Comments on an INWO Game

This page records people's comments about the Play-by-Email INWO Game as the game progressed.

With some exceptions, the difference between a 'conspiracy' (listed in the conspiracies page) and a 'comment' is this: a conspiracy is a message not directly relevant to the game that passes from one player to another. A comment is a message that is only seen by Ralph and at most one player (and sometimes no players at all, in the case of Ralph's private comments).

Beginning of Game

Reveal Illuminati

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Draw Initial Plot Cards

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Reveal Lead Puppets

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Don Fnordlioni wrote this about the fact that he hadn't specified an alternate lead puppet:

Sorry about the lack of alternate, but I did hold off for a reason:

If I did happen to bounce (likely with two Bavarias), I wanted to see of people were going to playing a lot of places. If so, then I would lead with Robot Sea Monsters. However, I've got an Agent for New York, and Finland is an easy kill as far as disasters go. So I don't need the Monsters quite yet -- what I do need is Saddam Hussein to cancel lots of actions, and to get the C.I.A. before Sherlock does. I figure, the best way to make these things happen is to make my plot draws more controlable, thus, I lead with the Mossad. The best way to make sure the goals of getting and keeping Saddam and the CIA is more control over the Plot deck, so I can pull the +10s, Head in a Jar, etc.

Draw Initial Group Cards

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Deciding Who Goes First

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Round 1

Don Fnordlioni's Turn 1

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

James Eddleman's Turn 1

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Thany's Turn 1

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:22:50 -0500 (CDT): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Just FYI, I'm suspecting a Shangri-La + Unmask lurking in sherlock's plots. I'm wondering who I should share this with. If I'm right, my offer of limited amnesty towards the Vatican should be all the more tempting.

I'm certainly not stuck on that guess, though. Kill for Peace and Blinded By Science are also viable.


Sun, 27 Oct 1996 07:18:58 -0600 (CST): Don Fnordlioni commented on Thany's mail:

Looks like I've gotten myself a pawn....

Ralph responded:

Advance it to the 8th rank and make it a queen!

Oh, my mistake, we're not playing 'Drag INWO'.

Jason Bostick's Turn 1

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

In response to Don Fnordlioni's "I sense a PfiOS" (see conspiracies), Ralph asked Don Fnordlioni,

Out of idle curiosity, are you being afraid of PfiOS, or are you just stirring up sedition? I can see good reasons for either one.

Don Fnordlioni later responded:

Mostly the latter -- I'm pretty happy he's sticking with government places, though...

Glen Barnett's Turn 1

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Fri, 1 Nov 96 18:56:57 EDT: Ralph wrote to Don Fnordlioni:

I'm sure you must be drooling and slavering over the number of places in play. (5 already, by my count.)

It might be the case that you have to control your rapacious hunger in order not to become Public Enemy Number One.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. For example, do you think you should take over Robot Sea Monsters, which would give you an edge against eight out of the ten groups in play, but would make you look more threatening, too?

(Do you think it's a good idea for me to solicit strategy commentary like this? On the one hand, I want your thoughts about the matter to be in the permanent record; on the other hand, I don't want to change your thinking with my questions.)

Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:18:55 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni responded:

I'm sure you must be drooling and slavering over the number of places in play. (5 already, by my count.)
Yes, yes I am. :) I don't quite understand /why/ people are playing non-huge, coastal places when Cthulhu is in the game this early. Surely they /all/ can't be disaster-proof?
It might be the case that you have to control your rapacious hunger in order not to become Public Enemy Number One.
This is true -- however, I do have to get a couple of kills in pretty quick, before groups like Red Cross, International Weather, and Boy Sprouts come in to play. Glen looks like he's going to be the main target -- if I concentrate on him, and keep showering affections on sherlock, I won't be seen as quite the big bad guy that I am. And I'm presuming that sherlock will stay on my side, and maybe even help me when the chips are down.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. For example, do you think you should take over Robot Sea Monsters, which would give you an edge against eight out of the ten groups in play, but would make you look more threatening, too?
I plan on (hopefully) getting the Robot Sea Monsters with position -- if I can boost it to 6, I can pretty much negate all of the Assassin's secret groups if that's what it looks like he's going for. Eh, we'll see, though. the RSM wouldn't be too threatening compared to all these power 6 groups floating around.
(Do you think it's a good idea for me to solicit strategy commentary like this? On the one hand, I want your thoughts about the matter to be in the permanent record; on the other hand, I don't want to change your thinking with my questions.)
Well, you're certainly not giving me any ideas --- I've been quite aware of all the places and my public relations problems. Just gotta be careful that you won't plant ideas in people's heads...

Sun, 3 Nov 1996 10:13:07 +1000 (EET): Glen offered some of his insights on his strategy considerations, after he brought out the Perpetual Motion Machine:

I'm considering that since I've played TWO places, with Cthulhu sitting there, another Bavaria (who likely has a NY agent) and a Network deck (who'd be mad not to have Japan in there), that I'm at great risk not playing Good Polls now.

But will I be at worse risk later, because as yet I have no other defences in my hand?

So the choices (as I see them) are:

  1. do nothing (except make an argument for Japan's survival, it being at worst risk). This keeps my action tokens and my Good Polls. If I'm not going to get disastered in the next turn, that's probably safest.
  2. play Good Polls, and give myself a good chance of lasting intact until my next turn, even with disasters.
  3. Cash in NY's token to power a Savings and Loan Scam, and hope like hell something like a Near Miss turns up.

Glen then went on to write a message to Don Fnordlioni.

Sun, 3 Nov 1996 10:25:20 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote in a follow-up:

Yet another possibility (iv) is to leave myself wide open but take over another group.

Well, after spelling it all out, I think I've made up my mind. Now what I want to do is see if the Don makes any kind of positive response to my previous mail.

If I haven't said otherwise within 12 hours, I'll knock then.

(The reason I'm hesitating: I'm safe as long as it is still my turn - better to get any negotiating out of the way if I can).

Round 2

Don Fnordlioni's Turn 2

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Sun, 3 Nov 1996 20:51:31 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni wrote, when deciding whether to draw his second plot from the top or the bottom of his deck:

I'm gonna take the Atomic Monster -- I think I'll blast Japan with it, just to test the waters, as it were, and to suck some of those place-saving plots out of his hand so I can eventually get New York.

I'm actually thinking of switching sides, and aligning myself with Glen -- right now, I don't see much chance of taking out New York with merely an Agents card. My agents might find a better use as a bribe to Glen to let bygones be bygones as far as Japan's destruction goes. And Sherlock doesn't offer me much. I'm pretty sure I can slow Glen down without sherlock's help, and I'm pretty sure Sherlock won't be able to muster up a quick win with that huge group deck.

Furthermore, if I get Japan under my belt, folks might mistake my goal for Kill for Peace.

Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:20:22 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

The New York attack is forthcoming, just need to solidify alliances before I announce.

Mon, 4 Nov 96 11:28:26 EDT: Ralph Replied to Don's message:

Wow, this is a 180-degree turnaround from the last thing you wrote to me, which said you planned to nuke Japan and offer your New York agents as a consolation.

I am surprised.

Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:44:55 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's message:

Eh. I'm fickle that way. Grin.
I'm going to spare Japan instead if the New York thing works out. I figure everyone will like me for taking out New York.

Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:53:12 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni's comment:

So, I pulled a reversal on my stance with New York. I redid the math, and the attack looks feasible, so here are my reasons for my new position:

a) I hope to convince Glen that losing New York is good for him -- it will make him seem much less dangerous, shifting attention to sherlock (and probably to me).

b) I hope to convince everyone else that I'm a nice guy for saving the world from a Bavarian controlled, Cyborg Soldier'ed, Big Prawned, Gun Controlled future New York.

I meant what I said to Glen about taking out the NPCs. I have a personal hate for them -- and, I can use the same above arguments to make people not hate me as much for destroying another group. Besides, it lets me know if Glen is holding a +10 that can help save New York, and maybe I can even get it from him (if not, I can forget the whole thing unless I can rally another 10 points of power). It's a long shot, but it makes me feel clever.

Unfortunately, I can't really /use/ the NPC kill for much other than my special goal, but hey. The NPCs need to go, and I'm the only guy with the guts to take it out. It's better this way, rather than having to feign attacks all day long to get their token spent. I'm sure sherlock will understand.

By the way, I see the New York attack as:

Cthulhu + Cthulhu Bonus + RS Monster bonus + NY agent
9	+	4	+	4	   +   10      27
NY Power+Proximity Bonus			     
10		7				       17
And with the NPCs cancelling NY's action, and me       --
scaring glen into not spending Japan...................10

Pretty thin, I admit. C'est la vie. But it may be the only shot I have before NY /does/ go mega-powerful (now I'm believing my own propaganda :).

Still waiting for sherlock's response about the NPCs.

Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:39:17 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Ya know, I just looked over my plot deck, and I noticed I stuck in Assertiveness Training.

Gee, that was smart, since every one of my groups are Violent to begin with.

I'm positive I meant that to be a New Blood (it's a mistake I always make, just like confusing Slush Fund and Citizenship Award), but I wouldn't be so gauche to suggest a plot changeout this late in the game. Ah well, I can always use it to fuel a Secrets. (rolling of the eyes, chuckle).

At this point, Don Fnordlioni launched the attack on New York.

Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:26:00 +1000 (EET): Glen Barnett wrote the following explaining his decision not to have New York spend its action in defense yet:

I'm waiting to see if sherlock says anything (I don't imagine he will) before I defend. I do still intend to defend.

Thu, 7 Nov 96 22:29:26 EDT: Ralph commented to Don Fnordlioni:

You know, you're either going to be sitting pretty after this turn, or you're going to be lynched.

I'm having so much fun watching this.

Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:53:48 +1000 (EET): Glen commented on the fact that it was the first attack of the first turn of round 2:

Gee, we don't waste any time.

Assuming he's been telling the truth, Don F. has had a pretty amazing set of plots there...

Fri, 8 Nov 1996 15:09:44 +1000 (EET): In response to a question from Ralph, Glen expanded on his previous statement:

Well it's what he's played and swapped as well: Hoax, Blitzkreig, Atomic Monster, oh and I guess the +10 was an Agents card, not a plot card, but anyway, that's just an amazingly handy set of cards.

I mean who'd have thought anyone would be stupid enough to play Bavaria and Lead New York? (as you'll recall, I played it because I expected a bounce)

I think if no-one helps him, he's going to find it tough now. He's going to have to last until turn 3...

Thu, 7 Nov 96 23:26:36 EST: Ralph responded:

You're not doing too badly yourself. If you didn't have the Hoax and the Good Polls, you might be even further up a creek.

Fri, 8 Nov 1996 15:32:14 +1000 (EET): Glen responded:

With this deck, you need some good defences, but I couldn't possibly mount an attack with that kind of power, and have planned to make yet another attack.

Fri, 8 Nov 1996 17:46:07 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote:

Boy it's frustrating to sit here on a knife edge, while you guys are all asleep.

Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:41:11 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni responded to Ralph's question of Thu, 7 Nov 1996 of `You've decided to attack Japan instead of the NPCs, then?':

I have to -- the ATF token is spent because Glen ignored my warnings. I thought he might go along with it, but I suppose he finds getting beaten down more agreeable than acting like a pawn. I was telling Cindy about it, and she said that it was inevitable.

I guess most people don't like being unwitting pawns -- this is an important learning experiance (Personally, if I was in Glen's shoes, I don't know what I'd do. I could go either way, but I'd be more likely to just take my licks, fulfill my end of the deal, then get Cthulhu later.)

Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:43:11 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented to Ralph in reference to Glen's `Thanks... that oughta do what I couldn't manage' message:

By the way, do you have any idea what this means?
I think the British idioms are getting a little heavy here. I think he's really mad. oh well. grin.

Fri, 8 Nov 96 10:53:35 EST: Ralph commented about Don Fnordlioni's decision to attack Japan instead of the Nuclear Power Companies:

Of course, if the Good Polls lasts, Japan will be pretty robust to the Atomic Monster. If you wanted the NPCs to die, you could give the Atomic Monster to James and coax him to finish off the NPCs. Of course, you wouldn't get the credit for killing the NPCs.

I agree with Cindy that it was more or less inevitable the way you did it.. I think you could have gotten Glen to participate, but you would have had to include him much earlier than you did.

I think you got a little too greedy--IMHO, you could have gotten either New York or the NPCs, but not both.

Fri, 8 Nov 96 10:54:51 EST: Ralph responded to Don's `Do you have any idea what this means?' question:

I know what he means by this. I'm not sure I should tell you. I don't see any British idioms there...

Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:13:51 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni explained himself, in response to Ralph's question:

The British idiom is the use of "rather." It threw me -- I don't exactly know how to take it:
a) Using "rather" doesn't mean anything specific -- he's thanking me for painting myself as a bully.
b) Using "rather" is sarcastic. He's mad that I'm gonna try for both.

Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:36:29 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni responded to Ralph's comments:

In a perfect world, with the NPCs doing my bidding, the Good Polls won't last. Sherlock said he'd use the NPCs to cancel New York's action. Thus, the Hoax will be discarded.
I agree with Cindy that it was more or less inevitable the way you did it.. I think you could have gotten Glen to participate, but you would have had to include him much earlier than you did.

I don't think Glen would have agreed to sacrificing New York for the NPCs. And I'm certainly not going to fake an attack on New York, not complete it, and spend all my tokens, just to get the NPCs. The NPCs kill is worthless for my goal.

Furthermore, I couldn't chance telling him about the plan earlier -- if I entered in a partnership with him, he could have stabbed me in the back by joining up with sherlock. As an unwitting pawn, all he can do is make the choice, after the attack has begun:

a) Go through with the plan, trading New York for the NPCs.
b) Try to fight me on it, thus risking losing both New York and Japan, and leaving the NPCs unmolested.

I think you got a little too greedy--IMHO, you could have gotten either New York or the NPCs, but not both.

I admit that it appears greedy. But there doesn't seem to be any way around it.

In order to get New York, I needed to get rid of their token. This could be done only with the NPCs. And since the NPCs would be tokenless, I could do Glen (and everyone) the favor of toasting the NPCs as part of the deal. It seemed so nice in theory...

Since Glen has chosen free will over puppet strings, he's going to have to pay for it. It wouldn't do for me to issue idle threats against Japan and not carry them through. Besides, now I don't have the chance to double cross sherlock. I might even be able to use him again, if Glen doesn't convince him that I was trying to betray him, too. On top of this, Japan counts for my goals. All I need is one more Government kill, and just sit tight with my Violents. I sure hope I draw some defensive plots with these kills (and I'm looking at the bottom card first!)

I'm really hoping that Glen can't talk sherlock out of helping me. I'm considering sending sherlock mail, explaining the whole situation..... I still think it's hard for Glen to get much pity from the others, since he's playing Bavaria and opened with New York and Japan.

Fri, 8 Nov 96 14:00:07 EDT: Ralph commented to James, in reference to his response to Don Fnordlioni:

You know, you *do* have a copy of the card that Don Fnordlioni was hoping to recover your hand at the moment... This message is going only to you, not to Don Fnordlioni.

Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:31:16 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented on his decision to expose his Atomic Monster:

Why am I exposing my Atomic Monster? Cause, there aren't any plots that can affect exposed cards (except dippy goal-killing cards like Foiled!), and none of the groups which affect exposed plots are in play. It's much safer out there.

Also, I'm curious to see if Glen managed to draw a Martial Law to play on Japan. I'd like to suck that off of him, lest he play it on New York, or any of the other +10s (Martyrs, Infobahn, World Cup Victory), lest he use them offensively against me.

Fri, 08 Nov 1996 16:07 -0500 (EST): James replied to Ralph's comments about the fact that he had a copy of the NWO: World Hunger that Don Fnordlioni had asked him to scavenge:

Yes, but he asked if I were able to scavange it, which I am not and I wouldn't mind if _someone else_ played that card. ;) No, I don't really mean that. I don't need anybody reading this in the future to think I'm that picky.

However, I am still considering just what I will do with the card. My first reaction was to keep quiet, knowlege is power and all that. I could play it in return for the Amnesty, but, in the rules, deals are not binding except the turn they're made. Basically I have to decide if a Cthulhu player I've never played against, whose making deals all over the table, will hold a bargin like the people I play with. Even if I knew I could trust him, all bets would be off when I played for the win. (Can you tell BATF has got me spooked?) I may go for the trade, but the Network player has asked to do some deal making. I may just pretend to have just drawn it in order for some sway later in the game. There are a whole world full of possibilites, aren't there?

This is very interesting, veerrry interesting indeed.... I love it. I haven't seen this kind of deal making since the orignal Illuminati. Thank you for putting your time into this Ralph.

Sat, 9 Nov 1996 01:25:40 -0600 (CST): Thany explained his reasoning for using the token of the Bavarian Illuminati, instead of the Nuclear Power Companies' token he was beseeched to use:

For posterity (or my posterior):

I was (more or less) caught. I started out striking a deal with Don to destroy New York; namely, in that I would use the NPCs to cancel NY's action when it went to defend itself. Glen then sent me proof of Don's double-agent-plotting in the form of a message, sent to him, explaining the plot (I don't have a copy, but I assume you do somewhere). It seemed likely, and besides, the headers were still here ("...and if you think I'd copy them, you're crazy."). So, I decided to form an alliance with Glen against the threat of Cthulhu, but his own advice backfired on him. The reference he gave me to further prove the reality of his message (James) did confirm it, but also gave a warning as to the possibility of New York being a larger threat than Don (yea, even TO Don). So, it was either aid Glen and face a near indestructable New York in the future, or aid Don and fall right into his hands. Then, I remembered my other action (BTW, thanks for reminding me :) and managed to have a good shot at killing NY and still keeping my nukes. :)

Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:31:16 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni explained his decision to expose his Atomic Monster:

Why am I exposing my Atomic Monster? Cause, there aren't any plots that can affect exposed cards (except dippy goal-killing cards like Foiled!), and none of the groups which affect exposed plots are in play. It's much safer out there.

Also, I'm curious to see if Glen managed to draw a Martial Law to play on Japan. I'd like to suck that off of him, lest he play it on New York, or any of the other +10s (Martyrs, Infobahn, World Cup Victory), lest he use them offensively against me.

Mon, 11 Nov 96 17:47:41 EST: Ralph pointed out to Glen, in response to Glen's message to James:

Um, you made that offer [to trade New York] to Sherlock, not to James.

Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:00:30 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented, after England's defense of New York:

Just FYI, I'm beginning to develop a severe "Us against Them" mentality, here.

Right now, I think the Assassins are my only friends. I thought the Network would play it smart and keep out of this, saving its tokens for more pressing defense and plot draws, but.... shrug. I'm wondering if Jason is truly employing some sort of strategy by defending New York, or if it's more of a case of, "Well, I haven't done anything in a while -- take this!"

Secretly, I hope James doesn't throw in the Assassins token, and I get to roll a 4. And make it. Oh, and unless it isn't painfully obvious, I can't do anything more, so I'm ready to roll whenever everyone else is done with whatever.

Tue, 12 Nov 1996 16:56 -0500 (EST): James commented:

BTW, I will not be doing anything else about this attack no matter what. Hopefully this will allow you to move on.

Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:27:36 -0500 (EST): When James posted that he would be out of contact for a few days, Don Fnordlioni commented:

Unless you want to wait for him, I don't mind assuming he won't throw in the Assassins token to destroy New York. I sent him mail before this announcement, so, by his lack of response, I'm presuming he's not throwing in.

I don't think he would, anyway, even given my analysis of Bavaria's possible second turn win.
But I hate to think that I'm holding up things by waiting for him to say, "no."

So it's up to YOU. YOU must decide!

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:44 -0500 (EST): In response to Ralph's question about his reasons for committing not to do anything else about the attack, James answered:

Well, I hadn't expected The Networks' interferance and my next plot does me no good this early in the game. It was motivated by a strong desire to get past that card, but I seem to be having an even stronger desire to see NY go away. Especially since he has the PPM.

If I spend this token and the NPC attack goes down, I'll have a very poor plot hand, which is not good. This means that the chances I make the NPC attack are worse. It all depends on my group draw now.

I figured the The Network had been the one to tell you they weren't going to interfere. With that and hearing about other attempts to deal with him, I figured he was going to stick by that no matter what. Oh well, thems the breaks. In hindsight (it's 20/20 you know), I should've spent my Illuminati token and planned to buy a plot with the other two.

(The one to tell me they weren't going to interfere further was Don Fnordlioni, who wasn't going to interfere because he had contributed everything to the attack that he could.)

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:50:27 -0500 (EST): During the discussion of whether to play both actions, Don Fnordlioni asserted that the NPCs couldn't cancel England's action once the Society of Assassins' token was used. Ralph pointed out that he could still do so. Don Fnordlioni commented:

Another note: the NPCs could still cancel England's action, even if the Assassins have interfered between the declaration of England's action and the cancellation. I infer this from the fact that the NPCs could still cancel the original attack.

My fault -- You're right, the NPCs can cancel any aiding token whenever they wanted.

But you just /had/ to remind him he could cancel the whole thing! Let me see if I got this right: Let's pretend the NPCs cancel the whole attack. That means my Cthulhu token is lost, but the sherlock-Bavarian, Robot Sea Monster, Nephews, N.S.A. and England tokens all come back. (Not New York, Japan, or BATF -- they spent tokens to pay for plots, and those plots stay played, since they weren't +10s, Priviledged Attack, or other attack-specific cards).

Is this right? Just trying to verify my INWO administration capabilities. And this is off the top of my head, without looking anything up.

Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:15:17 +1000 (EET): Glen explained his message saying there was only one situation in which he saw it being fruitful for the Network's token to be used:

Wanna tell me?

As long as it won't influence the outcome.

There's a good practical reason to choose James' token to stay, rather than to toss - since James will be out of it for a bit longer. If you pick that, the reast of us can continue to negotiate stuff while he is gone.

Only in that situation is there any point in Jason putting in a Network token (because I can see a possibility of convincing Thany not to cancel).

Actually, I guess there's some point the other way around as well (I can try convincing James again, but he seems pretty determined). But I don't think this is likely.

Anyway, that's all it was about.

Sat, 16 Nov 1996 10:01:50 +1000 (EET): Glen explained his reasons for offering Thany New York in exchange for cancelling the attack:

I know this looks very strange - you'd think I'd be mad to do this with Thany of all people.

Seriously, there are a couple of reasons.

Firstly, I don't believe he'll agree to it - if he was going to, he'd have taken the offer earlier; but it might get me a couple of brownie points with him - get him to see me as less of a direct threat for the moment; I'm going to be _weak_ over the next few turns - come Jason's turn I'll have 0 groups. If I'm making generous offers perhaps I'm not a direct danger to him yet. It takes his focus off me.

Secondly, if he does it, Don F. will fail, which is a good thing; and the betrayal by Thany will take some Cthulhu heat off me. I don't like the odds of Don + Thany (+ help from James) vs me + Jason. It is bad for me and bad for Jason - and we both have too many coastal groups; if it was only one of us, we could manage a deal, but not with both. I need to break up the current alliances as quick as I can.

Thirdly, everyone seems especially determined to get rid of New York, so it's better if he's trying to defend it than me; I can concentrate on taking over other groups.

Fourthly, once he's cancelled, if I thought it was wise (which I probably won't because I value highly a reputation for keeping my word, and that's a hard thing to establish in an INWO game), I may choose not to give him New York.

James Eddleman's Turn 2

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Mon, 18 Nov 96 20:24:25 EST: Ralph responded to Don Fnordlioni's message to James, specifically about the Don's assertions about the difficulty of giving Finland Relief:

N.B.: Finland's printed power is still 2, so it will only need 6 points of power to bring Relief to Finland. The same is true for England.

Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:36:33 -0500 (EST): Note that Don Fnordlioni's scenario consideration was slightly in error, because the non-Secret Nephews of God could not aid an attack made by the Secret N.S.A.

Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:34:56 -0600 (CST): Thany explained his 'I'm not playing with Zog' comment:

Sorry. Zog is a player around here who does not hesitate to point out any and all errors that I make in any game, and then gloat if I don't take his advice. Obviously, I don't care much for him.

Tue, 26 Nov 1996 23:37:57 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Looks like my good friend the Assassins is playing a derivative of Deck of the Week #24 (which he wrote). I can tell already it's not exactly the same, but if I see the Libertarians or LaRouche come up, I'll know a Power For Its Own Sake will not be far behind. At least I can blast LaRouche six ways till Sunday, and the BATF can make short work of his Fanatics, but keeping the BATF safe will be a good trick. I hope it blows up from the Necronomicon before anyone decides to destroy/steal it.

And just for the curious, James's power is... 16, I believe. I'll start getting nervous when it hits 35 or so.

BTW, I'm definitely most wary of the Assassins. They're winning, fer crissakes. I don't mind being second, though -- buys me some time, I think, to get myself situated.

I kind of like the status quo right now, but it's good to know I have a good chance of diverting attention away from myself. Assassins will definately make a good scarecrow. He's probably thinking the same thing. heh.

Thany's Turn 2

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

OPEC attacks to control Fraternal Orders

Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:03:55 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented about his message to James:

The message I sent to James was almost complete bullshit (though most likely true). I figure, if James wants to get talked into spending actions, I'm happy to oblige him.

Personally, I don't see too much harm in letting sherlock gain control of the Fratboys, and I nearly told James as such, until I realized that the fewer enemy tokens around on my turn, the better. We saw what kind of debacle can happen when everyone has tokens during the New York incident.

Jason Bostick's Turn 2

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:53:40 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

If Jason (or anyone else) puts down a group that affects exposed plots, I'd like to "respond" by playing the Atomic Monster immediately.

On.... Finland. Better shot there, and Finland counts for his goals.

Also, if Finland ever controls another group, I will play the Monster immediately there, too.

I'm considering playing it on Japan, when Japan gets vulnerable. But I don't think I need to worry about Glen for the time being.

Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:56:28 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented about Glen's gift of Japan to Jason:

Needless to say, this makes me giddy. I can hardly contain myself.

The Atomic Monster has a 24+8-4-5=23 or less to devastate, 16 or less to destroy Japan. Is this math correct? Atomic Monster + Bonuses - Japan's World Hunger power - Proximity.

Of course, this is too good to be true. I expect the Counter-Revolution to save Japan, someday, but hey, it's fun. I wouldn't be surprised at a Hoax or Secrets. But I really don't care -- the attack's free, and I have plenty more.

Now then, I don't do this right away. I'd rather do this on my turn. I'm happy to let the Network blow a token to move Japan to a "safer" place. I also don't want to face all those Government groups stealing my B.A.T.F.

However, if the Network (or anyone else) comes up with a group that can affect exposed Plots, I'll use the Monster on Japan immediately.

As for Goal guessing, I'm presuming the Network is going for Population Reduction, with a WWWIII in there. This puts the Network at 8 groups.

I don't understand why Glen did that. It was a foolish deal. Why was New York so vitally important to him? (rhetorically speaking).

Sat, 7 Dec 1996 22:34:25 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented on his message to Glen, Thany, and James:

Personally, I don't think the Network can win this turn. They'd need to control at least 4 more groups for any kind of "Foo counts double" goal.

Even PFiOS is a long way off -- he needs 20 more points of power after getting rid of the Hunger.

Population Reduction, of course, is a concern, but nothing terrible.

IMO, the Network will succeed in appearing to be the clear leader (and biggest target), and still be a goodly way off from winning.

Of course, we could be looking at a Fusion Up Against the Wall.... That worries me most, I suppose. I'll jump on one of his groups if it's looking like that's the way it's going, though.

So, to make a long story short (too late!) I'm not worried terribly about the Network winning any time soon.

Tue, 10 Dec 1996 19:00:17 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

I know I shouldn't slam Japan, since he'll just seize the time and slam me.

I have to presume he won't attack me unless provoked.
I also have to presume he hasn't been provoked already.
Where the hell are my +10s?

Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:41:01 -0800: Jason asked Ralph about Jasons' sending his entire plan for the turn at once:

Did me doing this make your job any easier..I mean..I could always change my plans should someone interfere..but it gave you a base starting pt.

Wed, 11 Dec 96 19:44:08 EST: Ralph responded to Jason's message:

It's been nice to see the whole plan laid out. The tough call has been to decide how much time to give between different moves.

I'm sure it was easier to make the whole plan because you didn't have any attacks to make.

Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:47:28 -0800: Jason responded to Ralph's message:

Exactly..there was no sense wasting time if I knew what I was going to if someone tries to stop me..I may act differently..but right now..I'm playing by ear..

btw..any way I can bribe ya into getting me info..*grins*..just kidding..:)

Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:08:29 +1000 (EET): Glen commented about Don Fnordlioni's message about the Network:

I guess I'll hold off saying it too him directly, but it's Don's own fault. His rather mindless pursuit of taking out New York no matter what the cost has led fairly directly to his current worries.

I doubt I'd convince him of that, though.

Thu, 12 Dec 96 14:55:03 EST: In response to Don Fnordlioni's message to Thany, Ralph wrote to Don Fnordlioni:

Is this a directive to me?

Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:12:47 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's question:

Sure, assuming nothing defensive, like good polls, is played. I'd also like to wait until I'm sure he's down to 5 plot cards.

Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:00:49 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni sent Ralph a message cancelling his directive:

Just occured to me -- playing the Monster after Network knocks would be supremely bad, since I have the suspicion that he may Seize the Time.

So, forget it. I'll play it during my turn, likely after I make my ATO.

Thu, 12 Dec 96 16:11:19 EST: Ralph responded to Don Fnordlioni's message:

I'm not sure why it would be supremely bad if he Seized the Time. It'd certainly prevent him from playing any plots to neutralize it...

Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:29:45 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's message:

Welp, this may be true, however, he could just use raw power to rip my BATF away from me. I'm constantly paranoid about its resistance of 2.

I'm gonna wait until I have tokens on my groups. In fact, after this, I won't be doing much other than launching disasters at the Network, and hording my tokens for defense and plot draws.

Jason Bostick's Seize the Time! Turn

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:45:04 +1000 (EET): Glen responded to Ralph's decision to announce both the knocking and the Seize the Time! at the same time:

You kind of have to do it that way with Seize the Time, or the other person has already drawn, and by then it's too late. You can always rewind if something else happens.

Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:47:04 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni made a new plan:

I've decided on a compromise. I'll attack Japan if everything looks safe --- we'll see what happens during the Seize the time. Just let me know when he's in phase 6. (ie, about to knock.)

There followed a bit of discussion among Ralph, Don Fnordlioni, and Steve Hatherley (asked in as consulting rules-lawyer) about whether Don Fnordlioni could play the Atomic Monster on Phase 6 of Jason's turn, and if so, whether Jason could do anything else. The conclusion we reached was that, since Phase 6 usually slips by unnoticed in the case when no one declares victory, Don Fnordlioni would have to ask Jason to let him know when Jason was in his Phase 6, but that if he did so, it would be speed play for Jason to knock without announcing his Phase 6. We also concluded that once Jason entered his Phase 6, he couldn't change his mind and do any Phase 5actions afterwards.

Sat, 4 Jan 97 16:52:50 EST: In response to Jason's declaration of his plans for the turn, Ralph wrote to Jason:

Okay--I'll let Don Fnordlioni know that it's your phase 6.

(BTW, after some rules-lawyerish discussion with Steve Hatherley, I've decided that your decision to enter Phase 6 is binding--i.e., you can't do any Phase 5 actions after you decide to enter Phase 6.)

Sat, 04 Jan 1997 13:55:23 -0800: Jason replied to Ralph's message:

Which would mean what?..I can't use attack options?...I know Fnordlioni has something nasty in mind..I just don't know what..:)

Sat, 4 Jan 97 16:59:24 EST: Ralph explained the implications of Phase 6 to Jason, in answer to Jason's question:

This would mean that once you're in Phase 6, you can't initiate attacks, you can't move groups, you can't take over resources by spending an Illuminati action. There might be other things that you can only do during Phase 5, but I can't remember them offhand--those are the major ones.

Sat, 04 Jan 1997 14:01:26 -0800: Jason responded to Ralph's explanation:

Ok..then no prob...lets see what happens..

(I've learned a lot more about some of the cards since playing this with you guys and developing my deck that I'm using (I didn't have any SMWNMTK cards so none were in my decks)...this is really helping actually..that and going to Portland to Play Michael Bowman...:))

Sun, 5 Jan 97 21:38:28 EST: In response to Jason's comment, Ralph offered,

Would you like me to give you comments on your deck, then?

Mon, 6 Jan 1997 00:29:49 -0500 (EST): After giving the directions for the Atomic Monster on Japan, Don Fnordlioni wrote to Ralph:

If my attack on Japan is successful, and it is destroyed, then I'll be drawing my bottom plot of Car Bomb. On my turn, I'll look at my bottom plot before I decide which to draw.

Mon, 6 Jan 97 10:05:51 EST: Ralph responded to Don Fnordlioni's message, "I'll bite--why do you want to have two Car Bombs in your hand?"

Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:03:31 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni answered Ralph's question:

Cause I like bombs!

Actually, I just want to get rid of it. If I don't, it'll be there forever. Next plot draw, I'll know what the bottom card is anyway.

I'll probably just discard it.

Mon, 06 Jan 1997 09:59:11 -0800: Jason responded to Ralph's offer:

It would be helpful..I already know several things I am probably going to change (and have changed in the RL representation of the deck)..but comments are welcome..

Mon, 06 Jan 1997 10:01:45 -0800: Jason asked in response to the announcement of the Atomic Monster on Japan:

Correct if wrong..but Japan can defend itself using it's AT..correct?..even in an instant..or does the rule of disasters taking away AT's override that?

Mon, 6 Jan 97 13:24:00 EST: Ralph answered Jason's question:

Nope, sorry. First off, Japan loses an action token when the disaster is played--even if the roll were a -16 or less, it'd still lose the action token. Secondly, Japan can't use its action token in defense against an instant attack, even if it had one after the disaster took away the action token.

Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:32:56 -0800 (PST): Jason replied to Ralph's explanation:

Ok..disasters aren't exactly commonplace here in the rulings don't get used much...looks like unless he blows his roll..I'm toast..*grins*

Wed, 8 Jan 1997 21:57:45 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented:

I'm hoping for Prediction Points, by guessing that Jason will Counter-Revolution Japan back into play. This doesn't worry me terribly -- Japan will be easy to destroy again. Not as easy as this last time, but easy enough.

Glen Barnett's Turn 2

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Fri, 10 Jan 1997 14:13:11 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote about his plans for the turn:

OK, here are my intended actions:

- allow breaks so I'm not speed playing, and in the event of a major interruption by another player, it all may change...

Texas attacks to control the Local Police Depts (I make it a 12, with the NWO's).

Bavaria spends a token to draw a group (taking the risk that I won't need the token to power a Secrets to keep the Seize in play).


Play Seize the Time (with the remaining Bavaria Action).

That'll do for now. What I do after that in part depends on what group I draw above, but I'll probably ATO the Clipper Chip, token-up and knock; or I may try to take Hawaii or even California.

-- Hey, does my Illuminati get its PMM token on the Seized turn?

Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:18:38 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented about his draw of Car Bomb:

Ya know, the Mossad isn't nearly as useful as I thought it would be. Ah well.

Fri, 10 Jan 97 14:35:19 EST: Ralph Responded to Don Fnordlioni's comment about the Mossad:

That's been my experience--it's not enough to have the choice; you must also have the information to use the choice wisely.

Fri, 10 Jan 1997 14:59:59 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni responded to Ralph's comment with more comments of his own:

Well, I figure I can make a reasonably intelligent choice every other turn, or so.

Its main use is to pull the plot off the bottom, regardless of what it is. You can keep worthless cards on the top, for plot stealers like the IRS, and you can foil the NSA by pulling cards from the side they didn't look at. Looking for specific cards with the Mossad isn't really worthwhile -- you go through both sides at half the rate would be going down from the bottom. shrug.

The Mossad is a likely target for annual convention on my next kill.

Speaking of kills, I'm surprised the Network hasn't produced International Weather Organizations yet. I'm also going to have to save a disaster for Japan, when it comes back.

Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:01:52 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented on Glen's ATO of Texas:

Okay, do Glen and Jason have every government place in the game in their decks? sheesh.

And not one place-saving group yet. Int'l weather, survivalists, red cross.... yay.

The answer to Don Fnordlioni's question: Between the two of them, they had thirteen of the seventeen Government Places in their decks. The Government Places that were not in any player's deck were Switzerland, the Center for Disease Control, China, and Italy.

Fri, 10 Jan 97 15:13:50 EST: Ralph wrote to Glen about Glen's plan:

It may be relevant to your plans that I think the end of your Seize the Time turn will be the end of your third complete turn, after which you can be eliminated--but I'm not quite sure of that, since the rules say 'third complete turn'. What do you think?

Good question. I'm not sure, but I think it does not--my reasoning is by analogy to the FAQ on the Nuclear Accident, which explains that the NPCs lose all their action tokens. I would guess, therefore, that Seize the Time! means "the Illuminati gets no action tokens" either from the PMM or from the UFOs' special power.

(Another question: if you didn't draw your Group card, could you keep one of the tokens from this turn on Bavaria?)

I invite you to post either of these questions to the inwo-list; I'm going to let you do so, so that I don't give away your plans.

Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:29:35 +1000 (EET) Glen responded to the message in which Ralph announced his attack on the Local Police Departments:

Several hours, actually. I showered, got dressed, ate, and went into school (an hour's travel). And then had a slow think.

I guess being so far shifted in time makes all that happen when you're asleep though.

Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:42:27 +1000 (EET): Glen responded to Ralph's comments about Seize the Time!:

I see what you're getting at, but that is not the way I look at it. My own feeling is that the word "complete" is not just taking up space, but is there for a reason (especially given the SJ Games writer's guidelines about not wasting words). My reading of it was that "third complete turn" meant "third time 'round the table", even if everyone had actually had 4 turns by then. The only other reading for the word complete I can see is that it was written with the existence of less than complete turns in mind, specifically Seize the Time.

Anyway, even if this isn't the case, I'll stick with my plan and take the risk.

I think this is the correct reading of the words.

Of course! You can leave tokens on groups; they just can't get a new one while you do.

As if me posting them wouldn't? I think I'll leave it for now. We can post these questions afterward if that's OK. If you're really keen to ask one of them, we'll work out how to do it so it is less obvious, perhaps.

In any case, if any of this becomes an issue, we can worry about it. I'm happy to accept your reading of the "No tokens" part, and the other things can be left for now.

Sun, 12 Jan 1997 09:43:14 +1000 (EET): Glen commented upon Thany's defense of the Local Police Departments:

Ralph: remind me to carve:
"You get a privileged attack, stupid!" into my forehead.

Sat, 11 Jan 97 18:05:05 EST: Ralph responded to Glen's comment:

I noticed that you hadn't thought of that, but I didn't feel that it was appropriate to remind you.

I don't think that carving it into your forehead is effective, though, because you can't see it there. Maybe the underside of your eyelids? :)

Don Fnordlioni's been doing surprisingly well at remembering to draw his plot for destroying groups. He usually forgets.

I will mention that there's something else you've been forgetting--but I don't think it's ethical for me to mention what.

I'm not sure it was ethical for me to even mention that. :(

Sun, 12 Jan 1997 09:48:56 +1000 (EET): Glen discussed his plans after Thany's interference:

I'll have a little think about what to do. I'll probably use the Bavaria token I was going to use to draw a group to add to my side, but I need to think a bit (and maybe test the water).

Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:51:36 +1000 (EET): Glen responded to Ralph's comment:

You were right.

If it is the other part of my deal with Jason, no, I haven't forgotten.

His response at last discussion was very non-committal. I thought I might just leave it for now. However, if this LPD's thing goes badly, I may call on him on my next (Seized) turn.

If it is something else, then I must hang my head in shame, because I really must have forgotten whatever it was.

Sun, 12 Jan 1997 22:08:32 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote:

Discussing the bit about the deal with Jason made me think of a different way to use Jason's owing of me...

Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:25:23 +1000 (EET): After James's use of the Nephews of God, Glen commented:

Once this action goes through, I'd like to pause for a sec (well, hours, really) while I see if Thany is going to throw in more tokens.

Then I'm probably going to ask Jason for another one.

Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:29:23 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote:

If Jason doesn't come back soon, and you decide to just get on with the game, I'd like a chance to act before the roll.

If for some reason that doesn't (or can't) work out, I'll just wear the roll as it stands now; no problem.

Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:32:45 +1000 (EET): Glen responded to Ralph's announcement of Jason's use of Germany:

Not me! I'm happy with 10!

Of course, with all that's happened, my plans from now have changed somewhat. I'm still going to Seize the Time (I have to do it now, I think, or I'll never hold Thany off). It is what else I do that may change. I'm trying to decide whether it is worth the risk to play any more places, such as doing a priv. attack on Hawaii, or whether I should keep my Illuminati token for my next turn.

Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:15:32 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented on Jason's use of Germany:

I must say, this pleases me. I'm happy to see the Network draining itself like this.

Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:12:53 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote about his die roll:

4! I didn't need all those tokens after all!

Hey, the bit about not being able to draw cards in the Seized turn, that means I can't save my Illuminati action to draw a group during that turn, doesn't it?

Wed, 22 Jan 97 23:13:25 EST: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

"You cannot draw any cards for any reason." Pretty unambiguous.

Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:15:12 +1000 (EET): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

OK, then
(i) I'll spend an Illuminati action to draw a group (crossing my fingers that no-one has a Secrets or Hoax or 18 1/2 minute gap)

(ii) knock

(iii) Play Seize the Time

as long as nothing untoward happens in the meantime. (like roll changes, or disasters)

Thu, 23 Jan 97 18:25:50 EST: Ralph finally got around to commenting on Jason Bostick's deck, in response to a previous message:

The big weakness of your deck, IMHO, is that it tries to do too much; it has too many ways to win. You have Cthulhu, Bavaria, Goal: Power for Its Own Sake, Goal: Population Reduction, and Goal: Up Against the Wall. There's a fair bit of overlap there, certainly, but it's still enough possibilities that you can't really focus on one.

On the other hand, you don't have many of the things that would make your deck more effective at taking its groups. Since almost all your groups are Government, a Clipper Chip would be practically de rigueur. And you only have one Martial Law... but you have two New Bloods and two Emergency Powers, even though you'll only be able to use one of each.

You're also weak on defense--you're particularly vulnerable to Disasters with so many places. Some Disaster defense would help--although it might make it harder for you to destroy your places yourself.

This is just what comes to mind offhand.

Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:35:49 -0800: Jason wrote in response to Ralph's critique of his deck:

*nods majorly* learned that after about 2 rounds of playing against someone other then Luke here in Corvallis. I removed a couple..there are still more then the normal number of ways to win (I think 4) but I can decide ALOT faster which one I need to focus on. The original design was to have so many ways to win, I could really confuse anyone, but at 45 kind of limited my deck options and I had to re-design it.

I thought about a C.C, but didn't wanna look like the 'oh my..he's going for the Bavarian/gov/C.C. win' deck..but I think your right..I may need to add it afterall.

*nods*..I wanted two of the doublers so that I could use one, then if I drew the other one, it makes a great sacraficial card for like March on Washington or something along that lines..but I do believe I removed one of each of those..

yeah..I caught onto this one real quick..replaced some of the more useless plots and such with Disaster Protection cards..I have yet to try it out against anyone yet though.

I do appreciate it..there are so many limits to how many people I can play with in this's hard to get good comments on my decks. The E-mail game is a great way to test things out and get other opinions.

Glen Barnett's Seize the Time! Turn

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Fri, 24 Jan 97 15:41:39 EST: Ralph asked Glen:

Out of curiosity, what do you have Celebrity Spokesman in your deck for? The only non-Government Organization you have in your deck is Local Police Departments, and the only Personality you have his Bill Clinton, who doesn't benefit by Celebrity Spokesman (and might have an opposed alignment to the Local Police Departments.)

Note on 5/21/97: Ralph was wrong here. Glen also had two other non-Government groups in his deck: Big Media and Nuclear Power Companies. He also had Manuel Noriega, who could benefit by a Celebrity Spokesman.

Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:19:38 +1000 (EET): Glen answered Ralph's question:

Because I fiddled with the (previously successful many times) deck just before I sent it too you. I didn't think about not being able to use CS after fiddling with it. Maybe I should have left it alone.

Oh well, I could have been using it as negotiation fodder before now, in fact, I almost did. Or maybe I'll have to try to steal a personality.

Gee, I'm not doing too well, am I?

Fri, 24 Jan 97 21:23:12 EST: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

Now I'm kind of curious as to what would happen if Bill Clinton was the Celebrity Spokesman for the Post Office. Would the Spokesman be in effect only when he wasn't liberal?

I guess it's convenient that Bill starts out with a power of 4. :)

(Ralph says later, "I have no idea why I said 'Post Office' instead of Local Police Departments. LPD is what I meant.")

Sat, 25 Jan 1997 21:09:02 +1000 (EET): Glen riposted to Ralph's comment:

Or would the link be broken as soon as it became illegal?

Sat, 25 Jan 97 13:58:04 EST: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

I realize that I meant 'Local Police Departments', not 'Post Office'. D'oh.

I dunno. I'd probably argue that Bill's liberalness is never 'permanent'.

Do you mind if I ask this question on the INWO list? I'd ask the question of another Conservative group, that hadn't entered the game yet, so as not to give away your hand.

Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:19:37 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote his plans for the turn:

On my turn, assuming it hasn't been cancelled, I do nothing until I get tokens.

Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:21:35 +1000 (EET) Two minutes later, Glen sent a followup:

Oops, sorry, brain seizure. It only lasted a second.

I forgot Seize still allows me an ATO. That's the problem with not having the cards to hand.

I take OMCL's and then wait for tokens.

Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:28:05 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni declared a plan for his turn:

I'll happily look at my bottom plot before deciding.

I couldn't remember if I mentioned this before.

Round 3

Don Fnordlioni's Turn 3

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:57:05 -0500 (EST): After seeing the Gun Control at the bottom of his deck, Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Lesse here.
Playing that will help the Network and Bavaria just about as much as it will help me. And I don't really need the power boost. It might be a useful trading card, though.

Eh. We'll keep that down there for now, and draw my top plot. If I never get Gun Control, no big deal -- wouldn't surprise me if Glen's got one already.

I'm still toying with what my ATO will be. I'm thinking either Soulburner or Saddam Hussien. Maybe even Secret Service, but I would rather wait until Bill Clinton comes out -- I know he's lurking out there somewhere...

Thu, 30 Jan 1997 00:45:26 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented on the his card draws:

Thank GOD! A DISASTER for a change! Keep 'em coming.


Welp, hmm.
I've been doing a lot of thinking, and I think I've come to a reasonable compromise between sitting on my hands, doing nothing, and actually improving my position in the game.

Actually, this might be fairly dangerous, but what the hell. My Atomic Monster gives me larger cajones.

[Quote deleted; see the history]

Assuming this goes off without a hitch, I'll be spending my Cthulhu token to take over Soulburner.

[Quote deleted; see the history]

In all likelihood, I'll be knocking after this. But feel free to drop a note and confirm. I may do something crazy like attack to control Russia.

Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:08:58 -0500 (EST): After taking over Soulburner, Don Fnordlioni wrote:

After considering some suicidial options like taking over Russia, and some unwise options like taking over Saddam Hussien or Secret Service, I decide to knock.

By the way, what's the total bonus for the Robot Sea Monsters to destroy Japan? +10 for direct, and a +4 for any attempt to destroy Coastal? I think that's how it works....... I never remember. sigh.

Next turn, I'm thinking of ATOing the Weather Satellites, controlling the Secret Service, and knocking out another Gov't group. Then I gotta start looking for my goal....

Hmm... now to tactfully warn the Network away from re-taking Japan.

James Eddleman's Turn 3

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Fri, 31 Jan 97 12:45:46 EST: Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's question about the Robot Sea Monsters:

Well, the text from the Card List Generator (which is not necessarily accurate) says:

If this is correct, then the bonuses are cumulative--but for some reason, I vaguely remember treating them as non-cumulative in play. I need to check the INWO book.

Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:27:35 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented about his message to James:

I don't actually expect Jason to cave in to my demands, but, hey. I figure if I make the offer, I can't be accused of being a complete bully. smirk.

Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:55:47 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni wrote after James' automatic takeover of the Libertarians:

Welp, it's pretty much confirmed -- looks like DotW #24.

Libertarians attack to control Germany

Mon, 03 Feb 1997 20:39 -0500 (EST): James responded to Ralph's announcement of his attack on Germany:

I was hoping you would... To me this seems the only option. A while ago I noticed that SJ seemed very particular about use of capitalization. I.e. 'Power' denotes the regular, permanent power of the card, 'Global Power' the number after the slash and 'power' to mean the final number you get when you add/subtract/integrate everything. I'm of the opinion that it's the single most consistent thing in INWO rules. I could be wrong though, having come up with the theory made it less appetizing to do a complete search of the rules to find any inconsistencies. ;)

You don't know how long I've wanted to use that special ability? I've been playing this deck off and on since it got inducted as a Deck of the Week, and this is the first time a viable opportunity has come up.

Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:59:06 +1000 (EET): Glen commented about James' attack:

Just some thoughts...

Now, why on earth didn't he use the Agents card I just gave him, rather than tossing all those tokens in? This is weird. I can only guess he's holding it in reserve, but that doesn't make sense to me, since if he succeeds without using it, it is wasted, and he's spent tokens he might need later. I can think of no circumstance where he is better off by holding it back and spending tokens instead, unless he's planning on this attack failing. But then why take it to 16? He could keep back at least one of the other two tokens.

Well, if he wanted to bamboozle me, it sure worked. The attack on Germany, that was no surprise. Not using the agents has me completely thrown.

(My best guess: James was thrilled by the chance to use the Libertarians' special ability.)

Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:50:10 +1000 (EET): Glen asked:

Just figured I better be sure.

I'm correct in my belief that the doubling doesn't apply to the agents card, assuming he uses it?

Tue, 4 Feb 97 02:24:46 EST: Ralph responded to Glen's question:

I certainly wouldn't think so.

Tue, 4 Feb 97 02:40:55 EST: Ralph replied to James' message:

Heh. I don't imagine it [the chance to use the Libertarian's special ability] comes up that often.

How close is your deck to the Deck of the Week, btw?

Tue, 04 Feb 1997 07:45 -0500 (EST): James replied to Ralph's message:

Well, I thought it was pretty close, but I just went and looked and its not. I've changed 6 group cards and it looks like almost half the plots. I've made the deck more Fanatic and able to lend power between groups. Not to mention I play the deck entirely differently from my strategy write up. (Due mostly to the group card changes.)

So, to be accurate, I've been modifing this deck off and on since...

Wed, 05 Feb 1997 13:03 -0500 (EST): James commented on Glen's use of the Orbital Mind Control Lasers:

You may also want to point out that Emergency Powers is temporarily illegal, and unless I missed someone making England Straight or Conservative, they lose their remaining action token and their Power is currently 0.

(for your archives) Well, I'm puzzeled. I'm of the opinion that a better move would've been to add Corporate to Libertarians.

Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:06:37 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni wrote about the attack on Germany:

In a word, I'm not going to interfere.

Wed, 05 Feb 1997 13:07 -0500 (EST): James followed up his previous message with another comment:

#2 of 2

Or, even better, remove Fanatic from Libertarians.

(The down side to email is the 'Oh yeah..' 10 seconds after you send.) :)

(Another thing that the OMCLs could have done: if the OMCLs had turned England Conservative, it would have increased Germany's Loyalty to England by 4, and it would have increased England's Power by 2, which England could then use to defend Germany.)

Wed, 5 Feb 97 13:10:14 EST: Ralph responded to Don Fnordlioni's "I'm not going to interfere" message:

That's five words. :-)

Wed, 5 Feb 97 13:22:04 EST: Ralph responded to James' message:

I got this before I got your other one.

I've been privy to some of the other negotiations that explain the reasoning, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to explain that to you.

If you want to know, ask Glen to explain, perhaps.

Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:34:13 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni riposted to Ralph's "That's five words" message:

Originally, I wrote it in German. So it was one word.
But I figured you couldn't read it like that, so I translated.

Wed, 5 Feb 97 13:41:44 EST: Ralph commented to himself: "I somehow doubt that Germany is ever going to pick up many action tokens..."

Wed, 05 Feb 1997 10:42:56 -0800: Jason responded to Ralph's use of the phrase 'Europe-boy' to describe him:

*chuckle* least I don't have France,Italy, and switzerland out there....(yet)..:)

Wed, 5 Feb 97 13:45:48 EST: Ralph responded to Jason's message:

Nor are you likely to, since you don't have Italy and Switzerland in the deck.
And you left out Al Amarja, which is more or less European. :)

Wed, 05 Feb 1997 10:50:14 -0800: Jason replied to Ralph's message:

Tis true..tis true..*grins*..maybe a themed deck to be built..*grins*

Wed, 05 Feb 1997 14:30 -0500 (EST): James replied to a message of Ralph's:

Yeah, smaller messages seem to travel faster, don't they? Or, were you talking ideas? No matter.

I didn't expect you would, I was just commenting. I thought this was supposed to be an example game for the masses and I was just letting you know my view of things. And knowing that I hope to get through this without making any deals, makes my solution better. From their point of view that was a good play beacuse of all the Govt/Conservative power on the board. And don't tell me if I'm right or not, I don't want to know; I'll find out at the end of the game. This is just some insight into an occasionally dense INWO player. ;)

While we're on the insight, I could have had a nice attack to destroy Fraternal Orders. But I could stop him from winning by using 'End of the World' which is the 2nd card down. If I manage to not spend any more tokens, I can get to it with the tokens I would recieve from Full Moon. There is of course risk involved, i.e. plot cancelers.

Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:32:43 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote a comment after Don Fnordlioni's public comment:

This reminds me of a comment that I wasn't sure I had made:

Once I realised he still had the SoA token, my perplexity at not using the Agents card immediately was somewhat (though not completely, I must say) reduced.

Fri, 7 Feb 97 01:57:45 EST Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's public comment:

Yes, you have. I know that I've done it in games... I thought that you had been there for some of those games.

I agree, it's cunning--it's one of the advantages of agents and things like Atomic Monster used to attack the NPCs: you can put it into the attack later.

Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:06 -0500 (EST): James expanded on his comment of "And knowing that I hope to get through this without making any deals, makes my solution better":

'my solution' = my ideas for the use of OMCL's token. Basically, not counting +10s/good polls, I figured I would be able to take Germany without help. But this goes back to them not knowing what I'm up to. I.e not what I'm negotiating for but if I'm negotiating with someone else. PBEM is cool! Otherwise they'd know if I was talking with another player.

<I started this this morning, but got sidetracked. Now I'm not sure if it makes any sense. Let me know.>

Thany's Turn 3

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Wed, 12 Feb 97 14:44:45 EST: Ralph asked Thany about his message to Don Fnordlioni:

Out of curiosity, which cards are you thinking of [that could help Don Fnordlioni's Atomic Monster]?

Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:52:41 -0600 (CST): Thany responded to Ralph's question:

Actually, I was thinking of Swiss Bank Account, but that wouldn't work, so...never mind.

Jason Bostick's Turn 3

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:53:36 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented:

I sure hope my goal comes up soon -- if I ATO a Violent group, and blast Germany, it looks like I win, barring Japan's resurrection.

I tap the top of my Plot deck vigourously, in hopes of conjuring up the goal.

Tue, 18 Feb 97 15:04:06 EST: Ralph commented on Don Fnordlioni's public message:

Somehow, I don't think you meant to send that to the whole list...

Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:25:58 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote:

Before play passes to me, I wish to do something; but with Power Grab it's too late isn't it?

Tue, 18 Feb 97 17:37:45 EST: Ralph responded to Glen's question:

I think so, yes... I know that Jason doesn't get a Phase 5 or a Phase 6, so I don't think he'd get a Phase 7, either.

If you'd like to ask about this on the INWO list, we can do so.

Glen Barnett's Turn 3

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:55:35 +1000 (EET): Glen replied to Ralph's ruling:

Naah. We both agree. I can't see the point.

Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:34 +1000 (EET): Glen commented on Ralph's announcement of the beginning of his turn:

Well, actually, I was also going to spend those 2 tokens for a plot.

Tue, 18 Feb 97 21:38:10 EST: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

You can still spend those tokens for a plot...
At least, I certainly had the impression that you could spend tokens for plots during phases 2 and 3 as well, and I'm certainly going to let you do it.

I don't think you can play New Blood at this time, but I'll certainly let you draw a plot with those tokens.

(I didn't think it was speed play, because I didn't think that going ahead with what I did was preventing you from any possibilities.)

Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:41:17 +1000 (EET): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

No problem. In any case, you're correct.

So I spend the 2 tokens for a plot.

Depending on the plot, I'll probably ATO California off Bavaria, and place tokens.

Tue, 18 Feb 97 21:54:52 EST: Ralph responded to Glen's intention to ATO California:

That surprises me a bit--mind if I ask your rationale for taking the risk?

(Maybe I shouldn't have said anything to mention the risk...)

Tue, 18 Feb 97 22:09:08 EST: Ralph followed up:

Well, I suppose you could use the Secrets to draw the fang...

Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:03:26 +1000 (EET): Glen responded to Ralph's question:

Of taking over California with Atomic Monster out? A couple of things. One is having Beach Party. If my calculations are correct - whoops, no they aren't!

Sorry, I had calculated it would be destroyed on a lower roll than it will be. I thought it was worth the risk to draw the fang, but maybe it isn't now that I work it out more carefully.

That doesn't leave me a hell of a lot, because Hawaii won't necessarily draw the AM; it can be taken out with pretty much any of the disasters, leaving the AM still there.

I'll think some more. I may be better to do California anyway...

Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:12:36 +1000 (EET): Glen replied to Ralph's other message:

Yes, I came to the same conclusion about 30 seconds ago, while I was figuring the correct destroy chances (>50%, which is a lot higher than I worked out the first time).

It's a pity I can't wait until after the roll to play Secrets.

Still, Don may hold off long enough for me to draw Near Miss as well; that'd be funny. Or he may wait until I give California a puppet.

My only worry is if he AM's me between the ATO of California and the action token placement, because I'll have no tokens.

Ah. Got it. I know what I'm doing.

Now, when can I spend an Illuminati token for a resource? Is it anytime in phase 5?

Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:48:25 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote:

OK, it's tricky, but it just about works - here goes:

The Illuminated Seers activate their sleepers in the Brazilian Government. <ATO Brazil off Bavaria> <Take tokens> <spend a Bavaria token to take Clipper Chip>

..... Do up to here .....

next should come: <*Privilege*: Bavaria attacks California, with aid of Brazil.> I make that 10 + 5 vs 4 = 11

I'm still thinking on this, there are other ways to go. It seems a pity to waste the Fear & Loathing... I'm also thinking of dropping some cards back on the plot deck to power the Secrets (so I know what I lose), but it'd be funny if it wasn't needed.

I'll come up with a story for the priv. attack. when we get to it.

Wed, 19 Feb 97 23:44:47 EST: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

Um, what Fear and Loathing?

Thu, 20 Feb 1997 15:52:32 +1000 (EET): Glen replied to Ralph's "what Fear and Loathing?" question:

It's senile dementia rearing its ugly head. That or the OMCLs. For some reason I read "A Thousand Points of Light" as "Fear and Loathing".

OK, I'm feeling a little better now. I better go find a tinfoil hat before they come back.

Wed, 19 Feb 97 23:59:59 EST: Ralph responded to Glen's message:

Be reassured; I've made similar mistakes...

It does say something about both of us that 'A Thousand Points of Light' and 'Fear and Loathing' carry enough meaning with them that they're easy to confuse...

Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:26:10 +1000 (EET): Glen responded to Ralph's message:

Yes, we must process them both as "blue nwo that fiddles with the +4/-4 alignment stuff" or something like that.

Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:29:06 +1000 (EET):

You aren't waiting on me, are you? You're just giving a decent pause for everyone else before the next bit, right?

(I'm not sure if what I sent you said to go ahead with the next part or not is all. If you aren't waiting on me, there's probably no need to reply, but if you are, there is.)

Thu, 20 Feb 97 19:11:02 EST: After executing Glen's takeover of a Clipper Chip, Ralph replied to Glen's plan:

We've reached the 'Do up to here' bit. Send me a confirmation on the attack, please.

Glen did send a confirmation.

Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:03:31 -0500 (EST): In response to Glen's attack to control California, Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Is he on crack?
Did he not notice my Atomic Monster?

Fri, 21 Feb 97 00:05:54 EST: Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's message:

That, of course, is not something that I can answer.

Fri, 21 Feb 97 16:45:33 EST: After Glen's rolling a 12 on his attack, Ralph wrote to Glen:

You seem to be really having a rough time of it in this game. I'm sorry... I keep rooting for you, hoping that luck will go your way.

Not much I can do, though--I felt tempted to reroll the dice, but that would not be fair.

Sat, 22 Feb 1997 11:28:50 +1000 (EET): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

Nope, you gotta let it come up the way it comes up.

Let me rethink my knock. I think I'll have to knock anyway, because I'll have nothing left if I try again.

It's a pity, because without New York and Japan (which I didn't necessarily expect to keep), California was kind of essential.

Maybe I should have gone with the other plan: attack with Brazil (9); if that succeeds, use Illuminati token to transfer to Illuminati arrow - if it fails, attack with Illuminati (one of the attacks would be non-privileged, but still) directly (6).

I thought taking the privileged roll to 10 would be better...

Sat, 22 Feb 97 12:06:26 EST: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

I am currently in the mode of letting you rethink your knock. I've interpreted your 'I think I'll have to knock anyway' as musings, rather than as commands.

Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:00:40 +1000 (EET): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

Correct; I was unable to get to anything with an Internet connection last night. I am knocking:


Round 4

Don Fnordlioni's Turn 4

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:00:57 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented, in response to Ralph's announcement of Glen's knock:

First off, I'd like to mention how much this saddens me. Oh well.

Now then.
Do I make a play for win, hoping to draw my goal?
We shall see. I'll blaze through my plots, thusly: First and second draws will be from the top. If neither of those are my goal, then I'll go ahead and get at the Gun Control. Why? Cause of this damned Mossad, I'm overly paranoid that my goal is just one away from the bottom. It's pretty unfounded, but hey. The Gun Control will make for good defense if I can't make the goal.

I know my group card is Hitler's Brain. So, if I draw my Goal, I'll ATO the Secret Service to the C.I.A.

(With this, I hope to then blast someone, and win)

If I draw my Seize the Time, I'll ATO Saddam Hussein.

(With this, I hope to Assassinate him in short order, then StT, and ATO the Secret Service, win)

If I don't draw my Goal or the StT, I'll ATO the Weather Satellites.

(With this, I will probably take over Hitler's Brain with an Illuminati action, blast someone, draw a couple plots, then just sit tight for another turn.)

Ya know what -- I just realized, I can't win while Glen has a token on the OMCLs. I was going to go ahead and delete this, but maybe you'll find it interesting. So.

I'll just draw my plots (2 from the top, and the NWO from the bottom), and see what I get. Hey, maybe that Assertiveness Training will come in useful after all! That would be sweet. Once I know my plots, I'll decide on an ATO.

Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:33:05 -0500 (EST): After drawing his cards, Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Grunt. Not horrible, but nothing to write home about.

No shocker there.

Okay, so, hmm.

I don't particularly want to give anything away, but I would kind of like to wrap this up. I also don't relish being the first to declare victory, cause those get stopped pretty quickly.

I'm pretty sure I can stop the Assassins with a New Blood, assuming he can't cancel the plot.

I'm also pretty confident I can stop the Network with a Disaster, similar for Glen's Bavarians (again, presuming no Hoaxing or anything). I'm not too worried about the other Bavaria claiming victory. And Glen can block him, I'm sure, with the OMCLs, by changing something to drop him below 50.

I think I'm the closest, and I don't know if anyone realizes it.

Just need to get my goddam goal out.

So, hmm. I'll play conservatively, and declare (hopefully) next turn. I'm going to ATO the Weather Satellites, place tokens, and use my Illuminati token to take over Hitler's brain. I'm going to have to unload plots after that, so we'll see how that all goes before I start doing badness.

Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:08:26 -0500 (EST): After taking over Hitler's Brain, Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Okay, I was toying with blasting Germany, but I think France might be a better choice. The Network still looks scary to me -- much scarier than the Assassins. Besides, the Network will still provide a New Blood to stop the Assassins, if need be.

I also took another look at Bavaria. Sheesh, so many tokens! It'll be hard to decide who the Senate will investigate. Maybe I can accept bribes.

So be it.

I'll throw an Atomic Monster France's way (power 16), spend a Weather Sat token (+4), and utilize by bonuses from Cthulhu and the RSMs (+4 and +4). That's a 28, minus 8, leading to a 20 to devastate, 13 to destroy.


Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:01:42 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote, as part of a message apologizing for failing to Cc Ralph on a message:

Anyway, I'm negotiating about using my Secrets.

(Is there 'time' to give someone else a cancel card in this circumstance, rather than me using it?)

Ralph's Response, at Thu, 27 Feb 97 00:27:53 EST: "Yes."

Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:12:59 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote about the Atomic Monster underway:

Hold off a sec, I think I'll cancel this, but I want to try and get something for it first.

Fri, 28 Feb 97 13:34:33 EST: Ralph commented to himself after Jason's message about the Savings & Loan Scam:

Note to self: In my omniscience, I can tell that a good way to stop the Atomic Monster would be for Glen to S&L Scam to get his Near Miss, and then play that when the Monster takes effect.

???: At an unidentified point (I've lost the message--how embarrassing!) Ralph wrote to James about his "Sorry, can't help either" message:

By the way, you can help if you want--you have a This Was Only a Test in your hand.

I understand that you might not want to say that to other players, but... [rest of message is lost]

Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:33 -0500 (EST): James replied to Ralph's comment:

Yes, but then I wouldn't have anything to defend Germany.

On the nose...

I'd rather not place myself in the position of an attempted bribe. I would probably take it and it would end up hurting me later.

Sun, 2 Mar 1997 11:51:18 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni commented on Jason's plot discard and trade:

Hey, now, I don't like the smell of this :)

Tue, 4 Mar 1997 22:20:28 -0500 (EST): After his Atomic Monster was cancelledDon Fnordlioni wrote:

They turn on you so quickly...

Welp, I guess I'll just let it fizzle out. How did he pay for that again? I forgot.

However, I'd hate to spend the turn making absolutely no headway. I can make the attack on Saddam Hussien, and at least suck some tokens off of people. If I get him, great -- I'll Sniper him on the spot. If I don't, no big deal -- I don't have much to gain or lose from one token -- the threat of Soulburner, the Network, and the Assassins should be sufficent to keep most attacks at bay.

Speaking of Soulburner, I wonder if I could ask you to remind people I have it, should someone wish to attack me. The real-life analogy would be, they announce the attack, and before they spend the token, I scream, "wait!" I dunno if it's doable in a pbem, though.

----quote this-----
So, as for Saddam... the BATF attacks to control him. Power 6, +8 from like alignments, Resistance of 4 makes it a 10 or less.

BTW, Glen, please don't blow the OMCL's token on dropping this roll down. The Lasers will be more useful when The Network tries to declare victory. I'm just trying to salvage SOMETHING out of this turn.
----unquote this-----

And ya know what -- I don't even care if the BATF gets eaten by the Necronomicon. I get to draw two plots if they do, and it counts for my goals. har de har har. And I can always try again with the C.I.A.! yay. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, it would HELP me if I botched up this roll, which is pretty neat. A roll that can't fail, if nobody changes the target number.

Tue, 4 Mar 97 23:09:02 EST: Ralph responded to Don Fnordlioni's comment:

Hmm. This is a tough question. I don't see any good way to do it in a PbEM. But maybe I'm not thinking well..

Man, you're getting pretty confident, aren't you?

Actually, you are in a really strong position--good defense with Soulburner and common alignments, awesome disaster power, plus lots of targets for your Disasters. It almost makes me feel sympathetic to the other folks, because I don't want your victory to be .too. easy; I want this game to show a thrilling finish. :)

I'm not going to do anything to affect the outcome, of course--just admitting to you that I tend to root for the underdogs--and right now, you're certainly not the underdog.

Tue, 4 Mar 97 23:37:30 EST: Ralph wrote a follow-up comment to Don Fnordlioni:

Actually, I take that back somewhat. On the basis of Illuminati special goals, all of the players are really pretty close.

I still think that you're in a good position, though, because of your strong defense, strong plot-drawing ability, and variety of targets.

Hmm. I wonder if Glen realizes that due to Pittsburgh INWO house rules, he can use the OMCLs to completely prevent you from taking over Saddam Hussein by turning him Peaceful. I'm not going to tell him that he can, of course.

Tue, 4 Mar 97 23:11:41 EST: Ralph commented on Glen's message to Don Fnordlioni:

I'm amused, because I know how effective it would be for you to keep mum about Up Against the Wall. :)

Wed, 5 Mar 1997 15:16:30 +1000 (EET): Glen replied to Ralph's comment:

I thought you might like it. It came to me as I was typing the response to him.

I doubt he'll do it (give me Soulburner), but who knows? Maybe I can get a plot or something instead. Or even a token in aid for an attack, perhaps. Soulburner is a good opening gambit.

There's always the possibility that I'll have to ask you to pass on to him any message in which I mention Up Against the Wall to the other players, or otherwise he mightn't believe I won't tell them anyway.

If he does give me something for my silence, I'd love to see his face when he reads the history of the game!

Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:53:44 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni responded to Ralph's comment:

Not so much confident -- just don't see a roll like this every day. Grin. I expect there to be some measure of resistance -- I'll be playing NWO: Gun Control if anyone opposes the attack with any power, even if that opposition is Texas. I have to get rid of it anyway. I probably will try again with the C.I.A., if I can convince the Assassins to use the Senate Investigation on somebody.

I'm in a decent position, but I'm certainly not alone. Glen has really bounced back from his early decimation, and the other Bavarians are in a good position to steal Texas, and the Assassins and the Network have already been established as real threats.

This will be a big fourth round, imo.

Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:55:06 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's comment about using the Orbital Mind Control Lasers to prevent Don Fnordlioni from taking over Saddam by turning him Peaceful:

Ah, shit, I completely forgot about that.
Is that a house rule? I thought it was real -- Hitler's Brain is pretty clear about it.

Wed, 5 Mar 97 11:43:44 EST: Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's message:

The house rule is that he could use the OMCLs to turn Saddam peaceful.

Wed, 5 Mar 1997 11:55:11 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni responded to Ralph's explanation:

Ah, yes, okay. I just woke up when I wrote that. Whaddaya want.

I do hope the next expansion makes exposing plots less useful. I'm getting tired of it.

Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:15:55 +1000 (EET): After his discussions with Don Fnordlioni, Glen wrote:

Using the LPD's action, I power an S&L Scam. I'll then be putting a few cards back in my deck. That ought to put the wind up him.

Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:17:07 +1000 (EET): Glen commented about his negotiations with Don Fnordlioni:

Why is it he only ever seems prepared to deal on his terms?

Offers are always returned with threats. most odd.

Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:56:17 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

I'm thinking of shopping around for someone to share victory with. If I can do that, I can win on this round, I bet.

I have to do a serious analysis tomorrow, but I'll probably approach both Assassins and Vatican-Bavaria. I'm in bed with them anyway.

Thu, 6 Mar 1997 13:58:51 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Go ahead and roll the dice. I give you permission.
I like that 10. A lot. So go right ahead.

I really can't see much I can offer in exchange for a shared victory with the Assassins I can give him the Monsters, but he's still two groups behind, then, and I'd still need a violent group to recoup my loss...

Still thinking of Thany, though. I almost wish I didn't tell Glen about Texas's vulernability.

Oh well. I won't mind winning solo :).

Fri, 07 Mar 1997 10:59 -0500 (EST): James wrote:

Just a note to remember to roll for Nephews of God before I draw. That is what the instructions say anyway...

Also let me know what SJ games thinks of all the stuff going on before the canceling of the Atomic Monster. I remember Lynette saying all that could be done, but I could never find it to show my INWO buddies.

Fri, 7 Mar 97 12:14:57 EST: Ralph replied to James' message:

See the UFAQ, which lists all of those things as free moves. It seems a little weird to me that discarding from the top of your deck is irrelevant--but it's so.

Sun, 9 Mar 1997 19:05:12 +1000 (EET): After playing the Savings & Loan Scam, Glen wrote:

OK, I put New Blood and Celebrity Spokesman back in my deck, New Blood under 5 cards, then Cel. Spokesman under 8.

I expose the Forgery.

That'll have 'em guessing - for a few minutes, anyway.

Fri, 14 Mar 1997 16:44:07 +1000 (EET): Glen wrote:

I've been waiting for the other players to even seem a little bit panicked by Don F.

I'm in the worst position. Let them come to me for a change.

Their complete lack of reaction to events just astounds me.

If they want him to win, that's just great. I'm no longer going to knock myself out trying to stop him. No one even offered a hint that it'd be good if I interfered with his taking over Hussein.

Even if I could stop him, it would be pointless for me to do so - I'd just help the next guy to win. So I'm on strike. Until someone offers me a decent inducement (like the ones I've offered in the early part of the game!) I'm not even going to try to stop him or anyone else.

Thu, 20 Mar 1997 09:12:25 -0500 (EST): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Well, I'd be happy to tell you what happens with the rest of my turn, but it looks like CMU's Computer Science webserver is down --- can't get to the current state of the game.

If it's still down by the time you read this, feel free to mail me everyone's power structure. Not sure if I want blast anyone, but I'm not quite sure how close everyone is. Besides, my lack of Privileged attacks will make things a little tougher. Shoulda put Loch Ness Monster in here to cancel all these coastal places. But who knew. heh.

James Eddleman's Turn 4

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Fri, 21 Mar 1997 07:08 -0500 (EST): After drawing the Nuclear Power Companies, James commented:

Nuts. Won't be winning with that group.

Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:49 -0500 (EST): After drawing two more Plots, James commented:

Yeah. I just with I hadn't buried Power for it Own Sake so far down.

My ATO will be W.I.T.C.H. Puppet of Fiendish Fluoridators.

I don't particularly want to point an attack so, I'll just see if anyone else volunteers.

Mon, 24 Mar 97 01:37:07 EST: Ralph commented to himself:

Clearly, everyone else needs to make an attack on the Servants, or the Servants will win with their next ATO, if they manage to find their Goal.

I don't see any good opportunity for an attack to destroy, particularly since NWO: A Thousand Points of Light is in play.

Texas could make a pretty good attack to control...

Also, James could make a heck of a lot of power by taking over a Clipper Chip, then using Dictatorship to make Germany benefit from Gun Control. (Libertarians would profit from both of these boosts, by parasitizing off of Germany--they'd be up to 11 points of Global Power. Yeehah.) By my calculations, that combo would net him 12 points of power. Not bad... but not quite enough to get to 50 points.

Still, if he's not attacked, he'll be a contender next turn.

Mon, 24 Mar 97 02:14:52 EST: Ralph followed up his previous comment:

Whoops, I was in error. A Dictatorship would put Germany at a power of 11, and a Clipper Chip would then put it at a power of 13. Libertarians would inherit these. So a Dictatorship and a Clipper Chip would put James's power up by 16, bringing him to 49.

Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:52:19 -0800: Jason asked:


It says you can take an autotakeover..I was reading the UFAQ regarding ATO's...could you do that during another players doesn't say it has to be during your turn.

(I.E:with relation to game (which is why I'm not posting this to the newsgroup)..if I gave Glen my Neconomicon (or he gave me his forgery) would I have to do that during my ATO..or could I do it at any time?)

P.S..I'm not too worried bout the game with regards to's actually nice to just sit and study the board...also one thing that we don't have here that is at an actual table game is the cross table discussions and conspiracies...the lies and deceptions that make people really wonder..we just eliminate one person from our e-mail outs and that's our talk...maybe should set up something that makes people do something out in the open..:)

Tue, 25 Mar 97 17:03:44 EST: Ralph responded to Jason's question:

The text of Forgery isn't really clear. The way it works is this: when you take over a resource (either by using your ATO, or by spending your Illuminati action, or by playing a Supernova or The Stars are Right, et cetera), you can play Forgery to let you take over a Unique Resource that someone else owns.

However, it does not give you a free takeover--you have to pay the normal cost of taking over a Resource. And all the ways of taking over a Resource require they be done on your turn...

Is this clear enough?

Thany's Turn 4

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:02:55 -0800: Jason replied to Ralph's explanation of Forgery:

Ok..this was how I was interpretting it..but I was coming up with all sorts of devious other thoughts and suddenly this one popped in...*grins*

Sun, 30 Mar 1997 08:48:18 +1000 (EET): Glen replied to a typo in Ralph's announcement of Thany's use of the Fraternal Orders:

Now that's a cleverly Illuminated pun.

Sat, 29 Mar 97 17:02:10 EST: Ralph replied to Glen's comment:

Why, thank you. I wish it had been intentional. :)

Wed, 02 Apr 1997 09:10:06 -0800: Jason commented about Thany's roll for OPEC's power:

I must have missed him using the original AT..isn't the action token on there still at the power from the previous role?..I thought I read that in the FAQ or UFAQ somewhere...might be misremembering..

Wed, 2 Apr 97 14:30:54 EST: Ralph replied to James' question:

No, the power changes each turn, and the action token doesn't remember the power it was generated with. See the UFAQ at

Even if it hadn't been so ruled, I'd play this way anyway. Can you imagine the confusion if, say, OPEC had the Perpetual Motion Machine, so that it could have multiple tokens with different powers?

Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:39:25 -0800: Jason replied to Ralph's comment:

True group doesn't use OPEC..(a whole 2 other people..*grins*..I don't get a chance to play with Pol, Aaron, or Michael much) we don't get into those rulings..

Oh well.I liked him having that low power.*grins*

Fri, 4 Apr 97 17:17:30 EST: Ralph commented to himself:

Thany is looking dangerous with 48 points of power. But this is somewhat false; James has his NWO: End of the World in hand, which will knock Thany down by about 14 or 16 points of power, which sherlock won't be able to Secrets or override.

The Pentagon atttacks to control Newt Gingrich

Sun, 6 Apr 1997 10:23:47 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

I don't recall what I put back in my deck...

could you send me my hand?

It is going to be crucial.

I thought I'd put Kudzu back, but now I'm not sure.

Sun, 6 Apr 1997 11:54:29 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

The OMCL's are going to act, I just have to work out exactly how.

Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:40:29 -0600 (CST): Thany wrote:

It seems I forgot to include this in my message, but I meant to declare this attack Privileged.

Sun, 6 Apr 97 03:13:49 EST: Ralph replied to Thany's message:

Sigh. This is one of those tough rules calls... I don't think I can allow this.

The rules do say 'The attacker must announce "Privilege!" when first declaring the attack.' And it's been almost 23 hours since you sent the first message, and I've already received instructions for interference from other people...

If it were a face-to-face game in Pittsburgh, we'd usually play that you can take a mistake back if you get the unanimous consent of everyone at the table. But given that you'll be at 53 points of power if you succeed in taking Newt, I don't think it's really worth putting the question to a vote--do you?

Blitch. I'm sorry. I don't see any comfortable way to resolve this.

Sun, 6 Apr 1997 19:18:59 -0500 (CDT): Thany responded to Ralph's answer:

<frownsighnod> I didn't think it would work, but it was worth a try. Ah well.

Mon, 07 Apr 1997 10:12 -0500 (EST): In his declaration of the Libertarians' interference, James wrote:

For posterity: I was considering playing NWO End of the World bringing the attack to a 5 and droping is power count by 16 (so far) but then he may not spend any more tokens and knock, making it difficut for others to attack him.

I just need to hold on to 6 tokens to get the 2nd NWO in case the first doesn't make it. Although, if he cancels a plot draw I may be in trouble, but that's unlikely.

Tue, 8 Apr 1997 19:38:01 -0400 (EDT): Don Fnordlioni wrote about Thany's failed attack on Newt Gingrich:

Rats. But not really.

Just today, it occured to me that it would be kinda nice to have Newt in play. I can off him at a 7 or less.

Then, I decided I wouldn't want to risk Thany having another Assassination blocker, which I'm pretty confident he has on him.

Glad I decided against it. How many plots does he have, btw? This late in the game, it's getting harder for me to keep track.

Ralph answered that Thany had three plots in his hand.

Glen plays Giant Kudzu on Vatican

Fri, 11 Apr 97 01:48:43 EDT: Ralph commented to himself:

Two things that could be done to boost the Giant Kudzu:

1) Don Fnordlioni could use the Weather Satellite to add 4 to the roll.

2) James' NWO: End of the World could reduce the power of all the conservative groups who defend the Vatican. (Currently, it'd only make a difference of 2.)

Sun, 13 Apr 97 10:56:48 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:


I yearn to comment, but I shouldn't.

There are holes in your logic.

Sun, 13 Apr 97 11:16:40 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Glen's message:

This isn't true, because the Vatican isn't Government, so wouldn't count for Up Against the Wall.

It's also the case that no one has been talking to Don Fnordlioni; in particular, no one has pointed out to him that he could use the Weather Satellite to improve the Disaster.

Actually, by my calculation, it would be at 18 or less.

If Newt gets taken, Don Fnordlioni can use his Car Bomb--the attack would be at an 9, even if Don didn't use any action tokens. Of course, if James played NWO: End of the World first, Don would then have an 11 to off Newt. This would actually be better for the Don than offing the Vatican; it would move him towards his Goal: Up Against the Wall.

Sun, 13 Apr 97 11:20:40 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Thany's deck:

Some minor comments on lapses in Thany's deck:

No plot cancellers. Not a one. (Jason doesn't have any either.)

No Slush Fund cards. I'd expect a few in a Conservative deck.

Replicating his NWO: Law and Order would be a big help to him.

Having the Republicans in his Group deck would go well with his several Conservative Government cards.

Sun, 13 Apr 97 12:45:46 EDT: Ralph replied again to Glen's message

Given Don Fnordlioni's latest message about Bad Shit happening in RL, I don't think that this is currently the least hypothesis for Don's lack of concern.

Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:43:03 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's "NNNNNNGGGGGH!" comment:

Yes, though you should remember that I don't necessarily tell the other players everything I think is possible. Sometimes my aim is to try to see if I can prod them to think about what else they can do.

And of course there are indeed other possibilities than those I outlined. Among those I haven't mentioned, there may even be some I haven't thought of.

Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:40:30 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on Ralph's policy for Don Fnordlioni's absence:

I think this is perfectly reasonable. And I see that Don F's lack of participation has another explanation.

Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:12:55 -0400 (EDT): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

I have no interest in the Kudzu...... or so I thought.

I'd like to throw in the Weather Sats' token to bump the attack up by 4 -- as far as I can tell, this is quite legal. If the attack is successful (Devastated or Destroyed), I'd like to then Annual Convention my own Mossad -- that roll should be an 8 or 11.

Hmm. Hang on, let me check my agreements with sherlock. Nope, this doesn't seem to violate either of them.


Hmm, on second thought, I may as well see if I can whore myself out to Glen. I don't think I can, but it's worth a shot. If he offers anything, I'll take it. If he offers nothing, I'll still throw in the Weather Sats. If he threatens me, then I'll think about it.

Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:43:32 +1000 (E ): After Don Fnordlioni's use of the Weather Satellite, Glen commented:

It will be interesting to see what Thany does now; does he take the risk of losing the Vatican and go for the small chance of a win, or does he trim his sails and batten down, to try again next turn?

I've come to the conclusion that since Don F. didn't help him, (or even do nothing), he either has no disaster in hand, or he feels he can win alone (and maybe he can at that). I'm betting the first, but then his previous turn seems a little odd - to stick his neck out like that. Maybe he just thought he'd risk it, but if I was him I'd worry about the other players ganging up - and so I'd at least look for a joint victory.

Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:41:10 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on an announcement that Ralph had finished writing these game pages up ot the end of Don Fnordlioni's attack on New York:

Wow! This is fantastic. I'll be very interested to see the conspiracies.

When some of the others get to see my own conspiratorial involvements, I'll be glad I'm not in thumping distance.

Thu, 17 Apr 97 02:29:50 EDT: After Thany used the Congressional Wives to defend eh Vatican, Ralph commented to himself:

If James played the NWO: End of the World now, the Kudzu would go up to a 10 or less. Thany would probably have to kick in his Bavaria token, which would mean that he wouldn't be able to take Newt.

This would have the consequence of preventing Don Fnordlioni from destroying Newt, which he's almost certain to do.

Ralph's speculations were somewhat in error here, because Thany didn't attack to control Newt Gingrich again, contrary to Ralph's expectations.

Thu, 17 Apr 97 03:08:14 EDT: Ralph commented to himself:

I can see a plausible, albeit iffy, way for Glen to win on his next turn, if he can exploit Jason (and to a lesser extent, James) appropriately.

Here's the scenario:

Glen plays a Forgery to ATO the Necronomicon, which he links to Texas. (Hmm, Don Fnordlioni might Secrets this.)

Glen makes a public attack from Texas to take the B.A.T.F. With Jason's agent, that's a power of 15 (power) +8 (common alignments) +10 (agent) = 33 against a defense of 12, and he could probably get help, or at least non-interference, from other players.

(He gets the Necronomicon at this point, anyway.)

At some point in this, Glen should bait Don Fnordlioni into using his Deasil Engine to destroy the Orbital Mind Control Lasers.

Glen then spends an Illuminati action to bring out the Big Prawn on Brazil, turning it Violent. He then makes a Privileged attack with his Martial Law from Brazil against the (defenseless) Pentagon at a power of 9 (power of Brazil) + 8 (common alignments) + 5 (rival Illuminati) +10 (Martial Law) = 32 against a defense of 16.

Glen's total power, assuming that James' NWO: World Hunger is played:
10 (Bavaria)
15 (Texas with Necronomicon)
9 (Brazil with Big Prawn)
6 (B.A.T.F.)
5 (Saddam Hussein)
1 (Local Police Departments)
9 (Pentagon)

Glen could even promise to give away Saddam Hussein, keep his promise, and still win.

Hmm... Don Fnordlioni would probably have a Disaster by Glen's turn. Glen should probably bait him to play it before he brings out the Big Prawn, because if a Disaster devastates, he can play the Beach Party to bounce back into shape.

Okay, it's a tricky combination, and it would require a lot of manipulation of Don Fnordlioni, but I do think it's possible.

Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:54:14 -0400 (EDT): Don Fnordlioni commented about Ralph's announcement that the first few turns of the history were available on the web:

Very entertaining. I hope I'm a little wiser now. Heh.

Sat, 19 Apr 97 13:26:23 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Don Fnordlioni's message:

It's very ironic that Don Fnordlioni's top and bottom plot are both Disasters right now.

Sun, 20 Apr 97 00:50:28 EDT: Ralph commented to Don Fnordlioni:

Y'know, your proposed deal not to attack Thany until he was on the verge of victory in exchange for his C.I.A. agents is probably not gonna happen now...

Sun, 20 Apr 1997 02:23:13 -0400 (EDT): Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's comment:

Yeah, I know.... heh. I'm not too worried about it. Unless, of course, he's holding the CIA right now and is gonna attack me with it, and has already cut a deal to share victory -- the CIA defends at a 33 right now, and with the Agent, a +10, and the Pentagon, he can only muster a 32 power Privileged attack.

I hope he hurries up and knocks. Or makes a Privileged attack on Newt so I can assassinate him with a CIA Car Bomb.

Pentagon attacks to control Fred Birch Society

Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:47:20 -0400 (EDT): Don Fnordlioni explained the plan to which he had alluded in a message to James:

Here's my cunning plan:

Get the NSA to look at my top plots.
Use the Mossad power, Mossad token, and RSM token to draw a Disaster.
Give the Network Soulburner.
Destroy Network's France with a Meteor Strike or Nuclear Disaster.
The Network draws my top two plots. I draw two plots.
Disaster (Hopefully Kudzu) the Vatican.

This plan isn't all that impossible -- 1 in 5 of my cards is a Disaster, so I have a 10% chance of drawing one from the top or bottom.

Anyway, it's amusing.

Wed, 23 Apr 1997 15:49:49 +1000 (E ): Glen commented:

I of course realise that there are still some things I can do... but I'd much rather leave it to the very last; the chances of me drawing one of the few cards that will do anything are pretty low. Some of the other, stronger players will have to try first. It's a bit like playing "Chicken", I guess.

Wed, 23 Apr 97 01:59:53 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's comment:

Except with real chickens! (That was a meaning-free phrase, it just sounded amusing.)

What do you think are the cards in your deck that would help?

Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:15:40 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's question:

I have two Yellow NWO's for a start. Either would be sufficient. Military-Industrial Complex would be preferred, but Bigger Business will do. I haven't looked too closely, but I think that's it. (I originally only had MIC in mind, but when I added up the numbers I realised that BB would - just - do as well).

Glen had apparently forgotten that he had discarded NWO: Bigger Business to power his Hoax!.

Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:07:08 -0700: Jason explained the plan for shared victory that he had referred to in a message to Glen:

Regardless what I ATO..I can unmask to Bav..Priv attack to take over the BATF w/ my agents card and power 9 russia..9+8(like alligns)+10(agents)-10(closeness)-2(reistance)=15..if he spends all his tokens..that brings it down to about a 2, and I still have other tokens..that puts me over the 50...good chance he'll Deasil the Neconomicon I just took over, bringing me back below 50..I knock, give Glen my Neco so he can forgery it and my mossad agent card, he gives me the clipper chip...

Wed, 23 Apr 97 12:24:35 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Jason's plan:

There are some flaws with this analysis:
1) Rules Problem: Don Fnordlioni couldn't play the Deasil Engine on the Necronomicon, since the Necronomicon's not a Gadget:
2) Rules Problem: Same Illuminati can't share victories.
3) Practical problem: It wouldn't give Glen enough to put him over the top.
4) Practical problem: Don Fnordlioni's planning to play the Senate Investigating Committee on Jason.
5) Practical problem: Thany's currently making a bid for victory.

Wed, 23 Apr 97 12:50:07 EDT: Ralph replied to Jason's plan:

I think you should remember that people playing the same Illuminati (except Shangri-La) can never share victory...

Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:57:23 -0700: Jason replied to Ralph's message:

Tis true..bummer..and I'd need the priv attack..oh well..*grins* was a nice thought.

not that it matters right now anyways..less we get REAL lucky with the NSA looking at cthulhu..which i doubt..odds of his top card being a disaster are pretty slim pickings

Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:59:57 -0400 (EDT): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Okay, I'm thinking aloud here, and arguing with Cindy at the same time. Don't take any of this as a directive -- I'll review and command tomorrow.

I have three scenarios: The Good Plan, the Better Plan, and the Opportunist Plan.

Good: Draw the Kudzu, and hit the Vatican with it. That's a 28 (24+4) versus a 16 (6+10): 12 to Devastate, 5 to destroy. Pretty straight forward, and WITCH will mutate an 11 into a 10. The Vatican's destruction would be nice, but not particularly useful aside from the plot draws -- also, I have to assume WITCH will stop a marginally successful destruction, just on principle.

Better: Hit the Pentagon with the Kudzu -- it's a 32 (24+4+4) vs 22: 10 to Devastate, 3 to Destroy. Again, WITCH will help with an 11, but all but negate any chance to destroy. However -- this means that it'll take 18 Power to bring relief -- no small task if Glen wants to take it over with Texas, a very real problem, since I can bet he has an Agent for it. I would like it destroyed for that reason alone -- the fact it counts for my UAtW goal is honestly secondary in my mind.

Opportunist: The original musing -- give soulburner to the Network on the condition he gives me the plots, and the promise that I won't interfere with his attacks or destroy his groups, and he can keep the Soulburner as long as he gives it back if I'm attacked. I'll tell him I want to take out France, using the Nuclear Accident -- it's a 22 (14+4+4) vs 8 (3+5): 14 to Devastate, 9 to destroy. I'll want confirmation on getting WITCH's help to turn a 10 into a 9. I'll then draw the Kudzu, hopefully another disaster will show up in the 2 Plots the Network will Burn me for and the two plots I draw, and hit the Pentagon with a Combined Disasters. This is the best plan, imo, because it gives me a better shot at taking down the Pentagon -- I doubt Thany is holding two SMWNMTK, but he may have one, which will make short work of just one Disaster -- and he may not play it on a Disaster aimed at the network. I should send him some bullshit double talk to make him think I'm trying to share victory.... a possibilty I haven't thought of until now, especially if I get my Goal on the France draw. I'd rather win alone, but I'll take what I can get.

If I get the necessary confirmation (hey, I've learned from New York), I'll go for the Opportunist plan. Failing that, I'll go for the Better Plan, even though it gyps me of a chance at destroying things.

So, right now, I'm not decided on which plot I want to draw.

BTW -- I see nothing in the rules that prohibits giving away Resources in the middle of an attack.

Note that Don Fnordlioni had forgotten his promise of amnesty towards the Vatican.

Fri, 25 Apr 97 12:22:46 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Don Fnordlioni's proposal to Jason:

It should also be noted that this plan of destroying France and then the Pentagon will give Don Fnordlioni 10 groups towards victory; he can make an ATO on his next turn, and then any succesful attack will let him win without his Goal.

Fri, 25 Apr 97 12:27:18 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Jason's message to Don Fnordlioni:

Frankly, if I were Jason, I'd be bothered about the fact that Jason would no longer have France, too.

Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:46:24 -0400 (EDT): Don Fnordlioni commented about Thany's message to him:

Of course, this is exactly the information I was fishing for. I hope I get an experience point in my Subterfuge skill.

This leads me to believe he doesn't have and disaster-busters, either. Very good.

Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:44:02 -0400 (EDT): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

I'll wait to read what the Network has to say before I give him Soulburner. Hopefully, he just re-affirms the agreement. I wish I hadn't sent him that mail so hastily, but, c'est la vie.

I just hope the Senate Investigating Committee sticks. BTW -- Soulburner always happens first, right?

Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:27 -0500 (EST): James explained some of his own thinking:

I know, I haven't been very good with explaining my moves.

I could easily stop the Bavarian win with End of the World. But, he may have a canceler (probably not, otherwise he probably would've used it against the Disaster) or another Law & Order or two. In either case I'd have to blow most of my tokens getting to the second one and I don't want to be that vunerable at this point. Besides, it would hurt me more than it would help because of Germany, so I want to leave it as a last resort. Not to mention everyone else using up lots of plots and/or tokens to stop the win while I'm using as little as possible.

Cthulhu's plot cards:
I've told him about Nuclear Accident but don't want him to know about the Secrets or the Ketchup. Secrets could be used against me, if he wants to Sorry, Wrong Number me or throw a disaster my way. I.e. Secrets could be used to cancel my Reverse Whammy or This Was Only a Test. The Ketchup could also be used against me or someone else and that card makes the attack privileged, which is bad news. I could've brought out Israel a while back but Cthulhu's groups and Texas have too many alignments in common and/or Power available to attack it, I figured it wasn't worth it. Had I drawn one of my Martial Law's (+10 Gov) then it may have been worth while.
Also the knowlege may turn out to be profitable later on. :)
I don't mind as much if The Network were to have them

I'm mainly concerned with him winning with the Goal: Up Against the Wall. He's one away from it now. Although I told The Network a few minutes ago that if he had it in hand, he would've already destroyed something. Then again, maybe not. Seeing as I'm holding onto End of the World and all.

I'm probably forgetting something that I'll remember after I send this, so I may have thought of whatever it is but I'm just not thinking of it now. For example, some of my comments during my attack on Germany. In specific, the OMCL alignment change where I dashed off a message and then realized why it was done that way.

Fri, 25 Apr 97 13:50:39 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on James' explanation:

This response of James' leads me to believe that he doesn't realize that he could win on his next turn.

(I'm not sure whether he did or not. He certainly did realize in later messages.)

Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:53:51 -0400 (EDT): Don Fnordlioni commented on Jason's message:

Okay, since this message came through 17 minutes after the last message (titled "OK"), I'm just going to go with this confirmation, rather than accidentally talk him out of it. That's fair, isn't it? The more I talk, the less I'm sure he'll go along with it.

Fri, 25 Apr 1997 16:01:19 -0400 (EDT): Don Fnordlioni wrote:

I just noticed, I can hit the Fred Birch Society or the Congressional Wives with the Annual Convention, and have a target of 7.

If WITCH cared to stop me, they could.... but hey. Might be worth a shot. I have to get rid of a card anyway. Now I'm hoping I make a marginal failure to drain that WITCH token.

Nuclear Accident on France

Tue, 29 Apr 97 19:45:58 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Jason's decision to bury Counter-Revolution:

This is a correct thing to do, since Jason isn't going to draw Japan any time soon. But it's surprising to me, since Jason wouldn't know that.

Tue, 29 Apr 97 19:48:51 EDT: Ralph commented to himself about the destruction of France:

Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:32:11 -0400: Don Fnordlioni commented on the cards Jason drew from him:

Ah, fuck.
I hope I'll get those back. Least it wasn't my goal.
Both those cards hurt me, a lot. Grunt.

Thu, 01 May 1997 02:52:05 -0400: Don Fnordlioni explained his choice of Plot cards:

Hmm. Dilemma. Do I draw the bottom, for defense, or take my chances and hope the top is an equally useful card, like a Disaster, my elusive goal, or a purely defensive card.... hmm.

I'm pretty sure I'll get one more destruction, so I'll go for the top card.

Thu, 01 May 1997 18:01:33 -0400: Don Fnordlioni commented on his draw of Head in a Jar:

Oh, you dirty mother fucker.
(Said to the card, not to you. heh.)

Alright. I think if I Annual Conventioned something right now, it would be breaking the deal with the Network. I can just work off the Devastated Pentagon. So, I'll Kudzu the Pentagon.

I'll get rid of another plot after this happens -- probably an Annual Convention on the Congressional Wives, which would be a 9+4-4-5=4, then a car bomb on Saddam Hussein, which would roll at an 8+4+4-5-6=5. Either would be a good feint to get rid of the SMWNMTK.

Giant Kudzu on Pentagon

Fri, 02 May 1997 10:55:27 -0400: Don Fnordlioni commented on his message to Thany:

Actually, this is said to hopefully lure him into playing only one of them in defense -- to suck the Secrets out of the Network.

I'm not lying -- I really do hope that both those plots aren't defensive. I just hope one of them is.

Sat, 03 May 1997 01:06:55 -0400: After the devastation of France, Don Fnordlioni wrote:

I've given this a little thought, and I think I've come up with a decent strategy:

First and foremost, I still want to Investigate the Network, but to do this, I need to get that Secrets out of him. So, I better puff up and act dangerous.

This is my first trick -- I'm going to Annual Convention the Congressional Wives. Last I checked, that roll is a 4 or less. [roll calculation deleted]

This is pretty pathetic, I know. However, if I can get the Assassins to make noises that they'll aid with WITCH, I think I can lure that Secrets out of him.

Bit of a sticky point in the rules, though -- if I Senate him, the card says he can "draw cards and place action tokens, but can do nothing else." I'm 95% sure this doesn't mean he can't cancel the plot -- since one can cancel Instants -- but if you can supply concrete proof to support or alleviate my 5% suspicion, it would make me happy. Regardless, I'm going ahead with this plan, since it means he'll discard two more plots. After all, if this works, it's almost as good as a Go Fish.

Hang on in reposting this until I get a message to the Assassins, but I don't care what his answer is.

Sat, 3 May 97 16:11:48 EDT: Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's rules question:

Hmm. I hadn't noticed this... I'd agree with your 95% hunch, but maybe this falls under the 'You cannot do illegal things that would make themselves legal' restriction.

I can't find anything in the FAQ or UFAQ that clarifies this, though the Card FAQ says that you can buy plots during a Senate Investigating Committee, so that supports the 95% hunch.

I give you three choices:
1) We can ask Lynette privately. (She usually doesn't answer.)
2) We can ask on the inwo-list now.
3) We can ask on the list when you play the SIC.

What do you want to do?

Annual Convention on the Congressional Wives

Sat, 03 May 1997 16:21:51 -0400: Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's message:

Doesn't this fall under the "draw cards" allowance, anyway?

[To the three choices]

I'm willing to forget about it (if it comes up), until it's too late to do anything about it. If he Secrets's the SIC, I won't mind. I'll ask when it's well after the fact.

Besides, real world SICs have a long, proud history of turning out to be Secrets Man Was Not Meant to Know and flat-out Hoaxes.

Tue, 06 May 1997 02:18:17 -0400: After the successful roll for Annual Convention, Don Fnordlioni wrote:

<Insert gratuitous gloating here>

Now, what to offer the Assassins....

Maybe a Robot Sea Monsters. I don't need them any more.

Wed, 07 May 1997 16:41:43 -0400: Don Fnordlioni wrote about his Plot draws after the Annual Convention:

Forget it. I'll take the top two. Maybe it's a goal. I'll let you know what I'd like to discard / play after I draw them (It's such a pain to be on this rampage when it's not my turn).

Wed, 07 May 1997 17:23:36 -0400: Don Fnordlioni wrote about his Plot draws from the Annual Convention:

For Chri^H^H^H^HCthulhu's sake. Grin. Welp. I'll play the Good Polls on Violent Groups.


As for the Senate Investigations... I'm going to have to use that on Bavaria, it looks like. Rats. I hope the Network doesn't pull a fast one, cause my tentacles are tied.

Not a bad thwarting, though, I do say.
Oh, if a Government personality surfaces, I'd like a chance to decide to car bomb them or not. I'd go for Saddam right now, but for that goddam Bodyguard.

Thu, 8 May 97 09:49:22 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on James's offer to play the Secrets Man Was Not Meant to Know:

How devious! By doing this, James would get the Good Polls canceled, and bring himself closer to drawing his Goal: Power For Its Own Sake. Beautifully done, James.

Thu, 08 May 1997 15:38 -0500 (EST): James commented about his current plans and thoughts about the game, including his offer to play the Secrets Man Was Not Meant to Know:

"Cool! I can get rid of the Secrets AND get closer to the Goal card in my deck! Woo Hoo!" That's what I'm thinking.

As a bonus...
Don would no longer have Good Polls in play making it easier for the others to attack him. That is, depending who gets Investigated. (I would help for at least one attack, probably not two.)
Boy I'd love to see the BATF to go away. At least into another Power structure so Don can't use it to attack me. I had considered using the Frankenfood to add Fanatic to Germany so it wouldn't hurt so much to play EotW, but the BATF shot that one down.

I believe I discussed my dislike of the Secrets earlier. (Just for a different person.) It's unlikely that the others would help Don make any more kills, but it never hurts to be a little paranoid and not to mention people are willing to do anything to stop a win.

My likelihood of winning: If I can hold onto all my groups and either: draw 2 Secret groups and attack to control them (only Illuminati and Robot Sea Monsters would be able to interfere, in other words, the Hard Way, but not too bad); or draw my Goal. With the Goal, all it would take is to bring out Pyramid Marketing Schemes and Cyborg or Clipper. There is still OMCL to consider. Hmm... have to think some more about which way to go. Actually 53 Power after OMCL does its worst (with the current cards.)

If I had my Goal card I think I could have won last turn. I needed to bring out either Clipper Chip or Cyborg Soldiers, and play New Blood and Dictatorship. That would've brought it to 50 Power exactly. Germany and therefore Libertarians would've been 11 power each.
But I didn't have the Goal so, I decided to Full Moon to be able to buy enough plots to get to the 2nd EotW in case the first went away after Thany declared victory.

Fri, 09 May 1997 14:37:16 -0400: Don Fnordlioni commented on the playing of the Secrets Man Was Not Meant to Know:


I don't understand why this happened... but....

I presume the Assassins discard their top two plots for this.

Welp, I'll happily Investigate the Network after Bavaria knocks, using the C.I.A. token.


I'm mildly worried about Texas-Bavaria.. but what the hell. I think the Assassins and Network can stop them if they get uppity, since they're drenched in tokens.

Am I a target? Probably. Ah well.

Fri, 09 May 1997 17:00:07 -0400: Don Fnordlioni commented again on the playing of the Secrets Man Was Not Meant to Know:

By the by -- I now have every reason to Investigate the Network. Since they're willing to spend a Secrets to blast away a purely defensive measure, and managed to talk the Assassins into helping them, I can only assume the Network has nefarious designs on my Power Structure.

The Assassins, of course, should know I'm going to be Investigating the Network -- the only reasonable motivation for paying the cost of the Secrets. Unless, of course, James forgot, though I think this is unlikely.

Mon, 12 May 1997 23:57:19 -0400: Don Fnordlioni wrote:

I've taken a look at the Network's and the Bavarian's power structures.... and though it may be in the best interests of both the game and my own well being to Investigate Bavaria, I'm not going to. Here's why I should:

The two privileged attacks, plus an ATO, may be devastating, and win the game. Particularly if Glen goes after the most obvious target on the table, the BATF. Furthermore, the Network doesn't look like it's in as much a position to win.

Why I should proceed with the original plan:

The Secretsing of the Good Polls gives me a bad feeling, and I've had an overwhelming Hunch(tm) that the Network is going to pull a win out of it's silicon ass, or they're going to blast me into oblivion Just Because. Also, it wouldn't be so bad of Texas got a hold of the BATF -- if they do, I'll car bomb Saddam ASAP (hopefully on my turn, so I can give it a little oompf). On top of this, the Martial Law will at least suck away tokens during the attack, and I may even get some unexpected help from the other players if I sell it enough.

Besides, I can afford to lose one group, since I'll replace it with the Secret Service on my ATO.

Lastly, Investigating the Network will prevent him from Counter-Revolutioning Japan.

So, are these good reasons? Eehh. History will see. The Hunch(tm) has me convinced, pretty much.

Thu, 15 May 1997 11:54:12 -0500 (CDT): Thany wrote in response to a probe from Ralph:

I already did. At least, I figured I was matematically eliminated from doing anything else and assumed knocking.

Whatever and ever, I knock.

Jason Bostick's Turn 4

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Thu, 15 May 97 13:15:48 EDT: Ralph replied to Thany's message:

I can't assume that you knock unless you say so. Certainly, it would be wrong for me to assume that you knock if there were things that you could do. However, if I assumed that you knocked when there was nothing you could do, and didn't assume so when there was something you could do, that would tell you (and other players) whether there were things you could do.

If you sent me an 'I knock' message, I've forgotten it or lost it.

Fri, 16 May 1997 10:17:41 -0700: Jason answered a probe from Ralph:

James never responded..and glen already told me lets let it go..

*growls*..and I had this game won too...:)

Fri, 16 May 1997 10:25:49 -0700: Jason explained his 'and I had this game won too' remark:

about same odds as everyone else has had..take my ATO (hopefuly a decent powered group (israel would be great))....Take a regular attack to take over the Mossad (with agents)..James would probably help take them over to make sure that Don wasn't gonna win immediately...if not..I have plenty of extra AT's to boost the power up...then unmask to Bavaria, hope that goes through, then do a priv attack (with agents) on the me over 50 power..and if someone does get rid of the NWO's..I'd probably still have plenty of tokens to get my last group I would need..:)

I've been thinking out winning scenario's for the past 3 weeks..:)

Glen Barnett's Turn 4

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Fri, 16 May 1997 10:53:24 -0700: Jason wrote a follow-up of his previous comment:

No problem...I've pretty much planning on nailing Don for awhile..and this was a perfect chance..(19 pts of power in two attacks, one non-interferable)...but oh I guess I can pretty much pick who I want to win (don or glen..:))

Fri, 16 May 97 17:14:50 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Jason's offer of Emergency Powers:

That could actually completely swing the game in Glen's favor.

Consider this set (not sequence) of events: Glen plays the Emergency Powers on Brazil. Glen takes over the Big Prawn and links it to Brazil, turning it Violent in the process. This puts Brazil at a power of 15. (As before, Glen has to keep Don Fnordlioni from Deasiling the Big Prawn.)

Glen takes over the B.A.T.F. from Don Fnordlioni, and puts the Necronomicon on Texas (perhaps through Forgery)

Total Power, assuming that James plays the NWO: End of the World:

Bavaria				10
Brazil				15
Texas				16
Local Police Departments	 1
B.A.T.F.			 6
Saddam Hussein			 5

(Power of 66 without the End of the World)

Sat, 17 May 1997 11:37:51 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote about his first draws:

Hawaii and Big Prawn, Not much of a choice there.

Do I risk taking Hawaii, with the likelihood of another disaster, and me with no corporate groups down?

Then again, there's Near Miss and Beach Party.

Or do I take the Big Prawn, leaving myself dangerously low on groups?

I think I may need to draw another group.

I'll see what plot I draw first, though.

Sat, 17 May 97 12:29:33 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

The only response I can make is "NNNNNNGGGGGH!!!"

Mon, 19 May 1997 10:44:09 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's "NNNNNNGGGGGH!!!":

Hmm. I wonder what I've missed.

Mon, 19 May 1997 14:42:36 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on his second Plot draw:

Ah, OK. Well, that draw doesn't help much, does it. It'd probably help Don F, though. I wonder if I should risk offering it to him...

Well, I'm off to look at your Pbem game page, to work out what to do next.

Mon, 19 May 1997 17:06:17 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote after his message to James:

I half had a good idea, but as my mail to James shows, I totally forgot about my Privileged Attack!

I could do this all by myself.

Well as long as James doesn't do too much with the knowledge, I think this is how I might be able to proceed:

ATO Big Prawn off Texas, Add Straight.
Priv att on Pentagon from Texas
= 21 (power) + 16 (alignments) - 6 (res) - 10 (proximity)
(Keep the +10 back to play from Brazil if required, but I doubt it)

If it succeeds, play Beach Party, to undevastate (and get a token & +5)

That gives me 16+36=52 power.

Now why didn't I spot this before?

Mon, 19 May 1997 17:09:12 +1000 (E ): Three minutes later, Glen wrote:

Hmm, maybe I should take Hawaii as my ATO and Big Prawn with an Illuminati Action instead.

Anyway, once I've thought some more, and perhaps given James a chance to respond, I'll send you my actual turn.

Mon, 19 May 1997 17:12:55 +1000 (E ): Five minutes after that, Glen wrote:

I've just realised why I didn't spot this until now:

Because there isn't the visual stimulus of seeing the cards...

As soon as I printed out the current state of play (a few minutes ago) I spotted it.

Ah well. Pity I'm too slow to realise I didn't need to telegraph it to James.

Mon, 19 May 1997 18:54:41 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

I'm tossing up between two scenarios,

A: (obvious approach)
ATO Big Prawn onto Texas (make it Straight)
Take tokens
*Privileged* attack on Pentagon from Texas at a 26. [I forgot +5 for Bav-Bav]
Beach Party on Pentagon
(Possibly Hat Trick the Beach Party using Brazil for extra safety against a lurking disaster)

(=52 power)

B: (subtler approach)

ATO Hawaii
Take tokens
*Privileged* Attack on Pentagon from Texas (on a 15, I believe); using an offer of Hawaii to James not to spend the WITCH token.
[I have the Government +10 with Brazil as a backup if Thany has defence.]
At this point I look much less dangerous than in A.
Beach Party on Pentagon (possibly Hat Trick it with Local Police)
Then spend a Bavaria token to take Big Prawn... hang it off now Straight Texas

(=52 power, with fewer tokens, possibly with less defence, but with a fractionally better chance to take the Pentagon assuming he takes the deal)

Note that in each case, the OMCL's would be in reserve, but I wouldn't use them (except in the Privileged attack perhaps) because Don would just fry them if I did. Hmm. I guess I could use them instead of the Brazil with the +10 if need be (various possible uses).

Here's hoping everyone's out of NWO's (Don F's the big risk there with all those darned plot draws). Disasters are less of a worry.

Mon, 19 May 97 10:11:07 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's early comment:

This plan is illegal.

(It's okay for me to tell you that, right? I've been doing it at other times.)

Specifically, you can't play Beach Party on the Pentagon.

Mon, 19 May 1997 17:03 -0500 (EST): James explained the 'two ways' to stop Glen from winning that he'd mentioned in a message to Glen:

A bit of deception. :) Really one way, but two opportunities. (NWO End of the World)

This will be nice if I can get him to do this. This way, the BATF will be unavailable to attack me. I've been leery of them most of the game. They probably convinced me, at least in part, to work with Cthulhu more than I should have.

Tue, 20 May 1997 09:15:13 +1000 (E ): Glen responded to Ralph's critique:

Yes, I think so.

Ah, quite right, because Pentagon isn't Coastal.

(That seems to be a real problem for me at the moment, doesn't it?)

Of course, Near Miss will do just as well.

Actually, reading the card text, perhaps not... there's a slight implication that you have to do it immediately.

What do you think.

Failing that, I have to do things quite differently.

Mon, 19 May 97 19:31:46 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

Yes, it does seem to be a problem. Maybe it would be simpler to dig a moat in Washington, D.C., to make the Pentagon Coastal.

I had always assumed that Near Miss had to be played immediately after the attack or other effect that caused the Destruction/Devastation. I suppose I could be convinced otherwise, but I think that you should convince me or get a netrep ruling before proceeding on the assumption that you can.

Tue, 20 May 1997 09:38:07 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

It might be worth seeking a netrep ruling (since I might win), but unfortunately that will signal my intentions.

I may have a way around this.

Tue, 20 May 1997 11:40:54 +1000 (E ): Glen replied again to Ralph's message:

Ah, it doesn't matter. I have another way to achieve the same end that will do almost as well:

I ATO Big Prawn onto Texas, adding straight (+6 for doubling and another +1) (21 Power)

I make the privileged attack on Pentagon from the *Local Police Depts*.

Then I use OMCL's to add Govt to the Local Police. This adds 5 power to them, and gives 4 alignments in common.

9 + 16 vs 16 = 9 (effectively 8 with WITCH)

I could add Brazil, but I want to keep them in reserve (with the +10) in case Thany has a +10 up his sleeve, or something similar.

I intend to give the OMCL's to Jason (it's a free move, so I can do it during the priv. attack), on the fairly remote chance that Don F. will then forget to toast it later. :) (not that I should need it)

So that gives me about 72% chance of taking the group(s), and if what James says is true, James and Don have ways to stop me.

Disasters I'm pretty safe against, but NWO's will be a bit of a killer.

I want to keep my Illuminati actions if I can. One I may use to move Pentagon once I take it.

Then I can use Texas to bring Relief.

I may also need that Hat Trick... so actions will be at a premium. I may also want that Emergency Powers, so again I'll want to keep that token on Brazil if I can.

Hmm. I need also to think about James' suggestion, but I don't think its as good.

Tue, 20 May 1997 12:07:36 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

Now do I try to negotiate with Don F.?

I don't seem to have approached him right before, so I think it's a risk. And maybe there's not much to gain.

Well, the attack on Don should leave me able to claim victory, it seems, but he's much more likely to be able to stop me than Thany.

Now I'm a bit stuck - if I'm going to attack Don F., I'd rather do it without having taken the Big Prawn (yet), but if I'm going for Thany, I will probably want the Big Prawn ATO.

Tue, 20 May 97 01:26:03 EDT: Ralph responded to Glen's new approach:

Local Police Depts have no control arrows. They cannot attack to control the Pentagon.

It was a cunning idea, though...

Tue, 20 May 1997 15:23:59 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's critique:


Oh well, maybe I have to go with the attack on BATF... much as I'd prefer the other.

I'll think on it a tad longer.

Tue, 20 May 1997 15:45:16 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote a third plan:

New revised revised plan C (assuming James is right & the Don has not tokens)

ATO Hawaii
Privileged attack on BATF from Texas 14 + 8 vs 12 = 10
If WITCH can make a difference, offer Hawaii to James for its help.
Illuminati token to take Big Prawn, linked to Texas, add Straight or Criminal.

I think this puts me on 51.

(If Brazil not needed by this stage, maybe Emergency Powers on Brazil, but I don't think it'll help enough to matter.)

But I expect a NWO to foul my plans before the end.

I'll probably give Jason the OMCL's before I start, because Don will fry them otherwise.

This leaves me an Illuminati Action down from where I could be, but gives me a fractionally better chance of pulling it all off, I think...

As long as Big Prawn's not a Gadget; in that case I need to keep (and use!) the OMCL's to force Don into spending his Deasil to fry it, not the Prawn.

I'll send official orders soon.

Tue, 20 May 97 01:57:16 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's third plan:

Big Prawn is a Gadget, and its destruction causes its associated place to be Devastated.

Tue, 20 May 97 01:59:10 EDT: Ralph replied to another point of Glen's third plan:

This is correct; the Don has no action tokens.

Tue, 20 May 1997 16:15:05 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message about the Big Prawn:

OK, then what I have from Sprig's card list generator is wrong (though it's an old printout, maybe it's been fixed).

I knew about the devastation, though.

OK, then I need to keep the OMCLs around so Don can kill them... and it means I have to hold the Prawn back.

Right, here we go... just a few tiny things to take care of.

Tue, 20 May 97 12:16:44 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Jason's message:

Actually, Thany needs even less than that--all he needs is enough action tokens to bring Relief to the Pentagon.

In fact, if Glen wins, other players might bring Relief to the Pentagon to thwart him.

Note: Ralph was wrong here, because Ralph had forgotten that the Congressional Wives had been destroyed.

Wed, 21 May 1997 09:31:56 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

A lot has happened since last night (my time); can I hold off the actual attack while I think about things? I may do things just a little differently.

Wed, 21 May 97 01:06:35 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

Sure. I haven't even gotten around to making your ATO, if you'd like me to hold off on that.

Wed, 21 May 1997 17:17:41 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

I'll almost certainly do that ATO, but since you haven't done it yet, I'll think on it a little longer.

In order to keep the game going, if I haven't mailed you within 4 hours of this message, go ahead with Hawaii as my ATO, thanks.

Wed, 21 May 1997 20:49:18 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

I keep finding ways to squeeze more points of power out of my turn. I think I can make well over 70 if no-one does anything bad to me (but of course they will!). The trick is to end up over 50.

What I'm trying to do now is balance up the various possible NWO's James might have, and see how they fit in with the 4 or so different strategies I'm now looking at. This is taking me a while (and unfortunately my turn has come at really busy time).

I want to work it so that:
(a) even if he has a red and a yellow NWO, I can still make 50; or failing that I'm balanced so that if he has only one NWO I still make it easily.
(b) I'm preferably left with some tokens to do stuff (like play my Hat Trick).

What would be really funny is if I use Texas to take something (say BATF), and then after that Don (say) disasters it, causing devastation or destruction. I then Near Miss/Beach Party to put another token on it, and then make _another_ attack from it. (Of course it won't happen, but would be hilarious if it did!)

Anyway, I'd like to hold off on the ATO a little longer, but for various reasons I'll probably still go with Hawaii in the end.

I'll let you know as soon as I sort it out.

It is starting to look more and more like I just might be able to win this, and without having to call on Jason to aid one attack (though I am considering that option, I'd rather avoid it and get a "proper" win).

Thu, 22 May 1997 10:25:21 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to a request to explain the "four different approaches" he had mentioned in a message to Jason:

I'm having enough trouble getting the time to think about them!

Basically, they revolve around different combinations related to:

Do I put Big Prawn on Texas, or Brazil?

Do I use Emergency Powers on Brazil, or do I use it to launch an attack?

If I do 2 attacks, should they be BATF and CIA, or BATF and something else?

Which one should be the privileged attack?

What alignments do I add when I use Big Prawn and OMCLs, considering not only the possible attacks, but what will happen when various combinations of NWO's come down?

Do I ATO Big Prawn and save an Illuminati action later, or do I ATO Hawaii in order to increase the chance that it is the OMCL's that get Deasiled? Does it matter all that much?

How do I sort all this out so that I am likely to end up with a win?

One problem is that every time I come to a conclusion, Jason offers me something which changes things just enough; or I realise something I had forgotten, or James gives away a little more about his hand.

(I now think he has one NWO - probably red - in hand, and another NWO or disaster not too far away in deck).

The thoughts involving the 4 strategies I took from those questions would take ages to elucidate.

Thu, 22 May 1997 13:53:15 +1000 (E ): With the subject line "Now the euphemism really hits the thingy", Glen wrote:

[ This will stir things up a bit: :) ]

The extra resource takeover using an Illuminati action can come anytime in phase 5, right? If so:


*Privileged* attack from Texas on CIA. OMCLs make the CIA Straight.

[Color text deleted -- RLM]

I make that 14 (Texas) + 12 (Alignment) - 5 (res.) - 10 (proximity) = 11.


(This is not for dissemination:)


I have the clout to just about get BATF using Brazil, so that won't really need the privilege. To help that along, Brazil will get the Big Prawn, strange as that sounds at first! If I wanted to rely more on Jason, I would put the BP on Texas, of course, which would shoot me to around 75 power; but I'd rather make as little use as possible of Jason's goodwill. Of course, the OMCL's are just trying to draw the Deasil Engine, but the way I have it worked out, it won't matter which of my two gadgets gets the bullet. And I'll be able to take the loss of both the Red and Yellow NWO's.

With any luck this will be overkill.

Thu, 22 May 97 00:51:43 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's question:

Anytime except during an attack. Does this change anything?

Thu, 22 May 1997 14:53:36 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's answer:

Nope. I just want to do it after the first attack.

I'd love to see Don F.'s face when it comes out, and he realises why I used the OMCLs when I did.

Thu, 22 May 97 01:15:12 EDT: Ralph sent another note about Glen's plan:

One more note: Texas isn't Straight, so turning the C.I.A. Straight won't add a common alignment.

Thu, 22 May 1997 15:14:02 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's note:

D'Oh! I meant Conservative. I was thinking about what I was going to do with the Big Prawn on Texas when I typed Straight.

Can I resend that line as:
*Privileged* attack from Texas on CIA. OMCLs make the CIA Conservative.

(You'll see that Conservative fits with the "clean-living" etc text better; at least that was the intention. The definition of Straight in the game seems a little more blue collar)

I'm not getting enough sleep.

Texas attacks to control the C.I.A.

Thu, 22 May 97 01:38:56 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Glen's plan

I think that Glen has bit off a bit more than he can chew.

I think he's going to have to use an Illuminati action to take over the C.I.A., because Don Fnordlioni has the Martial Law.

Then, if he tries to take over the B.A.T.F., Brazil will have a 7 or less--17 if he uses the Agents, 27 if he uses the Martial Law. And James will have an incentive to stop him with his Global Power... Glen might be able to get Jason's help to pull out the victory, but it'd still be close.

IMHO, Glen would have been better off using the Martial Law with this attack, and using Hat Trick (powered by B.A.T.F.) to recover the Martial Law. He could then use it again on the second attack.

Alternatively: he could have made the first attack non-Privileged, and made the second attack Privileged.

But we'll see how this goes.

Thu, 22 May 1997 12:05:59 -0400: Don Fnordlioni wrote about the initiation of the attack on the C.I.A.:

I may as well give it the good college try, and Deasil Engine the OMCLs. I'm sure he's thought of this, but what the heck.

Fri, 23 May 1997 12:49:11 +1000 (E ): After Don Fnordlioni's use of the Deasil Engine, Glen wrote:

(*Ka-ching* I just love it when a plan comes together!)

He then gave directives to use the Local Police Departments.

Fri, 23 May 1997 13:10:27 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

I was originally very reticent to accept help from Jason this turn that I couldn't meaningfully reciprocate; especially given your desire to use this game as a teaching tool. Then I realised that this is as much part of the game as any other bargaining - it shows that treating another player well in the early game can be of great benefit (especially if the other players upset them enough).

So I'm no longer worried. It's part of INWO.

Fri, 23 May 97 00:29:44 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's comment:

Yeah, I've been watching this and trying to think like a tournament judge (which I've no experience at). And I don't think it's being sleazy at all.

I quite understand Jason's motivations--if you can't be king, being kingmaker is the next best thing.

Fri, 23 May 97 00:39:30 EDT: Ralph commented to himself:

As I was talking with Lori today, it occurred to me that there's a an interesting double hump of success at work here.

If Glen played too timorously, he'd lose. No question about that. If he didn't realize that he could make a bid for victory this turn and make an effort, he'd lose.

If Glen made a conservative bid for victory, he'd win--this would be the scenario I laid out before in which he made a Privileged attack on the B.A.T.F., and then used Emergency Powers and the Big Prawn to put him over.

If Glen uses his current route of making two attacks, he might not win if his second attack is relatively tame. James has 24 points of power that he could use to block an attack on the B.A.T.F. Glen can bring it up to a 27 with the Martial Law and the agents for the B.A.T.F.--so he's only going to succeed if he uses the Martial Law and gets Jason to help.

Only if Glen makes an all-out gung-ho second attack can he succeed through the 'making two attacks' route.

I still suspect that Glen could have made his first attack non-Privileged, with an argument of keeping Don from winning, and then made his second Privileged attack to win.

Fri, 23 May 1997 14:52:22 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on Ralph's remarks on Slim Pickens:

Well, I was more thinking of Blazing Saddles (which I was paraphrasing), but the Strangelove connection may be aposite in the long run.

[And of course, you may know something I don't]

Ralph didn't know anything special--he was just talking.

Fri, 23 May 1997 15:14:38 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on Don Fnordlioni's playing Martial Law:

Impressive. Of course, with all the plot draws he's had lately, I should have expected that or a Good Polls.

Unless something unusual happens in the next little while, I may even leave that at 1. I'm wondering whether it will be worth using one Illuminati action to take it back to 11, or does he have something else up his little sleeve.

On the other hand, I guess if he does, I'm still going to have to rely on Jason for more tokens, unfortunately, irrespective of whether I go on with the attack. I guess I'd better warn him...

Anyway, I'll think for a bit, but I may just have to go for it after all. If he has two +10's (which he might!), I'm probably screwed either way.

Fri, 23 May 97 01:23:34 EDT: Ralph inquired about Glen's "unless something unusual happens" comment:

What kind of unusual thing are you expecting? Not much happens in a Privileged attack.

(This is why I've been processing actions so quickly--since it's just you and Don Fnordlioni, I don't have to worry about speed play; if either of you wanted to do something like cancel an action, you'd do that instead of whatever you've sent me.)

Fri, 23 May 1997 01:24:31 -0400: Don Fnordlioni wrote:

I'm pretty sure I only have two outstanding promises:

1) Give the Assassins the RSMs when it's possible to do so.
2) Never visit a Disaster on the Vatican as long as Thany controls it.

If you feel like hunting down my correspondance, you're welcome to. But that's kind of a big job.

I'm pretty sure I can still win, even if/when I lose the CIA. But it has to be on my next turn. What I'm looking at is:

Now: Have 5 Violents, 3 Gov's destroyed, and a Basic Victory of 6/8.
Lose the CIA: 4V/3G, 5/8
Draw the Terrorist Nuke
Give over the RSMs: 3V/3G, 4/8
ATO the SS: 4V/3G, 5/8
Move Saddam to Cthulhu arrow, as a ruse to lure action cancellers, then
Car Bomb Saddam: 3V/4G, 4/7

At this point, I'm kind of stuck.
Unless I get my hands on a Privileged attack, I don't have much of a prayer to get the CIA back, even with the BATF and a Terrorist Nuke, because I'm sure everyone will interfere. I don't even have anything to give to the Assassins, other than a promise not to interfere with his attacks. Shrug.

I can only hope Bavaria makes a mad dash for victory, and everyone spends their tokens to thwart him. Alternatively, I can hope to con someone into giving me a group, but that's not likely. Sigh.

I really shouldn't have made that offer of the RSMs -- I should have offered to hand them over on his next turn.

Fri, 23 May 97 01:43:52 EDT: Ralph commented on his own comment about using the Martial Law on this attack with the Hat Trick to recover it:

I'm deranged. I meant that the Hat Trick would be powered by the Local Police Departments.

However, in retrospect, it's not clear that would have been such a good idea. With the Martial Law and Deasil Engine, Don could bring the roll down to 7, which wouldn't quite be satisfactory--Glen would still need to do something to improve the roll.

Fri, 23 May 1997 16:54:44 +1000 (E ): Glen explained what kind of unusual thing he was expecting, in response to Ralph's message:

Such as Don F. exposing his hand in order to dissuade my attack - but it turns out only to have a couple of modest power disasters.

In fact, I have tried to get him to give me some more information about what he has in hand for just this purpose.

If he comes back and shows me a +10, it will be very different from if he shows me "Nuclear Accident", and different again if he shows me "Bigger Business". Most likely he will just ignore me.

But anyway, I'm going to wait and see.

Having thought some more, I may well just go ahead in the end and add one of my two Illuminati Actions in, but let's just wait and see.

Sat, 24 May 97 16:04:17 EDT: Ralph commented to himself:

Here's something James Eddleman could do if Glen's second attack goes as planned and he has enough Power to win even if James plays the NWO: World Hunger:

James could bring Relief to the Pentagon, thereby making Thany also be winnable, so that neither Glen nor Thany could win. This would take a bit of brinkmanhsip, but it could let things last long enough for James to win.

No, wait, this wouldn't work, because Don Fnordlioni destroyed the Congressional Wives, so Thany would be two points short of victory. Oh well.

If James plays the NWO: World Hunger during Glen's second attack, it'll hurt Jason's ability to aid more than it hurts James' ability to interfere. it might end up being a good strategy for Glen to loan Jason the Clipper Chip during the attack, so that Jason's multiple Government Groups have more power, and then to have Jason give the Clipper Chip back afterwards.

Sun, 25 May 1997 02:36:19 -0400: Don Fnordlioni wrote, in response to a probe from Ralph:

You mean, something other than praying?
I was kind of hoping to get a response from the Assassins, but I guess that's out of the question.

Sun, 25 May 97 03:10:22 EDT: Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's message:

If you want me to hold off on the roll, I will. Just let me know when you're ready for it to be rolled.

Sun, 25 May 1997 19:12:41 -0400: Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's message:

No, go ahead.
I suspect the Assassins are silent on purpose.

Mon, 26 May 1997 16:41:38 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on his plans to bring out the Big Prawn:

Once that Big Prawn goes down, I predict that if anyone has a spare disaster, they'll probably play it then - they'd be mad not to - except of course, for Near Miss and Beach Party. Sadly, I won't be able to power the Hat Trick now, unless someone plays Bigger Business for me.

Tue, 27 May 97 12:50:31 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

So, you really want the hypothetical Disaster to devastate, so that you can use Beach Party to get another action token. Otherwise, you just lose the action token without being able to get it back.

Wed, 28 May 1997 10:23:14 +1000 (E ): As part of a discussion of Glen's declaration of an attack, Glen replied to a note of Ralph's about the progress of these web pages:

Pretty good going. I'm looking forward to seeing it all.

One thing you'll have that no other description of INWO will have is some of the real flavour of negotiation and backstabbing that goes on. There was certainly plenty of dealing and interfering; clever ploys, and desperate counter-ploys; and even a few set-ups. Don F's manipulation right at the start involving NY and NPC's, playing Thany and I off against each other was brilliant.

Tue, 27 May 97 20:40:49 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Glen's message to Jason:

IMHO, Glen is going about this the wrong way. The way to drain tokens would be to play a little at a time--make the attack without the Agents, then add the Agents, then add Jason's help, et cetera. Going for overkill from the start leads others not to attack.

And if James saves all his action tokens and draws three plots, he can draw NWO: The Magic Goes Away, which would remove the NWO: Gun Control, preventing Glen from winning.

Yowza. This game ain't over yet.

Tue, 27 May 97 21:24:18 EDT: Ralph wrote:

More comments:

I also think that Glen chose the wrong attack to make Privileged.

My thinking is that when you have two attacks to make in a situation like this, you should make the first one non-Privileged, in order to get sympathy and help, and then make the second one Privileged, when people are likely to be less sympathetic.

Ralph now sees that he'd made that comment before. Oops.

Brazil Attacks B.A.T.F.

Wed, 28 May 1997 13:38:54 -0400: Don Fnordlioni wrote:

You know what I hate?
People who play the spoiler, for no reason. That makes no sense to me. I really hope Glen has offered the Network a shared victory.

Wed, 28 May 97 14:29:44 EDT: Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's comment:

I shrug. It does make sense to me.

Do you think the Network's analysis of the situation is wrong?

Wed, 28 May 1997 18:20:21 -0400: Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's comment:

Okay, I see it like this: Three guys are playing Jeopardy!, and it's Final Jeopardy. The guy in the middle only has a hundred bucks, while the guys on either side have around 3000. So, he figures he can't win, and he tells one guy the answer to the question.

I don't see it as very sporting. It's like being a bad loser, to throw the game in one direction like that. This is assuming this is what the Network is actually doing. In fact, this behavior is illegal, I believe, in most tiered tournaments -- no throwing games so your friend can advance. Since there's a rule, it must happen fairly often.

Anyway, I find it annoying. I've been on the recieving end of such treatment before -- Cindy's thrown a game my way -- and I found it especially annoying then.

I'm of the opinion that you should do everything to can to postpone losing a game, because you never know what may come up.

On top of all this, the whole point of Investigating him was so that he'd save his tokens and plots to try to block Glen. Looks like that was a bad call. If I knew he'd pull this sort of thing, I'd have SICed Glen instead. Ah well.

Wed, 28 May 97 22:45:18 EDT: Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's message:

I am responding to your message with a specific eye to 'should I do anything to stop it, if indeed the Network is throwing the game to Bavaria?'

I think the analogy is imperfect, because Jeopardy! is a one-on-one contest, without any collaboration. INWO is very much about collaboration.

In this situation, however, things are somewhat different, since there wasn't any prior friendship there. My interpretation was that the ruling was about prior collaboration--and, in sooth, I'd feel sleazy about my prior collaboration with Daniel if it weren't for the fact that our prior collaboration has been singularly ineffective, and I really believe that our success together is due much more to the fact that we know each other and deal well together--if we hadn't collaborated together beforehand, I think we'd have been able to do a similar conspiracy.

I thought that I remembered you throwing games that way... perhaps I'm in error, but I don't think so.

I'm not sure I agree. There's a certain dignity to conceding a doomed game... I am ambivalent.

I can understand your sentiments. However, I don't think that this is a justification for me to rule that the Network shouldn't throw the game--if it's otherwise reasonable for the Network to throw the game, then this was just a bad call on your part.

Here's my answer of the moment: I am ambivalent about the idea of throwing a game. On the one hand, I know how annoying it is to the other players, and on the other hand, I understand the impulses that would lead someone to throw a game, and I don't think those impulses are illegitimate.

At present, I'm not going to intercede. However, I'll provide a path for you to get me to intercede:

To get me to intercede, start a public debate on the inwo-game list about the ethics and proprieties of throwing a game like this. I'd like to have everyone contribute to that debate, because I think both points of view have valid points to make.

From my point of view, such a debate would ideally end in an agreement, and I wouldn't have to intercede. Otherwise, I'll consider all the arguments, and try to come to some decision.

I'll gladly call a time-out to have this debate--I think it would be worthwhile to have this debate.

Your other option is to talk to the Network and try to get him to change his mind.

Thu, 29 May 1997 15:00:25 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

I assume the reason nothing is happening in the game is that negotiations (futile, futile negotiations) are going on?

Thu, 29 May 1997 02:54:50 -0400: Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's message:

Oh, I think I'm being misunderstood.

The whole comment about "this behavior is illegal" was qualified by the "tiered tournament" business. I this game, where there's no "advancement," no prizes, nothing, there isn't any reason for you to intercede. I very much don't want to sound like a bad sport -- I pride myself of good sportsmanship -- I'm just talking, mostly. In a tournament situation, I'd be more adamant about the whole thing, in calling for referee decision.

But I have no wish to try to get you to stop Jason from doing what he's doing. It's perfectly legal, if annoying.

Yes, I agree, in the real world, there's something to be said in acting as a kingmaker. However, if Glen wins, the Network (and everyone else) loses. There's no in-game reason to do what he's doing -- there's no recognition to be gotten, no prestige, and no payoffs. He just loses, like everyone else. And, in my mind, it cheapens Glen's win -- since he's had the Network's sycophantic help, he's not "man enough" to control the world on his own.

I will try to see if I can get the Network to stop playing the spoiler -- I don't know what I can offer (I can't reasonably offer shared victory), but we'll see -- when I'm sober.

Thu, 29 May 97 11:33:19 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

More or less. Don Fnordlioni had expressed unhappiness about Jason throwing the game to you. I'd replied that if he wanted to affect anything, he should take it to a public debate or be very persuasive to Jason. Don Fnordlioni replied that he didn't think I should intercede, but that he would try to convince Jason not o throw the game when he (Don Fnordlioni) sobered up.

(I suppose I shouldn't tell you these things--but I don't think it makes much difference, and I don't think it would surprise you that Don Fnordlioni would talk to Jason.)

I'm glad I have a mandate not to intercede. I totally understand Jason's logic and motivations; on the other hand, I understand the disappointment of the other players, because I've been in that situation too. This goes together with the misgivings youv'e expressed.

Now that you're committed to your current plan, I can say that I think I'd have preferred it if you'd used Jason's aid at an earlier point. For example, consider this scenario:

First, you take over the B.A.T.F., without Privilege, getting Jason's help to do so. Then, you make a final Privileged attack on the C.I.A., and there ain't nothing anyone can do.

Maybe this is morally equivalent, but it has a different feel to me... am I making sense?

(I'm not censuring you for the way you're doing it--even from the point of view of Game Historian, this is educational; it reveals a set of issues about throwing games.)

Thu, 29 May 1997 16:42 -0500 (EST): James wrote:

Unless Thany responds to my message I sent earlier by midnight, I will buy a plot with actions from the Nephews of God and Fiendish Fluoridators. It should be End of the World. Even if its not I'll play End of the World anyway. If Thany does respond by tonight, I'd like to read his message first, even though I don't think it'll be helpful.

Background thoughts: Don has victory conditions with Up Against the Wall, but he may not have it or draw it. If I don't do anything, Glen will win. So therefore I must act. I can't out spend the Glen/Jason Axis, so I'll still need to get lucky and draw a red NWO. I should have Magic Goes Away in this deck.


Re:Backlash. I suppose I was thinking of using it on Martial Law. However, Backlash implies that its used on a permanently linked plot.

Fri, 30 May 1997 09:58:41 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

No, it's OK; if you had merely said "yes, the holdup is merely negotiations" (which information you have provided before), I'd have immediately guessed Don F and Jason. The extra information you provided won't change what I do.

Indeed, unless Jason contacts me, I probably won't do anything, unless, of course, it becomes otherwise obvious that something is up.

They already had an opportunity not to piss Jason off as much as they did. They didn't take it. If the situation was reversed I may well have done what Jason did. The other players turned a temporary alliance between us into a more permanent relationship. They need to understand that every action comes with a cost.

I (generally) play "nice guy" for a good reason. Many players don't see the benefits; I think this makes a nice demonstration. [The benefits of not playing nice guy are instantly obvious, of course, and don't need to be demonstrated to most players]

Oh, I understand. I also wanted to do it that way, but the inter- actions between some separate things forced it on me - basically it was due to issues with both keeping the Big Prawn and using the Agents/+10 usefully, I needed to make the attack on BATF from Brazil after taking over the Big Prawn. All this meant that the first attack needed to be from Texas and Privileged. At least the way I saw it, that's how I had to do it, but it is possible I have miscalculated. Additionally, there was an issue of not wanting James to realise I was going to make 2 attacks until as late as possible, to reduce their options. I could hardly credibly "forget" my privileged attack the first time, since James had reminded me *twice* - so if I didn't, it was instantly obvious I was attacking twice.

So, of course, all it would have done is shifted the current negotiations forward. I don't see that doing that does anything but make it somewhat less likely I'll win.

That is, in this particular circumstance, I felt that the two choices did in the end feel about the same, and one was (win-wise) preferable.

I would prefer to win without Jason's help (of course!), but given it's there, I'm going to use it to what I see as my best advantage, which seems to be what I did.

Sat, 31 May 1997 10:41:50 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on James's playing NWO: End of the World:

Cute, but he'll have to do much better than that to stop the attack itself. Actually, the most serious blow was losing Hawaii's token - with no more tokens I can't launch any attacks at all, even with Jason's help.

Now if he comes out with, say, Political Correctness (or any Red NWO really), I'll be in serious difficulty, even if the attack comes off.

My best hope in that case lies in a disaster on Brazil...

Fri, 30 May 1997 18:00:56 -0700: Jason commented:

How many sides of this equation do you think I should play

Glen Takes down don
Don knocks down James
James either retaliates or goes after Thany cause he's close
Thany tries to build up a win again.
I sneak in from my behind position and win..:)

Interesting thoughts..

Fri, 30 May 1997 22:54:10 -0400: Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Hey, just out of curiosity, could you search for any mention of the BATF to James? I know he was antsy about it, and I said something soothing like, "I wasn't planning on using them on you," but I don't recall if I actually promised not to.

Ralph forwarded him a copy of his message to James about the B.A.T.F.

Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:26:13 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on his offer to James:

Though it might look like I'm trying to do something behind Jason's back, it isn't the case. If it actually works out, I will talk to Jason before actually agreeing to do it. I just figure there's no point in mentioning it to him if it isn't going to work anyway (which is what I suspect).

Mon, 2 Jun 97 19:22:13 EDT: Ralph commented to Glen on his offer to Jason:

This is a fascinating deal. I've never seen anything like it.

What if you rolled the dice and one or the other of you used a card to modify the roll? What if James modified the roll with W.I.T.C.H.?


Tue, 3 Jun 1997 11:16:50 +1000 (E ): Glen commented:

You may have noticed I'm an almost obsessive dealmaker.

It has become my favourite part of the game, as I've become better at it.

Genuine mutually beneficial offers. Giveaways. Threats. Wacky ideas. - It's all grist for the deal mill.

(Some of the deals we made last Thursday had the new players in stitches. They had no concept of how the game can be played. I'd say to them "Anything can be the subject of a deal. Think wild". But they were still surprised by many of the deals.)

Wed, 04 Jun 1997 09:16:46 -0700: Jason responded to Ralph's message to him and James:

The prob is I can't decide...delicate control of my AT's is just a fine point..I want James to spend..but I want another turn, but know I won't get one...I have the control right decide who wins this game between Glen, Don, or James....I dunno if I can get it past James to give thany a shot..but it is HIGHLY unlikely to get back to me again.

we'll see

Wed, 04 Jun 1997 13:21 -0500 (EST): James commented on his plans, in response to a message of Ralph's:

To win, of course. That is my main motivation. The only way for that to happen is to get past Glen's turn. And then past Don's turn. I outlined some of my new ideas in my last message to Jason. Before, that it was just hoping to get Jason to stay out of it of help oppose and then hope Don doesn't have UAtW or draw it. Provided he even has it in his deck. I sure hope he does, otherwise this has been a waste of time. Well, I guess not, you have to watch out for these things.

Wed, 4 Jun 97 16:44:49 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Jason's offer to Glen:

This would actually have several nice properties for this turn, even if it doesn't work for the intended purpose. (Neither Glen nor James has a Yellow NWO coming up soon.)

Jason could convince James not to interfere with the attack, by virtue of the fact that Glen wouldn't win.

However, Jason could still retain his king-making abilities--if James declared victory, for example, Jason could give Glen the Clipper Chip to make James share the victory with Glen.

Thu, 05 Jun 1997 14:07 -0400 (EDT): James commented on his message to Don Fnordlioni:

Not to mention I'll have one heck of a bargaining chip against Glen. I could probably get a group off of him in exchange for not interfering with the die roll. Which would be great, to get both Don and Glen away from victory/near victory. Actually, I could demand a group either way and still do that. Cool.

Tue, 10 Jun 1997 10:43:52 +1000 (E ): Glen explained the "two ways to draw plots" he had mentioned in a remark to Jason:

Jason uses tokens to pass me 2 groups with tokens. Then I use those 2 tokens to draw a plot. OR he gives me one group with a token, and I use it to attack one of his groups, which he then aids, to make it succeed, and Soulburner kicks in.

Tue, 10 Jun 97 19:28:24 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Glen's rolling an 11:

Poor Glen! He's really having a tough time of it.

Right now, it seems to me that the best way for him to win would be to make a deal with James to change the die roll. Glen could relink the Necronomicon to Texas, and then give Saddam Hussein, Hawaii, and the Local Police Departments to James--he would then be at 51 points of power.

No, that wouldn't quite work, because if James used W.I.T.C.H's action, James wouldn't have enough action tokens on groups with control arrows to accept three groups. Shucks.

If Glen had one more point of power, he could give James the B.A.T.F. (with Saddam Hussein) and Hawaii, and share a victory that way.

Tue, 10 Jun 1997 22:29:49 -0400: Don Fnordlioni commented on Glen's rolling an 11:

My response is predictable.
This is the second critical die roll that's come up in my favor that really shouldn't have (the Annual Convention being the first).

I'm so glad I rolled those three automatic failures in the one-turn test game.

Tue, 10 Jun 97 23:08:41 EDT: Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's message:

LIES! You only rolled two automatic failures. :)

It's true, Glen has been really unlucky in this game, with two important automatic failures.

Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:18:37 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on his rolling an 11:

Now that's just a tad unfair. Your dice have Murphy's Law built into them or something? What proportion of 11 and 12 have I rolled?

I'd like a pause while I work out whether I can negotiate with James over using WITCH.

Wed, 11 Jun 97 00:00:33 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

I agree that it's unfair. I'm sorry... but it'd be wrong for me to do otherwise.

As to the proportions... your rolls have been 4, 12, 5, 8, and 11. Yes, you've been failing much more than chance. However, as a statistics person, you know that this isn't enough of a sample to conclude that it's not happening by chance.

Certainly, certainly. I wish you luck.

Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:19:13 -0400: Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's message:

Heh. Okay, okay.

Yeah, that kind of sucks for him.


Okay, that was juvenile.

Anyway... I'll be looking at my bottom plot before I decide which to draw, when my turn rolls around. I may be able to pull a win yet! Even after giving away the RSMs (grrr).

Wed, 11 Jun 1997 14:35:04 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

Of course. I just want to gripe.

Oh, I thought it was worse than that. Ah maybe it was a low roll against me succeeding that I remember.

Yes, I know all too well that it is easily explainable by chance. But (loud wailing voice) why does it always happen to me!

Most of my games turn out like this. It is one reason I have to rely on shared victories so much.

And all of it bad :)

Wed, 11 Jun 97 00:47:53 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

I certainly understand that.

Well, I've got the entire history online--you can find all the dice rolls. The only one against you that I remember is the New York roll, which was at a large number.

Yeah, I remember your saying 'the deck was fine, I just can't roll dice' about my Media Assassin deck.

shameless plug: Perhaps you should try my Cuius Testiculos Habeas deck, which I've often won with without rolling dice at all?

Gossip: I think I'm about to win Don Fnordlioni's PBEM game. I haven't made a single die roll yet this game--I'm going to make one attack on my next turn, Privileged, from a group with the Angel's Feather, with W.I.T.C.H. on my side and a Magic group involved. It would take astoundingly bad luck for me to fail.

Well, I've been privately rooting for you all game--part of that is sympathy for the underdog, certainly. I keep thinking of ways for you to win...

So maybe I should be wishing you bad luck, since wishing you good luck doesn't seem to be productive.

Wed, 11 Jun 1997 14:55:12 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message:


Yeah. There's plenty of other games that go the same way.

Even when I play OBD games with surturz (David Streeter), he'll draw 4 +10 cards to my 1. And the 1 I draw will be an alignment I don't have. :(

Hmm. I'll think about that. It's a style of deck I'm not particularly enamoured of, but it may be worth a shot.

You'll be fine. Maybe I should build decks like that.

Over here, "to root" means to have sex with. So if you root for someone in Australia, you're having sex for them...

Maybe. You could try insulting me while you're at it. :)

Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:26 -0400 (EDT): James commented on Glen's rolling an 11:

Ooo... THis is good for me. Now lets see if anyone asks for the roll to be changed. After that I'll have to consider if I actually want to spend the action or not.

What I'm thinking is to strike a deal where Glen gets to groups, but has to give up CIA or something powerful to Jason. I'm already too powerful to think that he would give the group to me.

Maybe I'll ask if Glen wants the roll changed...

Wed, 11 Jun 97 09:02:17 EDT: Ralph commented to himself in response to James's message:

I reflected last night that a way that Glen could pull a victory out might be to give James Saddam Hussein and the Local Police Departments, with the argument that that would bring him down to 48 points of power--and then move the Necronomicon to Texas, to go up to 51 again. It would require faking out James...

I'm not sure that Glen realizes that... another thing he might do would be to propose a shared victory to James... something like "I won't declare victory until your turn, and then I'll give you two groups, subject to the condition that you don't screw me in turn."

Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:54:28 +1000 (E ): Glen commented:

I was just about to offer James the following:

He uses WITCH to change the roll down by 1.

I give him Hawaii, Saddam Hussein and the Local Police Departments.

Unfortunately, I forgot that the Local Police are giving Texas 1 power - which (by my calculations) leaves me on 49.

I might have to go with James' offer.

By Ralph's calculations, that plan would have taken Glen down to a total power of 48.

Thu, 12 Jun 97 16:54:39 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

That surprises me a little, since the CTH deck is built around being a deal-making slut, and only becomes a no-dice deck because it's so focused on deal-making that it's not so good at growth. And you like deal-making...

Ah well. What is the verb that describes cheering for someone and wishing them well, without them being able to benefit from your encouragement? I.e., you _____ for your favorite sports team on TV.

Yeah, I could, punk. After all, you can't even seem to roll dice decently.

You're a few bricks short of a pyramid.

Your Secret Master dresses you funny.

Instead of the Law of Fives, you work according to the Law of 3.86's...

May your next die roll end up with the dice balanced on one corner, so the value can't be calculated--even with the simulated dice that I'm rolling.

So there. Nyeah.

(Just in case there is any doubt, this is all meant to be amusing, and I bear you no ill will.)

Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:41:47 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

I'm waiting for some response from James on my last couple of mails. If I don't hear from him within 24 hours, I'll send him a different offer.

Sat, 14 Jun 1997 10:41:39 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

I have two more things to offer James - well, one offer and a threat. I'd like to see if he responds to my earlier mails yet. I'm not even sure he got them with all my mail problems.

I think the threat will probably get him to do something, even if nothing else will. (And, no, I don't like coercion - but I do it when there doesn't seem to be any other choice)

Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:36:46 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

I'm uncertain as to whether James' lack of response is just because he doesn't like what I've said so far, or because he doesn't have it all.

This makes it difficult to know whether to go to the next phase of offers or not.

Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:44:28 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

You may be wondering at my messages to Jason and James.

Suffice it to say that the more recent message is an indication of my actual inclination. The other is more an attempt to look plausible. I hope he doesn't actually call me on it, though, because I can't see a way to back out of it. Actually, I intended the offer to read differently to what I sent - but if he becomes interested I can clarify it then.

Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:52 -0400 (EDT): James commented:

11 was probably the best roll possible for me. Provided Glen holds up his part of the bargain, which he doesn't [have to]. It being a 'promise of something in the future' and all. But, he's been pretty honorable so far. Now, I suppose I'll see if he has any other tricks up his sleeve.

This way Don is kept away from Up Against the Wall and Glen is under 50 Power. That's why I was specific on C.I.A. being given away. Notice I didn't even bother to attempt to convince Glen that he should give me any groups. Any groups given to me make it possible for me to win on my next turn by # of groups, which everyone keeps close tabs on. But, that's not the way I intend to win now. I'm presently at 32 Power. Clipper Chip or Cyborg Soldiers adds 6 which brings that up to 38. Dictatorship on Germany adds 10 making 48. ATO Pyramid Marketing Schemes which would be at Power 6. The only thing I have to worry about, in this scenario, is Gun Control going away. That won't matter if I draw Clone Arrangers. That and Cyborg Soldiers instead of Clipper Chip and Pyramid brings the total to 60 instead of 54. Survivable if Gun Control goes away. But, I don't [forsee] Gun Control going away. No ones power structure looks like they would have anything but Gun Control.

Note that, contrary to what James wrote, Cyborg Soldiers and Clone Arrangers would contribute the same amount of power as Clipper Chip and Pyramid Marketing Schemes.

Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:04:46 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

Just an additional thought - James' action would not have been likely had he not trusted me at all. I guess this is another advantage of basically "playing nice" - the ability to make otherwise impossible deals. (Of course, that doesn't mean every action has to be from the purest of motives :) ).

Of course it is likely that he has something else he can do; my assumption has always been a Red NWO either in hand or in easy access, but there are other possibilities.

Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:20:15 +1000 (E ): Glen commented:

I was thinking about the possibility of Jason reneging on his side of the deal - (which he can only do by not refusing the CIA). It leaves me no worse off than if I'd never done the deal with him at all. ... cute, huh?

Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:47:41 -0400: Don Fnordlioni asked:

If you could be so kind, could you total Bavaria's current power for me? I want to make sure I don't mess it up.

If killing Saddam would put that total below 50, I need a pause to discuss this with the others.

Ralph answered that Glen's current power was 53.

Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:36:52 -0400: Don Fnordlioni wrote:

Okay. Right now, Bavaria's power seems to be at a 53. Without Saddam, his total Power would drop by 5, to 48.

Saddam defends against Assassinations, at the moment, at an 11. (Power 5, Bodyguard gives a +6, no proximity)

I am holding a Car Bomb. Currently, I have a 12 (Car Bomb's power is 8, +4 from Cthulhu) vs. Saddam's 11, an impossible roll. I don't have the Violent or Criminal action tokens to help it.

Russia has a Violent token. If the Network used Russia's token to play the Car Bomb, the roll would be a 15 (Car Bomb power of 8, plus Russia's 7), versus the 11 -- a 4 or less. With a Terrorist Nuke, World Cup Victory, or Martial Law, the roll would be 14.

Of course, the Network can't be trusted to actually try to thwart Bavaria. And if the Assassins are sharing victory this turn, it'd be pointless to try.

So. Rather than giving the Car Bomb away now, I'll risk the possibility of Saddam becoming unkillable, and only offer the Car Bomb if Bavaria does, in fact, declare victory.

Other musings as to why the Assassins helped:

The Assassins have 7 groups, two of which count double, totalling 9.
Let's say Bavaria gives them Saddam, making 10.
I'll be giving them the RSMs, bringing that total to 12.
They don't declare victory.
They make an ATO, bringing the total to 13.
They give Saddam back, bringing Bavaria's total power to 50.
They both declare victory.

Bavaria, of course, could hand over any group to make this work. Hawaii would be better, actually, since that means Bavaria can still declare victory if something goes wrong, and the Assassins don't have to wait until their turn to declare. They both can win on my turn, which, of course, maximizes the irony.

Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:52:15 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on his rolling a 6:

Wow! I'm impressed.

I was actually all prepared to lose this roll.

I was going to try to get Don's Weather Satellite before handing cards to Jason.

I'll deal with the outcome of the roll in an hour. I'm going to offer some stuff to Jason first.

Gotta go - something very important is on.

Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:11:11 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's ruling on deals:

Absolutely. My use of binding was intended to apply both ways. How could it be otherwise (without an I Lied)?

Anyway, it's moot now.

Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:40:56 +1000 (E ): After offering the C.I.A. to Jason and having it be declined, Glen commented:

OK, I'm going to hang on to phase 5 just a tad longer if that's OK. I want to give James and Don and Thany a chance to throw NWO's and disasters :) at me before I declare victory.

Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:39 -0400 (EDT): James commented on Glen's unconsummated gift:

Nuts. :( I should've worded my deal with Glen more carefully. Now he's fulfiled the bargain (or attempted to at least) and probably will declare victory. I guess Jason wants this to end. I'd call him a wimp, but I'll wait to see what the full history.

Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:50:30 +1000 (E ): Glen commented:

Looks like Don, James and Thany (but especially James) aren't going to do anything until/unless I declare.

Now, if I don't declare, James will win, I'm pretty sure. So even though James has to have something up his sleeve, I have to declare.

I'm just wondering if I should wait for Jason to return. I guess so.

(I almost feel like ignoring the roll and giving him Texas and Brazil anyway - because even getting rid of Gun Control he still wins on groups - and I can save him from a Disaster. Whereas if James has a red NWO, I'm screwed. Hmm. A thought occurs. Mightn't work. Have to try.)

(The thought was to try to get a Red NWO from James, as mentioned in this message.)

Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:20:29 +1000 (E ): Glen explained his message to James:

Sure; nothing too intelligent - if he has a Red NWO, I lose. If I know he's got a Red NWO, I'm better off not even declaring - I either give Jason the win after all, or make negotiations to stay in the game. Or try to talk Jason into giving me groups, I guess.

Maybe I can even get Don back in the negotiations, but I doubt it, since I've tipped James off already.

I'm mostly information-gathering, but it is definitely a deal I'd consider seriously, since if he can complete the deal, my current position is untenable.

[By contrast, assume he has a Giant Kudzu. There's no point in finding that out, because I could stop it. I only need to know if he can actually stop me. The offer is attractive enough that it might even draw out something at or near the top of his deck.]

Wed, 25 Jun 97 14:54:05 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on James' offer to Glen:

The best thing for Glen to do here would be to give James Saddam, and then move the Necronomicon to Texas. I wonder if he'll think of that.

Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:31:29 +1000 (E ): Glen commented:

I guess I've found out all I'm going to find out... If James was telling the truth, only an Interesting Times seems likely to stop me, and that gives me time to do other things.

He then gave orders to declare victory.

Glen Declares Victory

Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:42 -0400 (EDT): James commented on Ralph's pointing out the illegality of his proposal to Jason:

Yeah, I remebered this (actually I looked it up) later, but forgot that I sent a message about it. Desperation does strange things.

Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:10 -0400 (EDT): James commented on his draw of Charismatic Leader:

Ick. Not very useful now... drop this one under the fourth card, making it the fifth from the top.

Fri, 27 Jun 97 15:19:19 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on James' choice of Plots to return to his deck:

I think James would have been better off burying, say, the Reverse Whammy. The Charismatic Leader would be useful in increasing his power for the Power For Its Own sake... as it is, he's going to have a bit of trouble winning with the NWO: The Magic Goes Away.

Lessee, he could increase his power by 4 with the Dictatorship, by 6 with the Cyborg Soldiers or Clipepr Chip--to increase beyond that, he'd have to take over something... though he might be able to make a good bid for Texas from a German dictatorship.

Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:24 -0400 (EDT): James replied to a question from Ralph on how he could power a Car Bomb on Saddam Hussein at a 4 or less:

I thought you knew all? ;) Probably want me to state for the record...

Libertarians power a Dictatorship on Germany. They get +2 and the Violent alignment from Dictatorship and now that it's a Violent Gov't group, +3 from NWO:Gun Control. Violent for the ability to get in on Truck Bomb and +5 Power making it (equal to Russia) Power 7.

Mon, 30 Jun 97 10:58:16 EDT: Ralph replied to James' plan:

I wanted you to state for the record, and I suspected that you were making a rules error, so I wanted you to be clear enough about your thinking that I could correct you if you were proposing an illegal plan.

Dictatorship, however, can only be played during your turn. (At least, according to the Card List Generator--I don't have the cards or the INWO book here, so you're allowed to correct me if the Card List Generator is inaccurate.)

Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:40 -0400 (EDT): James replied to Ralph's critique:

Man, I've really got to start playing live games again. Then maybe I'd pay more attention to the cards.

Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:59 -0400 (EDT): James offered a comment on having drawn NWO: The Magic Goes Away:

I think 'Woo Hoo' would about sum it up.
I need to go right now so more on this later.

Play that baby!

Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:09 -0400 (EDT): Ten minutes later, James wrote:

Sorry, hold up. Question: if I try to negotiate, will that open me up to stuff like Go Fish or Auditor? I remember the immediatly/more than 5 rule, but that was written for a speed play question.

Mon, 30 Jun 97 16:26:50 EDT: Ralph replied to James' message:

You got lucky--I hadn't sent out the message yet.

Here's my take, based on Lynette's rulings on 'immediately' in the context of Auditor From Hell:

The next 'event' (which I'm not gonna bother to define precisely at the moment) must be one that gets you back down to the right number of Plots.

You can negotiate before that, but I think time is suspended while you play.

Tue, 01 Jul 1997 07:12 -0400 (EDT): James responded to Ralph's ruling:

Not that it matters, I remebered right after I left that I have no tokens. Not that anyone can do anything after they declare victory anyway; I have to thwart him first. Which is fine by me. I was only asking the negotiation question out of greed anyway. :)

So, again, play that baby!


Lets have another B5 Woo Hoo!

Tue, 1 Jul 1997 23:21:49 +1000 (E ): Glen commented:

Curious to know what James has in his hot little hand...

Does he have too many plots?

Ralph answered that yes, James had too many Plots.

Tue, 1 Jul 97 09:23:14 EDT: Ralph replied to James' message:

People can do things after they declare victory; they just can't do phase 5 things.

Wanna give me some color text?

Is B5 Babylon 5 in this context? I don't watch B5--how is 'Woo Hoo' associated with B5? (I'd thought it was from Warner Brothers cartoons).

Tue, 1 Jul 1997 23:27:29 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's answer that James had too many Plots:

If he's hesitating, that worries me a little. Maybe he has something good.

We all find out soon enough, I guess.

Tue, 01 Jul 1997 10:38 -0400 (EDT): James explained the connection between Babylon 5 and "Woohoo!" (as well as providing color text for the NWO: The Magic Goes Away):

Yeah, I'm addicted to Babylon 5. One of my friends described my hobbies as: Babylon 5 and anything else that doesn't interfere with my enjoyment of Babylon 5. In a nutshell:
Two main characters are involved in a courtship ritual. The alien ritual involves exploring each others pleasure thresholds. It also involves an impartial witness/chaperone (also alien.) The only reference to the ritual after it was described was where the witness looks quizzically at our human hero and asks 'Woo hoo?'

In a more generic sense: I feel like I've won the lottery.

Round 5

Don Fnordlioni's Turn 5

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Thu, 3 Jul 1997 08:27:04 +1000 (E ): Glen explained his comment about the NWO: The Magic Goes Away further:

Well, of course, it is possible he just didn't know it was there. Or that wouldn't trust me to make the trade, and that I was after information only.

If it had been one card higher, so James could draw it with tokens remaining, assuming he knew it was there AND assuming James would trade it for the CIA, I couldn't have declared victory. I would have traded it for the red NWO as offered (i.e. before declaring), and given Jason Texas and Brazil for his victory.

Sorry if the hypothetical situation confused you: I wasn't talking about all this happaening after I declared, but when the offer was first made.

Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:21 -0400 (EDT): James explained his perception of his position:

It probably looks to the other players that I'm going to win my turn. It's not that easy for me to win now that I've used my last resort. Unless the cards come up right, I can't win with Power anymore. I'll be a couple short considering the positions of some cards in my deck. I should've been more careful in my race towards my Goal card. So, now my strategy is back to winnning by groups. I need three, and that means at least two attacks. That'll be hard with Jasons' tokens. Provided he actually cares to participate. Although, there's only 10 Global Power among them, but Don will probably have his Illuminati token as well. Hmmm...

Maybe I'll just position myself to win with Power if someone re-plays a Gun Control. There's got to be more of them out there.

This is going to make for an interesting decision about what to go for with Nephews' special ability.

Well, even with all the problems, at least I still have a chance...

Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:52 -0400 (EDT): James commented on Don Fnordlioni's plea:

I don't remeber if I said it at the time, but I didn't really belive he would go through with the move anyway. But he doesn't know that.

This is ok by me.

I'm undecided. I've been looking at my options and they hinge on what plots I draw and these are some good alternatives. I don't particularly want to win by someone giving me the groups I need, but I may decide to be hypocritical.

I'll reply to Don later today after some more thought.

Mon, 07 Jul 1997 13:00 -0400 (EDT): James commented on Don Fnordlioni's proposed deal:

He must have plans for me. I can't see how he could miss that giving me the RSM's would put me one group away from victory. I can handle a disaster or a zap. (All deals are off when someone tries to win.) Or, he intends to win this turn (which I would be impressed if he did) or there's a Seize the [Time] at the bottom of his deck. What other possibilities can I think of. Other things, he needs action tokens for that he won't have. He could have a deal with another player, but I don't see that happening. As opposed to Seize the Time, Upheaval would work too, but he would take himself out of the game. He seems intent on making sure I know he's going to give me the RSMs. At least, making me *believe* that. Maybe that's it. Just a good old fashioned backstab. The only real new part to the deal between us (that would make a difference) is the noninterference. So if this were the case I really don't lose out anyway. I wouldn't interfere if I could and he would've broken the deal anyway.

Guess I'll have to wait and see.

Don Fnordlioni plays Car Bomb on Saddam Hussein

Mon, 7 Jul 97 17:32:48 EDT: Ralph wrote to Don Fnordlioni:

By the way, I'd like you to talk to me about your thoughts and plans. What's going on in your ichthyoid mind?

In particular, I'm a bit surprised that you seem to be planning to uphold your deal with James, since that would put him pretty close to victory.

I remember you saying months ago that you wanted to play a game with a different play group, so that you could renege on promises...

Wed, 09 Jul 1997 15:27:53 -0400: Don Fnordlioni commented on his successful roll for the Car Bomb on Saddam Hussein:


So, I get to draw a couple plots. Naturally, I'll be looking at the bottom of the deck before I pick the first.

What am I trying to accomplish, you ask?

Eh. Mostly just fucking around. I really don't think I have a prayer at victory, but, hey, ya never know. I just got jumped on prematurely -- always a problem when you look like the clear leader. Oh, and I don't hope to break my deal with James, though I should point out that if I did, I could concivably win -- roll to take over the Secret Service from Cthulhu, make it, and have my goal in hand. That'd give me the proper 3 Violent/5 Government ratio. But, since the RSMs are going away.... shrug.

Wed, 09 Jul 1997 15:30:02 -0400: Three minutes later, Don Fnordlioni followed up to his own message:

Then again, the Wives aren't exactly Government, are they?
Never mind....

Wed, 9 Jul 97 15:45:02 EDT: Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's message:

Whadaya mean, "prematurely"? You were at a point where all you had to do was make an ATO and show your goal. The only way to be less premature than that would be to wait until you had actually declared victory.

Personally, I was surprised that no one jumped on you after your all-out attack on New York.

These two PBEM games confirm my feeling that a hugely important predictor of victory is not being attacked. James is in a strong position because he hasn't been attacked, and you were too, until Glen's attacks on you. In your game, I'm the only player who hasn't been attacked--and I'm expecting to make a strong bid for victory.

Thu, 10 Jul 1997 01:17:36 -0400: Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's message:

I'll pick that up -- it's a reasonably good thwart card, and take a look at the next bottom one before picking.

Obviously, easier said than done. Basically, I wasn't in a very good defensive position, and everyone sided with a Bavarian victory for (at that moment) inexplicable reasons.

Hmm. It occurs to me that the Assassins could have been holding that Magic Goes Away the whole time, knowing he had a good shot at thwarting the Bavarians... or the Bavarians gave it to him. Those rat bastards. :) Well, they'll get theirs...

James Eddleman's Turn 5

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:42 -0400 (EDT): James commented on his choice of which deck to draw from for the Nephews of God:

Hmmm... Rough decision. If I figure right I have 4 cards left in my group deck; 2 Groups & 2 Resources. Both Groups are Secret, so they count double, but I have no ATO, there are Illumintai actions still floating around, and there's no guarentee I'll get a Group. Not to mention, I'll still need to take over another Group.

On the other hand, if the plots are right I think I could still reach 50 Power. But it'll take every plot I can get. Right now, I could bring out Clipper Chip and take over Israel with Germany (with Dictaotrship) and that would be 44 Power. Which is still to far away. Even if I drew the Charismatic Leader that I placed 1 too many cards down, I'd still be 1 short. Hmmm. Going for Power will be harder that I thought. I knew it would be difficult when I took out Gun Control, but this is bad. No. I don't think another plot will help matters very much.

I'll take an extra Group.

ps Re: 'the Ch. Leader 1 too many down' I think it's 1 plot too far down to get it into hand and play it and do anything else.

Fri, 18 Jul 1997 07:45 -0400 (EDT): James commented on his look at his top three Plots with the N.S.A.:

Yeah, just as I thought. The plots I need to win by Power are there, but I don't have enough tokens to get them into hand and play them. I could get two with Hitlers Brain and destroying a straight or conservative, but I need three. Guess I should've gone for a second plot.

Oh well. I should've said this earlier: place tokens.

Mon, 21 Jul 97 18:50:56 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's question:

I'm sorry. I didn't understand your intent.

For the timing question... I'm not sure. I think I got yours after one of them had said 'let's make the move' but before the other one had said 'yes'.

(I admit with embarrassment that I had lost your order in a pile of messages... it hasn't been a great week.)

Mea culpa... I should have diced off for it instead.

Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:56:11 +1000 (E ): Glen responded to Ralph's message:

OK, that's effectively simultaneous.

I think there's enough of a parallel to a real game - where someone exposes something expecting a trade, and the trade actually begins before they see the exposing. I'm not complaining about your actions, just about the way it worked out.

I just like to curse bad luck.

Glen, I think, was perhaps a bit too accepting here--but I don't think it significantly affected the course of the game.

Tue, 22 Jul 1997 20:24 -0400 (EDT): James gave a plan and some comments:

First I'll bring out Clipper Chip with my Illuminati token.

If that goes through then Libertarians will Attack to Destroy the Pentagon. Liberarians Power will be 6 +5 from FF to destroy a Conservative and +4 from RSMs to destroy a Government group = 15 - 12 (Power + proximity) = 3.

The Libertarians, up to some unusual ways, decide that they're going to do somthing about too much government right this very minute and set upon the Pentagon with pick-axes.

Not for broadcast:
I though about several attacks but this seemed the funniest. I also noticed, if I hadn't used NSA's token to take RSMs, and were able to destroy a group, I would've had the tokens to buy Ch. Leader and power it, Dictatorship and frankenfood for a total of 51 Power. Ugh. Oh well. This plan involves getting Don and/or Jason to help destroy Pentagon or some other group and then attack to control once some of the actions are gone.

Wed, 23 Jul 97 01:25:32 EDT: Ralph wrote to Glen about his message to James:

I admit to fairly mixed feelings about this. This seems a lot more like just throwing the game to Jason than your previous excellent deal with him last turn did.

If you manage to stop James, it looks to my eye that you would have a reasonable shot at winning--at least as good as anyone except perhaps James. Why, then, throw that away?

I'm certainly not telling you what to do, though...

Wed, 23 Jul 1997 15:30:00 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's comment:

I would not just "throw" the game. Obviously I'm going to be trying to win as well, but it shouldn't be too hard to do both if we can get the right cards down. I guess I was thinking that if it came down to the same situation as last round, it would be Jason's turn this time.

Libertarians attack to destroy the Pentagon

Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:03:18 +1000 (E ): Glen explained his statement "[Thany] seems to have spat the dummy":

Oh, it didn't occur to me that it mightn't be used over there.

It means to get upset and not want to participate, basically.

I'm being a bit harsh, really - there's not all that much he can do right now... but you'd think he'd at least try and negotiate for the use of the Near Miss...

Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:09:23 +1000 (E ): Glen gave orders:

I'm not sure if this is wise at all, but what the hell, I learned to regret hesitation last time.

I expose my Beach Party.

Let's see if that will prompt them to tell me what this is about. :)

Wed, 23 Jul 97 21:18:29 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's order:

Let me check to make sure, since you've made this mistake before:

Do you realize that the Pentagon is not Coastal, so Beach Party can't be used on the Pentagon?

Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:26:46 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's question:

Thanks for checking. I'll still expose the Beach Party.

Even if I did use Near Miss on the Pentagon, they can see I still have some protection of my own.

Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:42:32 -0700: Jason commented:

Oh the joys of having action tokens..Gotta love this...:)

Ya think this discussion will look good on the board:me having to talk to both sides?..

Fri, 25 Jul 97 13:51:53 EDT: Ralph mentioned to Jason, in response to a message from Jason to Don Fnordlioni:

By the way, you didn't nuke the counter-revolution playing the Secrets; you buried the Counter-Revolution near the bottom of your deck.

I dunno whether you want to tell Don Fnordlioni or James this or not.

Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:53:29 -0700: Jason replied to Ralph's message:

oops..misremembered...well..if either asks I probably will...didn't mean to lie..I just misremembered..

Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:22 -0400 (EDT): James commented on his "I'll have to think about [another deal]" message to Jason:

What I could do is see if he'll take Pizza for the Secret Meeting.

I wonder if he'd get suspicious....

Regarding Don's last message. I feel he could've stated that threat in a more friendly manner. ;)

Sat, 26 Jul 97 12:55:02 EDT: Ralph commented to Don Fnordlioni on a message of the Don's:

A moment's reflection should convince you that he's unlikely to Seize the Time.

Tue, 29 Jul 1997 13:17:10 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message to him and James:

Well, I'd rather give them to Jason than James, but since I can wait, it's better to wait for the die roll. Of course, whether I actually do will in part depend on Jason's willingness (or not) to Hat Trick it for me, and also on the actual outcome.

That is, don't hold the die roll up on my account.

Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:44 -0400 (EDT): James replied to Ralph's call for action:

Well, I'm certainly not going to get two Destructions this turn and I know I'll get ripped apart if I don't have any tokens. I could make a deal with Pizza to Jason, but with Near Miss out there, I don't think that will be enough. He may have no intention to play it this attack, but he certainly would on the second. So, moral to the story, conserve tokens for defense. One token and a rollable number. Not bad...

Go ahead and roll. If I fail, then I'll knock. Discard my goal to the my deck, fourth card down. I don't need that taken away.

Thany's Turn 5

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Tue, 29 Jul 97 16:52:10 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on the beginning of Thany's turn:

Rolling a 10 for OPEC's Power is really good--it gives Thany a total power of 38. But I'm not sure that Thany could win it even so.

The most high-yield way for Thany to try to win would be to take over Texas, which defends at a 19 (and ignore the Pentagon, which takes 18 points of power for Relief). If Thany made one Privileged attack on Texas, from, say, Bavaria and OPEC, that would be 10 (OPEC) + 10 (Bavaria) + 4 (Common alignment) + 5 (Rivalry) - 9 (Resistance) - 10 (Priximity to Illuminati) = 10 or less--but that would be thwarted by the Murphy's Law, and a second attack could only get up to an 8 or less, and would get Jason's action tokens used in defense (and perhaps also James's), since it couldn't be made Privileged.

And it wouldn't win anyway, since it would only give Thany 10 points of power, because the influence of the Clipper Chip would go away. Oops.

But he could use the Citizenship Award, if he was able to make the attack with an action token left.

Wed, 30 Jul 1997 10:11:01 +1000 (E ): Glen responded to a public comment of Ralph's:

Me neither. This is a weird game.

Wed, 30 Jul 97 08:25:30 EDT: Ralph pointed out an aspect of the rules in a proposition of Glen's:

Remember, of course, that the Magic has Gone Away, so it would only be a symbolic gesture.

Thu, 31 Jul 1997 08:18:34 +1000 (E ): Glen responded to Ralph's message:

You're right. I'd still like to do it - you never know;

i) he mightn't realise, and just look elsewhere first
ii) he might get rid of the NWO with say Gun Control before making the attack (I would if I could - since attacks to control are against resistance, not power, so more power to both of us only helps him.

Jason Bostick's Turn 5

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Tue, 5 Aug 97 14:47:28 EDT: In response to Thany's declaration of fatigue, Ralph asked:

Would you like to retire from the game? I don't intend to imply that you should or you shouldn't--it's fine with me either way--but you seem tired enough that perhaps that's what you want to do.

Tue, 5 Aug 97 16:46:36 EDT: Ralph commented about Jason's return of Goal: Up Against the Wall to his Plot deck:

After returning UatW to your deck, you have 10 Plots in your deck.

(I half expected you to try to sell the UatW to Don Fnordlioni...)

Tue, 05 Aug 1997 13:47:54 -0700: Jason replied to Ralph's comment:

I did think about it..*grins*...but decided not to..not exactly sure why..hrm...coulda gone for triple victory?...never seen one of those..:)

10 plots..I keep forgetting how quickly the network can burn through a plot deck..:)

Tue, 5 Aug 97 17:29:38 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Jason's message to Glen:

Let me analyze their power, and whether they can share a victory.

First, we note that Glen will draw NWO: Gun Control, and play that. So he'll get an ATO--either NASA, which he'll draw, or perhaps Jason's Israel. Assume it's Israel, since I'm being optimistic here.

Glen's power will then be:

10 (Bavarian Illuminati)
10 (Texas)
1 (Local Police Departments)
9 (CIA)
9 (Brazil)
6 (B.A.T.F.)
0 (Hawaii)
6 (Israel)

But there would be ways for Glen to increase his power: if he played Jason's New Blood on the Local Police Departments, that would be +5, Emergency Powers on Brazil would be +6, and moving the Necronomicon to Texas would be +3. So Glen could easily get up to 65 Power, which would mean that he could donate 15 points of power to Jason.

Jason, however, would then have a total power of:

8 (Network)
4 (England)
4 (Finland)
7 (Russia)
1 (Canada)

Jason could play the Dictatorship on England, raising his power by 5 (+2 for the Dictatorship, +3 because it would then qualify for Gun Control). But that's only 29; if Glen gave him exactly 15 points of power (which isn't necessarily possible), he'd be up to 44. So another 6 points of power needs to be generated at least for them to share a victory.

A straightforward way for that power to be generated would be for Jason to draw two more Plots to get his NWO: World War III. This would increase Glen's power by 10 (to 75) and Jason's power by 8--this would make it easy for them to split up their 112 points of power into more than 50 apiece.

Therefore, we've demonstrated that if Jason and Glen knew what they'd draw, they could share a victory.

A less straightforward method to generate that extra power would be to make an attack--but successfully controlling the Mossad would only boost the power by 5 if NWO: End of the World were still in play, so they'd have to make two successful attacks, in the face of a lot of opposing tokens and Don Fnordlioni's Murphy's Law.

It's hard to predict what will happen. I think that Glen will be able to win by drawing NWO: Gun Control; I don't know if he'll be able to share a win with Jason.

Note that in Ralph's comments on the NWO: World War III, he was forgetting about James' second NWO: End of the World.

Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:13:06 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on Thany's passing:

I've been in live games where this happens, too.

This, incidentally, may have saved me some trouble. I honestly didn't expect that it would get back around to Jason and me, and that if it did I'd still have all those lovely groups.

Don F. better play nice, or he may just be toast.

Wed, 6 Aug 1997 11:33:25 -0500 (CDT): Thany replied to Ralph's "Would you like to retire from the game?" question: "No, thanks."

Thu, 07 Aug 1997 10:19:50 -0700: Jason asked a rules question:

Can I spend my english action token to move a group if wanted to?

(I'm learning all sorts of little things from doing this that never come up when you only play 1/month and with the same guy)

Ralph replied:

The rules on group moves: you can move a group with an action token from the group, the group's master, the group's new master, or your Illuminati.

Also, by my interpretation, you can only move groups during Phase 5 (the Main Phase of your turn). So, you can't move the group until after you get action tokens.

Thu, 07 Aug 1997 17:49:49 -0700: Jason asked another question:

before I take tokens..I don't think I can but...

can I spend that last token to power dictatorship?

Ralph answered: "I don't think so."

Russia attacks to control Israel

Fri, 15 Aug 97 11:51:07 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Jason's plan:

I'm not sure this is a good choice on Jason's part. Israel is the most powerful card the two of them will have, especially after Glen's Gun Control; I don't think Jason should sacrifice it.

Tue, 19 Aug 97 13:47:17 EDT: Ralph commented to Jason on his proposed plan for attacking James:

Your calculation is somewhat in error here, because many of James' tokens are on non-Secret groups, which can't aid in the defense of the Secret groups you're proposing to attack.

Thu, 21 Aug 97 14:41:44 EDT: Ralph replied to Jason's message to Don Fnordlioni and Jason:

I admit to being a little surprised at how few bites you're getting on your proposed attack on James... I don't have any advice to give on whether to keep waiting or not.

Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:46:02 -0700: Jason responded to Ralph's message:

No doubt..I figured theyed jump on pounding him down by up to 4 groups..

I'll wait for a day or so..then I have one more action before I knock

Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:29:28 -0700: Jason asked Ralph:

What is the story on Thany..has he actually been responding to anything?

Fri, 22 Aug 97 13:06:30 EDT: Ralph replied to Jason's question:

He did finally respond to my urging him to take his turn, and when I asked if he'd like to resign, he said he'd stay in. But I haven't seen him respond to a conspiratorial message since his attempt to win.

I dunno what to tell you.

Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:07:51 -0700: Jason replied to Ralph's answer:

Ok..After I get my next response from Don...I'll make my move...I just need him to confirm his support before I waste my token on a feeble attack on the RSM's..:)

Fri, 22 Aug 1997 20:47:33 -0400: Don Fnordlioni commented on his message to Jason:

Here's my thoughts on this, cause I think this is dandy.

Basically, I'm thrilled that the Network is going to be spending his time and resources, this late in the game, by merely spinning his wheels. I don't fear that this destruction will cause a sudden win -- he simply doesn't have the groups for any Control X, Destroy Y goals.

There's, of course, the chance that this is a YAWYE attack -- but big deal. It's worth it if it means it when he says:

BTW, this is a particularly nice deal for me -- the enforcability of it is almost completely up to me. I can still back out at the last minute if the Assassins put up any sort of resistance, and not break this agreement, thanks to that handy "If."

So, just FYI, I won't be committing any tokens until the Assassins have had a chance to defend themselves.

I wonder if I'll have the chance to destroy a couple more government groups. Maybe I'll get an oppurtunity to take the BATF back again. That'd be nice.

I still don't think I have a very realistic chance at winning... but you never know. As we've seen. Who would have thought that the Network would have gotten another turn?

The Network Attacks to destroy the Robot Sea Monsters

Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:15:22 -0400: Don Fnordlioni commented on his negotiation with Jason:

Welp. I have to decide if stripping a FF token is worth a plot card. It is, after all, 5 points of global power. I also have to decide if losing an Illuminati token now is a good thing -- the Network has mentioned the Mossad. And I'm wide open to attack. Also, I wouldn't mind having the FF token around to help thwart Glen. So.......

I don't think I'll be able to throw in. It's just not worth it, with this roll. I may pull a win out, somehow, yet!

Hopefully Thany does wake up. But I don't need to wait.

Wed, 27 Aug 1997 17:24:50 -0500 (CDT): Thany announced an illegal plan:

In a live worldwide broadcast, the Pope reveals a chapter of Revelations previously locked in the Vatican's vaults that warns against the "stainless steel sea serpents of Sheol" coming to destroy the kingdom of Christ, and asking all good-thinking people to pray for their expedient destruction at the hand of God. To help God's hand along, however, several fleets of warships have been sent to seek and destroy on sight.

[The Vatican City aids the attack vs. RSMs with regular power. Not sure of current math.]

Wed, 27 Aug 97 23:50:56 EDT: Ralph replied to Thany's plan:

Unfortunately, the Robot Sea Monsters are Secret, and so can't be attacked by the non-Secret Vatican. The only group you have that can help destroy the Robot Sea Monsters is the Bavarian Illuminati.

Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:31:00 -0400: Don Fnordlioni commented on Jason's message:

A very touching plea, but it makes me all the more paranoid -- he seems very anxious to get my token off. Forget it.

Fri, 29 Aug 1997 07:41 -0400 (EDT): James commented on the attack:

I'm still here. No I don't intend to do anything. True, I have a Jihad on the top of my deck, but that would take too many tokens. ( In my opinion.) I don't care much. It'll make them feel safer and doesn't really hinder me. I suppose I should complain to enforce that view, but I have no reason to believe that anyone would think that I could convince anyone else to help me. So I won't.

Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:10:41 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's observation:


One statistic I'd find interesting is the number of messages per player, but perhaps that'd best be left for apres la guerre, as it were.

Especially useful would be "messages from player to player", in some kind of table or diagram.

Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:10:41 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's observation again:

We've been going about 45 weeks...James is pretty lucky that it's taken so long.

Tue, 2 Sep 97 00:35:33 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

I quite agree that that would be useful. And it'd be interesting to somehow display how that changed with time...

But I'm already falling behind in keeping up with the chronicle--that will have to wait.

Finland attacks to control the Mossad

Tue, 2 Sep 97 21:43:46 EDT: Ralph commented to himself about Jason's attack:

Comment: Don Fnordlioni cannot rely on his Murphy's Law, because the transfer happens first. Quoth the UFAQ: "This means that if an Illuminati loses its last group it cannot play Murphy's Law to save itself!"

I wonder if Don Fnordlioni realizes that. I'll stick with the policy of 'if someone makes observable errors of fact, I'll tell them.' This means I should tell Jason--fortunately, Don Fnordlioni will probably talk about his reasoning, so I'll be able to correct him if he's wrong.

Tue, 2 Sep 97 21:47:53 EDT: Ralph wrote to Jason:

I just realized an error in your logic. Fortunately, it probably doesn't make you unhappy with the current plan, but I'm sorry I didn't point it out earlier:

Don Fnordlioni cannot play the Murphy's Law on this attack, because the transfer of the Mossad, and Don Fnordlioni's death, happens before he could play the Murphy's Law.

I don't know whether Don Fnordlioni knows this. If he says something that reflects an assumption that he can play the Murphy's Law, I'll point it out to him.

Tue, 02 Sep 1997 18:52:41 -0700: Jason replied to Ralph's message:

Murphy's changes a roll just after it happened...not after the change...doesn't it?

Ack..ok..I didn't think about that..would that also effect Attacks to Destroy...if so..I prolly messed up as I coulda agents/ketchup..but oh well..we'll roll with it..:)


Tue, 2 Sep 97 21:59:56 EDT: Ralph replied to Jason's message:

Check out the UFAQ at for a detailed explanation of this.

It's not necessarily a serious error; after all, it wouldn't hurt you too much to have the Mossad, and you have a better roll with the attack to control than to destroy.

Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:43:59 -0400: Don Fnordlioni commented on the attack on the Mossad:

Aw, heck.

Welp, I'll throw my Martial Law at it. (I'm pretty sure I'm holding one -- but my deck is on my laptop at home).

After that, I won't do anything else -- I'll just Murphy the roll.

Fri, 5 Sep 97 13:26:39 EDT: Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's message:

You're not holding a Martial Law. Your hand:

Plot hand:
Combined Disasters
Murphy's Law (exposed)
Seize the Time!

Group hand:
Secret Service

Also, you can't Murphy the roll; you'll lose your last group and thus die before you could Murphy it. See the UFAQ, under 'Results of an Attack'.

Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:35:48 -0400: Don Fnordlioni replied to Ralph's correction:

Oh, that's right.
Gee, I'm screwed, then.

I'll spend my Cthulhu token in defense.

Mon, 8 Sep 97 19:34:39 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Jason's attack:

Note that Glen could help by giving Jason the Clipper Chip, which would boost the power of each of the three groups involved, bringing the roll to an 11 or less.

Tue, 9 Sep 97 00:58:44 EDT: Ralph commented to himself:

It would be just barely possible for Glen and Jason to share a victory, even now. Here's the scenario:

Glen gives Jason the Clipper Chip, giving him a 11 or less on this attack. Jason succeeds in the attack.
Jason gives Glen the New Blood, the Dictatorship, and Al Amarja. Then, on Glen's turn, Glen draws the NWO: Gun Control and plays it, giving him an ATO. Glen ATOs Al Amarja, then moves the Necronomicon to Texas, plays the New Blood on the Local Police Departments, plays the Emergency Powers on Brazil, and plays the Dictatorship on Brazil (powering it with an Illuminati token). The total powers are these:

Network		8
Finland		6 (Self Esteem) -2 (End of the World) +2 (Clipper
		Chip) =	6
Russia		6 (New Blood) + 3 (Gun Control) -2 (End of the World
		+2 (Clipper Chip) = 9
England		6 (Emergency Powers) -2 (End of the World) +2 (Clipper
		Chip) = 6
Canada		3 - 2 (End of the World) +2 (Clipper Chip) = 3
Israel		3 -2 (End of the World) +3 (Gun Control) +2 (Clipper
		Chip) = 6
Mossad		2 - 2 (End of the World) + 3 (Gun Control) +2 (Clipper
		Chip) = 5
C.I.A.		6 - 2 (End of the World) + 3 (Gun Control) + 2
		(Clipper Chip) = 9
Total		52

Bavaria		10
Texas		6 x2 (Necronomicon) +1 (Local Police Departments) +3
		(Gun Control) -2 (End of the World) = 14
Local Police Departments
		6 (New Blood)
Brazil		6 (Emergency Powers) x2 (Big Prawn) +3 (Gun Control)
		-2 (End of the World) +2 (Dictatorship) = 15
B.A.T.F.	3 -2 (End of the World) +3 (Gun Control) = 4
Hawaii		2 -2 (End of the World) = 0
Al Amarja	2
Total		51

Another way things could work out: instead of Al Amarja, have Glen ATO NASA off of, say, BATF, and then trade NASA for Canada using BATF's token to give NASA and Bavaria to receive Canada, and play the Dictatorship on Canada using Bavaria's token. In Jason's hands, NASA would have a power of 2 - 2 (EotW) +2 (Clipper Chip) = 2, giving him a total power of 51; a Canadian Dictatorship in Glen's power structure would have a power of 3 + 2 (Dictatorship) + 3 (Gun Control) - 2 (End of the World) = 6, for a total power of 55.

Another route to victory: let the attack on the Mossad fail, have Glen buy a Group card, which would be the Pentagon, and make a successful Privileged attack to control the Pentagon from Texas, then give the Clipper Chip, the C.I.A., and the B.A.T.F. to Jason. The Pentagon's power would be 6 +3 (Gun Control) -2 (End of the World) = 7, giving Glen a total power of 52 (assuming he ATO'ed NASA instead of the more powerful Al Amarja), and the B.A.T.F.'s power would be 3 +3 (Gun Control) - 2 (End of the World) +2 (Clipper Chip) = 6 in Jason's Power Structure, giving Jason a total power of 53.

So, it's definitely possible--but it would take some foreknowledge to do so. It'll be interesting to see if they manage to pull it off.

Note that in the last scenario, Ralph forgot about the fact that Thany controlled the Pentagon already.

Glen Barnett's Turn 5

history | hands | conspiracies | comments

Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:09:21 +1000 (E ): Glen commented after his Plot draw:

Just to let you know I'm considering whether to play Gun Control now and get an ATO, or if it will be wiser to save it until I've done other stuff.

Obviously I can declare victory this turn - if I can add up, Gun Control + New Blood + Emergency Powers (on say Local Police and on Brazil, respectively) puts me well over. If I do a privileged attack to control Don's Mossad, it should nearly get me to 60.

However, a shared victory looks much less likely.

Anyway, I need to consider my options. I will tell Jason at some point, but not until I've considered the possibilities in more detail.

I probably won't play the Gun Control now, but I need to think about it a little longer.

The advantage of doing the ATO is that I get a token on NASA - another token for (say) Texas late in the turn would be very handy. The disadvantage is that I signal I'm going for victory right away, and that will prompt a flurry of draws. I'm especially worried about a Hoax or Secrets on Gun Control - that'll still leave me short of victory. If I hold off, such a card may be used for something else - like cancelling an Emergency Powers.

Say, how many cards is everyone holding?

Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:19:55 +1000 (E ): Glen asked:

I was about to go through my game record and work out how many plots I have left in deck.

If it's convenient, are you able to just tell me and save a bit of time?

Sun, 14 Sep 97 00:02:15 EDT: Ralph answered Glen's question:

It's convenient, and within my ethics as moderator. You have 11 plots left in your deck.

Sun, 14 Sep 1997 17:01:33 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

Thanks, that may be important. I'd guess there's about a 25-30% chance of drawing a Military-Industrial Complex (taking into account the possibility that it was a face-down discard).

What about my question earlier about how many plots everyone has?

Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:58:35 +1000 (E ): Two hours after his message to Jason, Glen wrote:

No reply from Jason, he's probably just not on right now.

I don't think I'll stretch this out by waiting...
so here goes:

Play Gun Control.
Place Tokens.

Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:46:25 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's comment on Glen's total power:

Judging on my past performance at this, I won't argue. At this stage it's not crucial to me exactly what it is. I *do* think it's less than 50 though.

Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:27:59 +1000 (E ): Glen commented, with a subject line of "D'Oh!":

I totally forgot about the effect that The Magic Goes Away was having on the Necronomicon.

Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:54:23 +1000 (E ): Half an hour later, Glen asked:

Is it correct - no-one has Illuminati Actions at present?

Ralph answered that it was correct.

Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:36:37 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote, with a subject line of 'Urgent!!':

Please! don't do my other instructions!

I may need to change where I put NASA!

Is it OK if I just put the rest on hold for now?

I'm actually thinking off Brazil is best now.

Ralph allowed him to put the rest on hold.

Tue, 16 Sep 97 10:01:41 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's analysis:

I've checked your plan semi-closely. I don't see any rules problems with it, and I don't see any math problems. If this plan works out the way you intend, it would yield more than 50 power for each of you.

I hope your attempt is resolved more quickly than my attempt in Don Fnordlioni's game.

Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:02:42 -0700: Jason replied to Ralph's comment on Glen's total power:

your count match mine at 48?

I counted it every time someone argued over it..according to what you have posted..:)

Ralph answered that yes, his count was 48.

Tue, 16 Sep 97 23:03:48 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

I presume you're just including me, not asking my strategy advice? I feel that it'd be inappropriate for me to give that sort of advice.

Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:17:22 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

Any mail that includes Jason, unless otherwise obvious, is directed at Jason only.

So, for example, the request to check the mathematics was to Jason, though I appreciate your confirmation that you thought it was legal.

Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:33:29 +1000 (E ): A quarter of an hour later, Glen replied again to Ralph's message:

Just in case you got that from the fact you're on the "To" line, instead of the Cc line - no, I'm just doing it that way because I'm less likely to forget to add you if I put your name on right away. I'm just busy chatting to Jason, plotting*. You're only there as moderator. Anything you feel it is appropriate to add, I'm more than happy to listen, though.

* Until the final, last moment backstab**, anyway.

** Kidding. (probably)

Wed, 17 Sep 97 10:05:04 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's later message:

Okey-doke. I'll treat your 'To' as a 'Cc' unless you address me by name in the body of the message. (You've been doing well at including me on your messages lately, and I appreciate that.)

The policy I've come to about commenting:

Since I want people to be playing in perfect comprehension of the rules, I'll tell people the answers to rules questions, and of course answer questions about what cards they have. I'll also interrupt to correct people when I see them making untrue statements about the rules or their cards. For card assertions, I'll tell them privately; you're allowed to lie about your cards, as long as I know that you know that you mean to be lying. For false assertions about the rules, I'll tell both the originator of the message and the recipient, to ensure that false information about the rules doesn't linger.

(By the way, if you have comments about whether this is the right policy, I'd be happy to hear them.)

Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:35:46 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

I had pretty much figured that from past behaviour. I think that's the right way to go, particularly given what you want to use it for.

Wed, 17 Sep 97 17:46:41 EDT: Ralph commented to Glen:

Y'know, I think the statement on Sam Kington's web page that you're getting creamed in my game should be reevaluated. :)

Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:24:17 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

Oh, yes, it doesn't really apply any more. :)

In this turn and the previous turn I changed the complexion of the game pretty well. I like that "rise from the dead" comeback that this deck and its variants have. I've used it to good effect before. :)

Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:01:30 +1000 (E ): Glen gave an explanation of his next set of orders:

I really debated whether or not to shift BATF at this point instead. ["Yes.", "No!", *Thwack!* ... "OK, you win!"]

Anyway... I decided to stick with the order I gave before for now (basically, if I'm going to get any cancelling or replacement of NWO's, I'd prefer to trigger it now, so I'm going to ramp my power up before bringing it back down. Besides, it means they won't see the joint victory as early).

Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:59:22 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote a comment under the subject line "Why I'm firing them in":

It's not merely keenness... I'm firing the new instructions as soon as you carry them out in order to convey the feeling that things are moving fast. I want these guys to worry. I *don't* want them thinking "let's just wait for the end before looking for plots". I want them thinking that if they wait that long, it might be too late - I want them to tip their hand earlier if I can. The attack on Don might just do that. :)

It might just get someone saying "gee, if we could have played another red NWO, that would have been a lot harder for him."

I've had another thought. Slightly nasty thought. Slightly evil. Just slightly. Might have an effect if this attack doesn't. Actually, I might even be able to get some leverage... hmm.

Glen then wrote a message to Jason asking him for his Ketchup Is a Vegetable.

Sat, 20 Sep 1997 09:45:09 +1000 (E ): After the gift of the Ketchup Is a Vegetable, Glen wrote:

Thanks, could you unsuspend that privileged attack instruction?

The advantage of slipping it in first is that it may look like he was giving me something for the attack on Don F. It may not be as obvious as he passes me a plot which I then threaten to use. We'll wait and see how the attack pans out. The plot will likely prove to have no effect, but I'm hoping I can use it for frightening them into drawing cards earlier.

Texas attacks to control Mossad

Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:15:36 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

During the attack, I expose Ketchup is a Vegetable, but not instantly. Since you'll be waiting for Don F., maybe tomorrow would be soon enough, as long as it comes a while before the die roll. [This is awkward in email, but in a face to face game the pause is easily included: Basically, the attack is committed. A short pause while people think about what they can do. Expose. Another pause while that's digested. If there's no response plays - unlikely at this point - then the die roll comes.]

So sort of in the middle somewhere, if you know what I mean. Actually, I guess since there has to be a pause anyway, or it'd be speedplay, pretty much any time I'm allowed that's convenient for you would be OK.

Sun, 21 Sep 97 22:14:50 EDT: Ralph responded to Glen's message:

I think I'll do it Monday.

I'd appreciate it, though, if you'd explain to me what sort of effect you're trying to have by exposing it during the attack; this might help me avoid the sort of mistake I made with the exposing the Beach Party.

It is, of course, a Privileged Attack; unless you flush out an Interference or Deep Agent (or a big, powerful Are We Having Fun Yet?), there won't be any interference from James or Thany. Don Fnordlioni, on the other hand, already has a maximal incentive to do everything he can; your exposing the Ketchup would not, to my mind, make a significant difference in his motivation.

Do you want me to wait until after Don Fnordlioni has responded to the attack? Do you want to get it in before Don Fnordlioni responds?

Yep, I do a bunch of this, too. I once made a deal with Don Fnordlioni in which I helped him with an attack just to get him to stop rabble-rousing against me for a round. :)

Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:44:19 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

The Beach Party thing was no really big deal. You have to handle things as you see fit, and I can see why you'd decided to treat them as simultaneous. We were simply working under different premises - I assumed all messages would be processed in strict order, but in fact it doesn't necessarily make sense to do that.

Yep. That's why I want to do it during the attack. They *can't* react, whether they want to or not. This gives me time to
(i) let them stew over it for a while; and possibly
(ii) "negotiate" with them over who I'll 'play it on'.

I'm ignoring Don. Unless he's very tricky indeed, I think he's dead meat. He's not part of the tactic of the Ketchup, except that the Privileged Attack gives me time to do things without getting an immediate response. It's about inducing paranoia in the other two.

I can't know for sure if he's going to respond. Ignore whatever you know about Don for the moment (to be fair to him), and work this way: assuming he didn't respond, how long would you wait before rolling the dice? Pick a convenient time you'd regard as "in the middle" of that. Do it then. If he does something first, leave a further pause, because I'll probably respond to his action, and my response should come first. It's no big deal, as long as the revealing doesn't look like merely a response to something Don does - the others might miss the point then.

Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:04:16 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote:

I might take advantage of the later stages of the Privileged Attack to move NASA's token to Texas.

That's legal, right?

It might add to the impression (of the game getting away from them) I'm trying to create.

Ralph answered tht it was not legal; NASA says, "It may [give its token] at any time except during an attack."

Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:14:55 +1000 (E ): Glen wrote, with the subject line "I'm in an interesting position":

In that if I declare victory now, removing Gun Control doesn't bring me below 50 - pretty much a no-risk win.

So, given my desire not to doublecross Jason, you can see why I'm trying to get Thany and James to act *now*.

I want those plots drawn right away. Note that people can draw plots (and even play NWO's I think) during a privileged attack. Don may even convince them to try.

Mon, 22 Sep 97 10:20:25 EDT: Ralph replied to Glen's message:

NWO: The Magic Goes Away would still drop you. Or, for that matter, removing Gun Control and NWO: Chicken in Every Pot. Or, for that matter, NWO: Peace in Our Time.

From the rules, under "New World Order Cards": "[NWOs] can be played at any time except during a privileged attack."

Mon, 22 Sep 97 18:48:08 EDT: Ralph replied to Don Fnordlioni's instructions for the attack:

Okey-doke. I'm sorry things are going this badly for you--but hey, if you die, then I can show you the Secret Stuff about what's going on, and it'll be educational for readers of the game.

Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:48:54 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's message:

Good points, and all quite possible.

Okay. The idea of them playing NWOs now only occurred to me after I came up with the strategy of exposing the Ketchup, so this doesn't affect that approach.

Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:12:34 +1000 (E ): Glen commented on his message to Thany:

I'm not convinced by that mail to Thany, so I don't know why he would be. Anyway, we'll see. I haven't been able to deal with him at all this game, so I don't see why he'd start doing it now.

Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:14:23 -0700: Jason replied to a comment Ralph had made about the elimination of Don Fnordlioni:

it would be interesting..I'd be interested in seeing what his overall idea was. But you may want to wait till endgame (which will hopefully be soon*grins*)

never been in a game where we eliminted a player..maybe Don and glen should write up 'distruction of an Illuminati' stuff for the history files..:)

Wed, 24 Sep 97 13:37:16 EDT: Ralph replied to Jason's message:

You misunderstand, I think. You don't get to see the Secret Stuff until the end of the game. I was asking whether I should let Don Fnordlioni see the Secret Stuff early.

Yes, player-elimination is pretty rare. This is definitely a game for the history books.

Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:39:20 -0700: Jason replied to Ralph's message:

Ahh..ok...:)..sure..make him into a spectator and or an advanced looker..let him see what's going on..:)

Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:40:48 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's public comment:

I think (as long as he doesn't tell anyone) he ought to be able to see anything you'll let us see when the game is over.

Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:19:40 +1000 (E ): Glen replied to Ralph's comment:

Oh, I'm not sorry from a game perspective - it's a very sensible move in that way. Just personally - it's not a nice feeling to be taken out. There's no need to gloat when you succeed at something like that.

Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:47:25 +1000 (E ): Glen gave an order (usually, I don't quote orders, but this should be seen to understand later messages):

I use an Illuminati token to draw a plot, using Mossad's ability to check the bottom card before deciding which to draw.

(though I suspect I put something nearly useless on the bottom a while back).

For this, I'll take the liberty of not providing color text.

Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:49:37 +1000 (E ): Two minutes later, Glen wrote:

I'm going to do it again.

Can I hold off that last order (the plot draw)?

Sorry to be so indecisive, but I'm going to revise my whole plan a little.

Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:01:05 +1000 (E ): Ten minutes later, Glen wrote:

Sorry, I was just weighing up the benefits of doing things in a different order. I'm a bit nervous at this stage...

I won't change the order *just* yet, though, so now's the time to do the plot draw, I think.

Again, spend the Illuminati token to draw a plot, using Mossad to check the bottom card before deciding.

I *hope* I still have a MIC left and it comes up, because that will give me something in reserve if they come up with a good NWO.

That would make us hard to stop. Ah well, can't have everything.

Thu, 25 Sep 97 17:39:51 EDT: Ralph commented to himself on Glen's Plot draw:

This may hose Jason--Thany has the Contract on America, which could be played on Finland or Canada (that's a slightly odd notion) with Thany's Conservative tokens--and neither Glen nor Jason would have a token to remove the Paralysis with.

Back to Ralph's INWO page.
Back to Ralph's Home page.


Last Modified: April 24, 1997
Ralph Melton <>