Sign In Main Actions Rules Proposals Players Board Message Board

Message Board

Re: Proposal 45

by Le Roc at 06/10/05 1:53 PM

Sorry, I apologize for missing the last part of the statement. I think I was looking at all of the rest of the proposal and was already thinking "this will cause an infinite loop if..." and missed that part. You are correct I should read more carefully before commenting. I'll chalk this up to overaggressive commenting about posts.
At any rate, I am still concerned about how the "aggressor inflicts double damage" section will be interpreted. To me it also sounds like the aggressor might end up being given the ability to deal double damage for the rest of the game. I don't know how Jeff would look at it so will continue to vote no on the spell unless it is changed.
See the posts by The Founder. I tend to agree with him on this point, and would generally hope people were overly precise in how they define their proposals. Examples always help in clarifying ambiguities. Though it is impossible in the real world to ever have perfect communication especially in English.