Time for negotiation after playing a card before terms are set

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.

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.

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.