Subject: MN: Re: Year 3 Week 7 Proposals

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@u...>
Date: 26 May 99 17:49:27 +0100

The Proposals for Week 7 included many excellent things, amongst them: 

> Proposal 752 - Venbacker Ladder [Action] 

Can we go down the ladder as well as up? 

There probably ought to be something in the GSD to record the ladder state, 
too. 

> Proposal 755 - Radio Control [Multiple] 

Yes, very pleasing - the combination of radio control and velocity bombs 
would be particularly vicious, and to be applauded. 

> Proposal 756 - Soap on the Tracks [Action] 

Can we have a flood on the line to wash the soap away? This might also 
short out the power for a couple of rounds (Power Failure with a longer 
duration). 

> Proposal 757 - Sgronk! [Action] 

Splendid, splendid stuff. As Kevan points out, perhaps a little difficult 
to remove, but adds an extra tactical element to token stack creation. 

> Proposal 759 - Volume Control [Amendment] 

To respond to Kevan's remarks - my intent was to split the Ruleset into 
three. Whilst the Special Rulesets obviously depend on the Vanilla Rules, 
they're still pretty much independent. 

> Proposal 761 - All In The Wrist [Multiple] 

This made me laugh. Hilarious. 

> Proposal 762 - To The Bottle Bank [Multiple] 

Fair enough - a reasonable simplification, I think. 

> Proposal 763 - Quail, Mortal [Action] 

Very, very nice - we could probably do with more minor defensive Actions 
like this. 

> Proposal 764 - Away from Babel [Amendment] 

I like that a lot. 

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

How about a loop using red and blue tokens and going from Hill to Hill and 
named for the Lavendar Hill Mob? 

> Proposal 766 - Fosdyke Notation [Multiple] 

Responding to Kevan's comments: 

- Cleverly done; the sort of thing that wouldn't look at all out of place 
- between the leatherbound covers of the IMCS rulebook. How does the 
- proposer intend to work this notation into the rest of the ruleset, 
- though? 

Originally I was thinking that Fosdyke Requirements would replace English 
descriptions, but I think they might be better as a clear and unambiguous 
supplement - perhaps even in the Action table, although that may be unwise 
given that it's already quite overloaded. 

However - a core intention is to simplify writing Rules which manipulate 
range: much easier to say 'reduces Fosdyke Code by one in a single class' 
than 'allows influence on adjacent Stations, Lines, Quadrants, or Zones'. 

- I've a suspicion that we'll only 
- ever really need to use a few of the notations anyway. 

FWIW I agree, but I'd rather they were there and unused than missing and 
needed later. 

The thing is that once this Notation is defined, it should be pretty 
unintrusive but will provide a clear and unambiguous definition of 
circumstances. 

Anyway - I'll have a go through the ruleset and collect FRs, then publish 
them as and when. 

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

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

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