Monday, May 23, 2022

Proposal: All Along the Watchtower

Timed out 5 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 25 May 2022 17:26:33 UTC

If the proposal “The Eight Horsemen of the Apocalypse” failed, then this proposal has no further effect.

In “Buildings”, replace “The Building Types are Temple, Shop, Farm, Embassy and House.” with:-

There are several Building Types, in three classes: Temples, Shops, Farms and Houses are all types of Infrastructure Building; Embassies are the only type of Foreign Building; Towers, Levees, Barracks and Granaries are all types of Support Building.

Replace “Embassies can also be Uninhabited” with “Buildings can also be Uninhabited”.

In “The Queue”, replace “Creating a Building of any Type in any District, owned by themselves; or, take possession of a Deed which is not held by any other Guardian” with:-

Creating any Type of Infrastructure Building in any District, owned by themselves; creating an Uninhabited Support Building of any Type in any District; or, taking possession of a Deed which is not held by any other Guardian

After the bullet list in “Prophecy”, add:-

If during an Auguring a Fate would affect a District which contains a Support Building that protects against that Fate, then that Fate instead has no effect during that Auguring. Protections afforded by Support Buildings are as follows:
* Towers protect against Fire
* Levees protect against Water
* Barracks protect against Conflict
* Granaries protect against Famine

Also change the Conflict effect to:-

* The effect of Conflict on a District is that any Guardian holding its Deed ceases to hold it, and that all Support Buildings in that District are removed from the game

Some structures to protect Districts against particular disasters.


lendunistus: he/him

24-05-2022 04:46:53 UTC

correct me if I’m wrong, but

“all Support Buildings in that District are removed from the game” could be interpreted as “from the ruleset”

Kevan: he/him

24-05-2022 08:08:10 UTC

I’d say not - that an instance of a Building is different from the definition of a Building - but it’s up to however a majority interprets it when it becomes time to interpret it. If you worry that there might be a consensus for a reading you wouldn’t want it to have, you could head that off by proposing to clarify the rule.


24-05-2022 09:10:28 UTC


wdtefv: hu/hum

24-05-2022 18:24:09 UTC

so like, do these just stick around after a calamity hits? are these just permanent?

Kevan: he/him

24-05-2022 18:30:16 UTC

As written, yes, although they can be destroyed by other disasters. If you think they should be removed in the process of averting the Fate, or something like that, feel free to propose an amendment.

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

24-05-2022 23:55:38 UTC


Josh: he/they

25-05-2022 08:45:09 UTC


Josh: he/they

25-05-2022 08:47:37 UTC

(I don’t think there should be ways of defending against disasters, I think disasters should be much worse and much less avoidable, this is supposed to be about the destruction of Atlantis, and insurance should be as close to safety - at a cost - as you can get)

Kevan: he/him

25-05-2022 09:14:51 UTC

I think the fall of Atlantis would be more enjoyable if it had been built up in a meaningful, hubristic way first, rather than aiming to be eventually washing away random buildings at a slightly faster rate than they can be built. I like the idea of bigger scenes where an earthquake destroys a tower which fails to spot a fire, which destroys a barracks, which allows a levee to be broken, which floods a region.

I’m all for ramping up the disasters in some way as the dynasty progresses.

Josh: he/they

25-05-2022 09:25:32 UTC

I think you’ll find it harder to get proposals enacted that take people’s progress away once they have some progress to defend

Kevan: he/him

25-05-2022 09:35:32 UTC

You think? Assuming we go for some endgame of “last player standing” or “most money made when Atlantis falls”, I’d expect turning up the disaster dial to be supported by players who’d made more progress, since they’d feel better positioned to weather it. (Whether that’s a well-Supported District under this rule, or just a heavily populated one under the current one.)

wdtefv: hu/hum

25-05-2022 10:00:50 UTC


Josh: he/they

25-05-2022 10:37:09 UTC

@Kevan is that an argument for most players opposing? At that point, accelerating destruction is basically bampam

Josh: he/they

25-05-2022 10:42:33 UTC

I guess I feel like of the game is intended to be “build things, they might get destroyed” then that needs to be the promise of the game from the outset, consistently, rather than being an 11th hour twist that also needs player consent.

Kevan: he/him

25-05-2022 11:15:31 UTC

I mean, all victory conditions are based on progress made so far, it always takes a little finesse to get the middle of the pack on board. Are you concerned that adding Support buildings would widen the gulf between leading players and trailing ones?

I don’t see Support buildings as changing things much. Any given Support structure is only going to be useful in 1/56th of Fate rolls, and may get destroyed by a different Fate anyway, so they’re a waste of time to build entirely speculatively. Even if you learn a Prophecy, it may still be better in the long run to build an additional regular building elsewhere than to waste a whole turn negating it.

Josh: he/they

25-05-2022 11:44:07 UTC

If they’re not going to change much then why are we adding them? Is it just complexity for the sake of complexity?

Kevan: he/him

25-05-2022 11:59:22 UTC

Sure, complexity for the sake of seeing if it goes anywhere, we’re still in the early days of the dynasty.

Lulu: she/her

25-05-2022 12:08:02 UTC


Raven1207: he/they

25-05-2022 13:46:09 UTC