like the idea. Do we also want to make it so you can’t have a friend give you a sepulchre in an unreachable location?

Sigh. I GUESS.

but but the “is diagonally adjacent to a room reachable from room E4 by a path of orthogonally connected Lit rooms” line is already weeeird. It means you can’t currently place a sepculhre in the Forgotten Corridor, but could place it in a completely unreachable room

I guess to cut down on proposal growth propogating the broken thing and then fixing them both is better than either fixing it right here and fixing it elsewhere later or fixing it right here and updating the other one?

I prefer proposals that are contained in their scope.

Imperial no-vote

yeah that seems reasonable but I’ll give it a bit for others to spot errors

It was intentional that you could put Sepulchres in rooms that were unreachable, but only just unreachable, in order to encourage people to try to build towards them.

doesn’t change the fact that its broken because it randomly disallows accessible rooms’

but yes, I’m aware that you are intentionally trying to sneak stuff through your proposals you hope other people don’t notice so you can take advantage of it

I’m not hoping other people don’t notice it. That said, a reasonable proportion of the playerlist is ignoring even the most obvious dynastic mechanics, so it isn’t surprising that some people are missing the more subtle ones.

FWIW, I don’t think that disallowing rooms in long corridors is “broken”. Those are precisely the locations where you don’t want people to be able to cheaply disconnect the map by intentionally collapsing a Sepulchre, and the current version of the rule encourages people to build a more compact map which leads to more interesting movement for Richardo.

I’m upset at repeatedly being accused of self-interest whenever I do anything in BlogNomic (it’s part of what drove me away last time, because nobody would pass any of my proposals in case there was a scam buried in them). The only really self-interested thing I’ve been doing with proposals this dynasty is trying to construct a good, playable strategic game, because it increases the chance of the win being based on dynastic gameplay rather than “this dynasty sucks, let’s just pick a winner at random”, and I feel like I have an advantage in that over the people who sit there doing mostly nothing. Generally speaking, there’s not much point in trying to sneak a scam through unless you can immediately use it to win the dynasty; otherwise people will pull the rug out from under you.

To suggest that its okay to put a Sepulchre at D7 but not at E6 because of it being “able to cheaply disconnect the map” seems rather absurd to me. Putting your Sepulchre at E6 does the absolute least amount to disconnect the map. If you put it at a place like E5 or F4 and Richardo goes there, you’ve actually disconnected the map. If you create a room at D7, you’ve disconnected the map even without a visit from Richardo. If you put it at E6 and Richardo goes there… okay now the hallway is one shorter the map is still connected

“I’m aware that you are intentionally trying to sneak stuff through your proposals you hope other people don’t notice so you can take advantage of it” - I can’t tell if that’s a statement of the obvious that applies to all players, or a complaint, but this is Nomic! A sneakily self-interested proposal is a clever move, in the game where changing the rules is a move.

I agree with the sentiments of Kevan, rules lawyering, when done properly (not like a munchkin) is good fun.

Tho I am not certain of the whole implications of this - therefore I chose DEFER.

This makes no sense flavour-wise, but I don’t care.

@Chiiika - as I won’t be voting on this a DEF has no effect.