Time for negotiation after playing a card before terms are set

Just wondering about this. A player plays Pentex subversion. Is there a window for a discussion/deal making between playing the card and announcing the target. A slighty different question is, is there room between playing a card and playing sudden reversal for discussion/deal making. (that is in the "as it is played window") I know that announcing a cards effect has to be done immediatly after playing a card, even before redrawing (the villein/giants blood example) so im not sure if table talk has room between playing a card and announcing its effects.

Pentex hits the table with a target, so you announce one as its leaving your hand, just like vessel, etc. Between untapping and playing ot is a fine time to ask "what do i get for NOT pentexing you?" And other such things.

The consequence of this in a tournament would be, that as soon as pentex gets played, all table talk should be prohibited until the effeects of the card are declared fully. I have seen different many times ,though. A player will play pentex, then the whole thing about "if give u this or that if u dont pentex me" starts and then the target is declared. Acording to you that would be illegal.

> M.Schumacher wrote: > Just wondering about this. > > A player plays Pentex subversion. Is there a window for a discussion/deal making > between playing the card and announcing the target. > Game-wise, no. It would be the same as revealing a card from your hand (which is illegal) and using this advantage ("I'm not bluffing, look") to make some deal. Now, you could play the card and take enough time before announcing the target to let other players begin to talk about the target, and you answering them, pretending you were about to announce the target. Some player could then call the judge to sort out the situation. > M.Schumacher wrote: > A slighty different question is, is there room between playing a card and > playing sudden reversal for discussion/deal making. (that is in the "as it is played window") > Sure there is. > M.Schumacher wrote: > I know that announcing a cards effect has to be done immediatly after playing a card, even before redrawing (the villein/giants blood example) so im not sure if table talk has room between playing a card and announcing its effects. > It's more strict than that, you have to announce the terms when playing the card, not after playing the card. Of course, in practice, it's not perfectly simultaneous, but it means that the whole "play the card/announce the terms" thing must be done in one batch with no interruption. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Rulebook wrote: > A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. > This applies to master cards as well as minion cards. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Ankha wrote: > Game-wise, no. It would be the same as revealing a card from your hand (which is illegal) and using this advantage ("I'm not bluffing, look") to make some deal. > You are not revealing the card from your hand, you are actually playing it, so no way to take it back. Quite a difference. In my opinion forbidding talk/deals between putting the card down and announcing the target will simply slow down the game. In the current common practice where talk is usually done probably someone will offer a deal, but if no one wants to no time is wasted. Consider a change where all playing cards and announcing targets is atomic then people will gradually change to asking questions before they play anything, heck I might even start to talk to anyone who even touches a card in their hand during their Master Phase. "Hey I see you want to play a Master Card, if that is a P.S and you target this guy I offer you this, but if it is a Vampire Disease then ...". Perfectly legal but absolutely nonsensical and time-wasting. Talking playing/announcement of cards we should work on players actually correctly announcing what they are playing as a first step

> M.Schumacher wrote: > The consequence of this in a tournament would be, that as soon as pentex gets played, all table talk should be prohibited until the effeects of the card are declared fully. > I have seen different many times ,though. A player will play pentex, then the whole thing about "if give u this or that if u dont pentex me" starts and then the target is declared. Acording to you that would be illegal. > Yes, it is illegal. You cannot show cards on your hand, and target should be named when you play the cards. No room for discussion. BUT, as Johannes points out, playing like this slows the game down and is not fun. But if a player should call on me as a judge and want to enforce the correct rule, I would judge in his favor. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> johannes wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Game-wise, no. It would be the same as revealing a card from your hand (which is illegal) and using this advantage ("I'm not bluffing, look") to make some deal. > > > You are not revealing the card from your hand, you are actually playing it, so no way to take it back. Quite a difference. > > In my opinion forbidding talk/deals between putting the card down and announcing the target will simply slow down the game. In the current common practice where talk is usually done probably someone will offer a deal, but if no one wants to no time is wasted. Consider a change where all playing cards and announcing targets is atomic then people will gradually change to asking questions before they play anything, heck I might even start to talk to anyone who even touches a card in their hand during their Master Phase. "Hey I see you want to play a Master Card, if that is a P.S and you target this guy I offer you this, but if it is a Vampire Disease then ...". Perfectly legal but absolutely nonsensical and time-wasting. > We play it like that in Paris at least. I've seen many times good players anticipate the move and offer a deal before the card was played. I see three possibilities : - the player plays the card too fast ans announces the terms before any deal is made. Too bad for him, he made a mistake. That's where anticipating is a quality for other players. - the player negociates before playing the card. He doesn't need to show the card to do so. - the player plays the card then starts negociating before choosing the targets. For me, it's illegal, you must announce the terms at the same time you play the card. Furthermore, you don't gain time by doing so, you could deal before playing (or not) the card for the same result. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Game-wise, no. It would be the same as revealing a card from your hand (which is illegal) and using this advantage ("I'm not bluffing, look") to make some deal. > > johannes wrote: > You are not revealing the card from your hand, you are actually playing it, so no way to take it back. Quite a difference. > Quite a huge difference indeed. The difference between a very illegal play and one which is fine by the rules. > johannes wrote: > In my opinion forbidding talk/deals between putting the card down and announcing the target will simply slow down the game. In the current common practice where talk is usually done probably someone will offer a deal, but if no one wants to no time is wasted. > There is not really room for discussion here. It is illegal to play a Pentex Subversion and then allow a window for table talk about the target of the Pentex. Are you really advocating this be legitimized? Really? Sure, players should be educated that taking the Parity Shift action and actually declaring the terms of the Parity Shift are different. But playing a card and not announcing its effects really is cheating. > Consider a change where all playing cards and announcing targets is atomic then people will gradually change to asking questions before they play anything...[nonsensical rationalization of poor behavior snipped] > It is atomic. That is the whole point. If someone plays a Pentex Subversion without declaring a target, and then pauses for some table discussion about which minion to target, they have gained a huge positional advantage in any (illegal) negotiations. The card is actually being played. Contrast that with someone saying during their Master phase, hypothetically, "I'm considering playing Pentex Subversion on your vampire. What will you do so that I play it on someone else's vampire instead?" The person who initiates this discussion may be bluffing. This is acceptable because bluffing is part of any game with hidden information. People need to learn to play the game right. They don't need to have loopholes added where they aren't necessary in the name of expediency. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Opening your master phase asking what people will do to not be pentexed is better, imo, since its not illegal. Negotiating shouldnt take forever, you got a pentex, grow a pair and make a decision. No pentex, act really torn before playing a blood doll and moving on. Talking shouldnt be stalling, same applies to taking six uears fishing for cards to ashur tablets or conviction at untap. Play better, think farther, and its all fine.

The way I see it, it's simply cheating. here's how you play a card, in 3 easy steps. 1) show the card face up 2) declare all effects 3) immediately replace (unless a card says otherwise) if you haven't completed steps 2 and 3, you haven't played the card yet! you're just showing off a card in your hand, which is illegal. none of this "I was eventually going to play it" lawyering. oh, I was eventually going to move those counters out of my pool. I was eventually going to shuffle my library. I whispered a deal to another player but it's ok because I was eventually going to tell the whole table about it.

> Haze wrote: > here's how you play a card, in 3 easy steps. > 1) show the card face up > 2) declare all effects > 3) immediately replace (unless a card says otherwise) > Be careful about "immediately replace", because cancelling the card goes before that, at 2.5 in your list. And yes, lots of us will have replaced the card before our prey says "No, dammit, you can't have that Giant's Blood" and we handle that, but...

Jeff Kuta wrote: > Contrast that with someone saying during their Master phase, hypothetically, "I'm considering playing Pentex Subversion on your vampire. What will you do so that I play it on someone else's vampire instead?" The person who initiates this discussion may be bluffing. > This.

> Jeff wrote: > It is atomic. That is the whole point. If someone plays a Pentex Subversion without declaring a target, and then pauses for some table discussion about which minion to target, they have gained a huge positional advantage in any (illegal) negotiations. The card is actually being played. > This would be great but it isn't what happens in practice everywhere [probably part of the reason for Michael's question] and there's nothing to stop you playing the card [not replacing] and taking an age to decide the terms with or without input from the table as it's not codified around dragging out it's not just what you would expect a reasonable [reasonable minded that is] player to do.

> Jeff wrote: > It is atomic. > > Squidalot wrote: > This would be great but it isn't what happens in practice everywhere [probably part of the reason for Michael's question] and there's nothing to stop you playing the card [not replacing] and taking an age to decide the terms with or without input from the table as it's not codified around dragging out it's not just what you would expect a reasonable [reasonable minded that is] player to do. > Except that the rulebook explicitly does say that you have to declare costs and effects when you play a card. Any card. Every card. If you're not certain about the card effects, then don't play the damned card. It's pretty straight forward. I suppose people in some locations need to be better educated, and judges need to be vigilant if these shenanigans occur on their watch. But certainly, we don't need experienced, high-caliber players advocating others to defy the rules of the game. It is cheating, plain and simple. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

I'm kinda on both sides of fence. Biggest problem in strictly playing by the book is the fact that you can abuse this problem if you want tostall. I'm my first EC at Heidelberg my prey was playing a Week of Nightmares deck and he apparently had this idea of keeping everyone in the game for him to oust/sweep in the very late part of the game so he basically interrupted everyone doing anything by starting discussions about cancelling the card being played/discussed with Sudden or DI (which he packed many in his deck). It almost got to the point where the player in question would interrupt untapping. ("Hold your horses, dammit! This is mandatory and can't be cancelled..." ) I thought him to be a grade A a-hole and later on when I got to know him better he kinda turned out to be one too. But in a nice way... Love ya, mate. Finnish Politics!

> Jeff wrote: > Except that the rulebook explicitly does say that you have to declare costs and effects when you play a card. Any card. Every card. If you're not certain about the card effects, then don't play the damned card. It's pretty straight forward. > ...SNIPPED STUFF... > But certainly, we don't need experienced, high-caliber players advocating others to defy the rules of the game. It is cheating, plain and simple. > Jeff, the Rulebook has three phases to combat, the CRR has 6 IIRC and James Coupe has recently suggested that at least 9 are required. Invoking the rulebook seems to be not the best place to put your trust. The rulebook does not prohibit a sequence where a player reveals a card and debates its targets. As has been used in many other places, without an explicit exclusion it must be legal. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Jeff, the Rulebook has three phases to combat, the CRR has 6 IIRC > The CRR has many more steps than that. It just groups them into six broad areas. e.g. the rulebook has "Range", and has an explanation of "before range is determined in there", whereas the CRR has a separate step. It doesn't change how things work, though, since we don't really have any effects in the game that care whether two steps are sub-steps of a parent step, or two steps in series, or anything like that. The rulebook could - if it wanted to - not even split out Range, Strike and Press in an explicit fashion, while still maintaining the same order in which things happen. Makes pretty much zero difference.

> Jeff wrote: > Except that the rulebook explicitly does say that you have to declare costs and effects when you play a card. Any card. Every card. If you're not certain about the card effects, then don't play the damned card. It's pretty straight forward. > ...SNIPPED STUFF... > But certainly, we don't need experienced, high-caliber players advocating others to defy the rules of the game. It is cheating, plain and simple. > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Invoking the rulebook seems to be not the best place to put your trust. > If you can't trust the laws of the game, you know, the ones that are published in every pre-packaged starter deck, the same ones which are electronically published here, what can you trust? > The rulebook does not prohibit a sequence where a player reveals a card and debates its targets. As has been used in many other places, without an explicit exclusion it must be legal. > YES, IT DOES. > Rulebook wrote: > A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. > I am really appalled by the various people here trying to insert their favorite loophole into this rule. It is expressly forbidden. It is against the spirit of the game. It is cheating. It is unconscionable. All this discussion really makes me curious about the Pentex that was played here: vekn.net/forum/9-event-reports-and-twd/61811-twd-rhein-main-bashing-3-mai-2014-mainz-germany?limit=10&start=5 I assume Martin asked this question because he was at this table. This could be an interesting case study, or maybe not. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> I assume Martin asked this question because he was at this table. This could be an interesting case study, or maybe not. > No. I ask this question because I was thinking about this question independent of a recent event. I too feel that playing the card and announcing the effect should be done simultaniously without room for deal making but when I encounter such an occasion I dont want to seem like the rule mongering asshole that bullies people by ranting about my percieved correct sequencing of effects but rather avoid lenghty and possibly unfriendly discussions about his topic. Nothing more, nothing less.

Small nitpick, but some cards, primarily political actionsand such, but especially anything thats an action, allows for negotiations as played, anytime between announcing it and it resolving, or terms of a referendum being named, or i suppose before even blocks are declared. As of the card hitting the table, in the "as it is played" window, negotiations can start. D actions need a target then, though, same time seduction et al would be played, before replacing the card. With dnr cards, like bums rush, it should be assumed you will declare a target, and arent an idiot Master cards should probably be the same idea. It hits the table, player of the cards mouth opens (now starts sudden reversal/wash/rewind time/santaleous window) and then says what its doing. Declare the action, in this case a master phase one. Ive seen people pull bluffs about pentex, etc. Giants blood, contesting jack, whatever. Its flashing a card, and a warning, if you show it and return it to hand. Why not rule what rules say and you negotiate hypotheticaly over a play before playing?

