Re: 169:A (more) (fwd)

From: Anton Cox (
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 08:49:07 PDT

... which means that this reply should be for the whole list too!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:46:59 +0100 (BST)
From: Anton Cox <>
To: Jesse Welton <>
Subject: Re: 169:A (more)

On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Jesse Welton wrote:

> Now this, I don't buy at all.  In *this* respect, Aron's rule is no
> different from any other which revealed a rule of the game.  For
> example, one could have argued that 169:2 was INVALID because we
> didn't know ever since the beginning of the round that the Safe House
> protects pieces on it from events caused by other spaces.

I didnt say that we knew *how* things work, just *what* was going
on. For example the wind was an action, the reason for which we did
not know. But when it happened we knew about it! There was no action
prior to 169:2 caused by the Safe House, indeed I dont believe there
have been any actions that have been introduced as occuring

But this was meant to be an ultra-pedantic point; my principle
argument concerned the lack of a counter on my copy.

Best Wishes,


Rule Date: 2001-10-03 15:48:23 GMT

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