everyone does not have one. everyone has the option to get one. I donno who gave everyone 1.

We all have to have at least 1, because we have to have “a positive integer” and therefore zero is an illegal value.

Josh, I think it means you must give youself the first one, not just may as in “If a Farmer does not possess any Manul’s and has not already done so this dynasty, he may give himself one Manul which possesses an Amulet with an ID of the Farmer’s choosing (provided, of course, it is unique).”. This “may” should be changed to “must”, i think.

I agree that positive should be changed to nonnegative. But I disagree that by default Farmer has one Amuletless Manul. The default Manul should have an Amulet, otherwise we can have less Amulets than will probably be required by the future rules.

“must” is always a tricky one, because it means that until the Farmer does so they exist in an illegal state, and if one part of the gamestate is illegal then other parts can be too. If they must possess one Manul, then there’s no qualitative difference if they possess one Manul by default, and it sidesteps the issue of the legality of the gamestate.

You’re right, though, that the amuletlessness is a problem: it means that anyone who joins after this proposal is enacted will start in a weaker position than those who generated their first Manul before. I’d rather see this fix go through and then patch it than vote it down, though.

Well, ok, then we’ll just need to change the default value to zero, right? Active players who haven’t yet added amulets, have zero manuls right now, though indeed it is an illegal gamestate. Why are there “-”...

CoV