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