The reason I had those Monitoring clauses in place (especially the one this proposal removes) is because originally I wanted there to be a somewhat harsh punishment for not following the “OSHA guidelines” (this happens very often in real life, where site managers are given a chance to fix their mistakes else they get shut down). I didn’t, however, want that punishment to ruin the game for somebody if they made a slight math error, so I gave them time to fix it.

I don’t know how harsh removing only Quarters modules (with no time to fix it if you make a mistake) is versus tearing down the site, so I’ll see how the vote turns out.

That’s a fair idea, maybe we should find some other way to do that. (I did wonder if Quarters could just be changed to something else - a lowercase Q - and changed back when the Architect’s moonbase was safe again.)

This proposal doesn’t alter the Quarters/whole-site teardown mechanic, unless I’ve written something wrongly.

Perhaps we could have a rule that says something like:

“If a Site is safe, the Quarters are Inhabited; if a Site is deemed Unsafe, the Quarters are evacuated and become Uninhabited.”

That would allow the Safe/Unsafe mechanic to do something meaningful, but wouldn’t be too destructive. What do you think?

[Farsight] Perhaps, though I don’t see a reason to enact such a rule unless this one turns out to not work so well for gameplay.

[Kevan] It doesn’t alter much; really, the only difference is that this proposal removes the delay between Monitoring actions if a site is Unsafe. (The way the rules stand currently, an Architect has some time to fix their site before evacuating because other Architects can’t perform a second Monitoring until they’ve added a block. This proposal removes that delay, meaning any Unsafe site will have to evac immediately. I’m not a fan of that, but I can live with it if the people will it.)

[Farsight] I think it depends what the Uninhabited state does. If it’s something that affects a player’s actions, making it an automatic and invisible state could make the game more of a slog to play, as you’d have to do some maths to double-check your Safety every time you wanted to take a relevant action. (Worse, a player who wasn’t paying attention might not realise that their Quarters were now considered Uninhabited, and play on regardless.)

If Unsafety is a bad thing for a player, I think it’s a useful division of labour to put the onus of checking onto their opponents, and to require some kind of gamestate change to show that it’s happened. That way the affected player just has to quickly check that gamestate before taking actions.