Friday, November 06, 2009

Proposal: One step closer

Self-killer—arth

Adminned at 06 Nov 2009 21:49:05 UTC

If a rule called “Workbench” exists, create a new sub-rule under it called “Mastery”:

Whenever an Apprentice “Steps Forward”, that Apprentice removes a single rune of their choice from their Workbench, then adds two damaged Runes at the end of their Workbench (this causes the number of runes on their Workbench to increase by one). An Apprentice can only Step Forward when explicitly allowed by the Rules, and never more than once a day.

For each three EVCs on this Proposal that contain the words “Show us the Way” add one Damaged Rune at the end of the Artisan’s Workbench.

posted by arthexis at 06 Nov 2009 08:02:04 UTC Comments (12)

Comments

arthexis: he/him

06-11-2009 08:18:16 UTC

for Explicit: Show us the Way

Josh: Observer he/they

06-11-2009 08:19:53 UTC

against Grindy. Means that those who can devote the time can have potentially massive workbenches.

Oze:

06-11-2009 08:26:16 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

06-11-2009 10:10:20 UTC

imperial

Kevan: he/him

06-11-2009 10:47:51 UTC

against

redtara: they/them

06-11-2009 11:34:11 UTC

imperial

Hix:

06-11-2009 14:56:01 UTC

against I don’t get it.  You’re just defining an action that can’t be taken until a future rule authorizes it.  That’s fine under some circumstances, but if and when we do allow expanded workbenches, I think we should come up with a way to do so at that time, not be bound by what’s in this proposal.

Klisz:

06-11-2009 15:27:29 UTC

for  Show us the Way

spikebrennan:

06-11-2009 15:39:12 UTC

against

Apathetic Lizardman:

06-11-2009 17:36:21 UTC

against It seems broken to be able to build your workbench after so soon an action. I would be more likely to be for this rule if you meet a requirement that is difficult(-ish maybe) to accomplish.

Bucky:

06-11-2009 17:39:16 UTC

against As per Hix, future rules that increase the size of workbenches should set their own restrictions.

arthexis: he/him

06-11-2009 17:56:10 UTC

against S/K I’ll come up with a more complete version, then