BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

Ah, not in the proposal category, and too late to categorise it now.

The “never considered to share a Location” clause is only there to stop Artefacts in the same Collection from being adjacent, isn’t it? Repealing it would have the same effect.

The second bit possibly happens anyway, since “Josh’s Collection” would not be a valid Location if there were no (dynastic-ruleset-visible) player called Josh any more. Although I’m not sure what value would actually replace it, in that situation.

Because it would make me now vulnerable to the Paperclip. Dude.

The “never considered to share a Location” clause is only there to stop Artefacts in the same Collection from being adjacent, isn’t it? Repealing it would have the same effect.

Not purely - I wanted it to be clear that a Collector could never be in the same place as their Collection, for example, or that an Individual in the same place as a Collector was not also in the same place as the artefacts in their Collection, all of those edge cases.

<i>Although I’m not sure what value would actually replace it, in that situation.</b>

Yeah, that’s essentially the question that this seeks to codify.

It’s a broader question, though, which it feels like the ruleset should answer but doesn’t: what happens when a game value becomes invalid? Where does the Switchcomb go if Cuddlebeam idles, what (as came up recently) happens if someone’s carrying three Artefacts and the rule is rewritten to “players can only carry two Artefacts”?

We have “Invalid values for game variables can never be used…”, but it doesn’t really answer this. We should probably be saying that invalid values are set to their defaults.

That wouldn’t answer the “two Artefacts” thing, though, and I don’t even know what the fair answer to that one would be. Maybe something a bit fiddly along the lines of “if a game variable is a set and its contents are invalid, items are removed from that set at random until the set becomes valid or empty”.