When a card invokes an auction, who gets to bid first, second, third etc? The only relevant ruling I found says that the "bidding is conducted in an open format". This seems to suggest that priority belongs to the fastest and loudest.
Hostile Takeover
Type: Master
Requires: Ventrue
Cost: 1 pool
Master.
Choose a vampire with capacity of 6 or less. Each Methuselah bids pool for control of that vampire. The highest bid goes to the vampire's controller; that bidder then takes control of the vampire. If the controller wins, half the winning bid (rounded up) goes to the blood bank.
The person who plays the card should have the first option. It is not stated on the card, but that is generally how things that interact with the whole table work. Beyond that, I think it is up to whoever gives a higher bid.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
> brandonsantacruz wrote:
> The person who plays the card should have the first option. It is not stated on the card, but that is generally how things that interact with the whole table work. Beyond that, I think it is up to whoever gives a higher bid.
>
In practice, it would be the predator who gets the first word in. He's the last player that can go "hmm, to Sudden or not to Sudden... nah, the card resolves and I bid 1 pool".
I think this really needs a strict sequencing ruling. What do you do when two players open their mouths at the same time? Flip a coin?
> Hostile Takeover:
> The bidding is conducted in an open format. The player who played the Hostile Takeover conducts the auction. [LSJ 19990104]
>
The player playing the card conducts the auction. I take it to mean that the player playing the card starts with an opening bid.
"I play Hostile Takeover. Lucy Markowitz, with the Heart of Nizchetus, is the target. Bidding starts at 8 pool."
Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.
> Suoli wrote:
> When a card invokes an auction, who gets to bid first, second, third etc? The only relevant ruling I found says that the "bidding is conducted in an open format". This seems to suggest that priority belongs to the fastest and loudest.
>
Fastest, yes. Volume has nothing to do with it, however.
Four players are on the table, A, B, C, D, going clockwise. A plays Hostile Takeover, and bids 2 pool.
If any player wants to bid, they must bid a higher amount than the previous player. [LSJ 20000612]
A player can "outbid" themselves if it turns out a higher number would be better for them. (e.g. a controlling Methuselah who realises that bidding an odd number during Hostile Takeover is a bit silly for them, because they pay half-rounded up, so why not go for the even number; or to get in or out of range of a Parity Shift) [LSJ 20010730]
The standard sequencing rules do not apply. [LSJ 19990104] This is very similar to polling during a referendum, which is conducted in a similarly open fashion. [LSJ 20090702] So under ordinary sequencing rules, player A would the the first opportunity to place a bid, and player B would be next in line, and if B bid then the impulse would pass back to A etc.. But in an open auction (or polling), you do not have to wait for player B to "pass". While player B is umming and ahhing and being indecisive, player D can say "I bid 3 pool", and the bidding impulse (which doesn't really exist) does not pass back to A who can wait to think about "4 pool" and player C can just say "I bid 4 pool".
Like referendums, if things are dragging on too long, you can institute a 15-second time limit to bring bidding to a close. [LSJ 19990107]
If the players cannot agree who said it first, call the judge over. [LSJ 20080701]
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Suoli wrote:
> > When a card invokes an auction, who gets to bid first, second, third etc? The only relevant ruling I found says that the "bidding is conducted in an open format". This seems to suggest that priority belongs to the fastest and loudest.
> >
> Fastest, yes. Volume has nothing to do with it, however.
>
> Four players are on the table, A, B, C, D, going clockwise. A plays Hostile Takeover, and bids 2 pool.
>
> If any player wants to bid, they must bid a higher amount than the previous player. [LSJ 20000612]
>
> A player can "outbid" themselves if it turns out a higher number would be better for them. (e.g. a controlling Methuselah who realises that bidding an odd number during Hostile Takeover is a bit silly for them, because they pay half-rounded up, so why not go for the even number; or to get in or out of range of a Parity Shift) [LSJ 20010730]
>
> The standard sequencing rules do not apply. [LSJ 19990104] This is very similar to polling during a referendum, which is conducted in a similarly open fashion. [LSJ 20090702] So under ordinary sequencing rules, player A would the the first opportunity to place a bid, and player B would be next in line, and if B bid then the impulse would pass back to A etc.. But in an open auction (or polling), you do not have to wait for player B to "pass". While player B is umming and ahhing and being indecisive, player D can say "I bid 3 pool", and the bidding impulse (which doesn't really exist) does not pass back to A who can wait to think about "4 pool" and player C can just say "I bid 4 pool".
>
> Like referendums, if things are dragging on too long, you can institute a 15-second time limit to bring bidding to a close. [LSJ 19990107]
>
> If the players cannot agree who said it first, call the judge over. [LSJ 20080701]
>
Correct, and accurate!
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> If the players cannot agree who said it first, call the judge over. [LSJ 20080701]
>
I hope I'm not the only one who thinks this is problematic. The bidding order can decide games (major finals, even) and a lack of sequencing leaves too much room for ambiguity.
> Suoli wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > If the players cannot agree who said it first, call the judge over. [LSJ 20080701]
> >
> I hope I'm not the only one who thinks this is problematic. The bidding order can decide games (major finals, even) and a lack of sequencing leaves too much room for ambiguity.
>
In a major final, there will be a judge present and a lot of witnesses if it seems necessary.
In every other cases, having a sequencing rule will lead to time consumming.
> Timo wrote:
> In a major final, there will be a judge present and a lot of witnesses if it seems necessary.
>
> In every other cases, having a sequencing rule will lead to time consumming.
>
Two or more people can still start their sentences at the same time, intentionally or not. Or at least close enough that it's impossible to tell who bid first. I'm not saying that there's a chance to cheat or argue, I'm saying that bidding legally can lead to coin flip situations.
As for time consumption, it doesn't take long to say "pass" or "pass and skip my bidding turns".
This might not actually be an enormous problem, auctions don't come up very often. Still, making certain cards have time sensitive mechanics seems out of place in a turn based game.
I believe beer would solve such problem. Drink before the game, dull your reaction and there, you just would not react at the same speed. Adjust the amount of alcohol as needed.
Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.
> Suoli wrote:
> I hope I'm not the only one who thinks this is problematic. The bidding order can decide games (major finals, even) and a lack of sequencing leaves too much room for ambiguity.
>
Since the exact same problem can come up during polling for every referendum in the game, I imagine you could just use the exact same solution you've used for that.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> Since the exact same problem can come up during polling for every referendum in the game, I imagine you could just use the exact same solution you've used for that.
>
If two people cast their votes at the same time, there is no problem - the end result is the same as them casting their votes one by one. If two people bid 3 pool at the same time, there very clearly is a conflict.
> Suoli wrote:
> If two people cast their votes at the same time, there is no problem - the end result is the same as them casting their votes one by one.
>
If the only referendums you see involve titled vampires, that may be true.
It is much less true if you see a referendum where things occur such as: Smudge playing Surprise Influence you tapping Ventrue Headquarters playing a political action card from your hand burning the Edge
Which are the sorts of things that happen in quite a few referendums.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Suoli wrote:
> > If two people cast their votes at the same time, there is no problem - the end result is the same as them casting their votes one by one.
> >
> If the only referendums you see involve titled vampires, that may be true.
>
> It is much less true if you see a referendum where things occur such as: Smudge playing Surprise Influence you tapping Ventrue Headquarters playing a political action card from your hand burning the Edge
> Which are the sorts of things that happen in quite a few referendums.
>
There's still no conflict. If I want to cast my prince's votes in favor, it doesn't matter if someone burns the edge before, after or at the same time. Same goes for every other modifier. From a rule point of view, the sequencing has no impact on how players can cast votes or how they are tallied.
If there is a situation where polling and bidding are comparable in this context, then I will happily campaign to change both.
To get back to the topic, how would you, as a judge, solve a situation where two people simultaneously bid the same amount? If the answer is "the same way as in situation x", my next question is how do you solve it in situation x?
@James : There might be a similar issue with Scorn of Adonis.
If C says "I cast votes against with Arika", and A plays Scorn of Adonis simultaneously (Judge's appreciation), then there would indeed be an issue, because C might not have casted Arika's votes against without Scorn of Adonis, and A might not have played Scorn of Adonis if Arika had casted votes against (especially if C is A's grand prey and is on 1 pool, but simply wants to reduce the incoming Voter Captivation's gain).
Well, perhaps we need a ruling here. Note that this ruling would only apply when the Judge can't tell who spoke first (existing rulings apply if that's not the case).
In the event of betting / declaring effects during a referendum, if two declarations are simultaneous, we use sequencing to determine which one happens first. If that makes the other declaration invalid, it is withdrawn. Otherwise, it remains.
> Suoli wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> >
> > > Suoli wrote:
> > > If two people cast their votes at the same time, there is no problem - the end result is the same as them casting their votes one by one.
> > >
> > >
> > If the only referendums you see involve titled vampires, that may be true.
> >
> > It is much less true if you see a referendum where things occur such as: Smudge playing Surprise Influence you tapping Ventrue Headquarters playing a political action card from your hand burning the Edge
> > Which are the sorts of things that happen in quite a few referendums.
> >
> There's still no conflict.
>
You said it was the same as casting votes one-by-one. It really isn't.
With sequencing, you and I are the last two people on the table to cast our votes. If you pass, I can pass and then end polling. So your hand is forced somewhat. If I see you cast that vote with Wynn, I may not burn the political action card from my hand. The end result is very much not the same (which was your contention).
There is also potential for conflict if, say, two people both play a "cancel the vote" effect at the same time. (Some combination of simultaneous Telepathic Vote Counting, Vox Domini, and multiple Delaying Tactics.) Which was played first? They can't all have been played.
Similarly, try Scalpel Tongue ("The chosen vampire is tapped") at the same time as a reaction card.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> You said it was the same as casting votes one-by-one. It really isn't.
>
It is the same as far as game mechanics care, even if it's not always the same from a decision making perspective. In the case of bidding, the game mechanics do care about who bid for 3 pool first. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
> There is also potential for conflict if, say, two people both play a "cancel the vote" effect at the same time. (Some combination of simultaneous Telepathic Vote Counting, Vox Domini, and multiple Delaying Tactics.) Which was played first? They can't all have been played.
>
As far as I know, playing cards and effects follows the normal sequencing rule.
> Suoli wrote:
> It is the same as far as game mechanics care, even if it's not always the same from a decision making perspective. In the case of bidding, the game mechanics do care about who bid for 3 pool first. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
>
The game mechanics also care who went first when it comes to Scalpel Tongue vs Delaying Tactics.
> Suoli wrote:
>
> > There is also potential for conflict if, say, two people both play a "cancel the vote" effect at the same time. (Some combination of simultaneous Telepathic Vote Counting, Vox Domini, and multiple Delaying Tactics.) Which was played first? They can't all have been played.
> >
> As far as I know, playing cards and effects follows the normal sequencing rule.
>
Incorrect.
[LSJ 20050806]
>
> LSJ, wrote:
> > Should he have been allowed to play his Delaying Tactics after the vote
> > was declared as passed, even though he was just waiting to see if I was
> > going to play vote modifiers?
>
> There is no order to the referendum -- it is free form.
>
> Once everyone is done, then it is concluded.
>
> It sounds as if everyone was not done.
>
The voting bit of the polling phase is a general free-for-all.
[LSJ 20040502]
>
> LSJ wrote:
> (This is errata to
> [6.3.2.1], making the setting of terms the only thing done in that step.
> Polling now contains the "before votes are cast" step followed by the
> general free-for-all voting step.)
>
[LSJ20020111]
>
> LSJ, wrote:
> > In terms of casting votes, it's pretty much freeform.
> >
> > "All Methuselahs may now cast any votes they have (see below) at this
> > time, in any order. They call out their votes freely, and there is no
> > obligation to vote." [6.3.2.2]
> >
> > This is an exception from the general rules of [1.6.1.6]
> >
> > One might regard the actual playing of cards, however, as still coming
> > [1.6.1.6]. LSJ might want to clarify this.
>
> "Any order" seems to handle the overriding of 1.6.1.6 pretty well, yep.
>
So whoever goes first goes first. If player D does actually play Delaying Tactics before player B, player D's is the one that wins.
Hence, we return to the fact that since you have to (potentially) handle this very same issue in every referendum, handle it the same way here.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> So whoever goes first goes first. If player D does actually play Delaying Tactics before player B, player D's is the one that wins.
>
Thanks for writing that out in detail, it was all news to me.
> Hence, we return to the fact that since you have to (potentially) handle this very same issue in every referendum, handle it the same way here.
>
Ok. If Pascal hadn't just made a ruling, my next question would be how do you handle the issue in referendums. I mean, telling me to handle it the same way as in referendums doesn't really tell me anything at all if there wasn't a ruling on how to do that. Do you see what I mean? Anyway, I got my answer.
> Pascal wrote:
> Well, perhaps we need a ruling here. Note that this ruling would only apply when the Judge can't tell who spoke first (existing rulings apply if that's not the case).
> In the event of betting / declaring effects during a referendum, if two declarations are simultaneous, we use sequencing to determine which one happens first. If that makes the other declaration invalid, it is withdrawn. Otherwise, it remains.
>
This isn't actually a new ruling. (I managed to misplace the search terms required for this, which I'd seen, and then lost in my browser history.) Well, the bit about invalidating a subsequent effect is "new", but logically follows.
[LSJ 20030707]
>
> LSJ, wrote:
> Jeff Haar wrote:
> > During a referendum is there any organization determining when someone
> > may play cards? Who has the oportunity to play cards in what order
>
> Voting is free-form (unstructured).
>
> If there is a conflict, use 1.6.1.6 to resolve.
>
Which is to say:
- if player A (acting, would ordinarily have the impulse) declares a bid or effect during a free-form polling or auction before player B, player A goes first
- if player B (who wouldn't ordinarily have the impulse) declares a bid or effect during a free-form phase before player A, player B goes first
- if players A and B genuinely play or declare something simultaneously, player A goes first
But this is not a way of introducing sequencing by the back door. (Certainly, it wasn't intended to be, or LSJ could just have instituted normal sequencing for referendums and open auctions.) If player B did do their thing before player A did, sequencing does not apply. It's only when there's a conflict that can't be resolved by reference to the actual order of play.