Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

Star Trek: Ascendancy» Forums » General

Subject: Why would I want to give back another player's trade agreement? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rules say that you can take back one of your own trade agreements at any time, but that if I want to give back a TA I hold to another player that "I will have to betray them".

Why would I want to do this? From what I can see, holding another player's trade agreement confers nothing but advantages to me, namely:

- I gain more resources, and
- I can ask permission to move through that player's ships.

Why does the rulebook make it out as if not being able to give a TA back is some kind of contract that I'm locked into and that I'll have to go out of my way to be a douche if I want to give it back when I can't see any reason why I would want to do that anyway?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Smith
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
What if you decide to attack them...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Heath Doerr
United States
Farmington Hills
Michigan
flag msg tools
Origins 2017 Jun 14th - 18th
badge
Unplayed Countdown: 10 left to play
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree, this rule made no sense to me either. I can't think of reason you would voluntarily do this. It automatically happens if you attack, so it's not preventing aggression, and the 'at peace' functions are optional, so you wouldn't be denying them anything, you'd just be losing resources.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guðmundur Skallagrímson
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
I agree that the wording is strange as it seems to imply causality in the wrong direction. "If you want to give back a trade agreement, you'll have to betray them." or whatever the wording is.

The next paragraph clears it up, which I think is the intent, because it just makes more sense. "If you atttack an ally, you must give back any of their trade agreements you hold." (not a direct quote) Same correlation between actions, but worded so that causality seems more logical.

There is really no need for the first statement to be there in my opinion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Bass
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Perhaps the player you held a TA with had a much better turn than you anticipated. Perhaps continuing to trade with them would be more detrimental to you than losing out on the resources you got from the trade. Maybe you just really want to mess with the Romulans.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Heath Doerr
United States
Farmington Hills
Michigan
flag msg tools
Origins 2017 Jun 14th - 18th
badge
Unplayed Countdown: 10 left to play
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AverageBoss wrote:
Perhaps the player you held a TA with had a much better turn than you anticipated. Perhaps continuing to trade with them would be more detrimental to you than losing out on the resources you got from the trade. Maybe you just really want to mess with the Romulans.


Trades don't have to be mutual after you make them. So giving up a trade agreement doesn't cancel it in the other direction. I'm not sure how giving a Romulan his trade agreement back 'messes' with him, all it does is hurt you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lou Lessing
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The only circumstances where you would want to are extremely strange ones, I think.

My first theory was that it was how you renegotiate one side of a trade agreement without touching the other -- an ability that very important to the Romulans, because it lets them minimize the impact of getting trade agreements exhausted. But that's covered more explicitly elsewhere in the rules, my theory was wrong.

Now all I can come up with are hypothetical examples where it matters to an expansion.

-In a four or more player game, you can give away all 3 of your trade agreements. If you do, you'll be unable to renegotiate any of them -- even if all four players involved approve of the new distribution of your trade agreements, you can't swap any of them unless you have one in your hand to swap. So, in order to rearrange them, you'll have to get someone to give one back to you. (Someone with ships in an adjacent sector to yours, so you can give them their new one back once the swap is completed.)

-If someone's strong-arming your ally into giving them a trade agreement you currently hold, depending how much you value their long-term cooperation over the resources you're getting from the trade agreement, you might give it back when they ask. In a three player game they'll always have a trade agreement to give you in exchange, so you'll probably use those rules instead of this one. (They don't need your permission to make the swap, you still get some income from your trade agreement, and you don't have to move adjacent to them to start a new trade afterwards, so it's better for everybody.) In a four or more player game, if the player being strong-armed has given away all their trade agreements, this rule is their only option.

-No such exploration card exists in the game at present, but it's easy to imagine a red exploration card that punishes you for having active trade agreements in some way. If you draw a card that, say, blew up one ship in the system per active trade agreement you had, you might break want to break trade agreements to save your ships.

EDIT: I read a rule wrong. You can take your own agreements back from other players freely, you can't force them to take one of theirs back. Almost none of this makes sense.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maldus Alver

Washington
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As long as you hold another player's trade agreement they can go through your systems (or at least ask to go through your systems). Anyone that holds your trade agreements you are "at peace".

It basically forces a diplomatic confrontation. You may be "at peace" with a rival who is not allowing you access to one of your systems that is being threaten. You want to pass through you have to attack me. You have to negotiate for possibly an unfair trade (3:1) or even abandoning a system all together.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Grant
United States
Santa Clarita
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There will likely be expansion cards that confer a penalty on those holding trade agreements. This rule prevents players from dumping a trade agreement to avoid the penalty.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jatta Pake wrote:
There will likely be expansion cards that confer a penalty on those holding trade agreements. This rule prevents players from dumping a trade agreement to avoid the penalty.


Although it's possible that there may be future effects that could give out the odd penalty or two to those who hold trade agreements, I doubt that this mechanic is here purely to prevent the avoidance of these.

I'm convinced now that it's just a case of bad wording in the rulebook.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Heath Doerr
United States
Farmington Hills
Michigan
flag msg tools
Origins 2017 Jun 14th - 18th
badge
Unplayed Countdown: 10 left to play
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jatta Pake wrote:
There will likely be expansion cards that confer a penalty on those holding trade agreements. This rule prevents players from dumping a trade agreement to avoid the penalty.


I can see that. Looks like the Ferengi are going to have special 'Ally' trade agreements too, so for them it might make sense if there's a limit on how many you can have or something to that effect.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Bass
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
doerrhb wrote:
AverageBoss wrote:
Perhaps the player you held a TA with had a much better turn than you anticipated. Perhaps continuing to trade with them would be more detrimental to you than losing out on the resources you got from the trade. Maybe you just really want to mess with the Romulans.


Trades don't have to be mutual after you make them. So giving up a trade agreement doesn't cancel it in the other direction. I'm not sure how giving a Romulan his trade agreement back 'messes' with him, all it does is hurt you.


The rulebook says that you can revoke any of your Trade Agreements at any time, for any reason.

Though I did misread the OP, as that was specifically dealing with Betrayal and giving back your held card.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lou Lessing
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I misread a bunch of things, including the rules for giving back trade agreements.

You can take one of your own back whenever, and the reasons to do so are obvious.

You can't give someone theirs' back just for the hell of it, but there's no reason you'd want to currently. They could introduce cards where it matters that you can't.

The rulebook heavily implies that there's a reason you'd want to, that undoing a trade agreement is itself a reason for an attack. That's weird. I don't know why it says that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J

Texas
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Marinealver wrote:
As long as you hold another player's trade agreement they can go through your systems (or at least ask to go through your systems). Anyone that holds your trade agreements you are "at peace".


You've got that backwards. If I am holding another player's trade agreement, I can ask to move through their occupied systems. But unless I gave them my trade agreement, they cannot ask to go through my occupied systems.

An easier way to remember it is that a trade agreement is like an access badge. If I am the Federation, and I have a Romulan trade agreement in front of me, I can ask to move through Romulan occupied systems. But unless the Romulans are holding a Federation trade agreement, they do not have that same option.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Could it be for the optional "Unrestricted Trade Routes" advanced rule on page 26?

(Essentially, the rule says players may freely move through rival ships without asking for permission, while both factions are at peace with each other)."

I can see it being that if playing by this rule, and you're NOT OK with your opponent being able to freely move through your sectors without asking for your permission, then you might consider breaking the agreement.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lou Lessing
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bgm1961 wrote:

Could it be for the optional "Unrestricted Trade Routes" advanced rule on page 26?

(Essentially, the rule says players may freely move through rival ships without asking for permission, while both factions are at peace with each other)."

I can see it being that if playing by this rule, and you're NOT OK with your opponent being able to freely move through your sectors without asking for your permission, then you might consider breaking the agreement.



That's a reason to break a trade agreement, but you'd still just take yours back from them, which you can do freely (although in that variant only on your turn) instead of trying to find a way of returning theirs. You're "at peace" with anyone whose trade agreement you hold, regardless of if they hold one of yours or not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelus Seniores
Belgium
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
somehow, i feel the trade rules would be much easier/realistic if they were always simultaneous ie either both parties hold each other's trade agreements or none does and breaking one automatically breaks the other as well.
there's too many corner cases at current for no real difference.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Hanson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I do have to wonder if this rule has more to do with trade agreements for un-released factions than for the current 3 main factions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ulf Bengtsson
Sweden
Gothenburg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Angelsenior wrote:
somehow, i feel the trade rules would be much easier/realistic if they were always simultaneous ie either both parties hold each other's trade agreements or none does and breaking one automatically breaks the other as well.
there's too many corner cases at current for no real difference.


Agreed. I still don't understand how I can be "at peace" with a player who is "Hostile" to me...how does that work exactly? And he is the one who can ska to travel through my sector? Yeah that makes zero sense.

/wolf
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J

Texas
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GhostWolf69 wrote:

Agreed. I still don't understand how I can be "at peace" with a player who is "Hostile" to me...how does that work exactly? And he is the one who can ska to travel through my sector? Yeah that makes zero sense.

/wolf


The way the game words it can be a little tricky, but the concept is quite common in the real world. It's like North Korea before they lifted their travel restrictions. Other countries would allow North Koreans to enter their borders, but North Korea did not extend the same courtesy. (It doesn't make as much sense when you factor the actual trade component in--since it means you are also giving resources to the country that won't let you in--but I consider that a compromise for the sake of game play.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Stearns
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just goes to show you how differently people interpret rules. This is how we play it:

You can revoke the trade agreement at anytime. The rules do not say that when a trade agreement is revoked that the TA cards are given back. It just says the TA is revoked. The only place it says you return the card is if you betray or renegotiate. What we do when a faction betrays another is the betraying faction has to return the TA card to the betrayed faction. The betrayed faction keeps the betrayers card but turns it face down. This limits the TA cards available to the betrayer for negotiating trade agreement with the third faction.

The rules are vague and do not outline in detail how this is supposed to work. Until someone from GF9 decides to step in and rule on it, it is left open to interpretation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
joel diamond
Canada
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
mbmb
A house rule option - would it work if the trade agreements can be verbally broken at any time and simply returned to the players ... but if broken by betrayal the aggressor loses their card from the game?
 
 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.