Subject: Re: MN: Re: (unknown)

From: Richard_M_Brockie@s...
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 16:30:27 -0700

">
>Snow's stupid idea of the day: No pre-move Actions. Fixed limit of 3
>Actions per Turn, or -Gr per extra Action. What are pre-move Actions
>for? How do they help the Game?

Simply because there's Actions you might want to play before you Move?
Oh, unless you mean making all Actions either neutral or specifically
post-move. True, there's aren't many pre-move Actions, but there are a
few... paying a Toll to another Player, for instance, has no purpose if you
do it _after_ you've moved."

<de-lurk>
Pre-move actions must be kept - otherwise [Opening MC] is rather tricky,
and having it as a post-move action means that for it to benefit you, it
must last a round, leaving MC open for all other players until it is again
your turn...

- miKi

<lurk>

riffraff@n... on 08/01/2000 05:30:28 PM

Please respond to [email-masked]

To: [email-masked]
cc:

Subject: Re: MN: Re: (unknown)

>> How long should Movement take? Say, 5 minutes per Token spent, plus
>10 per
>> Line Change? (Not counting the 1 free change either pre- or
>post-Move.)
>
>I give an inch and you take a mile! I said game-time not Turn-time.
>I still quite happy to argue over Turn time.

Hmph. I still prefer it as a better alternative for limiting the number of
Actions... after all, it was you who suggested allowing players as many
Actions as they could pay for, and with turn-time plus purchasing extra
hours, that can easily be done... Another good thing about it is a
balancing effect - if you spend less time Moving, you've got more time for
Actions, and vice-versa.

>
>Snow's stupid idea of the day: No pre-move Actions. Fixed limit of 3
>Actions per Turn, or -Gr per extra Action. What are pre-move Actions
>for? How do they help the Game?

Simply because there's Actions you might want to play before you Move?
Oh, unless you mean making all Actions either neutral or specifically
post-move. True, there's aren't many pre-move Actions, but there are a
few... paying a Toll to another Player, for instance, has no purpose if you
do it _after_ you've moved.

>
>> So, how about having 2 ways to place a Token on a Station: first,
>the
>> regular post-Move Action <Dropping [Token] at [Station]>, which
>allows you
>> to place one of your Tokens at a Station you started or ended your
>Move on
>> or passed through, and also a neutral Action <Creating [Token] at
>> [Station]>, which allows you to create a _new_ Token at a Station
>
>I'm not sure I understand the logic of this. What's the point of
>having different Tokens with different rarity if they can just be
>magiced out of thin air at will. I understand that there is a problem
>of not enough Tokens on the board, but this seems to undermine the
>whole Token system. Unless I misunderstand you?

Well, first of all, I guess we'd have to say you couldn't Create Silver or
Gold Tokens. Therefore any Token you pick up is going to be equal or
lesser value than the Token you spent on it, since it costs a Green and
that's the rarest of the Plastics (and Bronze). So Action costs wouldn't
be undermined at all.

Gambit costs would be different, true - 3 Red Tokens on BR Stations would
be just as difficult as 3 Green Tokens, but I think that Gambits will be
plenty difficult just based on how much travelling around you have to do
and recovering from having them Shunted out of place. The colors of the
Tokens would be more thematic. Plus, since you'd have the option of
dropping your own Tokens as well as creating them (in order to get them in
place faster), the Token color would affect you there. (And like I
mentioned before, if a Gambit needs a little extra difficulty, there can be
a Token charge for actually activating the Gambit after all the Tokens are
in place on the board.)

>How having some Gambits that allow Tokens to "breed". Put a Green on 2
>BR Stations and you get 3Gr.

That might be good, although... How exactly are we planning on Gambits to
work? "If you personally place such-and-such Tokens then..." or "If
such-and-such Tokens are on the board..."? Or some of each?

To use your example, if I place a Green on a BR Station one turn, and then
someone else shunts it away before I place the second Green, do I still get
paid? I _did_ place it on the Station... What if I find two Greens
already on the board, and shunt them onto BR Stations, do I get paid? Once
Tokens start getting kicked around, it'll be difficult to keep track of who
originally put them down, and where.

I'm thinking Gambits might be best served by declaring a certain pattern of
Tokens that must exist on the board, no matter who got them there or how.
If that condition is met, then a Token cost can be paid to activate the
Gambit - with the color of the cost relating to the nature of the Gambit
just like Action costs.

Example: "If there are two Black Tokens located at Holy Stations and two
Red Tokens located at Compass Stations, you may spend 2 Bu to destroy those
four Tokens and put the game into Knip."

>> Another problem (IMO) I've noticed is that there's no longer much
>reason
>> (except for distance) to carefully plan what route you're taking in
>your
>> Move... since there's no LV, you don't have to calculate your route
>in a
>> way to exactly match your LV, and we don't currently have any Token
>bonuses
>> for route, only for the Station landed at. Should we have some kind
>of
>> Route Token Bonus or something?
>
>I think that if we can make the Gambit thing work there will be plenty
>of route planning skills required. Not necessarily inside the Turn,
>but over several Turns.

Good point, I hadn't considered that.

>Can you suggest a suitabe system for route
>Token bonuses inside Turns?

I'll think about it...

--Riff

"This calls for a subtle blend of psychology and extreme violence."
--Vyvyan, "The Young Ones"