HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gkatz@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Gerald W Katz)
Subject: Re: Guaranteed Losses
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:04:17 GMT

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.

Macron/Anti-Matter is actually a great combo.
Anti-Matter allows you tto subtract your tokens and lower total wins.
Macron makes all you tokens worth four; therefore, each tokens allows you
to subtract four!

Anti-Matter/Deuce on the other hand...

>
>
>On *good* power combos, I have found the ultimate abuse requires the cooper-
>ation of the Hurtz.  You rent the Changeling, use it on another player, and
>at the end of the challenge, the Changeling disappears *forever*, leaving
>you with 3 powers and them with 1.  I think you can also do this with the
>Sorceror flare (rent the flare and a useless power).
>
>Greg Porter
>BTRC

I would guess that Changeling would stay in the game and the power you
used Changeling on would go away just to keep the peace between players
if not legally correct.  Besides, if you're playing as originally intended
with only one power per player, you would have two powers and your opponent
none, and that would certainly cause trouble.


Don't forget to tip the Butler!
						gkatz

Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: gkatz@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Gerald W Katz)
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:08:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.193332.4870@gss.com> chrisk@gss.com (Chris Kessel) writes:
>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


Why give away your cards or let everyone see everyone else's card?
Just be Mind/Visionary and be done with it.

Don't forget to tip the Butler!
						gkatz
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: mikem@ll.mit.edu
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 15:54:22 GMT

praxis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Laura L Perkinson) writes:
>
>	Also, in the old Eon version, I seem to recall a power called
>Negator, where you could cancel any one action by someone/turn. (ie, you
>can't play that card, you can't ally with him, can't agree to that deal.
>It couldn't interfere with the use of someone's powers.) It was a real
>bitch w. Gambler.
>	"This card is an 89."
>	"I don't believe that!"
>	"Yes, you do!"

[here we go again, another NEGATOR discussion.]

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:

Player selects a token to put in cone.  "Don't do that."  Player must 
    return that token and either choose another or not add any more.

Player points cone.  "Don't do that."  Player must point cone elsewhere.

Player buys cards.  "Don't do that."  Player must take back lucre and
    return cards to the deck.

Player places a challenge card face-down.  "Don't do that."  Player must
    choose another card to place face-down.

The basic theme is that the player actually has to manipulate game
components, and the Negator can cause the player NOT to manipulate
those game components in a certain way.

The Negator could NOT be used to change a spoken decision or a request.
It can't stop a player from asking for allies.  (but it can affect one
allying player's choice of tokens)  And it can't reverse a player's
spoken acceptance/refusal of the gambler's stated card value.


In My Humble Opinion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Maciolek - mikem@ll.mit.edu --- VOICE (617)981-3174 - FAX (617)981-0189
Network Engineer - MIT Lincoln Laboratory - Computer Telecommunications Systems
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Democrat:  Give us your money.  _We'll_ solve your problems.
  Republican:  Give us your money.  We'll pretend your problems don't exist.
  Libertarian:  _Keep_ your money.  Solve your own problems.
From: porterg@gems.vcu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Guaranteed Ignorance
Date: 18 Aug 92 09:16:59 -0400
Organization: Medical College of Virginia

I feel so stoopid!

Of course AM-Macron is good.  I was just doing this from work and (obviously)
didn't think about it.

Anyway, I and my ignorance will be at GenCon, so you can all hope you run
into me.

I'm so ashamed...

Greg

Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: praxis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Laura L Perkinson)
Subject: Re: This Games
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:25:18 GMT

	Well, Gary, the game is Cosmic Encounter, put out (currently) by
Mayfair. (You might be able to find the old Eon version.) Cost $35 (about).
An expansion set should be out in a month, same price.
	It's a really fun game; it also leaves lots of room for bizarre
interpretations of how it works (it is dubbed "the game that breaks its own
rules"), ergo, this group.
	Any further questions?
		Praxis

	"Excuse me, Harry. I really have to urinate."
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: praxis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Laura L Perkinson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Reincarnator queries
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:35:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: jhunix.1992Aug19.173555.9142
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore


	We play that stuff which switches/imitates powers only mimics
the current power. As mentioned, with Changeling in  the game, this gives
the cute ability to kill a power.
		Praxis

	"So, which book do we burn?"
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: colorado@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Martin Snow)
Subject: Terrorist/worm
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: NASA/GSFC-Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:57:00 GMT

Terrorist/Worm isn't all that great of a combination.  As worm, you can
only reposition the cone to another planet where you have a base.  If you
get attacked where you have no tokens, you can't use worm at all.

I guess the idea would be to put all your bombs on one planet, and after
worming the cone over there once, hope that people continue to attack the
(seemingly) empty planet.  I've tried this, and it doesn't work very well.

Martin Snow

snow@lyrae.dnet.nasa.gov
snow@cololasp.bitnet
msnow%cygnus@vaxf.colorado.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: woodhams@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos AND Loser
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:18:34 GMT
Organization: Princeton University Observatory
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <NMf-R6B@engin.umich.edu> jlb@engin.umich.edu (Jeffrey Lawrence Bailey) writes:
>
>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?

My solution is as follows:
Whichever of you is first in the timing order (in this case, the
prospective ally, as I take it you were a main player) can act (ally)
or not act. Then the second person (you) get to act or not act. If
both of you fail to act (he doesn't ally and you don't declare an
upset) the phase is over. However, if he doesn't ally and you DO
declare an upset, he then can reconsider his alliance decision. The
guiding principle is that the timing resolution order should never
prevent somebody from reacting to another persons act.

More formally, in every phase you start with the first person in the
timing order (to the left of offensive main player, I think) and ask
"do you want to do anything?" and continue asking each person in turn
until either somebody does something (in which case you immediately go
back to the first person in the order and repeat) or the last person
declines to do anything, in which case the phase is over. In practice
this would be tedious, so before you do something that people may want
to act before (e.g. move from card play to card reveal phase) announce
"Anybody want to do something?"

My opinion is that if you don't give people earlier in the timing
order a chance to act before you, they should have the right to say
"Wait! before you play that timegash, I was going to plague you!" I've
posted this method of handling timing conflicts before, and this part
of it generally did not go down so well. I don't think that the
ability to say "Insect Plant! Plant Plant! Plant Silencer! You're
silenced!" faster than your opponent should count for anything in CE.

Disclaimer: Although my timing rules are consistent with the written
rules, they are an extension, not merely a clarification.

Michael W.
From: praxis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Laura L Perkinson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Gambler vs. Empath
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:39:09 GMT
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

In article <Bt5Axs.1wx@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
dmccart@gomez.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy) writes:
>	To coin a phrase, Ink Is Irrelevant in this case.  It doesn't
>matter what pattern the ink is on Gam's card; Emp's played card and Emp's
>power turn it into a Compromise card.

	Got your point; but mine is that even if Empath >turns it into< a
compromise, Gambler still >played< something else. Gambler claims he'll
play an X attack (or whatever). What you do once he's played it is your
business.

	Ink is irrelevant? Don't tell Suicide Squid!
			Praxis
From: woodhams@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:14:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University Observatory
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug19.202205.19500@sbcs.sunysb.edu> gkatz@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Gerald W Katz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.155422.3431@ll.mit.edu> mikem@ll.mit.edu writes:
>>
>>	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.
>>
[ an interpretation of Negator deleted ]
>
>I disagree.  We've always played that Negator can negate a decision
>made by a player, even to the extent of mimicking Magnet.
>"I negate your decision not to let me ally" or "I negate your decision
>to ask Cavalry for an ally."  Granted it makes Negator powerfu, but
>since it's limited to only one negation and only before cards are revealed,\
>it's not godlike.

I play that only active decisions are negatable, not the absence of
deciding/doing something. (i.e. you can negate actions, but not
inactions.) Otherwise not only do you get parasite ("I negate your
decision not to invite me") but arguably visionary ("I negate your
decision not to play a compromise.") No power should be a superset of
some other power, and Negator is a superset of Parasite by this
interpretation. "You are not going to invite so-and-so" or "you are
not going to ally with the defense" are legitimate, however.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: dmccart@gomez.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy)
Subject: Gambler vs. Visionary (was Insect vs Changeling)
Organization: Architecture & Software Technology Group, Intel, Santa Clara CA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:41:38 GMT

carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu wrote:

> 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?

	This one's pretty clear.  If Gam has the card Vis specifies, he
"must play it" (per Vis description).  PLAYING a card and DECLARING
what it is are two different things.  Gam has to put down the specified
card if he has it, but can declare it to be anything he wants.

	So I think your friend is all wet.

	Personally I'd much rather be Gambler in this situation, unless
for some reason Visionary knows for a fact what cards you have.  Excellent
potential for nasty mind games, even more so than Gambler vs. something else.


--
D. J. McCarthy <dmccart@gomez.intel.com>
Bibit hera, bibit herus; bibit milus, bibit clerus; bibit ille, bibit illa;
bibit servus cum ancilla; bibit velox, bibit piger; bibit albus, bibit niger;
bibit constans, bibit vagus; bibit rudis, bibit magus.
From: porterg@gems.vcu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Guaranteed Losses
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:47:58 GMT
Organization: Medical College of Virginia


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.


On *good* power combos, I have found the ultimate abuse requires the cooper-
ation of the Hurtz.  You rent the Changeling, use it on another player, and
at the end of the challenge, the Changeling disappears *forever*, leaving
you with 3 powers and them with 1.  I think you can also do this with the
Sorceror flare (rent the flare and a useless power).

Greg Porter
BTRC
From: canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: BattleTech email list?
Keywords: battletech mech mecha
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:14:16 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA


	I've heard rumors of a BattleTech E-mail discussion list.  Does
this exist and if so, what is the subscription address?

Cheers,
Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson	            	"Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
canders@isr.harvard.edu			at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
anderso2@husc.harvard.edu			- Skarphedhinn Njalsson 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chris@smurf.sti.com (Chris Guthrie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: JUNTA - rules questions
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:36:35 GMT
Reply-To: chris@sti.com
Organization: Software Transformation Inc.


In article <2704@nlsun1.oracle.nl>, gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley) writes:
|> 
|> 1) When the current president dies/resigns the rules state that the
|> Chamber must re-elect a successor immediately. When this occurs, what
|> happens to the position(s) currently held by the
|> new President? Rules elsewhere state that the president can never hold
|> another position.

He must hold the positions until the next cabinet assignment phase.  I
would invoke "the president's brother-in-law" for one of the positions
I hold.  After all, the former president's resignation was voluntary.
This rarely, if ever happens, and when it does, it usually is very quickly
fixed up.

|> 2) In the section about electing a president at the very start of a
|> game, the rules mention that votes from influence, vote and position
|> cards can be cast. How could anyone have a position at this time?

This rule also covers other elections for President, when you would have
a position.

|> 3) During a coup, the rules first say everyone moves and fires in turn,
|> then later say comabt is resolved by area. Which is it? Does everyone
|> have one move then everyone resolves combat in every area? (This would
|> make the most sense to me).

Everyone moves, then the shooting starts.

|> 4) Okay, this is an opinion question...would anyone care to share their
|> thoughts on the order of power of the various positions. Which is the
|> best to have? Is there any difference between
|> the 3 generals in terms of strategic starting positions for a coup?

IMHO most powerful position is the minister of internal security.  After
all, he spends the game trying to assassinate other player positions.  He
usually provides the president's power base, thus is usually allowed a
large cut of the budget.  Often, if there are fewer than seven players,
he is the one who gets the extra office.

There is usually no difference in the generals.  If, however, bribery
cards are held, which general you are can make a difference.
	Chris
From: brandon@nlm.nih.gov (Brandon Brylawski)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Game stores in Washington DC?
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:14:28 GMT
Organization: National Library of Medicine
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

A fine store which I believe has the very best prices in the area (usually
around 30% off list) is the Wargame Depot, on Rhode Island Ave in Beltsville,
MD, just north of route 1, about 5 minutes north of the beltway.
They also have a fine selection of used games and modules. Well worth
the trip for the savings.

Brandon
From: roma@pe.chalmers.se (Robert Maglica)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Stand and Die Errata
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:10:25 GMT

Hi,
Does anyone out there know the date of the latest errata for
GDW's Stand and Die ?

/Robert Maglica
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Advanced 3rd Reich
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:51:03 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Inevitably the design of any game will reflect the opinions of the designer,
but I think the A3R U.S.-Axis Tension Table also reflects history reasonably
well.  In my view:

1. There was no chance the U.S. would ally itself with Germany;
2. American sentiment was generally pro-British, with the real question being
whether it was necessary and advantageous for the U.S. to risk war with Germany
to help Britain (much less actually enter the war);
3. American opinion became more pro-British with time, and also with each new
aggression committed by the Axis, both in Europe and the Pacific;
4. There was serious disagreement between those who favored economic aid to
Britain and those who favored giving American rearmament a priority (reflected
in the fact that BRP grants from the U.S. to Britain while the U.S. is neutral
are deducted from the U.S. base);
5. A Japanese attack on British and Dutch possessions in the Far East would
have greatly upset U.S. opinion, but would not necessarily have triggered an
immediate U.S. declaration of war (reflected in the fact that this Japanese
aggression is "only" a +4 on the tension index);
6. A Japanese attack on the U.S. would not necessarily have triggered American
entry into the European war (reflected in the fact that this Japanese
aggression is "only" a +5 on the tension index.  This is relevant only in a
Global War scenario using Rising Sun, where the Japanese can act
independently).
7. The Lusitania was sunk during World War I (in 1915, to be exact - about two
years before the U.S. declared war on Germany).

I hope this clarifies some of the thinking behind that particular rule.  Shall
we now look at the Russian diplomatic table?  (Don't do it on my account...)
From: engjs@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (James Smith)
Subject: Re: Another JUNTA question
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:44:57 GMT

vadim@cs.stanford.edu writes:

>>There is a problem that occurred several times in our Junta group:
>>When someone declares a coup, the bank is closed... 

No. The banking phase always occurs before the coup phase, and calling a
coup does not close the bank.  The only way to close the bank is for the
player with bankers' influence to play the bank is closed card.

Donald Chinn writes:

> There is one circumstance that there is absolutely
> no banking turn (that doesn't use a card).  I think it has to do with
> the Minister forcing the budget.

I don't remember this and I have read the rules several times. The
minister forcing the budget is a coup excuse, but as far as I know it has
no other real effect on the game.

Jim
-- 
James J Smith             | "I couldn't get over it. All these women
School of Engineering     | in the world...and under their clothes
Newcastle University      | each and every one of them was naked, you
engjs@cc.newcastle.edu.au | know..." -- Psycho-killer, "Sandman"
From: bl375@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian G. Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Help Settle a Talisman Arguement
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:19:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Aug19.151928.884
Reply-To: bl375@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian G. Greenberg)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


Well my family and I played Talisman last night (with all
expansions except Timescape) and as usual we had some big
arguements.

The first was with the special ability of the Swashbuckler where
if he wins a combat on his turn he make take another turn.  I argued
that this included the farmer in the tavern, the spirit and
monster in the Crags and Forest, the Sentinal, and the Pitfiends.
My arguement was with the definition of combat.  I looked it up
in the Talisman rules and it says Combat takes place when a
character is attaced by a Enemy - Monster, Dragon, Animal or any
creature with a given strength.  Psycic Combat is the same execpt
it is Enemy - Spirt, Ghost, etc. or any creature with a given
craft.  I argued that these count towards the Swashbuckler's 
extra turn because they have given strength.  What do you think?

Also, with regards to the High Mage:  His special ability is to
roll when some cast a spell on him.  I casted Mesmerism on the
Mersonary held by the High Mage.  I argued that he couldn't roll 
because I if you cast this spell on someone with the Amulet it
still effects their follower.  Any ideas?

Lastly,  if you have charmed a enemy with the Staff of Mastery
and somehow lose the staff shouldn't you also lose the Enemy 
follower?  I said yes because it needs the staff to stay your
follower.  Also if someone acquisitions the staff do they get the
follower as well?

Thanks,
-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