Ugluk wrote:Does this implementation of Narfability fit the model of Rule 302? I had thought that affecting Items changed the Rule itself, rather than superceded the language. But this is one interpretation.
I read the key phrase as
[/quote]Narfable is defined as a rule or a clause of a rule that can be overruled by the effect of a Thing.[/quote]
In my case, the Thing has the effect (when used) of overruling 204 and thereby changing the 'adoption' conditions.
Pagane wrote:How does giving one player the ability to approve or disprove legislation help the game? Wouldn't it make it easier for lousy proposals to get passed and great ones to get shot down? How does a minority rule improve the game?
Part of this is addressed by changing the score adjustment for using the stamp; it is now a 5 point deduction, which means Stalin gets a penalty for using the stamp. How is the game helped? If you are working with other member(s) to try to execute a plan, you might want to try to control the Stamp to ensure your aims are achieved. Yes, this may result in legislation that the majority do not want, but in that case other parties need to do something about it. Remember laws can be repealed as well as changed, And of course Stalin my simply threaten to use the Stamp unless someone else buys it...
![]()
How does the proposer whose proposal is targeted by the Stamp get his proposal scored, whether it is passed or failed?
Scored as normal. Since it is a Thing, Stalin's stamp cannot affect a rule that is not narfable and the scoring rule is not marked currently as narfable.
If the current proposer owns the Stamp, can he use it on his own proposal? If so, you're giving someone in that position the ability to insta-win.
Good point. Changed to say Stalin cannot use the Stamp on his own proposal.
C4, I think preventing self-use fixes your concern? As for the 75%, that is not changing other than when the stamp is used. But as for the 75% encouraging better legislation, I am not totally sure I agree that the aim of the game is good legislation. I think the aim of the game is to win. As a veteran, you remember that it is often not the good legislation that gets the win, it is the bad legislation that often provides a route to a victory in the end

