From: woodhams@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams)
Subject: Re: Several questions generated by a game.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University Observatory
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:51:39 GMT

In article <QFCVB4PX@cc.swarthmore.edu> jhildeb1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Jeff Hildebrand) writes:
>1) The phrasing on Crystal is not very clear. When precisely does Crystal
>tell people how many tokens they can bring along? The issue was critical
>because Delegator was also in the game. What happened was Crystal told some
>people to take their tokens home, then Delegator changed the main player.
>Crystal then argued that since the former main player was now an ally he
>could send away tokens from that player. Now everyone else said "Wait a

Eon Crystal:
Whenever you are a player or an ally in a challenge, you may determine
how many tokens each other ally brings...
Mayfair Crystal has identical wording and the alliance phase icon.

Eon Delegator: When you are involved in a challenge, once all
allies are committed but before challenge cards are played,
you may...

Mayfair Delegator: As a main player or ally in a challenge, once all
allies have committed tokens but before challenge cards are played,
you may...

Crystal interpretations:
1) Crystal tells people how many tokens as they commit.
1a) Crystal cannot affect people who ally before they do.
1b) Crystal can tell people allying before they do if they have been
invited on the attack (or are parasite in multipower games) but by
doing so they commit themselves to allying. (Big headaches if magnet
then keeps them out of the attack.)

2) Anytime during the alliance phase, Crystal can tell somebody how
many tokens to bring.
2a) They may tell each player only once how many to bring. (Otherwise
as a side effect, they could help people rearrange their tokens.
"Bring 4. No, only bring one." (3 go back to bases) "No, now bring 4
again.")

3) An one time during alliance phase, Crystal tells everybody how
many tokens to bring.
3a) They may specify different numbers for attack or defense for those
who have not yet allied.
3b) They may see whether each player chooses to remain allied or
withdraw before specifying the next player's number of tokens, but
must do all specifications consecutively.

4) After all players have committed, Crystal tells each player the
number of tokens.
4a) They may see whether each player chooses to remain allied or
withdraw before specifying the next player's number of tokens, but
must do all specifications consecutively.

I think all these interpretations are compatable with the wording of
the power. I disagree with 1a, 1b and 2 (i.e. I don't think the power
is intended to be played like this.) 2a, 3, 3a, 4 and 4a are all
reasonable however. Only interpretations 2 or 2a allow Crystal to act
as they tried to do in this case (specifying numbers both for the
delegated main players when they were still allies and the ex
mainplayers once they became allies instead.) 

Annother question: Can Crystal allow Macron to bring more than one
token? (In fact, I play a house rule ignoring the macron 1 token
limit anyway.)

Eon: You may take only one token in an offensive challenge or as an
ally, ...
Mayfair: substitue "bring" for "take" in above.

1) Macron is immune to Crystal.
2) Macron may bring more than one if Crystal tells them to.
3) If Crystal tells Macron to bring more then one token, they must
withdraw from the attack.

>2) Is the wording on the Super Virus flare bad? It says that you may
>multiply the tokens in the challenge by the challenge card "even if you are
>an ally." I think it should be "when" you are an ally. This came up in the

Note - this is the Mayfair wording. I don't have the Eon flare to
check if it says the same.

>game tonight. I was playing Doppleganger/Virus and Aura was in the game too.
>So I discovered when someone came up with the Virus flare and next time I
>was main player went after it. (Everyone else saw the flare and knew what I
>was going after.) However one of the other players then played the wild
>Doppleganger flare on me (I had a base in his system) and then proceeded to
>royally hose me. Since someone was attacking one of my home bases which was
>void, I was multiplying by 0. Oops. He took control of my hand and played
>the 40 that I had. That was fine, nasty as hell, but clearly legal. He then
>played my Super Virus flare because it has that particular wording. And I
>had to admit that by the letter of the card he was right, it could be played
>then, but that the flare was badly phrased. Other super flares which have
>similar effects (i.e. play as ally) are phrased "when you are an ally." Thus
>wouldn't it be reasonable to change the Virus flare to be similar?

I agree - the wording should be changed.

>
>3) We got into an argument about what defines "Every player must be able to
>meet this condition" for the Schitzoid's additional win condition. The person
>playing it wanted to make it that you had to have 6 foreign bases and only 1
>home base. It was pointed out that if he approached that condition, he would
>lose his power and so the Schitzoid conditions would go away and he could
>never win by meeting the conditions. On the other hand it was pointed out
>that he was not preventing anyone from winning the game. True he couldn't
>win the game by meeting the Schitzoid conditions, but if he did have that
>situation he would win the game since the win rules revent to normal and he
>had them met. So the question is: is the proposed condition an acceptable
>one?

Argh! I don't have a copy of Eon Schizoid here!
Mayfair: write down ... add one other game condition which 1) is
possible for all players to meet, ...

Definately legal. It doesn't say everyone must be able to win by the
schizoid win condition, just that they must be able to meet the
condition. Of course, it is not in the Schizoid's interest to make
such a condition.

Michael W.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce