Unsure (and since the Landlord is the author if this Proposal, I won’t vote deferal for now).

Of course one could choose to leave it out, but shouldn’t you include a sentence that all existing Crop get the new properties? If I remember (and understand) the rules correctly, while planting a Seed, it becomes a Crop with the properties of the chosen Seed, thus a copy of the Seed. If u change the seed after copying it, existing Crops are not automatically updated, I think.

Also, I always like to know _why_ someone wants to change something. Why do you want to change the existing On_Death_Effect to a kind of Counterattacklike thing?

That was what the counterback effect was meant to be.
and, I think there was something about updating the Crops in the Ruleset. No time to check.
FOR

Ely is correct on both counts.  The counterback effect was originally meant as a response to an attack, and it makes more sense that way I think.  The changes to the crops is just to make them more in line with the new wording of the pheromone.

This is the line in the ruleset that Ely was referring to: “When the attributes of the Seed from which the Crop originated are changed by any legal means (including the effects of proposals), the attributes of the Crop are changed to match the new attributes of the Seed. “

on principle. I’ve recently decided that I dislike all EVC clauses.

Also, I don’t see how this would prevent grind.

CoV OK, here’s my vote. :-)

PB: It says “at least half”.  Also, it prevents grind because it allows for some automatic defenses.  The reason I included the EVC clause is in case people thought that the current pheromones were too powerful given the new definition.

One example that I wanted to include in this proposal was to change the potato pheromone to “Reduce Attacker’s health by 10 and destroy the Potato.”

Watermelon is incredibly expensive, considering that it’s expected damage is only 0.5 points higher than that of Cabbage.  Cabbage is incredibly cheap and probably does not deserve a Pheremone.  Potato seems fine to me, even with this change.

I’m still not sure if I like this proposal.

I would propose another crop rebalancing, but I’m out of slots.  If you would like to take a crack at it, go ahead.

Yoda: I didn’t say I had a problem with the way the EVC clause was worded, or that I questioned your reason for including it, I just dislike the inclusion of new voting mechanisms in proposals. If people think certain crops are overpowered, they’ll propose a separate fix.

Except that I was worried that this would get shot down because it made the current crops overpowered, so I included the option to get rid of the overpowered part as a temporary fix.

They’re overpowered

They’re overpowered. The period is important.

CoV, since Yoda explained his reasons and my other objection turned out to be no matter, so: