Shuffling Decks

This is just a curiosity to me, seeing as how many people want a ruling from Christopher on, what seems to me, something pretty basic.

How many of you, when setting up a game, shuffles their hero deck?

If you do, why? There's nothing in the rules about shuffling when setting up the game. The villain cards specify, sometimes, that you need to search out a specific card and then shuffle.

And yet, being a card game, it makes perfect sense to shuffle before you start.

So, is this something Christopher needs to rule on?

No need for a ruling. I have seen Christopher shuffle the decks before a game. He was also doing an rifle shuffle, but I can't bring myself to do that. I guess I have been playing wrong.

I don't think we need a ruling.  If people want to stack the deck before playing the game they are free to do so.  There will be no infringing on my rights to win.

Also there is no ruling that we can't look at and re-order our deck between turns.  You could ask about that, because that could get a little out of hand.

And, if so, how many times?

I had my probability professor explain a "perfect shuffle" to me once, but I forget it now.

I had a magician explain it to me once, but all the cards ended up in order. 

Did he offer a cut?

Honestly I don't remember, but the word "unshuffled" did appear on the side when he was done.

Wow! It doesn't even mention putting the deck face down, meaning we can play with every deck face-up, that makes Infrared Eyepiece only useful when you do not like the card that is on top of the villain deck.

I like to shuffle every deck involved multiple times before starting a game.  I like it when games turn out very different due to lucky/unlucky card draws.

I've had matches where I stomp all over Apostate in 4 rounds, barely taking any damage.  I've had matches where Baron Blade absolutely destroys me due to some ridiculous chain events right at the beginning of the game that completely cripple my heroes.

I like the variability and I like knowing I shuffled enough times for it to be truly random.

Your conclusion and premises are backwards. We need rulings because the rules pretain to gameplay. Shuffling before or during setup or before the start of the game is outside of the game and therefore outside the rules themselves.

I shuffle before a game. Some decks I shuffle once or twice, while others, like Argent or Omnitron-X get shuffled multiple times, as people tend to sort their hands while playing, and don't always shuffle when they put the deck away.

So outside of the game, the rules do not apply.

So like once the game ends, heroes at 0hp are no longer incapacitated and are not limited in power use or card play/drawing.

My goodness, I'm gonna crush villains everytime they defeat me, They'll be all "I'm gonna win Hero turds!"  And I'll be all "Just wait till this game is over, then you are going down Ambuscade!!"  HA!  Villains can't hide behind rules and legal loopholes anymore!  Just have to wait till the "Game" ends, then I can crush them mercilessly.

But how can you play cards, or use powers, or do damage if there aren't rules for doing so?

Because there aren't rules for not doing it.  You can even apply card text before playing a card, just because.

Freedom man, it rhymes with "We from."  As in, "We from the land of ROCK!"

Mystery solved!

http://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com/gameplay

I always suspect people of doing this in the online game, as the results often seem too pat to be truly random (which is a case of Reality is Unrealistic and I know it, but still, I get paranoid about it).  Given that the game is co-op, cheating is self-defeating…if you only won because you let yourself, then the victory didn't really mean anything.  Still, sometimes you want a gratuitous thrill (and/or not-properly-disclaimed bragging "rights"), so I do think an explicit instruction that the game is required to be random might be called-for.  Though you could always ignore that rule just like anybody can ignore any rule ever, if nobody else forces their compliance.

It is really, really annoying that some of the rules are on the website rather than in the rulebook (especially since they're tucked away in a "how to play" section that you might never look at at all, if a friend taught you how to play the game using their own set and its printed rules.)  I really hope that after Vengeance, we'll get a new Enhanced-er edition with a properly detailed (and spell-checked) rulebook.

But at least it's somewhere for anyone who might experience confusion about it.

Seriously, I kicked BattleCon: Devastation of Indines because I loved the print-and-play and Legacy was a Promo character.  Their FAQs are awful.  The rulebook constantly shows your hand down on the table and makes no mention of hiding it from your opponent.  My group didn't find out how to play until we saw a Tom Vassel review that displayed him holding the cards in his hand. 

Also, BattleCon's Tatsumi, a character with a 4 HP Panda sidekick, Juto, gains benefits from him in battle in the form of Soak, causing him life loss.  The instructions specifically mentions that life loss cannot reduce a character to zero HP, yet discusses Juto being knocked out (though he cannot be targeted by opponents).  The only reason I found out that his life loss effect even reduced him to zero (though nothing was mentioned in the FAQ in the booklet or online) was after I got a small amount of lip from the playtesting forum and the creator citing the wrong rule.  He finally acknowledged my confusion and said "Right, my mistake!  I'd better get on that!"

Greater Than Games is amazing about resolving rules disputes  Before I was a member my group always found errata or topics that clearly explained what we were supposed to do in confusing situations.  I'm happy that they can answer questions so fast (like how Ammo/Bounties with no legal targets are resolved when forced into play) or already have something posted online or in their rules (such as shuffling decks at the start of the game).

The reason the rulebook doesn't mention hiding your hand from your opponent is that you don't hide your hand from your opponent. Discard piles are also, as per the illustrations in the rules (and p.22), face up. The specific purpose of the reference cards supplied is so that your opponent can see what card effects you can play without having to ask to have a look at your hand.

So you can guess what pair your oppenent has every single time, then?  What's the point of the ante phase if your opponent will always see your hand when you've laid your pair down on the table?  You'd always know what your opponent played.

I think this is getting way off topic.

Ps. If that was the case it would completely unbalance the game and make the special action cards competely pointless.

 always suspect people of doing this in the online game, as the results often seem too pat to be truly random (which is a case of Reality is Unrealistic and I know it, but still, I get paranoid about it).

I can't tell you how hard it was to not cheat when I was running the Matriarch and neither of her cohorts came out till the end, they were sitting next to each other 31 cards down I believe.  The first turn with no birds also stunk.

On the other hand one of these matches I'll get a great run of cards and they will all die.

The one thing I have vs. potential cheating is my first game on the forum, I got what was a horrible hand, and if I hadn't posted it right away I probably would have shuffled and redrawn, but as the game went on it turned out to be just what we needed.  Even if you just draw the "right" card each turn, you still are a round too late more often than not.  There are times I drew the perfect card only to have it sit in my hand the rest of the game.

My favorite forum game I played a hero was as Ra, where I got to sit and Flesh of the sun god while the fire in the biosphere destroyed the Chairman.  Having that and two excavations to start the game sucked, but that flesh of the sun god turned out great.

This current game (vs Dawn in Tomb) is being epic, with everything going really well and making writing the story text really easy.  The Matriarch was awkward, I ended up having her run away from the heroes, even though she was there to fight them and the heroes had no reason to chase her.  It was pretty terrible.

No, of course not. But what your opponent(s) can play is public knowledge.

It couldn't be 31, since villain decks (Chariman and Ennead excepted) contain only 27 cards, including the character cards.  21 down, on the other hand, is eminently believable.  And if the heroes can't get the Mask killed on round 1, it's not all that improbable that most of those 21 cards will fly by in three turns.

Ah, so it's public knowledge before you drop your pair, but after the pair is dropped it no longer is?

I know this seems like an off-topic discussion, but this is exactly what I'm talking about.  That subtlety is not included in the guide, and it makes no mention of hiding your hand after playing a pair.  Common sense would dictate that you hide your hand when you've secretly dropped your Style and Base, but every picture in the rulebook played with them face up on the table.  What seems like a perfectly basic bit of knowledge was a complete hassle to find out.

Meanwhile, here on the Greater Than Games forum, we have an answer for things like this.  Communication is openly encouraged among players.  "Put into play" is different from "play".  You shuffle your decks before drawing your cards at the beginning of the game.  Absolutely fantastic!

QFT

How could Fire in the Biosphere destroy the Chairman when he's immune to environment damage even after flipping? Or do you mean it destroyed everyone else but not the Chairman himself?

Yeah, Fire was instrumental in wiping out his horde of minions when the other heroes were struggling a bit, bought some time and Nightmist went crazy.

Oh and speaking of a great run of cards.

Yowsa.

I had never seen Urshe really screw up a game before, esp. like he just did in our storyline game.  Go check it out if you want to see an insane run brought on by some scenario rules and an epic Urshe throwdown combining to end the game.

I honestly thought giving Anubis a bit more damage and making him ignore immunity and reduction would benefit the heroes a lot against Dawn, esp. with Citizen Truth (who never showed up) it did not go that way this game.

Both of those pictures show the state of the game before attack pairs are selected. And yes, I agree that it's common sense that when attack pairs are secretly selected, you also hide the rest of your hand.

I'm not sure comparing a rulebook, which has to be written ahead of time and anticipate all the reasonable questions that might be asked, to an internet forum where every question, reasonable or unreasonable, can be reactively answered, is entirely fair. But when I compare the Devastation of Indines rulebook, which I personally found to be remarkably complete, with the Enhanced Edition rulebook, which doesn't even tell you what to do when you run out of deck, it's just bizarre.

But that's what I'm talking about.  I didn't find the answers in the rulebook and I didn't find them on their online forum.  Whether common sense is a necessary built-in mechanic for understanding the game is irrelevant.  I didn't know the answer and I didn't find it anywhere in their official information.  Common sense told me to shuffle the hero decks before a game of Sentinels, but if there was any question of it the answer is located on the Sentinels forum.

If I don't find an answer in the Sentinels rulebook then I typically find it in the forum.  Note that my answer for Juto and his life counters in BattleCon came on the playtesting forum, and only after an incorrect citation of dealing damage (which is distinct from lifeloss) came from the creator of the game.

I just find it to be somewhat insulting and incredibly rude when the explanation to someone's question is "Well, common sense would dictate…", because that implies the player or players lack common sense.  Sometimes it's something as simple as approaching a new game and being unsure about it.  I don't know of any other games that operate like BattleCon, so I'm not going to go off of Chess or Magic or Poker rules for how to play the game if I have a rulebook for BattleCon.  The same goes for Sentinels.  Thankfully, my questions are typically answered either through the Sentinels rulebook or forum.  BattleCon?  Maybe.  If I get lucky.  And I typically get an immediate answer on these forums rather than a patronizing, exasperated  "Ok, people, for the last time, THIS is how this mechanic works!" commen like I've experienced with BattleCon.

I just find it to be somewhat insulting and incredibly rude when the explanation to someone's question is "Well, common sense would dictate...", because that implies the player or players lack common sense.

Yeah, I hate that too.  It's a condescending way to start a sentence.  It costs nothing to just answer the question in a friendly manner.

Common sense dictates we should all love everybody and get along. <3

Does that include people who are obviously tossers? Because I don't want to have to love them.

Common sense dictates that all tossers should be tossed at your earliest and most convenient discretion

Whoa. Um. Yeah…

Edit: Perhaps you ought to look up what "tosser" actually means.

Common Sense says your cool, Common sense doesn't like tossers either.

I am up to date on my British slang. It was an (unsuccessful It seems) play on words.

…as long as they have internet access.

Actually, that IS a cost for those of us who are, well, not naturally all that friendly.  Many of us have grown up in unsafe environments where reflexive hostility was the best way to keep potential threats at a distance.  Being "friendly" is unnatural and dangerous-seeming behavior to someone who's grown up with that mindset.  The world is not a nice place, and pretending otherwise doesn't protect you…quite the opposite.

Just curious here… if that's the case why even answer the question, which is supposed to be a helpful gesture… or even make the effort to be part of a community?

It's a matter of cost-benefit analyses.  For someone with my generally antisocial, introverted nature, I approach all social interactions as transactions - I pay as little of my mental energy as possible in order to "purchase" beneficial reactions from others, in order for me to derive more happiness from the interaction than I would by staying home by myself.  Since the "prices" are never clearly labeled and difficult to guess, it's an often frustrating process of trial and error…generally, I keep trying as long as I'm able to, but frequently things go south for reasons that I don't consider to be under my control, and that turns me off even bothering to try for a very long time.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy though. Behaving in a defensive and hostile manner is a great way to cause people to react in kind.

I'd never accept "I had a crappy childhood" as an excuse for behaving in an antagonistic way toward people who haven't actually done anything wrong to you yet, or have not threatened you. Sure, I have empathy for people who have a less-than-ideal life experiences and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but too many people claim a lack of control over their own behaviour and personality and demeanor because of their past. That's easier than working on becoming a better person, I guess.

The world does have bad people, but if you go around assuming that any given person is bad based on no evidence whatsoever, then that's the world you'll experience.

This is why I bring my Ronway Gauger everywhere I go. It gives me the percentage of how in tune an individual is with the way of the Ronway. It lets me know who to avoid because of their un-Ronwayism.

OK. I guess all I can say is best of luck with that. 

Well, I didn't even mention common sense until Reckless did. And personally, I find their criticisms of Brad Talton and Level 99 Games to be somewhat insulting and, given how unprovoked and unrelated to the thread topic they were, incredibly rude.

As it happens, the majority of rules questions about Battlecon are asked on the boardgamegeek forums, not the Level 99 forums. This is obviously something beyond Brad's control. Now, I don't believe the specific question Reckless is concerned with was asked on those forums or on any forums other than this one, but it does lead me to wonder why they didn't just ask it themselves.

This I don't agree with. The game begins when everyone decides that it will be played and the box is opened. Set-up is part of the game.

Well since you play games with me regularly (and therefore don't avoid me that much, does that mean I score highly on the Ronwayism scale? If so, that scares me.

My apologies then. I will never again refer to "common sense" on this board. Personally, it seems that that leads to Policitcal Correctness.

What doesn't make sense to me is that a question is asked, the answer given is not the answer that was hoped for, and so the question is asked again. Maybe with some little twist to make it even less of a corner case and somewhere closer to "the average player will never see it happen".

Sometimes it's something as simple as approaching a new game and being unsure about it.  I don't know of any other games that operate like BattleCon, so I'm not going to go off of Chess or Magic or Poker rules for how to play the game if I have a rulebook for BattleCon.  The same goes for Sentinels.  Thankfully, my questions are typically answered either through the Sentinels rulebook or forum.  BattleCon?  Maybe.  If I get lucky.  And I typically get an immediate answer on these forums rather than a patronizing, exasperated  "Ok, people, for the last time, THIS is how this mechanic works!" commen like I've experienced with BattleCon.

I don't like the attitude, but I've seen it often enough in reality. People do get tired of answering the same question over and over. To the extent that "this is the last time!" and, if it is game related, often resulting in me no longer wasting my time with them or their products.

There's a saying; "Be the change you wish to see." If you want others to do something, do it yourself first and lead the way.

Yeah, agreed. I always approach new people expecting them to be nice, and the majority of people respond to me positively. Modelling works, as long as you don't approach it with an "I'll be nice to them so I get the most benefit I can from this situation" attitude. My social skills are not the best, but I manage not to antagonise people constantly wherever I go.

For someone with my generally antisocial, introverted nature, I approach all social interactions as transactions - I pay as little of my mental energy as possible in order to "purchase" beneficial reactions from others, in order for me to derive more happiness from the interaction than I would by staying home by myself.

Well, you're going to have to learn to knock that off and be nice, 'cause you've caused a lot of stress around here.  Most everyone around here is perfectly nice and friendly.  If you can be nice, we're happy to spend time with you.  If you can't, then the transaction isn't working out in our favor either and you should probably go find another place to hang out online, not to put too fine a point on it...

I'm watching the Princess Bride right now, cause our whole family is sick.  That is all.

My intention was never to be insulting, and if I was then I apologize.  It's true that I was reticent to ask about whether to hide my hand or not after I asked them about Juto's counters.  The remark (from a prominent playtester who was not associated with Level 99 games) was exasperated, frustrated, and tired of the question being asked.  Brad later clarified (politely and with no malice) that it was in fact an error he needed to address, but it was after he cited an inaccurate ruling.  I'm not saying this to be insulting or hurtful, but it was factually an inaccurate ruling.

That being said I love BattleCon, I loved playtesting, and I love Brad's dedication to creating an awesome game and making his customers happy.  I've heard a lot of good things about BoardGameGeek, and I'll have to remember to access their forums the next time I have a question that the site doesn't answer.  I agree that my question could've been answered if I had asked it, but after my experience clarifying Juto's text I had no desire to ask any other questions.  I had searched for an answer before signing up on their forums, was unsuccessful, and questioned the mechanic in relation to a Devastation playtest hero.  It is just very disheartening when you do your best to inform yourself before asking others and you get an exasperated reaction.

If I seemed to get defensive with you, Katsue, I also apologize.  The nuance you explained makes sense, and I understand that a lot of people grasped the concept on their own, but my group was genuinely stumped by it and would've greatly benefitted from it being mentioned specifically in the rulebook.  My example here was to explain my fondness for this forum and this community in relation to the BattleCon playtest community.  I love BattleCon, and Brad is awesome, and I'll continue to chime in whenever I have any relevant playtesting data for Level 99 Games.  I just appreciate this forum and how prompt Greater Than Games is at answering any ruling questions.  The SotM rulebook certainly omits some incredibly relevant data, but I've always found a quick answer with a google search or forum perusal from the GtG team in a matter of minutes.  I've just never had that kind of luck with BattleCon.  I'll be sure to visit BGG's BattleCon forum next time I have an issue!

