> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit > > > a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > > > > Using what method? > > The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a > mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the > game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to > have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule > states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who > have 100 barrels.) > > I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently > precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players > who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short > of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise > to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" > means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most > rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain > circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those > circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that > attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits > the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an > attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive > because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other > than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule). > > For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game > without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it > works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but > this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and > thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The > announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly; > but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it > succeeded! > > -- > ais523
Doesn't R2125 (Regulated Actions) stop that ISIDTID from working? Assuming G.'s proposal is precise enough to trigger R2579 (Fee-based Actions) (it looks that way to me), then I think the rules (specifically the conditions in R2579) make winning the game a regulated action. So, R2125 says the rules prevent the action from occurring except as laid out by the rules. In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure. - Falsifian
