> When a CFJ about past effectiveness is called, in reality, the player
> who's being the judge presumably sits down and tries to work out:
> R(now, [at the time the CFJ was called, action A was EFFECTIVE]). We
> have to wrap that in R(...) because "EFFECTIVE" doesn't really mean
> anything outside the Rules.
> But, "at the time..." does mean something outside the Rules, so I
> think it's reasonable for the judge's first step to be to unwrap that
> as the equivalent statement: R(time CFJ was called*, [action A was
> EFFECTIVE]). If the Rules say that's wrong, then of course it's wrong,
> but if the Rules are silent on the matter it seems reasonable.

I think I messed up my example. I shouldn't have focused on the time
the CFJ was called; that's not relevant to my exposition.

Add one more step: the judge expands
    R(time CFJ was called, [action A was EFFECTIVE])
    R(time CFJ was called, [at the time action A was attempted, the
attempt was successful])
which becomes, unless the Rules say otherwise,
    R(the time action A was attempted, [the attempt was successful])

that's what's relevant here, I think. Again, the point is just to say
that there is a consistent world-view where the gamestate doesn't
include whether past actions were effective, but intents are still
fixed and everything works pretty much as we expect. And this is the
way I was assuming the game works.

Reply via email to