Thursday, July 01, 2021

Proposal: Temporary Tattoos

Timed out and enacted, 5-1. Josh

Adminned at 03 Jul 2021 09:45:05 UTC

Add the following to the end of the rule Lair Actions:

Enchantment is a Power Action with a cost of 1 that each Vampire Lord may perform no more than once between each Enter the Crypt action. When a Vampire Lord carries out an Enchantment they may spend the Shadow cost of a Feature and add that Feature to a single room as a temporary effect.

In the same rule, add the following to the end of the first paragraph:

An effect contained within curly braces (for example, {Richardo von Nestor is Lightly Injured}) is a temporary effect; it applies as if it were any other effect but must be removed whenever the Crypt Settles.



01-07-2021 09:50:20 UTC

The first addition uses two different names for the same thing, causing it not to work.

The second addition uses “they” to refer to a singular entity (an effect”; “they apply” … “they were” should be “it applies” … “it were”.


01-07-2021 09:52:21 UTC

Also, I’d recommend allowing Vampire Lords to only Enchant/Imprint once per Expedition. Otherwise, we’re likely to end up with nonsense like surrounding all four sides of the entrance with “Richardo von Nestor is moved back to his previous location”.

Josh: he/they

01-07-2021 10:07:54 UTC

Thanks; amends made


01-07-2021 10:44:26 UTC

Oh, another fix: Darkness got renamed to Shadow.

Josh: he/they

01-07-2021 10:45:59 UTC

Changed, thanks


02-07-2021 07:10:19 UTC


Chiiika: she/her

02-07-2021 08:57:43 UTC


Lulu: she/her

02-07-2021 14:08:21 UTC


Janet: she/her

02-07-2021 17:18:58 UTC


Brendan: he/him

02-07-2021 18:43:15 UTC

Sorry I didn’t see this sooner, but “may spend the Shadow cost of a Feature and add that Feature to a single room as a temporary effect” looks like the classic “may do one thing but not the other” scam to me.  against

Josh: he/they

02-07-2021 18:58:20 UTC

Hm, I don’t see it in this case! I feel like “and” is, like, “and”, you know?

Josh: he/they

02-07-2021 18:58:59 UTC

Goodness I should probably not be doing blognomic if that is the level my arguments are pitched at today

Brendan: he/him

02-07-2021 19:58:43 UTC

I think it’s arguable that “may do x and y” can be interpreted fairly as “may do x and may do y.” “May do x to y” is different! But maybe I’m just being too jumpy.


03-07-2021 01:00:28 UTC

I think this is safe because in this case, if you don’t do X, Y attempts to add an undefined Feature (which wouldn’t work). You “may spend the Shadow cost of a Feature”; if you don’t, there’s no “that Feature” to add because “that” has nothing to refer to.

The grammar does seem to be ambiguous, though, although I think the “may (do X and do Y)” reading is much more obvious than the “(may do X) and do Y” reading.