Inconceivable!

I am not trying to pick on you here, but one of these days you are going to have to face the very cold and hard truth that everything about you, from the way you communicate to others to how you proccess and internalize outside input, is in your control. That can be a very scary thing, I know it. And it is so easy to shrug things off, throw your hands up say "I give up, this has nothing to do with me". But the reality is that you are in total control whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, and the thought of all that extra personal responsibility is shutting you down and will eventually cripple your ability to form meaningful interpersonal relationships with others, online and in person. I can see it in just about every post you make.

I do not say that from a place of a superiority or to lecture, but as one peer to another who has gone through this very thing himself. I won't be shy about it, but I have struggled with severe depression for the vast majority of my waking life. I thought there were a lot of things about my life and about me that were just too far gone to even be worth the effort. Other people didn't like me or "get" me? Out of my control. Lonliness? Poor hygene? Motivation? Money? Not in my hands. Nothing I could do.

Doesn't that feel powerless? Don't you despise that feeling? I did. I despised myself for feeling that way when everyone around me seemed to have that one thing I lacked. Thats what my despression did to me. It took my control.

I do not mean to insinuate that what I went through is similar to you, nor do I have any intent to marginalize your life experiences in any way. But damnit, I wish I had someone look me straight in the eyes years ago and tell me that I absolutley have a choice. That I have total rein over every aspect of my life. That I did not need to feel powerless or scared of the world around me. 

I am so sorry everyone for going that far off topic. Please excuse me.

Don't be sorry, that was good.  I had a different experience.  Back in high school, I took a look around at the people who I admired and tried to figure out what it was about them that I wished I had more of.  They were usually funny, confident, and comfortable in many situations.  So I reasoned that if I wanted to be like that, it would require practice.  So I started pretending I was actually like that.  30 years later, I am actually mostly like that, and am (depending on who you ask) a reasonably well-adjusted, happy adult.

So I'll echo Foote - it's absolutely within your power to be the kind of person you want to be.

I accept your apology, and I'd like to apologise myself for being a bit brusque. I had a bad week, and my temper was a little short.

There are actually two forums on boardgamegeek, the Devastation and the War forum, (well, there's the Strikers forum as well, but that only contains one thread). And for some bizarre reason they're not linked.

I haven't read the thread (does that ever stop anyone from posting their opinion?) but I would totally use the "Ignore this user's post" if it was implemented. I would be happy too if instead we only got "Ignore Envisioner's posts".

Mod Mode: Engaged

I'm glad to see that we are, by and large, capable of acting as well-adjusted adults in here. It says a lot about a community that can apologise for having a bad week and move on. I love to see that.

Let's have more of that.

Personal attacks, on the other hand? Let's have less of those. Kthxbye.

Right on.  I accept your apology as well.  Hopefully they'll be fully linked after the hard copies are released.  I just can't wait to play with the Legacy Promo!

Also, to be on topic, I read the online gameplay rules before I received the original SotM first edition about two years ago.  I've been shuffling the decks before each of our games ever since.  For better or worse, as many of my real world friends on this forum will admit.  I seem to have terrible luck when shuffling any deck…

Yes, I do despise that feeling, but I refuse to simply "take soma" and stop feeling bad, when nothing about the external world has changed to improve my situation.  Money woes are indeed not my fault, because nobody will give me a job.  People's persistent ability to misinterpret every word I say is also not my fault; I phrase my statements as best I can, and beyond that it's out of my hands.  Everything else is others trying to get me to accept blame for what is actually THEM falling down on their responsibilities (such as the greedy corporate CEO refusing to hire more workers and instead making excuses about the "labor market"), and I refuse to be treated that way.  The world needs to change, and I'd rather be the one loudly complaining about its current state, even if he never accomplishes anything by it, than the one who shrugs and just takes care of himself.  I believe in taking a stand for what's right, and as far as I can see, what's right in the world we have currently is kicking a whole lot of people's asses, because they completely deserve it and will never stop being Evil (for lack of a better word) if not forced to.  The fact that I lack the power to personally kick every such ass, worldwide, is just one more external factor responsible for my misery.

Accepting responsibility and taking ownership of your own situation is hard. Blaming others is far easier.

It's exactly what a child does when it fails a test it should have studied for - the teacher hates them, the test was unfair, their number 2 pencil broke and they didn't have a spare.

While I don't agree that a person can control every external factor (the current economic climate is not something I can currently change, and neither is my disability or the fact that I have an contralto voice rather than a soprano one which would open up a million more potential solo parts to me), realising what things you have to let go and what you can actually do something about and getting on with it instead of whining about how unfair everything is is part of becoming a well-adjusted adult.

If I went to an audition with no sheet music, hadn't memorised the lyrics, chose a piece that was too high for me or was offensive in some way, chewed out the accompanist for playing a wrong note, insulted the other singers, dressed in jeans and a bikini top and did a crappy job of the song, I'd expect not to get the part. And I wouldn't blame my contralto voice or accuse the director of being evil or bitch about the acoustic of the building being wrong. And therein lies the difference between me and a group of people who are obviously suffering either from an over-inflated sense of self-entitlement or an extreme case of learned helplessness.

Seriously, anyone who thinks that the world is evil and that everyone and everything is against them and they have no control over the way they present themselves may well need professional help. (Note that this is not an insult - I attach no stigma to mental health problems and have suffered from severe depression myself, and am still battling the tendency to slide back into my old destructive thought patterns.)

I did pursue therapy for the first time this year, but eventually it looked like I was going to have to buy health insurance in order to continue, and so I stopped.  While I kind of enjoyed talking through my problems, it was costing me enough just in terms of time, without paying money for it.

For whatever it may be worth, feel free to PM if you ever feel you need an ear. I mean that sincerely. 

Seriously, man. You're a better person than I am.

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

Anybody want a peanut?

Are we allowed to throw them?

Only if the peanut comes with an elephant that I can ride, tame, and use to crush my enemies.

Wow. I finished reading this thread.

Wow.

I know, man. Free peanuts? That's  wild.

Me too.  Agreed. Wow.

Hand delivered too.

[Smartass nitpicker and toe icking mode on]

I did mention the one poster who says that if someone feels offended by words it's their own fault, so no personal attack intended.[/Multinational oil-company defendant lawyer mode off]

And I know tags don't work like that! Though they should… think of the possibilities…

You sir, get two peanuts.

Yes and I completely stand by that logic, even when it's at my own "expense".  The "attack" didn't bother me at all.  I'm sad that so many people here misunderstand me, but it's something I'm thoroughly used to and I don't get wounded by it anymore; I just withdraw to the blackness of my cavern and continue brooding upon my nonspecific hatred for the unjust world beyond.

I said to myself I wasn't going to respond to you anymore, but I'm breaking my rule one last time.

People respond to you in this way because of the manner in which you behave and present yourself. If everyone "misunderstands" you, then the problem lies with the face that you show us. You appear selfish, without empathy, completely unconcerned about the wishes and feelings of others, unable to take responsibility for things that are your fault (instead blaming anyone and everyone else) and unable to let things go that you have no control over, with a sense of entitlement as big as Texas and no desire to actually earn any of the things you feel you "deserve", with a childish tendency to claim everything's unfair when you don't get your way.

This is not an attack, because you absolutely need to know these things in order to become a reasonably-content adult person who can have a real place in society and not irritate everyone you come into contact with. I'm helping, if you're willing to listen, and I'm risking a warning for doing it.

And I'm done. Silverleaf out.

THIS

Messages like this really only leave a person like me more bitter and despondent, I'm afraid.  It's like the whole world is saying "What's the matter with you, just completely ignore all your feelings and behave the way we tell you you should, and if it doesn't work, you're not trying hard enough!"  I'm a naturally negative person, and I don't want to be told that the answer is to just stop being negative, because you might as well tell me to stop being who I am.  The only way I've ever been able to get anywhere on self-improvement is when people have acknowledged my feelings and agreed to work with me on the basis of my own premises.  Such people have been few and far between, and I try to cherish them, though it doesn't come easily to me.

I believe (knowing him) that arenson9 was relating to what Spiff was describing, not making a statement on you, Envisioner. But I could be wrong - that was just my impression.

Ah.  It wouldn't be the first time that I assumed someone must be talkin' to me just because I didn't see anybody else here. 

That is correct.

To be extremely clear, the use of the single, capitalized THIS, is intended to convey that I not only agree completely with what has been written but that I think it is some combination of insightful and important.