[s-d] Re: [s-b] Re: actiony goodness

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 16, 2005, at 5.31 PM, Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:

> Jake Eakle <jseakle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Baord Game:
> > I create a Black Hole at I3. It is destroyed by my Black Hole at I4. 
> > The
> > Board is unchanged.
>
> //GK// It looks to me like this falls under P-spec 7's "If two black 
> holes
> are adjacent and both are within two sqaures of an interdictor, the
> one closer to the interdictor destroys the one further away.", meaning
> that this original statement is correct. I don't quite follow the
> arguments that came after this, so for now I'm updating the Public
> Display per this original statement, and if someone wants to explain
> to me again how it's wrong I'll be happy to change it.

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.

--
Wonko

Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open 
sewer and die.
     -Mel Brooks (1926 - )

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