This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#567157
AllenGould wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:31 pm I think there's a simpler angle here: what happens when you get caught?

Say I've got a Gowron, a Picard, and some NAs and I've tucked them into a single team.

What does that get me?

If I use Gowron and Picard to solve a mission or pass a dilemma, I'm busted.
If I use both of them to staff a ship, I'm busted.
Any sort of effect where you get to see the whole stack, I'm busted.
And in any sort of tournament environment, if you get suspicious, you can call the TD over to check my team, and then.. yup, still busted.

And I think there's a pretty good case for trying this sort of shenanigans to qualify as Deception, which is a tournament DQ.

So... *maybe* I can sneak Picard over to that Fed mission using Gowron as staffing? But even then if I'm running Feds and Klingons without any Treaty, what opponent isn't going to be paying a bit of attention to where stuff is?

In short - don't do it (because you are straight up full stop *cheating*), and if a TD catches someone doing it, give them the full DQ so there's no upside to even trying.

And on the flip side - don't try using this as an excuse to get extra information. Brain Drain, Long Range Scan... ain't no lack of legit ways to get a look at an opponent's cards.
And to add ^^^ maybe it's just me but I feel it's pretty obvious when my opponent is trying to set up something by looking at my crew.

But this brings up a question I've had in my mind for a while...is it illegal in tournament play to just write it all down/look it up on my phone? So lets say I was playing Allen here and as he reports people I write it down in a notebook or have the website up in the card builder and have that as a resource. Honestly never done it but is it something I COULD do?
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#567159
if nothing has changed writing is still prohibited in all 1e formats real life and online play.

While i´d love it if it would become allowed to have notes for once own cards/decks.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#567164
ShipNerd wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:30 pm if nothing has changed writing is still prohibited in all 1e formats real life and online play.

While i´d love it if it would become allowed to have notes for once own cards/decks.
The reason I asked is that I've seen plenty of use on the live streams and also I'm certain I've watched Jason Drake with a notepad when he won with his Ace of Angels Deck (I may have the person wrong but the game was Aces vs a Klingon deck).
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#567165
stressedoutatumc wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:34 pm
ShipNerd wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:30 pm if nothing has changed writing is still prohibited in all 1e formats real life and online play.

While i´d love it if it would become allowed to have notes for once own cards/decks.
The reason I asked is that I've seen plenty of use on the live streams and also I'm certain I've watched Jason Drake with a notepad when he won with his Ace of Angels Deck (I may have the person wrong but the game was Aces vs a Klingon deck).
You can make notes of things like Android Classification, Lal's Selected skills, etc.

Jason was known to roll with Androids in his Worlds decks, so him taking legal notes is par for the course.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#567167
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:35 pm
stressedoutatumc wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:34 pm
ShipNerd wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:30 pm if nothing has changed writing is still prohibited in all 1e formats real life and online play.

While i´d love it if it would become allowed to have notes for once own cards/decks.
The reason I asked is that I've seen plenty of use on the live streams and also I'm certain I've watched Jason Drake with a notepad when he won with his Ace of Angels Deck (I may have the person wrong but the game was Aces vs a Klingon deck).
You can make notes of things like Android Classification, Lal's Selected skills, etc.

Jason was known to roll with Androids in his Worlds decks, so him taking legal notes is par for the course.
Ah that makes sense. But writing things like who your opponent has reported or what dilemma you have faced is not allowed?
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E World Semi-Finalist 2021
Grand Nagus
Donor
1E North American Continental Champion 2021
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2021
#567171
stressedoutatumc wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:37 pm Ah that makes sense. But writing things like who your opponent has reported or what dilemma you have faced is not allowed?
Correct.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#567203
pfti wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:59 am I would rule that in compatibility questions, you could just show me the right sides of the cards so I see the affiliation colors work, or just the affiliation icons top left. If your opponent is going to be a pedantic jerk, you can respond by covering up as much as you are able
I would hope that you are aware enough of the cards, and the rules, to know that the side of the cards or the affiliation icons in the top left are not enough to guarantee compatibility. You need to show the whole card to prove compatibility, for things like restriction boxes.

Also, the player initially refusing to show his whole cards when asked (because the thinks the rules, as written, lets him so he's going to do it, nyah nyah!) is the pedantic jerk. Responding to pedantry with rules lawyering isn't the jerk - it's the one who starts the initial pedantry that's the jerk.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#567204
Everybody arguing about the consequences of incompatible away teams, after the fact, is once again missing the point. The point here isn't that players might, or would benefit from, incompatible away teams.

The point is that every player has plenty of right to ask to prove compatibility, just as every player has plenty of right to ask to prove staffing when you move a ship, and that this right in practical terms removes the ability to hide who is in your away team or crew.
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:06 am If I know you're playing Thine Own Self, or Barclay Transporter Phobia, or Brain Drain, etc. Then I'm going to play things differently because there's now an in-game reason to do so.
When you say "play differently," do you mean you'll choose to actively hide your cards or you'll change who you send down to the planet? Because the latter is legitimate, and I would certainly hope and expect you to do so, since that's good strategy. The former is just skeevy.
But that aside, some of your examples don't make sense in game terms. Pfti is correct that your opponent only needs to show things when they have to.
And if you want to send down a single away team, you've got to prove to me it's a legitimate, compatible away team when you do so, if I ask.
So if you want to play Thine Own Self, then you have to select a valid target - a one or two person away team at a planet mission - and you don't get to know which people are in that one or two person away team before you play it.
I do get to know if I feel you need to show me the cards to prove compatibility. So might as well just show the cards and be done with it.
You have to decide if playing it is a good choice based on limited information. That's not rules lawyering or being a dick, that's part of the strategic complexity of the game.
Not that this is a relevant point, but there's still plenty of limited information. I still don't know what's in your hand, I don't know what you intend to do based on what happens, I don't know your hidden agendas, and I might not know all the seed cards.

You believe Away Teams are part of that hidden information. In practical fact, they are not, but that doesn't mean the game is now smaller because there is no more limited information, since there's plenty of other limited information.
Why do you think you should get it "for free" just by asking? I'm not sure that's a reasonable assumption.
I think I should get it "for free" the same reason I should get it "for free" when you move the ship and I ask about staffing.

And you're framing it wrong: I'm not getting anything "for free," it is you who is getting something (forming an away team, moving a ship, etc.), and the cost is paid by you having to prove that it's a validly performed action.
As far as verifying staffing goes, you're always free to ask that, but it's only relevant if there's a game action associated with it (obviously ship movement, but also cards that require a staffed ship), and I personally think it's fine to ask when it's gameplay relevant, but asking just to ask doesn't mean your opponent has to tell you. To the contrary, asking when it's *Not* gameplay-relevant could be construed as skeezy rules lawyering because odds are you're asking it while your opponent is trying to do something else in-game and it's a distraction at that point. Done enough at a tournament, it could be considered grounds for stalling.
Nobody's advocating asking to be annoying. I'm sure anyone asking will have a good gameplay relevant reason to do so (I suggested Thine Own Self as an example), so it wouldn't be stalling.

The point really is to establish that it can be done so, for all practical purposes, we should skip the rules lawyering on both sides and just reveal the cards when asked. On the other side of the coin, we shouldn't ask unless there's a strategically relevant decision that might depend on the answer, to be polite.
As far as the house arrest thing, again, context is for kings. If I'm playing mono-Fed or mono-whatever+Non-aligned and there's no way to even *have* a house arrest situation, then when asked to show my crew just because you wanna see them, I'm going to politely decline.
Thought experiment: Let's say you've got a Genetronic Replicator in play and my Armus dilemma randomly selects your Beverly Crusher to die. You tell me she's immune, due to Genetronic Replicator, as you have 2 other MEDICAL in the away team. Am I supposed to just take your word for it, given that you clearly know who's in your away team (and I'm trusting that you're not lying?) No, of course not . You're supposed to reveal the other 2 MEDICAL.

The same goes for house arrest. If I ask you to prove your crew hasn't created a house arrest situation, am I supposed to just take your word for it that your deck is mono-Fed and couldn't possibly create house arrest, given that you clearly know what's in your deck (and I'm trusting that you're not lying?) No, of course not. You're supposed to reveal your cards to prove the fact that none of them are in house arrest.
Keep it up and it won't be so polite.
The fact that you're trying to hide the cards - and forcing me to resort to rules lawyering in the first place - is not being "so polite."
It's one thing to say you shouldn't be expected to remember every person I played, but it's another to say you shouldn't be expected to remember if I played different colors of people at any point to necessitate a house arrest check.
Why are these two different things? Why is it on me to remember all the colors you played? There's nothing in the rules that suggests the onus for remembering colors is on me. So the onus for proving house arrest hasn't been created is therefore on you, not on me.

Later on in this thread, it's claimed that note-taking is illegal. Well, if I can't take notes, I sure as hell am not going to remember all the colors you played!
Not volunteering information not required to be shown isn't [rules lawyering]. At least in my book.
In point of fact, this entire thread began with someone asking about rules lawyering to justify not revealing their cards.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#567209
Oh man, here we go... I'm gonna skip a few details and just hit the high points.
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:32 pm Everybody arguing about the consequences of incompatible away teams, after the fact, is once again missing the point. The point here isn't that players might, or would benefit from, incompatible away teams.

The point is that every player has plenty of right to ask to prove compatibility, just as every player has plenty of right to ask to prove staffing when you move a ship, and that this right in practical terms removes the ability to hide who is in your away team or crew.
So you get to see every personnel I play when I play them. You get to see if they can be legally played. You can ask if they can be legally played where I'm trying to play them (e.g., no incompatible personnel aboard the same facility). All of that is legit.

Once that's done, and they're in play, then you don't get to see them just because you want to. As @AllenGould pointed out, there's cards let you look at an opponent's crew or away team (e.g., Long Range Scan) and even cards that keep that card from working (e.g., Xepolite Freighter). By your logic, those cards are completely useless because you can rules lawyer your way around that with an arbitrary compatibility check. Am I misunderstanding you? If not, and your interpretation is correct, why do those cards exist?

@BCSWowbagger is there a rules history lesson I need on this one? There very well may be, but on its face I'm not buying this argument.
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:32 pm
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:06 am If I know you're playing Thine Own Self, or Barclay Transporter Phobia, or Brain Drain, etc. Then I'm going to play things differently because there's now an in-game reason to do so.
When you say "play differently," do you mean you'll choose to actively hide your cards or you'll change who you send down to the planet? Because the latter is legitimate, and I would certainly hope and expect you to do so, since that's good strategy. The former is just skeevy.
Obviously it depends on the specifics, but for example if you start playing BTP on me, I'm going to start beaming my people down one at a time and make you make a play/ no play decision on each and every one of my potential away team members. Forming the away team, attempting the mission, etc. Will take twice as long as it otherwise would and slow the game to a crawl.

This is why I don't like (and generally don't play) interrupt cheeseball decks. But I know how to play against them, and I'll do so even if it sucks the fun out of the game (unless you like the chess match/poker game bluff/no bluff aspect of that particular mini-game).

As far as "hiding cards" goes, I'm gonna keep my people under my ship while they're on board, and put them face down on the planet when they beam down. Not Because it's "skeevy" but because that's what the rules say I can do.

But that aside, some of your examples don't make sense in game terms. Pfti is correct that your opponent only needs to show things when they have to.
And if you want to send down a single away team, you've got to prove to me it's a legitimate, compatible away team when you do so, if I ask.
Do I? By the logic of your overarching argument, didn't you just check compatibility when they were all up on the ship? Absent a change in personnel composition outside the set of total crew, why would an away team that's a subset of a compatible crew somehow become incompatible such that reverification would be required? At that point, even if we accept your general argument as true (and I'm still not there but let's go with it for arguments sake) you're not so much checking compatibility as using a compatibility to gain some in-game advantage. I know we haven't really explicitly defined the term, but it sounds more like "skeevy rules lawyering" than not at this point.
So if you want to play Thine Own Self, then you have to select a valid target - a one or two person away team at a planet mission - and you don't get to know which people are in that one or two person away team before you play it.
I do get to know if I feel you need to show me the cards to prove compatibility. So might as well just show the cards and be done with it.
See above. Absent an in- game externality change to the game state, you really don't have an argument here, whatever your feelings are.


I'm gonna skip ahead a bit now...


The same goes for house arrest. If I ask you to prove your crew hasn't created a house arrest situation, am I supposed to just take your word for it that your deck is mono-Fed and couldn't possibly create house arrest, given that you clearly know what's in your deck (and I'm trusting that you're not lying?) No, of course not. You're supposed to reveal your cards to prove the fact that none of them are in house arrest.
You don't have to know every card in my deck, just the cards that are in play. And if all of my cards are the same affiliation/ [NA] there's nothing in play that could create a House Arrest situation, so again this reads like you just wanna see my stuff because you said so.
Not volunteering information not required to be shown isn't [rules lawyering]. At least in my book.
In point of fact, this entire thread began with someone asking about rules lawyering to justify not revealing their cards.
I took that as a "do I have to show my cards?" Question, which in the context of the question, the answer was clearly yes.

But you're taking it to the other extreme. Simple things like verifying staffing and forming an away team aren't reasons to get you a free look at the entirety of everything I have in play.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#567214
Armus wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 4:31 pm Once that's done, and they're in play, then you don't get to see them just because you want to.
While the reason isn't "just because I want to," for all practical purposes, it might as well be. I get to look at them if you're forming an away team, when I want to verify that it's a legal, compatible away team. I might secretly not really care about compatibility or legality (I secretly just want to look at the cards), but the pretense is there and I can use it.
As @AllenGould pointed out, there's cards let you look at an opponent's crew or away team (e.g., Long Range Scan) and even cards that keep that card from working (e.g., Xepolite Freighter). By your logic, those cards are completely useless because you can rules lawyer your way around that with an arbitrary compatibility check. Am I misunderstanding you? If not, and your interpretation is correct, why do those cards exist?
No, you're not misunderstanding me. Yes, Long-Range Scan is basically useless. Recall that Long-Range Scan is a Premiere card, and I don't think anyone would argue that long-term ramifications of the cards and their interactions with one another and with the rules wasn't exactly a highlight of the Premiere set. (I think there were other redundancies/useless cards released early, but I can't remember off the top of my head).

Xepolite Freighter has the shielding for flavor text more than for anything else. If Mercenary Ship didn't also already have the same shielding (which also matched the ship on the show), I'm sure Xepolite Freighter wouldn't have come up with it. Thankfully, Xepolite Freighter is useful for its 9 range, not for its scan shielding. I don't think anyone has ever stocked it for the shielding benefit.
As far as "hiding cards" goes, I'm gonna keep my people under my ship while they're on board, and put them face down on the planet when they beam down. Not Because it's "skeevy" but because that's what the rules say I can do.
Something is "skeevy" not because the rules say you can't do it, but because the rules say you can do it, even though you probably shouldn't do it.

And if you want to send down a single away team, you've got to prove to me it's a legitimate, compatible away team when you do so, if I ask.
Do I? By the logic of your overarching argument, didn't you just check compatibility when they were all up on the ship?
Did I? I don't think so, unless I had an interrupt that affected your crew as well as an interrupt that affected your away team. I don't remember ever positing asking you about your crew's compatibility and then immediately asking about your away team's compatibility. Instead, I named them as two separate examples of what I could do, independently.

The whole point is to look at your personnel when it might be strategically relevant to me. So I'm only going to ask to prove compatibility when I have a relevant interrupt. I'm not asking constantly just for the hell of it, in my examples.
At that point, even if we accept your general argument as true (and I'm still not there but let's go with it for arguments sake) you're not so much checking compatibility as using a compatibility to gain some in-game advantage. I know we haven't really explicitly defined the term, but it sounds more like "skeevy rules lawyering" than not at this point.
Yes. That is my point. I agree with you.

I am checking compatibility as a pretense to gain an in-game advantage, which uses rules lawyering, and one could definitely argue it's skeevy. I would probably agree it's skeevy.

Just like hiding your cards to gain an in-game advantage, just because the rules say you can (there's the rules lawyering), is skeevy. Especially because, if I want to go the skeevy route myself, I've demonstrated that I can counter your hiding cards by requesting a compatibility check.

So if we're playing the game and you try to hide your cards and I try to request a compatibility check, then let's just stop the skeeviness on both ends and save us both some time.
See above. Absent an in- game externality change to the game state, you really don't have an argument here, whatever your feelings are.
This isn't about feelings, it's about rules. No one is expected to memorize game state, therefore requesting proof that an away team is valid is perfectly legal.

You can argue "I didn't play any cards that would be incompatible, they were all Fed/NA with no restriction boxes, etc., so I don't have to prove that an incompatible situation that can't exist doesn't exist." To which I would respond "I don't remember all the cards you played, because memorization of game state isn't a requirement of the game, especially when note-taking is prohibited."

Just like in the Genetronic Replicator thought experiment I provided. When Beverly gets targeted, you can argue "I played another 2 MEDICAL Personnel earlier, and I brought all my personnel to this planet, so you should know already that Beverly is safe, I don't have to show you who that other 2 MEDICAL is." And I would respond that "I don't remember all the cards you played, because memorization of game state isn't a requirement of the game, especially when note-taking is prohibited." Which is why you have to show me the 2 MEDICAL.
You don't have to know every card in my deck, just the cards that are in play. And if all of my cards are the same affiliation/ [NA] there's nothing in play that could create a House Arrest situation, so again this reads like you just wanna see my stuff because you said so.
Again, memorization of game state is not a fair requirement to make of an opponent, especially when note-taking is prohibited.

