Clarification on Rules in Combination Games

[broth99]

Hi Everyone,

So, for combo games there is a type of rule I have come across a couple times. Essentially, the rule is a basic rule you would see in a linear game, but is conditioned on the fact that some or all the variables that are part of the rule are present. For example, S is earlier than U, if. both S and U are present. And this type of rules makes sense in that the "actual rule" is trigged only if the sufficient number of variables are present.

However, say the example above wasn't a conditional. (It was just: S is earlier than U). Would this new version hold the same meaning: trigger only if S and U are present. Or does this new version imply that S and U are always present in the group; in other words, S and U are never part of the "Out group".

Thanks,
Barath Srinivasan

P. S. I dont have a direct example from a released test, just something I was thinking about as I was re-doing the drills from this chapter.

[Adam Tyson]

Great question, Barath! Typically the rule in a situation like that will make it clear one way or another, like "S must be before U if both are selected" or "S and U are both selected, with S being placed somewhere before U." But if they said only that "S must be before U," that would imply that both of them are included. Imagine this sort of scenario:

Out of 8 recipes submitted for consideration, 6 will be selected to be judged in a recipe contest. The 6 chosen recipes will be judged one at a time, with each recipe judged only once. The 8 recipes are P, Q, R, S, T, U V, and W.

There would likely be a little more to the scenario than that, but now let's imagine one of the rules reads as follows:

S is judged at some time before U is judged

This rule implies that both S and U must be judged, and that's how you should interpret it. They usually will make the requirement that both be included explicit, and if it is conditional then they MUST make that explicit, but just in case you come across a situation like this, the requirement is implicit in the way that rule is written.

[broth99]

That makes sense. Thank you Adam!!