I think this is the crux of the matter: On Jan 4, 12:40 am, Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > but invalidates the games result, > even if it makes for a nice teaching technique.
Outside of tournament settings, the prime result of a game I play is me having fun together with friends. This definitely isn't getting invalidated by who wins by what means, it's merely the side effect of one clear victor (or sometimes a group of them) emerging from the game that is. Depending on the group though, mileages vary of course. > On Jan 3, 6:34 pm, jdl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 5:27 pm, Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Must have really entertained you to carry the conversation into a > > > another thread. Because I've got a little bit of time, how could you > > > argue against JC's fifth point: "Any behavior not expressly permitted > > > in the rules of a game should > > > be considered expressly forbidden by those rules." > > > Is this a rehash of the "should players in a Dominant Species game be > > allowed to speak" argument that was derailing one of the DS reviews a > > couple of months ago? > > > -- > > JDL -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BGG Down" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bgg_down?hl=en.
