tegwick
704b99975b
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
vendor tool that covers what the gate checks
They ruled on all seven items the same day. Two were actionable here.
F28 RULED: points. Modes.csv MODE_COOP clarified upstream to say
"penalties apply to points, not card count"; mastery is now
total - blame - denied. A recorded scenario went red on it --
gr-e02-shared-ground pinned 0 (2 claimed CARDS - 1 - 1) and now expects
2 (4 POINTS - 1 - 1). The number moved because the rule was decided, not
because the engine drifted, and the scenario records both rulings; its
schema has no field for a second one, so both live in ruled_note with
`ruled` carrying the LATEST date.
F29 RULED not-intended and APPLIED upstream: SCN_02's suits re-tuned the
same day. The characterisation test is how we found out -- it pinned the
duplication, went red on the re-tune, and that red WAS the notification.
It now asserts every pair distinct, the stronger statement the
duplication had made unavailable. SCN_02 re-measures at 73 at 2p, not
67: its own board now.
F26/F30 ruled and recorded. F30's ruling incidentally confirms our
reading -- they name priority-2's suit as the first lever, which is the
difference we identified without having measured causation.
vendor-editions grew twice, both times because it covered less than the
gate it exists to satisfy:
- It refused to touch ground-darvo-r0/ on the reasoning that the
baseline is "a separate record". That was wrong within the hour:
ground-game clarified Modes.csv and `make vendor` reported a clean
sync while edition-check went red. A sync tool that covers less than
its check reports success into a red gate.
- Its two-block rewrite DETECTED which fence held which set and
preserved the arrangement -- faithfully preserving a swap an earlier
write had introduced, leaving each fence under a heading describing
the other. edition-check reads every sha256 line flat and passed
throughout: a document can be self-consistently wrong and green.
Order is now asserted, with a control that goes red on a swap.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1.5 KiB
1.5 KiB
| 1 | mode_id | title | mode_type | tagline | rules_text | scoring_tiebreak | back_design_id |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | MODE_COOP | SHARED GROUND | Cooperative | The group succeeds or fails together. | All claimed Problem cards form one shared score equal to the sum of their point values. Meet the Scenario threshold by the end of Round 5. Playable at 2–6 players — not a high-seat-only mode. No individual winner is declared. For a mastery rating, start from that shared point total and subtract 1 point for each Blame token still in play and 1 point for each Denied Problem (penalties apply to points, not card count). | Not applicable. | BACK_MODE |
| 3 | MODE_SEMI | COMMON PROBLEM, PERSONAL EDGE | Semi-cooperative | The group must succeed before anyone can win. | The group succeeds only if the total value of all claimed Problems meets the Scenario threshold (always ≤ available points for the seat band). If it succeeds, each player scores the value of Problems they claimed minus 1 per Blame token they hold. Highest score wins. | Lower Stress, then more Bonds, then shared victory. | BACK_MODE |
| 4 | MODE_COALITION | BONDED COALITIONS | Dynamic teams | Bonds decide the sides at the end. | The group must first meet the Scenario threshold (always ≤ available points for the seat band). At game end, each connected network of Bonds is a coalition; unbonded players are one-player coalitions. Sum the personal scores of coalition members. The highest-scoring coalition wins. Rivalries do not connect players. | Lower combined Stress, then fewer Blame tokens, then shared victory. | BACK_MODE |