Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Here I Stand» Forums » Rules

Subject: Are conditional deals allowed int he 500th Anniversary Edition? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
KC Mo
msg tools
Hypothetical: The Habs player is courting England for an alliance and a loan of English ships. England is interested, but only if England can secure an alliance from France (thus guaranteeing France will not declare war).

In Phase 9.1, can the Habsburg player offer an alliance & ask for a naval loan from England conditioned on whether France allies with England?

Thanks in advance!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Rubin
United States
Trenton
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
"It may be doubted whether so small a number of men ever employed so short a space of time with greater or more lasting effects upon the history of the world.” — Sir George Otto Trevelyan on the Battles of Trenton and Princeton
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, absolutely not; no where is such an agreement permitted in 9.1. What is permitted by the rules, though, would be a tripartite Anglo-French-Hapsburg agreement that goes into effect only if all three confirm it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Ley
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
dirubin wrote:
No, absolutely not; no where is such an agreement permitted in 9.1. What is permitted by the rules, though, would be a tripartite Anglo-French-Hapsburg agreement that goes into effect only if all three confirm it.


This is wrong. ALL agreements are between TWO powers. There can be unofficial agreements, but are unenforceable.

Haps-England-France could agree on a pseudo three way agreement, but during the announcement phase Haps would announce deal with England. England would have to accept or decline that deal and offer a deal to france. The first deal can not be contingent on the second. So England would have to trust France. France could agree during the diplomacy but then refuse the deal during announcements. Leaving England stuck to the deal with the Haps.

See Links for clarifications from the designer.

https://boardgamegeek.com/article/3020139#3020139

Which references the designer's quote in Virgin Queen

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1488904#1488904
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Rubin
United States
Trenton
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
"It may be doubted whether so small a number of men ever employed so short a space of time with greater or more lasting effects upon the history of the world.” — Sir George Otto Trevelyan on the Battles of Trenton and Princeton
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
From 9.1:

Quote:
All powers involved in an agreement that follow later in Impulse Order must confirm all the contents of this declaration when it is their turn in the Impulse Order.


“All powers”, not “the other power”. “Their turn”, not “its turn”. Even though elements (such as peace, cessions, loans, cards, etc.) are between two powers, this allows more than two powers to agree to a list of such elements as a whole, IMO.

As for the linked comment from Ed, I don’t see that it directly bears on a possible three party agreement. Of course, I may soon be contradicted ...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
KC Mo
msg tools
I saw Ed's post for VQ. Thanks for directing me to his post re: HIS. That's all I need!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Ley
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
dirubin wrote:
From 9.1:

Quote:
All powers involved in an agreement that follow later in Impulse Order must confirm all the contents of this declaration when it is their turn in the Impulse Order.


“All powers”, not “the power”, or even “both powers”. “Their turn”, not “its turn”. Even though elements (such as peace, cessions, loans, cards, etc.) are between two powers, this allows more than two powers to agree to a list of such elements as a whole, IMO.


If you reference my links, you will see the designer commenting that he should have wrote "both" instead of "all" as it would have been clearer.

But the rule book does state in the last sentence of the opening paragraph of 9.1 that "The only agreements allowed that change the game state are:". Then goes on to list agreements that are ALL specifically between two powers.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Rubin
United States
Trenton
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
"It may be doubted whether so small a number of men ever employed so short a space of time with greater or more lasting effects upon the history of the world.” — Sir George Otto Trevelyan on the Battles of Trenton and Princeton
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I read the HIS thread, but not the VQ thread, as the HIS 500th Anniversary Edition is of later provenance and I assumed incorporated all changes. (“Both” is *still* not right, though, as it implies *two* later powers. Yeah, that’s not what was meant, but I can’t let it pass ...)

And, though you carry the point with the VQ thread, your last point is, IMO, unpersuasive: compound (not conditional) agreements composed from the list of permissable items are allowed. The restriction of compound agreements to two powers is answered by the VQ thread, not that rule.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Beach
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Sorry, Dave, no three-party deals in either HIS or VQ.
12 
 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.