Monday, April 04, 2011

Proposal: Changing the Lock

Enacted, 13-1. Does nothing, since rule 2.8 (Currently titled “Sightseeing”) does not contain the phrase “one locked station to no longer be locked”.
~lilomar

Adminned at 04 Apr 2011 22:24:09 UTC

In Rule 2.8, replace “one locked station to no longer be locked” with “one locked station (other than Mornington Crescent) to no longer be locked”.

Now that it’s playing out, UNLOCK is definitely overpowered - with two Hops either side of a weekend, a player can end the game without much impediment in four days (with a confederate moving freely to Mornington Crescent within moments of its unlocking, and passing the mantle of victory back to the unlocker). The current ruleset just doesn’t have enough complexity to block the Trail, or to limit who can take advantage of an unlock (“I could unlock Mornington Crescent but my opponents may get there first” is interesting, “I could unlock Mornington Crescent and tell my friend to move there immediately from anywhere on the board” is less so).

I have some ideas for improving the complexity, but don’t want to present them as the only possible solutions, or anything. This is just to see if we agree on “the game should not be winnable in four days”, for now - we can take this clause back out later, when unlocking is less unstoppable.

Comments

Josh:

04-04-2011 10:53:59 UTC

for Although I think it’s a very short-term fix, and only because I want to extend the dynasty.

Perhaps a mechanism by which six other stations have to be interacted with in some way to make MC available?

Roujo:

04-04-2011 12:08:13 UTC

for

Ely:

04-04-2011 12:39:38 UTC

for I like Josh’s idea arrow

Saakara:

04-04-2011 12:41:28 UTC

for

Subrincinator:

04-04-2011 13:43:52 UTC

for I also like Josh’s idea.

Subrincinator:

04-04-2011 13:50:43 UTC

We can conspire to visit stations starting in K and putting oddities on them that restrict hops to Mornington Crescent… but this wouldn’t, I reckon, prevent a confederate from acting instead.

Chivalrybean:

04-04-2011 15:23:09 UTC

for

ais523:

04-04-2011 17:47:07 UTC

against

lilomar:

04-04-2011 20:34:13 UTC

for per ais :P

Winner:

04-04-2011 21:00:32 UTC

for

Travis:

04-04-2011 21:14:59 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

04-04-2011 22:11:51 UTC

for

William:

04-05-2011 00:21:35 UTC

for

Darknight:

04-05-2011 01:19:52 UTC

for

ais523:

04-05-2011 05:23:38 UTC

@Kevan: Looks like you specified the wrong number. There’s a reason there used to be a rule banning specifying the number without the title…