From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1300 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2004 23:25:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1267 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2004 23:25:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ob2.cmich.edu) (141.209.20.21) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2004 23:25:06 -0000 Received: from egate1.central.cmich.local ([141.209.15.85]) by ob2.cmich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7HNJxP6031855; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:19:59 -0400 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:22:23 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9694A70011; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:36:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: Hans Ronne Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: The selective fire-at command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2004 23:22:23.0588 (UTC) FILETIME=[0D075A40:01C484B1] X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-Spam-Score: -0.9 () X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00940.txt.bz2 On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote: > problems. The fact that nobody discovered that the command doesn't work for > many years shows that it's a very subtle bug (or a seldomly used command). I would say the former and not the latter. I have, in fact, used this command to fire at a single unit so that a mouse click does not accidentally advance into a cell (when the opponent exerts a ZOC range of -1, for example). I have also thought that I was firing at a select unit when more than one unit was present in a cell before. Of course, I was obviously under the delusion that my choice of target was being hit, and did not pay close attention to where the firing lines where being drawn. Mea culpa, I guess. But, the fact that I thought I was using something, but was not, does not mean that it is not useful. Of course, when an unit with a large image is occupied, then it obscures the entire cell, and so it is not possible to even click on the edge of the cell to enter it. (Or this is my recollection anyway.) > I found it paradoxical, though, that those who argued that this is a very > useful command which should be kept at all costs have never been able to > use it, while I, who do have a selective fire-at command on my Mac don't > find it particularly useful :-). The sarcasm was not lost on me. However, I do not think we should let it detract from the good arguments about the usefulness of the command and its corresponding action. Nor should we let it derail the 'fire-into' semantics debate, until that is all straightened out. Also, as you pointed out, the attack command and corresponding action did work as advertized, and so it cannot be claimed that those who advocated it were using it under a delusion in the way that I was using fire under a delusion. These are important changes that are being discussed, and it would be a pity if the arguments were swept under the rug because someone was cast as a hypocrite of sorts. Eric