go to... Twilight Struggle. Congrats to all involved.

Getting the 2-player award was a huge and wonderful surprise, since we were up against several popular Eurogames and the IGA's focus, as one might discern from the name, is on Eurogames. So we are especially gratified by this award.

Congratulations. The best crossover game as far as appeal goes that I'm awware of.

Great job, guys. And to think that I was totally against this game while it climbed the P500 Ladder. Seemed like a totally stupid idea....



I sure smahhtened (Boston accent) up when I first began to play it. Its sure to be a classic.

Andy

I wold certainly not have predicted it's sucess based on a description. "You're going to simulate the entire cold war? Yeah, right."

Re: rule 4.5 C: "NOTE: If playing an opponent's event during the Headline phase, your opponent implements the event text (AND BECOMES THE 'PHASING PLAYER' WHILE HE IMPLEMENTS THE EVENT) as if they had played the card themselves." (emphasis added in big capital letters). Am I correct that this is also the intent if such happens during an Action phase, e.g, if the USSR player plays a "Soviets Shoot Down KAL-007" card, which is a US event, as an OPS card, with Defcon at 2, does the US become the "phasing player," and therefore the loser of the game?

Consulting a higher authority, eh, Roger?

Am I correct that this is also the intent if such happens during an Action phase

No. The intent is just the opposite of your assumption. Your interpretation is not very sporting.

No. The intent is just the opposite of your assumption. Your interpretation is not very sporting.

What an annoying response (the not very sporting part). Can you explain why the intent is different in the Headline phase?

Consulting a higher authority, eh, Roger?

I just knew you'd find me out. Well, you're right, and I just hope there is a higher authority around here somewhere.

Roger,

During the HEADLINE phase there is NO PHASING PLAYER.. however, sometimes you need a phasing player because of the text of a card. For that purpose, the player implementing the text is a phasing player.

However, the person who plays the card which causes DEFCON to drop to level 1 is ALWAYS the loser.

For all other game purposes, the power who played the card is the phasing player.

The only reason folks are giving you a hard time is because there has been a ton of discussion regarding who loses in such a case-- your actions appear to be nothing more than a not so subtle attempt at rules lawyering.

Perhaps they could not see it was an honest question.

David "the preacher" Wilson

What an annoying response (the not very sporting part).

It would be too easy to win based on how you were trying to interpret the rules. Maybe that wasn't clear to you.

Thanks, David. It was an honest question, and until I got your explanation about there not being a phasing player in the Headline phase, I didn't understand how my interpretation of the rules could be incorrect. I've posted a few questions in this folder, but to be honest, I've really never read any of the other posts except those in response to my questions. So, I wasn't aware that this question had been discussed before and I wasn't trying to be a rules lawyer.

But please don't mention this to Dan. He still thinks I won.

your actions appear to be nothing more than a not so subtle attempt at rules lawyering.

Objection.

your actions appear to be nothing more than a not so subtle attempt at rules lawyering.

Roger, don't listen to that crap. Your question is not "rules lawyering." It's an honest question on wanting to play the game by the rules, and play it the right way.

Some people that tag others as "rules lawyers" don't play the game by the rules, and they can't stand that.

Doc

Roger, don't listen to that crap. Your question is not "rules lawyering." It's an honest question on wanting to play the game by the rules, and play it the right way.

Some people that tag others as "rules lawyers" don't play the game by the rules, and they can't stand that.

Well, look at it this way: some rules interpretations seem so obvious to the vast majority of gamers that to go in the other direction can only be seen as either a) an attempt at rules lawyering, or b) an utter failure of common sense. So when you're deemed to be Machiavellian for asking such a question, consider it a compliment, as the only alternative is being deemed an idiot.

(Note - this is not a comment on the current question or questioner so much as it is a general truism about rules-querying. A lot of the irritation provoked by rules questions, in this as in many other forums, comes when one person stands by an interpretation which would break a game or be completely contrary to the principles of intelligent game design, even after that interpretation has been ridiculed by many and defended by nobody.)

Cheers, Darren

a) an attempt at rules lawyering, or b) an utter failure of common sense.

Common sense is in the eye of the beholder. Can you name a game where every single mechanic makes sense to everyone from a common sense standpoint? A game where no one has called one rule or another "absurd," "ahistorical," or "broken?"

If every game has aspects which some will find contrary to common sense, how is anyone supposed to guess what a rule means except by looking at the rulebook? I know I can't--I guess that makes me a rules lawyer (as do a lot of things), but I don't think that should qualify me as an object of derision.

Consim rulebooks frequently say something other than what they mean to say. That almost makes any question fair: sometimes, when your common sense dictates something contrary to the way you read the rules literally, you have to wonder: did the designer really mean that? In the past, I have always thought that it did; however, I am learning this is frequently not the case.

Even more problematic, most rulebooks have sentences that can be parsed a number of ways. These sentences drive me and most of the "rules lawyers" crazy; after one particularly frustrating session trying to get a designer to answer a question on a rule (instead of answering, he merely insisted that the rule was correct as written, and that it was not possible to write it any more clearly), my wife demanded to see the rule that was frustrating me so. Once she saw it, she pushed it away and said "that rule isn't even in English; how can anyone even begin to know what it means?"

I recognize that most of our game designers did not major in English in college, but if language isn't precise, people are going to have questions.

The "common sense card" has almost no value when it comes to game rules. People should stop playing it; it's very insulting to people who are neither stupid nor trying to be sleazy.

With regard to "obvious" or "common sense" interpretation of the rules, don't forget that TS breaks some new ground. I had to read and re-read the rule about my play of a card for OPS also causing my opponent's event to happen, whether I liked it or not, before I believed it. "Common sense," at least based on the vast majority of the existing CDGs, said that rule couldn't be right.

Common sense is in the eye of the beholder. Can you name a game where every single mechanic makes sense to everyone from a common sense standpoint? A game where no one has called one rule or another "absurd," "ahistorical," or "broken?"

Up Front!

(apologies, but I will not be replacing any keyboards or monitors)

Finally locked in a real battle with that ghodless commie Bill Edwards. Our first two games have been Red walks, but this one is tight going into 3.

I really like how my understanding of card play and its timing and subtleties evolves over continued play.

I've always hoped that for those games that have Living Rules that the designer should strongly consider adjusting the text of those sections that get a massive amount of questions. If something gets a ton of questions there must be something unclear about it ...

However, Twilight Struggle IMHO is written in a clear and concise fashion, and it is a fairly simple game. I haven't even bothered to read its rules twice, although I probably should; and I imagine I could find a few things to redline.