Spells ???

mepbmlist
#1

What would the logic behind mage rank be? I know of no other spell casting
situation where it is mage rank that is considered over casting rank for
that particular spell. In a current game I am doing great deal of revealpop
with a mage loaded with arties but a relatively low mage rank (about 50) and
reveal pop in the high 50's. No proof, but the mage has succeeded in both
aspects of the spell 4 out of 5 times so far. The first failure was before
the sale and I sent Deft an e-mail inquiry about it since my casting ranks
and arties produced a likelihood of over 100%. The response was that there
is a two part success formula, however, as was typical for GSI/Deft, there
was no more detail given other than artifacts played no role in the second
roll. My assumption was the second roll was compared to casting rank, but I
have no asolute proof of this, nor do I suspect anybody does. It would take
quite a few recorded instances for statistical significance. I can say that
I have seen 70+ mages fail the second part several times, but this is still
no absolute proof.-Tom MacCabe

···

-----Original Message-----
From: JeremyRichman@compuserve.com <JeremyRichman@compuserve.com>
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:38 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Spells ???

Hi Ben,

So, are you saying that the numbers you have collected
definitely support that the second roll is based on
casting rank, and provide counter-evidence against the
notion that the second roll is based on mage rank?

Jeremy

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:

Jeremy:

My "rule of thumb" is based on "theory" (introduced by players

who've been

around since the play-testing days) _and_ experience. 20+ castings

that

I've been involved in (and taken note of), all within the last

couple of

years ... Not enough data points for the "law of large numbers" to

kick in,

but solid enough for me (it is, after all, "my" experience ... or

that of

teammates in grudge games). I probably _could_ get 100+ results if

I

scoured my .pdf collection, but my wife has theatened to turn her
self-reference as an "MEPBM Widow" from caustic wit into reality ...

(that's

what I get for marrying a female lawyer ... :slight_smile:

The idea of asking GSI never crossed my mind (like they would tell

:slight_smile: ...

then again, if you don't ask, you don't get ... if you do ask, do

let me/us

know what they said ... :).

Hth.

b

JeremyRichman@c... wrote:

> It was my understanding all this time that the second roll
> was based on natural mage rank, not on natural casting rank.
>
> I never got any direct info from GSI on this, and I never
> even thought to consider that it might be based on casting
> rank. Sounds just as likely as my assumption.
>
> Ben, is your assertion just a theory (like mine), or
> are you basing it on empirical results, or do you have
> more definite confirmation from GSI?
>
> Jeremy
>
> --- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
> > Natural (i.e. unenhanced by arties) casting rank. Arties only
> enhance the first
> > "dice roll." (Well-framed question, by the way - you correctly
> understood the
> > issue and "x-factor" - not meaning to sound condescending or
> patronizing, but
> > rather complimentary - it's getting the _concept_ across that
> usually takes the
> > most effort when someone is unfamiliar w/ this somewhat

"esoteric"

> point ... :).
> >
> > Hth.
> >
> > b
> >
> > "Grrrr!!!! Snr." wrote:
> >
> > > I have been playing Middle Earth, off and on, for nearly 10

years

> and I am
> > > still coming across new and odd things.
> > >
> > > I have just discovered that what the rule book says about the
> Reveal
> > > Population Centre spell (434) is not correct. The book says

that

> if you cast
> > > the spell whilst in the same hex as the hidden population

centre

> then the
> > > hiding enchantment is removed. However, this is not the case.
> Apparently
> > > after casting the spell there is another "dice roll" to

determine

> if the
> > > population centre is revealed.
> > >
> > > Do any of you seasoned mages know what this second "dice roll"

is

> based on ?
> > > Mage Rank ? Casting Rank ? Dumb Luck ?
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#2

Tom and Jeremy:

Tom made several of the points I would've made (no other spell for which mage
rank seems to be applicable; no proof and statistially large sample
hard/impossible to generate) plus seems to have gone the "extra step" and asked
GSI about it ... and got what I'd say is as close to "confirmation" of the
working theory as GSI _ever_ gives out ...

I would say that _my_ experience both tends to support casting rank _and_
disprove mage rank, but, then again, mage rank and casting rank _tend_ to
correlate fairly strongly (as I'm sure you know :), at least to the extent that
mage rank hasn't changed much since the spell was learned ... :slight_smile:

Great question(s), mirky answers, no conclusions that can be "taken to the
ranch" ... yet another "MEPBM Moment" :):):):slight_smile: BTW, that's part of what I like
about this game - lots of theories, very little "proof" - still lots of fun to
be had! :):):slight_smile:

Imagine if we started a similar string on, for instance, stealth ... it might
last into infinity (wherever _that_ is ... care to discuss it? :):):slight_smile:

b

Sharon MacCabe wrote:

···

What would the logic behind mage rank be? I know of no other spell casting
situation where it is mage rank that is considered over casting rank for
that particular spell. In a current game I am doing great deal of revealpop
with a mage loaded with arties but a relatively low mage rank (about 50) and
reveal pop in the high 50's. No proof, but the mage has succeeded in both
aspects of the spell 4 out of 5 times so far. The first failure was before
the sale and I sent Deft an e-mail inquiry about it since my casting ranks
and arties produced a likelihood of over 100%. The response was that there
is a two part success formula, however, as was typical for GSI/Deft, there
was no more detail given other than artifacts played no role in the second
roll. My assumption was the second roll was compared to casting rank, but I
have no asolute proof of this, nor do I suspect anybody does. It would take
quite a few recorded instances for statistical significance. I can say that
I have seen 70+ mages fail the second part several times, but this is still
no absolute proof.-Tom MacCabe
-----Original Message-----
From: JeremyRichman@compuserve.com <JeremyRichman@compuserve.com>
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:38 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Spells ???

>Hi Ben,
>
>So, are you saying that the numbers you have collected
>definitely support that the second roll is based on
>casting rank, and provide counter-evidence against the
>notion that the second roll is based on mage rank?
>
>Jeremy
>
>--- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
>> Jeremy:
>>
>> My "rule of thumb" is based on "theory" (introduced by players
>who've been
>> around since the play-testing days) _and_ experience. 20+ castings
>that
>> I've been involved in (and taken note of), all within the last
>couple of
>> years ... Not enough data points for the "law of large numbers" to
>kick in,
>> but solid enough for me (it is, after all, "my" experience ... or
>that of
>> teammates in grudge games). I probably _could_ get 100+ results if
>I
>> scoured my .pdf collection, but my wife has theatened to turn her
>> self-reference as an "MEPBM Widow" from caustic wit into reality ...
>(that's
>> what I get for marrying a female lawyer ... :slight_smile:
>>
>> The idea of asking GSI never crossed my mind (like they would tell
>:) ...
>> then again, if you don't ask, you don't get ... if you do ask, do
>let me/us
>> know what they said ... :).
>>
>> Hth.
>>
>> b
>>
>> JeremyRichman@c... wrote:
>>
>> > It was my understanding all this time that the second roll
>> > was based on natural mage rank, not on natural casting rank.
>> >
>> > I never got any direct info from GSI on this, and I never
>> > even thought to consider that it might be based on casting
>> > rank. Sounds just as likely as my assumption.
>> >
>> > Ben, is your assertion just a theory (like mine), or
>> > are you basing it on empirical results, or do you have
>> > more definite confirmation from GSI?
>> >
>> > Jeremy
>> >
>> > --- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
>> > > Natural (i.e. unenhanced by arties) casting rank. Arties only
>> > enhance the first
>> > > "dice roll." (Well-framed question, by the way - you correctly
>> > understood the
>> > > issue and "x-factor" - not meaning to sound condescending or
>> > patronizing, but
>> > > rather complimentary - it's getting the _concept_ across that
>> > usually takes the
>> > > most effort when someone is unfamiliar w/ this somewhat
>"esoteric"
>> > point ... :).
>> > >
>> > > Hth.
>> > >
>> > > b
>> > >
>> > > "Grrrr!!!! Snr." wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I have been playing Middle Earth, off and on, for nearly 10
>years
>> > and I am
>> > > > still coming across new and odd things.
>> > > >
>> > > > I have just discovered that what the rule book says about the
>> > Reveal
>> > > > Population Centre spell (434) is not correct. The book says
>that
>> > if you cast
>> > > > the spell whilst in the same hex as the hidden population
>centre
>> > then the
>> > > > hiding enchantment is removed. However, this is not the case.
>> > Apparently
>> > > > after casting the spell there is another "dice roll" to
>determine
>> > if the
>> > > > population centre is revealed.
>> > > >
>> > > > Do any of you seasoned mages know what this second "dice roll"
>is
>> > based on ?
>> > > > Mage Rank ? Casting Rank ? Dumb Luck ?
>> > > >
>> > > > David
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
>> > > > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
>> > > > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>> >
>> >
>> > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
>> > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
>> > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
>To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
>http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#3

You guys have the right approach I think, both in doubting small-sample or
andecdotal evidence and in appreciating the game as is. After twelve years,
I confess I've just about stopped trying to figure these things out, and
have accepted that there are just some things that are... "not revealed."
Thing is, while a grasp of these niceties helps guide character and nation
development in large terms, I have not seen anyone meet with much success is
predicting individual outcomes, nor is that what guides good play, IMHO.
When it comes to a choice of who reveals that pop center, for instance, the
mage who can get there at the right time, whose owner is willing to commit
him, is more likely to attempt it than one that more closely matches some
unprovable theoretical construct of the ideal mage/casting rank. Isn't this
more often the case? I like MEPBM precisely because what wins is not
bean-counting but strategy, operational art, and cooperation. My hat's off
to Stassun and Feild and all the GM's since who have held the game mechanics
so closely.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@earthlink.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Spells ???

Tom and Jeremy:

Tom made several of the points I would've made (no other spell for which

mage

rank seems to be applicable; no proof and statistially large sample
hard/impossible to generate) plus seems to have gone the "extra step" and

asked

GSI about it ... and got what I'd say is as close to "confirmation" of the
working theory as GSI _ever_ gives out ...

I would say that _my_ experience both tends to support casting rank _and_
disprove mage rank, but, then again, mage rank and casting rank _tend_ to
correlate fairly strongly (as I'm sure you know :), at least to the extent

that

mage rank hasn't changed much since the spell was learned ... :slight_smile:

Great question(s), mirky answers, no conclusions that can be "taken to the
ranch" ... yet another "MEPBM Moment" :):):):slight_smile: BTW, that's part of what I

like

about this game - lots of theories, very little "proof" - still lots of

fun to

be had! :):):slight_smile:

Imagine if we started a similar string on, for instance, stealth ... it

might

last into infinity (wherever _that_ is ... care to discuss it? :):):slight_smile:

b

Sharon MacCabe wrote:

> What would the logic behind mage rank be? I know of no other spell

casting

> situation where it is mage rank that is considered over casting rank for
> that particular spell. In a current game I am doing great deal of

revealpop

> with a mage loaded with arties but a relatively low mage rank (about 50)

and

> reveal pop in the high 50's. No proof, but the mage has succeeded in

both

> aspects of the spell 4 out of 5 times so far. The first failure was

before

> the sale and I sent Deft an e-mail inquiry about it since my casting

ranks

> and arties produced a likelihood of over 100%. The response was that

there

> is a two part success formula, however, as was typical for GSI/Deft,

there

> was no more detail given other than artifacts played no role in the

second

> roll. My assumption was the second roll was compared to casting rank,

but I

> have no asolute proof of this, nor do I suspect anybody does. It would

take

> quite a few recorded instances for statistical significance. I can say

that

> I have seen 70+ mages fail the second part several times, but this is

still

> no absolute proof.-Tom MacCabe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JeremyRichman@compuserve.com <JeremyRichman@compuserve.com>
> To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:38 AM
> Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Spells ???
>
> >Hi Ben,
> >
> >So, are you saying that the numbers you have collected
> >definitely support that the second roll is based on
> >casting rank, and provide counter-evidence against the
> >notion that the second roll is based on mage rank?
> >
> >Jeremy
> >
> >--- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
> >> Jeremy:
> >>
> >> My "rule of thumb" is based on "theory" (introduced by players
> >who've been
> >> around since the play-testing days) _and_ experience. 20+ castings
> >that
> >> I've been involved in (and taken note of), all within the last
> >couple of
> >> years ... Not enough data points for the "law of large numbers" to
> >kick in,
> >> but solid enough for me (it is, after all, "my" experience ... or
> >that of
> >> teammates in grudge games). I probably _could_ get 100+ results if
> >I
> >> scoured my .pdf collection, but my wife has theatened to turn her
> >> self-reference as an "MEPBM Widow" from caustic wit into reality ...
> >(that's
> >> what I get for marrying a female lawyer ... :slight_smile:
> >>
> >> The idea of asking GSI never crossed my mind (like they would tell
> >:) ...
> >> then again, if you don't ask, you don't get ... if you do ask, do
> >let me/us
> >> know what they said ... :).
> >>
> >> Hth.
> >>
> >> b
> >>
> >> JeremyRichman@c... wrote:
> >>
> >> > It was my understanding all this time that the second roll
> >> > was based on natural mage rank, not on natural casting rank.
> >> >
> >> > I never got any direct info from GSI on this, and I never
> >> > even thought to consider that it might be based on casting
> >> > rank. Sounds just as likely as my assumption.
> >> >
> >> > Ben, is your assertion just a theory (like mine), or
> >> > are you basing it on empirical results, or do you have
> >> > more definite confirmation from GSI?
> >> >
> >> > Jeremy
> >> >
> >> > --- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
> >> > > Natural (i.e. unenhanced by arties) casting rank. Arties only
> >> > enhance the first
> >> > > "dice roll." (Well-framed question, by the way - you correctly
> >> > understood the
> >> > > issue and "x-factor" - not meaning to sound condescending or
> >> > patronizing, but
> >> > > rather complimentary - it's getting the _concept_ across that
> >> > usually takes the
> >> > > most effort when someone is unfamiliar w/ this somewhat
> >"esoteric"
> >> > point ... :).
> >> > >
> >> > > Hth.
> >> > >
> >> > > b
> >> > >
> >> > > "Grrrr!!!! Snr." wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I have been playing Middle Earth, off and on, for nearly 10
> >years
> >> > and I am
> >> > > > still coming across new and odd things.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I have just discovered that what the rule book says about the
> >> > Reveal
> >> > > > Population Centre spell (434) is not correct. The book says
> >that
> >> > if you cast
> >> > > > the spell whilst in the same hex as the hidden population
> >centre
> >> > then the
> >> > > > hiding enchantment is removed. However, this is not the case.
> >> > Apparently
> >> > > > after casting the spell there is another "dice roll" to
> >determine
> >> > if the
> >> > > > population centre is revealed.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Do any of you seasoned mages know what this second "dice roll"
> >is
> >> > based on ?
> >> > > > Mage Rank ? Casting Rank ? Dumb Luck ?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > David
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> >> > > > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> >> > > > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> >> > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> >> > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> >To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> >http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#4

There are spells where the success of the spell is
based on a single casting roll (including artifacts)
but the degree of success is based on mage rank.
I'm referring to conjuring spells.

In retrospect, I agree casting rank is just as likely.
But Mage rank seemed a natural guess to me for these
reasons:
1) From a fantasy gaming perspective, the second roll
seems to me to make more sense that the spell somehow
opens the door but the caster's own base magical prowess
must pierce the veils and pass the portal to actually
reveal the popcenter to mortal eyes.

2) Conjuring spells have set a precedent for using the
mage rank to resolve the ultimate result of the spell.

3) The initial roll already partly takes the casting
rank into account; if there is to be a second roll,
it seems only natural to make use of some other aspect
of the mage's abilities.

4) This reason is in some conflict with #3 above, but
here goes. For command, agent and emissary ranks, there
is precedent for the success of an order to be based
on a rank plus artifact enhancements, but for the base
rank of the character to be used to determine degree
of success. For example, this is true for the starting
loyalty of a new camp, which pays no heed to emissary
or command artifacts, and for _amount_ of gold stolen
by an agent, which is based on his base agent rank,
even though the success or failure of the theft takes
his artifacts into account.

Of course, even if I came up with unarguable reasons,
that would prove nothing, since Bill Feilds was the
designer<g> he had his own way of doing things. (And
I can hardly complain about the overall result of his
choices.)

Jeremy

P.S. Hey Ben, not sure I like your opening "Tom and Jeremy..."
pretty soon we'll be called "Tom and Jerry" <g>

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:

Tom and Jeremy:

Tom made several of the points I would've made (no other spell for

which mage

rank seems to be applicable; no proof and statistially large sample
hard/impossible to generate) plus seems to have gone the "extra

step" and asked

GSI about it ... and got what I'd say is as close to "confirmation"

of the

working theory as GSI _ever_ gives out ...

I would say that _my_ experience both tends to support casting rank

_and_

disprove mage rank, but, then again, mage rank and casting rank

_tend_ to

correlate fairly strongly (as I'm sure you know :), at least to the

extent that

mage rank hasn't changed much since the spell was learned ... :slight_smile:

Great question(s), mirky answers, no conclusions that can be "taken

to the

ranch" ... yet another "MEPBM Moment" :):):):slight_smile: BTW, that's part of

what I like

about this game - lots of theories, very little "proof" - still lots

of fun to

be had! :):):slight_smile:

Imagine if we started a similar string on, for instance, stealth ...

it might

last into infinity (wherever _that_ is ... care to discuss it?

:):):slight_smile:

b

Sharon MacCabe wrote:

> What would the logic behind mage rank be? I know of no other spell

casting

> situation where it is mage rank that is considered over casting

rank for

> that particular spell. In a current game I am doing great deal of

revealpop

> with a mage loaded with arties but a relatively low mage rank

(about 50) and

> reveal pop in the high 50's. No proof, but the mage has succeeded

in both

> aspects of the spell 4 out of 5 times so far. The first failure

was before

> the sale and I sent Deft an e-mail inquiry about it since my

casting ranks

> and arties produced a likelihood of over 100%. The response was

that there

> is a two part success formula, however, as was typical for

GSI/Deft, there

> was no more detail given other than artifacts played no role in

the second

> roll. My assumption was the second roll was compared to casting

rank, but I

> have no asolute proof of this, nor do I suspect anybody does. It

would take

> quite a few recorded instances for statistical significance. I can

say that

> I have seen 70+ mages fail the second part several times, but this

is still

> no absolute proof.-Tom MacCabe
> From: JeremyRichman@c... <JeremyRichman@c...>
> To: mepbmlist@y... <mepbmlist@y...>
> Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:38 AM
> Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Spells ???
>
> >Hi Ben,
> >
> >So, are you saying that the numbers you have collected
> >definitely support that the second roll is based on
> >casting rank, and provide counter-evidence against the
> >notion that the second roll is based on mage rank?
> >
> >Jeremy
> >
> >--- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
> >> Jeremy:
> >>
> >> My "rule of thumb" is based on "theory" (introduced by players
> >who've been
> >> around since the play-testing days) _and_ experience. 20+

castings

> >that
> >> I've been involved in (and taken note of), all within the last
> >couple of
> >> years ... Not enough data points for the "law of large

numbers" to

> >kick in,
> >> but solid enough for me (it is, after all, "my" experience ...

or

> >that of
> >> teammates in grudge games). I probably _could_ get 100+

results if

> >I
> >> scoured my .pdf collection, but my wife has theatened to turn

her

> >> self-reference as an "MEPBM Widow" from caustic wit into

reality ...

> >(that's
> >> what I get for marrying a female lawyer ... :slight_smile:
> >>
> >> The idea of asking GSI never crossed my mind (like they would

tell

> >:) ...
> >> then again, if you don't ask, you don't get ... if you do ask,

do

> >let me/us
> >> know what they said ... :).
> >>
> >> Hth.
> >>
> >> b
> >>
> >> JeremyRichman@c... wrote:
> >>
> >> > It was my understanding all this time that the second roll
> >> > was based on natural mage rank, not on natural casting rank.
> >> >
> >> > I never got any direct info from GSI on this, and I never
> >> > even thought to consider that it might be based on casting
> >> > rank. Sounds just as likely as my assumption.
> >> >
> >> > Ben, is your assertion just a theory (like mine), or
> >> > are you basing it on empirical results, or do you have
> >> > more definite confirmation from GSI?
> >> >
> >> > Jeremy
> >> >
> >> > --- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...>

wrote:

> >> > > Natural (i.e. unenhanced by arties) casting rank. Arties

only

> >> > enhance the first
> >> > > "dice roll." (Well-framed question, by the way - you

correctly

> >> > understood the
> >> > > issue and "x-factor" - not meaning to sound condescending

or

> >> > patronizing, but
> >> > > rather complimentary - it's getting the _concept_ across

that

> >> > usually takes the
> >> > > most effort when someone is unfamiliar w/ this somewhat
> >"esoteric"
> >> > point ... :).
> >> > >
> >> > > Hth.
> >> > >
> >> > > b
> >> > >
> >> > > "Grrrr!!!! Snr." wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I have been playing Middle Earth, off and on, for nearly

10

> >years
> >> > and I am
> >> > > > still coming across new and odd things.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I have just discovered that what the rule book says about

the

> >> > Reveal
> >> > > > Population Centre spell (434) is not correct. The book

says

> >that
> >> > if you cast
> >> > > > the spell whilst in the same hex as the hidden population
> >centre
> >> > then the
> >> > > > hiding enchantment is removed. However, this is not the

case.

> >> > Apparently
> >> > > > after casting the spell there is another "dice roll" to
> >determine
> >> > if the
> >> > > > population centre is revealed.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Do any of you seasoned mages know what this second "dice

roll"

···

> -----Original Message-----
> >is
> >> > based on ?
> >> > > > Mage Rank ? Casting Rank ? Dumb Luck ?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > David
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> >> > > > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> >> > > > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> >> > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> >> > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> >To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> >http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#5

Jeremy:

I believe Conjuring Spells are only based on actual mage rank only to the
extent that they affect the outcome of the spell _if_succesful_ (there is no
"second die roll" to, for instance, see how many mounts are conjured when a
mage sucessfully casts 508 ... the mage rank thus "affects" the outcome, but
not "via" a "dice roll"). Tho' I see your point that it does "impact" the
outcome, I think it is a mis-application, or rather mis-transfers a
property, from one context to the other, that doesn't seem to make so much
sense ... particularly in light of the alternative (Occam's Razor ?:).

Still, nothing is or will be known until GSI changes it policy or Bill
Fields kicks the bucket and reveals the code in his will (doubtful, but
possible ... :). Such things are great debates made of. :slight_smile: I'll certainly
be paying more attention in the future ... tho' I doubt there are enough
"good" sample data points (a "good" sample point in this instance would be a
mage with poor natural casting percentage but high natural mage rank ...) to
come to any statistically valid conclusion, even if we were to take the time
to do the analysis (again, there won't be too many "good" samples 'cause
natural casting rank and natural mage rank tend to go hand-in-hand ...).

b

ps Not intentional to use "Tom & Jeremy" but, hey ... it could turn into
a subsidiary stream of income ... why fight it? :):):slight_smile:

JeremyRichman@compuserve.com wrote:

···

There are spells where the success of the spell is
based on a single casting roll (including artifacts)
but the degree of success is based on mage rank.
I'm referring to conjuring spells.

In retrospect, I agree casting rank is just as likely.
But Mage rank seemed a natural guess to me for these
reasons:
1) From a fantasy gaming perspective, the second roll
seems to me to make more sense that the spell somehow
opens the door but the caster's own base magical prowess
must pierce the veils and pass the portal to actually
reveal the popcenter to mortal eyes.

2) Conjuring spells have set a precedent for using the
mage rank to resolve the ultimate result of the spell.

3) The initial roll already partly takes the casting
rank into account; if there is to be a second roll,
it seems only natural to make use of some other aspect
of the mage's abilities.

4) This reason is in some conflict with #3 above, but
here goes. For command, agent and emissary ranks, there
is precedent for the success of an order to be based
on a rank plus artifact enhancements, but for the base
rank of the character to be used to determine degree
of success. For example, this is true for the starting
loyalty of a new camp, which pays no heed to emissary
or command artifacts, and for _amount_ of gold stolen
by an agent, which is based on his base agent rank,
even though the success or failure of the theft takes
his artifacts into account.

Of course, even if I came up with unarguable reasons,
that would prove nothing, since Bill Feilds was the
designer<g> he had his own way of doing things. (And
I can hardly complain about the overall result of his
choices.)

Jeremy

P.S. Hey Ben, not sure I like your opening "Tom and Jeremy..."
pretty soon we'll be called "Tom and Jerry" <g>

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
> Tom and Jeremy:
>
> Tom made several of the points I would've made (no other spell for
which mage
> rank seems to be applicable; no proof and statistially large sample
> hard/impossible to generate) plus seems to have gone the "extra
step" and asked
> GSI about it ... and got what I'd say is as close to "confirmation"
of the
> working theory as GSI _ever_ gives out ...
>
> I would say that _my_ experience both tends to support casting rank
_and_
> disprove mage rank, but, then again, mage rank and casting rank
_tend_ to
> correlate fairly strongly (as I'm sure you know :), at least to the
extent that
> mage rank hasn't changed much since the spell was learned ... :slight_smile:
>
> Great question(s), mirky answers, no conclusions that can be "taken
to the
> ranch" ... yet another "MEPBM Moment" :):):):slight_smile: BTW, that's part of
what I like
> about this game - lots of theories, very little "proof" - still lots
of fun to
> be had! :):):slight_smile:
>
> Imagine if we started a similar string on, for instance, stealth ...
it might
> last into infinity (wherever _that_ is ... care to discuss it?
:):):slight_smile:
>
> b
>
> Sharon MacCabe wrote:
>
> > What would the logic behind mage rank be? I know of no other spell
casting
> > situation where it is mage rank that is considered over casting
rank for
> > that particular spell. In a current game I am doing great deal of
revealpop
> > with a mage loaded with arties but a relatively low mage rank
(about 50) and
> > reveal pop in the high 50's. No proof, but the mage has succeeded
in both
> > aspects of the spell 4 out of 5 times so far. The first failure
was before
> > the sale and I sent Deft an e-mail inquiry about it since my
casting ranks
> > and arties produced a likelihood of over 100%. The response was
that there
> > is a two part success formula, however, as was typical for
GSI/Deft, there
> > was no more detail given other than artifacts played no role in
the second
> > roll. My assumption was the second roll was compared to casting
rank, but I
> > have no asolute proof of this, nor do I suspect anybody does. It
would take
> > quite a few recorded instances for statistical significance. I can
say that
> > I have seen 70+ mages fail the second part several times, but this
is still
> > no absolute proof.-Tom MacCabe
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JeremyRichman@c... <JeremyRichman@c...>
> > To: mepbmlist@y... <mepbmlist@y...>
> > Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:38 AM
> > Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Spells ???
> >
> > >Hi Ben,
> > >
> > >So, are you saying that the numbers you have collected
> > >definitely support that the second roll is based on
> > >casting rank, and provide counter-evidence against the
> > >notion that the second roll is based on mage rank?
> > >
> > >Jeremy
> > >
> > >--- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
> > >> Jeremy:
> > >>
> > >> My "rule of thumb" is based on "theory" (introduced by players
> > >who've been
> > >> around since the play-testing days) _and_ experience. 20+
castings
> > >that
> > >> I've been involved in (and taken note of), all within the last
> > >couple of
> > >> years ... Not enough data points for the "law of large
numbers" to
> > >kick in,
> > >> but solid enough for me (it is, after all, "my" experience ...
or
> > >that of
> > >> teammates in grudge games). I probably _could_ get 100+
results if
> > >I
> > >> scoured my .pdf collection, but my wife has theatened to turn
her
> > >> self-reference as an "MEPBM Widow" from caustic wit into
reality ...
> > >(that's
> > >> what I get for marrying a female lawyer ... :slight_smile:
> > >>
> > >> The idea of asking GSI never crossed my mind (like they would
tell
> > >:) ...
> > >> then again, if you don't ask, you don't get ... if you do ask,
do
> > >let me/us
> > >> know what they said ... :).
> > >>
> > >> Hth.
> > >>
> > >> b
> > >>
> > >> JeremyRichman@c... wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > It was my understanding all this time that the second roll
> > >> > was based on natural mage rank, not on natural casting rank.
> > >> >
> > >> > I never got any direct info from GSI on this, and I never
> > >> > even thought to consider that it might be based on casting
> > >> > rank. Sounds just as likely as my assumption.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ben, is your assertion just a theory (like mine), or
> > >> > are you basing it on empirical results, or do you have
> > >> > more definite confirmation from GSI?
> > >> >
> > >> > Jeremy
> > >> >
> > >> > --- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...>
wrote:
> > >> > > Natural (i.e. unenhanced by arties) casting rank. Arties
only
> > >> > enhance the first
> > >> > > "dice roll." (Well-framed question, by the way - you
correctly
> > >> > understood the
> > >> > > issue and "x-factor" - not meaning to sound condescending
or
> > >> > patronizing, but
> > >> > > rather complimentary - it's getting the _concept_ across
that
> > >> > usually takes the
> > >> > > most effort when someone is unfamiliar w/ this somewhat
> > >"esoteric"
> > >> > point ... :).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hth.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > b
> > >> > >
> > >> > > "Grrrr!!!! Snr." wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I have been playing Middle Earth, off and on, for nearly
10
> > >years
> > >> > and I am
> > >> > > > still coming across new and odd things.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I have just discovered that what the rule book says about
the
> > >> > Reveal
> > >> > > > Population Centre spell (434) is not correct. The book
says
> > >that
> > >> > if you cast
> > >> > > > the spell whilst in the same hex as the hidden population
> > >centre
> > >> > then the
> > >> > > > hiding enchantment is removed. However, this is not the
case.
> > >> > Apparently
> > >> > > > after casting the spell there is another "dice roll" to
> > >determine
> > >> > if the
> > >> > > > population centre is revealed.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Do any of you seasoned mages know what this second "dice
roll"
> > >is
> > >> > based on ?
> > >> > > > Mage Rank ? Casting Rank ? Dumb Luck ?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > David
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > >> > > > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > >> > > > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > >> > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > >> > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > >To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > >http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#6

I am fairly certain the order for the spells is "Casting rank modified by
artifacts" followed by "Casting rank unmodified". One of the other fellows,
I believe game 92, got a nice response from GSI confirming this.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Shushan [mailto:bshushan@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 3:36 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Spells ???

Jeremy:

I believe Conjuring Spells are only based on actual mage rank only to the
extent that they affect the outcome of the spell _if_succesful_
(there is no
"second die roll" to, for instance, see how many mounts are
conjured when a
mage sucessfully casts 508 ... the mage rank thus "affects" the
outcome, but
not "via" a "dice roll"). Tho' I see your point that it does "impact" the
outcome, I think it is a mis-application, or rather mis-transfers a
property, from one context to the other, that doesn't seem to make so much
sense ... particularly in light of the alternative (Occam's Razor ?:).

Still, nothing is or will be known until GSI changes it policy or Bill
Fields kicks the bucket and reveals the code in his will (doubtful, but
possible ... :). Such things are great debates made of. :slight_smile:
I'll certainly
be paying more attention in the future ... tho' I doubt there are enough
"good" sample data points (a "good" sample point in this instance
would be a
mage with poor natural casting percentage but high natural mage
rank ...) to
come to any statistically valid conclusion, even if we were to
take the time
to do the analysis (again, there won't be too many "good" samples 'cause
natural casting rank and natural mage rank tend to go hand-in-hand ...).

b

ps Not intentional to use "Tom & Jeremy" but, hey ... it could
turn into
a subsidiary stream of income ... why fight it? :):):slight_smile:

JeremyRichman@compuserve.com wrote:

> There are spells where the success of the spell is
> based on a single casting roll (including artifacts)
> but the degree of success is based on mage rank.
> I'm referring to conjuring spells.
>
> In retrospect, I agree casting rank is just as likely.
> But Mage rank seemed a natural guess to me for these
> reasons:
> 1) From a fantasy gaming perspective, the second roll
> seems to me to make more sense that the spell somehow
> opens the door but the caster's own base magical prowess
> must pierce the veils and pass the portal to actually
> reveal the popcenter to mortal eyes.
>
> 2) Conjuring spells have set a precedent for using the
> mage rank to resolve the ultimate result of the spell.
>
> 3) The initial roll already partly takes the casting
> rank into account; if there is to be a second roll,
> it seems only natural to make use of some other aspect
> of the mage's abilities.
>
> 4) This reason is in some conflict with #3 above, but
> here goes. For command, agent and emissary ranks, there
> is precedent for the success of an order to be based
> on a rank plus artifact enhancements, but for the base
> rank of the character to be used to determine degree
> of success. For example, this is true for the starting
> loyalty of a new camp, which pays no heed to emissary
> or command artifacts, and for _amount_ of gold stolen
> by an agent, which is based on his base agent rank,
> even though the success or failure of the theft takes
> his artifacts into account.
>
> Of course, even if I came up with unarguable reasons,
> that would prove nothing, since Bill Feilds was the
> designer<g> he had his own way of doing things. (And
> I can hardly complain about the overall result of his
> choices.)
>
> Jeremy
>
> P.S. Hey Ben, not sure I like your opening "Tom and Jeremy..."
> pretty soon we'll be called "Tom and Jerry" <g>
>
> --- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
> > Tom and Jeremy:
> >
> > Tom made several of the points I would've made (no other spell for
> which mage
> > rank seems to be applicable; no proof and statistially large sample
> > hard/impossible to generate) plus seems to have gone the "extra
> step" and asked
> > GSI about it ... and got what I'd say is as close to "confirmation"
> of the
> > working theory as GSI _ever_ gives out ...
> >
> > I would say that _my_ experience both tends to support casting rank
> _and_
> > disprove mage rank, but, then again, mage rank and casting rank
> _tend_ to
> > correlate fairly strongly (as I'm sure you know :), at least to the
> extent that
> > mage rank hasn't changed much since the spell was learned ... :slight_smile:
> >
> > Great question(s), mirky answers, no conclusions that can be "taken
> to the
> > ranch" ... yet another "MEPBM Moment" :):):):slight_smile: BTW, that's part of
> what I like
> > about this game - lots of theories, very little "proof" - still lots
> of fun to
> > be had! :):):slight_smile:
> >
> > Imagine if we started a similar string on, for instance, stealth ...
> it might
> > last into infinity (wherever _that_ is ... care to discuss it?
> :):):slight_smile:
> >
> > b
> >
> > Sharon MacCabe wrote:
> >
> > > What would the logic behind mage rank be? I know of no other spell
> casting
> > > situation where it is mage rank that is considered over casting
> rank for
> > > that particular spell. In a current game I am doing great deal of
> revealpop
> > > with a mage loaded with arties but a relatively low mage rank
> (about 50) and
> > > reveal pop in the high 50's. No proof, but the mage has succeeded
> in both
> > > aspects of the spell 4 out of 5 times so far. The first failure
> was before
> > > the sale and I sent Deft an e-mail inquiry about it since my
> casting ranks
> > > and arties produced a likelihood of over 100%. The response was
> that there
> > > is a two part success formula, however, as was typical for
> GSI/Deft, there
> > > was no more detail given other than artifacts played no role in
> the second
> > > roll. My assumption was the second roll was compared to casting
> rank, but I
> > > have no asolute proof of this, nor do I suspect anybody does. It
> would take
> > > quite a few recorded instances for statistical significance. I can
> say that
> > > I have seen 70+ mages fail the second part several times, but this
> is still
> > > no absolute proof.-Tom MacCabe
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: JeremyRichman@c... <JeremyRichman@c...>
> > > To: mepbmlist@y... <mepbmlist@y...>
> > > Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:38 AM
> > > Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Spells ???
> > >
> > > >Hi Ben,
> > > >
> > > >So, are you saying that the numbers you have collected
> > > >definitely support that the second roll is based on
> > > >casting rank, and provide counter-evidence against the
> > > >notion that the second roll is based on mage rank?
> > > >
> > > >Jeremy
> > > >
> > > >--- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
> > > >> Jeremy:
> > > >>
> > > >> My "rule of thumb" is based on "theory" (introduced by players
> > > >who've been
> > > >> around since the play-testing days) _and_ experience. 20+
> castings
> > > >that
> > > >> I've been involved in (and taken note of), all within the last
> > > >couple of
> > > >> years ... Not enough data points for the "law of large
> numbers" to
> > > >kick in,
> > > >> but solid enough for me (it is, after all, "my" experience ...
> or
> > > >that of
> > > >> teammates in grudge games). I probably _could_ get 100+
> results if
> > > >I
> > > >> scoured my .pdf collection, but my wife has theatened to turn
> her
> > > >> self-reference as an "MEPBM Widow" from caustic wit into
> reality ...
> > > >(that's
> > > >> what I get for marrying a female lawyer ... :slight_smile:
> > > >>
> > > >> The idea of asking GSI never crossed my mind (like they would
> tell
> > > >:) ...
> > > >> then again, if you don't ask, you don't get ... if you do ask,
> do
> > > >let me/us
> > > >> know what they said ... :).
> > > >>
> > > >> Hth.
> > > >>
> > > >> b
> > > >>
> > > >> JeremyRichman@c... wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > It was my understanding all this time that the second roll
> > > >> > was based on natural mage rank, not on natural casting rank.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I never got any direct info from GSI on this, and I never
> > > >> > even thought to consider that it might be based on casting
> > > >> > rank. Sounds just as likely as my assumption.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ben, is your assertion just a theory (like mine), or
> > > >> > are you basing it on empirical results, or do you have
> > > >> > more definite confirmation from GSI?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Jeremy
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...>
> wrote:
> > > >> > > Natural (i.e. unenhanced by arties) casting rank. Arties
> only
> > > >> > enhance the first
> > > >> > > "dice roll." (Well-framed question, by the way - you
> correctly
> > > >> > understood the
> > > >> > > issue and "x-factor" - not meaning to sound condescending
> or
> > > >> > patronizing, but
> > > >> > > rather complimentary - it's getting the _concept_ across
> that
> > > >> > usually takes the
> > > >> > > most effort when someone is unfamiliar w/ this somewhat
> > > >"esoteric"
> > > >> > point ... :).
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Hth.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > b
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > "Grrrr!!!! Snr." wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I have been playing Middle Earth, off and on, for nearly
> 10
> > > >years
> > > >> > and I am
> > > >> > > > still coming across new and odd things.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I have just discovered that what the rule book says about
> the
> > > >> > Reveal
> > > >> > > > Population Centre spell (434) is not correct. The book
> says
> > > >that
> > > >> > if you cast
> > > >> > > > the spell whilst in the same hex as the hidden population
> > > >centre
> > > >> > then the
> > > >> > > > hiding enchantment is removed. However, this is not the
> case.
> > > >> > Apparently
> > > >> > > > after casting the spell there is another "dice roll" to
> > > >determine
> > > >> > if the
> > > >> > > > population centre is revealed.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Do any of you seasoned mages know what this second "dice
> roll"
> > > >is
> > > >> > based on ?
> > > >> > > > Mage Rank ? Casting Rank ? Dumb Luck ?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > David
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > > >> > > > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > > >> > > > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > > >> > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > > >> > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > > >To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > > >http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#7

Imagine if we started a similar string on, for instance, stealth ... it

might

last into infinity (wherever _that_ is ... care to discuss it? :):):slight_smile:

b

RD: Yes, let's go for it. I'm particularly interested in the relationship
between stealth and scouting. It seems that if a stealthy agent is ordered
to steal or assass, his stealth is treated as a straight add-on.

However, if a stealthy agent tries to sco character, there seems to be a
second die roll (like mages trying to reveal pop). The stealth helps him to
actually carry out the order, but the amount of info he gets is governed by
his base agent rank.

I discovered this by bitter experience when I sent one of the Noldo twins
(natural stealth + stealth arts) to sco character and he failed to report a
whole bundle of enemy characters. He died. I checked with Harlequin and
the above is what they told me.

Sco char seems desperately erratic at the best of times. I've recently done
another with 2 rank 70 agents and not only did they fail to report enemy
agents, they even failed to report a comm/mage. The agents I can understand
if they were stealthy, but a comm/mage? How the hell did both agents miss
him?

Regards,

Richard.

#8

There are spells where the success of the spell is
based on a single casting roll (including artifacts)
but the degree of success is based on mage rank.
I'm referring to conjuring spells.

In retrospect, I agree casting rank is just as likely.
But Mage rank seemed a natural guess to me for these
reasons:
1) From a fantasy gaming perspective, the second roll
seems to me to make more sense that the spell somehow
opens the door but the caster's own base magical prowess
must pierce the veils and pass the portal to actually
reveal the popcenter to mortal eyes.

2) Conjuring spells have set a precedent for using the
mage rank to resolve the ultimate result of the spell.

3) The initial roll already partly takes the casting
rank into account; if there is to be a second roll,
it seems only natural to make use of some other aspect
of the mage's abilities.

4) This reason is in some conflict with #3 above, but
here goes. For command, agent and emissary ranks, there
is precedent for the success of an order to be based
on a rank plus artifact enhancements, but for the base
rank of the character to be used to determine degree
of success. For example, this is true for the starting
loyalty of a new camp, which pays no heed to emissary
or command artifacts, and for _amount_ of gold stolen
by an agent, which is based on his base agent rank,
even though the success or failure of the theft takes
his artifacts into account.

Of course, even if I came up with unarguable reasons,
that would prove nothing, since Bill Feilds was the
designer<g> he had his own way of doing things. (And
I can hardly complain about the overall result of his
choices.)

Jeremy

RD: Excellent, well-reasoned reply, Jeremy. You might also add how stealth
helps some agent orders, but the amount of info generated by a scout is
based on the agent rank alone.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: <JeremyRichman@compuserve.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:10 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Spells ???

P.S. Hey Ben, not sure I like your opening "Tom and Jeremy..."
pretty soon we'll be called "Tom and Jerry" <g>

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
> Tom and Jeremy:
>
> Tom made several of the points I would've made (no other spell for
which mage
> rank seems to be applicable; no proof and statistially large sample
> hard/impossible to generate) plus seems to have gone the "extra
step" and asked
> GSI about it ... and got what I'd say is as close to "confirmation"
of the
> working theory as GSI _ever_ gives out ...
>
> I would say that _my_ experience both tends to support casting rank
_and_
> disprove mage rank, but, then again, mage rank and casting rank
_tend_ to
> correlate fairly strongly (as I'm sure you know :), at least to the
extent that
> mage rank hasn't changed much since the spell was learned ... :slight_smile:
>
> Great question(s), mirky answers, no conclusions that can be "taken
to the
> ranch" ... yet another "MEPBM Moment" :):):):slight_smile: BTW, that's part of
what I like
> about this game - lots of theories, very little "proof" - still lots
of fun to
> be had! :):):slight_smile:
>
> Imagine if we started a similar string on, for instance, stealth ...
it might
> last into infinity (wherever _that_ is ... care to discuss it?
:):):slight_smile:
>
> b
>
> Sharon MacCabe wrote:
>
> > What would the logic behind mage rank be? I know of no other spell
casting
> > situation where it is mage rank that is considered over casting
rank for
> > that particular spell. In a current game I am doing great deal of
revealpop
> > with a mage loaded with arties but a relatively low mage rank
(about 50) and
> > reveal pop in the high 50's. No proof, but the mage has succeeded
in both
> > aspects of the spell 4 out of 5 times so far. The first failure
was before
> > the sale and I sent Deft an e-mail inquiry about it since my
casting ranks
> > and arties produced a likelihood of over 100%. The response was
that there
> > is a two part success formula, however, as was typical for
GSI/Deft, there
> > was no more detail given other than artifacts played no role in
the second
> > roll. My assumption was the second roll was compared to casting
rank, but I
> > have no asolute proof of this, nor do I suspect anybody does. It
would take
> > quite a few recorded instances for statistical significance. I can
say that
> > I have seen 70+ mages fail the second part several times, but this
is still
> > no absolute proof.-Tom MacCabe
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JeremyRichman@c... <JeremyRichman@c...>
> > To: mepbmlist@y... <mepbmlist@y...>
> > Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:38 AM
> > Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Spells ???
> >
> > >Hi Ben,
> > >
> > >So, are you saying that the numbers you have collected
> > >definitely support that the second roll is based on
> > >casting rank, and provide counter-evidence against the
> > >notion that the second roll is based on mage rank?
> > >
> > >Jeremy
> > >
> > >--- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...> wrote:
> > >> Jeremy:
> > >>
> > >> My "rule of thumb" is based on "theory" (introduced by players
> > >who've been
> > >> around since the play-testing days) _and_ experience. 20+
castings
> > >that
> > >> I've been involved in (and taken note of), all within the last
> > >couple of
> > >> years ... Not enough data points for the "law of large
numbers" to
> > >kick in,
> > >> but solid enough for me (it is, after all, "my" experience ...
or
> > >that of
> > >> teammates in grudge games). I probably _could_ get 100+
results if
> > >I
> > >> scoured my .pdf collection, but my wife has theatened to turn
her
> > >> self-reference as an "MEPBM Widow" from caustic wit into
reality ...
> > >(that's
> > >> what I get for marrying a female lawyer ... :slight_smile:
> > >>
> > >> The idea of asking GSI never crossed my mind (like they would
tell
> > >:) ...
> > >> then again, if you don't ask, you don't get ... if you do ask,
do
> > >let me/us
> > >> know what they said ... :).
> > >>
> > >> Hth.
> > >>
> > >> b
> > >>
> > >> JeremyRichman@c... wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > It was my understanding all this time that the second roll
> > >> > was based on natural mage rank, not on natural casting rank.
> > >> >
> > >> > I never got any direct info from GSI on this, and I never
> > >> > even thought to consider that it might be based on casting
> > >> > rank. Sounds just as likely as my assumption.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ben, is your assertion just a theory (like mine), or
> > >> > are you basing it on empirical results, or do you have
> > >> > more definite confirmation from GSI?
> > >> >
> > >> > Jeremy
> > >> >
> > >> > --- In mepbmlist@y..., Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@e...>
wrote:
> > >> > > Natural (i.e. unenhanced by arties) casting rank. Arties
only
> > >> > enhance the first
> > >> > > "dice roll." (Well-framed question, by the way - you
correctly
> > >> > understood the
> > >> > > issue and "x-factor" - not meaning to sound condescending
or
> > >> > patronizing, but
> > >> > > rather complimentary - it's getting the _concept_ across
that
> > >> > usually takes the
> > >> > > most effort when someone is unfamiliar w/ this somewhat
> > >"esoteric"
> > >> > point ... :).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hth.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > b
> > >> > >
> > >> > > "Grrrr!!!! Snr." wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I have been playing Middle Earth, off and on, for nearly
10
> > >years
> > >> > and I am
> > >> > > > still coming across new and odd things.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I have just discovered that what the rule book says about
the
> > >> > Reveal
> > >> > > > Population Centre spell (434) is not correct. The book
says
> > >that
> > >> > if you cast
> > >> > > > the spell whilst in the same hex as the hidden population
> > >centre
> > >> > then the
> > >> > > > hiding enchantment is removed. However, this is not the
case.
> > >> > Apparently
> > >> > > > after casting the spell there is another "dice roll" to
> > >determine
> > >> > if the
> > >> > > > population centre is revealed.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Do any of you seasoned mages know what this second "dice
roll"
> > >is
> > >> > based on ?
> > >> > > > Mage Rank ? Casting Rank ? Dumb Luck ?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > David
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > >> > > > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > >> > > > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > >> > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > >> > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > >To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > >http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#9

RD: Yes, let's go for it. I'm particularly interested in the relationship
between stealth and scouting. It seems that if a stealthy agent is ordered
to steal or assass, his stealth is treated as a straight add-on.

This is not my impression at all. I prefer the idea that stealth adds
an amount between 0 and the stealth rank, i.e. when an A30 St40 tries
to assass an enemy char, he could get a bad roll and get himself
killed (equalling an A30), or he could have incredible luck and be
just as good as an A70. This is probably far from the truth, but I
find it a better working theory.

However, if a stealthy agent tries to sco character, there seems to be a
second die roll (like mages trying to reveal pop). The stealth helps him to
actually carry out the order, but the amount of info he gets is governed by
his base agent rank.

Hmm... I would say stealth has a lot to do with the quality of the
scout. Stealthy characters, especially agents are hard to find
without a stealthy scout. My impression is that an A60 St20 would
have a greater chance of finding a stealthy enemy agent than an A80
scout without stealth. I've also found that the stealth rank doesn't
need to be very high. 10 stealth improves your scouts considerably.

I discovered this by bitter experience when I sent one of the Noldo twins
(natural stealth + stealth arts) to sco character and he failed to report a
whole bundle of enemy characters. He died. I checked with Harlequin and
the above is what they told me.

One scout seldom gets them all if the hex is crowded, especially if
it was early in the game and your agent rank was low. Missing one or
two enemy agents means the death of well-known and clearly visible
(too high skill ranks) chars like the twins. I use two scouts
whenever I can for the real hotspots, preferably double scouters, and
preferably at least one with stealth.

Sco char seems desperately erratic at the best of times. I've recently done
another with 2 rank 70 agents and not only did they fail to report enemy
agents, they even failed to report a comm/mage. The agents I can understand
if they were stealthy, but a comm/mage? How the hell did both agents miss
him?

Probably because he was, guess, stealthy! :slight_smile: (Presuming your agents
had no stealth).

I'd like to hear from people with more games played than I have, to
confirm this or shoot me down in flames.

/Pontus Gustavsson

···

Regards,

Richard.

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#10

My experience with Stealth:
Stealth seems to do a number of things:
1) It prevents characters from being detected. This appears to be a direct
reduction from a scouting agent's die roll, or better. A 10 stealth seems to
be amazing.
2) It prevents characters from showing up in popcenter reports. It seems to
be a direct reduction, or better, from the character's overall challenge
rank (which I believe is what modifies the "show up rate" as a percentage
chance).
3) It allows commanders a better chance of moving evasively. Specifically
how is unknown.
4) It increases agent rank for Steals, Guards, Assassinates and Kidnaps on a
random basis. A number is generated from 1 to the character's stealth rating
and is added to the character's agent rank. This theory seems more reliable
in practice than the direct die roll. On steals, this can dramatically
increase the amount of gold you get.
5) It MAY decrease negative effects from the failures of 4, above.
6) It definately seems to increase your odds of escaping when captured. A
character with even 10 points of agent and 10 points of stealth is a real
slippery bastard to hold on to...
7) I would GUESS that it helps agents do their scouting, such as popcenters,
for characters, etc. I suspect it functions similar to 4, above, or perhaps
reduces enemy stealth bonuses.
8) It seems to have NO EFFECT on encounters. We had a Sylvan elf with 25
natural stealth and some heater of a stealth artifact "Hide" from Caran
Carach. Result... Elf became Were-wolf poop.
Jeff

#11

Hi Guys

What are your expieriences with the One Ring?

How hard was it for you to find it and to get it?

What I know:
In two German Rings the One Ring was scoutet and in One it was found and
dropped....

What was Funny about it, was that Galadriel had it and we stole it from her ?!?

The mage Rank we used to scout it varied from 270 to 350.

Another Funny thing is, that I located it two times with 270 Mage and a friend of
mine didn�t to it three times in a row with a 345 Mage Elrond....

What are your exieriences?

Greetings

Stefan

#12

Fra: Stefan Maas [mailto:Joker_Macy@gmx.de]
Hi Guys

What are your expieriences with the One Ring?

How hard was it for you to find it and to get it?

I located it twice in a game (out of three attempts) with elrond mage 180 or
so.

I however failed to pick it up with a 60 mage for a very long time 5 turns
or so, it was locate din costal waters so at 2127 so my navy doubled as
guard for SG.

Henning

···

What I know:
In two German Rings the One Ring was scoutet and in One it was found and
dropped....

What was Funny about it, was that Galadriel had it and we stole
it from her ?!?

The mage Rank we used to scout it varied from 270 to 350.

Another Funny thing is, that I located it two times with 270 Mage
and a friend of
mine didn�t to it three times in a row with a 345 Mage Elrond....

What are your exieriences?

Greetings

Stefan

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#13

Fra: Jeff [mailto:webguys@lakenet.com]
My experience with Stealth:
Stealth seems to do a number of things:

2) It prevents characters from showing up in popcenter reports.
It seems to
be a direct reduction, or better, from the character's overall challenge
rank (which I believe is what modifies the "show up rate" as a percentage
chance).

Not all the time Elrond and the Nazguls have a nasty habit of showing them
selves on popcenter reports. That could ofcause be because they ar
famous/infamous or just because I usually have a high loyalty in my
popcenters

3) It allows commanders a better chance of moving evasively. Specifically
how is unknown.

That I didnt know, on the other hand i tend to just mow down any intervering
force with 4000+ HI :wink:

4) It increases agent rank for Steals, Guards, Assassinates and
Kidnaps on a
random basis. A number is generated from 1 to the character's
stealth rating
and is added to the character's agent rank. This theory seems
more reliable
in practice than the direct die roll. On steals, this can dramatically
increase the amount of gold you get.

I usually works with a 50% bonus (that way i dont take to many chances), but
i belive that you are right.

8) It seems to have NO EFFECT on encounters. We had a Sylvan elf with 25
natural stealth and some heater of a stealth artifact "Hide" from Caran
Carach. Result... Elf became Were-wolf poop.

Thats just because elves are so tasty that Caran would go any length to get
one with a good glas of sherry :wink:

HEnning

#14

Stealth also seems to help avoid your agents
AND your (stealthy) emissaries from having their
hostile activities come up in other player's Nation
Messages section.

For example, if an emissary with stealth who influences
your popcenter's loyalty, you will not get a Nation
Message that the loyalty was lowered. (Of course you
will still get a loss-of-control message if the emmy
actually gets the popcenter.)

I have not noticed that it helps captured characters
escape, not even agents.

My experience is that it can help greatly in the
quality of a scouting report.

I believe it helps agents steal gold but I don't
think it helps them steal a larger amount such
as they would get with a larger base agent rank.

Jeremy

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Jeff" <webguys@l...> wrote:

My experience with Stealth:
Stealth seems to do a number of things:
1) It prevents characters from being detected. This appears to be a

direct

reduction from a scouting agent's die roll, or better. A 10 stealth

seems to

be amazing.
2) It prevents characters from showing up in popcenter reports. It

seems to

be a direct reduction, or better, from the character's overall

challenge

rank (which I believe is what modifies the "show up rate" as a

percentage

chance).
3) It allows commanders a better chance of moving evasively.

Specifically

how is unknown.
4) It increases agent rank for Steals, Guards, Assassinates and

Kidnaps on a

random basis. A number is generated from 1 to the character's

stealth rating

and is added to the character's agent rank. This theory seems more

reliable

in practice than the direct die roll. On steals, this can

dramatically

increase the amount of gold you get.
5) It MAY decrease negative effects from the failures of 4, above.
6) It definately seems to increase your odds of escaping when

captured. A

character with even 10 points of agent and 10 points of stealth is a

real

slippery bastard to hold on to...
7) I would GUESS that it helps agents do their scouting, such as

popcenters,

for characters, etc. I suspect it functions similar to 4, above, or

perhaps

reduces enemy stealth bonuses.
8) It seems to have NO EFFECT on encounters. We had a Sylvan elf

with 25

natural stealth and some heater of a stealth artifact "Hide" from

Caran

···

Carach. Result... Elf became Were-wolf poop.
Jeff

#15

I've been in several games where we picked up the
One Ring, usually with a loaded character but once
with a wimpy mage. I've tried everything, including
dissolving the company the carryer was in, but we
have _always_ lost the Ring on the next turn after
picking it up. I finally gave up on ever ending
a game that way.

Jeremy

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Stefan Maas <Joker_Macy@g...> wrote:

Hi Guys

What are your expieriences with the One Ring?

How hard was it for you to find it and to get it?

What I know:
In two German Rings the One Ring was scoutet and in One it was found

and

dropped....

What was Funny about it, was that Galadriel had it and we stole it

from her ?!?

The mage Rank we used to scout it varied from 270 to 350.

Another Funny thing is, that I located it two times with 270 Mage

and a friend of

···

mine didn´t to it three times in a row with a 345 Mage Elrond....

What are your exieriences?

Greetings

Stefan