Subject: MN: Re: the Token Running issue.

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 17:32:34 +1000

It seems I am having problems understanding you, Kevan. I'm not trying to
be dense, or antagonistic; although I might be a little defensive I don't
think this is unjustified. (I'd also like to hear the opinions of the
other three or so people who didn't seem to like token running in its new
form).

On Friday, March 12, 1999 6:58 PM, Kevan Davis
[SMTP:kevan@z...] wrote:
> Fair comment, really - an extra way to do something is only a problem if
> you can do it *in addition* to the existing method. Token Running and
> Interchange bonuses are fairly mutually exclusive (with the exception of
a
> few Stations; Ealing Broadway, Charing Cross and - perhaps critically -
> Bank), so coexistence isn't a problem.

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? You could
move through eight interchanges and still end up at a terminus - do you
want to ban this?

> Because it doesn't encourage people to use it; the stingy caveats of your
> Token Running seem absurd next to the "Moved to a five-line Interchange?
> Have a Silver. Passed through five, as well? Have two Silvers!" bonus,
and

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

> 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. 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?

> I think we'd be better off with good, proper, old-fashioned Token
Running,
> really (the only restriction on the Action being that you can't play it
> within the Circle Line), with a Silver replacing a Gold. The really
broken
> aspect of the original Running was that you'd have enough Golds to win in
> three Turns; with Silvers, it's not too bothersome if someone sits and
> hoards - it'll take six Turns to gather enough (giving opponents plenty
of
> time to disrupt or lobster-pot them), and even then they'll have to
tiptoe
> back to Bank to get them changed.

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. But I consider that a
minor problem - after all there is always going to be one real focus of the
game...

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?

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

Paul Wayper -- DPI ITS Computer Systems Officer
_____________________________________________________________________
SigClean 1.5a prevents all errors in transcription, transmission, and
reception of eMail, destroys sig and email viruses, and stops flames.
Report all bugs to the author. SigClean is FreeWare. (c) 1998-9 PJW

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