|Antonio Dolcetta on Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:50:37 -0600 (CST)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [s-d] Re: Peter submits p339 - Defendant's argument.|
Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:
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.
I appreciate your will to try to break the game, really. And I'm considering voting in favor of you CFI for the same reason (hard to resist). Simply I feel that it doesn't really make sense, and your reasoning is somewhat off and not very convincing. (Not that I can think of anything better to suggest)
I will probably vote NO unless someone comes up with something really intresting.
-- Antonio http://gelo.dolcetta.net _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss