I don’t quite understand why we need “cleaved” and “uncleaved”.

I enjoy being succinct.

I’ve no issue with cleaved/uncleaved (and recognize the terminology from MTG), but don’t personally care for the proposal itself

As far as I can tell, the Customer becoming a Regular doesn’t change anything besides making it so that the Yard doesn’t have to replenish the list later. But the intent seems to be poison the well and reward those who don’t decide to drink from it. Oysters is already a pretty big risk. Especially if you’ve seen my Happy Hour post for this round.

Agreed, I want to see the Oyster mechanism play out in at least one or two rounds before altering it any further.

Could you explain the intended effect of this proposal? As far as I can tell, it’s defining a convoluted term just to add two words to a rule to… make one specific non-Oyster ingredient trigger the Oyster bonus/penalty without counting itself? And then making a Customer who ate Oyster not leave if there exists a Lamb dish (except that effectively does nothing because all customers are identical at the moment)? Confusing flavor aside, I’m not sure what this is supposed to add to the mechanic, and the weird text manipulation setup makes me think this is meant to smuggle in a scam of some kind.

I see the intended use of Oysters doesn’t jive with what I am going for here so I will withdraw