Yeah - if Backup shouldn't activate on Backups dying that needs to actually written instead of defying my expectations on a modified role being the base role for roles that care about the base role (and Backup somehow isn't the base role).In post 973, Umlaut wrote:I think it would make more sense to amend the definition of the modifier than to change its name; and I think if the official ruling is that a Backup [Role] ‘should’ only activate when a non-Backup [Role] dies, the definition should in fact be amended to state that explicitly, so that we don’t have the opposite scenario of what implo described: players being at adisadvantagebecause they carefully read and interpreted the rules according to their literal meaning. It would really suck for a player like me or TemporalLich to discover and tease out the implications of some surprising interaction like this in a game we were playing, only to be wrong not because we misread but only because “oh everyone knows what that’ssupposedto mean.”
Making a backup not activate on backups would still make a Cop-Finder say a Deputy is a Cop. Making a Backup version of the role not count as the base role would both disallow dual backups and have a temporary finder-godfather effect. (Gunsmith, which would normally care about the difference, explicitly sees guns on a Deputy anyway, though it would change whether or not a Gunsmith sees a gun on a Mafia Nurse)
(Cop Enabler would not have any meaningful difference whether or not a Deputy is a Cop, if not a Cop activates then gets disabled immediately from a dead Cop Enabler)
The design space could be reclaimed with a modifier saying "Each night, but only once an other {modifier} {role} has died," or "Each night, but only once an other {modifier} player has died,". The second would be less complex.
