Article on Assassin

[Gavin Wynford-Jones]

Interesting thoughts, Richard.

> My suggestions are intended to restore balance to the game

There never was any to begin with...

I agree with the StlGold remarks 100 per cent. I've sent mail to Clint
about this and he got a weasely reply from GSI which made no sense in the
context of the game rules (as stated), or in "reality". If the gold is at
the nation's capital, then that is the only place at which StlGold should
work. If you allow gold thefts at those pop centres where there is gold
production, then it should be limited to the amount in stores, not the
entire wealth of the nation. GSI, despite what it says in the rules
narration, claims that the gold is constantly being transported all over
the place. Following that path leads to even more ludicrous
possibilities...

Gavin
PS Any idea why your whole article began with "quote brackets"? I began
reading it wondering if I'd missed a previous post. (Unlikely, given the
low level of activity...)

[Harlequin Games]

>From: Gavin Wynford-Jones <GavinWJ@...>
>
>Interesting thoughts, Richard.
>
>> My suggestions are intended to restore balance to the game
>
>There never was any to begin with...
>
>I agree with the StlGold remarks 100 per cent. I've sent mail to Clint
>about this and he got a weasely reply from GSI which made no sense in the
>context of the game rules (as stated), or in "reality". If the gold is at
>the nation's capital, then that is the only place at which StlGold should
>work. If you allow gold thefts at those pop centres where there is gold
>production, then it should be limited to the amount in stores, not the
>entire wealth of the nation. GSI, despite what it says in the rules
>narration, claims that the gold is constantly being transported all over
>the place. Following that path leads to even more ludicrous
>possibilities...
>
>Gavin
>PS Any idea why your whole article began with "quote brackets"? I began
>reading it wondering if I'd missed a previous post. (Unlikely, given the
>low level of activity...)

I sent it on - so it had quotes (Richard gave permission).

As for GSI's attitude I think that they want to do a minimum amount of work
(they're both retired now I think or thinking of doing so) but there was
comments about bringing out a new scenario (sometime!):-)

I think that only major bugs will get fixed although if enough players feel
strongly about it all then I would be happy to champion the case to the US.

Clint
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Campaign 2000 is here!
>http://www.onelist.com
>Discuss your thoughts; get informed at ONElist. See our homepage.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
>To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>

[ggiacoppe@...]

just found this forum, and once again I seem to see people who don't
guard their commanders, don't change commanders to foil a 905/yes,
don't get into the curses game, don't scan nation messages for agent
IDs
complaining about agents...

I'm playing NG in your 1650 game 30 and well, yes, the DS agents have
taken a toll, but it's hardly devastating...

the reason free teams don't win more often is they don't play like
teams, they don't support the front line nations, the front liners
get discouraged and drop...

in 1650, an unmolested NG alone can recruit at 3124, 3024, 2924 and
shovel 1300 troops a turn into the ithil pass, the FK and Dark L can
realistically muster 1200 troops...

I hate seeing rule changes as an antidote for poor play (the whole
militia thing for example) And I absolutely hate the fact that lazy
malcontents got army commanders greater proctection from the 615
order, rahter than greater protection via the 610 order...
a 70+ guard ought to harder to blow through than a 50C is to kill,
but the "army commanders die too easy" whiners fixed that.

I for one want the old agent rules back, but with guard that actually
work, rewarding the players who issue the 610 order.

I'll continue to argue this, but I'm pessimistic of getting anywhere.

Gian

[Laurence G. Tilley]

ggiacoppe@... wrote
>just found this forum,

(Snipped)

>I for one want the old agent rules back, but with guard that actually
>work, rewarding the players who issue the 610 order.
>
>I'll continue to argue this, but I'm pessimistic of getting anywhere.
>Gian

You won't get anywhere by ranting about it here. You're preaching to
the seagulls. As far as I know the only ones able to alter the rules
are GSI, and they aren't reading this.

I actually agree with most of what you said, but sympathy won't help you
much.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

[Richard John Devereux]

----- Original Message -----
From: <ggiacoppe@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) egroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 9:34 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Article on Assassin


> just found this forum, and once again I seem to see people who don't
> guard their commanders, don't change commanders to foil a 905/yes,
> don't get into the curses game, don't scan nation messages for agent
> IDs
> complaining about agents...
>
> I'm playing NG in your 1650 game 30 and well, yes, the DS agents have
> taken a toll, but it's hardly devastating...
>
> the reason free teams don't win more often is they don't play like
> teams, they don't support the front line nations, the front liners
> get discouraged and drop...
>
> in 1650, an unmolested NG alone can recruit at 3124, 3024, 2924 and
> shovel 1300 troops a turn into the ithil pass, the FK and Dark L can
> realistically muster 1200 troops...
>
> I hate seeing rule changes as an antidote for poor play (the whole
> militia thing for example) And I absolutely hate the fact that lazy
> malcontents got army commanders greater proctection from the 615
> order, rahter than greater protection via the 610 order...
> a 70+ guard ought to harder to blow through than a 50C is to kill,
> but the "army commanders die too easy" whiners fixed that.
>
> I for one want the old agent rules back, but with guard that actually
> work, rewarding the players who issue the 610 order.
>
> I'll continue to argue this, but I'm pessimistic of getting anywhere.
>
>
> Gian
>
RD: I too am quite new to this forum, but would like to add my two
penn'orth. Firstly, there is no mention anywhere in Tolkien's writings of
assassins or kidnappers. Therefore, if you want to be true to Tolkien's
writings, there should be NO such characters, still less should there be
mega-powerful agent artifacts!

But agents ARE part of the game, and there ARE powerful agent artifacts out
there. IF this causes an imbalance in the game, it should be redressed.
GSI appear to have attempted to do this by 'tweaking' the agent rules.

Agents were a bloody sight too powerful in the early game, and anything
which redresses that is welcome,

Regards,

Richard.

[ggiacoppe@...]

> RD: I too am quite new to this forum, but would like to add my two
> penn'orth. Firstly, there is no mention anywhere in Tolkien's
writings of
> assassins or kidnappers. Therefore, if you want to be true to
Tolkien's
> writings, there should be NO such characters, still less should
there be
> mega-powerful agent artifacts!
>
> But agents ARE part of the game, and there ARE powerful agent
artifacts out
> there. IF this causes an imbalance in the game, it should be
redressed.
> GSI appear to have attempted to do this by 'tweaking' the agent
rules.
>
> Agents were a bloody sight too powerful in the early game, and
anything
> which redresses that is welcome,
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard.

to respond.
Murazor in the books can't be killed by men. the Naz were so
powerful that Glorfindel, Elrond and Gandalf together couldn't beat
them in a stand up fight at the ford, they had to resort to a trap.
Sauron could be found as the Necromancer in Dol Guldor. Some things
are introduced to make the game playable... (in the game any of the
Naz is rightly fearful of a 210 from Elrond)

Where in the early game did the DS have a huge agent autokill going?
the cloud lord doesn't always start with a 40A in his capital, and
realistically only Din Ohtar (with stacked artifacts) and Ji Indur
are capable of a 615 without training or a hell of a lucky roll.
(and Ji needs to be careful of his targets)

The agent edge is just an easier tool for the DS to use than the vast
economic superiority the freeps have. In the games I've played as
freeps - four, we won all four and maintained momentum the entire
game... I think the DS have a better complaint on the economic
issues than the freeps have on agents. In the many more games I've
played as DS, the agents are useful but not determinative - they help
but don't win the game.

G

[Richard John Devereux]

----- Original Message -----
From: <ggiacoppe@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) egroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 1:47 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Article on Assassin


>
> > RD: I too am quite new to this forum, but would like to add my two
> > penn'orth. Firstly, there is no mention anywhere in Tolkien's
> writings of
> > assassins or kidnappers. Therefore, if you want to be true to
> Tolkien's
> > writings, there should be NO such characters, still less should
> there be
> > mega-powerful agent artifacts!
> >
> > But agents ARE part of the game, and there ARE powerful agent
> artifacts out
> > there. IF this causes an imbalance in the game, it should be
> redressed.
> > GSI appear to have attempted to do this by 'tweaking' the agent
> rules.
> >
> > Agents were a bloody sight too powerful in the early game, and
> anything
> > which redresses that is welcome,
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Richard.
>
> to respond.
> Murazor in the books can't be killed by men. the Naz were so
> powerful that Glorfindel, Elrond and Gandalf together couldn't beat
> them in a stand up fight at the ford, they had to resort to a trap.
> Sauron could be found as the Necromancer in Dol Guldor. Some things
> are introduced to make the game playable... (in the game any of the
> Naz is rightly fearful of a 210 from Elrond)
>
> Where in the early game did the DS have a huge agent autokill going?
> the cloud lord doesn't always start with a 40A in his capital, and
> realistically only Din Ohtar (with stacked artifacts) and Ji Indur
> are capable of a 615 without training or a hell of a lucky roll.
> (and Ji needs to be careful of his targets)
>
> The agent edge is just an easier tool for the DS to use than the vast
> economic superiority the freeps have. In the games I've played as
> freeps - four, we won all four and maintained momentum the entire
> game... I think the DS have a better complaint on the economic
> issues than the freeps have on agents. In the many more games I've
> played as DS, the agents are useful but not determinative - they help
> but don't win the game.
>
> G
>
RD: According to all the stats I've seen, the DS win more often than the FP.
Therefore, if you have won 4 games on the trot as FP, you may consider that
you and your team have played better than the the opposition. Or, you may
consider that the DS played crap, take your pick!

The reasons the DS usually win are :
1) agents
2) dragons
3) most of the neutrals are 'weighted' so that they are better off joining
the DS, so most of them do just that.
4) it's more fun to play a baddie, so the DS attract more experienced
players.
Not necessarily in that order.

You are absolutely right that it takes time for the DS agent (and dragon)
advantage to tell. The challenge (in the 1650 scenario at least) is for the
FP to make the best use of their economic advantage at game start by killing
one or two DS nations within the first 10 turns, thereby negating factors
1-3 listed above. With good team play, it is easier for the DS to hold out
until factors 1-3 come into play than it is for the FP to eliminate any DS
nations early on.

Regarding who can kill who in challenge, Tolkien is deliberately
inconsistent. Gandalf, Sauron and the Balrog were all Maiar (lesser gods)
but Tolkien only allows Gandalf to kill the Balrog. The whole point of the
trilogy was to allow the little guy, Frodo, to save the world. It would
have been much shorter (and less interesting!) if Gandalf had simply slain
Sauron in single combat (or vice versa).

In the LoR trilogy, Gandalf and Elrond were very careful NOT to challenge
enemy characters unless they absolutely had to (eg Gandalf v Balrog). But
note that in 'Silmarillion' Gil-galad (Noldo elf) and Elendil (mere mortal
man) slew Sauron (or at least his physical body) in the last fight of the
Second Age (altho they died too), and Isildur Elendil's son cut the One Ring
from Sauron's hand (and survived). The original Glorfindel killed a Balrog
in single combat (altho he died doing so). Luthien (elf-girl) and Huan (her
dog!) defeated Sauron. Luthien and Beren (mere mortal man) went on to chop
a Simaril from Morgoth's crown (Morgoth being Sauron's master and a damn
sight more powerful).

Tolkien allowed heroes to triumph against great odds as it suited the
storyline. GSI have done a good job reflecting this in the unpredictability
of challenges, which gives the little guy a chance (however small) of
killing the big bully. The best laugh I had for a long time was when in a
recent game Din Ohtar, loaded with artifacts, visited the Northmen capital
with orders to challenge a new emissary and assassinate the army commander.
The emissary won! And she was only a girl!

No wonder most Noldo players are suitably (and realistically) careful NOT to
challenge with Elrond.

Regards,

Richard.

[ggiacoppe@...]

> RD: According to all the stats I've seen, the DS win more often
than
the FP.
> Therefore, if you have won 4 games on the trot as FP, you may
consider that
> you and your team have played better than the the opposition. Or,
you may
> consider that the DS played crap, take your pick!
>
> The reasons the DS usually win are :
> 1) agents
> 2) dragons
> 3) most of the neutrals are 'weighted' so that they are better off
joining
> the DS, so most of them do just that.
> 4) it's more fun to play a baddie, so the DS attract more
experienced
> players.
> Not necessarily in that order.
>
> You are absolutely right that it takes time for the DS agent (and
dragon)
> advantage to tell. The challenge (in the 1650 scenario at least)
is
for the
> FP to make the best use of their economic advantage at game start
by
killing
> one or two DS nations within the first 10 turns, thereby negating
factors
> 1-3 listed above. With good team play, it is easier for the DS to
hold out
> until factors 1-3 come into play than it is for the FP to eliminate
any DS
> nations early on.
>
> Regarding who can kill who in challenge, Tolkien is deliberately
> inconsistent. Gandalf, Sauron and the Balrog were all Maiar
(lesser
gods)
> but Tolkien only allows Gandalf to kill the Balrog. The whole
point
of the
> trilogy was to allow the little guy, Frodo, to save the world. It
would
> have been much shorter (and less interesting!) if Gandalf had
simply
slain
> Sauron in single combat (or vice versa).

> Richard.

My reasoning on the four victories inthe four games as freep are
simple.
1) Grudge games
2) Solid grudge teams (any of the Aussies from the US vs AUS game run
by SFGA know what our team was like)
3) preassigned neutrals

(not all 4 had preassigned neuts but 2 or 3 did)

A coordinated and willing to sacrifice freep team should almost
always
win, and can turn the agent game into a plus for them, crash the
market, keep it crashed and steal gold from the DS (esp. the cloud
lord) to try and prevent them naming characters... 690 does come
before the 7xx orders...

The trick as a DS team is to avoid the economic strangulation the
free
can do...

but this is not a teaching forum <g> and I'll probably regret saying
this when we start round 2 of the world games...

just a quick note on the idea of agents don't fit in at all...
wasn't Bilbo hired as a "burglar"?

G

[Richard John Devereux]

----- Original Message -----
From: <ggiacoppe@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) egroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 2:28 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Article on Assassin


>
> > RD: According to all the stats I've seen, the DS win more often
> than
> the FP.
> > Therefore, if you have won 4 games on the trot as FP, you may
> consider that
> > you and your team have played better than the the opposition. Or,
> you may
> > consider that the DS played crap, take your pick!
> >
> > The reasons the DS usually win are :
> > 1) agents
> > 2) dragons
> > 3) most of the neutrals are 'weighted' so that they are better off
> joining
> > the DS, so most of them do just that.
> > 4) it's more fun to play a baddie, so the DS attract more
> experienced
> > players.
> > Not necessarily in that order.
> >
> > You are absolutely right that it takes time for the DS agent (and
> dragon)
> > advantage to tell. The challenge (in the 1650 scenario at least)
> is
> for the
> > FP to make the best use of their economic advantage at game start
> by
> killing
> > one or two DS nations within the first 10 turns, thereby negating
> factors
> > 1-3 listed above. With good team play, it is easier for the DS to
> hold out
> > until factors 1-3 come into play than it is for the FP to eliminate
> any DS
> > nations early on.
> >
> > Regarding who can kill who in challenge, Tolkien is deliberately
> > inconsistent. Gandalf, Sauron and the Balrog were all Maiar
> (lesser
> gods)
> > but Tolkien only allows Gandalf to kill the Balrog. The whole
> point
> of the
> > trilogy was to allow the little guy, Frodo, to save the world. It
> would
> > have been much shorter (and less interesting!) if Gandalf had
> simply
> slain
> > Sauron in single combat (or vice versa).
>
> > Richard.
>
> My reasoning on the four victories inthe four games as freep are
> simple.
> 1) Grudge games
> 2) Solid grudge teams (any of the Aussies from the US vs AUS game run
> by SFGA know what our team was like)
> 3) preassigned neutrals
>
> (not all 4 had preassigned neuts but 2 or 3 did)
>
> A coordinated and willing to sacrifice freep team should almost
> always
> win, and can turn the agent game into a plus for them, crash the
> market, keep it crashed and steal gold from the DS (esp. the cloud
> lord) to try and prevent them naming characters... 690 does come
> before the 7xx orders...
>
> The trick as a DS team is to avoid the economic strangulation the
> free
> can do...
>
> but this is not a teaching forum <g> and I'll probably regret saying
> this when we start round 2 of the world games...
>
> just a quick note on the idea of agents don't fit in at all...
> wasn't Bilbo hired as a "burglar"?
>
> G

RD: Yes he was (see 'The Hobbit'), but he had no experience or training.
His only qualification was that Gandalf (Tolkien) picked him because he
wanted to turn a fat, lazy slob of a hobbit into a hero. In fact Bilbo
should have died very early - except he was lucky enough to find the One
Ring which made him invisible.

I agree there is no mention of assassins in Tolkien, but they do add to the
game, and it is quite logical that the DS would employ them. Come to that,
some of the FP were just as ruthless, cunning and underhand as the DS, so
why not?

Richard.

[Laurence G. Tilley]

Richard John Devereux <devereux@...> wrote
>Gandalf (Tolkien) picked him because he
>wanted to turn a fat, lazy slob of a hobbit into a hero.
He's far from fat and lazy. He's an everyman. He represents the simple
fellow who would rather stay at home. He enjoys the simple things in
life. On his deathbed Thorin Oakenshield tells him that the world would
be a better place if his values were held by more, above the alternative
- hoarded gold.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

[Harlequin Games]

I'd love to see an article on market manipulation including crashing the
market for Bree. Anyone up to that?

In the UK it feels like the more experienced players (and team orientated)
ones go for the DS which might indicate the results over here. I guess that
the intense team game is quite different to the normal game of ME though
which ME was more designed for. Like I said before - I would like to see
what happens with the agent changes over here in the way games go.

Clint
> A coordinated and willing to sacrifice freep team should almost
> always
> win, and can turn the agent game into a plus for them, crash the
> market, keep it crashed and steal gold from the DS (esp. the cloud
> lord) to try and prevent them naming characters... 690 does come
> before the 7xx orders...
>
> The trick as a DS team is to avoid the economic strangulation the
> free
> can do...
>

[Laurence G. Tilley]

Harlequin Games <pbm@...> wrote
>I'd love to see an article on market manipulation including crashing the
>market for Bree. Anyone up to that?
Noooooooooooo! Such an article already exists, and is in circulation,
but those of us who have a copy don't want the whole world to have it.
This is like asking for Grandma's Secret Recipe.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

[HENNING RINDBÆK LARSEN]

----- Original Message -----
From: Laurence G. Tilley <laurence@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) egroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Article on Assassin


> Harlequin Games <pbm@...> wrote
> >I'd love to see an article on market manipulation including crashing the
> >market for Bree. Anyone up to that?
> Noooooooooooo! Such an article already exists, and is in circulation,
> but those of us who have a copy don't want the whole world to have it.
> This is like asking for Grandma's Secret Recipe.
Yep Just read the old volumes of "Mouth of Sauron" I believe it was Tom Walton that did the piece.

Henning

[Richard John Devereux]

> Richard John Devereux <devereux@...> wrote
> >Gandalf (Tolkien) picked him because he
> >wanted to turn a fat, lazy slob of a hobbit into a hero.
> He's far from fat and lazy. He's an everyman. He represents the simple
> fellow who would rather stay at home. He enjoys the simple things in
> life. On his deathbed Thorin Oakenshield tells him that the world would
> be a better place if his values were held by more, above the alternative
> - hoarded gold.
>
> Regards,
>
> Laurence G. Tilley

RD: Gosh Laurence, it must be Sunday if your going all moralistic on us.
You're right about Thorin's dying words. But it didn't stop Bilbo filling
his saddlebags with treasure so he could live in comfort if not luxury when
he got home. Any fool can enjoy the simple things in life when they have
plenty of money! And when the money ran out, he retired to Imladris and
ponced off the Elves. Me, cynical? Nah.

Regards,

Richard.
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/9/_/430399/_/960124470/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>
>
>

[Laurence G. Tilley]

Richard John Devereux <devereux@...> wrote
>And when the money ran out, he retired to Imladris and
>ponced off the Elves.
He wrote "There and Back Again" while he was there. A worthy task, not
lazy - surely you don't begrudge him his comfortable retirement.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

[Richard John Devereux]

> Richard John Devereux <devereux@...> wrote
> >And when the money ran out, he retired to Imladris and
> >ponced off the Elves.
> He wrote "There and Back Again" while he was there. A worthy task, not
> lazy - surely you don't begrudge him his comfortable retirement.
>
> Regards,
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

RD: Of course not. If I wasn't playing games in my leisure time, I'd
probably be writing too.

Richard.

[kingoftherill]

I have to disagree with Richard's line of thought. DS do not win the
majority of games because agents are so strong. The games in which
agents influence the outcome dramatically is because the Dark
Servants use their agents better, and the free do not.

With proper diplomacy and cooperation between the free there is no
unsurmountable agent advantange given to the DS. I played in a game
recently which illustrated that. So did Bobbins, and Ovatha 88, among
others. We were the free. It does take a lot of coordination and work
but the free can neutralize the agent advantage of the DS.

I don't see a need to change agent rules any more than they have been
changed from how they were originally written. What I see is a need
for people to think more and come up with ways to redress what are
perceived as national imbalances. The free have better economies,
better armies, better characters over all. The DS are more compact
for the most part, making it easier to coordinate, and have some
national advantages over the Free, but the neutrals have all the
advantages that the DS possess, so diplomacy is needed.

In our recent game, we could deal with the enemy agents. They did not
strike terror in our hearts. We lost both the southern neutrals in
that game by the way. Thus losing our economic advantage.

It is my opinion that the Free have just as much chance to win this
game with the rules as they are as the DS do. They have to work hard
at it but there is no built in advantage to either side. So again I
see no glaring imbalance that requires a change of the rules. The
rules are the rules, learn to work within them and to make them work
for you, don't lobby to have them changed to change the outcome of
games.

American Brad




-- In mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Harlequin Games"
<harlequin.games (AT) xxxx (DOT) xxxxx.xxxx wrote:
> >AGENTS ARE STILL OVER-POWERFUL
> >
> >I'm not saying this just because the Free characters in ME 10 are
getting
> >slaughtered. I wrote on this subject in the old Allsorts NL, and
haven't
> >changed my opinion. The vast majority of ME games are won by the
Dark
> >Servants. The reason is simple: if the game goes the distance,
the DS, and
> >particularly the Cloud Lord, can churn out so many super-agents
that they
> >can kill and kidnap with impunity. Any that are captured by
guards escape
> >the following turn, any that are Doubled can be Countered, or re-
doubled by
> >allied emissaries.
> >
> >I don't object to assassins as such. They have their place to
play in the
> >game like any other characters. What I do object to is the way
their sheer
> >NUMBERS dominate the midgame and decide the endgame. No nation in
history,
> >mythology or fantasy ever churned out agents of such power so
quickly and
> in
> >such numbers as the Cloud Lord can in ME. CL can name agents at
rank 40,
> >plus 20 to assassinations/kidnaps, plus the chance of stealth.
> >
> >NO other nation in Middle-earth can name new characters capable of
carrying
> >out Hard orders from the second they are named! This is unfair on
ALL
> other
> >nations, not just the Free. It unbalances the game. Moreover it
pushes
> the
> >Cloud Lord to produce just one type of character. Those
characters may be
> a
> >game-winners, but when you have such HUGE advantages, is playing
the
> >position really that much fun? So you win a game playing Cloud
Lord, big
> >deal. Win a game as the Woodmen, then you have achieved something!
> >
> >I suggest CL should name agents at 30 not 40, with plus 10 not 20
to
> >assassinations and kidnaps, but still with the chance of stealth.
This is
> >the same level of advantage when creating new characters that
other nations
> >have.
> >
> >Secondly, something should be done to inhibit the way in which
companies of
> >up to 9 of assassins can be deployed to hit up to 9 targets in a
single pop
> >centre. Again, this has no justification in history, mythology or
fantasy.
> >Assassins were and are SOLITARY killers. Show me a single
instance where
> >assassins operated as a group. I don't think the word assassin is
> mentioned
> >ONCE in all Tolkien's writings. So where is the justification for
a gang
> of
> >up to 9 of the bastards in the ME game?
> >
> >I am against making rules that say: you can't do such-and-such;
this
> >irritates players who want to know: why not? It's more
intelligent to make
> >rules reflect history/mythology/fantasy. So what can be done to
make
> >assassins behave in a realistic, solitary manner? Remember, this
has to be
> >entered on a computer program!
> >
> >How about: 1) only a nation's highest-ranking agent can attempt an
> >assassination/kidnap? This is explained very easily: the top guy
takes
> >precedence. Yes, this is true in criminal fraternities as well as
> >government agencies!
> >2) only one assassination/kidnap order per nation per turn?
Explained very
> >simply by the need for secrecy, plus the intelligence and logistic
> resources
> >needed to get the assassin to the right place at the right time,
and to
> make
> >sure he was not intercepted!
> >
> >Or 3), if a company moves onto an enemy pop centre, the chances of
one or
> >more members of the company getting discovered could be multiplied
by the
> >number of people in the company. Those discovered should be
arrested by
> the
> >local militia (with appropriate chance of escape to a neighbouring
hex next
> >turn). Of course the chance of discovery should also be
influenced by the
> >loyalty of the pop centre, and any fortifications (therefore
guards). So a
> >pop centre with very low loyalty would offer little or no
resistance, but a
> >fortified capital city would be realistically well guarded!
> >
> >4) allow mages to cast a one-shot Warding spell on a pop centre,
or Guard
> >spell on a character. Such spells would have to be renewed each
turn to be
> >continually effective, would only be as strong as the mage's skill
rank,
> and
> >therefore an assassin/kidnapper who was skilful enough or
possessed an
> >appropriate artifact would still get through to complete his
mission.
> >
> >On a related subject, the Steal gold order should be chucked out
> altogether.
> >It is ludicrous that a thief, or even a number of thieves, can
steal enough
> >gold to cripple a nation's economy. As for training your agents
by having
> >them steal gold from your allies' pop centres, what real-life ally
would
> >allow that? Stealing artifacts from enemies is one thing,
stealing tons of
> >gold quite another.
> >
> >Summary: the Dark servants win too often. This is due almost
entirely to
> >their superiority in agents. My suggestions are intended to
restore
> balance
> >to the game. If you've any comments or better ideas, send 'em in!
> >
> >Richard Devereux.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[David Clemmensen]

Yes the agent pover of the DS is grate but if the is made enny Futher limitesion on it the DS will not stand a chance but will lose to the power of gold and numbers you might as well remuve dragons.

David
----- Original Message -----
From: kingoftherill
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 5:28 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Article on Assassin

I have to disagree with Richard's line of thought. DS do not win the
majority of games because agents are so strong. The games in which
agents influence the outcome dramatically is because the Dark
Servants use their agents better, and the free do not.

With proper diplomacy and cooperation between the free there is no
unsurmountable agent advantange given to the DS. I played in a game
recently which illustrated that. So did Bobbins, and Ovatha 88, among
others. We were the free. It does take a lot of coordination and work
but the free can neutralize the agent advantage of the DS.

I don't see a need to change agent rules any more than they have been
changed from how they were originally written. What I see is a need
for people to think more and come up with ways to redress what are
perceived as national imbalances. The free have better economies,
better armies, better characters over all. The DS are more compact
for the most part, making it easier to coordinate, and have some
national advantages over the Free, but the neutrals have all the
advantages that the DS possess, so diplomacy is needed.

In our recent game, we could deal with the enemy agents. They did not
strike terror in our hearts. We lost both the southern neutrals in
that game by the way. Thus losing our economic advantage.

It is my opinion that the Free have just as much chance to win this
game with the rules as they are as the DS do. They have to work hard
at it but there is no built in advantage to either side. So again I
see no glaring imbalance that requires a change of the rules. The
rules are the rules, learn to work within them and to make them work
for you, don't lobby to have them changed to change the outcome of
games.

American Brad




-- In mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Harlequin Games"
<harlequin.games (AT) xxxx (DOT) xxxxx.xxxx wrote:
> >AGENTS ARE STILL OVER-POWERFUL
> >
> >I'm not saying this just because the Free characters in ME 10 are
getting
> >slaughtered. I wrote on this subject in the old Allsorts NL, and
haven't
> >changed my opinion. The vast majority of ME games are won by the
Dark
> >Servants. The reason is simple: if the game goes the distance,
the DS, and
> >particularly the Cloud Lord, can churn out so many super-agents
that they
> >can kill and kidnap with impunity. Any that are captured by
guards escape
> >the following turn, any that are Doubled can be Countered, or re-
doubled by
> >allied emissaries.
> >
> >I don't object to assassins as such. They have their place to
play in the
> >game like any other characters. What I do object to is the way
their sheer
> >NUMBERS dominate the midgame and decide the endgame. No nation in
history,
> >mythology or fantasy ever churned out agents of such power so
quickly and
> in
> >such numbers as the Cloud Lord can in ME. CL can name agents at
rank 40,
> >plus 20 to assassinations/kidnaps, plus the chance of stealth.
> >
> >NO other nation in Middle-earth can name new characters capable of
carrying
> >out Hard orders from the second they are named! This is unfair on
ALL
> other
> >nations, not just the Free. It unbalances the game. Moreover it
pushes
> the
> >Cloud Lord to produce just one type of character. Those
characters may be
> a
> >game-winners, but when you have such HUGE advantages, is playing
the
> >position really that much fun? So you win a game playing Cloud
Lord, big
> >deal. Win a game as the Woodmen, then you have achieved something!
> >
> >I suggest CL should name agents at 30 not 40, with plus 10 not 20
to
> >assassinations and kidnaps, but still with the chance of stealth.
This is
> >the same level of advantage when creating new characters that
other nations
> >have.
> >
> >Secondly, something should be done to inhibit the way in which
companies of
> >up to 9 of assassins can be deployed to hit up to 9 targets in a
single pop
> >centre. Again, this has no justification in history, mythology or
fantasy.
> >Assassins were and are SOLITARY killers. Show me a single
instance where
> >assassins operated as a group. I don't think the word assassin is
> mentioned
> >ONCE in all Tolkien's writings. So where is the justification for
a gang
> of
> >up to 9 of the bastards in the ME game?
> >
> >I am against making rules that say: you can't do such-and-such;
this
> >irritates players who want to know: why not? It's more
intelligent to make
> >rules reflect history/mythology/fantasy. So what can be done to
make
> >assassins behave in a realistic, solitary manner? Remember, this
has to be
> >entered on a computer program!
> >
> >How about: 1) only a nation's highest-ranking agent can attempt an
> >assassination/kidnap? This is explained very easily: the top guy
takes
> >precedence. Yes, this is true in criminal fraternities as well as
> >government agencies!
> >2) only one assassination/kidnap order per nation per turn?
Explained very
> >simply by the need for secrecy, plus the intelligence and logistic
> resources
> >needed to get the assassin to the right place at the right time,
and to
> make
> >sure he was not intercepted!
> >
> >Or 3), if a company moves onto an enemy pop centre, the chances of
one or
> >more members of the company getting discovered could be multiplied
by the
> >number of people in the company. Those discovered should be
arrested by
> the
> >local militia (with appropriate chance of escape to a neighbouring
hex next
> >turn). Of course the chance of discovery should also be
influenced by the
> >loyalty of the pop centre, and any fortifications (therefore
guards). So a
> >pop centre with very low loyalty would offer little or no
resistance, but a
> >fortified capital city would be realistically well guarded!
> >
> >4) allow mages to cast a one-shot Warding spell on a pop centre,
or Guard
> >spell on a character. Such spells would have to be renewed each
turn to be
> >continually effective, would only be as strong as the mage's skill
rank,
> and
> >therefore an assassin/kidnapper who was skilful enough or
possessed an
> >appropriate artifact would still get through to complete his
mission.
> >
> >On a related subject, the Steal gold order should be chucked out
> altogether.
> >It is ludicrous that a thief, or even a number of thieves, can
steal enough
> >gold to cripple a nation's economy. As for training your agents
by having
> >them steal gold from your allies' pop centres, what real-life ally
would
> >allow that? Stealing artifacts from enemies is one thing,
stealing tons of
> >gold quite another.
> >
> >Summary: the Dark servants win too often. This is due almost
entirely to
> >their superiority in agents. My suggestions are intended to
restore
> balance
> >to the game. If you've any comments or better ideas, send 'em in!
> >
> >Richard Devereux.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[GearonSkywalker]

For my 2 cents on this...

Agents and Agent nations are by far the best to play. IMHO

I have been the Cloud Lord and LOST Jindur on Turn 5 to a dragon
encounter while with an army...but still able to make something of a
KILLER group of thugs and have my nation place in the top three when
our side finally won.

Recently I have been in 2 FA games and have made strong Agent nations
with both FP and DSers. Of course the DS and 60 As with +20 knp/ass
are much better than what a FP could easily put in the field.

Agent nations if well protected from army attacks can in fact help
armies do better in the field (Poof, where did that enemy army go),
they can help EMIs do their INFOTHR job...which is all an EMI is good
for after the POP limit is hit...AND Agents can wipe mages up all
over Middle Earth if any old curses squad lands in the same hex.

Now I am not trying to join any debate on what is what...but I do
have to speak up for the inherent strengths that Agents have...as
they stand out so much more than any CHAR class alone or combined for
that matter. IMHO ;)

Gary

[Tony Zbaraschuk]

On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 11:36:56PM -0600, Urzahil wrote:
> >GearonSkywalker [mailto:garyaswegan@...] wrote:
> >[agents] can help EMIs do their INFOTHR job...which
> >is all an EMI is good for after the POP limit is hit...
>
> Except for doubling agents, which makes the agents all but useless
> towards the nation that did the doubling. I've had excellent luck
> doulbing agents and keeping tabs on them as they run around, watching
> with amusment when they land on my PC/army and fail over and over again.
> ;)

And let's not forget the ImprPop function, either. Very useful
later in the game...

Tony Z

--
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me --
As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on! --Julia Ward Howe

[benmin18]

If this was my game, I believe Lindal nailed Saruman that game,
however Saruman did manage to double one of the twins who managed to
gank Lugdush.

- Ben

--- In mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Kenneth Weed" <watakshi@h...>
wrote:
> I thought that before, then I saw a game where a doubled agent
still managed
> to grease Saruman...Doubling is nice, but it certainly doesn't make
them
> useless...
>
> -Ken
>

[GearonSkywalker]

AND let's all not forget...an agent CAN be doubled by someone on the
SAME team and once that agent is no longer seen by that "same side"
nation it is 100% known that agent is now working for the other side,
since only one nation may have the agent doubled. (I guess this is
another good job for an EMI ;) )

Also the 600 order is a great way for one agent to boost up several
points if 2-3 others are doubled.

Gary

--- In mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Kenneth Weed" <watakshi@h...>
wrote:
> I thought that before, then I saw a game where a doubled agent
still managed
> to grease Saruman...Doubling is nice, but it certainly doesn't make
them
> useless...
>
> -Ken
>
> >From: "Urzahil" <Urzahil@o...>
> >Reply-To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
> >To: <mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>
> >Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Re: Article on Assassin
> >Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 23:36:56 -0600
> >
> > >GearonSkywalker [mailto:garyaswegan@y...] wrote:
> > >[agents] can help EMIs do their INFOTHR job...which
> > >is all an EMI is good for after the POP limit is hit...
> >
> >Except for doubling agents, which makes the agents all but useless
> >towards the nation that did the doubling. I've had excellent luck
> >doulbing agents and keeping tabs on them as they run around,
watching
> >with amusment when they land on my PC/army and fail over and over
again.
> >;)
> >
> >Mike
> >
>
>

[Richard DEVEREUX]

----- Original Message -----
From: GearonSkywalker
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 4:10 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Article on Assassin


For my 2 cents on this...

Agents and Agent nations are by far the best to play. IMHO

I have been the Cloud Lord and LOST Jindur on Turn 5 to a dragon
encounter while with an army...but still able to make something of a
KILLER group of thugs and have my nation place in the top three when
our side finally won.

Recently I have been in 2 FA games and have made strong Agent nations
with both FP and DSers. Of course the DS and 60 As with +20 knp/ass
are much better than what a FP could easily put in the field.

Agent nations if well protected from army attacks can in fact help
armies do better in the field (Poof, where did that enemy army go),
they can help EMIs do their INFOTHR job...which is all an EMI is good
for after the POP limit is hit...AND Agents can wipe mages up all
over Middle Earth if any old curses squad lands in the same hex.

Now I am not trying to join any debate on what is what...but I do
have to speak up for the inherent strengths that Agents have...as
they stand out so much more than any CHAR class alone or combined for
that matter. IMHO ;)

Gary

That is EXACTLY why I oppose agents being so powerful: under ME rules agent powers reach absurd heights. Not only can they raid a nation's treasury despite all the obvious precautions that any ruler and his servants would take, but a company can carry out up to NINE assassinations per turn, and will cut thru any guards who intervene.
This is totally absurd: nowhere in history or myth are NINE ssassinations carried out simultaneously.

I drop the argument that the rules favour the DS: the agent rules permitting the above are a nonsense, regardless of allegiance.

I agree with a previous contributor who said he disagreed with making a rule against something just because a rule was being abused. It is up to the rule-maker to come up with rules which are not open to abuse, and to amend the rules if they are abused.

ME is a brilliant game but that does not mean that it can't be improved. The steam engine was a brilliant invention, it still works, and it still has a romance about it; but it is not as efficient as the latest trains in France or Japan (forget the UK).

There has been no shortage of suggestions for rule changes/improvements but all GSI bring out is 4th Age, with no rule changes, a couple of rules bolted-on to the old framework and a few different artis thrown in.

This shows nothing but contempt for the consumer. I am almost as angry at GSI as I am at the current Labour govenment whose contempt for the electorate is even worse. Better stop there!

Richard.







Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[GearonSkywalker]

Richard,

I too think Agents CAN be the most powerful/abused force in the game.

FA is no exception, 5 agent nations with SNA31 can have 20 80 rank
killers on T1 hitting pops. I think I had 6-7 kills in one turn in a
recent game and I was one of 3 nations that had that many at one time.

FA can however be a little Agent unfriendly...for example MEBPM siad
that as part of the set-up two teams can agree to take 2 of 4
quadrants instead of East VS West. If say a team gets NE and SW as
starting locations, Agent nations will have little room to hide and
be protected. I think at most with Quads each side would elect to
have 2 or 3 TRUE agent nations at MAX because of the risk of military
weakness in the QUAD.

MEPBM is a class organization with some very dedicated people, Clint
being the easy favorite. I think some hands are tied with respect to
changes, but they are still receptive to the consumer.

We have but to ask for our wishes to see if they can grant them.

O.T. Did you ever tell me if you were currently in a FA game? It
would be great if we were butting heads in a game and did not know it.

Gary

--- In mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Richard DEVEREUX" <rd@p...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: GearonSkywalker
> To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 4:10 AM
> Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Article on Assassin
>
>
> For my 2 cents on this...
>
> Agents and Agent nations are by far the best to play. IMHO
>
> I have been the Cloud Lord and LOST Jindur on Turn 5 to a dragon
> encounter while with an army...but still able to make something
of a
> KILLER group of thugs and have my nation place in the top three
when
> our side finally won.
>
> Recently I have been in 2 FA games and have made strong Agent
nations
> with both FP and DSers. Of course the DS and 60 As with +20
knp/ass
> are much better than what a FP could easily put in the field.
>
> Agent nations if well protected from army attacks can in fact
help
> armies do better in the field (Poof, where did that enemy army
go),
> they can help EMIs do their INFOTHR job...which is all an EMI is
good
> for after the POP limit is hit...AND Agents can wipe mages up all
> over Middle Earth if any old curses squad lands in the same hex.
>
> Now I am not trying to join any debate on what is what...but I do
> have to speak up for the inherent strengths that Agents have...as
> they stand out so much more than any CHAR class alone or combined
for
> that matter. IMHO ;)
>
> Gary
>
> That is EXACTLY why I oppose agents being so powerful: under ME
rules agent powers reach absurd heights. Not only can they raid a
nation's treasury despite all the obvious precautions that any ruler
and his servants would take, but a company can carry out up to NINE
assassinations per turn, and will cut thru any guards who intervene.
> This is totally absurd: nowhere in history or myth are NINE
ssassinations carried out simultaneously.
>
> I drop the argument that the rules favour the DS: the agent rules
permitting the above are a nonsense, regardless of allegiance.
>
> I agree with a previous contributor who said he disagreed with
making a rule against something just because a rule was being
abused. It is up to the rule-maker to come up with rules which are
not open to abuse, and to amend the rules if they are abused.
>
> ME is a brilliant game but that does not mean that it can't be
improved. The steam engine was a brilliant invention, it still
works, and it still has a romance about it; but it is not as
efficient as the latest trains in France or Japan (forget the UK).
>
> There has been no shortage of suggestions for rule
changes/improvements but all GSI bring out is 4th Age, with no rule
changes, a couple of rules bolted-on to the old framework and a few
different artis thrown in.
>
> This shows nothing but contempt for the consumer. I am almost as
angry at GSI as I am at the current Labour govenment whose contempt
for the electorate is even worse. Better stop there!
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>I too think Agents CAN be the most powerful/abused force in the game.

As a player of the game I think players overestimate the impact Agents have
on the game. If you look at the current game ends and the impact those
Agents had then it would clearly be that some of them were dominated by
Agents but mostly not. Armies is where it's at, and players constantly
underestimate their value.... (player opinion here guys!)

As a GM we're unlikely to change anything - mostly because GSI won't let
us. We've introduced a few tweeks for the game (as suggested by players)
for 1000 etc, but that's about all we can do at present. I have some ideas
for this in the future but I want to get some of our projects completed
before we look at other items.

>I think some hands are tied with respect to changes, but they are still
>receptive to the consumer.

** We try to be - don't always get it right but it's nice to know some
players appreciate it. That doesn't mean that I now want everyone to jump
up and comment on the things they don't like - been there and done that -
but constructive criticism is always welcome (not always enjoyed!) but very
useful.. :-)

Question: Some of you will have recently received the latest incarnation of
GWCs - feedback on them welcome. They are for games that have recently
ended (April onwards and won't be backdated).

Clint

[Richard DEVEREUX]

----- Original Message -----
From: GearonSkywalker
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:20 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Article on Assassin


Richard,

I too think Agents CAN be the most powerful/abused force in the game.

FA is no exception, 5 agent nations with SNA31 can have 20 80 rank
killers on T1 hitting pops. I think I had 6-7 kills in one turn in a
recent game and I was one of 3 nations that had that many at one time.

FA can however be a little Agent unfriendly...for example MEBPM siad
that as part of the set-up two teams can agree to take 2 of 4
quadrants instead of East VS West. If say a team gets NE and SW as
starting locations, Agent nations will have little room to hide and
be protected. I think at most with Quads each side would elect to
have 2 or 3 TRUE agent nations at MAX because of the risk of military
weakness in the QUAD.

MEPBM is a class organization with some very dedicated people, Clint
being the easy favorite. I think some hands are tied with respect to
changes, but they are still receptive to the consumer.

We have but to ask for our wishes to see if they can grant them.

O.T. Did you ever tell me if you were currently in a FA game? It
would be great if we were butting heads in a game and did not know it.

Gary
I'm not playing 4th Age currently. I agree with what you say about Harle AND their hands being tied in many respects. They have always told me what they can and cannot do, and been v helpful when I set up variant games.

Richard.


--- In mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Richard DEVEREUX" <rd@p...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: GearonSkywalker
> To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 4:10 AM
> Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Article on Assassin
>
>
> For my 2 cents on this...
>
> Agents and Agent nations are by far the best to play. IMHO
>
> I have been the Cloud Lord and LOST Jindur on Turn 5 to a dragon
> encounter while with an army...but still able to make something
of a
> KILLER group of thugs and have my nation place in the top three
when
> our side finally won.
>
> Recently I have been in 2 FA games and have made strong Agent
nations
> with both FP and DSers. Of course the DS and 60 As with +20
knp/ass
> are much better than what a FP could easily put in the field.
>
> Agent nations if well protected from army attacks can in fact
help
> armies do better in the field (Poof, where did that enemy army
go),
> they can help EMIs do their INFOTHR job...which is all an EMI is
good
> for after the POP limit is hit...AND Agents can wipe mages up all
> over Middle Earth if any old curses squad lands in the same hex.
>
> Now I am not trying to join any debate on what is what...but I do
> have to speak up for the inherent strengths that Agents have...as
> they stand out so much more than any CHAR class alone or combined
for
> that matter. IMHO ;)
>
> Gary
>
> That is EXACTLY why I oppose agents being so powerful: under ME
rules agent powers reach absurd heights. Not only can they raid a
nation's treasury despite all the obvious precautions that any ruler
and his servants would take, but a company can carry out up to NINE
assassinations per turn, and will cut thru any guards who intervene.
> This is totally absurd: nowhere in history or myth are NINE
ssassinations carried out simultaneously.
>
> I drop the argument that the rules favour the DS: the agent rules
permitting the above are a nonsense, regardless of allegiance.
>
> I agree with a previous contributor who said he disagreed with
making a rule against something just because a rule was being
abused. It is up to the rule-maker to come up with rules which are
not open to abuse, and to amend the rules if they are abused.
>
> ME is a brilliant game but that does not mean that it can't be
improved. The steam engine was a brilliant invention, it still
works, and it still has a romance about it; but it is not as
efficient as the latest trains in France or Japan (forget the UK).
>
> There has been no shortage of suggestions for rule
changes/improvements but all GSI bring out is 4th Age, with no rule
changes, a couple of rules bolted-on to the old framework and a few
different artis thrown in.
>
> This shows nothing but contempt for the consumer. I am almost as
angry at GSI as I am at the current Labour govenment whose contempt
for the electorate is even worse. Better stop there!
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]