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

[Antonio Dolcetta <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx>]

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