Hello,
I have read definition of Wake effect from rulebook
Wake: A vampire that wakes during an action can attempt to block that action and/or play reaction cards as though unlocked for the duration of the action. Wake effects can always be played during the “as a card is played” window, in order to play other reaction cards that must be played in that window. A reaction card that unlocks a vampire but does not wake it is not considered as a wake effect and cannot be played during the “as a card is played” window.
Then I have looked at Direct Intervention
Direct Intervention
Master: out-of-turn.
Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. (If it was an action card, the acting minion doesn't lock. If it was a strike card, the minion chooses another strike.)
And now question:
If a player plays action card, should I play DI on this action immediately after the action is annouced, or I can wait and play it after some modifiers/reactions are played?
I'm asking because all this things happens in “as a card is played” window.
You have to play Direct Intervention immideatly after the card you want to cancel, in this case the action card, is played. Technically you even have to play it even before the card is redrawn.
Wake cards can be played in that window in order to play other reaction cards that are played in that window (for instance Evil Eye)
Evil Eye
Combat / Reaction
Cost: 1 blood
Do not replace until your unlock phase.
[mal] [COMBAT] Cancel a strike card played by the opposing minion as it is played (no cost is paid). The opposing minion cannot choose another strike and gets no strike instead. [mal] is not a Discipline.
[MAL] [REACTION] Cancel an action card as it is played and lock the acting minion.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Wake cards can be played in that window in order to play other reaction cards that are played in that window (for instance Evil Eye)
>
> Evil Eye
> Combat / Reaction
> Cost: 1 blood
> Do not replace until your unlock phase.
> [mal] [COMBAT] Cancel a strike card played by the opposing minion as it is played (no cost is paid). The opposing minion cannot choose another strike and gets no strike instead. [mal] is not a Discipline.
> [MAL] [REACTION] Cancel an action card as it is played and lock the acting minion.
>
Something I've wondered (don't know if it's been answered somewhere already) is, if you can play a wake in the hopes of replacing a card like Evil Eye to cancel another card, or if you have to have the Evil Eye in hand at the time you play the wake.
Prince of Bonn, Germany
> Yomyael wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Wake cards can be played in that window in order to play other reaction cards that are played in that window (for instance Evil Eye)
> >
> > Evil Eye
> > Combat / Reaction
> > Cost: 1 blood
> > Do not replace until your unlock phase.
> > [mal] [COMBAT] Cancel a strike card played by the opposing minion as it is played (no cost is paid). The opposing minion cannot choose another strike and gets no strike instead. [mal] is not a Discipline.
> > [MAL] [REACTION] Cancel an action card as it is played and lock the acting minion.
> >
> Something I've wondered (don't know if it's been answered somewhere already) is, if you can play a wake in the hopes of replacing a card like Evil Eye to cancel another card, or if you have to have the Evil Eye in hand at the time you play the wake.
>
You can play a wake and hope to draw a cancellation card.
EDIT: rulebook will be clarified to reflect this ruling: groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/6w8K3yDtBH0/m/M_SZH9Id8n8J
So you won't replace the wake card until the whole "as played" window is closed.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Yomyael wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > > Wake cards can be played in that window in order to play other reaction cards that are played in that window (for instance Evil Eye)
> > >
> > > Evil Eye
> > > Combat / Reaction
> > > Cost: 1 blood
> > > Do not replace until your unlock phase.
> > > [mal] [COMBAT] Cancel a strike card played by the opposing minion as it is played (no cost is paid). The opposing minion cannot choose another strike and gets no strike instead. [mal] is not a Discipline.
> > > [MAL] [REACTION] Cancel an action card as it is played and lock the acting minion.
> > >
> > >
> > Something I've wondered (don't know if it's been answered somewhere already) is, if you can play a wake in the hopes of replacing a card like Evil Eye to cancel another card, or if you have to have the Evil Eye in hand at the time you play the wake.
> >
> You can play a wake and hope to draw a cancellation card.
