Re: [s-b] Consultation: Usurping

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 12, 2008 8:16 PM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I submit the following Consultation:
>
> {{
> Unbeliever: Billy Pilgrim
>
> Is 2 support required to usurp a ministry with a retainer less than or
> equal to zero?
> }}
>
> Reasoning:
> In Rule 48, there is the following sentence which I will name as A:
>
> "As a Game Action a Player may usurp a Ministry whose Retainer is less
> than or equal to 0, unless that Player has held that Ministry during
> the current or previous nweek or the current Minister (if any) is
> their twin."
>
> There is also the following sentence which I will name as B:
>
> "As a Game Action with 2 Support a Player may usurp a Ministry whose
> Retainer is less than or equal to 0."
>
> B applies additional restrictions to A and thus reads as such:
>
> "As a Game Action with 2 Support a Player may usurp a Ministry whose
> Retainer is less than or equal to 0, unless that Player has held that
> Ministry during the current or previous nweek or the current Minister
> (if any) is their twin."
>
> It is incorrect to read is this way:
>
> if ( Retainer == 0 )
> {
>   if ( Player has held Ministry during the nweek )
>   {
>     May usurp with 2 support
>   }
>   else
>   {
>      May usurp.
>   }
> }
>
> A and B are in separate paragraphs and there is no wording that
> creates this association. If that was the intent, it should have been
> stated differently.
>

This is Consultation #116. I assign it to Priest Codae.

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