Hondo and paying VPs

[Trevize84 413]

Hi all,

I read the "Paying VPs" rule in Hondo's pack and that created more doubts than clarifications.

Let's consider Negotiation. It's clear to me that if I let Hondo apply +2 DMG the opponent can then decide to pay 2 VPs to avoid this. Now the problem arises when the opponent doesn't have 2 VPs. In this case the opponent decides to pay all remaining VPs (which means 1 VPs or even zero).

This is also enforced by the wording, in fact "pay" means that "paying player loses VPs" and that lose word is like the lose word in Jabba's Palace "Spoils of Crime".

If this is all correct then Negotiation against a player with no VPs ends up into the opponent paying all the remaining zero VPs and avoiding the Negotiation ability.

I'm wondering how this realky works and if we really needed a new keyword "Pay" that isn't even used in all cases it could be used like in "What's Yours is Mine".

Thanks.

[a1bert 4,115]

You cannot pay (or spend) more VP than you have, we have had that since Jabba himself in the rules. Thus, you cannot choose to pay 1VP when you are asked to pay 2VP. (As an extension of spending VP. The wording could be a little better though.)

Some abilities allow a player to spend his VPs or force his opponent to lose VPs. A player cannot have fewer than 0 VPs and any VPs lost beyond 0 are ignored. A player cannot use an ability that requires him to spend more VPs than he has.

In a Skirmish, when an ability instructs a player to pay another player VPs, the paying player loses VPs and the paid player gains an equal number of VPs. A player cannot pay more VPs than he has, and a player cannot be paid more VPs than the other player paid.

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by a1bert

[Trevize84 413]

1 minute ago, a1bert said:

You cannot pay more VP than you have, we have had that since Jabba himself in the rules. Thus, you cannot choose to pay 1VP when you are asked to pay 2VP.

And that was my understanding until I read on Hondo's pack rule sheet "if a player's ability requires an opponent to pay more VPs than they have, that opponent pays all of their remaining VPs"

[a1bert 4,115]

Hmm, Hondo's Negotiate ability doesn't require the opponent to spend VPs though, because there is a choice involved. What's Yours is Mine does force the opponent to lose 2VP (or less), but doesn't use "pay". Maybe it once used pay, cannot say.

Edit: Also, if you were allowed pay your only 1VP (or 0VP) for Negotiate, Hondo wasn't paid 2VP, thus the +2dmg would still be applied ("unless opponent pays you 2VP"), which would be silly.

Edited August 26, 2018 by a1bert

[Trevize84 413]

15 minutes ago, a1bert said:

Hmm, Hondo's Negotiate ability doesn't require the opponent to spend VPs though, because there is a choice involved. What's Yours is Mine does force the opponent to lose 2VP (or less), but doesn't use "pay". Maybe it once used pay, cannot say.

I thought about the "require" word but I think it requires too much hairsplitting to use it as an argument in a game. What the wording on the rule sheet suggests is a wrong way to play Negotiate.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Golan Trevize
Fixed ability name

[a1bert 4,115]

Negotiation is a different ability, btw.

 

[Trevize84 413]

7 minutes ago, a1bert said:

Negotiation is a different ability, btw.

 

I hate my phone's autocompletion I edited previous post to avoid confusion

[IndyPendant 434]

Negotiate doesn't force anything.  It's a choice.  So if the opponent can't pay the 2VP, then they don't pay the 2VP...and Hondo gets his +2 damage.

It's similar to Black Market.  If the player pays 3 VP, they can take the revealed On The Lam into their hand.  If they do not have 3 VP, they have to choose to discard it for 3 VP, or put it back on top of the deck.  They don't get to take it for free if they have 0 VPs.

[Trevize84 413]

1 hour ago, IndyPendant said:

Negotiate doesn't force anything.  It's a choice.  So if the opponent can't pay the 2VP, then they don't pay the 2VP...and Hondo gets his +2 damage.

It's similar to Black Market.  If the player pays 3 VP, they can take the revealed On The Lam into their hand.  If they do not have 3 VP, they have to choose to discard it for 3 VP, or put it back on top of the deck.  They don't get to take it for free if they have 0 VPs.

I totally agree with this. However the word pay is a new keyword introduced and ruled with Hondo's pack rule sheet. If you read that sheet, things get a lot more confusing.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Golan Trevize

[theChony 151]

Probably an oversight on semantics. If 'Negotiate' is the issue, it's pretty simple. Hondo has a natural +2 dmg. Unless the defender hands over 2 points, totally optional so their clarification on 'pay' shouldn't apply.