Sunday, December 31, 2023

Proposal: Opening the Gates to Death

Timed out, 2-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 02 Jan 2024 14:06:13 UTC

Repeal the rule “Death” and its subrules and add a new dynastic rule titled “Death” with a subrule “Hourglass” at the top of the Dynastic Rules section, giving them the same text and structure as in the original Death rule, with the following two exceptions:

* write

Proposals not authored by the Grim Reaper should not contain instructions to do any of the following operations on the rule named “Death” or any of its subrules, if it is not needed:

instead of

Proposals not authored by the Grim Reaper may not contain instructions to do any of the following operations on the rule named “Death” or any of its subrules:

* in the Sands of the Hourglass action, move the step beginning “For each Necromancer, find their latest valid private request…” to be right before the step “For each Necromancer, perform any Hourglass Action described in the Effects of their Location to that Necromancer.”

We have already had two cases where a proposal had to be edited because of a minor change to the rule Death, while the main reason for the limitations was to prevent using Death as a place to add longstanding rules. The Grim Reaper can always VETO inappropriate proposals.

Also putting Travelling before Hourglass Actions because otherwise the Actions will happen in the Location the Necromancer is leaving


JonathanDark: he/him

31-12-2023 17:43:25 UTC

I’m ok with this if it’s generally seen that a vetoed vote from me isn’t an aggressive move, but simply a preventative measure to keep the spirit of the dynasty intact. I don’t really like to use it unless absolutely necessary.

Vovix: he/him

31-12-2023 22:15:41 UTC

I actually think actions should happen in the current location. So the loop would be “do your current location’s action, then at the end of the turn, everyone moves”, rather than not knowing what will happen until moves are revealed.

Josh: Observer he/they

01-01-2024 17:45:38 UTC

against Neat trick, but I think that this is ipso facto changing the text of the rule - the “repeal, then replace with these changes” sleight of hand isn’t really fooling anyone.

I also think ‘if it is not needed’ is subjective to the point of rendering the whole rule pointless.

Kevan: he/him

02-01-2024 11:36:12 UTC

I think it works, as the Death rule lists a full repeal as an accepted exception.

An Emperor declaring that they’ll outright veto proposals which break some stated spirit of the dynasty would be easier to work with as a player, though. With a ruleset limitation there’ll always be sleight-of-hand workarounds, and it’s less clear how the Emperor will respond to them.