HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Date: 2 Sep 1992 17:51:00 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.board.ce
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality) writes...
>>> I challenge anyone to find a rule that says you can't respond to another
>>> player's actions.
> 
>Dave, the rule book doesn't say that you can't make up cards that are
>not in the game and introduce them into your hand, either.

I was being facetious. Many special effects in this game are responses
to others actions. But if some people have their way, one can never
respond to the defender's special effects whatsoever.

Each power card contains the rule which allows it to
be used. The rule book doesn't say you _can_ make up cards, so you can't.
And the rule book doesn't say mirror can call 'normal'. Or that mirror's
promise to not call 'reverse' is binding. Or that mirror can say "I refuse
to decide what to do until two cosmic zaps and the wild gambler are played
in this phase." Well... he can say that, but it doesn't carry any weight
because it's not a game action.

>The simplified view of the problem we're discussing here is when two
>players both have something they want to do.  If one player does
>something then the other player can do something--no problem.  But if
>both wants to do what they want to do AFTER the other has done it, you
>have a timing conflict, by definition, and so the timing rule applies.
>Staring contests are NOT part of CE.

Again mirror can say "I refuse to decide whether to use my power until
after [insert some hypothetical condition here]" but this statement carries
no weight because it is not a game action.

>It sounds like some of y'all are interpreting the rule book incorrectly
>and looking at the words "conflictory powers" too narrowly.  Anytime
>you have two people wanting to do something after the other person has
>done something, and no explicit timing is called for by the rules or
>powers, the Timing Rule comes into play.

This is not in the rulebook, and has the same status as making up cards
and introducing them into your hand.

Once again, a timing conflict is "when two players invoke contradictory
special effects simultaneously." I admit this is inadequate if one
player is very stubborn, and doesn't know this rule. :-)

But the rule is not ambiguous at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Ring                  | If you choose not to decide, you still have
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu      | made a choice.       -RUSH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chrisk@pcx.ncd.com (Chris Kessel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: More sucky combos
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:13:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: pcx.1992Sep1.201354.5872
Organization: Graphic Software Systems, Beaverton, OR

In article <RATINOX.92Aug31105758@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu writes:
>c> AntiMatter/Deuce: Well, I could play another card, but why would I want
>c> to?
>
>This is like the Anti-matter/Macron combo; wouldn't you *subtract* both
>cards instead of adding?
>
>--Rat
>

Nope, anti-matter subtracts his *tokens*, but his attack card still counts
positive...or in the case of Deuce, but attack cards count as positive.

Chris
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: More sucky combos
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:15:41 PST

In article <RATINOX.92Aug31105758@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat) writes:
>>>>>> "c" == carterk <carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu> writes:
> 
> c> AntiMatter/Deuce: Well, I could play another card, but why would I want
> c> to?
> 
> This is like the Anti-matter/Macron combo; wouldn't you *subtract* both
> cards instead of adding?
> 
> --Rat
> 

No... With AntiMatter, you subtract your token value from the card(s) played...
therefore Macron would subtract lots of token value from the card played (eg
Attack 10 - 4 tokens (*4) = 10 - 12 = -2). With Deuce, the card value would be
high and the token value low (eg Attack 10 + Attack 12 - 4 tokens = 22 - 4 =
18). Thus, why ever play deuce? (I understand that with negative attacks and
kickers this isn't so bad, but with the regular Mayfair CE set, it sucks.)

-----
Douglass Barre - carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu
"We expect it in at the end of the week." --Game store employee, 7-17-92
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: gellenb@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Brian K Gellenbeck)
Subject: wanted
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:25:49 GMT

Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: gkatz@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Gerald W Katz)
Subject: Re: More sucky combos
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:27:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.234556.1@cgsvax.claremont.edu> carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:
>Another few sets of really rotten power combos showed up tonight... one of them
>at the spitefulness of my fiancee, proving that couples gain no real benefit
>playing CE...
>
>Empath/Pacifist: It does me no good to have my opponent play an attack card
>against my compromise because it becomes a compromise itself.
>
>AntiMatter/Deuce: Well, I could play another card, but why would I want to?
>
>Aura/Mind: Show everyone your hand. Now show me your hand.
>
>Is there some sort of canonical list of really sucky combos?  Also, is there
>some sort of neative stigma for anyone else against anyone who plays the
>Reincarnator flare? It seems that whoever plays it in our group very quickly
>becomes the victim of whatever anyone can do to them.
>
>-----
>Douglass Barre -- carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu

 How about:

Clone/Mutant
Filch/Mutant
Zombie/Vaccuum?  (Would Vaccuum still work if you're also Zombie?)
Laser/Visionary
Clone/Trader
Filch/Trader
Connousseur/Trader
Sorcerer/Gambler
Void/Assassin (Others won't appreciate you :-)
(Granted, Void doesn't come into effect when assassinating.)


Don't forget to tip the Butler!
						gkatz

Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: dvc@eagle.hr.att.com (David Van Cleef)
Subject: Re: Question and new power.
Originator: news@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:22:57 GMT

>>>>> On 27 Aug 92 05:31:01 GMT, speno@clam.rutgers.edu (John P. Speno) said:


JPS> Just thought of a new(?) power but while considering it, a question
JPS> came to mind. First the question:
JPS> 	Suppose a player begins his first challenge, has no challenge
JPS> cards, proceeds to draw a new hand of seven and still winds up with no
JPS> challenge cards? Then what? Does his challenge end? Does he keep drawing until
JPS> he gets at least one challenge card? I don't have the rules(Mayfair)
JPS> around so if this is discussed in there I can't say.

In Mayfair, West End, and Eon rules, his turn ends.
--
David A. Van Cleef			AT&T Bell Laboratories
internet: dvc@eagle.hr.att.com		Red Hill Facility, Middletown, NJ
					+1 908 615 4906
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 01:01:00 GMT

"Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes...
>> No-one has the right to ask you if you will use your power, and if they do
>> you are under no obligation to tell the truth.
> 
>This is a nice principle. Unfortunately, without the sort of house rule
>we use, you very often get two people staring at each other saying "You
>decide." "No, you decide." until all the other players get pissed and go
>home. 

Just for the record, I actually like this house rule. It adds some
interesting strategic twists. But I would be somewhat offended if,
without warning, among an unfamiliar group, someone told me I had to
declare whether or not I was going to use my optional power.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: gharris@jade.tufts.edu (George W. Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: More sucky combos
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:38:44 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA
Originator: gharris@jade.tufts.edu


	Zombie-Vacuum.

	Void-Fungus-Vampire, or any two of those.

--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does."              -Groucho Marx 

gharris@jade.tufts.edu          George Harris, Tufts Univ. Dept. of Mathematics
From: speno@clam.rutgers.edu (John P. Speno)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Question and new power.
Date: 27 Aug 92 05:31:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Just thought of a new(?) power but while considering it, a question
came to mind. First the question:
	Suppose a player begins his first challenge, has no challenge
cards, proceeds to draw a new hand of seven and still winds up with no
challenge cards? Then what? Does his challenge end? Does he keep drawing until
he gets at least one challenge card? I don't have the rules(Mayfair)
around so if this is discussed in there I can't say.

Now the power...

			_Momentum_ 			  
		  The power of inertia. 
Blurb -> May always take two challenges.

You have the power of inertia. You may always take a second challenge
even if you lose your first challenge. If you were sucessful in your
first challenge and have no challenge cards, you may draw from the deck
until you get at least one challenge card and proceed with the
challenge as usual.

Wild: ? Send ideas. Perhaps something like timegash...

Super: You may take a third challenge as the momentum ie, even after a
lose and draw until you get a challenge card.

Post all ideas, feelings and flames to this newsgroup. 
-- 
t====he==============t==+=======ru================t====================h======
John P. Speno		| "Pssst. Hey Guido...  
Student MacAbuser       | It's all so clear to me now. I'm the keeper of the  
speno@clam.rutgers.edu	| cheese and you're the lemon merchant." -- Ren Hoek
====i==========s========+a=======vi=========r==============u=================s
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:26:37 -0400 
From: "Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: a few questions...
	<31AUG199213084275@zeus.tamu.edu>

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.board.ce: 31-Aug-92 Re: a few
questions... RING, DAVID WAYNE@zeus.t (1983)

> >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.

> We've had this argument before. A timing conflict is defined to be "when
> two players invoke contradictory special effects simultaneously." In your
> case, Mirror and Sorcerer are not contradictory, they are not invoked
> simultaneously, indeed they are not invoked at all! And if neither one
> wants to use his power, play continues.

That is reasonable, given a strict interpretation of the rules. But
there are *many* cases like Mirror / Sorceror. Most of them involve
powers that are used "after cards are played, but before they are
revealed," such as Mirror, Sorceror, Calculator, etc, etc. Another set
of cases are powers to be used "before cards are played". (Trader, etc.)

This comes up so often that we allow the timing conflict rules to be
invoked in all these cases: offensive player must decide whether he is
using his power, then defensive. 

This house rule is further supported (by analogy) by the Insect power,
which gives that very solution to what would otherwise be this exact
type of conflict.

> No-one has the right to ask you if you will use your power, and if they do
> you are under no obligation to tell the truth.

This is a nice principle. Unfortunately, without the sort of house rule
we use, you very often get two people staring at each other saying "You
decide." "No, you decide." until all the other players get pissed and go
home. 
We only bring the rule in when it's required, of course. If the defender
uses his power first, the attacker still has his options open.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
From: phil@miracle.com (Phil Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: More sucky combos
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 15:33:42 EDT
Organization: Miracle Computer Consultants

carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:
>No... With AntiMatter, you subtract your token value from the card(s) played...
>therefore Macron would subtract lots of token value from the card played (eg
>Attack 10 - 4 tokens (*4) = 10 - 12 = -2). With Deuce, the card value would be
>high and the token value low (eg Attack 10 + Attack 12 - 4 tokens = 22 - 4 =
>18). Thus, why ever play deuce? (I understand that with negative attacks and
>kickers this isn't so bad, but with the regular Mayfair CE set, it sucks.)

AntiMatter/Deuce is worse than that!  You _HAVE_ to play the second card.
Deuce is not an optional power.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Hill                     | "All you people in TV land,           |
| Miracle Computer Consultants  |   I will wake up your empty shells.   |
|                               |  Peak time viewing blown in a flash,  |
|                               |   as I burn into your memory cells.   |
| Email: phil@miracle.com       |  'cause I'm alive." - Peter Gabriel   |








Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:08:00 GMT

fasciano@nil.IRO.UMontreal.CA (Massimo Fasciano) writes...
>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
>Sorcerer. If Sorcerer plays an 08, he might want to switch the cards,
>unless Mirror reverses the digits, which would turn the 08 into an 80.
>In this case, the effects are not contradictory, it's the knowledge of
>the other's decision that gives you the edge.  In our group, the
>players have to write down their decision, and the results are
>revealed simultaneously.

We've had this argument before. A timing conflict is defined to be "when
two players invoke contradictory special effects simultaneously." In your
case, Mirror and Sorcerer are not contradictory, they are not invoked
simultaneously, indeed they are not invoked at all! And if neither one
wants to use his power, play continues.
Noone has the right to ask you if you will use your power, and if they do
you are under no obligation to tell the truth.

>6) Do the timing rules apply when a player plagues you. Suppose i want
>to play a card (my last edict), but before i find it in my hand,
>another player plagues me. If the timing order is in my favor, can i
>play the edict before his plague (and not lose it), even though he
>dropped it (the plague) first on the table? If so, can i play my last
>edict AND my last flare before the effect of the plague, or are the
>timing rules limited to one "effect" (card or power use). I interpret
>this situation as "contradictory effects". What do you all think?

Could be. More likely somebody decided to play to get around the action
of the other. It really has to be simultaneous. And it's pretty tough
for you to play a flare and an edict simultaneously (what if there's
a conflict between them? :)

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu


Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: gkatz@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Gerald W Katz)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:55:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.140844.12299@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality) writes:
>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.

No, The Cosmic Zap only affects that one bomb.  The others are still
viable to exploding.  Besides, if it's the last bomb, once the challenge
is over and the zap is no longer in affect, Terrorist may plant more bombs.

>
>-- 
>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"

Don't forget to tip the Butler!
					gkatz
From: gharris@jade.tufts.edu (George W. Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: More sucky combos
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:43:04 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA
Originator: gharris@jade.tufts.edu

In article <RATINOX.92Aug31105758@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu writes:
>>>>>> "c" == carterk <carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu> writes:
>
>c> AntiMatter/Deuce: Well, I could play another card, but why would I want
>c> to?
>
>This is like the Anti-matter/Macron combo; wouldn't you *subtract* both
>cards instead of adding?
	
	Wake up and smell the coffee, Rich.  Anti-matter doesn't subtract cards.

>Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
>Internet: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu   /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
>    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!meceng!ratinox  /   | /| / / / | | Association:
>  BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET}               /__  |/ |/ / /  | | I will solve
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does."              -Groucho Marx 

gharris@jade.tufts.edu          George Harris, Tufts Univ. Dept. of Mathematics
From: munch@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Munch)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Help
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:21:30 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

How does one get a copy of the FAQ list ... and/or access to the ce archives

 -Kirk
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: lopez@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Chris &)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:38:10 GMT

nicholas.j.sauer (njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com) wrote:
: 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).

The Terrorist power is the right to plant bombs.  Not to set bombs off.
Cosmic Zapping the Terrorist therefore has no effect on whether the bomb
goes off or not.

Support -- from the last line of the terrorist power --

  "If you lose your power, your bombs will still explode, but you may
   not mine additional planets until you have regained your power."

If the bombs still go off even when the power has been permanently lost, then
why should a temporary power loss stop the explosion?


Chris Lopez
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: gkatz@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Gerald W Katz)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:51:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.121946.6568@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality) writes:
>:
>>>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.
>
>>No, The Cosmic Zap only affects that one bomb.  The others are still
>>viable to exploding.  Besides, if it's the last bomb, once the challenge
>>is over and the zap is no longer in affect, Terrorist may plant more bombs.
>
>We don't disagree Gerald: My posting was in reference to some people's
>assumption that a Cosmic Zap not only keeps the bomb from going off,
>but also keeps it alive and in play, with everyone knowing where it is,
>for the rest of the game.  That's where my comment about "not in the
>spirit of the game" came from.

Oops.   Sorry.


					gkatz

>
>-- 
>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"
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Question and new power.
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:44:00 GMT
Reply-To: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
In-reply-to: speno@clam.rutgers.edu's message of 27 Aug 92 05:31:01 GMT
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]

>>>>> "JPS" == John P. Speno <speno@clam.rutgers.edu> writes:


JPS> 	Suppose a player begins his first challenge, has no challenge
JPS> cards, proceeds to draw a new hand of seven and still winds up with no
JPS> challenge cards? Then what? Does his challenge end? Does he keep
JPS> drawing until he gets at least one challenge card? I don't have the
JPS> rules(Mayfair) around so if this is discussed in there I can't say.

In all editions, his turn ends.

JPS> 			_Momentum_ 			  
JPS> 		  The power of inertia. 
JPS> Blurb -> May always take two challenges.

Sounds a bit like Machine, but a lot weaker. It might make an interesting
Edict, but not a Power. Hmmm... but isn't that already covered by Timegash?
Yeah... Doesn't sound worth it.

--Rat

||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
Internet: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu   /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!meceng!ratinox  /   | /| / / / | | Association:
  BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET}               /__  |/ |/ / /  | | I will solve
  USNail: 14 Westdale RD  Holbrook, MA 02343 /   | /| / / /___| | any problem
 ICBMnet: 42 deg 1 min N, 71 deg 0 min W    /    |/ |/ /_//_____| for you.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce