Direct Intervention

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.

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)

-

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.