Proposal: Dependency Issue [Appendix]
SK’d. - Jumble
Adminned at 28 Jul 2021 23:21:45 UTC
Add a new bullet point at the top level to the beginning of “Prioritisation”, “-“ is considered to be bullet points:
- If two or more parts of the Ruleset contradicts each other, and if one or more part of the Ruleset is Dependent on another part of the Ruleset, where Dependent is defined as if applying the latter-mentioned part of the Ruleset first or last would change the scope, the effects of the before-mentioned part of the Ruleset; then the before-mentioned part of the Ruleset is said to be Dependent on the latter part of the Ruleset. In such case, the latter-part which is the independent part will take effect first and the before-mentioned part which is the dependent part will take effect last, regardless of precedence construed in the next bullet point. (e.g. if the rules “Vampire Lords may gain three Crystals as a Action”, “If any Vampire Lord gains Crystals, they gain 3 more Crystals instead” and “If a Vampire Lord gain 4 or less Crystals in an Action, they gain 0 Crystals instead” exist in the Ruleset, and Haruka; a Vampire Lord activates “Vampire Lords may gain three Crystals” as a Action, they gain 6 crystal instead of 0 since “If a Vampire Lord gain 4 or less Crystals” is dependent on “If any Vampire Lord gains Crystals, they gain 3 more Crystals instead”.)
A dependency system to hopefully logically resolve another chain of problems which happened in this Dynasty for the future Dynasties.
Resolving equal-scope ambiguity as “both happen in sequence” is fine for the recent confusion here, but would get weird in possible future situations with two “instead of X, get Y” effects where the recipient would (I think unintuitively) receive both outcomes.
Josh: he/they
I must admit that I’m struggling to follow the logic of this, but even so, it appears to be being placed at the top of the Prioritisation tree - so before, for example, the general stipulation that the Appendix has priority over the rest of the ruleset - and I think that’s probably not ideal, as it means that this Dependency stipulation may lead to a dynastic rule taking precedence over a non-dynastic.