“No Credits may be directed to the Slave Pits”?  .

Meaning you’d have to use your marines, you’d be up valuable marines to get only 2 power and 2 credits. I don’t think that’s too worthwhile. 

you’d be giving up*

Seems underpowered to me, but it might be interesting.

for thematic reasons.

@omd The theme is evolving, there can slaves in the far future

COV

I’m not sure the wording properly works there. I think it would be better to state it as “When a player Influences the slave pits, if they directed no credits to the Slave Pits for that cycle, they gain 2 Power and 2 Credits.”

@Clucky it means the same thing so changing it won’t make a difference.

@Patrick, I think clucky’s concern is that the rule institutions isn’t the best place for that requirement as currently phrased. I’m not sure if its legal or not, but its definitely tricky to tell if it contradicts with Directions. I like Clucky’s wording much better.

@Clucky, Patrick and spc: Clucky’s words makes it possible to directing credits to the Pits just for the sake of gaining an extra credit in the next restocking.

Also, I don’t see the problem on creating restrictions inside an institution: they are part of a rule, and it’s more restrictive than Directions, so the proper Appendix section applies:

“If both contradicting parts are a Core Rule, or if both of them are a Dynastic Rule, the part with more limited scope applies. (e.g. if the rules “Players may Kick each other” and “Players may not kick each other on Tuesdays” exist, and it is Tuesday, Players may not Kick each other.)”

Substitute “Players may Kick each other” with “any Player may issue a Direction (...) indicating which of their resources are being allocated to each Insitution”, and “Players may not kick each other on Tuesdays” with “No Credits may be directed to the Slave Pits”.