BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

It’s expensive but powerful. Is it really cheesy or bad?

I mean, this is clearly a so I should pipe down

You probably want to set the idle Vampire Lord to have no Sepulchre. Sepulchres don’t have Sepulchres of their own.

@josh there’s a possible timing conflict if someone’s Sepulchre has collapsed and someone else wants to machinate their Sepulchre immediately after it collapses

Machination is completely fine, and one of the avenues of strategy.

The other change I’m torn on. I do think using idling players to nuke rules is a bit much. Prior to DK going idle, an enterprising player could’ve done a Machination and just gotten to nuke a room of their choice.

Maybe just make it so that idle Sepulchres stay? is there any real harm in that?

@Clucky: Tenuous Bridge is an idle player’s Sepulchre (established before the rule that allowed idle players’ Sepulchres to be collapsed). So we’d need to decide what to do about that square. We’d also need to work out how to do the tracking. Apart from that, though, I think you have a good idea.

Good point ais, that means that anyone can detonate the Tenuous Bridge right now if they want to.

They can’t, the rule says “When a Vampire Lord becomes idle while having a Sepulchre”, and the rule didn’t exist when pokes became idle so the “when” didn’t trigger.

It goes on to say “if no other Vampire Lord has collapsed that former Sepulchre since the idle Vampire Lord became idle, any Vampire Lord may collapse that former Sepulchre”

Yes, but it’s still modified by the “when”.

Rules can’t trigger on things that happen before they were enacted, unless they specifically say they do.

I would say “agree to disagree” but I’m sure I’d just get called a fool again.

If it comes up then we can hash it out in a CfJ. Otherwise it’s academic.

Like, if the rule said “if an Idle Vampire Lord has a Sepulchre, any player may collapse that sepulchre” on its own, it would work. But the rule has an explicit condition to limit it to Vampire Lords that have become idle (as opposed to which are idle), and that condition only sees Vampire Lords who idled while it existed.

do idle Vampire Lords have Sepulchres?

“When a Vampire Lord is unidled, if they went Idle in the same Dynasty, their personal gamestate retains the last legally endowed values it had, if they are still valid. Otherwise (including if a value is invalid, does not exist, or the Vampire Lord Idled in a different Dynasty), the Vampire Lord is given the default value for new Vampire Lords, if such a value exists.”

To me, this says that an idle Vampire Lord does not have a Sepulchre. Were Jason to unidle, their Sepulchre status would try to retain “Burning Stream” and fail (unless someone adds a new Burning Stream in which case… CfJ time)

I think you could probably make the argument that “Sepulchre” is a property of a room instead of (or maybe as well as) being a property of a Vampire Lord, so probably both are true; I agree that if Jason were to unidle his personal gamestate is unchanged.

Okay, that’s definitely broken

It cost Jumble exactly as many Puissance to restore their deathtrap, with Grievous Injury and glyph in full effect, as it cost me to engineer its collapse—which I could only do by guessing that a player might eventually idle out. If there’s a part of the math that’s broken, it’s not Machination.

as there are already votes and removing Machination goes too far

SK