From: Glenn Overby II (guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 09:53:50 PDT
Christopher Bartlett writes: >I appreciate the reason why you have stated my rule to be invalid, however >I refer you to your judgments of 169:4 and 169:10, which by my reading do >not mention space-dependent effects any more explicitly than did I. I feel >that precedent in allowing this to slide warrants a reversal of your >judgment. > > Chris Bartlett I appreciate your making a case for reversal in a close ruling. However, your "precedents" are not quite convincing. 169:4 specifies what happens to Tripper after landing in both cases (he rolls again on 2, and gets some breathing space on 10). 169:10 also specifies what happens to Factitious (he reflects on not bumping, breathes a sigh of relief, considers taking a new turn and decides against it). Note that 169:1 does not require mentioning any space-dependent effect at all; it simply requires mention of what happens to the player after landing. (Indeed, 169:9 relies on this; Anton didn't even land in a space.) But 169:14 never specifies landing on space 7. If you think an overrule motion is appropriate, I will take no offense; I have conceded that the question is close. But I stand by INVALID. Glenn -- Rule Date: 2001-10-02 16:55:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST