Jump to content

Holmes108

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Holmes108

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Toronto, ON, Canada
  1. It is covered in the reference book. It's actually the attacker that must choose which way to "shift" the line of sight. Of course, if shifting in one direction would block the line of sight, then it must go the other way. But if both sides of the line are clear, then it's attackers choice. Edit: Page 6 "Line of Sight": "When line of sight is traced along the edge of one or more hexes, the attacker shifts the line away from the hex edge in one direction."
  2. Just_a_Bill said: That's a tricky one. Deals already involve some degree of player flexibility in how specific you are about the kinds of cards to be traded, so I'm going to base my answer in part on my recent review of Eon's editions of the old Encounter magazine. I seem to remember Jack Kittredge answering questions about player-defined conditions (such as Seeker's questions, Schizoid's terms, Witch's curses, and deals) by ruling that it depends on how you word it. So here is how I would rule: If the deal is "I give you a card and you give me a card", then I'd say we're both safe. If the deal is "you take a card from me and I take a card from you", then I'd say we're both at risk. If the deal is "you give me a card and then you take a card from me", then I'd say you'd want to be a little more wary of making deals with me in the future. ;-) In other words, based on my understanding of the original designers' general design intent, I believe the parties to the deal should have the flexibility to craft a deal that either includes or excludes the risk of Rift detonation. Agreed. During a deal if I say "I get to give you X number of cards" it wouldn't blow up. If I say "I'll fan out my hand and you take X number of cards randomly" then it would detonate.
  3. crimhead said: Holmes108 said: I don't see it being a problem, as I don't think it's right to put more ships on a tech than is required. That is our house rule anyways. If it's the Tech Scrambler, which allows any # of ships you want, then that's a different story. That would be a nice advantage for the masochist. The rules for completing technology say that it's completed if the number of ships researching it is eaqual to or greater than the development cost. Normally you'd only use this for bluffing or deception. The other night I continued putting extra ships onto my Cosmic Field Generator. I didn't want to complete it (and have to show it) but I also didn't want to stop developing it, lest I'd tip my opponents off that it might be ready. This is normally allowed by the rules. It's fine to house rule what you like, but just because your house rule happens to solve a problem it does not follow that the problem doesn't exist. No, you're right. I haven't looked at the rulebook in some time, and if that's the wording, then there is no question in my mind you can add extra. I still don't find it overly cheap of the Masochist though. You have to commit a lot of ships and turns for it to be viable, on top of losing all your planets. It's a good strategy, but I don't think it's "too" easy at all. My friend did the same strategy except his tech allowed him to blow up his last planet, for the win. It was spectacular (and his first game ever!)... little tricks like this are what make the game so great.
  4. I've always assumed that's the whole point of haing different backs to begin with (why otherwise)... to tempt people to steal the cards, which makes the negative carsd and rifts that much sweeter!
  5. I don't see it being a problem, as I don't think it's right to put more ships on a tech than is required. That is our house rule anyways. If it's the Tech Scrambler, which allows any # of ships you want, then that's a different story. That would be a nice advantage for the masochist.
  6. I agree that for compensation, etc... players are allowed to take the back of the card into consideration (I think that's the whole point of them being different)... but in the case of something like MIte, I also agree you want it totally random. But it's quite simple really, all we do is shuffle without looking, then deal the appropriate # of cards off the top.
  7. Just_a_Bill said: @Bael: I found some sleeves I like that fit well. I'm not affiliated with the seller (tbg_shop) in any way, other than the fact that I bought sleeves from him. You'll want the #2 card sleeves (link below), and he also has special sleeves sized specifically for the alien sheets. They fit my base-set aliens like a glove, but be aware that some players (myself included) have discovered that their Incursion aliens are 1 mm larger in both dimensions than the original aliens, and (in my case, at least) are too wide for the sleeves. Also be aware that there's a fair amount of friction with the sleeves — my cards occasionally stick together, and I find it easier to shuffle them with overhand/faro/weave shuffling. But I'm more than happy to put up with that in order to protect my cards and make it easy to tweak my cosmic deck with whatever function I want to print on a slip of paper and slide in front of a real sleeved card. Here's a link to a #2 card sleeve listing that's active as of today (03 Feb 2010): http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220549816577 Thanks Bill! He was sold out when I got the Alien Sheets. I just ordered these.
×
×
  • Create New...