Monocle of Clarity (& questions about the deck contents)

This is a classic example of a card that is only as good as the player using it.

bakija wrote:

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.

The card doesn't say that you can only ask questions that fall under the category of "verifiable" as you've described here. Nor do any rulings, and there are no rulings that describe what is verifiable AFAIK.

Since it doesn't preclude it you can legally ask those kinds of questions, mainly about the contents of another player's library. The Monocle also requires that the player answer truthfully. Since as of a few hours ago, judges cannot check players' libraries, players can answer untruthfully and explain it by saying "I forgot" (or my favorite from government hearings: "I do not recall".) However, answering untruthfully is cheating, because it goes against the card text.

Like I said, I don't like these kind of formulations, but I may be in the minority. I think that players shouldn't have a legal way to cheat like this. I think the ruling could be cleaned up by explicitly limiting truthful answers to questions about "verifiable" cards.

Aaron wrote:

I think the ruling could be cleaned up by explicitly limiting truthful answers to questions about "verifiable" cards.

I agree.
Actually I though there was such a ruling. Since nobody found it, here's something else for the new Rulings, I think.

Maybe the cleanest solution would be to rule that cards in the library and crypt and those removed from play do not "pertain to the game" for the purpose of the Monocle of Clarity.

Monocle of Clarity
Unique equipment.
During your untap phase, if bearer is ready, you can ask any Methuselah a yes-or-no question pertaining to the game. He or she must answer yes or no truthfully. If the question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding.

echiang wrote:

Just like how players should be held more responsible for knowing the card text of cards in their own deck. (Rarely, you will see players include old versions of cards, and then claim they didn't know that they were errata'ed. Sometimes it might be a genuine mistake, but when certain tournament-level players consistently do it over and over again, you begin to wonder....)

If you are not responsible for knowing the contents of your librery, how can you be responsible for knowing the card text of said content?

TunFiskeMad wrote:

echiang wrote:

Just like how players should be held more responsible for knowing the card text of cards in their own deck. (Rarely, you will see players include old versions of cards, and then claim they didn't know that they were errata'ed. Sometimes it might be a genuine mistake, but when certain tournament-level players consistently do it over and over again, you begin to wonder....)

If you are not responsible for knowing the contents of your library, how can you be responsible for knowing the card text of said content?

It depends on the context. When it comes to high-level tournaments, say Continental Championships, the vast majority of players should know what deck they're playing (and likely have spent a fair amount of time deciding and/or tweaking it). Similarly, at that level of play, there should be a higher expectation of people knowing what cards do. That's not to say that you need to have the exact contents of your deck memorized, but in most circumstances there should have a fair understanding of what their deck does and what the cards in their deck do. If a player is spending a disproportionate amount of time reading the cards in their own hand, there's a higher chance that something odd is happening (like stalling), as opposed to a situation where a new player is carefully reading the cards in their hand.

When it comes to casual tournaments, you are more likely to have cases where people simply grab random decks or borrow decks. You're also likely to have more novices.

You have similar issues in the case of "poor play" which may lead to "not playing to win." In a casual tournament, just *maybe* the guy really doesn't know what his deck is supposed to do. But if someone at a Continental Championship is pulling odd shenanigans and is telling the judge that's because he has no idea what his deck does, that's a bit harder to believe. So...you went through the hassle of qualifying, flew all the way across the continent, and now you're claiming that you don't know how to play your own deck? It's not impossible but certainly unlikely.