From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Sting
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:54:33 GMT
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Originator: irilyth@fenris

Ye gods, this voluntary/involuntary stuff is as bad as the communication
question wrt Silencer! Everything you do can be construed as "communication";
thus the Minkoff Rule, which differentiates between mandatory and optional
communication. (Mind if I name a rule after you, Tony? incidentally, if
anyone else wants to claim this rule, feel free; I remember Tony explaining
it first, though.) Very little is involuntary in CE, but my suspicion is
that the intention was for Sting to be able to use his power more frequently
than he would be allowed to using the Katz Criteria. (grin)

In a prior article, Gerald Katz (gkatz@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu) writes:
> I would say that Sting could not force others to lose tokens when
> he loses as offensive player because he voluntarily risked his tokens.

I don't like it, but it's reasonably consistent with the involuntary/
voluntary test.

> If you want to be picky that Sting HAS to make a challenge on his turn,
> then he could Sting one token since he must put at least one token in
> the cone, but any more were voluntary.

This is somewhat more consistent, though definitely more nit-picky.

> He may not Sting on his second challenge because the second challenge is
> voluntary.

Ugly, but apparently true.

> Also, Sting could not Sting tokens when he allies because that too is
> voluntary, unless he was forced by the Magnet.

Again, ugly but true. When I say "true" here, I mean "I think you have
interpreted correctly given the standard you've adopted." I still disagree
with the standard.

> As for failing to deal, only if his opponent openly declared that he did
> not want to deal is Stinging allowed.

So if you're Sting's opponent, you should always say "I want to deal, but
your terms are unreasonable; here are my generous, fair terms." Then, if
Sting turns down your deal, he does so voluntarily, losing the right to use
his power. In other words, the decision to accept or decline a deal is
always voluntary, as long as the other party claims to be making a
reasonable proposal. (What are you going to do, hold a vote on whether the
proposal is really reasonable or not? Blech.) Harsh for Sting.

> Losing tokens by Wrack is voluntarily.

Yuck. Wrack says "Give me a base and my choice of the cards in your hand,
and I'll give you a card from my hand"; if you're Sting and don't take the
deal, you don't get to use your power. Harsh for Sting.

> From Vacuum and Assassin, you may Sting.

What if you have a Cosmic Zap, and could thus prevent the Assassin or Vacuum
from killing your tokens? If you don't act to avoid losing tokens, does that
make the loss voluntary? From the Wrack example, I'd say yes--that is, Wrack
says "you must take my deal or lose tokens," you voluntarily choose not to
take his deal, so you lose tokens and can't sting. Assassin says "you must
play a Cosmic Zap or lose tokens," if you have a Zap and voluntarily choose
not to play it, you lose tokens and can't sting. Harsh for Sting.

> You may Sting as losing defensive player unless you are Sting/Siren and
> used your Siren power.

What if you didn't play your highest attack card? Your voluntary decision to
play low cost you the challenge, just like your voluntary decision not to
accept Wrack's deal lost you tokens to his power. How far do you have to go
do avoid losing tokens before it becomes involuntary?

This is getting ridiculous, obviously. My point is that the voluntary/
involuntary distinction, when taken to extremes, translates into "if you
don't do absolutely everything in your power to avoid losing tokens, then
you lost them voluntarily." A more Sting-friendly interpretation would be
"if you made a reasonable effort to avoid losing tokens, then you didn't
lose them voluntarily," but what does a "reasonable effort" mean? Impossible
to define, I'd argue.

I'd favor striking the voluntary/involuntary language from the card. Vacuum
makes another player(s) lose as many tokens as he lost, but loses his own
tokens as well; Sting does the same, but loses cards instead of his own
tokens. It will often be preferable to lose cards instead of tokens, making
Sting more powerful in some circumstances; it will sometimes not be possible
to lose cards instead of tokens, making Sting impotent in some circumstances.

The only reason I can think of to leave it there is if there are some
circumstances wherein Sting could voluntarily choose to lose many tokens,
and simply give his hand to another player in order to screw them over. For
example, if you could at any time toss any of your tokens into the warp, it
would obviously be unfair to let Sting accumulate a huge hand of cards, then
volunteer to toss his tokens into the warp, and simply give his hand away to
throw everyone else in. But I can't think of any situation in which a player
can voluntarily choose to lose an arbitrary number of tokens, so I don't see
this as a real danger. Therefore, I'd toss the involuntary clause.

But, since I haven't playtested it, what the hell do I know? Playtesters,
you've been invoked several times: how did you play this card, and what did
you think of it?
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA     ::  consult(std-disclaimer.pl).
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why
several of us died of tuberculosis." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA