Subject: MN: Re: Year 3, Week 1 Proposals

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@u...>
Date: 14 Apr 99 14:01:12 +0100

The first batch of Proposals for the new Year included: 

> Proposal 672 - 50Hz Notch Filter [Multiple] 

I confess I'm not bothered either way - disuse seems like a reasonable 
argument against, but then there's the Ostrich Hunt Proposal later on which
is 
a powerful argument in the Drone's favour... 

> Proposal 673 - Contracrostipunctus II [Amendment] 

Much clearer wording. Thinking about it, I'm still not convinced though - as
far as I can see, insufficient LV will still prevent a Move to Dollis Hill. 

Still. I'll point at the bits I like as well rather than just picking holes.

> There are three ways for a Player's Piece Move to be Valid: 

Good. I think this split is useful - the circumstances for each Move type
are 
different and need discrete handling (I know this is original to the first 
Contracrostipunctus, but I didn't say anything then). 

> 2) If the Move uses one of the following Actions (only one of these
allowed 
> per Turn): 
> * Home (Rule 1.12.1) 
> * Wild (Rule 1.11.1) 
> * Marmalade Sandwiches (Rule 1.4.16) 
> * Striling (Rule 1.7.12) 
> * Stubbery (Rule 1.7.33) 
> * Walking (Rule 1.7.10) 
> In this case, the Move is known as a Special Move. The Move is Valid, and
> the Piece is moved directly to the specified Station without passing 
> through any other Stations. 

Fair enough - I think that encapsulates (or at least obviates) the wording 
that's just been added by Prop 666's passage. 

> 3) Otherwise, the Move is known as a Standard Move. All Stations in the 
> Map currently under play (by default, the Map defined in Rule 1.17.1) are 
> Valid. The Player must then check through all the Rules and checks in the
> following list to determine if any one of them makes the Move Invalid. 

Fine. 

> Once the Move is Invalid, it cannot be revalidated by another Rule. 

Not at all sure that this is fine. Given the order of the points, I think
that 
this effectively kills loops. 

> Actions of other Players may move a Piece before or after its owner's Turn 
> without that Piece in turn being required to comply to these checks. In 
> other words, these checks are only applied to a Piece during the Piece's 
> owner's Turn. 

A fine point. 

> 1. LV Checks 

> * If the distance between the target Station and the Player's current 
> Piece Location is not precisely the same as that Player's LV, the Move 
> becomes Invalid. 

Right - so Kevan has just played Dollis Hill, and RiffRaff is at Beckton. 
There is no way under the current Rules that RiffRaff's Piece could have 
sufficient LV to Move normally to Dollis Hill. In other words, the Move to 
Dollis Hill required by the loop Rule is Invalid. 

Assuming that RiffRaff does not have the requisite Silver Token to play a 
Sidestep, e must Pass. Since e has passed at Beckton, the loop is broken. 

Since the loop condition in section 5 below is after the LV checks, and
given 
that "Once the Move is Invalid, it cannot be revalidated by another Rule",
the 
Move to Dollis Hill remains Invalid. 

I reckon the easiest solution to this (both in implementation and 
comprehensibility) is to concede that loop moves are not in any way standard
- 
give loops their own top level section in Rule 1.5.0, so that if a loop is
in 
force there is a special case to define the behaviour. 

> 4. Loops and Cascades 

> * Dollis Hill Loop (Rule 1.8.1) 
> * Parks and Greens Cascade (Rule 1.8.2) 
> * Charge Spiral (Rule 1.19.5) 

Should this Proposal Pass, I'd like to raise Point of Order to ensure that
EP 
32 be applied to this version of section 4. 

> {Added in the clause about only having to apply these checks during the 
> Piece's Owner's turn. This, as far as I can see, fixes Dunx' main
concern, 
> and also plugs an inconsistency in the ruleset that was unstated but could
> have been challenged.} 

It's a good fix, but I don't think I've expressed concern in that direction?

> Proposal 676 - Free Range [Enactment] 

Excuse me, I'll just get my tweezers... 

> 1a : Isolocation. At the same station, on the same line. 
> 1b : Interstation. At the same interchange, not on the same line. 
Fine. A useful distinction. 

> 1c : Costation. At the same named station, not on the same line. 
This needs a 'in the same map location' clause, because otherwise Turnham 
Green and Shepherd's Bush get complicated. 

> 2a : Expectoration. On the same Line Segment, or in a Segment that is 
> reachable without a change in Line Direction, in the same Zone and
Quadrant. 
> 2b : Feline-rotation. On the same Line in the same Zone and Quadrant. 
> 3a : Shuntation. On the same Line Segment, or in a Segment that is 
> reachable without a change in Line Direction. 
> 3b : Observation. In the same Zone and Quadrant. 
> 4a : Echolocation. In the same Quadrant. 
> 4b : Tergiversation. In an adjacent Quadrant. 
> 5a : Misinformation. Not in any of the above Range Classes. 

Some amusing names, but I'm not convinced that making them amusing is going 
to make them a great deal easier to remember (although I do like 5a!). 

It's fairly obvious that these Range Classes are an enumeration of the 
combinations of different relative location classes - the problem is in
trying 
to remember the names for all of these combinations. 

It would undoubtedly be a bit duller, but perhaps easier to follow, if 
relative location classes were defined using some kind of simple code, and
the 
Range Codes were defined as a combination of location codes. 

A relative location might be constructed as a prefix letter (S for station,
Q 
for quadrant) and a proximity suffix character: 

'=' identical - applies to any. For Station => same station, same line 
'~' adjacent - applies to any: 
Station => same interchange, different line 
Line => same Line, but different Line Segment 
Quadrant => adjacent Quadrant 
Zone => adjacent Zone 
'@' close - applies to Station only => same Co-Located Station, 
different line 
'!' different - applies to any (implied by omission of Prefix) 

Relative Location prefixes might be: 
S Station 
L Line Segment (ie section of same Line reachable without a change in 
Line Direction) 
Q Quadrant 
Z Zone 

Exclusions and obvious deductions: 
- any S-code other than '!' implies Q= and Z= 
- S= => L= 
- S~ or S@ => L! 

So to use these codes in combination to define your Range Classes: 

S= Isolocation. At the same station, on the same line. 
S~ Interstation. At the same interchange, not on the same line. 
S@ Costation. At the same [Co-Located] station, not on the same
line. 
L=Q=Z= Expectoration. On the same Line Segment, or in a Segment that
is 
reachable without a change in Line Direction, in the same Zone
and 
Quadrant. 
L~Q=Z= Feline-rotation. On the same Line in the same Zone and
Quadrant. 
L= Shuntation. On the same Line Segment, or in a Segment that is
reachable without a change in Line Direction. 
Z=Q= Observation. In the same Zone and Quadrant. 
Q= Echolocation. In the same Quadrant. 
Q~ Tergiversation. In an adjacent Quadrant. 
S!L!Z!Q! Misinformation. Not in any of the above Range Classes. 

I confess I don't know how one might compare these, but divining their
meaning 
is simpler I think. 

> Proposal 677 - No more albums [Multiple] 

I think this is a good idea - granted that we only have any Singuler Actions
in the Post-Move phase, but we've got several of those: Shunt, Shadow and 
Blonk. 

This seems like a useful definition to simplify adding more. 

> Proposal 679 - Czech Variant [Special Ruleset] 

Well, I've already held up my hands on this one. Corrected version this 
evening, as I said before. 

> Proposal 680 - Not So Fast [Amendment] 

Kevan said: 
:Five Proposals seems a good number, to me - it's nice to have a good load
of 
:things to mull over, and gives less exciting amendments a chance to be put 
:forward. If Dunx is happy Speakering such a quantity, I'm fine with it as
it 
:is. 

Oh, I'm happy enough - this Proposal proves your point, I believe. 

My feeling is also that with a larger Proposal limit, individual Proposals
can 
be more focussed. Not that we've had many kitchen sink Proposals, but there 
have been cases where some good ideas have been voted down because they were
grouped inappropriately. 

> Proposal 682 - Hunt the Ostrich [Special Ruleset] 

Like I say, sufficient reason to keep the Drone in itself. Absolutely 
splendid. 

> { A Drone-hunting variant struck me as potentially interesting, and this 
> seemed the obvious implementation. I never caught the game on ISIHAC, and 
> only dimly perceived the York games, but I trust this isn't too far off
the 
> mark. } 

As it happens, the ISIHAC version was only played once AFAICR and made a few
vague mentions of knee pads. The York, Delphi and Pants games have been 
invented from whole cloth, but it's quite high quality cloth and worth 
replicating. 

> Proposal 683 - Fraud Squad [Amendment] 

> In Rule 1.14.4 (Token Claiming), add the words "nor for a Token which the 
> Actioning Player placed earlier in the Turn". 

> { The "spending a Token then picking it up because you've passed its
Station 
> earlier" loophole has been there for a while, and becomes - as RiffRaff 
> demonstrates - absurd on Quadrantless Maps such as the Paris Metro. } 

RiffRaff cackled and then wrote: 
:This doesn't solve the fact that you can still put the tokens on Stations 
:you plan to go to next turn, and get them all back anyway. 

No, and it's practically impossible to do so. But then, if you're prepared
to 
go to those length I reckon you deserve your moment in the sun. 

:Perhaps we 
:should come up with some Quadrants for Paris... 

Possibly, but a better bet might be to use a proximity rule - spent Tokens 
cannot be placed within ten Stations of the Piece's final location, perhaps.
At least offers a challenge. 

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

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

---

From: kevan@d...
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:24:37 -0000

> far as I can see, insufficient LV will still prevent a Move to Dollis Hill.

I thought this, but the new rules for Looping mean that your piece is Moved
directly to the relevant Station, outside of your normal Move. (Making things
quite messy when Rule 1.2.0 demands a Valid Move for the GSD.)

> Sidestep, e must Pass. Since e has passed at Beckton, the loop is broken.

Actually, a Loop isn't broken until someone Escapes it, these days. Mrm. I
didn't notice that aspect of it when I read the Proposal originally.

> force there is a special case to define the behaviour.

Indeed, yes.

> This seems like a useful definition to simplify adding more.

[Home], [Wild] and the rest, I suppose... You could be ingenious and include
[LV+X] and [LV-X] as well, actually, since most of the Special Moves (quite
rightly) disallow LV changes. And you can't perform both LV shifts in the
same Turn anyway. Hmm.

> can be more focussed.

A very good point, actually, yes...

Back to work,

Kevan