Friday, December 26, 2008

Proposal: [BLO] This buffalo is Irrelevant

Timed out, failed 3-2—Rodlen

Adminned at 28 Dec 2008 12:00:40 UTC

Remove the text of rule “The rule formerly known as Wheeeeee” and replace it with:

In BLO, there is no event more important than the Midnight Snowboarding of Mount Doom. Those who manage to do so successfully, will obtain the “Awesome Relic” (which is considered BLO’s official Relic). Snowboarding down Mt. Doom is however, a dangerous process and is considered a daily action. In order to successfully accomplish it you need to perform the following three tasks in order, and break exactly less than three bones in the process:

* Put on your snowboarding gear on. This 25% Dangerous because you don’t have snowboarding gear and you will probably have to improvise it.
* Climb Mt Doom. This is 50% Dangerous because the automatic escalator sometimes works backwards and can chop your head off.
* Snowboard down Mt Doom. This is 75% Dangerous because it obviously is (I mean, its called Mount DOOM), and we really should not have to explain it to you. If you break some bones when attempting this, you break twice that number of bones instead.

If you break any bones while trying to perform any of these actions, you may not attempt it again for a number of days equal to the number of bones broken in the process.




26-12-2008 11:07:20 UTC

i just wanna point out, blognomic doesn’t have a “replacement effects only happen once” clause like magic the gathering does, so your “x = 2x” clause arguably could mean if you break any bones you break an infinite number


26-12-2008 15:59:12 UTC

“exactly less than” isn’t actually a meaningful phrase.  You appear to want to say that 3 bones broken constitutes failure, which is the meaning of “less than” without any further qualification.  You could also say “no more than two” , or “strictly less than” if you want to break out the mathematical language.

arthexis: he/him

26-12-2008 17:17:32 UTC

@Escher: It wasn’t my intention to use formal math language in BLOs ruleset. That would have been pointless. And indeed what it means here is “no more than two”.

@Cayvie: MTG doesn’t have such a clause either, it just kinda happens that replacement effect do not stack with themselves because of the way state-based effects are solved in layers :) Back to BN, I don’t think this is an issue because implicitly we have always handled it this way (no infinite loops on replacement effects).

Clucky: he/him

26-12-2008 20:37:47 UTC

against seems too easy to me

Darknight: he/him

27-12-2008 05:37:40 UTC

for LOL. Clucky you say its too easy when ya keep hurting yaself rule busting


27-12-2008 05:38:13 UTC

against same as clucky


27-12-2008 16:27:47 UTC

Note: my preceding vote no longer counts.

arthexis: he/him

27-12-2008 17:03:22 UTC

Votes are 2 to 1, to clarify


27-12-2008 17:17:11 UTC


arthexis: he/him

28-12-2008 08:33:02 UTC

Easy? It is far more probable to achieve victory through smashing the ruleset. Furthermore, do we really want getting the relic to be painstalkingly hard? I mean, one has to get all three relics at once! And the challenge with this relic is that someone else can beat you to it, because if they do it after you do it, they take the relic. So it is not supposed to be too hard, but its the kind of relic you’d want to get last.