On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 23:24, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: > > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly > > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7): > > IMO the biggest reason is that it makes it clear what situations cause > the rule to be outpowered (i.e. if it tries to change something in the > present that can't be changed, even if it could have been legally > changed under thhe past ruleset at the time).
Ah, that's another good reason. (I didn't get to your message before answering Walker's message.)
