elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) writes:
>Exactly, and the new tournament rules appear to do very little to "fix"
>anything. Obviously a large number of the readers in this group are
>prejudiced against a 4CL; I can accept that. But the number of positive
Most of the 'large number' are postjudiced; only a few are prejudiced.
This is eveident from the analysis and o'er-frequent posting in the
re-hashed on-going debate.
>posts about the 6CL on the "limited list" (limited? yeah, right)
>astounds me. Are you really so afraid of card limits that you'd rather
>see nothing done to fix the problems with the current rules?
No. But putting a crutch like 4cl in place (besides weakening the
stratgy of the game) increases the inertia that must be overcome to
ever implement the "real" fixes (the "Golden Tenets")
If the game system blows up in their face a couple more times, they might
actually fix it (or merely lazily slap the 4cl back on). But at least
without current 4cl, there is more hope for a real fix than with 4cl in
place.
I would choose a knee operation over being given a cane and walking with
a limp for the rest of my life.
>Personally, I'd much rather see the DC adopt the "Golden Tenets" of the
>NCL camp than do what they did--nothing.
That would be excellent, but the RT will have to adopt it first, since the
DC won't change any rule (except for game set-up rules, which for some odd
reason aren't viewed as rules).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |