Speed is a far better solution to the problem than this is. This makes siphon a whole lot worse, same with misdirection.

not voting yet to give you time to repurpose proposal if you want

Is “this nerfs two spells” your only objection to the mechanic, Clucky? Happy to propose a follow-up that would buff them again.

I have to disagree with the premise here. Speed may be a band-aid, but random ordering is the same band-aid but worse because conflicting spells are harder to resolve. Take a minute to work out the logic here:

Speed: controls the order in which spells are cast. Spells which are conflicting due to order can be managed by Proposals to change the Speed without any other changes.

Random: controls the order in which spells are cast. Spells which are conflicting due to order have have their effects readjusted, potentially multiple times as new Spells are added to the list.

Random resolution order feels a bit of a damp squib to me for saying that sometimes a clever move will fail because the dice were against you.

Am I reading it right that an otherwise flawlessly-executed Snipe also has a 50% chance of simply fizzling, if the caster is unlucky enough to be placed later in the queue than their target?

Yeah, Speed is not perfect and doesn’t fix everything, but at least allows for *some* conflict resolution and timing-dependent spells to work. But I don’t think the solution is to randomly determine how two spells interact each time.

@Brendan my main objection is that I think speed solves this problem better. It gives people far more predictability on how their spells will work.

If everyone objecting to this so far voted redcross, that would nearly kill this Proposal. There’s still time to re-use the slot for something else.

red-x I should say

Okay, so the random aspect and a given player’s ability to predict how spells will fire is the primary issue? I’ve updated the proposal to state that players are privately informed of their place in the ordering before spells are selected.

but that still doesn’t solve the problem that this completely breaks several spells, and that we have a perfectly good solution with speed

Revised to leave Speed intact, make the randomness known instead of unknown, and still allow us to do things like counter counterspells.

How would changing Snipe to make you cast Fizzle work with Charm?

I feel like as “Give each Wizard who selected a spell to cast in the current Duel a number of Stars equal to the Charm of that Spell” triggers first, you’d still get the charm for the selected spell

But then it wouldn’t reset its charm. But Fizzle would get set to 0

I’m actually ok with that as an issue. The charm will reset when someone casts that Spell, so if a specific Wizard casts Fizzle instead and the Charm doesn’t reset until someone else casts that same Spell? Ok, that’s the downside of a successful Snipe.

Or, we could just fix it in another Proposal. Either way, it’s good enough for me. 

I guess I just don’t see the need to introduce fizzle and reword Snipe. You can just get rid of the “can’t snipe a snipe” clause if you want.

I introduced Fizzle because I started thinking about a possible scam along the lines of “I got sniped so I didn’t cast a spell, but every wizard casts a spell they selected, but a duel can’t start unless every wizard selected a spell, so the last however-many duels have been invalid,” etc. I didn’t want to allow that and I wasn’t sure how to word it to avoid the argument; a no-op spell that can also act like Free Parking in Monopoly seemed like a reasonable alternative.

Technically, does Fizzle make my emotions gamestate? If I’m hit with a Snipe, but don’t feel disappointed about it, is the game now in an illegal state?

@Vovix “A keyword defined by a rule supersedes the normal English usage of the word.”

oh, wait, emotions/disappointment aren’t actually defined as far as I can tell
hm

@Vovix that would make ME disappointed

I like speed ties being broken in order of the ring instead of randomly.