Subject: MN: Re: the Token Running issue.

From: "Kevan Davis" <kevan@z...>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:57:57 -0000

>Again, I don't understand. Do you mean 'in addition', like claiming a
>silver token for moving to KXSP and through more than five interchanges; or
>do you mean like playing two token claims off the same station?

Just that you can't Token Run in addition to moving to Kings Cross - the two
are mutually exclusive, and as such Token Running isn't horrendously
powerful.

>Try getting a Silver token outside zone 1 and I think you'll see my point.

Oh, I do, I do. I merely question the profusion of clauses to the thing; why
should it be so awkward to pluck Silvers from the outer reaches, when it's
so easy to gather them in Zone 1?

>> I'm always rather leery of anything that requires Players to remember
>things
>> for the remainder of the game (Bulkheading is just about forgivable for
>> giving a pleasing "Ahaha! You can't, Chalk Farm's Bulkheaded." aspect).
>> Effort is only a good thing if there's some reward for going to it.
>
>Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I do? I merely say that Bulkheading has slight merit in its dramatic effect
(although such is usually more "Er, sorry, I Bulkheaded that ages ago, for
some obsolete reason; you'll have to replay" than "Ahaha, Mr Bond!"), but
becomes rather tiresome when (as in the Long Game) it just falls to whether
anyone remembers the Bulkhead and buzzes you. It's the sort of thing that
would work well if we were sat around a proper board, but doesn't translate
well to email, when you should be able to take in the state of the game from
a quick glance through the Token Table and the last few Plays.

>Station closure is a good
>example of something that you have to remember to check, and it's not even
>part of the current set of actions! Do you have a problem with that as
>well?

Not at all; with potentially-Closed Stations and Lines marked on the Map,
it's easy to see if your Move involves any, and the Crescent and Holy
Stations are exceptions which are easy enough to remember. I'd have a
problem were there an Action which Closed a Station for the rest of the Game
and expected Players to remember this, though.

>In some ways I consider this a disadvantage. I don't like the fact that
>the focus of the game might shift from MC to Bank.

It's beginning to trouble me a bit, as well; the Game does seem to be
tightening in around Zone 1 a lot - maybe it's time to reintroduce a way to
get actual Golds from the outer reaches?

>I don't see much difference with my proposal as to what Kev's just
>recommended as a fix for Token Running. It's harder to do, earns you less
>and stops various trickeries like wilding. What was wrong with it, then?

I'm just naturally averse to Rules which have too many words or clauses in,
really. The stopping of "various trickeries" such as Wilding seemed rather
superfluous - since these days it takes two Plastics to make a Green to
declare the Wild, and a Black to Move to it, I think anyone who bothers to
Wild for a Token Run deserves their prize. And the "once per Terminus", as I
say, bothers me as being something to remember - I don't want to have to
(particularly in the Long Game) read back through all previous Turns to
check a Play's legality. A simple "Token Running may only be performed if
the Player Moved to a Terminus during eir Movement Phase" clause would
probably slow things down just enough.

>BTW, I have found two ways to win a game in the current ruleset (Y2W43) of
>MN in two moves, only requiring the use of one black token to change lines.
>Let me know if you want to see it played out.

I would, of course, dearly love to. I imagine it's a Charge trick? I've
never quite had the enthusiasm to sit down and do the maths for those, but
I'm sure there are some very simple few-move paths from a Home to the
Crescent. Although two Moves surprises me.

>Or would you like to ban that as well? :-)

Not without seeing it, of course. If a powerful strategy can be beaten with
an equally powerful counter-strategy, then it's precisely the sort of thing
we're aiming for. But if the only way to overcome it is to be extremely
lucky, or specifically play to beat that strategy, then yes, I'd probably
like to see it banned. (I've been particularly impressed at Wizards of the
Coast for banning rather a lot of the over-powerful Magic: The Gathering
cards from recent expansions, a move which has crippled a lot of the boring
two-turn-win decks and made tournament play less tiresome.)

Kevan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/l-nomic-d
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com