Re: Black Thursday

["Clark D. Rodeffer" <cdrodeffer@...>]

PL> Really interesting game you have
PL> there, I'm sure I am forgetting
PL> one or two but I don't recall
PL> there being any piecepack games
PL> with negotiation making up as
PL> much of the game play as there
PL> is in Black Thursday.

Thanks for the kind words. Kidsprout Jumboree and Iceberg both have
some negotiation elements, but those are the only other ones I've
played so far. Like you, I'm probably also forgetting a few. I also
wouldn't exclude your own King Arthur's Court, even though I have yet
to play that one.

PL> I am also a fan of the alternate
PL> boards that are arranged to look
PL> like different NY skyscrapers.

Again, thanks! I thought the option of varying the building layout
would give the game more replay value with minimal fuss and without
the stigma sometimes attached to having multiple variants. (Some argue
that if there are multiple variants listed, it's a sure sign of
inadequate play testing to select the single best version to publish.)

PL> As for your dilemma (and I may
PL> not even understand this
PL> correctly myself, so if I am
PL> way off base let me know), would
PL> it work if it costs 2 APs to move
PL> onto a window of opportunity and
PL> 0 APs to sell 1 stock in that
PL> company, 1 AP to sell 2+ stock?
PL> If so, then you wouldn't need an
PL> exception rule, as if you didn't
PL> have 2 APs to move onto the
PL> window you wouldn't be able to
PL> do it.

This sounds like a relaxation of the third alternative exception
(requoted below), except doing away with (or just modifying?) the
windows of great opportunities and replacing them both with an
action-point based sale mechanism. The problem I see right off the bat
is that allowing multiple action points to be burned up in window
sales makes dumping stock a lot easier, which could have the
detrimental effect of driving the game play back away from negotiation
and reducing player interaction. I'd like to avoid that, if possible.
Am I missing something from your explanation?

CDR> If a player does not have an extra
CDR> action point to spend selling at a
CDR> window of (great) opportunity one
CDR> step away, that player may not even
CDR> move onto the window of (great)
CDR> opportunity, but must spend that
CDR> last action point elsewhere.

Maybe "exception" isn't really the right word. I just need to clarify
how the window of opportunity rules apply when a player uses his or
her last action point to move onto the window. My first choice (at
this moment, so it could change any second) is to say that, if a
player moves onto a window of opportunity, on that same turn, that
player must immediately spend his or her next action point to sell a
stock certificate matching the window. If the player is unable to do
so for any reason (lack of a matching stock certificate, lack of an
action point, or any other reason), treat it as a missed window of
opportunity and jump. I think that would create the most tension. I
can foresee a situation where if someone is completely out of
certificates and knows a little about the other players' portfolios,
it might actually be *advantageous* to take the plunge!

Phillip, thanks for your comments!

Clark