2026-09-07 13:21:40
Anonymous:
CMB102 r11: check the Game vision's combat example against the rules, as PMU008 asks domain designers to do on the Visionary's actual changes. Endorses its intent without qualification - combat earns its place when it buys an intervention rather than replacing one is section 7's composition rule, reached independently and better put - and confirms the Campaign r9 Lock Flight beats it summarises are correct. Offers three clauses, all lifted from those beats rather than invented: the summary drops the two hits the exposure costs; it calls the lock-house door dry when the door is a device on the head basin's line powered through the water the surveyor must stand in, which is why Campaign has them there in insulation; and it says the discharge powers the door without lighting the upper road when the discharge does light the weir beacon on the same circuit, the crowd staying only because the quay's light is nearer. The third is the one worth fixing: as written the owner learns that a discharge powers what you aim it at, when the truth is the opposite and is the better story - it lights everything on the wet circuit and the surveyor does it anyway knowing a nearer light holds the crowd, which is the vision's own signature moment in one sentence. The Brief is the Visionary's page and has not been edited. No rule on this page changes.
hold the flood/mechanics/combat.md ..
@@ 1,7 1,7 @@
# Hold the Flood — Combat Rules
-
**CMB101 / CMB102 · r10 · 2026-09-07 · Combat and Enemy Designer · In review.**
-
r10 lifts the principle under [X37](/Hold%20the%20Flood/External%20Critique) and [PMR009 §2](/Hold%20the%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR009) out of the one scene it was found in and states it as a composition rule: **charge never leaves the district, so an encounter whose only product is charge is worth its cost only if that expedition contains something the charge pays for.** It is a check on how an encounter is written, not a new mechanic, and it applies to every harvest interaction this page owns. Enemies §0A carries the matching corrections — including two withdrawals — at [r11](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Enemies).
+
**CMB101 / CMB102 · r11 · 2026-09-07 · Combat and Enemy Designer · In review.**
+
r11 checks the [Game vision](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Brief#game-vision)'s combat example against the rules, as [PMU008](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Tasks) asks domain designers to do on the Visionary's actual changes. **Its intent is endorsed without qualification** — *"combat earns its place when it buys an intervention rather than replacing one"* is §7's composition rule, arrived at independently and better put. **Three clauses are offered**, all lifted from [Campaign r9](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Campaign)'s own beats: the summary drops the two hits the exposure costs, calls a water-powered door "dry", and says the discharge lights nothing when it lights the weir beacon and the crowd stays only because a nearer light holds it. The Brief is the Visionary's page and has not been edited. No rule here changes.
Sources read: [Design Document r14 ec1b6c](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Document?revision=ec1b6c) §§3–6, 8, 12–16 and Appendix A; the shared-rule contract [Power and Attraction r2 69024c](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Power%20And%20Attraction?revision=69024c) and its r1 seed 8afc3c; [Campaign 34dc09](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Campaign); [Design Document r15 5f9fbb](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Document?revision=5f9fbb); [Design Review REV104 r1 80a882](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Review?revision=80a882); [Enemies c63228](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Enemies?revision=c63228); [Cutter](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Weapons/Cutter); [Equipment](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Equipment); [World and Mystery r20 7699de](/Hold%20the%20Flood/World%20And%20Mystery?revision=7699de); [Expansion Brief](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Expansion%20Brief); [Design Index dd01c7](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Index?revision=dd01c7); [Tasks eb8c03](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Tasks?revision=eb8c03); [PMR003](/Hold%20the%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR003); [Design Review REV103 r5](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Review); [Brief](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Brief) D013/D016/D019–D021; [Reference/Content Scale REF107](/Reference/Content%20Scale); [External Critique EXT102](/Hold%20the%20Flood/External%20Critique); [Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions).
## 12. EQP102 countersigned — the three approaches against targeting, press and pursuit
+
## 12. The vision's combat example, checked against the rules
+
+
[PMU008](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Tasks) asks domain designers to answer for their systems on the Visionary's **actual** changes. The [Game vision](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Brief#game-vision)'s *"Why combat belongs"* paragraph is a combat example, so this role checks it. **Its design intent is right and this page endorses it without qualification:** *"Combat earns its place when it buys an intervention rather than replacing one… Fighting with no useful place to spend its local charge does not earn a required encounter."* That is §7's composition rule in one sentence, arrived at independently, and it is a better sentence than mine.
+
+
**The scene it summarises is correct.** [Campaign r9 §3.1](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Campaign)'s Lock Flight beats at 3:30 and 5:00 check against the shared rules: ten walkers taken at the crowd's edge inside pursuit range, ten motes walked over as they fall, two hits taken, one bank filled; then a discharge at the head basin's edge that opens the lock-house door for its two seconds. **Nothing below is a problem with the design — all three are things the summary drops that a reader will need.**
+
+
| What the vision says | What the rules and the scene say | Minimal repair |
+
| --- | --- | --- |
+
| *"steps to its edge and kills ten pursuing walkers to fill one battery"* | Correct, and Campaign adds the price: **two hits taken**. The vision claims "exposure now versus a worse route later" and then does not show the exposure | Four words: *"…and takes two hits doing it."* The claim is stronger with the number in it |
+
| *"That charge powers the **dry** lock-house door"* | **The door is not powered dry.** It is a device on the head basin's line, and the discharge works by energising **the water the surveyor is standing in** — which is why Campaign has them *"at the basin's edge in insulation"*. A coil discharge into dry ground does nothing at all; that is one of the oldest rules here | Drop "dry", and add the standing: *"…stands in the head basin and discharges."* Insulation, or two health, is the cost that makes it a choice |
+
| *"powers the door for two seconds **without lighting the upper road** and calling the whole mass there"* | **The discharge does light something.** Campaign is exact: *"the weir beacon on the same circuit glows steady for those seconds, which moves no crowd because the quay is lit and nearer."* A discharge energises everything the connected water touches — that is the design's most-taught lesson, and the [failed experiment in GDD §8](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Document) exists to teach it | *"…lights the weir beacon for those two seconds, and the crowd does not come, because the quay's light is nearer."* |
+
+
**Why the third one matters more than the others, and why I would not let it stand.** As written, the owner reads that a coil discharge powers what you aim it at and nothing else. **The truth is the opposite and it is the better story:** a discharge lights everything on the wet circuit, and the surveyor does it anyway **because they know the crowd is held at a nearer light and cannot answer this one.** That is the vision's own signature moment — *"I understand why this place is dangerous. I can change it."* — happening in one sentence. The correct rule is more impressive than the incorrect summary of it, and it costs the paragraph four words.
+
+
**Ownership.** The [Brief](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Brief) is the Visionary's page and this role has not edited it; these are three offered clauses, all lifted from [Campaign r9](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Campaign)'s own beats rather than invented, and the Visionary and PM own whether to take them. **No rule on this page changes**, and nothing here asks for a new encounter, role or cost.
+
+
---
+
+
## 13. EQP102 countersigned — the three approaches against targeting, press and pursuit
CMB102 asks this role to countersign or revise [EQP102's three approaches to one Tram objective](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Equipment/Build%20Paths). **Countersigned, with two rules this page had to supply and one interaction Equipment did not claim.** This is a check of the combat grammar only: placement is Campaign's, the items are Equipment's, and nothing here is a judgement of whether the three are equally attractive, which no page can establish.
@@ 395,12 413,13 @@
---
-
## 13. Revision log — what changed, and what was withdrawn
+
## 14. Revision log — what changed, and what was withdrawn
Kept short and at the foot, so §0 is the current contract and this is the history. Full text of every revision is in [page history](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat/history).
| Rev | What it did |
| --- | --- |
+
| **r11** | Checked the vision's combat example against the rules (§12) and endorsed its intent. Offered three clauses from Campaign r9's beats: the unstated two hits, the "dry" door that is powered through the water the surveyor stands in, and the discharge that does light the weir beacon — the last being the one worth fixing, because the correct rule is the better story and the summary teaches its opposite. |
| **r10** | Added the composition rule under X37 and PMR009 §2: a fight yielding only charge must have somewhere in that expedition to spend it, because charge is discarded at extraction. Stated as a check on writing rather than a new mechanic, and explicitly not a demand that districts remove free bypasses. |
| **r9** | Qualified the two §7 claims [PMR008](/Hold%20the%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR008) names: the readability argument is a design judgement about an unseen screen rather than a prediction, with the cap's number admitted as a first guess and reversible in one line; and "a combination costs nothing" is corrected to "costs no new asset", since it still costs authoring, a rule diff, a checked scene and a reviewer's pass. Roster and budget unchanged. |
| **r8** | Cited [REF107](/Reference/Content%20Scale) in §7, at the place the composition budget caps within-district depth, answering [X32](/Hold%20the%20Flood/External%20Critique) on the page it names rather than on the one that merely discusses roster size. **Kept the cap** and said why — legibility is the thing every reviewer credits — while conceding what the cap actually costs: depth has to come from situation rather than from bodies on screen, and no design-phase page can show that reads as richly. Recorded contract r7's adoption of R12 and R13 as proposed, and its assignment of R11 to this page; C13 and C14 closed, C15 added. |
