HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Subject: Re: Winning isn't everything
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:11:05 GMT
Reply-To: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <C0psE7.5xJ@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler) writes:
|> 
|> And there is another rule too ...
|> 0) Have fun.

THAT is the most important rule, always.  There are some games that are
still fun even if at some point you have no chance of winning.  Others
become a meaningless and boring exercise is dice rolling.

What makes the difference?

One thing that I have seen is that in the "fun while losing" games I can
still do things (explore/expand/whatever).  A losing position is not
boxed in completely by the leader(s) and just has to sit there while they
either ignore you or chop away more of your position every turn.

Another thing is that there are certain games that the winner can become
obvious at too early a point in the game.  If we are playing a 5 hour
game and 30 minutes into it the winner is obvious, the game is probably
flawed.
-- 

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com    America On-Line: BillSeurer@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: SNIT'S REVENGE
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:57:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1993Jan5.185731.12296
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR


   A friend happend to dig up this little gem from the back of his closet,
but alas, the rules were nowhere to be found. Could some kind and gentle
soul e-mail me a summary and jog our belabored memories? Blessings upon
your home and hearth.

>> Matt Alexander
>> matta@lclark.edu
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Games for sale
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:48:25 GMT
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvalj001

I'll start the biding for Conquest of the Empire at $30.> 
-- 
                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Daemon E. Hobbs, C/LtCol, AFROTC
                 Senior, (Spatial Information Systems)
                          Cal Poly, Pomona
                            **Commander**
                602D Air Force ROTC Cadet Squadron (ATC)
                Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

         "My ramblings represent no one's opinion but my own."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: stone@gershwin.cs.unc.edu (Donald Stone)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Eastfront Tinkering
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:37:13
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
	<STONE.93Jan7144145@gershwin.cs.unc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gershwin.cs.unc.edu
In-reply-to: stone@gershwin.cs.unc.edu's message of 7 Jan 93 14:41:45


In article <STONE.93Jan7144145@gershwin.cs.unc.edu> stone@gershwin.cs.unc.edu (Donald Stone) writes:

   Again, note my comment about the opening turns of any scenario from Winter
   41 to Summer 43.  It IS surrounded.  The Russians cannot draw supply off
   the north mapedge.  Rail supply must come from the West mapedge (rules
   aren't here or I would cite the rule).  

Ooops, I clearly meant East mapedge!  Also, to follow up my own note: In
Section 1.1 (Orientation), the East and South mapedges are defined as friendly
to the Soviets, and the North mapedge is defined as neutral.  Thus, Soviet
rail lines must be traced to the East mapedge.

Don.


--
Donald Stone (stone@cs.unc.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rhame@ctp.com (Rich Hamel)
Subject: Re: SFB: photons & warp use
Organization: Cambridge Technology Partners
Distribution: rec.games.board 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:15:32 GMT

>Warp use. Let's say you are in a cruiser. Who cares what kind. Move cost
>is 1. You cannot HET at speeds greater than speed 26, because of the lack
>enough warp to do it.
>
>Likewise, if you've allocated for an HET, you've used 5 warp, and the rules
>on mid-turn speed changes (C12) say you cannot ever be doing a speed in
>excess of the available warp at the start of a given turn. Thus, you could
>not speed change to greater than 26 for the same reason, even if your
>allocation permits enough power to do it.
>
>The question is this: Does this also apply to charging photons? I think it
>does.
>
     I had this question come up recently as well, here's what I found.

     Photons do not count for the purposes of limiting movement. Rule C12.383
specifies that limits on movement take into account only movement related
functions, like EM, HET's Warp, etc.. Thus photons and Disdevs, for 
example, would not limit the speed you could have at a given time.

     Since you used the Fed TC as an example lets look at it: 

     Turn 1:   30 warp, 4 AWR, 4 impulse, 5 bats for 43 points.

               4 points is housekeeping
              14 points to hold/overload torpedos (including 4 AWR and 4 warp)
     Lets also say you throw 5 reserve warp in the bats for a possible HET:

               5 points (all warp) to reserve warp.

               That leaves you with 20 points of power for movement, 
with which you could plot any kind of move. NOTE: It is perfectly legal
for you to go 31 at some point in the turn, but you could only HET during
the portion of the turn when you were going 26 or less. Here's a legal
plot (though I have no idea why you'd want to do this, other than to have
the move last advantage at the end of the turn)

               Go 15 until 16, 26 until 27, and 31 for the rest. You
could HET any time up to impulse 28, when the change to 31 would be in
effect and those 5 warp boxes would be in use. Note, of course, that 
impulse 27 is the last impulse that you can legally annouce a speed change.


                                                               Rich

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
!  Rich Hamel                      !                                       !
!  Cambridge Technology Partners   !  Asps?!! VERY Dangerous... You go     !
!  304 Vassar St.                  !  first!                               !
!  Cambridge, MA 02139             !                                       !
!  (617)-233-8266                  !  OK, Blue Jays, lets play ball!!      !
!                                  !                                       !
!                                  !  Toronto Blue Jays, 1992 Champions    !
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: dutta@cognex.uucp (Paul Dutta-Choudhury)
Subject: Divine Right Game
Organization: Cognex Corp., Needham, Mass
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:28:12 GMT

I have a near mint copy of the game:

	"Divine Right"

If anyone is interested in obtaining this game from me please contact me via e-mail.

Paul Dutta-Choudhury
Cognex Corp
Needham MA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren)
Subject: 3rd Fleet
Organization: National Science Center Foundation
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:39:10 GMT

Has anyone ever played the game "3rd Fleet", or 2nd or 6th or any of those
games?

I'm wondering how good they are.

I'd assume that since there are a lot of them, that they might be good,
but appearances can be deceiving.

What are the better and worse points of these games? Are they accurate?


Warren
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: jjohnson@ccscola.Columbia.NCR.COM (Jeffrey H. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Wild and Super Flares
Organization: NCR CCSD Columbia SC
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 17:00:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.001516.27130@nwnexus.WA.COM> phaedrus@halcyon.com (Mark Phaedrus) writes:
>In article <42999@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ee52fbc@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (Maiko Covington) writes:
>>Quick question: If you are Alien Power A, and you get the flare that
>>goes with Alien Power A, are you forced to use the super power on
>>the flare or do you have a choice of using either the wild or super
>>power? (I have the Mayfair game, btw.)
>
>     As long as you have the use of a particular power, you are forced to
>use the Super version of that power's flare, not the Wild version.

This was true in the Eon version.  I am not sure that it is still true in the
May fair version.  The appropriate text under the description of flares says
that the player MAY (or CAN) use the Super ability if he has the controlling
power.  Using Mayfair's criteria for optional powers, that would make the use
of the Super optional.  But it isn't 100% clear.

Jeff
--
Jeffrey H. Johnson
jjohnson@ccscola.columbiasc.ncr.com

		"More human than human is our motto."
			-- Dr. Eldon Tyrell
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer)
Subject: Doppleganger Wild
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:55:45 GMT
Keywords: Official correction


During a brief phone conference with Mike Arms we came up with the
following correction/errata for the Doppleganger Wild.  Yes, the original
was broken pretty badly. The Doppleganger Wild should be replaced with the 
following text:

When you are not a main player, you may take all the non-challenge cards
from the regular hand of any one player who has a base in your system.  Any 
cards that you play are resolved as if they were played by the player from 
whose hand you received the cards.  Return any of these cards that you did not
play to that player's regular hand at the end of the challenge.

Hope that helps.  This should also appear in the next issue of Encounter.

Nick Sauer




Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: lopez@news.ils.nwu.edu (Chris Lopez)
Subject: Re: Question on Mayfair Void.
Reply-To: lopez@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:29:31 GMT

glenn@sloth.ncsl.nist.gov wrote:
: This might be FAQ but here goes.  The wording of the Void is something
: like, when your opponent's and his allies tokens are lost as a result
: of the challenge, they are removed from the game.  Does this include
: failed deals?  We've played it both ways and feel that the wording does
: imply that you void 3 of your opponent's tokens as the result of a failed
: deal.  As a result, the Diplomat becomes incredibly dangerous in a game
: involving the Void.  The Diplomat calls negotiate and refuses to deal.
: The void loses 3 tokens to the warp.  The diplomat, not an opponent of
: the void, also loses 3 tokens to the warp.  The third person/opponent
: loses 3 tokens to the void.  Now that makes the assumption that the Diplomat
: is not an opponent.  Safe assumption?  Is this an accurate interpretation
: of the rules.

From the Eon void:

  When you are one of the two players in a challenge, any of your opponent's
  (or his allies') tokens that are lost to the warp from the attack or
  unwillingness to make a deal are permanently removed from the game.

While not explicitly stated, I would rule that the Diplomat's tokens go to
the void as well if he refuses to deal.  When the Diplomat invokes his power,
they are supposed to make a 3 way deal.  His status is now no different than
that of the other player in my mind.

: 
: Rob G.
: 
: P.S.  We had a multi-power game the other day with someone playing the
:       aristrocrat-void.  He went and picked up the space junk and the
:       void flare and voided 2 of my planets.  We play that the super
:       is optional.  Is this correct?  This was in a recent
:       discussion and the rules say that you "can" use the super if you
:       have the power, not you "must".  Oh, to have had a flare zap! 
:       He then followed by plaguing me.  
: glenn@osi.ncsl.nist.gov

We always played that you had to cosmic zap yourself if you wanted to play
your own wild flare.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: mkelly@happy.helios.nd.edu (michael kelly)
Subject: FTP site?
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:23:48 GMT

I'm sorry if this is a FAQ, but where is the FTP site that is mentioned in
Encounter magazine? The dir path would also be appreciated.

10q.

--
+               Mike Kelly, Notre Dame Department of Physics                +
+                                                                           +
+ mkelly@doc.helios.nd.edu          "The more you drive,                    + 
+ mkelly@undhe5.hep.nd.edu                 the less intelligent you are."   +
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: kcc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Ken Cox)
Subject: Re: Doppleganger Flare
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:59:09 GMT

Joshua E. Randall writes:
>The Doppleganger Flare says "When you are not a main player in a challenge,
>take another player's hand and play from it for that challenge" (Wild)
>(approximately).

What an interesting effect.  I really must go buy MCE.  Does the
Flare indicate what happens if you take a main player's hand?  I
would assume that if you take the offensive players hand, the
challenge ends since he has no Challenge cards.  But if you take
the defensive player's hand, he gets to draw a new one -- does he
then combine the two hands when you return the one you stole, or
discard one (and which)?

>Shouldn't this really be when you *are* a main player in
>a challenge?  (1)  It makes no sense the way it is, and (2) the
>Doppleganger power is only usable when you are a main player.
>Joshua E. Randall			bz556@cleveland.freenet.edu

True, when you aren't a main player you don't play Challenge cards.
However, the deck has other cards, like Edicts and Flares, that
can be played by non-main players during the course of the challenge.
Imagine using this Flare to grab the Vulch's hand and burn up as
many of his edicts as you can; or if you know another player has
his Super, you could take his hand and play it as the Wild.

Also, it doesn't indicate what happens to your original hand, but
I would assume it's off in limbo somewhere and thus immune to any
effects.  If you want to protect some cards (from, say, the Mutant)
this might be a way to do it.

I don't understand your point (2).  The time when a power is used
doesn't have to have any relation to the time when either the Wild
or Super is used.

Ken Cox
kcc@wucs1.wustl.edu
From: glenn@sloth.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Question on Mayfair Void.
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:16:00 GMT
Reply-To: glenn@sloth.ncsl.nist.gov
Organization: N.I.S.T
Posting-Front-End: Shinbun -- the OpenLook newsreader




This might be FAQ but here goes.  The wording of the Void is something
like, when your opponent's and his allies tokens are lost as a result
of the challenge, they are removed from the game.  Does this include
failed deals?  We've played it both ways and feel that the wording does
imply that you void 3 of your opponent's tokens as the result of a failed
deal.  As a result, the Diplomat becomes incredibly dangerous in a game
involving the Void.  The Diplomat calls negotiate and refuses to deal.
The void loses 3 tokens to the warp.  The diplomat, not an opponent of
the void, also loses 3 tokens to the warp.  The third person/opponent
loses 3 tokens to the void.  Now that makes the assumption that the Diplomat
is not an opponent.  Safe assumption?  Is this an accurate interpretation
of the rules.

Rob G.

P.S.  We had a multi-power game the other day with someone playing the
      aristrocrat-void.  He went and picked up the space junk and the
      void flare and voided 2 of my planets.  We play that the super
      is optional.  Is this correct?  This was in a recent
      discussion and the rules say that you "can" use the super if you
      have the power, not you "must".  Oh, to have had a flare zap! 
      He then followed by plaguing me.  
glenn@osi.ncsl.nist.gov
From: bicker@hoqax.ho.att.com (Brian C. Kohn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: For Sale: CE and More CE
Date: 4 Jan 93 14:40:47 GMT
Distribution: nj
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I'm taking orders for CE and More CE at discount.  I can get them for
about $28 for CE and $25 for More CE (maybe less--depending on how
many people order).  Cash or money order in advance (I've been burned
before) and you gotta pick it up in Howell or Holmdel, NJ.  Send me
email if interested.

--
/kohn/brian.c                  AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center   
The Resource,                  E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker  (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM)
Poet-Magician of Quality       PHONE: (908) 949-5850                           
   'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
From: davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Ex Post Facto Victory?
Date: 7 Jan 1993 13:47:25 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <C0F4Lz.61q@csi.compuserve.com> nbetz@csi.compuserve.com (Nathan Betz) writes:
>Hence, we need your help in determining who is right. I maintain that
>even if the Flare was not played correctly, unfortunately what's done is done
>and you can't go back and change game events that took place hours ago.
>We usually go by the rule that you can change a decision or dispute an
>event as long as no new game events have taken place, at which point
>its too late.  He believes that since the Flare could not have been 
>played, and he otherwise (probably) would have won the challenge, he
>wins the game.

The group I play with plays by your usual rule, so that if an action has
been "committed" by further game actions, that action can't be reversed.
We've had games where flares were played incorrectly, destiny cards (Mayfair
set) weren't shuffled (noticed this one quickly), etc., and later when
the error was realized no corrective action was taken - the event stood.
The only exception we make is when someone who didn't understand some
aspect of the operation of something play something out of sequence or
incorrectly.  In such a case, we take a corrective action, but that is
generally limited and I don't think we ever allow this to change something
from a previous turn.  In your situation, I think I'd be a little upset
too, but sounds like you friend takes soreness to a new low.

-- Russell Davoli
From: bz556@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joshua E. Randall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Doppleganger Flare
Date: 4 Jan 1993 06:12:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz556@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joshua E. Randall)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


The Doppleganger Flare says "When you are not a main player in a challenge,
take another player's hand and play from it for that challenge" (Wild)
(approximately).  Shouldn't this really be when you *are* a main player in
a challenge?  (1)  It makes no sense the way it is, and (2) the
Doppleganger power is only usable when you are a main player.
-- 
Joshua E. Randall			bz556@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: cs163wav@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Anthony Minkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Question on Mayfair Void.
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:25:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <7928@dove.nist.gov> glenn@sloth.ncsl.nist.gov writes:
>the Diplomat becomes incredibly dangerous in a game
>involving the Void.  The Diplomat calls negotiate and refuses to deal.
>The void loses 3 tokens to the warp.  The diplomat, not an opponent of
>the void, also loses 3 tokens to the warp.  The third person/opponent
>loses 3 tokens to the void.  Now that makes the assumption that the Diplomat
>is not an opponent.  Safe assumption?  Is this an accurate interpretation
>of the rules.

