Tuesday, December 20, 2022

Proposal: Piece It Together

Times out 10-1. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 22 Dec 2022 21:20:03 UTC

Add a new subrule, “Fragments”, to the dynastic rule “Items”. Give it the following text:

Fragments are Cursed Items, but when an Explorers ceases to be Possessed by Katastrophe they involuntarily drop all their Fragments. Only one new Fragment may be created per turn.

Add “Chant” to the list of “available Planned Actions” in the rule “Explorer Actions”.

In the rule “Explorer Actions”, after the paragraph starting with “Grabbing causes”, add the following paragraph:

Chanting is a Summoning Attempt (with all the defined effects thereof) if the one performing it holds at least three Fragments and is not possessed by Katastrophe, and a Disruption Attempt (with all the defined effects thereof) if it’s not a Summoning Attempt.

In the list of steps in the rule “Mansion Phase”, after the step that begins “If Dread is less than 47”, add the following step:

If exactly one Explorer performed a Summoning attempt this turn, that Explorer achieves victory unless an odd number of Explorers performed a Disruption Attempt this turn.

 

Comments

SingularByte: he/him

21-12-2022 06:06:07 UTC

for

SingularByte: he/him

21-12-2022 06:13:12 UTC

Hm, actually, CoV imperial
If you needed some prerequisite to chant it would be interesting, but I could see this making the ending feel like a dice roll. If the summoner convinces a single ally to help, then it just becomes mind games whether that ally will be used to chant or not, leaving a 50% chance per turn that the summoner can get a chant through with an even number of disruptions.

Raven1207: he/they

21-12-2022 06:18:08 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

21-12-2022 12:50:09 UTC

imperial

Benbot: he/him

21-12-2022 13:42:19 UTC

for

quirck: he/him

21-12-2022 20:06:27 UTC

for

Brendan: he/him

21-12-2022 21:10:29 UTC

against “Summoning Attempt” is not necessarily the same as “Summoning attempt.” I realize that capitalization can be changed in enactment, but that also seems like an opening argument in a hasty victory attempt.

JonathanDark: he/him

21-12-2022 21:38:19 UTC

for

The capitalization issue seems easily patchable.

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

21-12-2022 23:46:10 UTC

for

Habanero:

22-12-2022 05:00:08 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

22-12-2022 11:18:00 UTC

for I really don’t think capitalisation differences are a thing. The current dynastic ruleset already varies cases for basic concepts like Explorers and Rooms; even core is inconsistent for Votes and Proposals.