On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > I considered that. There is a significant advantage to this though, in > that 1. people are likely to try to spend things that have to be > destroyed and 2. this means that rules will almost have the intended > effect. However, I agree that my current implementation is messy, and > worse, overly magical. I want to keep the destroy or transfer bit, but > I think its reasonable to expect rule/contract authors to be a little > more careful. I'm going to remove the "if its indestructible" bit, and > have it just always default to transferring. Are you okay with that?
No worries - if you have reasons for keeping it destroy/transfer other than as just an AP kludge, cool - I'll help you wordsmith the next draft.
