Time for negotiation after playing a card before terms are set

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."

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.

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.

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?

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