Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Proposal: Symphony of the Might

Cannot reach quorum, with 6 votes against. Josh

Adminned at 18 Jun 2021 08:57:17 UTC

Enact a new rule entitled “Victory” as follows:

If one Vampire Lord (known as the Ascendant Vampire Lord) is not Enthralled, and every other Revenant Vampire Lord is Enthralled by that Ascendant Vampire Lord, then the Ascendant Vampire Lord achieves victory in the current dynasty.

Disagree about the condition here if you like, but I swear to Dracula if anyone starts the standard fuss about the phrasing of “achieves victory” I will make it my eternal blood vow to end you in all dynasties, forever.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

16-06-2021 18:24:02 UTC

seems reasonable but also early in the dynasty for victory conditions like this. I think we’re safe—you can only enthrall two people a day. But I might be missing something.

Josh: Observer he/they

16-06-2021 18:59:40 UTC

imperial

Clucky: he/him

16-06-2021 20:03:43 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

16-06-2021 20:14:07 UTC

against Brisk AGAINST on the grounds that this was written by the player who also defined how Enthralling works, and that we haven’t even tried to use the rule yet.

Lulu: she/her

16-06-2021 21:36:35 UTC

against

lemon: she/her

16-06-2021 23:18:29 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

16-06-2021 23:24:31 UTC

I feel like if no one can spot the scam, good on Brendan for getting it buy all of us. Why paranoidly shoot down a good idea?

Raven1207: he/they

17-06-2021 04:13:57 UTC

against

Janet: she/her

17-06-2021 04:20:43 UTC

against. Also what’s the issue with the “achieving victory” phrasing?

Kevan: he/him

17-06-2021 07:43:11 UTC

[Clucky] From a “getting it by” perspective, a victory proposal like this is just a bet offered to other players. If it suggested a victory condition based on mechanics that had been around for a while and we mostly had a handle on (“I bet I can hold a Sepulchre for five rounds, and you can’t”), then it’s tempting to take it. If it’s based on something that some players are less confident about (“name all 50 US States”, “win at this new subgame nobody’s tried playing yet”), less so.

Really, this one seems so far into improbable bar bet territory (everyone else has to die, and the winner has to be first to react to all of those deaths?) that I’d expect to immediately get an ear full of cider from the Jack of Spades.

[Jason] Possibly a reference to the occasions where someone writes a victory rule as “then that player may declare victory!”, which sounds like they’ve won but technically doesn’t do anything, since we all “may make a Declaration of Victory” anyway under Rule 1.7.

ais523:

17-06-2021 08:13:57 UTC

against because I think we’ll really have to torture the ruleset to make this work as a victory condition – it seems unlikely to be achieved via normal gameplay, only by scam – and having one victory condition tends to discourage people from proposing others.

Kevan: he/him

17-06-2021 08:23:27 UTC

[ais523] We have seen a bit of a trend towards multiple victory conditions with different adjectives (“this is known as a Might victory”), in the past few years.

Brendan: he/him

17-06-2021 13:02:46 UTC

It’s almost an honor to be this thoroughly overestimated.

lemon: she/her

18-06-2021 01:41:32 UTC

i dont think its a setup for a scam, i just dont like it :U