If you own the objects, they can't touch them then either.

However, that doesn't stop them from touching the unowned object - discards and 
draw piles, for example.

--- In [email protected], Mark McGilchrist <mark_mcg2...@...> wrote:
>
> if you put the chits into an owned tray. then your opponent can't touch them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Joel <skunkybeer2...@...>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Monday, 11 May, 2009 1:21:06 AM
> Subject: [CBML] Re: Revealing tactical cards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves - the app security would be easy to defeat, if you 
> had a mind to.
> 
> For example, you could pull all the cards and discards and find out the 
> missing card.
> 
> But if security is truly a concern, you should use something like ACTS for 
> card/die management.
> 
> --- In CyberBoardML@ yahoogroups. com, "Karl Kaufman" <krkweb@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >   ----- Original Message ----- 
> >   From: Peter Emrich 
> > 
> >   OK...was wonder about the honesty portion...this seems to address that, 
> > thanks.
> > 
> > Of course, if you're playing against Snidely Whiplash you are still not 
> > assured of an honest turn -- if Snidely initiated the CyberBoard game and, 
> > therefore, has access to the .gbx files for both players.  Dastardly 
> > Snidely could be keeping a running gamebox state for both players, using 
> > the opponent gbx file to circumvent whatever protections would normally 
> > keep prying eyes out of your cards.
> > 
> > CyberBoard would need to provide an alternate or additional, more complex 
> > method for initiating a game and protecting gbx content to secure the 
> > player-specific game files.  In the short-term, maybe have some third-party 
> > initiate the game, on your behalf, and email only the associated 
> > player-specific gbx file to each player; or, make sure both players have 
> > both gbx files available, to establish a trust equilibrium.
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> 
> 
>    
> 
> 
>       
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply via email to