

I've played with Anatole quite a lot. His ability is really strong. I also had Marrakesh Codex in a block deck and found it good, just not worth the card slot. Maris' ability is strong, but since she has no reliable ability to untap, there are more useful actions to take with her.
Tusk's problem is hardly his ability. It's his disciplines and clan.

Just because something is a significant advantage doesn't necessarily mean that I will go out of my way completly to gain it.
I would say that having +1 stealth on all actions is a significant advantage, yet I don't think playing with Lucretia in all my decks is a good idea.

Adonai wrote:

No sleeves on my cards, and I'm not cheating and my cards are not marked.

What's your definition of marked cards? Having a clearly different backside is included in my definition at least.

Xaddam wrote:

It might always have been a problem. Most of these arguments would have been the same 15 years ago had anyone brought the discussion up.

They did bring them up. Scroll back up the thread and check out that link to the Google newsgroup discussion that occurred when 3rd Edition was printed. If you really want to take up some archaeology, you can even find a thread about this very same topic from 1995, when the first V:TES set was printed. In all that time, it was never determined that sleeves were necessary, hence why I wonder what's changed to make them so.

Kushiel wrote:

henrik wrote:

I'm presenting a problem with the current tournament rules (they allow playing with marked cards).

This is what I'm taking issue with (ignoring the fact that it's been explained to you multiple times that the tournament rules do not actually allow you to play with marked cards). You keep saying that there is a problem with the current tournament rules as though it's obviously true. But you're begging the question when you do that, because it isn't an a priori a fact that there's a flaw with the tournament rules. In fact, given that there's been so little proven cheating involving those rules, I can't see why you're assuming that a system of rules that's been in place for this long has always been a problem, because history flatly contradicts your argument.

How does history contradict the fact that using differently backed cards gives you a better chance of knowing your next draw?
How are cards with different backs not marked? If it's not a way of cheating how come doing the same thing with sleeved cards allowed?
There's no statistics over how much, if at all, the information gained through having different backed cards have been used. But the facts are that the information is there, and it can be used. For me, this is a bad thing.