Subject: MN: RE: Game 8 - Yikes!

From: Graeme Jefferis <Graeme.Jefferis@f...>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:42:08 +0100

> 
>Properly, this should be illegal since PaulWay is on the H&C where 
>Grimace is on the Bakerloo but, as I say, very good play to spot 
>the opportunity! 

Do you really think that should be made illegal? Double-shunts
are rare enough as it stands without making them more
difficult.

Grand congratulations to dave there, of course. Well done sir.

-Graeme.

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 23 Jul 98 13:30:29 +0100

>are rare enough as it stands without making them more 

Well, perhaps not - I was thinking in terms of consistency in that if a 
single-shunting Player has to be on the same line as the shuntee then that 
same rule ought also to apply to the double-shunting intermediary. 

I suppose all that's really needed is a wee bit of tidying up so that the 
double shunt rule doesn't make unwarranted assumptions about the single 
shunt rule, and so that you can't have an implied line change at a fire 
damaged station. 

It still counts as a spectacular bit of play, though. 

-- 
Dunx 
IRL: Duncan Ellis, Senior Software Engineer, Business Modelers, Oracle 
<I work for Oracle, I don't speak for them>

---

From: Graeme Jefferis <Graeme.Jefferis@f...>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 13:49:29 +0100

>Well, perhaps not - I was thinking in terms of consistency in that 
>if a single-shunting Player has to be on the same line as the shuntee 
>then that same rule ought also to apply to the double-shunting 
>intermediary. 
> 
Yes, I see that argument. But I think leaving it be makes for a
potentially much more interesting game.

>It still counts as a spectacular bit of play, though. 

Oh, yes! One I hadn't even considered happening, as well. A
classic in all senses.

-Graeme.