BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I think you’ve misunderstood that each player has two avatars, one per board, so the part about Combat Power should be changed. Otherwise I like this.

Oh wait, it’s me who didn’t understand lol. Forget my comment.

Ok (sorry for the spam) but I need to clarify this: Was your intention that only the avatar placed on the home board benefit from the combat power (and the other one no), or, as I said in my first comment, you thought there was only one avatar when writing this rule ? It’s not clear because you used the word pawn instead of avatar.

actually Piece is the right word if your specifically targeting one of the player’s pieces

Where in the rules do we each have two avatars? Also, I though that the generic “player” name was “Pawn”

The player is a Pawn, but each Pawn has two avatars (or pieces), one per board. It’s in the Pieces rule.

Ok, rereading that rule, I realise it’s not quite as clear as I thought, since it says “When a Pawn is placed on a board etc.”. It should have said “When a Pawn’s avatar”.

The pieces or avatar what we are calling a player’s representation on the boards; you the Pawn are not on the board but your avatar is.
Oh you’re right, we never wrote that in since it was an obvious (to us) assumption we were going with. Well there doesn’t need to be two pieces, having one piece with rules for traveling from one board to another could be interesting as well.

True, it might be more logical to have one piece. We could then remove the references to pieces and avatars and simply say pawn. The problem though, is that we can’t change that rule since any text or rules added to the ruleset which make reference to the Hearts board, in name or otherwise, must be added the Hearts rule etc…

I’m going to propose something to make adding rules specific to the boards easier, and then we can change the Pieces rule.

We should probably just repeal the Hearts and Spades rules, or make them just tags to the rules title itself

But does this end up being good?

I think we could vote this in, even if it might not work with the pieces rule yet, and change the pieces rule to have one piece/pawn per player. No use forcing a repost of this rule since it’s already written as it should be when we make the other changes.

(Since there’s no moving mechanics yet we can take some liberties here)

I’m still not convinced. For instance, a pawn with homebase Hearts 7,0 (t367) would not be able to use the word “proposal” in their proposal.

They could say “proposition”

Or “Prop*osal (without the asterisk).”

I’m not certain whether some of those would stand up to scrutiny. They could also simply reference the name of an existing proposal or just play around an interesting problem with one solution being to ask someone else to propose it for them.