For fleeing in particular, there may be circumstances other than lack of a connection that prevent them from continuing.

I more so enjoy the concept of doing that only for fleeing (Scooby Doo outline joke goes here), but since I like betrayal theme here, I will recluntaly vote in favor when the time is right. (this not an EVC)

I guess we should do something about infinite hallways, in that spirit: if a connection is added such that going East from the Tea Room also leads back to the Foyer, it will become impossible (both under the existing rule and this amendment) to complete a Reveal of Consequences if someone is Fleeing east or west along that route, as the “until” will run forever.

[Kevan] I’m missing something. If this Proposal is enacted, the text “until they would attempt to move into a Room that they previously exited during the same Mansion Phase.” will still exist in the rules. How would that not stop a forever loop?

Ah, I missed that we already had that in the ruleset. Carry on.

Ok, I’ve changed this to a bulleted list so that it’s easier to understand the conditions and potentially modify them later if necessary. I think I covered all of the issues. If not, it should be a lot easier to patch later.

I think this wording still doesn’t work.

According to the rule Explorer’s Phase, you can’t change your planned action during Mansion Phase. Fleeing happens during Mansion Phase, so that would meet the conditions of the third bullet point, causing all fleeing to fail automatically before it even begins.

You’re right. I added “during the next Explorers Phase” at the end of that third bullet. Anything else?

  although it needs patching. If you try fleeing into a room that has self locking doors triggered, it causes the whole fleeing action to fail even if you have to pass through several rooms to reach it.

That might be more a failing in my own wording than in this one though.