This feels a little bad-natured; if you don’t like the the effect it has on fragments then by all means amend it, but barely waiting for the ink to dry before telling everyone that they voted wrong, actually is hard not to take personally.

By my reading of the rules, the narrator is well within their rights to just refuse to wire it up how the katastrophe desires?

Creating rooms and connections is within the rights of the katastrophe, but choosing how a malfeasance is resolved is entirely controlled by the Narrator, even when that resolution makes connections of its own. My assumption would be that the rooms would be connected in the most logical way for a given room disappearance.

(I do wonder what happens if you delete the foyer though, since the rules force it to be a valid room but it wouldn’t have any of the traits of a normal room.)

That’s how I read it as well. Katastrophe only has control over room creation when it’s done as a “once per turn” action, because this condition is specifically called out as a Supernatural action, and that’s what gives Katastrophe control over it.

Resolving malfeasances is itself not a Supernatural action, and thus the resulting room creation effect for Dark Reordering is not under Katastrophe’s control.

I don’t like this as a potential fuse.

[Josh] I don’t think the mechanic got enough scrutiny when presented as “just moving thins around a bit”, is all. I don’t mind burning a slot to let that happen.

[Singular/Jonathan] If Katastrophe creates new links in advance under the “once per turn” action, they can ensure that there are no loose ends that the Narrator will have to reconnect when the Dark Reordering happens, and have the mansion joined up however best suits their plan. (eg. connecting the Supply Closet to the Smoking Room before detonating the Foyer: the mansion will still be intact, except now the Sitting Room will be a very long walk from everywhere else.)

I do see your point, I hadn’t considered the katastrophe being able to rearrange the mansion to that extent. Either way though, it doesn’t feel significantly above the power level of a normal malfeasance given that the others allow things like moving invisibly across a large area or blocking off routes for a couple of turns, or even literally becoming the katastrophe again.

I wouldn’t object to minor nerfs, but a full deletion seems over the top given that only 2 players voted before you (ignoring Chiiika’s vote, since she made a CoV after your own vote in the proposal).

[Singular] Me stepping in and somehow removing the rule myself would be over the top, but this is just another vote. If the quorum who supported Josh’s proposal all approved of the new Katastrophe power, I can’t out-quorum them on that - they’ll vote this deletion down.

Room Malfeasances are bound to specific rooms and can be discovered and activated by other players, or denied by trapping Katastrophe elsewhere. Dark Reordering has none of those drawbacks, it’s just an ability that Katastrophe alone can use when needed.

As a player who isn’t Katastrophe, nor working with Katastrophe, I didn’t and still don’t see a reason to give that one player an additional power at the same (and let alone a higher) level as some existing ones. I think they have enough powers at their disposal already.

When you say it doesn’t have the drawback of being able to be denied by trapping Katastrophe, what do you mean? The possessed player still has to spend their turns making their way to the room they want to destroy, and they still have to deal with being shunted to a random connected room when the power activates.

A plan to destroy a room with Dark Reordering has a lot of leeway - if Katastrophe is looking to split the mansion to cut some players off from others, there are probably a few points where they can make that cut, and if people move around they can adjust the plan accordingly. A Room Malfeasance is locked to that room and can’t adapt if players wander elsewhere; it also risks giving the game away early if someone stumbles into a Trap that only one player could have set.

The victory condition right now is “if you are four (three?) steps away from everyone else and Katastrophe wants to generate Fragments in your location, you will win”. A mechanic that allows Katastrophe to increase the distance between players relatively easily - even just once - is extremely dangerous.

@Kevan To them, maybe; your scenario requires acting overtly, in public, over the course of over a week, during which time every other player can still eg propose and vote.

Did you forget that this mechanic makes it obvious who and where Katastrophe is?

If Katastrophe’s accomplice has already picked up a fragment earlier in the game, it’s 72 hours, maybe even 36 if I’ve missed an angle. That’s definitely into the zone of it feeling unsporting to take it down with a proposal.

Katastrophe’s big reveal is “I drop another fragment at the feet of my friend here, and I split the mansion so that nobody is within four moves of them”; at which point, no, it doesn’t matter in the slightest who and where Katastrophe is, or what happens to them for the remainder of the dynasty. They just have to generate another Fragment for their accomplice, from wherever they are.

I would not find it unsporting to strip fragments or roles by proposal from anybody with the hubris to think that they could act unopposed in the open for 72 hours.

[Josh] If we’re going 5 DEF and a nodded AGAINST on a proposal right now asking “should Katastrophe+accomplice be able to win in 72 hours”, I think Katastrophe is going to be fine for acting unopposed.

@Kevan - I think that may reflect the weakness of your disaster case rather than necessarily widespread apathy.

It’d take a fair chunk of time longer than 72 hours, if I’m not mistaken? Once the Critical Mass proposal passes, picking up 2 fragments takes 4 turns. (Move, grab, move, grab), and 3 fragments takes 5. If anyone is able to get adjacent for that last grab, then it takes another turn to reposition away from the disruption that would be attempted too.