Master is secured at power 2. Is there a way to secure asset ownership? Do we care?
> A talisman is an asset with ownership restricted to players and Agora. > If there ever does not exist a talisman for a certain zombie, one is > created in the possession of Agora. If there ever exists more than one > talisman for a certain zombie, or more than zero talismans for any other > person, one talisman for that player is destroyed. Talismans are tracked > by the Registrar. I wonder if we could just declare that there's one talisman per zombie rather than specifying how they're created/destroyed to reach that state. Somehow trying to say how they're created/destroyed bugs me. Also I think this could also shorten this part of the slightly, and would allow the rule text to unashamedly refer to *the* talisman of a zombie. E.g: For every zombie, the talisman of that zombie is a unique indestructable asset with ownership restricted to players and Agora, defaulting to Agora. Talismans are tracked by the Registrar. And then instead of destroying a talisman you transfer it to Agora. I think this would mean a talisman stops existing when its zombie ceases to be a zombie, since it ceases to be defined by the rules. If we're worried about that we could add "The talisman of a zombie is destroyed when that zombie ceases to be a zombie.". > - If a zombie has been a zombie for the past 90 days and not had > Agora for a master during any of that time, destroy one talisman for > that zombie; Your implicit definition of "master" may apply only to players. How about instead "If Agora has not owned a particular talisman for the past 90 days, destroy that talisman"? (Or cause it to be transferred to Agora, if you're implementing my first suggestion.) - Falsifian
