The group I play with always gets into arguments over blocking a vote.
Do you announce you are calling a vote, anyone wishing to intercept may
do so, then if it's not blocked read the terms on the card? Or may they
intercept the vote after you put the vote card down. We have a lot of
arguments over this and we look at the FAQ and still we argue and I am
sick of hearing their crap. If somebody could me a definitive ruling, I
would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
In article <3nk7tl$9...@portal.gmu.edu>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
From the FAQ dated 4/18/95:
Voting: The Vote card must be shown before blocking is declared.
There's not much room for interpretation.
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com)
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rules' Monger
In article <3nlcqv$f...@crl.crl.com>, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
> From the FAQ dated 4/18/95:
> Voting: The Vote card must be shown before blocking is declared.
>
> There's not much room for interpretation.
I would like to note in addition to Scott's excellent commentary that the
terms of the vote are in regards to those votes where the terms are not
explicit (like parity shift, conservative agitation, and the like)
So while the vote must be clear before the intercept, who benefits and who
is hurt must wait until after the intercept is decided.
stephen
When a political action is taken, everyone knows which political card was
played as soon as the action begins, just as with every other action. However,
they don't know the details of the referendum (such as the number chosen
for Political Flux) unless/until the action has not been blocked.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In <3nrfog$q...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>When a political action is taken, everyone knows which political card was
>played as soon as the action begins, just as with every other action. However,
>they don't know the details of the referendum (such as the number chosen
>for Political Flux) unless/until the action has not been blocked.
What does everyone think about allowing negotiations throughout the voting
process? The group I play in does, and I think it makes sense. Let's
say Gideon Fontaine calls a Kine Resources Contested vote. Bianca is
within earshot, so she says to Gideon, "Is this vote going to affect someone
else, or do I have to block it and pound your sorry face into the pavement?"
We allow this kind of negotiation at the time players decide whether to
block, as well as when the votes are cast. However, a guy who referees
local tournaments specifically prohibits players from discussing the terms
of a vote at the time the decision to block is made. He does allow players
to make deals on casting votes (e.g., "I'll agree not to bleed you for two
turns if you back me on this vote"). Of course, no promises are binding in
either case, but players quickly learn that they'll get into big trouble if
they go back on a promise they make in the game. What extent of negotiation
do other groups allow?
Pat
oma...@convex.com
In article <3o5u38$7...@zeppelin.convex.com>,
Patrick M. O'Malley <oma...@convex.com> wrote:
>What does everyone think about allowing negotiations throughout the voting
>process? The group I play in does, and I think it makes sense. Let's
We do, too. There's usually a fair amount of discussion on
exactly why the vote will/won't be blocked before it happens. And it's
one of the fun things about political actions.
You can't talk secretly to one person, but anything you say can
and will be used against you later!
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
In article <3o5u38$7...@zeppelin.convex.com> oma...@convex.com (Patrick M. O'Malley) writes:
>However, a guy who referees
>local tournaments specifically prohibits players from discussing the terms
>of a vote at the time the decision to block is made.
I would say that he is not doing it right. Players should be allowed
to discuss anything at any point in the game. Of course, agreements
not specifically stated in the rules as binding are not binding ...
"What? I just promised that I'm not KRC'ing you? Excuse me,
I have a /very/ short memory ..."
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
oma...@convex.com (Patrick M. O'Malley) writes:
In <3nrfog$q...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
writes:
>>When a political action is taken, everyone knows which political card
was
>>played as soon as the action begins, just as with every other action.
However,
>>they don't know the details of the referendum (such as the number chosen
>>for Political Flux) unless/until the action has not been blocked.>What does everyone think about allowing negotiations throughout the
voting
>process? The group I play in does, and I think it makes sense. Let's>say Gideon Fontaine calls a Kine Resources Contested vote. Bianca is
>within earshot, so she says to Gideon, "Is this vote going to affect
someone
>else, or do I have to block it and pound your sorry face into the
pavement?"
>We allow this kind of negotiation at the time players decide whether to>block, as well as when the votes are cast. However, a guy who referees>local tournaments specifically prohibits players from discussing the
terms
>of a vote at the time the decision to block is made. He does allow
players
>to make deals on casting votes (e.g., "I'll agree not to bleed you for
two
>turns if you back me on this vote"). Of course, no promises are binding
in
>either case, but players quickly learn that they'll get into big trouble
if
>they go back on a promise they make in the game. What extent of
negotiation
>do other groups allow?
We play that agreements made before the terms are called are not binding,
although they can be made. Keeping your word is a value with us and it's
very rare for anybody to welsh on such a deal.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>We play that agreements made before the terms are called are not binding,
>although they can be made. Keeping your word is a value with us and it's
>very rare for anybody to welsh on such a deal.
Bingo. The person playing the vote card is free to say anything they want
about the vote while blockers are being declared (or not), and are only
locked into the details if the vote actually begins and the referendum
is set. But being less than honest about what you're planning for the
referendum to be is not necessarily the best plan.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3o8osa$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>We play that agreements made before the terms are called are not binding,
>although they can be made. Keeping your word is a value with us and it's
>very rare for anybody to welsh on such a deal.
Same here. I've reneged on a deal before, but only once (and
the guy who I stabbed in the back *still* won't trust me, months
later!!!). It served the purpose, though.
[ quoted text not captured ]