From: woodhams@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University Observatory
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:06:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.184342.22705@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer) writes:
>In article <FASCIANO.92Aug30213611@nil.IRO.UMontreal.CA>, fasciano@nil.IRO.UMontreal.CA (Massimo Fasciano) writes:
>>
>>i have a few questions about Mayfair CE:

Well, I'll throw a little more nitro-glycerine on the fire and add my
bit to the general chaos and confusion.

[Question one: is something for nothing a valid deal?]
>
>Yes, at least according to the Eon, a deal can be one sided like this.
>
I've always played like this too.

[Question two: Can wrack remove tokens from the cone?]
>
>Yes.

And I agree with this too.

>>3) A cosmic zap nullifies the explosion of one of the Terrorist's
>>bombs. Does that mean that the bomb stays there (with its location
>>revealed) without exploding, or that it explodes without affecting
>>anybody?
>
>The bomb is gone and it doesn't affect anybody (your second guess).

It seems strange that the zap should negate half the effect of the
detonation but not the other half. I would go for the first option.
The only problem is that this weakens Terrorist in that once the
location of one bomb is known, people will avoid detonating it so
Terrorist can't plant more, but a cosmic zap is not the only way to
get this information.

>>4) Zombie is immune to Void, right?
>
>Yes, this was an error on the Void power text.  The Void only Voids tokens 

At least in the Eon game, careful reading of the powers makes this
clear.

>>5) When two players can use their respective powers at the same time
>>and the knowledge obtained from announcing your decision last is
>>important, what do you do? The timing rules mention "contradictory
>>effects" but i think this does not apply here. For example, Mirror vs
[...]
>
>The Sorcerer vs. Mirror is a perfect example of when to use the Timing
>Conflict rules to resolve a situation.  The offensive player uses his
>power first (or opts not to), then the defensive player uses it (or opts
>not to).

I don't like this, although it is probably strictly correct. I think
you should always have the opportunity to react to what another player
does. I would play as above, except if the offensive player opts not
to use their power, and then the defensive does use theirs, the
offensive player can reconsider.

>>6) Do the timing rules apply when a player plagues you. Suppose i want
[...]
>This is a little easier.  I would argue that if you announced the use of
>an Edict, and another player then Plagues you, your Edict goes first then 
>the Plague takes effect.  If the other player plays the Plague and you then 
[...]
Alternatively, whenever you want to do something you have to ask if
anyone earlier in the order wants to act first (but without revealing
what it is you want to do.)

I hadn't thought about this before, but I think that if the edict you
wanted to play was a zap, you could not be preempted because the zap
is played as somebody else makes an action (with no intervening time
for the plague to be played.) If you don't allow this, then logically
people can prevent themselves from being zapped by speed-playing
another action immediately afterwards. (Void: "You're all voided! Finder!"
(slapping down the finder edict) Snivler: "Zap void!" Void: "To late!
there's been an intervening action. By the way, I'm finding a cosmic
zap in your hand.")

>>7) I assume that if the offensive player has no more attack cards
>>during the challenge, the challenge ends immediately. 
>
>Yup, offensive player and any allies in the cone return to bases and
>play passes to the next player.
>
>>But what if he
>>has none a the beginning, draws seven new ones, and still has none.
>>His challenge ends, right? (he doesn't get to discard and draw a new
>>hand again) 

This seems correct.

>Mike Arms and I just talked about this last night.  Our answer is that he
>gets to immediately pitch the new cards and draw seven more until he gets
>a hand with at least one challenge card in it.  He basically is still at 
>the same phase of his turn (the beginning) when he gets the new hand so he
>would still get to pitch it if he got no challenge cards.  Besides, it would
>be really unfair to make the offensive player lose a turn, especially in our
>group where your lucky if you get a second turn sometimes (and with another
>group I know you are lucky if you are the fifth or sixth player and get 
>your first!).

I like this, but I think it is a house rule.

>Nick Sauer

I'm not sure exactly what the situation is, but Nick Sauer seems to
have an in with the designers of the game, so his answers are probably
the most authoritative in this newsgroup. Some of the previous posters
answering these questions have (IMAO) been simply wrong.

Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce