Visible stolen cards for spectators

[bobrossw]

i would say its much more important to get some way to see that morbid acolyte did his ability on an ally

I agree ... it'd also be helpful to indicate when an ally has ambush (from midnight sentinel). I'm not saying this spectating thing should be a top priority for devs. Just that it could be improved.

[pjoe0211]

I agree ... it'd also be helpful to indicate when an ally has ambush (from midnight sentinel). I'm not saying this spectating thing should be a top priority for devs. Just that it could be improved.

but at least most of the time you can figure it out, if you have 2 tainted oracles down, there is no way to find out which one is affected b4 it dies

[Kross]

In my personal opinion...

I don't think card ownership should be revealed to the opposing player while its in hand unless the sleeves are different. A player should not inherently have the right to know an opposing player's sac choices and what not, BUT I don't think a player should not have the right to remove a card out it's sleeve just to keep the opposing player from knowing what it is either. However, there definitely should be an indicator of ownership to the player that holds the card in hand. That same indicator should show to both players while it is on the field.

Situation: In a physical game, player A and player B are both playing Serena. Neither player has sleeves on their cards.
Player A has 2 Puwens in hand while player B has a Puwen on the field.
Player A steals opposing Puwen by some means, so its brought to the hand.
Player A is then forced to remember which one is not his/hers in order for the game to function properly AND player B is forced to trust that player A will make the right decision in cases where the game would normally be able to make the decision for you (digitally).

Meaning, (still using the above situation) if player B activates Serena's ability and randomly discards a card from the opponent's hand, and that card is a Puwen, then Player B has to ask, "Does that card go to my graveyard or yours?".

Or if player A plays one of those three Puwens, then player B uses Retreat. Player B has to ask, "does that card go to my hand or yours?"

I don't think that players should have to guess when it comes to game mechanics like that, especially where the outcome of the game could be determined based on the occurrence. Its not like paying the cost for a Trap card, where a player could eventually be proven as a liar. There would be no way to prove if a player is lying in this situation, so there should be rules established to prevent this from happening.

Solution: When control of a card switches to another player that isn't the owner, an indicator must be placed on the front of the card, that all players will be able to use to recognize the owner of the card during game play.

And an indicator should be programmed into the game to reflect this as well, so players know exactly where a card will go before they use Retreat.

[4Ak]

but at least most of the time you can figure it out, if you have 2 tainted oracles down, there is no way to find out which one is affected b4 it dies

...as unbelievable as this may sound, i AGREE with this, ..so so much, been in those shoes (actually on both ends of MA's ability) and for a casual player (i.e.: one who doesnt take notes during play) its a nightmare to figure out

...in 2.87 we have allies enetring play with sort of 'red' shading, Medusil no one plays will color an ally it targeted showing its impacting it, why we cannot have a Morbid Indictor as well?

[bobrossw]

In my personal opinion...

I don't think card ownership should be revealed to the opposing player while its in hand unless the sleeves are different. A player should not inherently have the right to know an opposing player's sac choices and what not, BUT I don't think a player should not have the right to remove a card out it's sleeve just to keep the opposing player from knowing what it is either. However, there definitely should be an indicator of ownership to the player that holds the card in hand. That same indicator should show to both players while it is on the field.

Situation: In a physical game, player A and player B are both playing Serena. Neither player has sleeves on their cards.
Player A has 2 Puwens in hand while player B has a Puwen on the field.
Player A steals opposing Puwen by some means, so its brought to the hand.
Player A is then forced to remember which one is not his/hers in order for the game to function properly AND player B is forced to trust that player A will make the right decision in cases where the game would normally be able to make the decision for you (digitally).

Meaning, (still using the above situation) if player B activates Serena's ability and randomly discards a card from the opponent's hand, and that card is a Puwen, then Player B has to ask, "Does that card go to my graveyard or yours?".

Or if player A plays one of those three Puwens, then player B uses Retreat. Player B has to ask, "does that card go to my hand or yours?"

I don't think that players should have to guess when it comes to game mechanics like that, especially where the outcome of the game could be determined based on the occurrence. Its not like paying the cost for a Trap card, where a player could eventually be proven as a liar. There would be no way to prove if a player is lying in this situation, so there should be rules established to prevent this from happening.

Solution: When control of a card switches to another player that isn't the owner, an indicator must be placed on the front of the card, that all players will be able to use to recognize the owner of the card during game play.

And an indicator should be programmed into the game to reflect this as well, so players know exactly where a card will go before they use Retreat.

But an indicator on the front of a card in the physical game - would be what, a post-it note? I think a sleeve (or shading in the video game) makes as much sense here. Yes there is the added advantage for the opponent of being able to guess at one of your cards, but that's not a huge advantage. If I steal your card and it's a highly useful card (like Tidal Wave), you can expect that I might want to use it. Knowing that I resourced a card that I stole may tell you that I'm an idiot in that case, or that I have another plan that is even more effective than the card I stole, but that won't really change the game a lot. It's the consistency between the physical and digital game that's the most important for balance.

[Kross]

But an indicator on the front of a card in the physical game - would be what, a post-it note? I think a sleeve (or shading in the video game) makes as much sense here. Yes there is the added advantage for the opponent of being able to guess at one of your cards, but that's not a huge advantage. If I steal your card and it's a highly useful card (like Tidal Wave), you can expect that I might want to use it. Knowing that I resourced a card that I stole may tell you that I'm an idiot in that case, or that I have another plan that is even more effective than the card I stole, but that won't really change the game a lot. It's the consistency between the physical and digital game that's the most important for balance.

I was thinking a small piece of tape or something.. But i suppose you're right about the advantage not being too significant knowing if the stolen card was sacked or not (based on the current state of Shadow Era).