User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#551997
patrick wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:30 pm (There's a typo in there, by the way. Missing a "she" I assume?)
Oops! Good catch. Will fix.
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552016
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:54 pm
patrick wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:30 pm (There's a typo in there, by the way. Missing a "she" I assume?)
Oops! Good catch. Will fix.
Will you also put on your rules hat and address the questions I raised on prev. page? (Did I tag you too subtly?)
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552022
You already have the relevant rules linked in this thread.
Clarification: Necessity and Card Inspection
You have the right to verify the legality of any action your opponent takes. For example, if your opponent tries to move a ship, you may ask him or her to prove the crew meets staffing requirements. Or, if your opponent encounters a dilemma that randomly kills a personnel with Diplomacy, you may ask your opponent to prove that he or has included all the Diplomacy personnel in his or her mission team in the selection.

Your opponent does not need to show the entirety of every card, but only the portion relevant to the action he or she is taking. For example, if proving staffing, your opponent needs only show the necessary staffing icons. If proving that all Diplomacy are in a selection, your opponent only needs to show skill boxes.

If you have a card in hand that may play on your opponent only under certain conditions, you may require your opponent to reveal to you whether he meets those conditions. (However, you must reveal the card.) For example, if you have Dal'Rok in hand, you may reveal it to your opponent, then require your opponent to reveal the location of his or her Orb Fragment (if any), then decide whether or not to play Dal'Rok.

If your opponent fails to do something required because he or she is unable to meet the requirement, you have the right to verify that. For example, if your opponent tries to use The Trois [DL] of Wolf, but then finds that Wolf isn't in his or her hand, deck, Q's Tent, or Zalkonian Storage Capsule, you may search through all those sources to verify it.
You have the right to verify the gender of both the males and the non-males in the group facing male's love interest or the non-Scotty-ness of a group of people facing blended (or the such-like of any such personnel dilemma, just as an example). Dramatis Personae is fun...
Last edited by winterflames on Sun Apr 25, 2021 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552027
@winterflames, thanks. :)
Yeah, I linked the doc sections and I think I have this rule down. But as a n00b, I've had too many discussions (and let them slide) with too many veterans about this. So I was just hoping for some veterans to chime in and either agree, or tell me I'm wrong. Thanks for doing "your part" in that! :thumbsup:
winterflames wrote:You have the right to verify the gender of both the males and the non-males in the group facing male's love interest or the non-Scotty-ness of a group of people facing blended (or the such-like of any such personnel dilemma, just as an example).
I rather liked how you put some of it. :lol:
Dramatis Personae is fun...
(Link: FTFY.) I agree there! 8)
Full disclosure: Actually, though, I often leave out (these kinds of) dilemmas that I think will cost me too much time or headspace to process. To save some time.
I can't (or won't) help using complex other-seed-cards, which I may have to re-read; but having to verify all of opponent's lore for a tough dilemma is not something I'm willing to do at this time, because that would take too much of the game time for me (and opponent). I'd rather go with something easier and less tough, then. For now.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552032
Yes. I was feeling witty this morning. Then I rushed the formatting because we were late for church. The computer should know what I want and do it without being told. /Grump.


Incidentally, I have been playing this game for nearly a quarter century, but I would hardly call myself a veteran.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#552058
SudenKapala wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:51 am
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:54 pm
patrick wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:30 pm (There's a typo in there, by the way. Missing a "she" I assume?)
Oops! Good catch. Will fix.
Will you also put on your rules hat and address the questions I raised on prev. page? (Did I tag you too subtly?)
Too subtle. I have tried searching the page for @BCSWowbagger, because I DID get a summons, but I couldn't find it and decided it must have been the typo thing.

What's the remaining question?
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552110
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:58 pm
Too subtle. I have tried searching the page for @BCSWowbagger, because I DID get a summons, but I couldn't find it and decided it must have been the typo thing.

What's the remaining question?
That was me in the original post about "opponents choice-dilemmas" that allow to see every personal. Then suddenK added that non-random dilemmas (like female love interest) also allow to see ALL cards so i guess the question would be to verify also his additional questions.
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552113
Mr.Sloan wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:46 am
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:58 pm
Too subtle. I have tried searching the page for @BCSWowbagger, because I DID get a summons, but I couldn't find it and decided it must have been the typo thing.

What's the remaining question?
That was me in the original post about "opponents choice-dilemmas" that allow to see every personal. Then suddenK added that non-random dilemmas (like female love interest) also allow to see ALL cards so i guess the question would be to verify also his additional questions.
I believe that Luthy's question is a specific instance of my more general issue.

I posit that you never have to "trust" your opponent's work, during dilemma encounters. Rules are in place that let you verify everything.

While the main rule is that you can keep secrets, in practice the detailed rules don't allow for a lot of secrets while attemting.

And I use that to jog my lousy memory.
But people seem to think they can, or should, hide their personnel, even when there are reasons to verify. And it makes it weird for me to ask for verification, as if I don't trust them. It'snot that -- I use the rules to assert my right to see cards more often.
I wanted to have your "opinion" on that (or be corrected -- which isn't happening; it's only being coroborated). Or see it underscored / emphasised, or something? I feel I've often mentioned it during games but I still get some awkward or surprised reactions at times.

These rules seem to be not well-known. (Which surprises me, in turn.)
User avatar
 
By grandar
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#552133
Just my :twocents: (and non accusatory, and using the non-specific you), but...

I think the weirdness comes from the online platform. In a real in-person game, if you wanted to verify I had chosen all diplomacy personnel, I’d show you just the skill boxes. Online? I now have to show you the entire card, which shows you too much information each time conditions are verified. At which point, if you have an opponent who verifies at each dilemma, then you might as well be playing revealed all the time.

Ultimately, for me personally, I’d only really care if the opponent was using this info to target specific personnel or away teams, that they may lose track of otherwise.

But I’m still going to be taken off guard, when people ask for the full team verification, because in my experience, it rarely happens.
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552138
grandar wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:01 am Just my :twocents: (and non accusatory, and using the non-specific you)
That's fine, thanks for explaining "your" (generally speaking) side in this way. :thumbsup:
grandar wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:01 amUltimately, for me personally, I’d only really care if the opponent was using this info to target specific personnel or away teams, that they may lose track of otherwise.
Well, it sometimes has to do with that, yes. But it's a right, that's built into the rules.

And also... It's a game. People want to win. (Me, least of all, perhaps; but I do like to lose while keeping my opponent honest. :mrgreen: )
"Trust, but verify."
Pine Gap, which put that quote on the map for me, is an awesome "remote espionage" series. :shifty: But I didn't tell you this. I was never here.


I think the weirdness comes from the online platform.
Of course, you're right... it's weird that the online manner of playing is -- by necessity or practicality -- different.
But IRL, I never took the liberty -- ever? (Perhaps I tried for a while, in 1995) -- to shield parts of cards. If opponent has the right to see all genders (only), I just give them my whole team to see. Did that IRL, do that in Lackey (I open the Zone for them to browse). I am used to more transparent play than perhaps is necessary; thus, the divid is rather large to people in the community playing "it (too) close to the vest". (Is that a good phrase for this?)
But I’m still going to be taken off guard, when people ask for the full team verification, because in my experience, it rarely happens.
I'd like this to be less the case, is all. I'll not ask it all the time. But when I do, it's a normal thing.
Except, then, for the difference between IRL and online gameplay.

But I shouldn't feel awkward about asserting my right to verify because it's more difficult in Lackey, should I?

Perhaps there should be black-and-white rules for online play, about this? @BCSWowbagger, I'd like to know what the "official ideas" are, on this, if any? (And if none perhaps make them?) So there's no more confusion on either side.
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552170
offline one could show the picture to verify for male/female love interest.

online you either show the entire card or name the titel/name (for hirogen hunt).

But its good that suddenK pointed out verifying card information is also allowed by non-random cards that do not specifiy "opponents choice".

To keep it simple - for me - ;) i just wait for an official clearifcation of how all that stuff works offline and online 8)
User avatar
Second Edition Art Manager
By edgeofhearing (Lucas Thompson)
 - Second Edition Art Manager
 -  
Community Contributor
#552184
grandar wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:01 amI think the weirdness comes from the online platform.
There's another weirdness with regard to card-showing that shows up when playing online: local play groups often have very different ideas about how much information should be provided. That's even true for Second Edition, where hidden information is a much bigger deal, so you'd expect it'd be more uniform. When people play online, those local differences are highlighted when players from different areas collide.

You also see this local disparity at larger events like worlds or continentals or nationals. One player will remark about another "can you believe Bob wanted me to show the whole card instead of just the staffing icons?" Meanwhile, the person they're complaining to just responds "oh, I just play with all my cards face up all the time." It's like soda vs. coke vs. pop (US English local variations for the same concept) and everyone is very surprised other people do things differently.
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552185
I never remembered that in offline anyone was showing me just a portion of the card. usually we in german played stuff wrong, like female love interest = not showing cards just dividing the 2 genders in 2 pools.
User avatar
 
By grandar
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#552186
The right works both ways. It’s also my right to only show relevant information. Lackey is severely lacking in that.

Cards like Ritual of the Hunt are where I see the issue coming in. I believe the intent of the verify rule, is to allow you to...verify. It’s intent is not to allow you to scout away teams to find that one specific person to drop a verb on. Hence why you only have to show relevant parts of the card (Lackey restricts this ability through inconvenience).

I think, because of the online platform, this is more gray than just, the rules say I can do it.

Once again, just my :twocents: I don’t really have a strong opinion, just pointing out the other side of the argument. It’s an interesting conversation.

Also what @edgeofhearing said.

When I still had a local playgroup, card tracking was expected. You only saw the full card when it was first played or when it got pulled for something.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#552191
I really dislike the "mask the cards" rule, because if I wanted to play Memory, I could just get a deck of Bicycle cards. Remember, you have to show the entire card when you play it, so there's not actually "secret" information on personnel - it's just that we, for some reason, decided a major mechanic was memorization skills.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation