Re: [s-d] Grand Chancellor?

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 12, 2007 9:18 AM, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But on the other hand, one oculd argue that the claim of invalidity is
> only possible in the gamestate where the rule is valid, end then... we
> have a chancellor.
>
Ignoring the entire "arbitrarily changing the rules is not a Game
Action and therefore is not permissible" argument for the moment, I
would agree with the above interpretation. However, there is certainly
some ambiguity in Rule 1-10, and although the above is what I
intended, I don't think there is a consensus that Rule 1-10 actually
says what I intended.

BobTHJ
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss