2

This question was closed twice. In between I edited it to attempt to highlight the differences on why this question deserved to stand on its own feet. It would be wrong of me to re-open it again, so here I am on meta, asking for the communities assistance.

In my mind, this question is not asking to give away cards in any way, the querent is asking to make a valid trade. Furthermore the question has a great answer already. In that the problem is that the trade offer received is not valid per the rules, AND the querent is not obliged to accept any offer which meets the original request.

The linked duplicates focus only on the illegality of the proposed trade. I do not believe that was the intent of either party in this question, but merely a side aspect of the answer.

Anyways, vote as you will. Thank you for considering this.

3
  • Maybe I am confused here, but since the trade in question is invalid how would a player be locked into it?
    – Joe W
    Apr 8 at 19:31
  • 1
    @JoeW Switch the wood to a sheep if it helps. What if Player A decided "Anything but a sheep for my two wood" after he made the original offer? Player A is still not locked in, and (to me at least) that is a valid point which isn't covered by the linked duplicate questions.
    – Pat Ludwig Mod
    Apr 8 at 20:05
  • 3
    If the question was worded so it it was just about what point is a trade locked in and can't change/cancel it I would see the difference. I think it could be improved by removing the specifics about what is being traded. And I do think that a question about when a trade becomes locked in is an excellent question.
    – Joe W
    Apr 8 at 20:53
1

The core of the question is still answered by the duplicate - that player B couldn't even offer that trade legally - if the question was reworded to not be about an illegal trade, but instead about someone not wanting to accept what another player offered when they asked for trades, that would be different. (And yes GendoIkiari's answer covers both situations nicely)

1
  • I'd also like to point out that Ryanyuyu's edit to the question was a bad one - half of the text removed was proper (it sounds like the asker was player B in the scenario) the other half was important where it referenced the trade player B proposed isn't a legal trade.
    – Andrew
    Sep 20 at 15:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .