Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Advanced Civilization» Forums » Sessions

Subject: Go East, Young Thracian rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Archibald Zimonyi
Sweden
Gothenburg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Lemur wrote:
Towards the end of the game, Brian stated he was collecting Gold. Chris asked how many Gold cards Brian already had, and Brian said three — purportedly to show Chris it made no sense for HIM to collect Gold as well. The trade was agreed with Gold as one of the three cards, but Chris had no intention of trading a Gold card. This move, probably, ensured Chris the win.

I have a question about this trade. Are you playing by the rule that you have to truthfully specify two cards, but that any excess cards mentioned can be anything in reality?

If so, how can someone agree on trading gold then not trade it? That is breaking the rules.

Have I misunderstood something in your text?

Archie
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Margerum
United States
Burbank
California
flag msg tools
The most commonly accepted way to play is that regardless of the number of cards being traded, 2 cards have to be honestly stated and that it's clear which 2 cards these are. Most often this is done by stating at the moment of the trade, as the cards are actually being handed over, the names the 2 cards that are honestly part of the trade. So this fool's gold trick won't be allowed at most gaming conventions, etc.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Archibald Zimonyi
Sweden
Gothenburg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Lemur wrote:
There's a lot of debate over which interpretation is correct - I don't believe either has ever proven to be 100% correct.

If you ask me, the important thing is that it works for you and your group.

However, there can be no debate at all if you play by the written rules. They are pretty clear on the matter.

In section 28.3 it says:

"Each trade must involve at least three cards on each side. A player with fewer than three cards may not trade. When negotiating a trade, each player must honestly inform the other of the number of trade cards he wishes to trade and at least two of the trade cards involved in the trade. This information must be correct - the remaining card or cards need not be specified and may consist of any commodity or tradable calamity card(s), regardless of what was said to the other player. A player may not show his trade cards to another player during negotiations, nor may a player inform other players of the details of a trade after it is completed."

To me the above section says that you must honestly specify two of the three cards and those two cards must be in the trade. Any other number of cards that are also included in the trade can be specified but you don't have to be honest about them. The important things is that it must be clear which two cards you are honest about.

I can understand it is possible to read the section so that simply two cards of the cards mentioned must be in the trade but there but that it can be any two cards, hence if you only specify two cards then it is clear they must be included in the trade, but if you specify three cards then you never know which two must be in the trade.

However, the example in the same section states:

"EXAMPLE: A player, wishing to acquire grain, announces "I want grain - I'll trade salt for grain." He agrees with a prospective trading partner that he will trade three cards, including two salt, for a grain, and iron and two unknown cards. This guarantees that the other player will receive two salt cards. An assurance that the third card is also a salt does not guarantee that the third card traded will not a different commodity, or possible a tradable calamity card. Similarily, our player can only be sure that he will receive one grain, one iron and two other cards. He has no way of knowing what the other cards will be until he receives them, although meaningless assurances can be given by his trading partner."

The above example basically rules out any other interpretation than that you have to give assurance of two cards and that the person getting them must know that he gets those two mentioned cards, plus one or more cards that can be anything at all, no matter what has been said.

Just pointing out.

Archie
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Shaffer
United States
San Francisco
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Archie, and this is the way the game is played at conventions. If I was forced to play with your group, and I was looking for gold, I'd insist that two of the three cards named be gold - e.g. gold, gold, iron. That would be the only way to guarantee I'd get a gold.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Archibald Zimonyi
Sweden
Gothenburg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Lemur wrote:
The entire premise is one of hot debate, and it's never been entirely clarified -- it's been ongoing SINCE Advanced Civ ever came out, and no one has ever presented anything 'official.'

I would say that the rulebook can be considered official.

Do you mean that despite what the rulebook states you say that it is incorrect to play it that way, and the way your group plays is the correct way? Or do you simply prefer your way of playing since it adds that certain extra dimension to the trade?

Archie
1 
 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.