In general: 1. **Unalterable rules always take precedent** 2. **Any rules that cause unalterable rules to be in conflict are ignored.** There are multiple ways to handle rules conflicts. The most 'intuitive', but complicated solution is "Partial Resolve". The most safe variant is "Strict Prohibition". The most unintuitive, but also most interactive variant is "first come, first serve". I would recommend "Partial Resolve" and "Ordered Timing" alongside a Glossary of terms to support the allowed terms as keywords (effect associated with tags/other keyword actions they may entail when resolving). #### Partial Resolve Rules always try to resolve "as much as possible", but some actions do depend on previous actions, like: "At the start of the turn, every player steals three tokens of their choice from the player to their right." vs. "From now on, tokens cannot be lost." A "steal" action should logically depend on being able to subtract tokens in order for players to get tokens. Ergo, this rules conflict should not result in any players receiving tokens (if the second rule is in effect at the time of resolution!), even if resolving it "as much as possible" could be interpreted as "add" and "subtract" both being part of "steal" (and only losing tokens being forbidden). Now, consider: "At the start of the turn, every player steals three tokens of their choice from the player to their right." vs. "From now on, tokens cannot be ~~lost~~ **gained**." Actions to steal tokens would still partially resolve! Your choice of three tokens still leave their owner, but you cannot add them to your own pool of tokens (if the second rule is in effect). This works because you do not need to be able to gain them in order to attempt to steal them (subtract them). > [!NOTE] Ownership > Unowned tokens would simply go into the reserve of unowned tokens (where they were initiated as such when they were established as a mechanic by a rule). #### Strict Prohibition This simply states that, in case of rules conflicts, no attempt to partially resolve this conflict is attempted. So when considering: "At the start of the turn, every player steals three tokens of their choice from the player to their right." vs. "From now on, tokens cannot be lost." The action "steal" would need to have a lot of visible tags (ex.: add, subtract, object, ownership). If any of these tags is prohibited by law, then "steal" actions would not resolve. #### First come, first serve The first rule in order of resolving is acted out in its entirety, and any later rules are not considered to be in effect when resolving earlier actions. So when considering: "At the start of the turn, every player steals three tokens of their choice from the player to their right." vs. "From now on, players cannot steal tokens." Players can simply steal tokens as normal, as long as the second rule is on a lower position in the rulebook than the first rule (when resolving in normal order). Any later rules that contain the keyword "steal" simply are not allowed to resolve. This "First come, first serve" type of rules resolution will be very unintuitive at first, but it makes the overview of actions very clearly step-by-step in their process during gradual expansion. #### Ordered Timing The other resolution method of rules is ordering them according to their category. Meta-type rules would apply first, then law-type rules and finally action-type rules. This would also determine priority (meta rules apply first and ranks highest). Resolution of same-type rules would