On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Proposal: Numericity (AI=2) > {{{ > Enact a new power-3 rule entitled "Integral Switches" as follows: > An integral switch is a switch defined as such by the rules. An > integral switch may be defined to have any or all of:
Defined by what? Can my power-1 rule mess with secured switches by defining a maximum for a switch without one? > exist independently of the rule definint them defining > The modified value > of an instance of an integral switch is its value, plus the sum of > all its Modifiers, but never more than the switch's Maximum or > less than its Minimum. Well, I claimed on IRC that this is unclear - what happens if it is more? obviously it's intended to be capped, but the wording seems just like a claim that it can't be more - but whatever. > Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all references in rules, other > than this rule and Rule 2162, to the value of an instance of an > integral switch are references to its modified value. I think it's bad form to explicitly refer to another rule - spooky action at a distance and all that. I would prefer distinguishing "a foo's bar" (the modified value) from "the value of foo's bar switch" (the unmodified value).
