-
NOTE: Points/N$ listed here are out-of-date. Refer to the Tracking Spreadsheet for current totals.
Turn Order. Player - Score - N$
1. mail-mi - 2 - 990
2. liopoil - 7 - 990
3. Jack Rudd - 3 - 990
4. EFHW - 0 - 990
5. Jimmmmm - 6 - 1000
6. Voltaire - 4 - 961
7. Grujah - 10 - 970
8. WalrusMcFishSir - 0 - 1000
9. scott_pilgrim - 3 - 1010
Officers
Steward - mail-mi
Cartographer - Grujah
Bureaucrat - Voltaire
Moneylender - liopoil
Game Description (http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#how to play), Tracking Spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhocBduPnx8KdG0yMkxFM2FXZjBjd3hyTFNydml6T1E&usp=drive_web#gid=0)
IP Actions (4 IP/turn)
1 - move unit
1 - gain points via adjacency (2 for you, 1 for other)
1 - create unit (if current units = 0)
1 - spawn a treasure chest
1 - assign class to unit
1 - raise unit attribute one level
1 - feed Hungry unit
Rules are here (and will be updated throughout.)
Immutable Rules (can't be changed (exception: see rule 103))
101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).
102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.
103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; or (2) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.
104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.
106. All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.
107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.
109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.
110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.
111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.
112. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.
113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.
114. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.
115. Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule.
116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.
Mutable Rules (Can be changed/amended)
205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.
207. Each player always has exactly one vote.
211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.
If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.
If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.
This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.
Rule Changes and Amendments
303: (mutable) A player may propose up to three rule-changes in a single turn if all such rule-changes are either repeals or transmutations. These rule-changes will be voted on together and will either be all approved or all rejected. The number of votes required for approval will be the minimum required for a single proposed rule-change. This rule takes precedence over any rule allowing only one rule-change per turn.
307. (mutable) At any time, a person not playing may post in-thread that they want to join the game. They must bold their request to be in. In the same post, they must choose a color which will personally represent them in this game (referred to as "your color", "player's color", etc.). When this happens, after the current turn is over, they are inserted into the player order by being put in before the player whose turn was just finished. They start with 0 points.
Colors are chosen by posting in thread a color in the format (Red Value, Green Value, Blue Value), where each Color Value is an integer between 0 and 255. So for example, (0, 0, 0) would be black, (255, 0, 0) would be red, (0, 255, 0) would be green, and so on.
White (255,255,255) may not be chosen as a personal color, nor may colors with all Color Values greater than 200. Players are encouraged to choose colors which are as unique and distinct as possible, and may not choose colors which are too similar to white or previously chosen colors. Whether the color is distinct enough may be settled by judgment if necessary.
317. (mutable) The official currency of f.ds Nomic shall be the Nomic Dollar. The abbreviation for Nomic Dollars shall be N$.
Each player shall have a personal quantity of Nomic Dollars, which shall be listed in the opening post.
318: (mutable) Any player who has never had their personal quantity of Nomic Dollars set immediately has it set to N$1000.
If any former player re-joins the game, their personal quantity of Nomic Dollars is immediately set to either N$1000 or the quantity they had when they last left the game, whichever is lower.
324: (mutable) At the beginning of their turn, a player may post a draft proposal for a rule change. When making the final proposal, he may change some details of the draft but the intention and spirit of the rule must stay the same.
325: (mutable) The active player may make a motion to suspend any number of rules during their turn. This must be done at the same time as the presentation of the draft proposal(s), and the rules to be suspended must be explicitly named. Voting on the motion begins immediately, and players must post their votes in the thread, in the format [Yes|No] on Motion to Suspend. The motion passes if two-thirds of the players vote yes, and immediately fails if one-third of the players vote no. If, after 60 hours, the motion has not passed or failed, players who have not voted are considered not eligible voters on this motion.
If the motion passes, all players (including Judges) must treat the game as though those rules are not in effect, during that turn only, for all purposes including decisions regarding whether a proposal is valid, or whether a move is legal.
If the motion fails, that player may not make another motion to suspend rules during this turn. Any further drafts of that player's proposal must contain some portion of the original proposal. If no portion of the original proposal can be retained without suspending the rules, all players are eligible to end the current player's turn; this clause overrides rule 332.
Both mutable and immutable rules may be suspended in this manner, but this rule cannot be suspended by itself.
326: (mutable) The world map consists of a 16x16 grid of square tiles. Rows are named 1-16 from top to bottom, and columns A-P, left to right. Tiles are named by their column and row pair. Synonyms for top, bottom, left and right are north, south, west and east, respectively. A tile is considered directly adjacent to other tiles to its immediate north, south, west and east. A tile is considered diagonally adjacent to other tiles to its immediate south-east, south-west, north-east and north-west.
327: (mutable) Players take turns in player order.
328: (mutable) A turn is over and the next turn simultaneously begins only when a player eligible to end the turn announces it. An announcement to change turns must be bold, and it must mention the next player's name and that it is their turn. Players are only eligible to end the turn if it is explicitly stated by some rule, and if no rule states they're not eligible. This clause takes precedence over any other rule specifying eligibility to end a turn. Whenever a turn ends during voting, the motion voted on automatically fails.
329: (mutable) Players are eligible to end their own turn. If all "mandatory" actions have been taken during a turn, all players are eligible to end the turn.
330: (mutable) If a player has not proposed a rule within 72 hours of the start of their turn, all players are eligible to end the turn. Voting required by any rule and waiting for a Judge to settle an issue do not count towards this time.
332: (mutable) After a player ends a turn, players have 24 hours to invoke Judgement on the issue whether the player ending the turn was eligible to do so. If play continues after the action(s) being Judged occurred, and the Judgement overturns the action(s) taken, play resets to the gamestate immediately prior to the overturned action(s). Otherwise, play will continue from the current gamestate.
333: (mutable) If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then any player may decide to invoke Judgment as follows: They must announce the dispute in question and state at least one proposed resolution. In the same post they must use the forum system to roll a 1d(# of players). The player whose turn number in the opening post corresponds to the number rolled is named the Judge unless this would cause the selection of the player invoking Judgment, a player whose move is being challenged, or a player who has previously been Judge this turn and has been overruled. If one of these cases would occur, the player invoking Judgment must perform another random die roll. If for some reason all players are excluded from being the Judge, then the Judge is selected by the same random die-roll process with no player except the one invoking Judgment excluded.
If the number of players (including whether a particular player is playing) is the issue under dispute, then the die shall be rolled to reflect the larger number of players and the player whose presence in the game is in question shall be excluded from being Judge.
If the turn ordering is the issue under dispute, then the player invoking Judgment will list all players who are playing and assign them numbers for the purpose of determining the Judge. These numbers will be used instead of the turn numbers, but only for the purpose of selecting the Judge.
The player selected as Judge must settle the issue in question. Nobody is eligible to end the turn after Judgment has been invoked, unless the current Judge has settled the issue, and the last time the Judge settled an issue was more than 24 hours ago. Also, nobody is eligible to end the turn during the process of voting to overrule a Judge.
If the Judge has settled an issue in the last 24 hours, any player other than the Judge may open a vote to overrule the Judge. The motion passes if two-thirds of the players vote yes, and fails if more than one-third of the players vote no. If, after 60 hours, the motion has not passed or failed, players who have not voted are considered not eligible voters on this motion.
If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then a player must select a new Judge in the manner described above, with all players who have been Judge this turn excluded from being the new Judge. The player who originally invoked Judgment is still excluded from being Judge, but the player rolling for a new Judge is not.
Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.
New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.
335: (mutable) At the beginning of his or her turn, each player gains four Initiative Points (abbreviated IPs). These IPs may be spent during his or her turn to affect the gamestate in various ways. Spending an IP causes a player's quantity of IPs to be reduced by one, and a player may not spend IPs if it would bring his or her quantity of IPs to less than zero. A player's quantity of IPs may not be changed unless it is explicitly allowed by a rule. The player does not need to spend all of his or her IPs, or any of them if he or she so chooses. If a player attempts to spend IPs in a way which is judged to be against the rules, that player's attempted actions will not succeed, but he will not lose the IPs he attempted to spend in this way.
At the end of each player's turn, his or her quantity of IPs is set to zero, such that IPs may not be saved for future turns.
If he or she has no Units on the World Map, a player may spend one IP to create a Unit of his or her allegiance on any World Map tile that does not already contain a Unit.
To create a Unit in this way, post in thread the following bolded command: Create ##, where ## is the name of the tile where the Unit will be created.
A player may spend one IP to move a Unit of his or her allegiance to a tile which is directly adjacent or diagonally adjacent to its current position. Multiple IPs may be spent in this way each turn, and a Unit may occupy the same tile multiple times in one turn. A player may not attempt to move a Unit to an invalid tile, or to a tile which already contains a Unit.
To move a Unit in this way, post in thread the following bolded command: Move ## to %%, where ## is the name of the tile where the Unit is positioned, and %% is the name of the tile to which the Unit is moving.
336: (mutable) A player may post Give N$x to Y, where x is a positive integer less than or equal to the posting player's current total number of Nomic dollars, and Y is a player name. If a player does this, then his or her total quantity of Nomic dollars decreases by x, and player Y's total quantity of Nomic dollars increases by x.
337: (mutable) When a player reaches 100 points, they win. When a player wins, they add one Legacy Point (LP) to their Legacy Point total and sets their points to 0. When a player joins the game, they have 0 LPs.
339: (mutable) Immediately after the end of a player's turn, they must, if they are able to, pay an upkeep cost for any units they currently have on the World Map.
The upkeep cost for n units, in Nomic Dollars, is equal to ten times the sum of all integers from 1 to n.
If the player's personal quantity of Nomic Dollars is sufficient to cover the upkeep cost, it is deducted automatically after the end of their turn. Otherwise, nothing is deducted and all of their units are inactive until the end of their next turn.
A player may not give any commands to, or receive any benefits from, an inactive unit.
340: (mutable) If the current player has a unit directly or diagonally adjacent to another player's unit, the active player may spend one IP to gain two points and the owner of the adjacent unit will gain one point. This process is known as "Proximity". Players may not use one of their own units more than once a turn to earn points via Proximity. Units may not earn points through Proximity during the turn they are created.
To earn these points, a player must post in thread the following bolded command: Proximity between ## and %%, where ## is the name of the tile their unit is on and %% is the name of the tile the other player's unit is on.
341: (mutable) If a rule amends, repeals, or transmutes an existing rule, the rule it amends, repeals, or transmutes will be removed from the rules at the same time that the new rule takes effect. The portion of the new rule which refers to the act of amending, repealing, or transmuting the existing rule, (such as, but not limited to, "Amend ### to the following:", "Repeal rule ###", "Transmute rule", etc.) will also be removed immediately after the new rule takes effect.
350: (mutable) Game constructs may not be changed unless explicitly permitted in the rules. A game construct is any piece, point, component, flavor, or related item present in the game. Examples include, but are not limited to, points, Legacy Points, Nomic dollars, units, color, etc. A change is the addition, deletion, or alteration of a game construct.
356: (mutable) Once per turn, the current player may spend 1 IP to spawn a treasure chest in any empty location. He does this by posting Treasure chest at ## where ## is the name of the tile where the treasure chest is spawned. This tile cannot be entered by any unit until the end of the turn. Also, units cannot be created on locations with treasure chests or move to locations with treasure chests on the turn they are created. The previous two sentences overrule any rule allowing for such movement or creation.
When the chest is created, the current player rolls 1d200. When a unit enters a location with a chest, the result is added to the player owning that unit's amount of Nomic dollars, and the chest disappears.
358: (mutable) When a rule-change is finalized by the player proposing the rule change, it will be voted on. Eligible voters will vote by posting in thread. Votes should be presented in the form Vote: Yes on rule ---, Vote: No on rule ---, or Vote: Abstain on rule ---(where '---' denotes the proposal number). The player proposing the rule will by default vote yes unless they say otherwise. Once over half of the eligible voters who didn't Vote: Abstain have voted yes, the proposal is passed. Once either half of the eligible voters who didn't Vote: Abstain have voted no, or the player proposing the rule chooses to end the voting, the proposal fails. If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 36 hours or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted are not considered eligible voters (for this vote). This effectively ends the vote with only players currently voting.
359: (mutable) Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.
If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.
360: (mutable) Units represent people. Each unit can have one class and any number of attributes. Attributes and classes are defined by rules, and should be capitalized.
Classes. A unit can be placed without a class, or assigned to a class at the time of placement. Each class has unique abilities. Assigning a unit to a class costs 1 IP and can be done at any point in the player's turn by posting in bold Assign Unit at ## to X class. Units can change class, but they lose all their attributes. Units of different classes are identical when all attributes are at level 0.
This rule defines the classes Farmer and Soldier. Their special abilities could be reflected in attributes such as skill, productivity, tools, etc. Farmers are represented on the map by a block "F" in the player's color. Soldiers are represented on the map by a block "S" in the player's color.
Attributes. Attributes give units new abilities or increase existing abilities. Some attributes affect all units the same way, others give abilities specialized to the unit's class. A unit needs to belong to a class in order to be assigned attributes. All attributes start at level 0. Abilities at each level depend on the attribute. To raise an attribute up a level costs N$25 and 1 IP and can be ordered at any point in the player's turn by posting in bold Unit at ##: Raise X [attribute] to level Y [the next level]. Pay N$25. Raised attributes take effect immediately, so they can be raised and used in the same turn, including the turn they are placed. However, any given attribute can only be raised one level per turn per unit.
This rule defines the attribute Speed (abbreviation Sp.). Units at level 0 Speed move one space a turn. All units at level 1 Speed can move 2 spaces per turn, at level 2, 3 spaces per turn, and so forth. This attribute is currently the same for all classes.
This rule also defines the attribute Skill (abbreviation Sk.). For Skill, the abilities associated with each level depend on the class of the unit. Other players' units cannot move into proximity with Soldiers at level 1 skill. Units that are already adjacent at the time of the attribute raise are not affected until they wish to move to a new square. Farmers at Skill level 1 get double proximity points.
Attributes are represented on the map under the unit symbol by small print abbreviations followed by the relevant level. For example, Sp 1, Sk 2.
361: (mutable) Each unit has an inventory which initially has a capacity of 5 units.
Unless stated otherwise in the rules, each item takes up 1 unit of capacity.
Immediately following the turn of the last player in the player order, each unit which is able to automatically consumes 1 Food from its inventory.
Any unit which does not have any food in its inventory at this time becomes Hungry.
Any Hungry unit which does not have any Food in its inventory at this time is permanently removed from the game.
If a Hungry unit has Food in its inventory, the player who controls it may spend 1 IP and post in bold Feed unit at ##. 1 Food is used up and the unit is no longer Hungry.
This is the only command that can be given to a Hungry unit - it can neither move nor perform any other kind of action.
Whenever a unit is on the map which has never had any Food in its inventory, it immediately gains 2 Food items.
362: (mutable) A player may propose one or more rule changes of any type on their turn. These rule-changes will be voted on together and will either be all approved or all rejected. The number of votes required for approval will be the minimum required for a single proposed rule-change. Proposing one or more rule-changes is a "mandatory" action during the turn.
363: (mutable) In order to facilitate accurate and error-free record-keeping, certain Offices will be maintained. Players may occupy any number of Offices concurrently. Players who occupy an Office are known as Officers. The actions of Officers do not constitute official rulings (they may make mistakes), but it is assumed they are making a good-faith effort to be accurate at all times.
Any time there is a vacant Office, an election is immediately triggered. Eligible voters will vote by posting in thread. Votes should be presented in the form "Vote: XX for YY" or Vote: Abstain on YY (where XX refers to the player and YY refers to the office). Once any player has achieved over half of the eligible voters who didn't Vote: Abstain, the election ends and that player wins. If an Office has been in the voting stage for 36 hours or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted are not considered eligible voters (for this vote). This effectively ends the vote with only players currently voting. The player with the majority of votes wins. In the case of a tie, a second vote will be triggered in which only the tied players are eligible to be voted for. If there is still a tie, the forum's dice roll function will be used. Any player may roll a 1dX (where X represents the number of players tied). The tied players are sorted in alphabetical order and assigned numbers in ascending order to represent them in this roll (if Bob and Alice are tied, a 1d2 is rolled, with 1 representing Alice and 2 representing Bob). The player who wins the die roll wins the election.
During any Office election, no voters are eligible to end the turn. This clause overrides all rules relating to who has authority to end a turn.
Officers may resign at any time by posting "I resign as XX" in bold, where XX refers to the office(s) they hold. This will trigger an election for any vacated Offices.
Officers may be impeached. At any point a player may start an impeachment vote by posting "Impeach: XX" (where XX refers to the player to be impeached). The impeachment vote will last until all players have voted or the current turn ends. If 2/3rds of all players are voting for impeachment at the time the vote ends, the impeachment succeeds. If a player is impeached, an election for any vacated Offices is triggered.
Offices:
- Steward - the Steward keeps track of the points and Legacy Points accumulated by each player.
- Cartographer - the Cartographer keeps track of the map and all related aspects of the game.
- Bureaucrat - the Bureaucrat maintains the rule-set.
- Moneylender - the Moneylender keeps track of each player's money.
In a situation where it is unclear which Officer should be doing the tracking, the Officers should discuss the situation and decide amongst themselves. If they cannot agree, any player may invoke Judgement and the Judge will assign the task to the Officer he deems appropriate.
Officers may keep records wherever they wish (as allowed within the rules), but it is expected that, whenever possible, they will do so using the Google Doc linked in the opening post. The owner of the opening post will do their best to keep it as up-to-date as possible based on the information provided by the Officers, but it should not be relied upon as the most current source of information.
All Officers receive N$10 each time the turn order passes the last player in the player list. If players hold multiple Offices, they receive the appropriate multiple salaries.
364: (mutable) At the beginning of each player's turn, each other player's quantity of IPs is increased by one.
Every player with more than zero IPs may be considered an "active" or "current" player for the purposes of spending IPs. However, a player's quantity of IPs is only set to zero at the end of his or her own turn.
365: (mutable) If a player has a unit with the farmer class on the board, he may spend 1 IP and post the command "Harvest at XX". If he does, then his farmer unit at XX gains y food into his inventory, and the player pays N$z, where y and z are determined by the farmer's skill level, as determined by the following table:
Skill Level y (amount of food) z (cost in N$)
1 (or less) 0 0
2 1 80
3 1 50
4 1 30
5 1 20
6 1 10
7 2 25
8 2 10
9 3 15
10 4 15
11 5 20
12 (or greater) 5 0
366: (mutable) Players may spend 1 IP to attack directly or diagonally adjacent players, hereafter known as defending players. To do so, players post Plunder $$ to %% in bold, where $$ is the place of the active player's unit, and the %% is the place of the defending player's unit. Each player will roll Nd6 using the forum's dice rolling feature in response to the attack, where N is the number of the unit's soldier level plus 1. The two highest numbers of each player will be the only dice used. If the defending player roll is higher, nothing happens. If the active player's roll is higher, the defending player must post Give N$250 to Y in bold, where Y is the active player, or Give N$X to Y in bold if the defending player has less than N$250, and X is the rest of the defending player's N$. If the roll is a tie, nothing happens. You may only attack if it is your turn.
-
Thoughts:
- Rule 323 onwards on the old list did not have (mutable) after the rule number. I added these in as I believe it was an oversight. If this is in error let me know.
- I really don't like the idea of a separate list of rules in effect, so I haven't updated it and plan on removing it. If there is sufficient demand, though, I will keep this running as well.
-
I do prefer having a set of rules that you don't have to sift through paragraphs of crossed-out text to read.
-
I do prefer having a set of rules that you don't have to sift through paragraphs of crossed-out text to read.
OK, I guess I'll keep it going. This increased the chance I pass a rule to establish we can just wipe amended/repealed rules off the face of the earth (which would hopefully make everyone happy). Because I know we're going to have situations where we accidentally forget a rule is in effect, or the ordinal numbering thing tricks us again, and the odds go up if everyone is looking at the second list and I've misinterpreted something.
-
Yeah, I don't like the whole repealing repeals or amendments thing. Maybe we should have a document listing the whole history of the rules, but for the OP I think it makes much more sense to only list rules that are actually in effect. And by "in effect", I'm including any rules that are redundant because another rules takes precedence. We don't need listed in the OP that a rule was once in effect that limited the number of mutable rules to 25, nor do we need a statement saying that the limitation is no longer in place. If for some reason anyone ever wanted to reinstate the rule, they should just propose the rule again, rather than proposing a repeal of the repeal.
-
Maybe we should have a document listing the whole history of the rules
This sounds like a great way to waste time...I will almost certainly create this.
-
This sounds like a great way to waste time...I will almost certainly create this.
LOL (actually a real one). Because I can: Give N$1 to Voltaire
Also, I see that I overlooked one thing with my 8-new-rules-turn: Rule 325 still forces a player's turn to end sometimes, without anyone actually saying that it does. This is a low-priority, because it doesn't break anything (AFAIK).
-
This sounds like a great way to waste time...I will almost certainly create this.
LOL (actually a real one). Because I can: Give N$1 to Voltaire
Also, I see that I overlooked one thing with my 8-new-rules-turn: Rule 325 still forces a player's turn to end sometimes, without anyone actually saying that it does. This is a low-priority, because it doesn't break anything (AFAIK).
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Also, to add to that low-priority fix, 325 also currently refers to 323 which doesn't exist anymore. This also doesn't break anything, but is another piece of 325 that we need to patch up at some point.
-
I am in the process of re-reading the old threads, and I realized our tracking sheet didn't have mail-mi on it as a former player, who was definitely in the game at one point. Because the fun of this game is following the rules, I added him to the list of former players.
-
AFAIK (but I only joined late, so I'm not completely sure), mail-mi only organized it and moderated the OP of thread 1. He never actually played, he didn't vote and it was never his turn.
-
AFAIK (but I only joined late, so I'm not completely sure), mail-mi only organized it and moderated the OP of thread 1. He never actually played, he didn't vote and it was never his turn.
Actually, he intended to mod and play at the same time. He was in the initial player order, and turn 1 was underway before he resigned.
I doubt this will ever matter, but it is correct based on my understanding.
-
I'm a bit behind on what the current rules are... I'll read them eventually. any suggestions?
-
I'm a bit behind on what the current rules are... I'll read them eventually. any suggestions?
Administrative choices, if you want to be boring:
1. Make it so that when someone wins, they get a Legacy point and the game continues.*
2. Clean up 325 (refers to a turn ending without anyone ending it and refers to a non-existent rule)
*not really an administrative fix, but something there seems to be support for
There are very few of these left, florrat did a great job of cleaning up the messy stuff.
-
If you want a new feature:
[shameless plug]
- About what we can do with pieces (or units) on the map: I was thinking of the following future rule (but anyone else has to suggest it if they like it, since it'll take a while before it's my turn again).
Once during your own turn you may choose to place a treasure chest on the board. Doing so costs nothing, and it will appear in a random location (roll 2d16). The first player who gets to that location gains a random amount of N$ (for example a random number between N$100 and N$200).
It's simple, it provides an income, and I think it will feel like we're actually doing something. (if you can move during opponent's turns, active players will be rewarded more because they can move first. Not sure whether that is a feature or a bug).
[/shameless plug]
EDIT: To make it a little less shameless, some other proposed new features:
-Houses (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10202.msg342693#msg342693)
-Recourses/Occupations/Cooperation (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10202.msg342672#msg342672)
-Unit upkeep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10202.msg341864#msg341864)
Do we maybe want to add a page in the tracking spreadsheet, and add proposed new features and/or pending administrative fixes?
-
I am in the process of re-reading the old threads, and I realized our tracking sheet didn't have mail-mi on it as a former player, who was definitely in the game at one point. Because the fun of this game is following the rules, I added him to the list of former players.
you mean the list of current players?
official: /in
-
I am in the process of re-reading the old threads, and I realized our tracking sheet didn't have mail-mi on it as a former player, who was definitely in the game at one point. Because the fun of this game is following the rules, I added him to the list of former players.
you mean the list of current players?
official: /in
Wooooooo! mail-mi, you'll officially join the game after lio's turn. You'll be between scott_pilgrim and lio in the turn order (correct me if I got this wrong anyone).
Also, the Google Doc now includes a tab called "Rule History," a record of every proposal and suspension vote (judgement votes are not included, because god it's impossible to tell which ones actually happened). This is meant as a historical/fun document and is not official in any way. While creating it, I used the guiding principle of "what we thought happened" to tally votes (as I'm sure you all know, sometimes stuff got murky). The final vote tallies as I see them, as a result, might not be unanimously agreed to. I take this to be similar to when a political body takes a "voice vote" - (usually) everyone agrees what the outcome was, the specific numbers are harder to track. That said, they should always be pretty close.
Let me know if you spot any errors.
-
Create Unit on L12
-
What about this (not necessarily for this turn, but in general): When a rule is amended, any other rules that directly refer to the amended rule are altered to refer to the amended rule.
Could this cause unexpected things to happen?
-
Draft of proposal 337:
The amount of points each player has may not revealed publicly. Players may claim to have a certain number of points, but they may lie. When a player is awarded points they must keep track of their own points somewhere that they can later show to the other players, such as a Quicktopic. Players are expected to play fairly and not cheat when it comes to this. In the case that everyone knows how many points the player was awarded due to the nature of the method of point-gaining, that may be tracked. When a player gets 100 points, they must reveal that they have reached 100 points and show where they kept track of their points, claim their victory, and get a legacy point. Legacy points are displayed publicly. When a player gets a legacy point their points are reset to 0.
The purpose of the hidden points is so when a player comes close to winning we don't just pass a rule taking their points away, or something similar if we make a rule against it. We should make it so not everyone knows when someone gets points or not. One way to do this would be to randomize how many points a player gets when they do get points, and the player getting points does this randomization. It might be not worth the work to do this, but it seems the best way to me for us to make people actually sometimes win.
-
I...don't see how that can actually ever work. Won't people, if trusted to randomize, just invent whatever number they want and claim they used random.org? And since right now points are public (and will probably remain that way), it seems kinda pointless.
I personally would prefer just changing the definition of "win" to "get a Legacy point, points to 0, game continues".
-
Another option would be just to create a rule that disallows any proposal that directly affects points, and maybe makes it impossible for anyone to lose points. Just to be sure, we could make it immutable, so that it can only be changed by a unanimous vote.
Another idea is that we could somehow award points to people who somehow assist other people, which would encourage working together. Obviously people are going to be less inclined to be helped by those who are winning, but that's probably okay.
-
@Voltaire: two things... 1: people are supposed to not cheat, 2: there must be away to make people prove they did it randomly... does quicktopic have a randomization function?
@Jimmmmm: Sure, but there will always be a way to stop that player... pass a rule that skips their turn, kills off their units or whatever it is that is helping them win, etc. And even if we have a rule that you can't have a rule that specifically references a player we can still say things like "all players whose color is green" or "who has 93 points" or "who goes 7th in the turn order" or "who has a unit in J3".
-
Hmm, well we could make a list of things that are prohibited: losing points, forcing someone to skip their turn, proposing a rule that directly removes things from the map.
I don't know, I guess that nature of the game when you have majority rules is that the masses are always capable of rising up against those who are winning.
-
If "winning the game" 'just' gives 1 legacy point, then I don't think we will all try to prevent our hardest to let someone else not win. I do not like the idea of hidden scores.
A rule introducing legacy points must also take into consideration that someone can win via rule 213 (for example by going back to an earlier game state).
@Jimmmmm: In addition to what liopoil said, "any proposal that directly affects points" is pretty vague. A rule saying something like "When a player achieves X they gain 10 points" affects point pretty directly.
-
@Jimmmmm: In addition to what liopoil said, "any proposal that directly affects points" is pretty vague. A rule saying something like "When a player achieves X they gain 10 points" affects point pretty directly.
Be less vague when actually proposing then. But you get the point.
-
Maybe at some point we make a rule that makes all other rules (not including itself) permanently immutable, so that we have to take at least two steps to screw someone over like that.
But anyway, I agree that keeping points secret is not the best solution. It's a lot of work to implement, and either it doesn't accomplish much, or we have to add a large luck factor. What I mean by that is, the less random scoring is, the better we know other players' scores, which defeats the whole purpose of keeping them secret. The only way we can really make the secrecy significant is by making the randomness greater, which adds more luck which I don't like (I don't mind some luck, but a lot is bad, and we need a lot to make secrecy significant).
If we really wanted to do the secret points thing, here is a rough approach that we could take. Players bid on things that score points. Players post their bids in a QT (I assume QT's give a time stamp so we can check that it's legit?). At any given time after point X (maybe after X things have been bid on), a player may post "I want to end the game". Then everyone reveals their QT's (so we can check who won each bid) and whoever has the most points wins (or scores one legacy point). I guess it would be hard to verify that at no point in time a player had less than N$0, but maybe that could be part of the game. If you dip below N$0 but manage to bring yourself back by the end of the game you're fine, but if you finish the game in debt, you lose (even if you score the most points); it's an option to take a giant risk. Man, I didn't think I would like this idea when I started typing it but now I actually like it a lot.
So the "things" that score points might just give flat points, or maybe they say like "worth 1 point per tile of land you own", or "worth 1 point per N$100 you have at the end of the game", or whatever, so that they're worth varying amounts to different people.
I don't really know what this means for liopoil, I don't think I would vote for his proposal as it is right now. I think he is obligated to maintain "the spirit of his draft proposal" though (unless we repealed that?).
-
Not a big fan of secret points. Definitely a fan of coalitions and working together, as it seems like a natural extension of the negotiative nature of the game.
-
okay, I'll scratch that. I'll keep the legacy points. I'd like to add something else about points too, any ideas?
right now with legacy points, it seems that it's just "get as many total points as you can" with milestones every 100 points. Should everyone reset when someone gets a legacy point? that makes it much more advantageous to stop the player who is winning...
-
Should everyone reset when someone gets a legacy point?
Hmmm... Not sure, I think I prefer not to.
And I'm not sure whether something needs to be added. Implementing Legacy Points in a "correct" way is probably already pretty tough.
-
Should everyone reset when someone gets a legacy point?
Hmmm... Not sure, I think I prefer not to.
And I'm not sure whether something needs to be added. Implementing Legacy Points in a "correct" way is probably already pretty tough.
I think we need to figure out how to win the game before we figure out how legacy points should work.
-
I don't really know what this means for liopoil, I don't think I would vote for his proposal as it is right now. I think he is obligated to maintain "the spirit of his draft proposal" though (unless we repealed that?).
Yeah, it's still there (and in effect as far as I can tell).
Amend 312 to the following: At the beginning of their turn, a player may post a draft proposal for a rule change. When making the final proposal, he may change some details of the draft but the intention and spirit of the rule must stay the same.
I think we need to figure out how to win the game before we figure out how legacy points should work.
Theoretically yes, but at this point liopoil is married to something involving either secret points or Legacy points, so let's make the best of that.
-
okay, I'll scratch that. I'll keep the legacy points. I'd like to add something else about points too, any ideas?
right now with legacy points, it seems that it's just "get as many total points as you can" with milestones every 100 points. Should everyone reset when someone gets a legacy point? that makes it much more advantageous to stop the player who is winning...
You could get some sort of reward in addition to a legacy point - or wait, even better, something bad with a legacy point? Lose N$5000 or something? Make it so that getting more points is tricky.
The most important thing about Legacy points is to make the game not end when someone wins (as per 208 and 213. Note that 112 talks about winning but in a way that is fine for now).
-
Instead of saying when someone gets to 100 points, you should say when someone wins. That way, no matter why they won, the game still goes on.
-
Lio, your turn will technically be eligible for ending in the next few hours. Do you have a final proposal?
-
oops. Well, nobody has ended my turn yet, so I'll finalize a proposal now.
-
Final Proposal 337:
Amend rule 208 to say the following: Each player has 0 legacy points at the time when this rule has been amended by rule 337. When a player joins the game, they have 0 legacy points. When a player reaches 100 points, they win. When a player wins, they add one legacy point to their total and sets their points to 0.
I hope the first sentence is worded well enough. Still, the game is currently just "try to get as many points as you can, with checkpoints every 100 points." I made the intermediate step of "winning" so that we can have alternate win-conditions, so that players can go for different methods of getting legacy points.
-
Initially I was worried that this doesn't change the fact that the game ends when someone wins, but then I couldn't find anything in the rules saying the game ends when someone wins. It's not exactly how I'd phrase/do it, but it's better than what we have. Intent to vote yes.
-
Ah, screw intent. Vote: Yes on Rule 337.
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 337
-
When this rule is enacted can't we set our legacy point however we like per rule 116?
-
When this rule is enacted can't we set our legacy point however we like per rule 116?
No, because it says they start at zero? Or do you mean we need to say that Legacy Points can only be achieved via rule?
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 337
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 337
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 337
just for the heck of it.
-
That's 6/11. Rule passes.
It is now Jack Rudd's turn.
-
That's 6/11. Rule passes.
It is now Jack Rudd's turn.
im not in yet...
-
That's 6/11. Rule passes.
It is now Jack Rudd's turn.
im not in yet...
Oh. Right. Still liopoil's turn then.
-
Causing confusing before you're in the game? >:(
-
Voting ended awhile ago. The vote passes 5-0. I declare it to be Jack Rudd's turn and mail-mi is back in the game.
Everyone, it is my reading of the rules he gets a new spot in the turn order, not his old spot. Speak up if you think that's wrong.
-
he gets a new spot in the turn order, not his old spot.
Yeah, that sounds right. I think he should be at spot 1, though... :P
-
he gets a new spot in the turn order, not his old spot.
Yeah, that sounds right. I think he should be at spot 1, though... :P
Now that you say that, I think either would be ok based on the rules but spot 1 "matches" a bit better. I adjusted the OP turn order.
At any time, a person not playing may post in-thread that they want to join the game. They must bold their request to be in. When this happens, after the current turn is over, they are inserted into the player order by being put in before the player whose turn was just finished. They start with 0 points.
-
I think now that everyone except mail-mi has a colour, at some stage we should amend 314 to allow any player who doesn't have a colour to choose a colour at any time.
-
hey I'm in now!
-
hey I'm in now!
Woot! Do you approve of the changes we've made in your absence?
-
hey I'm in now!
Woot! Do you approve of the changes we've made in your absence?
very much so!
-
Draft Proposal 338
At any point during his turn, a player may build a house on any square which contains one of his units, does not contain one of any other player's units, and does not already contain a house.
Building a house uses 1 IP and costs N$ 400+100n, where n is the number of rooms in the house. The types of rooms in the house must be named when built; room types include, but are not limited to, "kitchen", "bedroom", "bathroom" and "sitting room".
-
Probably need language along the lines of "can't be changed except via rule" but otherwise I like it.
*we should probably write a rule so that all our rules don't need "can't be changed except via rule" but it works for now.
-
Also, Create A1.
-
Probably need language along the lines of "can't be changed except via rule" but otherwise I like it.
*we should probably write a rule so that all our rules don't need "can't be changed except via rule" but it works for now.
I think it's more the case that the initial map rule might need this clause. If you could change houses without that clause in this rule, who's to say you can't build houses even without this rule?
-
Anybody still playing?
-
Jack Rudd's turn is eligible to be ended, as he has not proposed a rule. Jimmmmm started JR's turn on 2/14 @ 8:17 PM (my time) and 72 hours passed on 2/17 @ 8:17 PM (last night).
I won't end your turn JR if you propose something relatively soon today; otherwise I will tonight.
-
Jack Rudd's turn is eligible to be ended, as he has not proposed a rule. Jimmmmm started JR's turn on 2/14 @ 8:17 PM (my time) and 72 hours passed on 2/17 @ 8:17 PM (last night).
I won't end your turn JR if you propose something relatively soon today; otherwise I will tonight.
The voting wasn't over when I tried to start his turn. You started his turn on the 17th at 9:50am, so it can be ended on the 20th at 9:50am, which is just under 24 hours away.
-
Jack Rudd's turn is eligible to be ended, as he has not proposed a rule. Jimmmmm started JR's turn on 2/14 @ 8:17 PM (my time) and 72 hours passed on 2/17 @ 8:17 PM (last night).
I won't end your turn JR if you propose something relatively soon today; otherwise I will tonight.
The voting wasn't over when I tried to start his turn. You started his turn on the 17th at 9:50am, so it can be ended on the 20th at 9:50am, which is just under 24 hours away.
Ohhhhhhhhhh right. Good catch.
-
Final Proposal 338
At any point during his turn, a player may build a house on any square which contains one of his units, does not contain one of any other player's units, and does not already contain a house.
Building a house uses 1 IP and costs N$ 400+100n, where n is the number of rooms in the house. The types of rooms in the house must be named when built; room types include, but are not limited to, "kitchen", "bedroom", "bathroom" and "sitting room".
Houses may not be built except as detailed in this rule.
-
Houses-Shmouses.
Vote: No on 338
-
Houses-Shmouses.
Vote: No on 338
?
Vote: Yes on 338
-
Vote: Yes on 338
-
Vote: Yes on 338
-
I don't like that we don't have a bold command for it, and I also feel like house-building could have been more exciting (I liked my idea of requiring two people to work together to build one house), but I would rather move the game in the direction of more interesting, meaningful choices, so
Vote: Yes on 338
-
Vote: No on 338
Worried a little about the way it's written. Both SP's concerns and the fact that the rooms are unlimited in naming. I like the idea of improving squares - I don't think I like this version of it.
-
Houses-Shmouses.
Vote: No on 338
?
Vote: Yes on 338
I've already said I find it boring in the past.
-
Vote: No on 338
-
Oh crap what happens if there's a tie vote...
-
Oh crap what happens if there's a tie vote...
It doesn't pass.
Once either half the players have voted no, or the player proposing the rule chooses to end the voting, the proposal fails.
-
Vote: No on Rule 338
Also not thrilled with currently making choices which currently have no impact, but only future rules could give them impact.
-
I agree with stated concerns and have changed my mind.
Vote: No on Rule 338
-
Proposal fails 4-5 if I'm right.
It is now Jimmmmm's turn.
Ooh, that's me! Not sure what I'm thinking yet.
-
Draft Proposal 339
At the end of a player's turn, they must pay an upkeep cost for any units they currently have on the World Map.
The upkeep cost for n units, in Nomic Dollars, is equal to ten times the sum of all integers from 1 to n.
If the player's personal quantity of Nomic Dollars is sufficient to cover the upkeep cost, it is deducted automatically at the end of their turn. Otherwise, all of their units are paralysed until the end of their next turn.
A player may not give any commands, or receive any benefits from a paralysed unit.
-
Looks good. (That expression works out as 5n2 + 5n, doesn't it?)
-
Looks good. (That expression works out as 5n2 + 5n, doesn't it?)
It does work out to that, but I would not accept this proposal because I currently have a unit which I don't need to pay for, and most other people don't.
-
We need to make a way to get money very quickly if this passes (which I'm okay with).
Also, lio, everybody will make a unit theiy're next turn, and have to pay upkeep, so it wouldn't be unfair.
-
making a unit isn't mandatory - I know I wouldn't make a unit if I knew I was going to have to pay $10 a turn for it.
Also, currently it is impossible to have multiple units, yes?
-
Also, currently it is impossible to have multiple units, yes?
There's no game mechanic that allows you to increase your unit count above 1 at the moment, yes.
-
We need to make a way to get money very quickly if this passes (which I'm okay with).
Most of us have N$1000, so if we have one unit each, that's 100 rounds to sort it out, which is 1100 turns.
-
making a unit isn't mandatory - I know I wouldn't make a unit if I knew I was going to have to pay $10 a turn for it.
Would you suggest making it optional to freeze or remove your units if you don't want to pay for them, even if you can?
-
making a unit isn't mandatory - I know I wouldn't make a unit if I knew I was going to have to pay $10 a turn for it.
Would you suggest making it optional to freeze or remove your units if you don't want to pay for them, even if you can?
Yes, that would probably be enough to get my vote.
-
making a unit isn't mandatory - I know I wouldn't make a unit if I knew I was going to have to pay $10 a turn for it.
What exactly do you need your money for?
-
something eventually... and seeing as I can make a unit any time, and the unit isn't worth anything yet...
-
something eventually... and seeing as I can make a unit any time, and the unit isn't worth anything yet...
How likely do you think it is that it will still be worth nothing by the time your turn comes around?
-
probably less than a .5 chance, but not an insignificant chance. And in any case, I can still make a unit for just 1 IP and still have 3 IP left.
-
Anyone else have thoughts on whether it should be a mandatory payment, whether your units should be removed or just unusable if you can't or don't pay etc?
-
Actually, you could replace the "paralyzing" effect just with saying that you may pay for your units, and if not, they are inactive.
You also need to say that you can't get to negative Nomic Dollars with this rule.
-
Actually, you could replace the "paralyzing" effect just with saying that you may pay for your units, and if not, they are inactive.
Yeah, that works.
You also need to say that you can't get to negative Nomic Dollars with this rule.
Doesn't the third paragraph cover that? If you can afford to, you lose the money, otherwise (you don't and) you lose your guys for a round.
-
Would it be okay to include a "Players may spend 1 IP to remove a unit" clause? I feel like this might belong in a separate rule, but I'm not sure.
-
Would it be okay to include a "Players may spend 1 IP to remove a unit" clause? I feel like this might belong in a separate rule, but I'm not sure.
No way! Do we want to be able to teleport units for 2 IP?
I really don't see the fuzz about paying less than N$1 per turn. After 100 turns, you have only lost a fraction of your money due to unit upkeep, and probably we're in 2015 by then...
-
Would it be okay to include a "Players may spend 1 IP to remove a unit" clause? I feel like this might belong in a separate rule, but I'm not sure.
No way! Do we want to be able to teleport units for 2 IP?
Good point, good point.
Actually, that's a really good point. Is there a good alternative to simply being stuck with a unit forever once you've created it?
-
We could make another rule that you are only allowed to create units at certain locations. Maybe a player can spend 1 IP to create a 'base' at a square if they do not already have one, and a player may only create units at their 'base.'
-
If I have to pay money, why would I make a unit when it doesn't do anything and only sucks away my money?
I think we need to have a purpose for the units before we make a rule to pay for them.
-
If I have to pay money, why would I make a unit when it doesn't do anything and only sucks away my money?
I think we need to have a purpose for the units before we make a rule to pay for them.
I think it's more important to make money valuable than to give us a way of making it.
-
If I have to pay money, why would I make a unit when it doesn't do anything and only sucks away my money?
I think we need to have a purpose for the units before we make a rule to pay for them.
I think it's more important to make money valuable than to give us a way of making it.
um I think you're misunderstanding my post. Yes we need a way to make money valuable, but why would I make a unit just to spend money on it?
-
If I have to pay money, why would I make a unit when it doesn't do anything and only sucks away my money?
I think we need to have a purpose for the units before we make a rule to pay for them.
I think it's more important to make money valuable than to give us a way of making it.
um I think you're misunderstanding my post. Yes we need a way to make money valuable, but why would I make a unit just to spend money on it?
You don't have to make the unit.
If we let units do things first and then start charging for them, people will complain that some people got some free turns with them and some didn't. That's the consequence of only allowing one rule-change at once.
But really, it's N$10 per round. Suck it up.
-
And, I hope Jack Rudd makes it so that you can freeze your units anyway.
-
If I have to pay money, why would I make a unit when it doesn't do anything and only sucks away my money?
I think we need to have a purpose for the units before we make a rule to pay for them.
I'm willing to bet that there is no player who is forced to pay N$10 for unit upkeep before units have a purpose. Yes: if Jimmmmm creates a unit this turn (and if this rule passes), then he must pay N$10 without any benefit. But he's not forced to create a unit. The first player who already has a unit on the board, so who is forced to pay for it, is scott_pilgrim. There are 6 players (or 7 if you count s_p) who can suggest a rule which make units valuable, and I doubt that no-one will propose such a rule.
I'm completely in favor of unit upkeep (and IMO it may be more than N$10).
-
Yes: if Jimmmmm creates a unit this turn (and if this rule passes), then he must pay N$10 without any benefit.
I was actually thinking about that; as worded, will I lose N$10 this turn if I create a unit? Maybe I need to specify whether it is deducted before or after rule-changes have taken place.
-
can I /in?
-
can I /in?
Put it in bold and you just did!
-
Also, I'm in favor of the general concept of unit upkeep, and will likely vote in favor of the current rule being discussed. I do not have strong opinions about the specifics.
-
can I /in?
Put it in bold and you just did!
At the end of this turn, that is.
-
Also, I'm in favor of the general concept of unit upkeep, and will likely vote in favor of the current rule being discussed. I do not have strong opinions about the specifics.
I'm not sure about the specifics either. I do think it's a good idea to pay more per unit the more you have, and I think the base cost should be something more than N$1/round and no more than N$100 per round.
I'm still not sure whether it would be best for it to happen automatically or not. The point of that was to not spend too much time talking about paying for your units and making sure you remember to.
-
Create: K4
-
Final Proposal 339
Immediately after the end of a player's turn, they must, if they are able to, pay an upkeep cost for any units they currently have on the World Map.
The upkeep cost for n units, in Nomic Dollars, is equal to ten times the sum of all integers from 1 to n.
If the player's personal quantity of Nomic Dollars is sufficient to cover the upkeep cost, it is deducted automatically after the end of their turn. Otherwise, nothing is deducted and all of their units are inactive until the end of their next turn.
A player may not give any commands to, or receive any benefits from, an inactive unit.
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 339
-
Vote: Yes on 339
-
can I /in?
Quick, EFHW! You need to bold your request before this vote ends or you'll have to wait another turn to join.
-
Vote: Yes on 339
-
can I /in?
Quick, EFHW! You need to bold your request before this vote ends or you'll have to wait another turn to join.
As long as no one ends the turn before she does.
-
/in!
-
Hooray!
-
Huzzah!
(strangely enough, this is what shows up when you google image search for "vote parade"...)
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/05/nyregion/05parade_600.jpg)
-
That's the confetti from our celebration. Rule 1 billion and 1: confetti must be thrown whenever a new player joins.
-
Vote: Yes on 339
Now let's hope that "receive any benefits from inactive units" isn't too vague... (is "blocking another unit" a benefit?)
-
Vote: No on 339 like its going to matter.
-
Vote: Yes on 339
Now let's hope that "receive any benefits from inactive units" isn't too vague... (is "blocking another unit" a benefit?)
Hmm. I think no. The point is they sit there and do nothing. I guess it has to be vague at this point because it's pre-empting possible future rules.
-
Vote: No on rule 339
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 339
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 339
-
Vote passes 7-2. I declare it to be sudgy's turn.
EFHW is now in the game. I'll update the OP/spreadsheet next.
-
Based on my reading of the rule, Jimmmmm pays $N10 for his unit, as 339 states the charge happens "immediately after the end of a player's turn." I have updated the spreadsheet to reflect this.
BTW, we need to start thinking about making it clear who updates what. I've been updating the spreadsheet just because I lurk on the forums and usually get to things first, but that's going to change soon.
-
Draft Proposal:
On his turn, if a player has a unit and a house on the same square, they may spend one IP to gain 1 point. Players may not use a specific unit or specific house twice in one turn to gain points.
[Edited out stupid proposal because I forgot that rule was voted down]
Could we have somewhere in the OP that has everything IPs can do?
-
I wouldn't vote for that it in its current form, as houses don't actually exist right now. That (338) got voted down.
-
Alright, new draft:
On his turn, if a player's unit is directly or diagonally adjacent to player x's unit, he may spend one IP to gain two points and player x will gain one point. Players may not use one of their own units more than once a turn for points in this way.
I like this a lot better anyway. Also, if your unit is active and an opponent's is inactive, you can get two points without giving them one. More incentive to keep your units active anyway.
-
Uhm, don't think it is within the rules.
Well, I think it is sufficient similar that it can pass, after all. :)
-
Also, this means you can put your guy next to somebody else's guy and than gain points (in the same turn?).
-
Also, this means you can put your guy next to somebody else's guy and than gain points (in the same turn?).
I could say that you can't use this for a newly placed unit.
-
I like the idea. I totally forgot that we still had points, I like that we get a new feature to be able to get them again. In the final version, please elaborate a bit more on how to write this command in the thread.
-
I like the idea. I totally forgot that we still had points, I like that we get a new feature to be able to get them again. In the final version, please elaborate a bit more on how to write this command in the thread.
Yes, we need to do this.
-
Alright, another draft, if nobody sees anything wrong with it I'll open voting:
On his turn, if a player's unit is directly or diagonally adjacent to player x's unit, he may spend one IP to gain two points and player x will gain one point. Players may not use one of their own units more than once a turn for points in this way. Players may not use a unit created on the same turn for points in this way.
To do this, a player must post in thread the following bolded command: Gain two points through ## and %%, where ## is the name of the tile their unit is on and %% is the name of the tile the other player's unit is on.
-
I think it would be much more clear if you said "another player" instead of "player x" (you could then say "that same player" when you need to refer to them later).
Also, does the player gaining one point have to post in bold? The way it is written, the active player is saying they're getting two points actively, but no-one is actively getting that one point. It would work either way, I'd just want it to be consistent.
Also, this rule falls into the "all players are male" trap.
My suggest edit would look something like:
If the current player has a unit directly or diagonally adjacent to another player's unit, the active player may spend one IP to gain two points and the owner of the adjacent unit will gain one point. Players may not use one of their own units more than once a turn for points in this way. Units may not earn points during the turn they are created in this way.
To earn these points, a player must post in thread the following bolded command: Gain points through ## and %%, where ## is the name of the tile their unit is on and %% is the name of the tile the other player's unit is on.
-
I'm new to this, but I'm wondering if it is still too early for this specific a rule. OTOH, this way of getting points could be revised when new ways are devised. It also seems like as things stand, we will all be going near each other and getting the same number of points. Is there a mechanism for moving units?
-
I'm new to this, but I'm wondering if it is still too early for this specific a rule. OTOH, this way of getting points could be revised when new ways are devised. It also seems like as things stand, we will all be going near each other and getting the same number of points. Is there a mechanism for moving units?
You are right - the rule as currently devised makes best play us just all huddling up in the center (yes, there is a way to move units). Something to remember, though, is that the rules are constantly changing (seriously though, I mean it) and this exact ruleset will cease to exist at the end of the next turn (most likely).
Based on this, if this rule passes, I would use my turn to place rivers or mountains or some sort of barrier on the map to make achieving this a little more difficult.
What I like about this rule the most is, we get to earn points again! I hated the only way to earn points disappearing without a replacement and would have voted against it in the strongest terms, but I wasn't in the game yet.
-
I think that two rules having to do with units on the board will add a lot of strategy to the game. I think this rule is interesting enough that with something else it could a lot.
Final Rule Proposal 340:
If the current player has a unit directly or diagonally adjacent to another player's unit, the active player may spend one IP to gain two points and the owner of the adjacent unit will gain one point. Players may not use one of their own units more than once a turn for points in this way. Units may not earn points during the turn they are created in this way.
To earn these points, a player must post in thread the following bolded command: Gain points through ## and %%, where ## is the name of the tile their unit is on and %% is the name of the tile the other player's unit is on.
Also, Create: I7
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 340
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 340
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 340
I was thinking about something very similar to this actually.
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 340
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 340
-
Vote: No on 340
"Gain points trough xx and yy" is too vague, it should have a name of sorts, we will be able to gain points through some other xx and yy.
-
Vote: Yes on 340
-
That's 7/12.
It is now Voltaire's turn.
sudgy pays N$10 for his unit.
-
Spreadsheet updated.
I'll have my draft proposal ready tomorrow morning.
-
My goal with my turn is to do several housekeeping/administrative/fix-y things. If you disagree with some of my administrative fixes, please still vote for the motion to suspend and then convince me why I should do less/do stuff differently.
(the reason being, if you vote down my motion to suspend then I'll only be able to do one administrative fix and that's less-than-ideal. Also, it's impossible for me to "put one over" on anyone this way, because if I put everything in my final proposal after everyone says they don't like it, you can just vote it down)
I make a motion to suspend 107, 108, 303, and 331.
Yes on Motion to Suspend
I want to suspend 107 (no retroactive application of rules) because I want to retroactively strike all of the amended and repealed rules from the books; 108 (determines the numbering of new rules) because I want to fix typos without giving those rules new numbers and potentially messing up the ruleset; 303 (up to 3 rule changes if they're all repeals/transmutations) for safety's sake since it'd be weird to have a rule mentioning you can do 3 rules and no other reference to any other number or limit; 331 (one rule-change per turn) because it's the biggy - I need several this turn.
Draft of Rule Changes: (explanations are in red italics)
341: (mutable) If a rule amends or repeals an existing rule, the rule it amends or repeals will be removed from the ruleset at the same time that the new rule takes effect. The portion of the new rule which refers to the act of repealing or amending the existing rule, (such as, but not limited to, "Amend ### to the following:", "Amend rule ### to say the following.", "Amend rule ### to say:", etc.) will also be removed immediately after the new rule takes effect. !This includes all amendments and repeals that have previously passed, as well as phrases in existing rules that comment on the act of repealing or amending a specific previously-existing rule (such as, but not limited to, "Amend ### to the following:", "Amend rule ### to say the following.", "Amend rule ### to say:", etc.) The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
This rule is completely new. It cleans up the ruleset, makes it way more readable, and lets us only have one list in the OP.
342: (mutable) Amend rule 314 to read: Any player without a color must choose a color during his or her next turn, which will personally represent him or her in this game (referred to as "your color", "player's color", etc.).
This will be done by posting in thread a color in the format (Red Value, Green Value, Blue Value), where each Color Value is an integer between 0 and 255. So for example, (0, 0, 0) would be black, (255, 0, 0) would be red, (0, 255, 0) would be green, and so on. A player may change his selected color as many times as he or she likes until the end of his or her turn; the last bolded and correctly-formatted color posted will be counted as the official choice. Players may not change colors or choose additional colors on subsequent turns.
White (255,255,255) may not be chosen as a personal color, nor may colors with all Color Values greater than 200. Players are encouraged to choose colors which are as unique and distinct as possible, and may not choose colors which are too similar to white or previously chosen colors. Whether the color is distinct enough may be settled by judgment if necessary. !This is Rule will be numbered 314. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
The change here is that new players now pick a color on their first turn. Removes the awkwardness of "after this is passed" and should make things clearer going forward. Question: should this still be a mandatory action? If so, I'll add something saying "This is a mandatory action" so it matches 331. Also note that it will remain Rule 314 because of fancy shenanigans I'm quite proud of (as will every other change below).
343: (mutable) Amend rule 325 to read: The active player may make a motion to suspend any number of rules during their turn. This must be done at the same time as the presentation of the draft proposal(s), and the rules to be suspended must be explicitly named. Voting on the motion begins immediately, and players must post their votes in the thread, in the format [Yes|No] on Motion to Suspend. The motion passes if two-thirds of the players vote yes, and immediately fails if one-third of the players vote no. If, after 60 hours, the motion has not passed or failed, players who have not voted are considered not eligible voters on this motion.
If the motion passes, all players (including Judges) must treat the game as though those rules are not in effect, during that turn only, for all purposes including decisions regarding whether a proposal is valid, or whether a move is legal.
If the motion fails, that player may not make another motion to suspend rules during this turn. Any further drafts of that player's proposal must contain some portion of the original proposal. If no portion of the original proposal can be retained without suspending the rules, all players are eligible to end the current player's turn; this clause overrides rule 332.
Both mutable and immutable rules may be suspended in this manner, but this rule cannot be suspended by itself. !This is Rule will be numbered 325. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I removed a reference to a non-existent rule (323) contained in this rule and fixed it to the right rule number (332). I considered removing the reference completely, but there's been talk of inverting the numbering structure in which case we will still want this phrasing (even though it's redundant right now). More importantly, I added language making everyone eligible to end the turn of a player who cannot retain some element of their draft proposal, which was previously missing.
344: (mutable) Amend rule 332 to read: After a player ends a turn, players have 24 hours to invoke Judgement on the issue whether the player ending the turn was eligible to do so. If play continues after the action(s) being Judged occurred, and the Judgement overturns the action(s) taken, play resets to the gamestate immediately prior to the overturned action(s). Otherwise, play will continue from the current gamestate. !This is Rule will be numbered 332. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I changed "After a player ended a turn" to "After a player ends a turn", which I believe is more correct.
345: (mutable) Amend rule 337 to read: When a player reaches 100 points, they win. When a player wins, they add one Legacy Point (LP) to their Legacy Point total and sets their points to 0. When a player joins the game, they have 0 LPs. The number of LPs a player has may not be altered unless explicitly permitted in the rules. !This is Rule will be numbered 337. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I cleaned up the phrasing and added the "only by rules" clause for safety.
346: (mutable) Amend rule 340 to read: If the current player has a unit directly or diagonally adjacent to another player's unit, the active player may spend one IP to gain two points and the owner of the adjacent unit will gain one point. This process is known as "Proximity". Players may not use one of their own units more than once a turn to earn points via Proximity. Units may not earn points through Proximity during the turn they are created.
To earn these points, a player must post in thread the following bolded command: Proximity between ## and %%, where ## is the name of the tile their unit is on and %% is the name of the tile the other player's unit is on. !This is Rule will be numbered 340. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
Fixed the fact that the bold command wasn't actually in bold, and named the system as per Grujah's suggestion. I'm open to different names.
Originally I was going to also add something new to the game (river barriers), but after doing all of that I'm exhausted so I skipped it. So...thoughts?
-
Create H7
-
Vote: Yes on Motion to Suspend
-
Vote: Yes on Motion to Suspend
-
Also, I added a list of what you can do with IPs to the OP.
-
Vote: Yes on Motion to Suspend
Looks good. A couple of things:
-You've said "This is Rule will be numbered" a few times.
-Why don't you just add a rule allowing proposals to have clauses that will be removed after the rule takes effect?
-
Looks good. A couple of things:
-You've said "This is Rule will be numbered" a few times.
-Why don't you just add a rule allowing proposals to have clauses that will be removed after the rule takes effect?
-Yeah, I noticed that too after I posted it. I'll fix it for the final.
-Because honestly I don't think we need it - the ! trick should work fine even when we're not suspending rules, and it's almost explicitly suggested in one of the original rules (115):
Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule.
-
Also, if you could somehow squeeze fixing 103 that would be good, although I guess that would require at least one more rule to be suspended. Basically part (2) should be ditched.
-
Also, if you could somehow squeeze fixing 103 that would be good, although I guess that would require at least one more rule to be suspended. Basically part (2) should be ditched.
Actually I don't think that would work, because you'd have to suspend 103 itself I think, in order to amend an immutable rule, and that leaves us with no definition of what a rule-change is. You could at least transmute it so someone else can fix it.
-
Also, if you could somehow squeeze fixing 103 that would be good, although I guess that would require at least one more rule to be suspended. Basically part (2) should be ditched.
For anyone else wondering about this, I was initially confused by what Jimmmmm said but figured it out. Because of what I'm doing (striking old rules from the books), part 2 is now irrelevant. I'm pretty sure I can add it two more rules, one to transmute 103 and one to amend it, and that would still fit in with my draft.
-
Also, if you could somehow squeeze fixing 103 that would be good, although I guess that would require at least one more rule to be suspended. Basically part (2) should be ditched.
Actually I don't think that would work, because you'd have to suspend 103 itself I think, in order to amend an immutable rule, and that leaves us with no definition of what a rule-change is. You could at least transmute it so someone else can fix it.
Couldn't I do two rules, the first transmutes it, the second amends it?
-
Oh, and something else I think I'm going to do for my final draft - number my proposals 341 and then A-E, so I don't create a big gap of missing numbers all at once (because 108 is suspended, technically I can number my proposals whatever I want).
-
Also, if you could somehow squeeze fixing 103 that would be good, although I guess that would require at least one more rule to be suspended. Basically part (2) should be ditched.
Actually I don't think that would work, because you'd have to suspend 103 itself I think, in order to amend an immutable rule, and that leaves us with no definition of what a rule-change is. You could at least transmute it so someone else can fix it.
Couldn't I do two rules, the first transmutes it, the second amends it?
I guess that works. Do we have some sort of numerical order of resolution going on? Like, will 341 take effect first, followed by 342 etc, or will they all take effect at the same time? If the latter, won't 103 still be immutable when you try to amend it?
-
I guess that works. Do we have some sort of numerical order of resolution going on? Like, will 341 take effect first, followed by 342 etc, or will they all take effect at the same time? If the latter, won't 103 still be immutable when you try to amend it?
Hmmm. They'll all go into effect at the same time, and then numerical order will take precedence. So it will be 341 first, then 342 (probably will be renamed A...unless that will screw up trying to fix 103 as well)...anyway, pretty sure it's the former, so 103 will be mutable as long as rule F transmutes it and rule G amends it.
The good news is that this is such a tiny fix it won't matter if we can't figure out a way to do it.
-
Also, while you're fixing the colours, I don't think it's necessary to have new players wait until their first turn in order to choose a colour. You could just say that the player without a colour who has been playing for the longest may choose a colour at any time, and also must do so before they end their turn, or maybe someone else can choose for them?
As a more general point, I think as an unwritten rule, there should be a way around any "mandatory" actions that other players can take in case someone can't or won't take that action.
-
Also, while you're fixing the colours, I don't think it's necessary to have new players wait until their first turn in order to choose a colour. You could just say that the player without a colour who has been playing for the longest may choose a colour at any time, and also must do so before they end their turn, or maybe someone else can choose for them?
As a more general point, I think as an unwritten rule, there should be a way around any "mandatory" actions that other players can take in case someone can't or won't take that action.
Another option I was considering is that new players must choose a color at the same time they /in. Open to other ideas. I do agree that there's no real need for them to wait for their first turn, but I wasn't sure how else to deal with the fact that people should have to choose a color.
-
Also, while you're fixing the colours, I don't think it's necessary to have new players wait until their first turn in order to choose a colour. You could just say that the player without a colour who has been playing for the longest may choose a colour at any time, and also must do so before they end their turn, or maybe someone else can choose for them?
As a more general point, I think as an unwritten rule, there should be a way around any "mandatory" actions that other players can take in case someone can't or won't take that action.
Another option I was considering is that new players must choose a color at the same time they /in. Open to other ideas. I do agree that there's no real need for them to wait for their first turn, but I wasn't sure how else to deal with the fact that people should have to choose a color.
Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.
How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.
-
Vote: Yes on Motion to Suspend
-
Also, while you're fixing the colours, I don't think it's necessary to have new players wait until their first turn in order to choose a colour. You could just say that the player without a colour who has been playing for the longest may choose a colour at any time, and also must do so before they end their turn, or maybe someone else can choose for them?
As a more general point, I think as an unwritten rule, there should be a way around any "mandatory" actions that other players can take in case someone can't or won't take that action.
Another option I was considering is that new players must choose a color at the same time they /in. Open to other ideas. I do agree that there's no real need for them to wait for their first turn, but I wasn't sure how else to deal with the fact that people should have to choose a color.
Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.
How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.
And you could put in a clause removing itself and the "if all current players have a colour" clause when all current players do in fact have a colour.
-
Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.
How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.
You are completely right that colors don't do anything. Adding language stating that ownership is determined by piece color would potentially be helpful.
I'll think about your suggestions. I like them, but I'm concerned about 1. determining who has been playing the longest without a color 2. people honestly forgetting and posting at the start of their turn, and then it's skipped
-
Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.
How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.
You are completely right that colors don't do anything. Adding language stating that ownership is determined by piece color would potentially be helpful.
I'll think about your suggestions. I like them, but I'm concerned about 1. determining who has been playing the longest without a color 2. people honestly forgetting and posting at the start of their turn, and then it's skipped
Well yeah there's that. Maybe that's a bit extreme. But really we want to get to the point where every current player has a colour and you have to choose one to join.
-
Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.
How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.
You are completely right that colors don't do anything. Adding language stating that ownership is determined by piece color would potentially be helpful.
I'll think about your suggestions. I like them, but I'm concerned about 1. determining who has been playing the longest without a color 2. people honestly forgetting and posting at the start of their turn, and then it's skipped
Well yeah there's that. Maybe that's a bit extreme. But really we want to get to the point where every current player has a colour and you have to choose one to join.
Although I don't think determining who has been playing the longest is an issue right? Just look at when they joined. Pretty sure mail-mi joined before EFHW.
-
Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.
How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.
You are completely right that colors don't do anything. Adding language stating that ownership is determined by piece color would potentially be helpful.
I'll think about your suggestions. I like them, but I'm concerned about 1. determining who has been playing the longest without a color 2. people honestly forgetting and posting at the start of their turn, and then it's skipped
Well yeah there's that. Maybe that's a bit extreme. But really we want to get to the point where every current player has a colour and you have to choose one to join.
Although I don't think determining who has been playing the longest is an issue right? Just look at when they joined. Pretty sure mail-mi joined before EFHW.
And that clause can be auto-removed once they've both picked a colour.
-
Vote: Yes on Motion to Suspend
You should also make a rule that says game constructs can't be changed unless another rule allows for it. It gets rid of us needing to say it in every rule.
-
I have a suggestion. What if each rule began with a title indicating the general purpose of the rule. Like Rule XXX: Turn Order, or Rule YYY: Selection of Colors. This could make it easier to find rules you need.
Also, re colors, how about at the start of the game each player picks a color in the order of their /in. Then if at any time one or more new players join, they are instructed by any player at any time to pick colors based on the order of their /in. If they decline to (or fail to within a certain amount of time), it will be determined randomly by ____ and then the person with the next /in would go next.
Is there a moderator?
vote: Yes on motion to suspend
-
re: rule 341, I think there should be an un-tidied version somewhere that keeps track of all changes, and a tidied version to work with for future changes. This way if there is a mistake or misunderstanding we can look back to what was done before.
-
I have a suggestion. What if each rule began with a title indicating the general purpose of the rule. Like Rule XXX: Turn Order, or Rule YYY: Selection of Colors. This could make it easier to find rules you need.
I like it.
Also, re colors, how about at the start of the game each player picks a color in the order of their /in. Then if at any time one or more new players join, they are instructed by any player at any time to pick colors based on the order of their /in. If they decline to (or fail to within a certain amount of time), it will be determined randomly by ____ and then the person with the next /in would go next.
Depending on how it works when someone "wins" and get a Legacy Point, we don't need to have rules regarding the start of the game, as it's already started. My suggestion is to get you and mail-mi coloured up ASAP and then require any new players to pick a colour in order to officially join the game.
Is there a moderator?
No, but Volt's kind of unofficially keeping things in order.
-
re: rule 341, I think there should be an un-tidied version somewhere that keeps track of all changes, and a tidied version to work with for future changes. This way if there is a mistake or misunderstanding we can look back to what was done before.
See the link in the OP.
-
The reason for the language in my suggestion is that if color selection is overlooked for some reason, it can be taken care of immediately by the first person to notice. Then we don't have to worry about keeping track of skipped turns etc., and possible oversights due to not having a central authority are accounted for.
-
OK, here's a new draft with some tweaks/fixes from our discussion. I've decided against using the A-F system as that could create more problems than it solves. Motion to Suspend is current at 7 votes. We need 8 (2/3rds of 12) for it to pass.
Also note that since I'm now trying to transmute rule 103 as part of this omnibus set of changes, I will need universal approval from all voters. If you have a problem with something I'm doing, please say so NOW so we can address your concerns instead of torpedoing this whole package in the voting stage.
New Draft of Rule Changes: (explanations are in red italics, and changes since the first draft are blue)
341: (mutable) If a rule amends or repeals an existing rule, the rule it amends or repeals will be removed from the ruleset at the same time that the new rule takes effect. The portion of the new rule which refers to the act of repealing or amending the existing rule, (such as, but not limited to, "Amend ### to the following:", "Amend rule ### to say the following.", "Amend rule ### to say:", etc.) will also be removed immediately after the new rule takes effect. !This includes all amendments and repeals that have previously passed, as well as phrases in existing rules that comment on the act of repealing or amending a specific previously-existing rule (such as, but not limited to, "Amend ### to the following:", "Amend rule ### to say the following.", "Amend rule ### to say:", etc.) The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
This rule is completely new. It cleans up the ruleset, makes it way more readable, and lets us only have one list in the OP.
342: (mutable) Amend rule 314 to read: When a player joins the game, he or she must choose a color which will personally represent him or her in this game (referred to as "your color", "player's color", etc.) in the same post that contains his or her request to join.
This will be done by posting in thread a color in the format (Red Value, Green Value, Blue Value), where each Color Value is an integer between 0 and 255. So for example, (0, 0, 0) would be black, (255, 0, 0) would be red, (0, 255, 0) would be green, and so on. A player may change his selected color as many times as he or she likes until the end of his or her turn; the last bolded and correctly-formatted color posted will be counted as the official choice. Players may not change colors or choose additional colors on subsequent turns.
White (255,255,255) may not be chosen as a personal color, nor may colors with all Color Values greater than 200. Players are encouraged to choose colors which are as unique and distinct as possible, and may not choose colors which are too similar to white or previously chosen colors. Whether the color is distinct enough may be settled by judgment if necessary. !This is Rule will be numbered 314. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
*Any player without a color at the time this rule passes may choose colors in any post. They must chose a color prior to their next turn ending or they will lose N$100. The portion of this rule contained between the asterisks will be removed after mail-mi and EFHW have chosen colors.*
The change here is that new players now pick a color on their first turn. Removes the awkwardness of "after this is passed" and should make things clearer going forward. Question: should this still be a mandatory action? If so, I'll add something saying "This is a mandatory action" so it matches 331. Also note that it will remain Rule 314 because of fancy shenanigans I'm quite proud of (as will every other change below).
343: (mutable) Amend rule 325 to read: The active player may make a motion to suspend any number of rules during their turn. This must be done at the same time as the presentation of the draft proposal(s), and the rules to be suspended must be explicitly named. Voting on the motion begins immediately, and players must post their votes in the thread, in the format [Yes|No] on Motion to Suspend. The motion passes if two-thirds of the players vote yes, and immediately fails if one-third of the players vote no. If, after 60 hours, the motion has not passed or failed, players who have not voted are considered not eligible voters on this motion.
If the motion passes, all players (including Judges) must treat the game as though those rules are not in effect, during that turn only, for all purposes including decisions regarding whether a proposal is valid, or whether a move is legal.
If the motion fails, that player may not make another motion to suspend rules during this turn. Any further drafts of that player's proposal must contain some portion of the original proposal. If no portion of the original proposal can be retained without suspending the rules, all players are eligible to end the current player's turn; this clause overrides rule 332.
Both mutable and immutable rules may be suspended in this manner, but this rule cannot be suspended by itself. !This is Rule will be numbered 325. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I removed a reference to a non-existent rule (323) contained in this rule and fixed it to the right rule number (332). I considered removing the reference completely, but there's been talk of inverting the numbering structure in which case we will still want this phrasing (even though it's redundant right now). More importantly, I added language making everyone eligible to end the turn of a player who cannot retain some element of their draft proposal, which was previously missing.
344: (mutable) Amend rule 332 to read: After a player ends a turn, players have 24 hours to invoke Judgement on the issue whether the player ending the turn was eligible to do so. If play continues after the action(s) being Judged occurred, and the Judgement overturns the action(s) taken, play resets to the gamestate immediately prior to the overturned action(s). Otherwise, play will continue from the current gamestate. !This is Rule will be numbered 332. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I changed "After a player ended a turn" to "After a player ends a turn", which I believe is more correct.
345: (mutable) Amend rule 337 to read: When a player reaches 100 points, they win. When a player wins, they add one Legacy Point (LP) to their Legacy Point total and sets their points to 0. When a player joins the game, they have 0 LPs. The number of LPs a player has may not be altered unless explicitly permitted in the rules. !This is Rule will be numbered 337. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I cleaned up the phrasing and added the "only by rules" clause for safety.
346: (mutable) Amend rule 340 to read: If the current player has a unit directly or diagonally adjacent to another player's unit, the active player may spend one IP to gain two points and the owner of the adjacent unit will gain one point. This process is known as "Proximity". Players may not use one of their own units more than once a turn to earn points via Proximity. Units may not earn points through Proximity during the turn they are created.
To earn these points, a player must post in thread the following bolded command: Proximity between ## and %%, where ## is the name of the tile their unit is on and %% is the name of the tile the other player's unit is on. !This is Rule will be numbered 340. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
Fixed the fact that the bold command wasn't actually in bold, and named the system as per Grujah's suggestion. I'm open to different names.
347: (mutable) Transmute rule 103.
348: Amend rule 103 to read: A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; or (2) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.
(Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) !This is Rule will be numbered 103 and be immutable. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
Removing part 2 and renaming part 3 to part 2 as a result (see discussion between me and Jimmmmm)
Anyone with an opinion, double-check and make sure what I'm doing with 103 is a kosher way to go about it.
Also, I made the part of the color rule just that mail-mi and EFHW need to pick colors because it's going to delete itself and we'll never have this situation again, so why not, it's easier.
-
You should also make a rule that says game constructs can't be changed unless another rule allows for it. It gets rid of us needing to say it in every rule.
What about this?
Other than that, I'm fine with everything.
-
Should you transmute 103 back to immutable when you are done?
-
re: rule 341, I think there should be an un-tidied version somewhere that keeps track of all changes, and a tidied version to work with for future changes. This way if there is a mistake or misunderstanding we can look back to what was done before.
That's the current system, and because some people (understandably) don't like reading through paragraphs of obsolete rules, Kirian started a second list of "Rules in Effect". This scares me greatly as "Rules in Effect" is something we all might not agree on. Hence me proposing the rule making the original list keep itself in order, so we only need one list.
If an error is made, we do have the Rule History in the spreadsheet to consult. Re-creating the rules at any given point would still be a nightmare, but probably not necessary to source most mistakes/contested points.
As far as a moderator, there is none, and I think that's a key feature of this game. In reality, the thread OP has kinda been keeping stuff together (first mail-mi, then Kirian, now me) but I view that more as a bug than a feature.
You should also make a rule that says game constructs can't be changed unless another rule allows for it. It gets rid of us needing to say it in every rule.
What about this?
Other than that, I'm fine with everything.
Oh god that too god god. Yeah, it's good to deal with it now. I'll do that after lunch, I'm getting dizzy from so much minutia and that one will be big (since for cleanliness's sake I'll want to delete that clause from all rules that currently have it).
Should you transmute 103 back to immutable when you are done?
Actually I already am, see the part in bold blue. If you think that doesn't work, let me know and I'll make a third rule about it putting it back.
-
Maybe immutable rules should have to be transmuted before they can be suspended. That seems more in keeping with the purpose of having a rule be immutable.
PPE So you are proposing to do away with future use of the the original list that shows all changes, is that right?
-
Crap, I forgot to fix the "This is Rule will be..." error. I'll do that when I do sudgy's thing later.
I have a suggestion. What if each rule began with a title indicating the general purpose of the rule. Like Rule XXX: Turn Order, or Rule YYY: Selection of Colors. This could make it easier to find rules you need.
I like it.
I like it too, but I view that as too big a lift for my current turn with everything else it's already doing. It'd be a great thing to put together for your own turn if you wanted!
My goal, with my monstrous turn, is to help get the game to a point where everyone can just do fun new mechanics and stuff.
-
You should also make a rule that says game constructs can't be changed unless another rule allows for it. It gets rid of us needing to say it in every rule.
What about this?
Other than that, I'm fine with everything.
Do we have a definition for "game construct"?
-
Maybe immutable rules should have to be transmuted before they can be suspended. That seems more in keeping with the purpose of having a rule be immutable.
PPE So you are proposing to do away with future use of the the original list that shows all changes, is that right?
Well, maybe they should be, but they aren't right now.
Yes, I am. If you read my rule 341, it will make it so that in the future, if someone proposes Rule B amending rule A, rule A will be stricken from the record and only Rule B will be on the books (since Rule B is simply the updated version of Rule A).
As a one-time-only thing, it's deleted all of the crossed-out repealed and amended rules that are currently on the books, as though this rule had been in effect the whole time.
-
You should also make a rule that says game constructs can't be changed unless another rule allows for it. It gets rid of us needing to say it in every rule.
What about this?
Other than that, I'm fine with everything.
Do we have a definition for "game construct"?
No, and I'd create one as part of this universal rule.
-
The colour rule doesn't make sense as it says it must be done as they join the game, but then talk about their turn.
I think you should amend 307 to add that a colour must be selected, rather than adding it to 342. You could keep the specifics of colour -choosing in 342 or ditch 342 altogether and put it all in 307. I think it's better to have only 1 rule specifying how to join the game instead of 2.
Also, I don't think you need to keep the note in 103. Maybe it's helpful for newer players, I'm not sure, but to me everything it says seems obvious from simply reading the rule itself.
-
The colour rule doesn't make sense as it says it must be done as they join the game, but then talk about their turn.
I think you should amend 307 to add that a colour must be selected, rather than adding it to 342. You could keep the specifics of colour -choosing in 342 or ditch 342 altogether and put it all in 307. I think it's better to have only 1 rule specifying how to join the game instead of 2.
Also, I don't think you need to keep the note in 103. Maybe it's helpful for newer players, I'm not sure, but to me everything it says seems obvious from simply reading the rule itself.
I think I'll put it all in 307, good catch and thanks. I'll delete the note from 103 then too.
-
When is my turn, BTW?
-
Turn Order. Player - Score
1. mail-mi
2. liopoil - 4
3. Jack Rudd - 3
4. EFHW
5. Jimmmmm - 2
6. sudgy - 13
7. Voltaire
8. heron
9. Grujah - 10
10. Florrat
11. WalrusMcFishSir
12. scott_pilgrim
-
When is my turn, BTW?
As you joined after my turn, you were placed before me in the player order.
-
The colour rule doesn't make sense as it says it must be done as they join the game, but then talk about their turn.
I think you should amend 307 to add that a colour must be selected, rather than adding it to 342. You could keep the specifics of colour -choosing in 342 or ditch 342 altogether and put it all in 307. I think it's better to have only 1 rule specifying how to join the game instead of 2.
Also, I don't think you need to keep the note in 103. Maybe it's helpful for newer players, I'm not sure, but to me everything it says seems obvious from simply reading the rule itself.
I think I'll put it all in 307, good catch and thanks. I'll delete the note from 103 then too.
As you're changing 307, you could specify all initial attributes of new players. The only other thing I can think of is that they receive N$1000. But I think it'd be good to include everything that happens when a new player joins in the one rule. You could repeal 318 then.
Also, in the OP it says "ammended", and there are some which say (mutable) while others don't.
Sorry for adding more and more work for you. :P
-
Also, in the OP it says "ammended", and there are some which say (mutable) while others don't.
Can you clarify/expand on this? Just that ammended is misspelled somewhere, or that some are lacking (mutable)? (I thought I'd already caught and fixed that last one, dammit)
-
Also, in the OP it says "ammended", and there are some which say (mutable) while others don't.
Can you clarify/expand on this? Just that ammended is misspelled somewhere, or that some are lacking (mutable)? (I thought I'd already caught and fixed that last one, dammit)
Amended should only have 1 'm'. It's misspelt twice in the OP, just ctrl-f it. In the Rules in Effect quote under Mutable Rules, 205-324 do not have (mutable) after the number, which I think is right, but 326-340 do.
-
Amended should only have 1 'm'. It's misspelt twice in the OP, just ctrl-f it. In the Rules in Effect quote under Mutable Rules, 205-324 do not have (mutable) after the number, which I think is right, but 326-340 do.
Gotcha. That happened because of a mistake in keeping both lists at once - I fixed it in the All Rules, but not Rules in Effect. What happened was, we were adding (mutable) to some rules and not others. This is not actually part of the rules, just a reminder that new rules are mutable. I was going on precedent set by mail-mi and Kirian. If you check Thread 2 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10202.0), Kirian was adding (mutable) until 323, when he stopped. I believe this was an oversight and not rules-related, so I fixed this mistake and have kept going.
If we think it's more correct not to have this (mutable) reminder, I'll delete it from my draft and from all rules, since as far as I know nobody has ever put it in their official rules proposals.
-
Amended should only have 1 'm'. It's misspelt twice in the OP, just ctrl-f it. In the Rules in Effect quote under Mutable Rules, 205-324 do not have (mutable) after the number, which I think is right, but 326-340 do.
Gotcha. That happened because of a mistake in keeping both lists at once - I fixed it in the All Rules, but not Rules in Effect. What happened was, we were adding (mutable) to some rules and not others. This is not actually part of the rules, just a reminder that new rules are mutable. I was going on precedent set by mail-mi and Kirian. If you check Thread 2 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10202.0), Kirian was adding (mutable) until 323, when he stopped. I believe this was an oversight and not rules-related, so I fixed this mistake and have kept going.
If we think it's more correct not to have this (mutable) reminder, I'll delete it from my draft and from all rules, since as far as I know nobody has ever put it in their official rules proposals.
If the rules are divided between mutable and immutable, there's no need to state that they are immutable for each rule.
-
If the rules are divided between mutable and immutable, there's no need to state that they are immutable for each rule.
Right, but we're talking about a third category, Rule Changes and Amendments. At the time, I was just trying to be consistent with that we'd been doing.
Since the rules say anything listed in Rule Changes and Amendments is mutable unless stated otherwise, I can get rid of them and we'll just state it explicitly if we create a new immutable rule (which I don't see happening anytime soon). I won't do this immediately to let other people weigh in if they want to.
-
As you're changing 307, you could specify all initial attributes of new players. The only other thing I can think of is that they receive N$1000. But I think it'd be good to include everything that happens when a new player joins in the one rule. You could repeal 318 then.
FYI, I don't think I'm going to do this since we might add more attributes later. I think it's better if each rule introducing an attribute explains what happens to a player who joins/leaves & rejoins.
-
As you're changing 307, you could specify all initial attributes of new players. The only other thing I can think of is that they receive N$1000. But I think it'd be good to include everything that happens when a new player joins in the one rule. You could repeal 318 then.
FYI, I don't think I'm going to do this since we might add more attributes later. I think it's better if each rule introducing an attribute explains what happens to a player who joins/leaves & rejoins.
Fair enough.
-
Draft 3.0
tl:dr wtf is Voltaire doing with his turn? I'm tidying up. Because I'm transmuting a rule, this package will require unanimous approval from all voters. But before than can happen, we have to suspend some rules. There are currently 7 votes in favor of suspension - 8 are needed.
What does this draft change since 2.0?
- fixed "This is Rule will be..." typo
- removed (mutable) from the official proposals, so no matter what way we go with listing these it won't be hardcoded into these rules
- created Game Construct rule and removed "can't do this unless in the rules" clause from rules that would be redundant
- deleted the "Note" part of 103
- combines the Color Rule (314) with the new player rule (307)
Draft of Rule Changes 3.0 (explanations are in red italics, changes for 2.0 are in blue, changes for 3.0 are in green)
341: If a rule amends or repeals an existing rule, the rule it amends or repeals will be removed from the ruleset at the same time that the new rule takes effect. The portion of the new rule which refers to the act of repealing or amending the existing rule, (such as, but not limited to, "Amend ### to the following:", "Amend rule ### to say the following.", "Amend rule ### to say:", etc.) will also be removed immediately after the new rule takes effect. !This includes all amendments and repeals that have previously passed, as well as phrases in existing rules that comment on the act of repealing or amending a specific previously-existing rule (such as, but not limited to, "Amend ### to the following:", "Amend rule ### to say the following.", "Amend rule ### to say:", etc.) The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
This rule is completely new. It cleans up the ruleset, makes it way more readable, and lets us only have one list in the OP.
342: Amend rule 307 to read: At any time, a person not playing may post in-thread that they want to join the game. They must bold their request to be in. In the same post, they must choose a color which will personally represent them in this game (referred to as "your color", "player's color", etc.). When this happens, after the current turn is over, they are inserted into the player order by being put in before the player whose turn was just finished. They start with 0 points.
Colors are chosen by posting in thread a color in the format (Red Value, Green Value, Blue Value), where each Color Value is an integer between 0 and 255. So for example, (0, 0, 0) would be black, (255, 0, 0) would be red, (0, 255, 0) would be green, and so on.
White (255,255,255) may not be chosen as a personal color, nor may colors with all Color Values greater than 200. Players are encouraged to choose colors which are as unique and distinct as possible, and may not choose colors which are too similar to white or previously chosen colors. Whether the color is distinct enough may be settled by judgment if necessary. !This Rule will be numbered 307. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
*mail-mi and EFHW may choose a color at any time. They must choose a color prior to their next turn ending or they will lose N$100. The portion of this rule contained between the asterisks will be removed after both mail-mi and EFHW have chosen colors.*
The change here is that players now pick a color when they join. Removes the awkwardness of "after this is passed" and should make things clearer going forward. It explicitly makes mail-mi and EFHW pick colors (in what I think is a reasonable way) since they're stuck in the middle, but that part will repeal itself once it is done. Also note that it will remain Rule 307 because of fancy shenanigans I'm quite proud of (as will every other change below).
343: Amend rule 325 to read: The active player may make a motion to suspend any number of rules during their turn. This must be done at the same time as the presentation of the draft proposal(s), and the rules to be suspended must be explicitly named. Voting on the motion begins immediately, and players must post their votes in the thread, in the format [Yes|No] on Motion to Suspend. The motion passes if two-thirds of the players vote yes, and immediately fails if one-third of the players vote no. If, after 60 hours, the motion has not passed or failed, players who have not voted are considered not eligible voters on this motion.
If the motion passes, all players (including Judges) must treat the game as though those rules are not in effect, during that turn only, for all purposes including decisions regarding whether a proposal is valid, or whether a move is legal.
If the motion fails, that player may not make another motion to suspend rules during this turn. Any further drafts of that player's proposal must contain some portion of the original proposal. If no portion of the original proposal can be retained without suspending the rules, all players are eligible to end the current player's turn; this clause overrides rule 332.
Both mutable and immutable rules may be suspended in this manner, but this rule cannot be suspended by itself. !This Rule will be numbered 325. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I removed a reference to a non-existent rule (323) contained in this rule and fixed it to the right rule number (332). I considered removing the reference completely, but there's been talk of inverting the numbering structure in which case we will still want this phrasing (even though it's redundant right now). More importantly, I added language making everyone eligible to end the turn of a player who cannot retain some element of their draft proposal, which was previously missing.
344: Amend rule 332 to read: After a player ends a turn, players have 24 hours to invoke Judgement on the issue whether the player ending the turn was eligible to do so. If play continues after the action(s) being Judged occurred, and the Judgement overturns the action(s) taken, play resets to the gamestate immediately prior to the overturned action(s). Otherwise, play will continue from the current gamestate. !This Rule will be numbered 332. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I changed "After a player ended a turn" to "After a player ends a turn", which I believe is more correct.
345: Amend rule 337 to read: When a player reaches 100 points, they win. When a player wins, they add one Legacy Point (LP) to their Legacy Point total and sets their points to 0. When a player joins the game, they have 0 LPs. !This Rule will be numbered 337. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I cleaned up the phrasing.
346: Amend rule 340 to read: If the current player has a unit directly or diagonally adjacent to another player's unit, the active player may spend one IP to gain two points and the owner of the adjacent unit will gain one point. This process is known as "Proximity". Players may not use one of their own units more than once a turn to earn points via Proximity. Units may not earn points through Proximity during the turn they are created.
To earn these points, a player must post in thread the following bolded command: Proximity between ## and %%, where ## is the name of the tile their unit is on and %% is the name of the tile the other player's unit is on. !This Rule will be numbered 340. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
Fixed the fact that the bold command wasn't actually in bold, and named the system as per Grujah's suggestion. I'm open to different names.
347: Transmute rule 103 from immutable to mutable.
348: Amend rule 103 to read: A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; or (2) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.
!This Rule will be numbered 103. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
Removing part 2 and renaming part 3 to part 2 as a result (see discussion between me and Jimmmmm)
349: Transmute rule 103 from mutable to immutable.
I think this is a better way to do it (adding the third rule to get it back to immutable status)
350: Game constructs may not be changed unless explicitly permitted in the rules. A game construct is any piece, point, component, flavor, or related item present in the game. Examples include, but are not limited to, points, Legacy Points, Nomic dollars, units, color, etc.
Yes, this is a bit vague (in a good way I think), but I think we're all responsible and can handle it. Disputes can be resolved by Judgement, which is a feature not a bug. I think 99% of the time we'll all completely agree on what is a construct. If this ever refers to a component that no longer exists, well...I think the rule needs examples, so oh well.
351: Amend Rule 317 to read: The official currency of f.ds Nomic shall be the Nomic Dollar. The abbreviation for Nomic Dollars shall be N$.
Each player shall have a personal quantity of Nomic Dollars, which shall be listed in the opening post. !This Rule will be numbered 317. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
deleted "only in the rules" clause
352: Amend Rule 335 to read: At the beginning of his or her turn, each player gains four Initiative Points (abbreviated IPs). These IPs may be spent during his or her turn to affect the gamestate in various ways. Spending an IP causes a player's quantity of IPs to be reduced by one, and a player may not spend IPs if it would bring his or her quantity of IPs to less than zero. A player's quantity of IPs may not be changed unless it is explicitly allowed by a rule. The player does not need to spend all of his or her IPs, or any of them if he or she so chooses. If a player attempts to spend IPs in a way which is judged to be against the rules, that player's attempted actions will not succeed, but he will not lose the IPs he attempted to spend in this way.
At the end of each player's turn, his or her quantity of IPs is set to zero, such that IPs may not be saved for future turns.
If he or she has no Units on the World Map, a player may spend one IP to create a Unit of his or her allegiance on any World Map tile that does not already contain a Unit.
To create a Unit in this way, post in thread the following bolded command: Create ##, where ## is the name of the tile where the Unit will be created.
A player may spend one IP to move a Unit of his or her allegiance to a tile which is directly adjacent or diagonally adjacent to its current position. Multiple IPs may be spent in this way each turn, and a Unit may occupy the same tile multiple times in one turn. A player may not attempt to move a Unit to an invalid tile, or to a tile which already contains a Unit.
To move a Unit in this way, post in thread the following bolded command: Move ## to %%, where ## is the name of the tile where the Unit is positioned, and %% is the name of the tile to which the Unit is moving. !This Rule will be numbered 335. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
deleted "only in the rules" clause
353: Repeal rule 314.
The color rule moves to 307.
The biggest piece of feedback I need is on the Game Construct rule. Once that's sorted, or nobody speaks up, I'm proposing this so I don't hog up the game any longer (assuming I have the 1 more vote needed to suspend the rules).
-
Good luck in getting all votes. You're doing some very nice administrative work.
Comments:
-I like the idea to remove unnecessary clutter from the rules, the "Amend/Repeal"-clauses. Don't you also want to remove "Transmute"-causes? As it currently is rules 347 and 349 will stay in the rules list, which is kinda ugly.
-Just an idea (but probably it's not a good idea to make your turn even bigger): amend rule 108 to say that amendments/transmutations of rules retain the number of the previous rule.
Yes on Motion to Suspend.
-
Good catch on the transmuting stuff, florrat. I'll fix that.
Motion to suspend the rules passed, so I'll work on polishing the final draft.
Also, I do like your idea to change 108 so that amendments & transmutations retain rule numbers. I won't do it now, though.
-
Alright, it's time. The only changes since the last version are fixing it so transmutations also delete themselves (to match amendments and repeals), and I added wording to the 103 rules so that they keep the 103 number (an oversight on my part previously). I tweaked the wording to the Game Construct rule (added "A change is the addition, deletion, or alteration of a game construct." because "change" was not previously defined).
Note that I don't need the vote of every person playing for this to pass, but I do need everyone who votes to vote "yes" (because I'm transmuting). If you don't like the Game Construct rule (the only part I can honestly see being controversial), then I encourage you to vote "yes" anyway and lobby for an improvement later on.
Final Rule Proposals
341: If a rule amends, repeals, or transmutes an existing rule, the rule it amends, repeals, or transmutes will be removed from the rules at the same time that the new rule takes effect. The portion of the new rule which refers to the act of amending, repealing, or transmuting the existing rule, (such as, but not limited to, "Amend ### to the following:", "Repeal rule ###", "Transmute rule", etc.) will also be removed immediately after the new rule takes effect. !This includes all amendments, repeals, and transmutations that have previously passed, as well as phrases in existing rules that comment on the act of repealing, amending, transmuting a specific previously-existing rule (such as, but not limited to, "Amend ### to the following:", "Repeal rule ###", "Transmute rule ###", etc.) The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
342: Amend rule 307 to read: At any time, a person not playing may post in-thread that they want to join the game. They must bold their request to be in. In the same post, they must choose a color which will personally represent them in this game (referred to as "your color", "player's color", etc.). When this happens, after the current turn is over, they are inserted into the player order by being put in before the player whose turn was just finished. They start with 0 points.
Colors are chosen by posting in thread a color in the format (Red Value, Green Value, Blue Value), where each Color Value is an integer between 0 and 255. So for example, (0, 0, 0) would be black, (255, 0, 0) would be red, (0, 255, 0) would be green, and so on.
White (255,255,255) may not be chosen as a personal color, nor may colors with all Color Values greater than 200. Players are encouraged to choose colors which are as unique and distinct as possible, and may not choose colors which are too similar to white or previously chosen colors. Whether the color is distinct enough may be settled by judgment if necessary. !This Rule will be numbered 307. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
*mail-mi and EFHW may choose a color at any time. They must choose a color prior to their next turn ending or they will lose N$100. The portion of this rule contained between the asterisks will be removed after both mail-mi and EFHW have chosen colors.*
343: Amend rule 325 to read: The active player may make a motion to suspend any number of rules during their turn. This must be done at the same time as the presentation of the draft proposal(s), and the rules to be suspended must be explicitly named. Voting on the motion begins immediately, and players must post their votes in the thread, in the format [Yes|No] on Motion to Suspend. The motion passes if two-thirds of the players vote yes, and immediately fails if one-third of the players vote no. If, after 60 hours, the motion has not passed or failed, players who have not voted are considered not eligible voters on this motion.
If the motion passes, all players (including Judges) must treat the game as though those rules are not in effect, during that turn only, for all purposes including decisions regarding whether a proposal is valid, or whether a move is legal.
If the motion fails, that player may not make another motion to suspend rules during this turn. Any further drafts of that player's proposal must contain some portion of the original proposal. If no portion of the original proposal can be retained without suspending the rules, all players are eligible to end the current player's turn; this clause overrides rule 332.
Both mutable and immutable rules may be suspended in this manner, but this rule cannot be suspended by itself. !This Rule will be numbered 325. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
344: Amend rule 332 to read: After a player ends a turn, players have 24 hours to invoke Judgement on the issue whether the player ending the turn was eligible to do so. If play continues after the action(s) being Judged occurred, and the Judgement overturns the action(s) taken, play resets to the gamestate immediately prior to the overturned action(s). Otherwise, play will continue from the current gamestate. !This Rule will be numbered 332. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
345: Amend rule 337 to read: When a player reaches 100 points, they win. When a player wins, they add one Legacy Point (LP) to their Legacy Point total and sets their points to 0. When a player joins the game, they have 0 LPs. !This Rule will be numbered 337. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
346: Amend rule 340 to read: If the current player has a unit directly or diagonally adjacent to another player's unit, the active player may spend one IP to gain two points and the owner of the adjacent unit will gain one point. This process is known as "Proximity". Players may not use one of their own units more than once a turn to earn points via Proximity. Units may not earn points through Proximity during the turn they are created.
To earn these points, a player must post in thread the following bolded command: Proximity between ## and %%, where ## is the name of the tile their unit is on and %% is the name of the tile the other player's unit is on. !This Rule will be numbered 340. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
347: Transmute rule 103 from immutable to mutable. !This Rule will be numbered 103. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
348: Amend rule 103 to read: A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; or (2) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.
!This Rule will be numbered 103. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
349: Transmute rule 103 from mutable to immutable. !This Rule will be numbered 103. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
350: Game constructs may not be changed unless explicitly permitted in the rules. A game construct is any piece, point, component, flavor, or related item present in the game. Examples include, but are not limited to, points, Legacy Points, Nomic dollars, units, color, etc. A change is the addition, deletion, or alteration of a game construct.
351: Amend Rule 317 to read: The official currency of f.ds Nomic shall be the Nomic Dollar. The abbreviation for Nomic Dollars shall be N$.
Each player shall have a personal quantity of Nomic Dollars, which shall be listed in the opening post. !This Rule will be numbered 317. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
352: Amend Rule 335 to read: At the beginning of his or her turn, each player gains four Initiative Points (abbreviated IPs). These IPs may be spent during his or her turn to affect the gamestate in various ways. Spending an IP causes a player's quantity of IPs to be reduced by one, and a player may not spend IPs if it would bring his or her quantity of IPs to less than zero. A player's quantity of IPs may not be changed unless it is explicitly allowed by a rule. The player does not need to spend all of his or her IPs, or any of them if he or she so chooses. If a player attempts to spend IPs in a way which is judged to be against the rules, that player's attempted actions will not succeed, but he will not lose the IPs he attempted to spend in this way.
At the end of each player's turn, his or her quantity of IPs is set to zero, such that IPs may not be saved for future turns.
If he or she has no Units on the World Map, a player may spend one IP to create a Unit of his or her allegiance on any World Map tile that does not already contain a Unit.
To create a Unit in this way, post in thread the following bolded command: Create ##, where ## is the name of the tile where the Unit will be created.
A player may spend one IP to move a Unit of his or her allegiance to a tile which is directly adjacent or diagonally adjacent to its current position. Multiple IPs may be spent in this way each turn, and a Unit may occupy the same tile multiple times in one turn. A player may not attempt to move a Unit to an invalid tile, or to a tile which already contains a Unit.
To move a Unit in this way, post in thread the following bolded command: Move ## to %%, where ## is the name of the tile where the Unit is positioned, and %% is the name of the tile to which the Unit is moving. !This Rule will be numbered 335. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
353: Repeal rule 314.
Vote: Yes on Rules 341-353
-
Vote: Yes on Rules 341-353
-
Vote: Yes on Rules 341-353
-
Vote: Yes on Rules 341-353
-
Vote: Yes on Rules 341-353
-
Vote: Yes on Rules 341-353
-
Vote: Yes on Rules 341-353
-
Vote: Yes on rules 341-353
-
Vote: Yes on Rules 341-353
-
Rule passes 9-0! I declare it to be heron's turn.
I am charged N$10 for my unit.
It's gonna take me a bit to update the OP with these changes, just a heads up.
-
I probably ought to make some way to earn money then.
I was thinking that maybe money could be earned if your unit is far away from other units, to balance the fact that points are earned by having your unit next to other units.
Any thoughts?
-
OK, OP should be up-to-date. Let me know if you spot any errors. I saved a copy before I made any changes just in case.
-
Hmm okay. I don't like having 3 sections in the OP. I don't see a reason to have a distinction between rules that were there initially and rules we've brought in. Doesn't really matter I guess.
-
Hmm okay. I don't like having 3 sections in the OP. I don't see a reason to have a distinction between rules that were there initially and rules we've brought in. Doesn't really matter I guess.
That's...been there since we started the game. I'd consider them part of the initial rules personally (that's debatable).
-
Hmm okay. I don't like having 3 sections in the OP. I don't see a reason to have a distinction between rules that were there initially and rules we've brought in. Doesn't really matter I guess.
That's...been there since we started the game. I'd consider them part of the initial rules personally (that's debatable).
Yeah I know, I guess I was under the impression you were changing it for this vote. All currently immutable rules are from the initial set, right, with the sort of exception of 103. If we were to bring in a new rule and make it immutable, I guess it would be under Rule Changes and Amendments right, but with (immutable) after the number? I think it would be better to have all immutable rules together and all mutable rules together.
-
Yeah I know, I guess I was under the impression you were changing it for this vote. All currently immutable rules are from the initial set, right, with the sort of exception of 103. If we were to bring in a new rule and make it immutable, I guess it would be under Rule Changes and Amendments right, but with (immutable) after the number? I think it would be better to have all immutable rules together and all mutable rules together.
We could do two things:
1. Put it last in the immutable section (messes up the rules being physically presented in chronological order)
2. Put it last in the Changes section (messes up all immutable rules being physically together)
So we've got to chose "bad" one thing no matter what.
-
My preference is a list of immutable rules in chronological order, followed by a list of mutable rules in chronological order.
-
My preference is a list of immutable rules in chronological order, followed by a list of mutable rules in chronological order.
Well, that's what we have right now. If people feel strongly about it, they should make the categories (un)official if it's going to matter.
-
This might be a stupid remark, but why was the voting over? We needed a unanimous majority because we did a transmution? So the voting should only end when either all players have votes Yes, when some player voted No or when 60 have passed...
I think we should be still in the voting state of Voltaire (but I see no need to change the OP back until someone actually votes no).
Okay, the current rules aren't very clear about this. Rule 334 says that the voting should end, but rule 334 assumes only a simple majority is required, and that is overrule by rule 109 (although not very explicitly). So one could argue we now have a majority of everyone who voted so far, but I think it would be better to let the voting continue until either 60 hours have passed, everyone votes Yes, or someone votes No
-
Not a stupid remark, being pedantic about the rules is sort of the point!
109 only refers to "eligible voters". 334 says "Once over half of the players have voted yes, the proposal is passed." That resolves the vote, so everyone else becomes ineligible. So it attained a unanimous vote and meets 109.
It's not super-clear and it took me a bit to figure it out, and it's not really "working as designed" yet, but I think that's what has happened.
-
I'm not sure whether I agree. Let's continue (and increase) the pedantry.
(1) The intention of the rules (especially rule 109) is that everyone should have a chance to vote "No". So when only considering intentions, and not the specific text, I think the voting should continue.
(2) But this wouldn't be Nomic when only considering intentions. What do the rules actually say? Rule 109 says that the vote should be unanimous among the eligible voters. What is an eligible voter? Well, the current ruleset doesn't define it (as I've noted earlier (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10202.msg337356#msg337356) (bottom of the post)). So what does rule 109 actually say? The only two reasonable options to me see (a) nothing, or (b) consider it as if everyone is an eligible voter. I'm inclined to say "(b)", because we're voting all the time, and we're all allowed to vote, so when invoking the definition on eligible, it seems reasonable to call us all eligible voters.
But you may say "Aha! Rule 334 does say explicitly that the players who didn't vote are not eligible voters. So we do (did?) have a unanimous vote among eligible voters." But rule 334 says this only when 60 hours have been passed. It doesn't say so in this case. So some (presumably) eligible voters have not voted yet, hence I think we're still in the voting state.
(3) I certainly want this vote to pass. But if someone disagrees with the proposal, I'm don't want it to pass in a maybe-not-completely-legal way.
-
PS: I disagree with your argument "The voting is over hence the players who didn't vote are not eligible voters." Suppose that this vote just required a simple majority. Then certainly the vote would be over and passes. Not because the only 9 players who voted were eligible to vote, but because no matter what the other players voted, the vote would pass.
-
But you may say "Aha! Rule 334 does say explicitly that the players who didn't vote are not eligible voters. So we do (did?) have a unanimous vote among eligible voters." But rule 334 says this only when 60 hours have been passed.
Actually, it says "If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 60 hours or more and has not been resolved..." This vote has been resolved.
-
This vote has been resolved.
This argument only works assuming you're already right (i.e. assuming that the vote could be ended). Hence it's a bad argument and I disagree with it.
Rule 109 (overruling rule 334) states that a unanimous vote is required, and that isn't currently the case. If your problem with rule 109 is that it states that only unanimity among eligible voters is required... see my previous post.
-
I sense a call for judgment coming up. Florrat, are you invoking one?
-
OK, well, we have reached a point where the rules are unclear because we disagree on what they mean. Either one of us declares judgement on what has happened, or everyone else shows up and votes "Yes" quickly and it becomes moot.
-
I'm don't want to invoke this judgement. I like this outcome, but I think it's not following the rules.
So I won't invoke judgement, but if someone wants to vote "No", then I'll completely support any invoked judgement.
-
I'm going to bed. Should I be called on to give judgment on this issue, my ruling is in the spoiler tags.
All the rule changes except 347 to 349 pass on a simple majority. 347-349 still need the three outstanding voters to participate: 347 because it's a transmutation, 348 and 349 because each is an invalid proposal unless 347 passes.
-
OK. After thinking about this more and sleeping on it, I think florrat and Jack Rudd are right. Because I suspended the "one rule change per turn" rule, you can cast different votes on each of these proposals. That also means that Jack Rudd is right, only 347, 348, and 349 need all eligible voters (which is everyone before 60 hours) to pass.
So I see 3 ways we can go:
- the non-voters speaks up and say they would have voted yes, meaning everybody is fine with the result. I made a mistake, but it didn't break the game. We continue with heron's turn
- the non-voters vote yes right now, bringing the current situation in line with what should have happened
- wait for 60 hours to elapse (which would be 5 AM FT on Saturday morning) at which point the non-voters are ineligible and it actually becomes heron's turn. Probably have to call Judgement (and hope the judge rules this way) to make it clear what's going on
I think 3 is the most correct option, which would require Judgement to go back. If anyone thinks we need to use Judgement to sort this out, I certainly won't mind. I do now agree with florrat and Jack Rudd, as I've said. Just a note that we only have 24 hours since I incorrectly ended the turn to call Judgement on that action if we want to - that's later today at 6:45 PM FT.
-
I'm don't want to invoke this judgement. I like this outcome, but I think it's not following the rules.
So I won't invoke judgement, but if someone wants to vote "No", then I'll completely support any invoked judgement.
I agree with florrat's assessment of the situation. I support waiting until we have heard from everyone/60 hours are up. With this many people in the game, maybe someone should amend the rule to a shorter amount of time than 60 hours for the future.
PPE I see Voltaire has also posted
-
I support waiting until we have heard from everyone/60 hours are up. With this many people in the game, maybe someone should amend the rule to a shorter amount of time than 60 hours for the future.
I would also support shortening the 60 hour deadline.
FYI, if we're taking the "sit and wait" approach, the deadline is today due to the 24-hour limit on challenging an incorrect end-of-turn. At that point, the default situation (heron's turn, my rules passed 9-0) would become official.
-
I would have voted yes.
-
Well, the 24-hour clock passed - it's super-duper heron's turn now.
-
Now that the color rule has passed, should mail-mi pick before me?
-
Now that the color rule has passed, should mail-mi pick before me?
You can pick whenever you each want, it won't matter.
-
Next time I'm at a computer.
-
[color=(6, 255, 0)] Choose color: (6, 255, 0)[/color]
-
[color=(6, 255, 0)] Choose color: (6, 255, 0)[/color]
Wellthat didnt work. How do I do it?
-
Quote this example
-
my color
-
I think colors need to be in (A, B, C) format to be legal.
Colors are chosen by posting in thread a color in the format (Red Value, Green Value, Blue Value), where each Color Value is an integer between 0 and 255. So for example, (0, 0, 0) would be black, (255, 0, 0) would be red, (0, 255, 0) would be green, and so on.
-
my color rgb(102,0,102)
-
It needs to be in this format:
Choose color: (x, y, z)
-
It needs to be in this format:
Choose color: (x, y, z)
Where are you getting that? I don't see it anywhere. I think EFHW's latest post was good enough.
-
It needs to be in this format:
Choose color: (x, y, z)
Where are you getting that? I don't see it anywhere. I think EFHW's latest post was good enough.
I got it from my wrong memory of a rule. Carry on.
-
Choose Color: (6, 255, 0)
-
I declare it to be heron's turn.
heron, your turn will be eligible for ending in about two hours. I'd propose whatever you have.
-
Eh, I don't really have anything clever, so:
Create L3
Proximity between L3 and K4
I announce it to be Grujah's turn.
Edit: Oops I don't get proximity points. Well enjoy the free points Jimmmmm!
-
Thanks! :D
-
I've charged heron for his unit and given Jimmmmm his 1 point. Think that's all that needed doing...
-
Grujah, are you going to do something in your turn?
Although it's still Grujah's turn, I'll already post what my ideas are for my next rule. I'd like to add some income, and also give an incentive that not all players clump together.
My current proposal is
Once per turn, the current player may spend 1 IP to spawn a treasure chest in any empty location. He does this by posting Treasure chest at ## where ## is the name of the tile where the treasure chest is spawned. This tile cannot be entered by any unit until the end of the turn.
When any unit enters a location with a treasure chest, the owner of that unit rolls 1d200. The result is added to that player's amount of Nomic dollars.
Remarks:
-A location is empty if it does not contain a unit, a treasure chest, or any future object. Should this be clarified?
-Initially I wanted to penalize spawning a treasure chest close to you (specifically: I wanted to make it only possible to spawn a treasure chest in a location which is furthest from any unit). I think that is not necessary, since you're not allowed to pick up the treasure you spawned that turn.
-I think this already creates nontrivial decisions when combined with the Proximity rule. If you want to use the proximity rule every turn, then you can't spawn the TC too far away, but if you spawn it too close, someone else might grab it (perhaps when giving up the proximity points). If you put it in a location where you need exactly 4 moves to grab it, others might block you. There can be kingmaking: maybe player A cannot grab a specific treasure chest, but might decide who can pick it up (by blocking the other player), and people can bride others with small amounts of Nomic dollars to block or not block.
Ideas, thought and comments are welcome!
-
Didn't notice it was me. Lemme review recent changes and I'll do somthing.
-
Idea: in initial post, in part where you list IPs, list the actual commands.
Create I5
Draft proposal:
"During this turn, a player may submit up to two images (exactly 64x64 pixels, jpg format) by posting "Submit Image $$" (in bold) where $$ is the link to the image. He loses 10hp and gains 1 point for each image submitted and the image is added to the image pool.
-----------------
The use of images non-existent, for now.
-
typo, N$, not hp.
Actually, maybe if it didn't earn points, but gave N$, like 15$, it would make for some income.
-
or maybe even some steady income, like 1$ each turn for each image.
-
I need to stop multi-posting and actually post all at once.
If it used up IPs and gave $$ (immediate or steady) it would be most interesting, i think.
-
About florrat's idea, I like how the treasure can't be taken the same turn, meaning whoever plays the chest, someone else is going to get it, which will require people working together.
I don't get the point of Grujah's idea.
-
In fact, the game has been at a stand-still for a few days, so if there's no proposal by midnight I'll end the turn.
-
I don't think you can because he proposed a draft? I didn't actually check the rules, that's just what I remember.....
-
330: (mutable) If a player has not proposed a rule within 72 hours of the start of their turn, all players are eligible to end the turn. Voting required by any rule and waiting for a Judge to settle an issue do not count towards this time.
72 hours are up just after 11pm forum time.
-
Actually nevermind that's only 48 hours. Feels like it's been longer than that. Nevermind.
-
Maybe we should create a rule that says that if a player posts a draft and then fails to post a final proposal, the draft becomes the final proposal.
-
I also had an idea of changing turn order at some point (after everybody takes one), which might work with these chests, but too late, as I am just passing by.
Final proposition: (rule 354)
Twice per turn, current player may spend 1 IP to submit an image (exactly 64x64 pixels, jpg format) by posting "Submit Image $$" (in bold) where $$ is the link to the image. He than gains 25 Nomic Dollars. Each image is named "Image XX", where XX is the next unused number in sequence 1-1000.
-
Vote: Yes on 354
-
I don't get it.
Vote: No on 354
-
Yeah, sorry, I don't really like it either. I just don't see what we could do with images that would be interesting and integrate well into the framework we already have.
Vote: No on 354
-
You said "than" instead of "then", I don't know if that will be a problem. Anyway, sure, Vote: Yes on rule 354
-
Could you give some potential uses for images? I don't really see the point. And I don't really like the immediate exchange of IPs into N$.
No on Rule 354.
-
I'm going to say Vote: NO on rule 354, but I think we should keep the images idea in mind. It could be an interesting addition in the future. For example, we could have a town museum.
-
Vote: No on Rule 354
-
Vote: No on rule 354
-
Sorry, but Vote: No on rule 354. I feel like this won't really add much to the game, and I don't see how it could. I would rather work on the existing mechanics than add new ones I don't see a benefit to.
-
Vote: No on rule 354
Rule does not pass, 8/12 no's.
I declare it to be florrat's turn.
-
Updating in progress!
-
Grujah was charged for his unit and the tracking spreadsheet updated. I believe those were the only changes needed.
Now that I'm not creeping on these forums 24/7, I'm going to use my next rule to create officers/some sort of titles for people to keep track of each thing so we don't accidentally lose track.
-
Oh, mail-mi and EFHW both have colors! I took that part out of the rules as stated.
-
My current proposal is
Once per turn, the current player may spend 1 IP to spawn a treasure chest in any empty location. He does this by posting Treasure chest at ## where ## is the name of the tile where the treasure chest is spawned. This tile cannot be entered by any unit until the end of the turn.
When any unit enters a location with a treasure chest, the owner of that unit rolls 1d200. The result is added to that player's amount of Nomic dollars.
Remarks:
-A location is empty if it does not contain a unit, a treasure chest, or any future object. Should this be clarified?
-Initially I wanted to penalize spawning a treasure chest close to you (specifically: I wanted to make it only possible to spawn a treasure chest in a location which is furthest from any unit). I think that is not necessary, since you're not allowed to pick up the treasure you spawned that turn.
-I think this already creates nontrivial decisions when combined with the Proximity rule. If you want to use the proximity rule every turn, then you can't spawn the TC too far away, but if you spawn it too close, someone else might grab it (perhaps when giving up the proximity points). If you put it in a location where you need exactly 4 moves to grab it, others might block you. There can be kingmaking: maybe player A cannot grab a specific treasure chest, but might decide who can pick it up (by blocking the other player), and people can bride others with small amounts of Nomic dollars to block or not block.
Ideas, thought and comments are welcome!
-
So why would someone spawn a treasure chest? I guess because he gets a deal from someone else (i.e. someone says "I'll pay you N$100 to spawn a treasure chest next to me" or whatever)? That seems okay.
I think it would be much more interesting if the amount of money in the treasure chest were determined (and announced) when the chest is spawned, not when it's opened. Then I have to decide, do I go for the far away one that's worth more, or the closer one that's worth less, etc. And then you don't end up traveling across the board only to find out that chest was worth N$3.
-
I think just randomly spawning chests every turn or something would be better. I would just always spawn one on me and get money for it.
-
I don't care strongly about the specifics but I like the concept, so I'm likely a yes vote no matter what.
-
Now that I'm not creeping on these forums 24/7, I'm going to use my next rule to create officers/some sort of titles for people to keep track of each thing so we don't accidentally lose track.
I agree with this. We should have official elected paid positions.
-
Named after Dominion cards, for example, one updating the map is the Cartographer :P
-
I think just randomly spawning chests every turn or something would be better. I would just always spawn one on me and get money for it.
You can't do that, since it can't be opened the turn that you play it.
One issue with florrat's proposal: assuming everyone spawns in treasure chest per turn. That will mean that on average N$100 will be entering the system every turn. If this is the case, there should be a similar amount leaving the system every turn. I think one way to make the game really boring is for everyone to have plenty of money.
-
HEAVY taxing for the rich people!
-
A taxing system could be interesting if we created a pool of communal money which we then voted on how to use.
-
A taxing system could be interesting if we created a pool of communal money which we then voted on how to use.
I like it.
-
@scott_pilgrim: "Why would you want to spawn a treasure chest?"
A: As said, you can make a deal with others. But perhaps more often, you can put it in a location not reachable by anyone else in one turn. I think this is possible fairly often, except when you're clumped in the middle of the board, and this rule was meant to provide incentives against clumping. For example: you can make a TC in C13 in your turn, and move 2 steps towards it, and no unit on the board will be able to get it. If you want I can add a clause that newly created units cannot pick up treasure chests on their first turn, so that the treasure chest will be guaranteed to be yours (barring rule changes). Maybe that's a good idea, especially if we will be able to place more than 1 unit on the board per player.
@Jimmmmm: yeah, maybe adding N$100 to the system is a bit much, but I want that the starting amounts of money isn't worth that much. For example, under the current rules we can survive for 100 rounds without getting any income, which will take years. So yeah: some new expenses need to be added, but that should be done even without this new income.
-
Now that I'm not creeping on these forums 24/7, I'm going to use my next rule to create officers/some sort of titles for people to keep track of each thing so we don't accidentally lose track.
I agree with this. We should have official elected paid positions.
I like the idea too. If we don't want to deal with elections, we could make them rotating positions.
-
A taxing system could be interesting if we created a pool of communal money which we then voted on how to use.
I like it.
A good school system, health care, public safety. Absolutely!
-
Not loving the make treasure chest idea. What if we had some kind of exploration, like in Civilization, where unexplored terrain is obscured by fog, and exploring could uncover treasure chests, and maybe other things, too.
-
I have a better idea than having money in chests: you could have some sort of commodity in the chests, like food or something, which can either be used or taken somewhere to exchange for money.
-
Create G10
I'm just going to finally propose my draft, since most comments were about things I could not propose this turn anymore, since they weren't in my draft. The only change is that new units cannot pick up treasure chests (and saying that this rule overrules the previous rule, because otherwise my movement restriction wouldn't have any effect)
Final Proposal for Rule 355: Once per turn, the current player may spend 1 IP to spawn a treasure chest in any empty location. He does this by posting Treasure chest at ## where ## is the name of the tile where the treasure chest is spawned. This tile cannot be entered by any unit until the end of the turn. Also, units cannot be created on locations with treasure chests or move to locations with treasure chests on the turn they are created. The previous two sentences overrule any rule allowing for such movement or creation.
When any unit enters a location with a treasure chest, the owner of that unit rolls 1d200. The result is added to that player's amount of Nomic dollars.
-
Okay, some ideas:
Whenever money is earned or transferred, the receiver owes a certain percentage of tax. They have to send a unit of theirs to a location on the map, the Tax Office to pay what they owe. Maybe interest is charged, or maybe there are penalties for having a certain amount of debt.
This money is used to pay our elected officials (people like the map updater and tax collector etc), and can also be used, after a vote of course, to pay for communal roads, buildings etc to be built. They can only be built by units, so we'd have to use it to pay whoever's willing to spare their units to complete the task, as well as for the materials to do so.
Roads can be a super useful way of getting around; maybe you can purchase or build a bike which lets your unit move twice per IP, but only if on a road.
I'm also thinking that maybe a bigger map is in order.
-
Vote: No on 355, sorry. I think we can do better than a direct source of money, such as my suggestion for a different commodity that can be exchanged for money.
-
Vote: Yes on 355
-
Vote: Yes on 355
-
I'd vote yes if we later change it that they don't contain money but some goods instead.
-
While it's not quite what I wanted, it's good enough. Vote: Yes on Rule 355
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 355
-
Is there any reason this suggestion was not taken?:
I think it would be much more interesting if the amount of money in the treasure chest were determined (and announced) when the chest is spawned, not when it's opened.
Having it be determined when it's opened just adds an unnecessary element of randomness...I'm kind of ambivalent about it because of that. I like finally having something to tie in money with the board (units kind of do that already, but not for a while), but it seems like it will be unnecessarily frustrating/swingy.
Vote: No on 355
-
Is there any reason this suggestion was not taken?:
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about that suggestion. Actually, no I don't have a good reason not implementing that suggestion. That would have worked as well, maybe even a little better.
-
Vote: No on 355
-
I think we need to reduce these deadlines to something more in the range of 24-48 hours.
We also need to work out what we want to do regarding multiple rule-changes per turn. I think the idea of suspending rules served a purpose but in the long run we should actually have rules that we want abided by rather than to suspend them when it suits. Generally suspensions have been used to allow multiple rule-changes per proposal. One solution is for someone who wants to propose multiple rule-changes to simply have to submit a request for that specifically.
-
Ha. WalrusMcFishSir!
-
I think we need to reduce these deadlines to something more in the range of 24-48 hours.
[snip] One solution is for someone who wants to propose multiple rule-changes to simply have to submit a request for that specifically.
I agree with the first but not the second, because we're already doing that - you have to ask to suspend the "one rule change per turn" already. It sounds like the system is already working how you want it to?
-
Final Proposal for Rule 355: Once per turn, the current player may spend 1 IP to spawn a treasure chest in any empty location. He does this by posting Treasure chest at ## where ## is the name of the tile where the treasure chest is spawned. This tile cannot be entered by any unit until the end of the turn. Also, units cannot be created on locations with treasure chests or move to locations with treasure chests on the turn they are created. The previous two sentences overrule any rule allowing for such movement or creation.
When any unit enters a location with a treasure chest, the owner of that unit rolls 1d200. The result is added to that player's amount of Nomic dollars.
Deadline for this vote is tomorrow morning at 3 AM. It needs two more votes to pass before then.
-
I think we need to reduce these deadlines to something more in the range of 24-48 hours.
[snip] One solution is for someone who wants to propose multiple rule-changes to simply have to submit a request for that specifically.
I agree with the first but not the second, because we're already doing that - you have to ask to suspend the "one rule change per turn" already. It sounds like the system is already working how you want it to?
Well that was kind of my point that we can change it to reflect what we're actually doing. I guess it's not all that important, but don't you think it's nicer to have the rules reflect what we actually want people to do rather than allowing people to suspend them?
-
I think that our current system is already working well for what you describe. I think the "suspend a rule" rule is the most elegant in the entire ruleset.
-
I guess we disagree. I think it was fine to get the things done that we needed to get done, but if we're using it as a long-term rule I think it's sloppy. To me it's basically saying, "the rules you have aren't actually that good, so go ahead and break them."
-
Vote passes 5-3.
It is now Walrus's turn.
-
Updated the rules and charged florrat for the unit. I think that was everything that needed doing.
-
Walrus, are you forgetting your turn?
-
How about we change turn deadlines to something like: 24 hours if the active player hasn't posted, 48 if they haven't made a draft proposal and 72 if they haven't proposed. Or maybe 24, 36, 48?
-
how about prod at 24, end at 36, 48, 60?
-
I'd definitely be up for shortening them. I think we can prod whenever we want, has anyone PMed Walrus?
-
Anyone can now end Walrus's turn.
-
I declare it to be Scott Pilgrim's turn.
-
Voltaire and sudgy: I am adjacent to both of you, but I can only give one of you a point via proximity. Would either of you like to pay me some money to get that point? If one offers higher than the other I'll take the better offer; otherwise, I'll just pick randomly between you. (You're not committed to your first offer, so if Voltaire says N$5, and sudgy says N$6, I would let Voltaire come back and say N$7; effectively I'm auctioning off a point.)
As for my proposal, I think I will change florrat's treasure chest rule (355) to have the value be determined and announced when the chest is spawned, rather than when it is opened. Does this sound good?
Draft Proposal 356:
Amend Rule 355 to the following:
Once per turn, the current player may spend 1 IP to spawn a treasure chest in any empty location. He does this by posting Treasure chest at ## where ## is the name of the tile where the treasure chest is spawned. This tile cannot be entered by any unit until the end of the turn. Also, units cannot be created on locations with treasure chests or move to locations with treasure chests on the turn they are created. The previous two sentences overrule any rule allowing for such movement or creation.
When the chest is created, the current player rolls 1d200. When a unit enters a location with a chest, the result is added to the player owning that unit's amount of Nomic dollars.
-
10$ to move to me and give me the point. (3IP altogether)
@proposal - I want it to bring an aditional money in the system and cause devaluation.
-
10$ to move to me and give me the point. (3IP altogether)
Oh right, I can also get to you and florrat so you guys can bid too!
@proposal - I want it to bring an aditional money in the system and cause devaluation.
What do you mean by this?
-
$15 for you to move to me and I will use my proximity action on you if you give me just $5 back when it's my turn.
-
I won't bid for the point.
If you're tweaking the proposal, I would like to see it make it clear that the treasure chest is consumed and removed from the board once someone opens it.
-
$15 for you to move to me and I will use my proximity action on you if you give me just $5 back when it's my turn.
Oh yeah, you're also in my range, I'm bad at counting apparently. Okay, so far this is better than Grujah's offer, since it's the same net money for me, but more points.
If you're tweaking the proposal, I would like to see it make it clear that the treasure chest is consumed and removed from the board once someone opens it.
Good call.
-
Whoops, sorry guys.
-
Whoops, sorry guys.
It's ok, I hope you're well!
-
If you're tweaking the proposal, I would like to see it make it clear that the treasure chest is consumed and removed from the board once someone opens it.
Good point. :)
And I think the current proposal is good. Sorry for not implementing it in the first place.
-
Give N$20 to scott_pilgrim
I've already given you N$20. Gimme the point.
-
If you're tweaking the proposal, I would like to see it make it clear that the treasure chest is consumed and removed from the board once someone opens it.
Good point. :)
And I think the current proposal is good. Sorry for not implementing it in the first place.
No problem, it happens. Fortunately no one spawned a treasure chest between our turns, so there's nothing messy to fix with that.
Give N$20 to scott_pilgrim
I've already given you N$20. Gimme the point.
If someone makes a better offer I will just refund you the N$20, but thanks anyway.
So I'll change the last part to:
When the chest is created, the current player rolls 1d200. When a unit enters a location with a chest, the result is added to the player owning that unit's amount of Nomic dollars, and the chest disappears.
If no one objects I will probably do a final proposal tomorrow. I can do my actions at any point during my turn, right? So I can leave the bidding open on the point while the voting is going on for my proposal?
-
Yes, but if you do that, we all together conspire together to vote Yes, and immediately end your turn ;)
-
10$ in addition to whatever lio gives you, to go to lio.
-
All right, lio/Grujah's offer looks like the best.
Give N$20 to sudgy
Move H8 to I9
Move I9 to J10
Move J10 to K11
Proximity between K11 and L12
I'll post the final proposal in a minute.
-
Final Proposal 356
Amend Rule 355 to the following:
Once per turn, the current player may spend 1 IP to spawn a treasure chest in any empty location. He does this by posting Treasure chest at ## where ## is the name of the tile where the treasure chest is spawned. This tile cannot be entered by any unit until the end of the turn. Also, units cannot be created on locations with treasure chests or move to locations with treasure chests on the turn they are created. The previous two sentences overrule any rule allowing for such movement or creation.
When the chest is created, the current player rolls 1d200. When a unit enters a location with a chest, the result is added to the player owning that unit's amount of Nomic dollars, and the chest disappears.
-
Yes on Rule 356
-
Vote: Yes on 356
-
Give N$10 to scott_pilgrim
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 356
-
Vote: yes on 356
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 356
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 356
Give N$15 to scott_pilgrim
-
That's 7-0, assuming scott_pilgrim votes for his own proposal, which is enough to pass it. Mail-Mi's turn.
-
That's 7-0, assuming scott_pilgrim votes for his own proposal, which is enough to pass it. Mail-Mi's turn.
Players always vote "Yes" on their own proposal unless they explicitly say otherwise, fyi.
The player proposing the rule will by default vote yes unless they say otherwise.
I've updated everything (OP, tracking sheet).
-
create: E8
Any thoughts on what I should do? I'm thinking along the lines of attacking other pieces.
-
Hmm... Interesting idea. But it might be hard to make it viable though. I assume that you mean something like "You may spend IP(s) to attack other player(s) 'close to you' which lose some amount of hit point. If their hit points is 0 or less, the unit is removed from the board"?
Currently it is very cheap to make a new unit, and starting to attack someone will probably have serious diplomatic consequences. Somehow you want to balance that, which is quite hard. But I think it's a good idea if executed well. Could you give some more details of your idea?
---
I had an idea of something which I consider to be a nice new rule: you can spend money to gain additional IPs on your turn (or maybe also on others' turns). For example, the first extra IP could cost N$30, the second N$60, the third N$90 and so on.
Just wanted to say it, maybe someone doesn't have an idea for a new rule but likes this one, or perhaps I'm going to propose it myself on my next turn.
-
Voltaire I think I should have N$1015 after paying N$10 for my unit.
-
Voltaire I think I should have N$1015 after paying N$10 for my unit.
Thanks for being honest, I'd forgotten to charge you for it.
-
create: E8
Any thoughts on what I should do? I'm thinking along the lines of attacking other pieces.
How about a mechanism for getting the bidding for proximity out of the thread?
-
create: E8
Any thoughts on what I should do? I'm thinking along the lines of attacking other pieces.
How about a mechanism for getting the bidding for proximity out of the thread?
And into PMs? xD
-
Idea - (goes against me, but w/e) - central tiles require higher upkeep than outer ones - prevents huge groupings in center.
-
I had an idea of something which I consider to be a nice new rule: you can spend money to gain additional IPs on your turn (or maybe also on others' turns). For example, the first extra IP could cost N$30, the second N$60, the third N$90 and so on.
Just wanted to say it, maybe someone doesn't have an idea for a new rule but likes this one, or perhaps I'm going to propose it myself on my next turn.
Not bad at all.
-
Idea - (goes against me, but w/e) - central tiles require higher upkeep than outer ones - prevents huge groupings in center.
Actually, I am probably going to make some "terrain changes" of sorts (probably give them color value which indicate stuff) as my next suggestion, if nobody does anything similar meanwhile.
-
create: E8
Any thoughts on what I should do? I'm thinking along the lines of attacking other pieces.
How about a mechanism for getting the bidding for proximity out of the thread?
And into PMs? xD
I was thinking maybe a sealed bid auction via PM. Each person sends one PM with their offer, the player in question says in thread which one they are taking.
-
create: E8
Any thoughts on what I should do? I'm thinking along the lines of attacking other pieces.
How about a mechanism for getting the bidding for proximity out of the thread?
I don't know if I like that, I think it was one of the most interesting things to happen to this game.
Idea - (goes against me, but w/e) - central tiles require higher upkeep than outer ones - prevents huge groupings in center.
Actually, I am probably going to make some "terrain changes" of sorts (probably give them color value which indicate stuff) as my next suggestion, if nobody does anything similar meanwhile.
I like that. I was going to do something similar if my housekeeping turn hadn't been, well, housekeeping.
-
Hmm... Interesting idea. But it might be hard to make it viable though. I assume that you mean something like "You may spend IP(s) to attack other player(s) 'close to you' which lose some amount of hit point. If their hit points is 0 or less, the unit is removed from the board"?
Currently it is very cheap to make a new unit, and starting to attack someone will probably have serious diplomatic consequences. Somehow you want to balance that, which is quite hard. But I think it's a good idea if executed well. Could you give some more details of your idea?
---
I had an idea of something which I consider to be a nice new rule: you can spend money to gain additional IPs on your turn (or maybe also on others' turns). For example, the first extra IP could cost N$30, the second N$60, the third N$90 and so on.
Just wanted to say it, maybe someone doesn't have an idea for a new rule but likes this one, or perhaps I'm going to propose it myself on my next turn.
I'm thinking more like robbing other players of money. With like a Risk dice-rolling thing.
As for your other idea, that could also work.
-
Bump. mail-mi has about 15 hours to propose.
-
Final proposal:
If the current player has a unit that is directly or diagonally adjacent to another player's unit, the active player may spend 1 IP to attack that player. This process is known as "Pirating." To do this, the active player posts in-thread Attack: ## to ?? where ## is the name of the tile of the active player's unit and ?? is the name of the tile the other player's unit. The active player is then known as the "attacking player" and the player being attacked is known as the "defending player."Immediately following, both players will roll 1d6 in thread. If the defending player's roll is higher than the attacking player's, nothing happens. If the attacking player's roll is higher than the defending player's roll, N$100 will be taken from the defending player's money total, and added to the attacking player's money total.
Move: E8 to F8
Move: F8 to G8
Proximity between G8 and H7
-
Vote: Yes on this proposal
-
Vote: No on Rule 357(?)
I like the idea, but this execution is bad. We have the procedure of improving the execution of a rule, called "proposing a draft rule".
- What if the defending player never rolls? He won't lose money? Easy way to dodge the attack.
- The rule doesn't specify what happens when the rolls are equal. Of course this means that nothing happens, but it's still sloppy to treat another case where you do explicitly say that nothing happens.
- The current rule allows a player to attack the same player unlimited times per turn. Is this intended? It sounds bad to me.
- "I don't care if you have N$50 left, I rob N$100 from you, so now you have N$-50"
-
Vote: No on Rule 357
What florrat said.
-
Although I don't think allowing this kind of malicious behaviour is a bad idea in general.
-
Vote: No on 357
-
Although I don't think allowing this kind of malicious behaviour is a bad idea in general.
Is this the general sentiment?
-
Although I don't think allowing this kind of malicious behaviour is a bad idea in general.
Is this the general sentiment?
This is just, "I'm fine with the idea in general, just not this implementation of it".
-
Although I'm not sure how I'd suggest doing it.
-
Vote: No on Rule 357(?)
I like the idea, but this execution is bad. We have the procedure of improving the execution of a rule, called "proposing a draft rule".
- What if the defending player never rolls? He won't lose money? Easy way to dodge the attack.
- The rule doesn't specify what happens when the rolls are equal. Of course this means that nothing happens, but it's still sloppy to treat another case where you do explicitly say that nothing happens.
- The current rule allows a player to attack the same player unlimited times per turn. Is this intended? It sounds bad to me.
- "I don't care if you have N$50 left, I rob N$100 from you, so now you have N$-50"
Wait--I never said what proposal it was. Lets count that as my draft, then.
-
"Final proposal: "
-
"Final proposal: "
But I didn't number the proposal. Isn't that required?
-
"Final proposal: "
But I didn't number the proposal. Isn't that required?
Not as I read the rules. It is automatically given the number 357 for reference, as required, but there's nothing actually stating that you have to state when making your final proposal what number it's been given.
-
"Final proposal: "
But I didn't number the proposal. Isn't that required?
Not as I read the rules. It is automatically given the number 357 for reference, as required, but there's nothing actually stating that you have to state when making your final proposal what number it's been given.
Oh. Heheh oops :)
Well at least I got the idea out there.
-
Vote: No on Rule 357
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 357
-
I'd rather you can push people around, though, screw with proximity etc.
-
Vote: No on Rule 357
-
I think this vote ends in about five hours.
-
Voting is over, proposal fails 3-5. It is now liopoil's turn. I charged mail-mi for his unit (I had already given out the prox. points & moved his unit)
We need to shorten up these deadlines. It's clear nobody cared about the vote enough to vote, yet we had to let the clock run out anyway.
-
Is there an official way to abstain right now? On some of these votes where I don't have a strong opinion it might be nice. And things could time out more quickly.
-
There isn't right now. That's a good idea.
-
I caught and fixed a mistake - rule 355 should be 356, because 356 amended it, but it does get a new number. I incorrectly let it keep its old number.
-
Abstaining is a fine idea. Reducing the deadlines is more important I think. I'll reiterate my suggestion of 24 hours without a post from the active player, 36 without a draft and 48 without a proposal. 24 hours is probably fine for the voting phase as well.
-
Voting is over, proposal fails 3-5. It is now liopoil's turn.
Helllllllllllllllllo, lio? If you don't have any ideas, propose some version of Jimmmm's suggestion.
-
or figure out a more efficient auction mechanism for bidding on unit placement/movement.
-
scott_pilgrim, $5 and I give you the point.
Draft of Rule proposal 358:
Amend rule 334 to read as: When a rule-change is finalized by the player proposing the rule change, it will be voted on. Eligible voters will vote by posting in thread. Votes should be presented in the form Vote: Yes on rule ---, Vote: No on rule ---, or Vote: Abstain on rule ---(where '---' denotes the proposal number). The player proposing the rule will by default vote yes unless they say otherwise. Once over half of the eligible voters who didn't Vote: Abstain have voted yes, the proposal is passed. Once either half of the eligible voters who didn't Vote: Abstain have voted no, or the player proposing the rule chooses to end the voting, the proposal fails. If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 60 hours or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted are not considered eligible voters (for this vote). This effectively ends the vote with only players currently voting.
-
Give N$5 to liopoil
-
Move to J10
Proximity with Scott_Pilgrim
-
What's the change here?
-
you can abstain now to speed it along
-
Oh, the abstain option.
Can you reduce the deadline to 24 or 36 hours, and change the wording to reflect that after this time players may end the turn?
-
Move to J10
Proximity with Scott_Pilgrim
These aren't in the right format, fyi, so they don't count yet.
-
Can you reduce the deadline to 24 or 36 hours, and change the wording to reflect that after this time players may end the turn?
These are my same inputs, fyi.
-
So, liopoil, are you going to wait until we end your turn, or are you going to propose your rule? If you want feedback: I think some way to abstain is useful, and a shorter voting time could also be useful (I'd prefer more than 24 hours though, like 36).
-
Move L12 to L11
Move L11 to K10
Move K10 to J10
Proximity between J10 and K11
Draft of Proposal 358:
Amend rule 334 to read as: When a rule-change is finalized by the player proposing the rule change, it will be voted on. Eligible voters will vote by posting in thread. Votes should be presented in the form Vote: Yes on rule ---, Vote: No on rule ---, or Vote: Abstain on rule ---(where '---' denotes the proposal number). The player proposing the rule will by default vote yes unless they say otherwise. Once over half of the eligible voters who didn't Vote: Abstain have voted yes, the proposal is passed. Once either half of the eligible voters who didn't Vote: Abstain have voted no, or the player proposing the rule chooses to end the voting, the proposal fails. If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 36 hours or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted are not considered eligible voters (for this vote). This effectively ends the vote with only players currently voting.
I'll finalize this by the end of the day. reduce the deadline to 24 or 36 hours, and change the wording to reflect that after this time players may end the turn?
what do you mean by letting other players end the turn? Rule 329 suggests they already would be.
-
Lio, can you finalize this today? Otherwise I'm going to end your turn because I want this game to get moving again.
-
Lio, can you finalize this today? Otherwise I'm going to end your turn because I want this game to get moving again.
Oops, forgot. People didn't point say anything more! oh well.
Final Rule proposal 358:
Amend rule 334 to read as: When a rule-change is finalized by the player proposing the rule change, it will be voted on. Eligible voters will vote by posting in thread. Votes should be presented in the form Vote: Yes on rule ---, Vote: No on rule ---, or Vote: Abstain on rule ---(where '---' denotes the proposal number). The player proposing the rule will by default vote yes unless they say otherwise. Once over half of the eligible voters who didn't Vote: Abstain have voted yes, the proposal is passed. Once either half of the eligible voters who didn't Vote: Abstain have voted no, or the player proposing the rule chooses to end the voting, the proposal fails. If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 36 hours or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted are not considered eligible voters (for this vote). This effectively ends the vote with only players currently voting.
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 358
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 358
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 358
-
This will move 334 to the end of the current ruleset as the new 358 - I don't think that will cause any problems, but a heads-up? Shout loudly if you see a problem with that.
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 358
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 358
-
6-0, needs one more vote
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 358
-
Rule passes 7-0. It is now Jack Rudd's turn. I'll update everything right now.
-
I'm thinking of putting in a proposal such that if a player puts in a draft but doesn't submit a final proposal by the deadline, the most recently submitted draft will become the final proposal. Does this sound like a good idea, and which rules should I be modifying?
-
Hmmm. I think if they haven't finalized a proposal, a) there's no guarantee that their last draft will be a good proposal, so why make us vote what will more often than not be mediocre drafts down when the turn could just end with the same result earlier, and b) if they've disappeared like that, I don't like the idea of "rewarding" a player by having their rule proposed anyway.
That said, if you want to propose something like that, you'd need to take a look at 324, 330, and 331. You won't necessarily need to change all of them, but they all refer to what you're talking about it some way.
-
I agree with Voltaire, I understand why it could be good but I think in most cases it will just mean we spend extra time voting for something we don't want anyway. If a player doesn't finalize their proposal it's their fault, and in the worst case if it's a fantastic rule everyone really wants the next player can propose it instead.
-
Something else then:
Draft Proposal 359:
Transmute rule 108 to mutable.
-
What's the long-term plan?
-
Long-term plan is to amend it so that amending a rule doesn't give it a new number and potentially mess up rule references.
Final Proposal 359:
Transmute rule 108 to mutable.
-
Also, Create Treasure Chest at B1
It contains Rolled 1d200 : 12, total 12
Nomic Dollars.
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 359
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 359
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 359
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 359
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 359
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 359
That's 7-0. I declare it to be EFHW's turn.
-
Everything updated.
Enjoy your first turn, EFHW!
-
Hold up.
Transmutations need to be unanimous right?
-
Good point. Let's vote on!
-
Hold up.
Transmutations need to be unanimous right?
Whoops, yup!
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 359
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 359
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 359
-
Vote: yes on 359
-
Everyone has voted except heron (who hasn't posted in this thread for the last 3 weeks)...
-
Jack is the new Watno.
-
Looks like we'll need to let this time out then (it will still pass). Has anyone contacted heron?
-
We should have a rule that if someone doesn't post in x amount of turns, they automatically forfeit.
-
We should have a rule that if someone doesn't post in x amount of turns, they automatically forfeit.
I agree. Actually I think we should be able to vote to kick people out
-
We should have a rule that if someone doesn't post in x amount of turns, they automatically forfeit.
I agree. Actually I think we should be able to vote to kick people out
I don't like voting people out. We would have voted Watno out, and I think that wouldn't have been good.
-
Actually, somebody can just change their vote to NO in the worst case scenario. But yeah, if it times out, heron in no longer eligible -> passes, right?
-
We should have a rule that if someone doesn't post in x amount of turns, they automatically forfeit.
I agree. Actually I think we should be able to vote to kick people out
I don't like voting people out. We would have voted Watno out, and I think that wouldn't have been good.
Can you name all the possible scenarios in which it would be reasonable to kick someone out of the game?
-
We should have a rule that if someone doesn't post in x amount of turns, they automatically forfeit.
I agree. Actually I think we should be able to vote to kick people out
I don't like voting people out. We would have voted Watno out, and I think that wouldn't have been good.
Can you name all the possible scenarios in which it would be reasonable to kick someone out of the game?
I think the only time we should force someone to leave is for inactivity. I think if we could vote, we would have abused it with Watno.
-
But yeah, if it times out, heron in no longer eligible -> passes, right?
Yep, that's working-as-designed right now. Time limits on everything mean that someone disappearing slows the game down, but it no longer stops it.
-
I will forfeit the game, which I believe will allow the rule to pass.
I apologize for my lack of participation; I should have realized that I would be busy for a while and resigned earlier.
-
Sorry to see you go, heron! Please feel free to rejoin if you're freer in the future.
I declare it to be EFHW's turn.
I left heron's unit on the World Map, as I think nothing says it should disappear - any input?
-
Ok, no problem. Good luck with your real life(?) busy things and feel welcome to come back when you have more time.
Since heron forfeited (AFAIK there's no official format on how to forfeit, so heron's previous post counts), every eligible voter has voted, and we voted "yes" unanimously. The vote passed, and I declare it to be EFHW's turn.
Ninja'd :(
-
I have two ideas, both about units but otherwise not related. Is that enough to be able to do both? One is the bidding for proximity and the other is defining what units are.
-
Those sound like they'd need to be different rules. I am completely ok with you suspending the "1 rule per turn" rule in order to make both those changes, though.
-
Some small administrative fixes I think we should make (for whoever decides to do them):
1. Formalize forfeiting (and say what it entails)
2. Have an automatic forfeit due to inactivity
-
Motion to suspend Rules #303 and #331.
These rules state that only one rule change can be proposed in a turn (#331), or up to three related changes can be made in one turn if all are repeals or transmutations (#303). I want to propose two unrelated rules that are both new. This motion needs 2/3 approval to pass.
Draft Proposal Rule #360:
If the player whose turn it is will be placing or moving a unit, or placing a treasure chest, he or she may initiate an auction for the location of the new unit/chest or the new location for the moved piece. To initiate an auction, the player should post "Now accepting bids for placement of unit/chest X" or "Now accepting bids for a new location for unit Y". Each unit must have its own auction. The auctions end when the player announces the result. To participate in an auction, the bidding players should each send a single PM to the player, stating their offers. The bidder may withdraw their bid so long as the player has not announced a result. One revision of the bid is allowed, by PM. The bid should address only one unit unless movement/placement of one is contingent on movement/placement of another, in which case one PM can address both units at once. The player then can choose to accept one or none of the offers for each unit/chest, announcing the result in thread. For example, "Player X pays $$ for Unit 2 to move to ##" or "no offers accepted".
Draft Proposal #361:
Units represent people. Classes of unit can be defined, and units can be individuals or groups. For example: farmer, soldier, firefighter, battalion, orchestra, family, scouting party. Each unit can have a number of different attributes, such as education, tools, driving a vehicle. A unit can be placed undefined, or defined at the time of placement. Future rules should stipulate the classes and attributes a unit can take. Assignment to a class and assignment of attibutes cost $N to be determined.
-
I like 360, but why secret bidding? I would like it much more with public bidding.
What's the long-term plan for 361?
-
I don't really like proposing two unrelated rules which do not influence each other or when it's not really necessary for them to be implemented in the same turn, especially if those rules add new features.
About the rules. Rule 361 doesn't do anything, and even if future rules are added which specify which classes/attributes are allowed and so on, this rule still seems to do nothing. I'm not against adding attributes or classes, btw.
Rule 360 needs some more lines about payment and lines saying that the current player is forced to execute the actions and the other player is forced to pay (or let the rule pay automatically) when a bid is accepted. Or do you want that people are free to not do that after a bid is accepted? In that case the rule doesn't add anything to what we currently have... Also, I really don't like secret bidding, bidding should be done in the thread, IMO. Also, I don't really like that the player is not forced to accept the highest bid, but maybe that's a good thing when two people have different offers... Also, your current rule doesn't allow for bidding for the proximity-action (which might be most important to auction). Small note: units currently do not have id's, only a position (and a owner).
Since I don't see the point of Rule 361, and the rules are unrelated:
Vote: No on motion to suspend
-
Vote: No on motion to suspend
-
Vote: Yes on motion to suspend because I never liked that restriction.
...however I probably would not vote for 361 in its current form (needs focus and functionality), and 360 needs some tweaks (what florrat said basically).
-
Vote: Yes on motion to suspend
-
Vote: No on motion to suspend
I don't feel like a suspension should be made unless it's really necessary, and I'm not sure I like either of the proposals anyway.
-
Vote: No on motion to suspend
If we want to make more rules at once, make it a rule.
-
Motion to suspend fails - it needed an 8-3 vote in favour, and there are already 4 votes against.
-
The reason for secret bidding is it bothers me having the thread cluttered with bids. Are there other ideas about how to structure it? If I'm the only one who doesn't like it, then I'll have to deal with it.
I thought it would be too much in one rule to suggest classes in the second one, but I certainly can. While the rule doesn't "do" anything, it does create more of a focus. The units cannot be buildings, for example. Having units with attributes allows us to create opportunities for faster or slower movement, skills, or specialized roles. Having units that represent groups creates an avenue for growth that doesn't cause more expansion on the board. Being specific that units are people also sets the stage for training. If they are soldiers, then they gain skill with training. If they are farmers, they produce more food.
Since the motion didn't pass, I will revise the second one.
-
I think, if that's what you want to do, just propose that. If it needs to be separate rules (to cover all of that), then suspend the "1 per turn" rule.
To those who voted against the motion to suspend because you think we should change the rules if we want multiple rules/turn, :( >:( :P :-\ :'( The system, in my mind, is working as designed. One rule per turn, unless they're related/necessary, or the person makes a compelling argument for doing two separate things. I like this check very much. I would have voted yes on the suspension.
-
I think, if that's what you want to do, just propose that. If it needs to be separate rules (to cover all of that), then suspend the "1 per turn" rule.
To those who voted against the motion to suspend because you think we should change the rules if we want multiple rules/turn, :( >:( :P :-\ :'( The system, in my mind, is working as designed. One rule per turn, unless they're related/necessary, or the person makes a compelling argument for doing two separate things. I like this check very much. I would have voted yes on the suspension.
How can you have an issue with people voting against the motion to suspend and also say the system is working as designed?
-
Honestly I was mostly replying to sudgy.
-
I agree with sudgy.
-
Well that's your right. :(
-
Well that's your right. :(
Thanks. :)
-
The reason for secret bidding is it bothers me having the thread cluttered with bids. Are there other ideas about how to structure it? If I'm the only one who doesn't like it, then I'll have to deal with it.
I don't think that the thread will be cluttered by bids. At least, not more than currently by votes, and I have never felt that the thread was too cluttered with votes.
One rule per turn, unless they're related/necessary, or the person makes a compelling argument for doing two separate things.
I agree, but IMO none of those conditions were satisfied. Also, I will almost always vote "yes" for multiple rule proposals if the proposals are administrative fixes. Doing those are just less compelling, so we'd better do as much as possible of those per turn.
-
It's been your turn for almost 3 days now, so maybe propose a second draft or your final rule?
-
I was hoping for more feedback, ideas from the group. And time was needed for the motion to be voted. I don't think I have been unreasonably slow.
-
2nd Draft Proposal #360:
Units represent people. There are initially two classes of units: soldiers and farmers. A unit can be placed undefined, or defined at the time of placement. Each unit can have a number of different attributes, such as skill, tools, driving a vehicle. The starting attributes will be level of skill and speed, starting at level 0. Assignment to a class costs N$5 and 1 IP and raising skill and speed would each be N$25 and 1 IP. Raised attributes take effect immediately, so they can be raised and used in the same turn. All units at level 1 speed can move 2 spaces per turn. Farmer units at level 1 skill get double proximity points. Other players' units cannot move into proximity with a level 1 skill soldier.
-
2nd Draft Proposal #360 addendum:
Attribute levels cannot be increased at the time of placement. Assigning a unit to a class when placing means the placement costs 2 IP total.
create unit at E13
place treasure chest at D13
-
2nd Draft Proposal #360:
Units represent people. There are initially two classes of units: soldiers and farmers. A unit can be placed undefined, or defined at the time of placement. Each unit can have a number of different attributes, such as skill, tools, driving a vehicle. The starting attributes will be level of skill and speed, starting at level 0. Assignment to a class costs N$5 and 1 IP and raising skill and speed would each be N$25 and 1 IP. Raised attributes take effect immediately, so they can be raised and used in the same turn. All units at level 1 speed can move 2 spaces per turn. Farmer units at level 1 skill get double proximity points. Other players' units cannot move into proximity with a level 1 skill soldier.
um why wouldn't you want anyone to move into proximity?
or is this with a later attacking idea?
-
2nd Draft Proposal #360 addendum:
Attribute levels cannot be increased at the time of placement. Assigning a unit to a class when placing means the placement costs 2 IP total.
create unit at E13
place treasure chest at D13
Roll a die!
-
I was hoping for more feedback, ideas from the group. And time was needed for the motion to be voted. I don't think I have been unreasonably slow.
Maybe I was a bit too hasty. You're right, you were not unreasonably slow. But I was waiting for another draft before I comment again.
---
About the new draft: it's not precise enough. I don't understand everything you want the rule to do, and there are details missing (see below). On top of that, being a soldier means you won't get proximity points from others (but surely it's useful to obstruct movement/grab treasure chests, so I like the idea), which might be a problem. Also, IMO you're still trying to do too much for one rule: adding two classes with unique features, adding two attributes, which you can raise, and which have certain effects. I'd prefer seeing one thing done well than multiple done not-so-well, so I'd advise you to just focus on either classes or skills.
-With "A unit can be placed undefined, or defined at the time of placement." do you mean that when placing a unit you can determine which class it has? With the addendum this seems superfluous: just let them first place the unit and then give it a class.
-When can I assign a class/raise skill and how do I specify that I want to do that?
-Can I change class?
-If I'm not at exactly level 1 speed/skill, then what?
-"Moving into proximity" means moving to an adjacent tile? What if I'm already adjacent to you?
-...
-
2nd Draft Proposal #360 addendum:
Attribute levels cannot be increased at the time of placement. Assigning a unit to a class when placing means the placement costs 2 IP total.
create unit at E13
place treasure chest at D13
Roll a die!
Yeah, this is needed for the treasure chest.
-
(http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/Themes/core/images/dice_warn.gif) This dice roll may have been tampered with!
1d200
-
Rolled 1d200 : 190, total 190
-
I'll put the final proposal up in the morning. A bit more discussion would be nice!
Florrat, first too little, now it's too much! Can rules have subdivisions?
-
I couldn't simplify to just classes or just attributes because the classes don't mean anything without attributes, and only units with classes can have attributes!
Final Proposal #360:
Units represent people. Each unit can have one class and any number of attributes. Attributes and classes are defined by rules, and should be capitalized.
Classes. A unit can be placed without a class, or assigned to a class at the time of placement. Each class has unique abilities. Assigning a unit to a class costs 1 IP and can be done at any point in the player's turn by posting in bold Assign Unit at ## to X class. Units can change class, but they lose all their attributes. Units of different classes are identical when all attributes are at level 0.
This rule defines the classes Farmer and Soldier. Their special abilities could be reflected in attributes such as skill, productivity, tools, etc. Farmers are represented on the map by a block "F" in the player's color. Soldiers are represented on the map by a block "S" in the player's color.
Attributes. Attributes give units new abilities or increase existing abilities. Some attributes affect all units the same way, others give abilities specialized to the unit's class. A unit needs to belong to a class in order to be assigned attributes. All attributes start at level 0. Abilities at each level depend on the attribute. To raise an attribute up a level costs N$25 and 1 IP and can be ordered at any point in the player's turn by posting in bold Unit at ##: Raise X [attribute] to level Y [the next level]. Pay N$25. Raised attributes take effect immediately, so they can be raised and used in the same turn, including the turn they are placed. However, any given attribute can only be raised one level per turn per unit.
This rule defines the attribute Speed (abbreviation Sp.). Units at level 0 Speed move one space a turn. All units at level 1 Speed can move 2 spaces per turn, at level 2, 3 spaces per turn, and so forth. This attribute is currently the same for all classes.
This rule also defines the attribute Skill (abbreviation Sk.). For Skill, the abilities associated with each level depend on the class of the unit. Other players' units cannot move into proximity with Soldiers at level 1 skill. Units that are already adjacent at the time of the attribute raise are not affected until they wish to move to a new square. Farmers at Skill level 1 get double proximity points.
Attributes are represented on the map under the unit symbol by small print abbreviations followed by the relevant level. For example, Sp 1, Sk 2.
-
Vote: Yes on proposal 360
-
Vote: Yes on proposal 360
-
While I don't like rules saying what things should look like on the map (that map isn't a part of the game, it just helps), I'll still Vote: Yes on proposal 360.
-
Florrat, first too little, now it's too much! Can rules have subdivisions?
Good point. I might be too picky on how much a rule must do. In my opinion, a rule must do "1 thing", which is certainly a vague notion, but IMO your first rule did 0 things, and your second draft did multiple. I like your final version better, since you made more connections between abilities and classes.
IMO, you did the final version really well. I like how you can change classes, but that it does cost you pretty much. The speed restriction might be a bit harsh, though, but it might be fine. With all things we can consider giving more IPs to players (for example my suggestion earlier to be able to pay N$ for more IPs).
Just to be clear: suppose I'm a soldier at C5, and another unit is at D5. Then that unit cannot move to C6, right?
Vote: Yes on proposal 360
(hmm... why did I do that? If this vote fails I can pick up $190...)
-
If your unit is a Soldier with level 1 Skill, then other players' unit cannot move into any of the 8 boxes around you.
-
Vote: Yes on proposal 360, however...
I couldn't simplify to just classes or just attributes because the classes don't mean anything without attributes, and only units with classes can have attributes!
Final Proposal #360:
Units represent people. Each unit can have one class and any number of attributes. Attributes and classes are defined by rules, and should be capitalized.
Classes. A unit can be placed without a class, or assigned to a class at the time of placement. Each class has unique abilities. Assigning a unit to a class costs 1 IP and can be done at any point in the player's turn by posting in bold Assign Unit at ## to X class. Units can change class, but they lose all their attributes. Units of different classes are identical when all attributes are at level 0.
This rule defines the classes Farmer and Soldier. Their special abilities could be reflected in attributes such as skill, productivity, tools, etc. Farmers are represented on the map by a block "F" in the player's color. Soldiers are represented on the map by a block "S" in the player's color.
Attributes. Attributes give units new abilities or increase existing abilities. Some attributes affect all units the same way, others give abilities specialized to the unit's class. A unit needs to belong to a class in order to be assigned attributes. All attributes start at level 0. Abilities at each level depend on the attribute. To raise an attribute up a level costs N$25 and 1 IP and can be ordered at any point in the player's turn by posting in bold Unit at ##: Raise X [attribute] to level Y [the next level]. Pay N$25. Raised attributes take effect immediately, so they can be raised and used in the same turn, including the turn they are placed. However, any given attribute can only be raised one level per turn per unit.
This rule defines the attribute Speed (abbreviation Sp.). Units at level 0 Speed move one space a turn. All units at level 1 Speed can move 2 spaces per turn, at level 2, 3 spaces per turn, and so forth. This attribute is currently the same for all classes.
This rule also defines the attribute Skill (abbreviation Sk.). For Skill, the abilities associated with each level depend on the class of the unit. Other players' units cannot move into proximity with Soldiers at level 1 skill. Units that are already adjacent at the time of the attribute raise are not affected until they wish to move to a new square. Farmers at Skill level 1 get double proximity points.
Attributes are represented on the map under the unit symbol by small print abbreviations followed by the relevant level. For example, Sp 1, Sk 2.
1. Does speed influence how many moves you make in a turn, or how many moves per IP?
2. Why would I ever want to be a soldier?
-
I was just noticing the conflict about unit movement. I misunderstood how movement works - I thought it was 1 per turn. But I see now it is 1 per IP. The earlier rule should take precedence, since it has a lower number. Is it still possible to make the revision now so that it is consistent? I would need to make Speed refer to each move, not each turn.
mail-mi you would want a soldier to restrict other players' ability to move around the board. I should also note that level 1 skill Soldiers can still move into other players' adjacent squares and restrict their movement that way (the other unit can only move away from the soldier). When we have more than one unit, soldiers would also be useful for guarding other units or territories.
Can I take advantage of this rule, assuming it passes, in this turn?
-
Can I take advantage of this rule, assuming it passes, in this turn?
Ok, I found the rule saying I can. But it is not a mandatory action, so someone else could end the turn before I have a chance? Is that correct?
-
@people who don't know why to be a soldier: it can currently already be very useful to restrict other people access to treasure chests.
@EFHW: To your question "Is it still possible to make the revision now so that it is consistent?" No, final proposal is final proposal. Someone else has to amend your rule in a future turn if we want to change it.
You are correct in your last post. I feel a bit bad now ending your turn if you didn't knew the rules, but I'm going to do it anyway: if you realized the vote had already passed, you should just have tried to use your own rule. If that wasn't allowed, we would have said something.
So: Vote passes, 6-0 (only a simple majority is required, and we have 11 players right now)
I declare it to be Jimmmmm's turn.
This new rule is not completely clear though:
-Is "proximity" a well-defined term as the 8 squares adjacent to you? (I think that's fine, although the better term would be "directly adjacent or diagonally adjacent")
-Does the movement restriction of this rule because of low speed work, or is it overruled by rule 335? (I think rule 335 takes precedence, so currently your speed does nothing, you can always move 4 times a turn)
-Does the soldier ability work? (I'm not sure here. It might be overruled by rule 335, but rule 335 says "A player may not attempt to move a Unit to an invalid tile", so are the tiles next to a soldier "invalid tiles"? I think it depends on your interpretation)
-I think we need a new precedence rule. Probably either a rule that new rules take precedence over old rules (as others have been promoting) or saying that rules which disallow things take precedence over rules which allow things (which I think is a natural way to do stuff)
-
Ooh my turn! I have some catching up to do first.
-
I didn't realize. The last vote that passed needed 7.
-
I don't think movement is messed up. It doesn't work as intended, but it still works. Now, you can't spend two IPs to move a unit twice (with a unit with speed of 0). With speed 1, you can move a unit twice with two IPs.
-
I couldn't simplify to just classes or just attributes because the classes don't mean anything without attributes, and only units with classes can have attributes!
Final Proposal #360:
Units represent people. Each unit can have one class and any number of attributes. Attributes and classes are defined by rules, and should be capitalized.
Classes. A unit can be placed without a class, or assigned to a class at the time of placement. Each class has unique abilities. Assigning a unit to a class costs 1 IP and can be done at any point in the player's turn by posting in bold Assign Unit at ## to X class. Units can change class, but they lose all their attributes. Units of different classes are identical when all attributes are at level 0.
This rule defines the classes Farmer and Soldier. Their special abilities could be reflected in attributes such as skill, productivity, tools, etc. Farmers are represented on the map by a block "F" in the player's color. Soldiers are represented on the map by a block "S" in the player's color.
Attributes. Attributes give units new abilities or increase existing abilities. Some attributes affect all units the same way, others give abilities specialized to the unit's class. A unit needs to belong to a class in order to be assigned attributes. All attributes start at level 0. Abilities at each level depend on the attribute. To raise an attribute up a level costs N$25 and 1 IP and can be ordered at any point in the player's turn by posting in bold Unit at ##: Raise X [attribute] to level Y [the next level]. Pay N$25. Raised attributes take effect immediately, so they can be raised and used in the same turn, including the turn they are placed. However, any given attribute can only be raised one level per turn per unit.
This rule defines the attribute Speed (abbreviation Sp.). Units at level 0 Speed move one space a turn. All units at level 1 Speed can move 2 spaces per turn, at level 2, 3 spaces per turn, and so forth. This attribute is currently the same for all classes.
This rule also defines the attribute Skill (abbreviation Sk.). For Skill, the abilities associated with each level depend on the class of the unit. Other players' units cannot move into proximity with Soldiers at level 1 skill. Units that are already adjacent at the time of the attribute raise are not affected until they wish to move to a new square. Farmers at Skill level 1 get double proximity points.
Attributes are represented on the map under the unit symbol by small print abbreviations followed by the relevant level. For example, Sp 1, Sk 2.
-
Oops! Didn't mean to post that. Either way, everything is updated.
-
Now, you can't spend two IPs to move a unit twice (with a unit with speed of 0).
I'm not sure whether that is correct. Rule 335 says you're allowed to do that, but rule 360 says your not allowed. Rule 335 takes precedence...
-
Bump of the bump...you got anything, Jimmmmm?
-
Bump of the bump...you got anything, Jimmmmm?
Sorry, haven't had a lot of time. I know the deadline's coming up and I'll have something in by then.
-
Okay, a couple of things I think we should change:
I know it was me who proposed it, but I think the unit upkeep cost should happen once per round, at the end of the round after the last person's turn, rather than after each person's turn. That means we resolve it once, and we're done, rather than having to remember to do it after every single turn. I also think that this money should go into a communal account, ie taxes that we can vote together to use to build things on the map that will help our units get around etc.
I also think that we should require our units to consume food once per round. Say each unit begins with 3 food, and 1 is deducted per round. Maybe if a unit doesn't have any food in its inventory, that unit becomes hungry and is restricted in what actions in can take while hungry - maybe it can only move. Failure to eat again could result in it becoming starving, and finally death, and 2 or even 3 food is required to move up from starving to hungry or hungry to normal.
Thoughts?
-
Also sudgy, if I spawn a treasure chest next to you, will you split it with me 50-50?
-
And heron, Grujah, any offers for a VP exchange?
-
And heron, Grujah, any offers for a VP exchange?
heron's not playing anymore, but his unit stays on the map because we don't have a rule saying anything happens to the units of players who leave the game.
I'm not sure I understand your food proposal - doesn't it accomplish the same thing as unit upkeep?
-
And heron, Grujah, any offers for a VP exchange?
heron's not playing anymore, but his unit stays on the map because we don't have a rule saying anything happens to the units of players who leave the game.
Oh, right.
I'm not sure I understand your food proposal - doesn't it accomplish the same thing as unit upkeep?
Well one thing it does is add to the unit upkeep - you'd now need both money and food in order to have unit. But more important is the fact that it creates something else that we need and will actually need to move our guys around in order to collect, which will be much more interesting than what the map is at the moment - a bunch of units sitting around doing nothing.
-
I feel like food and upkeep cost should probably be different rules, so I'll focus on food for now.
Draft Proposal
Immediately following the turn of the last player in the player order, each unit which is able to automatically consumes 1 Food from their inventory.
Any unit which does not have any food in their inventory at this time gains the attribute Hungry.
Any Hungry unit which does not have any food in their inventory at this time is permanently removed from the game.
If a Hungry unit has Food in its inventory, the player who controls it may spend 1 IP and post in bold Feed unit at ##. 1 Food is used up and the unit loses the Hungry attribute.
This is the only command that can be given to a Hungry unit - it can neither move nor perform any other kind of action.
-
And heron, Grujah, any offers for a VP exchange?
I'll exchange, 1 for 1.
And I have much more options that both you and heron, I should be the one asking the question, really XD
-
This sounds good. Especially if we can tie in rules for Food with the unit class Farmer somehow.
-
Oh, also need to put in that units start with food.
Obviously there's no way to actually gain food at this point, but we have plenty of time to change that.
-
I have to go and I won't be back before my proposal deadline so I'd better just propose it.
-
Proposal 361:
Each unit has an inventory which initially has a capacity of 5 units.
Unless stated otherwise in the rules, each item takes up 1 unit of capacity.
Immediately following the turn of the last player in the player order, each unit which is able to automatically consumes 1 Food from its inventory.
Any unit which does not have any food in its inventory at this time becomes Hungry.
Any Hungry unit which does not have any Food in its inventory at this time is permanently removed from the game.
If a Hungry unit has Food in its inventory, the player who controls it may spend 1 IP and post in bold Feed unit at ##. 1 Food is used up and the unit is no longer Hungry.
This is the only command that can be given to a Hungry unit - it can neither move nor perform any other kind of action.
Whenever a unit is on the map which has never had any Food in its inventory, it immediately gains 2 Food items.
-
Vote: Yes on 361
-
Vote: Yes on 361
-
I don't think this is different enough from having money to pay for unit upkeep. I also am nervous about the fact that this rule refers to units that are not units - that's gonna cause trouble.
Vote: No on Rule 361
The spirit of adding additional currency/items I like, though.
-
I also am nervous about the fact that this rule refers to units that are not units - that's gonna cause trouble.
Oh you're right! Am I able to fix it up and re-propose as per 111?
-
Precedent says no, and so do the rules unfortunately:
111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.
-
Precedent says no, and so do the rules unfortunately:
111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.
Yeah I guess once someone has voted it's locked in. My proposal was admittedly somewhat rushed. I think the idea is solid though. Do you disagree that (depending of course on how we end up producing food) it will force us to actually move our guys around and that will be more interesting than what we're doing now?
-
I like units doing more - I don't think the current game is likely horribly flawed or something, there's proximity to draw us close and treasure chests to draw us away. That's why I'm willing to wait for a proposal without a problem (I know you were obviously well-intentioned).
-
I like units doing more - I don't think the current game is likely horribly flawed or something, there's proximity to draw us close and treasure chests to draw us away.
Well the game as is is horribly flawed in that there's no real need for money - if everyone spawns a treasure chest every turn then we'll see an average of $100 enter the system and $10 leave the system per turn.
-
Move K4 to J5
Move J5 to I6
Proximity between I6 and H7
-
Yeah, but as you can always say, freeze the game at any point and it's broken. But the game is never frozen.
Besides, not everyone has been spawning a treasure chest.
I get the point of making things more expensive though.
-
Hey, thanks for the point!
Give $N20 to Jimmmmm
-
Jimmmmm, I had you (prior to my action) at 990 in the spreadsheet and 980 in the opening post. Do you know which is right?
-
Hey, thanks for the point!
Give $N20 to Jimmmmm
Thanks for the money!
(I could give a point to Grujah who was on 10 or sudgy who was on 13 or you who was on 1, so that was an easy choice.)
-
Jimmmmm, I had you (prior to my action) at 990 in the spreadsheet and 980 in the opening post. Do you know which is right?
Um, I believe it should be 990 - the only expense I've had that I can recall is the one time I've had to pay for a unit. Of course after this turn it'll be down to 980 and then back up to 1000. I'll double-check to see if I've paid $10 for anything else.
-
I forget who keeps repeating this idea but I think at some point we should make it so you can spend like N$10 for a fifth IP, N$20 for a sixth, etc. Then money becomes a lot more useful, since you can use it to get more out of your turn.
I'm also thinking farmer could have an ability to turn the tile on which they are currently standing to a farm tile, and then any unit on a farm tile can use a harvest action (costing 1 or possibly more IP) to get food.
Also I think soldiers are pretty bad compared to farmers already, and since it makes so much sense thematically for farmers to be the ones to get some food-related buff, I think soldiers will also need a bigger buff. I'm thinking something like pushing/pulling other units around Arimaa-style?
Sorry I just kind of had all those ideas at once and wanted to put them out there before I forgot.
-
Jimmmmm, I had you (prior to my action) at 990 in the spreadsheet and 980 in the opening post. Do you know which is right?
Since your turn is over, you haven't been charged for your unit yet fyi.
PPE: Ok we'll go with that for now. Anyone who objects, point out what the right answer is.
-
I forget who keeps repeating this idea but I think at some point we should make it so you can spend like N$10 for a fifth IP, N$20 for a sixth, etc. Then money becomes a lot more useful, since you can use it to get more out of your turn.
I'm also thinking farmer could have an ability to turn the tile on which they are currently standing to a farm tile, and then any unit on a farm tile can use a harvest action (costing 1 or possibly more IP) to get food.
Also I think soldiers are pretty bad compared to farmers already, and since it makes so much sense thematically for farmers to be the ones to get some food-related buff, I think soldiers will also need a bigger buff. I'm thinking something like pushing/pulling other units around Arimaa-style?
Sorry I just kind of had all those ideas at once and wanted to put them out there before I forgot.
+1, would vote
-
Jimmmmm, I had you (prior to my action) at 990 in the spreadsheet and 980 in the opening post. Do you know which is right?
Since your turn is over, you haven't been charged for your unit yet fyi.
PPE: Ok we'll go with that for now. Anyone who objects, point out what the right answer is.
I've checked all my posts since money-exchanging was introduced in the previous thread and can't find anything. Like you say, if anyone can, point it out.
And right, I should be on 1010 right now and 1000 after my turn.
Actually, for the sake of being unambiguous, you actually used the wrong notation when giving me money - you wrote $N instead of N$. It's entirely clear what you meant, but by the letter of the law maybe this actually didn't do anything?
-
Give N$20 to Jimmmmm
-
Give $N20 to Voltaire
-
Take your counterfeit virtual money back!
-
Also, thanks. :)
-
Vote: No on Rule 361
Also I think soldiers are pretty bad compared to farmers already, and since it makes so much sense thematically for farmers to be the ones to get some food-related buff, I think soldiers will also need a bigger buff. I'm thinking something like pushing/pulling other units around Arimaa-style?
Soldiers should be the only ones that get to attack.
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 361
Because why not, an inventory seems like it could go places. The unit/unit thing is odd but it doesn't really bother me, hopefully we'll not get too pedantic there. I'm skeptical as to whether keeping units fed will actually be fun, but if it's not, it can be tweaked or scrapped.
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 361
-
Vote yes on Rule 361. I voted yes to keep the inventory idea, but the rule as it stands doesn't really work. first you say food is used automatically, and then you say an order needs to be placed. perhaps the order could be to replenish the inventory, and you should be able to do that before the unit dies. Also, there isn't much need for the Hungry attribute, since that state only lasts briefly between food being assessed and the unit being removed. Perhaps the unit could be immobilized for a turn, and then Hungry units starve the next turn if they again don't get food.
-
EFHW, that was vote 6. You just made a rule you think doesn't work pass. :(
-
I passed it for the inventory concept. Like the others, I found the other parts problematic and they will need revision before they are useful.
-
It's so long between turns, I didn't want to maybe have to wait until my own turn to create the concept.
-
Vote yes on Rule 361. I voted yes to keep the inventory idea, but the rule as it stands doesn't really work. first you say food is used automatically, and then you say an order needs to be placed. perhaps the order could be to replenish the inventory, and you should be able to do that before the unit dies. Also, there isn't much need for the Hungry attribute, since that state only lasts briefly between food being assessed and the unit being removed. Perhaps the unit could be immobilized for a turn, and then Hungry units starve the next turn if they again don't get food.
Food IS used automatically at the end of each round. However if you have a Hungry unit, you must feed it manually in order to remove its Hungriness.
-
So, proposal passes 6-2.
I pay N$10 for my unit.
It is now sudgy's turn.
-
Vote yes on Rule 361. I voted yes to keep the inventory idea, but the rule as it stands doesn't really work. first you say food is used automatically, and then you say an order needs to be placed. perhaps the order could be to replenish the inventory, and you should be able to do that before the unit dies. Also, there isn't much need for the Hungry attribute, since that state only lasts briefly between food being assessed and the unit being removed. Perhaps the unit could be immobilized for a turn, and then Hungry units starve the next turn if they again don't get food.
Food IS used automatically at the end of each round. However if you have a Hungry unit, you must feed it manually in order to remove its Hungriness.
Does feeding replenish the inventory, or just provide for that one turn?
-
Vote yes on Rule 361. I voted yes to keep the inventory idea, but the rule as it stands doesn't really work. first you say food is used automatically, and then you say an order needs to be placed. perhaps the order could be to replenish the inventory, and you should be able to do that before the unit dies. Also, there isn't much need for the Hungry attribute, since that state only lasts briefly between food being assessed and the unit being removed. Perhaps the unit could be immobilized for a turn, and then Hungry units starve the next turn if they again don't get food.
Food IS used automatically at the end of each round. However if you have a Hungry unit, you must feed it manually in order to remove its Hungriness.
Does feeding replenish the inventory, or just provide for that one turn?
You can only feed if you have Food in your inventory. Other than the initial 2 Food, the rules provides no way of gaining Food.
-
Now I'm confused again. Why would you use the feed command? If there is food in the inventory, the feeding happens immediately. In your last post, I thought you were saying you could use the feed command if the unit was Hungry, presumably b/c you somehow have more food in your possession that you could put into the unit's inventory. But now you seem to be saying the feed command is only if there already is food in the inventory, but wouldn't that feeding be automatic?
-
At the end of the turn of the last player, every unit automatically eats 1 unit of food. If you don't have any food left, your unit becomes hungry. You cannot do anything with a hungry unit, except feeding it, and that it why the feeding command is there. If you want to do anything else with your unit, you somehow have to gain 1 food (currently impossible), and then feed it to your unit. Re-read the rule again, and think when what happens. It does make sense if you read it correctly.
-
At the end of the turn of the last player, every unit automatically eats 1 unit of food. If you don't have any food left, your unit becomes hungry. You cannot do anything with a hungry unit, except feeding it, and that it why the feeding command is there. If you want to do anything else with your unit, you somehow have to gain 1 food (currently impossible), and then feed it to your unit. Re-read the rule again, and think when what happens. It does make sense if you read it correctly.
Jimmmmm says you can only feed if you have food in your inventory. The only entity with an inventory is the unit. If it already has food, then you don't need to feed it. Do you see the problem? Your interpretation is what I had also come to after his first response to me, but when he added this in his last post it is back to not making sense.
-
Where's the rule that says what a turn consists of? I couldn't find it. I'm going to open a can of worms and suggest changing it to "one or more related rule changes".
-
Jimmmmm says you can only feed if you have food in your inventory. The only entity with an inventory is the unit. If it already has food, then you don't need to feed it. Do you see the problem? Your interpretation is what I had also come to after his first response to me, but when he added this in his last post it is back to not making sense.
I am working under the assumption that with a future rule we have ways to add food to our inventory (otherwise units will only live for a few rounds, which sounds dull). In that case, you might not have food in your inventory when you're forced to consume food, and instead you get hungry. Then you somehow add food to your inventory (using that future rule), and then you can feed your unit to make it usable again.
@sudgy: rules 329-331 cover what happens during a turn. If you want to allow for more than one rule change, then you probably want to amend rule 331. I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with this proposal, though.
-
At the end of the turn of the last player, every unit automatically eats 1 unit of food. If you don't have any food left, your unit becomes hungry. You cannot do anything with a hungry unit, except feeding it, and that it why the feeding command is there. If you want to do anything else with your unit, you somehow have to gain 1 food (currently impossible), and then feed it to your unit. Re-read the rule again, and think when what happens. It does make sense if you read it correctly.
Jimmmmm says you can only feed if you have food in your inventory. The only entity with an inventory is the unit. If it already has food, then you don't need to feed it. Do you see the problem? Your interpretation is what I had also come to after his first response to me, but when he added this in his last post it is back to not making sense.
If one of your units becomes Hungry then it has no Food, and currently no way of obtaining Food. Even when there is a way of obtaining Food, that particular unit will be unable to get Food on its own, and so much rely on some other unit to bring Food to it (once we've made a way to transfer items from one unit to another).
-
Draft Proposal:
Amend rule 331 to:
A player may propose one or more related rule changes on their turn. All proposed rule changes are voted on as one. Cases where it is not certain if the rule changes are related may be solved by Judgment. A player is not allowed to propose more than one non-related rule change per turn, except when explicitly allowed by some rule. Proposing one or more rule-changes is a "mandatory" action during the turn.
-
So, uh, anybody want to comment?
-
I don't think I would vote for any rule that allows us to propose more than one rule per turn. I also think requiring that they be "related" is asking for trouble...
-
I'd vote for it. I say drop the pretense and remove 'related' altogether. A proposal should pass or fail entirely based on its merits and popular consensus. You can propose a whole encyclopedia if you think people will vote for it. No need to impose a subjective and artificial constraint.
As it stands right now, either you contort your idea to fit in one rule, or else suspend the rule, which is annoying and slow. I mean I'm glad the rule suspension system exists, but I don't think it needs to be used every time a meatier proposal comes around. Just vote it down if you don't like it, or discuss what parts you don't like.
To summarize, allowing multiple rule changes will promote free expression, democracy, and cute puppies throughout the world
-
I'd vote for it. I say drop the pretense and remove 'related' altogether. A proposal should pass or fail entirely based on its merits and popular consensus. You can propose a whole encyclopedia if you think people will vote for it. No need to impose a subjective and artificial constraint.
As it stands right now, either you contort your idea to fit in one rule, or else suspend the rule, which is annoying and slow. I mean I'm glad the rule suspension system exists, but I don't think it needs to be used every time a meatier proposal comes around. Just vote it down if you don't like it, or discuss what parts you don't like.
To summarize, allowing multiple rule changes will promote free expression, democracy, and cute puppies throughout the world
Agreed. I'd just allow multiple rule-changes (regardless of relatedness) to require say two-thirds approval.
-
I don't think I would vote for any rule that allows us to propose more than one rule per turn. I also think requiring that they be "related" is asking for trouble...
I think multiple rule-changes per turn is necessary. My last proposal, for example, really should have been split into multiple rules.
-
New Draft Proposal:
Amend rule 331 to:
A player may propose one or more rule changes on their turn. All proposed rule changes are voted on as one. Proposing one or more rule-changes is a "mandatory" action during the turn.
-
I don't think I would vote for any rule that allows us to propose more than one rule per turn. I also think requiring that they be "related" is asking for trouble...
I think multiple rule-changes per turn is necessary. My last proposal, for example, really should have been split into multiple rules.
This is the big issue that I think a rule like this should be made to fix: You have an idea, and it really should be more than 1 rule, but you fit it in one rule to comfort to the rules, which makes it very sloppy.
-
I am also quite fine with one rule change needing 1/2, and 2+ needing 2/3.
-
Sudgy - does "voted on as one" mean "voted on simultaneously" or "voted on as a group, as if just one proposal were on the table"?
-
I think the latter.
-
I'd vote for either simple or 2/3 majority, although I prefer simple. First of all, it's faster and consistent. With 2/3, people might be again incentivized to try to cram everything in one rule if they don't think they have the votes for 2/3. And if each rule within the proposal has the support to pass individually, why shouldn't they be allowed to pass as a group, instead of over multiple turns? I guess there's the concern that rapid rule changes might unbalance things or lead to contradictions, but I think that can really be determined on a proposal-by-proposal basis.
-
I'd vote for it. I say drop the pretense and remove 'related' altogether. A proposal should pass or fail entirely based on its merits and popular consensus. You can propose a whole encyclopedia if you think people will vote for it. No need to impose a subjective and artificial constraint.
As it stands right now, either you contort your idea to fit in one rule, or else suspend the rule, which is annoying and slow. I mean I'm glad the rule suspension system exists, but I don't think it needs to be used every time a meatier proposal comes around. Just vote it down if you don't like it, or discuss what parts you don't like.
To summarize, allowing multiple rule changes will promote free expression, democracy, and cute puppies throughout the world
This!
I also support simple majority.
-
Sudgy - does "voted on as one" mean "voted on simultaneously" or "voted on as a group, as if just one proposal were on the table"?
The latter.
Could everybody state their opinions on whether it should be a simple majority or 2/3? I prefer simple, but if everybody wants 2/3 I'll go that way.
-
Seems like most people are for simple. I am fine with both.
-
I'm fine with both.
I want to say in advance: if you try to add multiple features to the rules in one turn, then I'll (most likely) vote "no". I only support this rule to allow adding/changing multiple rules to add one new feature, and when it's easier to do that when it's not cramped into one rule.
-
Another Draft Proposal (should be the final one):
Amend rule 331 to:
A player may propose one or more rule changes on their turn. All proposed rule changes are voted on as if it was one rule change. Proposing one or more rule-changes is a "mandatory" action during the turn.
-
I'd vote for it. I say drop the pretense and remove 'related' altogether. A proposal should pass or fail entirely based on its merits and popular consensus. You can propose a whole encyclopedia if you think people will vote for it. No need to impose a subjective and artificial constraint.
As it stands right now, either you contort your idea to fit in one rule, or else suspend the rule, which is annoying and slow. I mean I'm glad the rule suspension system exists, but I don't think it needs to be used every time a meatier proposal comes around. Just vote it down if you don't like it, or discuss what parts you don't like.
To summarize, allowing multiple rule changes will promote free expression, democracy, and cute puppies throughout the world
not to mention infinite new episodes of Dr. Who!
-
Another Draft Proposal (should be the final one):
Amend rule 331 to:
A player may propose one or more rule changes on their turn. All proposed rule changes are voted on as if it was one rule change. Proposing one or more rule-changes is a "mandatory" action during the turn.
Just to clarify - the current rule re: multiple changes stipulates "A player may propose up to three rule-changes in a single turn if all such rule-changes are either repeals or transmutations". I know that's not your intention here, so would it be helpful to specify that any kinds of rule changes are allowed?
-
Another Draft Proposal (should be the final one):
Amend rule 331 to:
A player may propose one or more rule changes on their turn. All proposed rule changes are voted on as if it was one rule change. Proposing one or more rule-changes is a "mandatory" action during the turn.
Just to clarify - the current rule re: multiple changes stipulates "A player may propose up to three rule-changes in a single turn if all such rule-changes are either repeals or transmutations". I know that's not your intention here, so would it be helpful to specify that any kinds of rule changes are allowed?
I could say "...propose one or more rule changes of any type..." and later have a clause that it overrides that rule.
-
I can't be bothered checking, but is unanimity still required for transmutations? If so, have you considered what happens if different proposed rules require different amounts of votes to pass?
-
Maybe copy some wording from rule 303 in this rule? Specifically:
These rule-changes will be voted on together and will either be all approved or all rejected. The number of votes required for approval will be the minimum required for a single proposed rule-change.
(the first line is mostly covered already in your proposal, but the second line may be good to make explicit)
Also, I think it's time for your final proposal...
-
Final Proposal:
Amend rule 331 to:
A player may propose one or more rule changes of any type on their turn. These rule-changes will be voted on together and will either be all approved or all rejected. The number of votes required for approval will be the minimum required for a single proposed rule-change. Proposing one or more rule-changes is a "mandatory" action during the turn.
-
vote: yes on 362. The proposal should probably have the number in it.
-
Vote: Yes on Proposal 362
-
Vote: Yes on Proposal 362
-
Hmmm. I'd prefer it if the proposals were individually voted on and accepted or rejected, but it's better than what we have at the moment.
Vote: Yes on Proposal 362
-
Vote: Yes on Proposal 362
-
Oh, that was already a pass. Vote passes 6-0.
I declare it to be Voltaire's turn.
-
Hey everyone! Stuff is updated. I'll get a proposal up sometime today. I'm going to do something about creating officers/titles who are responsible for tracking things.
-
Does anyone want to pay me for the proximity point?
-
Oops, I didn't get my proximity :P
-
Does anyone want to pay me for the proximity point?
$9
-
Does anyone want to pay me for the proximity point?
$9
I take your bid and raise it to N$15.
-
I bid 20, and the agreement that you can get my proximity for a mere 5.
-
I'm going to do something about creating officers/titles who are responsible for tracking things.
Vote: yes to Voltaire's proposal.
-
I bid 20, and the agreement that you can get my proximity for a mere 5.
... he can't even reach you. he can only move once, remember? that rule with the mistype?
my N$15 stands.
-
I bid the fact that I gave you a point.
-
Fascinating bids! I will get my proposal up tomorrow, not tonight unfortunately, but I don't think it will slow the game too much.
-
I bid that I'll give you proximity next time I don't forget.
(Actually, I just realized you can now propose whatever rule you feel like and a fix to the movement rule. I think everybody wants that fixed so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.)
-
I bid 20, and the agreement that you can get my proximity for a mere 5.
... he can't even reach you. he can only move once, remember? that rule with the mistype?
...what happened while I was gone??? O.o
-
I didn't have time to do a proposal today, either. If I don't have time tomorrow, I'll end my turn.
-
This is a draft. It probably has flaws. Please tell me them.
Draft of Rule 363:
In order to facilitate accurate and error-free recording-keeping, certain Offices will be created. Players may occupy any number of Offices concurrently. Players who occupy an Office are known as Officers. The actions of Officers do not constitute official rulings (they may make mistakes), but it is assumed they are making a good-faith effort to be accurate at all times.
Any time there is a vacant office, an election is triggered. Players vote in the form of "Vote: XX for YY" where XX refers to the player and YY refers to the office. The player with the majority of votes wins. In the case of a tie, a second vote will be triggered in which only the tied players are eligible to be voted for. If there is still a tie, the forum's random number generator will be used. NEED TO FINISH DESCRIBING THIS PROCESS.
Officers may resign at any time by posting "I resign as XX" in bold, where XX refers to the office(s) they hold. This will trigger an election for any vacated Offices.
Officers may be impeached. At any point a player may start an impeachment vote by posting "Impeach: XX" where XX refers to the player to be impeached. A 2/3 majority of players must vote to impeach a player. The impeachment vote will last until the end of the current turn. If a player is impeached, an election for any vacated Offices is triggered.
- Scorer - the Scorer keeps track of the points accumulated by each player.
- Cartographer - the Cartographer keeps track of the map and all related aspects of the game.
- Parliamentarian - the Parliamentarian maintains the rule-set.
Officers may keep records wherever they wish (as allowed within the rules), but it is expected that, whenever possible, they will do so using the Google Doc linked in the opening post. The owner of the opening post will do their best to keep it as up-to-date as possible based on the information provided by the Officers, but it should not be relied upon as the most current source of information.
All Officers receive N$10 each time the turn order passes the last player in the player list. If players hold multiple Offices, they receive the appropriate multiple salaries.
Draft of Rule 364:
Something that fixes the movement once-per-turn problem we created.
Impeachment is intended for when Officers stop performing their duties.
-
Proximity between H7 and I6
Good bid, Jimmmmm!
-
This is a draft. It probably has flaws. Please tell me them.
Draft of Rule 363:
In order to facilitate accurate and error-free recording-keeping, certain Offices will be created. Players may occupy any number of Offices concurrently. Players who occupy an Office are known as Officers. The actions of Officers do not constitute official rulings (they may make mistakes), but it is assumed they are making a good-faith effort to be accurate at all times.
Any time there is a vacant office, an election is triggered. Players vote in the form of "Vote: XX for YY" where XX refers to the player and YY refers to the office. The player with the majority of votes wins. In the case of a tie, a second vote will be triggered in which only the tied players are eligible to be voted for. If there is still a tie, the forum's random number generator will be used. NEED TO FINISH DESCRIBING THIS PROCESS.
Officers may resign at any time by posting "I resign as XX" in bold, where XX refers to the office(s) they hold. This will trigger an election for any vacated Offices.
Officers may be impeached. At any point a player may start an impeachment vote by posting "Impeach: XX" where XX refers to the player to be impeached. A 2/3 majority of players must vote to impeach a player. The impeachment vote will last until the end of the current turn. If a player is impeached, an election for any vacated Offices is triggered.
- Scorer - the Scorer keeps track of the points accumulated by each player.
- Cartographer - the Cartographer keeps track of the map and all related aspects of the game.
- Parliamentarian - the Parliamentarian maintains the rule-set.
Officers may keep records wherever they wish (as allowed within the rules), but it is expected that, whenever possible, they will do so using the Google Doc linked in the opening post. The owner of the opening post will do their best to keep it as up-to-date as possible based on the information provided by the Officers, but it should not be relied upon as the most current source of information.
All Officers receive N$10 each time the turn order passes the last player in the player list. If players hold multiple Offices, they receive the appropriate multiple salaries.
Draft of Rule 364:
Something that fixes the movement once-per-turn problem we created.
Impeachment is intended for when Officers stop performing their duties.
Questions and fixes:
Should we have an Accountant or Banker that deals with money?
The vote: xx for yy and impeach: xx need to be in bold.
The forum's dice rolling system is what it actually is.
-
Treasure chest at L9
I've never done a die roll before, so this will be interesting:
'200' is not a valid dice string!
-
Rolled 1d200 : 53, total 53
-
Current draft, incorporating mail-mi's input and some other fixes/clarifications. Read this one instead.
Draft of Rule 363:
In order to facilitate accurate and error-free record-keeping, certain Offices will be maintained. Players may occupy any number of Offices concurrently. Players who occupy an Office are known as Officers. The actions of Officers do not constitute official rulings (they may make mistakes), but it is assumed they are making a good-faith effort to be accurate at all times.
Any time there is a vacant Office, an election is immediately triggered. Eligible voters will vote by posting in thread. Votes should be presented in the form "Vote: XX for YY" or Vote: Abstain on YY (where XX refers to the player and YY refers to the office). Once any player has achieved over half of the eligible voters who didn't Vote: Abstain, the election ends and that player wins. If an Office has been in the voting stage for 36 hours or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted are not considered eligible voters (for this vote). This effectively ends the vote with only players currently voting. The player with the majority of votes wins. In the case of a tie, a second vote will be triggered in which only the tied players are eligible to be voted for. If there is still a tie, the forum's dice roll function will be used. Any player may roll a 1dX (where X represents the number of players tied). The tied players are sorted in alphabetical order and assigned numbers in ascending order to represent them in this roll (if Bob and Alice are tied, a 1d2 is rolled, with 1 representing Alice and 2 representing Bob). The player who wins the die roll wins the election.
During any Office election, no voters are eligible to end the turn. This clause overrides all rules relating to who has authority to end a turn.
Officers may resign at any time by posting "I resign as XX" in bold, where XX refers to the office(s) they hold. This will trigger an election for any vacated Offices.
Officers may be impeached. At any point a player may start an impeachment vote by posting "Impeach: XX" (where XX refers to the player to be impeached). The impeachment vote will last until all players have voted or the current turn ends. If 2/3rds of all players are voting for impeachment at the time the vote ends, the impeachment succeeds. If a player is impeached, an election for any vacated Offices is triggered.
Offices:
- Scorer - the Scorer keeps track of the points accumulated by each player.
- Cartographer - the Cartographer keeps track of the map and all related aspects of the game.
- Parliamentarian - the Parliamentarian maintains the rule-set.
- Banker - the Banker keeps track of each player's money.
In a situation where it is unclear which Officer should be doing the tracking, the Officers should discuss the situation and decide amongst themselves. If they cannot agree, any player may invoke Judgement and the Judge will assign the task to the Officer he deems appropriate.
Officers may keep records wherever they wish (as allowed within the rules), but it is expected that, whenever possible, they will do so using the Google Doc linked in the opening post. The owner of the opening post will do their best to keep it as up-to-date as possible based on the information provided by the Officers, but it should not be relied upon as the most current source of information.
All Officers receive N$10 each time the turn order passes the last player in the player list. If players hold multiple Offices, they receive the appropriate multiple salaries.
Draft of Rule 364:
Something that fixes the movement once-per-turn problem we created.
You'll note that Impeachment votes are halted when turns end. This is working-as-designed - if someone is constantly trying to impeach people, they can't slow down the game by causing hundreds of impeachment votes.
For 364, I am willing to accept anyone's ready-to-go legislative language. Otherwise, I won't be getting around to fixing that this turn.
-
Draft 363 sounds good. I'd add counting Legacy points to the Scorers tasks.
-
Suggestion:
Rename jobs to fit dominion:
Parliamentarian -> Bureaucrat
Scorer -> ?? Councelor?
Banker -> Moneylander
-
And I wanna be the Cartographer!
-
I have a feeling I'm going to end up as the Jack of All Trades.
-
Oh my god, I'm so sorry about this everyone!
Here's the final:
Proposed Rule 363:
In order to facilitate accurate and error-free record-keeping, certain Offices will be maintained. Players may occupy any number of Offices concurrently. Players who occupy an Office are known as Officers. The actions of Officers do not constitute official rulings (they may make mistakes), but it is assumed they are making a good-faith effort to be accurate at all times.
Any time there is a vacant Office, an election is immediately triggered. Eligible voters will vote by posting in thread. Votes should be presented in the form "Vote: XX for YY" or Vote: Abstain on YY (where XX refers to the player and YY refers to the office). Once any player has achieved over half of the eligible voters who didn't Vote: Abstain, the election ends and that player wins. If an Office has been in the voting stage for 36 hours or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted are not considered eligible voters (for this vote). This effectively ends the vote with only players currently voting. The player with the majority of votes wins. In the case of a tie, a second vote will be triggered in which only the tied players are eligible to be voted for. If there is still a tie, the forum's dice roll function will be used. Any player may roll a 1dX (where X represents the number of players tied). The tied players are sorted in alphabetical order and assigned numbers in ascending order to represent them in this roll (if Bob and Alice are tied, a 1d2 is rolled, with 1 representing Alice and 2 representing Bob). The player who wins the die roll wins the election.
During any Office election, no voters are eligible to end the turn. This clause overrides all rules relating to who has authority to end a turn.
Officers may resign at any time by posting "I resign as XX" in bold, where XX refers to the office(s) they hold. This will trigger an election for any vacated Offices.
Officers may be impeached. At any point a player may start an impeachment vote by posting "Impeach: XX" (where XX refers to the player to be impeached). The impeachment vote will last until all players have voted or the current turn ends. If 2/3rds of all players are voting for impeachment at the time the vote ends, the impeachment succeeds. If a player is impeached, an election for any vacated Offices is triggered.
Offices:
- Steward - the Steward keeps track of the points and Legacy Points accumulated by each player.
- Cartographer - the Cartographer keeps track of the map and all related aspects of the game.
- Bureaucrat - the Bureaucrat maintains the rule-set.
- Moneylender - the Moneylender keeps track of each player's money.
In a situation where it is unclear which Officer should be doing the tracking, the Officers should discuss the situation and decide amongst themselves. If they cannot agree, any player may invoke Judgement and the Judge will assign the task to the Officer he deems appropriate.
Officers may keep records wherever they wish (as allowed within the rules), but it is expected that, whenever possible, they will do so using the Google Doc linked in the opening post. The owner of the opening post will do their best to keep it as up-to-date as possible based on the information provided by the Officers, but it should not be relied upon as the most current source of information.
All Officers receive N$10 each time the turn order passes the last player in the player list. If players hold multiple Offices, they receive the appropriate multiple salaries.
Please note that if this passes, we will immediately start voting on Officers - no-one will be able to end the turn until we fill them (at least, if I wrote the rule right).
-
Also, I'll throw my name out for Bureaucrat. I'll also be anything that no-body else wants to do, if that situation should happen to arise. But just Bureaucrat would be best.
-
vote: yes on rule 363
-
vote: yes on 363
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 363
-
Vote: Yes on 363
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 363
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 363
-
And thus the rule did pass.
Vote: Voltaire for Bureaucrat
-
Didnt read it completely but w/e.
Vote: Yes on Rule 363
-
Vote: Voltaire for Bureaucrat
Vote: Grujah for Cartographer
Anyone want to be Steward or Moneylender?
-
vote: mail-mi for steward
Vote: Voltaire for Bureaucrat
Vote: Grujah for Cartographer
-
Vote: liopoil for moneylender!
-
Anyone who votes for me for moneylender gets my vote for them for the office of their choice.
-
Vote: Mail-mi for Steward
Vote: Grujah for Cartographer
Vote: Liopoil for Moneylender
-
Vote: liopoil for moneylender
-
Vote: liopoil for Moneylender
Vote: mail-mi for Steward
-
Vote: Voltaire for Bureaucrat
Vote: mail-mi for Steward
-
Two housekeeping notes:
1. I added EFHW's failed motion to suspend to the rules history, I'd missed it at first
2. I will take care of all tracking/updates through the completion of my turn just so we have a clear starting point for the new Officers (ie I'll charge myself for my unit, etc.) and then we'll pass the torch when it becomes Grujah's turn.
-
Vote: Mail-mi for Steward
Vote: Grujah for Cartographer
Vote: Liopoil for Moneylender
Vote: Voltaire for Bureaucrat
-
Vote: Mail-mi for Steward
Vote: Grujah for Cartographer
Vote: Liopoil for Moneylender
Vote: Voltaire for Bureaucrat
-
I see I'm a little late to the show. I wouldn't mind to be cartographer - I can't find where Grujah says he wants to - is there history there I don't know about?
vote: EFHW for cartographer
vote: mail-mi for steward
vote: liopoil for moneylender
vote: Voltaire for bureaucrat
-
I said it a while ago.
Vote: Mail-mi for Steward
Vote: Grujah for Cartographer
Vote: Liopoil for Moneylender
Vote: Voltaire for Bureaucrat
-
Vote: Mail-mi for Steward
Vote: Abstain on Cartographer
Vote: Liopoil for Moneylender
Vote: Voltaire for Bureaucrat
-
vote grujah for cartographer. Maybe I could do this job later on.
-
I'm afraid real life is a bit too busy for me now, so I'm quitting. Thanks for the game, and maybe I'll come back later when things settle down.
-
I'm afraid real life is a bit too busy for me now, so I'm quitting. Thanks for the game, and maybe I'll come back later when things settle down.
Thanks for letting us know, and I hope we'll see you again soon.
It has been more than the 36 hours, so officer voting is over. The quadrumvirate has been elected! Everything will be updated immediately after I post this.
I declare it to be Grujah's turn!
-
Ideas for my turn are either to make map features like terrain for example or some sort of taxing system for communal benefit.
-
I would happily vote for well-designed versions of either of those. I'm also the kind of person who would vote for both if you proposed both.
-
My turn came in very unfortunate momemnt. I will be completely unavailable tomorrow and sunday due to MTG Prereleases. Will try to cook somehting up right now.
-
Unit at 5I: Raise Speed to level 1. Pay N$25
Unit at 5I: Raise Speed to level 2. Pay N$25
Unit at 5I: Raise Speed to level 3. Pay N$25
Proximity between 5I and 6I
-
Draft:
Game has a "Bank" which is place (not present on the map, it's purely abstact). Any money that a player pays to an unspecified destination goes to Bank instead. Any money that player receives from unspecified soruce comes from Bank instead (if the bank has enough money to pay, of not, it pays as much as it can and pays the rest as soon as it gets some money, FIFO principle). Bank stats with XXX money in it.
-
I'll vote for it after typos are fixed and we decide XXX. I would suggest, maybe, $N1000?
-
Would help if you guys discussed it and made an acceptable version for me to suggest, I i will have some time tomorrow night/sunday early morning.
-
Wouldn't allowing IOUs from the bank make it effectively the same as not having a bank?
-
1. Would loans be allowed?
2. What is the reason for giving the bank a limited amount of funds?
3. Will the current amount of money in the bank be posted somewhere?
-
I'm not sure why we would want that. It basically just means one player can hoard all the money if they want? That sounds fun for someone, but odds are against that someone being me. Even if hoarding is not a problem, I think it would be disappointing/frustrating to just be going about your normal business and then not get some money you would otherwise get because the bank ran out on your turn. It just seems like an unnecessary limit to me.
-
Wouldn't allowing IOUs from the bank make it effectively the same as not having a bank?
It means that there is limited money in the system. It means that if nobody is spending, nobody can get money.
@scott - how can one person hoard? HE can but he will be doing less than other people, no? If it becomes a problem, Tax the richer more than the poorer.
Well, even in RL (at least here), paycheck is sometimes late. You will get your money soon enough, if the economy is running.
-
bump
-
going to sleep now, no time till tomoz.
-
no time.
END MY TURN/
-
I declare it to be florrat's turn
Ending a turn requires naming the next person, just fyi.
-
Didn't Florrat quit?
-
Didn't Florrat quit?
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/oops.gif)
I declare it to be Walrus's turn
-
Oh shit! I promise I'll do something this time. I'll get something up by tonight hopefully. To be honest, since I missed my last turn I've been feeling pretty out of the loop...I'll have to review the last round of rule changes first.
-
Hmmm OK, just glanced over the recent rule set, and I have some questions I guess.
So on my turn, I could do the following things right now:
--Create one (and only one unit) somewhere on the map, but not on a treasure chest.
--Move it around pointlessly, considering I can't claim proximity or a treasure chest.
--Upgrade my unit to a soldier or farmer, or boost its speed or skill stats.
--Place a treasure chest, which is probably worth doing.
Questions:
--Are unit class and stats represented on the map right now? I see 2F for food, but no indication of soldiers or whatever. Or has nobody actually differentiated any unit classes yet?
--When it says "class may be assigned at placement", does that mean that I can create a unit and assign a class both with 1 IP, or would that still cost 2 IP?
--Let's say I wanted to be a jerk. If I placed a unit at D12, for example, and upgraded it to a soldier, does that mean that EFHW or nobody could claim the treasure chest at D13? And then somebody else could try the same jazz against me, and we'd end up at a standstill?
--Do multiple skill levels actually do anything at the moment for farmers or soldiers? Or is it just a 1/0 thing right now? Possibly the situation above could be avoided if there were the possibility for multiple soldier levels...a level 2 soldier could "overpower" a skill 1 soldier, allowing for movement anyway. Otherwise we might just get a few trollish soldiers floating around disrupting everything. Possibly it should also be the case that armies of different players should be able to combine their strengths to attempt to overpower each other. This is reminiscent of Diplomacy, which is the best game ever. Similarly, +'d up farmers could produce even more proximity points.
Maybe in order to avoid degenerate "arms race" and "farms race" type behaviors it should be the case that successive boosts in skill have increasing price tags, a la Cookie Clicker. This too might encourage people to work together more, seeing as how it would be highly cost efficient to combine two level-5 soldiers if the level-10 equivalent costs 32x as much or whatever.
--There are still no ways to obtain multiple units, correct? This is not necessarily a bad thing...I mean it could be more like Chess where we each have many units of different types, or more like D&D where we each get single characters of a particular class to develop more fully, and then work together with complementary players. Either way could be cool.
--Is there a way to produce food right now, besides creating a unit? Or is it just get created with 2 food, eat it, then starve? I don't want my units to starve! Possibly farmer skill levels should have something to do with food production?
So yeah, I'm thinking that my proposal will be something like defining skill levels beyond level 1, introducing food production, or both. Please let me know what you think, or if I'm wildly misunderstanding anything...as I said I haven't really been "in" to this game for the past couple weeks.
Which reminds me...we should also find some way to encourage greater player interactivity between turns. Because right now, I feel rather detached from the game most of the time.
-
To answer your questions, Walrus...
1. Class and stats are not represented on the map right now because nothing has been assigned
2. I think 1 IP.
3. I think so.
4. No, the rule is, by design, incomplete to allow for others to add/customize as desired.
5. Correct. Still only 1 unit each.
6. Nope! This obviously needs to be fixed.
Which reminds me...we should also find some way to encourage greater player interactivity between turns. Because right now, I feel rather detached from the game most of the time.
As this game has clearly stagnated, I would be a fan of two things:
1. Give everyone 1 IP on every turn (more on your own turn, maybe, if we wanted to do that)
2. Get rid of all this class/skill system, which seems confusing and in my opinion is a bit of a complexity-bridge-too-far in this game (as measured by declining interest here)
-
OK cool, perfunctory matters first:
Create E12
Assign Unit at E12 to Soldier class
Since Voltaire was the only one that offered any feedback, I'll assume this is accomplished with 1 IP. I could see both sides honestly...it does say that a unit is "assigned" at the time of creation, which is then defined as costing 1 IP...but then, if assignment may happen at any time during your turn, why even mention that it can be done at the time of creation? So if you feel strongly about this you can invoke judgment, and we'll figure it out. Otherwise I guess it's a precedent.
Unit at E12: Raise Skill to level 1. Pay $N25
Unit at E12: Raise Speed to level 1. Pay $N25
Treasure chest at D12
Rolled 1d200 : 178, total 178
Ha ha ha, I'm such a greedy jerk! EFHW, I'm still happy to proximity :)
Thinking about my proposal, I'll get that up soon.
-
Who updates food and skill?
-
I was just about to ask that. I updated Grujah's and Walrus's money. (walrus -50, grujah -75)
-
OK there's lots of things that could be changed. But I agree with Voltaire that possibly increasing player involvement is the most important issue, because otherwise, we don't have a game at all. We've had a few resigns, and I know I certainly haven't been as active...it'd be a shame to see this sputter out.
So I say let's give each person 1 IP on every player's turn and see what happens. It might be a bit chaotic, but we can work that out as we go...at least it means we could be making meaningful gamestate decisions every week rather than every two months.
I think it would be reasonable to just add one IP at the beginning of each other player's turn (possibly 0.5 IP?), and maintain the clause about having your IPs wiped at the end of your own turn. That way you can miss a few turns and still be OK, but you can't like ultra hoard your IPs over multiple rounds and spend dozens at a time. However you can still proximity only once per turn right now, for example, which rewards more active players.
So how about something like this. I'll leave it up for about 24 hours then post a final tomorrow.
Draft for Rule 364:
At the beginning of each player's turn, each other player's quantity of IPs is increased by one.
Every player with more than zero IPs may be considered an "active" or "current" player for the purposes of spending IPs. However, a player's quantity of IPs is only set to zero at the end of his or her own turn.
-
Who updates food and skill?
My instinct would be Cartographer, since we're currently tracking them on the map.
-
I like it.
-
Me too.
-
Well I guess I'll propose it then--
Proposal for Rule 364:
At the beginning of each player's turn, each other player's quantity of IPs is increased by one.
Every player with more than zero IPs may be considered an "active" or "current" player for the purposes of spending IPs. However, a player's quantity of IPs is only set to zero at the end of his or her own turn.
---
Vote: Yes on Rule 364
-
Vote: Yes on Proposal 364
-
Vote: Yes on Proposal 364
-
Vote: Yes on Proposal 364
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 364
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 364
-
Cool, so it passes then 6/10 then? If so, I declare it to be scott_pilgrim's turn
Proximity between E12 and E13
-
Proximity between I7 and I6
Sorry Volt, but you didn't accept my offer on your turn...
-
I'll update scores after his turn is done.
Move G8 to G9
-
Who updates food and skill?
My instinct would be Cartographer, since we're currently tracking them on the map.
Not really sure where skill is tracked at all. And my job is "map and other related stuff", not really sure that unit stats go into that, we can get another guy for that :P. I can do it for now..
-
Assign Unit at K11 to Farmer class
Unit at K11: Raise Skill to level 1. Pay $N25
Proximity between K11 and J10
I'm not really sure what I want to do with my turn. Farmers seem broken now that we can score proximity points on every player's turn, but I don't have much incentive to fix that since I'm the first one to get a farmer. Maybe I could add a way to get food, but that would probably involve further buffing farmers, which might not go over well. Maybe adding a shelter requirement and a class that can build houses? The intent would be that maybe 2-4 players or so would go for the carpenter class, then sell/rent out houses to other players and make money that way, while maybe other players (after farmers are changed to give players food instead of just points, since that will probably happen) make money selling food.
Okay now I'm coming up with ideas, let's try something like this:
At the end of the meteorologist's turn, he rolls one D5; the result will be called the weather intensity. The player before the current meteorologist in the turn order becomes the new meteorologist (and the previous meteorologist no longer keeps that title). At the end of a player's turn, any of his units which is not inside a house of protection level greater than or equal to the weather intensity dies and is removed from the board; unless the weather intensity is 1, in which case all units are safe. If the weather intensity does not already have a value, it is assigned the value 1. If no meteorologist exists, WalrusMcFishSr becomes the meteorologist (choosing him because he has the last turn before me so that gives us time to prepare).
(Maybe as a separate rule number:) "Carpenter" is a class that can be assigned to units. A unit with the carpenter class can post the bold command "Build house at XX" to build a house with protection level 2 at XX, where XX denotes a position on the board. Additionally, a carpenter can post the bold command "Upgrade house at XX" to increase the protection level of the house by 1. The number of IP's and Nomic Dollars that building/upgrading a house costs is dependent on the Carpenter's skill level, as shown in the following table: [I would come up with numbers here if we were going to do this proposal].
So I think that's clear, is that something people would like? Basically every n-1 turns, the weather changes, where n is the current number of players. I don't want it to change on the same person's turn every time because I expect it will be harder for people going immediately after the meteorologist (anyone have a better word for that role?) to find shelter right away. Also, having units die as a result of not meeting shelter requirements is probably too harsh. Maybe instead the player just loses VP or money or something?
Or is there something simpler I should be doing with my turn? Did we ever end up doing the "pay N$10 for a fifth IP, N$20 for a sixth, etc." thing? That was something I wanted that I think we could do if we didn't do it already (I haven't been following along too closely)...
-
They sound like good ideas to me.
-
I sort of like the house/weather idea, but if it were me, I would try to fix up food production first. We already have a way for units to get wiped off the map and currently way to prevent it.
-
*no way
-
Okay, well I'll just go with this and assume someone else will buff soldiers soon:
Draft Proposal 365:
If a player has a unit with the farmer class on the board, he may spend 1 IP and post the command "Harvest at XX". If he does, then his farmer unit at XX gains y food into his inventory, and the player pays N$z, where y and z are determined by the farmer's skill level, as determined by the following table:
Skill Level y (amount of food) z (cost in N$)
1 (or less) 0 0
2 1 80
3 1 50
4 1 30
5 1 20
6 1 10
7 2 25
8 2 10
9 3 15
10 4 15
11 5 20
12 (or greater) 5 0
-
I'm not sure what I want this game to be, personally, so this comment might not be super-useful, but "worker placement game" definitely isn't it. I may start being "that guy" and voting everything that's simply adding layers of unit complexity down.
-
I'm not sure what I want this game to be, personally, so this comment might not be super-useful, but "worker placement game" definitely isn't it. I may start being "that guy" and voting everything that's simply adding layers of unit complexity down.
I mean yeah, I don't want to make the game super-complicated, but we have a food system in place already with no way to get food, and if we don't fix that we just end up removing all our pieces from the board. I'm assuming the fix isn't going to be to remove the food rule, because if it got voted for in the first place, that means people must like it (maybe they've changed their minds), so I feel like the fix is to actually do something with the food. I proposed what I think is the simplest fix, which is to use something we already have in place (farmers) to provide the food.
The whole point of the game is to add stuff every turn. I don't see how you will ever vote for a proposal if you're worried it will add stuff. What kind of proposal would you vote for?
Also, I don't think this is turning into a worker placement game at all...
-
So...I'd be a fan of some drastic streamlining.
-
Otherwise I guess I'll end the turn soon?
-
Scrap everything, reboot as a Where's Waldo variant
-
Sorry, I forgot about this. Since I have no feedback (other than from Voltaire, who I'm not sure how I could satisfy anyway), I guess I'll just propose it as is:
Proposal 365:
If a player has a unit with the farmer class on the board, he may spend 1 IP and post the command "Harvest at XX". If he does, then his farmer unit at XX gains y food into his inventory, and the player pays N$z, where y and z are determined by the farmer's skill level, as determined by the following table:
Skill Level y (amount of food) z (cost in N$)
1 (or less) 0 0
2 1 80
3 1 50
4 1 30
5 1 20
6 1 10
7 2 25
8 2 10
9 3 15
10 4 15
11 5 20
12 (or greater) 5 0
-
I should have 12 points.
I had 10 originally from no-voting early and I also did proximity between me and Jimm on one of my turns.
-
Vote: Yes on 365
-
I should have 12 points.
I had 10 originally from no-voting early and I also did proximity between me and Jimm on one of my turns.
I'll update things when I get home.
-
This is a late response to Walrus's question, but creating a unit and assigning to a class costs 1 IP EACH. I think he may have spent more, but I propose that since his turn is over, it stays as is.
The map needs to reflect the attribute levels of the units in addition to their class.
assign unit at E13 to soldier class.
raise skill level of unit at E13 to 1. Pay $N25
Walrus - now we need to coordinate if we want to get our boxes.
edited to include payment
-
I think Walrus and I should have proximity points from his turn.
-
Vote: Yes on 365
-
I think Walrus and I should have proximity points from his turn.
nvm, he can't use IP's get proximity points on the same turn that he created the unit. Could I still have used an IP to get proximity with him, and would he then get the 1 point?
I think we need to iron out some of the details about getting and using IPs on someone else's turn. Is there a maximum number? With this many players, we will be getting many more than 4 IPs from one turn to the next.
-
last post for now, I promise: we need a column for IP's in the stats worksheet.
Also, since the officers get N$10 each round, I think we need a system for often elections are held and maybe term limits.
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 365
Now all I need is a farmer somehow. Or I'll totally be a sweet mercenary if you trade me food.
EFHW, I appreciate the militarism, but do you have enough IPs to do that? Don't we all only have 1 IP since last turn? Any points unspent during your turn EFHW should have been erased.
I did not proximity with you on my turn because it was not allowed, but I did this turn, so I believe we should have points from that.
-
There have been 2 completed turns since mine - Grujah and you, so I should have 2 IPs to spend. Am I misinterpreting something?
-
I would have thought that my rule didn't go into effect until after it was passed, and as it adds an IP at the beginning of each player's turn, and the only turn begun since its instatement was Grujah's. But I could just as easily be misinterpreting things.
-
That is a good point. ok, cancel upgrade of skill for unit at E13
-
Grujah, I should be in square G9 not G8
-
Vote: Abstain on rule 365
-
Rule passes 4-0
I declare it to be mail-mi's turn
-
upgrade skill for soldier at E13 to 1 pay N$25.
-
right okay let's see... i think I'm going to fix up my attacking idea to make soldiers useful...
Draft of Rule 366:
Players may spend 1 IP to attack directly or diagonally adjacent players, hereafter known as defending players. To do so, players post Attack: $$ to %% in bold, where $$ is the place of the active player's unit, and the %% is the place of the defending player's piece. Each player will roll 1d6 using the forum's dice rolling feature in response to the attack. If the defending player wins, nothing happens. If the active player wins, the defending player must post Give N$500 to Y in bold, where Y is the active player, or Give N$X to Y in bold if the defending player has less than N$500, and X is the rest of the defending player's N$.
Changes?
-
Two things - I think that is too much money. And maybe forcing the defeated unit to move one space in the same direction as the attack would be more helpful and interesting.
-
Proximity between K11 and J10
I agree $500 is a bit steep.
What happens in case of ties? Tie goes to the defender, presumably, as rerolls would be annoying. "Wins" is sort of ambiguous there, maybe "if the attacker's roll was higher" etc. would be better.
I want to plunder food! Plunder: Everything Actually though victory points should probably be off limits for plundering...farmers are for getting more points, soldiers are for map control and resource dominance.
Possibly you could incorporate a bit about the soldiers' skill levels to make that meaningful. For example, you could roll Nd6 to attack and defend, where N is the skill level. Boosting your skill makes your soldiers more effective and bell curvy. And/or skill level has something to do with the quantity or type of loot plundered...you receive N*$100, and also N Swag Tokens
-
Proximity between K11 and J10
I agree $500 is a bit steep.
What happens in case of ties? Tie goes to the defender, presumably, as rerolls would be annoying. "Wins" is sort of ambiguous there, maybe "if the attacker's roll was higher" etc. would be better.
I want to plunder food! Plunder: Everything Actually though victory points should probably be off limits for plundering...farmers are for getting more points, soldiers are for map control and resource dominance.
Possibly you could incorporate a bit about the soldiers' skill levels to make that meaningful. For example, you could roll Nd6 to attack and defend, where N is the skill level. Boosting your skill makes your soldiers more effective and bell curvy. And/or skill level has something to do with the quantity or type of loot plundered...you receive N*$100, and also N Swag Tokens
Yes ties go to the defender, I forgot to put that in.
I like the plunder anything idea... ill find a way to work it in.
What about rolling an 1d(6+N) where N is the soldier's level?
-
Proximity between K11 and J10
-
Updated everything in my tasks except the points/$ in the OP.
-
Any more thoughts on the rule? otherwise I'll post the final draft tonight
-
plunder is good. I also think winning territory (forcing retreats) would be valuable.
-
Proximity between G8 and H7
Move G8 to H8
Proximity between H8 and I7
Move H8 to G8
Treasure Chest at F8
Rolled 1d200 : 182, total 182
Final Draft of Rule 366:
Players may spend 1 IP to attack directly or diagonally adjacent players, hereafter known as defending players. To do so, players post Plunder $$ to %% in bold, where $$ is the place of the active player's unit, and the %% is the place of the defending player's unit. Each player will roll Nd6 using the forum's dice rolling feature in response to the attack, where N is the number of the unit's soldier level plus 1. The two highest numbers of each player will be the only dice used. If the defending player roll is higher, nothing happens. If the active player's roll is higher, the defending player must post Give N$250 to Y in bold, where Y is the active player, or Give N$X to Y in bold if the defending player has less than N$250, and X is the rest of the defending player's N$. If the roll is a tie, nothing happens. You may only attack if it is your turn.
I added the "you may only attack if it is your turn" to prevent slowing down the game with everybody attacking on everyone's turn.
-
you guys gonna vote or what?
-
Vote: Yes on Rule 366
-
Vote: Abstain on Rule 366
-
what time does the voting period end, again?
-
what time does the voting period end, again?
36 hours after final proposal.
-
what time does the voting period end, again?
36 hours after final proposal.
well then. Rule passes 2-0.
I declare it to be liopoil's turn.
-
what time does the voting period end, again?
36 hours after final proposal.
well then. Rule passes 2-0.
I declare it to be liopoil's turn.
never mind, I can't do that, as my moves are invalid (because grujah has not updated the map grumble grumble)
Proximity between G9 and G10
Move G9 to G8
Proximity between G8 and H7
Treasure chest at F8
Rolled 1d200 : 163, total 163
Now it's liopoil's turn.
-
what time does the voting period end, again?
36 hours after final proposal.
well then. Rule passes 2-0.
I declare it to be liopoil's turn.
never mind, I can't do that, as my moves are invalid (because grujah has not updated the map grumble grumble)
Proximity between G9 and G10
Move G9 to G8
Proximity between G8 and H7
Treasure chest at F8
(http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/Themes/core/images/dice_warn.gif) This dice roll may have been tampered with!
Rolled 1d200 : 163, total 163
Now it's liopoil's turn.
I will challenge these moves if necessary (sorry mail-mi) because you definitely ended the turn. If we want to impeach Grujah for not updating the map (or preferably just give him a friendly poke) I'd participate in that.
-
what time does the voting period end, again?
36 hours after final proposal.
well then. Rule passes 2-0.
I declare it to be liopoil's turn.
never mind, I can't do that, as my moves are invalid (because grujah has not updated the map grumble grumble)
Proximity between G9 and G10
Move G9 to G8
Proximity between G8 and H7
Treasure chest at F8
(http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/Themes/core/images/dice_warn.gif) This dice roll may have been tampered with!
Rolled 1d200 : 163, total 163
Now it's liopoil's turn.
Aaaaand I can't proximity with someone who's out.
-
what time does the voting period end, again?
36 hours after final proposal.
well then. Rule passes 2-0.
I declare it to be liopoil's turn.
never mind, I can't do that, as my moves are invalid (because grujah has not updated the map grumble grumble)
Proximity between G9 and G10
Move G9 to G8
Proximity between G8 and H7
Treasure chest at F8
(http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/Themes/core/images/dice_warn.gif) This dice roll may have been tampered with!
Rolled 1d200 : 163, total 163
Now it's liopoil's turn.
I will challenge these moves if necessary (sorry mail-mi) because you definitely ended the turn. If we want to impeach Grujah for not updating the map (or preferably just give him a friendly poke) I'd participate in that.
*sigh*
Impeach: Grujah sorry buddy you gotta keep up to date.
-
I haven't really been paying much attention to this recently, and I think I'm ready to /out. It's been fun.
-
Who's winning?
-
Who's winning?
Actually, I was.
-
Next turn I'm proposing sweeping simplification changes. Just you watch me!
-
Who's winning?
Actually, I was.
Who's winning now?
-
Grujah.
-
Impeach: Grujah
-
is it actually my turn or no? should I be doing something?
-
is it actually my turn or no? should I be doing something?
It's your turn. Impeachment votes don't pause the game.
-
EFHW -N$25, Scott Pilgrim -N$25
(I'm posting these so that I know where to start from when I look for people making transactions.)
-
All officers should get their salaries now, btw, if you didn't have that already.
-
All officers should get their salaries now, btw, if you didn't have that already.
thanks, and I assume this includes Grujah
Mail-mi, Grujah, Voltaire, and Liopoil +N$10
-
Impeach: Grujah
is the map up to date now?
-
Impeach: Grujah
is the map up to date now?
Not as far as I'm aware. It'd be best of Grujah posted here and let us know (and kept his office). If not, I'll run for Cartographer and reverse-engineer the right board state.
-
bump for grujah
EDIT: and for people to vote to impeach him and we can have someone else fix the map.
-
impeach Grujah
-
Impeach: Grujah
-
liopoil, are you going to make a proposal?
-
One more vote and Grujah is impeached (we're at 9 with 5 votes for impeachment, 2/3 vote needed)
-
Impeach: Grujah
-
Impeach: Grujah
Cool. This immediately triggers an election for a new Cartographer.
I'm willing to do it if no-one else is interested.
-
Vote: Voltaire for Cartographer
-
IIRC, EFHW was interested.
Vote: EFHW for Cartographer
-
Poor Grujah
-
Vote: EFHW for Cartographer
-
Vote: EFHW for Cartographer
-
EFHW, I'll vote for you if you confirm you're interested still.
-
sure, I'll do it.
-
vote: EFHW for Cartographer
You'll have to backtrack a bit to figure out where he stopped keeping track.
-
Proximity between G8 and H7
Move G8 to H8
Proximity between H8 and I7
Move H8 to G8
Treasure Chest at F8
(http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/Themes/core/images/dice_warn.gif) This dice roll may have been tampered with!
Rolled 1d200 : 182, total 182
Bit of a problem here. mail-mi had already moved G8 to G9 on a previous turn, but Grujah didn't record it on the map, so I assume that's why mail-mi's order is to move from G8 to H8. Since he can still get to H8 from G9, I'm inclined to go ahead and do it unless there are objections?
Also, are we keeping track of IP points somewhere? mail-mi uses 5 here, and I don't know if he had enough IPs to do these commands.
-
OK, now I see that mail-mi saw the mistake and tried to correct them, but had already ended his turn. But are the moves and treasure chest he made before then valid? It seems like the treasure chest at least should be.
I also see that Grujah's raising the speed of his unit three times was against the rules. Since it wasn't contested at the time, I assume that stands?
-
map is now updated, with only mail-mi's moves outstanding. I also reduced everyone's food by 1, since that was supposed to happen after Grujah's turn.
-
Proximity between G8 and H7
Move G8 to H8
Proximity between H8 and I7
Move H8 to G8
Treasure Chest at F8
(http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/Themes/core/images/dice_warn.gif) This dice roll may have been tampered with!
Rolled 1d200 : 182, total 182
Bit of a problem here. mail-mi had already moved G8 to G9 on a previous turn, but Grujah didn't record it on the map, so I assume that's why mail-mi's order is to move from G8 to H8. Since he can still get to H8 from G9, I'm inclined to go ahead and do it unless there are objections?
Also, are we keeping track of IP points somewhere? mail-mi uses 5 here, and I don't know if he had enough IPs to do these commands.
I didn't use the one from the turn before mine.
-
I also see that Grujah's raising the speed of his unit three times was against the rules. Since it wasn't contested at the time, I assume that stands?
I'd actually like to challenge this. Pretty sure we can declare it illegal based on the current rules.
-
um bump?
-
Oh my. It has been quite some time...
-
I've been wanting to bump this forever and have held off. In my opinion it's immortal. I'm also happy to play this in stops and starts.
So, to get things kicked off in a way that will draw people in, I invoke Judgement on Grujah's unit's speed. I propose it is returned to 0.
Rolling for judge:
Rolled 1d9 : 7, total 7
-
That was Grujah, who is involved in this dispute. Re-rolling:
Rolled 1d9 : 5, total 5
-
Jimmmmm is Judge
-
Jimmmmm is Judge
Whoa okay. I'll look at this closer at some point when I'm not at work.
-
I don't even... tell me when it's actually time for me to propose something, I'll try to catch up then. All I remember is that I was waiting for the map to be updated, and then all of a sudden we're invoking judgment and creating judges.
-
I don't even... tell me when it's actually time for me to propose something, I'll try to catch up then. All I remember is that I was waiting for the map to be updated, and then all of a sudden we're invoking judgment and creating judges.
It's because Grujah was Cartographer and gave himself illegal bonuses, which we discovered in updating the map.
-
Proximity between G8 and H7
Move G8 to H8
Proximity between H8 and I7
Move H8 to G8
Treasure Chest at F8
(http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/Themes/core/images/dice_warn.gif) This dice roll may have been tampered with!
Rolled 1d200 : 182, total 182
Bit of a problem here. mail-mi had already moved G8 to G9 on a previous turn, but Grujah didn't record it on the map, so I assume that's why mail-mi's order is to move from G8 to H8. Since he can still get to H8 from G9, I'm inclined to go ahead and do it unless there are objections?
Also, are we keeping track of IP points somewhere? mail-mi uses 5 here, and I don't know if he had enough IPs to do these commands.
OK, now I see that mail-mi saw the mistake and tried to correct them, but had already ended his turn. But are the moves and treasure chest he made before then valid? It seems like the treasure chest at least should be.
Another issue we need to address. I actually think mail-mi should get to make the moves. He wasn't allowed to at the time.
-
Another issue we need to address. I actually think mail-mi should get to make the moves. He wasn't allowed to at the time.
Seems fine with me, the Cartographer's tracking aren't actual rules, so if Grujah never recorded a movie, mail-mi still made it.
-
So, to get things kicked off in a way that will draw people in, I invoke Judgement on Grujah's unit's speed. I propose it is returned to 0.
Is there a good reason to set it to 0 and not 1?
-
So, to get things kicked off in a way that will draw people in, I invoke Judgement on Grujah's unit's speed. I propose it is returned to 0.
Is there a good reason to set it to 0 and not 1?
My reading of the rules led me to believe 0 was the base value? If the base value is 1 then it should be 1.
-
So, to get things kicked off in a way that will draw people in, I invoke Judgement on Grujah's unit's speed. I propose it is returned to 0.
Is there a good reason to set it to 0 and not 1?
My reading of the rules led me to believe 0 was the base value? If the base value is 1 then it should be 1.
No the base value is 0, but given you are allowed to upgrade once per turn, wouldn't the first upgrade be legal?