It took me a few minutes to write this.

I suspect that “Mystifying Maze” (which was mostly copy-pasted) is actually an older proposal than this one is, and they’ve just appeared the wrong way round due to “entry date” (which I’m not allowed to edit) showing the point at which you started writing, rather than the point at which you finished writing.

Maybe we’ll need a CFJ to put the queue back in order?

influence is new– what’s the plan there? bc if influence is gonna end up in a position where its likely to turn into victory points, im not a huge fan of it; im much more interested in a game about us fighting to engineer neutral ground to accomplish different goals rather than the winner being the one who has the most direct influence/control over the board’s squares

that said, i do like the idea of giving us something to care about on the board

Well, Influence drops down to 0 easily, so it doesn’t make for the best victory criterion.

I was considering it to be something that acted more like a subgoal to aim for, than Puissance, which is more like a resource control mechanism. Perhaps it’s something you can trade for lasting advantages (Puissance isn’t usable for this, because if it were, nobody would use it for anything else).

I will say, though, that one idea I had is to make a mechanic which encouraged some players to try to get up to some specific Influence number, whilst other players try to stop them; I think that’d be an interesting subgame that ties together all the mechanics we have so far.

oh yeah, i totally missed that drops to 0 clause– this has my vote then :0

that specific-number mechanic sounds pretty neat as well!

[ais523] Queue timing could definitely use a clarification in the appendices. I think we generally just go with the queue order and would tap the “open for voting for at least 48 hours” sign if someone tried a scam of posting a proposal which they’d starting writing three days previously.

Richardo boldly collapsing rooms while he is standing in them is going to set up some dead ends and potentially break the Crypt Entry action (if he moves from a collapsed room into a now-detached cell, he can no longer “select an explored room that is orthagonally adjacent to his current room”), but that could use a broader fix anyway.

So it’s 3 cheaper to create a Sepulchre if you name a room after yourself right before this passes?

I did that for compatibility with the other proposal in the queue.

For what it’s worth, I think creating a Sepulchre immediately is a bad move in the current gamestate, even with a 3-point discount, so I don’t think that possibility is broken (and I won’t be using it myself). It’d be interesting to see what happens if someone else tries it, though.

Oh, this is interesting. What if no one has a Sepulchre when this enacts? The “if” in the last paragraph doesn’t trigger, which means Sepulchre becomes an orphan variable, and… does that mean everyone’s Sepulchre defaults to being E4?

A variable without a defined starting value, that is.

I’m not sure it makes sense to interpret that sentence as “if a Vampire Lord does not have a Sepulchre, the fact is not publicly tracked” (because if one value isn’t publicly tracked and all the others are, you’re still publicly tracking it by omission). So I think the Sepulchres are publicly tracked regardless.

I believe that the default value is “no Sepulchre” (I certainly expected it to be), because out of all the possibilities in the glossary, it strongly implies that for anything that reasonably can be blank, the default value is for it to be blank (even though it only gives “lists and text strings” as examples).