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

Re: [B5CCG] Re: "Let the Galaxy Burn" & "Age of Conquest"

Expand Messages
  • Michael English
    ... I disagree. The Psi Corps Rule book states: Whenever the trigger condition is met, the player of the Contingency may reveal it and apply its effects.
    Message 1 of 27 , Apr 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      >>Or does the "instead" mean: instead of keeping the location?
      >
      > correct.
      >
      > So you could choose to sacrifice the Major Agenda's mechanic, i.e.
      > gaining burn tokens in order to fuel "Age of Conquest".
      >
      > You'd still conquer the location but then you would choose not to
      > remove it from play.
      >

      I disagree. The Psi Corps Rule book states: "Whenever the trigger condition
      is met, the player of the Contingency may reveal it and apply its effects."
      The trigger condition, conquering a location, was clearly met whatever the
      player chooses to do with the location. - Let The Galaxy Burn doesn't say
      "When you conquer a location ... you may choose that the conquest never
      happened and remove the location from play."

      I think the important point here is to separate the triggering condition,
      conquest of a location, from the triggered effect, choosing to remove the
      location from play or to keep it in play as a conquered location. Choosing
      to use a triggered effect instead of a triggering condition doesn't make
      logical sense in my opinion. I suspect some clarification text along the
      lines of ".. instead of the normal result of conquest" was deleted from LTGB
      to save space and avoid another ISA type card.

      Also, interpreting LTGB to allow use with Age Of Conquest without
      sacrificing Burn tokens improves the playability of the two cards, which is
      otherwise very poor (and probably not that good even so).

      Michael English
    • Bruce Mason
      I would tend to agree with Paul here though I also agree that the rulebook doesn t seem to have covered it. Generally in CCGs wording of the type when X
      Message 2 of 27 , Apr 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I would tend to agree with Paul here though I also agree that the rulebook doesn't seem to have covered it.

        Generally in CCGs wording of the type "when X happens do Y INSTEAD" is regarded as a 'replacement' effect. (Don't confuse this with the effect of replacing one card with another)

        a replacement effect is something that happens instead of something else.

        Let the Galaxy burn is in these terms a replacement effect because it says that INSTEAD of conquering the location you remove it from the game instead. So, literally, the location was never conquered.

        The problem is that B5 doesn't have a timing system. You could say that as owner of the two cards involved (LTGB and AoC) that you could choose what order they happen in. i.e. in theory you could say I'll use AoC first and then I'll use LtGB. However that is generally a no-no in CCGs as generally replacement effects 'trump' others.

        For example, imagine the following cards
        "Whenever a character is discarded from play, return it to its owner's hand INSTEAD"
        "Whenever a character is discarded from play, draw a card."

        One would assume that if both of these effects are in play that the second would never trigger. It is the same with with Let the galaxy burn and Age of Conquest.

        For better clarity, Let the Galaxy Burn should read "Whenever you would conquer location you may choose to remove it from the game instead."

        Now, yes, the two cards would be better if they didn't work this way but one of the big problems that B5 faced was when the designers kept trying to alter the rules to change the power levels of cards. That's a no-no.

        It would be interesting to know just how many "replacement" effect cards there are in b5:ccg. I don't remember any others off the top of my head.

        Bruce

        ---
        Bruce Mason, ESRC Research Associate
        Ethnography in the Digital Age
        Cardiff School of Social Sciences
        Glamorgan Building, 0.74
        King Edward VII Ave
        Cardiff CF10 3WT
        UK
        Tel: +44 2920 875123
        masonb@...
        http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/hyper/index.html

        >>> michael.english@... 04/01/05 10:14 am >>>


        >
        >>Or does the "instead" mean: instead of keeping the location?
        >
        > correct.
        >
        > So you could choose to sacrifice the Major Agenda's mechanic, i.e.
        > gaining burn tokens in order to fuel "Age of Conquest".
        >
        > You'd still conquer the location but then you would choose not to
        > remove it from play.
        >

        I disagree. The Psi Corps Rule book states: "Whenever the trigger condition
        is met, the player of the Contingency may reveal it and apply its effects."
        The trigger condition, conquering a location, was clearly met whatever the
        player chooses to do with the location. - Let The Galaxy Burn doesn't say
        "When you conquer a location ... you may choose that the conquest never
        happened and remove the location from play."

        I think the important point here is to separate the triggering condition,
        conquest of a location, from the triggered effect, choosing to remove the
        location from play or to keep it in play as a conquered location. Choosing
        to use a triggered effect instead of a triggering condition doesn't make
        logical sense in my opinion. I suspect some clarification text along the
        lines of ".. instead of the normal result of conquest" was deleted from LTGB
        to save space and avoid another ISA type card.

        Also, interpreting LTGB to allow use with Age Of Conquest without
        sacrificing Burn tokens improves the playability of the two cards, which is
        otherwise very poor (and probably not that good even so).

        Michael English




        Babylon 5 CCG Community E-list.
        Keep it fun, keep it friendly, enjoy.
        If you have problems with the list contact me at jaxb5ranger@....

        Also, check out www.epsilonhex.com for more information about the game!

        To unsubscribe email:
        b5ccglist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Michael English
        ... I don t think that appealing to Magic The Gathering (or another game) is really valid, especially when the issue concerns a Contingency, which, as far as I
        Message 3 of 27 , Apr 13, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > I would tend to agree with Paul here though I also agree that the rulebook
          > doesn't seem to have covered it.
          >
          > Generally in CCGs wording of the type "when X happens do Y INSTEAD" is
          > regarded as a 'replacement' effect. (Don't confuse this with the effect of
          > replacing one card with another)
          >
          > a replacement effect is something that happens instead of something else.
          >
          > Let the Galaxy burn is in these terms a replacement effect because it says
          > that INSTEAD of conquering the location you remove it from the game
          > instead. So, literally, the location was never conquered.
          >

          I don't think that appealing to Magic The Gathering (or another game) is
          really valid, especially when the issue concerns a Contingency, which, as
          far as I know, is a card type unique to Babylon 5. Also the above very
          legalistic interpretation of the card wording does not work in that we are
          already interpreting the designer's intent for the card rather than doing
          what is actually on Let The Galaxy Burn or Age Of Conquest. Both cards
          state "When you conquer a location"; there is no mechanism in B5 by which
          you can CONQUER a location, the rule book only tells you how to CAPTURE or
          RECAPTUE a location. Of course reasonable players understand what the
          designer means, and that Conquer is synonymous with Capture. If you inist
          on interpreting INSTEAD in a Magic The Gathering manner then you must also
          do the same with "Conquer".

          > The problem is that B5 doesn't have a timing system. You could say that as
          > owner of the two cards involved (LTGB and AoC) that you could choose what
          > order they happen in. i.e. in theory you could say I'll use AoC first and
          > then I'll use LtGB. However that is generally a no-no in CCGs as generally
          > replacement effects 'trump' others.

          Whilst B5 does not have much on timing in general, page 33 of the Psi Corps
          Rule book does specifically state how the timing of contingencies work.
          Basically as soon as the Contingency trigger happens, then everything else
          stops and the contingency is resolved. Once the contingency is resolved
          play resumes from the trigger. Even otherwise seamless sequences of
          actions, such as the steps in the resolution of an attack are affected. It
          is clear from the wording of some contingencies (e.g. Double Cross) that
          they resolve between the "Announce attack target" and "Apply Damage" steps
          of an attack, even though these steps cannot normally be separated.

          Therefore contingencies always go off first. So if Age Of Conquest is
          triggered, it must be resolved before Let The Galaxy Burn.

          >
          > For example, imagine the following cards
          > "Whenever a character is discarded from play, return it to its owner's
          > hand INSTEAD"
          > "Whenever a character is discarded from play, draw a card."
          >
          > One would assume that if both of these effects are in play that the second
          > would never trigger. It is the same with with Let the galaxy burn and Age
          > of Conquest.

          If both the above cards were global enhancements, then Bruce is probably
          right; the rules for B5 don't cover this sort of thing. But if one card
          were a Contingency that would take priority. For other games, whether the
          second effect triggers is determined by the particular rules for the game.
          For example, if the above two cards were defined as PASSIVE effects in a
          Game Of Thrones, then if both cards are controlled by the same player, he
          would be free to choose which effect was used first. If the cards were
          controlled by different players then it is Initiative order that is
          important.

          >
          > For better clarity, Let the Galaxy Burn should read "Whenever you would
          > conquer location you may choose to remove it from the game instead."
          >

          or for better clarity, Let the Galaxy Burn should read "...Whenever you
          capture a location you may choose to remove it from the game rather than
          taking control of it."

          Both are valid interpretations of what the designer meant. Of course if
          Bruce was the designer of this card then his view is authoratative and I
          stand corrected.

          > Now, yes, the two cards would be better if they didn't work this way but
          > one of the big problems that B5 faced was when the designers kept trying
          > to alter the rules to change the power levels of cards. That's a no-no.
          >

          I definitely agree where the interpretation of a card is clear from the
          rules plus existing rulings. I was thinking of the situation where two
          interpretations are equally valid. Here we should go for the interpretation
          which enhances the playability of useless cards, unless this otherwise
          affects play balance.

          Michael English
        • Grzegorz Giewon
          Hi! What type of actions cancels card Interferencje ? Can I cancel sponsor action? Thx for all Gothmog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Message 4 of 27 , Apr 13, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi!



            What type of actions cancels card "Interferencje"?



            Can I cancel sponsor action?



            Thx for all

            Gothmog





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Paul
            Hi Mike, I think you re trying to use wording and what some games refer to as potentiality to justify your arguement as to why these two cards should work
            Message 5 of 27 , Apr 13, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Mike,

              I think you're trying to use wording and what some games refer to
              as 'potentiality' to justify your arguement as to why these two
              cards should work together.

              The crux of the decision is the single sentence

              "When you conquer a location, you may remove it from the game
              instead."

              Let's look at things logically & grammatically... what is
              that 'instead' referring to?

              It can only refer to the word 'conquer'... there's nothing else in
              the sentence that it can possibly relate to. Agreed?

              So the sentence can be alternativly written as...

              A. Either Conquer the Location
              B. OR Remove it from the game.

              Note, this doesn't say

              Either Conquer the Location
              OR Conquer it and then remove it from the game

              The two statements are mutually exclusive.

              So If you choose A. the contingency triggers but you don't get a
              burn token
              If you choose B. the contingency does not trigger but you get a burn
              token and a fried planet instead.

              Also, just for a lark, the dictionary definition of 'Conquer' is...

              To gain or acquire by force; to take possession of by violent means;
              to gain dominion over; to subdue by physical means; to reduce; to
              overcome by force of arms; to cause to yield; to vanquish.

              Let the Galaxy Burn isn't about conquest, it's about a scorched
              earth policy.

              So, in a nutshell... no, they don't work with each other.

              ta da! :)

              Paul S.
              Pumpin Ain't Easy

              P.S. As for interpreting the designer's intent... I guess Bruce is
              the best guy to do that, being one of the 'designers, playtesters
              and chief bottle washer'

              Because Bruce said so! :)






              > I don't think that appealing to Magic The Gathering (or another
              game) is
              > really valid, especially when the issue concerns a Contingency,
              which, as
              > far as I know, is a card type unique to Babylon 5. Also the above
              very
              > legalistic interpretation of the card wording does not work in
              that we are
              > already interpreting the designer's intent for the card rather
              than doing
              > what is actually on Let The Galaxy Burn or Age Of Conquest. Both
              cards
              > state "When you conquer a location"; there is no mechanism in B5
              by which
              > you can CONQUER a location, the rule book only tells you how to
              CAPTURE or
              > RECAPTUE a location. Of course reasonable players understand what
              the
              > designer means, and that Conquer is synonymous with Capture. If
              you inist
              > on interpreting INSTEAD in a Magic The Gathering manner then you
              must also
              > do the same with "Conquer".
              >
            • Michael Tagge
              I disagree with you, but because break the process down into more tiny steps. 1. Declare a military conflict against a location 2. Have more support than
              Message 6 of 27 , Apr 13, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                I disagree with you, but because break the process down into more tiny steps.

                1. Declare a military conflict against a location
                2. Have more support than opposition at resolution
                3. Resolve the effects of the conflict

                The way that I look at this the contingency is triggered at step 2 in my thinking. Since
                you cannot change the laws of cause and effect choosing to have it removed from the game
                at step 3 because of the agenda does not change the fact that step 2 happened.

                Taking it out of game terms this would mean:

                1. Deciding to invade a planet
                2. Defeating planetary defenses and protection forces
                3. Laying waste to the people and the planet

                So I am saying that I view conquer as defeating the planetary defenses. Letting the
                galaxy burn does not prevent the fact that the planetary defenses were destroyed.

                But then again what do I know.

                --- Paul <psheward@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi Mike,
                >
                > I think you're trying to use wording and what some games refer to
                > as 'potentiality' to justify your arguement as to why these two
                > cards should work together.
                >
                > The crux of the decision is the single sentence
                >
                > "When you conquer a location, you may remove it from the game
                > instead."
                >
                > Let's look at things logically & grammatically... what is
                > that 'instead' referring to?
                >
                > It can only refer to the word 'conquer'... there's nothing else in
                > the sentence that it can possibly relate to. Agreed?
                >
                > So the sentence can be alternativly written as...
                >
                > A. Either Conquer the Location
                > B. OR Remove it from the game.
                >
                > Note, this doesn't say
                >
                > Either Conquer the Location
                > OR Conquer it and then remove it from the game
                >
                > The two statements are mutually exclusive.
                >
                > So If you choose A. the contingency triggers but you don't get a
                > burn token
                > If you choose B. the contingency does not trigger but you get a burn
                > token and a fried planet instead.
                >
                > Also, just for a lark, the dictionary definition of 'Conquer' is...
                >
                > To gain or acquire by force; to take possession of by violent means;
                > to gain dominion over; to subdue by physical means; to reduce; to
                > overcome by force of arms; to cause to yield; to vanquish.
                >
                > Let the Galaxy Burn isn't about conquest, it's about a scorched
                > earth policy.
                >
                > So, in a nutshell... no, they don't work with each other.
                >
                > ta da! :)
                >
                > Paul S.
                > Pumpin Ain't Easy
                >
                > P.S. As for interpreting the designer's intent... I guess Bruce is
                > the best guy to do that, being one of the 'designers, playtesters
                > and chief bottle washer'
                >
                > Because Bruce said so! :)



                __________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
                http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
              • Paul
                But, you have chosen to remove the location from the game (destroy it) rather than conquer it (occupy and use it as your own). As a result the Contingency is
                Message 7 of 27 , Apr 14, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  But, you have chosen to remove the location from the game (destroy
                  it) rather than conquer it (occupy and use it as your own). As a
                  result the Contingency is not triggered.
                  The Contingency trigger of "When you Conquer a location" doesn't
                  happen.

                  I think this goes back to 'potentiality'. Some CCGs, Raw Deal for
                  example, use potentiality so if a says "Do X if a card played by an
                  opponent allows him to do Y" trigger even if the respective text is
                  not activated. B5 does not use potentiality.

                  By chosing to remove the location from the game, you have negated
                  the 'Conquer' part of the card text, it doesn't happen so the
                  Contingency does not trigger.

                  As for the breakdown of the conflict steps, no, fully resolve the
                  conflict and then resolve the contingency.

                  I would suggest that the final step of the 'Conquer Mechanic' is the
                  transfer of the location into your faction's control. Once it's
                  there, then the Contingency would trigger. This happens at the end
                  of the conflict resolution.

                  Be well

                  Paul S.
                  Pumpin In Exile

                  --- In b5ccglist@yahoogroups.com, Michael Tagge <mtagge@y...> wrote:
                  > I disagree with you, but because break the process down into more
                  tiny steps.
                  >
                  > 1. Declare a military conflict against a location
                  > 2. Have more support than opposition at resolution
                  > 3. Resolve the effects of the conflict
                  >
                  > The way that I look at this the contingency is triggered at step 2
                  in my thinking. Since
                  > you cannot change the laws of cause and effect choosing to have it
                  removed from the game
                  > at step 3 because of the agenda does not change the fact that step
                  2 happened.
                  >
                  > Taking it out of game terms this would mean:
                  >
                  > 1. Deciding to invade a planet
                  > 2. Defeating planetary defenses and protection forces
                  > 3. Laying waste to the people and the planet
                  >
                  > So I am saying that I view conquer as defeating the planetary
                  defenses. Letting the
                  > galaxy burn does not prevent the fact that the planetary defenses
                  were destroyed.
                  >
                  > But then again what do I know.
                  >
                  > --- Paul <psheward@e...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Hi Mike,
                  > >
                  > > I think you're trying to use wording and what some games refer
                  to
                  > > as 'potentiality' to justify your arguement as to why these two
                  > > cards should work together.
                  > >
                  > > The crux of the decision is the single sentence
                  > >
                  > > "When you conquer a location, you may remove it from the game
                  > > instead."
                  > >
                  > > Let's look at things logically & grammatically... what is
                  > > that 'instead' referring to?
                  > >
                  > > It can only refer to the word 'conquer'... there's nothing else
                  in
                  > > the sentence that it can possibly relate to. Agreed?
                  > >
                  > > So the sentence can be alternativly written as...
                  > >
                  > > A. Either Conquer the Location
                  > > B. OR Remove it from the game.
                  > >
                  > > Note, this doesn't say
                  > >
                  > > Either Conquer the Location
                  > > OR Conquer it and then remove it from the game
                  > >
                  > > The two statements are mutually exclusive.
                  > >
                  > > So If you choose A. the contingency triggers but you don't get a
                  > > burn token
                  > > If you choose B. the contingency does not trigger but you get a
                  burn
                  > > token and a fried planet instead.
                  > >
                  > > Also, just for a lark, the dictionary definition of 'Conquer'
                  is...
                  > >
                  > > To gain or acquire by force; to take possession of by violent
                  means;
                  > > to gain dominion over; to subdue by physical means; to reduce;
                  to
                  > > overcome by force of arms; to cause to yield; to vanquish.
                  > >
                  > > Let the Galaxy Burn isn't about conquest, it's about a scorched
                  > > earth policy.
                  > >
                  > > So, in a nutshell... no, they don't work with each other.
                  > >
                  > > ta da! :)
                  > >
                  > > Paul S.
                  > > Pumpin Ain't Easy
                  > >
                  > > P.S. As for interpreting the designer's intent... I guess Bruce
                  is
                  > > the best guy to do that, being one of the 'designers,
                  playtesters
                  > > and chief bottle washer'
                  > >
                  > > Because Bruce said so! :)
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > __________________________________
                  > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
                  > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
                • Paul
                  Hi, No you cannot cancel a sponsor action as this is an instant and not an ongoing effect. Similarly you could not cancel a build action. You would cancel
                  Message 8 of 27 , Apr 14, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi,

                    No you cannot cancel a sponsor action as this is an 'instant' and
                    not an 'ongoing' effect. Similarly you could not cancel a build
                    action.

                    You would cancel things like support/opposition into a conflict.

                    Paul S.
                    Pumpin in Exile

                    --- In b5ccglist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Giewon" <ggiewon@p...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi!
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > What type of actions cancels card "Interferencje"?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Can I cancel sponsor action?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Thx for all
                    >
                    > Gothmog
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Michael English
                    ... Except that Age Of Conquest triggers before Let The Galaxy Burn as per B5 rules for triggering contingencies on page 33 of the Psi Corps Rule Book. Michael
                    Message 9 of 27 , Apr 15, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > By chosing to remove the location from the game, you have negated
                      > the 'Conquer' part of the card text, it doesn't happen so the
                      > Contingency does not trigger.
                      >

                      Except that Age Of Conquest triggers before Let The Galaxy Burn as per B5
                      rules for triggering contingencies on page 33 of the Psi Corps Rule Book.

                      Michael English
                    • Paul
                      I d suggest that you just play the cards as you want to then, you obviously feel that you need the advantage and that the poor old Drakh are in desperate
                      Message 10 of 27 , Apr 15, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I'd suggest that you just play the cards as you want to then, you
                        obviously feel that you need the 'advantage' and that the poor old
                        Drakh are in desperate need of a boost.

                        You got a 'ruling' from Bruce, but it's your perogative to ignore it.

                        It is interesting though that if you maintain your ascertion that the
                        location in conquered halfway through the conflict round then it can
                        be argued that the Agenda cannot be used to then generate a burn token.

                        I.e. You cannot 'un-conquer' the location so you can NEVER "remove the
                        location from play instead".

                        In all likelyhood the wording of LtGB could be better, maybe it
                        shouldve said "When you conquer a location you may choose to either
                        place that location into your faction under your control or remove it
                        from the game and place a burn token on this agenda."

                        But it doesnt.

                        Anyway, like I said, do what you want.

                        be well

                        Paul S.
                        Pumpin in Exile

                        --- In b5ccglist@yahoogroups.com, "Michael English"
                        <michael.english@m...> wrote:
                        > > By chosing to remove the location from the game, you have negated
                        > > the 'Conquer' part of the card text, it doesn't happen so the
                        > > Contingency does not trigger.
                        > >
                        >
                        > Except that Age Of Conquest triggers before Let The Galaxy Burn as
                        per B5
                        > rules for triggering contingencies on page 33 of the Psi Corps Rule
                        Book.
                        >
                        > Michael English
                      • Mike
                        I just wanted to ask clarification on the above card as it states that The player with the largest hand size at the beginning of each turn s Draw round must
                        Message 11 of 27 , Apr 16, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I just wanted to ask clarification on the above card as it states that 'The
                          player with the largest hand size at the beginning of each turn's Draw round
                          must discard all cards he draws during that Draw round'

                          What happens if two or more players are tied? We had a four player game
                          where this card was played on turn two. Consequently on that turn and many
                          subsequent turns there were ties. As we couldn't find a ruling on it we
                          decided that all such players should discard drawn cards. This produced a
                          chaotic (and less enjoyable) game as we all scrambled to discard cards and
                          because we couldn't get characters and fleets into our hands we were often
                          sitting on large amounts of unused influence in the draw round. I believe it
                          slowed the game considerably and it would have been better had it read 'the
                          player with the singlemost largest hand size...'. At least then we could
                          have 'fixed' it so that no-one lost any cards.

                          Mike
                          --
                          No virus found in this outgoing message.
                          Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                          Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.14 - Release Date: 16/4/05
                        • Bruce Mason
                          On one level I would say judge this combo however you like. If you happened to be playing in a tourney run by me though my ruling would be as follows. LtGB is
                          Message 12 of 27 , Apr 17, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On one level I would say judge this combo however you like. If you happened to
                            be playing in a tourney run by me though my ruling would be as follows.

                            LtGB is a replacement effect.
                            Conquer is the name given to bundle of effects that is shorthand for: take
                            control of an opponent's location.
                            According to the rulebook a conquered location's military is reduced to zero and
                            cannot be increased and its effect text is blanked.

                            The standard way to conquer a location is a war conflict targetting a location.
                            If you generate an effect that allows you to conquer a location and you have
                            LtGB in play then you have two choices - you can either choose to conquer the
                            location or you can choose to remove it from play and then gain a burn token.

                            If you choose to conquer it then effects triggered by that are triggered.

                            It is not the case that you conquer the location and then decide whether to
                            conquer it or burn it after conquering it.

                            There is no way to look at the rulebook or FAQ for a definitive ruling because
                            Precedence never made one and, anyway, the rulebook is badly flawed.

                            ---
                            Bruce Mason, ESRC Research Associate
                            Ethnography in the Digital Age
                            Cardiff School of Social Sciences
                            Glamorgan Building, 0.74
                            King Edward VII Ave
                            Cardiff CF10 3WT
                            UK
                            Tel: +44 2920 875123
                            masonb@...
                            http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/hyper/index.html
                            >>> mtagge@... 04/14/05 6:36 AM >>>

                            I disagree with you, but because break the process down into more tiny steps.

                            1. Declare a military conflict against a location
                            2. Have more support than opposition at resolution
                            3. Resolve the effects of the conflict

                            The way that I look at this the contingency is triggered at step 2 in my
                            thinking. Since
                            you cannot change the laws of cause and effect choosing to have it removed from
                            the game
                            at step 3 because of the agenda does not change the fact that step 2 happened.

                            Taking it out of game terms this would mean:

                            1. Deciding to invade a planet
                            2. Defeating planetary defenses and protection forces
                            3. Laying waste to the people and the planet

                            So I am saying that I view conquer as defeating the planetary defenses. Letting
                            the
                            galaxy burn does not prevent the fact that the planetary defenses were
                            destroyed.

                            But then again what do I know.

                            --- Paul <psheward@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Hi Mike,
                            >
                            > I think you're trying to use wording and what some games refer to
                            > as 'potentiality' to justify your arguement as to why these two
                            > cards should work together.
                            >
                            > The crux of the decision is the single sentence
                            >
                            > "When you conquer a location, you may remove it from the game
                            > instead."
                            >
                            > Let's look at things logically & grammatically... what is
                            > that 'instead' referring to?
                            >
                            > It can only refer to the word 'conquer'... there's nothing else in
                            > the sentence that it can possibly relate to. Agreed?
                            >
                            > So the sentence can be alternativly written as...
                            >
                            > A. Either Conquer the Location
                            > B. OR Remove it from the game.
                            >
                            > Note, this doesn't say
                            >
                            > Either Conquer the Location
                            > OR Conquer it and then remove it from the game
                            >
                            > The two statements are mutually exclusive.
                            >
                            > So If you choose A. the contingency triggers but you don't get a
                            > burn token
                            > If you choose B. the contingency does not trigger but you get a burn
                            > token and a fried planet instead.
                            >
                            > Also, just for a lark, the dictionary definition of 'Conquer' is...
                            >
                            > To gain or acquire by force; to take possession of by violent means;
                            > to gain dominion over; to subdue by physical means; to reduce; to
                            > overcome by force of arms; to cause to yield; to vanquish.
                            >
                            > Let the Galaxy Burn isn't about conquest, it's about a scorched
                            > earth policy.
                            >
                            > So, in a nutshell... no, they don't work with each other.
                            >
                            > ta da! :)
                            >
                            > Paul S.
                            > Pumpin Ain't Easy
                            >
                            > P.S. As for interpreting the designer's intent... I guess Bruce is
                            > the best guy to do that, being one of the 'designers, playtesters
                            > and chief bottle washer'
                            >
                            > Because Bruce said so! :)



                            __________________________________
                            Do you Yahoo!?
                            Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
                            http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


                            Babylon 5 CCG Community E-list.
                            Keep it fun, keep it friendly, enjoy.
                            If you have problems with the list contact me at jaxb5ranger@....

                            Also, check out www.epsilonhex.com for more information about the game!

                            To unsubscribe email:
                            b5ccglist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                          • Michael English
                            ... Fair enough. (But not that I would ever play Let The Galaxy Burn in a tournament - it would be a good way to come last even allowing the combo with Age Of
                            Message 13 of 27 , Apr 22, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > On one level I would say judge this combo however you like. If you
                              > happened to
                              > be playing in a tourney run by me though my ruling would be as follows.
                              >

                              Fair enough. (But not that I would ever play Let The Galaxy Burn in a
                              tournament - it would be a good way to come last even allowing the combo
                              with Age Of Conquest).

                              > LtGB is a replacement effect.
                              > Conquer is the name given to bundle of effects that is shorthand for: take
                              > control of an opponent's location.
                              > According to the rulebook a conquered location's military is reduced to
                              > zero and
                              > cannot be increased and its effect text is blanked.
                              >
                              > The standard way to conquer a location is a war conflict targetting a
                              > location.
                              > If you generate an effect that allows you to conquer a location and you
                              > have
                              > LtGB in play then you have two choices - you can either choose to conquer
                              > the
                              > location or you can choose to remove it from play and then gain a burn
                              > token.
                              >
                              > If you choose to conquer it then effects triggered by that are triggered.
                              >

                              I'm fully in agreement up to this point.

                              > It is not the case that you conquer the location and then decide whether
                              > to
                              > conquer it or burn it after conquering it.
                              >

                              There is a problem of logic here which is akin to the "What happens when you
                              go back in time and kill your own grandfather?" paradox.

                              What is it that actually triggers the player to make the choice to conquer
                              the location or burn it? It has to be Conquering the location. If you say
                              "but the player made the choice to burn the location instead", then he
                              couldn't have made the choice because the location was burnt but not
                              conquered." The paradox can't be resolved by the Replacement Effect that
                              you are trying to use, without introduing timing. i.e.

                              1. A conquer effect is generated such as by winning a war conflict.
                              2. Let the Galaxy Burn triggers the player choice to conquer or burn.
                              3. The player chooses to Burn (which means the location is not conquered).

                              Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I understand you interpret the
                              situation. And I actually fully agree with it so far.

                              Now we know from the rule book that if a Contingency is triggered,
                              everything stops until it is resolved. Age of Conquest would therefore
                              trigger and resolve between Steps 1 and 2. It could not be triggered after
                              step three for two reasons: the window of opportunity for triggering the
                              contingency is past, and the location is not Conquered. Note that the
                              former reason applies regardless of the choice the player makes regarding
                              Let The Galaxy Burn, once you start to resolve LTGB the opportunity to
                              reveal Age Of Conquest is passed.

                              A reading of the text of a few contingencies shows that they are
                              specifically worded to resolve immediately the trigger occurs, not at some
                              arbitrary later point when the trigger may still be in existence. A good
                              example is Something Always Happens (Target a Techno-mage. Reveal at
                              resolution of a conflict and rotate the target to have him support or oppose
                              the conflict). This contingency does not make sense if you can reveal it at
                              any point during conflict resolution. It has to be revelaed and resolved at
                              the start of conflict resolution i.e. as soon as the trigger occurs.

                              I don't pretend to be an expert in replacement effects, but my limited
                              experience of these in other games is that player choice is not involved.
                              The text is typically: "If something happens, do something else instead" so
                              the replacement always happens - in this case timing is not an issue and the
                              effect is immediate as you stated in a previous post. I would even agree
                              that if Let The Galaxy Burn said "When you conquer a location, remove it
                              from the game instead" this would leave no window in which a Contingency
                              could trigger. The choice introduces timing and Contingencies always
                              resolve first.

                              > There is no way to look at the rulebook or FAQ for a definitive ruling
                              > because
                              > Precedence never made one and, anyway, the rulebook is badly flawed.

                              Perhaps a little harsh. It certainly isn't perfect, but I can think of ones
                              a lot worse.

                              So are you saying that the rule book is wrong and that Contingencies don't
                              resolve before anything else? This would be extremely far reaching and
                              would have far more consequences to the game than allowing the Age Of
                              Conquest / Let The Galaxy Burn combo (which will have no impact at all in my
                              opinion in that LTGB is still useless). You would also need to replace the
                              existing timing rule with another, because a timing rule for contingencies
                              is definitely required.

                              Even if the rules stated that replacement effects happen before
                              contingencies (i.e. You can't trigger Something Always Happens on a conflict
                              on which Prolonged Talks has been played) - and I am certainly in favour of
                              this - then the Let The Galaxy Burn / Age Of Conquest combo still works
                              because the replacement effect occurs as a result of the choice at the end
                              of Step 2, but the contingency resolves before Step 2 begins.

                              In the end my play group will, I'm sure, adopt the general concensus on this
                              issue, but I would prefer if the ruling didn't generate any more
                              inconsitencies or special cases, there are already enough of those.
                              Certainly messing about with Contingency timing (which is something that
                              works quite well in my opinion) does not seem a good way to go, especially
                              regarding a combo of dubious utility.

                              Michael English

                              >
                              > ---
                              > Bruce Mason, ESRC Research Associate
                              > Ethnography in the Digital Age
                              > Cardiff School of Social Sciences
                              > Glamorgan Building, 0.74
                              > King Edward VII Ave
                              > Cardiff CF10 3WT
                              > UK
                              > Tel: +44 2920 875123
                              > masonb@...
                              > http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/hyper/index.html
                              >>>> mtagge@... 04/14/05 6:36 AM >>>
                              >
                              > I disagree with you, but because break the process down into more tiny
                              > steps.
                              >
                              > 1. Declare a military conflict against a location
                              > 2. Have more support than opposition at resolution
                              > 3. Resolve the effects of the conflict
                              >
                              > The way that I look at this the contingency is triggered at step 2 in my
                              > thinking. Since
                              > you cannot change the laws of cause and effect choosing to have it removed
                              > from
                              > the game
                              > at step 3 because of the agenda does not change the fact that step 2
                              > happened.
                              >
                              > Taking it out of game terms this would mean:
                              >
                              > 1. Deciding to invade a planet
                              > 2. Defeating planetary defenses and protection forces
                              > 3. Laying waste to the people and the planet
                              >
                              > So I am saying that I view conquer as defeating the planetary defenses.
                              > Letting
                              > the
                              > galaxy burn does not prevent the fact that the planetary defenses were
                              > destroyed.
                              >
                              > But then again what do I know.
                              >
                              > --- Paul <psheward@...> wrote:
                              >>
                              >> Hi Mike,
                              >>
                              >> I think you're trying to use wording and what some games refer to
                              >> as 'potentiality' to justify your arguement as to why these two
                              >> cards should work together.
                              >>
                              >> The crux of the decision is the single sentence
                              >>
                              >> "When you conquer a location, you may remove it from the game
                              >> instead."
                              >>
                              >> Let's look at things logically & grammatically... what is
                              >> that 'instead' referring to?
                              >>
                              >> It can only refer to the word 'conquer'... there's nothing else in
                              >> the sentence that it can possibly relate to. Agreed?
                              >>
                              >> So the sentence can be alternativly written as...
                              >>
                              >> A. Either Conquer the Location
                              >> B. OR Remove it from the game.
                              >>
                              >> Note, this doesn't say
                              >>
                              >> Either Conquer the Location
                              >> OR Conquer it and then remove it from the game
                              >>
                              >> The two statements are mutually exclusive.
                              >>
                              >> So If you choose A. the contingency triggers but you don't get a
                              >> burn token
                              >> If you choose B. the contingency does not trigger but you get a burn
                              >> token and a fried planet instead.
                              >>
                              >> Also, just for a lark, the dictionary definition of 'Conquer' is...
                              >>
                              >> To gain or acquire by force; to take possession of by violent means;
                              >> to gain dominion over; to subdue by physical means; to reduce; to
                              >> overcome by force of arms; to cause to yield; to vanquish.
                              >>
                              >> Let the Galaxy Burn isn't about conquest, it's about a scorched
                              >> earth policy.
                              >>
                              >> So, in a nutshell... no, they don't work with each other.
                              >>
                              >> ta da! :)
                              >>
                              >> Paul S.
                              >> Pumpin Ain't Easy
                              >>
                              >> P.S. As for interpreting the designer's intent... I guess Bruce is
                              >> the best guy to do that, being one of the 'designers, playtesters
                              >> and chief bottle washer'
                              >>
                              >> Because Bruce said so! :)
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > __________________________________
                              > Do you Yahoo!?
                              > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
                              > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
                              >
                              >
                              > Babylon 5 CCG Community E-list.
                              > Keep it fun, keep it friendly, enjoy.
                              > If you have problems with the list contact me at jaxb5ranger@....
                              >
                              > Also, check out www.epsilonhex.com for more information about the game!
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe email:
                              > b5ccglist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Babylon 5 CCG Community E-list.
                              > Keep it fun, keep it friendly, enjoy.
                              > If you have problems with the list contact me at jaxb5ranger@....
                              >
                              > Also, check out www.epsilonhex.com for more information about the game!
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe email:
                              > b5ccglist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Paul
                              Michael, Perhaps you can explain something to us, because you seem to be interpreting rules in some cases but ignoring them in others. OK, so we have a few
                              Message 14 of 27 , Apr 23, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Michael,

                                Perhaps you can explain something to us, because you seem to be
                                interpreting 'rules' in some cases but ignoring them in others.

                                OK, so we have a few 'rules' in play here and lets agree that you
                                cannot 'break rules' and that you need to do as the 'rules' instruct
                                you to. (Always remembering that card text over-rides rule book)

                                Age of Conquest triggers when a location is conquered (specifically
                                worded as such).

                                Can't break that 'rule'.

                                LtGB reads "When you conquer a location you may remove it from the
                                game instead".

                                Can't break that 'rule' either.

                                My question is this, by your own breakdown, you state that AoC
                                triggers immediately after the conflict resolves (logically it
                                should happen when you place the location into your faction, the
                                last step of 'conquering' but we'll let that one ride for now).

                                OK, So you HAVE conquered the location so AoC triggers.... remember,
                                we said above.. we can't break that rule.

                                Now we look at our LtGB... this says that we can conquer or we can
                                burn (instead of conquering, you cannot read the sentence any other
                                way). But, we've already conquered and we CAN'T break that rule or
                                go back in time and unconquer it (Because by your definition, the
                                fact that the location was conquered was determined in the conflict
                                phase). So LtGB can never work with AoC, by your interpretation -
                                you can never gain burn tokens as you have always conquered the
                                location and have negated the option to burn it.

                                Timing issues, replacement effects, whatever... none of these things
                                allow you to break the rules and as is well known, card text always
                                over-rides the rule book.

                                So if you're convinced that 'conquering' is an automatic effect of
                                the conflict resolving then LtGB can never, ever work with AoC in a
                                combo. In fact LtGB can never, ever work, full stop. You always
                                conquer the location, so you can never do anything else instead.

                                So, can you please explain how, using your reasoning, LtGB can ever
                                be used?

                                thank you

                                Paul S.
                                Pumpin In Exile

                                --- In b5ccglist@yahoogroups.com, "Michael English"
                                <michael.english@m...> wrote:
                                > I don't pretend to be an expert in replacement effects, but my
                                limited
                                > experience of these in other games is that player choice is not
                                involved.
                                > The text is typically: "If something happens, do something else
                                instead" so
                                > the replacement always happens - in this case timing is not an
                                issue and the
                                > effect is immediate as you stated in a previous post. I would
                                even agree
                                > that if Let The Galaxy Burn said "When you conquer a location,
                                remove it
                                > from the game instead" this would leave no window in which a
                                Contingency
                                > could trigger. The choice introduces timing and Contingencies
                                always
                                > resolve first.
                              • admin
                                I think that the wording on the card When you conquer a location, you may remove it from the game instead. should help give some question and possibly
                                Message 15 of 27 , Apr 23, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I think that the wording on the card

                                  "When you conquer a location, you may remove it from the game instead."

                                  should help give some question and possibly answer.
                                  instead of what?

                                  I would say it is instead of putting it in your supporting row (the normal
                                  result of conquering)

                                  I would play it that it is conquered and then rather than placing it in my
                                  supporting row as a conquered location I choose (note the card says MAY not
                                  MUST) to remove the location from the game.

                                  In this way it seems simple. I think everyone is getting bogged down as what
                                  the instead means, instead of conquering, or instead of placing the
                                  conquered location in your supporting row.

                                  Mike.

                                  --
                                  No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                  Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                                  Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005
                                • Paul
                                  Once again though, yoou have decided what the card should say rather than just do what the card does say. LtGB doesn t read, When you conquer a location
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Apr 23, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Once again though, yoou have decided what the card 'should' say
                                    rather than just do what the card 'does' say.

                                    LtGB doesn't read, "When you conquer a location you may either
                                    transfer that location to your faction or you may remove it from the
                                    game instead".

                                    The problem is, is that we can all, decide what our interpretation
                                    of ANY card is when we decide it is to our benefit rather than
                                    follow the literal reading of the card. And BTW this is exactly the
                                    stand that any of the PPub guys took at any of the major events...
                                    interpret the card literally.

                                    In the absence of eny errata, the 'instead' refers to conquering, it
                                    simply, grammatically and logical cannot refer to anything else.

                                    As it stands and if Michael's logic is upheld then LtGB never
                                    works... ever.

                                    So either Michael's logic about when the contingency triggers and
                                    what constitutes the mechanic of conquering is wrong

                                    OR

                                    LtGB needs to be errata'd

                                    OR

                                    We're all mad and it really doesn't matter

                                    Paul S.
                                    Pumpin In Exile

                                    --- In b5ccglist@yahoogroups.com, "admin" <mpforste@m...> wrote:
                                    > I think that the wording on the card
                                    >
                                    > "When you conquer a location, you may remove it from the game
                                    instead."
                                    >
                                    > should help give some question and possibly answer.
                                    > instead of what?
                                    >
                                    > I would say it is instead of putting it in your supporting row
                                    (the normal
                                    > result of conquering)
                                    >
                                    > I would play it that it is conquered and then rather than placing
                                    it in my
                                    > supporting row as a conquered location I choose (note the card
                                    says MAY not
                                    > MUST) to remove the location from the game.
                                    >
                                    > In this way it seems simple. I think everyone is getting bogged
                                    down as what
                                    > the instead means, instead of conquering, or instead of placing the
                                    > conquered location in your supporting row.
                                    >
                                    > Mike.
                                    >
                                    > --
                                    > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                    > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                                    > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date:
                                    21/04/2005
                                  • Michael English
                                    ... No problem. ... Actually according to this approach neither Let The Galaxy Burn nor Age Of Conquest can ever work at all because they both say When you
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Apr 24, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > Michael,
                                      >
                                      > Perhaps you can explain something to us, because you seem to be
                                      > interpreting 'rules' in some cases but ignoring them in others.
                                      >

                                      No problem.

                                      > OK, so we have a few 'rules' in play here and lets agree that you
                                      > cannot 'break rules' and that you need to do as the 'rules' instruct
                                      > you to. (Always remembering that card text over-rides rule book)
                                      >
                                      > Age of Conquest triggers when a location is conquered (specifically
                                      > worded as such).
                                      >
                                      > Can't break that 'rule'.
                                      >
                                      > LtGB reads "When you conquer a location you may remove it from the
                                      > game instead".
                                      >
                                      > Can't break that 'rule' either.
                                      >
                                      > My question is this, by your own breakdown, you state that AoC
                                      > triggers immediately after the conflict resolves (logically it
                                      > should happen when you place the location into your faction, the
                                      > last step of 'conquering' but we'll let that one ride for now).
                                      >
                                      > OK, So you HAVE conquered the location so AoC triggers.... remember,
                                      > we said above.. we can't break that rule.
                                      >
                                      > Now we look at our LtGB... this says that we can conquer or we can
                                      > burn (instead of conquering, you cannot read the sentence any other
                                      > way). But, we've already conquered and we CAN'T break that rule or
                                      > go back in time and unconquer it (Because by your definition, the
                                      > fact that the location was conquered was determined in the conflict
                                      > phase). So LtGB can never work with AoC, by your interpretation -
                                      > you can never gain burn tokens as you have always conquered the
                                      > location and have negated the option to burn it.
                                      >
                                      > Timing issues, replacement effects, whatever... none of these things
                                      > allow you to break the rules and as is well known, card text always
                                      > over-rides the rule book.
                                      >
                                      > So if you're convinced that 'conquering' is an automatic effect of
                                      > the conflict resolving then LtGB can never, ever work with AoC in a
                                      > combo. In fact LtGB can never, ever work, full stop. You always
                                      > conquer the location, so you can never do anything else instead.
                                      >
                                      > So, can you please explain how, using your reasoning, LtGB can ever
                                      > be used?

                                      Actually according to this approach neither Let The Galaxy Burn nor Age Of
                                      Conquest can ever work at all because they both say "When you conquer a
                                      location". There is no way in B5 you can conquer a location, although you
                                      can capture one. So we have already broken the "rules" by interpreting
                                      Conquer as meaning Capture, which most reasonable people would agree with
                                      (though I have played with a few people who would disallow this).

                                      Let's put that aside then and pretend that Let The Galaxy Burn and Age of
                                      Conquest say "When you capture a location"

                                      This is what happens:

                                      1. You win a war conflict targeting a location generating a capture effect.

                                      2. A timing conflict arises because Age Of Conquest says "When you capture
                                      a location gain 2 influence" and Let The Galaxy Burn says "When you capture
                                      a location choose". So which happens first the gain of 2 influence or the
                                      choosing? The rule book states that the Contingency goes off first so you
                                      get the two influence. Then you get to make the choice. This can be to
                                      either conquer the location or burn it.

                                      So, yes, Let The Galaxy Burn can be used to burn locations after Age Of
                                      Conquest.

                                      You are of course quite correct in that technically Age Of Conquest and the
                                      choice part of Let The Galaxy Burn both trigger after the location is placed
                                      in your supporting row.

                                      This brings us on to a third way of interpreting Let The Galaxy Burn which
                                      has the same net result as above:

                                      1. You conquer a location

                                      2. You choose to either conquer it (i.e. put it into your supporting row,
                                      reduce it's military to zero etc - it doesn't matter that this has already
                                      happened) or burn it instead.

                                      In other words there are two Conquers on Let The Galaxy Burn. The first is
                                      the trigger for the choice. The second is one of the choices. So if you
                                      choose to conquer a location using LTGB you conquer it twice, not that the
                                      second conquest would have any effect, other than being a trigger for a
                                      second Age Of Exploration. (And this time the chance to burn is passed so
                                      you can't burn the location after the second Contingency triggers).

                                      Hope that helps.

                                      Michael English
                                    • Bruce Mason
                                      Well this is all getting far too convoluted. There are several issues intertwined here and they are to do with unclear rules and lack of card templating. 1.
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Apr 24, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Well this is all getting far too convoluted. There are several issues
                                        intertwined here and they are to do with unclear rules and lack of card
                                        templating.

                                        1. Conquer/capture. Are supposed to be synonymous. Bad rulebook writing means
                                        that sometimes one term is used, sometimes another.

                                        2. Contingencies are triggered effects. Contingencies are not 'faster' than
                                        other triggered effects (and I have never seen anything that indicates
                                        otherwise). Thus if there is a timing dispute (i.e. more than one thing is
                                        triggered at the same time) the disputed effects are resolved in initiative
                                        order as with any timing dispute.

