Sorry to leaving you wondering so long on this... sorry also for the
mistake that caused this whole debate.
The fine print on Hand Limit 0 is wrong. Hand Limit 0 should be treated
like any other Hand Limit -- during Inflation, the Hand Limit is 1. The
fine print should contain a numeral, and we should have caught that in 3.0
(or certainly in 3.1) but somehow it slipped through. Next time for sure!
Sorry for the confusion!
-- Andy
--On March 22, 2007 9:59:19 AM -0500 Joshua Kronengold <mneme@xxxxxx> wrote:
Eric Haas writes:
> Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 6:52:23 PM, you wrote:
> JK> Timothy Hunt writes:
>>> It's because it's such an easy mistake to make that it happens so
>>> often.
> JK> This is true, but it's also a sign of bad design.
> I don't think that is a sign of bad design; it's simply a sign of
> Andy's inability to predict the future.
Remember, many, many cards were reworded to make them work with X=X+1.
Since Hand Limit 0 was not reworded, this is either a mistake (should
have renamed the card if it was intended not to work with Inflation)
or a mistake (should have reworded). Keeping the name the same while
keeping the text non-inflatable just creates misplays.
--
Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_
,) --^-- "Did you know, if you increment enough, you /,`.-'`' -,
;-;;' /\\ get an extra digit?" "I knew," weeps Six. |,4- ) )-,_
) /\ /-\\\ "We knew. But we had forgotten." '---''(_/--' (_/-'
_______________________________________________
Rabbits mailing list
Rabbits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/rabbits