Subject: MN: Re: Year 2 Week 45 Proposals

From: "Kevan Davis" <kevan@z...>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:39:27 -0000

>Proposal 646 - When in range, do as the Rangers do [Enactment]
>
>Any Action that requires the Player to be adjacent to another Player or
>object may also be played if the desired target is at the station as the
>Player. In other words, adjacency for Actions is implied by co-location.

Hmm. Superfluous now that Clamps have been updated, I think. If "objects"
don't include Stations, then it just mucks up Running Straddles a bit - if
"objects" *do* include Stations, it makes Blocking insanely powerful (since
you can just Block your current Location and move from it next Turn). We're
better off just saying "adjacent or co-located" if such a case is needed, I
think (such as Hat-Knocking's current implementation).

>Proposal 647 - Time keeps on slippin'... [Multiple]

A good point, nicely executed.

>Proposal 648 - Contracrostipunctus [Amendment]

Certainly the way to be heading with Move Validity, I think - I imagine we
could eventually get it down to a load of rules that say "Such-and-such a
Move is Invalid" and a few that say "Such-and-such a Move is Valid, taking
precedence over any Rules which say otherwise". Hmm.

This implementation seems quite nice, although the list of Invalidators
shouldn't include the First-Turn thing. Arguably it could be reduced to just
"If any Rules make your Move Invalid, then it is so." - although the list
was intended as a checklist, does anyone actually use it as such?

Dollis Hill rears its head again, too; it's a Validator as much as an
Invalidator. Hmm.

Kevan

--
kevan@d...
http://members.xoom.com/asabove

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