Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Player (* = inactive) VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs
eekeeP is not listed.
I expect CFJ 1724 to be judged FALSE.
[When ties for determining Party were broken by alphabetical order,
Quazie's Party was Blue. Now that they are broken by order of VC
gain, eir Party is indeterminate.]
No such change has occurred, it's only been proposed.
Fixed in next draft.
This problem seems like a good reason to not make such a change.
Can be solved by retaining alphabetical order as a secondary
tiebreaker to cover such cases. (Can't assign them to the Gray
Party, as it would break the "lose a VC of a color you don't
have -> lose a VC of your Party's color instead" clause.)
