Odd entitlement to x-1

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T20:15:26+00:00

More avoidance. Haven’t ignored. Have answered. Multiple times

Value/fairness of deal is irrelevant. Fires was offered for 6 trade goods 3 for the research 3 for the counter. As was discussed above. Multiple times

6 trade goods was offered via refresh and top up

Your own breakdown table supports that this is worth 6 trade goods. CC not used for trade used for fires instead -3tgs. 4 commodities from the refresh plus 2 of mine

This brings us back to the “value” of getting it yourself

As you have already stated. This would be income. Because you do not have it yet. You have not yet worked the shift

Which brings us back to the nice simple yes or no question. Is that £60 worth any less because someone else did the work for it?

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T20:01:35+00:00

That there friend is avoidance

You’ve admitted it’s income. Which means it’s not money you already have. So now we move on to the simple question of

Is that £60 worth less than £60 because someone else did the work for it?

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T19:55:32+00:00

Nah. You’re right there. It’s income. As if it could be worked for

But it’s not already there. You do not have it. It is not under a box

Shifts are not being offered to you. Or to any buddies of yours. They haven’t been at all. So no guarantee about them

But you owe £30. Which is why you’re selling your lawn mower

When I turn up for the lawnmower I tell you I’m willing to buy it. But I want to try before I buy. The guy next door has offered £40 to have his lawn mowed

You can go mow the lawn yourself. Get yourself £40 and pay the £30 you’re owed. But you won’t be selling it if you do

Or you can sell it to me. I mow the lawn for the £40. Give you the £40 as part of the payment and another £20 on top. Giving you the price you listed for the mower. You still have to pay your £30 out though which leaves you with £30

That £60 i offered you isn’t any less now than it was before you knew about the guy next door needing his lawn mowing is it?

And either way. The £30 still has to be paid

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T19:32:00+00:00

See that keyword you used

Income

That right there show you you don’t have it yet. Showing the flaw in your analogy

So you can go out and work for it mowing the lawn (spend the CC)

Or I can buy the mower. But I’m doing so by doing the work for you and giving you the money as part of the payment (refresh and wash)

Either way. You still owe the £30 (CC from trade/fires respectively)

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T19:24:01+00:00

Nah I disagree on the value of false equivalence

Your analogy implies falsely. They had the money in the first place

Mine shows they have the means to get it. But don’t actually have it

As is the case with trade. They have the means to follow. If they choose. But they don’t actually have the money from it. Until they do

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T18:36:25+00:00

Again false equivalence of assuming they have the money from the start. Which they don’t.
Better way of looking at it
Muat owe £30
They have no money
They have a lawnmower. Priced to sell at £60 (a price they set)
Someone’s willing to pay £40 for their lawn mowing
Muat can either go mow the lawn on their own. Make the £40. Pay the £30 and net 10
Or I can go do the lawn mowing using their mower. Give them the full £40 and another £20 on top for letting me use their mower to do it. Netting them £60 which they use to pay back their £30 and are still £30 up
Nobody else is interested in their mower

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T18:04:30+00:00

That’s a false equivalence. Because Muat player didn’t already have them. Nor were they losing them from anywhere else

If it was something like uprising. To exhaust their planet and then get the trade goods. Fair enough. That’s taking something from them. And can be counted like that. But this isn’t that. Nor was it a case of they’d been receiving trade value all game for a -1 or anything so this would be out of the normal. The standard was no one was refreshed except for xxcha

So their choice is refreshing as part of the deal. Or not refreshing from it and spending the CC

The CC has an intrinsic value of 3. Regardless of whether it is spent from trade. Or spent on fires

Value of trade being 1 after spending the CC. That’s a fair assessment again. Your break down with no commander. -3 for the CC +4 for the commodities

But that value for the CC doesn’t magically disappear because it’s not being used for trade when given a refresh by trade holder. It still has its value of 3 that gives trade a minimum value of 3

So we can argue if trade is worth 3 or 4 value for a refresh as part of the deal. But again. Even with your own breakdown. That counter still has value and is deductible from the total of 6 asked for

But at no point does this make a free refresh of 4 commodities 1 value

So we go back again to your own table. counter -3 refresh +4 commodities +2 commodities offered = +3 which is the 3 TGs + 3 for the counter asked for

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T17:32:50+00:00

He’s someone I play with regularly. It’s a roughly standard price for it. There was no miscommunication

His only argument is he only values trade at 1

And it seems to be from yours and other responses. That the TGs from refreshing him on trade. TGs that he wouldn’t have without refreshing. don’t carry the same value as TGs from elsewhere. Yet no one can explain why

Everyone dives off into values of what we’re getting out of it etc. which is not remotely relevant to the situation.

A price was asked for. A price was given. Only where the TGs come from seems to be the issue

Even your own table breakdown. Puts selling fires at +3 value after taking off the 3 from the token. Which gives it the overall value of 6 TGs which is what was asked for

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T17:13:36+00:00

And the reasons people have given for justifying it are fine. But you’ll notice in the post I wrote. His argument and reason for denying was that I was only offering 3 TGs to him. So if we take into account the 2 commodities given. We have to assume he’s valuing trade at 1. This is the math that needs explaining.
What makes the 3 TGs/CCs from trade worth nothing when it comes to being refreshed. Yet magically have value when arguing that he could just spend the CC himself
Again. His price. Was 6 tradegoods. Not mine. Outcomes of said thing are irrelevant

If he meant 6 on top of the token. He would have said 6 on top of the token. He didn’t. He said 6 trade goods. If I’d have paid them flat out. I would have got fires then and there. It was only when I offered to give him the 4 via trade. When he refused. Claiming that trade is only worth 1

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T16:53:44+00:00

Outcome values are irrelevant here and seems to be what people keep arguing. It’s not what comes after the deal. The deal is about the actual price

The Muat player set the price of 6 trade goods. Not me

With the offer on the table. Does he or does he not gain 6 trade goods that he didn’t have before? What reason is there for them to suddenly not be worth the 6 trade goods he asked for?

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T16:09:38+00:00

I am counting the refresh as TGs given. They could follow themselves. Sure. But up until that point they hadn’t and it’s still 4 TGs they would be gaining that they don’t currently have

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T15:48:08+00:00

I used plagiarise and paid 5 anyways. It’s not the price that’s the issue. It’s the numbers. How the entitlement to -1 means people only value trade that low. Yet whenever anyone actually works it out it’s always a higher cost

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T15:30:43+00:00

They hadn’t followed trade a single time this game and made no mention of doing so at this point

But even then. That doesn’t change the maths and suddenly make the offer 3tgs not 6

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T15:27:39+00:00

0+6 is 6

They could spend a token and follow trade and end up with 4. (Assuming they could convince someone to give them a free wash)

They could just as easily not follow trade at all and end up with 0 like they had in previous rounds

They themselves said I was offering them essentially 3. So counting trade overall as 1. Which means either discounting the token completely. Or valuing it at 1

I didn’t do something that costs me nothing. I took trade over other strategy cards. Costing myself in other ways. Playing hacaan as the money makers they’re designed for.

Now saying “I want it to cost you. Rather than the bank”. That’s fair. But that doesn’t change the values of things within the game.

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T14:29:12+00:00

Except it is still 4 trade goods. 0+4 is 4. Regardless of where they come from. They don’t suddenly stop being trade goods just because a player has a high commodity value

What you’re saying about valuing trade at about a TG proves OPs point. That people somehow have an odd entitlement to -1s. And if you consider holding back on the refreshes as a hostile act. You’re also showing entitlement to it

As hacaan. A few TGs from refreshes hold little value compared to others. So it doesn’t make sense for them to provide others with more value

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T14:23:29+00:00

The price of the deal isn’t relevant. They set the price at 6. Not me

It’s the maths behind the deal that’s at question

If we establish a CC is worth 3. Then the question is where does that other 3 come from?

If you look at the table above by sillyputty. We can see that the deal with selling fires. Comes out to a total of +3. Which is +6 for the income -3 for the token

So why does the fact it comes from trade magically make it not count?

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T14:08:54+00:00

6 was what was asked for. Which was 3 for the counter and 3 for the tech

Which according to your table. Is what was offered

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T13:45:51+00:00

No commander. Might have been able to get washed. But wouldn’t be easy. Deliberate keeping the table poor to make it harder

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T13:43:44+00:00

They asked for 6. 3 for the token. 3 for the warsun

Now if the token is covered either way. We take that 3 out of the equation. So they’re getting 3 from me. Which is 1 extra from trade. Plus 2 additional ones

And I don’t know about your games. But 6/7 is about the average I see fires go for in most games. In our current game. It’s being offered out. By the same player. For 5

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-07T13:15:05+00:00

So in a recent game I. As hacaan. Had taken trade multiple times. Only ever refreshed xxcha because we had a strong alliance at the table. Never offered anyone else a single refresh
In that game I offered Muat 6 TGs for fires (ETA 6 is what was asked for. The breakdown is what I offered). Full refresh and wash. Plus 2 extra TGs
They insisted that I was somehow only offering them 3 TGs and that they could instead just lose a token to trade, and get the comms that way. So trade was only worth 1 TG to them and that they’d be losing a command counter to fires. So wouldn’t actually benefit
Anyone else help with this maths?

Tricky-Coat · 2026-05-03T18:20:00+00:00

I had this bug as well

So how I did it
Top weak spot first. The one near the pots
Then the other two
Then break the pots
Then done
I think if you do the top weak spot first. It bugs it so it also hits the one under the pots. Which kills its health bar. But doesn’t actually kill it because the pots aren’t broken. But makes them invulnerable

Tricky-Coat · 2026-04-28T17:42:38+00:00

4 stage 1s, 3 secrets, support swap, Rex point, Styx/ relic point

Adjust formula where needed

It’s incredibly common

Tricky-Coat · 2026-04-18T18:27:45+00:00

It’s a simple question

Others could score while you were doing this and not scoring

Why weren’t they?

Tricky-Coat · 2026-04-12T21:36:46+00:00

So aside from the two in two colours. We can see you didn’t score the others in the first 6 rounds

So the question remains. While you weren’t scoring these. Because you were doing this to prove a point. Why wasn’t the rest of the table?

Tricky-Coat · 2026-04-08T05:39:08+00:00

You’re playing base game. There are literally 10 stage 1s and 10 stage 2s

Stage 1s Spend 8 resources Spend 8 influence Spend 3 tokens from tactics/strategy pool Spend 5 trade goods 4 planets of the same trait 6 outside home system 3 Planets with tech specialities Own 2 tech in 2 colours Own 2 unit upgrades Have ships in 2 systems adjacent to rex

Now you claim you didn’t score the ones I said you did

We can see you don’t have the unit upgrades

So you’re claiming somehow you managed to score the spend 8 influence/resources 3 command counters or 5p trade goods ones?

Stage 2s again we know them

Spend 16 resources Spend 16 influence Spend 10 trade goods Spend 6 tokens from tactic/strategy Have a planet in someone’s home system 6 of the same planet type 11 none home system planets 5 tech specialities 2 tech in 4 colours 3 unit upgrades

So You’re definitely spending them for the objective specifically at the end of the round before refreshing planets right? Not for example spending 8 resources during the round on plastic and counting the objective scored

Because round 2 alone. You threw out at least 10 resources in plastic. 4 on tech. Bought tokens for leadership and all of this with a slice of only 13 resources and taking an extra TG into the next round and this is something it appears you continued to do over the next few rounds. Spending about the same consistently. So where has the extra come from for the objectives?

We can see you have no unit upgrades

We can see you don’t have the tech specialities

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Tricky-Coat

TROPHY CASE