                                        3. Let the Galaxy Burn. This is a 'replacement effect' which says to do X
                                        instead of Y.* The trigger for LtGB is NOT conquering the location, it is
                                        triggered by the succesful resolution of an effect that would normally let you
                                        conquer a location.

                                        4. Age of Conquest. This is triggered by successfully conquering a location.

                                        Basically, the trigger for LtGB occurs before the trigger for Age of Conquest.
                                        This kind of timing interaction is pretty normally in "triggered response"
                                        systems (of which games like B5, Lord of the Rings, Game of thrones) and so on
                                        are examples.**

                                        There are not "two conquers" going on here; there are two different triggers.
                                        For complete clarity, Let the Galaxy Burn should read
                                        "Whenever you would conquer a location you may do X instead."
                                        Age of Conquest then should read
                                        "Reveal when you conquer a location..."

                                        Thus AoC triggers once you have successfully conquered a location. LtGB triggers
                                        when you have the option to conquer a location. Basically there is no timing
                                        dispute here but bad card writing makes it look like there might be.

                                        There's no point in appealing to the rulebook because it was written before
                                        people realised the problems in timing. Same with the rulings document. By the
                                        time Wheel of Fire was released, Precedence's rulings teams and playtesting
                                        organisation were basically dysfunctional. I should know, I was a playtester. I
                                        doubt if my group played more than 6 games as playtesters for this set. The
                                        playtest list was out of control with almost no one (bar a couple of doughty
                                        souls) actually reporting on playtest games. In fact, after WoF I offered to
                                        resign from the playtest list because my group could no longer actually playtest
                                        but was asked to stay on. By this time, the only reason the game wasn't
                                        imploding in terms of rules was because it was no longer being played seriously
                                        at tournament level so no one was too bothered.

                                        Bruce (footnotes follow)

                                        *This terminology comes from Mike Hummel and Kevin Tewart, the design team for
                                        B5 at this time. They now work for UDE and have defined replacement effects in
                                        this way for VS:CCG. Much of the comprehesive rulesbook for VS reflects the
                                        lessons they learned on B5).

                                        ** Triggered response timing was popular for a few years because people thought
                                        it was simpler than Magic's stack. ironically, newer games are reverting to the
                                        stack system because triggered response timing is fiendishly difficult. All it
                                        takes is a minor slip in a card's wording and you can bring the whole system
                                        crashing down.

                                        Some other instances of "replacement effects"
                                        Sanctuary Aftermath Won Military Participant
                                        ... Each point of damage your ambassador suffers removes one
                                        sanctuary token instead of damaging your ambassador.

                                        (Note that this does not mean that your ambassador is damaged and then
                                        undamaged)

                                        Genius Loci Character Neutral
                                        Techno-mage. Legacy. ... If Genius Loci is discarded from play, he is removed
                                        from the game instead.

                                        Zathras
                                        ...If that player gains any Influence during the rest of the Action round, you
                                        gain the Influence instead.

                                        Gaim. When Venlesh is discarded, you may apply 3 influence to place this card
                                        in its owner's hand instead. Any other player may apply 5 influence to prevent
                                        this effect.

                                        I'm not going to go on, but you get the idea. When something happens instead of
                                        something else that other thing never happens. take Zathras for example If I
                                        gain influence and Zathras is targetting me then I can't trigger other effects
                                        that are triggered by me gaining influence because I never gained influence.


                                        ---
                                        Bruce Mason, ESRC Research Associate
                                        Ethnography in the Digital Age
                                        Cardiff School of Social Sciences
                                        Glamorgan Building, 0.74
                                        King Edward VII Ave
                                        Cardiff CF10 3WT
                                        UK
                                        Tel: +44 2920 875123
                                        masonb@...
                                        http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/hyper/index.html
                                        >>> michael.english@... 04/24/05 8:53 AM >>>
                                        In other words there are two Conquers on Let The Galaxy Burn. The first is
                                        the trigger for the choice. The second is one of the choices. So if you
                                        choose to conquer a location using LTGB you conquer it twice, not that the
                                        second conquest would have any effect, other than being a trigger for a
                                        second Age Of Exploration. (And this time the chance to burn is passed so
                                        you can't burn the location after the second Contingency triggers).
                                      • unique_meuk
                                        Wow, having read all the posts about these two cards and how they interact, especially with regard to wording on them, I just wondered , why not just errata
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Apr 24, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Wow, having read all the posts about these two cards and how they
                                          interact, especially with regard to wording on them, I just
                                          wondered , why not just errata LtGB, to have the card say what it is
                                          meant to say, rather then what it currently says.

                                          If we can agree on this, then it might allow for simpler games (not
                                          that I have seen this come up yet or these two cards either). Also
                                          why not add glossary terms to explain what conquer and capture mean.

                                          below are my attempts,

                                          Ben

                                          For example:
                                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Let the Galaxy Burn
                                          Common Drakh Agenda
                                          Cannot be blanked or discarded. You may sponsor racial locations
                                          into any faction of that race at printed cost. Rotate this card as
                                          an action to declare war on a race with whom you have a tension of
                                          5.

                                          When your faction is about to conquer a location, you may remove the
                                          location from the game instead of conquering it.

                                          Each time a location controlled by another player is discarded or
                                          removed from play, except by replacement, place a Burn Token on this
                                          card. If this card has 5 Burn Tokens, you score a Major Victory this
                                          turn.
                                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Capture:
                                          Replace this word with conquer, and hopefully all will become clear.
                                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Conquer:
                                          When a player gains control (normally by winning a war conflict) of
                                          location he did not control. The effect of conquering a location
                                          (normally) depends on whether it is loyal to your race or not,
                                          though some cards will have text that takes precedence over these
                                          rules.

                                          If you a conquer a location that is not loyal to your race then its
                                          effect text is blanked while it is conquered by you, all attached
                                          cards and contingencies are discarded, the location is moved to your
                                          faction and no player has control of it.

                                          If you conquer a location that is loyal to your race (e.g. it had
                                          been conquered by another player earlier or you are at war with a
                                          faction of your own race) all attached cards and contingencies are
                                          discarded, the location joins your faction and you gain control of
                                          it.
                                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        • Michael Tagge
                                          ... From where I am sitting at the rules aren t unclear ... This is one point where I have to disagree with you. All your insightful understanding of the
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Apr 24, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- Bruce Mason <masonb@...> wrote:

                                            > Well this is all getting far too convoluted. There are several issues
                                            > intertwined here and they are to do with unclear rules and lack of card
                                            > templating.

                                            From where I am sitting at the rules aren't unclear

                                            > 1. Conquer/capture. Are supposed to be synonymous. Bad rulebook writing means
                                            > that sometimes one term is used, sometimes another.
                                            >
                                            > 2. Contingencies are triggered effects. Contingencies are not 'faster' than
                                            > other triggered effects (and I have never seen anything that indicates
                                            > otherwise). Thus if there is a timing dispute (i.e. more than one thing is
                                            > triggered at the same time) the disputed effects are resolved in initiative
                                            > order as with any timing dispute.

                                            This is one point where I have to disagree with you. All your insightful understanding
                                            of the backroom mechanics and wishes of the designers of the game will never sway me from
                                            reading the rulebook. The writers of the American Constitution had several things in
                                            mind drafting their document, but anyone with a modicum of American History knows that we
                                            follow the words of the Constitution, not the intent of the drafters. We do this because
                                            it is fair for everyone to be working from the same documents without a few having
                                            special "insight" and their opinions having more weight. My rulebook clearly states that
                                            contingencies have special timing (when the applicable event is triggered) and makes no
                                            mention of other things having anything than regular timing. It would not be fair for
                                            me, and for all the people who play the game based on that rulebook who do not belong to
                                            this listserv to be hit by what might be construed as arbitrary rulings from high.
                                            Bruce, I love what you have done for the game and how much you have contributed to the
                                            group, but designer and playtester intent does not trump my rulebook or the words on my
                                            card.

                                            > 3. Let the Galaxy Burn. This is a 'replacement effect' which says to do X
                                            > instead of Y.* The trigger for LtGB is NOT conquering the location, it is
                                            > triggered by the succesful resolution of an effect that would normally let you
                                            > conquer a location.
                                            >
                                            > 4. Age of Conquest. This is triggered by successfully conquering a location.
                                            >
                                            > Basically, the trigger for LtGB occurs before the trigger for Age of Conquest.
                                            > This kind of timing interaction is pretty normally in "triggered response"
                                            > systems (of which games like B5, Lord of the Rings, Game of thrones) and so on
                                            > are examples.**

                                            This is a point of contention between our two schools of though. For me it is the same
                                            trigger (a won war conflict targeting a location), and contingencies have higher
                                            precedence according to the rulebook. I would speculate that the reason for higher
                                            precedence is because contingencies are the only cards that break the initiative order
                                            and introduce timing, and that if there were more cards that broke timing there would be
                                            clearer rules, but it is just that--speculation. I cannot use speculation because my
                                            opponents might come to a different conclusion, so I have to follow the rulebook as
                                            closely as I can.

                                            > There are not "two conquers" going on here; there are two different triggers.
                                            > For complete clarity, Let the Galaxy Burn should read
                                            > "Whenever you would conquer a location you may do X instead."
                                            > Age of Conquest then should read
                                            > "Reveal when you conquer a location..."

                                            Here is where I am saying you cannot clarify a card based on intent. Now if people
                                            wanted to play with a house rule that says that contingencies do not behave like the
                                            rulebook suggests, or with an errata on this card they are more than welcome to, and it
                                            could even be a stipulation for a tournament. But I have to respectfully disagree with
                                            you.

                                            > Thus AoC triggers once you have successfully conquered a location. LtGB triggers
                                            > when you have the option to conquer a location. Basically there is no timing
                                            > dispute here but bad card writing makes it look like there might be.
                                            >
                                            > There's no point in appealing to the rulebook because it was written before
                                            > people realised the problems in timing. Same with the rulings document. By the
                                            > time Wheel of Fire was released, Precedence's rulings teams and playtesting
                                            > organisation were basically dysfunctional. I should know, I was a playtester. I
                                            > doubt if my group played more than 6 games as playtesters for this set. The
                                            > playtest list was out of control with almost no one (bar a couple of doughty
                                            > souls) actually reporting on playtest games. In fact, after WoF I offered to
                                            > resign from the playtest list because my group could no longer actually playtest
                                            > but was asked to stay on. By this time, the only reason the game wasn't
                                            > imploding in terms of rules was because it was no longer being played seriously
                                            > at tournament level so no one was too bothered.

                                            And here you repeat your assumption that intent trumps written rules. Written rules are
                                            all that we, the players have to appeal to. The fact that the game company did not
                                            rewrite the rulebook when their intent changed might be unfortunate, but it is what we
                                            have to work with.

                                            On a constructive note, if you were willing to rewrite the rules into a kind of home
                                            rules ('Bruce's unofficial rulebook' v2.5), even making revisions as issues arise,
                                            incorporating all the designer's intent you would be able to change the timing mechanic
                                            from the rulebook. Then groups could decide to play under those rules, and it could even
                                            significantly increase many groups' enjoyment of the game.


                                            __________________________________________________
                                            Do You Yahoo!?
                                            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                            http://mail.yahoo.com
                                          • Michael English
                                            ... Actually I think the rules are quite clear on this issue, its the card templating that s the problem here. ... Page 33 of the Psi Corps Rule Book under
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Apr 25, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              > Well this is all getting far too convoluted. There are several issues
                                              > intertwined here and they are to do with unclear rules and lack of card
                                              > templating.
                                              >

                                              Actually I think the rules are quite clear on this issue, its the card
                                              templating that's the problem here.

                                              > 1. Conquer/capture. Are supposed to be synonymous. Bad rulebook writing
                                              > means
                                              > that sometimes one term is used, sometimes another.
                                              >
                                              > 2. Contingencies are triggered effects. Contingencies are not 'faster'
                                              > than
                                              > other triggered effects (and I have never seen anything that indicates
                                              > otherwise). Thus if there is a timing dispute (i.e. more than one thing is
                                              > triggered at the same time) the disputed effects are resolved in
                                              > initiative
                                              > order as with any timing dispute.

                                              Page 33 of the Psi Corps Rule Book under Contingencies explains that as soon
                                              as a Contingency is triggered, play stops whilst the Contingency is
                                              resolved. So Contingencies are faster than other triggered effects,
                                              including triggered player choices. Indeed the rules have to work this way
                                              otherwise contingencies like Something Always Happens won't work.

                                              The initiative order ruling for timing (which I believe comes under play of
                                              aftermaths but is generalised for all other cases where the priority of
                                              effects must be determined - I can't remember whether this is in the
                                              rulebook or whether its a subsequent ruling) is used for determining which
                                              contingency goes off first in a case where two or more contingencies can be
                                              triggered.

                                              Note that even if Contingencies didn't go off first, the initiative order
                                              rule would still allow Age Of Conquest to work with Let The Galaxy Burn
                                              because the timing priority would be the same for both, so it then becomes
                                              the player choice as to whether to trigger Age Of Conquest first or whether
                                              to make the choice in Let The Galaxy Burn first. The replacement effect is
                                              one of the two possible outcomes of the choice so can't happen till after
                                              the choice is made.

                                              >
                                              > 3. Let the Galaxy Burn. This is a 'replacement effect' which says to do X
                                              > instead of Y.* The trigger for LtGB is NOT conquering the location, it is
                                              > triggered by the succesful resolution of an effect that would normally let
                                              > you
                                              > conquer a location.

                                              No. The replacement effect is actually triggered by a specific player
                                              choice. The object of the "When you conquer a location" is a player choice,
                                              not a replacement effect.

                                              Your interpretation is based on a different card wording, not the actual
                                              text of LTGB.

                                              >
                                              > 4. Age of Conquest. This is triggered by successfully conquering a
                                              > location.
                                              >
                                              > Basically, the trigger for LtGB occurs before the trigger for Age of
                                              > Conquest.

                                              Both cards actually start "When you conquer a location..." the trigger part
                                              is identical. The only issue would be if LTGB said: "When you Conquer a
                                              location remove it from play instead". You would then have to decide
                                              whether a replacement effect had priority over a contingency. Some games
                                              have specific rules to say that Replacement Effects have priority in such
                                              cases. B5 doesn't. My own opinion is that there would be no opportunity
                                              for triggering a contingency in this case because there is no timing at all
                                              for a replacement effect where there is no choice, it is simply a rule
                                              change introduced by the card.

                                              > This kind of timing interaction is pretty normally in "triggered response"
                                              > systems (of which games like B5, Lord of the Rings, Game of thrones) and
                                              > so on
                                              > are examples.**

                                              Well B5 rules and rulings don't mention replacement effects as you have
                                              already said. I don't see that it's necessary to refer to other games when
                                              the B5 rules handle the situation.

                                              >
                                              > There are not "two conquers" going on here; there are two different
                                              > triggers.
                                              > For complete clarity, Let the Galaxy Burn should read
                                              > "Whenever you would conquer a location you may do X instead."
                                              > Age of Conquest then should read
                                              > "Reveal when you conquer a location..."

                                              So if you really want to change the way LTGB works with AOC, errata the
                                              card, otherwise we should use the card text as written. I'm sure there are
                                              plenty of other examples where people would prefer a change to the card text
                                              (probably about half the cards in B5), but are stuck with using the card as
                                              printed.

                                              >
                                              > Thus AoC triggers once you have successfully conquered a location. LtGB
                                              > triggers
                                              > when you have the option to conquer a location. Basically there is no
                                              > timing
                                              > dispute here but bad card writing makes it look like there might be.

                                              So shouldn't we go with what the card actually says rather than what we
                                              would like it to say. The alternative is errata, which seems to me totally
                                              unnecessary in this case because the combo is not over powered. There are
                                              potentially similar issues with the text on Venlesh and G'Dok, but I've not
                                              spotted anything abusive. (Or have I missed somthing with G'Dok, who is
                                              from the Vorlons set? - I certainly accept that Bruce meant him to work
                                              without allowing contingency triggers between the attack on a Narn character
                                              being announced and his text kicking in.)

                                              >
                                              > There's no point in appealing to the rulebook because it was written
                                              > before
                                              > people realised the problems in timing. Same with the rulings document. By
                                              > the
                                              > time Wheel of Fire was released, Precedence's rulings teams and
                                              > playtesting
                                              > organisation were basically dysfunctional. I should know, I was a
                                              > playtester. I
                                              > doubt if my group played more than 6 games as playtesters for this set.
                                              > The
                                              > playtest list was out of control with almost no one (bar a couple of
                                              > doughty
                                              > souls) actually reporting on playtest games. In fact, after WoF I offered
                                              > to
                                              > resign from the playtest list because my group could no longer actually
                                              > playtest
                                              > but was asked to stay on. By this time, the only reason the game wasn't
                                              > imploding in terms of rules was because it was no longer being played
                                              > seriously
                                              > at tournament level so no one was too bothered.
                                              >

                                              Unfortunately the rulebook is all we have. If we don't go to the rulebook
                                              where do we go? Making up the rules as we go along doesn't seem to be a
                                              good idea to me.

                                              > Bruce (footnotes follow)
                                              >
                                              > *This terminology comes from Mike Hummel and Kevin Tewart, the design team
                                              > for
                                              > B5 at this time. They now work for UDE and have defined replacement
                                              > effects in
                                              > this way for VS:CCG. Much of the comprehesive rulesbook for VS reflects
                                              > the
                                              > lessons they learned on B5).

                                              Interesting that perhaps they did mean LTGB to work in the way Bruce
                                              suggests (or maybe not). However, there are probably many cards that
                                              actually work differently from the way the designers intended. How can the
                                              ordinairy player tell these things? Unfortunately we are stuck with the
                                              text as printed.

                                              >
                                              > ** Triggered response timing was popular for a few years because people
                                              > thought
                                              > it was simpler than Magic's stack. ironically, newer games are reverting
                                              > to the
                                              > stack system because triggered response timing is fiendishly difficult.
                                              > All it
                                              > takes is a minor slip in a card's wording and you can bring the whole
                                              > system
                                              > crashing down.

                                              Yes. This is perhaps why use of replacement effects in a triggered response
                                              system should probably be avoided.

                                              >
                                              > Some other instances of "replacement effects"
                                              > Sanctuary Aftermath Won Military Participant
                                              > ... Each point of damage your ambassador suffers removes one
                                              > sanctuary token instead of damaging your ambassador.
                                              >
                                              > (Note that this does not mean that your ambassador is damaged and then
                                              > undamaged)
                                              >
                                              > Genius Loci Character Neutral
                                              > Techno-mage. Legacy. ... If Genius Loci is discarded from play, he is
                                              > removed
                                              > from the game instead.
                                              >
                                              > Zathras
                                              > ...If that player gains any Influence during the rest of the Action round,
                                              > you
                                              > gain the Influence instead.
                                              >
                                              > Gaim. When Venlesh is discarded, you may apply 3 influence to place this
                                              > card
                                              > in its owner's hand instead. Any other player may apply 5 influence to
                                              > prevent
                                              > this effect.
                                              >
                                              > I'm not going to go on, but you get the idea. When something happens
                                              > instead of
                                              > something else that other thing never happens. take Zathras for example If
                                              > I
                                              > gain influence and Zathras is targetting me then I can't trigger other
                                              > effects
                                              > that are triggered by me gaining influence because I never gained
                                              > influence.
                                              >

                                              This is all okay where there is no player choice involved (altough I can see
                                              arguments to the contrary). It is a simple rule change introduced by the
                                              card. Where there is a choice, (Venlesh) then timing becomes necessary (at
                                              least under current B5 rules) and there is the opportunity to trigger
                                              contingencies.

                                              To make "choices where one of the options is a replacement effect" work in
                                              the way you suggest either requires errata on the affected cards or the
                                              addition of a rule which B5 currently doesn't have.

                                              Michael English
                                            • Paul
                                              ... triggered) and makes no ... would not be fair for ... rulebook who do not belong to ... rulings from high. ... have contributed to the ... rulebook or the
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Apr 25, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In b5ccglist@yahoogroups.com, Michael Tagge <mtagge@y...> wrote:
                                                > My rulebook clearly states that
                                                > contingencies have special timing (when the applicable event is
                                                triggered) and makes no
                                                > mention of other things having anything than regular timing. It
                                                would not be fair for
                                                > me, and for all the people who play the game based on that
                                                rulebook who do not belong to
                                                > this listserv to be hit by what might be construed as arbitrary
                                                rulings from high.
                                                > Bruce, I love what you have done for the game and how much you
                                                have contributed to the
                                                > group, but designer and playtester intent does not trump my
                                                rulebook or the words on my
                                                > card.

                                                Hmmm.. guess you must have a different Rule Book to everyone else?

                                                Quote
                                                "Each contingency has a "trigger"; for example, a character
                                                contingency could be triggered when the
                                                character is attacked. Whenever the trigger condition is met, the
                                                player of the contingency may reveal it,
                                                and apply its effects. Revealing a contingency is optional, not
                                                required. This may have the effect of
                                                preventing or altering an action which is taking place (which is
                                                generally the trigger condition), providing a
                                                lasting or temporary effect, or any other effect. Read the
                                                instructions on the card and carry them out.
                                                Once the instructions on a contingency have been carried out (and
                                                its lasting effects, if any, have expired)
                                                it is placed on the discard pile."

                                                No mention here of a 'special timing', in fact no mention of the
                                                term 'timing' what-so-ever. Nothing to say which triggers first, the
                                                Contingency or the Agenda. Nowt.

                                                If you want to use the Psi Corp Rule Book as the 'B5 Bible' then you
                                                appear to have only one option.

                                                There is no mention of the term 'conquer' in the Rule Book. As such
                                                both AoC & LtGB use a term that is presently undefined. As such
                                                neither card can be legally played or it's effect text used
                                                because 'conquer' is not a recognised term (Unless of course you're
                                                accepting the 'ruling' that conquer and capture are synonyms?)

                                                If you are then, there are two timing options, which are basically
                                                up to the player - there is nothing in the rulebook which says which
                                                has to happen first.

                                                1. AoC is chosen to trigger 1st - player accepts that he has
                                                conquered the location (note, that is PAST tense, has conquered).

                                                LtGB is chosen to trigger 2nd. The Choice between conquer and burn
                                                has ALREADY been made. You conquered you cannot now go backwards and
                                                decide to burn.

                                                So, option 1 - AoC is good. LtGB cannot be used to burn


                                                2. LtGB triggers 1st. Player CHOOSES to burn rather than conquer.
                                                Card text is explicit, it says 'instead'.

                                                AoC is chosen to trigger 2nd, the location WAS NOT conquered so it
                                                cannot trigger.

                                                So, option 2 - LtGB is good, AoC does not trigger.


                                                Now this is 100% exactly by the rules as they are currently written.
                                                No interpretation, no independent ruling.... so, by the rulebook,
                                                there can be no debate.

                                                So, as I see it, you have 3 options to choose from, all which are
                                                fully supportable by the current, un-modified, un-errata'd rules...
                                                take your pick :)

                                                Paul S.
                                                Pumpin In Exile
                                                Been there, done that, finished 2nd :)
                                              • DAVID MCARTHUR
                                                Hello Everyone, Been a long time since I ve gotten in touch; with the group, long winter, need to know which agendas work best with in tandom, with what
                                                Message 23 of 27 , May 17, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hello Everyone,

                                                  Been a long time since I've gotten in touch; with the group, long
                                                  winter, need to know which agendas work best with in tandom, with what
                                                  species. Have built up six decks.( Can't figure out more than these).




                                                  Ranger in exile by the Don




                                                  Anla'Shok by Nature


                                                  David McArthur
                                                • DAVID MCARTHUR
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , May 31, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    >From: "DAVID MCARTHUR" <MCARTHUR_DAVID@...>
                                                    >Reply-To: b5ccglist@yahoogroups.com
                                                    >To: b5ccglist@yahoogroups.com
                                                    >Subject: [B5CCG] Re: AGENDAS
                                                    >Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:50:43 +0000
                                                    >
                                                    >Hello Everyone,
                                                    >
                                                    > Been a long time since I've gotten in touch; with the group, long
                                                    >winter, need to know which agendas COMBOS work best with in tandom, with
                                                    >what
                                                    >species. Have built up six decks.( Can't figure out more than these).
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >Ranger in exile by the Don
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >Anla'Shok by Nature
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >David McArthur
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >Babylon 5 CCG Community E-list.
                                                    >Keep it fun, keep it friendly, enjoy.
                                                    >If you have problems with the list contact me at jaxb5ranger@....
                                                    >
                                                    >Also, check out www.epsilonhex.com for more information about the game!
                                                    >
                                                    >To unsubscribe email:
                                                    >b5ccglist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                  • DAVID MCARTHUR
                                                    ... shawdow agendas vorlon agendas major agendes standard agendas
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Jun 7, 2005
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      >
                                                      > >Hello Everyone,
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Been a long time since I've gotten in touch; with the group, long
                                                      > >winter, need to know which agendas COMBOS work best with/ in tandom, with
                                                      > >what species. Have built up six decks.( Can't figure out more than
                                                      >these).
                                                      > >
                                                      shawdow agendas

                                                      vorlon agendas

                                                      major agendes

                                                      standard agendas
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >Ranger in exile by the Don
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >Anla'Shok by Nature
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >David McArthur
                                                    • Albert Vest
                                                      On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:06:20 +0000 ... All the above can be tricky, since the victory requirements can be demanding. Any in particular you want to examine?
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Jun 7, 2005
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:06:20 +0000
                                                        "DAVID MCARTHUR" <MCARTHUR_DAVID@...> wrote:

                                                        > > >Hello Everyone,
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > Been a long time since I've gotten in touch; with the group, long
                                                        > > >winter, need to know which agendas COMBOS work best with/ in tandom, with
                                                        > > >what species. Have built up six decks.( Can't figure out more than
                                                        > >these).
                                                        > > >
                                                        > shawdow agendas
                                                        > vorlon agendas
                                                        > major agendes

                                                        All the above can be tricky, since the victory requirements can be demanding. Any in particular you want to examine?

                                                        > standard agendas

                                                        Would you put Racial Agendas in this category? Quite a few games are won using standard/racial agendas in my experience, since the requirements are things you'd do anyway to stay competitive (e.g. deploy lots of high-ability characters, etc.)

                                                        --
                                                        Albert Vest, al vest at earth link dot net
                                                      • DAVID MCARTHUR
                                                        ... Yes, I would put Racial Agendas in this category, As many games are won using standard/ racial.
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , Jun 10, 2005
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          >From: Albert Vest <alvest@...>
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:06:20 +0000
                                                          >"DAVID MCARTHUR" <MCARTHUR_DAVID@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > > > >Hello Everyone,
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > > > Been a long time since I've gotten in touch; with the group,
                                                          >long
                                                          > > > >winter, need to know which agendas COMBOS work best with/ in tandom,
                                                          >with
                                                          > > > >what species. Have built up six decks.( Can't figure out more than
                                                          > > >these).
                                                          > > > >
                                                          > > shawdow agendas
                                                          > > vorlon agendas
                                                          > > major agendes
                                                          >
                                                          >All the above can be tricky, since the victory requirements can be
                                                          >demanding. Any in particular you want to examine?
                                                          >
                                                          > > standard agendas
                                                          >
                                                          >Would you put Racial Agendas in this category? Quite a few games are won
                                                          >using standard/racial agendas in my experience, since the requirements are
                                                          >things you'd do anyway to stay competitive (e.g. deploy lots of
                                                          >high-ability characters, etc.)
                                                          >
                                                          >--
                                                          >Albert Vest, al vest at earth link dot net
                                                          >
                                                          Yes, I would put Racial Agendas in this category, As many games are won
                                                          using standard/ racial.
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.