Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Proposal: One Regent Per Sign

Times out at 1-2. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 02 Dec 2006 02:48:36 UTC

Append the following to the first paragraph of Rule 2.2.1:

Each sign may have only one regent planet.  The planet that was regent to the chosen sign before the discovery is therefore no longer regent to it.



28-11-2006 20:27:33 UTC

Pro:Fixes an existing imbalance
Con:Only allows 3 new planets to be discovered.


28-11-2006 20:54:58 UTC

I don’t think your con is true, Bucky.  When the zodiac becomes saturated, we’ll start to see some of the older planets losing their regency altogether.


28-11-2006 21:52:11 UTC

“A Planet may be Regent to one or more Signs.” Though all planets share the privelege right now, it can be taken away.

It’s more likely that a newly discovered planet will not have any regency. Either way, Saki cares nothing for the stars. imperial


29-11-2006 00:36:33 UTC

You can take regency away from older planets, as Saki says, but e’s wrong that newly-discovered ones can be without regency: “The post must contain… the Planet’s sign”.


29-11-2006 00:53:52 UTC



29-11-2006 05:09:05 UTC

And why can’t the Planet’s sign be none or no sign? The way I’m interpreting the rule is that “Moon (P) - Cancer” could simply be listed as “Moon” and still be valid.


29-11-2006 10:33:35 UTC

I think you’re right there, because the moon is already known.  But 2.2.1 as it stands has a whole spiel about assigning new planets to a sign, and I don’t think none counts as a sign.


01-12-2006 02:10:50 UTC