is this card played as such: the next turn (and all following turns) no one can move ships into sectors containing units belonging to other players?

(untill 10 infulence is spent by one player to remove it)

or does the fact that "next" is bolded mean only the next turn, and then the card stops working?

Exactly, you will need to spend the required influence during the turn PRIOR to the turn in which you want the rule to no longer take effect. So should you spend 10 influence during (say) the status phase of a certain turn, then during the turn after the law will no longer be in effect.

Personally, our game troupe despises this card. It makes for boring gameplay and little events and Action Card supremecey as no player is willing to sacrifice the cost required, thus being a "chump". And two, or even one turn while this law is in effect is horridly tiresome.

Short Term Truce is in effect for ONLY ONE ROUND, which is the round following the vote. I see no way it could be more than one round.

it is a LAW, meaning that the moment a turn begins while it is in effect - it becomes valid for the following turn.

I think you are misunderstanding the card. Yes, it says it's a "LAW", but that's because it's effect isn't instantaneous. The "next turn" applies to the turn after the vote happens, and only that turn. It doesn't apply to the current turn, it doesn't apply to the turn AFTER the next turn.

LAWs are merely meant to represent political cards that have an effect that isn't just "instant". It doesn't necessarily mean you re-evaluate its effects every turn; otherwise, Emperor would grant the voted player 1 VP every turn,

If you wanted to read it strictly, you could argue that you never really have a "truce" at all; it's never "next turn", it's always "this turn" (just like it's never tomorrow, it's always today). It was intended to be a SHORT-Term Truce - one that has a definite beginning and end; you can pay to end it even earlier, but after that round, it's no longer the "next round", which is established when the vote is done.

I can see why you'd hate the card if you leave it in there permanently, and have to cancel it a round prior.

But even if you had to cancel it to end it at all, a cancelled law no longer has any effect on the game, and thus you shouldn't have to wait another round anyway; it would end immediately in that case. Even with the "correct" way, if you cancel it by paying influence "right now", the LAW ends and is immediately over - no more lasting effects. (That's why Emperor specifically has an effect when the card goes away, to clarify the 1 VP you get is only while the LAW is in place).

sigmazero13 said:

I didn't mean you need to re-evaluate the law at the beginning of each turn - but just as laws that state that "players may no longer use wormholes for movement" are in constant effect (until disbanded), so is this law. Meaning that starting a turn with it in effect is in no way different than voting for it on the same turn. I would like to see clear rulings for this law, how do we request an addition to the FAQ?

Urliam said:

You can get a rules clarification from Corey using the "Rules Questions" link at the bottom of the page.

However, since this Law specifically has a pre-specified time frame (IE, next round), whereas the Wormhole law doesn't (it just says you can't use them), it follows that Short Term Truce is meant to be just what it says - a SHORT term truce If you HAD to cancel it to end it, it kind of defeats its purpose as a "short" term truce.

However, it wouldn't hurt to ask Corey. I know how he'll answer, though The wording on the card may not be as clear as it should be, but I think the intent is pretty well set - it was meant ONLY to take effect the "next turn" after it was passed, not the "next turn" of every turn until it's cancelled.

And regardless of that point, once the law is cancelled anyway, it is CANCELLED through and through - cancelled laws have no lingering effects, so if you cancel it now, you don't have to wait until two rounds later to see it really end.

I agree with Sigma completely. I think the wording on the card is clear enough as is. Go ahead and ask the game designer if you want to though, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I may be vague in telling this but... As a gamemaster for roleplaying game and one of the Rp loving fans of TI I always include the understandings of the cards in the rules of the game. When something isn't clear or something bug you...

IT IS A POLITICAL GAME FOR THE LAZAX SAKE! So argue! XD

Each time a political card is drawn I think it is one of the fun aspect of the game that each player vote exposing why he is doing as this and how he understand the law, because in real life that's what politicians would do. Do you ever vote on a law you don't understand? You want it to be realy short term? Then go with it, explain that how the law is written it is only short and make your point with te other players. That way it could twist your gameplay a little bit more making it more profound. You need long lasting peace? Why don't use your arguments so the card be understood :"Untill the 10 influences is spent".

Anyway... since the darkages, did not all the races were parying for peace?

I think it is above all, a game. And thus you should play it for fun in the first time. I may not be a game conceptor but as far as I am concerned, if all the players around a table agree on a custom rule, I don't see why they sould be juged more than player who ask the game conceptor or anything.

If you want to play with the larger TI community, though, you may want to get used to playing by the "official" rules and rulings. Yeah, a lot of people play with house rules, too, but in general, when it comes to rulings on specific cards, most of the online players use the official word when there's a dispute.

true enough... PBeM is slow enough without thoses endless debate. -_-'

This law is special and is automatically discarded at the end of the next round. A player may discard it early by spending the 10 influence.

I hope that this answers your question!

-Corey Konieczka
Lead Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games

well, that's that. Though it should say so on the next FAQ, as it is a "special" law.

Not to be rude, but I'll be blunt anyway: I don't think it needs to be in the FAQ, because I think it's pretty obvious that's how it was intended to work. It takes some mighty fine rules lawyering to try and say otherwise.

Of course, if they put it there, it wouldn't hurt, but sometimes rules lawyers just need to be slapped up the side of the head with the rulebook, if you ask me

I think it is clear, with a bit of thought, how the card is supposed to work, but I'd definitely say put it in the FAQ, because the wording is a little ambiguous when compared against the rules in the rulebook for "Laws". Had I written it, I'd have made it not a Law- I think without "Law" it would have been obvious- adding that adds a small amount of uncertainty.

(Yes, it's probably a good idea to leave it in play to remind everyone, but from a technical point of view, it can have its effect (no attacks next turn) and then go away)