I got the game today and I already played it 5 times. I can't say I'm the master of the basic rules but I think I got a good grasp so far. The only thing that is a little vague for me are the negotiations:

- Should anyone else hear the two players negotiating or, for privacy reasons, only the final outcome to make sure a succesful negotiation was made in time?

- Are negotiations only about trading cards and colonies or could it be things like "if you don't use this card on me..." or "if you don't use your optional power for 2 rounds...", etc?

- Can players mention cards they have to each other for trading decisions or are cards traded completely in the dark?

Thanks

I've always played with open negotiations -- its too awkward to do anyting else. What players reveal during their discsussions is up to them, but you don't have to be explicit -- you can offer, say, "my highest attack card" or "a reinforcement card" without revealing anything.

The rules say "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."

which is explicit in that you can only offer one colony and/or cards as part of the deal. Also a null-deal is not allowed.

Blobchaser said:

I did not interpret it that way at all. It did not say that you may ONLY offer a colony or cards; it is simply saying that those are the game items that you can freely exchange, if desired. It does not mean that players can not also make verbal offers, such as promising not to attack on a later turn, promising to ally, and so on. (Of course, nothing will actually FORCE the players to keep those agreements…) But I would agree that at least one tangible item (card or base) needs to be exchanged for the deal to be valid.

The rules don't say anything about making promises as part of a deal, so no. As for if you can show cards or not, that's not mentioned either, but since you are allowed to trade cards, I think it's an oversight not to mention this. In the online game you can show cards, so I go by that rule. It makes more sense than blindly trading cards. I wouldn't do private negotiations just because I wouldn't want to have to get up from the table, but that's personal preference.

The rules simply say that the players have one minute to make a deal, and specify which game elements (a single base, trading cards) are allowable as part of the deal. The rules do not have to explicitly say that verbal agreements are allowed, and they do not specifically DISallow them, so my interpretation is that they are perfectly valid. Why would they not be?

The Vidiot said:

Just to be clear however, only trading cards and/or a base will allow you to have a "successful" negotiation, and going back on your promise does not nullify your previous negotiations. I personally have always played that you can't offer anything unless you can deliver before the end of the turn, to preserve the aspect of shifting alliances via the destiny deck. To say anything that might imply "we're going to team up against the rest of the players" changes the spirit of play. I don't know if that's ever been an official rule, but it kind of feels like it might have been.

I'd have to agree with Vidiot that making a tangible trade of some sort is consistently supported by the rules on page 10. I would also have to say that the rules in that section along with the example support the idea that you cannot show your hands to other players but you can discuss what you have in general (i.e. whether you have high or low attack cards to offer). Also this is definitively stated in the rules on page 6 in the game setup section (point number 6) that players may not show their cards to other players and it does not imply or allude to any exceptions. To me, this would mean that you cannot show your hand or simply tell people exactly what you have (in keeping with the spirit of the rule), but you can talk generally about the card types you offer in the trade (i.e. flares, artifacts, attack cards, encounter cards, high values, low values, etc.) without being too specific.

Regarding trade noegotiations, I couldn't find anything else in the rules that might contradict what I quoted above so far. Besides, being vague about a card trade could open up possibilities for more chaos to the clever person who chooses his/her words carefully in a trade offer.

As far as the intangible portions of a trade, it doesn't seem like the rules handle this situation and I'd leave that up to a house rule based on what you'd find makes the game more enjoyable for you.

I don’t see why you couldn’t tell other players EXACTLY what you have in your hand, either as part of a trade or any other time. I think you are reading too much into the rule, which only says that you can not show your cards to other players. That rule allows situations to happen where one player says, “Look, if you play a Negotiate, I will also play a Negotiate card. I can’t show it to you, but this is the card right here.” Then he ends up playing an Attack 04, because he was lying about his card. By having the rule about not showing cards, it allows players to lie, without their opponent saying, “Prove it. Show me the card first.”

As for deals, I think players can be as specific or as general as they want about what cards they are trading. If you want to be vague, you certainly can be.

I think for the purposes of making a deal, you must give what is asked to the other player - unless they are vague, "your highest Attack card" must be your highest Attack card. There is no need to reveal your hand as whatever is agreed to in a deal must be legitimate.

This is useful because you can determine a lot about the makeup of an opponent's hand by clever bargaining.

If I simply ask for "a card", I have every right to be disappointed when you give me the Attack 01. But if I ask for "an Attack Card higher than 20", and you have one, you can lie about not having one, or say, "No, I won't do that." But if you say, "Yes, I will do that," you must give me what I asked for.

That's the key about the rule disallowing players to tell what cards other players have; you have the capacity to lie. But deals are iron-clad in their results when it comes to what is exchanged. If you can't trade what you offered, you can't complete the deal.

Very true, I could be reading too much into the rules. The rules don't specifically confirm or deny that you can't be specific about what's in your hand so that was definitely my opinion. The rules in conjunction with the example seemed to support it though. I'm quite new to this game so I'll offer my thoughts on where I was going with this and I'd like to know what you think.

My interpretation that you couldn't be specific about your hand came from the example on page 10 and the small bit in the resolution section on page 11. For example lets say that Amoeba offered Clone their "three highest attack cards" in exchange for a colony as part of a negotiation. Perhaps the only three attack cards in Amoeba's hand is a 00, 04, and 06. In this case Amoeba is being truthful yet devilishly misleading while offering Clone a vague offer that sounds good when combined with their power. If it is permitted to talk specifics about what's in your hand or what is being offered, then any player in any deal could simply demand to know what they are going to receive in an offer all the time. I didn't get the impression that the rules were suggesting that possibility.

The negotiate card is an interesting anomaly because it seems to be the only one that you can't avoid talking specifically about the value or function of the card. Lying is definitely a tool in the game but I believe you are talking about the Planning phase there.

Page 11 says in the top right of the page that if a deal is made the terms are carried out as agreed upon. According to this, theoretically in my example above if Amoeba lied and stated they would give Clone specifically the 15, 20 and 23 attack cards; Amoeba could not carry out the deal according to the terms of the agreement and the deal would fail. So disclosing precisely what's in your hand in a deal would serve only to tell the truth in an attempt to push the deal through, or lie to intentionally fail the deal. Both instances I think would hurt gameplay.

I realize that with all of my jabber there is still no concrete ruling on this detail. But I'm also the sort of person who believes that if the rules don't enable a player to do something in a game that has a mechanical impact (metagaming and house rules not withstanding), then the player doesn't get to do it.

Please let me know what you think.

The Vidiot said:

Why would they not be? Because the rules don't say they are. You can't just say, "Well, the rule book doesn't say I CAN'T do this." No, it doesn't deny it, but it doesn't affirm it or even allude to it. You can't make up rules. Well, you can, but since you're asking for what the official rule is, that's not important.

Any promise made during the game, including during the deal phase, is NOT enforced by the rule book even if made during the deal phase. Of course, you're free to house rule this, and I'm sure it could be fun, too. But even if so, the rules say a deal is when you trade colonies and/or cards, so you are still considered not to have a successful deal even if you come to some other agreement. Otherwise, players who don't want to trade colonies would just say, "I promise to give you a pat on the back later on" or something else inconsequential just so they wouldn't lose the three ships for failing to deal.

As for the question of if you can show cards or not, I know the rules forbid it in normal circumstances, but I *think* it was allowed in earlier editions and I know it is allowed in the online game, so I am thinking this is an oversight that may be corrected in the FAQ, like the "Do you start a second encounter if you have no cards?" debate weeks ago. I am not sure about this. My gut feeling is that if you were supposed to trade blindly, that would have been made explicit. Who would trade cards randomly like that with no absolute knowledge of what they're receiving? That would rarely be a smart move (though I know, this is Cosmic, and there are exceptions).

Nargnarfer said:

Hmm, or maybe I could have just read your post first. I think that better explains my assumption that cards should be (or at least can be) known before the trade. I don't think that's reading too closely at all.

Clearly what this game needs is the old Serpent Flare.

Wow, thanks for the diverse answers guys. It seems to me I need to set house rules to play this game. I'm used to Magic The Gathering where rules are pretty much absolute and the lengthy advanced manual pretty much solves any questions. I guess I'll just let time go by to get a little more experience and decide which way is the most fun to play...

Thanks a bunch...

One rule of thumb I always go by is this: If what I want to do might rob an alien of some benefit of their power, I can't do it without that (possibly theoretical) alien power. For instanct: the Mind allows a player to look at another player's hand, gaining knowledge that no one else is privy to. Allowing people to just say what's in their hands robs the Mind of the main benefit of it's ability, unless everyone is in the practice of lying. And lying about hand contents without constantly reminding new players, "They may be lying about having 3 attach 30's." Maybe it's just me, but the game can be confusing enough without adding in the possibility that I'm being lied to by the Virus.

The original game had a rule where you couldn't say what was in any player's hand, your own or others', in addition to not being able to show cards. During deal phase was probably an exception, but I forget. People always like to point out that other players can lie, which is true, but they can also tell the truth. Some groups have players who are very honest and trusting of each other, and in a game that allows co-operation, you can't exactly look down on the strategic worth of honesty, so I think it is a significant problem to allow people to tell the contents of their hands or others. I personally avoid lying in all games because if you can earn someone's trust, that's a powerful asset. If you break that trust just once, future lies will be pointless because you'll just be ignored. Speaking the truth but leaving out something equally important is not beyond my gaming "moral code" though.

So if you're with a group that constantly lies, I don't see that it hurts anything to talk about your hands, but I also don't see that it helps since you can't trust anything you hear, making it all useless information. But if you're in an honest group, it can really kill the game, making powers like Mind useless and taking out a lot of the chaos and guesswork that Cosmic is supposed to be about. That's how we play anyway. I think it's good that FFG didn't even mention the rule (that I noticed) because I'm sure some will prefer to talk about cards, and why not let them play how they want?

Larapio said:

I'm used to M:TG and it's absolute rulebook as well, so I'm used to analyzing things as thouroughly as possible. I think one of the things that is really impacting the interpretation of the FFG rulebook as I read through these threads is that this game is living in the shadow of its predecessors and as I understand these earlier printings all have differences in the rules.

As far as FFG's rulebooks are written in the games I have bought from them they all consistently follow the same pattern. They describe how the game system works, they describe what you can do in that system, and they occasionally tell you what you cannot do in the system for mechanical clarity, theme, or intended gameplay puropses (The secrecy sidebar in the Battlestar Galactica game would be a close example). Other FFG games have simply not discussed certain possibilities such as in Tide of Iron (basic set), the engineer can remove razor wire, but there is no mention in the rules that they can or cannot remove tank traps. It would be unfair of me to think that I could remove tank traps even though the rules or errata/FAQ don't support that assumption. (Now back on topic) For us newcommers to the game, I think it would be logical to say that if the intent of the rules were to allow a player to talk specifically about his/her hand, or other's hand in the case of the Mind alien (thanks RobertDG for pointing that out), it would have clearly stated it or included it in an example.

Going along with the ongoing "what should be in the FAQ" thread here, I'll add that a few negotiation examples should definitely be included in that document. It's not a very intuitive rule, and it's one that tends to be played differently by different groups. A handful of good examples would go a long way toward making it clear what the official FFG rules are.

Adam said:

Yes, the rules absolutely allude to it! “The main players have one minute to make a deal.” It does not say, “The main players have one minute to make a deal to exchange cards or bases.” And later, it specifies which game elements MAY (not “must”) be used as part of a deal, so that players can’t say, “I will give you the top five cards from the deck, plus you can use my alien power for the next three turns.”

Clearly, you are interpreting “may” as “these are the only things you are allowed to do as part of a deal,” whereas I am interpreting “may” as “these are the game elements you are allowed to trade as part of a deal,” but nowhere does it specify that game elements are the ONLY part of a deal.

Adam said:

No, the rules say that a deal must include at LEAST one tangible element; they do not exclude other arrangements. If one player says, “Give me a base, and I promise that I will always Negotiate in battles with you,” then that is a valid deal. Of course, he could choose to betray his opponent later and not play a Negotiate card, but then other players won’t trust him, and he might have trouble in the future. It’s all part of the game.

Adam said:

What’s the point of earning someone’s trust if you can’t use that trust to stab them in the back at an opportune moment? I also don’t understand how breaking that trust makes future lies pointless; sure, people will be less likely to believe you, but you can also tell the truth and they’ll think you’re lying, which you can also use to your advantage. It’s like bluffing in poker: You lie enough times to gain the advantage, but tell the truth often enough to keep people guessing! It’s overly simplistic to say, “If you lie once, then future lies will be pointless.”

Uh, no. Failing to mention something in the rules is NOT the same as referencing / alluding to it. There is no mention whatsoever of binding, verbal agreements. The rules say "may" because those are the things the dealers may do. They may also NOT deal, in which case they lose ships to the Warp. Dealing is optional. Making up rules for how deals work isn't, unless you're house-ruling this. The rules also don't mention that you can trade alien powers, tell someone what is in another player's hand, give them a burger, or all sorts of things. Does this mean you can do this as a deal? No, it's not in the rules. You can't say that because something is NOT mentioned in the rules that it IS allowed. There is no allusion to it whatsoever. None. Nada. Zilch. (Not to be confused with the alien, Zilch, who isn't in this rulebook either.)

Also, "what's the point of earning someone's trust except to stab them in the back?" Wow, someone is not a diplomat. Having people who believe you when you say something is unquestionably positive. That's just how I play. I'm not saying that you backstabbers are worse players. But if someone lies to me once, I never take their word for it again. The whole "is he lying or is he not" game is boring. I make people pay for breaking trust. It's an equally viable approach.

I generally tend to regard deals as the only sacrosanct part of the game. When you agree to the terms of the deal, that's it. There's no double-crossing. In fact, I think the whole point of CE is that you HAVE to stictly follow all the rules, unless you have a power that lets you do otherwise. It would be really unproductive if you could say "Let's exchange colonies" and then after you landed on one of your opponent's colonies, as he's bringing his ships over to yours you say "Sorry dude, I just double-crossed you. I'm the only one gaining a colony now!" I think the game would devolve into slapping and eye-poking.

I don't think that's the question but whether or not you may include in the deal other agreements beyond what the rules state, such as promises to do something later on. The discussion of playing "honest" just grew out of it somehow and wasn't referring to the exchanging of colonies / cards in a deal.

Of course, looking back on old posts, I just realized Vidiot admits that verbal agreements would not be bound by the deal, so it's been a pointless debate anyway. Obviously, anyone can promise something like "I won't use my power for the next two turns" at any time, including during the deal, so long as players don't expect him to be bound to this promise, and if it's made during a deal, they have to deal in at least one element specified by the rules for it to be a success: cards or colonies. People can make all the promises they want at any time, but they're never bound to them and they're never technically part of the deal.

Adam said:

The rules also don’t say that two players can make a verbal agreement, in the middle of the game, to team up against another player. The rules don’t say that a player can beg someone else not to play a Cosmic Zap on him because he doesn’t have any bases, and why can’t he just have one? Does that mean that players can’t talk, and deal, and beg, and negotiate during the game? Of course not! This is a game about diplomacy and dealing and backstabbing and negotiation; of COURSE all of those things are allowed! So why would they NOT be allowed as part of a deal?

Adam said:

The rules don’t mention lots of things that are part of normal player interaction in a game.

Adam said:

Wow, someone has never played poker! Bluffing and lying and psyching out your opponent is part of many games, Cosmic Encounter included. If you tell the truth all the time, you are predictable. If you lie all the time, you are predictable. And if you are predictable, other players can exploit that.

The Warp said:

Obviously you can’t agree to terms of a deal, then cancel them halfway through the deal. No one is suggesting that players can do that. But you could include a verbal agreement as part of a deal, and then decide on a later turn whether or not to honor that.