Wednesday, October 12, 2022

Proposal: Dismantle

Timed out unenactable, 4-4. Josh

Adminned at 14 Oct 2022 09:09:37 UTC

In the rule Victory and Ascension, remove the text “either Pass the Mantle (by making a post naming a Partygoer who was not the last dynasty’s Host, in which case the passing Partygoer ceases to be the Host and the Partygoer so named becomes the Host) or”. In the same rule, in “If the game is in an Interregnum then the new Host must”, change the ‘must’ to a ‘may’.

In the rule Malign Emperors [Inactive] [Rare], change the first instance of the words ‘The Host’ to the following: “If the Special Case rule Mantle Passing is active, and the game is in Interregnum, then the Host of the recently-ended Dynasty”; and from the same rule, remove “during an Interregnum, as per the rule Victory and Ascension”.

Replace the rule Mantle Limitations [Active] with the following rule, called Mantle Passing [Rare][Inactive]:

During Interregnum, before posting an Ascension Address, the new Host may make a blog post naming a single other Partygoer who was not the Host of the most recently concluded dynasty. The named Partygoer then becomes to the Host and the poster ceases to be the Host; this is referred to as Passing the Mantle.

Repeal the rule Alliances.



12-10-2022 08:48:04 UTC

“most recently concluded dynasty” pedanically, dynasties technically don’t end with a successful DoV. There is a still-ongoing dynasty during Interregnums

Kevan: he/him

12-10-2022 08:49:18 UTC

The first edit leaves us with “then the new Host must start a new dynasty”, which should be dialled down to a “may” so that a Mantle-passing winner doesn’t have to wilfully ignore a “must”.

Your new Mantle Passing rule is missing a restriction on passing back to the Emperor.

Kevan: he/him

12-10-2022 08:50:13 UTC

[Cuddlebeam] An Interregnum is defined as “the period between dynasties”.


12-10-2022 08:52:24 UTC

Oh! That’s new, I really need to re-study the ruleset lol

Josh: Ascendant he/they

12-10-2022 08:57:13 UTC

Thanks Kevan, changes made.


12-10-2022 16:18:08 UTC

The Interregnum change happened because I claimed (wrongly, as it turned out) to have achieved victory in between the start of a dynasty at DoV enactment and the repeal of the victory condition with the Ascension Address.

against because I like mantle passing.

Darknight: he/him

12-10-2022 18:12:29 UTC

imperial til more votes come in

Lulu: she/her

12-10-2022 19:14:26 UTC


Raven1207: he/him

12-10-2022 20:42:46 UTC


Darknight: he/him

13-10-2022 01:00:32 UTC

against COV

Snisbo: she/they

13-10-2022 01:12:15 UTC

against I think it works fine as is

Kevan: he/him

13-10-2022 08:46:17 UTC

The only intended change here is moving the definition of mantle passing from core to special case, isn’t it? That and throwing out Alliances as a rare subrule of a now-rare subrule.

Currently we have a core rule taking the time to explain that every ascension has the option of a mantle pass, with a special case much later in the ruleset saying that in most dynasties this isn’t allowed. Flipping that around makes the ruleset more readable.

Josh: Ascendant he/they

13-10-2022 09:00:10 UTC

I’m am a bit confused by the flood of against votes, for a proposal that doesn’t change any current mechanic but is just about tidying up the ruleset a little.

Kevan: he/him

13-10-2022 09:24:42 UTC

I guess it’s because you hadn’t explicitly spelled that out anywhere, and Bucky’s opening vote is suggesting that the proposal is somehow bad for people who like mantle passing.

A flavour text box always helps, if the intention of a proposal isn’t immediately obvious from a five-second skim read.

Josh: Ascendant he/they

13-10-2022 09:44:10 UTC

I guess. We’d just talked about it so much on Discord I assumed that the intent was clear.

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

13-10-2022 15:14:30 UTC

for I don’t get what the issue is


13-10-2022 17:02:59 UTC

for I was also confused by the contents until I read all these comments.

Snisbo: she/they

13-10-2022 17:24:58 UTC

I’m assuming Bucky had the same thinking I did: I like having the option to pass the mantle as default, not as an exception, and this is taking another step away from that

Josh: Ascendant he/they

13-10-2022 18:12:24 UTC

@Snisbo It isn’t; Mantle Limitations being non-rare makes the option to pass the mantle off by default, and this doesn’t change that. It just re-organises the ruleset a little to make it more legible.

Kevan: he/him

13-10-2022 18:26:47 UTC

[Supernova] Mantle passing was altered to be an exception rather than the default last month, if you missed that.

Snisbo: she/they

14-10-2022 00:59:02 UTC

@Kevan I know and I wasn’t the biggest fan. This feels like a further step away from it being the default, is all. I guess it doesn’t technically change anything mechanically, though, so CoV for