2026-09-07 12:22:19
Anonymous:
CMB102 fourth pass, added above this role's existing entries and deleting nothing (0 lines removed, checked by diff). Applies all three PMR009 corrections, two of which withdraw my own arguments: the sheds-once claim narrowed because it does not prevent rewarding repeated fresh arrivals, replaced by the rule that actually answers the vision's cut condition - charge never leaves the district, so killing yields fuel an intervention must spend; the ten-hits-is-not-durability defence withdrawn as the dodge PM called it; and the placement rule withdrawn because it would have forbidden free bypasses to protect a role. The Heavy is tested instead against the retained Exchange-doorway scene, where the stairs bypass it, and the conclusion is that as written it is not earning its place there. Also lifts one general composition rule onto Combat Rules: a fight yielding only charge must have somewhere in that expedition to spend it. PM owns the disposition; nothing self-accepted.
hold the flood/tasks.md ..
@@ 184,6 184,16 @@
**Processed revisions:** Colony r4 records Tasks ca40f9, PM Reviews da9eb5 / PMR006 a28870, Design Review 4508fd, Brief 77e392, Campaign 7daf34, shared contract 08d5e8, Equipment dc3aa2 / Build Paths 7b7bf2 / Inventory 9b0547, World d108c1, Districts 136fa9 and Head-Works 706ce6. No other chat's receipt or agreement is claimed. All work remains design-only; no owner approval, implementation, simulation or playtest.
+
**CMB102, fourth pass — 2026-09-07.** [Combat Rules r10 75734f](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat?revision=75734f) · [Enemies r11 571404](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Enemies?revision=571404). All three of [PMR009](/Hold%20the%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR009)'s corrections applied; **two of them are withdrawals of my own arguments.**
+
+
**The "sheds once" claim is narrowed, because it was false as written.** It prevents re-harvesting the same body; it does **not** prevent a player being rewarded for killing repeated *fresh* arrivals, and three surges of forty to a hundred and forty supply plenty of those. **The rule that actually answers the vision's cut condition is that charge never leaves the district:** killing yields fuel that is discarded at extraction, so it cannot become refuge progress, and salvage — which killing does not produce — is what the colony wants. The reward for killing is fuel, and fuel is only worth having if something can burn it. That is the vision's own *"harvested charge creating room to act"*. **Residual exposure stated rather than argued away:** nothing stops a player farming fresh arrivals instead of intervening, only that they leave with nothing to show for it, and whether that reads as a bad trade in play is not establishable on a page.
+
+
**"Ten hits is not durability because there is no damage curve" — withdrawn.** PM is right that it was a dodge: the absence of a stat ladder changes who can shorten the ten hits, not whether they are durability.
+
+
**The placement rule I proposed last pass — withdrawn.** It would have forbidden free bypasses to protect a role, and PMR009 is right to refuse that; a free bypass is usually good design. **Replaced by testing the Heavy against the retained scene PMR009 names** ([Campaign §3.2's middle return](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Campaign), objective the Exchange doorway): the stairs bypass it outside pursuit range, so **it fails there as an obstruction**, leaving only optional fuel — and under the rule above, fuel with nothing to buy is a fight that bought nothing. **So my conclusion is not a defence: as that scene is written, the Heavy is not earning its place.** That is a statement about the scene and its labelling, not a request to remove the bypass. The Anchor merge remains the alternative if the Lead prefers it.
+
+
**One general rule lifted onto [Combat Rules §7](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat), because it is not district-specific:** an encounter whose only product is charge is worth its cost **only if that expedition contains something the charge pays for**. Every harvest interaction Combat owns — the coil's mass shed, the Heavy's large mote, the Carrier's stolen motes — produces the same discardable resource, so the same question applies to all of them. It asks a district for one line when a fight is placed for yield rather than obstruction, and it explicitly does **not** ask for bypasses to be removed. A check on writing, not a new mechanic; nothing added to what a player must learn.
**[PMR008](/Hold%20the%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR008)'s two qualifications of §7 are made, and both were fair.** The readability argument is restated as **a design judgement about a screen nobody has seen**, not a prediction: the cap of two non-Walker roles per surge is a first guess, no page can measure it, and **if play shows four kinds are legible, raising it is a one-line change I would take.** And **"a combination costs nothing" is struck** — it costs no new *asset*, but it costs a district author placing it, a shared-rule diff, a checked expedition and a reviewer's per-beat pass, which is the scarcest resource here. A role costs authoring plus a silhouette; a combination costs authoring. Real difference, smaller than r8 claimed. No roster or quota change, per the same row.
