Peter Cooper Jr. on Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:51:07 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-d] Re: Peter submits p339 - Defendant's argument.

Antonio Dolcetta <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> A Player pays one Action Point to see a 2D3 roll that the Super calls.
> it can mean either:
> "one AP" -> "one roll" (that the super calls)
>   or
> "one AP" -> "the super calls a roll" -> and from this we could get to
> "each super calls a roll"
> But why should we try to read it that way ?

Why not? It seems as reasonable an approach as the other. That's
basically why I submitted the CFI: it's so that we can have a ruling
on how this works.

Plus, part of the fun of the game for me is trying to break it. So, I
decided to interpret the ability in a way that was somewhat broken.

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list