Mariano Firpo
Argentina
La Plata
Buenos Aires
flag msg tools
Last game the Hacan Player take trade and made a deal with all the players so they could replenish their commodities but must give one to him.

After that all players who took Trade made the same thing with a few exceptions.

Its that possible?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Such a set of deals is non-binding, as the transactions cannot happen until after he has chosen the players that will replenish. It's valid for the Hacan player to do this, they just have to accept that the others could renege on paying for the replenish if they want to.

The other players are more restricted when making such deals, as they can only make the transactions with their neighbours.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Haraldur Karlsson
Iceland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is even better with players that have trade good(s), making that transaction binding.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miguel Batista
United Kingdom
Brighton
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Yevaud wrote:
Last game the Hacan Player take trade and made a deal with all the players so they could replenish their commodities but must give one to him.

After that all players who took Trade made the same thing with a few exceptions.

Its that possible?




If you do it this way it is:
Ask them for 1 TG and give them the option.

OR

Give them TG and ask for their Trade deal promissory note.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Couch
New Zealand
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Clipper wrote:
Such a set of deals is non-binding, as the transactions cannot happen until after he has chosen the players that will replenish. It's valid for the Hacan player to do this, they just have to accept that the others could renege on paying for the replenish if they want to.

The other players are more restricted when making such deals, as they can only make the transactions with their neighbours.

I don't agree it's non binding. The conditions"I'll refresh your commodities if you give me one, right now" can be accomplished at once. As such it's binding.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Robo Fish wrote:
Clipper wrote:
Such a set of deals is non-binding, as the transactions cannot happen until after he has chosen the players that will replenish. It's valid for the Hacan player to do this, they just have to accept that the others could renege on paying for the replenish if they want to.

The other players are more restricted when making such deals, as they can only make the transactions with their neighbours.

I don't agree it's non binding. The conditions"I'll refresh your commodities if you give me one, right now" can be accomplished at once. As such it's binding.

From what I've been told about the rulings on binding vs. non-binding, it isn't.

There are two steps to this. First, the Hacan player has to decide who replenishes commodities for free, then a transaction must be made between Hacan and each player to transfer the commodity.

Any process that requires a 'then' turns it into a non-binding deal.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Robo Fish wrote:
Clipper wrote:
Such a set of deals is non-binding, as the transactions cannot happen until after he has chosen the players that will replenish. It's valid for the Hacan player to do this, they just have to accept that the others could renege on paying for the replenish if they want to.

The other players are more restricted when making such deals, as they can only make the transactions with their neighbours.

I don't agree it's non binding. The conditions"I'll refresh your commodities if you give me one, right now" can be accomplished at once. As such it's binding.

But you can't give it to them "right now". You are allowing them to refresh for free, but they still don't actually do so until the secondaries are resolved, which doesn't happen until the Primary is finished. At that point, it's no longer immediate.

I'm pretty certain this has been confirmed via ruling. (I'll see if I can find the thread/post if someone doesn't beat me to it).

Essentially, based on the rulings I've seen, "immediate" must be basically simultaneous. If there is an "A then B" sequence, then it's no longer immediate, because one thing must happen first. I think the point of the binding-ness is to prevent deadlocks like "I will give you a TG if you don't shoot me", "No I won't hold my fire until I get the TG first". Those two things ("give TG" and "not shoot") are simultaneously resolvable.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's a post with the ruling:
Re: Trade Strategy and Transactions

(Earlier in the thread, I had originally interpreted the binding thing differently, but after this ruling I have altered my interpretation).
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Cochran
United States
Costa Mesa
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
Here's a post with the ruling:
Re: Trade Strategy and Transactions

(Earlier in the thread, I had originally interpreted the binding thing differently, but after this ruling I have altered my interpretation).


Huh. I think our group will probably keep the timing window a little wider than the official rule just because I don't feel like the extreme timing/loophole/rulewonk wrangling that would be necessary (because there are a lot of things you could do by making a binding agreement in one window that super-incentivizes a reciprocal binding agreement in the following window and that's decidedly NOT the game I want to play at the TI table). "This turn" vs. "future turns" is still interesting enough for me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Again, I think the purpose for binding deals wasn't to open the option for binding-ness, but to prevent deadlocks that could occur when two players want to do something at the same time, to force those deals to be honored.

In TI3, it was possible to have a deal of "I won't shoot you if you give me 3 TGs", "Here's your 3 TGs". "Thanks. I shoot you anyway". So next time, the deal is offered and the player says "I won't give you the 3 TGs until we are officially past the PDS step." "Ok, we are past the step". "No TGs for you". So later, both sides just stare at each other waiting until they can simultaneously resolve it.

Based on Dane's ruling, I don't think the intent was to allow for sequential "binding" deals. Of course, any group can house rule such things however they want
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is another reason it cannot be considered binding.

Somebody could play the Trade Agreement Promissory note (when commodities are replenished, take all commodities) of the player the Hacan is replenishing. This happens before the transaction to the Hacan can take place. Hence, the player has no commodities to give the Hacan player, so they must break the deal.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Cochran
United States
Costa Mesa
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmb
Clipper wrote:
There is another reason it cannot be considered binding.

Somebody could play the Trade Agreement Promissory note (when commodities are replenished, take all commodities) of the player the Hacan is replenishing. This happens before the transaction to the Hacan can take place. Hence, the player has no commodities to give the Hacan player, so they must break the deal.


Just because something out of the player's control stops them from being able to fulfill a bargain doesn't mean that they can't still try to honor the agreement as best as possible. "Binding" should apply to intention, not to results. I can be bound to attack someone, but I cannot be bound to destroy them since the dice rolls are out of my control.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jsciv wrote:
I can be bound to attack someone, but I cannot be bound to destroy them since the dice rolls are out of my control.

There is no way in TI4 (using official rules) that would bind you to attack someone. About the closest you can get is a binding deal to activate an enemy system, but then you are under no obligation to move any specific ships in there.

In TI4, binding are things that CAN and MUST be resolved, and their scope is pretty limited. If it can't be resolved (even because it's outside your control) it cannot possibly be a binding deal. Binding deals are absolutely NOT about "intent" in the context of TI4, but about actually doing - which is why certain things cannot be binding, as Clipper's example shows.

Again, a group can house rule it to expand what they feel should be binding, but it will be important to note that such expansions are NOT official.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sander Stroom
Estonia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
jsciv wrote:
Huh. I think our group will probably keep the timing window a little wider than the official rule just because I don't feel like the extreme timing/loophole/rulewonk wrangling that would be necessary (because there are a lot of things you could do by making a binding agreement in one window that super-incentivizes a reciprocal binding agreement in the following window and that's decidedly NOT the game I want to play at the TI table). "This turn" vs. "future turns" is still interesting enough for me.


A non-binding deal is still a deal. If one side decides to not uphold the deal, it can have consequences. Either for a few rounds, the whole game or transfer through games. Backstabbers, betrayers and traitors will not last long in a game like this.

Non-binding deals only give you the option to betray someone but that does not mean you should do it. As said before, binding deals are just an addition to make the game play faster in some cases. Non-binding deals are an exception in most real life situations.

In a similar way, legalizing gay marriage does not mean that all men have to marry other men. It's just an option.
2 
 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.