HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: New Illuminati
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: Evil Geniuses For A Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:08:45 GMT

Marco Isopi (isopi@acf9.nyu.edu) writes:

> Actually in the deluxe edition I noticed at least two groups
> were missing: the elders of zion and the john birch society.

They weren't removed, just renamed: they are now the Nephews Of God and the
Libertarians, respectively. I would guess that this was probably an attempt
to avoid lawsuits. I vaguely remember hearing that another group or two had
been renamed for similar reasons, but I don't remember which ones... I only
played the pocket-box version once or twice.
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  Home: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA USA ::  Work:    josh@fenris.claremont.edu
"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography,
and the dancers hit each other." --Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
From: rpc@moscom.com (Robert Colbey)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: A&A Game Balance
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:34:08 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.3 beta PL7]



f12008ad@triton.unm.edu writes:


>     Most people agree that the Allies have a distinct advantage in a normal
>game of A&A.  I agree.  I think that the game is nearly balanced, though,
>when the Russian no first attack rule is used.  This gives the Axis powers the
>inititiative, rather than respond to the Allies for the entire game.  I think
>that the game would be balanced if Germany is given a little boost in the
>beginning.  I would propose to give Germany an extra infantry or fighter in
>Libya at the beginning.  This would ensure that Germany could win the
>initial battle for Africa until US or UK forces could re enforce.  I know
>that Germany can win by transporting a couple of inf in, but Germany needs
>all the forces it can get in Europe.  The fighter may be too much.  Germany's
>weak spot is the Atlantic and an additional fighter may delay the US/UK
>fleet for too long.

The allies do indeed have a distinct advantage. However, since my strategy
as Russia includes NOT attacking on the first round, I tend to disagree with
your conclusion that this will help the Axis. I do agree that the Axis needs
a little boost, but an extra infantry in Libya won't do it, either.

A quick summary of my game-balancing rule modifications:

NO new industrial centers. This favors the Axis because it keeps the Allies'
lines of supply longer than the Axis', at least until the Axis has expanded
it's territory.

Germany gets the Rockets development, with the following restrictions:
rocket attacks are only allowed from the AA in Western Europe against
Great Britain (no rocket attacks are allowed against Russia).

Japan gets kamikazee fighters. Japanese fighters may fly all 4 spaces
when making an attack against naval units. If there is a friendly carrier
to land on, they may do so. Otherwise, planes which have exhausted their
movement during combat movement and survived combat crash into the sea
during non-combat.

Bombers may be used to transport 1 infantry instead of bombs. The infantry
may be paratroopers dropped into enemy territory during combat movement,
or infantry airlifted into friendly territory during non-combat movement.
The infantry which is transported must be in the space from which the
bomber takes off at the beginning of its flight. One nice thing about
paratroopers is that it encourages players to place at least a piece or
two in their home territory!


I have played many games with these rules, as both Axis and Allies, and
have found that these modifications make the game very close to balanced.
Comments?
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stan4d)
Subject: SFB: plasma ejection
Organization: none whatsoever
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:09:23 GMT

OK, I don't have the rulebook immediately handy, but pretty much
remember the jist of the problem.  You are holding a plasma
torpedo, but, due to not giving holding energy during energy
allocation, are forced to eject it.  The rules say you can launch it
on a ballistic course (as a 'deception' move).  However, it doesn't
say what time frame this has to be in.  W/in a quarter turn (i.e. by
impulse 8)?  On impulse 1?  And can it be targeted on a stationary
object (base, planet, moon, etc)?  If you have to eject it during
energy allocation, it's hardly deceptive...

Scott
-- 
Scott Stanford                 |)
stanford@leland.stanford.edu  /|   If the sky were green
                             ((|,) how would we know
"MORE Doctah Peppah!!"        ~|~  when to stop mowing?
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: VGs The Civil War question
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:32:11 GMT

In article <C1995p.1Gn@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.211150.19602@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> zippy@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (steven.s.albert) writes:
>>Well, we ran into another ambiguous situation and wonder what
>>you have for house rules.  I don't have the rule book with me,
>>but the gist of the problem is that cavalry can not control VP
>>cities in enemy territory.  There is also a rule that "dropped
>>off" cavalry sps turn into infantry and there is a note that you
>>probably want house rules on this to avoid abusing the rule.
>
>I'm not sure as to what the answer might be in the context of the rules, but
>historically, Civil War cavalry was closer to mounted infantry than the classic
>concept of cavalry.  Since they usually fought dismounted anyway, I'd have no
>problem with a unit of cav turning into infantry in this case.
>
>Of course, I'm a complete novice at the game, so take my opinion with a shaker
>of salt :)  Our local Civil War guru would have a better answer - Gary, your
>opinion?
>
>	Alec

We've always played that the cavalry magically become infantry and control
the city.  It doesn't bother me.  As you say, why shouldn't 5,000 cavalry
be able to exercise control?  Heck, that's probably more than the population
of some of those places.  What I find a little more disturbing is the
ability to make cavalry out of infantry just by giving them a cav
leader.

- Gary
From: robert_walton@next.com (Robert Walton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: And Even More Stuff for Sale...
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:32 GMT

Game for Sale:
 
Game		Cond	Publisher	Price
 
Dracula		New	Leading Edge	$10
 	1992 Movie Adaptation
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: mathers@sibelius.trl.OZ.AU (Steven Mathers)
Subject: Re: SPQR is a crock?
Reply-To: s.mathers@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:48:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.191134.9552@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, mjunkin@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Junkin) writes:
|> > How does it actually play?  I cant concieve of a satisfying ancients
|> > wargame where one player gets to make his moves and then the other.
|> > Where are the counter-charges?
|> 
|> I'm not sure where you got this from. The play doesn't go "I move every-
|> thing, you move everything, next turn" at all - in fact, far from it.
|> Each turn consists of a sequence of `order phases'. In simple terms, each 
|> order phase, one leader is permitted to give a certain number of orders 

OK, but there is still this problem with disjointed movement due to 
one person moving at a time.  The other player's troops do not get to
respond your moves until after you have finished moving (with that
general at least).  So when your cavalry charges half way accross the
board, his troops are in freeze-frame.  His own cavalry doesnt get to
counter-charge or intercept if it is in range, or whatever.  Another
point is skirmishers.  If they are sitting there shooting up some
heavier troops, it would seem wise for them to evade any charge by these
heavier units.  This doesnt need orders...this is what light troops do
unless specifically ordered NOT to.  There are some sort of retreat in
enemy ZOC orders, but they are warped to fit the I move/ you move
system.

|> 
|> This isn't true. This type of morale check happens only to those units
|> "nearing collapse" (i.e. one off their troop quality ratings) after being
|> involved in shock combat.

So what type of morale check is carried out if a unit routs within LOS?
Does it's neighbors have to undergo any sort of test?

|> You're forgetting that all units involved in shock combat must take a troop
|> quality check before the shock takes place (unless they've just been through
|> shock). The closer a unit is to breaking, the more likely it will break
|> before the shock. Thus, in your example, the Celt unit may not have to fight 
|> at all, thereby sustaining no hits.

OK.  But if they dont break, they fight as if they were a totally fresh,
finely ordered unit, right?

|> 
|> SPQR is a good game, and I think that you really should play a few games 
|> before slamming it (or any other) on the net.
|> 
|> Michael.

Well, you may have straightened out a few of the finer points for me
(thanks), but the substance of my complaints still stands.  I'll go and
re-read the rules again, and see if it makes any more sense.
From: lambert@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Doug Lambert)
Subject: Re: Removed groups 
Keywords: Libertarians != John Birch
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:20:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.060845.8779@muddcs.claremont.edu>,
irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes:
> Marco Isopi (isopi@acf9.nyu.edu) writes:
> 
> > Actually in the deluxe edition I noticed at least two groups
> > were missing: the elders of zion and the john birch society.
> 
> They weren't removed, just renamed: they are now the Nephews Of God and the
> Libertarians, respectively. I would guess that this was probably an attempt
> to avoid lawsuits. I vaguely remember hearing that another group or two had
> been renamed for similar reasons, but I don't remember which ones... I only
> played the pocket-box version once or twice.

First of all, the Nephews of God and the Libertarians were groups in the
original Illuminati game.  Also, the group was called the Fred Birch Society,
in order to avoid lawsuits in the first place.  The extremely right-wing  
members of the John Birch Society are probably about as far removed from
members of the Libertarian Party on most political issues as you can get.
Additionally, the Nephews of God card has a cross on it (a Christian symbol),
while the Elders of Zion were intended to be Jewish.  I suspect that the
reasons for the removals were 1) Not very many people under thirty have
heard of the John Birch Society, and 2) Sensitivity to Jewish groups.
(More specifically, a world-wide Jewish conspiracy has been the theme of
much anti-semitic propaganda, including that distributed by neo-Nazi
groups today).

Other missing groups include the Cattle Mutilators (replaced by the Satanists)
and the Preppies (replaced by the Yuppies).  Several other groups have been
added as well, including the Hackers, TV Preachers, Congressional Wives,
Iranian Moderates, and Empty Vee (MTV--yet another lawsuit-avoidance
attempt).
--
===============================================================================
||  Doug Lambert, Purdue University         ||  "God is dead."  --Nietzsche  ||
||  lambert@sage.cc.purdue.edu              ||  "Nietzsche is dead."  --God  ||
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Republic of ROME question, HELP
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:00:09 GMT

In article <93025.103254IO11330@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> The illustrius Pat Ellis (the DM) <IO11330@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>[In my first game, Rome was facing three active and one inactive wars, so
> when I was dictator I attacked the inactive (Illyrian) war and then
> revolted, figuring that as a rebel I'd win if Rome fell.  After looking
> at the rulebook, it looks like we all lost instead.  Since a rebel will
> win if Rome falls due to bankruptcy or the revolt of the people, does
> it make sense that the rebel loses too if Rome falls due to four active
> wars?]
> 
Sure.  Bankruptcy and revolt are internal to Rome, and mean the government
falls.  Four wars are external to Rome, and mean Roman power is broken.
The winner is the one running Rome as a great power, not one dictating to
everyone within two kilometers of the Capitol.

You may notice the rule that says that a successful rebel has the rest of
the turn to defeat enough wars to bring the number down to three or less
in order to win.  That rule is in there for a reason.

DHT
From: f12008ad@triton.unm.edu (Student Class Account)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A Game Balance
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:21:38 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu

In article <4878@moscom.com> rpc@moscom.com (Robert Colbey) writes:
>A quick summary of my game-balancing rule modifications:
>
>NO new industrial centers. This favors the Axis because it keeps the Allies'
>lines of supply longer than the Axis', at least until the Axis has expanded
>it's territory.

  I do not think that this will help the Axis powers.  With the 2nd edition rules,
Japan is the only country that can really benefit from IC's.  There are no useful
locations availble to the Allies in the early game, when the game is decided, that
will not be overrun by the Axis.

>Germany gets the Rockets development, with the following restrictions:
>rocket attacks are only allowed from the AA in Western Europe against
>Great Britain (no rocket attacks are allowed against Russia).

   This will help out somewhat.
 
>Japan gets kamikazee fighters. Japanese fighters may fly all 4 spaces
>when making an attack against naval units. If there is a friendly carrier
>to land on, they may do so. Otherwise, planes which have exhausted their
>movement during combat movement and survived combat crash into the sea
>during non-combat.

   I think that this is historically accurate but does not change things too much.  The
only time I would consider using kamikazee's would be on land (which would not be 
allowed).  Sea battles are rarely that important for Japan in a competative game.

>
>Bombers may be used to transport 1 infantry instead of bombs. The infantry
>may be paratroopers dropped into enemy territory during combat movement,
>or infantry airlifted into friendly territory during non-combat movement.
>The infantry which is transported must be in the space from which the
>bomber takes off at the beginning of its flight. One nice thing about
>paratroopers is that it encourages players to place at least a piece or
>two in their home territory!
>
  This rule will help the Axis considerably.  Japan will be able to use its bomber to
advance on Russia quicker.  Russia will also have to maintain aa tolken force in
Moscow.
 
>I have played many games with these rules, as both Axis and Allies, and
>have found that these modifications make the game very close to balanced.
>Comments?

   What does Russia do when you choose not to attack.  It seems as though Russia is
voluntarily surrendering an advantage.  Karelia will be vulnerable on turn 2 when
Russia doesn't attack on turn 1.

David Saville
f12008ad@triton.unm.edu
From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Republic of ROME question, HELP
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:46:26 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035

In article <1k1pr2INNfcs@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> peters@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters) writes:
>Pat Ellis writes:
>>                                    ... the only way to revolt and win was
>>(1) if the people revolted or (2) the state went bankrupt while we were in
>>revolt.
>
>There are 2 other ways: (3) if the senate fails to send an army after you, or
>(4) you defeat the army they send.
>
>Among all the flaws in the rules (I can rattle off twenty or so if anyone
>cares) one of the most confusing is with regard to the combination of a civil
>war and lots of other existing wars. If you fulfill one of the conditions above
>for winning while in rebellion, you lose anyway, along with everyone else, if
>there are four or more active wars, "including the civil war if still ongoing".
>This makes no sense - if you have fulfilled one of those conditions for
>winning, how can the civil war still be ongoing?
>
>Any thoughts on this?
>
We always count the rebel as a war for the purpose of Rome falling until
such time as Rome defeats it or it defeats Rome (so if there is a
stalemate in a rebellion when three other wars are active, rome falls
(unless the senate actually sent some other force out as well as the
crush-the-rebel force, which seems unlikely))

If you see other flaws in the rules, please mention them (a few at a
time).  This seems the ideal place for such a dissection...er,
discussion.

Mel
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Looking for Metagames Hymenoptera(sp?)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:48:16 GMT

I don't think it was ever published. Metagaming probably croaked before
they got around to even designing it.

tom.

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: etxaha@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Hallberg)
Subject: Re: SFB: Plasma bolt vs plasma torp against tholian
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:20:40 GMT

mcsbc3maw@dct.ac.uk writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.100455.25156@eua.ericsson.se>, etxaha@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Hallberg) writes:
>>>etxaha@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Hallberg) writes:
>> 
>>>>byh@beaker.engin.umich.edu (Bartholomew Hsu) writes:
>>>>>	Hello.  I am a inexperienced SFB player stuck in a scenario flying a
>>>>>Romulan Skyhawk-A vs. a Tholian DD+web snare refit+Legendary Weapons officer.
>> 
>>>>You need to get on top of him and unload your torps so that he can't
>>>>avoid them. 
>> 
>> If the Tholian is close enough for bolts to work, launched plasma should work
>> better unless he (the Tholian) is moving very fast.

>I do not agree ! The DD has TWO snares remember ; these will degrade the F torps
>to a very weak warhead before they get out of the web . His snares work once
>per turn so forget hitting with launched plasma unless your plasma will
>hit him in 3 Impulses or less (Web formation time) . Bolt or Nothing !

  Well, when I wrote "on top" I meant range 0 or 1 and launching the
impulse before an impulse when the Tholian moves (impulse 32 e g).
Snares won't help in that case.
  Bolting and phasers will cause maybe 10 internals with luck.  If one
or both bolts miss, you end up with a Tholian with a dented shield and
plenty of time for subhunting.  He has webs, a legendary weapons
officer and probably a T-bomb or two.
-- 
\Anders Hallberg (etxaha@eua.ericsson.se)

"Highly organized nonsense is of no more intrinsic worth 
 than random nonsense." - Chris Williams
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: etxaha@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Hallberg)
Subject: Re: SFB: Rules question, tractors v fighters
Keywords: SFB
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:17:49 GMT

ccjm@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin Charles James MacDonald) writes:

>In my dusty old Commanders' Rules, HETs are prohibited on the first impulse
>of the turn. I cann't find anywhere a specific exemption from this for
>fighters.
>This would indicate that it is possible to drag slow fighters to death if you
>tractor them on impulse 1.
>Any comments?

>Colin.

They don't get killed until you have moved, no ship moves on impulse 1
either.  HET's are made before movement so they can HET away on
impulse 2 even if the tractoring ship moves on that impulse.
-- 
\Anders Hallberg (etxaha@eua.ericsson.se)

"Highly organized nonsense is of no more intrinsic worth 
 than random nonsense." - Chris Williams
From: ali@asterix.hi.Com (Shaheen Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SPACE HULK: Questions
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:33:50
Organization: Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: asterix.hi.com
In-reply-to: dvlgsd@cs.umu.se's message of Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:59:37 GMT

In article <C1GJvE.3Ms@cs.umu.se> dvlgsd@cs.umu.se (Gunnar Strand) writes:


   1. When you use the card 'teleport', are you allowed to
   both move the model AND face it in any direction on the
   spot it arrived?

I am interested in the response to this, I have not yet played a
Genestealer scenario.


   2. Suppose a blip is hunching behind a corner, on the
   square closest to the board section a marine flamer is in
   If the marine moves to get a LOS and to fire the flamer 
   at the section containing the blip. When the blip is 
   converted, is it allowed to place a genestealer on
   the board section which the marine is standing? That
   means that he should have seen the closest stealer
   BEFORE he saw the blip!


	 1. Marine turn                2. Marine moves...

		 |  |  |SM|                 |  |  |  |
   board limit:  +--+--+--+   board limit:  +--+--/--+
	      :  |  |  |  |              :  |  |SM|  |
   --------------+--+--+--+   --------------+--+--+--+
     |  |  |BB|  |  |  |  |     |  |  |BB|  |  |  |  |
   --------------+--+--+--+   --------------+--+--+--+


	 3. and blip conversion!

		 |  |  |  |  
   board limit:  +--+--+--+   
	      :  |  |SM|  |  
   --------------+--+--+--+ 
     |  |GS|GS|GS|  |  |  |
   --------------+--+--+--+  

   This means that the marine would be unable to flame
   or cast a psycic section effect on the stealer section!


We play that this is totally legal.  There are no rules forbidding it.
Remember Genestealers are sneaky bastards that can hide in corners and
climb walls and ceilings.  The only thing a blip tells a Marine is
that the sensorium gives a vague idea of the position of Genestealer
groups.  This is how we judge this situation.


   We decided to say that this particular conversion is NOT
   possible, and that any excess stealers were lost (don't
   worry, I played stealer and nailed him anyway :-). Was
   this right, according to normal and house rules?

   /Gunnar


--
Shaheen H. Ali		 ali@hicomb.hi.com, !hicomb!ali
System Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products,
1601 Trapelo Rd., Waltham, MA 02154	 (617) 890 0444
--
Shaheen H. Ali		 ali@hicomb.hi.com, !hicomb!ali
System Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products,
1601 Trapelo Rd., Waltham, MA 02154	 (617) 890 0444