home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.games.board
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!enterpoop.mit.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!xn.ll.mit.edu!ll.mit.edu!shoham
- From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
- Subject: Re: Titan rules addenda/errata
- Message-ID: <1992Dec30.232338.23078@ll.mit.edu>
- Sender: news@ll.mit.edu
- Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
- References: <1992Dec28.202726.7062@athena.mit.edu> <1hnotkINNkv7@uwm.edu> <1hqff6INNfte@life.ai.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 23:23:38 GMT
- Lines: 68
-
- In article <1hqff6INNfte@life.ai.mit.edu> joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
- >In article <1hnotkINNkv7@uwm.edu>, bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III) writes:
- >|> From article <1992Dec28.202726.7062@athena.mit.edu>, by cwk@athena.mit.edu (Chuck Krueger):
- >|> ] In article <sfD57kW00VB6Q7bEgF@andrew.cmu.edu> jdr@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
- >|> ]> Titan rules say that you can make deals in order to speed up the game.
- >|> ]>You may agree to any result except a defender time-out (I don't know why
- >|> ]>there is this exception. These are normally the slowest battles.)
- >|> ]
- >|> ] Hmm... Seems to me that if my opponent and I want to agree to a time-out
- >|> ] result we can just put our pieces on the battleboard, out of contact and do
- >|> ] nothing.
- >|> ]
- >|>Remember when making deals that require putting pieces on the board that they
- >|>are not binding so there is the possibility of a double cross.
- >
- >Right. This shouldn't be much of a problem in friendly, leisurely games, but
- >it would be something to watch for in a tournament. I'm still not sure where
- >the rules allow for a 'mutual,' though I'm sure that the other players may
- >object to such an event in cases where the the attacker and/or defender are
- >sucking for stack markers and the result cannot be achieved reliably through
- >normal play (as can deals with particular pieces or time losses). Any help
-
- A good point. In fact, a strategy I sometimes use when I find I attacked more
- than I planed on (giving cooperative terrain), and giving away points is
- very relevent, is to play for a time-out. I, the attacker, set up a defensive
- formation to discourge combat and then allow the combat phases to pass,
- perhaps exchanging a few rangestrikes. Then, on the 6th or 7th phase I send
- one creature to a place where it cannot be engaged (or at least cannot be
- killed) and everyone else to fight - and try and strip the defender's stack.
- (I once summoned an angel in on the _7th_ phase to help finish off a Dragon)
- While I lose a stack that I was going to lose anyhow, the defender never gets
- any points AND loses some creatures.
-
- This strategy could devestate an opponent who believes me if I were to say
- "hey, just wait there and I will give you a time victory". He will get the
- promissed time victory, but with a smaller stack than he thought. I can never
- forget the face of an opponent - who never seen this play before - after his
- 7-stack (titan) set up defensively in the Swamp waiting for my (weaker)
- attacking 6-stack to try to break his formation before he will get a Wyvern
- for Wyvern on phase 4. When my stack set up defensively as well and sufficed
- itself with rangestrikes (2 Rangers), he was sure of victory. By phase 4 he
- was denied the recruit because his stack still had 7 creatures (he did not
- want to sacrifice one and allow my Angel in, figuring he will get his recruit
- after the battle). When I attacked all out on phase 6, and reduced his stack
- to a mere Titan and two Rangers, he figured that at least he would get an
- Angel and an Archangle (making for a rather nasty 5-stack teleporter). Well,
- he was quite discussted when I pointed out that I still had a GARGOYLE (out
- of reach) at the end of phase 7 - TIME LOSS, no points, no angle, no Archangel,
- no teleportation. OUCH.
-
-
- BTW, as for agreeing to a mutual: since players can agree on the losses that
- will be incurred in a battle (instead of fighting it), simply agreeing that
- ALL creatures would be lost constitutes a mutual.
-
-
- Dan Shoham shoham@ll.mit.edu
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The view presented are not necessarily those of my employer, etc.
-
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Lincoln Laboratory
- 244 Wood Street
- Lexington Massachusetts, 02173-9108
- Office B-373
- 617-981-3515
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-