[s-b] Re: actiony goodness

[pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Cooper Jr.)]

Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The problem wasn't with this move, it was with eir previous move -
> when e placed the Black Hole at I4, it should have been destroyed
> immediately by the Interdictor, on the grounds that the Interdictor
> was in range of the Black Hole's consumption, but was also in range of
> its own field of protection.
>
> So the creation of the Black Hole at I3 is fine; it just doesn't get
> consumed by the Black Hole at I4, because there is no Black Hole at I4.

//GK// Well, that's a little counterintuitive, but upon rerereading
the rules, it looks like that is the right interpretation. So, I've
updated the public display to remove the black hole at I4 and put in
the one at I3. I think it's up-to-date now.

-- 
Peter C.
"I have discovered a strange level of sleep deprivation in which I do
not randomly fall asleep and yet am completely incapable of
intelligent thought..."	-- Jessi

_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business