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.