From: njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer)
Subject: Re: Order of play
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:44:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.221120.13471@ll.mit.edu>, mikem@ll.mit.edu writes:
> 
>These questions pertain primarily to the EON version, but I suspect there
>are similar timing-resolution problems in the Mayfair edition.

There are a few differences and, you have hit upon one of them (see below).

>Did any *official* CE entity ever publish a detailed breakdown of the steps
>that occur in the resolution of a challenge?  We've run into various timing
>questions more than once, and they've been the cause of no small amount of
>debate.

They never really did.  In Encounter volume 1 someone sent in just such a
list (it was presented in the letter column).  Kittredge's response to it
was that it was basically correct but, that he would not really want to set
the post challenge action sequence in granite.  Having spoken with him a
few times on this I think that his play style is much more anarchistic 
than most, especially in the post challenge phase.  I remember getting to
some detailed discussion of (I think) the Clone power in which there were
two possible answers to how the power could work.  His answer was that
both methods of operation were legal and, that which one happened would
depend upon how quick a thinker the Clone player was.  I wish I could
remember the exact details on this (I probably should have written them
down).
 
>(1)
>In a normal challenge, when offense wins and defense played a compromise,
>at what point is there a lien on the offensive player's hand?  Also, at
>what point does the defensive player actually collect consolation?

In Mayfair, the lien is immediate, and the offensive player can not play
any cards out of his hand (except to break the lien) until the consolation
is collected.

In Eon, there basically is no such thing as a "lien on your hand".  The
offensive player could play any cards he wished from his hand before his
opponent collects consolation.  In practice, there are so few cards that
could be played "at any time" (Plague, Finder, and a few Flares) that this 
is rarely a problem.  The reason Mayfair added the above rule is because 
when they changed the Flares to one-shots a large percentage of them became 
"play at any time" cards (yet another reason to hate one-shot flares).

Was someone going to make a FAQ for this group and, can we put this in it?
It seems like I or someone else answers this question at least once a month.

As for when consolation occurs, I have the following speculative answer.
My friend Rob Mitchell has played CE in tournaments with the game's
designers.  So, I tend to view his method of play as potentially "more
correct" than most people's.  In his games, consolation is the last thing 
to be resolved in a challenge.  I also believe he stated that this was how
the designers ran it in tournament (in specific reference to when I asked
about this way of handling consolation).  So, I would tend to think that 
for Eon CE consolation is the final thing resolved in the challenge.

>  Seems to me that once the compromise card is revealed, the lien should
>  go into effect immediately, and offense can only play cards which would
>  have the effect of lifting the lien.  Thus, it is too late for offense
>  to try to eliminate cards from his hand, just to prevent defense from
>  collecting them in consolation.

It seems that alot of people think this was as well.  I personally have never
understood this line of thinking.  Why do people feel that they are "owed"
something for playing a Compromise?  I view it more as a priveledge that you
get consolation, rather than a right.  Sure, the person you compromised to
playing cards out of his hand before you collect is not "fair" but, where in
the rules does it say that consolation is fair?  Like the alien in the TZ
episode "A Small Talent for War" said:  The universe is not fair.  When in
our own history has any side surrending after a war been treated "fair".

>(2)
>Similarly, when defense wins and offense played a compromise, does the
>offensive player get consolation before or after allies get their rewards,
>or should this happen simultaneously?

See my answer with respect to timing of consolation above (and keep in
mind that it is not an "official" answer).

>(2a)
>Assuming offense played a compromise, so there's a lien on defense's hand,
>should defense still be able to play a Victory Boon?  Or would defense have
>to wait until cards were taken as consolation, and only then be allowed to
>play Victory Boon (if he still had it)?

The way I read Victory Boon (again Eon version) is that you have to play 
it after the challenge outcome is determined (i.e. you can not wait).  The
last sentance on the Edict says:  Play after challenge outcome is determined.
So, if you wait until after consolation is collected I would think that it
is too late to play that Edict.

>(3)
>Finally, when does a game-win become final?  Once totals are determined,
>so the winner is apparently decided, is it still OK to play something like
>the wild Filth (Declare one planet "filthy", tokens there are returned to
>other bases) knocking the winner's total number of bases back down to 4,
>or is it too late?

From what I have read in Encounter volume 1 (I re-read all the letters
columns recently, looking specifically for end-of-game stuff), this 
would be legal.  Another example given was Vacuum player using his super
Flare to strip the winning player's recently acquired fifth base and, thus,
prevent his winning.  It seems like you can take a simple action to prevent
the win but, anything that requires a few steps is out. 

>(3a)
>If the winning player occupies his fifth external base, but loses the wild
>Filth as consolation to the defensive player, can defense immediately use
>it to wipe out one of offense's bases, preventing his win?

I don't think this would fly as it takes too many steps to complete.  The
offensive player, it would seem, could simply say he won and ask if anyone
could stop him (before his opponent gets his consolation) and, if no one
could, would declare himself winner (so his opponent would never get a 
chance to even collect the consolation).
 
>  Challenge using inverse cone.  Offense has lots of allies, defense plays
>  a compromise.  If we consider rewards and consolation to be simultaneous,
>  and we allow cards taken in consolation to be used against the winning
>  offensive player to prevent him from winning the game, then we must also
>  allow the offensive allies to use cards received as rewards as possible
>  win-stoppers.
>
>  I think this is just allowing things to drag on too long.  If totals are
>  determined, and no one does anything, and offense then occupies the base,
>  then offense wins.  Consolation and rewards are not given/taken.

I would agree.

>  Exception (that's not really an exception):
>
>  If offense wins only because he holds a particular card (i.e. wild miser),
>  it seems reasonable that he must give consolation and still retain the card
>  before his win is considered final.  This is entirely consistent with
>  previous arguments.  Note that, prior to using the Miser flare, the player
>  has only 4 bases, and therefore has not won the game.  Since flares are
>  'optional', they must be explicitly exercised (they don't take effect
>  automatically).  But offense can't use the flare yet, because there's a
>  lien on his hand (because of the compromise).  So, defense gets consolation
>  first, *then* offense has a chance to try to use the flare to claim the win.
>  (if it's still in his hand!)

If you're playing Mayfair rules, yes.  If you're playing Eon rules, I would
say that the offensive player could immediately reveal the Miser Wild upon
achieving his fourth base and, unless someone plays a Flarezap, win the
game.
 
>OK, plenty of my own opinions up there.  Anyone else want to comment?

I'm sure you'll get plenty.

Nick Sauer






Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA