Bryan Donlan on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:34:22 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: [s-d] Re: Re: Re: [s-b] Wonko's loophole

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:15:07 -0800 (PST), Dan Schmidt
<tiber264@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> When I say "indistingush" I mean "use rule 699/1 as a
> loophole".

That's an interesting definition. Would've helped if you gave it ahead
of time though :)

> All actions that change the gamestate are illegal
> under 393/0.

If that's really the case, we have no game. However, r393 defers to
all other rules, so it's moot.

spoon-discuss mailing list