Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Call for Judgment: I spotted a loophole

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 1 vote to 7 by Kevan.

Adminned at 28 Oct 2020 20:18:05 UTC

As written, I think all uses of the grinding stone should have a cost of exactly 1 turn and no more.

Tools says “A Monk may use a tool that they are holding at any time by spending its turn cost in turns and applying its effect”. So you spend 1 Turn and carry out the effect.

The effect of Grinding Stone is to “immediately perform a Tile Action”. 

The rule Turns separates out spending Turns from the actual carrying out of the Tile Action (“In order to perform a Tile Action, a Monk must spend” is separate from “As a Tile Action, a Monk may do one of the following”). “In order to perform and tile action” makes spending Turns a pre-requisite of performing a Tile Action, but not actually part of the Tile Action itself. My read of that is that Grinding Stone allows that you (well, actually, requires you to) perform the Tile Action without carrying out the “spend turns” step that comes before it. It contributes to the snowball for subsequent turns but doesn’t actually require any further expenditure.

Solution: change the following text in the rule Turns:

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

As a Tile Action, a Monk may do one of the following:

To read as follows:

A Monk may carry out a Tile Action at any time by carrying out the following steps: first, a Monk must spend 1 Turn plus 1 additional Turn for every other Tile Action they have performed over the last 12 hours. Then they may choose one from the following:

Comments

Kevan: HE/HIM

10-27-2020 10:32:35 UTC

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?

Josh: POINDEXTER HE/HIM

10-27-2020 11:08:05 UTC

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

Kevan: HE/HIM

10-27-2020 12:17:05 UTC

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.

against

Clucky: HE/HIM

10-27-2020 15:43:45 UTC

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 against

Kevan: HE/HIM

10-27-2020 17:11:53 UTC

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”.

Josh: POINDEXTER HE/HIM

10-27-2020 17:50:57 UTC

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

Josh: POINDEXTER HE/HIM

10-27-2020 17:51:16 UTC

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

Bais:

10-27-2020 18:00:55 UTC

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.

Clucky: HE/HIM

10-27-2020 21:07:54 UTC

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

Raven1207: HE/HIM

10-28-2020 01:46:35 UTC

against

Jumble:

10-28-2020 14:44:35 UTC

against

Bais:

10-28-2020 14:48:37 UTC

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

Clucky: HE/HIM

10-28-2020 18:03:52 UTC

for I don’t think thus hurts now

Clucky: HE/HIM

10-28-2020 18:13:47 UTC

against 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.

card:

10-28-2020 18:53:10 UTC

imperial

Sylav: HE/HIM

10-28-2020 19:55:23 UTC

against