Friday, March 09, 2018

Proposal: Hop, skip, and (a) jump away from Home

reached quorum 5-1

Adminned at 11 Mar 2018 06:51:11 UTC

If there is no rule called “Terrain”, or if the proposal “Homeland” passes, this proposal has no effect.

Create a rule called “Home” with the following:

Every Pawn has a randomly chosen Home Board, which is either the Hearts Board or the Spades Board. It is tracked in the GDNT. The King of a Pawn’s Home Board must secretly, randomly chooses one of the squares on that board to be that Pawn’s Homeland, and tell only that Pawn which square it is.

- If a Pawn’s location is on their home board, they have Combat Power equal to the amount of words at the Terrain of their Homeland. Otherwise, it is zero.
- A Pawn is Vulnerable to each word which is longer than 4 letters at the Terrain of their Homeland. A Pawn’s Proposals cannot have words in it which they are Vulnerable to.

Create a Rule called “Hearted Spades” with:

Rules which are subrules of this rule are considered to be subrules of both the “Hearts” rule and the “Spades” rule

Make Home a subrule of Hearted Spades.

An improvement (hopefully) on Cuddlebeam’s proposal.



03-09-2018 20:54:40 UTC

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.


03-09-2018 20:55:46 UTC

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


03-09-2018 20:59:19 UTC

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.


03-09-2018 21:00:31 UTC

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


03-09-2018 21:33:38 UTC

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


03-09-2018 21:53:12 UTC

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


03-09-2018 21:56:25 UTC

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”.


03-09-2018 21:58:15 UTC

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.


03-09-2018 22:08:49 UTC

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…


03-09-2018 22:09:55 UTC

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


03-09-2018 22:24:24 UTC

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


03-09-2018 23:01:21 UTC

But does this end up being good?


03-09-2018 23:09:18 UTC

for 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)


03-09-2018 23:11:19 UTC



03-09-2018 23:27:51 UTC



03-10-2018 00:50:07 UTC

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. against


03-10-2018 04:41:53 UTC

They could say “proposition”


03-10-2018 10:33:58 UTC



03-10-2018 10:35:39 UTC

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


03-11-2018 06:50:06 UTC

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.