 |
| Autor |
Nachricht |
Jack
Blue Moon Emperor***
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.01.2005
Beiträge: 1126
|
|
| The HHH-Player in Wrzlprmft's example plays a 1/1-FREE-character, which lets HHH become inactive, before trying to play Var-dis-Nar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
    |
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Jack hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| The HHH-Player in Wrzlprmft's example plays a 1/1-FREE-character, which lets HHH become inactive, before trying to play Var-dis-Nar. |
Good point. I don't think in this case there's any alternative to the windback. Not entirely satisfactory, but not for the first time (see examples using Shame on you! on the first character).
I'd like to have decreed that you must maximise power. But I don't decree, we interpret the rules, and they leave us with this.
Note that this specific example relies on that "unignoring" a character is affecting it, and hence you can choose a new target for Duplicator of Strength. But we've already had that Q&A, and in any case you can do it without ignoring. Here's a particularly contrived example - it takes two constructed Buka decks playing each other.
Player A has active Commodore Lo Tan, Lookout Dolora Paal, Electric Eel and Duplicator of Fire.
(Note that Player A landed the three characters from a ship.)
The current element is fire, Commodore Mena Marn is doubled, power is 14.
Player B lands Sea Falcon with Coxswain Mora Marn. This removes Commodore Lo Tan. Now player A has to double either the Electric Eel (power 7) or Lookout Dolora Paal (power 5). And if he does the latter than player B can't play his Var-dis-Nar from hand. But player A may or may not know that.
The point of this example is that there's absolutely no doubt that the Duplicator of Fire (seemed more appropriate in a Buka example) has to be retargeted in this case. That you don't have to maximise power is still the point though. But there's nothing to make you do so.
Edit: Why doesn't Player B just play Var-dis-Nar? In this case he could. My original example (which gave player A active Boatswain Mena Marn, and another character in player B's ship) gave him more motivation. And I dare say some fancy footwork might make the example even more complicated and force the matter. But the point is that Player B chooses to play Coxswain Mora Marn first, and take it from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
  |
|
Saruman1992
Blue Moon Leader
Alter: 36
Anmeldungsdatum: 17.11.2008
Beiträge: 317
Wohnort: BRD, Köln, Verwaltungsdistrikt Köln West(Lindenthal)
|
|
| English... Oh, my god, i`m not very good at speaking this language... I´m a bloody fool... of German Kind...
|
|
|
|
_________________
Das Leben ist kein Wunschkonzert, du musst dir schon nehmen, was du begehrst!
|
|
   |
 |
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Saruman1992 hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| English... Oh, my god, i`m not very good at speaking this language... I´m a bloody fool... of German Kind... |
Believe me, your English is better than my German.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Wrzlprmft
Blue Moon Master
Anmeldungsdatum: 02.01.2008
Beiträge: 249
|
|
To give an example without unignoring and not using too constructed decks (only adding Yang and PamPam to Hoax):
You play Yang [2|0], Mekarthas, PamPam and the “Duplicator of Strength” and already have the “Tome of Wisdom”. You choose to duplicate PamPam and announce 15 earth.
(Another alternative using Buka and Fire would be, that you have “B.P. Unity”, “Cannoneer Rilana Paal” [1|4], HukHuk, the “Impenetrable Fog” and “Duplicator of Fire”)
I also already have a “Tome of Wisdom” and my only cards and chance to survive happens to be playing “Rout Retainers” (discarding PamPam) and then Var-Dis-Nar. The latter I can only play however, if you choose to double Mekarthas and not Yang.
| Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| (see examples using Shame on you! on the first character). |
What exactly are you refering to? The “problem”, that the mere fact, that you do not counter my character with “Shame on you!” may increase my knowledge and hence exclude the windback from a lot of moves (if the rules are applied rigorously)? I do not regard that as a big problem, because to me the windback rule’s only purpose seems to officially make the gameplay less rigorous.
What bothers me is the following:
The cards and rules of Blue Moon were obviously created with the paradigma, that you should be able to predict, whether you have to retreat in the designated phase. This is good, because a large amount of situations violating this paradigma would render the gameplay unpleasantly awkward.
A direct consequence of this paradigma, the exitence of certain mutants and amplifiers targetting one card is a maximizing rule, which is why the “new” official interpretation of this rule surprises and bothers me. (Of course there is another benefit of the maximizing rule, which is deciding how to deal with multiple amplifiers.)
And in contrast to a similar problem in certain situations involving “Crysalus Frendus”, the situation described earlier is easily avoidable by a maximizing rule not restricted to situations with multiple amplifiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
The point about Shame on you! is that it also can be used to break the model of deterministically knowing whether you can play or have to retreat. I don't recall the specific case offhand but it's in the FAQ list.
Thus not having to maximise is not the first case of this issue.
Agreed, having a maximisation rule would reduce the cases. But we don't have such a rule, in fact we explicitly have a rule that allows discretion in this case. We don't have a mandate to rewrite the rules (the angers of which are knowing when to stop, and fragmenting the game).
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Timmster
Gott von Monkey Island
Alter: 43
Anmeldungsdatum: 30.11.2004
Beiträge: 4496
Wohnort: Hamburg
|
|
| Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| Agreed, having a maximisation rule would reduce the cases. But we don't have such a rule, in fact we explicitly have a rule that allows discretion in this case. We don't have a mandate to rewrite the rules (the angers of which are knowing when to stop, and fragmenting the game). |
Couldn't we just write an errata for tournament play including this (and other) rules? I mean, why don't we have a "mandate" to rewrite the rules? I don't think Rainer Knizia cares, if someone playes his game with some kind of "houserules".  And as you already said, we would eleminate some cases of unsatisfying situations based on the maximisation rule.
Blue Moon isn't Poker! 
|
|
|
|
_________________
Meine EM/WM-Ergebnisse:
1. Platz: 2016, 2017, 2023 / 2. Platz: 2006, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2019 / 3. Platz: 2014, 2018, 2024 / Teilgenommen: 2008
|
|
  |
|
|
Jack
Blue Moon Emperor***
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.01.2005
Beiträge: 1126
|
|
Das Einführen von vereinfachenden Hausregeln für Turniere würde ich begrüßen. Allerdings glaube ich nicht, dass die meisten Teilnehmer eines Turniers sich exta Regeln durchlesen wollen, sondern lieber auf die (ihnen wahrscheinlich unbekannten ) komplizierteren offiziellen Regeln vertrauen.
@Wrzlpmft: Wie wärs doch noch mit einem Werk alternativer Regeln?
|
|
|
|
_________________
Du kannst vom Blue-Moon-Zocken nicht genug kriegen?
Anleitung zum Online-Spielen --> http://www.blue-moon-fans.com/viewtopic.php?t=5850
Multiplayer-Variante für das Kartenspiel --> http://www.blue-moon-fans.com/viewtopic.php?t=6066
|
|
| |
|
|
Wrzlprmft
Blue Moon Master
Anmeldungsdatum: 02.01.2008
Beiträge: 249
|
|
Naja, ein ganzes Werk alternativer Regeln braucht es ja nicht, sondern nur eine Vereinfachung einiger hässlicher Aspekte, die praktisch nie zur Anwendung kommen. Soviel Änderungsbedarf gibt es ja nicht, sofern man nicht ins Mond-Balancing geht.
Mir würden jetzt nur die universelle Maximierungsvorschrift, Präferenzliste bei Crysalus Frendus und so ein paar Dinge mit Bluffs einfallen (Farbe bekennen bei ignorierten Symbolen, sowie das hier).
|
|
|
|
_________________
Alternatives Regelwerk und Ablaufplan für Blue Moon
|
|
| |
|
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Timmster hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| Agreed, having a maximisation rule would reduce the cases. But we don't have such a rule, in fact we explicitly have a rule that allows discretion in this case. We don't have a mandate to rewrite the rules (the angers of which are knowing when to stop, and fragmenting the game). |
Couldn't we just write an errata for tournament play including this (and other) rules? I mean, why don't we have a "mandate" to rewrite the rules? I don't think Rainer Knizia cares, if someone playes his game with some kind of "houserules". And as you already said, we would eleminate some cases of unsatisfying situations based on the maximisation rule.
Blue Moon isn't Poker! |
Well, noting that it's nearly a year since I posted that, I think that indicates we can manage OK as we are. If something were broken, we'd need a rule (and in a few cases we've had to stretch some rules slightly). But the problems with changing rules outweigh gains for just making things slightly easier. Well, that's my view, and it appears to have a working consensus. (Note that working consensus is not the same as unanimity, but unanimity is rare.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Timmster
Gott von Monkey Island
Alter: 43
Anmeldungsdatum: 30.11.2004
Beiträge: 4496
Wohnort: Hamburg
|
|
Vielleicht finden sich in Essen ja einige Interessierte, die zum Thema "Errata" etwas zu sagen haben.
