HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 00:46:00 GMT

>>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.

Of course he can. I challenge anyone to find a rule that says you can't respond
to another player's actions. Note that 'responding' means doing something
you wouldn't have done otherwise. Thus, to be consistent, Nick would have
the offensive player unable to 'respond' to ANY defender's action unless
the response directly effects the action (maybe not even then). The defender
could just say "I refuse to decide whether to play wild void until he
decides if he is going to do anything at all"

njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer) writes...[referring to the above
quotation]:
>As a house rule, this is just as valid a way to operate.  

This is not a house rule. Inventing mechanisms for forcing players to
announce their intentions is.

I'm curious what people think about this:

Scenario 1:
SORCERER plays wild cavalry.
MIRROR: "In that case I want to reverse."
question: can MIRROR now reverse?

Scenario 2:
PLAYER1: "Uh oh! mirror vs sorcerer. timing rule."
MIRROR: (offensive player) "I don't care if he switches, I have nothing
that I want to do."
SORCERER: (def) "I don't want to switch."
SORCERER plays wild cavalry.
MIRROR: "In that case I want to reverse."
question: can MIRROR now reverse?

>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. 

No reason. But it might be wise to include such a priority scale in the
rulebook first.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Question and new power.
From: kleber@husc10.harvard.edu (Gwydden)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:33:18 GMT

Quoth John P. Speno:

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

It seems a bit wimpy-- there's only one chance per entire time around the
players that you even *might* get to use it, and then it only helps if you
lose one.

>                                        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.

I can't think of any other time in CE where you get to draw cards until
some stopping condition which the other players can't verify.  That is,
I assume you intend for the intermediate cards drawn to go into your hand
and be secret, in which case you're the only one who knows when you get
your first challenge card.

On a related note, does anyone play the Mayfair Chosen so that you get
to *keep* the cards you turn up in trying to find your replacement
challenge card?  It seems this would add a lot to the power; as it
stands, there's never any reason *not* to use it, if you're going to 
lose anyway, and never any reason *to* use it if you win.  The new way,
if opponent plays (for example) a compromise, it gets you free cards.

--Michael Kleber                "I don't have an overactive imagination...
  kleber@husc.harvard.edu        I have an underactive reality..."  --EG
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: More sucky combos
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:57:58 GMT
Reply-To: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
In-reply-to: carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu's message of 31 Aug 92 07:45:56 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 ]

>>>>> "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

||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
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
From: stoodt@cis.umassd.edu (Michael Stoodt)
Subject: Re: More sucky combos
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:17:31 GMT

In <1992Sep2.032728.1611@sbcs.sunysb.edu> gkatz@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Gerald W Katz) writes:

>Clone/Mutant
>Filch/Mutant

I'd call these two combinations fairly reasonable; not the most
powerful, but not worthless either.  The Clone won't have to choose
between keeping his 30 as his only card and discarding it so that he
can get a new hand looking for a couple of flares or edicts; and the
Filch won't have to discard or waste the four edicts he's picked up
because he doesn't have anything else to play in a challenge (unless
he's quite unlucky with his drawing of cards)...

-- 
Michael A Stoodt  [MaS]                       stoodt@cis.umassd.edu
"Will the last person to leave the planet please turn off the sun?"
                                                     - Mike Resnick
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:20:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.203810.4716@ils.nwu.edu>, lopez@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Chris &) writes:
> 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?

Because Jack Kittredge said it does in Encounter volume 1 issue 4.  He 
specified (twice in two seperate letters, no less) that a Cosmic Zap played
on a Terrorist bomb as it goes off will prevent any token losses from the
bomb going off.  If you don't like this answer complain to the game's
designer.  It probably should have been included on the Terrorist's power
card, which leads me to....

The Mayfair version of the Terrorist actually has an extra sentance attached
to the end of the power explaining this additional CZ effect.

Nick Sauer


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 03:35:27 GMT

In article <RATINOX.92Aug31105619@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu writes:
>>>>>> "MF" == Massimo Fasciano <fasciano@nil.IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:
>

>Yes, it should say on the Power card (ie, I don't remember right now :-),
>see previous, no, the defensive player is meat on a spit, don't know (don't
>have a set handy).
>
>MF> 3) A cosmic zap nullifies the explosion of one of the Terrorist's
>MF> bombs. Does that mean that the bomb stays there (with its location
>MF> revealed) without exploding, or that it explodes without affecting
>MF> anybody?
>
>It doesn't explode this time around. It's still there, and if anyone else
>lands on the planet, it will explode.

I disagree.  I believe the power card says a Cosmic Zap diffuses a
bomb, but I'm not sure.  In any case, I vote that a Cosmic Zap would
destroy the bomb as it goes off.

>
>MF> 4) Zombie is immune to Void, right?
>
>No. Voided tokens do not go to the Warp, they go *away*. Zombie is immune
>to the Warp, not the Void.

I disagree.  Void eradicates tokens that would normally enter the warp.
Zombie tokens don't reach the warp.  Zombie is immune.

>
>--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.

Don't forget to tip the Butler!

						gkatz
From: jl8e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Julian D Lighton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: What is this power?
Date: 26 Aug 92 03:33:28 GMT
	<1992Aug25.155948.25686@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Freshman, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

brackney@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Larry J Brackney) writes:

>Is this true?  More CE is out?  I thought it was delayed another month.

It was on sale at GenCon. I have no idea when it will hit stores.

_______________________________________________________________________________
|Julian Lighton     jl8e@andrew.cmu.edu |   :-)   | No, really, I'm not 
     |
|---------------------------------------|---------| paranoid. The only reason |
|"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, you all know what | that you say I am is that |
|I mean. What's the use of a cry for help when    | you're out to get me.     |
|no one hears your screams?"                      |                           |
|Motorhead "No Voices in the Sky"                 |                           |
|_________________________________________________|___________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Followup-To: rec.games.board.ce
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:47:00 GMT

Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality) writes...
>>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.
> 
>Obviously it is ambiguous because I say that anytime two players want
>to do something after the other player has done what they can do the
>timing rule is called for by the exact rule you quote.  Executing
>powers, edicts, flares, moons, ... are all "special effects" so in the
>case of Mirror and Sorceror the Timing Rule is called for.

Mirror and Sorcerer are also 'two players' but here's where the similarity
with the timing rule ends. Their powers are not contradictory (it's clear
what would happen if both were invoked). They are not simultaneous (each
wants to invoke after the other). And they are not invoked (each refuses
to invoke unless a certain condition is met).

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Organization: The Internet
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:29:24 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.board.ce

>In a prior article, Dave Ring (dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu) 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.

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.

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.

-- 
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"
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: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:58:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.181731.2506@cis.umassd.edu> stoodt@cis.umassd.edu (Michael Stoodt) writes:
>In <1992Sep2.032728.1611@sbcs.sunysb.edu> gkatz@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Gerald W Katz) writes:
>
>>Clone/Mutant
>>Filch/Mutant
>
>I'd call these two combinations fairly reasonable; not the most
>powerful, but not worthless either.  The Clone won't have to choose
>between keeping his 30 as his only card and discarding it so that he
>can get a new hand looking for a couple of flares or edicts; and the
>Filch won't have to discard or waste the four edicts he's picked up
>because he doesn't have anything else to play in a challenge (unless
>he's quite unlucky with his drawing of cards)...

I see your point.  Thanks.

>
>-- 
>Michael A Stoodt  [MaS]                       stoodt@cis.umassd.edu
>"Will the last person to leave the planet please turn off the sun?"
>                                                     - Mike Resnick

Don't forget to tip the Butler!

						gkatz

P.S. It's great to be back!
From: carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: More sucky combos
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:45:56 GMT
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School

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
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Organization: The Internet
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:40:43 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.board.ce

In article <1992Aug31.203810.4716@ils.nwu.edu> lopez@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Chris &) writes:
>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.
:
>If the bombs still go off even when the power has been permanently lost, then
>why should a temporary power loss stop the explosion?

The Terrorist's power card clearly states that a Cosmic Zap will
nullify the effect of a Terrorist's bomb.


-- 
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"
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: lopez@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Chris &)
Subject: Re: More sucky combos
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:03:56 GMT

George W. Harris (gharris@jade.tufts.edu) wrote:
: 
: 	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

Void / Fungus is a great pair.

When you win a challenge, Fungus takes precedence over Void since it takes 
effect before the tokens go to the warp.  When you lose a challenge with a 
fungus stack any of the captured tokens that belong to your opponent or any 
of his allies go to the Void.

The trick is that Void does not require that you win the challenge.  Any
of your opponents (or his allies') tokens that are lost to the warp from an 
attack or unwillingness to make a deal get 'voided'.

I don't have the Mayfair version so I don't know if the same type of
interaction would occur between Void / Vampire.


Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: Alexx@world.std.com (Alexx S Kay)
Subject: Re: Question and new power.
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:41:54 GMT

kleber@husc10.harvard.edu (Gwydden) writes:
>Quoth John P. Speno:

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

>It seems a bit wimpy-- there's only one chance per entire time around the
>players that you even *might* get to use it, and then it only helps if you
>lose one.

I have seen a similar power called Optimist, who gets to make challenges
until he wins one.  This is a little more powerful than the Momentum.

>>                                        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.

>I can't think of any other time in CE where you get to draw cards until
>some stopping condition which the other players can't verify.  That is,
>I assume you intend for the intermediate cards drawn to go into your hand
>and be secret, in which case you're the only one who knows when you get
>your first challenge card.

One possible way to deal with this situation is that if you have no challenge
cards in your newly drawn hand, you immediately play or discard that entire
hand, then draw a new one.  This is consistent with the spirit, if not
necessarily the letter of the rules.

>On a related note, does anyone play the Mayfair Chosen so that you get
>to *keep* the cards you turn up in trying to find your replacement
>challenge card?  It seems this would add a lot to the power; as it
>stands, there's never any reason *not* to use it, if you're going to 
>lose anyway, and never any reason *to* use it if you win.  The new way,
>if opponent plays (for example) a compromise, it gets you free cards.

Seconded.  

>--Michael Kleber                "I don't have an overactive imagination...
>  kleber@husc.harvard.edu        I have an underactive reality..."  --EG

Alexx

Alexx@world.std.com
"If a tree falls on a laboratory mouse, does it cause cancer?"
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:28:10 GMT
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Followup-To: rec.games.board.ce
Organization: The Internet

In article <3SEP199220472565@zeus.tamu.edu> dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE) writes:
>Mirror and Sorcerer are also 'two players' but here's where the similarity
>with the timing rule ends. Their powers are not contradictory (it's clear
>what would happen if both were invoked). They are not simultaneous (each
>wants to invoke after the other). And they are not invoked (each refuses
>to invoke unless a certain condition is met).

They are indeed contradictory as they would oppose each other's effect.
They are indeed simultaneous as they are both invoked in the same step
(same icon).  And they are indeed invoked when either player decides
they want to play their power.

-- 
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"