From: mikem@ll.mit.edu
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos
Summary: Negator not so powerful, depending on interpretation
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 20:13:45 GMT

I wrote:
> The Negator couldn't be used this way.
[to tell a player "no, you don't object to the Gambler's bluff."]

[lots of stuff omitted for brevity]
> 
> I would say that this does NOT give the NEGATOR the ability to stop a
> player from saying whatever he/she chooses.  A player can still ask for
> allies without being negated.  It's only the physical action that can
> be negated.  In essence, once per challenge, before cards are revealed,
> the negator can say "Don't do that" after a player action.  Examples:

[examples also omitted for brevity]


lopez@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Chris Lopez) wrote:
> 
> An action does not have to by physical.  My dictionary -- Webster's Ninth 
> New Collegiate Dictionary -- gives the following definitions:

(definitions omitted; I'm not disputing Webster's, nor do I dispute the
contention by Mr. Lopez that an 'action' need not include a physical act.
In fact, I never attempted to define what an "action" was.)

My point was that every example (of a negatable action) on the Negator
power was a physical action, and it is reasonable to extrapolate from
the three examples that the Negator power is *intended* to affect only
physical actions.  Remember, the power card lists 3 examples of things
that might be negatable.  They're *all* physical actions.

   e.g. playing a particular card, pointing the cone at a specific
   target, selecting certain tokens, buying any cards, etc.

Because the power card contains that dreaded fomenter of argument and
disagreement - the word "etc." (OK, the ABBREVIATION "etc."), countless
arguments have ensued to determine just how broadly or narrowly "etc"
should be interpreted.  It has been my experience that interpreting it
narrowly, allowing the Negator to only affect physical actions (like
those in the examples on the card) results in a playable (but not
unreasonably powerful) Negator.

> This view is further supported by the later wording in the power:
> 
>     Once negated, the player must make a different decision
>     affecting the same element of play and continue the play.
> 
> Decisions are clearly mental activities, not physical ones.

I don't see how this wording supports either your view or my own.  It's
certainly clear that a negated action must be performed differently (or
not performed at all).  So, yes, this DOES require that the player make
a different decision than he/she made before embarking on the first
(negated) action.  But it doesn't really imply anything about what was
negated - whether it was the decision itself, or the manifestation of
the decision as a physical game action.

carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu (Douglass Barre) wrote:
>
>...the _really_ useful wording ... is "before cards are played."
...
>Thus calling a bluff automatically comes after cards are played and
>cannot be negated. Doncha think? (All this courtesy of IMHO, Inc.)

YES! Absolutely!  I don't know why I didn't see that in the first place!
Well, OK, I do know why I didn't see it.  I was busy trying to address a
larger question, and didn't even notice that what I was saying didn't
apply to the original scenario.  Thank you, Mr. Barre, for being awake.

- Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Maciolek - mikem@ll.mit.edu --- VOICE (617)981-3174 - FAX (617)981-0189
Network Engineer - MIT Lincoln Laboratory - Computer Telecommunications Systems
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Every five years or so, I look back on my life, and I have a good laugh."
		The Indigo Girls:  _Watershed_
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce