Monocle of Clarity

kombainas wrote:

This starts edging into what can't be known. You have a Power Structure out - do I know that you're going to tap it?

The question is about an ability and having access to it. You can define the hypothetical situation as detailed as you need (who casts votes how, who plays what modifiers, etc.).

At this point, you're not making things any easier or any more waterproof than just asking for a long list of cards. So people often do that. Since your original point was about that being "clunky" and this method being "somewhat harder to mess up", it's pretty similar in reality - and less ambiguous.

kombainas wrote: In such case I'd answer yes if I have any bounce card in my library (or ash heap if I have an ability to recycle them) or 2 intercept in any form (even less, if there are intercept-sharing locations in play or I know someone has them in their library). The key point missed here is in defining when the bounce/block would be made.

Sure, you just say "If I bled you right now..., with the cards you have in your hand..." or whatever.

The point I was making was that numerous abilities are contingent on other people's actions - who they vote with, what abilities they play in combat, or whatever. So your oh-so-carefully-worded question may have an unknowable answer - I don't know what the cards in my hand will let me do, because I don't know what you'll do, or what other players on the table will do. Typically less of a problem with bleed.

There is no need to get sarcastic. Usually people have either better developed memory (thus can remember the card lists) or logical skills (no need to remember stuff if you know how things work). Real life examples could be medicine students who have to learn thousands names for bones and their features, etc. where logic isn't useful, and physics students who cannot remember every solution to the questions, thus they have to actually solve problems on the fly. My suggestion is more suitable for the latter, whereas yours to the former. Nothing wrong with both.

I just pointed out that your problem of not knowing can be circumvented by modelling the situation. The target must tell the truth. The responsibility of an incomplete model (not knowing of cornercase situations which would trump the case, etc.) falls doun on the bearer of the equipment.

kombainas wrote: There is no need to get sarcastic.

I wasn't.

It may also be relevant that if you have to give a short speech for every question, there is nothing to indicate that the opposing player must remember or understand every twist and turn of it. Certainly, I'm sure most people have been at games where a player has missed a ludicrously obvious play in the heat of the moment. Oh god, of course I could have used that, and then tapped that, and...

At which point, they just give the answer to the best of their knowledge, and get it (objectively) wrong, but have answered truthfully.

Yeah, the speech part is boring. However, in real life that would work to your advantage: if people see there is no space to trick yourself out of the question, they would answer honestly. After all, the information anyone would need would be "will you bounce this bleed, or will you block this vote, etc.", but the Monocle cardtext prevents such simplicity