The wording is ambiguous, though.  Is that (remove 3 food and (set energy to 100 or add 10 food)) or ((remove 3 food and set energy to 100) or add 10 food) ?

  The latter, clearly.

@ Tiberias: Well, I’ve thought about this problem, too. But I assume that the “either ... or” construction should be clear enough. If it meant “(remove 3 food and (set energy to 100 or add 10 food))”, the “either” wouldn’t make any sense anymore, so it‘s “((remove 3 food and set energy to 100) or add 10 food)”

Even if it were ambiguous, 100 Energy are worth 10 Wood, so I can‘t see why someone could abuse the “ambiguousnes” then, if there is any.

I’m not sure it makes sense to add food by forfeiting a rest.  I still think it would be more Fun if everyone went insane and died in the even of a famine, seeing as death isn’t permanent and all.

I’m not sure it makes sense to add food by forfeiting a rest.  I still think it would be more Fun if everyone went insane and died in the event of a famine, seeing as death isn’t permanent and all.

Not sure about the adding-10-food option.

[Josh] Voluntary cannibalism, maybe?

While Keba says it’s (remove 3 food and (set energy to 100 or add 10 food)), I can only interpret as ((remove 3 food and set energy to 100) or add 10 food), as because removing and adding at the same time is very odd. I don’t like CfJs, so . Also, adding food is odd in and of itself.

You misunderstood Keba’s comment, Darth. The intended interpretation, which is made clear by Keba’s use of either-or, is the one you’re reading.

1)remove 3 food and set energy to 100, or
2)add 10 food

Hm, this is failing again, but there is some humor: My last Food proposal failed because we could get stuck. This proposal will fail, because no one likes the part, which avoids getting stuck. :P

I know, I am simplifying here a lot, but I think this is a funny fact :)

@Ornithopter: Ah, okay.    CoV again.

@Keba: Yeah, but here the stuck-avoidance makes no logical sense outside of gameplay.

One more deferential! =D

CoV

Just thought about this some more, the game could still stall quite a bit because of this. Think about it: There are 4 players but no food, player 1 adds 10 food, players 2, 3, and 4 are able to rest and leave player 1 behind for a week.  So, logically, people would try to avoid being “player 1” and adding the food to the stockpile as their weekly action.

Quite simply, this isn’t fair to the person that adds to the stockpile.

the wording just isn’t clicking with me

Wow. Purplebeard’s vote will pretty much define this all.

Unclear how it goes. (removing and setting) OR adding or is it removing AND (setting or adding)?

Haha!