9

I was playing a round of Love Letter with my friends. When it came to my turn I had a Princess and King. I was forced to play the King and trade the Princess with another player.

My question is, is it legal to then announce to the other players that I had the princess, so it is known that my opponent now has that card? The announcement allows other players to potentially take advantage of this information, saving me from being a target in the next round.

Some of my friends think this violates the spirit of the game, but we couldn't find any rules one way or another. What do you guys think?

cranderveldt
  • 93
  • 1
  • 4
  • One thing to remember is the point of the game is to figure out what card your opponent has and how to eliminate them or get a higher value card based on the cards you have and the cards that have already been played. Being able to declare what card your opponent has goes against that. It should also be remembered that when trading a card with the king there are very few viable options so it is most likely that you can quickly narrow the card down. Really only 7 viable cards for a trade priest, barron, prince and princess. The others you can't trade or would be much better playing. – Joe W May 04 '15 at 23:31

2 Answers2

10

Because it is not explicitly mentioned in the rules what you can or cannot talk about, there are two interpretations for this. I suggest that you agree with each other which interpretation you will follow before starting the game. (as this really can divide people's opinions)

Option 1: Do not reveal a card = do not even talk about the card

Interpret the verb "reveal" as "to make something known". Keep the hidden information hidden, and do not even talk about it. This is pretty simple rule, and it is the way-to-go, if any player disagrees with the other option.

However, it also might be hard to define that how much information someone may give on someone elses (or his own) card: Is a surprised face too much? How about saying "Whoaa!"? What about "Whoaa! I should bow to You"? Or "I should bow to You, Sir/Miss"?

Option 2: Do not reveal a card = do not show a card

Interpret the verb "reveal" as "to show". Now you can say anything about anyone's cards, but it is on the other player's decision that will they believe you or not. This gives people the opinion to bluff and make tactical moves e.g. when playing the Priest or the King.

Niko Fohr
  • 1,101
  • 11
  • 27
  • 1
    Some discussion about this in reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/2vjztw/love_letter_rules_question/ and BGG :http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1079839/official-rule-table-talk-are-you-allowed-say-what – Niko Fohr May 04 '15 at 07:35
  • Reveal includes talking about a card in addition to showing it as it is intended to prevent one player from revealing the information and another player from using it to eliminate the player. – Joe W May 04 '15 at 12:17
  • 3
    @JoeW in most Games there is a strict difference between show and tell. In many games I can talk about anything I want "attack him, he has a good card an will win" - and I can also lie about my own cards... It should be agreed on beforehand. – Falco May 04 '15 at 13:07
  • @Falco look at the comments in my answer where I provide the definition of the word reveal and how it clearly includes talking about the information. – Joe W May 04 '15 at 13:10
  • @JoeW As I mentioned there are two different definitions for the verb "reveal". There are games where it is not allowed to reveal some information, but telling (the truth or a lie) the information is allowed. For example, in. "Bang!" people can tell the sheriff they are "Deputies" or "Outlaws", and the sheriff makes his/her decisions based on the player's actions, talks, facial expressions, eye movement, etc. – Niko Fohr May 04 '15 at 15:33
  • Even if you take "reveal the card" to include "state truthfully what is on the card", interpreting the rule that way suggests you are allowed to lie about what's on the card, since that wouldn't reveal it. That would be a weird rule. That interpretation would also outlaw you from responding to the card with some accidental microexpression that some other player is able to interpret (thus revealing which card it is), which is a shame since the game then becomes one of extreme physical skill, in which failing to keep a perfect poker face is against the rules ;-) – Steve Jessop May 04 '15 at 16:49
  • 2
    So personally, I do think that "reveal the card" means revealing the physical card, and the reason for the rule is that doing so would prove any claim you wish to make about the card. Revealing which card it is, or for that matter lying about which card it is, IMO are separate things. Since the other players haven't seen the proof they of course know you can lie as easily as tell the truth, and will mostly ignore your claims. But of course any group is free to make what interpretation they like, and go as far as they like in trying to prevent accidental or deliberate information leaks. – Steve Jessop May 04 '15 at 16:51
6

No it is not legal to announce what you you had to the rest of the group after you are forced into a trade with the king. If you look at the rules for the priest which lets you look at another players card it says in there that you are not allowed to show others what the card is.

When you discard the Priest, you can look at one other player’s hand. Do not reveal the hand to all players

This is a rule that applies as a whole to the game where you can't reveal information about your hand or what is in other players hands as that gives players an unfair advantage if they know information that they should not have.

Note: Revealing the hand does not just mean showing the card but also discussing it as well. It is a reminder that all information in the game is supposed to be secret since there are only a total of 16 cards and 8 different cards having knowledge of one card when you should not can easily change the outcome of the game. It should be remembered that a primary part of all hidden role games is the fact that all role knowledge is hidden and not to be revealed

Joe W
  • 14,098
  • 2
  • 46
  • 71
  • I had to reread this answer 3 times before I finally got the meaning. Maybe drop the first 'No'. 'It is not legal to announce...' should be sufficient. – Artur Gadomski May 04 '15 at 06:28
  • 2
    -1 Have to side squarely with np8 here. To me that line seems to suggest you should not show the hand to other players, what you say or do not say is still up to you. Without making honest or dishonest claims about cards you have seen the entire game just becomes a simple game of statistics. – David Mulder May 04 '15 at 10:53
  • @DavidMulder I edited my answer to expand on what reveal means. – Joe W May 04 '15 at 12:15
  • @JoeW You know the author of the game? Because the reddit discussion linked by np8 seems to make abundantly clear that both interpretations are quite possible. – David Mulder May 04 '15 at 12:20
  • @DavidMulder I am sorry unless you can show me something offical that this game is different about sharing private information then other hidden role games I can't take the word of anonymous rules lawyers who are trying to narrow the definition of reveal to only include showing the card and not the full definition. Reveal: make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others. Which to me sounds like you can't talk about your or others cards. Also remember that the rule book is small and doesn't have room for everything you can or can't do. – Joe W May 04 '15 at 12:41
  • 1
    @JoeW in most other hidden-information games I know, there is a clear distinction and the rules explicitly specify "Not Reveal the card or any information about the card" to include any talk about it... While "Not Reveal the Card" usually allows me to say things like "Wow - I just got a pretty devastating card from him" – Falco May 04 '15 at 13:33
  • @Falco you don't see the difference between revealing the exact card and some information about a card? In this case it is talking about revealing everything not just something about it. – Joe W May 04 '15 at 13:44
  • 1
    @JoeW I wanted to show that the rule is ambigous. How much am I allowed to say about my card? Can I say it is a royal card? Can I say it is a royal male? How much information is kosher and when does it become "Revealing the Card" - It is hard to put a line on this - so most of the time the descision is between no-talk-at-all or you can tell whatever you want, just not show the card. – Falco May 04 '15 at 13:50
  • @Falco that is why I am going with the basic definition of the word reveal and the fact that this is a hidden role game. Not to mention that in the case of trading away a princess with the king it is already very easy for everyone else to figure out it was the princess that was traded. – Joe W May 04 '15 at 13:55