Monday, July 05, 2021

Call for Judgment: Bouncing doesn’t work like that

Failed by Call for Judgment: Basic Bounce. Josh

Adminned at 07 Jul 2021 08:10:00 UTC

Undo any actions which Enthralled the Vampire Lord Clucky. Undo the Vampire Lord Clucky’s creation of a Denizen in the Shattered Staircase. (“Undoing an action” here includes undoing both the effects of the action, and the spending of the cost paid to perform that action. If the action was never performed in the first place, undoing it does nothing.)

Undo any Power Actions taken since the posting of this CFJ by each Vampire Lord for whom this CFJ would otherwise attempt to set their Puissance to a negative number.

Uphold Richardo von Nestor’s resolution of the most recent “Enter the Crypt” action at the time of posting of this CFJ (“Richardo’s Twelfth Expedition”), then subtract 1 Puissance from every Vampire Lord (including idle Vampire Lords) who was not idle when this CFJ was posted, and 1 additional Puissance from each Vampire Lord who had a Sigil in the Library of Souls at the time of that action (i.e. the Vampire Lords named pokes, Phil, ais523, Kevan, Jason, Jumble, lemonfanta, Bucky, Chiiika, and Clucky).

Uphold Richardo von Nestor’s most recent (at the time of posting of this CFJ) Puissance calculation from the first of his “Enter the Crypt” actions which lead to the posting of a story post “Richardo’s Ninth Expedition”.

The “Richardo von Nestor is moved back to his previous location.” feature doesn’t actually trigger the effects of the room that Richardo is moved to (because the effects happen based on “that room”, referring to the room that Richardo most recently randomly chose to move to, but movement is based on “his current room”, which is the room he would have been moved into by the feature). But Josh doesn’t seem to have realised that.

This affects two expeditions: the ninth and the twelfth, which were both calculated incorrectly because Josh applied the effect of the Library of Souls one extra time. The ninth is too far back to unravel at this point, so uphold it. The twelfth, though, is recent enough that we can wind it back; the only action that was affected as a result was Clucky’s, and we can undo that one. (Note that we have to be careful identifying the ninth expedition, as the tenth expedition was accidentally originally posted with a title saying it was the ninth.)

Note: an alternative possible resolution would be to change the “go back to where you came from” effect to do what it would be expected to do based on its name. That would also need a CFJ, though, to uphold the resolutions of the ninth and twelfth expeditions (in addition to a ruleset amendment to make it do what we want it to), and I prefer to fix things in a way that gets us as close to the actual gamestate as possible. (If people would prefer that fix, I’ll let them make their own counter-CFJ for it.)


Clucky: he/him

06-07-2021 00:39:30 UTC

“that room” feels poorly defined, but then so is “Richardo is moved back to his previous location”. And it seems we now have precedent from the 9th expedition that “Richardo is moved back to his previous location” both updates his location and resets the “that room” reference.

At the very least, I feel like this should reword stuff so its perfectly clear what happens. But overall not a huge fan of undoing things especially when it feels like a tactical move designed to prevent Jumble from getting to thrall me.


06-07-2021 00:46:00 UTC

I think “that room” is unambiguously defined. The Journey rule says “Secretly randomly select a Lit room that is orthogonally adjacent to his current room and change his location to be that room.”. The first instance of “that room” can only possibly refer to the room that was secretly randomly selected, and I can’t see any sensible reason for the referents for other instances to change to “Richardo’s current room” mid-list (especially given that it isn’t mentioned at all beyond that point).

I do think there’s ambiguity in “Richardo is moved back to his previous location”; it could be interpreted as “change Richardo’s location to his previous location” or as “do a Move from Richardo’s current location to Richardo’s previous location”. However, the latter intepretation doesn’t fit with the ruleset, because the definition of a Move requires random selection of a new location, and doesn’t allow the new location to be specified (additionally, doing a Move in the middle of another Move would be incredibly confusing and would be unlikely to have the outcomes that people were expecting). So I think there’s only one sensible way to resolve that ambiguity.

I think this proposal isn’t undoing anything (rather, I think that your Denizen creation was unambiguously illegal) – I just want to fix the gamestate. If you would prefer fixing it a different way, though, I’m fine with that. Just, the gamestate right now isn’t anything like we think it is (due to the Ninth Expedition being processed incorrectly too), so we definitely need a CFJ to get it back on track.


06-07-2021 00:51:32 UTC

Oh, also to note: I made this CFJ before Jumble enthralled Clucky. It isn’t a tactical move of any sort, just trying to get the gamestate back on track. (I did think, though, that Clucky would be happy to discover that his accidental overspend was illegal and thus his miscalculation actually didn’t happen.)


06-07-2021 00:58:43 UTC

This incorrectly awards me Puissance should I unidle while it’s pending.


06-07-2021 01:08:43 UTC

@Bucky: fixed.

lemon: she/her

06-07-2021 06:54:50 UTC

honestly the fact that this feature caused this much of a headache is more reason why we should just repeal it :/

Josh: he/they

06-07-2021 07:00:46 UTC

against The use of the word “moved” when there is a defined step of the atomic action called “moving” costly supports my interpretation of the effect: that it calls a move action within the existing move action.

If that’s not an interpretation that makes anyone happy then they should change the rule but I stand by my interpretation.


06-07-2021 07:03:59 UTC

The first step of the “move” action is moving to a random adjacent square, though. You didn’t do that.

Additionally, following that interpretation causes the moves to resolve out of order (because it forces you to do the “inside” move while you’re midway through the “outside” move, and the “outside” move is still incomplete at that point).

Kevan: City he/him

06-07-2021 07:59:35 UTC

“the only action that was affected as a result was Clucky’s, and we can undo that one” - no, this fix would also put me down to 1 Puissance, at which point Pokes could unidle and cash in a Favour to dust me.

Entirely agree that “perform a Move to X” is not a meaningful action in the ruleset as written.


Kevan: City he/him

06-07-2021 08:06:04 UTC

(I would not have spent down to 1 Puissance if I’d known the Expedition would pay out differently.)


06-07-2021 08:24:03 UTC

@Kevan: It seems pretty strange to be worried about someone cashing a favour to dust you when it only costs a favour to get undusted – on average, you benefit from that exchange because you get to choose who you owe the favour to (and I don’t see why pokes would want to do that anyway).

Also, Puissance isn’t a favour-tradeable statistic so dusting someone via Favour transaction isn’t something that it’s possible to do.

Kevan: City he/him

06-07-2021 08:36:27 UTC

Favours normally expire at the end of a dynasty: whether Pokes claims it or lets it expire, it disappears. Swapping it for a whole new Favour with someone else will impact the next dynasty, where Pokes’ Favour can’t.

But you’re quite right, I’d missed that we’d overwritten the fundamental “IOU one resource of your choice at any time” mechanic of Favours to quite this extent, for this dynasty.


Raven1207: he/they

06-07-2021 09:25:05 UTC


lemon: she/her

06-07-2021 09:40:14 UTC

i’d prefer the other method but for i guess

Brendan: he/him

06-07-2021 14:53:56 UTC

against I really can’t see a reason not to just uphold both.

Lulu: she/her

06-07-2021 16:19:59 UTC


lemon: she/her

07-07-2021 00:08:25 UTC

CoV against in favour of the other proposal