Played 2 days ago. I was last in storm order to ship, 2nd player in storm order asked me if was going to have any troops in Arrakeen (which he controlled) after my turn. I made it clear that i understood this to mean either my shipping or movement, amd i said yes. It was one of the places i was considering anyway. He was basically trying to get me to either get me to NOT put troops there, or to LOCK me into one of my shipping/movement actions to get there. Honestly, i thought it was clever as hell. I didnt feel bad in the least. I wouldnt go further than the current phase ever, but i thought it was a good use. Also, it would have been nullified if anyone else went there.
Fairly new to Dune board gaming so this way of abusing Truthtrance has never occurred to me. I agree with the notion that it should be used to get information rather than force someone into a particular action. Like, I can see if you ask a player something to the effect of “Will you keep your promise to not attack me this turn?” But to just withhold part your question to force a particular action seems like it runs counter to the cards (intended) usage.
Just last game an alliance played a truth trance and began discussing the perfect question for the situation at hand. After 5 minutes of discussion it veered very closely into "You stand before two gates, and in front of those gates stand two Bene Gesserit. One will always lie, one will always tell the truth" territory. So far we did not have any problems with our questions. But it was used to try and suss out what the Bene Gesserit player had predicted. Also once heard about it being used to ask the atreides player if a lasgun has been sold that game, which i found pretty clever. That "point after the answer was given" situation you described is truly the most unsportsmanlike behavior i can imagine...
Truthtrance is without a doubt the most hotly debated card, and gives some players real heartburn. The new FAQ goes into preferred use of its ability, which will hopefully be released in the coming months. It covers design intent- and the original designers still enjoy its effectiveness, even when used in the limited way they intended.
Common sense truthtrance seems to be the best way to resolve it. To any future related questions I simple answer I don't know. I don't know if I will ship 4+ troops to Carthag this turn as multiple other players do their shimpment before me. I don't know if I will play projectile defense as I am Atreides and first I need to use my prescience ability to figure out what I am going to do. Answering I don't know truthfully is the correct way to go to resolve these situations. If the answer is I don't know, the Truthtrance is not discarded and can be used later until the answer is Yes / No. It is still a very powerful card if used well in any game situations without having the unpleasant outcomes you mention in the video. Thank you for the video explanation and keeping this great game alive
The problem with keeping it after "i dont know" is that i can get a lot of information by asking "is my traitor jessica?", whereupon the opponent must answer "i dont know" unless their traitor is jessica. This can be repeated a great number of times
Very timely video Jack. Just had a situation with this card recently :) I second your thought about using this card based on lore and common sense. Thank you for informative video. Keep on doing these!
I guess, a good ruling for this card can be something like: "You have to commit to an action, unless circumstances alter your intent on that action". So, for example, you can ask about a weapon, and, if there was no Prescience, or Voice afterwards, the player would have to stick to their answer. With that ruling using Truthtrance for asking about deployment or movement on the same turn is out of the question (since every player's turn, even the turn of the one who played Truthtrance, can affect the intent of the one who answers the question). Then again, it's just a suggestion. I mean, as annoying as it might sound, figuring out a precise question and then using it successfully, even if it forces someone to do something (without regard to the suggestion above), actually brings about a certain degree of satisfaction too :)
I think the future aspect is important (it should be a powful card and would be naive to think that the houses dont already know a bit of their future plans). However, we have always said that it has to be during this turn and no double use of Truthtrance
Recently played at a Con and I used Truthtrance in a game to ask if CHOAM was using a poison card in an upcoming battle, they said Yes, I changed my defense, and won the battle. We agreed to confirm CHOAM had finished their battle planning before using the card, helped my alliance win the next turn.
reminds me of the wish spell in dnd. boy did those wishes get legalistic, with clauses, counter clauses, loop-hole guessing, etc, with the dungeon master and the players going through this arms race as spells were cast and the DM doing their damn best to not give the player what was intended.
It's simple, Truthtrance should be used only to ask about current state of game: do you have such and such card, what number did you just choose on dial etc. Nothing that is undecided yet is a "Yes / No" question. It would force people to make a decision or, worse, force them to make an impossible moves or lead to paradoxes.
only problem here is that it can't be used against battle plans, since you if you ask about what they currently have in there battle plan they can answer and immediately change before revealing. asking what they are going to do in a battle is definitely part of the intended use.
I think the “I don’t know” clarification already solves this. An atreides/BG player can honestly say “I don’t know” to these questions until they’ve used their prescience/voice. Other players can’t really argue that, there’s nothing left to determine their choice so they need to answer honestly
hi Jack and thanks for the video! i have one question: if TT is played during the battle and is related to the battle, can the player who answered the TT question change their answer (just like with the Prescience question where the opponent is not locked in, they just need to inform Atreides about the answer change before the Battle Plans are revealed)? or is TT question different, ie. once you answer with a Yes/No regarding the ongoing battle, that's binding and you can't change the answer? thanks!
I think so long as game state hasn’t advanced or changed, it should be fine. Technically you shouldn’t be changing answers but it also shouldn’t be about a “gotcha” mentality- if you say Yes I will be playing a shield, but then you look at the board again and realize a lasgun might be used by your opponent, resulting in an explosion, so you need to reconsider things. You can say “wait- I better answer that as No”, especially when nothing has changed and plans are still being formed.
@@jackredathewarp This is the exact usage of TT I was wondering about. Thank you so much for taking the time to make these videos and take even more time to answer so many questions. I love the game so much, but do not love to argue with my friends in the middle of a heated battle for Arrakis.
I think it should be limited in scope to information or intentions a player has regarding the past or present. So anything in the space of asking about the future and binding them to it should limited to just the current round. It should be a question where nothing is deliberately withheld from informing their decision outside of normal game factors. For example, asking if someone is going to throw the battle they've just set up earlier in the turn order before you decide what you do in Shipping and Movement would be okay. The example about asking for the answer to their second Truthtrance question before asking it would not be. It's a tough thing to codify though. Probably would make that the guidance and let the other players decide if it's a valid question, breaking a split decision with the next player in storm order.
Hello Jack, has it ever happend to you that a player lied in Truthtrance? For example, lying about a certain traitor? The rules do not state what would happen if a Truthtrance was answered incorrectly. Are there any sanctions? Or penalties? Clearly, the lying player would get some serious backlash, regardless of the in game consequences.
There’s never going to be official rules for dealing with cheating. Players have to self regulate that. I don’t want to even think about what would be official outcome of a “mistake”. It’s always going to be case by case how you deal with it, taking into account if it’s a good faith error or if the consensus is there was subterfuge. Sometimes there’s little you can do. We have had mistakes and “wait I forgot about x” instances all the time, and we roll with it, letting it happen if the impact isn’t too great, or game state hasn’t really been impacted. This is possible in just about any game.
What do you rule when someone tries to use truth chance against Benne Gesserit prediction? Happened last night and even tho I wasn't Benne Gesserit it seemed cheesey to straight up ask what their prediction was, literally their one time ability being snuffed by a funny card.
Definitely a legit application, and generally not very controversial. It's true that whisking away their surprise win is unfortunate for them, but 90% of the time the Truthtrance was considered wasted after BG answer "no".
IMO truthtrance should discern information that is regarding current thing. LIke if question is truthfully answered by " I dont know since i dont have information for moment this will be relevant" it shouldnt be valid question. And it fully fixes the thing. Well combat use should be also allowed , although answer can be altered depending on question, still since it can emulate atreides thing, it can be allowed, otherwise , its thematicaly wrong, its test to see if you lie, you need to opereate on information you currently have, you are not allowed to lie, but you are not compeled to make the thing true just because, since truthfull answer is "i dont know," well maybe they can force out something like like , i intended"
We play it very simply as non-binding. will you attack me. yes, well now i have new information and i know you know that so i wont attack you. "will you" vs "do you have". The will you questions were the truth at the time, and might still be the truth when the time comes to do the action.
This is all common sense. Are people really this dim or intellectually dishonest? Of course forcing a player to make a prediction is forbidden. Come on.
Played 2 days ago. I was last in storm order to ship, 2nd player in storm order asked me if was going to have any troops in Arrakeen (which he controlled) after my turn. I made it clear that i understood this to mean either my shipping or movement, amd i said yes. It was one of the places i was considering anyway.
He was basically trying to get me to either get me to NOT put troops there, or to LOCK me into one of my shipping/movement actions to get there. Honestly, i thought it was clever as hell. I didnt feel bad in the least. I wouldnt go further than the current phase ever, but i thought it was a good use.
Also, it would have been nullified if anyone else went there.
Fairly new to Dune board gaming so this way of abusing Truthtrance has never occurred to me. I agree with the notion that it should be used to get information rather than force someone into a particular action. Like, I can see if you ask a player something to the effect of “Will you keep your promise to not attack me this turn?” But to just withhold part your question to force a particular action seems like it runs counter to the cards (intended) usage.
Just last game an alliance played a truth trance and began discussing the perfect question for the situation at hand.
After 5 minutes of discussion it veered very closely into "You stand before two gates, and in front of those gates stand two Bene Gesserit. One will always lie, one will always tell the truth" territory.
So far we did not have any problems with our questions. But it was used to try and suss out what the Bene Gesserit player had predicted. Also once heard about it being used to ask the atreides player if a lasgun has been sold that game, which i found pretty clever.
That "point after the answer was given" situation you described is truly the most unsportsmanlike behavior i can imagine...
Truthtrance is without a doubt the most hotly debated card, and gives some players real heartburn. The new FAQ goes into preferred use of its ability, which will hopefully be released in the coming months. It covers design intent- and the original designers still enjoy its effectiveness, even when used in the limited way they intended.
Common sense truthtrance seems to be the best way to resolve it. To any future related questions I simple answer I don't know. I don't know if I will ship 4+ troops to Carthag this turn as multiple other players do their shimpment before me. I don't know if I will play projectile defense as I am Atreides and first I need to use my prescience ability to figure out what I am going to do.
Answering I don't know truthfully is the correct way to go to resolve these situations. If the answer is I don't know, the Truthtrance is not discarded and can be used later until the answer is Yes / No.
It is still a very powerful card if used well in any game situations without having the unpleasant outcomes you mention in the video.
Thank you for the video explanation and keeping this great game alive
The problem with keeping it after "i dont know" is that i can get a lot of information by asking "is my traitor jessica?", whereupon the opponent must answer "i dont know" unless their traitor is jessica. This can be repeated a great number of times
So now i know that your traitor is none of these 5 leaders without possibly even spending a TT
Very timely video Jack. Just had a situation with this card recently :) I second your thought about using this card based on lore and common sense. Thank you for informative video. Keep on doing these!
I guess, a good ruling for this card can be something like: "You have to commit to an action, unless circumstances alter your intent on that action". So, for example, you can ask about a weapon, and, if there was no Prescience, or Voice afterwards, the player would have to stick to their answer. With that ruling using Truthtrance for asking about deployment or movement on the same turn is out of the question (since every player's turn, even the turn of the one who played Truthtrance, can affect the intent of the one who answers the question).
Then again, it's just a suggestion. I mean, as annoying as it might sound, figuring out a precise question and then using it successfully, even if it forces someone to do something (without regard to the suggestion above), actually brings about a certain degree of satisfaction too :)
I think the future aspect is important (it should be a powful card and would be naive to think that the houses dont already know a bit of their future plans). However, we have always said that it has to be during this turn and no double use of Truthtrance
The FAQ answer it perfectly I think. Dune would not be dune without it.
Recently played at a Con and I used Truthtrance in a game to ask if CHOAM was using a poison card in an upcoming battle, they said Yes, I changed my defense, and won the battle. We agreed to confirm CHOAM had finished their battle planning before using the card, helped my alliance win the next turn.
reminds me of the wish spell in dnd. boy did those wishes get legalistic, with clauses, counter clauses, loop-hole guessing, etc, with the dungeon master and the players going through this arms race as spells were cast and the DM doing their damn best to not give the player what was intended.
It's simple, Truthtrance should be used only to ask about current state of game: do you have such and such card, what number did you just choose on dial etc. Nothing that is undecided yet is a "Yes / No" question. It would force people to make a decision or, worse, force them to make an impossible moves or lead to paradoxes.
only problem here is that it can't be used against battle plans, since you if you ask about what they currently have in there battle plan they can answer and immediately change before revealing. asking what they are going to do in a battle is definitely part of the intended use.
I think the “I don’t know” clarification already solves this. An atreides/BG player can honestly say “I don’t know” to these questions until they’ve used their prescience/voice. Other players can’t really argue that, there’s nothing left to determine their choice so they need to answer honestly
Now explain Karama in context of the lore
A karama is a miracle. Could be fate or just dumb luck, but there's plenty of miraculous events in the book.
Truthtrance is the best designed card in the game! We like it very much. =)
hi Jack and thanks for the video! i have one question: if TT is played during the battle and is related to the battle, can the player who answered the TT question change their answer (just like with the Prescience question where the opponent is not locked in, they just need to inform Atreides about the answer change before the Battle Plans are revealed)?
or is TT question different, ie. once you answer with a Yes/No regarding the ongoing battle, that's binding and you can't change the answer?
thanks!
I think so long as game state hasn’t advanced or changed, it should be fine. Technically you shouldn’t be changing answers but it also shouldn’t be about a “gotcha” mentality- if you say Yes I will be playing a shield, but then you look at the board again and realize a lasgun might be used by your opponent, resulting in an explosion, so you need to reconsider things. You can say “wait- I better answer that as No”, especially when nothing has changed and plans are still being formed.
@@jackredathewarp i like that answer, it makes perfect sense, thanks!
@@jackredathewarp This is the exact usage of TT I was wondering about. Thank you so much for taking the time to make these videos and take even more time to answer so many questions. I love the game so much, but do not love to argue with my friends in the middle of a heated battle for Arrakis.
I think it should be limited in scope to information or intentions a player has regarding the past or present. So anything in the space of asking about the future and binding them to it should limited to just the current round. It should be a question where nothing is deliberately withheld from informing their decision outside of normal game factors. For example, asking if someone is going to throw the battle they've just set up earlier in the turn order before you decide what you do in Shipping and Movement would be okay. The example about asking for the answer to their second Truthtrance question before asking it would not be. It's a tough thing to codify though. Probably would make that the guidance and let the other players decide if it's a valid question, breaking a split decision with the next player in storm order.
Hello Jack, has it ever happend to you that a player lied in Truthtrance? For example, lying about a certain traitor? The rules do not state what would happen if a Truthtrance was answered incorrectly. Are there any sanctions? Or penalties?
Clearly, the lying player would get some serious backlash, regardless of the in game consequences.
There’s never going to be official rules for dealing with cheating. Players have to self regulate that. I don’t want to even think about what would be official outcome of a “mistake”. It’s always going to be case by case how you deal with it, taking into account if it’s a good faith error or if the consensus is there was subterfuge. Sometimes there’s little you can do. We have had mistakes and “wait I forgot about x” instances all the time, and we roll with it, letting it happen if the impact isn’t too great, or game state hasn’t really been impacted. This is possible in just about any game.
All said here is common sense. Never used it in those weird ways
Jack I love your Dune shirt! Where can I get one? :)
It’s a one-of-a-kind!
What do you rule when someone tries to use truth chance against Benne Gesserit prediction? Happened last night and even tho I wasn't Benne Gesserit it seemed cheesey to straight up ask what their prediction was, literally their one time ability being snuffed by a funny card.
Definitely a legit application, and generally not very controversial. It's true that whisking away their surprise win is unfortunate for them, but 90% of the time the Truthtrance was considered wasted after BG answer "no".
@@jackredathewarp fair enough, can Truth Trance be Karama'd?
@@shinobiighost6946 No. Nothing stops it.
IMO truthtrance should discern information that is regarding current thing. LIke if question is truthfully answered by " I dont know since i dont have information for moment this will be relevant" it shouldnt be valid question. And it fully fixes the thing. Well combat use should be also allowed , although answer can be altered depending on question, still since it can emulate atreides thing, it can be allowed, otherwise , its thematicaly wrong, its test to see if you lie, you need to opereate on information you currently have, you are not allowed to lie, but you are not compeled to make the thing true just because, since truthfull answer is "i dont know," well maybe they can force out something like like , i intended"
We play it very simply as non-binding. will you attack me. yes, well now i have new information and i know you know that so i wont attack you.
"will you" vs "do you have". The will you questions were the truth at the time, and might still be the truth when the time comes to do the action.
This is all common sense. Are people really this dim or intellectually dishonest? Of course forcing a player to make a prediction is forbidden. Come on.