Post
by Hannibal » Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:30 pm
What? You two played a whole Full Duel in one day?? Wow.
As to your Duel-Lite, Water-Crossing: I got the go-ahead from Kor that any bug voiding valid orders was probably now fixed, so I pressed "Re-run Turn" for Turn 2 a few minutes ago, as you guys wanted.
I had a quick look. Sal's Oranges AGAIN come up as doing nothing visible, but that is not a bug this time; perhaps it wasn't a bug last time; it is the rule of not attacking any player's start-prov on turns 1 or 2.
I'm trying to be nice to everybody. Look, if you both want, I'll start up this Duel-Lite over again from the beginning. New start-set-up, new map, whatever.
But don't blame me for the rules confusion: nor Kor; nobody's fault. "Full Duel" is finalised and works fine; Duel-Lite is just now finalised but full of patches and fixes. So, to set up your Duel-Lite, the system is still that I create a "Full Duel" and then ask Kor to switch it over to the Lite engine, which has different rules (eg it has 6 Robos not 4, and it doesn't stop VorA from fighting SalA etc.). But it gets set up as a Full Duel, so the engine imports "Full Duel" Houserules into the Houserules box. Kor did his part by switching it to the Lite engine, but the Houserules were left as Full Duel rules. These say 2 Turns of no headhunting, but are Full Duel rules. So Sal, you look for some Duel-Lite rules, understandably. UNFORTUNATELY, you look at the Houserules that Bryk/GM Matt set up for the Lite game that HE is GM'ing. Not mine. You'd have done better to look at the Lite Houserules that I myself set up as the latest, by looking at the Houserules for the Lite game in sign-up ... which are much clearer, and once again stress, twice, that there is no attacking start-provs for 2 turns.
In fact, every Duel that has ever run has had the 2-turn rule, usually mentioned and then stressed as a reminder in the Houserules. Except for Bryk's. Bryk took an old Houserules set of mine, and crossed oput the bit about 2 turns. His is the only case. As fate would have it, you defaulted to HIS rules, not any that I've written. Unlucky, but hardly my fault ... I wasn't even aware of Bryk's version of my rules. The rules are as I've written in the current, on-offer, Lite game-to-join. It's always been 2 turns ... except for the place you looked.
I've considered your point on 1 versus 2 turns, but I'm not persuaded. As designer and as GM, I choose to stick with 2 turns, as per normal Duel rules and as per my latest Houserules on latest Lite game for sign-up.
I don't want a hiuge debate on the design of Duel. It works. It's worked for 20 games. I'll listen, but on the issue of 1 or 2 turns I've listened and considered and decided. GM's can depart from my standard rules, of course; but as GM in this game I'm sticking to them. I've thought it through a lot.
I'll give you an example: If the headhunting is only ONE turn, then the Robos might be taking out a human's start-prov early in Turn 2 ... so an unlucky human might have to concentrate 100% on vacating his start-prov during T1, rather than anything to do with his opponent! Unlucky and unfair. I prefer to give him 2 turns to start and vacate if necessary. So I'd better make sure that Robos won't hit a human start-prov on Turn 2. Hmm. I could make it one rule for Robos and a different rule for Humans ... ? but why bother to make it complicated? Best if I make it that NOBODY can attack a start-prov for 2 turns. Which happens to have other pluses: 1) simplicity (try writing rules where Robos cannot attack a human start-prov on T2 but humans can ... needless complexity) 2) it reduces the risk of the whole game being effectively over by Turn 2, when one Human wipes out two of the other human's on Turn 2 3) it adds to twists and turns - a player can at least have Turn 2 to come back atya 4) it avoids the bleedin' obvious of spying on the other human's start-provs on T2 to reduce their EFF - you at least have to figure out where they are, maybe risk moving spies up to make it adjacent, etc., so that there is a degree more skill and a degree less formulaic. Plus 5 other reasons I won't bore you with.
I've thought about it as a designer, and decided that for DUELS it's better to make it 2 turns. My design.
Enough. I know what I'm doing. 2 turns is part of it, always has been (pace Bryk), and it still is in this game.
If you like, I'd be happy to declare that you were going off on an understandably wrong version of the rules, so we start over from the start, no problem. Anything to keep people enjoying Duels!
Cheers,
Han
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han
"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to
but its still showing my orders as orders received (in watercrossing) so I suspect its more terminal than suspected. I move for a restart as I am now very suspicious of the engines neutrality - well you have to admit it does seem to have it in for me.
on my part (or was it on your's) I seemed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
