Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one zombie limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration to 90 days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those are as far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
-Aris On Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 7:36 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > This is an attempt at a significant reduction in zombie power (so we > > don't need to repeal such a fun mechanic). I have attempted to keep > > them usable while at the same time not making them overpowered. This > > also creates a standard notion of which players are "active" and > > formalizes the sacrosanct status of omd, among other reforms. The > > basic idea is that pro-zombie players will favor this over repeal and > > anti-zombie players will prefer some regulation over none. Given this > > and the large number of other fairly urgent proposals currently in > > flight, I'm delaying this weeks distribution. > > Absolutely not. > > Personally, I would vote against this - this is a "compromise" that is so > anti-zombie that we might as well get rid of them, and these changes have > little to do with basic nerfing. I would support the minimal change of > adding the Zombie Restrictions rule (preventing dependent actions). > > I submit the following Proposal, Basic Nerf, AI-3, co-author Aris. I > pend it with a paper. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Zombie Restrictions", with the > following text: > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a zombie who is being acted > on behalf of CANNOT initiate, support, object to, or perform a > dependent > action. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >
