Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

Expand Messages
  • Maisnestce@aol.com
    ... This isn t too surprising given the genesis of the rules. I took a 2.5 page rules summary (designed to allow the experienced 18xx player to play 1861) and
    Message 1 of 29 , Mar 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      David Hecht wrote:

      > Oh, it's worse than you think: at Chattanooga, Ian D made several rulings
      > which were explicitly contrary--by his own statement--to the published
      > rules, but which reflected his own idea of what the rules should have been.

      This isn't too surprising given the genesis of the rules. I took a 2.5 page
      rules summary (designed to allow the experienced 18xx player to play 1861) and
      wrote a first draft of a full rules set. When I was forced to retire from
      the project through ill health, the job was taken over by Mike Hutton, who had
      never played 1861 before. (Indeed, Mike's first 1861 was played after
      publication.) Mike's take on the rules wasn't the same as Ian's, and so the final
      rules as published didn't match the game in Ian's head. I don't believe Ian
      provided any feedback.

      It's hard for me to understand why Ian took such a hands-off approach. As
      far as I can tell he handed everything over to the publishers and washed his
      hands of it. Had it been me I'd have gone through every component carefully just
      before publication. It's not as if Mike and Markus Welbourne are completely
      unreasonable about responding to suggested improvements. But there was in
      practice little or no proofreading by anyone who cared and in consequence there's
      something wrong with nearly everything in the set. Which is a pity since the
      components are otherwise so beautifully manufactured.

      Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Richard Clyne
      Should we compromise and give Steve the last word? Richard
      Message 2 of 29 , Mar 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Should we compromise and give Steve the last word?
        Richard
        On 28 Feb 2007, at 19:15, David G.D. Hecht wrote:

        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Maisnestce@...
        > To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:29 PM
        > Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies
        >
        >
        >
        >> So that clears this one up, though we as a hobby may need to agree
        >> not to
        >> ask Ian again.
        >
        > Oh, it's worse than you think: at Chattanooga, Ian D made several
        > rulings
        > which were explicitly contrary--by his own statement--to the published
        > rules, but which reflected his own idea of what the rules should
        > have been.
        >
        > I don't propose to ring the changes once again on whether designers or
        > publishers should have the final say in these matters, but let's
        > simply say
        > that I find that...regrettable. Yes, there's the most tactful word
        > that
        > comes to mind...regrettable.
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
        > ~-->
        > Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email
        > design.
        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/grQolB/TM
        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
        > ~->
        >
        > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • huttm
        ... rulings ... published ... have been. In these cases you need to ignore the designer. Regrettable, but true. Certainly I would hope that put in the same
        Message 3 of 29 , Mar 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In 18xx@yahoogroups.com, Maisnestce@... wrote:
          >
          > David Hecht wrote:
          >
          > > Oh, it's worse than you think: at Chattanooga, Ian D made several
          rulings
          > > which were explicitly contrary--by his own statement--to the
          published
          > > rules, but which reflected his own idea of what the rules should
          have been.

          In these cases you need to ignore the designer. Regrettable, but
          true. Certainly I would hope that put in the same situation as Ian I
          would have been able to accept players' wishes to follow the rulebook
          rather than my own opinion.

          It may be that Ian would do well to send me copies of these rulings
          so Markus & I can prepare some sort of erratum slip or revised
          ruleset. But without something official there's not a lot we can do.

          > This isn't too surprising given the genesis of the rules. I took a
          2.5 page
          > rules summary (designed to allow the experienced 18xx player to
          play 1861) and
          > wrote a first draft of a full rules set. When I was forced to
          retire from
          > the project through ill health, the job was taken over by Mike
          Hutton, who had
          > never played 1861 before. (Indeed, Mike's first 1861 was played
          after
          > publication.) Mike's take on the rules wasn't the same as Ian's,
          and so the final
          > rules as published didn't match the game in Ian's head. I don't
          believe Ian
          > provided any feedback.

          In fairness I did actually play 1861 prior to dealing with the rules -
          at Mastercon 2006 no less and with no mean display of incompetence -
          and part of my slant on the rules came from that. But it is a little
          unfair to say that Ian provided no feedback. Indeed, he did proof the
          rules, and make suggestions and corrections to them.

          One possibility is a case of Ian not having totally settled the
          ruleset in his own mind, and so it may be that his memory of the
          final ruleset have actually evolved or shifted since publication. The
          1860 rulebook is an exercise in formal revision - I got through over
          a dozen major revisions in producing it. So whenever I get asked for
          clarifications I always go back to the rulebook; I am fully aware of
          where to find everything therein as I wrote and formatted the (^!"*%
          £) thing at some length. I also choose to copy Francis' own attitude
          to enquiries, which is to respond to any enquiry with the
          question "what do the rules say?".

          What probably happened with 1861 in comparison is that when Ian
          read/checked the rules I put together, he was looking for specific
          discrepancies rather than omissions. The format of the rules were
          markedly different from his own rules summary, and perhaps some
          things were overlooked as a result.

          When the omissions come round it then is a case of Ask The Designer.
          But when a rule is debated then ruling *has* to be in harmony with
          the rules, regardless of what the designer says. I would guess that
          in this case Ian is unlikely to have looked at the rulebook since
          last August. On an issue such as this one it is largely irrelevant as
          the eventuality is going to be so rare as to be unheard of. The one
          area which sticks in my mind (or gullet) is the rickshaw rule. In the
          game I played we allowed it, but it appears that we should perhaps
          not have done. Whatever, we now have a situation where the rulebook
          says one thing, and the designer (apparently) another.

          My gut reaction to this is that either we put out an erratum slip, or
          the rules in the rulebook are gospel. In the case of restarting major
          companies I shall try to put my rules lawyer hat on and see if I can
          derive some implicit ruling. The critical question is what happens to
          the company shares and charter when the major gets nationalised.
          Given that I cannot remember the certs being specifically placed back
          on the IPO, I would take this to imply that you can't restart major
          companies. OTOH you may choose to go with Ian's suggestion.

          > It's hard for me to understand why Ian took such a hands-off
          approach. As
          > far as I can tell he handed everything over to the publishers and
          washed his
          > hands of it. Had it been me I'd have gone through every component
          carefully just
          > before publication.

          Distance was one issue. Ian works in the southwest, and Markus and I
          are on the east / "wrong" side of London. Indeed, it is perhaps of
          some interest/concern that I never actually met Ian FTF. But we did
          send everything to him prior to publication for him to check, and we
          did receive quite a bit of feedback. One example of feedback on the
          rules in particular was the fact that they mention that the game ends
          when the bank runs out of money. Ian said he didn't want the rule in
          there as that was not what he intended to happen. In practical terms
          this almost never happens in 1861, but it was a faint possibility and
          so we had to leave it in out of necessity.

          > It's not as if Mike and Markus Welbourne are completely
          > unreasonable about responding to suggested improvements. But there
          was in
          > practice little or no proofreading by anyone who cared and in
          consequence there's
          > something wrong with nearly everything in the set. Which is a pity
          since the
          > components are otherwise so beautifully manufactured.

          Here the problem is arguably less to do with proofreading and more to
          do with the company Markus used to do the printing/manufacturing.
          There are a few issues with the rulebook, but almost everything else
          where we encountered problems was down to the printing/collation
          company. It is also worth mentioning that Ian has not done this sort
          of thing before, and proofreading is not a skill one can pick up
          without some effort. Even my own near-perfect 1860 (!!) is not devoid
          of a few glitches, and I had more than a little help with proofing.
          But as time goes on you improve with these things. There is no
          substitute for experience.

          Mike.
        • Daniel Victor
          I have to sympathise with Ian,here.It s his first game to be published,as far as I know,and he s probably found it hard coming to terms with the differences
          Message 4 of 29 , Mar 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            I have to sympathise with Ian,here.It's his first game to be published,as far as I know,and he's probably found it hard coming to terms with the differences between what he intended and what appeared in print.We all know that in a tournament you have to go with printed rules,but I can understand that it stuck in his craw.
            Sorry if I'm re-opening an old wound,here,but what he did was no worse than Avalon Hill did in the General,.when they decreed that any company upgrading rack in 1830 had to be able to use the new track [excepting stations].That one wasn't in the rules,and they weren't prepared to stand the expense of putting amendments in sets,so it was bound to cause trouble.
            Danny Victor

            "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote:
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Maisnestce@...
            To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:29 PM
            Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

            > So that clears this one up, though we as a hobby may need to agree not to
            > ask Ian again.

            Oh, it's worse than you think: at Chattanooga, Ian D made several rulings
            which were explicitly contrary--by his own statement--to the published
            rules, but which reflected his own idea of what the rules should have been.

            I don't propose to ring the changes once again on whether designers or
            publishers should have the final say in these matters, but let's simply say
            that I find that...regrettable. Yes, there's the most tactful word that
            comes to mind...regrettable.






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David G.D. Hecht
            Actually, altogether different, and much worse: I (and many others) found the AH rules sufficiently ambiguous that we sought clarification. (Note: I make no
            Message 5 of 29 , Mar 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Actually, altogether different, and much worse: I (and many others) found the AH rules sufficiently ambiguous that we sought clarification.

              (Note: I make no claim that other interpretations weren't possible, merely that WE found the rules AS WRITTEN unclear.)

              Regardless of your position on the issue, AH made a good-faith attempt to clarify a form of words which AT LEAST SOME found unclear.

              Conversely, Ian, upon being asked to provide a rules clarification, instead chose to provide a rewrite that, *by his own admission*, contradicted the rules as written.

              Whether the rewrite was appropriate or not is entirely beside the point. At worst, AH was guilty of incompetence: Ian was guilty of malice.

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Daniel Victor
              To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:18 PM
              Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies


              I have to sympathise with Ian,here.It's his first game to be published,as far as I know,and he's probably found it hard coming to terms with the differences between what he intended and what appeared in print.We all know that in a tournament you have to go with printed rules,but I can understand that it stuck in his craw.
              Sorry if I'm re-opening an old wound,here,but what he did was no worse than Avalon Hill did in the General,.when they decreed that any company upgrading rack in 1830 had to be able to use the new track [excepting stations].That one wasn't in the rules,and they weren't prepared to stand the expense of putting amendments in sets,so it was bound to cause trouble.
              Danny Victor

              "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote:
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Maisnestce@...
              To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:29 PM
              Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

              > So that clears this one up, though we as a hobby may need to agree not to
              > ask Ian again.

              Oh, it's worse than you think: at Chattanooga, Ian D made several rulings
              which were explicitly contrary--by his own statement--to the published
              rules, but which reflected his own idea of what the rules should have been.

              I don't propose to ring the changes once again on whether designers or
              publishers should have the final say in these matters, but let's simply say
              that I find that...regrettable. Yes, there's the most tactful word that
              comes to mind...regrettable.





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Daniel Victor
              That s a bit strong.Anyone who s gamed with Ian knows he s not a malicious kind of guy. When provoked,he can be a bit pigheaded and stubborn at times,and I
              Message 6 of 29 , Mar 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                That's a bit strong.Anyone who's gamed with Ian knows he's not a malicious kind of guy.
                When provoked,he can be a bit pigheaded and stubborn at times,and I suggest that that is a far more likely explanation of his rulings,if he went outside of what was printed.
                Danny Victor


                "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote: Actually, altogether different, and much worse: I (and many others) found the AH rules sufficiently ambiguous that we sought clarification.

                (Note: I make no claim that other interpretations weren't possible, merely that WE found the rules AS WRITTEN unclear.)

                Regardless of your position on the issue, AH made a good-faith attempt to clarify a form of words which AT LEAST SOME found unclear.

                Conversely, Ian, upon being asked to provide a rules clarification, instead chose to provide a rewrite that, *by his own admission*, contradicted the rules as written.

                Whether the rewrite was appropriate or not is entirely beside the point. At worst, AH was guilty of incompetence: Ian was guilty of malice.

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Daniel Victor
                To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:18 PM
                Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

                I have to sympathise with Ian,here.It's his first game to be published,as far as I know,and he's probably found it hard coming to terms with the differences between what he intended and what appeared in print.We all know that in a tournament you have to go with printed rules,but I can understand that it stuck in his craw.
                Sorry if I'm re-opening an old wound,here,but what he did was no worse than Avalon Hill did in the General,.when they decreed that any company upgrading track in 1830 had to be able to use the new track [excepting stations].That one wasn't in the rules,and they weren't prepared to stand the expense of putting amendments in sets,so it was bound to cause trouble.
                Danny Victor

                "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote:
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Maisnestce@...
                To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:29 PM
                Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

                > So that clears this one up, though we as a hobby may need to agree not to
                > ask Ian again.

                Oh, it's worse than you think: at Chattanooga, Ian D made several rulings
                which were explicitly contrary--by his own statement--to the published
                rules, but which reflected his own idea of what the rules should have been.

                I don't propose to ring the changes once again on whether designers or
                publishers should have the final say in these matters, but let's simply say
                that I find that...regrettable. Yes, there's the most tactful word that
                comes to mind...regrettable.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David G.D. Hecht
                And here I thought you were an educated man, Mr. Victor! :-) I was merely alluding to the well-known expression, Never attribute to malice that which can be
                Message 7 of 29 , Mar 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  And here I thought you were an educated man, Mr. Victor! :-)

                  I was merely alluding to the well-known expression, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." Nor would I ever suggest that Ian, who is a very nice person, is malicious.

                  But to knowingly and deliberately give a ruling which contradicts the printed rules is, in my humble opinion, an act of malice within the dictionary meaning: "intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse".



                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Daniel Victor
                  To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:01 PM
                  Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies


                  That's a bit strong.Anyone who's gamed with Ian knows he's not a malicious kind of guy.
                  When provoked,he can be a bit pigheaded and stubborn at times,and I suggest that that is a far more likely explanation of his rulings,if he went outside of what was printed.
                  Danny Victor

                  "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote: Actually, altogether different, and much worse: I (and many others) found the AH rules sufficiently ambiguous that we sought clarification.

                  (Note: I make no claim that other interpretations weren't possible, merely that WE found the rules AS WRITTEN unclear.)

                  Regardless of your position on the issue, AH made a good-faith attempt to clarify a form of words which AT LEAST SOME found unclear.

                  Conversely, Ian, upon being asked to provide a rules clarification, instead chose to provide a rewrite that, *by his own admission*, contradicted the rules as written.

                  Whether the rewrite was appropriate or not is entirely beside the point. At worst, AH was guilty of incompetence: Ian was guilty of malice.

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Daniel Victor
                  To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:18 PM
                  Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

                  I have to sympathise with Ian,here.It's his first game to be published,as far as I know,and he's probably found it hard coming to terms with the differences between what he intended and what appeared in print.We all know that in a tournament you have to go with printed rules,but I can understand that it stuck in his craw.
                  Sorry if I'm re-opening an old wound,here,but what he did was no worse than Avalon Hill did in the General,.when they decreed that any company upgrading track in 1830 had to be able to use the new track [excepting stations].That one wasn't in the rules,and they weren't prepared to stand the expense of putting amendments in sets,so it was bound to cause trouble.
                  Danny Victor

                  "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote:
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Maisnestce@...
                  To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:29 PM
                  Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

                  > So that clears this one up, though we as a hobby may need to agree not to
                  > ask Ian again.

                  Oh, it's worse than you think: at Chattanooga, Ian D made several rulings
                  which were explicitly contrary--by his own statement--to the published
                  rules, but which reflected his own idea of what the rules should have been.

                  I don't propose to ring the changes once again on whether designers or
                  publishers should have the final say in these matters, but let's simply say
                  that I find that...regrettable. Yes, there's the most tactful word that
                  comes to mind...regrettable.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Daniel Victor
                  I feel obligated to confess at this point that I was a high school dropout ,having failed to make the grade for the Sixth form at Haberdashers Aske s,and
                  Message 8 of 29 , Mar 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I feel obligated to confess at this point that I was a high school 'dropout',having failed to make the grade for the Sixth form at Haberdashers Aske's,and having to complete my education at Stanmore Junior College and Middlesex Polytechnic.
                    My point,however,was simply that Ian's intent was never malicious.To his way of thinking,perhaps, the rules were what he said they were ! [Yes,you and I know why that's wrong,but I'm not sure he does].Perhaps he was being asked to rule on something that wasn't written the way he wrote it,in which case his reaction was understandable,if wrong.
                    Danny Victor


                    "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote: And here I thought you were an educated man, Mr. Victor! :-)

                    I was merely alluding to the well-known expression, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." Nor would I ever suggest that Ian, who is a very nice person, is malicious.

                    But to knowingly and deliberately give a ruling which contradicts the printed rules is, in my humble opinion, an act of malice within the dictionary meaning: "intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse".

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Daniel Victor
                    To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:01 PM
                    Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

                    That's a bit strong.Anyone who's gamed with Ian knows he's not a malicious kind of guy.
                    When provoked,he can be a bit pigheaded and stubborn at times,and I suggest that that is a far more likely explanation of his rulings,if he went outside of what was printed.
                    Danny Victor

                    "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote: Actually, altogether different, and much worse: I (and many others) found the AH rules sufficiently ambiguous that we sought clarification.

                    (Note: I make no claim that other interpretations weren't possible, merely that WE found the rules AS WRITTEN unclear.)

                    Regardless of your position on the issue, AH made a good-faith attempt to clarify a form of words which AT LEAST SOME found unclear.

                    Conversely, Ian, upon being asked to provide a rules clarification, instead chose to provide a rewrite that, *by his own admission*, contradicted the rules as written.

                    Whether the rewrite was appropriate or not is entirely beside the point. At worst, AH was guilty of incompetence: Ian was guilty of malice.

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Daniel Victor
                    To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:18 PM
                    Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

                    I have to sympathise with Ian,here.It's his first game to be published,as far as I know,and he's probably found it hard coming to terms with the differences between what he intended and what appeared in print.We all know that in a tournament you have to go with printed rules,but I can understand that it stuck in his craw.
                    Sorry if I'm re-opening an old wound,here,but what he did was no worse than Avalon Hill did in the General,.when they decreed that any company upgrading track in 1830 had to be able to use the new track [excepting stations].That one wasn't in the rules,and they weren't prepared to stand the expense of putting amendments in sets,so it was bound to cause trouble.
                    Danny Victor

                    "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote:
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Maisnestce@...
                    To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:29 PM
                    Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

                    > So that clears this one up, though we as a hobby may need to agree not to
                    > ask Ian again.

                    Oh, it's worse than you think: at Chattanooga, Ian D made several rulings
                    which were explicitly contrary--by his own statement--to the published
                    rules, but which reflected his own idea of what the rules should have been.

                    I don't propose to ring the changes once again on whether designers or
                    publishers should have the final say in these matters, but let's simply say
                    that I find that...regrettable. Yes, there's the most tactful word that
                    comes to mind...regrettable.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • David G.D. Hecht
                    Indeed. And my intent was merely to distinguish--using a possibly-inappropriate literary reference--erroneous behavior propelled by honest error, and erroneous
                    Message 9 of 29 , Mar 1, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Indeed. And my intent was merely to distinguish--using a possibly-inappropriate literary reference--erroneous behavior propelled by honest error, and erroneous behavior propelled by design: specifically noting that the latter is--in my opinion anyhow--the greater sin.

                      But at this point we tremble on the edge of argument by repeated assertion, so I'll let it ride there.

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Daniel Victor
                      To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:06 PM
                      Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies


                      I feel obligated to confess at this point that I was a high school 'dropout',having failed to make the grade for the Sixth form at Haberdashers Aske's,and having to complete my education at Stanmore Junior College and Middlesex Polytechnic.
                      My point,however,was simply that Ian's intent was never malicious.To his way of thinking,perhaps, the rules were what he said they were ! [Yes,you and I know why that's wrong,but I'm not sure he does].Perhaps he was being asked to rule on something that wasn't written the way he wrote it,in which case his reaction was understandable,if wrong.
                      Danny Victor


                      "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote: And here I thought you were an educated man, Mr. Victor! :-)

                      I was merely alluding to the well-known expression, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." Nor would I ever suggest that Ian, who is a very nice person, is malicious.

                      But to knowingly and deliberately give a ruling which contradicts the printed rules is, in my humble opinion, an act of malice within the dictionary meaning: "intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse".

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Daniel Victor
                      To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:01 PM
                      Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

                      That's a bit strong.Anyone who's gamed with Ian knows he's not a malicious kind of guy.
                      When provoked,he can be a bit pigheaded and stubborn at times,and I suggest that that is a far more likely explanation of his rulings,if he went outside of what was printed.
                      Danny Victor

                      "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote: Actually, altogether different, and much worse: I (and many others) found the AH rules sufficiently ambiguous that we sought clarification.

                      (Note: I make no claim that other interpretations weren't possible, merely that WE found the rules AS WRITTEN unclear.)

                      Regardless of your position on the issue, AH made a good-faith attempt to clarify a form of words which AT LEAST SOME found unclear.

                      Conversely, Ian, upon being asked to provide a rules clarification, instead chose to provide a rewrite that, *by his own admission*, contradicted the rules as written.

                      Whether the rewrite was appropriate or not is entirely beside the point. At worst, AH was guilty of incompetence: Ian was guilty of malice.

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Daniel Victor
                      To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:18 PM
                      Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

                      I have to sympathise with Ian,here.It's his first game to be published,as far as I know,and he's probably found it hard coming to terms with the differences between what he intended and what appeared in print.We all know that in a tournament you have to go with printed rules,but I can understand that it stuck in his craw.
                      Sorry if I'm re-opening an old wound,here,but what he did was no worse than Avalon Hill did in the General,.when they decreed that any company upgrading track in 1830 had to be able to use the new track [excepting stations].That one wasn't in the rules,and they weren't prepared to stand the expense of putting amendments in sets,so it was bound to cause trouble.
                      Danny Victor

                      "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai@...> wrote:
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Maisnestce@...
                      To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:29 PM
                      Subject: Re: [18xx] 1861 question - restarting major companies

                      > So that clears this one up, though we as a hobby may need to agree not to
                      > ask Ian again.

                      Oh, it's worse than you think: at Chattanooga, Ian D made several rulings
                      which were explicitly contrary--by his own statement--to the published
                      rules, but which reflected his own idea of what the rules should have been.

                      I don't propose to ring the changes once again on whether designers or
                      publishers should have the final say in these matters, but let's simply say
                      that I find that...regrettable. Yes, there's the most tactful word that
                      comes to mind...regrettable.

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Maisnestce@aol.com
                      ... I d have more sympathy with Ian had there been more evidence of any checking to see whether the rule book matched his expectations prior to its
                      Message 10 of 29 , Mar 2, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Danny Victor wrote:

                        > I have to sympathise with Ian,here.It's his first game to be published,as
                        > far as I know,and he's probably found it hard coming to terms with the
                        > differences between what he intended and what appeared in print.We all know that in
                        > a tournament you have to go with printed rules,but I can understand that it
                        > stuck in his craw.

                        I'd have more sympathy with Ian had there been more evidence of any checking
                        to see whether the rule book matched his expectations prior to its
                        publication.

                        > Sorry if I'm re-opening an old wound,here,but what he did was no worse than
                        > Avalon Hill did in the General,.when they decreed that any company upgrading
                        > rack in 1830 had to be able to use the new track [excepting stations].That
                        > one wasn't in the rules,and they weren't prepared to stand the expense of
                        > putting amendments in sets,so it was bound to cause trouble.

                        The "rule" that companies have to be able to run on new track when upgrading
                        wasn't in The General. It was given in response to a (presumably written)
                        question by someone on the 'net (relatively uncommon in about 1990), and that
                        individual published the ruling more widely. As far as I know there's never been
                        anything widely published by AH themselves on this topic.

                        While I don't generally like the idea of having multiple variant rules sets
                        out there, at least Ian was careful to note that the rules he advocated weren't
                        the same as those printed. This seems to me to be less wrong than changing
                        the rules and trying to claim that it's just a "clarification". After all,
                        it's not so very different from what's happened to several rules sets, where on
                        reflection the rules as originally printed turned out to be incorrect.

                        The case of 1861 might turn out to be a little tricky, with three separate
                        publishers any and all of whom might publish errata. And you just know that
                        they're not going to talk to one another before doing so...

                        Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Daniel Victor
                        ... I d have more sympathy with Ian had there been more evidence of any checking to see whether the rule book matched his expectations prior to its
                        Message 11 of 29 , Mar 2, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Maisnestce@... wrote: Danny Victor wrote:

                          > I have to sympathise with Ian,here.It's his first game to be published,as
                          > far as I know,and he's probably found it hard coming to terms with the
                          > differences between what he intended and what appeared in print.We all know that in
                          > a tournament you have to go with printed rules,but I can understand that it
                          > stuck in his craw.

                          I'd have more sympathy with Ian had there been more evidence of any checking
                          to see whether the rule book matched his expectations prior to its
                          publication.


                          The case of 1861 might turn out to be a little tricky, with three separate
                          publishers any and all of whom might publish errata. And you just know that
                          they're not going to talk to one another before doing so...

                          Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...
                          We're relatively spoiled playing 18xx.Try playing the origiinal Gibsons Games version of Britannia.There's almost always an argument from somebody when you tell them they don't get raiding points if their raiders settle,even though it doesn't say that on their card.
                          Of course,in addition to the three published versions of 1861,there' s always Ian's original prototype.........
                          Danny Victor





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Jeff Heuer
                          So, now we have covered the history and the circumstances of publication and some examples of past discrepencies and how they were handled. A very interesting
                          Message 12 of 29 , Mar 2, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            So, now we have covered the history and the circumstances of
                            publication and some examples of past discrepencies and how they were
                            handled. A very interesting subject, to be sure, but not helpful to
                            answering the question.

                            We all hope that rulesets come out perfect the first time, but, alas,
                            it just won't happen in a game this complex, not even when 4 or 6 of
                            us proofread them.

                            BUT, back to the original question. Do we have an answer yet? Can
                            you restart a public company that folded in? My two playings of 1861
                            didn't have this happen so it never came up.

                            My copy arrived last week and so it would be nice to settle the
                            question, but who is the right person to settle it? And how will it
                            be done consistently? That's the rub.

                            Jeff Heuer
                          • Maisnestce@aol.com
                            ... Yes, we do; I asked the designer and posted his response here. In total we have two answers from the designer (in chronological order no and yes) and one
                            Message 13 of 29 , Mar 2, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jeff Heuer wrote:

                              > BUT, back to the original question. Do we have an answer yet? Can
                              > you restart a public company that folded in? My two playings of 1861
                              > didn't have this happen so it never came up.

                              Yes, we do; I asked the designer and posted his response here. In total we
                              have two answers from the designer (in chronological order no and yes) and one
                              from me (yes). There have been no purportedly normative answers from anyone
                              else. Precisely how we proceed from there to a consensus is, as usual, not
                              entirely clear.

                              > My copy arrived last week and so it would be nice to settle the
                              > question, but who is the right person to settle it? And how will it
                              > be done consistently? That's the rub.

                              Rub? Why are we now playing whist (or one of its variants)?

                              David Hecht would have us believe that only the publisher can provide
                              normative answers to questions such as this. Usually that would at least narrow down
                              the choice to one entity, but as 1861 is published simultaneously by JKLM,
                              Lookout, and Z-Man there is plenty of scope for confusion on that front.
                              Personally I prefer siding with the designer. Since the communications channel
                              between Ian and JLKM is of low bandwidth and those between Ian and the other
                              publishers close to zero, and in any case Ian sides with Emerson (a foolish
                              consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds) the rules lawyers are visibly rubbing
                              their hands in anticipation.

                              It's perhaps just as well that this particular issue is relevant rarely,
                              especially between skilled players.

                              Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Rick Westerman
                              ... Of course Steve is a skilled player however I posit that the issue may be only irrelevant in situations where Steve plays. Perhaps other skillful groups
                              Message 14 of 29 , Mar 2, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > It's perhaps just as well that this particular issue is relevant rarely,
                                > especially between skilled players.

                                Of course Steve is a skilled player however I posit that the issue
                                may be only irrelevant in situations where Steve plays. Perhaps other
                                skillful groups have different playing styles, eh? Also, as someone
                                pointed out, they could see the "Kentish Mob" exploiting a "no reuse"
                                policy to force a limited number of companies to be in play. So we
                                should clear up the issue one way or another.

                                -- Rick
                              • Craig Bartell
                                This question is highly relevant to the Kansas City 18xx group. I asked Ian Wilson about this at Chattanooga, and got the same answer as I ve read it
                                Message 15 of 29 , Mar 2, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  This question is highly relevant to the Kansas City 18xx group. I asked Ian
                                  Wilson about this at Chattanooga, and got the same answer as I've read "it
                                  shouldn't matter". In 1861, two of us use in Kansas City a strategy where
                                  we burn through companies and purposely dump them into the Russian State
                                  Railroad. It has been an effective strategy so far, and not being able to
                                  reuse the burned up companies would make it even more effective.

                                  Craig

                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Rick Westerman" <westerm@...>
                                  To: <18xx@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:15 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 1861 question - restarting major companies


                                  > > It's perhaps just as well that this particular issue is relevant rarely,
                                  > > especially between skilled players.
                                  >
                                  > Of course Steve is a skilled player however I posit that the issue
                                  > may be only irrelevant in situations where Steve plays. Perhaps other
                                  > skillful groups have different playing styles, eh? Also, as someone
                                  > pointed out, they could see the "Kentish Mob" exploiting a "no reuse"
                                  > policy to force a limited number of companies to be in play. So we
                                  > should clear up the issue one way or another.
                                  >
                                  > -- Rick
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Maisnestce@aol.com
                                  ... I concede that extremely skilled players may find a playing style where the issue does becomes relevant, though in this context it should be noted that the
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Mar 3, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Rick Westermann wrote:

                                    > Of course Steve is a skilled player however I posit that the issue
                                    > may be only irrelevant in situations where Steve plays. Perhaps other
                                    > skillful groups have different playing styles, eh? Also, as someone
                                    > pointed out, they could see the "Kentish Mob" exploiting a "no reuse"
                                    > policy to force a limited number of companies to be in play. So we
                                    > should clear up the issue one way or another.

                                    I concede that extremely skilled players may find a playing style where the
                                    issue does becomes relevant, though in this context it should be noted that the
                                    Kentish Mob themselves haven't exercised this particular corner of the rules
                                    all that often. Spending at least one turn trainless while being
                                    nationalised, cashing in at less than current market value, then spending another turn
                                    trainless when the new corporation first starts, appears sufficiently suboptimal
                                    that even they can see its drawbacks.

                                    Also, I don't claim any particular skill at 1861; I've played it perhaps half
                                    a dozen times and I don't think I've ever won. In one of those games two
                                    Public Corporations (not mine) were nationalised, exercising another obscure
                                    corner of the rules when RSR tokens ran out, but we were content to finish with
                                    six active companies.

                                    But at the risk of repeating myself, the question has been cleared up as much
                                    as it ever will. Nationalised Public Corporations may be restarted.

                                    Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Daniel Victor
                                    Maisnestce@aol.com wrote: But at the risk of repeating myself, the question has been cleared up as much as it ever will.
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Mar 3, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Maisnestce@... wrote: But at the risk of repeating myself, the question has been cleared up as much as it ever will. Nationalised Public Corporations may be restarted.Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...
                                      That's a bit defeatist,isn't it ? We'lll probably see Ian at Baycon,if not before.If we ask him nicely,I'm sure he'll come up with some sort of clarification !
                                      Danny Victor
                                      Messages in this topic (20) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
                                      Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
                                      This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

                                      Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
                                      Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
                                      Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

                                      Recent Activity

                                      8
                                      New Members

                                      Visit Your Group
                                      SPONSORED LINKS

                                      Board games
                                      Chess board game
                                      Go board game
                                      Risk board game
                                      Monopoly board game

                                      Video Games
                                      Old School Games
                                      Share and vote
                                      on Bix.com!

                                      Yahoo! Sports
                                      Tournament Pick Em
                                      Pick the winners
                                      Beat your friends

                                      Yahoo! Sports
                                      Fantasy Baseball
                                      Draft your players.
                                      Build your team.



                                      .





                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • marktderrick
                                      ... [parts clipped]... Usually that would at least narrow down the choice to one entity, but as 1861 is published simultaneously by JKLM, Lookout, and Z-Man
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Mar 3, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In 18xx@yahoogroups.com, Maisnestce@... wrote:
                                        [parts clipped]...
                                        Usually that
                                        would at least narrow down the choice to one entity, but as 1861 is
                                        published simultaneously by JKLM, Lookout, and Z-Man there is plenty
                                        of scope for confusion on that front. Personally I prefer siding
                                        with the designer. Since the communications channel between Ian and
                                        JLKM is of low bandwidth and those between Ian and the other
                                        publishers close to zero, and in any case Ian sides with Emerson (a
                                        foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds) the rules
                                        lawyers are visibly rubbing their hands in anticipation.

                                        Was 1861 really published by JKLM, Lookout and Z-Man? I don't
                                        remember seeing any copies of 1861 for sale at the Z-Man booth at
                                        Essen when it premiered. I was under the impression that Z-Man simply
                                        had an agreement to import a certain number of copies (maybe 300 or
                                        so) and may have asked to have their logo printed on the box as did
                                        Lookout. Markus never said that Z-Man or Lookout had anything to do
                                        with the development of 1861 to me. Sort of like being a producer of
                                        a major movie, which mainly involves financing as I inderstand.

                                        Whatever the merits of this ongoing discussion, I would be pretty
                                        surpised to see Z-Man (or Lookout Games I suspect) publish any kind
                                        of "official" FAQs for 1861. Also, Z-Man at least did not have any
                                        copies of 1861 for sale in the US until about early December (can't
                                        say for Lookout) so it wasn't exactly simultaneous anyway.

                                        Hopefully JKLM will offer an FAQ at some point and I'd vote that it
                                        should be the last word whether it agrees with Ian's wishes or not.
                                        Of course, they haven't ever published an 1860 FAQ, hmmm.....
                                      • Maisnestce@aol.com
                                        ... As far as I know the deal was that JKLM (i.e., Markus Welbourne) drove most of the design work. All Z-Man did was agree to buy a few hundred copies (and
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Mar 4, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Mark Derrick wrote:

                                          > Was 1861 really published by JKLM, Lookout and Z-Man?

                                          As far as I know the deal was that JKLM (i.e., Markus Welbourne) drove most
                                          of the design work. All Z-Man did was agree to buy a few hundred copies (and
                                          provide some of the money up front). Lookout may have helped with the
                                          manufacturing side of things, and they provided finance too. Only one printer was
                                          involved. But all three have their logos on the box, and they're all publishers
                                          of record. At least two other individuals contributed financing, but they're
                                          not mentioned anywhere.

                                          > Hopefully JKLM will offer an FAQ at some point and I'd vote that it
                                          > should be the last word whether it agrees with Ian's wishes or not.
                                          > Of course, they haven't ever published an 1860 FAQ, hmmm.....

                                          "Last word" is going a bit strong. I have always argued that, while players
                                          should know what the official rules are (and hence I devote considerable
                                          effort to making sure there are some), groups should play what they feel makes the
                                          best game. The "official rules" never act as more than a sort of tie-break
                                          when a dispute arises.

                                          Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • huttm
                                          ... I don t think it s down to a FAQ. This would be an erratum slip. It would be down to Markus to provide one, but I suspect it s a little late even now to
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Mar 4, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In 18xx@yahoogroups.com, "marktderrick" <derrick@...> wrote:

                                            > Hopefully JKLM will offer an FAQ at some point and I'd vote that it
                                            > should be the last word whether it agrees with Ian's wishes or not.
                                            > Of course, they haven't ever published an 1860 FAQ, hmmm.....

                                            I don't think it's down to a FAQ. This would be an erratum slip. It
                                            would be down to Markus to provide one, but I suspect it's a little
                                            late even now to issue one.

                                            In terms of publishing one, it's only really necessary with 1861
                                            because of the size of the run and the breadth of distribution. With
                                            1860 we're only now approaching 400 copies published, and there's
                                            something at least vaguely approaching of a FAQ in the Files section of
                                            this site. Do you think it's worth producing one for the benefit of 50
                                            buyers who will likely be able to get hold of the one here anyway?

                                            Mike.
                                          • Daniel Victor
                                            ... I don t think it s down to a FAQ. This would be an erratum slip. It would be down to Markus to provide one, but I suspect it s a little late even now to
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Mar 4, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              huttm <huttm@...> wrote: --- In 18xx@yahoogroups.com, "marktderrick" <derrick@...> wrote:

                                              > Hopefully JKLM will offer an FAQ at some point and I'd vote that it
                                              > should be the last word whether it agrees with Ian's wishes or not.
                                              > Of course, they haven't ever published an 1860 FAQ, hmmm.....

                                              I don't think it's down to a FAQ. This would be an erratum slip. It
                                              would be down to Markus to provide one, but I suspect it's a little
                                              late even now to issue one.

                                              In terms of publishing one, it's only really necessary with 1861
                                              because of the size of the run and the breadth of distribution. With
                                              1860 we're only now approaching 400 copies published, and there's
                                              something at least vaguely approaching of a FAQ in the Files section of
                                              this site. Do you think it's worth producing one for the benefit of 50
                                              buyers who will likely be able to get hold of the one here anyway?

                                              Mike.
                                              Not everybody who bought the game would read these columns.At the risk of sounding like Steve and David,it would be more like an Addendum than an Erratum.However you are almost certainly correct in that I can't see Marcus bothering.
                                              Danny Victor





                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • marktderrick
                                              ... it should be the last word whether it agrees with Ian s wishes or not. ... players ... considerable ... feel makes the ... tie-break ... I only meant in
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Mar 4, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In 18xx@yahoogroups.com, Maisnestce@... wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > Hopefully JKLM will offer an FAQ at some point and I'd vote that
                                                it should be the last word whether it agrees with Ian's wishes or not.
                                                > > Of course, they haven't ever published an 1860 FAQ, hmmm.....



                                                > "Last word" is going a bit strong. I have always argued that, while
                                                players
                                                > should know what the official rules are (and hence I devote
                                                considerable
                                                > effort to making sure there are some), groups should play what they
                                                feel makes the
                                                > best game. The "official rules" never act as more than a sort of
                                                tie-break
                                                > when a dispute arises.
                                                >
                                                > Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...
                                                >

                                                I only meant in the context of a tournament situation, there should be
                                                something with which to base a ruling. In Chattanooga, this year, I
                                                was asked to rule on how a certain game was to be played when the
                                                printed rules were ambiguous. It would seem a lot easier to rule when
                                                there is something, even if it is a print out of an FAQ from the
                                                publisher to go by. I have never prohibited players from playing any
                                                variant they want if they agree beforehand. Groups don't need my
                                                permission to play with any house rules they want.

                                                As for 1860, maybe I should review and print the clarifications in our
                                                files section in case anything comes up on 1860 in the future. I do
                                                know 1860 was played Sunday night and there were some rules questions
                                                if I recall. I would think that JKLM or any publisher can host a
                                                simple clarification/FAQ document somewhere. I can't see that being
                                                much trouble for a publisher.
                                              • Jeff Heuer
                                                ... Thanks for the answer Steve. In looking back I see that I simply missed the answer/answer/answer/consensus. :-) We re in the middle of an 1861 game right
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Mar 5, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Jeff Heuer wrote:

                                                  >> BUT, back to the original question. Do we have an answer yet? Can
                                                  >> you restart a public company that folded in? My two playings of 1861
                                                  >> didn't have this happen so it never came up.

                                                  >Yes, we do; I asked the designer and posted his response here.
                                                  >In total we have two answers from the designer (in chronological
                                                  >order no and yes) and one from me (yes). There have been no
                                                  >purportedly normative answers from anyone else. Precisely how
                                                  >we proceed from there to a consensus is, as usual, not
                                                  >entirely clear.

                                                  Thanks for the answer Steve. In looking back I see that I simply
                                                  missed the answer/answer/answer/consensus. :-)

                                                  We're in the middle of an 1861 game right now. We like it.
                                                  There is a lot to do and with the combinations of privates and
                                                  minors and the choice of how to merge/grow up the minors it
                                                  makes for a lot of strategic choices in a game that still isn't
                                                  too complicated. My thanks to Ian for a good design.

                                                  Jeff Heuer
                                                • Maisnestce@aol.com
                                                  ... 1861 was, I believe, made in one large batch, so adding anything to the sets yet to be sold wouldn t be practical. A rule clarification & amendment
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Mar 5, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Mike Hutton wrote:

                                                    > I don't think it's down to a FAQ. This would be an erratum slip. It
                                                    > would be down to Markus to provide one, but I suspect it's a little
                                                    > late even now to issue one.

                                                    1861 was, I believe, made in one large batch, so adding anything to the sets
                                                    yet to be sold wouldn't be practical. A rule clarification & amendment
                                                    document kept somewhere would be handy. It's unlikely that JKLM would be interested
                                                    in maintaining it, though.

                                                    A related subject is that Deep Thought Games has what a marketing type would
                                                    describe as a policy of continuous improvement. Because games are made in
                                                    batches of one, in principle that could mean that no two games go out with
                                                    identical rules, though it's nothing like that bad in practice. The web site
                                                    includes a recent set of rules for each game, which is very nice, but it would be
                                                    handy were there a change log available for each game too.

                                                    I could probably find a cat that needs belling, too.

                                                    Steve Thomas maisnestce@a...


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • John A. Tamplin
                                                    ... Manually maintaining such a change log is a pain. In the software world, the usual solution is to let the source code management system keep track of all
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Mar 5, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Maisnestce@... wrote:

                                                      > A related subject is that Deep Thought Games has what a marketing type would
                                                      > describe as a policy of continuous improvement. Because games are made in
                                                      > batches of one, in principle that could mean that no two games go out with
                                                      > identical rules, though it's nothing like that bad in practice. The web site
                                                      > includes a recent set of rules for each game, which is very nice, but it would be
                                                      > handy were there a change log available for each game too.

                                                      Manually maintaining such a change log is a pain. In the software world,
                                                      the usual solution is to let the source code management system keep track
                                                      of all the versions and you can request a difference between any two
                                                      revisions of a given file. However, that doesn't work so well with Word,
                                                      OpenOffice, PDF, or PS files (although the latter will work, most people
                                                      probably aren't interested in the changes in the Postscript code to draw
                                                      the document).

                                                      I agree it would be nice to have, but it seems more valuable for me to
                                                      spend that time working on the next game.

                                                      --
                                                      John A. Tamplin jat@...
                                                      770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave
                                                      Smyrna, GA 30082-3723
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.