Do we need to specify that the turn cost is spent in turns?

Do we need to specify what diagonally adjacent means?

I think it also might be cleaner if we define “Tile Action with Turn Cost X”. Same additional tile action apply, if you’ve already done one tile action recently a Tile Action with Turn Cost 2 actually costs 3 turns.

Then we can say “As a Tile Action with Turn Cost 2, a Monk using this tool using this tool may change the colour of a white tile to match that of a tile that is diagonally adjacent.” which I think is more inline with what you’re going for.

I don’t think we need to specify what diagonal adjacency is - these words have common English meaning and I don’t think that a creative interpretation of them would swing.

I’m reluctant to use the “Tile Action with turn cost” wording, partly to avoid turning ‘turn cost’ into a keyword (BN really does like making things keywords a bit too much, when conventional English usage and meaning will do), but mostly because I don’t think that Tools will end up only applying to Tile Actions.

So we might need to use a name other than “Tile Action”, but part of the idea with the Tile Actions is to try out limiting actions not by saying “You can only do this once a day” but instead “If you want to use this multiple times, it’ll cost you more”

Allowing tool use to not count against those actions could be create some interesting asymmetrical gameplay balance, or it could suffer from the same “horde turns and then spam tool use at once” problems we’ve seen in past dynasties.

Oh hang on, the actual tile action already includes diagonal adjacency (I misremembered it as saying “orthogonal”) so the grinding stone as written is pretty useless, hmm.

I think tool use does still count for the tile action ramp up - as currently written or modifies the next use of a tile action but doesn’t replace it. I’m not sure that I’d want anything more than that, otherwise it’s an ordering nightmare (if tool use -> action -> action is more expensive than action -> tool use -> action then that’s weird, right?).

>  the actual tile action already includes diagonal adjacency

I defined adjacent as follows: “Two Tiles are Adjacent if they either share the same Column and their Row differs by only 1, or they share the same Row and their Column differs by only 1”

So 3,3 and 4,4 are not adjacent despite being diagonally adjacent

> I think tool use does still count for the tile action ramp up - as currently written or modifies the next use of a tile action but doesn’t replace it. I’m not sure that I’d want anything more than that, otherwise it’s an ordering nightmare (if tool use -> action -> action is more expensive than action -> tool use -> action then that’s weird, right?).

So I think there might be some confusion as to what tile actions are.

“Change the Color of a white Tile to match the Color of a tile which is adjacent to it” is a tile action. But we could add other tile actions.

Is the intent of this such that whenever you perform a tile action, you also get to change the color of a tile or that when you perform the “Change the Color of a white Tile to match the Color of a tile which is adjacent to it” action, you can color a diagonally adjacent tile instead of an orthogonally adjacent tile?

I like the general idea. Think it can be cleaned up later