Hostile Takeover: order of bidding

I was checking wondering what the order of bidding is when one plays Hostile Takeover. Do the standard sequencing rules (1.6.1.5) apply? Does placing a bid qualify as playing an effect under these rules? Applying standard sequencing rules to Hostile Takeover has some interesting consequences. If I play HT, I get the first opportunity to bid. The next opportunity to bid would go to my prey. If he does not bid, then the opportunity would proceed clockwise around the table. However, if he does bid, then the next bid opportunity reverts back to me as the acting Methuselah. In short, I could well engage in a bidding war with my prey in which no other Methuselahs have the opportunity to bid unti we are done. Similarly, if *anyone* gets into a bidding war with me, then my predator will not get a chance to bid until one of us gives up. Is this correct? Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

On 23-DEC-98, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > I was checking wondering what the order of bidding is when one plays > Hostile Takeover. The bidding is conducted in an open format (the default for any bidding). Similar to the "order" of casting votes. The player who played the Hostile Takeover conducts the auction. > Do the standard sequencing rules (1.6.1.5) apply? Does > placing a bid qualify as playing an effect under these rules? No and no. > Applying standard sequencing rules to Hostile Takeover has some > interesting consequences. If I play HT, I get the first opportunity to > bid. The next opportunity to bid would go to my prey. If he does not > bid, then the opportunity would proceed clockwise around the table. > However, if he does bid, then the next bid opportunity reverts back to me > as the acting Methuselah. In short, I could well engage in a bidding war > with my prey in which no other Methuselahs have the opportunity to bid > unti we are done. > > Similarly, if *anyone* gets into a bidding war with me, then my predator > will not get a chance to bid until one of us gives up. I don't see the harm/interest produced by this alternate method, but... > Is this correct? No. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, LSJ wrote: > The bidding is conducted in an open format (the default for any bidding). > Similar to the "order" of casting votes. The player who played the Hostile > Takeover conducts the auction. Just to clarify. I assume this means that... 1) Whenever multiple persons wish to place a bid for the next highest amount, the acting Methuselah gets to choose which bid to accept 2) The acting Methuselah can always choose to be the "next bidder" after another Methuselah bids. Also... 3) Is the acting Methuselah obliged to accept the bid of the player who blurts it out the fastest? Or can he give all players time to indicate an interest in bidding, and choose who he wishes to recognize? [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, LSJ wrote: > > > The bidding is conducted in an open format (the default for any bidding). > > Similar to the "order" of casting votes. The player who played the Hostile > > Takeover conducts the auction. > > Just to clarify. I assume this means that... > > 1) Whenever multiple persons wish to place a bid for the next highest > amount, the acting Methuselah gets to choose which bid to accept No. Whichever person bids first is the person whose bid is accepted. The "acting" Methuselah merely runs the auction - she is not empowered to alter the outcome of the auction (except by bidding herself, of course). > 2) The acting Methuselah can always choose to be the "next bidder" after > another Methuselah bids. If she bids before any other "next bidder", sure. > Also... > > 3) Is the acting Methuselah obliged to accept the bid of the player who > blurts it out the fastest? Or can he give all players time to indicate an > interest in bidding, and choose who he wishes to recognize? Since nothing specifies any alteration to the "normal" bidding arrangement, the first bid heard is the one that is recognized. The "acting" Methuselah may be called upon to resolve "ties" - when two or more Methuselahs bid simultaneously enough to warrant it. Other than that, the auction is conducted as per the usual method of auctions. [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes: (Concerning auctions) >The "acting" Methuselah may be called upon to resolve "ties" - when >two or more Methuselahs bid simultaneously enough to warrant it. >Other than that, the auction is conducted as per the usual method >of auctions. So a player is called upon to act as "judge", even if only in this sense and only temporarily? I have to say, I do agree with mbohlman that in the vast majority of the games you play, argument about bid order shouldn't really be an issue. But sometimes you play in tournaments with opponents whose behavior is out of your control. Given this point and the other one I raised (that this is the only situation in VtES in which reaction time counts for something), I have to wonder why it wouldn't just be easier to run auctions like bidding in a card game such as Bridge: pass or bid higher than the last guy; when all players pass, a winner is declared. It may seem kind of nitty to question this ruling. It does seem to me to be a real bizarre one, though. Fred

> Given this point and the other one I raised (that this is the only situation > in VtES in which reaction time counts for something), I have to wonder why > it wouldn't just be easier to run auctions like bidding in a card game such > as Bridge: pass or bid higher than the last guy; when all players pass, a > winner is declared. It may seem kind of nitty to question this ruling. It > does seem to me to be a real bizarre one, though. *nods* We've been playing this way for quite a while in Michigan and there hasn't been a problem with it. In fact, for a while, I thought that was the way you were _supposed_ to play it. *shrug* Hell, as a general rule, we even cast votes during political actions in a clockwise manner. Perhaps we just prefer the extra structure and perhaps it just seems more fair to everyone. Noal -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > The "acting" Methuselah may be called upon to resolve "ties" - when > two or more Methuselahs bid simultaneously enough to warrant it. > Other than that, the auction is conducted as per the usual method > of auctions. When is such an auction "closed"? --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer (Eric Pettersen) wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > The "acting" Methuselah may be called upon to resolve "ties" - when > > two or more Methuselahs bid simultaneously enough to warrant it. > > Other than that, the auction is conducted as per the usual method > > of auctions. > > When is such an auction "closed"? When the bidding stops. I guess if your group *needs* a time limit, you could use a 15-second (out loud) count after the last bid is received (cf: voting rules). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <770ken$m6e$1...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, Eric Pettersen <pe...@cgl.ucsf.ed u.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer> writes >When is such an auction "closed"? One assumes in the same way as a political action - when people stop bidding or a 15 second limit if you have to. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net