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Small nitpick, but some cards, primarily political actions and such, but especially anything thats an action, allows for negotiations as played, anytime between announcing it and it resolving, or terms of a referendum being named, or i suppose before even blocks are declared. > Well, this isn't really true. Some examples: If you play a Govern the Unaligned, you have to declare if it is at inferior or superior. If inferior, you default bleed your prey. If superior, you have to declare a valid target in your uncontrolled region. There is no negotiation phase. If you play a Kindred Spirits, you must declare *when the card is played* which Methuselah you are bleeding. There is no negotiation phase. If you play Awe, you must declare X as you play the card. There is no negotiation phase. If you pay Deflection, you must declare which other Methuselah you choose to be the new target. There is no negotiation phase. If you play Domain Challenge, other Methuselahs may declare blocks. The terms of this referendum don't require any decision making. There is no negotiation phase, but there isn't really any discussion needed. If you play Kine Resources Contested or Parity Shift, then it (finally) gets a little more murky. As the card is played, there is technically nothing to declare other than KRC or PS is the attempted political action. One Methuselahs decline blocks, then the terms are properly declared, and then the referendum begins. It is here that some of the confusion may arise. The acting Methuselah has truly and fully declared all effects of the action when they tap a vampire and say, "Koko attempts to call Kine Resources Contested at 1 stealth." The distinction is that the referendum is the resolution of the political action. Yet, the terms of the referendum are not officially declared until the political action is successful. But, it is common (and allowed) for Methuselahs to try and extract concessions from the acting Methuselah at this time. For example, the predator of the acting minion may say, "If you don't put the extra KRC point on me, I won't block." At this point, before blocks are declined, the terms of the referendum are not set in stone. That only happens after the action is successful (unblocked). Once the action is successful, the terms of the referendum are set. Maybe the acting Methuselah will keep that small deal, maybe they won't. That's part of the game. Political actions are slightly different only because the referendum is a special situation. But the "effects" are fully declared when acting. The only time this varies for political actions are with the "X" cost ones, The Eldest Command Undeath and My Kin Against the World. "X" is a cost and must be declared as the card is played. The terms of these referenda are limited by the amount "X" that you pay. However, all of this is COMPLETELY different from playing a master card which is to be put on a minion and then waiting for the table to cry and hue about where the card should go. That is illegal and explicitly forbidden by the rulebook. This is the crux of the discussion. Playing a card and declaring the effects of the card are atomic. Period. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Hugh is correct that this happens all over. I've done it myself, but no one has ever called me on it. If I tried to call someone on it, I would probably get shot down, quickly and severely. In fact, I feel like a chump if I don't do it. No one seems to believe you when you say "Let's talk about this Pentex I've got in my hand, " or "Give me a reason why I shouldn't use this Bum's Rush in my hand on you instead of someone else." They rarely even pay attention until you've revealed the card, at which point in theory you've lost the window to haggle. The truth is it's not just the player playing the card - it's also the rest of the table. Someone declares a card and then all of a sudden there's "Wait, remember what we talked about?" or "If you rush me I'm self-ousting/killing you". There are some players who claim that reminding someone of game state allows the active player to restate terms of a card or even take it back. I'm not advocating it - I'm saying that strict adherence to that rule is not part of the culture. Hugh didn't advocate it in his post, either, he just stated it, and it's true. However, perhaps we should discuss the rationale behind the tournament(?) rule that forbids showing other players cards in your hand. That is the rule we are talking about here - I agree with Jeff that the rules do not allow discussion between showing a played card and announcing its terms. If you show a card from your hand, discuss how you might play it with other players and then decide on the terms, you have revealed your hand to other players, IMO.

> Jeff wrote: > If you can't trust the laws of the game, you know, the ones that are published in every pre-packaged starter deck, the same ones which are electronically published here, what can you trust? > From previous examples about the only place you can apparently put your trust is in the scattered archaic rulings by LSJ, and to a lesser extent those made by PB (he just hasn't had enough time to bury them across the internet in places far from the community). > YES, IT DOES. > > > Rulebook wrote: > > A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. > > Where in the rules does "when it is played" constitute an instantaneous event rather than a prolonged event. "When a VTES game is played" can easily be considered both a near-instantaneous event and a protracted event. There is no requirement for immediateness from the rules. Thereby, the usual scapegoat of "If it ain't ruled out then it must be okay" which is often used around here, I state that I am playing the card and it is not yet played until I declare all of its effects... since it cannot be played without declaring its effects after it is revealed (the two must occur for a card to be played). So I will reveal a card from my hand, not replace it and commence negotiation on how I will declare its effects; I will not return the card to my hand if negotiations do not provide me with a particular advantage I hoped to gain. > Jeff wrote: > I am really appalled by the various people here trying to insert their favorite loophole into this rule. It is expressly forbidden. It is against the spirit of the game. It is cheating. It is unconscionable. > The spirit of the game is unwritten in the rules. You wanted to rely on the rules as written and not their intent. Pick one. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Where in the rules does "when it is played" constitute an instantaneous event rather than a prolonged event. "When a VTES game is played" can easily be considered both a near-instantaneous event and a protracted event. > Take your straw man away from here. Find me a card that has "Negotiate" as part of the card text. There is none. Therefore, negotiation is not part of "declaring the effect of a card as it is played." When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

What straw man? I am using the argument which has been shown to be valid around here many times before of "The rules do not exclude therefore it is legal" and applying it to the play of a card. I am making, as premises, that the rules do NOT exclude the following: 1) A Card is played if and only if its effects are fully declared. 2) The declaration of the effects of a card are not forced to occur instantaneously. 3) If a card is revealed from the hand, it must have its effects declared or be an illegal play. So, as an example of how those premises lead to a play of a card. Assuming that the pool cost is not and will not be an issue to the legal play of the card, I reveal Pentex Subversion (TM) from my hand and state that I will be playing it, but have not yet decided which target I will declare. I have not yet made an illegal play because I am not putting the card back in my hand or choosing an illegal target. I commence a negotiation about which legal target I will declare for the effects of the card. When the negotiations are ended, I declare the effect of the card. At this point, people may now respond to the "as a card is played" situation (since up until this point the card was not played but only revealed as part of a legal card play) and assuming it passes this point, I pay the cost and apply the effects as declared. Please show the ruling, part of the rules or other principle of VTES explicitly stated which contradicts the Premises which would make the example-as-conclusion invalid. Arguing the details of the example do not invalidate the premises. And be careful about throwing around Strawman every time you think someone is splitting a hair you don't like. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > What straw man? > The one where you're trying to equate "playing a card" with "playing a game". Maybe false equivalence is better to describe it. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I am making, as premises, that the rules do NOT exclude the following: > I completely reject your fanciful premises. They are not a part of the rule book. Neither are unicorns, Atlantis or a free lunch. Perhaps though, since I don't think an Appeal to Common Sense will work with you, I'll requote the rulebook...yet again...and elaborate the other important part of playing a card. > Rulebook wrote: > A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. > Playing a card may not be an instantaneous event (philosophically speaking, what is really?), but it is most definitely intended to be a quick event. Playing a card should take about as much time as it takes to travel from your hand to either the playing area or ash heap, 1 or 2 seconds at most. That's what the rulebook says. During that window of time when the card travels from your hand to either the playing area or ash heap, that's when the card player should be declaring the effects of the card. Pretty clear if you ask me. I totally get Aaron's point about being guilty at one time or another of misplaying a card. For example, you might play Parity Shift when there are no Methuselahs who have more pool than you. Oops. The person who played the card is likely disadvantaged by revealing the card. But the original question has to deal specifically with negotiating to gain an advantage in the act of playing a card. > AaronC wrote: > If you show a card from your hand, discuss how you might play it with other players and then decide on the terms, you have revealed your hand to other players, IMO. > Aaron has it right. And revealing your cards to other players is illegal. This sort of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. If it is simple ignorance, then teach people the right way to play. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > The one where you're trying to equate "playing a card" with "playing a game". Maybe false equivalence is better to describe it. > You are entitled to that, but it is an opinion based on perspective. Even Einstein tells you that time's passage is relative to the observer; that's not particularly philosophical. > Jeff wrote: > I completely reject your fanciful premises. They are not a part of the rule book. Neither are unicorns, Atlantis or a free lunch. > I mention no unicorns, Atlantis or Free Lunches. You are currently constructing a an ad absurdium attack. Rather much a cheap shot when you have little else to fall back on. But continue... > Jeff wrote: > Perhaps though, since I don't think an Appeal to Common Sense will work with you, > That hasn't worked on you in the past, I don't know why you think it will work on others. > > Jeff wrote: > I'll requote the rulebook...yet again...and elaborate the other important part of playing a card. > > > Rulebook wrote: > > A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. > > > Playing a card may not be an instantaneous event (philosophically speaking, what is really?), but it is most definitely intended to be a quick event. > Actually the change from an energy singularity to a cosmos is an instantaneous event. Photons themselves experience all things as instantaneous events including travelling across the universe, time does not pass for objects travelling at the speed of light. I could list plenty of non-philosophical instantaneous events. > Jeff wrote: > Playing a card should take about as much time as it takes to travel from your hand to either the playing area or ash heap, 1 or 2 seconds at most. That's what the rulebook says. > The rule tells me that a card IS PLAYED when it has had the following things happen: 1) Being revealed (either to other players directly or by placing it in play) 2) Its effects are declared. 3) Its cost is resolved. > Jeff wrote: > During that window of time when the card travels from your hand to either the playing area or ash heap, that's when the card player should be declaring the effects of the card. > I agree. I will hold in my hand this Pentex Subversion (TM) and show it to all players, then before it is "in play" I will debate where it will go "in play". Again, this action is NOT prohibited by the rules... therefore it is legal. > Jeff wrote: > Pretty clear if you ask me. > If it is clear, then why can we actually be debating how it is done...? > Jeff wrote: > I totally get Aaron's point about being guilty at one time or another of misplaying a card. For example, you might play Parity Shift when there are no Methuselahs who have more pool than you. Oops. The person who played the card is likely disadvantaged by revealing the card. > But we are not debating misplayed cards (accidentally or in such a way as to cheat). I set that up in my example, to state that all other things considered the card play was legal except around the area which seems to be under contest: Can you debate the chosen effects of a card between revealing it and declaring it? > Jeff wrote: > But the original question has to deal specifically with negotiating to gain an advantage in the act of playing a card. > So stick to the topic at hand thanks. > AaronC wrote: > If you show a card from your hand, discuss how you might play it with other players and then decide on the terms, you have revealed your hand to other players, IMO. > > Jeff wrote: > Aaron has it right. And revealing your cards to other players is illegal. This sort of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. If it is simple ignorance, then teach people the right way to play. > A card must be revealed before it can be played. Revealing a card and then returning it to your hand deliberately is cheating. Note in the scenario mentioned before I explicitly excluded this potential non-sequitur by stating that either way the card would be put into play. Do you have anything to actually refute the premises beyond: 1) A Reductio ad absurdum (attempting to equate a claim on imprecise and subjective observation time to unicorns); 2) An Argument from Incredulity or an Appeal to Common Sense? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Jeff wrote: > > > Rulebook wrote: > > A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. > > > I am really appalled by the various people here trying to insert their favorite loophole into this rule. It is expressly forbidden. It is against the spirit of the game. It is cheating. It is unconscionable. > At best it is implicitely forbidden, certainly not expressly. Where does the rulebook expressly state that I cannot ask other players for advice as a part of declaring the effects? Cheating requires intent. Even if your interpretation of the rules holds up it would be misplay in most of the cases. Nobody is trying to insert a loophole and of course there is room and need for discussion when the widespread reality is that people play it the way you think is illegal. Just because you want it to be illegal does not mean the case is closed without further discussion. I was not even saying it is illegal or legal, I am just saying let´s come to a solution that will not slow down the game and also is realistic. "Everyone else needs to learn how to play properly" is arrogant and useless. Rules need to be enforcable.

