$15.00
$30.00
$5.00
$20.00
Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Cosmic Encounter» Forums » Rules

Subject: Communication and lying rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Trevor Slofkosky
msg tools
So I wrote this up as part of a reference for players but after looking at it I'm wondering, is all this actually true? Upon further thought, I'm not sure the actual rules say anything to back all this up. Even if you can't answer whether or not these follow the proper rules, I would also like to hear from you all if you think that these would be good house rules.

"Players are not allowed to reveal hidden information before instructed to. However, they may claim anything they want, and may just as well lie. The only exception is during a deal. During a deal players may try to mislead about what they will give, but may not lie about it.
Examples:
Clone tells Cudgel that he will place down a negotiate card, and that she should do so as well: This is allowed because Clone is simply making a claim that can very well be a lie.
Clone reveals Cudgel's flare card: This is not allowed because no effect allowed or required Clone to reveal the hidden information of what cards are in his hand.
Cudgel offers two "high-value attack cards" and gives an Attack 00 and a Negotiate: Giving an Attack 00 was allowed because "high-value" is vague and does not denote a specific card. Giving a Negotiate was not allowed because it is not an "attack card", which is what was promised.
Clone offers his "highest-value attack card" and has in his hand an Attack 23 and an Attack 30. He gives Attack 23: This is not allowed because "highest-value attack card" denotes a specific card, which was not given. This is not allowed even if no other player should be able to know whether or not Clone was telling the truth.
Cudgel offers to invite Clone as an ally the next time she is able to, but breaks her promise and does not invite Clone: This is allowed because promises of future favors are not part of a deal, only cards and colonies are. Promises of future favors are merely "table talk" that can occur at any time."
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Ell
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mb
All your examples seem right to me, at least that is how I've played.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack of Clubs
United States
Fountain Valley
California
flag msg tools
Why is there no Word Games Forum or Subdomain?
badge
There should be a Word Games Subdomain, or at least a Word Games Forum!
mbmbmbmbmb
Those all look right to me. The way I would put it for a deal is to say, that even during negotiations, you can lie, mislead, and imply all you want. The only thing that is required to be true is the actual deal you agree upon.

For example, during a deal negotiation, Cudgel says, "Let's see, I'll give you a flare, a reinforcement, an artifact, and an attack card over 15, for a colony," and then follows with, "No wait, that would leave me with all crappy cards. But if I give you all my cards for a colony, I'll be able to draw a new hand soon." If Clone then agrees to the deal, the deal is only: All of Cudgel's cards for a colony. There was an implication that Cudgel's hand contained, and therefore Clone would be getting, a flare, an artifact, a reinforcement, and an attack over 15 - but none of that was specified in the actual deal.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Abdiel Xordium
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My opinion is everything you've said is a house rule and unnecessarily complicated. Stick to limitations on trading that can actually be policed within the rules of the game.

The FFG rules state:
Quote:
In a deal, a player may trade cards and/or allow his or her opponent to establish one colony on any one planet where the player already has a colony. In this way each main player may gain a new colony and/or new cards. Any of a player’s ships that are not in the warp can be used to establish this colony. Cards must come from the players’ hands, not from the deck. Any ships remaining in the hyperspace gate after the deal return to any of the offense’s colonies. Allies are never included in a deal. If no agreement is reached within one minute, the deal fails. The players cannot agree to do nothing as a deal – either a card or a base must change hands for a deal to be successful.

and
Quote:
Players may look at their cards, but may not show them to other players.

(To get it out of the way, there is nothing in the rules regarding negotiation outside of when both players play a negotiate card. Any negotiation that happens at other times is not binding in any way.)

In a game like CE where lying, bluffing, and misdirecting are fundamental to the game, you have to be able to easily police other players actions based on information open to all players, or not police it at all. Since players can't show their cards, whatever they say about them may be a lie.

Let's say two players agree to a trade where player 1 gives a base for a high attack card from player 2. The only thing that can be policed is that a card was indeed traded. It is impossible to independently verify whether player 2 gave a negotiate instead. Did player 2 lie and trade a negotiate? Is player 1 lying about receiveing a negotiate for reasons of their own?

If you can't trust your trade partner, don't make deals outside of what the rules allow you to police. There's no way to independently verify what cards are in hand, so be careful about making trades dependent on it.
Safe: "I'll give you a base for a base", "I'll give you a base for three of your cards", "I'll give you a base if you take three of my cards".
Danger, Will Robinson: "I'll give you a base for your highest attack card", "I'll give you a base for your three best cards", "I'll give you a base for a flare card".

Regarding your examples:
Quote:
Clone tells Cudgel that he will place down a negotiate card, and that she should do so as well: This is allowed because Clone is simply making a claim that can very well be a lie.

Agree. There's no requirement to say anything, much less the truth, during the planning phase.
Quote:
Clone reveals Cudgel's flare card: This is not allowed because no effect allowed or required Clone to reveal the hidden information of what cards are in his hand.

Agree. You are not allowed to show your cards to other players.
Quote:
Cudgel offers two "high-value attack cards" and gives an Attack 00 and a Negotiate: Giving an Attack 00 was allowed because "high-value" is vague and does not denote a specific card. Giving a Negotiate was not allowed because it is not an "attack card", which is what was promised.

Agree for different reasons and disagree. Both the Attack 00 and the Negotiate are allowed for the same reason, there's no independent way to know which cards were actually traded.
Quote:
Clone offers his "highest-value attack card" and has in his hand an Attack 23 and an Attack 30. He gives Attack 23: This is not allowed because "highest-value attack card" denotes a specific card, which was not given. This is not allowed even if no other player should be able to know whether or not Clone was telling the truth.

Disagree. There is no legal way to determine that Clone has a card higher than 23. The player who gets the 23 would have to trust that this is the highest card.
Quote:
Cudgel offers to invite Clone as an ally the next time she is able to, but breaks her promise and does not invite Clone: This is allowed because promises of future favors are not part of a deal, only cards and colonies are. Promises of future favors are merely "table talk" that can occur at any time."

Agree. These kinds of agreements are so easily broken, and will be broken if the game is on the line, that it's not worth making them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack of Clubs
United States
Fountain Valley
California
flag msg tools
Why is there no Word Games Forum or Subdomain?
badge
There should be a Word Games Subdomain, or at least a Word Games Forum!
mbmbmbmbmb
abdiel wrote:
My opinion is everything you've said is a house rule and unnecessarily complicated.

But he didn't give any house rules or complicate anything at all. All the examples were exactly according to the rules. The only other thing is, "You're allowed to talk. And anything you say can be a lie, except when the rules require you to tell the truth." That's not a house rule, that's just a rephrasing of the actual rule.

Quote:
Quote:
Cudgel offers two "high-value attack cards" and gives an Attack 00 and a Negotiate: Giving an Attack 00 was allowed because "high-value" is vague and does not denote a specific card. Giving a Negotiate was not allowed because it is not an "attack card", which is what was promised.

Agree for different reasons and disagree. Both the Attack 00 and the Negotiate are allowed for the same reason, there's no independent way to know which cards were actually traded.

Uh,the player receiving the cards knows. Giving a Negotiate when you agreed to give an Attack would be a lie, it would be not fulfilling the deal as it was agreed to. That's blatantly against the rules.

Quote:
Quote:
Clone offers his "highest-value attack card" and has in his hand an Attack 23 and an Attack 30. He gives Attack 23: This is not allowed because "highest-value attack card" denotes a specific card, which was not given. This is not allowed even if no other player should be able to know whether or not Clone was telling the truth.

Disagree. There is no legal way to determine that Clone has a card higher than 23. The player who gets the 23 would have to trust that this is the highest card.

Again,you must fulfill the agreement as it was agreed on. If you promise your highest attack card, and you give a lower attack card than your highest, then you are CHEATING!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Abdiel Xordium
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Phil Fleischmann wrote:
Quote:
Both the Attack 00 and the Negotiate are allowed for the same reason, there's no independent way to know which cards were actually traded.

Uh,the player receiving the cards knows. Giving a Negotiate when you agreed to give an Attack would be a lie, it would be not fulfilling the deal as it was agreed to. That's blatantly against the rules.

I quoted the rules. In what way are the rules violated?

A card or cards and/or a base have to change hands. There's nothing in the rules that require you to specify what cards you are going to trade. In fact it's specifically against the rules to show what cards you have. If you are not required to specify, then, just like any other negotiation in CE, if you specify it's non-binding.

Quote:
Again,you must fulfill the agreement as it was agreed on. If you promise your highest attack card, and you give a lower attack card than your highest, then you are CHEATING!

Why is none of the other lying in CE cheating? Why is this one part of the game sacrosanct when it's both impossible to detect the lie and there are things you can do to ensure people don't lie to you?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pasi Ojala
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
Get the Imperial Assault Campaign module for Vassal from http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Star_Wars:_Imperial_Assault
badge
The next total solar eclipse holiday in 2017 in the USA.
mbmbmbmbmb
abdiel wrote:
A card or cards and/or a base have to change hands. There's nothing in the rules that require you to specify what cards you are going to trade.

Correct, but if you do, the rules say that deals must be carried out as agreed upon. (But it's hard to come to a deal if you don't say.)
abdiel wrote:
In fact it's specifically against the rules to show what cards you have. If you are not required to specify, then, just like any other negotiation in CE, if you specify it's non-binding.

CE rules, page 11 wrote:
The terms of the deal are carried out as agreed upon.

If you agreed to give your highest attack card, you must give your highest attack card.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Ell
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mb
abdiel wrote:

Why is none of the other lying in CE cheating? Why is this one part of the game sacrosanct when it's both impossible to detect the lie and there are things you can do to ensure people don't lie to you?


Because that's what the rules state?

I've played CE with quite a few groups and we have always played the way OP described.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Just a Bill
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
No, I said "oh, brother," not "go hover."
a1bert wrote:
the rules say that deals must be carried out as agreed upon.

Exactly. And this is reinforced by the example on page 10:

Example: The Anti-Matter and the Clone are the main players
in an encounter. Both play negotiate cards facedown. When they
are revealed, the players now have one minute to reach a deal.
The Clone wants a colony (she is behind in colonies) and agrees to
give the Anti-Matter her three lowest cards in return for a colony
(the Anti-Matter likes low cards due to his alien power). The
Anti-Matter agrees to this and the deal is done. The Clone gains
a colony and places two ships on it. The Anti-Matter gets three
attack cards with values of 4, 6, and 8.


This is an example of a deal being carried out as agreed upon. If it were intended that you could (for example) promise an attack 30 but give out an attack 04, such treachery would surely have been mentioned in the rules and/or shown in an example — probably both.

According to the rules, players cannot promise one card and give another. That's actually cheating (the unsanctioned kind). Now, if it works for your group and everyone there is happy with it, then great! Most of us here won't have an issue with you playing that way. But we will be pretty adamant that you're using a house rule.

Not that there's anything wrong with that (many of us have our own house rules), but if you want to argue that your house rule is actually the real rule, then you're fighting a losing battle.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Abdiel Xordium
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Up to this point, I honestly have never interpreted the rules as you all are describing, but I concede that it is both a possible and apparently popular way to do so. I would, of course, play within accepted norms of the group in which I was playing.

The problem I have with this interpretation is that it adds unnecessary complexity and subjectivity concerning what is a lie and what isn't. The OP's defining the 00 as a high attack card is an example. You might as well be able to lie if that is considered not lying within accepted conventions. And, frankly, it shows that such conventions are unnecessary. Once you get shafted on a trade you figure out how to work around it in the future, just as you would if someone offered you "high" attack card and gave you the 00.

Usually people don't lie. Lying makes people not trust you and you can't win CE without help.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Just a Bill
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
No, I said "oh, brother," not "go hover."
abdiel wrote:
The problem I have with this interpretation is that it adds unnecessary complexity and subjectivity concerning what is a lie and what isn't.

I submit three thoughts for your consideration.

1.

It seems that maybe the difficulty you're seeing stems not from a rule or interpretation problem, but simply from the inherent futility of trying to apply truth tests to things that are inherently subjective. I tell you a girl is beautiful and you think she's not: did I lie? Maybe or maybe not, but you can't answer the question from the observable facts. So it is with "a high card" or "a good card" or "a card you will like." Characterizations which are all fundamentally different from "an attack 23."

If you promise me an attack 23, I know exactly what's coming. It's inherently (dis)provable. But if you promise me one of those other things, I know we're in a different situation. If you say "a high attack card" then I know there's an enforceable component (attack card) and a potentially unenforceable component ("high" by your standards, which may or may not agree with my standards). I realize that what you've actually promised is "an attack card" but there is also a hope/expectation that it will be suitably "high." I know there's risk on the actual value, and I decide accordingly. Personally, if I didn't have a history of playing with you, I likely would ask you some clarifying questions about now "high" your card is.

There's no real problem here, because I know that part of your offer is subjective. And that's fine, but it's no reason to throw open the floodgates and say you can totally lie about the cards and violate the clear "as agreed upon" rule. Promising me a high attack card and giving me your zero kicker is simply not the same thing as exaggerating the quality of something.

2.

Having said all that, part of the above (for me) is moot because there is also a concept of sportsmanship. Now, I should first say that Cosmic allows (encourages) a lot of deviant behavior that is not a sportsmanship violation. Inviting you to ally and losing on purpose. Lying about cards in my hand when you're about to take compensation from me, or even feinting "hiding" a card from you that actually sucks. Talking you into thinking Phil is the biggest threat at the table when it's really me. All of those things are on the fairway.

But other things are out of bounds, like browbeating a first-time player into an NPE situation. Lying about objective facts like the actual attack card distribution or the number of hazard warnings in the destiny deck. Accidentally seeing hidden information you shouldn't see, keeping it to yourself, and profiting from it. Flexing and bending up the cards in your hand because you know the game owner is OCD about his Cosmic bits and this will get him rattled. Palming cards, or deliberately peeking. These things cross the line into poor sportsmanship (or worse), and characterizing an attack 04 as a "high card" crosses that line for me as well.

If I want to trick you into accepting a crappy card, I will do it in a more subtle and clever way. I will choose my words very carefully so that I am not actually lying but misleading. I will attempt to skunk you in a way that (if successful) makes you feel like "aw crap, I should've paid more attention" or "why didn't I ask a clarifying question?" or "that's what I get for not considering that he was being 100% literal" — rather than just violating the rules and making you feel like "wow, this dude will flat-out cheat on deals, what a jerk."

Yeah, it's a bit subjective. Can't be helped. But I don't think it really has been a problem in any game I've been in. I guess there was that one time that somebody offered me a "good card" or a "high card" or whatever and it turned out to be an attack 10. I was disappointed, but it turns out we just had a different interpretation of the adjective. I didn't think "average" qualified as good; he legitimately did. And now I know how to calibrate my expectations for the next time I'm in a deal with that person.

3.

I actually understand your struggle to understand "where to draw the line." But I have to tell you, I feel like this problem is even more pronounced with your interpretation. If I understand you, you seem to be saying that anything which cannot be actively verified by the entire table can be scammed. I can give you the wrong card and if you don't squawk, then it's fine because "nobody else knows." Well, where do you draw the line on that? Is there a limit to the facts that you and I can secretly collude on during this deal?

To trick everyone else at the table, can I offer you two cards but secretly give you three or four? Can I offer you no cards at all, but hand you one under the table (so nobody else knows I've secretly transferred that flare)? If I can do this during a deal, why not at other times?

Can I offer you a card with a wink, then pretend to give it to you but really give you nothing, so that we both avoid the penalty for failure? If your answer on this is no, then my next question is ... why not? If you feel that you should get to ignore the rule that the deal is carried out as agreed upon, then why don't you also get to ignore the rule that a card or colony must change hands? The other players were unable to verify it, so it counts, right?

The idea that you can disregard the "as agreed upon" rule and falsify deals as long as none of the other players know about it seems much squishier and troublesome than simply recognizing that if, during a deal, another player characterizes an offered card in a vague way, then I should expect a vague result. Or, simpler still, I should (a) ask for clarification, (b) not deal with that player if we haven't established an appropriate level of trust, or (c) simply accept that the card might be disappointing.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Finazzo
United States
St. Louis
MO
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is a very interesting discussion. I never paid attention to the examples and didn't even think of offering my highest or lowest attack cards. When cards are offered, we tend to do it in such a way that they are verifiable upon being received, such as "I will give you an attack higher than 10".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Abdiel Xordium
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
The idea that you can disregard the "as agreed upon" rule and falsify deals as long as none of the other players know about it seems much squishier and troublesome than simply recognizing that if, during a deal, another player characterizes an offered card in a vague way, then I should expect a vague result.

My interpretation does not disregard the "as agreed upon" rule. It literally interprets the trade rules to define a trade as a certain number of cards and/or a colony and nothing else. The only binding part of a trade is the number of cards, not what's on them. Specific cards or promises of future behavior are examples of things that are non-binding. Slight-of-hand or agreeing to trade then not trading is a clear violation of these requirements.

Reducing the binding elements of a trade to what can be verified independently is a rule of thumb to remove the subjectivity and allows players to set their expectations. If players aren't playing with good sportsmanship, that's a different issue.

If you go into the game knowing all this, it creates a context for making trades. If I trade a base for three of your cards, I am giving you an opportunity to garner my favor. I'm not even going to waste time asking for your highest card because there's no way for me to tell if I'm going to get it. If there's something specific I want, I might recommend a specific card, but I would have no hard expectation of getting it. And I would assume that you would have a card better than the best card you gave me (which is useful information to have).

If you prove unwilling to respond in kind to my generosity, then it will affect how I interact with you for the remainder of the game and I will have to recoup my investment in you through some other means within the context of the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack of Clubs
United States
Fountain Valley
California
flag msg tools
Why is there no Word Games Forum or Subdomain?
badge
There should be a Word Games Subdomain, or at least a Word Games Forum!
mbmbmbmbmb
That's an unusual interpretation of the rules that I've never heard before. That the rules, saying you can trade colonies or cards only, means that you can't specify further details in the trade. So you don't allow trades for specific cards - types or values. Though it is internally consistent, and you can play that waty without a problem, it severely limits the kinds of trades, and incentives for trades, that you can make. You can't offer someone the flare for their own power, because they know you could just give them an Attack 04.

Under your interpretation, can you specify the manner of cards given? For example, can you say, "I'll give you these two cards (placing them face down)," as opposed to, "I'll give you two random draws from my hand."?

How about, "I'll give you two randomly drawn cards from my hand, but not this particular one which I'm setting aside."?

How about, "I'll give you two randomly drawn cards from my hand, but not any of the Reward-backed cards."? After all, the card backs are publicly verifiable.

Can you specify further details about the colonies given? Like, "I'll grant you a colony on *this* particular planet."?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Ell
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mb
abdiel wrote:

My interpretation does not disregard the "as agreed upon" rule. It literally interprets the trade rules to define a trade as a certain number of cards and/or a colony and nothing else.


You are welcome to make any house rules you want, but the examples in the rulebook clearly indicate that this isn't the way the game is supposed to be played.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Slofkosky
msg tools
After some thought I'm indeed starting to wonder how good of house/real rules my examples would actually be.
On one hand a requirement for a player who offered their highest-value attack to actually give their highest-value attack would be something that can't be enforced. On the other hand even if no one can prove the rule was broken, it still happened.
On one hand calling an attack-00 a "high attack card" can seem pretty darn close to "100% lying". On the other hand deception and trickery are a big part of Cosmic Encounter, and you can immediately reap the rewards of tricking someone but after someone realizes you've done so they're not going to trust you for a while, which seems like sufficient "punishment".
On one hand requiring an offered flare to actually be a flare could make deals more enticing to actually try to make. On the other hand someone could very well try to take advantage of this and try figuring out what is and isn't in someone's hand based on what they can and can't give. Also... see above.
I think in the end I'm just going to have to ask whoever I'm playing with what would work with them. Perhaps when writing the examples I made them sound too serious but after all, Cosmic Encounter is meant to be a fun experience. I would very much enjoy if FFG or someone could get all the rules of CE straightened out like how the rules of Magic have been, but even if that happened I'd probably still flex the rules to fit myself and my group.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Finazzo
United States
St. Louis
MO
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Phil Fleischmann wrote:
Can you specify further details about the colonies given? Like, "I'll grant you a colony on *this* particular planet."?


We specify the planet when we offer colonies. If possible, I offer them outside my own system, just on general principle.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Freelance Police
United States
Palo Alto
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Frantic Ferret wrote:
When cards are offered, we tend to do it in such a way that they are verifiable upon being received, such as "I will give you an attack higher than 10".


Yep. If someone offers you their "highest" Attack card, "all my Reinforcements", or anything else that can be construed as your not getting a good deal, assume you're intelligent and don't agree. Maybe except for the last base, but there's almost no reason to make a deal that upsets another player, since he may make a deal or alliance with you later on. "A base for a base" sometimes with "I'll give you all my cards" are typical deals I make and recommend. (As Jeff says, specify which planet!) If the two of you can't come to a deal, "a card for a card" will at least avoid any penalty. Of course, some powers use otherwise weak or unpopular cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Just a Bill
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
No, I said "oh, brother," not "go hover."
abdiel wrote:
My interpretation ... literally interprets the trade rules to define a trade as a certain number of cards and/or a colony and nothing else.

You can certainly play that way, but that interpretation cannot explain away the specificity in the rulebook example. The fact that the example gives a qualitative description of the cards to be traded, and then honors that description, is clearly suggesting that (a) players can be detailed about the cards and (b) there is an expectation that they will honor those details as agreed upon.

And as Phil points out, it also sucks some of the negotiating detail out of a deal, which IMO is a bad thing.

sceb wrote:
After some thought I'm indeed starting to wonder how good of house/real rules my examples would actually be.

Actually I think the rules you listed are pretty good, are consistent with the rulebook, and reflect how most of us play.

sceb wrote:
On one hand a requirement for a player who offered their highest-value attack to actually give their highest-value attack would be something that can't be enforced.

One final thing I want to say about enforcement:

Cosmic Encounter is not an entirely "enforceable" game. Many situations arise that depend upon players respecting the honor system. At a minimum I will just mention Finder, Plague, Angler, Bandit, Loser, Schizoid, Seeker, Sniveler, Visionary, Wild Cryo, Wild Siren, Wild Visionary, Super Cavalry, and Quark Battery. There are surely others (and more on the way in Cosmic Eons), but the point is that players must play with integrity and "enforce themselves." If I offer you my highest card in a deal, I'd damned well better give you my highest card.

So let's not enslave ourselves to the idea that we somehow have to re-interpret the deal rules and ignore the examples in an attempt to make everything 100% verifiable. I'm quite certain the original designers would tell us that that was never the design intent.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Abdiel Xordium
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Phil Fleischmann wrote:
Though it is internally consistent, and you can play that waty without a problem, it severely limits the kinds of trades, and incentives for trades, that you can make. You can't offer someone the flare for their own power, because they know you could just give them an Attack 04.

But you can do this. Promising a specific card would be non-binding, but if you agree to do something it is usually in your best interest to do it. People still regularly make these kinds of deals, they just approach them with a healthy dose of skepticism. If an offer seems to good to be true, it probably is. But it is true that this interpretation does lead to dealing more in generalities rather than trading for specific cards. I find this a good thing because it keeps the game from getting bogged down in minutia.

Quote:
Under your interpretation, can you specify the manner of cards given? For example, can you say, "I'll give you these two cards (placing them face down)," as opposed to, "I'll give you two random draws from my hand."?

How about, "I'll give you two randomly drawn cards from my hand, but not this particular one which I'm setting aside."?

Honestly, these kinds of offers seem especially constructed to game the conventions you guys are using. Why would you want a random card? Answer: because your opponent may be trying to claim 00 is a high card and you want to get around the lie that isn't technically a lie.

I would just ask for two cards. If they are good cards my opponent is showing a willingness to work together. If they are bad, maybe they are picking a fight or their hand stinks. One might be good and one bad indicating a desire to stay neutral. Getting cards at random tells me nothing.

Quote:
How about, "I'll give you two randomly drawn cards from my hand, but not any of the Reward-backed cards."? After all, the card backs are publicly verifiable.

Can you specify further details about the colonies given? Like, "I'll grant you a colony on *this* particular planet."?

The independently verifiable qualification would apply. The location of a colony and the differently backed cards are independently verifiable. If you offer something that can be independently verified, you would be expected to follow through.

Bill Martinson wrote:
You can certainly play that way, but that interpretation cannot explain away the specificity in the rulebook example.

How is my interpretation is inconsistent with the example?

As a result of this discussion I'm starting to think an additional rule of thumb might be necessary just to keep in line people who are more interested in watching the world burn than winning the game: If you promise specifics about the card(s) traded and those specifics can be verified by revealing the traded card(s), you have to abide by those promises.

If the rule is violated it's easy to verify and doesn't reveal too much about the game state.

For example:
I'm promised an attack card greater than 15 but I get a 00. It's possible to reveal the 00 and show the terms weren't met so it's an illegal trade.
I'm promised two attack cards but I get an attack and a negotiate card. It's possible to reveal them and show the terms weren't met so it's an illegal trade.
I'm promised a flare and I get a flare. It's possible to reveal the flare to show that the terms were met so it's a legal trade.
I'm promised the player's highest attack card and get a 20. There's no way to determine if the terms were met by revealing the 20. Only the cards I received in trade could be used for verification purposes. It's a legal but unverifiable trade. Caveat emptor.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack of Clubs
United States
Fountain Valley
California
flag msg tools
Why is there no Word Games Forum or Subdomain?
badge
There should be a Word Games Subdomain, or at least a Word Games Forum!
mbmbmbmbmb
abdiel wrote:
Quote:
Under your interpretation, can you specify the manner of cards given? For example, can you say, "I'll give you these two cards (placing them face down)," as opposed to, "I'll give you two random draws from my hand."?

How about, "I'll give you two randomly drawn cards from my hand, but not this particular one which I'm setting aside."?

Honestly, these kinds of offers seem especially constructed to game the conventions you guys are using. Why would you want a random card? Answer: because your opponent may be trying to claim 00 is a high card and you want to get around the lie that isn't technically a lie.

I would just ask for two cards. If they are good cards my opponent is showing a willingness to work together. If they are bad, maybe they are picking a fight or their hand stinks. One might be good and one bad indicating a desire to stay neutral. Getting cards at random tells me nothing.

That doesn't answer my question. Under your interpretation, can you do it?

Quote:
Quote:
How about, "I'll give you two randomly drawn cards from my hand, but not any of the Reward-backed cards."? After all, the card backs are publicly verifiable.

Can you specify further details about the colonies given? Like, "I'll grant you a colony on *this* particular planet."?

The independently verifiable qualification would apply. The location of a colony and the differently backed cards are independently verifiable. If you offer something that can be independently verified, you would be expected to follow through.

But that's not consistent with your own interpretation. As I've understood you, your interpretation is based on the "generic" terms "cards" and "colony", and thus the rules don't make binding any further specifications. So if you can specify the back of cards, or the specific planet, why not the front of the cards?

"Independently verifiable" is not in the rules anywhere. That is indeed your house rule. As Bill points out, there are many game elements that are "cheatable" where the players just have to use the honor system. How do you handle those situations in your game group?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Just a Bill
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
No, I said "oh, brother," not "go hover."
abdiel wrote:
How is my interpretation is inconsistent with the example?

That's not what I said. I said your interpretation cannot explain why the example is so specific.

abdiel wrote:
As a result of this discussion I'm starting to think an additional rule of thumb might be necessary just to keep in line people who are more interested in watching the world burn than winning the game:

You don't need any of that if you just take the rules at face value and accept the fact that trades must be concluded as agreed upon.

Look, this is pretty intuitive and obvious for just about everyone else here. You're more than welcome to your house rule; do whatever is most fun for your group. I was happy to try to help you see where the rules argue against you, and why the rest of us don't play that way, but the novelty is wearing off. So I'll just say best of luck to you before I start repeating myself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pasi Ojala
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
Get the Imperial Assault Campaign module for Vassal from http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Star_Wars:_Imperial_Assault
badge
The next total solar eclipse holiday in 2017 in the USA.
mbmbmbmbmb
abdiel wrote:
I'm promised an attack card greater than 15 but I get a 00. It's possible to reveal the 00 and show the terms weren't met so it's an illegal trade.

It is not possible by the rules to show the cards you received. However, it is your right to say the other person is cheater and you will not play with them again.

The best fix to enforce rules is to not play with cheaters.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Very interesting discussion.

Phil Fleischmann wrote:
The way I would put it for a deal is to say, that even during negotiations, you can lie, mislead, and imply all you want. The only thing that is required to be true is the actual deal you agree upon.

For example, during a deal negotiation, Cudgel says, "Let's see, I'll give you a flare, a reinforcement, an artifact, and an attack card over 15, for a colony," and then follows with, "No wait, that would leave me with all crappy cards. But if I give you all my cards for a colony, I'll be able to draw a new hand soon." If Clone then agrees to the deal, the deal is only: All of Cudgel's cards for a colony. There was an implication that Cudgel's hand contained, and therefore Clone would be getting, a flare, an artifact, a reinforcement, and an attack over 15 - but none of that was specified in the actual deal.


But how far does "even during negotiations, you can lie, mislead, and imply all you want" go?

If I say "I'll give you Attack 15 for a colony", I have to give Attack 15, as it's part of the deal as agreed upon.

However, let's say I place Attack 00 from my hand face down on the table and say "This is Attack 15. I'll give you this card for a colony". The other player says "Okay". Is it allowed?

(Of course, if the other player replies with "I can agree to a deal that says: Attack 15 card for a colony", then it's another thing entirely.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Just a Bill
United States
Norfolk
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
No, I said "oh, brother," not "go hover."
Perf wrote:
However, let's say I place Attack 00 from my hand face down on the table and say "This is Attack 15. I'll give you this card for a colony". The other player says "Okay". Is it allowed?

No. The rules say the deal must be carried out as agreed upon, and the other player agreed to receive an Attack 15. You didn't just make some statements that allowed him to draw a wrong conclusion; you lied about the actual card you were offering. "This" and "this" both mean "this."

You can lie before you make the deal, but not during. Or, more precisely, you can lie about your hand, but not about your offer.

It's actually pretty simple unless you're trying to lawyer a way around the rules. Just relax and play with common sense and good sportsmanship: lie like hell around the deal but don't lie about the deal.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.