Malk Madness Net and Reaction (Hah!)

OK Design Team: I can't use reaction cards to respond to a Malk who takes an action on my turn because the rules state: "These cards can only be played when it is not your turn." Fine. Stick your collective head in the sand and ignore the fact that you failed to consider this card when writing the rules. But, the Malk taking the action cannot use any action cards, right: 7.2.2: "your minions may only use action cards on your turn." So, the Malk can bleed me, hunt, or take an action allowed by a card in play. *Nothing Else*. Now, are you going to continue to stonewall this one or are you going to issue the long-awaited errata that: Reaction cards may be used in response to another Methuselah's Minion's action, even if taken on your own turn. Well? P.S. I don't really expect a response, of course. But I feel better anyhow.

In article <3lrlhc$g...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > OK Design Team: I can't use reaction cards to respond to a Malk who > takes an action on my turn because the rules state: > "These cards can only be played when it is not your turn." > Fine. Stick your collective head in the sand and ignore the fact that > you failed to consider this card when writing the rules. > Now, are you going to continue to stonewall this one or are you going to > issue the long-awaited errata that: > Reaction cards may be used in response to another Methuselah's Minion's > action, even if taken on your own turn. Hear, Hear! I second the outburst from the Honorable Elder! The real difficulty with writing rules for a game like Jyhad lies in the fact that a generic rule gets overridden by the text on the cards. Of course, this is what makes a CCG like Jyhad so much fun to play. It is virtually infinitely expandable. The problem is that if you word the generic rules too genericly (reaction only when it's not your turn in addition to reactions only against another Meth's actions) so as to make it absolutely clear that an action minion cannot use a reaction card, well, then when the text of a card like Malk Mad Network breaks the first tennant (only act when it's your turn) there is a loophole. The potentially reacting vampires are still bound by the generic rule beacuse the Network doesn't say anything about allowing them to react in their Meth's turn. We can only hope that the 'official' channels will come up with an appropriate ruling on situations like these. And if they don't- well you've heard my suggestion. Let's try and do it ourselves. Even if it's not 'officially sanctioned' it gives players a reasonable set of guidelines, and a forum for us to present our extensively playtested critiques. The WoTC ought to be grateful for the input. stephen

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > P.S. I don't really expect a response, of course. But I feel better > anyhow. Peace Scott, You are correct, though. We (around here) play that if your minion is doing something then you are "acting" and other minions may "react." Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >OK Design Team: I can't use reaction cards to respond to a Malk who >takes an action on my turn because the rules state: > "These cards can only be played when it is not your turn." >Fine. Stick your collective head in the sand and ignore the fact that >you failed to consider this card when writing the rules. >But, the Malk taking the action cannot use any action cards, right: > 7.2.2: > "your minions may only use action cards on your turn." >So, the Malk can bleed me, hunt, or take an action allowed by a card >in play. *Nothing Else*. >Now, are you going to continue to stonewall this one or are you going to >issue the long-awaited errata that: >Reaction cards may be used in response to another Methuselah's Minion's >action, even if taken on your own turn. >Well? >P.S. I don't really expect a response, of course. But I feel better >anyhow. That's as funny as the Basilia post re Rotschrek! The natural response is that during the Malk's action, it becomes, effectively, its controller's turn. The Malk can act and modify, anyone else react. Can we reach consensus on this? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Stephen Beaulieu (hi...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote: : In article <3lrlhc$g...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, : sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: : > OK Design Team: I can't use reaction cards to respond to a Malk who : > takes an action on my turn because the rules state: : > "These cards can only be played when it is not your turn." : > Fine. Stick your collective head in the sand and ignore the fact that : > you failed to consider this card when writing the rules. : > Now, are you going to continue to stonewall this one or are you going to : > issue the long-awaited errata that: : > Reaction cards may be used in response to another Methuselah's Minion's : > action, even if taken on your own turn. I cant speak for any rules group rulings that have been made but , as a house rule the group I play with play the network as coming into effect between meths turns - saves a lotta problems and doesnt really limit the card too much - it can still be a game winner providing it isnt burned (as is usually the case) . One thing that does bother me is that the network can be burned 'with an action which any untapped malkavian can block' . Does this mean that although it isnt a directed action the predator/prey cant block except with malkavians? -use the card reasonably JA C

In article <3lsi43$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>Now, are you going to continue to stonewall this one or are you going to >>issue the long-awaited errata that: >>Reaction cards may be used in response to another Methuselah's Minion's >>action, even if taken on your own turn. >The natural response is that during the Malk's action, it becomes, >effectively, its controller's turn. The Malk can act and modify, anyone >else react. Can we reach consensus on this? There shouldn't be any problem in reaching a consensus, unless there ever exists people who are as illogical as the Design Ruling Team. Oops ... Have I just said a paradox? :-) -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3lrlhc$g...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>OK Design Team: I can't use reaction cards to respond to a Malk who >>takes an action on my turn because the rules state: >> "These cards can only be played when it is not your turn." >> >>Now, are you going to continue to stonewall this one or are you going to >>issue the long-awaited errata that: >>Reaction cards may be used in response to another Methuselah's Minion's >>action, even if taken on your own turn. > A better idea is to fix the card that is the source of the >problem than to introduce a new, buggy metarule. How about changing MN This is not an introduction, nor a metarule, certainly not buggy. The game was designed to be played this way (as any two-year-old would suspect): o. Reaction cards can be played by Minions controlled by a Methuselah other than the Methuselah controlling the action Minion. is simply the MMN-aware statement of: [7.2.2] Reaction cards: You or your minions use these cards to respond to actions of a minion controlled by another Methuselah. These cards can only be played when it is not your turn. >to read that during a Malk's MN action, it is considered to be that >meth's turn for the purposes of actions, action mods, and reactions? >That would work much better and require less all around fixing of >things... What other fixes are there that my statement requires? (It's effect is the same as what you describe, and it is less convoluted). L. Scott

In article <3lt2a4$e...@tribune.usask.ca>, sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) wrote: > Yea or Nay, people? I am with you. Reaction cards can be played in response to the Madness Network regardless of whose 'turn' it is. stephen

Doesn't the Madness Net let untapped Malks take actions <between> Meth's turns? In that case, the basic rules are that Reaction cards can be used to block or interfere with actions of other minions. If the Malk is taking an action, why not try and intercept/etc? And really, how many rules are there about what happens outside of players' turns? Just a foolish though or two Today it's me, tomorrow -- you? Nightstalker

sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) wrote: > > CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: > : sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: > > : >Now, are you going to continue to stonewall this one or are you going to > : >issue the long-awaited errata that: > : >Reaction cards may be used in response to another Methuselah's Minion's > : >action, even if taken on your own turn. > > : That's as funny as the Basilia post re Rotschrek! > : The natural response is that during the Malk's action, it becomes, > : effectively, its controller's turn. The Malk can act and modify, anyone > : else react. Can we reach consensus on this? > > Well, as a proposed member of the Netgroup Rulings Team I vote yes to the > wording of Scott's errata, and will happily add it as the first entry in > the (hopefully) soon-to-be-overflowing pile of things that the Netgroup > has ruled to be ridiculous when played by Official rules as soon as I hear > votes from other 'members' of the Netgroup. Peace all, I also agree that the Malk using Madness Network is "acting" and can use Actions/Action Mods and that his action's target (in the case of directed actions) or his prey/predator (in the case of non-directed actions) may play Reaction cards (even if it is still that player's actual turn). [ quoted text not captured ]

hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) wrote: > We can only hope that the 'official' channels will come up with an > appropriate ruling on situations like these. And if they don't- well > you've heard my suggestion. Let's try and do it ourselves. Even if it's > not 'officially sanctioned' it gives players a reasonable set of > guidelines, and a forum for us to present our extensively playtested > critiques. The WoTC ought to be grateful for the input. Peace Stephen, Yes, they should. No, they probably won't be. [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >Now, are you going to continue to stonewall this one or are you going to >issue the long-awaited errata that: >Reaction cards may be used in response to another Methuselah's Minion's >action, even if taken on your own turn. An easier ruling would be "Actions taken by a vamp using the madness network count as part of their controller's turn". -- Aaron Mandelbaum

In article <3lrlhc$g...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >OK Design Team: I can't use reaction cards to respond to a Malk who >takes an action on my turn because the rules state: > "These cards can only be played when it is not your turn." > >Now, are you going to continue to stonewall this one or are you going to >issue the long-awaited errata that: >Reaction cards may be used in response to another Methuselah's Minion's >action, even if taken on your own turn. A better idea is to fix the card that is the source of the problem than to introduce a new, buggy metarule. How about changing MN to read that during a Malk's MN action, it is considered to be that meth's turn for the purposes of actions, action mods, and reactions? That would work much better and require less all around fixing of things... | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

In article <3lt2a4$e...@tribune.usask.ca>, Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >Well, as a proposed member of the Netgroup Rulings Team I vote yes to the >wording of Scott's errata, and will happily add it as the first entry in >the (hopefully) soon-to-be-overflowing pile of things that the Netgroup >has ruled to be ridiculous when played by Official rules as soon as I hear >votes from other 'members' of the Netgroup. > >Yea or Nay, people? Check my followup to the original posting. Yea to the principle, nay to the particular execution. [ quoted text not captured ]

ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) writes: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>Now, are you going to continue to stonewall this one or are you going to >>issue the long-awaited errata that: >>Reaction cards may be used in response to another Methuselah's Minion's >>action, even if taken on your own turn. >An easier ruling would be "Actions taken by a vamp using the madness network >count as part of their controller's turn". Well, that's fine for the Madness Network. What abou the expansion cards that end up with the same effect. A generic rule is always better than a specific one. L. Scott

In article <3lusl6$6...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >> A better idea is to fix the card that is the source of the >>problem than to introduce a new, buggy metarule. How about changing MN > >This is not an introduction, nor a metarule, certainly not buggy. You're changing the rules. Yes, it's the way we all play, but it could be problematic. I would rather change the one card that causes the problem than a rule which, IMHO, does not need changing. The metarule bit came from too much INWO... I just have reservations on changing basic rules. >>to read that during a Malk's MN action, it is considered to be that >>meth's turn for the purposes of actions, action mods, and reactions? >>That would work much better and require less all around fixing of >>things... > >What other fixes are there that my statement requires? >(It's effect is the same as what you describe, and it is less convoluted). See, I think that changing the rules of the game to accomodate the MN is more convoluted than changing the MN to fit the rules. That's the idea I'm advocating: fix the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

jac...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr JA Chapman) wrote: > the case) . One thing that does bother me is that the network can be burned > 'with an action which any untapped malkavian can block' . > Does this mean that although it isnt a directed action the predator/prey cant > block except with malkavians? Peace JA, It means that ANY untapped Malk, belonging to any Meth (not just your pred/prey), may declare a block attempt when someone tries to destroy the MadNet. If your pred/prey do not have ready & untapped Malk(s), then they may _not_ attempt to block that action. > -use the card reasonably AMEN! Brother!! [ quoted text not captured ]

In <hippo-05049...@gill.hrc.utexas.edu> hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) writes: >In article <3lt2a4$e...@tribune.usask.ca>, sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane >Hamish William Travis) wrote: >> Yea or Nay, people? >I am with you. Reaction cards can be played in response to the Madness >Network regardless of whose 'turn' it is. >stephen I agree. If you can't play reaction cards in response to an out-of-turn action (rules section 13.2), you also can't block out-of-turn actions (rules section 13.3)! Both sections come under section 13, "What you can do when it is not your turn." That's just too weird. I think that the best way to handle the Madness Network is to treat the Malkavian's action as if it were part of the owning Methuseleh's turn. Pat oma...@convex.com

In article <3m0kec$m...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>An easier ruling would be "Actions taken by a vamp using the madness network >>count as part of their controller's turn". > >Well, that's fine for the Madness Network. What abou the expansion cards >that end up with the same effect. A generic rule is always better than >a specific one. There is a perfectly fine general rule already in place. Madness Network overrides (or at least should be fixed to override) the rule. Any card that comes later should do the same. Fixing the generic rules in a game with "The Golden Rule of Cards" should be done only very rarely. The cards that break the rules are the ones that need to be tuned and worded precisely. There is no reason to change the rules when only one cards breaks the rule, there is plenty of reason to change the card. If we fix the rules for every card that breaks them, we'll never work the kinks out. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3m14if$e...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >> [Joseph worte earlier:] >>> A better idea is to fix the card that is the source of the >>>problem than to introduce a new, buggy metarule. How about changing MN >>>to read that during a Malk's MN action, it is considered to be that >>>meth's turn for the purposes of actions, action mods, and reactions? >>>That would work much better and require less all around fixing of >>>things... > >You're [L. Scott Johnson] changing the rules. >Yes, it's the way we all play, but it could be problematic. Scott is not changing the rules. He's re-writing the rules in a form that more precisely specifies what it is intended to mean. >See, I think that changing the rules of the game to accomodate >the MN is more convoluted than changing the MN to fit the rules. That's >the idea I'm advocating: fix the card. The original rules, IMO, tried to state that reactions are only useable on other's actions, and, involving the (not entirely correct) assumption that actions are only performed on your own turn, got written in the form that we see now. The source of the problem is not that the Madness Network card breaks that assumption; it is in the rules being ill-written in the first place, since it unnecessarily involves an (incorrect) assumption. IMO, the rules of the game should be, and was always intended to be, what Scott is stating now: action, action modifiers and reactions played according to whose action it is, not regarding to whose turn it is. The fourth long article (coming soon!) of mine will clearly exploit an error of your (Joseph's) proposed fix: you forgot to mention Out-of-Turn Master cards in your proposed fix for the MMN. [ quoted text not captured ]

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3lusl6$6...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>> A better idea is to fix the card that is the source of the >>>problem than to introduce a new, buggy metarule. How about changing MN >> >>This is not an introduction, nor a metarule, certainly not buggy. > See, I think that changing the rules of the game to accomodate >the MN is more convoluted than changing the MN to fit the rules. That's >the idea I'm advocating: fix the card. A broken rule breaks the MN, so you wnat to "fix" the MN? What about the next card (in an expansin set) that this borken rule breaks? I'll put it in the house list, but I'm sticking with my rules' fix.

sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote: >: L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >: >Well, that's fine for the Madness Network. What abou the expansion cards >: >that end up with the same effect. A generic rule is always better than >: >a specific one. >: Fixing the generic >: rules in a game with "The Golden Rule of Cards" should be done only very >: rarely. The cards that break the rules are the ones that need to be >: tuned and worded precisely. There is no reason to change the rules when >: only one cards breaks the rule, there is plenty of reason to change the >: card. >: If we fix the rules for every card that breaks them, we'll never >: work the kinks out. >'Fraid I've gotta side with Joe on this one, now that I see his >reasoning. The very reason that the Golden Rule of Cards is there is to >deal with things that don't fall under the normal scope of the rules but >are allowed by cards. >Taking an action during someone else's turn certainly fits this category. I'm not talking about fixing the rules for cards that break the rules. I'm talking about fixing the rules for the cards that get broken by the broken rules. Obviously, if a card get broken by a good rule, then fix the card. The golden rule is (for most people) a "good" rule - never in danger of being fixed. The rule of combat (combat does not occur if one of the minions is in torpor) is a perfect example. Set the guidelines so people can know how to play without looking up every card they play in the list of house rules. Reaction cards were meant to be used in response to actions. Let the rules reflect that. (like they do if you remove the offending sentence in 7.2.2: "These cards can only be played when it is not your turn." everything works.) This is an example of fixing the logic in a game so that you don't have to put bandages on the cards to accomplish the same thing. If you don't agree that the rule is wrong (broken), then why not? What possible reason could there be for restricting a Reaction card to "not your turn" when it's already restricted to "other player's minion's actions" ? Reaction - a respons to an action. How clear can it be? L. Scott

In article <3m1jug$k...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >>See, I think that changing the rules of the game to accomodate >>the MN is more convoluted than changing the MN to fit the rules. That's >>the idea I'm advocating: fix the card. > >The original rules, IMO, tried to state that reactions are only useable >on other's actions, and, involving the (not entirely correct) assumption >that actions are only performed on your own turn, got written in >the form that we see now. The source of the problem is not that the The original rules stated that you can only take an action on your turn. The logical opposite of that is that you can only react when it's not your turn. The original rules are quite clear on the fact that you can take actions only on your turn. Are you advocating changing that part of the rules, too? Or will you agree that MN breaks that rule as well? >Madness Network card breaks that assumption; it is in the rules >being ill-written in the first place, since it unnecessarily >involves an (incorrect) assumption. IMO, the rules of the game should be, >and was always intended to be, what Scott is stating now: action, >action modifiers and reactions played according to whose action it >is, not regarding to whose turn it is. The MN breaks more rules than just the reaction rule, and is thus proven to be a card that breaks the rules. The assumption that you can only take actions on your turn is a basic tenant of the game, and MN breaks that. It is therefore MN's responsibility to specify how it should be handled. You're conveniently forgetting the fact that MN breaks this tenant when you say that the rules need rewriting. MN needs it because it *consciously* breaks one of the basic rules of the game. If you remove the assumption that you can only act on your turn, you break a heckuva a lot more than the reaction rule. See? >The fourth long article (coming soon!) of mine will clearly exploit an error >of your (Joseph's) proposed fix: you forgot to mention Out-of-Turn >Master cards in your proposed fix for the MMN. No, I did not. I chose to leave it that way in my proposed wording quite on purpose. However, it is trivial to add the wording to fix the card for OOT's to my wording. It's still the MN that needs to be fixed. I'm afraid that I'll probably disagree with this next one, Alan. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3m3c93$i...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >> See, I think that changing the rules of the game to accomodate >>the MN is more convoluted than changing the MN to fit the rules. That's >>the idea I'm advocating: fix the card. > >A broken rule breaks the MN, so you wnat to "fix" the MN? The MN breaks several rules, so needs to be fixed to reflect that by the Golden Rule of Cards. >What about the next card (in an expansin set) that this borken rule breaks? Anything that alters the basic order of turns is a card that needs to be carefully worded and properly balanced. It is by nature a card that will break the rules. You can't go messing with the basic structure of the game without being careful. The next card that breaks the rules in a similar manner (if any) will also have to be worded correctly. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3m3dc5$j...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >I'm talking about fixing the rules for the cards that get broken by the >broken rules. > >Obviously, if a card get broken by a good rule, then fix the card. >The golden rule is (for most people) a "good" rule - never in danger >of being fixed. > >Reaction cards were meant to be used in response to actions. Let the rules >reflect that. (like they do if you remove the offending sentence in 7.2.2: >"These cards can only be played when it is not your turn." everything >works.) This is an example of fixing the logic in a game so that you don't >have to put bandages on the cards to accomplish the same thing. > >If you don't agree that the rule is wrong (broken), then why not? >What possible reason could there be for restricting a Reaction card to >"not your turn" when it's already restricted to "other player's minion's >actions" ? The rules are (greatly simplified): You take actions on your turn. You use action modifiers on your actions. Other people react to your actions. Thus they are only allowed to play reactions when it is not their turn. This is the chain of logic which defines the cardplay of the game. This can be presented to the players in many ways. Any way that does so effectively is fine. The way in the rulebook does so and is fine. Maybe it should be changed in a revised edition of the game, maybe not. However, it is not broken. The fundamental gameplay events are perfectly defined. The rule is not wrong because the rule defines normal gameplay clearly, concisely, and understandably. The rule could be rewritten two or three different ways, but that is how it was written, and that *does* cover all aspects of normal gameplay, which is what the rules should do. If a card wants to violate causality and change the basic assumptions of the game, it's the card's responsibility to clean up the mess (by the Golden Rule of Cards). The *ONLY* card that breaks this chain of events is MN. And it breaks it in a big way. The chain of logic is broken long before we ever get to reactions. Suddenly you can take actions any time. The card breaks the basic tenants of the game. It's not the rules' fault. The rules are written to handle the game. It's the card's fault. The card needs to clean up after itself. A litmus test: if Madness Network didn't exist, would you have any problems with the way the rules are written? Why? My answer: no. It's patently obvious to me that you can only take actions on your turn and only react on other people's turns (given no MN). [ quoted text not captured ]

I know I am about to open a can of worms that has been thoroughly investigated and disagreed upon up till now. But as a good portion of the discussion in the group focuses on the "Golden Rule of Cards", I thought I would insert my thoughts on how that applies to cross table bleeds. The rules as normally stated allow only a Meth to bleed her/his prey only. This takes no cards, it just happens. You bleed your prey. In the revised rules it furthermore states that a bleed is the fundamental directed action taken by one vamp to undermine another Meth. Also in the rules is the definition for the directed action symbol. This defines the action as a directed action that only the Meth who is being acted against can block. It also states that an action card with the D symbol on it can be directed against any Meth. Now here is where the "Golden Rule of Cards" applies. By creating bleed action cards with the D symbol you allow bleeds against other Meths by nature of the Golden Rule. The card overrules the normal rules. A bleed is not normally allowed against anyone else but the acting Meths prey. But the D symbol allows the action to be directed against any Meth, and only that Meth can choose to block. It seems very straightforward and logical to me. But, I am not everyone else. I would be interested in hearing the opinions of the others on the net, especially our honorable Elders. If it would please everyone else to not hear the arguments for and against again, we could handle this completely off net, through my email. I would prefer to have all the discussions out in the open, so that everyone can contribute- but that might create another huge thread, and I don't want to force people to read what they might have already read before. I will state that I don't expect to come to any sort of consensus about the ruling, but one can always hope. I should also state that this is how my group plays. We have _never_ yet had a problem with rampant cross table bleeding. When the bleeds occur, it is usually for a valid reason (like taking awy the Edge from someone who will win otherwise). I can think of maybe 5 times when a cross table bleed has actually occurred. Well, that's what I have to say on the matter. I am very interested in the views of others. Thanks in advance for understanding all the trouble I am causing. stephen

ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) writes: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) writes: >>>An easier ruling would be "Actions taken by a vamp using the madness network >>>count as part of their controller's turn". >>Well, that's fine for the Madness Network. What abou the expansion cards >>that end up with the same effect. A generic rule is always better than >>a specific one. >A generic rule is always worse, because it can have side effects that you >don't anticipate. As in, "only play reaction cards during other peoples' >turns." :) Changing a generic rule has the advantage of applying to future cards, and unanticipated side effects of existing cards. It has the disadvantage of unanticipated side effects. As usual, it's a tradeoff. In this case, I think the concept is that you react to actions, not to other Meth's turns. On those grounds, I think the original rule is in error (a small error, but an error). Since, normally, you can always react to another Meth's action, saying you can always do so is unlikely to cause any problems. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3m1jug$k...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, >Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >>>See, I think that changing the rules of the game to accomodate >>>the MN is more convoluted than changing the MN to fit the rules. That's >>>the idea I'm advocating: fix the card. >> >>The original rules, IMO, tried to state that reactions are only useable >>on other's actions, and, involving the (not entirely correct) assumption >>that actions are only performed on your own turn, got written in >>the form that we see now. The source of the problem is not that the > The original rules stated that you can only take an action on >your turn. The logical opposite of that is that you can only react when >it's not your turn. The original rules are quite clear on the fact that >you can take actions only on your turn. Are you advocating changing >that part of the rules, too? Or will you agree that MN breaks that rule >as well? MN breaks that rule with card text. If it also said that others could not play reaction cards in response, then that would be how the DT wants it played now. But it doesn't It allows actions, and that (the allowing of actions) should allow reactions, by definition (instead of by exception). One 2x4 is much more effective than a pile of toothpicks in supporting a table the size of a Jyhad Game. Replace the rotting 2x4 (reactions only on not your turn) instead of strapping on a bunch of toothpicks.

You cannot play reaction cards during your turn. Therefore, if a Malkavian takes advantage of the Madness Network to act on your turn, you cannot react to that action. THIS IS DELIBERATE. Because the card is doing exactly what it is intended to, there is very little change that anything is going to be changed to disallow the combination. If you want to be able to react to other players' Malkavians... you'd better get rid of the Madness Network. Yes, the card is unpleasant, but it's not a mistake. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <3m4flt$s...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >You cannot play reaction cards during your turn. Therefore, if a Malkavian >takes advantage of the Madness Network to act on your turn, you cannot >react to that action. THIS IS DELIBERATE. Because the card is doing exactly >what it is intended to, there is very little change that anything is >going to be changed to disallow the combination. If you want to be able >to react to other players' Malkavians... you'd better get rid of the >Madness Network. Yes, the card is unpleasant, but it's not a mistake. But this would be very arbituary ... for example, why can I use Sports Bike, Raven Spies and KRCG to intercept, but an Auspex vampire can't? The Auspex doesn't "go down" simply because it is my turn: my vampires can still "Read Intentions" in combat, for example. Why is it that I can't block the action (because of no intercept), while a third player can block with Eagle Sight and play as much intercept as he wants? And, as another Elder (I forgot whether it's Curt or Scott) mentioned, does that mean that (according to the rules) the acting Malk. cannot play an action card? This creates an arbituary distinction between permanents and non-permanents, which I think is not a good thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote: : L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: : >Well, that's fine for the Madness Network. What abou the expansion cards : >that end up with the same effect. A generic rule is always better than : >a specific one. : Fixing the generic : rules in a game with "The Golden Rule of Cards" should be done only very : rarely. The cards that break the rules are the ones that need to be : tuned and worded precisely. There is no reason to change the rules when : only one cards breaks the rule, there is plenty of reason to change the : card. : If we fix the rules for every card that breaks them, we'll never : work the kinks out. 'Fraid I've gotta side with Joe on this one, now that I see his reasoning. The very reason that the Golden Rule of Cards is there is to deal with things that don't fall under the normal scope of the rules but are allowed by cards. Taking an action during someone else's turn certainly fits this category. Shane Travis | A man who carries a cat by the tail learns sht...@duke.usask.ca | something he can learn no other way. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Mark Twain

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) writes: >>An easier ruling would be "Actions taken by a vamp using the madness network >>count as part of their controller's turn". >Well, that's fine for the Madness Network. What abou the expansion cards >that end up with the same effect. A generic rule is always better than >a specific one. A generic rule is always worse, because it can have side effects that you don't anticipate. As in, "only play reaction cards during other peoples' turns." :) But if you insist, how about saying that "Any action taken by a vampire is considered to take place during its controller's turn, no matter when it actually occurs." which is what I meant, anyway. -- Aaron Mandelbaum

hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) wrote: [Stephen's succinct and logical post elided] Peace Stephen, Congratulations! You have read the rules and understand them. I totally agree with your interpretation. I expect you'll hear from "the other camp" also. 8^) [ quoted text not captured ]

Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >But this would be very arbituary ... for example, why can I use >Sports Bike, Raven Spies and KRCG to intercept, but an Auspex vampire >can't? The Auspex doesn't "go down" simply because it is my >turn: my vampires can still "Read Intentions" in combat, for >example. Why is it that I can't block the action (because of >no intercept), while a third player can block with Eagle Sight >and play as much intercept as he wants? I can't tell you what Madness Network was designed the way that it was, I just know that they designed it that way. Probably it's meant as a way to a) diversify decks (relying on auspex cards isn't so safe anymore), and b) get the game moving (if you do have auspex, sitting around waiting for the Malks to do something won't work). >And, as another Elder (I forgot whether it's Curt or Scott) mentioned, >does that mean that (according to the rules) the acting Malk. >cannot play an action card? As far as I know the Malks are free to play action modifiers when taking advantage of the Network, but I will double check that. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3m4flt$s...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >You cannot play reaction cards during your turn. Therefore, if a Malkavian >takes advantage of the Madness Network to act on your turn, you cannot >react to that action. THIS IS DELIBERATE. Because the card is doing exactly >what it is intended to, there is very little change that anything is >going to be changed to disallow the combination. If you want to be able >to react to other players' Malkavians... you'd better get rid of the >Madness Network. Yes, the card is unpleasant, but it's not a mistake. However, if we're keeping strictly to the rules, please note also that the Malkavians are limited to actions which do not require a card, since as we all know, section 7.2.2 Minion Cards, under the subheading 'Action Cards' states that your minions may only use action cards on your turn, and the MN just says that the Malk may take an action, not play an action card. Still think that everything's hunky-dory with this card? [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote: : However, if we're keeping strictly to the rules, please note : also that the Malkavians are limited to actions which do not require a : card, since as we all know, section 7.2.2 Minion Cards, under the : subheading 'Action Cards' states that your minions may only use action : cards on your turn, and the MN just says that the Malk may take an : action, not play an action card. Whoah, that *does* put a new light on things. Erik

I am not an Elder, but I have played Jyhad for a while, and frequently. I also have been reading this newsgroup for a while...though not a highly active poster. I would like to cast my vote/opinion right in line with Stephen's article. CTB's provide a much needed alternate means of interaction with "distant" methuselahs. I use CTB's as 'mini Bum's Rushes'; they can lose a significant amount of pool, or fight my combat-starved minion. Just my two-cents. -- ###################################################################### # Michael J. Reiffer |"To knock a thing down, especially if # # e-mail: mrei...@calvin.edu | it is cocked at an arrogant angle is # # Rakibu Arpati | a deep delight to the blood." # # | -George Santayana # ######################################################################

In article <3mgsho$1...@uncle.calvin.edu>, mrei...@news.calvin.edu (Michael Reiffer) wrote: > I am not an Elder, but I have played Jyhad for a while, and frequently. > I also have been reading this newsgroup for a while...though not a highly > active poster. I would like to cast my vote/opinion right in line with > Stephen's article. CTB's provide a much needed alternate means of > interaction with "distant" methuselahs. I use CTB's as 'mini Bum's > Rushes'; they can lose a significant amount of pool, or fight my > combat-starved minion. Just my two-cents. It's nice to hear another vote of support. They have been few and far between Thanks stephen

In article <hippo-12049...@gill.hrc.utexas.edu>, Stephen Beaulieu <hi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: >It's nice to hear another vote of support. They have been few and far between Well, you'll find that support is more often in terms of silent assent than agreement here on usenet. For the longest time I thought that James and I were the only (D) bleed proponents... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mi8nr$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Correct. If I said otherwise, that was an oops. No, you didn't say otherwise. I was just pointing out a very rules-lawyering munchkinish thing that also applied. >> Still think that everything's hunky-dory with this card? > >It's a grim card no matter how you slice it. Being able to put off minion >actions until the end of your predator's turn is pretty amazing. Yeah, but it could have been handled a *lot* better than the current crop of rulings and corrections and patches. I really doubt that any thought at all was given to how it would impact action cards and reaction cards, and now it looks like you guys are scrambling around trying to cover for that by saying "we meant for it to be that way." I didn't just pull the "action card" bit out of my hat for nothing. I've known about that for quite a while. But I wanted to see what you would say. All the evidence points to a lack of thought on that card. The game of Jyhad is very elegant as a whole. This card is not, and you are applying very munchkin-like rules patches to it. That means that either I vastly overestimate the level of thought that went into the game or Madness Network was not well thought out. All evidence I've seen points to the MN being not well thought out. You didn't think. That's not a crime. But trying to bluff your way out of it is a crime. Just fix the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> However, if we're keeping strictly to the rules, please note >>also that the Malkavians are limited to actions which do not require a >>card, since as we all know, section 7.2.2 Minion Cards, under the >>subheading 'Action Cards' states that your minions may only use action >>cards on your turn, and the MN just says that the Malk may take an >>action, not play an action card. >Correct. If I said otherwise, that was an oops. Phew! That really changes things! No out-of-turn votes, no out-of-turn rushes, no out-of-turn Governs. Now the card is about the same power as with Joe's fixes, but much less interesting (for bleed only). Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

[ quoted text not captured ] I have to disagree totally with this interpretation. Saying that Malks can take actions out of turn, but not any that require action cards, is like saying "Lucian can steal equipment as a strike, but he can't steal a gun because the card doesn't specifically say gun." Come on. Some actions require action cards. If Malkavians can perform actions out of turn, they should be able to perform any action; if not, the card would say "Malkavians can perform actions that do not require an action card" or something to that effect. Look at what 7.2.2 says about equipment cards; there's nothing to prevent a Malkavian from equipping something out of turn because the rules don't specifically say you can only use an equipment card on your own turn. It's pretty clear that the rules say you can only play action cards on your own turn because minions can't normally act out-of-turn, and that section of the rules is trying to give an idea of the basic sequence of play. It's not a big deal in any game I've been involved in, anyway. The only actions Malks might want to do out of turn are things like Night Move, Spying Mission, and maybe Govern the Unaligned, but I've never seen any big advantage to doing these things out of turn (except possibly to to a Night Move to get the Edge just before my turn starts). As a Malkavian player, I'd much rather have a blood-gaining card like other clans have (Art Museum, Arcane Library, Eco Terrorists) than the Madness Network. Pat

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > However, if we're keeping strictly to the rules, please note >also that the Malkavians are limited to actions which do not require a >card, since as we all know, section 7.2.2 Minion Cards, under the >subheading 'Action Cards' states that your minions may only use action >cards on your turn, and the MN just says that the Malk may take an >action, not play an action card. Correct. If I said otherwise, that was an oops. > Still think that everything's hunky-dory with this card? It's a grim card no matter how you slice it. Being able to put off minion actions until the end of your predator's turn is pretty amazing. [ quoted text not captured ]

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3mi8nr$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, >Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: Our house rule is that MN allows you to take a minion phase at the end of any other Meths turn. This Makes it your turn, allows you to play action/equip/etc and allows all other players to react as it is your turn. after all if you are having a minion phase (because your minion is acting) is it not easy to say that you are in your turn and then all the problems go away. Effective, yes Powerful, yes Imbalancing : maybe But burn it and many a deck will fall You kinda have to be depending on it for a workable deck IMHO it's no more powerful than KRCG and Info Highway. Stu >| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* >| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu >| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | >+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- >"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK -- This is the official account of the Let's Try This Player's, DramaTech's Own Improvisational Comedy Troupe. Performing Tuesdays at Under The Couch at MaTech We are dedicated to the discovery of theraputic humor through spontaneous characterization and organized Chaos. We do not underestimate the power of Soup

Patrick M. O'Malley (oma...@convex.com) wrote: : In <3mjnk2$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: : >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: : >>Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: : >>> However, if we're keeping strictly to the rules, please note : >>>also that the Malkavians are limited to actions which do not require a : >>>card, since as we all know, section 7.2.2 Minion Cards, under the : >>>subheading 'Action Cards' states that your minions may only use action : >>>cards on your turn, and the MN just says that the Malk may take an : >>>action, not play an action card. : >>Correct. If I said otherwise, that was an oops. : >Phew! That really changes things! No out-of-turn votes, no out-of-turn : >rushes, no out-of-turn Governs. Now the card is about the same power as : >with Joe's fixes, but much less interesting (for bleed only). : I have to disagree totally with this interpretation. Feel free to do so, but remember that this is now the 'official ruling'. That, and ten cents, will get you a Xerox of a cup of coffee. : If Malkavians can perform actions out of : turn, they should be able to perform any action; if not, the card would : say "Malkavians can perform actions that do not require an action card" : or something to that effect. By that same logic, if the person the Malk is taking an action against is not allowed to play reaction cards, the MMN would say that, right? If the DT had just ruled that people could play reactions, then I'm sure that nobody would have a problem with Malks playing whatever action cards they wanted to. They ruled the other way though, which made the MMN incredibly powerful until Scott pointed out that Action cards could not be played (since it wasn't the Malkavian's turn), which brought it back into line. : Look at what 7.2.2 says about equipment cards; there's nothing to prevent : a Malkavian from equipping something out of turn because the rules don't : specifically say you can only use an equipment card on your own turn. I may be wrong here, but I don't think that anyone has a problem with Malkavians equipping using a MMN. Equipment cards are _equipment cards_, not action cards. A Malk cannot play a Grave Robbing, Govern The Unaligned, etc. because they are all _action cards_. : It's : pretty clear that the rules say you can only play action cards on your : own turn because minions can't normally act out-of-turn, and that section : of the rules is trying to give an idea of the basic sequence of play. It's pretty clear that the rules say that you can only play [reaction] cards [when it is not your turn] because minions can't normally act out of turn... Nonetheless, I say again; the ruling to the contrary by the DT was what started this whole thing. : It's not a big deal in any game I've been involved in, anyway. The only : actions Malks might want to do out of turn are things like Night Move, : Spying Mission, and maybe Govern the Unaligned, but I've never seen any : big advantage to doing these things out of turn (except possibly to to a : Night Move to get the Edge just before my turn starts). You are lucky then. I've seen the MMN used to steal vampires that have gone to torpor while not their Meth's turn, before the owning Meth even had a chance to do anything about it. Not nice. And there are far worse things to do with it than that; Sneak and Bleed becomes even _more_ unstoppable when one has to rely on permanent intercept and can't play reaction cards to gain more. Shane Travis | Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits sht...@duke.usask.ca | are objects of scorn to Americans who blow horns Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | to break up traffic jams. | -- Mary Ellen Kelly

In article <3mk1od$r...@zeppelin.convex.com>, Patrick M. O'Malley <oma...@convex.com> wrote: >In <3mjnk2$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >>>Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>>> However, if we're keeping strictly to the rules, please note >>>>also that the Malkavians are limited to actions which do not require a >>>>card, since as we all know, section 7.2.2 Minion Cards, under the > >>>Correct. If I said otherwise, that was an oops. > >>Phew! That really changes things! No out-of-turn votes, no out-of-turn >>rushes, no out-of-turn Governs. Now the card is about the same power as >>with Joe's fixes, but much less interesting (for bleed only). > >I have to disagree totally with this interpretation. Saying that Malks >can take actions out of turn, but not any that require action cards, is >like saying "Lucian can steal equipment as a strike, but he can't steal >a gun because the card doesn't specifically say gun." Come on. Some >actions require action cards. If Malkavians can perform actions out of >turn, they should be able to perform any action; if not, the card would >say "Malkavians can perform actions that do not require an action card" >or something to that effect. Congratulations, buy Pat a milkshake! Tom is the only one defending this POV. It's a very munchkin interpretation, brought on by Tom trying to defend a broken card. If WotC had actually thought about how this card impacted the rules, the card would have been written differently. If it had deliberately banned reaction and action cards from the start (as Tom claimed), then when Tom mentioned that reaction cards were banned (on your turn only, remember), he probably would have mentioned action cards. But he didn't think about it. WotC didn't think about this card's impact on the game, and now it's almost as if they no longer care, since it will probably be changed around in V:tES. But the card needs fixing, NOT the rules or the rulings. Too bad we'll never see it. I'll repeat myself: it's not a crime to forget a detail during game design. It *IS* a crime to try and lie about it afterwards and claim "we meant to do that." I stopped doing that kind of thing in high school (and I should have been mature enough to stop it sooner, but I didn't). I hope WotC will swallow its collective pride and keep what's left of its respectability about Jyhad and admit that the card needs fixing. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mmjss$k...@tribune.usask.ca>, Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@herald.usask.ca> wrote: >Patrick M. O'Malley (oma...@convex.com) wrote: >: If Malkavians can perform actions out of >: turn, they should be able to perform any action; if not, the card would >: say "Malkavians can perform actions that do not require an action card" >: or something to that effect. > >By that same logic, if the person the Malk is taking an action against is >not allowed to play reaction cards, the MMN would say that, right? > >If the DT had just ruled that people could play reactions, then I'm sure >that nobody would have a problem with Malks playing whatever action cards >they wanted to. They ruled the other way though, which made the MMN >incredibly powerful until Scott pointed out that Action cards could not >be played (since it wasn't the Malkavian's turn), which brought it back >into line. Actually, that was me who pointed it out. I had been aware of the rules section for quite a while, but I was ignoring it in favor of trying to promote a fix to the card, which has been and is still needed. The reason I pointed it out when I did was because it shows how silly it is to assume that the designer of the card actually wanted it that way, when it's obvious that the effects of the card just weren't thought out that far. It's a very Malkavian thing to be able to act out of turn (game definition of turn :-)), it's a very rules-laywer thing to say that you can and cannot play certain cards at certain times because a card that is broken demands such by the letter of the law. [ quoted text not captured ]

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3mmjss$k...@tribune.usask.ca>, >Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@herald.usask.ca> wrote: >>Patrick M. O'Malley (oma...@convex.com) wrote: >>: If Malkavians can perform actions out of >>: turn, they should be able to perform any action; if not, the card would >>: say "Malkavians can perform actions that do not require an action card" >>: or something to that effect. >> >>By that same logic, if the person the Malk is taking an action against is >>not allowed to play reaction cards, the MMN would say that, right? >> >>If the DT had just ruled that people could play reactions, then I'm sure >>that nobody would have a problem with Malks playing whatever action cards >>they wanted to. They ruled the other way though, which made the MMN >>incredibly powerful until Scott pointed out that Action cards could not > Actually, that was me who pointed it out. I had been aware of >the rules section for quite a while, but I was ignoring it in favor of >trying to promote a fix to the card, which has been and is still needed. Actually it was me who pointed it out. Notice that the thread you are replying to started with my post describing how Action cards could not be used. Thanks for the compliemnt, however.

In article <3mmjss$k...@tribune.usask.ca>, sht...@herald.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) wrote: > I may be wrong here, but I don't think that anyone has a problem with > Malkavians equipping using a MMN. Equipment cards are _equipment cards_, > not action cards. Well Shane I have to disagree with you here. In 12.3.1 under Equip Minions an equipment card is described as an "action card...taht gives minions special abilities." It is by this argument that we have decided that a minion can only equip with 1 piece of equipment in a given action (as opposed to taking an equip minion action and equipping with as much as the Meth could pay for.) So, according to 12.3.1, a Malk could _not_ equip using the Madness Network. stephen

In article <3mq0jb$c...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>All the evidence points to a lack of thought on that card... > >My ignorance of the game's design process should not be construed as lack >of thought by those who did design the game/cards. I'm not basing my guess (and I have never said that it is more than my best guess) on your rulings alone. I'm basing it on several months of watching the game, watching the newsgroup and the mailing list, and on my experience with game design. None of us can say what happened. All we can do is try to fix the card as best as we can now. IMO, it needs it. In the DT's opinion, the weird rule limitations are fine. I'll live with it. But I'll still try to offer my best solution. The point here is to make the game the best it can be. Despite the silence from the rules team on many things, I believe that they have the best interests of the game at heart, too. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>It's a grim card no matter how you slice it. Being able to put off minion >>actions until the end of your predator's turn is pretty amazing. > Yeah, but it could have been handled a *lot* better than the >current crop of rulings and corrections and patches... Rulings and corrections and patches? It actually does have a clear reading in this regard, assuming you read the rules. >...it looks like you guys are scrambling around >trying to cover for that by saying "we meant for it to be that way." I wasn't 100% sure, since it does seem a little ridiculous not to be able to react to Network actions. But I wasn't involved with the deisgn of the game or the card, and the current designers have no particular problem with reactions and action cards not being usable where the Network is concerned. OK, maybe the card needs fiddling in the future, but it's not worth changing the card or the rules midstream because of the Network. >All the evidence points to a lack of thought on that card... My ignorance of the game's design process should not be construed as lack of thought by those who did design the game/cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mq0jb$c...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > >>All the evidence points to a lack of thought on that card... > >My ignorance of the game's design process should not be construed as lack >of thought by those who did design the game/cards. Even if the Madness Network is not a good enough evidence, the Monocle of Clarity (and subsequent rulings concerning it) is IMNSHO an unshakeable evidence of the shabby part of the design of the game. I've said many times that this one is a cheap rip-off of Cosmic Encounter. Anyone knows what I'm talking about? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mos2i$1...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >> Actually, that was me who pointed it out. I had been aware of >>the rules section for quite a while, but I was ignoring it in favor of >>trying to promote a fix to the card, which has been and is still needed. > >Actually it was me who pointed it out. Notice that the thread you >are replying to started with my post describing how Action cards could >not be used. Hmm. How about that, it was you. I didn't really notice that you said that in the start of the thread. I honestly have known about it for a while but have chosen not to say anything. I guess there's more truth than not about the "great minds think alike" thread... Sorry to tread on you. [ quoted text not captured ]