Note that, using my technique, ANYONE can get ‘SOUP’ more or less immediately and become my partner.

Eh… may is defined as “is permitted to,” so the rule would read “If a game action is a Timed Action, each Apprentice is permitted to spend one Time in order to take that action. Each Apprentice is permitted to perform no more than two Timed Actions in any 24-hour period.” So it is arguable that Each apprentice is permitted to perform no more than 2 timed actions in any 24 hour period.

I can see it being read that way… but I figure mine is at least peripherally legitimate… and people seem to want the dynasty over AND like sneakiness, so…

In general, a scam is not valid just because one possible interpretation of a rule allows it, especially when the intended interpretation is clear.

The “sneakiness” we tend to appreciate around here is more along the lines of “Oh, that’s clever; I didn’t realize that was a consequence of the rule”, and less like “Oh, that’s not what is meant by the rule, and you know it.”

Here’s a rule that I think someone should take advantage of (Yes, it’s allowed during Hiatus) in order to undo these moves.

“if a Apprentice feels that an alteration goes against the Rules (as they were at the time of the alteration), he may simply undo the effects of that alteration. If such an undoing is disputed, a Call for Judgment shall be raised.”

Sure, a CfJ is the appropriate thing to do if you believe my interpretation is wrong. But, note this:

If the pacing rule had been written like this:

“In any 24-hour period, each Apprentice may perform no more than two Timed Actions.”

My interpretation would be impossible. By making the entire phrase “perform no more than two Timed Actions in any 24-hour period” dependent on the ‘may’, Bucky (perhaps inadvertently) made the limitation itself something that was “permitted”.

Another better wording would have been:

“Each Apprentice shall perform no more than two Timed Actions in any 24-hour period.”

Since there were two ways to word it differently that would have been unambiguous, I think it’s legitimate to use the existing ambiguity.

I don’t see this as any different than the “ambiguity” in the treasure map rule that allowed Purplebeard to declare Victory in the Pirate/Ninja game. In fact, that was my inspiration.. to find an existing flaw in the rules and exploit it.

The “sneakiness” we tend to appreciate around here is more along the lines of “Oh, that’s clever; I didn’t realize that was a consequence of the rule”, and less like “Oh, that’s not what is meant by the rule, and you know it.”

This.

I have reverted this.  :)

However, feel free to CfJ.  I think you’re on shaky ground.  The logical reading of that sentence is that one may (spend one time in order to do X) rather than (may spend one time) in order to do X.

Just based on this sentence:

“Each Apprentice may perform no more than two Timed Actions in any 24-hour period”

it is clear that an Apprentice may perform a Timed Action 0, 1, or 2 times in a 24-hour period. It’s a funny way of phrasing a negative, but it does prevent any more than 2 timed actions.

Gnomes are sneaky

Should put that back in the Ruleset.

Just because.