Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[infangthief]

When following card (or landscape) instructions we follow the principle of "do as much as you can", and instructions are designed to hold players to account on this. For example Cutpurse has "or reveals a hand with no Copper".

However Quest seems to have a loophole here. I could buy Quest with 1 Curse in hand, decide to discard 2 Curses, then do as much as I can by discarding 1 Curse. Now everyone just has to take my word for it that I didn't have a second Curse in my hand. If I did have 2 Curses and only discarded 1 of them then I've cheated, but the instructions haven't held me to account.

Is that reasoning correct? Is there any way to introduce accountability here without completely changing things?

It could matter. For example: my opponent buys Quest and discards 1 Curse ("haven't got another"), then buys Villa, then plays Shop and Menagerie, revealing a hand of differently named cards including a Curse.

[Donald X.]

When following card (or landscape) instructions we follow the principle of "do as much as you can", and instructions are designed to hold players to account on this. For example Cutpurse has "or reveals a hand with no Copper".

However Quest seems to have a loophole here. I could buy Quest with 1 Curse in hand, decide to discard 2 Curses, then do as much as I can by discarding 1 Curse. Now everyone just has to take my word for it that I didn't have a second Curse in my hand. If I did have 2 Curses and only discarded 1 of them then I've cheated, but the instructions haven't held me to account.

Is that reasoning correct? Is there any way to introduce accountability here without completely changing things?

It could matter. For example: my opponent buys Quest and discards 1 Curse ("haven't got another"), then buys Villa, then plays Shop and Menagerie, revealing a hand of differently named cards including a Curse.

Quest does not keep you honest here. It's not the only such case; for example Graverobber doesn't keep you honest, in the scenario where you don't want to gain something from the trash but have another Action card in hand. These wordings come down to how likely the scenario is, measured against how much the card wording is tortured to deal with it. Cheating is still cheating; you aren't allowed to do it.

I don't follow your example. When you play Menagerie, they'll know you cheated. If you're going to cheat, you'll have to be cleverer than that. Try just drawing extra cards.

[infangthief]

Thanks. So a balance. I just thought like this might be the only (remaining) case where we're not kept honest - I hadn't noticed Graverobber.

I don't follow your example. When you play Menagerie, they'll know you cheated. If you're going to cheat, you'll have to be cleverer than that. Try just drawing extra cards.

My example includes Shop for the +1 Card before Menagerie.

[Donald X.]

I don't follow your example. When you play Menagerie, they'll know you cheated. If you're going to cheat, you'll have to be cleverer than that. Try just drawing extra cards.

My example includes Shop for the +1 Card before Menagerie.

Why so it does.

[Jeebus]

Current list of cards that don't always keep you honest: Graverobber, Quest, Small Castle, Treasure Map, Treasurer

These used to be on the list, but have been changed: Mine, Moneylender, Throne Room, Opulent Castle

[infangthief]

Current list of cards that don't always keep you honest: Graverobber, Quest, Small Castle, Treasure Map, Treasurer

These used to be on the list, but have been changed: Mine, Moneylender, Throne Room, Opulent Castle

I think also Miser?
And Orb, assuming that "look through your discard pile" doesn't mean revealing it to anyone else.

[Jeebus]

Current list of cards that don't always keep you honest: Graverobber, Quest, Small Castle, Treasure Map, Treasurer

These used to be on the list, but have been changed: Mine, Moneylender, Throne Room, Opulent Castle

I think also Miser?
And Orb, assuming that "look through your discard pile" doesn't mean revealing it to anyone else.

Right, I had Miser too. Orb I hadn't caught. And actually Prince used to be one.

Some of these are extremely marginal and unlikely to ever matter. Of the current cards, Graverobber, Small Castle and Treasure Map are the ones that might matter if played "unexpectedly" (with Vassal for instance).

[Holger]

It could matter. For example: my opponent buys Quest and discards 1 Curse ("haven't got another"), then buys Villa, then plays Shop and Menagerie, revealing a hand of differently named cards including a Curse.

Why would the opponent waste a buy on a useless Quest in this situation, if it wasn't for cheating? Discarding only one curse has no other benefit here.

[AJD]

Orb because... you could look through your discard pile, find loads of Actions and Treasures, say "oops, all Curses; I'm choosing to play a card from my discard so Orb does nothing," in case you want to cheat in such a way as to have Orb do nothing instead of giving you $3 for some reason? Am I correctly understanding the cheating potential here?

[infangthief]

It could matter. For example: my opponent buys Quest and discards 1 Curse ("haven't got another"), then buys Villa, then plays Shop and Menagerie, revealing a hand of differently named cards including a Curse.

Why would the opponent waste a buy on a useless Quest in this situation, if it wasn't for cheating? Discarding only one curse has no other benefit here.

If they know that the card on top of their deck is a Curse and they want to do Shop-Menagerie.

[Jeebus]

Orb because... you could look through your discard pile, find loads of Actions and Treasures, say "oops, all Curses; I'm choosing to play a card from my discard so Orb does nothing," in case you want to cheat in such a way as to have Orb do nothing instead of giving you $3 for some reason? Am I correctly understanding the cheating potential here?

Yes, Orb and Miser are just to avoid getting $, which I think is only beneficial if you're planning to play Storyteller and want to draw less cards. So extremely marginal. Treasurer is if you don't want the Key, maybe that could also matter if you're playing Storytellers somehow.

[faust]

Orb because... you could look through your discard pile, find loads of Actions and Treasures, say "oops, all Curses; I'm choosing to play a card from my discard so Orb does nothing," in case you want to cheat in such a way as to have Orb do nothing instead of giving you $3 for some reason? Am I correctly understanding the cheating potential here?

Yes, Orb and Miser are just to avoid getting $, which I think is only beneficial if you're planning to play Storyteller and want to draw less cards. So extremely marginal. Treasurer is if you don't want the Key, maybe that could also matter if you're playing Storytellers somehow.

Not taking the Key also has some marginal political effect in multiplayer games. In case you want to make sure player B (who holds the Key) has enough $ to buy a Province so that player C cannot 3-pile for the win.

[infangthief]

Not taking the Key might also be helpful if you will be Possessing your opponent for their next turn.

[infangthief]

For all these cards the cheat play also has the effect of misleading your opponents, informing them (falsely) that you do not have certain cards in your hand (or discard pile in the case of Orb), which may affect their future decisions.

For example: I play Small Castle, choose to trash a Castle from my hand "but I don't have one". From that, my opponent infers that there is a high chance of my Humble Castle being in the top two cards of my deck, so later in my turn they choose to play their Bandit (via Caravan Guard-WotM-Vassal-Bandit) and I get to reveal and discard the 2 Estates that were actually at the top of my deck.

This false information could have a bigger impact than the direct outcome of the cheat play. However to be convincing there would need to be some potential direct benefit to you (at least, as far as your opponents can tell) from choosing the option which provides the information. Which is marginally less marginal than there actually being a direct benefit to you.

Of course cheating is cheating; I am not advocating any of this, just finding the analysis interesting.