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

[pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Cooper Jr.)]

Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Apr 23, 2005, at 2.33 PM, Peter submitted a new proposal, p14:
>> 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.

Aha. I was wondering how to word that, and I think I'll take your
suggestion. (My wording would work in something like Magic: the
Gathering, which is the only other many-rules-interacting system that
I know, but its rules ensure that continuous effects like that only
apply once. Since we don't have something like that here, it's
probably best to be as specific and clear as possible.)

> 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?

Well, I was trying to have some way for Amplitude to matter. Although
admittedly, this prop would end up helping the person in the lead to
get even more in the lead, so it might not be a great plan. But it was
the best that I could think of for now.

-- 
Peter C.
"I'm not trying to hack into the system! Or again!"
		-- imets

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