Subject: MN: Proposals Year 3 Week 25

From: "MN Speaker" <speaker@d...>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:19:53 +0100

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORNINGTON NOMIC

Proposals for Voting on in Week Twenty-Five
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 911 - Higgins' Retroactive Token Declaration [Multiple]

Add the following line into the Actions table in Rule 1.7.2:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action ('#' if Singular) Phase Rule Dur Cost Gain FR
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Retroactivity] Post 1.x.y 20 1Re,1Bk,1Gr

Enact the following Rule:

A Player may invoke Higgins' Retroactive Token Declaration during their
Post-Move Phase by playing the [Retroactivity] Action. When this is played
during a Turn, the Token cost of any Action (including the Retroactivity
Action) may be payed at any time during that Turn. In other words, the
Player need not have the Tokens at the time of playing an Action, so long as
at some time during the Turn those Tokens are gained - thus, the gaining of
the Tokens is made retroactive to take place before the Action takes place.

For instance, Rushton has no silver Tokens, and thus cannot pay to perform a
Dollis Sidestep action. However, he can move to King's Cross St. Pancras
and gain a 1 silver bonus for arriving at a five or more line interchange.
During his turn, he plays a Retroactivity, and thus retroactively has the
silver token to play the Dollis Sidestep.

{Proposer's Note: I can't find any reference in the Ruleset that states that
Retroactivity is explicitly not possible. It's pretty much a convention
that we play, that you can't perform an action you can't pay for at the time
of the action being performed. But can anyone find a reference in the
ruleset? Anyway, in thinking about the way we play MN at the moment, one
things we've culled enough from the Encyclopaedia Morningtonia and we should
now look at the complex gameplay going on in ordinary MC games on servers
everywhere.}

MN Speaker
-Brought to you using flicker vision.

---

From: kevan@s...
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:12:28 -0700

>ruleset?

Rule 1.13.3 (Carol Vorderman's Revenge) *used* to have something to say
on the matter, I think, but if it did then it's been mislaid. This sort
of thing seems to happen a little too much, really - perhaps
rule-rewording Proposals should show a before-and-after thing, so that
it's easier to see what's being changed, and easier to spot a problem?

Either way, this seems like a decent enough Proposal; it would have
been nicer if it had also addressed the issue of the paying-as-you-go
approach being used by default, though.

>Anyway, in thinking about the way we play MN at the moment, one

Certainly. After all, I've heard it said that some of the Encyclopaedia
entries were just made up spur-of-the-moment by unscrupulous York
players.

Kevan

--
kevan@s...
http://www.stormloader.com/kevan

---

From: "Snow" <snow@s...>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:46:28 +0100

Why Post Move? Can an Action affect something before it has been played? Even given the nature of
the Action I'm not sure it explicity allows this. It would be better to make it Pre-Move surely?

> of the action being performed.

Rule 1.2.0 says "Actions are considered to occur in the order in which they are specified in the
Player's Turn." and Rule 0.2.7 says Official Documents can only be changed if a Rule specifically
allows it. I think this is enough to prevent retroactive behaviour (if we assume that Actions are
added to the document one at a time).

On the other hand I can't find anything to say you can't have negative Tokens...

Snow
-Wondering if he should spend some negative Golds.