That makes sense. Thank you. Sorry for all the questions, I obviously haven't been interpreting these rules for as long as you :)
Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > > So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously > > defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just > > has no effect? Is that correct? > > Not necessarily, but you have to look at the wording of the rule. It > says 'Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal', > which is a statement that's true anyway (because the Imminence doesn't > exist), and thus it's redundant. The gamestate as envisaged by the > other rules doesn't have any contradictions with that one. > > If it had said something like "Festive players CAN flip the Imminence > of a proposal by announcement", that would have implied an Imminence > switch into the gamestate (but it probably wouldn't do anything), as > the rule wouldn't make sense in the absence of one. > > -- > ais523 > >
