Sounds good to me! As with many new rulings or mechanics the impending and full consequences cannot be fully
realised until sometime afterwards when it has been more thuroughly tested. I like the idea. I hope 'replacement'
doesn't do to the struggles what the 'rituals' and such did to the resource system. I guess we're safe as long as
it's not too abundant or more importantly 'not too good'.
QUOTE; Marius
"For now, Julia’s usefulness in the game is reliant on her replacement effect, which allows her to bypass the insanity-producing effect of the terror struggle. The word “instead” lies at the heart of the replacement effect, as it allows the new effect to occur in place of whichever effect it is replacing. Not “in addition to,” but instead. This means that when Julia Brown sacrifices and “replaces” herself with a new copy from your deck, you have effectively gotten around the consequences of losing a terror struggle."
This ruling can be found here . The question boiled down to "Why isn't it in the rules book?" - but it is, under the Golden Rule. The meaning of the word "Instead" means you get one effect in the place of the other, not in addition to the other.