Monocle of Clarity (& questions about the deck contents)

TunFiskeMad wrote:

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?

You aren't. But knowing, for sure, the correct card text can make a huge difference.

fr.ex. A player lost the NAC Day 1 final this year because he wasn't aware of current card text of a Jyhad-edition card in his deck, and played it improperly.

Izaak wrote:

Well, in the case of AI specifically it's pretty useful to know if they play any at all, so you have to either work around it or not.

Which is also answered by them having one in their hand or not--knowing you have AI in your deck means I have to never bleed for more than 3. Knowing you don't have one in your hand means I can bleed for 10 all I want *now*.

Ask questions about what is in someone's hand *now*. That solves all the problems here.

This really goes for any card - if you have a problem dealing with a specific card, getting a "no" on the question if they play any at all, ALSO answer the question whether or not they have one in their hand.

Sure. But getting the answer "yes" doesn't help you at all. So ask about what is in their hand and respond accordingly.

Except, apparently you are allowed to lie if anyone asks something about your deck because you can pretend to have forgotten.

Really, isn't asking someone about what is in their deck a question about the future anyway? Asking "do you have AI in your deck" is essentially asking "Might you draw AI in the future?". Which is covered by card text (i.e. answers are not binding). Ask about things that are now. Not about things that might be.

After determining that one's prey will never have AI in hand, one can ask other important questions. For example, whether they have a wake or bounce in hand.

Izaak wrote:

Then leave out the silver bullet comment.

There is a difference between "do you have at least 16 copies of a card that does Y in your deck" and "do you have at least one copy of card X in your deck".

The former, I can see people not knowing, at least not precisely. The latter, I'm not buying. This whole "well ya know I forgot so I answer as best as I can and happen to give the wrong answer... whoops sorry told you I didn't remember" is just another excuse to cheat.

Ec2011 day 2, wanna playing something different then lcq and day one im borrowing a deck from a freind, writing a quick deck list and hands it over. I promise you that there was card in that deck, that I by name could not answere if they was in there or not, playing a clan im not used to with a disiplin im not used to. That mig qualify me as a terrible player, thats fine by me, but dosent make the story less true. Yes I would be able to tell you if there was an AI in the deck or not, but seriously not certain Disiplin cards, and since Pascal you, twice, said he would not catagorize cards (which makes sense not to do) I would be in a position where I would not be able to answere.

/Jesper

Dorrinal wrote:

After determining that one's prey will never have AI in hand, one can ask other important questions. For example, whether they have a wake or bounce in hand.

Oh don't forget to cover the contingency of Agaitas plus *his prey's* Archon Investigation! B)

Erciyes Fragment doesn't count as in your hand, but it's another way to use an AI from another player's deck.

Of course you will probably see either of these coming, but it goes to show that someone can still play an AI even if they don't have one in their deck!

Ec2011 day 2, wanna playing something different then lcq and day one im borrowing a deck from a freind, writing a quick deck list and hands it over. I promise you that there was card in that deck, that I by name could not answere if they was in there or not, playing a clan im not used to with a disiplin im not used to. That mig qualify me as a terrible player, thats fine by me, but dosent make the story less true. Yes I would be able to tell you if there was an AI in the deck or not, but seriously not certain Disiplin cards, and since Pascal you, twice, said he would not catagorize cards (which makes sense not to do) I would be in a position where I would not be able to answere.

Well, clearly if I had played a Monocle and asked you about AI you'd have known the answer. Not answering it truthfully makes you a liar and with it a cheater because Monocle states you have to answer truthfully.

However, because there is no way to check, Pascal is allowing you to lie about it and when you're being caught you can just say "oooh but I don't remember sorry!".

That may or may not be a problem, but that doesn't make it less silly. Similar as to how people are allowed to cheat with different card backs.