Upheld 3-1. -Bucky
Adminned at 12 Jul 2016 00:31:56 UTC
I have received a map to ruleset 55, rule 2.3 (including all subrules), “Military.” Your humble Editor objects on the grounds that it is not of the True Ruleset nature, but in addition to that, it would add a great deal of complexity (not to mention GNDT column width) to a ballooning gamestate. Let us find small, elegant rules that may be stitched into our collective fabric instead.
I don’t think it fits with the style of game we are setting up here. Also, it would add an unnecessary level of complexity to an already complex game. THAT is why it is unacceptable cance “Unacceptable”.
COME ON! Let’s see what good your DETERMINATION is against THIS!
;)
This adds two more GNDT column, but most interesting rules will either add a column or reference something that we need to make a column for, so I don’t think that is a problem unique to this rule.
Furthermore, it reused a stat energy) rather than adding a new one, so that too arguably cuts down on the complexity it ads compared to another random rule.
There is certainly a bit of complexity introduced by the list of organizations, adding foreign terms like “Crew Size” and “Technology score” but they are harmless for now and we could wholesale replace that organization list at a later point.
Determi-what now?
I’m with Clucky on this one; I’m leaning a bit more towards the objection than not, but not particularly strongly.
I don’t feel that strongly but I’m in favor of letting Brendan choose what he wants as long as he keeps it within reason.
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
It certainly is inelegant, but why is it “unacceptable”?
Sci_Guy12: