Subject: MN: Re: Sv: Year 3 Week 7 Proposals

From: "Jonathan Ellis" <jonathan@f...>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:42:54 +0100

>Proposal 752 - Venbacker Ladder [Action]
>Moves alphabetically forward (or rather _not_ backwards).
>The terminator is a bit hard.
>
>I had originally thought of it as a trestle ladder: first up - then
down.
>The idea got too complicated, so I cut the 'down' part.
>
>Omissions:
>] in the Action table
>GSD-entry
>
>I'll post an update.

Don't worry, a Proposal to add those (and add a downwards-only
version of the Ladder, and a means for reversing from one to the other)
has been sent for next week. I like this idea in general.

>Proposal 758 - Following the Wet Footprints [Action]
>The '...is a Valid Move and the Player's Piece is not considered to
pass
>through any
>Stations...' came from one of the Special Moves. In fact, the
Backtracking
>might be quite a thing if you perform several Special Moves in a row.
You
>can then Backtrack to where you were before the Special Moves.

Which is a problem if the Player is Toffed, unless an amendment is
added to this to specifically prevent the use of Backtracking by a
Toffed Player: my idea was that the Player had to move back to eir
previous location, the hard way if necessary. An automatically-allowed
[Backtracking] Action would destroy this feature, allowing as it does a
free Special Move to the previous location. Besides, I'm not in favour
of a "teleport-to" move allowing an automatic "teleport-back". Far too
powerful and easy.
Imagine the following situation: Player has a Home Station in an
outer Zone which is a Park Station. Player moves to Charing Cross (and
cannot be targeted, because the Stations of the Cross are Holy and
provide Sanctuary.) Player collects Pigeons. Player performs the [Home]
Action and releases the lot. Player performs the [Backtracking] Action
to Charing Cross. Repeat ad nauseam. Hardly a decent way to win, is
it... simply switching back and forth between two stations until enough
golds are found to win the game. And with a Baguette, it would be
possible to gain golds at the rate of four every three turns, which is
far too much. (Collecting Pigeon twice, nets four pigeons with a
baguette, and one turn to Home and release them. I'm going to call this
the Homing Pigeon Manoeuvre if it goes through.)
Therefore, I don't like this idea and will be voting against it.

>Proposal 765 - I Don't Know About You, But... [Enactment]
>Sure, why not.

Because it's just another Dollis Hill, that's why not. We surely
only need one of them: what place or precedent is there in the Game for
a second Station which automatically causes a Loop by the Player moving
there? Such a station would seriously disturb the gravitational balance
of the board and have terrifying potential for Liddrup Vortices to
develop - which is obviously why both the IMCS and CAMREC are in
agreement over this. And this is the sort of problem that we may be just
about to approve...?!?
Now, if the loop was an *invoked* loop (i.e. a Player could start
it if e chose to, but does not have to do so when e moves to the Trap
Station) then I might be persuaded. And see below...

>Someone (just to preserve the anonymity of the author) has a multi-loop
in
>next week's batch.
So has somebody else, if your somebody is the person I think it is
(and, more to the point, isn't the somebody I'm thinking of.) I happen
to know that there will be facilities set up for single-station loops,
multiple-station loops (with or without a set order for the stations to
be played in), loops which happen automatically and loops which can be
started deliberately.

Jonathan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/l-nomic-d
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications