Friday, June 01, 2012

Proposal: Proposal: On the Dangers Inherent in Inter-Dynastic Travel

Times out and fails at 2-8-2. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 05 Jun 2012 01:25:04 UTC

Add the following subrule entitled ‘Damage Due to Travel’ as a subrule of the Hard Rule ‘Dynastic Travel’

Each Time Monk shall have a GNDT field entitled ‘Chronomic Damage’ which shall default to a value of 0.

Whenever a Time Monk moves between Dynasties the Time Monk shall accumulate Chronomic Damage. The amount of damage taken when moving between Dynasties shall be equal to the absolute numerical difference in the Dynasty values of the Dynasty the Time Monk moved from and the Dynasty the Time Monk moved to. The amount of damage taken shall be added to the Chronomic Damage value in the GNDT and shall be considered to have changed at the instant a move takes place. Should a move result in a Time Monk’s Chronomic Damage value become equal to or greater than 200, the Time Monk shall instantly be moved to Dynasty 100 with no further Chronomic Damage being taken as a result of being moved to Dynasty 100.

Time travel takes it’s toll on the human body and results in cells losing track of their place in time, with horrible effects for the patient. In an attempt to spare Time Monks from that terrible fate, they’re carefully monitored to ensure that the accumulated damage doesn’t get too high.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

01-06-2012 23:14:56 UTC

imperial certainly better than the time machine idea… still think its a little too limiting especially considering you don’t often have control over where you go.

welknair:

02-06-2012 00:28:24 UTC

against  What happens once you reach 200 and are ported back to Dynasty 100? Are you pretty much stuck there until a rule is passed that allows “Chronomic healing”? It sounds like this could severely hamper gameplay.

Bucky:

02-06-2012 00:29:43 UTC

against  Enough GNDT stats already!  Let’s start using them instead.

Cpt_Koen:

02-06-2012 01:25:54 UTC

against per welknair

Darknight: he/him

02-06-2012 04:36:54 UTC

against

BobTHJ:

02-06-2012 16:05:39 UTC

for

MrBear:

02-06-2012 16:59:31 UTC

Personally, I feel that having a penalty as well as a (potential) cost results in more strategic play. The votes will decide of course!

Kevan: he/him

02-06-2012 17:04:45 UTC

against Per Bucky. It looks like Chronotons are going to end up covering much the same ground, here.

quirck: he/him

02-06-2012 20:53:37 UTC

against

Soviet Brendon:

03-06-2012 09:22:12 UTC

imperial

moonroof:

03-06-2012 15:44:01 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

04-06-2012 09:48:52 UTC

against