From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Organization: The Internet
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:08:44 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.board.ce

In article <1992Aug31.210625.20978@Princeton.EDU> woodhams@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams) writes:
>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:
>>>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.

But then a Cosmic Zap would be a very easy way to nullify the
Terrorist's power for the rest of the game...and that's not in keeping
with the spirit of the game, where you actully have to lose poorly in
order to lose your power.

>>>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.

...and then the defensive player should have an chance to reconsider
and so on and so on and so on...or worse still, neither player will do
anything, waiting for the other player to do something. 

Not my idea of a fun game.

>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.

Nick's a cool dude, but his authority is paramount IMHO concerning the
Eon version of the game.  I'd (and I think Nick would) turn to Mike
Arms as the paramount authority on Mayfair CE.  These "authorities"
come from the two gentlemen's frequent association with the persons
most responsible for the development of the respective games, Jack
Kittritge and Jim Musser, respectively.  Others, such as myself, can
only speak from our roles as playtest coordinators, thereby only
reflecting the input *we* injected into the game, our numerous heated
conversations with Nick and Mike and Jim, and our years of
play-experience, which, as you alluded to, could be all wet. 

-- 
Brian Charles Kohn               using !bicker's account
Poet-Magician of "Quality"       E-MAIL: bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM
    'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
                   Stamp Out "SO": "RP" = "Romantic Partner"
Newsgroups: rec.games.board