Posted: 31 October 2007 at 2:45am | IP Logged

Verc, your engaging ship when played just ensured that the last player is dead on turn two rather than last longer.  Under original rules every player could have a ship out before anyone fires, eg played trun 2 engaged turn 3 and first destroying the ship then the other players can take out the HQ.  Under your enagaing rule, On turn 2 I can play a ship and fire directly at the HQ as can the 2nd and 3rd guy.  With enuff firepower we can now take out the last two instead of one.

Posted: 31 October 2007 at 3:58am | IP Logged

Eagle, please note that I said that Harry suggested as part of the turn 2 restrictions that you couldn't play a unit in the engaged position. This gives everyone a chance to get a blocker out.

I am also aware that it effectively only postpones the start of the killing till turn 3, when it would be possible for everyone to play 3 ships in the engaged position.

It also gives an advantage to phaserboat races, because they are the ones that could get most use out of the played engaged.

I should not have used the predicament of the tail end charlie players as a reason for doing this, because it doesn't really help them to survive the first 3 turns. What it does do is make MDM decks much less useful because it is almost always better to play a ship rather than anything else. Burning card plays to get more draws just leaves you with less defenders.

Posted: 31 October 2007 at 4:24am | IP Logged

MogwaiSC wrote: Okay, I'm going to chime back in here. I think the whole attrition aspect of GE is probably the weakest point of the game. It's really what inspires multi-draw madness. As it's been pointed out already, without R cards in a multiplayer game, you're pretty much a sitting duck, particularly if you're last. I have talked with the two other primary members of my group, the fourth doesn't play that often, so I haven't spoken to him, but the other three of us have decided to test Eric's suggestion of being able to return fire if you engaged your ship on your turn and didn't fire it. We're going to play it so that an engaged ship that didn't fire on the owner's turn can fire in defense once per complete turn. Ships with built-in multipurpose phasers will be able to fire once offensively and once defensively per complete turn. Defensive fire can only be done at units firing at your unit. We're planning on getting together next week on Friday the 8th to play. We'll also have a friend of ours from Los Angeles who plays coming up to participate. Any comments on this? I'll let you guys know how it goes.

Just so I'm clear on this, 'firing defensively' means the defender gets reaction fire that is applied first?

If that is the case, the logic will be to kill ships that are disengaged before they can engage. It will tend to favor player 1 who has the chance to determine where fire is going to go (not that this is really all that different from the situation as it stands right now.) This isn't a criticism, just an observation.

I'm curious as to how it would actually play out.

Posted: 31 October 2007 at 7:50am | IP Logged

Okay, let me say it again since it seems to be continously missed... there would be no second turn kill because the turn 2 restrictions would not allow engaged play w/o using a O7 Surprise Attack... just like regular rules.

The deck you just listed does not care whether it is played engaged or not. Which I assume was your point. But being quite light on ships you're really depending on your combo showing up or you're dead.

Posted: 31 October 2007 at 9:04am | IP Logged

When my group first discovered MDM we(as a group) said how pointless,lets all build tha same deck and play the game with the same cards over and over again,pointless

So we resticted the card drawing cards to a point where they almost became a non-factor.This means somebody may stock 4 reactionary worlds but will never have the defence available to keep them alive.Hell I have about 50 reactionary worlds and dont put them in that many decks because I dont like wasting my precious defence on protecting them,too hard to keep alive.

In our format we all dont stock the same 30 cards in every deck ,allowing me to win 5 and 6 player games w/80 card decks that have no luck or 8 sectarian webcrawlers or 8 shield fiends or as I like to call them 5th fleet decks that have no ship higher than a five.Most of you are playing in evviornment that lead to a total lack of creativity,just draw cards draw cards.

The rules are not bad ,some of the cards are, you dont need to change the game whan resticting a hand full of cards will acheve a better result.Ive brought up my resticted list before and it allways falls on deaf ears just like when anyone else posts there house rules,but we have been playing this way since before the game fell

and my group is very harmonius and there is none of the rules bashing I wish you could understand but you wont listen,werewolf tryed it, but face it wolfie your too much of a power gamer to understand.In our format I have the luxury of trying to buld the WEAKEST deck I can and still winning.I could win a lot more games if I only power gamed but I dont HAVE to.In our format Im going to build a hundred decks,something I could never dream of with the rules as they stand.

But its all good, you folks keep doing what your doing ,Ill never covince you other wise,but as for me Ill live by my resticted list and be able to play decks(some non Gekonauk with no ship higher than 5)that you people could only dream of.

In a game with 3000 cards to pick from why do you play the same 30 cards in EVERY deck?

and which makes more sence restricting a few cards or changing the fundemental rules.

Posted: 31 October 2007 at 10:05am | IP Logged

Itold you already your a power gamer and cant see past that,I reapeat which makes more sence restricting(not banning ) about 10 cards or changing the fundemental rules?

Posted: 31 October 2007 at 10:15am | IP Logged

werewolflht65 wrote: The fundamentals aren't the true issue. The restrictive win condition is the issue. Whether I am a power-gamer or not isn't the issue. I look for the easiest to attain win condition that every game has to offer. GE, unfortunately, has only one win condition: Get out ships, keep them alive, and blast my opponent's SHQ. PERIOD. As far as the rest is concerned, until someone acquires the rights to GE, and either reprints the rules with changes or re-does the game, talking about what's wrong isn't going to solve anything. I'll keep playing the game as written, and hopefully either something will happen or it won't. If it doesn't happen, then Volakis can buy my collection. As good as GE could have been, I'm not going to beat this horse anymore. It's dead Jim... :(

This NOT a slam but I really dont understand what you LIKE about the game and why you play it?

Posted: 31 October 2007 at 10:32am | IP Logged

werewolflht65 wrote: "This NOT a slam but I really dont understand what you LIKE about the game and why you play it?" I play it because I'm not a fan of Fantasy. I prefer Sci Fi. I got into GE because it was what i was looking for. But, unlike MtG, which I had already been playing, GE was so much a game of catch/keep up, I am still surprised I still play. I do despise the whole Mr Suitcase situation about the game. Some of the best cards in Magic are commons and uncommons. Most of the rares can't stand alone, but in conjunction with a few UCs or commons, they really shine. But in GE, you can't win without 80%+ of your deck having the Rares or V-Rares. And considering how much money you'd have to spend to get all those cards, gives me new respect for Vince and the cards that he dropped in my lap. He had to have spent THOUSANDS of Dollars to buy all the cards he gave me. I went from barely interested in GE to Card Lord overnight. My interest in the game is peaked only because I am a "Share the Wealth" personality, as any of my friends can attest. I can build 200 card decks for new players, decks that may not be dedicated MDRM decks, but have enough of the good cards, that they aren't blown out of a group game by turn 4. I would never bring in a new player, hand them a sealed starter, and force them to play at our table. They'd play exactly one game... Reminds me of Walter... He was a MtG player in our older group, and he was really good at that game. But, on Turn 3, I got the MD combo, and he was dead on turn 4. He never played GE again...

again you make my point for me.....

Imake all uncommon decks and win a few w/them

Posted: 31 October 2007 at 10:43am | IP Logged

werewolflht65 wrote: Because you neuter the table Bob... There is no point to make. Open up your group to the REAL rules of GE, and see where it goes. You already know where it will go. MDRM will be the rule of the night, and you know it. Why? Not because the cards are broken and need to be restricted, but because the cards allow you to reach the ONLY win condition the game allows for: The destruction of my opponents SHQ.

Well all I can say to that is my group ,ALL OF US,are very happy w/the way things are can you say that?Actually several of my players have said they would never want to play me in an unresticted format.

Posted: 31 October 2007 at 10:49am | IP Logged

werewolflht65 wrote: That's not fair. You guys had decided a very long time ago to play under the restricted list you use, and everyone has pretty much accepted that and that is how they play. I doubt very much if the "Three Amigos" showed up at your door, with 200+ card MDRM decks and played, that after the dust settled, the winner wasn't one of us? If a dog is used to eating hamburger, and then his owner switches him to dry food, for awhile, he'll miss the hamburger, but after years go by, he'll grow to love the dry food and forget all about the hamburger days. It's all about programming.

You didnt answer my question did you?

Posted: 31 October 2007 at 11:01am | IP Logged

werewolflht65 wrote: Am I happy with the way we play? Happiness comes in varying degrees. When I win a game, I am happy. When I lose a game, I am frustrated, and usually tear the deck apart or just shuffle it better. But am I happy with the core of GE? No, not really, but I have other hobbies and interests. If GE doesn't improve or fails to be resurrected by either myself or Biegel, then I'll sell off my collection to Eman, and go back to my other hobbies.

Wow,I probably will not buy a radictly changed game(almost def not)UNLESS I can use the cards I own,You have goen through how many resticted lists how many rules change,and yet the power gamer in you will not open itself up to the chance that if they are very happy maybe we can be too