From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  LONG
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 17:11:00 GMT

irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes...
>> Excuse me? I don't know what game you're playing, but you can't undo an
>> action in this game.
> 
>Ok, so you're playing by what I described as "Alternative rule: ...once
>you've decided to use your power, you can't change your mind." I guess to be
>precise, I should have said "Once you've declared that you're using your
>power, you can't change your mind."

No no, not once you've 'decided' to use it. It's once you've _used_ it.

>> '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.
> 
>Ok, let me be more precise here. Mirror and Sorceror are in the situation I
>described earlier. Mirror says "I am not sure whether I wish to use my power
>yet; I will not declare yet whether I am or am not using my power until
>Sorceror declares whether he is or is not using his power, since once I
>declare, I can't change my mind." Sorceror says exactly the same thing
>(substitute Sorceror for Mirror). What does your group do in this situation?

'Declaring' is not a game action so nothing has taken place in this scenario.

If it gets bad, you can go around the timing sequence (allies,attacker,
defender) and ask if anyone wants to do anything. Everyone knows that if they
do anything, the timing sequence will restart, first to see if anyone wants
to modify his action (maybe a zap), and then when that's resolved, 
around again to see if anyone wants to make an independent action. Thus
neither Sorcerer nor Mirror will do anything in the first sequence, and play
goes on. Of course this is all understood, so there's no need to be so formal.

>> Sorcerer is going to win this challenge. He has a decided advantage. See
>> if you can figure out what that advantage is.
> 
>No need to be rude. 

You are right. And I am sorry.

>Method One : Use the timing rules. Critical phases are broken up into
>subphases, in that in each phase, each player must state whether he is or is
>not using his power, in the order stated by the timing rules. During
>critical phases, you go around the table saying "Want to do anything?" and
>see how people respond. Once your turn has passed, you can't change your
>mind, though you can interject with a play-at-any-time power or edict/flare.

The play-at-any-time exception makes it a lot tougher for me to find 
counterexamples. :-)

>Method Two : Silence implies consent. During each phase, a player can
>declare that he is using a power which takes effect during that phase at any
>time, but cannot force the end of the phase until other players have been
>given a reasonable amount of time to declare in reaction to his declaration,
>or decline to do so. During critical phases, you say "Is anyone doing
>anything?" and if no one says anything (or everyone says no), play
>continues. If someone says something, you say "Ok, anyone else doing
>something?" and repeat until all players are satisfied.

Right, and if it occurs that more than one say 'yes' then the person who
is earlier in the timing sequence does his thing, and you ask again.

I would take out the declare part.

>Now, some thoughts. Method One is definitely the way we've played powers
>that take effect in the same phase; for example, in the Mirror/Sorceror
>conflict described above, we say to the offensive player "Are you using your
>power?" and then likewise to the defensive player, and those declarations
>stand. As Nick noted, though, this doesn't come up all that often, and since
>we're used to the timing rules, it doesn't interfere much with play.

Since you don't normally use it, consider the following strategy: Whenever
someone does something bad for you, 1/2 the time you are before him in
the timing sequence. So you (without hesitation) claim that the timing
rule must be followed. Then you do some action (plague would be an example,
but it's play-at-any-time) which gets rid of his card. Now the timing rule
says you CANNOT do your action _after_ his! But the other players cannot
deny you the right to play your card since you didn't go through the
timing sequence and you didn't declare you wouldn't play it.

>I can't think of any examples of powers that contradict each other, in the
>sense that allowing one to act makes it logically impossible for the other
>to act. Examples of this welcomed.

A hand zap and any card.

>>> 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.
> 
>To repeat, no need to be rude. I was trying to convey the idea that my point
>might not have been obvious, and admitting the possibility that my reasoning
>might have been insufficiently clear, not that you couldn't figure it out.

I'm sorry again. I completely misunderstood.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu