Looney Labs Rabbits Mailing list Archive

[Rabbits] Hand Limit 0 fiine print mistake

  • FromAndy Looney <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateThu, 22 Mar 2007 19:42:55 -0500
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

Current Thread