Well, there ya go, folks. That's the word from the Rabbit Himself.
~David
On 3/22/07, Andy Looney <
andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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
_______________________________________________
Rabbits mailing list
Rabbits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/rabbits