From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 07:03:50 GMT

In a prior article, David Ring (dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu) writes:
> Well, I'm glad somebody wants to take the extreme position. Makes my job
> easier. By your rules, noone can 'respond' (do something they wouldn't have
> done otherwise) to the defender's actions WHATSOEVER.

No: If, according to the timing rules, someone else is allowed to act after
the defender, then that someone can respond to the defender's actions. Any
play-at-any-time edict or flare can be played after a defender action, for
example. You're right, though, that in terms of power usage, the defender
has a big advantage. This is probably on purpose; someone has to have the
advantage (see below for more on why), so the designers decided to make it
the defender. Or maybe they made up the rule arbitrarily and haphazardly; who
knows--ask the playtesters.

>> [scenario deleted]

> Excuse me? I don't know what game you're playing, but you can't undo an
> action in this game.

Ok, so you're playing by what I described as "Alternative rule: ...once
you've decided to use your power, you can't change your mind." I guess to be
precise, I should have said "Once you've declared that you're using your
power, you can't change your mind." This may address your next comment:

> 'Committing' is not a game action. Refusing to commit is not a problem.
> If the players refuse to REVEAL, that would be a problem, but _one_ of the
> players has no reason to refuse _that_. Besides, one does not need a timing
> conflict for a stubborn player to refuse to play.

Ok, let me be more precise here. Mirror and Sorceror are in the situation I
described earlier. Mirror says "I am not sure whether I wish to use my power
yet; I will not declare yet whether I am or am not using my power until
Sorceror declares whether he is or is not using his power, since once I
declare, I can't change my mind." Sorceror says exactly the same thing
(substitute Sorceror for Mirror). What does your group do in this situation?
One of these two _has_ to declare first, and the other one is _going_ to win
the challenge, so neither is going to be willing to declare first.

> Sorcerer is going to win this challenge. He has a decided advantage. See
> if you can figure out what that advantage is.

No need to be rude. But I think I see how your group does this differently
than mine: you assume that if a player does not declare that he is using his
power, that he is not using his power, and move on to the next phase. You
don't declare whether you are or are not using; you only declare if you are,
and if you say nothing, you're assumed not to be using (this only works for
optional powers, obviously). If the other player declares, and you haven't
yet, then you either declare or waive your right to do so, and play continues.

I'm not sure why this interpretation is incorrect, but Nick Sauer and Brian
Kohn (heavily involved with CE development) seem to think it is. I think I
want to run the risk of repeating myself and repeat what I see as the two
competing ways of handling this problem here.

Method One : Use the timing rules. Critical phases are broken up into
subphases, in that in each phase, each player must state whether he is or is
not using his power, in the order stated by the timing rules. During
critical phases, you go around the table saying "Want to do anything?" and
see how people respond. Once your turn has passed, you can't change your
mind, though you can interject with a play-at-any-time power or edict/flare.

Method Two : Silence implies consent. During each phase, a player can
declare that he is using a power which takes effect during that phase at any
time, but cannot force the end of the phase until other players have been
given a reasonable amount of time to declare in reaction to his declaration,
or decline to do so. During critical phases, you say "Is anyone doing
anything?" and if no one says anything (or everyone says no), play
continues. If someone says something, you say "Ok, anyone else doing
something?" and repeat until all players are satisfied.

Now, some thoughts. Method One is definitely the way we've played powers
that take effect in the same phase; for example, in the Mirror/Sorceror
conflict described above, we say to the offensive player "Are you using your
power?" and then likewise to the defensive player, and those declarations
stand. As Nick noted, though, this doesn't come up all that often, and since
we're used to the timing rules, it doesn't interfere much with play. Method
Two seems just as viable, though. I happen to like the way we've done it,
but I agree that there really isn't anything in the rules to handle how
power use declarations are handled. I'm not convinced that two powers acting
in the same phase are necessarily contradictory effects. On the other hand,
I can't think of any examples of powers that contradict each other, in the
sense that allowing one to act makes it logically impossible for the other
to act. Examples of this welcomed.

After thinking about this, I'm really convinced this is an open question.
I'm definitely interested in hearing from advocates of both methods about
whether they think I've characterized them accurately, and why they prefer
their method over the other (i.e. whether it's just "how we've always
played" or if there are rules which suggest that one is more correct).

To quibble a little further, though, I wrote:

>> The reasons why both of these decisions should _not_ be revocable should
>> be clear from the examples; if it's not, ask.

To which David replied:

> I don't need to ask. I can READ.

To repeat, no need to be rude. I was trying to convey the idea that my point
might not have been obvious, and admitting the possibility that my reasoning
might have been insufficiently clear, not that you couldn't figure it out. I
was allowing for obscurity on my part, not stupidity on yours (since you
don't seem stupid), and am sorry if you felt like I was being rude to you. I
add on "If this didn't make sense, just ask" disclaimers to many things I
write, 'cause I never know whether my reasoning makes sense to anyone other
than myself. I don't want to sound like I'm saying "If you don't get this,
you must be an idiot," because someone might not get it because I didn't
explain it well.

Anyway, enough style-quibbles; comments on the substance of my musings are
definitely welcomed.
-- 
original text by Josh Smith    ::   Comments, questions, etc. welcomed
irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu   ::   #include <std.disclaimer>
"If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll
look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy."
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce