Roger Hicks wrote: >Amend R1728 Dependant Actions by removing all occurrences of the phrase "who >are natural persons"
We only put those in two weeks ago! There's a basic problem with allowing partnerships to count for dependent actions, which is that it provides an incentive for players to create and register as many partnerships as possible in order to be able to perform these actions without anywhere near as much support as was envisioned by the rule authors. Rule 2144, once fixed by Murphy's proposal currently in the pool, will at least put a finite limit on this. But I still don't fancy dealing with O(2^N) partnerships. Btw, you misspelled the rule title, though that wouldn't deprive the proposal of effect. -zefram
