Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: LordZardeck on January 17, 2012, 09:32:40 PM
-
Attending angel allows me to search my deck for a card and place it in my hand. Am I REQUIRED to show it to my opponent? the REG doesn't mention it
-
Unless the ability says you may grab any card, I believe you are required to show what card you pulled, to prove it's what the ability said.
-
Unless the ability says you may grab any card, I believe you are required to show what card you pulled, to prove it's what the ability said.
I agree.
-
Here's the thing, I'm not sure if this is game rule or just expected courtesy. I'm about 80% sure the former.
-
I'm 100% Certain that it's a game rule. If its not written down somewhere (Which I find hard to believe, I'm sure some obscure section of the REG lists it) Then we'll right it down. I'll add this to the FAQ's right now.
Additionally, if you cannot satisfy the requirements for a discard from hand ability you must reveal the fact that you cannot do so.
-
Here it is in the REG:
Instant Abilities > Search
Special Conditions
If an ability that is paired with a search ability targets a specific type of card, reveal the targeted card before carrying out the paired ability.
-
Attending angel allows me to search my deck for a card and place it in my hand. Am I REQUIRED to show it to my opponent? the REG doesn't mention it
You are required to show that it is a good enhancement. If you are concerned about giving away strategies, you could cover up everything on the card with your hand except the bible icon.
Here's the thing, I'm not sure if this is game rule or just expected courtesy.
As much as we would like to view this as a courtesy, people simply can not be trusted. I had an opponent play Ethiopian Treasurer, then search their deck for the good enhancement with no SA. They pulled a card out of their deck and placed it in their hand. I told them that game rule required that they reveal the card to verify it was the targeted card. They immediately put the card back into their deck and continued searching. After going through their whole deck, they said that they did not have an enhancement with no SA.
I still wonder what card they put into their hand the first time ..... ::)
-
Attending angel allows me to search my deck for a card and place it in my hand. Am I REQUIRED to show it to my opponent? the REG doesn't mention it
You are required to show that it is a good enhancement. If you are concerned about giving away strategies, you could cover up everything on the card with your hand except the bible icon.
I thought it had to be a universal reveal (i.e. the entire card)
-
Here it is in the REG:
Instant Abilities > Search
Special Conditions
If an ability that is paired with a search ability targets a specific type of card, reveal the targeted card before carrying out the paired ability.
That definition should be broadened to include look at and take into hand abilities - e.g. Divination.
(That or we've been playing it wrong all along, which I highly doubt).
And yes, it is a universal reveal.
-
You know, since rule simplification is preferred where applicable, this is an opportunity. I think the "honor system" should be used for all types of searches, rather than requiring complex specific details as to when a player must show a card to an opponent.
If all attempts to block temptations for cheating cannot be addressed, then I believe it's an exercise in futility to create excess rules to do so. Let's keep things simple and use it as an opportunity for all players to strengthen their character by not succumbing to temptations to cheat.
-
You know, since rule simplification is preferred where applicable, this is an opportunity. I think the "honor system" should be used for all types of searches, rather than requiring complex specific details as to when a player must show a card to an opponent.
If all attempts to block temptations for cheating cannot be addressed, then I believe it's an exercise in futility to create excess rules to do so. Let's keep things simple and use it as an opportunity for all players to strengthen their character by not succumbing to temptations to cheat.
While I agree entirely with the sentiment, we need these rules for exactly the same reason we check decks: to prevent mistakes and avoid potential issues arising due to them.
-
While I agree entirely with the sentiment, we need these rules for exactly the same reason we check decks: to prevent mistakes and avoid potential issues arising due to them.
I acknowledge your good point. There are the intentional (cheating) and unintentional (mistakes) consequences. But I would add that there is a huge disparity between mistakes made from searches versus mistakes made due to the complexity of the rules.
-
Let's keep things simple and use it as an opportunity for all players to strengthen their character by not succumbing to temptations to cheat.
Unfortunately the ones who have good character will eventually lose to the others, which creates awkward situations at major tournaments. Cheaters always win.... until they're caught.
-
Let's keep things simple and use it as an opportunity for all players to strengthen their character by not succumbing to temptations to cheat.
Unfortunately the ones who have good character will eventually lose to the others, which creates awkward situations at major tournaments. Cheaters always win.... until they're caught.
You're probably right...but I'm in that small group of people that focus on "it's how you play the game." ;)
-
Let's keep things simple and use it as an opportunity for all players to strengthen their character by not succumbing to temptations to cheat.
Unfortunately the ones who have good character will eventually lose to the others, which creates awkward situations at major tournaments. Cheaters always win.... until they're caught.
While I understand YMT's concerns I think they are overblown, and I would tend to side with STAMP on this one.*
Let's face it... If I really wanted to cheat there is a super simple way to do so that would would be undetectable under the current rules and would result in virtually guaranteed wins. Whenever I draw a lost soul, I will simply keep it in my hand or turn it face down and place it in my artifact pile.** As long as my deck is big enough so I don't deck out I win every time and you'll never know that you was robbed.***
Requiring people to show cards they have searched for is minor nibbling around the edges of any potential cheating problem given the "strategy" I outlined above. So do we start requiring people to show every card they draw so we know they are not lost souls?
*Not that I think a rule change is necessary, but if we were starting from scratch...
**Yes, I know to be truly undetectable I would have to protect my deck, hand and/or artifact pile from my opponent.
***Fortunately, my win/loss ratio proves that I am not employing this strategy on any consistent basis. :'(
-
You know, there are many cards that say find a card, show it to your opponent, and add it to your hand. I think making this a standard rule across all search abilities would not be a problem and would make this no longer a "i dont trust you" issue.
-
You know, there are many cards that say find a card, show it to your opponent, and add it to your hand. I think making this a standard rule across all search abilities would not be a problem and would make this no longer a "i dont trust you" issue.
It is a standard rule across all search abilities. There are two exceptions, both of which allow you to search for any card, no matter the type so a reveal isn't necessary. They are False Peace (gray EE) and Search (green GE).
-
You know, there are many cards that say find a card, show it to your opponent, and add it to your hand. I think making this a standard rule across all search abilities would not be a problem and would make this no longer a "i dont trust you" issue.
So we have cards that say search and show, so we search and show.
We have cards that say search, but we search and show except for a couple of cards.
I'm not necessarily lobbying for a rule change here, but simplicity would seem best:
Card says search and show, you search and show.
Card says search, you search.
We have the some of the brightest minds in the world as our Elders, but sometimes I worry that there is too much over-thinking of the plumbing. It is admirable that the ruling is an honest attempt to make sure the game is more fair, but as MJB exhibits, cheating can still be accomplished. Amateur magicians could even give you a few tips on how to doctor a deck so as to draw the cards you want.
As I said before, I'm just tossing in my 2 cents because there has been recent success with rule simplification.
-
So we have cards that say search and show, so we search and show.
We have cards that say search, but we search and show except for a couple of cards.
So we have cards that say capture and treat as a lost soul
We have cards that say capture, but we treat as a lost soul anyway.
Old wording is old. The game changes, and so do special abilities. In order to keep the game fair, we require a reveal if the search looks for a certain type of card.
-
So we have cards that say search and show, so we search and show.
We have cards that say search, but we search and show except for a couple of cards.
So we have cards that say capture and treat as a lost soul
We have cards that say capture, but we treat as a lost soul anyway.
Old wording is old. The game changes, and so do special abilities. In order to keep the game fair, we require a reveal if the search looks for a certain type of card.
I even extend grace to implied references of my age. ;)
Your analogy is lacking. For full credit please show all work.
-
Do you want people to use Consider the Lillies to get Son of God?
-
So we have cards that say search and show, so we search and show.
We have cards that say search, but we search and show except for a couple of cards.
Okay, I've been poring through the REG card list and can't find a single card that say search and show/reveal. They all just have "search" printed. The reveal is just an inherent part of searching to ensure it's a legal move.
And while yes, people can still cheat, I know I personally make enough honest mistakes in playing that I could forget that Chamber of Angels is an NT Fortress when I was supposed to search for an OT one, or mistakenly use Stone Pillar at Bethel to search for the NT Angel of the Lord, or what have you.
I don't see how this is something that needs to be simplified. It's fine as is. (So is the rule of "if someone has to discard a type of card from hand but can't, they need to reveal their hand to prove it".)
-
So we have cards that say search and show, so we search and show.
We have cards that say search, but we search and show except for a couple of cards.
Okay, I've been poring through the REG card list and can't find a single card that say search and show/reveal. They all just have "search" printed. The reveal is just an inherent part of searching to ensure it's a legal move.
And while yes, people can still cheat, I know I personally make enough honest mistakes in playing that I could forget that Chamber of Angels is an NT Fortress when I was supposed to search for an OT one, or mistakenly use Stone Pillar at Bethel to search for the NT Angel of the Lord, or what have you.
I don't see how this is something that needs to be simplified. It's fine as is. (So is the rule of "if someone has to discard a type of card from hand but can't, they need to reveal their hand to prove it".)
I don't presume to have every card memorized, especially the newer cards. I made an incorrect assumption based on LordZardeck's post. If there is indeed no card that requires you to search and show, then I would still propose rule simplification...only this time remove the exceptions for Search and False Peace.
You search. You show. Every time.
-
So we have cards that say search and show, so we search and show.
We have cards that say search, but we search and show except for a couple of cards.
Okay, I've been poring through the REG card list and can't find a single card that say search and show/reveal. They all just have "search" printed. The reveal is just an inherent part of searching to ensure it's a legal move.
And while yes, people can still cheat, I know I personally make enough honest mistakes in playing that I could forget that Chamber of Angels is an NT Fortress when I was supposed to search for an OT one, or mistakenly use Stone Pillar at Bethel to search for the NT Angel of the Lord, or what have you.
I don't see how this is something that needs to be simplified. It's fine as is. (So is the rule of "if someone has to discard a type of card from hand but can't, they need to reveal their hand to prove it".)
I don't presume to have every card memorized, especially the newer cards. I made an incorrect assumption based on LordZardeck's post. If there is indeed no card that requires you to search and show, then I would still propose rule simplification...only this time remove the exceptions for Search and False Peace.
You search. You show. Every time.
Sorry, I thought some cards did require you to show. Nevertheless, this is what I meant. Show everytime, no exceptions, or don't ever show. KISS.
-
The flaw I see in MJB's example of potential cheating is that if a player is that it would be very easy to catch them. If people don't seem to be drawing Lost Souls, any ability that allows me to search my opponent's deck will clue me in that there's a few souls short. If I ever lose a tournament game because of apparent soul drought, I will usually check my opponent's deck to see if there were enough included; this happened to me once during Sealed deck when my opponent had left three of her LS's with her previous opponent, fortunately we had time to play again.
In the case of searching, there is no way to tell if your opponent was fortunate and really did draw all of their dominants right away, or if they got SoG/NJ right away because of Zaccheus and Consider the Lilies.
One of the other reasons the rule helps has been mentioned, which is honest mistakes. I can't tell you how many times people have used CtL to fetch Blessings, Words or First Fruits without realizing that none of those are NT. I remind them that CtL specifies NT, to which they often say they never realized that wasn't legal. If they hadn't had to show me those times, then they would have cheated without even knowing it. It's a bad feeling to realize that you may have won a game because of an honest mistake; at Nationals I didn't realize until after the game that I had kept using my Goliath to return my opponent's only two heroes for a few turns, one of which was Abishai (a giant-slayer). I am not certain that I would have lost the game as a result, but it definitely feels better to know you played the cards correctly.
I don't think the rule is very complicated, and I think there are plenty of legitimate reasons it should remain the way it is, although I certainly see the other side of the coin as well.
-
In the case of searching, there is no way to tell if your opponent was fortunate and really did draw all of their dominants right away, or if they got SoG/NJ right away because of Zaccheus and Consider the Lilies.
Is there a new Zaccheus coming out? Because I am curious how Zaccheus can search for SoG or NJ? The only other option for using Zaccheus as an example (that I can figure) is that you are referencing how someone can search, not show, and still cheat.
-
In the case of searching, there is no way to tell if your opponent was fortunate and really did draw all of their dominants right away, or if they got SoG/NJ right away because of Zaccheus and Consider the Lilies.
Is there a new Zaccheus coming out? Because I am curious how Zaccheus can search for SoG or NJ? The only other option for using Zaccheus as an example (that I can figure) is that you are referencing how someone can search, not show, and still cheat.
I think that was his point. You can prove if your opponent is cheating with Lost Souls, but can't prove that he's cheating with searches, unless there's a reveal rule.
-
In the case of searching, there is no way to tell if your opponent was fortunate and really did draw all of their dominants right away, or if they got SoG/NJ right away because of Zaccheus and Consider the Lilies.
Is there a new Zaccheus coming out? Because I am curious how Zaccheus can search for SoG or NJ? The only other option for using Zaccheus as an example (that I can figure) is that you are referencing how someone can search, not show, and still cheat.
I think that was his point. You can prove if your opponent is cheating with Lost Souls, but can't prove that he's cheating with searches, unless there's a reveal rule.
Precisely.
-
In the case of searching, there is no way to tell if your opponent was fortunate and really did draw all of their dominants right away, or if they got SoG/NJ right away because of Zaccheus and Consider the Lilies.
Is there a new Zaccheus coming out? Because I am curious how Zaccheus can search for SoG or NJ? The only other option for using Zaccheus as an example (that I can figure) is that you are referencing how someone can search, not show, and still cheat.
I think that was his point. You can prove if your opponent is cheating with Lost Souls, but can't prove that he's cheating with searches, unless there's a reveal rule.
You can suspect your opponent is cheating with Lost Souls. You can't prove it until you see the cards.
If the aim is to create rules to prevent cheating, then reveal ALL cards.
Player A is a suspected cheater. Player B is not. A wins. Who's the real winner?
Player A is a proven cheater. Player B is not. A wins. Who's the real winner?
Player A is a suspected cheater. Player B is also a suspected cheater. A wins. Who's the real winner?
Player A is a proven cheater. Player B is a suspected cheater. A wins. Who's the real winner?
Players A & B both tie for 3rd place with same record and LS diff but didn't play each other. A is a suspected cheater. Who gets 3rd?
:police:
-
You can suspect your opponent is cheating with Lost Souls. You can't prove it until you see the cards.
I believe the point was that even with seeing the cards, only the LS cheating can be proven explicitly, whereas the search cannot due to the randomness of drawing.
There is no reason to require a reveal when you can search your deck for literally any card. On the contrary there is a significant strategic disadvantage to having to reveal such a card. If you're campaigning for revealing "any card" you may as well add that every card drawn must be revealed, also any card looked at. At that point, you may as well just play with decks face-up instead of face-down, and artifact piles, too.
My opinion is that cards should be kept hidden unless there is a reason to reveal them, such as there is with searches that look for a specific card/type of card (in that it is to prevent cheating and to clarify mistakes).
-
The flaw I see in MJB's example of potential cheating is that if a player is that it would be very easy to catch them. If people don't seem to be drawing Lost Souls, any ability that allows me to search my opponent's deck will clue me in that there's a few souls short.
I thought I covered that in the second asterix'ed note. Everyone and her cousin played Nazareth last year and HSR also saw a bit of play. So how exactly were you going to search my deck?
If I ever lose a tournament game because of apparent soul drought, I will usually check my opponent's deck to see if there were enough included;
Fine, I pick up all of my cards (including the artifact pile) and hand them to you.
In the case of searching, there is no way to tell if your opponent was fortunate and really did draw all of their dominants right away, or if they got SoG/NJ right away because of Zaccheus and Consider the Lilies.
Sure there is--you can always play a card that let's you look at their hand. I am guessing there are way more of those than there are of cards that let you search my deck when I have Nazareth in play.
I don't think the rule is very complicated, and I think there are plenty of legitimate reasons it should remain the way it is, although I certainly see the other side of the coin as well.
I agree with this. I just don't think that "cheaters will always cheat" is one of those legitimate reasons.
-
I don't think the rule is very complicated, and I think there are plenty of legitimate reasons it should remain the way it is, although I certainly see the other side of the coin as well.
I agree with this. I just don't think that "cheaters will always cheat" is one of those legitimate reasons.
I look at it more as me taking away the temptation (and opportunity) to cheat. I was not a "cheater" in my high school classes as a student, but when the opportunity was made abundantly easy, I did indeed cheat on a Chemistry test.
Of course, I also felt extremely guilty afterward and told my teacher the next day that I had cheated, but that's not the point. ;)
-
Situation: Taking a test filling out the periodic table. You are told to do it from memory. There is a poster of the periodic table hanging right up front of the class.
Is it fair to have that sort of availability for the students to use, even though it would be cheating? Would it not be better to remove the opportunity for easy cheating?
-
Situation: Taking a test filling out the periodic table. You are told to do it from memory. There is a poster of the periodic table hanging right up front of the class.
Is it fair to have that sort of availability for the students to use, even though it would be cheating? Would it not be better to remove the opportunity for easy cheating?
I guess so. So I take it from this analogy that you want me to add you to the list of people who are in favor of revealing every single card that you might add to your hand. That would surely remove the opportunity to "forget" to place a Lost Soul in play.
-
Expecting students not to look at a full periodical table poster hung in full view is unreasonable. Expecting students not to have a piece of paper with the same printed on it hidden under their watch is reasonable. I support the status quo: reveal specific cards searched for, don't reveal cards gotten by Search or False Peace.
-
Situation: Taking a test filling out the periodic table. You are told to do it from memory. There is a poster of the periodic table hanging right up front of the class.
Is it fair to have that sort of availability for the students to use, even though it would be cheating? Would it not be better to remove the opportunity for easy cheating?
I guess so. So I take it from this analogy that you want me to add you to the list of people who are in favor of revealing every single card that you might add to your hand. That would surely remove the opportunity to "forget" to place a Lost Soul in play.
I feel like that is some over exaggeration there. Its easy and doesn't break gameflow to make people reveal the cards they search for to stop cheating. To reveal every card a person drew is overkill, and is simply not practical.
-
That would surely remove the opportunity to "forget" to place a Lost Soul in play.
I'm not sure I understand how displaying other ways to cheat is an argument against helping prevent certain ways to cheat.
FTR, I am not in favor of changing the rule that has been in effect since I came to the boards, which has already been reiterated by an elder. You only need to reveal cards from a search that specifies a certain type of card. Why is this suddenly being debated?
-
Situation: Taking a test filling out the periodic table. You are told to do it from memory. There is a poster of the periodic table hanging right up front of the class.
Is it fair to have that sort of availability for the students to use, even though it would be cheating? Would it not be better to remove the opportunity for easy cheating?
I guess so. So I take it from this analogy that you want me to add you to the list of people who are in favor of revealing every single card that you might add to your hand. That would surely remove the opportunity to "forget" to place a Lost Soul in play.
Hidding souls is not an issue because A) its easy to discover and B) if you did you just lost. So go right ahead and hide souls in your hand because when I look at it with Damsel not only to I get to draw but its gg for me. As for the searches there is really no good way to catch someone milling doms with consider the lilies. So the two situations are not a good comparison.
-
I have no idea why this is even an issue, really. Search abilities should require you to reveal the card you searched for, period. That's what's right, that's what's fair. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be necessary, but people cheat, and it's just a part of the game. That said, search abilities that search for anything should not be needed to be revealed, because that doesn't prevent cheating in this case.
-
Expecting students not to look at a full periodical table poster hung in full view is unreasonable. Expecting students not to have a piece of paper with the same printed on it hidden under their watch is reasonable. I support the status quo: reveal specific cards searched for, don't reveal cards gotten by Search or False Peace.
I guess I really don't understand your analogy. Why is searching for the wrong card equivalent to looking at a periodic table on the wall, while not putting a lost soul in play is bringing in a hidden crib note? Printing a mini-crib sheet and hiding it under your watch is much more work than glancing at the wall. Moreover, you run a much higher chance of getting caught. Neither of those is the case in what we are discussing here.
I agree that full-blown-never-put-a-lost-soul-in-play cheating is beyond what any but the most hardened criminal would do. That said, however, withholding a single or even a couple of lost souls is no more difficult than searching for the wrong card. The risk of getting caught is similar. Finallythe rewards are also comparable...anyone who has played for any length of time has been involved in multiple games where the ultimate winner/loser was decided by nothing more than one player not drawing a lost soul for two or three turns.
I'm not sure I understand how displaying other ways to cheat is an argument against helping prevent certain ways to cheat.
It's not. I am only pointing out that if preventing cheating and trying to remove the temptation to cheat is of major concern to someone, then they have a much bigger kettle of fish to fry than the rule that searched cards must be revealed.
FTR, I am not in favor of changing the rule that has been in effect since I came to the boards, which has already been reiterated by an elder.
FTR, neither am I (and I have said so at least twice previously in this thread).
Why is this suddenly being debated?
Because STAMP suggested that it be done away with in the name of simplification, and rather than pointing out good reasons to keep it (like ProfessorAlstad did) people jumped immediately to the "Ohnoes, we must keep this rule because players will cheat otherwise." This strikes me as being overly cynical. The fact is that there are currently other ways to cheat that are just as easy and no one does those.
-
The analogy works like this: with the poster on the wall (searching for stuff), cheating can very easily done in a way nobody can prove it. For example, having a White N.T. Enhancement in hand and playing Consider the Lilies to get SoG. Even if someone looks at your hand immediately after, nothing seems amiss. However, if you cheat with the paper under your watch, it's easy to prove you cheated: you have the periodic table under your watch. In the same way, hiding Lost Souls in your hand or Art Pile can be discovered by seeing or randomly hitting it from either, searching deck and realizing the number of souls don't add up, etc.
In other words, cheating with your LS's is high-risk, high-reward. Cheating with searches would be low-risk, high-reward.
-
In the same way, hiding Lost Souls in your hand or Art Pile can be discovered by seeing or randomly hitting it from either, searching deck and realizing the number of souls don't add up, etc.
It can be discovered, but it never is. Seriously, how many cards are there that let a player somehow look at another player's artifact pile? (I can think of three off-hand but I may be missing some.) Of those I have seen precisely one (Casting Lots, black) ever played by anyone not running a T2 combo deck. So yeah--the artifact pile can gotten to if someone plays a card that no one ever adds to their deck.
As far as searching the deck and counting LS goes--how do you plan to do that if I have Nazareth or Hezzy's Ring up? Both of these see a ton of play (because they are extremely useful even if you are not cheating).
Hidding souls is not an issue because A) its easy to discover and B) if you did you just lost. So go right ahead and hide souls in your hand because when I look at it with Damsel not only to I get to draw but its gg for me.
Putting aside the fact that I can hide souls in my artifact pile (which is probably what I would do if I were cheating), how many times did you look at my hand in the game we played last Saturday? Precisely zero. What were the chances you were you ever going to block Joseph or Benjamin with Damsel just to get a glimpse at my hand? Almost precisely zero. (And lastly--given that there were always LS available in our game what is the chance I *was* cheating this way? Zero, unless I was really bad at it.) So yeah--it is so easy to discover that players never take the steps to actually do so.
-
I find it ironic, and somewhat unsettling, that you guys are debating how to successfully get away with cheating.
-
MJB is hitting the nail on the head. The bottom line is that cheating will always happen. Poker players of the 1800's continued to cheat even upon penalty of death.
Do I believe that the population of Redemption players cheat far less often than the general population? YES.
Do I believe that cheating will never occur within the population of Redemption players? NO.
Do I believe that cheating will never occur within the population of Redemption players IF rules are created to curb cheating? NO.
Volumes of rules could be created to curb cheating and yet there will always be someone who will try to cheat the system. The same can be said of mistakes. Mistakes will always happen.
I'm just offering ways to simplify what is already a very complex game.
But if we're not really all that concerned with complexity then I propose we create some rules to keep MJB from putting lost souls in his art pile. Because I know I would be very unhappy and my life would stink if I lost to MJB and found out he hid some souls in his art pile.
-
Putting aside the fact that I can hide souls in my artifact pile (which is probably what I would do if I were cheating), how many times did you look at my hand in the game we played last Saturday? Precisely zero. What were the chances you were you ever going to block Joseph or Benjamin with Damsel just to get a glimpse at my hand? Almost precisely zero. (And lastly--given that there were always LS available in our game what is the chance I *was* cheating this way? Zero, unless I was really bad at it.) So yeah--it is so easy to discover that players never take the steps to actually do so.
Yeah your right I didn't look at your hand but when you activate antiburial there's something wrong ;) In all seriousness if your really good at cheating you could probably get away with lost souls in the artifact pile provided you provide a steady trickle of lost souls. Otherwise if you draught me for the whole game (and if I wasn't playing you) I would check there artifact pile and deck. But really,real Pl4yah$$ ambush lost souls.
I'm just offering ways to simplify what is already a very complex game.
Your right it would make the game more simple but it also makes it more complex in away because players have to change their mind sets and convince others to forgot a long and established rule. A lot of people are not on the message boards so I think this would create a lot of unneccessary confusion.
-
All this cheating talk reminds me of the test taking scene in "Spies like us" with Aykroyd and Chase. :laugh:
-
I find it ironic, and somewhat unsettling, that you guys are debating how to successfully get away with cheating.
In today's fallen world, this is a good debate to have (publicly). If you can figure out plenty of ways to cheat, you can stop them.
-
I teach my playgroup (mostly teens and my sons) to be cautious and call a judge to check the deck mid-game if they feel something funny is going on with lost souls. Like Prof A, I know I will check their deck before they can mix all their cards together. I check every time that I experience a lost soul drought no matter who it is. I welcome the same scrutiny if I lost soul drought someone. It is too easy to accidentally leave lost souls in another deck from a previous game or hide lost souls anywhere (including the floor). If you're playing honest, then it shouldn't matter if your opponent wants to check you. If you're not playing honest, then you have every right to be checked.
You guys may call it cynicism, but I view it being "wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove."
-
I can't believe we have a 4 page thread about this. Especially when everyone agrees that a person should have to show a card that is searched for. The ONLY thing people are disagree here is about 2 cards (False Peace and Search), and whether to show them too.
I think the current rule is fine. I also agree that it would be simpler to not have any exceptions. I would be fine with either status quo, or just saying all searched for cards must be revealed.
-
I believe it. Here's how I prioritize ruling threads:
1. Is it Biblical?
2. Is it simple?
3. Does it promote fun and fellowship?
.
.
.
99. Does it allow the current top players the ability to maintain the status quo?
;)
-
I am only pointing out that if preventing cheating and trying to remove the temptation to cheat is of major concern to someone, then they have a much bigger kettle of fish to fry than the rule that searched cards must be revealed.
But that is still not a valid argument against this particular rule. The analogy that I would use is this:
When I go to Wal-Mart, the expensive electronics devices are either chained to the wall or behind a locked glass case. Your argument is that because people could still steal toys a few aisles down, then there's only two choices:
1.) Remove all the security features in electronics.
2.) Add security devices to every product in the store.
I don't think it is all that difficult to just keep the electronics secured and not choose one of the above options (which sound silly to me).
---------------------------
Out of curiosity, STAMP and MJB, do you guys cut your opponent's deck before each game? I realize that the rulebook says so, but the rulebook is outdated, and such a rule does not foster trust and the Honor System.
-
Out of curiosity, STAMP and MJB, do you guys cut your opponent's deck before each game? I realize that the rulebook says so, but the rulebook is outdated, and such a rule does not foster trust and the Honor System.
Only if I remember to bring my scissors. And only then if my opponent is from MN.
-
I don't like rules that require trust. If I go to a major tournament I will shuffle every one of my opponets decks and also cut them. I will ask that all specific searches are revealed.
-
In a tournament, having a judge check the draw pile during or immediately after the game is a possible precaution. I have been in one game where this was done, at Nationals. I wasn't drawing my own lost souls, so I called the judge on myself to check my deck. I had accidentally left two LS in a second deck I was playing, so was short, and I forfeited the game. I might be the only player ever to have to forfeit a Nats game because I sicced the judge on myself. :-[
BTW, I never thought about hiding LSs in an art pile. Can a judge check a player's art pile mide-game or immediately after? I think that one would warrant more than a single game forfeit
-
I don't like rules that require trust.
Ahh, we now come closer to the root of this discussion. Please elaborate.
-
In a tournament, having a judge check the draw pile during or immediately after the game is a possible precaution. I have been in one game where this was done, at Nationals. I wasn't drawing my own lost souls, so I called the judge on myself to check my deck. I had accidentally left two LS in a second deck I was playing, so was short, and I forfeited the game. I might be the only player ever to have to forfeit a Nats game because I sicced the judge on myself. :-[
BTW, I never thought about hiding LSs in an art pile. Can a judge check a player's art pile mide-game or immediately after? I think that one would warrant more than a single game forfeit
Leaving LS in another deck is pretty accidental (and more the fault of the deck checker than any). Hiding LS is deliberate and malicious. I would disqualify them from all events.
-
I don't like rules that require trust.
Ahh, we now come closer to the root of this discussion. Please elaborate.
I believe that man is sinful and thus I would rather create mechanism that help prevent him from sinning than simply trust him to be good because that's what he should do.
-
I don't like rules that require trust.
Ahh, we now come closer to the root of this discussion. Please elaborate.
I believe that man is sinful and thus I would rather create mechanism that help prevent him from sinning than simply trust him to be good because that's what he should do.
So therefore I should mistrust my fellow Redemption players? Maybe we should create some rules to prevent ourselves from sinning with any facedown or hidden cards? Maybe the games would be better if we can remove as much mistrust as possible? Maybe enough rules could be created so that we never have to worry about mistrusting another player? Maybe that way I don't have to be concerned about my sin when I play since there will be enough rules to account for it?
Or maybe we accept that the world is full of mistakes and sin and use the best mechanism for dealing with it: forgiveness? Wouldn't a system of rules that fosters forgiveness rather than mistrust be an ideal system for a group consisting mostly of believers?
You all tell me.
-
You're pro-temptation?
-
I would assume that STAMP is also against Parental Controls, or any other means by which a parent would try to prevent their child from being tempted.
In fact, why even have the Ten Commandments? God could just let us go and then forgive us later.
I think Paul said it best: "Should we continue in sin so that our grace will increase? May it never be!"
-
My eyes hurt from rolling so much.
You're pro-temptation?
Obviously! In fact, just as obvious that Jesus was a law-breaker by healing on the Sabbath! ::)
I would assume that STAMP is also against Parental Controls, or any other means by which a parent would try to prevent their child from being tempted.
In fact, why even have the Ten Commandments? God could just let us go and then forgive us later.
I think Paul said it best: "Should we continue in sin so that our grace will increase? May it never be!"
:miss:
How do you go from "system of rules that fosters forgiveness" to "why even have the Ten Commandments"??
Example from System of rules that fosters forgiveness: thou shalt not steal.
Example from System that prefers to protect you from your temptation and sin: thou shalt not steal; thou shalt be monitored with law enforcement and sound and video equipment; thou shalt tag all merchandise with tracking devices; thou shalt be profiled due to your age, race, gender, etc.
Wait. You guys are just baiting me, right? That's a good one! Ok, you got me. ;)
-
The more you leave to trust the less the trust is worth. Ever heard the "Give an inch, Take a mile" saying? Same principle applies. I like to play an honest game, so I like rules that make an honest game.
-
Wait. You guys are just baiting me, right? That's a good one! Ok, you got me. ;)
Frankly I'm disappointed that an avid fisherman would be so easily baited. ;)
-
My thought was that it's the same for all games, if u Search a card u must show the entire card to the Opponent, regardless of what it might be or how the Search Ability is noted as.
So u do have to show it w/ Search and False Peace, but this is only my opninion.
-
In general if you search for any card (no limits) you usually don't have to show it (at least in MtG and Yu-gi-oh! and that is what the rules in Redemption have always been) but if it's a limited search you have to show the card in its entirety.
-
Wait. You guys are just baiting me, right? That's a good one! Ok, you got me. ;)
Frankly I'm disappointed that an avid fisherman would be so easily baited. ;)
My buddies and I are suckers for the garlic Powerbait. We get a wiff of that and generally the sandwiches come out early. :laugh:
-
STAMP, Jesus talked about not just forgiving our neighbor seven times, but seven times seventy, but I don't think that meant that we should blindly trust our neighbor who's wronged us either. There's a difference between grace and forgiveness and simply being unwise. I skimmed this thread a couple times, and as far as I can tell, nobody is proposing we add new rules to reduce the amount of trust required; however, some rules reducing the amount of trust needed are most certainly required, especially because of how easy it is to cheat.
For several years during my youth, I had a very large dishonest streak; I was a compulsive liar and yes, I did cheat at games. When I began playing Redemption, especially more seriously in the last two years, I made a serious pact with myself and God that I would not let such tendencies come through when playing Redemption, and I have kept that. Now, I tell that story to justify what I'm saying now, which is that it is incredibly easy to cheat in this game, except against all but the most cynical and least trusting players. It would be nothing to take off an extra card during any draws that are more than one card. As others mentioned, hiding a LS in the artifact pile isn't the hardest thing in the world.
The point I'm making is that Redemption already has a huge amount of trust required to play the game without coming off as a jerk. I could insist my opponent draw each card individually to prove they aren't drawing more than they're supposed to, and I could insist to look at my opponent's deck after each game before he shuffles to make sure he has the correct amount of Lost Souls in the deck. That makes me come off as a jerk however, and let's be honest: if I don't do that (at least the last one) in games where there was a serious Lost Soul drought all game, I might be simply being a fool for double-checking. Having some rules, even minor ones like the search rule, enforce fair play more than trust and love and rainbows do. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to make such provisions, however, as it stands, we do.
-
My experience is more in line with what some people said earlier in this thread about mistakes.
There are only two times I am personally aware of someone cheating at Redemption: both at high level tournaments against my wife who was relatively inexeperienced and not competitive. One game the opposing kid was hiding lost souls in his hand and the other t2 game the opposing (experienced) player repeatedly chose the blocker to win when my wife had an occupied Kingdoms out. I didn't learn about either until it was over and too late. My wife wasn't sure of the rules and doesn't care that much regardless. My point is that I rarely see it happen and one of the best stops is having players be well informed to catch it. Mistakes I've seen on the other hand -
Twice players in our group (including me) have had extreme lost soul drought because we forgot to put any lost souls in our deck, players have shuffled in their territory when a Mayhem or shuffler lost soul was rescued, players have shuffled in their discard pile when ANB was played, players have searched their deck when Nazareth was out, drawn cards when the prevent draw soul was out, played territory class with Cov w Death active, lost count of the times someone banded/discarded/converted/captured characters that were not legal targets, searched for a card of the wrong testament, a thousand other examples and lastly some nameless person (Travis Brown/uthminister) used Rome to play and rip a Haman's Plot on a grey emperor.
So I don't trust opponents' accuracy far more than I don't trust their intentions. You just point out the rule, that is usually responded to with an oops (occasionally a rule interpretation/dispute that goes to judges, then to the reg, then to the boards, then debated for 12 pages, then questioned again and overturned) and you carry on with your game.