Mark Walsh on Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:50:27 -0600 (CST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
RE: [s-d] Re: [auto] Triller submits p303 |
> [Original Message] > From: Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx> On: 12/12/05 4:44:51 PM Peter sent: > Subject: [s-d] Re: [auto] Triller submits p303 > > Triller has submitted a new Motion, p303: > > Change the effects field of the Talisman Chad to: > > {{ > > Sacrifice: For any one Open Motion, select a Player > > who has Voted. Eir Vote is changed to and > > will remain ABSTAIN. [[ The selected Player can't > > change the ABSTAIN by recasting a ballot. ]] > > A Player may not use Chads more than once during > > any given Voting Period. > > }} > > Since the cost includes sacrifice, it'd be impossible to use a Chad > more than one during a given Voting Period. You might want to make > that clearer. A Player might acquire a second by a Combat Action or in the Attic. The amendment of 7-2 will see to that. > (Although, it just occurred to be that with our current > cost rules, the word "sacrifice" by itself might not have much of a > meaning. That's why I had the cost to use a Pen be "This Pen". We > might want to define the single word "sacrifice" somewhere, although > I'm fine with just using the word "this" in a cost.) I think "sacrifice" was in Effects Conventions when it was in Chapter 9, but it looks like it got scrubbed. I'll add that. > > > [[ At present, luck, coincedence or design may each > > contribute to a Player having more than one Rare or > > Unique Talisman in eir possession. Preclude that. ]] > > > > In rule 7-2, insert after the second paragraph: > > {{ > > If a Player takes possession of a Rare Talisman e > > already holds a copy of, both copies are destroyed, > > and the Player loses 50A. If a Player takes possession > > of an Unique Talisman when another copy exists, the > > second Unique Talisman is destroyed and the Player > > loses 100A. > > }} > > You might want to handle the remote possibility of a player gaining > more than one unique talisman that were created simultaneously. > I see that point as well. Could happen. Triller _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss