“Unless otherwise specified, game variables defined to hold numeric values can hold only non-negative integers” in 3.3.1? You can’t plug negative variables into formulas.

Nice idea, though, that really would work if the transfer worked both ways.

“X” is not a “game variable”. The “, and any action that would set those values below zero is an illegal action unless explicitly otherwise stated in the ruleset” makes it clear that is referring to stuff in the GNDT. The ‘negative to transfer’ has been used before and I haven’t see anyone complain.

This is why blanket rounding rules are bad.

I’d argue that “lose -1 Wealth” is nonsense/impossible… reminds me of this old Agora case: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1826

I can understand the argument “Wealth is a non-negative integer and therefore non-negative amounts of wealth do not exist”. However, I’m fairly sure dynasties have both used negative values in formulas and allowed for negative spending.

I would say negative values in formulas (along with, say, “subtracting” negative numbers) are OK because negative numbers are normal in a mathematical context, but negative “loss” is not because loss is an ordinary language term that is not used with negative numbers.

But if BlogNomic custom is otherwise, let it be so. :p

Losses can be negative just like gains can be negative. All “lose” means there is says it gets subtracted instead of added.

I can’t actually find a situtation we did it that way, I just recall doing it in the past and think that technically its allowed.

But feel free to CfJ otherwise. It would be good to at least have an authority on the subject. I’d just suggest resetting my gamestate to before the steal as I wouldn’t have stolen the licensed if it scam didn’t work =)

“Please point out where in the ruleset it says you can’t lose a negative amount.”

Nowhere in the ruleset does it says so. Because it doesn’t need to.
It’s simple: there is no such thing as a negative amount of Wealth, since Wealth is a non-negative integer (2.3 Swag).
Just like there needs be no rule specifying you cannot “lose $1 Wealth”, there needs be no rule specifying you cannot “lose -1 Wealth”, because “-1 Wealth” doesn’t make any more sense than “$1 Wealth” does, and thus cannot you lose -1 Wealth.

That just prevents someone from having a negative amount of Wealth, it doesn’t prevent the concept from a negative amount of wealth from existing. I recall situations in the past where people have used/abused a negative value of a non-negative integer, but can’t find any.

I like how some of you seem to be like ‘Its a legal move except you can’t put negative values into integers’ while others are like ‘Its a legal move except for the fact that you can’t lose a negative amount’ and still others are like “It’s a legal move except for the fact that Wealth can’t be negative’. Its like your grasping at straws going “Ooops. Clucky just broke the dynasty. Lets try and figure out how to rules lawyer our way out of this instead of just throwing up a CfJ that fixes the problem and cleans out ambiguity in the ruleset”