Quote Dragonexadon Quote: Originally Posted by But what is the difference? If, for example Nar Shada had 'slot machiens'. No matter what you would get some sort of return, would it not be the same buying a cartel box?



Instead of a box you have a machine, they both give you random chance of a return.



Another example would be a claw machine. Or sport Dave and Busters, arcades that return tickets for prizes. They all are considered chance but yield no cash returns and are not considered gambling.



Please note that gambling laws differ from state to state.



Quote: The court, in the decisions it has approved, has ruled that three elements are necessary for machines to be considered as gambling devices ‑ (1) risk of something of value (consideration), (2) a prize, and (3) chance, a risk of loss or winning.



So, let's look at a cartel pack.



1. Yes, you risk something of "value"

2. Yes, there is a prize.

3. There is no risk of loss because you always win something.



Quote: (2) The method of pay-off [[payoff]], as long as there is a pay-off [[payoff]]of some kind which induces the player to play, is of no particular significance in determining whether such instruments are gambling devices.

Again, because there is always a pay-off, it cannot be considered a gambling device.



Quote: At this point, of course, it would be of distinct assistance to have before us a factual summary as to the mechanics and details of the operations of each device involved to determine whether there is any element of skill involved or more important, whether skill predominates over chance. Your correspondence merely states "In these machines it can be generally said that they are subject to a degree of control by the player." In the absence of having before us detailed information as to the operations of the specific machines in question, we can only turn to a review of court decisions involving similar devices.



If both elements of skill and chance are present, the test is whether the element of chance predominates over the element of skill, or whether the element of chance is present in such a manner as to forte the element of skill. Commonwealth v. Plissner, 295 Mass. 457, 4 N.E. (2d) 241 (1936), Commonwealth v. Ward, 281 Mass. 119, 183 N.E. 271 (1932).



I'd wager that, since Dave and Busters isn't being shut down in every state, that most states tend to follow similar logical conclusions about such games. I give to you a letter by the attorney general of Washington State So, in order to be considered a gambling device, 3 things must be considered. You mist risk something of value, there must be a prize, and the chance of losing.So, let's look at a cartel pack.1. Yes, you risk something of "value"2. Yes, there is a prize.3. There is no risk of loss because you always win something.And about your "Dave and Buster's" retortMost games at these sorts of establishments are in fact primarily games of skill (even if a small amount of luck is required) and not games of chance. Thus, because they are games of skill, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of gambling devices.I'd wager that, since Dave and Busters isn't being shut down in every state, that most states tend to follow similar logical conclusions about such games. Broken Bokken



Statement: I am most eager to engage in some unadulterated violence; at your command, of course, Master.