Hostile Takeover: order of bidding
Lupus Australis
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
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
LSJ
> 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
Lupus Australis
> 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?
LSJ
>
> 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.
Frederick Scott
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
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> 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"
Eric Pettersen
> 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)
LSJ
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 ==----------
James Coupe
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