User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#578396
Orbin wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 2:57 pm
Armus wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:36 am
JeBuS wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:08 am
That would, indeed, resolve the current predicament. But I feel trepidatious about the knock-on effects of opening start and end of turn .
They're already open in real terms. I'm not so sure this would create anything new so much at square the rules up with what's already happening.
Not sure what you meant by "already open in real terms". What's being argued is that some people play it so that start and end of turn are off limits for [DL] and some people play it the other way. For the people who play it so you can't use those times to use [DL] those spaces aren't open.

Practical example: Tester test new cards and if all testers used the "you can't [DL] during start and end of turn phases" then new cards aren't getting vetted against being used in those spaces and that could lead to unintended consequences

This thread shows the community doesn't have a shared understanding and I feel it's good we're talking about it so we can get to a shared understanding and update the rule book and glossary appropriately.

-James M
No disrespect @Orbin, but you have that backwards. The rulebook and glossary need to be updated, so we can get to a shared understanding. There is no community vote here to decide which is correct. There is 1 correct way to play, and clearly we are not all on the same page. We are not trying decide which page we want. That's not how rules work. If Rules Team determines that a rule works one way and 99% of the player base plays it the wrong way......it's not the 1% that has to change.
User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#578397
Professor Scott wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:14 pmNo disrespect @Orbin, but you have that backwards. The rulebook and glossary need to be updated, so we can get to a shared understanding. There is no community vote here to decide which is correct. There is 1 correct way to play, and clearly we are not all on the same page. We are not trying decide which page we want. That's not how rules work. If Rules Team determines that a rule works one way and 99% of the player base plays it the wrong way......it's not the 1% that has to change.
Until there is blue text to say "this is the way" OR the rulebook and glossary have been updated to be clear, then I have to disagree that there is "1 correct way to play" in this situation.

Once there is a blue text ruling or the rulebook / glossary has been updated I have zero issues following that. An example of this is that in decipher days my meta used cards like Quark's Isolinear Rods and Defend Homeworld and 1st Rule of Aquisition during the play cards phase, this was clarified by the continuing committee to be an "orders" thing and I have no issues playing it that way even though I used to do it the other way.

-James M
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#578402
Orbin wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:25 pm
Professor Scott wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:14 pmNo disrespect @Orbin, but you have that backwards. The rulebook and glossary need to be updated, so we can get to a shared understanding. There is no community vote here to decide which is correct. There is 1 correct way to play, and clearly we are not all on the same page. We are not trying decide which page we want. That's not how rules work. If Rules Team determines that a rule works one way and 99% of the player base plays it the wrong way......it's not the 1% that has to change.
Until there is blue text to say "this is the way" OR the rulebook and glossary have been updated to be clear, then I have to disagree that there is "1 correct way to play" in this situation.

Once there is a blue text ruling or the rulebook / glossary has been updated I have zero issues following that. An example of this is that in decipher days my meta used cards like Quark's Isolinear Rods and Defend Homeworld and 1st Rule of Aquisition during the play cards phase, this was clarified by the continuing committee to be an "orders" thing and I have no issues playing it that way even though I used to do it the other way.

-James M
That's exactly my point.....there is a correct way.... We, as the player base, are not in agreement what that correct way is..... So it falls to the Rules Team to determine what that 1 correct way is. They should not be swayed by opinions or polls or any such device. They will determine which way is correct for good or for ill, and update us and the Glossary and Rulebook as appropriate and then we, as the player base, will have to get behind that ruling. Some of us will have to change and some won't. The point I was also making is that if 99% of players are playing it wrong, they have to change not the 1% that is playing it right.

Rules should determine behavior, behavior should not determine rules.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#578406
Professor Scott wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:35 pm Rules should determine behavior, behavior should not determine rules.
Counterpoint - the rules say that you can't look through your Q's Tent, and last I heard the push was to change the rules to match the behavior, not vice versa.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#578407
AllenGould wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:42 pm
Professor Scott wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:35 pm Rules should determine behavior, behavior should not determine rules.
Counterpoint - the rules say that you can't look through your Q's Tent, and last I heard the push was to change the rules to match the behavior, not vice versa.
I think how people play the game is/ should be a factor in driving rules changes, but not necessarily the only factor or even the primary factor.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#578410
JeBuS wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:35 pmWe don't have a "at any time" speed and a "suspends play speed". Suspends play is an at any time speed, which has the added benefit of being able to pause what's happening. It simply pauses what's happening, it doesn't insert a new window or move faster than anything else.
I disagree about this.

A "speed" (in 1E gamer jargon) (maybe wider CCG gamer jargon; I wouldn't know) identifies a class of timing windows where you can play or use a card or ability. A "speed" that has more flexible timing windows is considered a "faster" speed. Thus, "Doorway Speed" is "faster" than "Order Speed" but slower than "Interrupt Speed". (Interrupt speed is also known as "At Any Time Speed".)

Everything is slower than "Suspends Play Speed," which can interrupt any action in progress at any point. (This seems to be the clear statement of all current Glossary and Rulebook text that I can find except that errant "at any time" in the special download entry.) This is a super-powerful, almost untrumpable timing power. (Tribunal of Q is written with ultra-powerful "you may ignore any effect and no action may suspend play" gametext in a barely-successful attempt to trump suspends-play speed.) I have written before that this has bad effects on the game, and allows access to bizarre timing windows with unpredictable and hard-to-comprehend effects, such as "after the end of the announcement step of personnel battle but before initiation step begins."

So I'm with you, JeBuS, that [DL] in its current state is bad for the game. "At any time" speed should, intuitively, be the fastest speed in any game, and it's confusing to players that it isn't. Accessing weird timing windows (like EOT/SOT, or the middle of dilemma resolution, or a ship battle after the first [Flip] is placed but before the second [Flip] is drawn) leads to dangerous and confusing rules situations that are inherently difficult to playtest (which is one of Orbin's concerns). This is why Rules has strongly urged Design to avoid open-ended [DL] over the past couple of years. (You see a lot more cards that [DL] to hand instead of play, and [DL] that target cards with pre-defined timing windows, in order to avoid these weird traps.) "I would implore everyone to heed my warning that there be monsters, and this way lies madness." I completely agree, and you may not even know all of the madness. (Rules has, by common consent, kept one or two off-the-wall exploits under its collective hat.)

But Decipher embraced this particular brand of madness in 1997, and it's got deep roots in the game now. Consider what happens if we rule this the way you're suggesting (as I understand it).

If we treat [DL] as functioning "at any time", then they could only be used between other actions, or they could suspend play for valid responses only. This, as I understand it, is your position. It's a position I'm sympathetic toward. And it would indeed prevent most [DL] from being used during the end-of-turn or start-of-turn phases.

But it would also prevent players from using (most) [DL] during battles or mission attempts. The old "grab Bareil's [DL] Any Equipment in the middle of a dilemma when you know exactly which equipment you need to pass" would break, as would a host of other dependable mechanics. No more fetching an [OS] personnel mid-attempt with your ship download! No more waiting until the ship battle starts to grab Ablative Armor! No more bug-outs, ever! None of these are valid responses. They work because [DL] can fire whenever you want them to fire.

I have supported making exactly this change in the past (before I was Rules Master), but it would be a huge change and is highly controversial. Rules is currently looking at a huge rewrite to the action rules, and we are trying to find ways to unify suspends-play speed, at-any-time speed, and doorway-speed, but it's very hard, and, I have to admit, this particular idea isn't even on the table right now. It's too big a change.

Perhaps you're really advocating for something narrower, something that only limits [DL] in the EOT/SOT windows without touching how it works during mission attempts. I don't see support for that in the rules you have quoted, though. Of course, we could add new rules to support this, but I would be very reluctant to add what appear to be extra complications to what is already a famously complicated set of timing rules. I don't want to have to draw a fourth arrow on The Turn Arrow.

(Or perhaps I've totally misunderstood you, in which case go ahead and set me straight!)

P.S. On the player-behavior-vs-rules-text debate, I am a firm believer that everyone has to follow rules text once it is known and clarified, but that rules text should be shaped in large part by player behavior (but there are other important factors), and that player behavior may dictate how ambiguities ought to be interpreted. Catch me on some other day for my lecture on how Trek 1E is a "common law" game while most other games are "civil law" games.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#578411
If we treat [DL] as functioning "at any time", then they could only be used between other actions, or they could suspend play for valid responses only. This, as I understand it, is your position.
This is not my position. I want to make that clear. I do believe that [DL] has much broader use than "at any time". But that is a result of "suspends play", not because of anything inherent in [DL]. I don't believe it is a valid response to everything. Just as I don't believe "at any time" is a valid response to everything.

I believe that [DL] = "at any time" + "suspends play" + a special ability to be used during seed phase.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#578415
I believe that [DL] = "at any time" + "suspends play" + a special ability to be used during seed phase.
Thank you for clarifying! I apologize for misunderstanding you.

So you're saying that, in your view, suspends play simply doesn't work to suspend actions during EOT/SOT? I know this is mainly based on your memory of how it's played, and that is fine, but is there a basis for your view in the current rules text? (Is it the "No other actions may take place between start-of-turn or end-of-turn actions, other than valid responses" text?)
JeBuS wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 5:11 pmI don't believe [DL] is a valid response to everything.

To be clear, I also don't believe this. I like the idea, but I don't think it's the current rule, nor that it's functionally equivalent to the current rule. (Allen... might. Not sure.)
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#578416
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 5:38 pm So you're saying that, in your view, suspends play simply doesn't work to suspend actions during EOT/SOT? I know this is mainly based on your memory of how it's played, and that is fine, but is there a basis for your view in the current rules text? (Is it the "No other actions may take place between start-of-turn or end-of-turn actions, other than valid responses" text?)
This is the text, yes. And it is a long-lived bit of text, from what I've investigated so far. (Thanks for the archive, by the way.) At least as far back as '98, Decipher was very clear that start and end of turn were special, and particularly important was that an opponent couldn't sneak in before you could on your turn. This shows to me that there must be inherent (and inherited) limits on [DL].
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#578423
BCSWowbagger wrote:So you're saying that, in your view, suspends play simply doesn't work to suspend actions during EOT/SOT?
I realized I didn't directly answer this question.

That is an accurate summation of my stance.

I believe that [DL] is simply an additive result of the three things I listed above.

1) at any time - basically, between any two actions, except for start and end of turn, and seed phase.
2) suspends play - basically, can do it during another action (but does not lift the SOT/EOT restriction).
3) seed phase carve out - a rule specifically added to the rulebook to lift the previous restriction.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#578426
JeBuS wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 6:32 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote:So you're saying that, in your view, suspends play simply doesn't work to suspend actions during EOT/SOT?
I realized I didn't directly answer this question.

That is an accurate summation of my stance.

I believe that [DL] is simply an additive result of the three things I listed above.

1) at any time - basically, between any two actions, except for start and end of turn, and seed phase.
2) suspends play - basically, can do it during another action (but does not lift the SOT/EOT restriction).
3) seed phase carve out - a rule specifically added to the rulebook to lift the previous restriction.
I agree with all of this, except I can't see where you got this part:
(but does not lift the SOT/EOT restriction)
My position is that (yes) the SOT/EOT restriction currently on the books prevents "at any time" actions in those phases and (yes) this is what makes those phases special.

However, since suspends-play does not happen "between" actions (it happens during an action), the restriction doesn't apply to the suspends-play power of DL.

I say that only to clarify where I am coming from. I'll leave you to your valuable research and look forward to its results.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#578430
BCSWowbagger wrote:However, since suspends-play does not happen "between" actions (it happens during an action), the restriction doesn't apply to the suspends-play power of DL.
The nature of time is such that even if an action occurs within the timeframe of another action, it will always happen between other actions.

It can further be logically argued that once an action has been initiated, even another action which suspends its resolution has itself come between the previous and the next, whatever it may be.

The argument would be that most actions must wait for resolution of the previous action. However, suspends play actions need not wait for the resolution. But they are still before and after other actions.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#578434
JeBuS wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:23 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote:However, since suspends-play does not happen "between" actions (it happens during an action), the restriction doesn't apply to the suspends-play power of DL.
The nature of time is such that even if an action occurs within the timeframe of another action, it will always happen between other actions.
One could construe "between" in this broad sense, but I think that this is not the sense in which "between" is generally used in the rest of the action & timing rules:
Rulebook: Interrupts wrote:Unlike other card types, Interrupts can be played at any time between other actions — even during your opponent's turn!
Glossary: actions - taking turns wrote:You cannot initiate any action... during your opponent's turn except... you may play interrupts (between other actions or as valid responses)...
(There's a couple more examples of this in the Glossary, but their phrasing is similar enough that posting them would be repetitious, and you're just as good at Ctrl-F as I am.)

These passages are not saying that I can generally play Interrupts during mission attempts, even though everything during a mission attempt is "between" other actions in that broader sense you have in mind. "Between" seems to be meant more narrow.

In the action and timing rules for this game, then, I think I'm on fairly sturdy ground tradition-wise when I say that "between actions" means "in the gap immediately after an action resolves and before another action initiates," or, if you don't mind an analogy to a different timing system, "when the stack is empty". This sense of "between," which includes only the relation uniting two items when no third thing interrupts that relation (preventing their direct connection), is not the first-listed dictionary definition of "between," but it's certainly in there. "During" an action would not be "between" actions, then (unless it's done immediately between sub-actions, which I agree would not be possible for a [DL] in SOT/EOT).

(I'm not sure this is how we universally use "between" throughout the game, so I won't say that it is. But I admit that if a cunning troublemaker like, I dunno, Hobie tried to play Gaps In Normal Space or Romulan Minefield immediately between Bajoran and Barzan Wormhole because "there are missions on either side of the doorways so technically this is 'between two missions'", I would playfully cuff him upside the head.)
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#578436
I'll start off by saying I don't disagree with you, entirely.

If there was a written rule that defined "between actions" as "the window of time between resolution of one action and the initialization of another action", I'd give it two thumbs up.

The example of space line cards is a red herring, because we already have hard rules about insertion into space line being between two cards, not three or four or...

I am not arguing that "suspends play" is between all things all the time. That's as improper as saying it's a valid response to all things all the time.

My argument is that "suspends play" occupies the same window as the action it is suspending, which is going to be between other actions.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation