DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Hand Limit Remodel
Roger Hicks wrote: Hand Limit Remodel I don't like it. It's messy, unweildy, and the mandadory monthly audits shouldn't be in there.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Hand Limit Remodel
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:05, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: Hand Limit Remodel I don't like it. It's messy, unweildy, and the mandadory monthly audits shouldn't be in there. Monthly audits could be removed. What do you find to be particularly messy or unwieldy? It's no longer than the current hand limits rule. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Hand Limit Remodel
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Append to the list of cards in R2261 (The Deck of Change):
{{
Supersize Me - Specify an entity. That entity's Hand Limit is increased by 1.
Shrink Potion - Specify an entity. That entity's Hand Limit is decreased by 1.
}}
Append to the list of cards in R2262 (The Deck of Justice):
{{
Penalty Box - Specify an entity. An audit is opened against that entity.
}}
}
Note that these will have a default Frequency of 0.
--
-c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Hand Limit Remodel
Roger Hicks wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:05, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: Hand Limit Remodel I don't like it. It's messy, unweildy, and the mandadory monthly audits shouldn't be in there. Monthly audits could be removed. What do you find to be particularly messy or unwieldy? It's no longer than the current hand limits rule. BobTHJ It feels like it's duplicating much of the logic of NoVs. And I don't like the separation between creating and closing audits. Maybe this would be a good time to add With N (Days) Notice to R1728(a). A person CAN, under certain secured circumstances, audit an entity With 4 Days Notice. Also, why rule-defined? Isn't protection of namespace/scope/whatever it's called implicit?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Hand Limit Remodel
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:37, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: It feels like it's duplicating much of the logic of NoVs. And I don't like the separation between creating and closing audits. Maybe this would be a good time to add With N (Days) Notice to R1728(a). A person CAN, under certain secured circumstances, audit an entity With 4 Days Notice. I was using NoVs as a 'template' of sorts for audits. However, your with notice idea may be a cleaner method. My intent was that an audited player would have 3 days to get their hand back to the correct size or face penalty (rests if they are active and chose to ignore the audit, or destruction if they are inactive and unable to respond). However, to give the audited player some control they can close the audit themselves at the time of their choosing before those 3 days elapse. with notice wouldn't allow this, and thus the player initiating the audit would have control over when to perform the audit action and could (at the last minute) transfer a bunch of cards to the audited player to inflate their penalty. Hmm...maybe it would work if it read A person CAN (with restrictions) audit an entity with 4 days notice unless the entity has been audited during that time. An entity CAN audit emself by announcement. Also, why rule-defined? Isn't protection of namespace/scope/whatever it's called implicit? G. brought this up when I protoed an earlier version of this. A contract could define its own cards and then deal large quantities of them to players causing them to exceed their hand limit. BobTHJ
