Tuesday, July 06, 2021

Call for Judgment: Basic Bounce

Enacted popular, 7-0. Josh

Adminned at 07 Jul 2021 08:09:33 UTC

If Call for Judgment: Bouncing doesn’t work like that was enacted then this CfJ does nothing; if Call for Judgment: Bouncing doesn’t work like that is still pending then fail it.

If they were not correctly applied, uphold all resolutions of the “Richardo von Nestor is moved back to his previous location” effect that have occurred in Enter the Crypt actions prior to the enactment of this CfJ.

Change the text of the feature (and the effect, in every room in which it appears) “Richardo von Nestor is moved back to his previous location” to read “Richardo von Nestor’s next Move in this Enter the Crypt action must have his immediate previous location as its destination”.

A minimally-invasive resolution to the issue of bounces.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

06-07-2021 15:29:20 UTC

This makes it a bit weaker, as Richardo will still encounter denizens there.

Granted, if you use ais’s interpretation, you still technically encounter the Denizens in the room you ran away from so maybe that isn’t a big deal?

ais523:

06-07-2021 15:43:35 UTC

This resolution probably unintentionally benefits Jumble – it increases the chance of his deathtrap being hit twice in a single run as a consequence of bouncing off the Chicken Coop. It is more straightforward, though (perhaps the rest of us could collectively even the odds by attacking his room?)

ais523:

06-07-2021 15:44:32 UTC

It’s also probably a good idea to fix the new wording so that there’s some clear resolution in the case where the exit to the previous room is blocked (should this effect override it, or not?)

You also wrote “proposal” rather than “CfJ” in the first line.

Josh: he/they

06-07-2021 15:52:50 UTC

Thanks.

If the return exit is blocked, the move action can’t be completed and it ends the run prematurely, as currently written; maybe not ideal but at least clear enough.

Brendan: he/him

06-07-2021 17:40:22 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

06-07-2021 17:45:06 UTC

Does “Richardo von Nestor’s next Move in this Enter the Crypt action must have his immediate previous location as its destination” take precedence over “Richardo may only select a Room which is Daunting and/or was his immediate previous location if it is the only option in the set of rooms he is randomly choosing from.”?

I’m not sure it does. Is “next Move” enough to give it a more limited scope? Otherwise the negation wins.

Brendan: he/him

06-07-2021 18:00:52 UTC

The latter applies to every move in a run, the former applies to one specific situation. I think it’s clear that specificity favors “next Move.”

ais523:

06-07-2021 18:03:32 UTC

for because this needs to be resolved and I’m going to vote in favour of both CFJs that have a chance of fixing it.

Josh: he/they

06-07-2021 18:19:59 UTC

@Clucky I would argue that the effect makes the prior room “the only option in the set of rooms he is randomly choosing from”

Clucky: he/him

06-07-2021 19:12:01 UTC

fair enough seems like we have enough agreement here that if someone tried to claim otherwise the CfJ would fail

Clucky: he/him

06-07-2021 19:13:06 UTC

whoops for

Kevan: City he/him

06-07-2021 19:32:24 UTC

for

Raven1207: he/they

07-07-2021 00:02:38 UTC

for

lemon: she/her

07-07-2021 00:07:57 UTC

for

Bucky:

07-07-2021 02:21:28 UTC

How does this interact with a Secret Passage Map? if a Secret Passage leads to the room, it ends the run, but if found inside the room, I think it leads to an outright contradiction.