Rule Combination and Not Laws

[klcarlso44]

Hi-

After reading the scenario and the rules:

Is it more efficient to symbolize each individual rule and apply the relevant Not Laws, or wait to apply the Not Laws (and draw the appropriate inferences) after symbolizing the super rule?

I appreciate any input on this.

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there KL, thanks for the question. The answer here is "it depends" - without looking at a specific game, it's hard to say what the approach might be. That said, my habit is to start by diagramming the rules and, while doing so, think about the inferences such as not-laws. However, I tend to hold off on drawing those inferences until I have a better grasp of the big picture of the game. If the rules lead to a super-sequence that will only fit in so many places, and I can see that there will be an excessive number of not laws, I might choose to focus my efforts on the few things that can happen rather than the many that cannot. On the other hand, if there are only a handful of not laws implied, and no large power sequence to severely restrict the game, I might then take the time to draw them out. I'll still think about what can happen, alongside what cannot, to see if I might want to take a template approach.

I do sometimes forget my usual approach and start throwing in not laws and other inferences a bit prematurely, only to discover that there is a more powerful approach at hand, but that typically doesn't end up wasting much time, so no harm, no foul. Generally, you should first read the scenario, then the rules, and then think about your approach, all before the pencil hits the paper. You may be diagramming it in your head as you go, but you may want to make some adjustments up there before you have to start erasing them on the page.

Practice will help you refine your approach, which may not be the same as mine. Try different things and see what works best for you.