Re: [s-d] [s-b] Excuse Me?!

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Billy Pilgrim wrote:

> Indeed, but Marr does raise a good point. What about "Rapier" and "Rapier"?
> Let's say, one owned by teucer and one owned by comex. Would this Rule mean
> that once one Player owns a Rapier, no one else can buy one?
> 
> But wait, I can't actually see any Rule that says that. Could anyone point
> me to where the names or titles of game objects have to be unique?
> 
> The only remotely close part that I managed to find was Rule 57, which a)
> defers precedence to most other rules anyway, because of its number and b)
> only says that Things (the ones created by Contracts) can't be created that
> have the same title as existing game objects. Which is probably a good
> thing, so that I can't create a "Clock", mess with it, and then argue that I
> messed with the real Clock (I think that would fail, but an argument could
> probably be made for it working).

5E42 (Disambiguation):  "No Game Object may come to have the same name
as another Game Object."  However, the Consultation I answered a while
back re the OCB's name can be generalized to "if two things have the
same foobar, then for at least one of them, its foobar is not its name".
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss