[eberlems]

Group Therapy means V.I.P.-classification and not VIP-classification?

[BCSWowbagger]

Group Therapy means V.I.P.-classification and not VIP-classification?

Safe to assume, but you're right. That's the first time in the game's history that "VIP" made it past rules and proofing without getting changed to the correct "V.I.P.".

[Se7enofMine]

Got a question from the perspective of a 3 man game vs 2 man game.

In a two man game, you have your standard dilemma strategies. Lockout, kill dudes, etc, etc. However you decide to formulate them, given your deck archetype.

However, in a 3 man game, you are spreading your dilemmas around between two different card sets.

I'm wondering if any of you deck building wizards would have a change in thought process in configuring your combos, given the change to a 3 man game.

Just looking for some thoughts is all

[SudenKapala]

Got a question from the perspective of a 3 man game vs 2 man game.

In a two man game, you have your standard dilemma strategies. Lockout, kill dudes, etc, etc. However you decide to formulate them, given your deck archetype.

However, in a 3 man game, you are spreading your dilemmas around between two different card sets.

I'm wondering if any of you deck building wizards would have a change in thought process in configuring your combos, given the change to a 3 man game.

Just looking for some thoughts is all

What we do here, is -- on a Y-form spaceline; not the spoked wheel -- seed DILs only for the opponent CW (clockwise) from self.

Along the same vein, the CCW (counter-CW) opponent of the current player gets to "control" (make any decisions / selections, etc.) those DILs that they themselves seeded for current player.

So, no higher versatility in seeding, but also no hassle to change your DIL strategy. I find that it works smoothly for our type of friendly (and Traditional, if that may be of interest) games.

[SudenKapala]

But since I consider myself a novice player, at least around here, I'm also interested in others' POV; and even more, in what the drawbacks of my solution could be, if any; thus if I should consider another option. (I don't even own all Traditional cards and we love but don't use Virtual, so some things might get overlooked in my play environment.)

However, so far, as said, it works surprisingly well for us!

[Armus]

Spoked spacelines are only fun if you put a Black Hole in the middle and make it suck in a mission every trip around the table.

[Se7enofMine]

Interesting take Suden. However I'll clarify a bit more.

When playing against one person and you go for a lockout strategy on dilemmas .. let's say using Geology (just as an example). Kill as many geology as you can then put walls requiring that skill. If you can manage to pull that off for 5 or 6 missions, great. Effective lockout.

But in a 3 man game, it's a bit tougher as you are only seeing under 3 missions on each of your opponents missions. Thus,your lockout strategy only works for 50% on each player,which is less viable than the former.

[SudenKapala]

Spoked spacelines are only fun if you put a Black Hole in the middle and make it suck in a mission every trip around the table.

I also never understood -- or even tried -- that layout. Seems really awkward to me.

Interesting take Suden. However I'll clarify a bit more.
When playing against one person and you go for a lockout strategy on dilemmas .. let's say using Geology (just as an example). Kill as many geology as you can then put walls requiring that skill. If you can manage to pull that off for 5 or 6 missions, great. Effective lockout.

But

in a 3 man game, it's a bit tougher as you are only seeing under 3 missions on each of your opponents missions.

Thus,your lockout strategy only works for 50% on each player,which is less viable than the former.

Perhaps I explained insufficiently. In our set-up, you are the first player. We play CW. I am the second player. Deanna is the 3rd player.

In our game, you are required to seed all your 18 DILs under my 6 MISs (I am CW from you).
If I encounter them on my turn, you (CCW player) & me (current / second player) together will resolve them. Thus, your Geology block works efficiently on me (right? Or do I miss something?), but will not affect Deanna.
Next, it's Deanna's turn to attempt (3rd player). My DILs wreak havoc on her crews, because's she's "my responsibity" to hamper (since I'm her CCW player).
Then in your turn (1st player), Deanna's strategies will try to weaken your personnel.

So, in that way, there is not much difference (against a single player, that is) in effectiveness between a 2PG & a 3PG, right? Or wrong?

With our system I opted for convenience and less hassle / more seed speed (no need to change DIL tactics or, worse, change your deck), over versatility and control (you do not have the option to hurt Deanna with DILs, and she cannot bother me).

But perhaps you did understand me correctly from the first post, and I'm missing something. Please clarify until we understand each other!

[SudenKapala]

After a mediocre night's sleep, I heavily upgraded/appended the above post. Hope it helps to clear it up. Shoot!

[Se7enofMine]

Ahhhh, now I getcha. That makes more sense.

I hadn't considered doing it that way. I'll suggest it to the boys

Thanks a bunch.

[SudenKapala]

Nice, glad to be of help. Please let us know (in due time) whether it works out, and what your findings are.

[BCSWowbagger]

What are some examples where a dilemma has conditions but does not mark them with "unless" or "to get past"?

And, going the other direction...

What are some examples where a dilemma does say "unless" but it is not a condition? I'm aware of the four examples where that (confusingly) happens with cures

(DNA Metamorphosis, Hyper-Aging, Nitrium Metal Parasites, and REM Fatigue Hallucinations)

, but are there others?

I'm trying to get something in the Rulebook tidied up, hence the really specific wording questions.

[SudenKapala]

I don't know specific DILs, but I know of a game text construction. Now, let's see if I can write it down so we can look further...

"X happens to two personnel (rand. sel.). Unless either of them has Y, both are stopped/dead/animals."
(This is an extremely hypothetic example of the form I'm looking for. I mean, it could be e.g. 4 personnel

-- such as Lineup -- which I think is a good example? Edit: nope, says "to get past". Sorry. But still, the unless-clause on Lineup is not a condition, I think -- see below -- and certainly does not stop the whole gang.

)

In this type of DIL, the "effect" X happens, come hell or high water(?); the unless clause happens after that, so it is not a "conditional" DIL. Crew or AT not stopped if Y not met. Y is -- I believe -- here defined as not a "condition". The old version ("Traditional") Glossary I still use, explains this somewhere. And in unclear cases -- such as you ask for, here -- I think examples are given. In the current Glossary most probably, too. But I'm sure you looked there...

I hope this helps, or reminds anyone else of such, or other, DILs.

[BCSWowbagger]

The Lineup family! Good call.

[SudenKapala]

Haha, did my many edits cross your post? I was editing all that Lineup stuff in, and only after that read about your discovery... But now, for the other way around...?

But as I said in my 4th edit or so -- Lineup itself has "cannot get past", so does not meet your criteria?

In your search link, is Civil Unrest not the only one who fits the bill? Well, that's at least one.