Subject: MN: Re: Problem in ruleset?

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:50:33 +1000

On Thursday, 18 March 1999 17:36, Kevan Davis
[SMTP:kevan@z...] wrote:
> >Now, the obvious thing missing here is the bonuses for moving through
> >more
> >than five interchanges. The most recent proposal to try and alter this
> >rule was P639 (No Zone Bonus for Passing), which failed. Before then,
> >the
> >Rule read:
> >
> >Can anyone explain this otherwise illegal alteration to the rules?
> 
> Um, Proposal 644 - "Recall Collect"? Or is that too easy?

Profuse apologies. I found this and was just about to send my apologies for
leaping before looking, but Outlook crashed and I had to spend the rest of
the day reinstalling Office. Grrrrrrrr.

I must admit I'm puzzled as to why exactly the game needs to be slowed down,
and even if it does why this particular method. Why not cut the maximum LV
as well? I think what you'll find is that people suddenly come up with lots
of ways to get quick wilds, straddles, striles, wormholes and other instant
moves working...

JM2cW.

Paul Wayper -- DPI ITS Computer Systems Officer
_____________________________________________________________________
SigClean 1.5a prevents all errors in transcription, transmission, and
reception of eMail, destroys sig and email viruses, and stops flames.
Report all bugs to the author. SigClean is FreeWare. (c) 1998-9 PJW

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/l-nomic-d
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com