That is how I would interpret the rules.  It's a nasty situation to
be in, although there are a few powers that can eliminate or reduce
its effects:

Silencer: silence the Diplomat
Plant:    graft the Diplomat or the Void
Dictator: make the Diplomat and Void challenge each other
Healer:   heal the tokens lost to the Void (except his own-- ouch)
Zombie:   immune to the Void (I hate this interpretation, but it is
               pretty standard.)
Philanthropist:  stick Void with lots of Compromises, preventing the
               Diplomat from calling "Negotiate."
Wrack:    also prevents the Diplomat from getting in on the act.

Hmm.  That's all I can think of off the top of my head?  Any others?
(That is, aside from the generic "stomp him down to two bases and
make him lose his powers"?)

>Rob G.
>
>P.S.  We had a multi-power game the other day with someone playing the
>      aristrocrat-void.  He went and picked up the space junk and the
>      void flare and voided 2 of my planets.

We play that in a multiple-power game, the Aristorcrat may not take
the super of any of his powers.  But I guess this is a house rule.

>      We play that the super
>      is optional.  Is this correct?

I don't believe so.  (Of course, whether or not to play it at all is
optional.)  We certainly play that you can't use your own Wild
Flare, and believe that is the intent of the rules, which read:  "If
a player holds a Flare Card that is different from his Alien Power,
he uses the effect described on the card under 'Wild.'"  Nowhere
does it state that a player who hold Flare Card that is the same as
his Alien Power can use the effect described under "Wild."
     Some people look at the next sentence which states that if your
Flare matches your Power, you "can" use the "Super" effect.  Since
you "can" use the Super, you don't have to.  And many infer from
this that if you don't have to use the Super, you can use the Wild.
Personally, I don't buy this line of reasoning.  (If this
interpretation is valid, the Macron is pretty bummed, and has,
essentially, no Super-- since, in most cases, the Super wouldn't let
him do anything that the Wild wouldn't let him do anyway.  Really.
Look at the Macron Flare and think about it.  If you were writing
the Flares, and intended the rules to allow players to use their own
Wilds, then, given the Macron Wild, would you write that Super for
the Macron?  I doubt it.)

Tony
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: nbetz@csi.compuserve.com (Nathan Betz)
Subject: Ex Post Facto Victory?
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:58:43 GMT


Okay. After a bout of late-night gaming which ended in a furious yet
unresolved argument, my roommate and I have decided to tap the wisdom
of the net for a resolution.

The situation can be described thusly: Player A has four bases and is
in a challenge for the win. Player A nearly blunders into a win, were
it not for Player B deftly playing a Flare causing Player A to be beaten
like a red-headed stepchild. The game continues for another couple of
hours. Just as the sun was beginning to rise, and Player A was about to
suffer a humiliating defeat, he digs through the rules and discovers a 
loophole which would have prevented me from playing the pivotal Flare
several hours and scores of turns ago. He unjustly declares a victory
and a melee ensues. Even after giving him a severe beating within a
jot of ending his puny and pathetic life, he still fails to see that light.
 
Hence, we need your help in determining who is right. I maintain that
even if the Flare was not played correctly, unfortunately what's done is done
and you can't go back and change game events that took place hours ago.
We usually go by the rule that you can change a decision or dispute an
event as long as no new game events have taken place, at which point
its too late.  He believes that since the Flare could not have been 
played, and he otherwise (probably) would have won the challenge, he
wins the game.
 
Who's right? You be the Judge.
 
-Nate