Oh dear, forgetting our Weaponry research was careless, there.

On the other hand, I don’t think the equally unintelligent Neanderthals can have learned how to dance, could they? They can only pick up “Traditions which have a Complexity equal to or lower than the number of the Neanderthals’ Intelligence Genes”, which is zero.

I think you should also have lost your non-inherited gene per “This “Gene” slot defaults to No and can never be passed down to future generations.” - “future generations” is admittedly a little vague, but seems like an established term for the periods between NGEs, in the ruleset.

Yes, sorry, I did make a mistake re dancing. Have corrected.

The wording on NGE is very vague, but the steps for the NGE do not include an instruction to reset non-inherited genes to any default, and in the absence of such I think they have to stay what they are. I interpreted them as permanent so that, to me, is the rule working as intended, but if a different meaning for those slots is intended then further legislation will be needed.

I probably could have made my wording more clear, but step 14 says to ignore all Apes’ non-inherited traits during splicing, and then step 15 says to append “/No” to each Apes Genetics. That was intended to reset non-inherited traits. Does that work out?
If not, I will put up a Cleanup Proposal to fix it, since the Genes rule also states that non-Inherited traits “can never be passed down to future generations,” so this would be a contradiction.

I don’t think it does - in fact, I think it causes a further problem, that basically we should be stacking non-inherited genes (i.e. I should have NoNoBeBrNo/Br/No, Kevan should be NoNoNoBrNo/No/No etc), except that that’s impossible without violating the six-gene limit. Ignoring is not, after all, the same as erasing.

We should consider keeping non-inheritable genes permanent, though, as it’s nice to have *some* control over your direction of play.

[Josh] I don’t think every NGE-triggered gamestate update has to be explicitly listed in the NGE steps. They should be, because the NGE is enough of a beast to process as it is, but rules can be anywhere. If we had a floating separate rule of “whenever an NGE happens, a random Ape gains 1 Legacy” I can’t see how it’d be legal to ignore it.

Sure, but what we’re talking about is implications and allusions, not a rule elsewhere in the ruleset that explicitly says what you want it to say. The first sentence of the core rules comes into effect here; there is nothing in the rulet that gives anyone cover to change NI genes once set, even if they wanted to.

Ah, fair point.

But we do have a rule that says this gene “can never be passed down to future generations”, and I think we have enough ruleset context to unpack that to it being illegal to have a group of Apes where any Ape has the same non-inherited gene as it did in the previous generation.

Has the most recent NGE broken this rule, simply making it an illegal action?

I honestly don’t agree with that interpretation. I personally interpreted it as being that NI genes could not be transmitted from progenitors, as that follows the “future generations” wording more conceptually clearly using a standard English reading of the rules. Suspect that this many need a cfj.