@wrzl: Der von dir in deinem letzten Post zitierte Thread ist doch aber völlig unstrittig und ich bin der Meinung, dass du da was falsch verstanden hast. Denn dein letzter Post in dem Thread gibt genau die Lösung wieder, die auch festgelegt wurde... (Thema: Ferro und beladen von Schiffen)
|
|
|
|
_________________
Meine EM/WM-Ergebnisse:
1. Platz: 2016, 2017, 2023 / 2. Platz: 2006, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2019 / 3. Platz: 2014, 2018, 2024 / Teilgenommen: 2008
|
|
| |
|
|
Wrzlprmft
Blue Moon Master
Anmeldungsdatum: 02.01.2008
Beiträge: 249
|
|
| Timmster hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| @wrzl: Der von dir in deinem letzten Post zitierte Thread ist doch aber völlig unstrittig und ich bin der Meinung, dass du da was falsch verstanden hast. Denn dein letzter Post in dem Thread gibt genau die Lösung wieder, die auch festgelegt wurde... (Thema: Ferro und beladen von Schiffen) |
Da hätte ich genauer sein müssen. Im verlinkten Thread gibt es zwei Fragen, einmal das Beladen bei Ferro, wo alles klar ist, wie Du schon sagtest, und das Bluffen bei Ferro u. ä. Letzteres ist m. E. ziemlich unglücklich, da man die Bluff-Karte dreimal anders betrachten muss.
|
|
|
|
_________________
Alternatives Regelwerk und Ablaufplan für Blue Moon
|
|
| |
|
|
Dreadnought
Blue Moon World Champion 2013
Alter: 43
Anmeldungsdatum: 09.03.2007
Beiträge: 1523
Wohnort: Berlin
|
|
Ich find's gruselig, dass es nach so langer Zeit immer noch unklare/schwammige/unlogische Regeln gibt. Aber ich denke, damit muss man leben.
Das Werk alternativer Regeln...äh...das alternative Regelwerk von Wrzlusw. war/ist doch ein guter Schritt in die Richtung Vereinfachung der Regeln. Von individueller Regelanpassung halte ich nichts, auch nicht in Form von "Hausregeln". Das macht die Sache nämlich wieder unnötig kompliziert, was der gegenteilige Schritt wäre. Und wenn es um "einige hässliche Aspekte geht, die praktisch nie zur Anwendung kommen", warum dann ändern?
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Dreadnought hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| Ich find's gruselig, dass es nach so langer Zeit immer noch unklare/schwammige/unlogische Regeln gibt. |
I think the position is
- Simple reading of the rulebook leads to some apparent issues.
- Most of them go away if you follow through some logical arguments. (Sometimes this involves a bit more than just reading the rules, I would agree.)
- Only one ends up with a full new rule (shields are icons) and even then maybe just in English. Other cases interpret, and in a few cases, stretch, the rules.
- There hasn't actually been any really new rules problem for nearly a year, any updates to the (English language) FAQ list since November 2008 have been just pointing out things that are already well-known.
- As such, taking the rules and the FAQ list (and you only need the short one) the game is pretty stable, and can be well-understood, and works that way.
- Yes, simplifications could be made. But that introduces instability and fragmentation, and both of those are bad.
- One reason for that is that in at least one case mentioned in this thread it's not actually that the rules are unclear that's disliked, it's that the rule although clear is disliked as could be simpler. Which is another issue entirely.
How much extra is there not in the rulebook? The short FAQ list (English language) has 50 questions. And by no means all of those are needed, some provide what I hope are useful "meta-rules" but that;s just to clarify what's already there. (For example that cards are never "in limbo" - which is actually exactly said in the rulebook.) I would say that a definite minority of the 50 Q&As are in the "clarification really needed" or stronger classification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Gehe zu Seite Zurück 1, 2
|
Nächstes Thema anzeigen
Vorheriges Thema anzeigen
Du kannst keine Beiträge in dieses Forum schreiben.
Du kannst auf Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht antworten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht bearbeiten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.
Du kannst an Umfragen in diesem Forum nicht mitmachen.
Du kannst Dateien in diesem Forum nicht posten
Du kannst Dateien in diesem Forum herunterladen
|
 255700 Angriffe abgewehrt
Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 1 Stunde
|
|
