On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 12:59 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > Is the current breakage due to competing candidate gamestates for > R2437? If so, would unambiguously changing that Rule resolve the > situation enough?
Yes, and almost (you also need to account for the possibility that the rule doesn't exist). However, actually pushing the change through may be awkward, because that rule may say that omd has a dictatorship which e hasn't yet attempted to use (pending gamestate agreement). Historically, forcing players to pull triggers on dictatorships early has lead to further confusion. One possible workaround is to repeal and re-enact the PoA rules, except leaving 2437 in place if it happens to be a dictatorship rule at the time. -- ais523