And yes, I do want to see your stuff because I said so, that's what a pretense is. Just because you don't like it, and just because you know what I'm really trying to do in the game here, doesn't mean you have grounds to deny me the proof I've requested for compatibility.
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#567243
there's a lot of things in this game that at a certain point just need to go to sportsmanship and not being a jackass. I liken the "looking at personnel" argument to stalling. You can't really codify it in the rules because how do you write a rule that is a subjective thing? Who gets to make the subjective call? You? your opponent? Yeah, that's going to be impartial. The TD? What a shitty position to put a TD in. Just don't be a jerk and the problem pretty much resolves itself.

And you can be a jackass if you want, and technically you are within the rules to do so. But it won't get you far with the community, and if you actually want to play this game, you need the community.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#567279
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:59 pm
And if you want to send down a single away team, you've got to prove to me it's a legitimate, compatible away team when you do so, if I ask.
Do I? By the logic of your overarching argument, didn't you just check compatibility when they were all up on the ship?
Did I? I don't think so, unless I had an interrupt that affected your crew as well as an interrupt that affected your away team. I don't remember ever positing asking you about your crew's compatibility and then immediately asking about your away team's compatibility. Instead, I named them as two separate examples of what I could do, independently.

The whole point is to look at your personnel when it might be strategically relevant to me. So I'm only going to ask to prove compatibility when I have a relevant interrupt. I'm not asking constantly just for the hell of it, in my examples.
Ok, so when I put 20 people on my ship and you ask to verify staffing, and I show you the 1-3 people I need for staffing, are you telling me you *aren't* going to also ask for a compatibility check to make sure those 20 people can all really be allowed on my ship at the same time? Based on how this conversation has gone so far, that's not what I'd infer.
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:59 pm
At that point, even if we accept your general argument as true (and I'm still not there but let's go with it for arguments sake) you're not so much checking compatibility as using a compatibility to gain some in-game advantage. I know we haven't really explicitly defined the term, but it sounds more like "skeevy rules lawyering" than not at this point.
Yes. That is my point. I agree with you.

I am checking compatibility as a pretense to gain an in-game advantage, which uses rules lawyering, and one could definitely argue it's skeevy. I would probably agree it's skeevy.

Just like hiding your cards to gain an in-game advantage, just because the rules say you can (there's the rules lawyering), is skeevy. Especially because, if I want to go the skeevy route myself, I've demonstrated that I can counter your hiding cards by requesting a compatibility check.

So if we're playing the game and you try to hide your cards and I try to request a compatibility check, then let's just stop the skeeviness on both ends and save us both some time.
See above. Absent an in- game externality change to the game state, you really don't have an argument here, whatever your feelings are.
This isn't about feelings, it's about rules. No one is expected to memorize game state, therefore requesting proof that an away team is valid is perfectly legal.

You can argue "I didn't play any cards that would be incompatible, they were all Fed/NA with no restriction boxes, etc., so I don't have to prove that an incompatible situation that can't exist doesn't exist." To which I would respond "I don't remember all the cards you played, because memorization of game state isn't a requirement of the game, especially when note-taking is prohibited."

Just like in the Genetronic Replicator thought experiment I provided. When Beverly gets targeted, you can argue "I played another 2 MEDICAL Personnel earlier, and I brought all my personnel to this planet, so you should know already that Beverly is safe, I don't have to show you who that other 2 MEDICAL is." And I would respond that "I don't remember all the cards you played, because memorization of game state isn't a requirement of the game, especially when note-taking is prohibited." Which is why you have to show me the 2 MEDICAL.
You don't have to know every card in my deck, just the cards that are in play. And if all of my cards are the same affiliation/ [NA] there's nothing in play that could create a House Arrest situation, so again this reads like you just wanna see my stuff because you said so.
Again, memorization of game state is not a fair requirement to make of an opponent, especially when note-taking is prohibited.

And yes, I do want to see your stuff because I said so, that's what a pretense is. Just because you don't like it, and just because you know what I'm really trying to do in the game here, doesn't mean you have grounds to deny me the proof I've requested for compatibility.
See, here's my issue. After hashing through this a bit, I can (unfortunately) see your point.

So why is there a "showing your cards" entry in the glossary at all? If the de facto rule is your opponent can see your stuff basically whenever, then why bother with rules language calling out specific times and specific card information that needs to be shown?

May as well delete all that useless rules language and get the glossary word/ page count down some more.

Say what you will about 2e, but at least they got this rule correct. It's both easy to understand *and* allows for good gameplay.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
Socialite
#567291
As someone who has never liked the "memory game" aspect of 1E, I'm in favor of eliminating that bit of "hidden" information. Especially considering that via rules skeeving, we can get that information, anyway.
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#567292
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:32 pm The same goes for house arrest. If I ask you to prove your crew hasn't created a house arrest situation, am I supposed to just take your word for it that your deck is mono-Fed and couldn't possibly create house arrest, given that you clearly know what's in your deck (and I'm trusting that you're not lying?) No, of course not. You're supposed to reveal your cards to prove the fact that none of them are in house arrest.
You have seen every card that I've played. If I've played nothing but plain ol' Feds, you already *know* that I can't have a house-arrest, because there is no combination of cards in play that *can* cause it.

Reading "showing your cards" says I need to show your cards to prove I have something - staffing, a skill. (And I take a more liberal view of "showing" than that passage states, because I've never bought into the "let me get my cardboard overlay so you can see only the specific icon" view).

But house arrest isn't a skill or an attribute - it's a rule. Telling your opponent you think they've created a house arrest is effectively accusing them of cheating. And it's especially egregious if you're making that accusation knowing full well that it couldn't possibly be true.

So, my response to you would be to call the TD, have *them* verify that yes, my all-Fed deck is not in house arrest and I am not cheating. After all, you just want to confirm there's no house arrest, and you're not going to accuse the TD of lying, are you?
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#567312
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:59 pm
I'm not going to quote the quotes of the quotes, but I agree that you are honestly missing you own point and the responses that have been provided.

Asking for constant checks is unnecessary, so no rules have to be changed, no glossary entries need to be altered because of one, simple thing. There's no way to BENEFIT from an illegal (or skeevy...and I am internally so happy that the word I used originally is being used) mixing of incompatible crew. I've thought of any scenario where somehow I hide a person or a thing and then somehow actually get to benefit from it's illegal mix or use. There's no way to do this and "get away with it". The illegal mixing or reporting does actually happen from time to time where someone or something [1E-AU] gets reported without an Alternate Universe Door, for example. When I see it, I simply ask how it was done and if it was done illegally, we back it all up. Of course this is a friendly game we are talking about, but shouldn't they all be at this point? STCCG is a game that people play just because they love it.

In the multiple scenarios, if I was playing against someone who constantly asked for a compatibility check, my answer would be NO to most of it. Sure, you want to check staffing, I'm good. if you want to check an away team? kick rocks. In the same sense that you can't interrupt an action JUST BECAUSE you want to, you cant force me to check compatibility JUST BECAUSE you want to. The reason why is I cannot benefit from illegally doing it without revealing that I did something wrong. In other words, you can't prevent a future crime but instead have to punish me after the fact.

For example, if I have a mono fed deck and somehow get 6 klingons, without a treaty, into my away team and pass Privative Culture, how can I possibly do that without having to explain how I have 6 klingons? If I try and benefit from an Ablative Armor without showing you then having to explain how I got into play WITHOUT an AU/Temporal Whatever card, then how can I do that without getting punished.

Honestly, I have no idea why you are arguing this so hard. It's almost like you want to argue just to argue for the sake of arguing. The point you are missing is that your point is moot. It's an non issue. At this point I've played hundreds of games and this kind of check and recheck strategy you are offering just isn't a thing. If someone tried it with me in a home game, it would be the last game you'd ever be invited to. If it was a tournament, I'd have the director over to check every one of your asks, then also get you for obviously delaying the game. No offense, but it's just beyond silly.

I'd love to hear a scenario where I can benefit from an illegal play or mix without actually revealing it during the course of play. And, if it's not an automatic lose in a OTF tourney, then it should be. Otherwise, it's friendly or house rules on how to deal with it.
RAC coming in April

Ok :( . So here is Round 4: Paddy VS Niall MVB V[…]

Thanks everyone for participating in this event.[…]

DeckPADD

Thanks!

On interrupts...

With stacks the entire chain of card plays only ge[…]