Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Proposal: Looting

Failed 2 to 9 - Jack

Adminned at 06 Mar 2008 04:46:23 UTC

Add a new rule to the dynasty rules entitled “Looting”, with the following text:

As a weekly action, a Captain who possesses a ship may attack another Captain who has a ship.  The strength of each Captain’s ship is equal to DICEX, where X is the size of that captain’s army.  A ship’s strength is determined at the beginning of every attack as well as every time it comes under attack.
The captain who has the highest strength is declared the winner of the attack (even if that captain is not the attacker).  The winner of the attack may take from the loser an amount of gold up to 100 times his rank (i.e. a rank 3 Captain can plunder up to $300) by rolling DICEY where Y is the total amount of gold the losing captain currently has according to his GNDT statistic.
A Captain who attacks a ship with an army size of ‘0’ automatically wins the attack, but can only take half of DICEY as his winnings.

I was originally thinking of just having the attack fail if the rolled strength wasn’t high enough, but then I decided it added more strategy if the defending Captain could attack back.

Comments

arthexis: he/him

05-03-2008 17:52:07 UTC

for
A little looting does no harm.

JoshuaGross:

05-03-2008 18:41:20 UTC

I like the rule, but… it enables ninjas. Boo ninjas. against

Tekneek:

05-03-2008 18:50:30 UTC

against

Jack:

05-03-2008 20:20:26 UTC

There should be some difference between Pirates and Ninjas…

Oze:

05-03-2008 20:53:59 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

05-03-2008 21:48:19 UTC

against Has no case of ties. Too easy to beat up people who have no men.

Purplebeard:

05-03-2008 22:15:23 UTC

against I agree with Clucky.

Jacek_FH:

05-03-2008 22:22:55 UTC

against No case of ties. Battles should decrease pet army.

Yoda:

05-03-2008 22:41:54 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

06-03-2008 02:06:01 UTC

against

Chivalrybean:

06-03-2008 05:12:41 UTC

against

What’s with all this anti-ninja stuff? Jealous?

Jack:

06-03-2008 12:44:49 UTC

against