Heh…in FA (1000) its all good 
Hence why I am in the FA1000 game.
Can try out things in FA1000 that I have always wanted to do. Who hoo!
Thomas
How about a known character on one of your pop centers? EG if I’m playing the Dark Lieutenants, and Ji Indur shows up at Barad-Dur on turn 2, am I allowed to use Urzahil to double him? Or if a ScoChar shows the nation ID?
Not allowed. Say Elrond dies, and a DS player names a character Elrond, and you KNOW that he is a DS character then you can double him. Otherwise you cannot.
It’s certainly something to look at - you get both an advantage and a disadvantage but for now that’s the rule we’re playing.
Clint (GM)
Shouldn’t we make it illegal to name new characters after dead characters from the other side ? i.e. elrond dies and a DS character is then called elrond.
B McGoldrick
Just a quick reminder my policy is only reply to players who sign their posts.
Clint (GM)
Original post now edited with my name.
Shouldn’t we make it illegal to name new characters after dead characters from the other side ? i.e. elrond dies and a DS character is then called elrond.
Seems like a good fix to me - what do players think?
I am pretty sure that the computer doesn’t give the names of the original 8 characters when they die (but if anyone can confirm/give their experience of that that would be good)
Clint (GM)
I think that would be an excellent rule for Gunboat.
I would support it for GB as well.
Paul Young
what’s the rationale for this rule…
is it because of the self imposed kill restrictions that mean you can only kill known enemy characters?
why don’t we impose a naming convention so everyone knows exactly which nation a character belongs to…
eg NOLAA, NOLBB, SINDR… 1st 3 letters for the nation, then a random 2 letters.
quote:
Shouldn’t we make it illegal to name new characters after dead characters from the other side ? i.e. elrond dies and a DS character is then called elrond.
no. don’t keep adding to the rules… the more rules, the further we get from the original game. let’s stop adding rules that aren’t programmed into the game.
Sc0rp10
I was assuming we were talking about GB in my reply.
My comments equally apply to other games.
Use the orders in the rulebook to work out who a character belongs to. You should know, in a normal game, every character on your side. Therefore all others must be enemies.
Sc0rp10
I agree, the more layers that Harley puts on this game the further we get from the original. Harley can’t help but fiddle, it seems a compulsion. They want the sourcecodes, all the while minimizing why they want it. Tweaking another’s creation is not, in its self, creative.
What some call adding layers of rules, others call offering choices and options.
I played MEPBM under GSI. I think Bill Feild and Pete Stassun created a brilliant and immensely enjoyable game. But GSI under Bill’s direction would not offer ANY variants or tweaks. This was frustrating – very frustrating – to many extraordinarily committed and knowledgeable players.
ME Games under Clint has taken a drastically different approach. Players are encouraged to take a more open and active role in “guiding” the direction of MEPBM. Player web sites are linked on the ME Games site; player innovations (Automagic, Palantir, etc.) are encouraged and publicized and distributed by ME Games; player feedback is welcomed – indeed, it is solicited by ME Games! And game variants are offered to meet player demand and player requests. (And most recently, Clint utilized Mike Mulka’s division of Middle-earth into Fourth Age regions as the basis for a FA 1000 Gunboat game.)
That sort of attitude makes MEPBM much more attractive to many more players.
Thus do I respectfully disagree with Sc0rp10 when he writes “let’s stop adding rules that aren’t programmed into the game.” Particular rule changes, of course, ought to be vigorously debated; but a blanket smothering of any further rule changes would dampen enthusiasm for the game, in my opinion. Moreover, many of the variant games are evolving. Rules ought to be changed as time passes and we learn from experience how to improve a particular variant.
I also respectfully disagree with 88 Noldo when he writes “Tweaking another’s creation is not, in its self, creative.” Tweaks are often extraordinarily creative. The forward pass was a brilliant tweak of the game of American football. And in MEPBM, the Gunboat tweak was a brilliantly creative act by Chris Courtier (whom I nominate for the MEPBM Hall of Fame).
Sc0rp10 and 88 Noldo, I’d bet you guys are great MEPBM players. And I hope you are truly enjoying your MEPBM experience. We should all applaud the attitude that Clint and ME Games has toward innovation, variation and multiple game choices.
Now, as to whether Gunboat rules should be altered to prohibit using start-character names for newly-named palyers . . . 
The names of starting characters can be reused, done it myself. You just have to wait one clear turn after their demise before you use the name again. The turn after they die they are still on someone’s pdf so the programme rules that they are still active that turn and that the name cannot be used.
Lewis
You should be allowed to name characters after original characters in normal games but NOT in Gunboat with its unusual rules, would be easy enough to add into the rules of the game on its start-up.
Having to actually use up a turn finding out that a New Elrond was a member of your team or the enemies before you could act against him could lead to the loss of a major character and thus this should be avoided.
Thomas
Nimdraug: When Harley gets the source codes and publishes their Rule Book for the game. this game will no longer be what it was. You saw the prediction here first.
Let me make a counter proposal: A non-Harley variant. That is Feilds and Stassun’s artistic vision uncontaminated. Every day the Law of the Jungle applies and you trust nothing and no one. No morally rightoussness need apply. Yes, unBritish sportsmanship allowed.
noldo 88 - can you please tell me where harly has “contaminated” this game? everything they did in the variants was just following the wishes of players, and most players are very happy with that. for my part I can tell you that if there were no variants, I long ago would have lost interest in this game. GB, WOTR and the various options FA offers have added a lot of flavor to the game.
I guess if you play the normal 1650 game, there is nothing harly has changed from the original game - if you don’t like variants, stick to that.
And what do you mean exactly by “unbritish sportsmanship”?
As for naming new characters after dead starting ones, I agree that it should be forbidden, at least in GB. It is not only grossly unrealistic (imagine an orc moving into a FP pop and calling himself Elrond, would we believe that? Nooo), but also a cheap way to pull an advantage out of game mechanics which is pathetic, IMHO
Let me make it clear that I am NOT AT ALL against variants or the fiddling done by Clint & co. It has brought many more players into the game and made some of us look at the same old game differently… it’s tough to remain enthused after xx years of playing against the same oponents, the same game, the same positions… so well done to Harley for their enthusiasm to embrace player ideas and contributions.
I am however not in favour of knee jerk changes that seem to be brought into play that change one original varient idea into an evolving changing thing that takes some of the dare I say it more clever ploys used by players that are within the bounds of the rules and stops them being used. Leveling the playing field by dumbing down the game is not the varient I want to play… I want to play with and against the best… knowing that the people on the oposing team are really doing well and having to work harder to stop them is fun.
88 Noldo… I think you are overreacting to the idea of Harley getting the code. There’s been tons of debate about introducing a completely changed version of the game, but I guess that wouldn’t count as a varient to the current scenarios, it would be a different scenario alltogether. GSI used to tweek the code regularly and forget to tell the licence holders until players queried why things seemed not to be working the same way after a while. Agent power changed dramatically over the course of a couple of years back when GAD and then Allsorts were the UK licencee, but that allowed the FP to start winning some games and made the game more balanced. Your counter proposal is already in place with the 1650, 2950 and 1000 bog standard games with no rule amendments.
Sc0rp10
88 Noldo, you ask for a non-Harley variant that gives us the Feild-Stassun artistic vision pure and uncontaminated? You’re in luck! That “variant” is currently offered – indeed, it is the “variant” most frequently offered. It’s called the standard, two-week game. (Other Feild/Staussun-style games include Grudge games and multi-player Team games.)
Standard games make up the greater number of games filled by Harley. Right now alot of Gunboat games are filling because it is riding a crest of popularity. Some of that will diminish as the novelty wears off or as players who like both Gunboat and standard games return to requesting more standard games.
Gunboat is a blast, however, and many players will remain devoted to it for along time to come. And the Gunboat rules will likely be tweaked and tweaked and tweaked and tweaked some more. The proposed character-naming tweaks will be implemented in future Gunboat games (my prediction) for the simple reason that it closes a loophole that otherwise permits Gunboat players to perform un-Gunboat-like actions. (I, for one, voluntarily refrain from doing that sort of thing when naming new characters.)
It is my hope that MEPBM (or “ME Turn-based Strategy Gaming,” as Nanook once wisely suggested calling it), will continue to offer enough variety and options to satisfy as braod a player base as possible. I enjoy MEPBM now under ME Games far more than I ever did under GSI.
Originally posted by Mormegil
As for naming new characters after dead starting ones, I agree that it should be forbidden, at least in GB. It is not only grossly unrealistic (imagine an orc moving into a FP pop and calling himself Elrond, would we believe that? Nooo), but also a cheap way to pull an advantage out of game mechanics which is pathetic, IMHO
Why can you not see that happening? Remember this is a FANTASY game, not based on reality.
Just because you think that were you the Orc in question you wouldn’t name your orcboy after a great defeated enemy doesn’t mean that my orcboy can’t be given that name… happens in films… though they aren’t exactly based on reality either 
To you it may be unrealistic, but to me it might be the honourable thing to do… “he was a great enemy, I shall honour his memory by naming my firstborn after him”. Now, what’s wrong with that?
Sc0rp10