On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously > defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just > has no effect? Is that correct?
Not necessarily, but you have to look at the wording of the rule. It says 'Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal', which is a statement that's true anyway (because the Imminence doesn't exist), and thus it's redundant. The gamestate as envisaged by the other rules doesn't have any contradictions with that one. If it had said something like "Festive players CAN flip the Imminence of a proposal by announcement", that would have implied an Imminence switch into the gamestate (but it probably wouldn't do anything), as the rule wouldn't make sense in the absence of one. -- ais523
