HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bsrae@warwick.ac.uk (Dave Lockwood)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Complete 15mm Macedonian Army for sale
Date: 28 Sep 92 09:27:26 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: University of Warwick Business School, Ph.D. Group

NOTE (1) : This posting has a Distribution: uk line. Since the net is
           leaky, the message will inevitably reach other places. Prices
           do *not* include postage overseas.

NOTE (2) : Those netters in the UK who belong to a wargames club are
           encouraged to circulate this message. The army will also be
           advertised in MW and WI in the next few months...

FOR SALE : The complete expeditionary army of Alexander the Great, at a
           scale of 1:64 infantry, 1:48 cavalry, in 15mm Tin Soldier 
           miniatures. Over 500 infantry and 100 mounted figures, with
           complete unit/sub-unit organisations - pretty much the whole
           of WRG army list 36, about 3500 points. Professionally painted
           by Mac Warren, unbased, as received. Further details on request.
         
PRICE    : #350 including postage. Appropriate reduction if collected.
           Negotiation possible for personal callers.
           No splits under any circumstances, but part-exchange considered.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
... a poor tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

Dave Lockwood - bsrae@{xpress.wbs,csv}.warwick.ac.uk INTERN ONLY lockwo.d@wbs

19, Adelaide Rd., Leamington Spa, CV31 3PN. 0203-524504 in working hours.
From: m91kgh@tdb.uu.se (Karl-Gunnar Hultland)
Subject: BTECH: vs MEKTON
Organization: Dept. of Scientific Computing, Uppsala Univ.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 06:31:34 GMT

For the first time I've seen the MEKTON II rpg at the local shop, and
now I wonder how the system is, and how it compares with BattleTech. 
What I've seen looking in the book I'll probably not like the "gaming world"
but if the system is good I might buy it anyway.


				Karl

-- 

Karl-Gunnar Hultland              Vox Dei, Vox Populi
m91kgh@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se
From: woods@colossal.Eng.Sun.COM (Don Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Titan Answer
Date: 3 Oct 1992 19:54:38 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: colossal

Bruno Wolff III writes:
| I checked on the sand/dune questions.
| There was not a clarification of the flyer landing in sand question. Though
| I would argue that nonnative flyers need only one movement point to land in
| sand.

I would argue that also (and HAVE argued it, and won!).  The terrain rules
in all other cases are basically "what makes sense" (especially the ones for
range-striking across slopes etc.), and it makes sense that landing in sand
doesn't slow you down anywhere near as much as slogging through it on foot,
whereas landing in brambles would indeed be slow.

As for the argument that "non-flying non-natives" refers to non-natives who
are not currently flying, as opposed to those without the power of flight,
I say hogwash!  Look at BOG: "Entry forbidden to non-flying non-native
characters.  A flying non-native character may not end his move on a Bog
hex."  If "flying" meant "currently in flight", the second sentence would
not be required.

Similarly, look at BRAMBLE: "A non-native character is slowed when entering."
This obviously includes flyers, since no exclusion is given.  The only reason
flyers are not slowed when flying OVER brambles is rule 11.4: "A flying
character ignores all hazards (except Volcanos) until it lands."  So Brambles
can give the short rule shown and it slows flyers when they land, but not
before.  So the explicit specification of "non-flying" for Sand ought to
make SOME difference.

Yes, I've heard the arguments about "gratuitous differences in wording but
the rules are really the same for Foo and Bar."  But I apply Occam's Razor:
it's a lot simpler if you assume the wording means what it says.

| On the carrying over dunes when striking over a nondune hexside question
| the rulings are:
| Natives can carry over (the rules are cited as being incorrectly worded).
| Nonnatives may NOT carry over. They may NOT roll less dice to permit carry
| over. If they strike accross the dune hexside first they may carry over a
| nondune hexside.

Interesting.  What was the source for that clarification?  (You named it in
an earlier post but I've lost it.)  The reason I ask is, I was rummaging
through some very old files, and found a posting from you (!) from 1987,
in which you gave Bruce Shelley's answers to lots of questions, and one of
them was:

    You may NOT carry up a dune hexside unless the original strike
    was up a dune hexside.  This even applies to natives who have no
    disadvantage striking up dune hexsides.

So, has the answer changed, or is this a conflict of sources?

Someone else has already posted about rule 12.5, which covers the other
buggy cases I was worried about (adding dice to strike down and then
carrying over with the extra dice).
--
--	-- Don Woods.				[*** Generic Disclaimer ***]
--				    ...!sun!woods.eng -or- Woods@Eng.Sun.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: caraher@pn32.petnet.med.umich.edu
Subject: Re: WiF Errata wanted
Organization: pet/cyclotron
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:44:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.211648.11968@pcx.ncd.com> jeffl@pcx.ncd.com (Jeff
Longueil) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.131853.23029@med.umich.edu>
caraher@pn32.petnet.med.umich.edu writes:
>>The latest errata were included in Planes in Flames, and I think also
appeared
>>in the Canadian Wargamers' Journal, which is pretty much the official source
>>for such things (though I suppose you could pester ADG for them, too).
>
>I haven't played WIF in a few years.  What is "Planes in Flames"?
>
>
>--ffeJ.
>

It's an expansion to the air system intended for use with 5th edition WiF.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rmwise@mcigate.apdev.mci.com (Bob_Wise)
Subject: Re: Star Trek III Combat Simulator
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:50:21 GMT
Organization: MCI

In article <v-dz0c+@rpi.edu> woodc@aix.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Wood) writes:
>  And the best aspect of STIII: No rule lawyers!  It seems
>to me that the true Rule Lawyer (tm) only has two games 
>to play:  Champions and Star Fleet.  So I avoid them both.


Screaming "rules laywers!" is an expression of frustration from weak minds.

1/2 :-)

-Bob
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bob Wise          | INET:622-1322 | MCIMail:rmwise | Pager:719-577-1928 |
| Unix Consultant   |-----------------------------------------------------|
| Consultant to MCI | Phone:719-592-1322 | Internet:rmwise@apdev.mci.com  |
From: kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH: BSK - 1C The Basilik
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:03:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

From: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

> FINAL WORD: Remember the BTECH in your headings, the barbarians don't
 > appreciate the wonderful world of Battletech :)

> And Stephane your "Mecha-Press" is quite good, I might even sub if I have $.


	Well, we were looking for critiscim, but I'll take admiration !

		:-)

P.S.
	If there is anyone else out there in NetLand who has received a
	copy of our Mag, and would be so kind as to send me a review 
	of what you liked/disliked/would like to see... I'll be more
	than happy to read it... hint, hint. :-)

Also, there is a rumor at the office that we will release Battle*Press
in less than 6 months. I guess I'll be busy with that! :^}

BTW Battle*Press will discuss ALL BoardGames and RPGs since FASA would
license us for BTECH alone. Their loss.

Short and sweet signature.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 From     : Stephane I. Matis                "It Just Works..." 
 Internet : kgnome@cs.concordia.ca             - Steve Paul Jobs, CEO NeXT
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: el0g+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Lauer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A: Allies buy how many dice?
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:22:49 GMT
	<BvMv0M.LwA@news.udel.edu>
Organization: Doctoral student, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
<In article <x3apf_p@lynx.unm.edu> emullins@triton.unm.edu (Eric
Mullins) writes:
<>barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich) writes:
<>  "Jonathan T. Moore" <jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
<>>Yes I've seen it, but I don't like it.  [etc. discussion of who gets
<>>                                         naval advantage deleted]
<

<[Jonathan incorrectly calls first turn attack on Manchuria stupid,
Dewey responds]
While it is a good plan, without any rule modifications the game is such
a lock, that it is still to risky (i.e. might increase your chances of
losing the game from .05 to .1)
<>and the brits weren't stupid enough to attack kwangtung.  In that case,
<
<While I don't often use this strategy, I find it quite useful.  Again,
<this is all opinion, and it depends on the plans of the players.
<Attacking Kwangtung (which I do only after a successful assault on
<Manchuria by the USSR) removes all Japanese land units from Asia, except
<the Indo-China Burma units.  For me, the idea behind this is to limit
<the Japanese player's options for a while at the start of the game.  It
<becomes a high priority for him/her to recapture those territories, not
<start expanding.  Also, the USSR gets to destroy one of the Japanese
<fighters, a big help overall.

I think it is an excellent plan (assuming a successful attack on
Manchuria).  A factory in India is a poor idea (since it is extremely
hard to hold, and a fleet at Britan is more effecient anyway), and those
units are more important than a counterattack in africa (depending on
what the Germans did).

However, if you have done these attacks, the Japanese do not have enough
atack the main fleet, the stupid British transport, and enough land
areas with good battles.  If the Japanese plaer does not do the land
battles he loses (lack of production).  If he does not do the pearl
harbor attack, the idea of how to retaliate is moot.  If he does not
attack the transport (and does the pearl harbor with a large fleet
surviving), the best move is probably to attack all his land units where
good attacks are available, and use the british transport, and one of
the American fleet units off the west coast to screen the Japanese fleet
from the mainland for one turn (use planes to attack unguarded
transports), this leaves him with no way to get more inf to the
mainland, and few spots, hence little production.

< Agreement on attacking Germany is best plan.



<No offense, I'm actually curious, have you been playing long?
<
<Dewey

Erik
---=
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rlister@cti.com (Russell Lister)
Subject: Re: Titan PBM-rules?
Keywords: titan ah avalon hill pbm rules
Organization: Comprehensive Technologies Int., Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:20:22 GMT

heinenb@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Benedikt Eric Heinen) writes:

>Is anybody out there, who worked out some pbm rules for Titan?
>(especially how would you handle your movement-rolls, battles, recruiting...)?

>yours,

>     Benedikt


   I have some guidelines from Compuserve's Play by Mail forum for Titan, if
   you're interested.  
   
   Die rolls are on the honor system, but you could pick public sources, I
   believe there is/was a method of using closing stock quotes for number
   generation.  
   
   Recruits are easier to monitor, you know what each player starts with, and
   can figure out the stack arrangements as they recruit and keep a list of
   their stacks current.
   
   Russ
   
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Lister  rlister@cti.com  -or-  {well connected systen}!uunet!cti1!rlister 
Comprehensive Technologies Int'l Inc., Arlington, VA
==============================================================================
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Hornet Leader: MiG 27's and Su 24's
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:50:34 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <BvM1z2.M6n@rice.edu>, minnotte@stat.rice.edu (Michael Minnotte) writes:
>I just bought Hornet Leader over the net, and am really
>enjoying it. My only problem is the MiG 27/ Su 24 counters.
>None of them have any values on them except the name of
>the aircraft.  Does anyone have an errata sheet or a later 
>printing that includes the correct numbers for each?
>
>The four attack bonuses for each are the really important
>values, although the numbers of each style (A/N/D) and
>defensive modifiers would also be nice, especially if
>they all have defensive modifiers (such as Su 24's all being
>hard to hit).

The MiG-27s and Su-24s don't get to attack.  Just ignore the irrelevant
modifiers like style...  I'm not sure why they didn't make Su-24s harder to hit
to offset the fact that there are less of them, but they didn't.


-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Thu,  1 Oct 1992 00:45:09 -0400 
From: Robert Everett Brunskill <rb6t+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Btech/RoboTech comparison

Ahh, the question of the ages. Allow me to shed a little light on this
confusing world.

slip@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Doolie) writes:
>The big difference between the mecha and 'Mechs is that the Robotech
mecha >have MUCH better control systems and are higher powered.

I agree with this, the protoculture in RoboTech provides a special link
that just ain't there with BattleTech (of course a little surgery from
Unbound and a little Phantom Mech skill from the Kell Hounds and a 50
ton LAM with full clan outfit might just become pretty <explitive
deleted> nasty).
	If you truely want to make some comparisons between the tech in BT and
RT check out the fussion-powered mecha in Southern Cross.  Otherwise I'd
probably vote for the RT *sob* mecha every time (except maybe for
instances as illustrated above).

	By the way guys, change all your headers to Btech and not Bteck when
paticipating in this string (don't wanna make the Btech haters hate us
more).

Rob Brunskill - Grasshopper, YES!
From: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Titan Answer
Date: 5 Oct 1992 17:38:56 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.46
Originator: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu

From article <lcrujuINNb4a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by woods@colossal.Eng.Sun.COM (Don Woods):
] 
] Interesting.  What was the source for that clarification?  (You named it in
] an earlier post but I've lost it.)  The reason I ask is, I was rummaging
] through some very old files, and found a posting from you (!) from 1987,
] in which you gave Bruce Shelley's answers to lots of questions, and one of
] them was:
] 
]     You may NOT carry up a dune hexside unless the original strike
]     was up a dune hexside.  This even applies to natives who have no
]     disadvantage striking up dune hexsides.
] 
] So, has the answer changed, or is this a conflict of sources?
] 
] Someone else has already posted about rule 12.5, which covers the other
] buggy cases I was worried about (adding dice to strike down and then
] carrying over with the extra dice).

Yes the rule has changed. Bill Scott is now the official answer man for Titan.
He runs the Titan event at Avaloncon and the Titan National Championships
held in VA. I gave him a copy of the questions I sent in to AH, and he changed
the answer in a couple of cases. He has a 15 page set of answers to various
questions. I have a copy of it, but I haven't typed it in at this point.
I discussed a couple of odd cases with him at Avaloncon (forcing teleportation
on a split and deals based on the roll of a die) and wanted to wait for an
official ruling on these before taking the trouble to type everything in.
Basicly I have to write him a letter reminding him about our discussion and
he will think about how he really wants to make the rulings. I meant to do
this a while ago, but I have been putting it off.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: BTECH: Optional Rules Version 2.1
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:03:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User

.
    |\|ow you've made so many changes you might as well give it a new
 name.
 
    ]['d suggest calling it "Star Fleet BattleTech."  (:

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: minnotte@stat.rice.edu (Michael Minnotte)
Subject: Hornet Leader: MiG 27's and Su 24's
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, Rice University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:57:02 GMT

I just bought Hornet Leader over the net, and am really
enjoying it. My only problem is the MiG 27/ Su 24 counters.
None of them have any values on them except the name of
the aircraft.  Does anyone have an errata sheet or a later 
printing that includes the correct numbers for each?

The four attack bonuses for each are the really important
values, although the numbers of each style (A/N/D) and
defensive modifiers would also be nice, especially if
they all have defensive modifiers (such as Su 24's all being
hard to hit).

Thanks a lot,

Mike Minnotte

minnotte@rice.edu
minnotte@math.usu.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: franka@owlnet.rice.edu (Frank Alejano)
Subject: BTECH : PBeM
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:11:18 GMT

	I was just wondering if there were any boards/groups out there that
did this sort of stuff.  I know that SFB has Battleline, and figured
if a game that is much less popular (no flames, please, i'm a big fan
of both games) than BTECH has one, BTECH should too.  Any comments/ideas/
facts?

						Frank
						franka@owlnet.rice.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jlb@aal.itd.umich.edu (Jeffrey Lawrence Bailey)
Subject: Talisman Scoring (what a concept)
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 13:29:00 EDT
Organization: The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Distribution: na
Originator: jlb@clapton.aal.itd.umich.edu

I'm going to be running Talisman for a convention soon, and I'm wondering how
to rank winners in a Talisman game that hasn't finished yet.  I'm looking for
suggestions on how other people do it/think it should be done.  Please post
to me and I will summarize to the net.  Thanks!

-- 
Jeff Bailey, jlb@ccs.itd.umich.edu (Open 24 Hours a Day!)
Standard disclaimer - If you wanted U/M's views, you came to the wrong place. 
"The owner of the game deals and plays first." -- Nuclear War/Escalation
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Star Trek III Combat Simulator
From: $stephan@sasb (Stephan Fassmann, Software)
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:27:00 -0700
Organization: BYU

In article <y60n3rq@lynx.unm.edu> quirk@pioneer.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) writes:
>Subject: Re: Star Trek III Combat Simulator
>From: quirk@pioneer.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk)
>Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 00:52:24 GMT
>In article <1992Sep25.103508.9886@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00nderwin@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>>	Well, I agree about the rules, in that they are a little vague and
>>lacking, but I have gone through and defined much that was lacking, and
>>rewritten some of the rules to make it more realistic.  For example, I have
>>added tractor beams, transporters, and support for shuttles.  I like the game a
>>lot.  And I thought it could get complicated at times!  I think I am really
>>scared of Star Fleet Battles now!  By the way, does anyone know if they are
>>past the Constitution class Enterprise in that game?  Do they have the
>>Excelsior?  Can you build your own ships?
>
>Because SFB is based on the _Star Fleet Technical Manual_, and does
>not have a liscence from Paramount, TFG cannot use anything from the
>movies or TNG.  (Although the Federation X-ships do look pretty much
>like the upgraded _Constitution_ class shown in the movies. ;-)
>
>>	Fleet Admiral Nathan Erwin
>
>-- 
>Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  quirk@pioneer.unm.edu
> I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
>                          what I have now...

While SFB is based on the Tech Manual is DOES have a Paramount license for 
the things Paramount needs. Mostly starship form factors. The D-7 hulls,
Fed Cruiser hulls in drawings and some other stuff. All this is in the Z0.0
rules section.
Stephan Fassmann  Internet: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu  GEnie: S.FASSMANN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: bsrae@warwick.ac.uk (Dave Lockwood)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Board Games for sale
Date: 28 Sep 92 09:37:50 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: University of Warwick Business School, Ph.D. Group

NOTE (1) : This posting has a Distribution: uk line. Since the net is
           leaky, the message will inevitably reach other places. Prices
           do *not* include postage overseas.

NOTE (2) : Those netters in the UK who belong to a wargames club are
           encouraged to circulate this message. 

FOR SALE : Excalibur (Wotan Games)                        #10
           4 Battles of the Ancient World(Decision Games) #7
           Royalists and Roundheads Quad(3W)              #7
           Royalists and Roundheads II  (3W)              #10

NOTE (3) : All games new or played once. For sale because I don't like them.
           But that doesn't mean that you won't, and they are cheap...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
... a poor tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

Dave Lockwood - bsrae@{xpress.wbs,csv}.warwick.ac.uk INTERN ONLY lockwo.d@wbs

19, Adelaide Rd., Leamington Spa, CV31 3PN. 0203-524504 in working hours.
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (SilverFang Ahroun)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH: MNA Rankings & Clan Honor
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:40:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvCp40.9H0
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

carlton@apollo.hp.com (Carl Hommel) writes:

>5.  No retreats.  You may move around to take advantage of terrain, but
>    walking backward to keep your target in long range to prevent them from
>    firing back is not allowed.

Well, I think you are stretching on this one. After all, keeping the
enemy at the range your weapons work best at is the goal of manuevering,
and if that range happens to prevent the IS from being able to engage
you... Well, they are paying for their generations of decadence and
sloth. :)

>Here is a question we could not settle.  Which statement do you think is
>correct?

>A.  Clanners *must* target the first IS mech that attacks them.
>B.  Clanners target an appropriate mech.

>Our lengthy 5 minute arguement boils down to this question.  Assume your
>clanner is faced with an Atlas and a Locust.  The Locust is feeling suicidal,
>and runs up and attacks you.  The Atlas dishonorably participates in a gang
>fire at a fellow clanner, who engaged with a third IS mech.

>Which mech will you target?

It depends on what we are piloting. If I am in a suitable large 'Mech,
say a Daishi or Masakari, and the second Clan pilot is hopelessly outclassed,
say a Dasher, then I would most likely engage BOTH the Atlas and Locust.
If operating something smaller, I would evaporate the Locust and then
take out the Atlas, as that course would result in a quicker silencing
of weapons.  However, if the other Clan pilot is piloting something
suitable to engage two IS 'Mechs, I will allow him the glory of the
kills.

Axly
Newsgroups: rec.games.board