BlogNomic

It specifically says later in the rule “There are some wishes he will not grant.”

Also, there is no Dijin or Dijini. It’s Djinn and Djinni - double N, no I between the D and J.

not convinced that he’s required to accept a victory condition

Idle FOR - not just because I want the dynasty to end. I think it’s a clever loophole.

I think I’ve been rather fair with my wish granting. However, I do not like how I’m suppost to bend down and grant every wish. That’s why the rule says that I do not have to grant wishes. Your first non-granted wish, if I recall, would have made an infinity loop with everyones corruption. I felt like that would cause trouble so I denied it, though yes I think my reson at the time was abit different. This one I denied because 1. Theres a VC and 2. It would effectively ended the dynasty cause all you’d have to do is get a hint, figure it out and get the relic. How would that have been fair? Srry if you think I’m not being fair but, and not to be mean, always look at the bigger picture.

That’s like saying “I wish to achieve victory.”

Eh, fair. It’s a clever loophole.

The rule allows the Djinni to be arbitrary.

The rule was phrased as it was specifically to rule out that sort of loophole.

The rule says “Wishes that will not be granted include, but are not limited to:”. Nothing illegal here. You just need to be a bit more subtle.

Although I also feel cheated by the Djinn… he took his time granting me the lamp and I’ve had one wish denied because he didn’t feel like updating the GNDT and another one has suffered a “pocket veto”. I don’t like being in limbo. :(

But I think this is a fair use of a CfJ; by rule, we could overrule the Djinn if we wanted to but we don’t have to.

If tec writes it more subtly, as Kevan says, than it will be more likely to work out.

This wouldn’t result in tecslicer winning anyway. Rule 3.2.5

Personally, I think that this is covered under “Wishes that a player achieve victory.” I specifically did not say “wishes that cause a player to achieve victory” since, theoretically, any legal wish could do that in some way. I never forsaw a rule that would allow legal manipulation of the ruleset, so I did not specifically disallow this wish, but the Djinn does have some disgressionary freedom in granting/not granting wishes.

Though it sounds like it might be time for a “new” Djinn granting wishes? Do people think I should unidle?

(*idle )

Bare with me Wak. I got a back log of wishes during the night lol.

MY interp of the rule stating “The Djinn is supposed to, to the best of his ability, grant all wishes legally requested of him by an Adventurer” is that the Djinn is supposed to grant valid wishes, but that those wishes that are not legal are the “Some” that he will not grant.

@Kevan: Yeah, subtlety. But I was not going for a subtle win, rather, a sound win. but yeah if the djinn does not have to grant legal wishes I need to reevaluate, and sneak one by him.

But NOI is right (Forgot about that rule, thanks There) the relic still would not grant me the win unless is states “The adventurer named tecslicer achieves victory. so.

“Wishes for things the Djinn is not willing to do, such as idle himself, will obviously not be fulfilled.”    .