3.0 deced VALID We may imagine that there is a deck of cards. It is a standard Tarot deck, with 14 cards (2 to 10, Princess, Prince, Queen, King, Ace) in each of four suits (Wands, Cups, Swords, and Disks) and 22 Major Arcana cards (numbered 0 to 21). Its order is randomized, and it is dealt evenly to all members who will post valid FRs during this round, with any remainder being discarded. With each FR, a card is specified to be removed from the hand of the member who is posting the FR, which is then removed from their hand and placed, face up on a table. On playing a Major Arcana card, an FR names that card. Every FR in this round is consistent with this imagining.

I play Major Arcana 4, and name it 'Sparacus'.

I rule that this FR is Valid.

It clearly can't be Irrelevant or Inconsistent. I don't see any reason to believe it's Illegal or Unreasonable.

I see two potential issues regarding contradiction.

The first: Was a card "specified to be removed from the hand of the member who is posting the FR"? I believe that when deced says "I play Major Arcana 4" that is equivalent to the card Major Arcana 4 being specified to be removed from his hand, since that is the common definition of "playing" a card in most card games, even though "playing a card" hasn't been defined specifically for this game.

The second is tougher: We don't know how many cards have been dealt to each player. What if eventually, more than 78 (the number of cards in the deck) members post valid FRs in this round? In that case, I would interpret the FR to mean that 0 cards were dealt to each player and all 78 discarded, meaning that deced couldn't actually play his card.

However, I don't see it as my role as Judge to invalidate this FR because of that potential problem. There is a chance (in this case a very large chance) that the round can be played to its completion without this becoming a problem. My opinion is that it shouldn't be ruled as Contradictory unless and until the contradiction actually happens; in other words, if a 79th member posts a valid FR in this round, then RR8 should be used to retroactively overturn this ruling.