Time for negotiation after playing a card before terms are set

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.

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.

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.