Note I just changed the text.

You aren’t allowed to amend a proposal after it’s been commented on. Also, this looks pretty horribly worded; for instance, does it let Sheep without 2 Baabucks change their color?

Of course it wouldn’t. Doesn’t common sense tell you that, though?

No. It might if the sentence were using the verb “pay” and phrasing it as a payment you have to make to change colour, but there’s nothing to even explain why the money disappears here, so common sense can’t tell us which way to judge it. (If standing in the sun too long bleaches your wool, but also burns away the ink on the top couple of Baabucks in the stack you’re holding, then “common sense” would tell us that a Sheep with zero Baabucks can still change their colour.)

Note that common sense doesn’t really exist in nomic, if the rules say otherwise. Being unambiguous helps, because otherwise it’ll just lead to an argument.

Also, how are the 48-hour periods aligned? Or is there a wait of 48 hours between uses of the ability (which isn’t what the rule says)? If you change, can you only change again an exact multiple of 48 hours later (one plausible reading of what you’ve written, although not the only one)?

Axmann would have started editing the comment before Bucky’s vote was posted, so I think we can probably argue that 1.7 doesn’t need to be triggered.

My main problem with this is that the ruleset seems to have lost the clause that makes actions that lead to negative numeric values illegal - the current ruleset just says that the value is set to zero instead, so it could be successfully argued that this permits the player to change regardless of cash reserves. 

I like the idea, but the wording needs to be cleaned up.

Maybe make it a weekly action? and specify that a sheep must have two baabucks before e can make this transaction.

[Josh] The clause is still there (“A Sheep who has a choice in whether to take an action defined by a dynastic rule may not take that action [if] the action would change one or more of those values to an illegal value”), it’s just superceded in this case by the set-to-zero thing.

It’s not clear if you can do this with no baabucks

because it should be harder, if not impossible, to change color.

At most it should be a weekly action and carry a steeper penalty of some sort. Like maybe you have to change to - before changing to a colour.

going with the herd

Baaaaaa

Baaaaaaa!

Axmann, thank you for so actively making these proposals.  Getting them voted down due to bugs is part of the learning curve (you see how silent I’m being this dynasty).  Please keep bringing up your ideas.

I’m the same way as Sub. I have trouble thinking of proposals so i don’t normally propose.