On 6/11/2020 12:17 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >>> In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the >>> game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. >>> E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would >>> *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I >>> think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes >>> precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure. >> >> Ah, that *is* a problem with that wording I used - best argument I've seen >> against using it. (I think it's the wording, not the association in >> general - we've got the association of winning with a fee in R2483: "A >> player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.") > > Why does the wording make a difference? > > I thought my comment applied to the 1,000 Coin rule as well, but > didn't bring it up because that's about to be repealed.
In general, defining one method for doing something excludes "unregulated" methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the rules from working. For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't prevent the Herald from awarding Champion using the generic w/2 Agoran Consent method for patent titles (R649). The wording I used was "A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels." which could be read as "any time a player CAN win the game (under any win method) it will additionally cost em 100 barrels." Saying "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 100 barrels" doesn't stop other regulated methods in the rules from working independently (but it does put "win the game" into the "regulated" category which blocks wholly unregulated methods from succeeding). -G.
