Monocle of Clarity (& questions about the deck contents)

Brum wrote:

I disagree here.
The name of the Disciplines that are required for a card are "card text" that have been replaced by symbols for ease of understanding.
So, imo, if I'm asked if I have a Protean card in my hand and I have an Earth Meld, I must say "yes".

I think it's a bit hazier here. I wouldn't say Alia God's Messenger or Fourth Cycle are Gehenna cards, even though they require Gehenna cards. I wouldn't say that the Sword of Troile is a Presence card, even though it gives you superior .

In the Grapple case, it's more straightforward because there is a trait and a title issue. When you start including different card types (vampires) and assumptions (requirements) it gets more complicated.

Going back to Gargoyle, besides :

A. Gargoyle vampires
B. Gargoyle trait (for allies/retainers)
C. Gargoyle title (Gargoyle Slave)

you also have to decide whether:

D. Library cards that require Gargoyle also count.

If so, that would include the Gargoyle clan cards. But how about the Tremere/!Tremere cards that can only be used if there is a Gargoyle around? Reindoctrination, Defender of the Haven, Potio Marytrium, and Soul of the Earth require a Gargoyle target (even if the formal requirements of the action don't require Gargoyle). Should they be included as well under "Gargoyle cards"?

You also have cases where what are essentially clan cards don't technically require the clan. Carnivale (you can play it on someone else's Toreador), Bastille Opera House, and Eternals of Sirius are examples. How about Feral Spirit? Is it an Ahrimanes card? A Gangrel card? A Gangrel Antitribu card? All three? Are Feral Spirit and Visionquest considered Spiritus cards? Is Blooding by the Code a Valeren card?

Izaak wrote:

And on that topic, if someone asks me if I can "Deflect a bleed," and I don't have Deflection but I do have Redirection of Telepathic Misdirection, then I can rightly say no, I can't DEFLECT a bleed

Yeh sure, and by doing so you're just being a dick.

Why is that? Maybe the guy is only concerned about Deflection (because he can Hide the Mind and I am Legion any Auspex cards and he's older and you only have inferior so you can't Redirect). Maybe he cares specifically because all the other cards tap you while superior Deflection doesn't. So by answering "yes" when you have a Telepathic Misdirection, you are actually being untruthful and he might complain to the judge about it.

Pascal wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Lönkka wrote:

How should questions about deck contents using Monocle of Clarity be handled?

The same discussion in which LSJ says "Best to stick to things that can be known" (linked in the forum post) also provides the answer:

[LSJ 20021122]

LSJ wrote:

> 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.

I feel honour-bound to point out that spontaneous combustion is hot, not cool.

And I'm adding: A judge can't be called to check if the answer matches the decklist (or to count the copies of the card in the deck).

Is there any way to ascertain if the player is telling the truth? Without such a test, these rulings de facto allow players to lie about the contents of their library and crypt. It certainly encourages askers to "stick to what can be known." Maybe it works, but it's too informal for my taste, anyway.

Instead of giving such wriggle room, why not just explicitly say that Monocle questions can only refer to cards that the Methusaleh currently has access to? Or rule that inaccessible library and crypt cards (barring Tusk, etc.) fall under the "future" clause of the card? That's a fairly neat solution.

Also, the guideline that LSJ told Ankha about is very good (thanks again for clarifications, Ankha!). Surely that should be in the official rulings page.

Izaak wrote:

If you don't understand the slang (or, realistically, are just being a prick) you cannot answer the question properly and thus should ask for clarification. Answering the question with no is cheating.

If you don't understand the question (or more likely, are looking for loopholes to lie), then ask for a clarification.

Im not allowed to ask for clarifications, only to answerr, to the best of my ability what I do belive you asked me about yes/no. All the exampels Eric comes with a perfect exampels on why this is just stupid

/Jesper

Aaron wrote:

Is there any way to ascertain if the player is telling the truth?

If you ask questions about things that one can ascertain the truth about, then yes. Otherwise, no.

If you ask about something that you feel the need a judge to check, you can have them check that. Most of the time, however, you'll ask about something that will become evident soon anyway. For example, if I ask "do you have an Archon Investigation in your hand?", you say "no", and then bleed you for 9, whether or not you are lying is mostly immaterial--either you are telling the truth, or you are lying and have an Archon Investigation in your hand, but if you play it, you'll be penalized for cheating (someone can certainly say "No" when they have one, and then play some cards trying to block, and then claim to have drawn into it, but it is easy enough to have a judge check the player's hand when you ask them).

If you ask questions that can't be verified, you are going to have no way to verify. So only ask things that can be verified--what is in someone's hand, what vampires are face down, what card is in that Storage Annex. As questions about the future aren't binding (by card text), asking about deals or how someone will react to something is pointless. Most of the issues of this card solve themselves.