From:	Jon Palmer <jmp225@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: LT and LOTP( was Re: My Take on Question, and more Questions)
Date:	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:50:59 -0500

>Actually the way it's been understood before is that all A's are B's,
>but not all B's are A's.
>
>For example, all Combat Mages are Mages, but not all Mages are Combat
>Mages.
>
>Thus all Gang Leaders are Gangers, but not all Gangers are Gang Leaders.
>
>Thus Torgo is affected by Trogs and the Gang Leader contact as he is a
>Ganger. However, LotP differentiates specifically between the Gangers
>that are Leaders and the Gangers that aren't.

My bad, I totally disregarded the compromise possibility. D'oh. Yes, I
suppose that makes sense as well. I guess sometimes I think too much in
absolutes, a "Summon Green Wood Elf" in Magic is ONLY a Green Wood Elf, not
an Elf or Wood Elf; in L5R, it's a Green, a Wood and an Elf. I guess we
can have a happy medium here.

I'd also like to suggest to the Powers That Be the introduction of what L5R
calls the wanker rule. Basically, this is a way for judges and ruling
bodies to say "I don't care if you can twist the english language to make
Card X do A, it is SUPPOSED to do B, so it does B. Period." A very useful
rule when people start arguing that Torgo is a Ganger so you can make him a
Gang Leader squared, or Scatter automatically has the powers of the Rat
Totem, or that sending Skwaaaaark! and Foxy Roxy together to run on a
Halloweener Hell results in an existential crisis of logic (the challenge
is both automatically sleazed and automatically NOT sleazed) and thus not
only does the game end in a draw, but all cards in both decks must be
burned to remove the taint. :-)

Jon Palmer