Hi all,

In a recent game, we ran into a question about Challenges. Here's the scenario: The acting player declares something. Another player challenges immediately.

The Question: has the acting player already spent their coins on the declared facts, or are the coins held until negotiation and bidding are resolved?

Two interpretations:

1) The acting player's coins are committed and he loses them if he loses the bid. (This is in addition to any coins spent in bidding.)

2) The acting player only spends the original coins if he wins the bid.

How does everybody play this? Matt, Valamir did you intend one or the other?

Who's Matt? ;-)

I usually play that the Coins payed are returned if the challenge flat out just causes the declaration to go away. But I find that to be rare. More often players in my games get other players to ammend what they are doing. Meaning that the coins still get spent.

Yes, this does mean that a bastard player might say, "OK, no giant tiger? Then I make a giant *purple* tiger," and spend his just returned Coins on that.

That's when you bring out the Fine Challenge, and take Coins from him so he doesn't do that again.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Who's Matt? ;-)

The first question is actually partially covered in the rules although its not highlighted very strongly. In the bullets on page 26 can be found "If the Challenger wins, the Challenged item is adjusted accordingly. The acting player continues with his turn". This is mentioned again in the example on page 27 "Ed's version of events wins out and the resolution cost is recalculated and play continues".

What isn't made entirely clear is what "adjusted accordingly" and "recalculated" means.

The intention is that Player A has a version of events that Player B doesn't like. When Player B Challenges he should have an alternative version of events in mind (which may simply be, "that doesn't happen"). The bidding determines which version of events will stand. The Coins Player A spent on the original version are now instead spent on the alternative version (assuming A lost). If the alternative version is cheaper (as is typical with simple "that doesn't happen" Challenges) then adjusting the cost accordingly would mean that Player A doesn't spend as many Coins on the event as he was planning, the extra are recovered as if they were never spent.

However, what happens if the Challengers version of events is more elaborate and expensive? Good question. Clearly one can not force Player A to spend a whole bunch more Coins to purchase some new elaborate stuff that Player B invented.

The rules don't speak to this, though they probably should. Honestly, I don't remember it ever coming up in any game I've been involved in. The default attitude has always seemed to be that Player Bs version has either been of the "no, lets not have that happen...or at least not yet" variety; or the replacement version has been so equivelent in cost that no one has noticed.

If this came up in a game I would probably rule (i.e. propose a rule gimmick for) that Player A would have the option of paying for the more elaborate version if he wanted and could continue his turn. If he didn't want to pay for the extra (having still paid the original amount), Player B would be required to Interrupt and pay for the rest.


For the second question regarding the 3rd party alternative. Honestly I've never seen the 3rd party alternative go through to bidding. I have seen it several times crop up during negotiation, usually with a player seeking a compromise between the Challengee and the Challenger. If it went to bidding I'd treat it with the same logic as above with the rules gimmick if it were too elaborate.