Here's a common example that requires a decision to be made as the card is played: Minion Tap. I'm not sure how other people play it, but the understood, proper way to play Minion Tap is to say, "I Minion Tap Arika for 10 blood." All decision making should be complete before the card is played, and announced as the card is played. Who disagrees with this? Juggernaut? Johannes? Assuming you don't, then read these posts and see if you still think there should be a negotiation phase open when a card is played. groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/%22minion$20tap%22$20declare/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/rrsuqpHAI5I/F0BgCmjOgjoJ groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/%22minion$20tap%22$20declare/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c2LlY8s4Qo0/FWS2bn19CqAJ When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> johannes wrote: > Nobody is trying to insert a loophole and of course there is room and need for discussion when the widespread reality is that people play it the way you think is illegal. > Source? In Paris, it's not "widespread" at all. There are three ways of playing Minion Tap (or now more frequently, Villein): 1/ playing the card, replacing the card, then announcing the amount. 2/ playing the card, discussing with people about how many pool you should get, apply the effect then replacing the card 3/ playing the card, announcing the amount, then proceed. 1/ is a common mistake for new players. We (= other more experienced players in Paris) tell them it's illegal, and could be cheating. If you draw a Giant's Blood, you can announce Villein for all for instance. I've never seen someone play 2/ 3/ is the proper way. As for Pentex subversion, it should be the same. Now some people say that 2/ is "widespread". I disagree. If I try to sum up the arguments of the pros and cons: Pros: - it's faster to play it first, then negociate before terms are declared - nothing prevent you from negociating between the play of the card, and announcing its effects Cons: - it's not faster - it's just as fast. You can negotiate first, then play the card. (Plus, from a strategical point of view it allows you to bluff, and you can back up if it's in fact a bad idea) - showing the card first can be assimilated to revealing a card to gain an advantage (during negociation vs bluff) - rules require to play the card and "when it is played" to completely declare the effects. I assume it's now up to the Rule Team to say what is legal and what is not. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Years ago, I asked the same question of LSJ. A player had played a Deflection fully - showed the card, announced effects, put the card on the table, etc. - but after table negotiation chose to change the target. When presenting the issue to LSJ, I took the same stance as Jeff Kuta, that the rules for playing a card are clear and should be followed. LSJ's response: "Don't be a zealot." I'm still in favor of playing by the rules, but I concur that there is an established culture of shorthand and permissiveness in this game. Within that culture, we've gotten along pretty well over the past 20 years with the concept of "how to play a card". If such a situation arose in a tournament, I'm not sure there's much more a judge can do than say, "Announce the terms already and get on with the game.".

Trying to "prevent" negotiations during play seems ... very counter to the nature of V:tES, to me. But, being more casual than most, I was surprised to learn that revealing cards from my hand to threaten and demoralize my opponents was also forbidden. I think this is a case where "how the rules are written" and "how the game is played" are very different - and maybe how it's played varies from place to place, a bit. I think in this case, the one of those more likely to change is "how the rules are written". Maybe there should be a, "Final answer" step when playing a card ... ? Among my play-group, informally, that's putting it on the target / in the ash heap - that's the, "Well, sorry - the choice(s) has been made" point - and the reason we (mostly) play cards by flashing them around the whole table, first.

Allowing later negotiations also makes for faster play: the alternative is to pre-announce every single effect you would like to play, thus doubling the time to resolve anything. > > - it's not faster - it's just as fast. You can negotiate first, then play the card. (Plus, from a strategical point of view it allows you to bluff, and you can back up if it's in fact a bad idea) > You can't always do that, because you are not in other player's heads and you cannot always what is worth negotiating for them. Have you ever played against someone asking permission from his prey and predator before hunting for 1?

> BenPeal wrote: > If such a situation arose in a tournament, I'm not sure there's much more a judge can do than say, "Announce the terms already and get on with the game.". > Heaven forbid someone actually called me over to judge the playing of a Pentex as described in the OP, but if so, and I had to "correct" the play, I'd also say out loud, "Make sure you announce all the effects of the card while you are playing it, please." Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Here are the relevant parts of the rulebook. > A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. > > Whenever you play a library card from your hand, you immediately draw another from your library to replace it (unless card text says otherwise, of course). > So playing the card means revealing it, when it is played the player has to declare the effects of the card and when it is played he immediately draws from the library. Actually the rulebook is not even very clear about first declaring and then replacing, both are attached with a "when" condition, maybe the placement in two different paragraphs can be an argument for this kind of order. It has been clarified multiple times though that declaring happens before replacing. However the Minion Tap example is largely irrelevant because we are not debating the fact if the card gets declared or replaced first. We are debating if discussion with other players can be part of the declaring step. Nothing in the rulebook refers to this.

> Ankha wrote: > > > johannes wrote: > > Nobody is trying to insert a loophole and of course there is room and need for discussion when the widespread reality is that people play it the way you think is illegal. > > > Source? In Paris, it's not "widespread" at all. > My personal experience: - my playgroup - last tournaments played in Germany/Belgium - EC played in Stockholm Multitude occasions each. Never was the judge called.

Amongst other facts to take into consideration about this, please keep this example in mind: Player A bleeds with basic Govern the Unaligned. Player B declares a block attempt with, say, Keith Moody. Player A plays Lost in Crowds (annouonces "Lost in crowds..."), and, player C shouts "For the love of meatballs, play that card at inferior or I'm ousted!" Player A finishes playing his card with "at basic". Did A cheat? Did C cheat? Did anyone do something they aren't allowed to do? I challenge anyone to say in less than a second "Pentex Subversion on Neighbour John". In the meantime, I'm thinking of a good way to deal with this. Err. To handle this. Dealing isn't allowed when announcing stuff

I was told once that you must announce SUP or its assumed INF unless of course its a combo card and only one isplayable. I always annonce army of rats by sayi g to my prey "its only at inferior" As for permission to hunt, i still look around the table and ask "foul blood?" I use a magic 8 ball as an edge. Lets all do that, and ask "can we negotiate" and shake it everytime pentex is played.

You could forbid players from interrupting or talking over the player that is playing a card. Or you could just rule that it is illegal to deal while a card is being played. I agree that once the card is showed, the terms/targets/etc. should be set without any conversation between players. Unless Political Actions, of course.

> Brum wrote: > You could forbid players from interrupting or talking over the player that is playing a card. > Or you could just rule that it is illegal to deal while a card is being played. > > I agree that once the card is showed, the terms/targets/etc. should be set without any conversation between players. > Unless Political Actions, of course. > Its ok, im playing Parity Shift at basic. Also, kindred spirits bleeds, i only name a target if its someone other than my prey. Is this the same for other people? I typically play rushes by saying " im rushing......" lomg pause, and drop whatever card as i say who and how, and built in rushes i tap the minion and either announce the action or keep my hand on the rusher askng about rushing. As for pascals example, id like to know if the rule is basic unless stated sup, or if an effect attaced to the sup(numeric value, total of a value after numeric variable added, additional presses, saying no option to block out for dawn op, etc) So, conditioning is assumed superior if bleed of one isnt blocked, conditioning is played, and player says "now bleeding for 4" or whatever. Timing wise, crosstable still in game can do anything that isnt blatant unsportsmanlike conduct, until they are oisted. Anyone in the game or a judge can talk aboit game state n such, spectators including ousted players cant. So, if effect was declared as SUP, no takesies backsies. Otherwise, its probably ok.

Pascal, reinforce what the rules say... A card is legally played if and only if it is 1 - Revealed to the other players 2 - Its cost could be paid at the moment it was revealed 3 - Its effects were declared and had valid target/s and those targets were chosen It seems that trying to construct tournament or game rules to police against negotiation in a five player high negotiation game such as this is policing the wind and the tide. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Pascal, reinforce what the rules say... > A card is legally played if and only if it is > 1 - Revealed to the other players > 2 - Its cost could be paid at the moment it was revealed > 3 - Its effects were declared and had valid target/s and those targets were chosen > > It seems that trying to construct tournament or game rules to police against negotiation in a five player high negotiation game such as this is policing the wind and the tide. > 2/ has nothing to do with this debate. A card can't be played if its cost can't be paid. A card is "played" once it's been moved from the hand to the limbo, and its targets (and whatever has to be chosen) have been declared. For instance, you can't play Direct Intervention on a Govern Unaligned before allowing the player to declare if it is base or superior.

Not to nitpick, but I mentioned legally played Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Perfect. Roberto Mautone Jr. Praetor

The other way to maybe phrase the idea is (from the reverse point of view) is: - The effects of a card are not declared until the person playing a card declares their effects but once declared cannot be changed. This makes it in line with Political Action terms. The terms of a referendum must be negotiated before they are declared and once declared are not to be changed but voted upon. The same can be done for other cards: their effects may be negotiated after at any point up until the Methuselah who is attempting to play the card declares the effects but once declared are not able to be changed. So you may reveal a card, with the complete intention of playing it legally, and then negotiate on how that card will be legally played before declaring the specific legal play which a player will undertake. (i.e. You can state you will be playing a Haven Uncovered on a vampire, then negotiate which vampire may be declared as the target before settling on a 'declared target' for the Haven Uncovered). This doesn't break the distinctiveness of the game in negotiation and deal-making but also still allows for the ready determination of unintended misplay and deliberate misplay. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > So you may reveal a card, with the complete intention of playing it legally, and then negotiate on how that card will be legally played before declaring the specific legal play which a player will undertake. (i.e. You can state you will be playing a Haven Uncovered on a vampire, then negotiate which vampire may be declared as the target before settling on a 'declared target' for the Haven Uncovered). > This is the common practice now - I completely agree with Johannes. However, it is not technically correct. Changing the rules/rulings to say you can do this would make the rules/rulings match reality, except in Paris. Still, people often want to negotiate/remind the player of the consequences of their choice after the terms have been announced. IRL, people are changing their declarations after the are "reminded" of "game state".

AaronC: My previous 'debate' with Jeff Kuta was entirely to point out that the current rules CAN be read that way. That reading them in the narrow fashion (You must reveal the card and tell me everything it does close to simultaneously) is one way, but that they could be easily read as a set of criteria (A card cannot be played until it is revealed and has had its effects announced but there is no requirement on the time gap between reveal and declaration and that allows for a negotiation window to exist). Rather than quibble over "does the rules allow a window", we should reinforce that regardless of anything else... a card is NOT legally played until the person attempting to play it meets the criteria, which includes declaring the effects. VTES is a game of negotiation and deal-making. Why are we trying to rule that out of the game? Why don't we just put the onus on the other players to wait until the card is fully declared before they play their response? Why don't we just get the other players to bring the judge over to hurry the slow-ass negotiations along? The rules don't favour EITHER interpretation, so lets make the interpretation suit the way the game IS played. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> AaronC wrote: > > This is the common practice now - I completely agree with Johannes. > > However, it is not technically correct. Changing the rules/rulings to say you can do this would make the rules/rulings match reality, except in Paris. > And Portugal. Up until now the rules were very clear for us: -Discuss and deal BEFORE you show a card. -Once you show the card, you declare the effects of the card and the targets. Not other player may interfere up until he gets the impulse to DI/Sudden etc.. Following the rules does not take more time, as people stated here, because a Pentex is a Pentex and people don't need to see the card to know the consequences of having one in play. Actually the time thing is not as I just wrote: Not showing the card might add the time in the discussion of people trying to demote the player from playing it. But that's the price of following the rules. Same as stating out loud you're going to change phases in your turn.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > VTES is a game of negotiation and deal-making. Why are we trying to rule that out of the game? > Because we want negotiation and not silly tabletalk. You have to negotiate before you play the card, not afterwards. With your interpretation we are opening the possibility to talk about every aspect. It is not "Do you bleed me?", it is: "Do you bleed me? You could bleed me with X so the bleed will fizzle. Why dont you bleed me with basic conditioning? Couldnt i block you, so you can play stealth, so that your bleed fizzles?" That VTES can be a "game of negotiation and deal-making", it has to limit senseless table talk.

> Pascal wrote: > A card is "played" once it's been moved from the hand to the limbo, and its targets (and whatever has to be chosen) have been declared. > The rulebook disagrees. A card is "played" once it´s been moved from the hand to the limbo. This triggers the declaring of targets/effects (by when clause) and then triggers the replacement of the card (by when clause). Nitpick, but potentially interesting one. If you decide the card is played when revealed and target/effects declared (as an atomic operation) we should update the rulebook.

> Brum wrote: > I agree that once the card is showed, the terms/targets/etc. should be set without any conversation between players. > Seems awkward. Let´s say I reveal Pentex Subversion from my hand "I play P.S on .. hmm .. let me think". And then I think a minute or two on where to play (perfectly legal). Is the rest of the table just required to sit there in prayer-like silence? In theory maybe an implementation of a solution, in reality awkward

> johannes wrote: > Seems awkward. Let´s say I reveal Pentex Subversion from my hand "I play P.S on .. hmm .. let me think". And then I think a minute or two on where to play (perfectly legal). > That's where we disagree. If you have to think about where you're playing the pentex, you don't have to reveal it. Or you made some kind of (sanctionable ?) mistake. Or you're trying to get some illegal advantage from showing the card. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> johannes wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > A card is "played" once it's been moved from the hand to the limbo, and its targets (and whatever has to be chosen) have been declared. > > > The rulebook disagrees. A card is "played" once it´s been moved from the hand to the limbo. This triggers the declaring of targets/effects (by when clause) and then triggers the replacement of the card (by when clause). > AFAIK in the VTES terminology, "when" does not imply sequentiality. "When" effects are simultaneous. Contrary to "then" of "after" which imply sequentiality. > johannes wrote: > Nitpick, but potentially interesting one. If you decide the card is played when revealed and target/effects declared (as an atomic operation) we should update the rulebook. > It really depends how you read it. When I read the rulebook, I see it as an atomic operation. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > johannes wrote: > > Seems awkward. Let´s say I reveal Pentex Subversion from my hand "I play P.S on .. hmm .. let me think". And then I think a minute or two on where to play (perfectly legal). > > > That's where we disagree. If you have to think about where you're playing the pentex, you don't have to reveal it. Or you made some kind of (sanctionable ?) mistake. Or you're trying to get some illegal advantage from showing the card. > I fully agree. You think before revealing the card. If someone calls the Judge, you can show him the card and state that it's a hard choice and you need some time. The alternative might be you showing the card and, per instance, someone shouting "Don't put it on me! I won't bleed you next turn". If I were in that table I would call the Judge. You can still talk before you play the card. That does not take anything away from the dealing / talking aspect of VtES.

> Ankha wrote: > When I read the rulebook, I see it as an atomic operation. > This thread needs an atomic operation.

> Ankha wrote: > AFAIK in the VTES terminology, "when" does not imply sequentiality. "When" effects are simultaneous. > It's a very interesting question. I consider "when" to mean "just after the time that": From Merriam Webster English online dictionary: > > when conjunction > > : at or during the time that > : just after the time that > : at any or every time that > "When's" are sequential, not simultaneous. I would describe "when" as "immediately after" in the atomic sense . One effect can have multiple "when's". Simultaneous doesn't really work in VTES, although LSJ probably said some things were simultaneous. It's one thing to say that no game effects can happen between an event and its subsequent "when", but is player conversation a game effect? I don't know how to enforce a rule that says "no conversation between showing a played card and the declaration of its effects". And saying "find the judge" is almost irrelevant: there is no judge on hand for the vast majority of games, even in a tournament. Let's talk about how players govern themselves.

> Ankha wrote: > > > johannes wrote: > > Seems awkward. Let´s say I reveal Pentex Subversion from my hand "I play P.S on .. hmm .. let me think". And then I think a minute or two on where to play (perfectly legal). > > > That's where we disagree. If you have to think about where you're playing the pentex, you don't have to reveal it. Or you made some kind of (sanctionable ?) mistake. Or you're trying to get some illegal advantage from showing the card. > I am not showing the card, I am playing it. Just taking a moment to think while I am playing it, or maybe I am just very slow generally. Are you saying the rules govern when I can take some time to think and when not? Don´t you find that a bit ridiculous. How can the judge determine if someone is thinking?

> johannes wrote: > I am not showing the card, I am playing it. Just taking a moment to think while I am playing it, or maybe I am just very slow generally. > > Are you saying the rules govern when I can take some time to think and when not? Don´t you find that a bit ridiculous. How can the judge determine if someone is thinking? > Think about what you want to do before you do it. Then do it.

> BenPeal wrote: > Think about what you want to do before you do it. Then do it. > Generally good advice. But I am not sure it is required by current rules.

If you've shown the card, then have chosen to not declare its effects, but instead have chosen to talk about what you might want to do with the card, then all you have done is revealed the card, which is against the rules. Play. The. Game.

> johannes wrote: > It has been clarified multiple times though that declaring happens before replacing. > > However the Minion Tap example is largely irrelevant because we are not debating the fact if the card gets declared or replaced first. We are debating if discussion with other players can be part of the declaring step. Nothing in the rulebook refers to this. > The Minion Tap example is entirely relevant. In fact, the discussion centers not on when a card is replaced, but when a player tries to change their declaration. > Non-existant user wrote: > ***JediMike*** wrote: > > A methuselah plays minion tap choosing Leandro and declaring 11 > > (Leandro has 11 blood). Before redrawing the minon tap, the > > methuselah counts the blood on Leandro and then declares, "I mean 10." > > > > Is it legal to force the Methuselah to hold to the original > > declaration of 11? > Depends on what happened. If the "I mean 10" is part of the declaration, then it is part of the declaration. If not, then it isn't. > > And, really, why is this important? What advantage is imagined to be gained by the mis-speaking Methuselah by mis-speaking? > My read on LSJ's comments is that there is just a little leeway here during a declaration. The key is that if an "advantage" is gained if a Methuselah tries to change the effect when playing a card, then the judge should seriously consider applying an appropriate penalty. If someone simply mis-speaks, it may not be "important" to handle. But if someone intentionally mis-speaks, or perhaps intentionally enters into a protracted discussion about the effects of the card after revealing it to the other players, then there is more importance attached to the act of playing the card. I think the rulings are clear on how this should be interpreted. We all know different playgroups develop their own cultures, styles and short hand to speed game play along. More consistency is better. That's why people should learn to play properly so when groups gather at large events, everyone has the same expectations. There are enough misunderstandings as it is. ========== I think the best solution would actually be to change one word. The rulebook should read: > Proposed wrote: > "The player completely declares the effect of the card as it is played." > The very next sentence of the rulebook shows why this is necessary: > Rulebook wrote: > Some effects can cancel a card "as it is played." > I searched on Secret Library for "as it is played" and sure enough, all the cards which cancel another card use that phrase. I also searched for "when it is played" and those effects were all triggers for another effect which implies there must be a sequence of discrete effects. Therefore stands to reason that "as it is played" happens before "when it is played". Of course, the interpretation of "when" and "as" may be slightly different from the rulebook to card text. Perhaps this is driving some of the confusion. If you apply a sequential understanding of "when" based on how is it interpreted for trigger effects, it is different from "when" as quoted in the rulebook regarding the proper playing of cards. Fair enough, but the rulings say otherwise. The Minion Tap example applies, but Ankha's Villein example (with potential Giant's Blood follow-up) is even better. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > If someone simply mis-speaks, it may not be "important" to handle. But if someone intentionally mis-speaks, or perhaps intentionally enters into a protracted discussion about the effects of the card after revealing it to the other players, then there is more importance attached to the act of playing the card. > From my experience, it is not so often the Methuselah playing the card who starts talking, rather someone else who tries to talk him out of what he announced and into something else.

> BenPeal wrote: > If you've shown the card, then have chosen to not declare its effects, but instead have chosen to talk about what you might want to do with the card, then all you have done is revealed the card, which is against the rules. Play. The. Game. > I'd be saying that you haven't broken the rules until you try to 'un-reveal' it instead of heading towards the point where it is actually played. "Played" has requirements. The rules don't tell you much other than "reveal the card" and "its effects need to be declared"... There's no requirement for immediacy in meeting both parts in the rules. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > If you've shown the card, then have chosen to not declare its effects, but instead have chosen to talk about what you might want to do with the card, then all you have done is revealed the card, which is against the rules. Play. The. Game. > > > I'd be saying that you haven't broken the rules until you try to 'un-reveal' it instead of heading towards the point where it is actually played. > > "Played" has requirements. The rules don't tell you much other than "reveal the card" and "its effects need to be declared"... There's no requirement for immediacy in meeting both parts in the rules. > If you aren't declaring the effects of the card, then what are you doing? You've revealed the card, then doing something other than declaring its effects when you should be declaring its effects.

I'm undertaking a Zero Stealth Action to negotiate how I will declare it. Actually probably closer to a -1 stealth action. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Pascal, please I urge you rule on this. I'm very sorry to put you in the spot like this. Is it legal to reveal a card and negotiate before declaring it?

> BenPeal wrote: > If you aren't declaring the effects of the card, then what are you doing? You've revealed the card, then doing something other than declaring its effects when you should be declaring its effects. > This. Shouldn't this effectively end this discussion. If you have reveled a card without declaring it's effects you have not played the card (since declaring it's effect is part of playing the card). Then you have only revealed the card to the other players which is not allowed. Andreas Thomasson Prince of Linköping

> Nightbringer wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > If you aren't declaring the effects of the card, then what are you doing? You've revealed the card, then doing something other than declaring its effects when you should be declaring its effects. > > > This. > > Shouldn't this effectively end this discussion. If you have reveled a card without declaring it's effects you have not played the card (since declaring it's effect is part of playing the card). Then you have only revealed the card to the other players which is not allowed. > Except that this is not the rulebook but Ben´s interpretation of things Read Juggernauts comment on immediacy. That is precisely the point. We´ll have to wait for Pascal to rule on it.

Ben Ben Ben... A card is played by... (list of criteria) Until the criteria are met, the card is not played. We already know that it doesn't go to either place listed in the rules but is officially in a limbo, so it cannot be 'played' until its effects are declared. To quote LSJ: Don't be a zealot. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > To quote LSJ: Don't be a zealot. > Play. The. Game.

> Pascal wrote: > Dealing isn't allowed when announcing stuff > I don't know why some people continue to argue this point. It is settled. It was settled before this thread started. Sure maybe the rule book could be improved to make this more clear. A single word change ought to do it. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

I'm with mister Peal on this matter. revealing a pentex from your hand, and saying :" here, i will play pendex on someone, who will offer me best terms?" is an ass move, and should not be allowed.

@Pendargon: Oh but it's not a dick move to play Reckless Agitation and basically do the same thing? @Jeff Kuta: Clearly not settled earlier. Get over it. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

no. Because it is written as allowed in the rules for political actions.

> Pendargon wrote: > no. Because it is written as allowed in the rules for political actions. > As mentioned a bucketload of times, it is not written to EXCLUDE that same kind of debate when its a Master card... so it is fine. Until there is a concrete ruling to say "Yes you must not debate a Master card while attempting to play a Master card" then the rules support neither position more than the other. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

That kind of logic is completely wrong. Following that, nowhere does it say : While playing master cards, please DO NOT debate it, DO NOT fart, pick your nose, dribble spit all over it, call other players rude names, toss paper rolls on them, DO NOT jump on the playing surface to dance Macarena or headbang to imaginary powermetal while pretending to play air-guitar. Rules are not written to EXCLUDE things. THey are written in a way to tell you what and how to do , no more no less. So, announce you are playing a card, announce terms, pay, wrap it up and move along. Because, following your logic, it would be completely legal to say : " I will play Pentex subversin * show card, place on table*, but to determine on who i will put it on, i will assign a random number to each ready minion on the table, and then proceed to roll d20 to see who gets the pentex" It is stupid and silly.

> Pendargon wrote: > Following that, nowhere does it say...DO NOT jump on the playing surface to...headbang to imaginary powermetal while pretending to play air-guitar. > This really should be permitted by the rules. If it isn't, the world will be a terrible place.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > Pendargon wrote: > > no. Because it is written as allowed in the rules for political actions. > > > As mentioned a bucketload of times, it is not written to EXCLUDE that same kind of debate when its a Master card... so it is fine. Until there is a concrete ruling to say "Yes you must not debate a Master card while attempting to play a Master card" then the rules support neither position more than the other. > Nothing in the rulebook prevents you from looking at the cards in your library, crypt, or the other player's library and crypt. Do you assume you can do so? The rulebook only states what you CAN do: "To begin, separate your crypt cards from your library cards. Shuffle both decks and allow your predator to cut both. Place both decks in front of you. Deal the top seven library cards to yourself to form your hand and deal the top four crypt cards face down into your uncontrolled region. You can look at the cards in your hand and in your uncontrolled region at any time during the game." Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Pendargon wrote: > Rules are not written to EXCLUDE things. THey are written in a way to tell you what and how to do , no more no less. > Exactly. No more and no less. The RULEBOOK tells you that: 1) A card is not played until it hits the ashheap or a point in play somewhere 2) That it must also have its effect declared. A ruling on top of that (by LSJ IIRC) tells you that: "A card, when it is revealed, is in limbo [until it is resolved]" So, no more and no less, the card is not PLAYED and there is nothing in the rules telling me how long I should take while the card is in the 'limbo' state where it is revealed but not in the ashheap or in play. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> BenPeal wrote: > > > Pendargon wrote: > > Following that, nowhere does it say...DO NOT jump on the playing surface to...headbang to imaginary powermetal while pretending to play air-guitar. > > > This really should be permitted by the rules. If it isn't, the world will be a terrible place. > How else should Ben Peal declare an ousting Powerbleed for 7 unblockably??? The rules don't ban it, so it should be fine. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Pendargon wrote: > Because, following your logic, it would be completely legal to say : " I will play Pentex subversin * show card, place on table*, but to determine on who i will put it on, i will assign a random number to each ready minion on the table, and then proceed to roll d20 to see who gets the pentex" > > It is stupid and silly. > No more stupid and silly than Madness of the Bard and that got put into print. If I want to declare a random minion by rolling a d20 as the target of Pentex, then that's fine. It may be the most bone-headed tactical move made in VTES short of self-ousting in a Final... but it's not illegal even by your own interpretation since I didn't NEGOTIATE the target. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Pascal wrote: > Dealing isn't allowed when announcing stuff > Juggernaut? Johannes? Why are you still arguing this point? Dig up. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Says the man who sent Cease & Desist orders... Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Pendargon wrote: > That kind of logic is completely wrong. > Following that, nowhere does it say > : While playing master cards, please DO NOT debate it, DO NOT fart, pick your nose, dribble spit all over it, call other players rude names, toss paper rolls on them, DO NOT jump on the playing surface to dance Macarena or headbang to imaginary powermetal while pretending to play air-guitar. > > Rules are not written to EXCLUDE things. THey are written in a way to tell you what and how to do , no more no less. > So, announce you are playing a card, announce terms, pay, wrap it up and move along. > > Because, following your logic, it would be completely legal to say : " I will play Pentex subversin * show card, place on table*, but to determine on who i will put it on, i will assign a random number to each ready minion on the table, and then proceed to roll d20 to see who gets the pentex" > > It is stupid and silly. > The following are not explicitly allowed, disallowed or demanded by the rulebook: Negotiating while playing a card Negotiating while playing a ukulele Transmitting neural impulses while playing a card Blowing air through your larynx while playing a card This list is not conclusive. The same can be said about the rulebook. The question of whether you're allowed to negotiate while playing a card can't be reasonably resolved by interpreting the rulebook. It's purely a matter of convention. In a highly political multiplayer game such as V:TES, it's reasonable to argue that allowing some amount of negotiation while announcing plays is in the spirit of the game. It's also reasonable to argue that such negotiations should occur before the play.

> Jeff wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > Dealing isn't allowed when announcing stuff > > > Juggernaut? Johannes? Why are you still arguing this point? > Because it´s fun!

Where does the rulebook tell you that you're allowed to deal while holding cards in your hand? Maybe you can't? Or where does the rulebook tell you that you're allowed to deal at all? Maybe Silence of Death is the only allowed play format but no one realized this until now? I fully agree with Suoli on this. > Jeff wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > Dealing isn't allowed when announcing stuff > > > Juggernaut? Johannes? Why are you still arguing this point? > > Dig up. > Why the devil did you leave out the other part of the quote? The "in the mean time" part that means that Pascal is thinking about it? That's really dishonest of you.

Actually, 1.6 of the Rulebook is very clear: You play a card by showing it to the other players and stating its effects while you doing this. No negotiation can occur because that would interrupt this process.

> Brum wrote: > Actually, 1.6 of the Rulebook is very clear: > You play a card by showing it to the other players and stating its effects while you doing this. > > No negotiation can occur because that would interrupt this process. > It doesn't say that - it says something that has been directly quoted to this thread already and that people have been debating over. Saying it in a different way that leaves no doubt but isn't an accurate representation of what the rulebook says is not helpful.

There are three types of people in this thread. -People who agree that the rules are clear enough and therefore you can't negotiate a revealed card. -People who agree that the rules are clear enough and therefore you can't negotiate a revealed card, but nevertheless seem to keep this going to annoy certain individual(s). -People who don't see in the rules any reason not to negotiate. The Rules IC has ruled that in the meantime we should NOT negotiate while playing cards. Note that meantime might mean many things, but there's a good probability Pascal will clarify what most of us are saying. 1.6 Rulebook > > A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. > Do A. Do B when doing A. Seems pretty simultaneous to me. If it makes a big difference, change the "when" to "while".

> Brum wrote: > Do A. Do B when doing A. > > Seems pretty simultaneous to me. > If it makes a big difference, change the "when" to "while". > Is talking an effect or play in the mechanical framework of the game? Do you need impulse to make a deal? If yes, that's not clear from the rulebook. If not, it should follow the same rules and timing as breathing unless explicitly stated otherwise.

We need a fulltime job (or six of them) dedicated to compiling all rules into a new rulebook, and them asking everyone to read it as interperatively and obtusely(is that a word?) As possible, then re edit said rulebook, rinse and repeat until these things stop showing up. Or, we could get a definitive answer from Floppy, and call it a day. Its apparently not gonna resolve on its own, since ive watched TWO smart people spend 14 hours arguing semantics, who the hell knows how long a forum full of nominally intelligent ones can keep going... Im noticing people on both sides of the nitpicking divide onboard with the "its revealing" side, while filks not normally as quick to nitpick are saying its legal to fillibuster after flashing the card to the table. So, Pascal?

I show you (and all players) a card from my hand. When I do this, I declare its effects and its targets, because that's what's in the rules. If you (or anyone) interrupt me or speak over my voice, you're being rude to say the least. If I show you the card and say nothing about its declaration (and don't move the card to it's target - when applicable - just let it hang there) I'm cheating. <My Opinion>I'm gaining an "edge" in negotiations that is unbalanced and goes against the spirit of intrigue and bluff that this game has.</My Opinion> Why not do it in your turn? Why not show a Pentex from my hand every turn during other players minion phase as a reminder? Because it's illegal: can't reveal cards from my hand. Even right before I play them. Because it's right there in the rules. Declaring the effects is part of playing a card. If I'm not declaring the effects, I'm not playing the card.

> Brum wrote: > I show you (and all players) a card from my hand. > When I do this, I declare its effects and its targets, because that's what's in the rules. > It's not obvious that you can't show a card, declare it's effects and negotiate. You seem to be saying that negotiating is a defined in-game action that occupies some timing window. If not, it can't interrupt anything because it doesn't exist in "game time" (that is, within the framework of sequencing and timing windows). > Why not show a Pentex from my hand every turn during other players minion phase as a reminder? > To be extra clear, nobody is defending the revealing of cards without playing cards.

> BenPeal wrote: > Thanks. I'll bookmark this for the Nth discussion about banning Pentex Subversion.

> Lemminkäinen wrote: > Why the devil did you leave out the other part of the quote? The "in the mean time" part that means that Pascal is thinking about it? That's really dishonest of you. > There's nothing dishonest about it at all. Nothing changes without that sentence. > Pascal wrote: > In the meantime, I'm thinking of a good way to deal with this. Err. To handle this. Dealing isn't allowed when announcing stuff. > Pascal said that you can't make deals (aka negotiate) when announcing stuff. THAT SETTLES IT. By my read, "In the meantime..." means Pascal will look at the rulebook to clarify it. Everyone here who is arguing that they should still be allowed to cheat by negotiating "when" playing a card really ought to re-evaluate the position taken. You are arguing to perpetuate cheating in the game whether you acknowledge it or not. No one who is arguing to allow negotiations "when" playing a card has come forth with a suggestion to try and fix this. I guess that means you like the status quo, or at least your false understanding of it. Only two change suggestions were mentioned thus far: My single word change ("when" to "as") and the suggestion to disallow talking "when" a card is played. Maybe you all ought to acknowledge what Pascal said and try to be part of the solution instead of the problem. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > No one who is arguing to allow negotiations "when" playing a card has come forth with a suggestion to try and fix this. I guess that means you like the status quo, or at least your false understanding of it. > Some might say that our perceptions about others say more about ourselves. If that's true, maybe you yourself can't objectively discuss the reality of current rules text without becoming emotionally invested in one side or another and allowing that to skew your perspective. But that would only have anything to do with your personality and nothing at all to do with the actual matter at hand.

Jeff I appreciate what you're trying to say around Pascal's post, but for the life of me it's not easy to interpret what he's actually saying. I take from from the below: 1. Here is an example - did anyone cheat? 2. Say "I pentex Neighbor John" in less than a second. 3. In the meantime i'll think about this/ 4. Dealing isn't allowed whilst announcing stuff *tongue out* I can see why you might interpret that as just point 4) without the sticky out tongue but I can also see why it looks like Pascal has said "i'm going to add this to my list of things to think about, please stop messing around and play the game" You do seem to have a habit of interesting, black or white, interpretations. > Pascal wrote: > Amongst other facts to take into consideration about this, please keep this example in mind: > > Player A bleeds with basic Govern the Unaligned. > Player B declares a block attempt with, say, Keith Moody. > Player A plays Lost in Crowds (annouonces "Lost in crowds..."), and, player C shouts "For the love of meatballs, play that card at inferior or I'm ousted!" > Player A finishes playing his card with "at basic". > > Did A cheat? > Did C cheat? > Did anyone do something they aren't allowed to do? > > I challenge anyone to say in less than a second "Pentex Subversion on Neighbour John". > > In the meantime, I'm thinking of a good way to deal with this. Err. To handle this. Dealing isn't allowed when announcing stuff >