Friday, December 01, 2023

Proposal: Shoving Aside

Timed out, 2-4 with 1 DEF. Failed by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 03 Dec 2023 19:56:08 UTC

If the proposal https://blognomic.com/archive/stepping_aside does not pass, this proposal does nothing

Add a subrule to “Succession” called “Assassination” and give it the following text

As an Act of Subterfuge atomic action, an Heir with positive reputation may attempt to assassinate another Heir. To do so, they roll a DICE10, clearly and indistinguishably naming the heir they wish to assassinate in the same comment used to make the dice roll.

If the result of the roll is 6 or less, the attempt fails and the Heir who performed the action is caught and loses 10 reputation

If the result of the roll is 7 to 9, the attempt succeeds, but and the Heir who performed the action still caught in the act and still loses 10 reputation

If the result of the roll is 10, the attempt succeeds and the Heir who performed the action gets away with no penalty.

If the attempt succeeds, the Heir performing the action immediately performs atomic action of nominating a Successor on behalf of the Heir they targeted.

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

01-12-2023 19:09:48 UTC

“the attempt success” is slightly off.

How does the Heir performing the action of Nominating a Successor work when the atomic action steps refer to the Heir performing the action? In the Assassination case, you would want the steps to refer to the Heir who was assassinated, not the one performing the steps.

It would probably be simplest to rewrite this as “If the attempt succeeds, the Heir who was assassinated” so that the Heir performing the atomic action matches with the steps of the action.

Josh: Observer he/they

01-12-2023 19:29:29 UTC

I think “on behalf of” is doing enough work there that the shifting subject isn’t a problem. The Assassin does the atomic action on behalf of the target Heir, which means they do each step on behalf of the named Heir, which means each step that refers to the Heir as the actor is being done on their behalf - I think it follows through clearly enough.

Vovix: he/him

01-12-2023 19:54:52 UTC

Are you saying that by interpreting words according to their plain English definitions you can extrapolate meaning that is not explicitly spelled out? :P

Josh: Observer he/they

01-12-2023 20:00:51 UTC

No, and also it’s going to be a long dynasty if everyone wants to have a funny ‘gotcha’ moment, thanks

Clucky: he/him

01-12-2023 20:01:23 UTC

Yeah there are no choices that you need to make for succession, so anyone can do it for you. But making the assassinated heir do the action opens up some timing questions as to when it happens.

JonathanDark: he/him

01-12-2023 20:08:38 UTC

We’ve had enough debates of “plain English” reading of the rules that it was worth bringing up, in my opinion. If the consensus is that it’s fine, that’s good enough for me.

SingularByte: he/him

01-12-2023 23:21:17 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

02-12-2023 00:06:56 UTC

against Not a fan of the dice. Tolerable early game, but much less interesting if it comes down to rolling one final die at the end to see who wins and loses the whole dynasty. And knocking people out of multiple Claims does have a very endgame mood to it.

JonathanDark: he/him

02-12-2023 06:45:54 UTC

for

Desertfrog:

02-12-2023 07:40:16 UTC

against I also don’t like the randomness of dice rolling. The idea is nice though and I had been preparing a similar mechanic too

Josh: Observer he/they

02-12-2023 18:16:42 UTC

against per Kevan

Vovix: he/him

02-12-2023 19:40:14 UTC

imperial

JonathanDark: he/him

02-12-2023 21:32:48 UTC

CoV against