Hello there,

I am playing a game with a group of new players on Saturday. Having played once myself I am pretty familiar with the rules, but one sticking point I wanted some good examples for were transactions and binding/non-binding deals. Is there a good list somewhere (aside from the maybe 1 or 2 examples in the rulebooks) of examples of these types of things? For example what exactly is defined as "something that can be done immediately" which would make a deal binding?

Thank you.

I think the better approach would be if you name us situations you have in mind, and we analyse them.

Generally, it is a bit fuzzy, as the term "immediately" is not defined by rules, but as a general idea you can look at the round-structure on the command token sheet, and check if both player involved in the deal can do it in the same line of that structure.

Like:

"If I move my ships here, you will not shoot PDS at me?" -> Cannot happen at the same time. Non-binding deal. Move ships comes before PDS fire. So PDS fire is happening later than the request for the deal.

When having moved all ships into the system, and going to the PDS fire step:

"If I give you 1 trade good, you will skip your PDS fire phase" -> Can happen immediately, aka binding, the moment the PDS player takes the trade good, he forfeits his PDS shots.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Sure, here is one example.

It is Player A's turn in the Action Phase.

Situation 1: Player A activates a system belonging to Player B. Player B says "I will give you a trade good to not move your ships into my system." Player A agrees. My understanding is that this is BINDING.

Situation 2: At the beginning of Player A's turn in the action phase, Player B says "I will give you a trade good to not move your ships into my system." Player A agrees. Then Player A activates and moves into Player B's system. My understanding is that this is NON-BINDING as when the deal was made the movement was not something that Player A could immediately decide to do or not do (they still had the prior decision of which system, if any, to activate).

Is that understanding correct?

I think Situation 1, yes, definitely binding.

Situation 2, though, I think would in spirit be binding, though not necessarily technically. Technically not binding because they are different steps, so not "immediate", but in spirit binding because the next step is activating that players system. Requiring someone to carefully wordsmith there questions in the heat of the moment ("I will give you a trade good to not active my system" would be binding.) is generally not a lot of fun for anyone.

If I was playing with someone who treated Situation 2 as non-binding, I would finish the game out making zero transactions that benefited them for the rest of the game, and would probably not invite them to play again.

My way of thinking of "immediately" in the spirit of the game is that if it's part of the current sequence of events, I consider it binding even if it's technically not.

But that's just me.

Note: On the move ships / PDS fire thing, I totally agree on binding and non-binding. I don't think of that in the same light, although it would definitely break down (in game) trust. If it was done "in character", and thematically, it would be a great game changer, breaking / cementing alliances etc.

I suppose a way to think of it is always reverse the situation. Would you feel it was fair, in the spirit of the game (even if you didn't like it).

One of the big things to remember too, is that you cannot propose a deal if it is not your turn. In both the above examples Player B is initiating a deal on Player A's turn which is not allowed. Player B could ask Player A if he would like to make a deal, but Player A would have to say sure and then ask Player B what deal he would like to make.

With that aside, the above situations would be correct. Situation 1 would be a binding agreement since Player A was paid a trade good to not move ships into Player B's system, but he still has wasted the command counter in activating said system. A loop hole would be if Player A had PDS 2 in the system surrounding Player B's system, he could then still fire the PDS into the system upon activation after the Movement timing window has passed.

Situation 2 works as a non-binding agreement because Player B stipulates "Not this turn" which is technically anything in the future and not something that Player A would do at the beginning, i.e. build some ships/use a strategy card/etc.

In spirit non-binding agreements are meant for people to keep their word when making a promise to not do something later on. A promise can always be broken and thus so can a non-binding agreement. A binding agreement is like signing a contract, you can't break it and it has to be followed to the letter.

On 1/29/2019 at 7:37 AM, Husker949 said:

One of the big things to remember too, is that you cannot propose a deal if it is not your turn.

The FAQ strongly suggests the only requirement is that it be with the active player. Granted, it's the one about the Hacan:

"Q: Does the Hacan player have to initiate negotiations in order to
transact with a player who is not his neighbor?
A: So long as the active player is involved in the transaction, either
player may suggest the opening of negotiations, on either player’s turn."

I guess, rule or not, the deals/offers fly pretty fast and loose around the table I play at. Not a whole lot of functional difference between the active player and the other player suggesting a deal/transaction, right?

On 2/20/2019 at 3:30 AM, TheRyanAndKevinAlliance said:

The FAQ strongly suggests the only requirement is that it be with the active player. Granted, it's the one about the Hacan:

"Q: Does the Hacan player have to initiate negotiations in order to
transact with a player who is not his neighbor?
A: So long as the active player is involved in the transaction, either
player may suggest the opening of negotiations, on either player’s turn."

I guess, rule or not, the deals/offers fly pretty fast and loose around the table I play at. Not a whole lot of functional difference between the active player and the other player suggesting a deal/transaction, right?

For our group it really doesnt matter who starts the negotation as overall it ends up in same way.
non active plaayer could ask active plaayer - start transation with me
So now active plaayer will open transation with that player - doesnt make sense for us.

So we kinda narrowed it into these 2 steps
1) transation must involve active player
2) one transation between players

Granted I admit that I have a much looser, "spirit of the agreement" view on transactions, but my interpretation is as follows:

If the active player (or other player involved) could adhere to the deal with whatever remaining steps exist in the active player's turn, the deal is binding. If the deal would require the active player's turn to end and another active player to start their turn, it is non-binding. In the Agenda phase, each deal made during one agenda card is binding of it could be resolved before the outcome of that card is resolved.

Tl; dr: "Immediately" refers to "this turn" or "this agenda." On the other question floating around, our group doesn't care who initiates the transaction, as long as the active player is involved.