Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0

From: Factitious (x40_at_pacbell.net)
Date: Sun Oct 21 2001 - 21:44:06 PDT

Next message: Ed Murphy: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Previous message: David Glasser: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
In reply to: David Glasser: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Next in thread: Ed Murphy: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

What about "Elemental Blast"?

David Glasser wrote:

> I disagree.  This rule does not name a spell, so it falls prey to FRC error #1.
>
> --David
>
> me_at_davidglasser.net
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2001-10-22 04:36:17 GMT

--
Rule Date: 2001-10-22 04:43:57 GMT

Next message: Ed Murphy: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Previous message: David Glasser: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
In reply to: David Glasser: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Next in thread: Ed Murphy: "Re: 171:1 VALID style +1.0"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST