On 11/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >I spend 0 VCs of different colors to decrease the AFO's VVLOP by -1.
>
> Fortunately that bit of rule text was drafted by someone whose favourite
> number is zero, so the rule handles this case sensibly.
How so?
comex wrote:
>I spend 0 VCs of different colors to decrease the AFO's VVLOP by -1.
Fortunately that bit of rule text was drafted by someone whose favourite
number is zero, so the rule handles this case sensibly.
-zefram
comex wrote:
The AFO claims a rule 2134 win.
Might be invalid, because you misspelled "decrease"
I tend to agree with the other two reasons that this will probably
be shot down, but not this one; R754(1) applies, especially coming
hot on the heels of your message.
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:59:26 Levi Stephen wrote:
>
> > Might be invalid, because you misspelled "decrease"
>
> Hmmm... is 'decreating' the AFO's VVLOP regulated? Might be a criminal
> CFJ :P
>
> Lev
>
LMAO.
In my defense: I thought I was decreasing it. ;)
Might be invalid, because you misspelled "decrease"
Hmmm... is 'decreating' the AFO's VVLOP regulated? Might be a criminal
CFJ :P
Lev
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:53:35 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 7:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Invalid, since you didn't specify a color.
>
> Color of what? If I have to specify one color to spend VCs of one
> color, and two colors to spend VCs of two different
On Nov 28, 2007 7:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Invalid, since you didn't specify a color.
Color of what? If I have to specify one color to spend VCs of one
color, and two colors to spend VCs of two different colors, then it
inductively follows that I have to specify zero c
On Nov 28, 2007 9:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:39:31 comex wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2007 9:29 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As promised, I hereby spend 1 Blue VC to increase OscarMeyr's VVLOP by 0.
> > (104 identical actions f
On Nov 28, 2007 7:39 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (104 identical actions follow.)
[SNIP]
> The AFO claims a R2134 win.
Nice one, although I can think of a couple reasons a judge might deem
this unsuccessful.
-root
On Nov 28, 2007 7:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 7:29 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As promised, I hereby spend 1 Blue VC to increase OscarMeyr's VVLOP by 0.
>
> You can't:
>
> a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase
>
On Nov 28, 2007 7:29 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As promised, I hereby spend 1 Blue VC to increase OscarMeyr's VVLOP by 0.
You can't:
a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase
another player's VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
-root
Josiah Worcester wrote:
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:22:25 Levi Stephen wrote:
I resolve the decision on the holder of the Scorekeepor office:
The votes are as follows
WOOBLE:
PIKHQ: pikhq, Murphy, AFO, root, zefram
COMEX: Wooble
FOOKIEMYARTUG: BobTHJ, Fookiemyartug, OscarMeyr
The option
On Nov 28, 2007 7:25 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that the AFO can't vote on this, since he's not a first-class
> player. However, it actually does not *change* the results of this election.
The AFO is an active player, so it can vote in elections (R2154).
What it ca
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:22:25 Levi Stephen wrote:
> I resolve the decision on the holder of the Scorekeepor office:
>
> The votes are as follows
>
> WOOBLE:
> PIKHQ: pikhq, Murphy, AFO, root, zefram
> COMEX: Wooble
> FOOKIEMYARTUG: BobTHJ, Fookiemyartug, OscarMeyr
>
> The option selecte
14 matches
Mail list logo
