HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: George.Harris@bbs.oit.unc.edu (George Harris)
Subject: Re: Insect vs Changeling
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:42:36 GMT

In article <BsxvMM.AKv@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> dmccart@gomez.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy) writes:
>[I'm assuming Mayfair rules throughout.]
>
>Ken Cox (kcc@wucs1.wustl.edu) wrote:
>> Gambler faces Empath,
>> Empath plays a Compromise, Gambler plays a Five and announces
>> that it's a Five, and Empath calls the bluff.  Gambler now says
>> Empath loses the extra tokens, since his card was indeed a Five.
>> Empath argues that Gambler's card was actually a Compromise,
>> since Empath's power changed it into one, and Gambler loses the
>> extra tokens.  Who is right?
>
>	The question here is not whether Gambler's card is a 5 or a C
>(the Empath wording is strong enough to make me think it's a C, but I
>digress), but whether Gambler lied or not (because that's how Gambler
>is worded).  Without getting unduly philosophical about the nature of
>truth, I would say that Gambler told the truth *at the time he declared
>the card*, and therefore since that's the only time he made a statement
>regarding his card, that's the only time the truth of his statement can
>be determined.

	But the thing is, Gambler doesn't declare until his opponent has 
revealed his card, ie, until Empath has revealed his Compromise.  By this time,
Gambler's card *has* been turned into a Compromise, so if he says it's a
5, he's lying.

>D. J. McCarthy <dmccart@gomez.intel.com>
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does."		-Groucho Marx

George.Harris@bbs.oit.unc.edu	or, preferably	gharris@jade.tufts.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: bl375@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian G. Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Dual Power games
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:02:38 GMT
Reply-To: bl375@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian G. Greenberg)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


I've been reading this newsgroup all summer and have enjoyed it 
thourougly.  Tis is the first time I'm going to post though.  

I'm going back to school next week, Miami University, and know of 
noone there that plays CE.  Does anyone know of anyone there who
plays?

Ok now for some real questions.  This weekend we played our first
game with multiple powers.  We found that the games took longer.
Is this normal with two power games?  Also if you use Cosmic Zap
does it effect both powers or just one.  With the Changling or
Sorceror flare do you change one power or both and who decides if
it only on power?

Now a question about some edicts and such.  If the Vulch plays
Plague on me and I only have one edict (Cosmic Zap) may I play it
on him so he can't pick it up or must I discard it?

Last question:  We have a player who feels that Finder is too
powerful of an edict since it says something like this:  Name a
card.  Now "look through" that person's hand if he has it take 
it.  He argues that looking through the hand is way too powerful.
What do you think and how do you usually play it?

A good combo but not a deadly one:  Vacuum/Healer.

-Brian G.
-- 
| Brian G. Greenberg:                   | "You can do more with a kind word |
| Summer : bl375@po.cwru.edu            |  and a gun, than with just a kind |
| Fall : bg4nsanu@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu |  word." -Al Capone                |
|     bggreenberg@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu |             GO BROWNS!!!          |
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:49:38 PST

In article <1992Aug19.042515.17530@ils.nwu.edu>, lopez@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Chris &) writes:
> mikem@ll.mit.edu writes:
> : 
> : The Negator couldn't be used this way.  Examples of negatable actions are
> : somewhat muddied, and subject to individual interpretation, but here's the
> : way I see it.  First, here's the relevant wording from the Negator power:
> : 
> : 	Once, before cards are revealed in each challenge, you may
> : 	make any other player change a game action he has just
> : 	taken, e.g. playing a particular card, pointing the cone at
> : 	a specific target, selecting certain tokens, buying any
> : 	cards, etc.
> : 
> : I would say that this does NOT give the NEGATOR the ability to stop a
> : player from saying whatever he/she chooses.  A player can still ask for
> : allies without being negated.  It's only the physical action that can
> : be negated.  In essence, once per challenge, before cards are revealed,
> : the negator can say "Don't do that" after a player action.  Examples:
> : 
> : [rest deleted]  (It only reiterated the above)
> 
> An action does not have to by physical.  My dictionary -- Webster's Ninth 
> New Collegiate Dictionary -- gives the following definitions:
> 
>  4) an act of will.
>  8) b: the process of betting including the offering and acceptance of a bet
>     (ok, so this one clearly isn't the one intended, but it was so fitting)
> 
> This view is further supported by the later wording in the power:
> 
>     Once negated, the player must make a different decision
>     affecting the same element of play and continue the play.
> 
> Decisions are clearly mental activities, not physical ones.
>

Yes, they are, but the _really_ useful wording in that section is "before cards
are played." With Gambler v. Negator, Negator has already played his card, and
the statement of value on Gambler's side is his version of playing the card.
Thus calling a bluff automatically comes after cards are played and cannot be
negated. Doncha think? (All this courtesy of IMHO, Inc.)

-----
Douglass Barre - carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu
"Are you bigger than a breadbox?" -- Lord Julius, _Cerebus_ 160
From: chrisk@gss.com (Chris Kessel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:33:32 GMT
Organization: Graphic Software Systems, Beaverton, OR

In article <4564@news.duke.edu> radkel@canctr.mc.duke.edu writes:
>
>   I'm surprised that no one has brought up two very tough combos:
>Aura-Visionary and Mesmer-Vulch.  A-V has the advantage of seeing everyone's 
>cards at all times and demanding what they'll play.  Only a zap can really
>stop it.  Even one bad card on the part of your opponent can wipe them out.
>
>--Rob

A-V potent? Trying playing against a Philanthropist/Visionary.

"Oh, here, take a Comprimise card.  Oh, and BTW, as Visionary I want you to
play a comprimise card if you have one..*evil laugh follows*"

Just a plain nasty combination :)

Chris
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer)
Subject: Re: Reincarnator queries
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:46:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.083325.25543@cs.aukuni.ac.nz>, cwes1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Clare West) writes:
>
>Two things I wanted to ask the group about the use of the
>Reincarnator:
>
>1. Reincarnator was an ally on a challenge that ended up with an
>unsuccessful deal. Does this count as a loss for him? The exact
>wording on the card is:
>
>"When you fail to make a deal or loose a challenge as a main player or
>ally, you must reincarnate..."
>
>I thought this didn't let him reincarnate but he thought it did.
>Opinions anyone?

As soon as the challenge became a deal challenge, all allies go home
and are no longer involved in the challenge.  Therefore, the deal
outcome can never have any effect on the Reincarnator unless he was
one of the two main players involved in the deal.

>2. If the Reincarnator draws a power like Changeling, when he uses
>that power does he swap both Reincarnator and Changeling or just
>Changeling? We played just Changeling (which managed to get Filth out
>of the game entirely, when he next reincarnated) but this seems at
>odds with the (confusing) sentence on the card:
>
>"...If you face a player who can copy your power, he copies only your
>current incarnation and must reincarnate himself if he mimics you and
>loses the challenge."
>
>that sentence seems to contradict itself - is the player copying the
>Reincarnator only (obviously not), the current incarnation only (well
>yes) or the combination of Reincarnator and current incarnation (well
>yes)?

First, lets quote the Reincarnator text from Eon (real) CE:

You have the power of reincarnation.  Whenever you are involved in a 
challenge as a player or ally and you lose (or fail to deal) you reincarnate.
That is, just before the next challenge begins, you draw an Alien Power
card at random from the pile of those not in use and become that Alien.
If it cannot be used in the game, draw another.  When you lose as that
Alien, discard it and draw another, etc.  The Reincarnator power stays
with you while you use the others.  In a game with the Plant or Insect,
they may copy your current incarnation, but if they lose they must
reincarnate and the Plant or Insect power is out of the game.

The last sentance answers your last question pretty clearly.  The Insect
copies the current incarnation power but, if he loses he must reincarnate
as well (i.e. toss his Insect power and draw a new one which can be used
in the game).

I would have to disagree with Phil Hill about the Reincarnator with the
Changeling as his current incarnation issue.  The second to last sentance
seems to imply pretty strongly to me that only the Changeling power goes.
However, I'm really SWAGing this answer.  I'll ask Jack Kittredge about
this one the next time I talk to him.  I'll see if we can even print
the answer in the next issue of Encounter.

Nick Sauer
From: chrisk@gss.com (Chris Kessel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Guaranteed Losses
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:27:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: gss.1992Aug19.202745.986
Organization: Graphic Software Systems, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Aug17.134758.70@gems.vcu.edu> porterg@gems.vcu.edu writes:
>
>To slightly alter the subject, what about guaranteed losses?  That is, power
>combinations that hose the owner despite best efforts.
>
>For instance:
>Doppleganer-Filch - Not a guaranteed loss, but painful.
>Doppleganger-Deuce - Ouch.
>Macron-Antimatter - Kiss those home systems goodbye.

Now wait a second, I believe it says on anti-matter (I'm at work so I can't 
tell) that your tokens count negative.  So home planets would be about 
invincible with antimatter ("I have -16 and I play an 8, beat a -8!").
This is the Mayfair edition.

Chris
From: radkel@canctr.mc.duke.edu (R.CLOUGH)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: More Tough Combos
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:21:46 GMT
Reply-To: radkel@canctr.mc.duke.edu
Organization: Duke U. Med. Ctr., Durham, NC


   I'm surprised that no one has brought up two very tough combos:
Aura-Visionary and Mesmer-Vulch.  A-V has the advantage of seeing everyone's 
cards at all times and demanding what they'll play.  Only a zap can really
stop it.  Even one bad card on the part of your opponent can wipe them out.
  The M-V is tough, since you can grab every edict in the game, and then 
declare it to be anything you want.  This was used in a particularly 
effective manner against me in a game with the discard deal moon.
   BTW, having a lucre power with the Antimatter is not necessarily a bad
thing.  You just have to spend it very quickly, and having a lucre power
gives you a license to do so.  It also seems that if you were the Macron/
Antimatter or Macron/Virus, you would never lose a home challenge.

--Rob
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: kcc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Ken Cox)
Subject: Insect vs Changeling
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:00:16 GMT

We had an interesting series of games tonight, and hit the
problem of Insect vs. Changeling.  I thought I might as well
share our solution and invite comments.

We had the additional complication of playing with multiple
powers; we play that with multiple powers, both Insect and
Changeling get to select which of the opponent's powers they
affect.  We decided that Insect must first announce if he's
copying Changeling.  If not, fine, there's only one Changeling
and everything is handled normally.  But if Insect copies
Changeling, there are now two Changeling cards that must BOTH
be traded, offense first, then defense (per the Insect).

We also decided, reluctantly, that the offensive player can
trade "his" Changeling for his opponent's; then, since the
Changeling card that he just got hasn't been used, he must
trade IT for one of his opponent's powers.  We didn't much
like this, but it seemed the only sensible solution.

Opinions?

And while I'm costing the net billions of dollars and depressing
the world's GNP, a hypothetical situation:  Gambler faces Empath,
Empath plays a Compromise, Gambler plays a Five and announces
that it's a Five, and Empath calls the bluff.  Gambler now says
Empath loses the extra tokens, since his card was indeed a Five.
Empath argues that Gambler's card was actually a Compromise,
since Empath's power changed it into one, and Gambler loses the
extra tokens.  Who is right?


Ken Cox
kcc@wucs1.wustl.edu
From: carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Insect vs Changeling
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:23:05 GMT
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School

In article <1992Aug13.040016.7339@wuecl.wustl.edu>, kcc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Ken Cox) writes:
> 
> And while I'm costing the net billions of dollars and depressing
> the world's GNP, a hypothetical situation:  Gambler faces Empath,
> Empath plays a Compromise, Gambler plays a Five and announces
> that it's a Five, and Empath calls the bluff.  Gambler now says
> Empath loses the extra tokens, since his card was indeed a Five.
> Empath argues that Gambler's card was actually a Compromise,
> since Empath's power changed it into one, and Gambler loses the
> extra tokens.  Who is right?
> 
> 
> Ken Cox
> kcc@wucs1.wustl.edu

My guess would be that when Gambler played his card and claimed it to be a
five, Empath's power would change the card (as it stands, a five) into a
compromise card without Gambler needing to reveal it. Since the card was
(originally) declared as a five, but the Empath's power changed it into a
Compromise (Empath's is a mandatory power, and since the face-down declared
Gambler card counts as a card, the Empath power would have caused it to become
a Compromise face-down) if he called the bluff, and the card was flipped, the
Empath power would have turned it into a Compromise as well, thus Empath, since
the "declared" value and the "real" value were the same (Compromise), would
have lost the bluff.

My question is: What do you do with Gambler vs. Visionary? We've always played
that if the Gambler has the card Visionary calls for, he must play it, but he
can claim that it is whatever he wants (i.e., Visionary calls for a five,
Gambler plays a five face down, but declares it to be a twenty. If Gambler
didn't have a five, he could have played a twenty, but Visionary has no way of
knwoing for sure.) However, a friend says that the Gambler should have to
declare the five, no matter what he plays. What do y'all think?

-----
Douglass Barre - carterk@clargrad
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: dmccart@gomez.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Insect vs Changeling
Organization: Architecture & Software Technology Group, Intel, Santa Clara CA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:30:20 GMT

[I'm assuming Mayfair rules throughout.]

Ken Cox (kcc@wucs1.wustl.edu) wrote:
> We had an interesting series of games tonight, and hit the
> problem of Insect vs. Changeling [....]
> We also decided, reluctantly, that the offensive player can
> trade "his" Changeling for his opponent's; then, since the
> Changeling card that he just got hasn't been used, he must
> trade IT for one of his opponent's powers.  We didn't much
> like this, but it seemed the only sensible solution.
> 
> Opinions?

	Personally I don't think I'd ever Changeling my own Insect away,
unless I thought I could split up someone else's annoying power
combination that way.  But I must agree with the validity of the slimy
offensive-player trick above.



> Gambler faces Empath,
> Empath plays a Compromise, Gambler plays a Five and announces
> that it's a Five, and Empath calls the bluff.  Gambler now says
> Empath loses the extra tokens, since his card was indeed a Five.
> Empath argues that Gambler's card was actually a Compromise,
> since Empath's power changed it into one, and Gambler loses the
> extra tokens.  Who is right?

	The question here is not whether Gambler's card is a 5 or a C
(the Empath wording is strong enough to make me think it's a C, but I
digress), but whether Gambler lied or not (because that's how Gambler
is worded).  Without getting unduly philosophical about the nature of
truth, I would say that Gambler told the truth *at the time he declared
the card*, and therefore since that's the only time he made a statement
regarding his card, that's the only time the truth of his statement can
be determined.

	So I'd say his card is now a C, but he told the truth, so Empath
should lose the tokens.


--
D. J. McCarthy <dmccart@gomez.intel.com>
"America, I have your babies!"
                                                                     --Ren Hoek

Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: Steve.Zwanger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Zwanger)
Subject: Re: Reincarnator queries
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:00:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.083325.25543@cs.aukuni.ac.nz> cwes1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Clare West) writes:
>1. Reincarnator was an ally on a challenge that ended up with an
>unsuccessful deal. Does this count as a loss for him? The exact
>wording on the card is:
>
>"When you fail to make a deal or loose a challenge as a main player or
>ally, you must reincarnate..."
>
>I thought this didn't let him reincarnate but he thought it did.
>Opinions anyone?

Once there is an opportunity to make a deal, all the allies go home. The
Reincarnator only reincarnates when he loses tokens; this does not happen
(as an ally) in an unsuccessful deal.

Steve


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: praxis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Laura L Perkinson)
Subject: Re: Insect vs Changeling
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:48:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.040016.7339@wuecl.wustl.edu> 
kcc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Ken Cox) writes:

>And while I'm costing the net billions of dollars and depressing
>the world's GNP, a hypothetical situation:  Gambler faces Empath,
>Empath plays a Compromise, Gambler plays a Five and announces
>that it's a Five, and Empath calls the bluff.  Gambler now says
>Empath loses the extra tokens, since his card was indeed a Five.
>Empath argues that Gambler's card was actually a Compromise,
>since Empath's power changed it into one, and Gambler loses the
>extra tokens.  Who is right?
>Ken Cox
>kcc@wucs1.wustl.edu

	IMNSHO, no two ways about it. Gambler's right. The power applies to
what he played (he did play a five.) Empath's power makes it count like a
Compromise, but I don't think it can rearrange the ink on the card the
player just put down.
	Makes me wonder why Empath bothered calling the bluff if he just
intended to use his power anyway.

		Happy to be costing the net billions of bucks,
				Praxis
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: jlb@engin.umich.edu (Jeffrey Lawrence Bailey)
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos AND Loser
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 14:29:14 EDT
Organization: Campus Computing Sites, University of Michigan

More importantly in this case, Gambler is doing something related to his
power, something clearly un-Negatable in Negator's description.  Negator
could negate the selection of the card, but he couldn't do that after
Gambler had laid it down and declared its value, because I believe the power
says "immediately".  Negator could only make the first card Gambler tried to
play off limits, and that's not more nasty for Gambler than it is for anyone
else.

In another field, I once played the Loser in Mayfair and almost ground the
game to a halt waiting for an ally to accept.  He kept asking if I was going
to declare an upset, and I kept waiting to determine if he would commit (and
it would then be worthwhile to try and win).  There seems to be no clearly
defined point (other than an arbitrary time limit) to end the phase.  What
opinions do I hear?
-- 
-- 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
From: Scott Abfalter <thx1138@angus.mi.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Address
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 15:43:27 EDT
Reply-To: thx1138@angus.mi.org
Organization: North Star BBS


C'mon now, SOMEONE out there has to have the address where I can write
for black Mayfair CE cards.  Fess up, now, what is it?!?!


THX

--
Scott Abfalter (thx1138@angus.mi.org)
North Star BBS, Royal Oak, MI --------------------------------------------+-
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: crgoc@bard.uk.cray.com (Gary O'Connor)
Organization: Cray Research (UK) Ltd
Subject: This Games 
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:59:30 CDT


 Excuse me for my ignorance, what the hell is the game your talking
 about, where can I get a copy and is it Good ?

-- 

 Gary O'Connor (crgoc@uk  extn:2245)

	Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are
        held to discuss it.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: dmccart@gomez.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos
Organization: Architecture & Software Technology Group, Intel, Santa Clara CA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:22:42 GMT

R.CLOUGH (radkel@canctr.mc.duke.edu) wrote:

> It also seems that if you were the Macron/
> Antimatter or Macron/Virus, you would never lose a home challenge.

	...except against Loser, in which case you'd have no chance.
Amoeba and Warpish would give you a run for your money too.

	My favorite brute-force power combo is Pacifist/Clone.  Get one
Compromise card in your hand and you're set for life.

--
D. J. McCarthy <dmccart@gomez.intel.com>
Minimal .sig virus: copy now!
From: dmccart@gomez.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: "Guaranteed" wins: NOT
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:46:43 GMT
Organization: Architecture & Software Technology Group, Intel, Santa Clara CA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Jeffrey Lawrence Bailey (jlb@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
> Obviously, there is NO combination that guarantees
> victory (though Schizoid-Butler will get you darn close in Eon),

	Okay, I'll bite.  I've always heard that Butler was a total waste,
and Schizoid is a mainly "fun" power instead of a "powerful" power.  So
how do you figure Sch/But is a guaranteed win?

	Or is the win condition something obnoxious like "have one
external base and flip the destiny pile"?



--
D. J. McCarthy <dmccart@gomez.intel.com>
"Lee, when you kill a president, it isn't murder. Murder is a tawdry little
 crime.... shopkeepers get murdered. But when a president kets killed, when
 Julius Caesar got killed -- he was *assassinated*.   --Booth, from "Assassins"
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce