This need to clarify how to handle past actions, doesn’t it? You’ve been paying a base of 1 Turn to grind stones, other players have been paying a base of 2. Are your actions Upheld? Do other players get refunds?

I don’t want to muddy the water of the fix with that - I think other players should get refunds, personally, but I would also argue that this passing would constitute an acknowledgement that my read is valid either way

Either way, I don’t agree with your reading: a Monk with a Grinding Stone “may immediately perform a Tile Action to [do X]” and “In order to perform a Tile Action, a Monk must spend 1 Turn plus [Y]”. Spending 1+Y Turns is how you perform a Tile Action, and all the Grinding Stone is doing is making a new diagonal effect available, without modifying the Tile Action cost.

So on closer inspection, I think stuff might actually be broken, but not in the way you’re suggesting it is.

The rules state

“In order to perform a Tile Action, a Monk must spend 1 Turn plus 1 additional Turn for every other Tile Action they have performed over the last 12 hours”

This is a requirement for performing Tile Actions. But it doesn’t actually let you perform tile actions. The only thing that actually says you can perform a tile action is the grinding stone.

Not opposed to the new wording, but either way we need to clarify that the implicit assumption that tile actions can be performed at any time was correct.

However, this also either breaks exhaustive measures if it passes first, or this is broken if exhaustive measures passes first. So for that I’m

I think “As a Tile Action, a Monk may do one of the following:” is enough to imply that the action can be taken at any time - you can rearrange it to “a Monk may do X, X is called a Tile Action, in order to perform a Tile Action you must spend Y”.

I disagree; I think that clucky is correct, although I also think that the issue I have raised remains a problem

A problem that passing this CfJ would solve without cost, btw

I’m somewhat on the fence about which interpretation is more correct;  I’d be happy to go either way, as long as it is clarified and past turn costs are fixed.  We should also take into account that refunding previous costs may interfere with their other actions, e.g., I would have not performed the “gain 5 turns” actions because I would not have gained the full benefit from it.  Would I need a new CfJ to fix that, if this passes?

I’m with Kevan that the “As a Tile Action, ...” is enough to determine that the action can be taken.

@Josh it doesn’t “solve without cost”, it breaks an existing proposal

I was on the fence, but I slightly tend towards my previous interpretation.

I don’t think thus hurts now

actually this breaks the grinding stone, because now part of doing the Tile Action is picking something from that list.

So now the idea of a “Tile Action to change the colour of a white tile to match that of a tile which is which is distance 2 from it.” doesn’t make any sense.