my understanding is that they were trying to accomplish this all on Katie's turn which was ruled illegal. The non-binding trade wasn't ruled illegal but Caleb decided against it as it really should have been Bo putting up more resources to facilitate the trade
Hahahahaha, I loved your quip at the end of the video, funny stuff! XD =) My hunch is there may have been a little bit of culture shock at play between the players. Some probably learned a lot from the likes of Dylighted on future trades, while others perhaps may have been less influenced by the online Catan sub-community and so this scenario probably dumbfounded Katie in this case. I think we kind of have to remind ourselves that as online Catan community members, some are faintly familiar at all with the likes of King of Catan or Colonist or whatever.....................and so these additional wrinkles and innovative approaches could be the source of great confusion. In my personal opinion, I wouldn't consider the trade attempt illegal, but in the same breath I do get why it was controversial. I've seen plenty of other Catan games online where there is a clear frontrunner with scary production on the verge of taking Longest Road for instance and the other three players designate a less-established player to take Longest Road and wind up trading a LOT of cards to the player just so they can be converted into road material to make it happen (a recent King of Catan match where Winters was already at eight points and could easily get to ten in an orbit or two and EBOX and Swimmy give NINE sheep to Lionel to clinch Longest Road comes to mind first as an example). In that game I cite as an example, you can sense Eric's irritance in the tone of his voice when he says Lionel is playing with fire, but were those trade transactions illegal? I wouldn't say so, but I also get how it was controversial. Much like this instance.
In my opinion, unless future trades are made an official part of the tournament ruleset, there is no reason for this to be illegal. Even if you wanted to ban trades on a single turn which resulted in a free card, banning trades ACROSS TURNS that result in a free card is just ridiculous. There are plenty of scenarios that will lead to that happening naturally, and plus banning it needlessly restricts the players in the game.
@@HakunaMatataCatan That would not be illegal per the official game rules either though. She can simply trade 2 cards for 1 to each player then trade 1 card for 1 back to them for the desired effect. This follows all of the rules you listed.
What should be illegal is to broadcast important tournament games without a digital board. Putting a camera above the actual paper board results to a pathetic experience for the online viewers.
Nice video and I agree a really good and clear presentation of the rules. But my interpretation of what happened during the game by watching the full video and listening to the commentary was that Ian (the referee) did not rule the scenario with the future trade illegal. At that point, Bo was trying to orchestrate a complex trade sequence all during Katie's turn which would have resulted in Caleb gifting the brick. I believe that is what Ian ruled illegal. He did use the phrase "multiple turns" but I think he meant "multiple trades". It was after that ruling that Bo tried to turn part of it into a future non-binding deal and I didn't hear that being ruled against. It was just that Caleb didn't want to do it. So, my interpretation of how Ian ruled was, gifting cards on same turn - illegal. Future non-binding trade - legal. Which seems correct according to rules and spirit of the game.
2:47 I watched this game, and I thought the simple solution was that Katie trades Caleb a sheep for both his cards, then she trades the ore to Bo for a sheep and a wood, then Caleb and Bo agree that on the next turn Bo will trade the ore back to Caleb for his sheep. Very simple, problem solved. It just requires a none binding future trade agreement between Caleb and Bo, which happens all the time.
My understanding from watching the whole thing, was that the future trade was not banned by the judge, Caleb just didn't want to do it. What was banned was Katie making two trades to Caleb on the same turn that ultimately resulted in her getting a free brick. And as a side note, Bo played this game extremely well with his trades and table talk and deserved to win.
yes i think its fine. It engages interaction between the players. There is a lot of risk involved in players doing it and it is a way to keep the game going. It would not be in the spirit of the game to give someone a win like this.
Personally I think it was a 6:41 pretty darn clever way to trade and it seemed to be within the “rules”. Understandably Mari wouldn’t have seen it that way 😝
Hakuna Matata! What a wonderful phrase Hakuna Matata! Ain't no passing craze It means no worries For the rest of your days It's our problem-free philosophy Hakuna Matata!
They ruled incorrectly. These kinds of rulings make the game of Catan a very pointless game to compete in at a national or regional level since things like this may happen and you may be screwed over by a poor judgement. Even the tournament rules twist the official rules of Catan in a poor way; for example, they make it so that you cannot intentionally give away a win, which is a significant part of the optimal strategy of Catan. 2-for-1 1-for-1s are the typical way to get these trades going. They also are and should be allowed. They need to just follow the rules.
I don't see the issue even with this. At the end of the day both Caleb and Bo have one less resource than they would have had had they not traded with Katie. If future trade agreements are non-binding, legal trades that occurred on a past turn shouldn't affect what's legal once that turn is complete. If the trade between Caleb and Bo would normally be legal on their turn, it should be legal regardless of any non-binding agreement.
Tnx for another great vid! Personnaly, i don't like these free trades. Can we really call it a trade? Imo - it's just too much. It envolves too much kahooting and hurts the dynamic and atmosphere of the table. The officials of every catan tournament should adress the matter before the tournament starts, let the players know if it's legal or not and such, the players will adjust to it and be prepared for it when it occurs.
Wow Bo had the luck of the gods on his side getting those VPs in draws. Ya he was getting lots of dev cards but still 3 out of 7 is pretty low odds. Goes to show when someone is ore, wheat, sheep heavy they are always in the game.
If the trade is possible to preform on online play then it is not against the rules. That trade is completely possible on an online game so it is not against the rules.
I agree with your opinion. But I think just 1 rule should be added: - A player may only make 1 trade per turn with each player. This ensures no double trades of which the net result is giving cards.
nah, you can change intended play because of trade results and dev cards. imagine i have Wood Wood Brick Sheep Sheep Ore, offer O for B or B for Wheat, so i can road twice or dev once. i take B for Wt, dev, its road building, i trade away my sheep for the brick i just traded off so i can get longest road next turn. theres a bunch others scenarios, specially envolving city vs dev decisions and sheep steals through robber
@hamonteiro I see your point. In that case, I would say: you cannot trade the same player twice on the same turn if the card you offer is a card you previously received, or vice versa. This would be difficult to track over the board but easy to program. I realize that there can still be situations where a dev card result may change your strategy, but to me, that is the problem of the player. Honestly I wouldn't mind scrapping the "no giving away cards" rule altogether. But in a competitive scene this results in king-making opportunities, which feels against the spirit of the game.
I just play catan and I see his one content that he can win at persuade people like this... I already think he will win at this point because the flow is at his hand ahahahaha
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
Good stuff. Really clear presentation of the rules and the issue up for discussion!
Thank you :D
my understanding is that they were trying to accomplish this all on Katie's turn which was ruled illegal. The non-binding trade wasn't ruled illegal but Caleb decided against it as it really should have been Bo putting up more resources to facilitate the trade
Agreed, yes I should've made this more clear. Thanks!
Hahahahaha, I loved your quip at the end of the video, funny stuff! XD =)
My hunch is there may have been a little bit of culture shock at play between the players. Some probably learned a lot from the likes of Dylighted on future trades, while others perhaps may have been less influenced by the online Catan sub-community and so this scenario probably dumbfounded Katie in this case. I think we kind of have to remind ourselves that as online Catan community members, some are faintly familiar at all with the likes of King of Catan or Colonist or whatever.....................and so these additional wrinkles and innovative approaches could be the source of great confusion.
In my personal opinion, I wouldn't consider the trade attempt illegal, but in the same breath I do get why it was controversial. I've seen plenty of other Catan games online where there is a clear frontrunner with scary production on the verge of taking Longest Road for instance and the other three players designate a less-established player to take Longest Road and wind up trading a LOT of cards to the player just so they can be converted into road material to make it happen (a recent King of Catan match where Winters was already at eight points and could easily get to ten in an orbit or two and EBOX and Swimmy give NINE sheep to Lionel to clinch Longest Road comes to mind first as an example). In that game I cite as an example, you can sense Eric's irritance in the tone of his voice when he says Lionel is playing with fire, but were those trade transactions illegal? I wouldn't say so, but I also get how it was controversial. Much like this instance.
Leave a comment down below with your thoughts or any questions you may have! Thanks for watching!
In my opinion, unless future trades are made an official part of the tournament ruleset, there is no reason for this to be illegal. Even if you wanted to ban trades on a single turn which resulted in a free card, banning trades ACROSS TURNS that result in a free card is just ridiculous. There are plenty of scenarios that will lead to that happening naturally, and plus banning it needlessly restricts the players in the game.
Agreed, the 100% illegal part would've been making everything happen on Katie's turn
@@HakunaMatataCatan That would not be illegal per the official game rules either though. She can simply trade 2 cards for 1 to each player then trade 1 card for 1 back to them for the desired effect. This follows all of the rules you listed.
Great video man, clearest explanation I've seen of these events thus far. Keep it up!
Thanks! :D
What should be illegal is to broadcast important tournament games without a digital board. Putting a camera above the actual paper board results to a pathetic experience for the online viewers.
Great video and great editing! I had no idea the national championship just happened so thx for the reminder!
Thanks for watching :D
Nice video and I agree a really good and clear presentation of the rules.
But my interpretation of what happened during the game by watching the full video and listening to the commentary was that Ian (the referee) did not rule the scenario with the future trade illegal.
At that point, Bo was trying to orchestrate a complex trade sequence all during Katie's turn which would have resulted in Caleb gifting the brick. I believe that is what Ian ruled illegal. He did use the phrase "multiple turns" but I think he meant "multiple trades".
It was after that ruling that Bo tried to turn part of it into a future non-binding deal and I didn't hear that being ruled against. It was just that Caleb didn't want to do it.
So, my interpretation of how Ian ruled was, gifting cards on same turn - illegal. Future non-binding trade - legal. Which seems correct according to rules and spirit of the game.
Yes agreed, looking back i should have made that more clear.
2:47 I watched this game, and I thought the simple solution was that Katie trades Caleb a sheep for both his cards, then she trades the ore to Bo for a sheep and a wood, then Caleb and Bo agree that on the next turn Bo will trade the ore back to Caleb for his sheep. Very simple, problem solved. It just requires a none binding future trade agreement between Caleb and Bo, which happens all the time.
My understanding from watching the whole thing, was that the future trade was not banned by the judge, Caleb just didn't want to do it. What was banned was Katie making two trades to Caleb on the same turn that ultimately resulted in her getting a free brick. And as a side note, Bo played this game extremely well with his trades and table talk and deserved to win.
@@joecamerer2865 Yes that is correct!
yes i think its fine. It engages interaction between the players. There is a lot of risk involved in players doing it and it is a way to keep the game going. It would not be in the spirit of the game to give someone a win like this.
Amazing video! You're getting really good at it :)
Thank you!
I think if the rules were clearer and more direct about these trades, I feel like these situations could of been avoided
They are clear…if something isn’t mentioned explicitly, it’s to be presumed to be against the rules.
Personally I think it was a 6:41 pretty darn clever way to trade and it seemed to be within the “rules”. Understandably Mari wouldn’t have seen it that way 😝
completely agree!
If you are ok with this type of trade then why not just make it legal to give a resource because ultimately that is what you are doing
Hakuna Matata!
What a wonderful phrase
Hakuna Matata!
Ain't no passing craze
It means no worries
For the rest of your days
It's our problem-free philosophy
Hakuna Matata!
Reported.
They ruled incorrectly. These kinds of rulings make the game of Catan a very pointless game to compete in at a national or regional level since things like this may happen and you may be screwed over by a poor judgement. Even the tournament rules twist the official rules of Catan in a poor way; for example, they make it so that you cannot intentionally give away a win, which is a significant part of the optimal strategy of Catan.
2-for-1 1-for-1s are the typical way to get these trades going. They also are and should be allowed. They need to just follow the rules.
I don't see the issue even with this. At the end of the day both Caleb and Bo have one less resource than they would have had had they not traded with Katie. If future trade agreements are non-binding, legal trades that occurred on a past turn shouldn't affect what's legal once that turn is complete. If the trade between Caleb and Bo would normally be legal on their turn, it should be legal regardless of any non-binding agreement.
I think youre right - I think thats the way they HAVE to look at it
Tnx for another great vid!
Personnaly, i don't like these free trades. Can we really call it a trade?
Imo - it's just too much. It envolves too much kahooting and hurts the dynamic and atmosphere of the table. The officials of every catan tournament should adress the matter before the tournament starts, let the players know if it's legal or not and such, the players will adjust to it and be prepared for it when it occurs.
Thanks for the comment! I agree that a stance should be made, and am ultimately fine with whatever decision they come to :D
the ending was so funny xD
Wow Bo had the luck of the gods on his side getting those VPs in draws. Ya he was getting lots of dev cards but still 3 out of 7 is pretty low odds. Goes to show when someone is ore, wheat, sheep heavy they are always in the game.
If the trade is possible to preform on online play then it is not against the rules. That trade is completely possible on an online game so it is not against the rules.
How about a game with no trades
That sounds tough!!!! :O
It was just perfect
Thanks
I agree with your opinion. But I think just 1 rule should be added:
- A player may only make 1 trade per turn with each player.
This ensures no double trades of which the net result is giving cards.
nah, you can change intended play because of trade results and dev cards. imagine i have Wood Wood Brick Sheep Sheep Ore, offer O for B or B for Wheat, so i can road twice or dev once. i take B for Wt, dev, its road building, i trade away my sheep for the brick i just traded off so i can get longest road next turn. theres a bunch others scenarios, specially envolving city vs dev decisions and sheep steals through robber
@hamonteiro I see your point. In that case, I would say: you cannot trade the same player twice on the same turn if the card you offer is a card you previously received, or vice versa. This would be difficult to track over the board but easy to program.
I realize that there can still be situations where a dev card result may change your strategy, but to me, that is the problem of the player.
Honestly I wouldn't mind scrapping the "no giving away cards" rule altogether. But in a competitive scene this results in king-making opportunities, which feels against the spirit of the game.
Then you lose out on some variations of port service which I've never encountered someone having any qualms over.
I just play catan and I see his one content that he can win at persuade people like this... I already think he will win at this point because the flow is at his hand ahahahaha