From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Date: 2 Sep 1992 16:41:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) 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.

Well, I'm glad somebody wants to take the extreme position. Makes my job
easier. By your rules, noone can 'respond' (do something they wouldn't have
done otherwise) to the defender's actions WHATSOEVER.

>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.)

Excuse me? I don't know what game you're playing, but you can't undo an action
in this game.

>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.

'Committing' is not a game action. Refusing to commit is not a problem.
If the players refuse to REVEAL, that would be a problem, but _one_ of the
players has no reason to refuse _that_. Besides, one does not need a timing
conflict for a stubborn player to refuse to play.

>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.

Sorcerer is going to win this challenge. He has a decided advantage. See if you 
can figure out what that advantage is.

>                    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.

Applying the timing rules in this way is fine if everyone agrees before the
game starts.

>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...

Ridiculous.

>        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."?

Of course not. You can't change game actions.

>                   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?

Here's where you're wrong. The _decision_ to play a card can be changed,
up until you actually play the card. If I tell you I'm going to
play a 40, I am under no obligation to actually do so. I can change
that decision, because it was not a game action. If sorcerer tells me
(before I put the 40 down) that he intends to switch, I can then put
down my compromise, and he might decide not to switch.

>                                         The reasons why both of these
>decisions should _not_ be revocable should be clear from the examples; if
>it's not, ask.

I don't need to ask. I can READ.

>> 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.

That didn't happen in this scenario. I find it very hard to believe that
your group plays the timing rule every phase of every turn of every game.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce