First Blood, Part Two (0 comments) Just making a link to the current Battle, which has now fallen off of the front

Just making a link to the current Battle, which has now fallen off of the front page because it’s more than a week old. (EE’s “sticky post” functionality just means “if a blog entry would appear on a page, put it at the top”, not “show all sticky posts at the top until they are unstickied”.) This post itself is not a Battle, so comments should continue on the older one.

No maintenance this weekend after all (0 comments) Upgrading to the latest EE (or to something) is going to be a lengthier and more

Upgrading to the latest EE (or to something) is going to be a lengthier and more complicated matter than I thought, so it won’t happen this weekend. I’m going to have some discussions with other admins in Slack before I go any further; I’ll post again when we come up with a tentative plan.

Friday, November 15, 2019

Proposal: Where Is Thy Sting?

If “Divine Grace” passed, replace “they Die and remain Dead” with “they become Unconscious and remain so”, then replaced “Dead” with “Unconscious” throughout the dynastic ruleset.

The concept of player death maybe works with an occasional desperate Revival on the floor of the cathedral, but starts to feel narratively silly when every Adventurer also gets automatically revived at the start of each new battle. I think the story works better if only one weird thing is happening to a bunch of otherwise mortal humans.

Thursday, November 14, 2019

Proposal: Divine Grace

In the rule “The Adventurers”, amend the third paragraph as follows:

If the HP of an Adventurer other than the Monster becomes 0, they Die and remain Dead for the duration of that Battle unless and until they are Revived. An Adventurer who is Dead cannot perform any Battle Action, and they cannot be affected by any Battle Action other than Revival.

In the rule “Battles”, in the sub-rule “Battle Actions”, amend the second step of the Atomic Action concerning Human Battle Actions as follows:

– Choose an Adventurer who is not Recovering, Weary, Dead, the Vanguard or the Monster. If no such Adventurer exists, choose an Adventurer who is not Dead, the Vanguard or the Monster. If again there is no such Adventurer, choose the Vanguard.

In the sub-rule “Weariness”, amend the first step of the Atomic Action concerning Weary Adventurers as follows:

– Randomly choose an Adventurer who is not Recovering, Weary, Dead, the Vanguard or the Monster; if no such Adventurer exists, randomly choose an Adventurer who is not Weary, Dead, the Vanguard or the Monster; if again there is no such Adventurer, randomly choose an Adventurer who is not Dead or the Monster. The Adventurer thus chosen will become the new Vanguard.

In the sub-rule “Revival”, repeal the paragraph beginning “If an Adventurer’s HP goes from 0…” and insert a new paragraph as follows:

If an Adventurer other than the Monster is Dead and the Vanguard’s HP is greater than 20, the Vanguard may perform Revival as a Human Battle Action, as follows:

– Reduce the Vanguard’s Merit by 25 and their HP by X amount, where X is an amount lower than the Vanguard’s HP but no lower than 20, and set to X the HP of the Dead Adventurer you wish to Revive.

If Revival has been performed in a Battle, it cannot be performed again in the same Battle.

If the proposal “Battling chaos” has not passed, interpret the above references to the sub-rules “Battle Actions”, “Weariness” and “Revival” as references to the rule “Battles”.

I suppose we could have them Faint instead of Die, but that sounds thematically underwhelming. In any case, this proposal seeks to prevent the prospect of having Adventurers with 0 HP take up a turn only to crawl further away from the Monster.

As to the requirements of performing Revival, I’ve opted to make it a momentous occasion, though not especially difficult.

Proposal: Battling chaos

Restructure the rule “Battles” as follows:

Create a sub-rule entitled “Battle Actions” and move into this sub-rule the paragraphs beginning “During a Battle…”, “If the most recent X Battle Actions…”, “Adventurers may not take Human Battle Actions…”, “The following are Human Battle Actions:-”, “If the Monster is not Recovering…” and “Adventurers should not use tags…”, with their respective associated lists where applicable.

Create a sub-rule entitled “Weariness” and move into this sub-rule the paragraphs beginning “If the Vanguard became the Vanguard…” (with its associated list) and “The previous Vanguard remains Weary…”.

Create a sub-rule entitled “Revival” and move into this sub-rule the paragraph beginning “If an Adventurer’s HP goes from 0…”

In the main rule “Battles”, three paragraphs thus remain, to be placed before the three aforementioned new sub-rules: they are the paragraphs beginning “Battles may occur…”, “If a Monster exists and no Battle is occurring…” and “If there is no Monster…”.

Some housekeeping…

Call for Judgment: Hiding in the catacombs

Reached quorum 5 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 Nov 2019 09:01:49 UTC

In the rule “Battles”, amend the description of the Human Battle Action “Retreat” as follows:

Retreat: Until your next Battle Action you are Retreating. A Retreating Adventurer may not be affected by any Battle Action taken by another Adventurer, unless its effect explicitly extends to Retreating Adventurers.

This should close the window of using Fire against a Retreating Adventurer, or any other attack not specifically mentioning such Adventurers; we may add this capability to attacks other than Teleporting Strike by separate proposals.

Proposal: Thirty pieces of silver

Reached quorum 5 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 Nov 2019 09:00:24 UTC

Add a new rule called “Judas”:

An Adventurer can Point Their Finger at an Adventurer other than themselves by paying 50 Merit and making a blog post that has “Pointing to X” as the title, with X being the name of an Adventurer. If X is the name of the Traitor, then they have Pointed Their Finger Correctly (and this is privately tracked by the Priest). This X cannot be edited once posted. An Adventurer can only Point Their Finger once. Only Quorum Adventurers can Point Their Finger.

Amend the first sentence of the last paragraph of Cathedral to:

When the Cathedral is destroyed, the Priest shall Pass Judgement (in a timely fashion) and grant 100 Merit to non-Traitor Adventurers who Pointed Their Finger Correctly, and 50*Quorum Merit to the Traitor if none Pointed Their Finger Correctly. After Passing Judgement, victory shall belong to the Adventurer who has the greatest amount of Merit and is not otherwise barred from achieving victory.

Call for Judgment: Sprinkler System

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 1-3 by Kevan.

Adminned at 14 Nov 2019 14:55:02 UTC

The Retreat action says that its performer “may not be the target of Battle Actions” until their next Battle Action.

What makes someone a “target” is undefined: all we have in the ruleset is that taking a Battle Action requires players to “Choose a Human Battle Action and its target, if applicable”, before “stating the action you took and its target, if applicable”.

The Fire Actions taken by Card and the Duke both identified me as their primary victim, with their required blog comments namechecking only me: “Die to monk’s fire, Kevan!” and “Roast in hell, Kevan!” respectively. The plain English interpretation of this is that I am the action’s “target” - “a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack” - and that they are stating it as required. Although no other person could have been selected, the decision to make the attack at all is itself a selection.

If this CfJ passes, any Fire actions taken which damaged the Monster while it was Retreating shall be regarded as invalid.

We should clear this up quickly, given Card’s concern that “target” is insufficiently defined.

Thursday, November 14, 2019

Proposal: stalled battle

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 14 Nov 2019 15:02:43 UTC

After the text “If the HP of all Adventurers other than the Monster is zero, the Monster may set its Havoc to 1000” add

and end any ongoing Battles

Proposal: clay pidgeons

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 2-3 (with the Imperial DEF becoming AGAINST) by Kevan.

Adminned at 14 Nov 2019 15:02:23 UTC

Replace “Slash: Reduce any Adventurer’s HP by 10. Reduce the Cathedral’s HP by 10.” with

Slash: Reduce any target Adventurer’s HP by 10. Reduce the Cathedral’s HP by 10.

Replace “Claw: Reduce any Adventurer’s HP by X, where X is 30+7*quorum.” with

Claw: Reduce any target Adventurer’s HP by X, where X is 30+7*quorum.

Replace “Fling: Reduce any Adventurer’s HP by X and reduce the Cathedral’s HP by X, where X is 15+5*quorum.” with

Fling: Reduce any target Adventurer’s HP by X and reduce the Cathedral’s HP by X, where X is 15+5*quorum.

Replace “Gunner: New Action: Shoot: Reduce an Adventurer’s HP by 12 + X” with

Gunner: New Action: Shoot: Reduce a target Adventurer’s HP by 12 + X

Replace “Medic: New Action: Heal: Increase the HP of any Adventurer by 10” with

Medic: New Action: Heal: Increase the HP of any target Adventurer by 10

Append to Battles

Battle Actions which do not use the word “target” are considered to not have targets.

cleaning up the definition of targetting

Proposal: Dial 666 for emergencies

unpopular 2-3 with 1 def
card

Adminned at 14 Nov 2019 02:35:08 UTC

Create a new rule called “Summoning”:

Dynastic rules are Banished or not (and only Dynastic rules can be Banished), and default to not being Banished. All Banished rules have a Summoning Power (rules that are not Banished do not), defaulting to 0 and tracked in its name as its last characters in the format “[X]”, where X is its Summoning Power (for example: “Ruling Rule [4]”). An Adventurer can Summon a Banished rule as a Weekly Action to increase its Summoning Power by 1. When a Banished rule’s Summoning Power is equal or greater to Quorum, it ceases to be Banished. The contents of a Banished rule shall be interpreted solely as “This rule does nothing”, anything else notwithstanding.

But make sure you’re doing so like a boss.

Proposal: And on the third day

popular 3-1 with 1 def enacted by card

Adminned at 14 Nov 2019 02:33:13 UTC

Add to “Battles”:

If an Adventurer’s HP goes from 0 to any value above 0, they have been Revived.

(like a boss)

Proposal: Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

unpopular 1-4 with 2 defs failed by card

Adminned at 14 Nov 2019 02:31:38 UTC

In the rule “Cathedral”, in the third paragraph, replace “The Cathedral has its own sheet” with “The Cathedral has a character sheet”.

Following this paragraph (and its associated list), add a new paragraph as follows:

While the Cathedral’s HP is between 1 and 1000 inclusive, the Cathedral is considered to be Collapsing and whenever a Battle Action would reduce the Cathedral’s HP by X amount, it reduces it by twice that amount instead. When the HP reduction is caused by a Monster via a Battle Action, the Monster’s Havoc gain is X.

I thought I’d make the final stretch more interesting and dramatic this way, as the Cathedral starts to collapse, but without unduly favouring the last Monsters with Havoc. The first clause is just a wording improvement.

Proposal: Praise the Sun

popular 5-0 with 2 defs enacted by card

Adminned at 14 Nov 2019 02:29:42 UTC

Remove “When the HP of the Monster reaches 0, they cease being the Monster, and then all Adventurers’ HP becomes their default value.” from “The Adventurers”, and add to “The Monster” (to the start of the final paragraph if the proposal Black Massacre enacted, as a new paragraph if it didn’t):-

If the HP of the Monster is zero, they cease to be the Monster.

In the “Continue the Story” atomic action in “The Monster”, add a new bullet point to the top:-

* Set all Adventurers’ HPs to their default values.

Moving the HP reset out of the Monster death effect, as this seems a bad place for it. (If a Battle ends without the Monster being killed, Adventurer HP isn’t reset?)

Proposal: Black Massacre

popular 4-0 enacted by card

Adminned at 14 Nov 2019 02:27:08 UTC

To “The Monster”, add:-

If the HP of all Adventurers other than the Monster is zero, the Monster may set its Havoc to 1000.

Per comments on Battle’s End, having a Battle considered a Monster victory if all of the Adventurers die.

Proposal: Very wearied of asterisks

popular 4-0 enacted by card

Adminned at 14 Nov 2019 02:25:50 UTC

In the rule “Battles”, a–mend the penultimate paragraph as follows:

If the Vanguard became the Vanguard no fewer than 36 hours ago, any Adventurer or the Priest may find them Weary and replace them by taking the following atomic action:

– Choose a random Adventurer from among those who are not Recovering, Weary, the Vanguard or the Monster; if no such Adventurer exists, choose a random Adventurer from among those who are not Weary, the Vanguard or the Monster. The Adventurer thus chosen will become the new Vanguard.
– Make a comment on the Battle Post, beginning with “[Weary]” and stating that the previous Vanguard has become Weary and who the new Vanguard is.

The previous Vanguard remains Weary until the end of the Battle; this status is tracked with the addition of an asterisk to their name on their character sheet for the duration of their being Weary.

I’ll have to reconsider my policy on referring to paragraphs. For now, this will do.

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Proposal: battle’s end

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 1-4 by Kevan.

Adminned at 13 Nov 2019 10:44:01 UTC

Replace “Retreat: Until your next Battle Action, you may not be the target of Battle Actions.” with

Retreat: Until your next Battle Action, you may not be the target of Battle Actions. If this is the second time you took this action in a particular battle, also gain 10 HP.,

Replace “If there is no Monster, all Battles which are occurring end.” with

If there is no Monster or all non-Monster Adventurers have 0 HP, all Battles which are occurring end.

Call for Judgment: Less of a Monster

Reached quorum 5 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 13 Nov 2019 09:28:33 UTC

In the rule “Transformation”, in the fifth paragraph (starting “Monstrosities are the following…”), replace “Battle Action” with “Monster Battle Action”.

I absent-mindedly wrote the wrong rule name in the previous CfJ, and now Monsters won’t be able to take advantage of their Monstrosities unless this is passed. Let’s hope this kind of chain doesn’t become a habit.

Call for Judgment: To each their own

Reached quorum 3 votes to 0. Final clause has no effect as there is no rule called “Monstrosities”. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 12 Nov 2019 21:43:55 UTC

In the rule “Battles”, after the second paragraph, add a new paragraph as follows:

During a Battle, either the Monster or the Vanguard may take a Battle Action. A Battle Action may be either Monster or Human: any Battle Action that is specifically defined as a Monster Battle Action can be taken only by the Monster, and any Battle Action that is specifically defined as a Human Battle Action can be taken only by the Vanguard.

In the paragraph on the Monster’s Battle Actions (starting “If the Monster is not Recovering…”), replace “Battle Action” with “Monster Battle Action”.

In the rule “Boons”, in the third paragraph, replace “Battle Action” with “Human Battle Action”.

In the rule “Monstrosities”, in the fifth paragraph (starting “Monstrosities are the following…”), replace “Battle Action” with “Monster Battle Action”.

There’s a chance that Boon-enabled Battle Actions cannot be taken by the Vanguard because of the inconsistent application of the “Human” terminology. (We have taken such actions, albeit with no effect, but the wording leaves room for dispute.) So let’s fix this, and tighten the Battle ruleset a little bit in the process. I’m using a CfJ because it could affect my next Battle Action; open proposals are not affected, so far as I can tell.

Proposal: Wearied of asterisks

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 13 Nov 2019 09:48:24 UTC

In the rule “Battles”, amend the final paragraph as follows:

If the Vanguard became the Vanguard no fewer than 36 hours ago, any Adventurer or the Priest may find them Weary and replace them by taking the following atomic action:

– Choose a random Adventurer from among those who are not Recovering, Weary, the Vanguard or the Monster; if no such Adventurer exists, choose a random Adventurer from among those who are not Weary, the Vanguard or the Monster. The Adventurer thus chosen will become the new Vanguard.
– Make a comment on the Battle Post, beginning with “[Weary]” and stating that the previous Vanguard has become Weary and who the new Vanguard is.

The previous Vanguard remains Weary until the end of the Battle; this status is tracked with the addition of an asterisk to their name on their character sheet for the duration of their being Weary.

Proposal: The wheat and the chaff

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 13 Nov 2019 09:30:32 UTC

In the rule “Battles”, in the third step of the atomic action “Human Battle Action”, amend the first sentence as follows:

Make a comment on the occurring Battle Post, beginning with “[Action]” and stating the action you took and its target, if applicable.

In the paragraph on the Monster’s Battle Actions (starting “If the Monster is not Recovering…”), replace the part following “list” as follows:

by making a comment to that effect, beginning with “[Action]”, to the Battle’s Battle Post:

Append to the end of the rule a new paragraph, as follows:

Adventurers should not use tags or tag-like text strings (of the format “[X]”) in blog posts and comments in a misleading manner.

If this doesn’t work, my next proposal will be to add: “Whenever an Adventurer inquires as to whether a blog comment in a Battle Post comprises a Battle Action, they shall lose 10 Merit and 10 HP”.

Proposal: Natural Lore

Reached quorum 5 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 13 Nov 2019 09:27:19 UTC

Reword the “Lore” rule to:-

As a weekly action, an Adventurer may gain 10 Merit as a Lore bonus, if they have written a total of at least 150 words of original story or roleplay related to the dynasty in their blog posts and/or blog comments, so far that week.

Writing these bits of narrative as part of Battle posts, Battle Actions, Transformations and Monster posts seems fair enough.

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Story Post: [Lore] The Geas

TyGuy6 log: What fools we were, entering the Cathedral before knowing precisely what we’d be up against! All much the more foolish, now that’s our best and brightest has been swallowed by the shadows. Our former friend, Kevan now hides in the mist and devours our reality.

How to defeat him with our crude weaponry? Our ranks are divided by arrogance, for we still believe ourselves the superior team. Though the walls of the cathedral begin to dissipate before our eyes, the gaps don’t let in sunlight.

I myself, cursed! Something about Kevan’s trickery has pierced my mind, and laid a geas upon me, so that I cannot even speak to reveal his plot to my companions. I write it here in code, with the key to interpret it locked away until after his plans reach dreadful fruition. Thus, though I cannot save us, I can leastwise show evidence of my current plight:

9df586aebaad8d92bc618c88d02a8c34

His proposal to reset the boons after his time as Monster is thus how he has taken his second advantage, and I, wordless to say it beyond this pitiful Adventurer’s log.

The message, when revealed, can be checked against the hash above, using the hashing tool at https://www.md5hashgenerator.com/

idling

3balance idles out after 8 days of inactivity
quorum becomes 3

Call for Judgment: I can do this on my own

Reached quorum 3 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 12 Nov 2019 09:23:29 UTC

In the rule “Battles”, amend the second step of the Human Battle Action atomic action as follows:

Choose a non-Monster Adventurer that is not Recovering, Weary or the Vanguard; if no such Adventurer exists, choose any non-Monster Adventurer other than the Vanguard.

Apparently, when a Vanguard performs a Battle Action, they are not considered to have performed it until the end of the Atomic Action containing it:

All of the steps of an Atomic Action are considered one action, as well as the steps of an Atomic Action that is itself a step of a parent Atomic Action.

For the purposes of determining the ordering or legality of game actions the time of an Atomic Action shall be the time that it is completed.

This means they are not Recovering when they choose the next Vanguard and are therefore allowed to choose themselves.

Proposal: “Yours sincerely, Rawwwwrr!”

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 12 Nov 2019 09:28:35 UTC

In the rule “Transformation”, amend the first paragraph as follows:

A Monster is Transforming or not, and defaults to Transforming. While Transforming, whenever the Monster would lose HP, it doesn’t lose HP. A Transforming Monster cannot perform Battle Actions.

A Transforming Monster can Finish Transforming to stop being Transforming, gain up to X Monstrosities of their choice (where X is the amount of Adventurers in the dynasty when Transformation began), and set their HP to default. To Finish Transforming, the Monster makes a blog post with the tag “[Monster]” in its title, in which post it states what Visible Monstrosities it has (if it has any).

In order to use Hidden Monstrosities, the Monster must privately inform the Priest of their number and type; such notification should be by Private Message. If the Priest has received no such notification by the time the Monster has performed its first Battle Action following its Transformation, the Monster shall be considered never to have had any Hidden Monstrosities, and never to have performed any Battle Actions which they couldn’t have performed without such Hidden Monstrosities.

Only a Monster can have Monstrosities. When a Monster ceases to be such, they also lose all of their Monstrosities.

There are several ambiguities in the existing rule:

a) When Adventurers Idle, does the Monster lose Monstrosities? [I suggest that it does not, mostly for the sake of avoiding confusion.]
b) Does Transformation not end unless the Priest is informed of the existence of Hidden Monstrosities? How does everyone else know? [I’ve clarified the connection, so that the important moment is when the blog post is made.]
c) The syntactic connection between the process and the effects of Finishing Transformation is less than satisfactory. [I’ve clarified it.]
d) Why is all this a single paragraph?

(The rules alternate “it” and “they” when referring to the Monster; I find this annoying, but I suppose I’ll have to live with it.)

Regarding the notification of the Priest, I vacillated between a stricter time limit (in the interests of better oversight; after all, the current rule more or less assumes that the notification will be instant) and a looser “need to know” rule (in which the Priest would only need to be informed about a Hidden Monstrosity before it were to be used by the Monster). I think I’ve struck a good balance here; after all, the Monster has to be the one to initiate combat, as the rules currently stipulate.

Sunday, November 10, 2019

Proposal: Waning Boon

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 2 votes to 3 by Kevan.

Adminned at 12 Nov 2019 09:26:31 UTC

Enact a new rule, “A Pause for Reflection”:-

If the Adventurer named Kevan is not a Monster, any Adventurer may perform the following atomic action:-

* Replace “An Adventurer can have more than 1 of the same Boon.” with “An Adventurer can have up to 3 of the same Boon.” in the ruleset.
* For each Adventurer with more than 3 of the same Boon, remove all of their Boons.
* Repeal this rule.

Maxing out individual Boons feels a bit bland, now that it’s happened twice. Delaying it until the next round to show that I’m not trying to change anything about the current fight.

Proposal: [Appendix] Finis Coronat Opus

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 12 Nov 2019 09:25:25 UTC

In the rule “Gamestate Tracking”, amend the fourth paragraph’s first sentence as follows:

For Gamestate which is tracked in a specific place (such as a wiki page), any alteration of that Gamestate as a result of an Adventurer’s action is (and can only be) applied by that Adventurer’s editing of that data in that place.

Although the rule’s current phrasing does strongly suggest that an Adventurer has to edit the data themselves in order to alter Gamestate through an action, this is vague enough to allow the possibility that anyone else can make such an edit for the action to take effect. In the particular case that came up today: could I have added that asterisk to the wiki page so that I could be Vanguard? The answer ought to be “no”.

Proposal: Measuring range increase, like a boss

Vetoed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 12 Nov 2019 09:24:46 UTC

Amend all instances in the Ruleset of “1000” to “2000”.

Then, amend “Each time a Monster causes a non-Monster Adventurer or the Cathedral to lose an amount of HP via a Battle Action, that Monster gains that same amount of Havoc” to:

Each time a Monster causes a non-Monster Adventurer or the Cathedral to lose an amount of HP via a Battle Action, that Monster gains that same amount of Havoc if their Havoc is less than 1000. If it is 1000 or more, they gain half that amount instead.

I think it might be possible to hit 1000 Havoc pretty consistently. This helps tell the difference between two or more players that may hit 1000+.

Sunday, November 10, 2019

Proposal: [Core] backwards referential queue

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 10 Nov 2019 19:21:30 UTC

Append to rule 1.5 “Proposals” the following text:
If a Proposal refers to another Proposal by name, it is assumed to be the most recent Proposal in the queue that has that name and was posted during the current dynasty.

This is to help prevent confusion or scams that might happen when people refer to a proposal in the queue and to compartmentalize proposals to their own dynasties if referenced by a proposal from a later dynasty.

Proposal: Teeth and Claws

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 10 Nov 2019 19:18:26 UTC

In the rule “Battles”, replace the “Claw” Battle Action with the following:

* Claw: Reduce any Adventurer’s HP by X, where X is 30+7*quorum.
* Fling: Reduce any Adventurer’s HP by X and reduce the Cathedral’s HP by X, where X is 15+5*quorum.
* Wreck: Reduce the Cathedral’s HP by X, where X is 30+7*quorum.

I’m reusing Kevan’s proposal, with a twist: the Monster inflicts damage roughly proportionate to the number of adversaries. (I’m sure you’ll prove better than me at finding a thematic connection; I might guess the Monster smells their fear, or feeds off their religious fervor.) With these formulas, Claw and Wreck inflict an HP damage of 58, 65 and 72 HP for respective Q values of 4, 5 and 6; Fling inflicts a respective HP damage of 35, 40 and 45. The aforementioned Q values correspond to 4–5, 6–7 and 8–9 Adventurer opponents respectively, though Q does correspond directly to how often the Monster attacks.

Proposal: Oblivion

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 10 Nov 2019 19:14:18 UTC

In the rule “Boons”, amend the description for the “Brawn” Boon as follows:

Brawn: Increase your Max HP by 20 for each Brawn Boon you have.

Amend the description for the “Persistence” Boon as follows:

Persistence: Whenever you perform a Battle Action as the Vanguard, increase your HP by 5 for each Persistence Boon you have.

Firstly, a clarification about the effect of these Boons (“X per Boon”). Secondly, Adventurers do not lose their Boons when they become Monsters; it makes sense thematically to keep the 20 HP bonus of Brawn, but not the Persistence one, which a) is a matter of behavior and b) pertains to Human Battle Actions rather than a Monster’s.

Proposal: Benefactors, like a boss

vetoed (like a boss)—card

Adminned at 10 Nov 2019 04:14:40 UTC

Create a new rule called “Benefactors”:

Each Adventurer has a Benefactor or none (defaulting to none), privately tracked by the Priest. Each Adventurer has an amount of Reward, which is privately tracked by the Priest and defaults to 0. Each time a Monster ceases to be a Monster (with such a Monster not being the Adventurer named Kevan), Adventurers with a Benefactor receive 1 Reward.

An Adventurer can, once per dynasty, set their Benefactor to one of their choice by spending 5 Merit and privately informing the Priest of their choice of Benefactor (by Private Message). Benefactors, and their effects (if any) are the following:

- Licatho:
- Doxortho:

Amend the last paragraph of “Cathedral” to:

When the Cathedral is destroyed, the Priest shall Parade the Adventurers in a timely fashion, which is an Atomic Action of the following Steps:
- For each Adventurer, grant them Merit equal to X, where X=(100 + Their Reward amount * 50)/(Amount of Adventurers that have their Benefactor).
- Make a Blog Post with the tag [Parade] in the title.

After the Priest performs that Atomic Action, victory shall belong to the Adventurer who has the greatest amount of Merits and is not otherwise barred from achieving victory. If there are more than one Adventurers fulfilling these criteria, the one who gained the greatest amount of Havoc as the Monster shall be victorious. If there is again a tie, the Adventurer who became the Monster the earliest shall be victorious.

Intrigue minigame where people try to put themselves into the group with the least people.

Delaying it for everyone (it’s for Monsters after Kevan) to give more time to think and talk about it.