shadowfirebird on Sun, 3 Dec 2006 07:00:57 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Legal mode

Yah, I think a little rewording is in order.  The second paragraph was
designed to apply to actions not specified by the rules.  I should say

On 12/2/06, bd <nomic@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Proposal: Legal Mode.
> > Create a new rule titled "Legal Mode":
> > {{
> > If a game action is not prohibited by the rules, then it is permitted.
> >
> > However if a list of valid actions or alternatives are given as part
> > of a rule or rules, then those are the only valid actions or
> > alternatives in regard to that rule or rules.
> > [[So if I say you can "call" or "draw" on a "hand", those are the only
> > two things you can do on a hand, even if I didn't actually say that.]]
> > }}
> Hmm, I sense an ambiguity here. If we have:
> {{
> Blue Weevils are a type of Weevil. Players possessing Blue Weevils may
> Frob or Tweak any Red Cards in their possession.
> }}
> {{
> Weevils are game objects. Players may Boink Weevils for five points,
> removing the Weevil from the game.
> }}
> {{
> Red Cards are game objects. Players may Discard Red Cards at any time.
> }}
> With your rule, does this mean that players may not Boink Blue Weevils,
> because the Blue Weevil rule gives an exclusive list of actions? Does it
> mean that they cannot Discard a Red Card while holding a Blue Weevil?
> I think it makes more sense to simply state that players may not perform
> a game action except as permitted by the rules - where "Players may <X>"
> is considered giving permission.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx

It's Like This

Even the Samurai
Have teddy bears
And even the teddy bears
Get drunk
spoon-discuss mailing list