Subject: MN: Blues

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:48:23 +0200

: 0:10 | An extra five hours; all the Blues go on East India, which
: | completes and destroys a six-Blue Stack - four shiny new
: | Silvers for me, there.

Oh, yes.
I just noticed the hole. There are a number of Actions with scalable cost.
Combine any one of these with Stack 'em High, and you've got a fortune.

Jespersen!!!

<Oh, that failed? Dang.>

Ole

---

From: kevan@d...
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:51:02 -0700

> Combine any one of these with Stack 'em High, and you've got a
fortune.

Possibly; it boils down to interpretation - Rule 1.14.2 (Stack 'em High)
gives rewards if "a Token Stack has six Tokens where it had less than
six before"; arguably if that Token Stack didn't exist during the
previous
Turn, it can't be considered to have had any number of Tokens in it.
(The ruleset does suffer from occasional confusion between "a Stack of
Tokens" and "the space in which Tokens would be Stacked".)

What solutions do you recommend? Banning same-colour patterns seems the
most obvious, I suppose, but it'd be a shame to lose the "intuitive
pattern" thing; I know I've been a lot quicker to spot potential Stacks
since we amended this one, which seems an undeniably good thing.

Wording it definitively as "must complete a Stack that existed during
the previous Turn" would cure things a bit, I think, without being
particualrly exploitable. I'm not sure how it should be worded, though.
(Should you be able to, for instance, Helsinki away a
single-black-Token stack and slam six Blues in its place for a prize?)

> <Oh, that failed? Dang.>

Eprop, anyone? Have you taken over the throne of Speaker, yet, Snow?

Kevan

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

---

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:13:12 +0200

:
: Possibly; it boils down to interpretation - Rule 1.14.2 (Stack 'em High)
: gives rewards if "a Token Stack has six Tokens where it had less than
: six before"; arguably if that Token Stack didn't exist during the
: previous
: Turn, it can't be considered to have had any number of Tokens in it.

Do you mean: It cannot have the <number of Tokens> attribute, or <number of
Tokens> = 0?

: (The ruleset does suffer from occasional confusion between "a Stack of
: Tokens" and "the space in which Tokens would be Stacked".)
:
: What solutions do you recommend? Banning same-colour patterns seems the
: most obvious, I suppose, but it'd be a shame to lose the "intuitive
: pattern" thing; I know I've been a lot quicker to spot potential Stacks
: since we amended this one, which seems an undeniably good thing.

We could modify the 'all in the same Stack'-requirement to 'place all on one
Stack, but only one Action's Tokens on the same Stack' or somesuch.

We would need to modify the scalable Actions, then.

:
: Wording it definitively as "must complete a Stack that existed during
: the previous Turn" would cure things a bit, I think, without being
: particualrly exploitable. I'm not sure how it should be worded, though.
: (Should you be able to, for instance, Helsinki away a
: single-black-Token stack and slam six Blues in its place for a prize?)

We could say that a Stack ceases to exist the moment it has zero Tokens.

:
: > Jespersen!!!
: >
: > <Oh, that failed? Dang.>
:
: Eprop, anyone? Have you taken over the throne of Speaker, yet, Snow?
:

Well, have you?

Ole

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:05:35 +0100

From: Ole Andersen <palnatoke@g...>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 1999 9:13 AM
> : Eprop, anyone? Have you taken over the throne of Speaker, yet, Snow?

Sorry, didn't see this the first time round, too close to the sigs.

> Well, have you?

Well only Kevan has (publically) made any remark on the subject either way.
I think Dunx is waiting until a majority say they are in favour.

I got the impression most people were in the "leave it dormant for a while"
camp. However, I'm happy to have a go if enough people say "aye".

Snow
-The telephones of placidity shall inherit the meek.

---

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:29:50 +0200

Snow wrote:
:
: Well only Kevan has (publically) made any remark on the subject either
way.
: I think Dunx is waiting until a majority say they are in favour.
:
: I got the impression most people were in the "leave it dormant for a
while"
: camp. However, I'm happy to have a go if enough people say "aye".
:

Eye!

I have enjoyed the 'thinking pause', but all good things come to end, and
then other good things begin.

Ole