Re: Question about Spain and coasts

I happen to agree with you on the third case.  As I have stated elsewhere, giving *wrong* information is qualitatively worse than giving less than the normal amount of information.  Some people, however, feel differently, and as long as the GM states up front what the interpretation of such orders would be, I am ok with it.


----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Kuehn <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, March 9, 2005 9:10 am
Subject: Re: [CAT23-Gchat] Question about Spain and coasts

> 
> David E. Cohen wrote:
> >Well, in this case, the rulebook is not especially clear, but you 
> do raise a
> >valid general question.  At what point does a house rule become 
> "strong">enough to push a Standard game into variant status?
> 
> Following this logic, then, should games using the 1976 rulebook, 
> e.g., be considered "variants"?  I think this is splitting hairs. 
> The purpose of house rules is to try to make it clear what the 
> conditions of play are and to define some situations that may 
> arise 
> in online play that do not arise in FTF play.  Does it matter 
> whether 
> or not the game should then acquire the label of "variant"?
> 
> Read the posted rules before you decide to play.  If the house 
> rules 
> present conditions you regard as too much at odds with the style 
> of 
> play you prefer, don't play in that game.
> 
> -Adam, who still says case 3 is an unambiguous and invalid order