BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

On a general point of principle, the examples are good but should avoid using dummy names, especially when then pointing out that they are specifically present as names of players (“Haruka, a Vampire Lord”) - the ‘Vampire Lord’ will continue to change to the player term of each dynasty, and so a future player could easily change their name to Haruka to engineer a situation where they have permanent double mana, or possibly achieve victory.

This is proving quite tricky for me to parse, and it does feel like a lot of quite dense text for what has proven to be a very occasional, fringe occurrence.

There may be some text in the Ruleset that can watch the game and replace other actions that are happening, often denoted with “instead”, “instead of” or “is replaced with”.
- A Replacement Rule consists of two parts, the Gamestate Events to be watched for and the Replaced Events.
- A Replacement Rule may only invoke itself once whenever a Gamestate event that matches the Gamestate Events to be watched for happens.
- If a Replacement Rule replaces some Event, the Original Event is considered to have never happened, instead the Replaced Events are considered to have happened and in turn, can trigger other parts of the Ruleset.
- If one or more Replacement Rule is Triggered and would replace an event, but that event never happens possibly due to Pritorisations, the Replacement Rule simply doesn’t do anything.

That’s what it looks like without the examples…

I guess I’m wondering what here is clarified that isn’t implicit in the simple use of an “if… instead” formulation.

This seems to be a solid explanation of a term I think we all have the same understanding of, only adding that if two Insteads happen at the same time and are prioritised in sequence (should we have a prioritisation rule that says to do that) we should always skip the second one.

This feels more like a wider matter for the prioritisation rule than the definition of “instead”: there’s some similar trouble with a couple of rules saying “when X happens, Y/Z also happens” if Y and Z are mutually exclusive and we need to work out which one takes priority.

@Kevan I think we need the basis before stepping on the Prioritisation matter - one Proposal at a time

If we had a Prioritisation rule that gave a clear resolution to situations where two rules called for mutually exclusive things to happen (which is mostly covered by the current rule, just not when the two contradictory rules both happen to be equally specific dynastic clauses), I don’t think we’d also need to define what “instead” meant, we’d be fine with the expected standard English meaning.

@Kevan, I think we need this to also agree on should two nonconflicting Replacement Rules apply both of them to a Event. (If a Replacement Rule replaces something, that Modified Event can continue to be replaced by another nonconflicting Replacement Rule; although that original Replacement Rule cannot replace again in the Modified Event, per “A Replacement Rule may only invoke itself once when the Gamestate Events to be watched happens.”)

Also, another problem is I’m out of slots right now.

Is there such a thing as “two nonconflicting Replacement Rules”, though? If two things are replacing one, that’s a conflict as to which replaces it.

There can be two nonconflicting Replacement Rules.

Events: Haruka gains 5 Crystals, and is Attentive.

Replacement Rule 1: “Whenever a Vampire Lord gains Crystals, they gain 5 more Crystals instead.”

Replacement Rule 2: “Whenever a Vampire Lord is Attentive and completes a Action that gains Crystals, they gain 2 more Crystals and lose Attentive.

* Replacement Rule 2 should be

Replacement Rule 2: “Whenever a Vampire Lord is Attentive and completes a Action that gains Crystals, they gain 2 more Crystals and lose Attentive instead.

Though I think this is a step in the right direction.