>
I feel that contradics the rulebook though:
>
> ADVANCED RULES
>
> Some effects can cancel a card “as it is played.” These effects, as well as wake effects, are the only effects allowed during the “as played” time period of another card. Even drawing to replace cards, comes after this time period.
>
> Hobbesgoblin wrote:
> I feel that contradics the rulebook though:
> >
> > ADVANCED RULES
> >
> > Some effects can cancel a card “as it is played.” These effects, as well as wake effects, are the only effects allowed during the “as played” time period of another card. Even drawing to replace cards, comes after this time period.
> >
It is not drawing the replacement of the reaction/cancelation card that comes after but the drawing of the replacement of the card that is being woken against/canceled... this because these cards (wakes and cancels) are played in the "as it is played" window which is in between playing a card and drawing its replacement.
> inm8 wrote:
>
> > Hobbesgoblin wrote:
> > I feel that contradics the rulebook though:
> > >
> > > ADVANCED RULES
> > >
> > > Some effects can cancel a card “as it is played.” These effects, as well as wake effects, are the only effects allowed during the “as played” time period of another card. Even drawing to replace cards, comes after this time period.
> > >
> > >
> >
> It is not drawing the replacement of the reaction/cancelation card that comes after but the drawing of the replacement of the card that is being woken against/canceled... this because these cards (wakes and cancels) are played in the "as it is played" window which is in between playing a card and drawing its replacement.
>
Correct. The wake card and the cancellation card can themselves be cancelled, so they should be replaced after their own "as played" window.
A plays card C
B plays a wake as "C is played"
noone cancels it => B replaces the wake
B plays a cancellation card as "C is played" to cancel C
noone cancels it => B replaces the cancellation card
Card C is cancelled. A replaces C.
Moot. See my first answer.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Well, in this post :
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/VLkjUiEArsE/m/1zd5gx_8xI0J
FzD (who was not RD at this point if I am correct) seems to state the timing of replacing a card differently.
> You couldn't play a Botched Move you replaced on a Sudden'd DI to cancel a combat card
>
.
And the rulebook state "drawing to replace cards comes after this time period"
So why would the canceling card would be replaced while the cancelled card is not ?
> Timo wrote:
>
> And the rulebook state "drawing to replace cards comes after this time period"
>
> So why would the canceling card would be replaced while the cancelled card is not ?
>
There is not just one window where all of the canceling cards are played, each card has their own "as played" window. And their replacements are drawn if they are not canceled in that window.
Ironically this reminds me an awful lot of Magic the gatherings "stack" and "responding", since things resolve in opposite order than they are played. Why not just use that...
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
OK, now, I don't see anymore why the "as played" window specify that it occurs "before drawing to replace".
I thought it was to avoid "stack-like" problematics. And afterward, the "wake" ruling was done to allow the reaction cancelling effects to be used even if locked.
> Ankha wrote:
> Because the cancelling card has not been cancelled.
>
But when you play a wake, the first card as not been cancelled yet neither. And potentially never would.
With this *new* ruling above, A plays a card, B plays a bunch of wake cards hoping for some cancelling effects (or just for cycling and open options) replacing everyone of them and then doesn't cancel it and just now A is allowed to replace his card ?
For example, A plays a conditioning, B already has a Direct Intervention in hand. He decides to play a wake in the as played window and if he replaces a bounce he doesn't cancel the card and if not he just plays the DI.
This seems pretty counter intuitive (and for no good reasons that I see right now...)
I do see where Timo is coming from, and agree with him.
In the event where a cancelling card is being canceled, none of the cards involved should be replaced until all the cancelers have resolved..
The rule implies this should be the case, yet Ankha says it isn't. Illogical.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Ankha wrote:
> A plays card C
> B plays a wake as "C is played"
> noone cancels it => B replaces the wake
> B plays a cancellation card as "C is played" to cancel C
> noone cancels it => B replaces the cancellation card
> Card C is cancelled. A replaces C.
>
This contradicts prior rulings by LSJ - see for example the discussion at groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/6w8K3yDtBH0/m/M_SZH9Id8n8J
Relevant quote
"The "as played" window for card X thus restricts all players to the cards they have in hand at the time the card X is played."
If this is intended as an explicit reversal, it should be stated and advertised as such.
--
National Coordinator
South Africa
> drnlmza wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > A plays card C
> > B plays a wake as "C is played"
> > noone cancels it => B replaces the wake
> > B plays a cancellation card as "C is played" to cancel C
> > noone cancels it => B replaces the cancellation card
> > Card C is cancelled. A replaces C.
> >
> This contradicts prior rulings by LSJ - see for example the discussion at groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/6w8K3yDtBH0/m/M_SZH9Id8n8J
>
> Relevant quote
> "The "as played" window for card X thus restricts all players to the cards they have in hand at the time the card X is played."
>
> If this is intended as an explicit reversal, it should be stated and advertised as such.
>
Ah, good. I couldn't find this ruling.
So cards are not replaced at all as long as the first "as it is played" window is opened, even cards played in the sub-windows.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > drnlmza wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > > A plays card C
> > > B plays a wake as "C is played"
> > > noone cancels it => B replaces the wake
> > > B plays a cancellation card as "C is played" to cancel C
> > > noone cancels it => B replaces the cancellation card
> > > Card C is cancelled. A replaces C.
> > >
> > >
> > This contradicts prior rulings by LSJ - see for example the discussion at groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/6w8K3yDtBH0/m/M_SZH9Id8n8J
> >
> > Relevant quote
> > "The "as played" window for card X thus restricts all players to the cards they have in hand at the time the card X is played."
> >
> > If this is intended as an explicit reversal, it should be stated and advertised as such.
> >
> Ah, good. I couldn't find this ruling.
>
> So cards are not replaced at all as long as the first "as it is played" window is opened, even cards played in the sub-windows.
>
Could you edit your first posts then ? To avoid mis-quotes ?
A plays card Z
B plays a wake as "Z is played"
B doesn't redraw and doesn't play anything else
C wants to DI card Z from player A
Would that be legal or is there anything preventing this?
asking for a friend
<INSERT CLEVER QUOTATION HERE>
It seems the above scenario is legal.
If I am correct, we could even have :
A plays card Z
C plays a wake as "Z is played"
C doesn't redraw and doesn't play anything else
B play DI to cancel card Z from player A
(with a lot of impulse passing back and forth in-between !)
We have it earlier in this thread with a ruling by LSJ
www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/79369-direct-intervention?start=12#103398
Prince of Bonn, Germany
> Yomyael wrote:
> We have it earlier in this thread with a ruling by LSJ
>
> www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/79369-direct-intervention?start=12#103398
>
Indeed.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Well, I still don‘t get it where this ruling should be as I can‘t find anything related what you linked there. Might be because I‘m on a mobile. So I‘d really appreciate the quoted ruling.
Are there multiple „as played“ windows active during this episode?
Player A plays card Z.
If player B uses his impulse to play a Wake there‘s a 2nd as played Window. If player D want‘s to Di that Wake a third as played window. If B wants to Sudden the DI a fourth. If that got all handled, does player C still have the opportunity to use the first as played window of card Z for his own DI?
Thanks for your patience.
<INSERT CLEVER QUOTATION HERE>
> alf wrote:
> Well, I still don‘t get it where this ruling should be as I can‘t find anything related what you linked there. Might be because I‘m on a mobile. So I‘d really appreciate the quoted ruling.
>
> Are there multiple „as played“ windows active during this episode?
>
> Player A plays card Z.
> If player B uses his impulse to play a Wake there‘s a 2nd as played Window. If player D want‘s to Di that Wake a third as played window. If B wants to Sudden the DI a fourth. If that got all handled, does player C still have the opportunity to use the first as played window of card Z for his own DI?
>
> Thanks for your patience.
>
Each card has its own "as played" window.
> So cards are not replaced at all as long as the first "as it is played" window is opened, even cards played in the sub-windows.
>
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
On the topic of Direct Intervention’s window of “cancel a card as played”…
Player A calls Parity Shift from their hand as an action.
Player B wants to know if it will target them?
Player A refuses to say until after blocks are declared/declined.
All blocks are declined.
Player A does target B with it.
B plays Direct Intervention to cancel it.
No other cards were played other than Parity Shift.
Did Player B play their DI too late? Did the window close “as played” after blocks declined stage?
In reality most people don't wait for a cancel and draw up. As long as the cancel is announced quickly or a pause is asked for to consider a cancel, then it should be allowed. Having the active player draw doesn't eliminate that window, there's always an opportunity.
In reality, every card played should wait for a cancel window to end (everyone declines to cancel), but we don't play that way because it would be infuriatingly slow. Use your best judgment, but once you're in the asking for blocks phase, you've definitely passed that window.
> kschaefer wrote:
> In reality most people don't wait for a cancel and draw up. As long as the cancel is announced quickly or a pause is asked for to consider a cancel, then it should be allowed. Having the active player draw doesn't eliminate that window, there's always an opportunity.
>
> In reality, every card played should wait for a cancel window to end (everyone declines to cancel), but we don't play that way because it would be infuriatingly slow. Use your best judgment, but once you're in the asking for blocks phase, you've definitely passed that window.
>
Which is why I am an advocate for changing this particular rule (don't replace until after possible cancel). Just replace immediately even if it means discarding a card. It would make our lives easier and the rules actually possible to follow.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
I think the better way to do this is to better explain where the cancel window exists. According to the rules there are 4 steps to actually playing a card...
Announce the Card
Show the Card
Move it to Your Ash Heap
Replace the Card
"As it is played" and "as played" are poorly referenced as to when they technically occur, however, they somehow exist in a strange Æther between announce and show since during the announce step your are also supposed to announce connective action modifiers. it even is extra confusing when you consider that we have to specifically create bonus to text in errata to inform someone that "as announced" does not actually mean as announced, but instead is played after drawing back up, but cannot be one of the cards drawn.
I would propose instead that As Played and As Announced become the same thing but...
Announce the Action (say the name of the card and show the card, this is how players do it anyway).
As Announced becomes a reverse impulse step where you reverse cycle the table checking for cards played like DI... etc. Reverse Impulse check counter clockwise around the table and then the Active Player continues with their As Announced Cards.
Once announcement has been concluded all cards are drawn up.
The fact that the wording on cards right now is literally meant inverted is so hard to deal with for teaching a new player aside from poking fun at it, it is best to explain it to them as...
As Announced means as Played (since you wait for the full steps of playing a card to be completed)
As Played means As Announced (because you interrupt the Play cycled to play it)
Playing a card is if I'm not mistaken more like the below
Play a card Announce the effect, show the card, and place it into limbo* if it is a strike or an action card (also lock the minion if performing an action), else in the ash heap unless it is to be put into play. "As it is played" window, a canceled card e.g. by Direct intervention goes to the ash heap if not already there. Draw to replace "As/When the/an action is announced" window, the above drawn card is eligible Pay the cost for effects that aren´t an action, and resolve effects that aren´t an action nor a strike * a card in "limbo" goes to the ash heap once action/strike resolution is reached
Sometimes a player asks you to wait a moment to think about whether to play a cancellation card on your card. There is no specific ruling for this situation and clearly this players take advantage of the situation.
There should be a mental count of 3 seconds to clearly delineate when this window ends in order to not slow down the game every time we play a card. The same for the Eagle's Sight/Anneke situation.
> Millicent wrote:
> Sometimes a player asks you to wait a moment to think about whether to play a cancellation card on your card. There is no specific ruling for this situation and clearly this players take advantage of the situation.
>
> There should be a mental count of 3 seconds to clearly delineate when this window ends in order to not slow down the game every time we play a card. The same for the Eagle's Sight/Anneke situation.
>
3 seconds time window seems a bit over the top don't you think? Oftentimes it is really a hard decision whether to play your cancellation effect or not, in many cases can be game deciding.
If a player abuses these time windows (Eagle' Sight or Anneke also) and obviously stalling, there is a rule for that already, which should be invoked.
Also another situation that occurs a lot more is when players play their cards simultanously or in a very quick succession so your window to cancel the govern goes by in a nanosecond because Seduction was immediately played after. And then a judge is called.
NC of Hungary
///
In my very first EC (1st Heidelberg) my first Prey was Kamel and he played this VERY well.
When a situation where he wanted to interfere rose he immediately said "Wait!" before you could draw a replacement. Then he perhaps negotiated a bit with the player. No backtracking or anything messy needed.
Then again he WAS playing a Week of Nightmares deck and wanted the playtime to pass on to negotiations etc... (but that doesn't take away the fact that he was VERY precise about how this worked and how he handled it)
Finnish Politics!
> Malachy wrote:
>
> > Millicent wrote:
> > Sometimes a player asks you to wait a moment to think about whether to play a cancellation card on your card. There is no specific ruling for this situation and clearly this players take advantage of the situation.
> >
> > There should be a mental count of 3 seconds to clearly delineate when this window ends in order to not slow down the game every time we play a card. The same for the Eagle's Sight/Anneke situation.
> >
> 3 seconds time window seems a bit over the top don't you think? Oftentimes it is really a hard decision whether to play your cancellation effect or not, in many cases can be game deciding.
>
> If a player abuses these time windows (Eagle' Sight or Anneke also) and obviously stalling, there is a rule for that already, which should be invoked.
>
> Also another situation that occurs a lot more is when players play their cards simultanously or in a very quick succession so your window to cancel the govern goes by in a nanosecond because Seduction was immediately played after. And then a judge is called.
>
3 seconds, 2 seconds, it doesn't matter. The fact is that there should be a specific period of time to respond and that no one should try to take advantage, as is currently the case. No matter how complicated the decision is, you can't spend 30 seconds stealing time from the table.
The rules make mention of time wasting, but in this specific case and in all similar ones (Eagle's Sight, Anneke, etc.) they never apply because there is a limbo in this regard. The main idea would be to give fluidity to the game at any time during the game.
If a player plays his cards without giving way to cancellation windows, clearly, there is a lack of knowledge of punishable rules. Any lack of rigor is punishable, but in this case it is enhanced by the lack of a specific and universal modus operandi.
To enforce any specific time period, judges would need to actually take time - at least in finals; no matter how long it would be.
So this suggestion would add a lot of micromanagement on the judges' side and could open up other possibilites for stalling - discussing whether or not the window for a response has passed already.
Also, since VTES is a very complex, thus mentally exhausting, game. In a 3R+F, people will require more time to think in their second, third or fourth game. So two or three seconds wouldn't suffice. Maybe 15 seconds would be more realistic. And such a long time could allow legal stalling, since people could try to maximise this window as part of their gameplay.
> Millicent wrote:
> 3 seconds, 2 seconds, it doesn't matter. The fact is that there should be a specific period of time to respond and that no one should try to take advantage, as is currently the case. No matter how complicated the decision is, you can't spend 30 seconds stealing time from the table.
>
> The rules make mention of time wasting, but in this specific case and in all similar ones (Eagle's Sight, Anneke, etc.) they never apply because there is a limbo in this regard. The main idea would be to give fluidity to the game at any time during the game.
>
> If a player plays his cards without giving way to cancellation windows, clearly, there is a lack of knowledge of punishable rules. Any lack of rigor is punishable, but in this case it is enhanced by the lack of a specific and universal modus operandi.
>
This reply is partly made with humorous tone, I'm trying to point out how I feel the idea of set multiple time limits is absurd but I thank you for having the guts to challenge existing tradition with your suggestion. I feel it should have been it's own topic instead this hijack of thread from 2021 with OP asking whether or not they should wait for opponent to play multiple cards before playing DI.
As for the notion of x amount of seconds to be put in rules, yes we should because in other competitive hobbies with multiple participants and one time limit for all it's commonplace. Take association football for example, every time there's need to throw the ball or kick from corner, rules clearly state how many seconds... Oh wait, they do not. That sport played at highest levels does not require artificial limits as long as the referee is allowed to make calls on the play and whether or not something is stalling.
Oh and if people don't believe me, check Laws of the Game www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/laws-of-the-game/2024-25/laws-of-the-game-2024-25.ashx on page 112 and then see how much need is there to set some time limits for Throw-in at page 131. I'm eagerly waiting to see the justification how cardboard game with friends and few strangers requires more accurate and objective ruling then sports that can cause riots where people are injured/killed if bad judgement calls or disliked plays are made (all the best to the people in football loving nations of Latin America who know what I'm talking about.) Is the highest number still at 358 dead with that 1960's Peru match?
So yeah, if they can manage with "judge decides how time should be used and compensated" perhaps we with our printed cardboard game can as well, that way people can concentrate on playing the game instead of counting the seconds in their heads. Unless of course I'm allowed to bring very loud and very obnoxious non-electronic metronome in to help me with that, after all it's required to keep track of the game at that point. Perhaps one where there's nice little bell that tings in addition to help everyone else to keep track as well...
I'm joking with the metronome of course, as a bad ex drummer, I can just tap the beat with the bottom of my squeky shoe, people will just love that. Now extrapolate that for couple players per table keeping their own rythm and time, multiplied with 5-10 tables in a same large room.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
> Kilrauko wrote:
>
> > Millicent wrote:
> > 3 seconds, 2 seconds, it doesn't matter. The fact is that there should be a specific period of time to respond and that no one should try to take advantage, as is currently the case. No matter how complicated the decision is, you can't spend 30 seconds stealing time from the table.
> >
> > The rules make mention of time wasting, but in this specific case and in all similar ones (Eagle's Sight, Anneke, etc.) they never apply because there is a limbo in this regard. The main idea would be to give fluidity to the game at any time during the game.
> >
> > If a player plays his cards without giving way to cancellation windows, clearly, there is a lack of knowledge of punishable rules. Any lack of rigor is punishable, but in this case it is enhanced by the lack of a specific and universal modus operandi.
> >
> This reply is partly made with humorous tone, I'm trying to point out how I feel the idea of set multiple time limits is absurd but I thank you for having the guts to challenge existing tradition with your suggestion. I feel it should have been it's own topic instead this hijack of thread from 2021 with OP asking whether or not they should wait for opponent to play multiple cards before playing DI.
>
> As for the notion of x amount of seconds to be put in rules, yes we should because in other competitive hobbies with multiple participants and one time limit for all it's commonplace. Take association football for example, every time there's need to throw the ball or kick from corner, rules clearly state how many seconds... Oh wait, they do not. That sport played at highest levels does not require artificial limits as long as the referee is allowed to make calls on the play and whether or not something is stalling.
>
> Oh and if people don't believe me, check Laws of the Game www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/laws-of-the-game/2024-25/laws-of-the-game-2024-25.ashx on page 112 and then see how much need is there to set some time limits for Throw-in at page 131. I'm eagerly waiting to see the justification how cardboard game with friends and few strangers requires more accurate and objective ruling then sports that can cause riots where people are injured/killed if bad judgement calls or disliked plays are made (all the best to the people in football loving nations of Latin America who know what I'm talking about.) Is the highest number still at 358 dead with that 1960's Peru match?
>
> So yeah, if they can manage with "judge decides how time should be used and compensated" perhaps we with our printed cardboard game can as well, that way people can concentrate on playing the game instead of counting the seconds in their heads. Unless of course I'm allowed to bring very loud and very obnoxious non-electronic metronome in to help me with that, after all it's required to keep track of the game at that point. Perhaps one where there's nice little bell that tings in addition to help everyone else to keep track as well...
>
> I'm joking with the metronome of course, as a bad ex drummer, I can just tap the beat with the bottom of my squeky shoe, people will just love that. Now extrapolate that for couple players per table keeping their own rythm and time, multiplied with 5-10 tables in a same large room.
>
Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to this topic. We can draw several conclusions here, besides knowing the absolutely necessary fact that you play the drums badly. The first would be that your sense of humor is like my English, filtered, coarse and in need of translator, ultimately avoidable. And on the other hand, the idea of mental counting is comparable to the infinite patience we must have when time and time again the phases are played wrongly and no time is given to respond to the corresponding windows (or it is granted in excess for convenience), except that this counting would allow universalizing the sequence, prevent others from taking advantage, avoid wasting time, and so on.
It must be taken into account that we play with players of all levels and it is difficult for everyone to play correctly something that is not typified. No longer the loss of time, the theft of time is constant between interactions. Without being serious problems, I think that dealing with them would improve the experience.
If we want to imagine the absurdity there is no need to invent anything, we have it every day we sit at the table. In the end it is only a suggestion, my experience in this game is decades, allow me to draw objective conclusions about small redundant problems.
Take it as a small dissertation.
> Millicent wrote:
> Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to this topic. We can draw several conclusions here, besides knowing the absolutely necessary fact that you play the drums badly. The first would be that your sense of humor is like my English, filtered, coarse and in need of translator, ultimately avoidable. And on the other hand, the idea of mental counting is comparable to the infinite patience we must have when time and time again the phases are played wrongly and no time is given to respond to the corresponding windows (or it is granted in excess for convenience), except that this counting would allow universalizing the sequence, prevent others from taking advantage, avoid wasting time, and so on.
>
> It must be taken into account that we play with players of all levels and it is difficult for everyone to play correctly something that is not typified. No longer the loss of time, the theft of time is constant between interactions. Without being serious problems, I think that dealing with them would improve the experience.
> If we want to imagine the absurdity there is no need to invent anything, we have it every day we sit at the table. In the end it is only a suggestion, my experience in this game is decades, allow me to draw objective conclusions about small redundant problems.
>
> Take it as a small dissertation.
>
Football is not played at every level of skill? I'll be sure to make note of that next time when walking past local fields with kids having their tournaments on them and thinking how they somehow can handle the time control better then some VTES players. I recommend you pay closer attention to the card boxes you buy next time, BCP prints on them the 14+ mark indicating age recommendation. One can and should expect teenagers and adults to have capability to time control their actions, if they do not, it honestly might not be the game's fault and lie in the person. But just because your playgroup seemingly is filled with these players, does not mean *everyone* around the globe should be forced to conform according to it. Perhaps discuss the matter through with your playgroup. You might learn a thing or two about them as a person that helps you decide how to move further.
There's always the www.vekn.net/storyline-events/build-your-own-storyline where you can create "Time's ticking" storyline and have matches with your group to see if it fixes the issues you are experiencing. Do report back, I'm interested to hear how the players have felt when forced to follow that as I'm sure BCP will be as well. Who knows, maybe it'll do what groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/dgrpf4wTwQ8/m/ZNhzLJeXx5cJ did and codify some things that apply to all even decades later, it after all was not just random post years later on already answered thread but a pre-tested set of conditions made in attempt to actually achieve something based around proven concepts.
Now if there's been some misunderstanding and you've rigorously play-tested with these suggestions of yours and collected anonymized feedback to ensure social relationships do not skew the results, provide them please. It can hardly work as dissertation, even a small one, without work and findings. But as you did not lead with them in it's own separate topic, this is just derailment of a original topic from 2021 that was answered and laid to rest in 2022 yet for some reason was necroed up. Perhaps it's the release of Hecata and it's influence.
Also if the topic of time control and theft of time interests you further, I suggest you turn towards European players who have actually tested playing with app tracking how much play time each player uses during a game and how using such app changes the dynamic of the game. Hearing on it was very interesting during EC, tho for the life of me I cannot remember if it was French, Spanish or Italian players... and that's fully on me, as being able to pinpoint a face from a crowd does not help the same way online. I'm sure if you can holler in the discord about it someone will direct you towards them, perhaps you can even discuss in direct messages why they've not tried to change rules despite having plenty of games and data and whether or not you can reference their findings. Making a new topic on VEKN forum should also work, tho be prepared to wait a little while as they might not be that active.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.