On 9 Jul 2013 10:44, "Ørjan Johansen" <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: > >> I meant "buggy requirement" as a hypothetical in my quote (as in, >> "satisfies the requirement if it's bugged"). >> >> FWIW, I meant omd's interpretation when I wrote the rule originally. Not >> that that really counts for anything. (And not that either >> interpretation is obviously broken.) > > > Before Steve pointed out the ambiguity, I also read it with omd's interpretation.
This might not be a bug; recruiting old players to defend against invasion would be useful and has a certain romantic appeal. The judge should therefore consider the benefit to the game of this interpretation. That said, if we actually get invaded I shall eat my hat.
