[s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Peter submits p14

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 23, 2005, at 2.33 PM, automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Peter has submitted a new proposal, p14.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Proposal 14/0: Bonus rack size for 1st place
> A Standard Proposal by Peter
> Last modified on nweek 86, nday 5
>
> Change the text of rule 6-3 to be
> {{
> == Rack Size ==
>
> Each player who is Playing Tiles has a Rack Size.
>
> A player's Rack Size is initially 7.
>
> As long as only one player of all the players who are Playing Tiles 
> has the largest Amplitude among those players, then that player's Rack 
> Size is increased by 2.

I learned during the DimShip Crisis that this sort of wording can be 
disastrous. It could be read as saying that a player's Amplitude 
increases constantly for as long as e's in the lead, meaning it rockets 
off to infinity immediately.

Better might be "the player's Rack Size is treated as though it were 
two larger than it would be otherwise".

"Would be otherwise", btw, is the most important phrase in the above 
sentence. Replace it with "actually is", and all hell breaks loose. 
Again.

> If a player who is Playing Tiles at any point has less tiles in eir 
> Rack than eir Rack Size, e Draws Tiles until either e has Tiles in eir 
> Rack equal to eir Rack Size or there are no more Tiles in the Bag, 
> whichever comes first.
>
> If a player who is Playing Tiles at any point has more tiles in eir 
> Rack than eir Rack Size, random Tiles from eir Rack are put into the 
> Bag until the number of Tiles in eir Rack is equal to eir Rack Size.

So now it'll be possible for a player to have a huge Rack?

Why does this sort of thing always creep into the Ruleset?

--
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