If I was going to start such a game right now, I'd like to see one
which compensates for the DS advantage (66% of games won by DS -
yeah yeah, I know there are other figures, but this still matches my
opinion of the relative imbalance, and if I was a bookie those are
the sort of odds I'd give in a game of unknown teams)
66% of grudge games are won by Free teams?
No question of regular games but I haven't seen figures of won/loss
percentage using only Grudge games.
Paul
I always thought a good split would be...
Harad and Duns go free
Corsairs, Easterlings Rhudaur go DS
QA is removed.Kev
RD: Why? If you're going to put forward a counter-opinion, let's see the
argument to back it up, as I have done.
Well Richard, as you asked so politely, I'll furnish some details. 
You said, "Normally FP get Duns and Cor whilst DS get Rhu, Har & Eas".
I don't think this is the case? The Easterlings usually get removed.
You suggested a 13/12 split in favour of the DS. I think this is unfair
given the strength of the DS traditionally in winning games. Giving the
side that wins most games an extra 42 orders per turn seems very unfair IMO.
Therefore, make it 12 v 12.
You can remove the Easterlings as normal or, as I propose, remove another
nation.
In a normal 'grudge' game, Harad (usually) gets attacked quickly by the
Freeps. The Corsairs, SG, NG (and to a lesser extent) Sinda (usually) make
Harad the first target and it usually doesn't stand a chance. In the team
games I've been in, Harad is overrun by turn 10.
Therefore, make Harad go Free. The Free have a better economy than the DS
at game start so giving Harad to the Freeps isn't much of a bonus to their
combined economies.
Instead, make Corsairs go DS. A Corsair v Harad battle is a lot of fun at
the start. The Corsairs are more isolated than Harad, they also have the
advantage of having the biggest navy, so the freeps have to be careful when
trying to invade by sea.
If the Easterlings are given to the DS, they can send Cav armies from their
capital and from 3538 to support the Corsairs. (Who will, admittedly be
hard-pressed).
Also, the LoR (3230) and CL (3630) armies have legitimate targets to go for
in Harad.
With the Easterlings and LoR armies in Rhun, the Northmen/Eothraim can't
send as many troops around the back of Mordor or to Morannon.
Most DS teams would *probably* prefer an Easterling Nation to a QA nation
(cue howls of outrage from everyone telling me the QA is THE MOST IMPORTANT
nation).
I just think that to maintain fairness it must be 12 v 12. The QA was the
obvious (to me) nation to eliminate. It offers +40 emmies and double
scouting. The Dragon Lord does double scouting as a special nation
ability. Is it really that important to the DS cause that a nation can
name +40 emmies?
Anyway. It's just a suggestion. Richard, I'm sure if you can convince
Harlequin to do it, and you get enough people interested, you'll get your
13v12 variant off and running. Similiarly, I'm sure if Laurence can get
enough players to play his 14 v 11 variant that will be off and running as
well.
Just my opinion Richard, I won't mind if you don't agree!
Would it be an idea for a 10v10 Freep v DS team to take it in turns to pick
the nation they would like? Harlequin could toss a coin and decide who
went first?
(Or is that just a totally mad idea)?
Kev
You seem rather grumpy this evening RD. I don't usually get you
worked up
quite so easily;-) 4 FP neuts Rhu as DS is exactly what I meant to
say. It would provide a tough but IMO not impossible challenge
for an
experienced DS team.
Hmm, I just saw a very experienced DS team crushed by a FP team. They
had a 4-1 neutral split against them. This was in ME2950. So I'd say
your opinion is incorrect. The DS have no chance in your setup.
Paul
>An extra MT/T makes no significant
>difference to Rhu's chances of survival. Add the Dun to Rhu as DS and
you
>have a whole new ball game.
>
>Whadya mean, "all the other neuts start as FP?" Rhu goes DS and FOUR
neuts
>go FP? I'm sure this is not what you meant to say. If it is, I'll know
you
>are losing it.
You seem rather grumpy this evening RD. I don't usually get you worked up
quite so easily;-) 4 FP neuts Rhu as DS is exactly what I meant to
say. It would provide a tough but IMO not impossible challenge for an
experienced DS team.A secure MT in the mountains would make Rhu viable if given allied
assistance, after a point at which the exposed pops had been
demolished. Compare this directly to the way that DrL can be kept in
even
after he's lost Goblin Gate and Dol Guldur, by having his capital forced
back to 3822.Perhaps in such a setup, Har and Cor should be reduced a little, perhaps
losing 1 MT each, but that's about all I'd want to see by way of further
changes.Laurence G. Tilley
RD: Grumpy? Well, at first I thought you hadn't given my proposal due
thought, then that you had slipped up by saying 4 FP neuts! But as that is
what you meant, I stand corrected, and will say instead that I will happily
play FP in the setup you propose!
Richard.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>; <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: new alignment for grudge games
At 10:53 PM 29-09-01, Richard John Devereux wrote:
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>Laurence G. Tilley wrote...
>Please don't come out with provocative comments and boil my blood late at
>night, unless you can back up the comment with something substantive.Hmm... I didn't see any smileys or winks, so I have to assume you're
serious here. If
that's the case, then I'd have to say comments and opinions are part of
what this list
is for. Since I have yet to see any Mailing List Rules to the contrary, I
don't see
why people shouldn't be able to express their opinions with or without
backing it up
"with something substantive". As long as they're not being rude about it,
why not? If
you don't like it, rebutt it or just delete it. Telling someone they
shouldn't post
comments to the list just because they didn't meet some arbitrary standard
you've set
for it doesn't really fly.
If you intended for your comments to be light hearted and just forgot the
smileys and
winks, then you might want to include them in the future. (It's nearly
impossible to
tell when someone is being sarcastic and when they're serious, especially
if you don't
know them.) If you were just funnin', then you can pretty much ignore this
entire
message, (except for the part about remembering your smileys and winks in
the future).
If you were serious, then I'd like to remind you that the likelyhood of a
comment to
set your blood boiling isn't a criteria for posting to this list. Neither
is it
required to back up opinions with facts acceptable to everyone reading it.
Mike Mulka
RD: Sorry Mike, but I agree with Laurence. I put forward a proposition to
which I have given considerable thought, and gave the reasons for it. If
somebody then says, it's not a good a idea because xyz, or I prefer abc
because def, then we have a rational debate.
But to have Kevin (or anybody else) suggest an alternative, apparently off
the top of his head, without saying what he doesn't like about the original
proposal, or why his is better, IS irritating - if not quite making the
blood boil!
Richard.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaruman" <aaruman@orions.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:45 AM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] new alignment for grudge games
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> I always thought a good split would be...
>
> Harad and Duns go free
> Corsairs, Easterlings Rhudaur go DS
> QA is removed.
>
> Kev
>
RD: Why? If you're going to put forward a counter-opinion, let's see the
argument to back it up, as I have done.Well Richard, as you asked so politely, I'll furnish some details.
RD: Thanks Kev - this is much better!
You said, "Normally FP get Duns and Cor whilst DS get Rhu, Har & Eas".
RD: Well,it has been in the games I've played.
I don't think this is the case? The Easterlings usually get removed.
RD: Yes, Harle have now said they do this for the "World Cup" so it is now
considered the norm.
You suggested a 13/12 split in favour of the DS. I think this is unfair
given the strength of the DS traditionally in winning games. Giving the
side that wins most games an extra 42 orders per turn seems very unfair
IMO.
Therefore, make it 12 v 12.
You can remove the Easterlings as normal or, as I propose, remove another
nation.In a normal 'grudge' game, Harad (usually) gets attacked quickly by the
Freeps. The Corsairs, SG, NG (and to a lesser extent) Sinda (usually)
make
Harad the first target and it usually doesn't stand a chance. In the team
games I've been in, Harad is overrun by turn 10.Therefore, make Harad go Free. The Free have a better economy than the DS
at game start so giving Harad to the Freeps isn't much of a bonus to their
combined economies.Instead, make Corsairs go DS. A Corsair v Harad battle is a lot of fun at
the start. The Corsairs are more isolated than Harad, they also have the
advantage of having the biggest navy, so the freeps have to be careful
when
trying to invade by sea.
RD: Yes, agree, this is one of the things I suggested!
If the Easterlings are given to the DS, they can send Cav armies from
their
capital and from 3538 to support the Corsairs. (Who will, admittedly be
hard-pressed).
Also, the LoR (3230) and CL (3630) armies have legitimate targets to go
for
in Harad.
With the Easterlings and LoR armies in Rhun, the Northmen/Eothraim can't
send as many troops around the back of Mordor or to Morannon.Most DS teams would *probably* prefer an Easterling Nation to a QA nation
(cue howls of outrage from everyone telling me the QA is THE MOST
IMPORTANT
nation).
I just think that to maintain fairness it must be 12 v 12. The QA was the
obvious (to me) nation to eliminate. It offers +40 emmies and double
scouting. The Dragon Lord does double scouting as a special nation
ability. Is it really that important to the DS cause that a nation can
name +40 emmies?Anyway. It's just a suggestion. Richard, I'm sure if you can convince
Harlequin to do it, and you get enough people interested, you'll get your
13v12 variant off and running. Similiarly, I'm sure if Laurence can get
enough players to play his 14 v 11 variant that will be off and running as
well.Just my opinion Richard, I won't mind if you don't agree!
RD: Now you spell it out, your proposition is as valid as mine. It's a
matter of opinion which nation is better, QAv or Eas, but I'm going to shut
up now as I don't have time to play another game anyway.
Would it be an idea for a 10v10 Freep v DS team to take it in turns to
pick
the nation they would like? Harlequin could toss a coin and decide who
went first?
(Or is that just a totally mad idea)?Kev
RD: Hey, this could be FUN! Even better would be a 12 v 12 game with the
former neutrals up for grabs too. Shall I open a book on the nation that
doesn't get picked?
Richard.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin" <kevin@bobbins71.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] new alignment for grudge games
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--- In mepbmlist@y..., Kevin <kevin@b...> wrote:
> I always thought a good split would be...
>
> Harad and Duns go free
> Corsairs, Easterlings Rhudaur go DS
> QA is removed.
>
> Kev
>
RD: Why? If you're going to put forward a counter-opinion, let's
see the
argument to back it up, as I have done.
Well Richard, as you asked so politely, I'll furnish some
details.
You said, "Normally FP get Duns and Cor whilst DS get Rhu, Har &
Eas".
I don't think this is the case? The Easterlings usually get
removed.
You suggested a 13/12 split in favour of the DS. I think this is
unfair
given the strength of the DS traditionally in winning games.
Giving the
side that wins most games an extra 42 orders per turn seems very
unfair IMO.
Therefore, make it 12 v 12.
You can remove the Easterlings as normal or, as I propose, remove
another
nation.
In a normal 'grudge' game, Harad (usually) gets attacked quickly by
the
Freeps. The Corsairs, SG, NG (and to a lesser extent) Sinda
(usually) make
Harad the first target and it usually doesn't stand a chance. In
the team
games I've been in, Harad is overrun by turn 10.
Therefore, make Harad go Free. The Free have a better economy than
the DS
at game start so giving Harad to the Freeps isn't much of a bonus
to their
combined economies.
Instead, make Corsairs go DS. A Corsair v Harad battle is a lot of
fun at
the start. The Corsairs are more isolated than Harad, they also
have the
advantage of having the biggest navy, so the freeps have to be
careful when
trying to invade by sea.
If the Easterlings are given to the DS, they can send Cav armies
from their
capital and from 3538 to support the Corsairs. (Who will,
admittedly be
hard-pressed).
Also, the LoR (3230) and CL (3630) armies have legitimate targets
to go for
in Harad.
With the Easterlings and LoR armies in Rhun, the Northmen/Eothraim
can't
send as many troops around the back of Mordor or to Morannon.
Most DS teams would *probably* prefer an Easterling Nation to a QA
nation
(cue howls of outrage from everyone telling me the QA is THE MOST
IMPORTANT
nation).
I just think that to maintain fairness it must be 12 v 12. The QA
was the
obvious (to me) nation to eliminate. It offers +40 emmies and
double
scouting. The Dragon Lord does double scouting as a special nation
ability. Is it really that important to the DS cause that a nation
can
name +40 emmies?
Anyway. It's just a suggestion. Richard, I'm sure if you can
convince
Harlequin to do it, and you get enough people interested, you'll
get your
13v12 variant off and running. Similiarly, I'm sure if Laurence
can get
enough players to play his 14 v 11 variant that will be off and
running as
well.
Just my opinion Richard, I won't mind if you don't agree!
Would it be an idea for a 10v10 Freep v DS team to take it in turns
to pick
the nation they would like? Harlequin could toss a coin and decide
who
went first?
(Or is that just a totally mad idea)?Kev
Kasper: Why not 12 vs 12? Besides FP benefit more from grudge game
tan DS as they generaly need very tight coordination compared to DS
nations. Mind you kev, I would not like to see a DS team without QA.
Cheers
Kasper
15-10 is truly impossible; 14-11 is very tough but not impossible, at
least in 2950 where I have the most experience. IMO the dark/free
imbalance, which is very real in 1650 and 2950, can be addressed
through setup tweaks as discussed earlier on this list. Add a
starting 40E to the 1650 northies (like the 2950 northmen, who are not
powerful but aren't as pathetic as the 1650 version); add starting
stealthy 30 agents to the woodmen and elves; make sure that the 1650
free have some usable commanders in their capitals at the start and
keep the starting 40 agents out of the ice king and cloud lord
capitals. Add more population base to northern gondor in 2950 so that
capturing 3124 is at least a mathematical possibility...or reduce the
3124/3224 castles to forts so that it is possible to hit them early.
Marc
--- In mepbmlist@y..., ulfang_the_easterling@y... wrote:
> You seem rather grumpy this evening RD. I don't usually get you
worked up
> quite so easily;-) 4 FP neuts Rhu as DS is exactly what I meant
to
> say. It would provide a tough but IMO not impossible challenge
for an
> experienced DS team.Hmm, I just saw a very experienced DS team crushed by a FP team.
They
had a 4-1 neutral split against them. This was in ME2950. So I'd
say
your opinion is incorrect. The DS have no chance in your setup.
Paul
SNIP
SNIP
SNIP!!!
Hi Everyone,
Don't forget to snip long emails if you hit the reply button. Some people
reading the list have to pay �1 a minute for their email time, so long
emails cost them a lot!!
Sam (Admin hat on)
Good point!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Roads" <sam@samroads.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:36 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Etiquette
SNIP
SNIP
SNIP!!!Hi Everyone,
Don't forget to snip long emails if you hit the reply button. Some people
reading the list have to pay �1 a minute for their email time, so long
emails cost them a lot!!Sam (Admin hat on)
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Very good response!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Riley" <matthew@mrassociates.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Etiquette
Good point!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Roads" <sam@samroads.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:36 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Etiquette> SNIP
> SNIP
> SNIP!!!
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Don't forget to snip long emails if you hit the reply button. Some
people
> reading the list have to pay �1 a minute for their email time, so long
> emails cost them a lot!!
>
> Sam (Admin hat on)
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Sam Roads" <sam@s...> wrote:
emails cost them a lot!!
Sam (Admin hat on)
Done
Kasper
Sam Roads wrote:
ome people
reading the list have to pay £1 a minute for their email time, so long
emails cost them a lot!!
Er, what service are they using??? And where can I get a slice of that
action?
Or is this Harlequin's new 0980-MEPMB line...?
Gavin
Sam Roads wrote:
ome people
reading the list have to pay �1 a minute for their email time, so long
emails cost them a lot!!
Er, what service are they using??? And where can I get a slice of that
action?
Or is this Harlequin's new 0980-MEPMB line...?
Gavin
If only
No, many people play PBM because they can't game around a table, so we have
plenty of players who are in the army or the Middle East on contract. The �1
a minute is the cost in Saudi Arabia.
Sam (Admin Hat on)
Laurence wrote: >>Please don't come out with provocative comments and boil
my blood late at
night, unless you can back up the comment with something substantive.<<Provocative? Boil your blood? Like its actually important?!!
'Tis to me mate, makes a terrible mess on the carpet and wallpaper when it squirts out the ears.
QA will fall if a southern neutral attacks it early, which happens in
pre-aligned games. Given a dozen turns unmolested pretty much any position
in the game can be turned into a world class one... when you don't have that
time the QA is bantumweight boxing with worldclass heavyweights.
Thanks for explaining your point. Whilst agreeing with your first sentence though, I don't think it's a good enough reason to leave QAv out of a game though in preference to Eas. It could be used to support a call to bolster the QAv position in pre-aligned game where Har & Cor started free. One of the Easterling MTs, plus one more level of fortification at QAv cap, would make it a near viable challenge.
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
At 09:03 AM 01-10-01, Matthew Riley wrote:
Agree that there are no rules to this list, but still will reserve the
right to challenge anyone who posts, without following society's
ancient rules for what constitutes interesting conversation and fair debate.
Laurence G. Tilley
"Society's ancient rules"? So, what you're saying is that there aren't specific rules
to this list, but you have decided to apply a set of rules which you have termed
"Society's Ancient Rules for what consititues interesting conversation and fair
debate" (I'll have to look that up on the internet), and that you are here to enforce
said rules. I guess it's lucky for all of us that you have access to such rules.
And finally, you misquote me badly when you suggest that I said they
shouldn't post. I said, they should give their reasons for their
statements. I'd be genuinely interested to hear them, that's why I was
reading the thread in the first place.
Laurence G. Tilley
Your comments were...
::SNIP::
Why bother to make a comment when you're not going to make any effort
to say _why_ you think that?
::SNIP::
Please don't come out with provocative comments and boil my blood late at
night, unless you can back up the comment with something substantive.
::SNIP::
...the right to challenge anyone who posts, without following society's
ancient rules...
These seem pretty straightforward. These statements don't say "Could you tell me what
your reasons are?" Instead, they seem to say, "DO NOT post a comment here unless you
also provide an explanation." If that wasn't your intention, (and you'd rather not
have people getting the impression that you're somehow suggesting there are posting
requirements specified by yourself), then perhaps you should tone down the rhetoric a
little next time.
Mike Mulka
RD: Sorry Mike, but I agree with Laurence. I put forward a proposition to
which I have given considerable thought, and gave the reasons for it. If
somebody then says, it's not a good a idea because xyz, or I prefer abc
because def, then we have a rational debate.But to have Kevin (or anybody else) suggest an alternative, apparently off
the top of his head, without saying what he doesn't like about the original
proposal, or why his is better, IS irritating - if not quite making the
blood boil!
Richard.
Certainly there are going to be irritating comments made here. Lawrence has made quite
a few that have irritated me. (Not necessarily the content, but more his attitude.)
However, whether a comment irritates me (or you or Lawrence) doesn't mean it can't be
posted here. It doesn't even mean it shouldn't be posted here. As long as it isn't a
rude or obnoxious comment (which, BTW, Lawrence has made his share of), then let
people say what they want. Lawrence's suggestion that people shouldn't post messages
here if they don't meet his personal cirteria is what I have a problem with.
Mike
Folks,
I sent the below questions out a few days ago but so far no response.
I just thought to try to send it out again to see if anyone can help.
Many thanks in advance
Brendan
A couple of questions for the list and also Harlequins if you have
some time.
The 1st one is about War Machines and their use in pop center combat.
Example:-
2 enemy armies are at MT-Fort. One army has 10WarMachines and the
other one has 5 WarMachines. Both issue the Capture Pop center order.
My question is quite simple:- Are the WarMachines from both armies
combined to destroy the FORT ? In this example the WarMachine values
from BOTH armies are 3000 (15 * 200 = 3000) which is equal to the
fortification value. Thus shouldn't the fort get destroyed ?
If the war machines from both armies are taken seperately then the
fort wouldn't get destroyed ?
The 2nd question is about 947. Do you lose 10% portage fee for the
product that is already in the stores of the destination pop center ?
Example:- I have say 1000 leather at the destination pop center. In
my other camps I have 500. Do I lose 50 leather in portage fee (10%
of 500) OR do I lose 150 leather (10% of 1500 leather).
For me it's only logically to suffer the 10% portage fee for the
amounts that actually get transported.
Thanks in advance
Cheers
Brendan
Folks,
I sent the below questions out a few days ago but so far no response.
I just thought to try to send it out again to see if anyone can help.Many thanks in advance
Brendan
A couple of questions for the list and also Harlequins if you have
some time.The 1st one is about War Machines and their use in pop center combat.
Example:-
2 enemy armies are at MT-Fort. One army has 10WarMachines and the
other one has 5 WarMachines. Both issue the Capture Pop center order.My question is quite simple:- Are the WarMachines from both armies
combined to destroy the FORT ? In this example the WarMachine values
from BOTH armies are 3000 (15 * 200 = 3000) which is equal to the
fortification value. Thus shouldn't the fort get destroyed ?
If the war machines from both armies are taken seperately then the
fort wouldn't get destroyed ?The 2nd question is about 947. Do you lose 10% portage fee for the
product that is already in the stores of the destination pop center ?
Example:- I have say 1000 leather at the destination pop center. In
my other camps I have 500. Do I lose 50 leather in portage fee (10%
of 500) OR do I lose 150 leather (10% of 1500 leather).
For me it's only logically to suffer the 10% portage fee for the
amounts that actually get transported.Thanks in advance
Cheers
Brendan
RD: Hi Brendan. Don't know the answer to your first question. However the
answer to your second question is easy - the 10% portage fee is deducted
only from what is transported in the 947 order, not anything which is
already in the destination hex.
Hope that helps,
Richard.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mcgoldrickb@hotmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 7:02 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] War Machines and 947
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Ha! I thought you of all people, might be the man with enough iron in his blood (which does not even boil as easily as mine) to answer the challenge of playing DS in such a tough scenario. Aren't you getting weary of always cleaning up so easily when we play DS?
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
At 09:22 PM 01-10-01, Richard John Devereux wrote:
RD: Grumpy? Well, at first I thought you hadn't given my proposal due
thought, then that you had slipped up by saying 4 FP neuts! But as that is
what you meant, I stand corrected, and will say instead that I will happily
play FP in the setup you propose!