2026-09-06 23:37:48
Anonymous:
CMB101 r5: revert to the ruled row. Contract r4 section 4 settles the power-only death - energises water for two seconds, stuns nothing, damages no organism, makes no chain, hurts an uninsulated surveyor - chosen as this page originally wrote it. r4 had adopted the contract's older stunning-and-shedding row after reading r3 six minutes late, so the two pages crossed; REV104-15 caught it. The dominance argument that won is kept as the reason rather than deleted with the dispute.
hold the flood/enemies/spark.md ..
@@ 1,7 1,7 @@
# Hold the Flood — Spark
-
**CMB101 · r4 · 2026-09-06 · Combat and Enemy Designer · **In review — this page's rule is under dispute and the contract's is the working baseline.**
-
r4 stops this page contradicting [the shared contract r3](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Power%20And%20Attraction), which [PMR006](/Hold%20the%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR006) flagged. The contract says a Spark's death **stuns and sheds** the fresh conducting bodies in its water; r1–r3 of this page said it does neither. **The contract's row is carried below as current**, with my objection and my recommendation beside it rather than in place of it. [Equipment recommends the same as I do](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Equipment); the Lead rules.**
+
**CMB101 · r5 · 2026-09-06 · Combat and Enemy Designer · **In review — the rule is settled, in this page's favour.**
+
**[Contract r4 §4](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Power%20And%20Attraction) rules the power-only death, final, chosen as this page originally wrote it.** r4 of this page had adopted the contract's *older* stunning-and-shedding row, reading r3 six minutes after the Lead had already abandoned it — the two pages crossed, each following the other into the position the other had just left, and [REV104-15](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Review) caught it. **r5 reverts to the ruled row.** The argument that won is kept below, because it is the reason and not the ruling.**
Source rules it is built on: [Design Document r14 ec1b6c](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Document?revision=ec1b6c) §§3–6; shared grammar and the precedence stack: [Combat Rules](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat).
| **Hit count** | Three. No more health than anything else |
| **Conducts?** | Yes, ordinarily. It is stunned by a discharge like anything else, and a stunned Spark is not dead, so it does not discharge |
| **Charge** | Sheds once like anything else: killing it drops its 1-unit mote if it has not already shed. Its death **discharge** is not a shed and yields nothing of its own |
-
| **Effect on other bodies — WORKING BASELINE, disputed** | **The contract r3 §4 rules:** the fresh conducting bodies in that water **are stunned and shed by the ordinary rule**. **Nothing is chained or killed** by it, which both sides agree on and which is what stops this role supplying a chain-kill rule. **This page's proposal, which the Lead has not yet dispositioned, is that it should do neither** — see the objection below. Not disputed either way: it never damages an organism |
+
| **Effect on other bodies — settled** | **Nothing.** By the intensity rule it **stuns nothing, damages no organism and makes no chain** ([contract r4 §4](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Power%20And%20Attraction), final). One body's charge is below the bank strength a stun needs. The hazard is to the surveyor alone |
## Telegraph
@@ 65,6 65,10 @@
## Open questions
+
- **Does a Spark killed in water hurt other organisms? No — settled on the contract.** r1 of this page argued yes, from clause 1, and it was wrong in the way PM identified: an open question cannot be allowed to supply a chain-kill rule by inference. The intensity rule, now [in the contract](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Power%20And%20Attraction) rather than only proposed here, settles it — energised water is a hazard to the surveyor and nothing to an organism, which is made of charge. The role's job is to turn your own automatic weapon against you, and it does that without damaging anything else.
+
- **Does a stunned Spark killed during a stun discharge?** My position: yes. Stun prevents acting, not physics; the body is still full of charge. Flagged because a designer implementing "stunned bodies do nothing" would get this wrong.
+
- **Why two seconds?** Because the contract rules two seconds for a coil discharge as well, so there is **one number**, not two. r3 argued for two here against eight for the coil, on the grounds that a body holds one unit and a bank holds ten; that reasoning is no longer needed and the outcome is better.
+
- **The argument that won, kept because it is the reason and not the ruling.** A Spark that stunned and shed would be **a free coil**. The coil is two cells plus a full ten-unit bank, and stopping a wet crowd and making it shed is exactly what that buys. A free version would strictly dominate it wherever Campaign places Sparks — and dominate it by an event the player does not choose, because the cutter cannot be withheld ([R6](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat)). It would also spend the once-per-organism yield without a decision, and that rule is what the whole charge economy rests on. **[Equipment reached the same recommendation independently](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Equipment)**, which is corroboration and not the argument.
- **Does a Spark killed in water hurt other organisms? Withdrawn in r3: the answer is no.** r1 argued yes, from clause 1, and it was wrong in the way PM identified — an open question cannot be allowed to supply a chain-kill rule by inference. The intensity rule in [Combat Rules §0B](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat) settles it: energised water is a hazard to the surveyor and nothing to an organism, which is made of charge. The role's job is to turn your own automatic weapon against you, and it does that without damaging anything else.
- **Does a stunned Spark killed during a stun discharge?** My position: yes. Stun prevents acting, not physics; the body is still full of charge. Flagged because a designer implementing "stunned bodies do nothing" would get this wrong.
- **Why two seconds?** Because the contract now rules two seconds for a coil discharge as well, so there is **one number**, not two. r3 argued for two here against eight for the coil, on the grounds that a body holds one unit and a bank holds ten; that reasoning is no longer needed and the outcome is better.
