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)
"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.

spoon-discuss mailing list