Thursday, August 03, 2017

Proposal: [Core] Long Live The King

Times out 3-0. Enacted by pokes.

Adminned at 05 Aug 2017 18:09:04 UTC

Replace the Core section of the Ruleset with the copy at https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=User:Kevan/Sandbox&oldid=4624

Dialling back the ruleset to single-Emperor wording it had on July 4, prior to the two proposals that added extra clauses for a situation that seems unlikely to occur very often, if at all. If we feel like a multi-Emperor dynasty in the future, it’s easy to write a dynastic rule (in either the dynasty itself or the one before) to handle that, and it seems more interesting to handcraft something thematic when the time comes.

A comparison of edits is visible at https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=User:Kevan/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=4624 .

Comments

Cuddlebeam:

08-03-2017 17:43:29 UTC

Feels a bit too soon imo, and bloc wins have already been alluded to. I’d love a paradigm shift towards multi-winners/emperors for the near future, because its never been done before.

Core proposal so I wont vote just yet but provisional redcross.

Kevan:

08-03-2017 18:19:48 UTC

Embedding it as a permanent core rule seemed too soon, when we hadn’t even tried it out once. Even during the dynasty that brought it in and had an optional Cultist multi-victory rule, people were playing more towards the old-fashioned, one-player, coinflip victory option.

If we try out the mechanic dynastically, I think we’ll see some pushback against the idea of “five people win, five people become Emperors, five people can’t win the next dynasty” - maybe leaning more towards “five people win, one becomes Emperor, four become Viziers” to explore what happens when you codify inter-dynastic payback, but even then, how fun would it actually be to start a game knowing that half of your opponents had an advantage over you?

card:

08-03-2017 18:29:01 UTC

imperial

pokes:

08-03-2017 21:35:28 UTC

Nobody will know what CIC and UNSG mean, but for