> On Feb 21, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop on
>> one foot.”
>>
>> Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY elect
>> to skip or gallop instead of hopping on one foot.”
>
> It's a
> conflict between Rule A and Rule 1030, which says that Power overrides
> the deference clause in Rule A (and R1030, at power 3,2, would win of
> course).
It seems to me that R1030 has a very idiosyncratic idea of what a “conflict”
is, if my hypothetical Rules A and B “conflict.” But I agree that’s the best
reading of the rule. Which makes me wonder whether this creates any unexpected
buggy effects when rules of different power interact with one another, and
don’t “directly” conflict but do perhaps conflict in the R1030 sense. But it
makes my head hurt to try to figure out what the specific bugs would be...
