$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 134.69

7,855 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
49.5% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

New Angeles» Forums » Rules

Subject: Negotiation & Trading - personal preferences and examples? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Big Head Zach
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
New Angeles Rules Reference, Section 65 wrote:
Players can trade capital, assets, and promises at any time. If two players agree to a trade and both players can immediately and completely fulfill the terms of the trade, they must do so.

65.1 A player can trade capital, assets, or both to another player without receiving anything in return.

65.2 Any trade that cannot be immediately and completely fulfilled (i.e., a player made a promise that would be resolved in the future) is non-binding—either player can renege.

65.3 If players cannot agree if a trade is binding before they agree on the trade, the trade is non-binding.

65.4 Exhausted asset cards are not readied when they are traded to another player.

65.5 Players cannot trade action cards, emergency action cards,
rival cards, or corp sheets.


What do people think of this offer?

"If you put X cards towards my offer and it passes, I will give you the asset." Binding, non-binding, or players' choice to make it either?

Would this offer be stronger if the person deciding to vote or not was the last in the order and therefore able to ensure their action had the intended result?

Post other questions and ideas for offers below!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brodie
United States
KC
Missouri
flag msg tools
mb
It sounds non-binding no matter what, because at the time the trade is being made, you aren't able to immediately give them the asset. You're negotiating during the Support step of a deal, but you won't get the asset until the Resolution step. Contrast with "if you give me 5 capital, I'll give you this asset [that I already have]." Both parties can immediately fulfill the terms of that trade, so it's binding.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Milan Mašát
Czech Republic
Praha
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Via the rules non-binding. But we play with the same gaming group so we usually tend to honour the deals even if non-binding. Unless it is last thing right before a win, but in that case such trade will be not even proposed. Although the game has no memory, we do have. And not fulfilling your offers is a way to not get anything done like EVER.

That said I feel it like binding, because the time window is short and condition are easy to evaluate. Trades like "I will vote for you and you will support me in future" are non binding because (apart of the rules) the time frame and conditions are fuzzy. Until the opportunity to help comes (like in 2 full rounds later) the boardstate can change so much that it will be nonsense to help.

Conclusion: non-binding per rules, binding per "social stigma on the rat who did not fullfill this".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
To make such a deal work, I'd include some "collateral".

If another player is willing to give me the asset if I throw in two cards, I will ask them instead to immediately transfer some capital for my support, and I will promise to transfer the capital back in exchange for the asset once he wins it.

Of course, there's no guarantee that I won't refuse later and keep the capital, but the other player got my support and can just try to sell the asset to someone else or use it themselves.

The negotiation is in how much capital to use as collateral. Too little, and he active player will renege and keep the asset. Too much and the supporting player will renege and keep the capital.

There's also the fact that the supporter will keep the capital if the active player fails to win the asset, so the active player shouldn't put up the full value as collateral if they have their doubts, though they might ask for the full value as payment once the asset is delivered.

I might, for example, offer 2 capital for someone's support, and tell them I'll sell the asset for 3 capital if I win it.
If I renege or fail to win the asset, the supporter at least got 2 capital out of it. If the supporter reneges, I am down two capital but I got an asset that I might not have otherwise.
And if we fulfill both deals, the supporting player is down one capital but that's basically insurance against the other reneging or losing the asset so it might be an acceptable cost.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evgeni Marinov
Bulgaria
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bhz1 wrote:
New Angeles Rules Reference, Section 65 wrote:
65.3 If players cannot agree if a trade is binding before they agree on the trade, the trade is non-binding.


Is it me, or does this rule seem really strange? There are two types of trades - those you can do immediately (binding), and promises (non-binding). Then what does 65.3 refer to? If players can actually agree on a promise being binding, why wouldn't a player demand for such an agreement when they feel they'll be profiting from the trade?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it's intended as a sort of "Golden rule" in case an ambiguous situation crops up.

It's especially good for avoiding problems where two players enter a deal where one intends to renege but the other thinks it is binding.

If I'm about to enter a deal that is ambiguous, I can ask "does everyone agree this is binding, according to the rules?" If someone says "no, it's not binding" then I know before I agree to the deal that the other player might renege.

If everyone says "yes it's binding" (including the player I'm dealing with) then that player cannot renege.

If the rule weren't in place, the other player might agree to the deal and then try to argue "I said it was binding but I lied. It can't be binding because of (obscure rule I didn't point out when we were discussing it earlier)"

Basically, if there is a unanimous agreement that it's binding, the player CANNOT renege. There is no "I changed my mind" or "Now that I've had a closer look at the rules..."

If you don't think a deal is binding per the rules, you must make the case as to why before the deal occurs.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
vega777 wrote:
bhz1 wrote:
New Angeles Rules Reference, Section 65 wrote:
65.3 If players cannot agree if a trade is binding before they agree on the trade, the trade is non-binding.


Is it me, or does this rule seem really strange? There are two types of trades - those you can do immediately (binding), and promises (non-binding). Then what does 65.3 refer to? If players can actually agree on a promise being binding, why wouldn't a player demand for such an agreement when they feel they'll be profiting from the trade?


Binding or not has nothing to do with future promises or immediate. It has to do with whether the players can break their promises.

"If you give me X I will give you Y two turns from now."

If that deal is binding, you are required to do the above. Non-binding negotiations mean the player can ignore the promise.

Likewise, "If you don't attack me, I will give you two gold right now." This can be non-binding by not giving the player does not give the gold or the player attacks immediately after receiving the gold.

EDIT: I don't need to delete the above, but I did not realize the game defined the above terms, so ignore my post
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Kron
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
The rules of this particular game say a promise is binding if you can fulfill it immediately after both parties agree. So the two are synonymous in this game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kronmichael wrote:
The rules of this particular game say a promise is binding if you can fulfill it immediately after both parties agree. So the two are synonymous in this game.


Ah, I am sorry. I thought we were talking about general game terms; I didn't realize they were defined within the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evgeni Marinov
Bulgaria
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
MasterDinadan wrote:
I think it's intended as a sort of "Golden rule" in case an ambiguous situation crops up.

It's especially good for avoiding problems where two players enter a deal where one intends to renege but the other thinks it is binding.

If I'm about to enter a deal that is ambiguous, I can ask "does everyone agree this is binding, according to the rules?" If someone says "no, it's not binding" then I know before I agree to the deal that the other player might renege.

If everyone says "yes it's binding" (including the player I'm dealing with) then that player cannot renege.

If the rule weren't in place, the other player might agree to the deal and then try to argue "I said it was binding but I lied. It can't be binding because of (obscure rule I didn't point out when we were discussing it earlier)"

Basically, if there is a unanimous agreement that it's binding, the player CANNOT renege. There is no "I changed my mind" or "Now that I've had a closer look at the rules..."

If you don't think a deal is binding per the rules, you must make the case as to why before the deal occurs.


Can you give an example for a deal that is ambiguous in terms of binding or non-binding? If I understand the rules correctly, a deal is always non-binding when something needs to happen in the future in order to be fulfilled, and always binding when it can be fulfilled immediately. I don't see a gray zone here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allan Clements
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
Turns out Esseb did touch the flag. Don't tell him I said so though.
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the binding and non-binding rules are there simply to cover "direct" trades and encourage betrayal elsewhere.

If I offer to give 2 credit for 2 votes on something, then we don't have to worry about doing it simultaneously. Otherwise they might put two votes in, then I immediately say thanks and don't transfer 2 credits to them or vice versa. I think most would agree this behavior would not be fun.

I think allowing or agreeing for other trades to be binding won't hurt the game if that is what your group wants, but the base rule makes sure instant trades work smoothly.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The example of agreeing to resolve a deal a certain way in exchange for the last player giving support is somewhat ambiguous. Even if we agree on this thread that it isn't binding, it's plausible (and likely) that a group somewhere won't come to the same conclusion. So the rule is basically that if the table agrees, just accept it as binding and move on. Don't get bogged down in FAQ and errata. The game won't break.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Letourneau
Canada
St-Lambert
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Are 3-way deals allowed?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.