In article <1994Aug24.155524.27847@wdl.loral.com> Mark A Biggar,
mab@dst17.wdl.loral.com writes:
>B then gets 2, then A get 3 and then they both get 4 from then on.
I believe in a 2-player game, A gets 4 transfers and then B gets 4
transfers, right from the start!
If this is not the case, why insert the "in a multi-player game" phrase?
The game is for 2 players and up, as stated in the introduction. No need
for the "in a multi-player" phrase if its meant to apply to every game,
right?
Yes/No ??
:-)
Thomas Affinito <tom_affinito@taligent.com> wrote:
>>B then gets 2, then A get 3 and then they both get 4 from then on.>I believe in a 2-player game, A gets 4 transfers and then B gets 4
>transfers, right from the start!
No, the "warming up" happens in a 2-player game, too.
>If this is not the case, why insert the "in a multi-player game" phrase?
Another odd/buggy entry in the rules.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Thomas Affinito <tom_affinito@taligent.com> writes:
>In article <1994Aug24.155524.27847@wdl.loral.com> Mark A Biggar,
>mab@dst17.wdl.loral.com writes:>>B then gets 2, then A get 3 and then they both get 4 from then on.>I believe in a 2-player game, A gets 4 transfers and then B gets 4
>transfers, right from the start!
This has been confirmed. Multi-player means more than two.
--
| kreme@netcom.com \ 1015 South Gaylord, Denver, CO 80209 #100 |
| PGP Fingerprint \ 1D 5E F7 C8 7E C2 F9 87 0F 86 C9 B0 D2 63 9C B2 |
| [303/722-2009] Vox \ I haven't seen anything like that since the |
| [303/777-2911] Data \ Pin~ata death duels on Nuevo Tiajuana!! |
Cerebus The Aardvark <kreme@netcom.com> wrote:
>>I believe in a 2-player game, A gets 4 transfers and then B gets 4
>>transfers, right from the start!>This has been confirmed. Multi-player means more than two.
Sorry, but the "warming up" already happens. This from my Jyhad contact
at WotC.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In article <33lo35$ks0@perv.hal.COM>, Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> wrote:
>Cerebus The Aardvark <kreme@netcom.com> wrote:>>>I believe in a 2-player game, A gets 4 transfers and then B gets 4
>>>transfers, right from the start!>>This has been confirmed. Multi-player means more than two.>
>Sorry, but the "warming up" already happens. This from my Jyhad contact
>at WotC.
So, is this a rule change or an error? Is it clear in that revised
rulebook that's supposedly avialable? How do I get a non-electronic
copy of those rules?
We've been playing by the rules we've got, which say it only ramps up
in multiplayer. It works just fine.
--
Doug DeJulio
ddj@zardoz.elbows.org
Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> trips up again... film at 11:
>>>I believe in a 2-player game, A gets 4 transfers and then B gets 4
>>>transfers, right from the start!>>This has been confirmed. Multi-player means more than two.>Sorry, but the "warming up" already happens. This from my Jyhad contact
>at WotC.
"already" happens? I meant "still".
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In article <33lp2q$l85@perv.hal.COM>, aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
> Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> trips up again... film at 11:
> >>>I believe in a 2-player game, A gets 4 transfers and then B gets 4
> >>>transfers, right from the start!
> >>This has been confirmed. Multi-player means more than two.
> >Sorry, but the "warming up" already happens. This from my Jyhad contact
> >at WotC.
>
> "already" happens? I meant "still".
Parden the slang, but this sucks. So player #1 in a 2-person game is being
punished for what? Playing first? Playing only two players? Why else should you
suffer *two consecutive turns* in which your predator gets an extra transfer
over you? I mean, to say that a 2-player game "ramps up" at the rate of 3,
then 4, that's at least marginally fair. Then, you have your predator get just
one turn where he/she has an extra transfer on you. More like a multi-player
game. But as it is, when player 2 enters their turn 2, they have now had 2
more transfers than player 1.
Randy
--
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
Randy J. Ray -- U S WEST Technologies IAD/CSS/DPDS Phone: (303)595-2852
Denver, CO rray@lookout.ecte.uswc.uswest.com
I am Homer of Borg. Prepare to be assimila.... hmmmmMMMMmmm... Donuts!!
I don't see it as player 1 being "punished". Take a look of the game
from another standpoint. The game is based around very powerfull
vampires taking over the world, or whatnot. They dont KNOW that they
have enemies after them at the beginning. So, why should they start
with loads of influence to create armies of minions from the begining?
If you were to look at wars, they don't just start with bombing people,
or hundreds of thousands of soldiers invading a country from the day
it was thought up. You put a plan into action, and it takes time to
do such.
Maybe it should be in the rules as a side-note that player 1 is the
one who "started-it-all", and thus, doesn't know exactly what he/she
started, so has NO WAY of knowing how much influence he/she should
be spending to counter his/her enemies. At a technical standpoint,
the transfers increasing per turn is as true to real life as possible,
whether its a 2 player game or 3+. It works for us just fine, and
sets the mood more perfect than it would with an all out capability
to bring in control hordes of "weenie" minions, so to speak.
The people who thought this up knew what they were doing.
--
boardman@cs.wisc.edu
:::: ::::
:: ::
: :
In article <1994Aug26.174546@lookout.ecte.uswc.uswest.com> rray@lookout.ecte.uswc.uswest.com writes:
>In article <33lp2q$l85@perv.hal.COM>, aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:>> Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> trips up again... film at 11:
>> >>>I believe in a 2-player game, A gets 4 transfers and then B gets 4
>> >>>transfers, right from the start!
>> >>This has been confirmed. Multi-player means more than two.
>> >Sorry, but the "warming up" already happens. This from my Jyhad contact
>> >at WotC.
>>
>> "already" happens? I meant "still".>
>Parden the slang, but this sucks. So player #1 in a 2-person game is being
>punished for what? Playing first? Playing only two players? Why else should you
>suffer *two consecutive turns* in which your predator gets an extra transfer
>over you? ...
If making it more fair sucks, then you're right. We need to look at
the *net* amount of influence, not just say "Player A gets hosed
because player B has two turns with more transfers". That's a silly
way to count it.
Consider net influence without ramping:
Turn 1:
After player A goes: A has +4 influence
After player B goes: even influence (4 for A, 4 for B)
Turn 2:
<repeats>
B never has more influence than A, and there's always a 4 point
disparity after A's turn.
Now consider ramping:
Turn 1:
After player A goes: A has +1 influence
After player B goes: B has +1 influence
Turn 2:
After player A goes: A has +2 influence
After player B goes: B has +2 influence
Turn 3:
<repeats>
Which looks more fair to you?
Have fun,
Tom Fontaine