From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:56:58 GMT

In a prior article, Dave Ring (dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu) writes;
> I challenge anyone to find a rule that says you can't respond to another
> player's actions.

I don't have the rule book in front of me, but others have quoted a passage
involving rules for timing conflicts. I agree with those who argue that if
two players have the option to use their powers in the same phase, there is
a timing conflict: one _must_ decide first, and the timing rules specify who
must do so.

Scenario without timing rules:
To simplify things, Mirror vs. Sorceror in a game with Aura, and Mirror and
Sorceror each only have one Challenge card: Mirror has an 8, Sorceror has a
10, and the token count is equal.

  Mirror: "I call reverse." (This will let Mirror win.)
Sorceror: "In that case, I'll swap cards." (Sorc is allowed to respond to
          Mirror's action, and as a result, will now win.)
  Mirror: "In that case, I won't call reverse." (Mirror responds to Sorc's
         action, so now he'll win.)
Sorceror: "In that case, I won't swap." (Sorc responds, giving him the win.)

We're back to step one; Mirror calls Reverse, Sorceror calls Swap, Mirror
changes his mind, Sorceror changes his, and so on ad infinitum.

Alternative rule: Say that once you've decided to use your power, you can't
change your mind. Only problem is that now once either Mirror or Sorceror
decides what he's doing, the other can decide such that he (the other) will
win the challenge. Thus, both refuse to commit until the other commits.

Timing conflict solution: During a phase, each player has a chance to take
an action, in timing order. Between cards being played and cards being
revealed, Mirror has a chance to call reverse; then Sorceror has a chance to
call reverse (or if the offensive and defensive players are reversed, vice
versa). This has the interesting effect of putting one player at a decided
advantage, but one player is going to have a decided advantage in this
situation no matter how you call it--one of these guys has got to make the
last decision, and it should be clear from the scenario that whoever that is
is _going_ to win. The timing rules let you figure this sort of thing out in
advance, and plan your strategy around the fact that you may have to make
crucial decisions before you know what your opponent is doing.

As one final ridiculous example of the incorrectness of Dave's suggestion,
can you respond to a player's revelation of what card he played by changing
what card you played? He writes "Note that 'responding' means doing
something you wouldn't have done otherwise." Well, had I known that you were
playing that 30, I would have played my 40, so I want to take that action
back... Of course, you can argue that once a phase ends, actions are
irrevocable, but all the timing rules do is break a phase down into subphases
so as to create a consistent set of rules for what happens when. Without
this, you either end up playing Slap or Staredown.

Another problem: What if X plays a card down, and then Sorceror (his
opponent) says "I want to switch." Can X then say "In that case, I'll play
something else."? Clearly, the decision about what card to play cannot be
changed in response to someone else's play; why, then, should decisions
about whether or not to use your power? The reasons why both of these
decisions should _not_ be revocable should be clear from the examples; if
it's not, ask.

> I'm curious what people think about this:
> 
> Scenario 1:
> SORCERER plays wild cavalry.
> MIRROR: "In that case I want to reverse."
> question: can MIRROR now reverse?

If, at the appropriate time, Mirror was asked "Do you want to Reverse?" and
Mirror said he did not, and Sorceror played the flare after this time, then
no, Mirror cannot change his mind. I don't have the timing rules handy, so I
don't remember who is supposed to go first, but basically, at some clearly
defined point during the turn, Mirror must decide whether to Reverse or not,
his decision is irrevocable after this point, and if it's legal for Sorceror
to play the flare after this point, then Mirror cannot change his mind.

Our only disagreement here is that I see Mirror's decision as irrevocable,
for the reasons outlined above, in the same way that once cards are
revealed, they can't be changed.

> Scenario 2:
> PLAYER1: "Uh oh! mirror vs sorcerer. timing rule."
> MIRROR: (offensive player) "I don't care if he switches, I have nothing
> that I want to do."
> SORCERER: (def) "I don't want to switch."
> SORCERER plays wild cavalry.
> MIRROR: "In that case I want to reverse."
> question: can MIRROR now reverse?

Mirror decided not to use his power; he can't change his mind as a result of
seeing Sorceror play the flare, just as he could not change his mind as a
result of seeing Sorceror reveal his card.

General principle: There must be a point beyond which every action is
irrevocable, or you get into arbitrarily long loops such as the one
described above. The timing rules described in the rulebook provide
guidelines for when these points are in terms of the use of powers. It might
be better to divide certain of the phases into subphases, making the play
cards down phase become "Phase N: Play cards down; Allies decide whether to
use Phase N powers, in order from left of Offensive Main; Offensive Main
decides whether to use Phase N powers; Defensive Main decides whether to use
Phase N powers." I may have the details wrong, but you get the point:
specify, very precisely, exactly when these decisions have to be made. It's
already clear that cards must be played down and not altered before either
player reveals cards (except in the case of Gambler, of course, but there
are always exceptions)--many aspects of CE are precisely phased. I think the
timing rules were an attempt to phase power usage, but they obviously didn't
succeed unqualifiedly given the amount of confusion about their application.
-- 
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