Example from actual gameplay:
"I offer to you a Treachery, Tin and Silver"
The other player accepted (for what reasons ever..) and got traded
Treachery, Tin and Iconoclasm&Heresy.

I know, it is very strange. But is it ok, from the Rules Point of View?



It was common base to show (some) own cards to weaker players to
encourage them to trading (as they were scared about the higher
calamities). It also was common base to prevent others to trade with
enemies by telling them here and then something about already traded
calamities. I think communication is a key to success (and fun) in this
game, so it should be allowed.

Ok, there is a divide between rules and houserules.

Whenever you're introducting new player or teaching new players you can choose and step off from the rules to make things clear. Most of the times all players agree inthis and there's no problem

But you gotta see this as introduction. The sooner or later you gotta go for the official rules or choose and creat your own houserules.

The official rules say you cannot inform other player what you trade except for the first two cards. Whatever you tell them can not be held for truth and should not be held for truth.

(we used to play actually showing the first two cards and tell the third, but we don't do that anymore as there is no reason for either showing it or telling the third. Now we both just mention 2 cards, and only say 'total 4' or 'total 5' if the amount is different from '3'. It's always '3' unless mentioned.)

(A thing we accept and what brings a little fun is during the end of the tradesessions people sometimes say out loud 'I'd like to trade, but I don;t want that piracy you're holding', and the trade is off sometimes. Actually this is not allowed officially but accepted most of the times. It's just how hard you want to read the lines.)

Mention:
You are not allowed to trade calamities. that means: 'telling: I have a treachery and a grain' you can only give a calamity as blind card.


I don;t think showing cards before, during or after trade can be an official rule, but if you like to do that, please do. It's your game.

Stop. Why???

The above cited rule states:


Trade cards are Calamities and Commodities.



So if I have to honestly inform the other player about the first two TRADE
CARDS... it can be "Treachery" and "Grain"... Everything said about the
third card is useless... So if I say the third card is Silver... it can be also
a second calamity for real.

That's what I read in the rules. Or is there somewhere an error??

I looked it up in V2.10

I can't find it. So I guess it used to be in the rules but not anymore. I plead for adding it again. I think it's not fun trading calamities this way, as the fun of trading is not knowing what you get. Also it's very unrealistic.

This is V2.06:

In that case the player wanted to trade his higher calamity away,
making sure before that he gets only a small one (treachery).
But he didn't care about the exact wording as it was
"I give you Treachery, Tin and Silver".
He expected Silver, Tin and Treachery

I just wanted to make sure if this allowed or not.

From my PoV it is allowed, you have to trade afterwards exactly
three cards, including Treachery and Tin, after this announcement.



What you are stating is only about the third card!
I am talking about the first. And there is nothing about it
(also in V2.06).

sorry

I made a mistake.
I was talking about the first two cards as well.

In fact it is allowed. Still I think it shouldn't. It is written down as houserule at my place.

What we do and the end of tradesessions:

I offer a clay and a bone and a treachy and you give me a hides, a clay and a superstition.

Still these calamities can be other calamities, but here's where keeping track of cards comes along. You can bluff about a certain calamity, but if the other player knows where that certain calamity is, he can tell if you're lying or not.

I think that's the most fun about trading. And where the better players can score better than the weaker. If you know more about where cards are, or how many of a certain card are in play, you can tell wheter or what to trade.

Should it be a normal rule?
It would be easy to replace "Trade Card" by "Commodity Card":





That was quite hard yesterday, with 10 players and 9 calamities. Anyway
it was the best tradining session we ever had, with all players knowing
to be the last round this time and everybody used it this time extensively.

I suggest the following:

I think that if someone wants to state a calamity card in his first two cards he/she should be allowed to. It seems a silly thing to do though as if the trade is refused then the other players will know that player has the stated calamity and may avoid trading with him.

We would not allow anyone to say, I will trade x and x with you but I do not want that piracy you are holding. It is important not to inform other players of what you believe any other player to be holding

DG.

What I mean is that people joke about this and take this up as a reason for not trading.
Actually it's just 'I'm happy with the cards I hold, I don;t need any (more) calamities)'



When you don;t allow this, you make people have to trade commodities and enclose a clamity with it. this stays more fun. especially when you both suspect a calamity, butdon;t know exactly which one.

Just to clarify - officially you can inform the player of the third card you are trading. It's just not against the rule to lie about the third card however.

I've played with groups that only announced two cards and groups that announced all 3 during the trade (with the knowledge that you can lie about it). Some groups would rather not worry about the deception aspect while others don't mind.

I think the trading style desired depends entirely on the group - and I would be up for making one the official and the other an optional rule. I don't lean strongly in either direction really.

As far as specifying a calamity as one of your first two cards I'm in Flo's camp. I always disliked the thought of trading away calamities to people are are immune because of an advancement.

Same from my point of view, but for this, the rules should say,
that the first two Commodities Cards must be stated truely.
(And not the first two Trade Cards)

Like Flo wrote:

Ok let's put this in the new topic I created:

http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtop ... =3893#3893