Hostile Takeover et al.

When a card invokes an auction, who gets to bid first, second, third etc? The only relevant ruling I found says that the "bidding is conducted in an open format". This seems to suggest that priority belongs to the fastest and loudest.

Hostile Takeover
Type: Master
Requires: Ventrue
Cost: 1 pool
Master.
Choose a vampire with capacity of 6 or less. Each Methuselah bids pool for control of that vampire. The highest bid goes to the vampire's controller; that bidder then takes control of the vampire. If the controller wins, half the winning bid (rounded up) goes to the blood bank.

The person who plays the card should have the first option. It is not stated on the card, but that is generally how things that interact with the whole table work. Beyond that, I think it is up to whoever gives a higher bid.

brandonsantacruz wrote:

The person who plays the card should have the first option. It is not stated on the card, but that is generally how things that interact with the whole table work. Beyond that, I think it is up to whoever gives a higher bid.

In practice, it would be the predator who gets the first word in. He's the last player that can go "hmm, to Sudden or not to Sudden... nah, the card resolves and I bid 1 pool".

I think this really needs a strict sequencing ruling. What do you do when two players open their mouths at the same time? Flip a coin?

Hostile Takeover:
The bidding is conducted in an open format. The player who played the Hostile Takeover conducts the auction. [LSJ 19990104]

The player playing the card conducts the auction. I take it to mean that the player playing the card starts with an opening bid.

"I play Hostile Takeover. Lucy Markowitz, with the Heart of Nizchetus, is the target. Bidding starts at 8 pool."

Suoli wrote:

When a card invokes an auction, who gets to bid first, second, third etc? The only relevant ruling I found says that the "bidding is conducted in an open format". This seems to suggest that priority belongs to the fastest and loudest.

Fastest, yes. Volume has nothing to do with it, however.

Four players are on the table, A, B, C, D, going clockwise. A plays Hostile Takeover, and bids 2 pool.

If any player wants to bid, they must bid a higher amount than the previous player. [LSJ 20000612]

A player can "outbid" themselves if it turns out a higher number would be better for them. (e.g. a controlling Methuselah who realises that bidding an odd number during Hostile Takeover is a bit silly for them, because they pay half-rounded up, so why not go for the even number; or to get in or out of range of a Parity Shift) [LSJ 20010730]

The standard sequencing rules do not apply. [LSJ 19990104] This is very similar to polling during a referendum, which is conducted in a similarly open fashion. [LSJ 20090702] So under ordinary sequencing rules, player A would the the first opportunity to place a bid, and player B would be next in line, and if B bid then the impulse would pass back to A etc.. But in an open auction (or polling), you do not have to wait for player B to "pass". While player B is umming and ahhing and being indecisive, player D can say "I bid 3 pool", and the bidding impulse (which doesn't really exist) does not pass back to A who can wait to think about "4 pool" and player C can just say "I bid 4 pool".

Like referendums, if things are dragging on too long, you can institute a 15-second time limit to bring bidding to a close. [LSJ 19990107]

If the players cannot agree who said it first, call the judge over. [LSJ 20080701]

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Suoli wrote:

When a card invokes an auction, who gets to bid first, second, third etc? The only relevant ruling I found says that the "bidding is conducted in an open format". This seems to suggest that priority belongs to the fastest and loudest.

Fastest, yes. Volume has nothing to do with it, however.

Four players are on the table, A, B, C, D, going clockwise. A plays Hostile Takeover, and bids 2 pool.

If any player wants to bid, they must bid a higher amount than the previous player. [LSJ 20000612]

A player can "outbid" themselves if it turns out a higher number would be better for them. (e.g. a controlling Methuselah who realises that bidding an odd number during Hostile Takeover is a bit silly for them, because they pay half-rounded up, so why not go for the even number; or to get in or out of range of a Parity Shift) [LSJ 20010730]

The standard sequencing rules do not apply. [LSJ 19990104] This is very similar to polling during a referendum, which is conducted in a similarly open fashion. [LSJ 20090702] So under ordinary sequencing rules, player A would the the first opportunity to place a bid, and player B would be next in line, and if B bid then the impulse would pass back to A etc.. But in an open auction (or polling), you do not have to wait for player B to "pass". While player B is umming and ahhing and being indecisive, player D can say "I bid 3 pool", and the bidding impulse (which doesn't really exist) does not pass back to A who can wait to think about "4 pool" and player C can just say "I bid 4 pool".

Like referendums, if things are dragging on too long, you can institute a 15-second time limit to bring bidding to a close. [LSJ 19990107]

If the players cannot agree who said it first, call the judge over. [LSJ 20080701]

Correct, and accurate!