Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Consistent mack spending

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> and by replacing this text:
>
>      If the Weapon has a Usage Cost: If the Player has less macks than
>      the Usage Cost of the weapon, the usage fails. Otherwise, that
>      amount of macks are destroyed in the Player's possession.
>
> with this text:
>
>      If the Weapon has a Usage Cost, the Player must spend that many
>      macks to use the Weapon.


To keep the language consistent yet not set it up in a manner that makes it
sound like the player must both use the weapon and spend the macks as
separate statements, I would suggest making that clause specify that the
macks are automatically spent (ie destroyed but with consistent terms) by
the player.

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