From: njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:28:16 GMT

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:
>>>
>>>i have a few questions about Mayfair CE:
>>>
>>>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, 

This was exactly my guess as to why it negated the bomb as well as the
explosion itself.

>but a cosmic zap is not the only way to
>get this information.

True, but it would be the most common.  You would otherwise have to rely
on the Changeling being in the game (or coming into the game through
Reincarnator or Pentaform).  This is not a likely scenario given the number
of powers to choose from.  The other alternative is that some wacky Flare
shows up that would allow the info to leak.  Both of these are extremely
unlikely but, Cosmic Zaps will definitely show up every game.
 
>>>4) Zombie is immune to Void, right?
>>
>>Yes, this was an error on the Void power text.  The Void only Voids tokens 
>
>At least in the Eon game, careful reading of the powers makes this
>clear.

Tell me about it!  I tried and tried to warn Jim Musser at Mayfair about
tampering with power wordings.  

>>>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
>[...]
>>
>>The Sorcerer vs. Mirror is a perfect example of when to use the Timing
>>Conflict rules to resolve a situation.  The offensive player uses his
>>power first (or opts not to), then the defensive player uses it (or opts
>>not to).
>
>I don't like this, although it is probably strictly correct. I think
>you should always have the opportunity to react to what another player
>does. I would play as above, except if the offensive player opts not
>to use their power, and then the defensive does use theirs, the
>offensive player can reconsider.

As a house rule, this is just as valid a way to operate.  It just gives the
offensive player final say as opposed to the defensive.  It also doesn't
get into the logic loop of waiting for a reaction showdown that other posters
have recommended.  In our group (we have a number of exceptionally strong
willed individuals), the waiting would last forever and absolutely none of
the other players would agree to a time limit.  End result: the game stops
and we break down and start a new game.  Not a bad solution, but it would
tend to kill about one out of every four of our games.

To be honest, I am really puzzled by alot of people's resistance on the net
to having a priority scale for forcing actions.  In chess you cannot wait
to see what your opponent will do before you make your current move.  
Actually, in just about every other game I have ever played there is some 
forced set of reaction times.  I don't see why Cosmic (at some level)
should be (assuming it could be) any different. 

>>>6) Do the timing rules apply when a player plagues you. Suppose i want
>[...]
>I hadn't thought about this before, but I think that if the edict you
>wanted to play was a zap, you could not be preempted because the zap
>is played as somebody else makes an action (with no intervening time
>for the plague to be played.) If you don't allow this, then logically
>people can prevent themselves from being zapped by speed-playing
>another action immediately afterwards. (Void: "You're all voided! Finder!"
>(slapping down the finder edict) Snivler: "Zap void!" Void: "To late!
>there's been an intervening action. By the way, I'm finding a cosmic
>zap in your hand.")

Actually, I think this intervening action thing is a house rule.  I have
never seen anything in the rules or answers from Kittredge to support this
view of how things operate (read: Nick might be blind again).  In the above
example, for example, it doesn't seem clear to me that the Void's playing
a Finder would stop anyone from zapping him.  Especially, if none of the
tokens have been removed out of the game yet.  I would tend to think that the
Void would slap down his Finder, do his Finder thing, then as he starts 
grabbing tokens someone could zap him.  

I talked with Jack Kittredge at length once about post challenge resolution
orders of actions and he seems to be very much of the "anarchy reigns" school
of thought here.  I think I was asking him something specifically about
when the Clone could use his power to grab his card from the discard pile.
There were a couple of possible answers to the question (I forget specifically
what it was), but his answer was that both answers were correct and which one
took effect depended on how quick a thinker the Clone player was.  Who said
CE should not be a game of slap?  Well anyway, now that I have fried all
your brains as bad as mine I'll drop this particular topic.

>>>7) I assume that if the offensive player has no more attack cards
>>>during the challenge, the challenge ends immediately. 
>>
>>Yup, offensive player and any allies in the cone return to bases and
>>play passes to the next player.
>>
>>>But what if he
>>>has none a the beginning, draws seven new ones, and still has none.
>>>His challenge ends, right? (he doesn't get to discard and draw a new
>>>hand again) 
>
>This seems correct.
>
>>Mike Arms and I just talked about this last night.  Our answer is that he
>>gets to immediately pitch the new cards and draw seven more until he gets
>>a hand with at least one challenge card in it.  He basically is still at 
>>the same phase of his turn (the beginning) when he gets the new hand so he
>>would still get to pitch it if he got no challenge cards.  Besides, it would
>>be really unfair to make the offensive player lose a turn, especially in our
>>group where your lucky if you get a second turn sometimes (and with another
>>group I know you are lucky if you are the fifth or sixth player and get 
>>your first!).
>
>I like this, but I think it is a house rule.

Actually, it is probably going to appear as an official answer for the Mayfair
set in the next issue of Encounter.  Mike Arms is the editor of Encounter
magazine and if Jim Musser OK's the answer that's it.

As far as Eon goes?  Well, I have another question for Jack Kittredge next time
I speak with him.

>I'm not sure exactly what the situation is, but Nick Sauer seems to
>have an in with the designers of the game, so his answers are probably
>the most authoritative in this newsgroup. 

The situation is pretty simple actually.  I am the power editor (i.e. Alien
Bazaar editor) for Encounter magazine.  I also general help Mike Arm's out
with each issue (proofreading, bouncing ideas off, write an occaisional
article, etc).  One of the things that I do to help out is keep track of
particularly tough questions that you all seem to come up with on a regular
basis (which is a good thing, keep up the good work!).  As Mike assembles
each issue of Encounter I make a phone call to Jack Kittredge and go over
the questions with him.  Jack is an incredibly nice guy and is very generous
in allowing me some of his time considering he doesn't get any sort of 
remuneration for this service.  I only call him once every three months 
because I don't want to overstay my welcome with him.  The net result of the
first two months worth of calls were the errata/clarifications article I
wrote for issue two of Encounter magazine (even though I was not creditted
for it).  So, that is basically the situation.  Wait, did I say it was simple?

Nick Sauer