Proposal: No Artificial Favourings [Special Case]
Enacted 5-3. Josh
Adminned at 14 Jun 2021 13:06:23 UTC
In “Favours”, make the following replacements, where the replaced strings exist:-
- “any Dynastic resource of their choosing” with “any tabular resource of their choosing”
- “any resource of their choosing that is described only in the Dynastic Rules” with “any tabular resource of their choosing”
- “a single point of any Dynastic resource” with “a single point of any tabular resource”
- “a single point of any resource of the claiming Vampire Lord’s choosing, so long as it is described only in the Dynastic Rules and the lender has at least one point of that resource to give” with “a single point of any tabular resource of the claiming Vampire Lord’s choosing, so long as the lender has at least one point of that resource to give”.
Remove the paragraph “For the purposes of this rule, a resource is Dynastic if it is described only in the Dynastic Rules and wiki pages used to track Dynastic gamestate.” from the rule.
Add a new paragraph to the rule:-
A resource is tabular if the only Rules that it is described in are Dynastic Rules, and if it is being publicly tracked as a number, in a table that contains one row corresponding to each Vampire Lord.
If any Sepulchres were created through claiming Favours, while this proposal was pending, collapse all such Sepulchres.
I think we need to rein in the scope of Favours here. It’s a tough constraint on design if any rule that creates a game object (like the Sigils Pokes says they’re considering, or Sepulchres, or Denizens) has to remain alert for “bam, I create/steal one instantly for free!”, from the couple of players who have background Imperial Favours from the previous dynasty. Making all variables opt-in might be too harsh on the Favoured, but we should at least constrain it to something like “a publicly-tracked number in a table”.
ais523: