Should phrase this as removing any Influence that was accrued from Jumble during Richardo’s Sixteenth Expedition: it sounds as if Ais is limbering up to suggest a wider-ranging reversion on Slack, and this CfJ may end up increasing Lemon’s Influence.

Would also be good to update the ruleset to state that “instead do nothing” takes precedence over “instead accrues to the Vampire Lord who Enthralls them”, if that’s the reading (of an apparently ambiguous interaction between rules) being suggested here.

I don’t think that that’s the ambiguity… The “do nothing” clause applied to a condition that does not take place under the current circumstances. Not a prioritisation issue.

I agree that we need to update the ruleset at the same time as updating the gains, to make it unambiguous. For example, change “changes which would increase their Influence instead do nothing” to “changes which would increase their Influence instead do nothing and cannot accrue to any other Vampire Lord”.

[Josh] Unless “accrue” has some special meaning, aren’t both the quoted rules saying “when this Vampire would gain Influence, this other thing happens instead”?

In fact, if it’s decided that “instead do nothing” takes precedence, does that mean the shared Glyph doesn’t fire at all? Triggering a shared Glyph means “the Vampire Lord/s who owns that Glyph gain Influence”, but if “changes which would increase [Jumble’s] Influence instead do nothing”, is that applying to the change of “increase Jumble’s Influence” or “increase these three Lords’ Influence”?

Re: Kevan’s point: “Whenever a Room is Pacified, if that room contains a Glyph then the Vampire Lord/s who owns that Glyph gain Influence equal to the amount of Energy lost by Richardo during the completion of that Move.”

I was looking to shoot that point down based on the exact wording of the rule, but looking at what it actually says, I think the exact wording actually supports it; it appears to all be a single gain event.

If Kevan is right, then the “influence transfers to Enthralled player” rule would be narrower than the “cancel the entire action” rule because it changes less about the action (changing two influence gains instead of canceling up to three.)

The precedence rule doesn’t look at what has the narrower effect, though, just what applies in the narrower set of situations. In this case, neither “there is an Enthralled Vampire Lord on the Glyph” nor “there is a Vampire Lord without a Sepulchre on the Glyph” is narrower than the other (especially when it’s the same Vampire Lord in both cases!).

I mean, it only says “scope”.  It gives an example, but I don’t see how my other definition of scope isn’t valid.

My interpretation of “scope” is “the range of situations in which something applies”. I don’t think the word has a meaning anything like “effect”.

The ruleset contains an example which can be taken to illustrate what is meant by “scope”, and the example looks entirely at which situations the rules apply in, ignoring the actual outcomes.

Hmm, I think the wording of this CFJ still needed work, but now there’s a vote it can’t be edited.

FWIW, I think that the current version of it changes neither ruleset nor gamestate, given that the glyphs didn’t exist in the first place, and thus an admin can simply just fail it immediately.

because this doesn’t do anything.

Could an admin check the revision history of this CFJ to see when it was edited compared to Josh’s vote?

I’m not certain that the edit was legal (although I may have missed it prior to seeing Josh’s vote).

An admin has confirmed that the post was edited after both Josh’s vote and mine (which is why the comment on my vote doesn’t match the CFJ’s contents).