I disagree that this is urgent, and it seems unreasonable to force me to have taken a null action that I obviously wouldn’t have taken at the time, had it been a choice between “Slash for damage” or “Retreat for no effect”.

(Individual Adventurers may regret setting a precedent of CfJing away anything clever that an outnumbered Monster does, when it becomes their turn to be the Monster.)

it’s rare for monsters to be vanguard

175 havoc isn’t exactly a null turn. I hadn’t thought that you could have done something else during it, but it seems like it was your decision to try use a scam (human actions as monster) that nobody else can use in the future.

Meanwhile, this is urgent because becoming a gunslinger forces me to retreat or idle this round, I can’t switch later if I get something else, and everyone would have the same weird choice until you take another turn.

If we allow scams at full power, that goes for humans and monsters alike. Though it restricts one monster, once, I’m lobbying here for a precedent that also protects future monsterkind from scams by the many humans against them.

We need some more votes; it would be fairly awkward if TyGuy6 had to either make a move or gets booted before this CfJ gets resolved.

I get the need to patch the loophole, but not the need for this to apply retroactively. Perhaps I’m ignorant of the customs of this place, but isn’t the clever exploitation of loopholes kind of the point? Mind you, I’m not talking about ganging up on someone or ruining people’s rule-writing and game-building nilly-willy, but this looks more like a result of our haste in beginning without better sealing the ruleset than anything else.

(After all, my proposal to seal this loophole can be enacted right now, without this CfJ and without any need to further delay TyGuy’s turn. Also, the Monster will remain Recovering for this and another two turns, so its return is far from immediate.)

I’m honestly trying to understand what we’re supposed to be protecting here. How do we decide what’s “normal” gameplay so as to protect it through actively undoing deviations from it? And would a precedent such as this really bind our future actions, even if in a spirit of tit for tat?

I love a good scam, to be clear. I tried to nuke the whole map in Farsight I. This dynasty is built around a largely asymmetric schedule, of who is the monster during what state of the rules. Hard to say who has the advantage, first or last, because it depends heavily on public opinion of what’s fair or not, of what’s allowable play.

For that reason, I’m trying to get a feel for whether people want scams to be a part of it, aka, using rules in unexpected ways to personal advantage. This being our first one of the dynasty, I expect to develop a precedent. Disinterested parties tend to vote for what seems fair, and precedent means a lot in that context.

So sure, let the tricks go forth, but in heavy asymmetry, I assume someone gets a short stick. The more chaos is involved, the more variance, and the less fairness can be upheld before breaking out of disinterestedness and into a competitive spirit. Which isn’t as much fun, imo.

[card] You can fail this with three AGAINST votes. It’s dead.