Friday, July 07, 2006

Proposal: Wind Factor On the Arrow of Time

Failed by Kevan - self-killed. @ ~07:30 on 9th july 2006

Kevan hit the wrong option—this had a tickmark.  I corrected same—Excalabur

Adminned at 09 Jul 2006 03:46:07 UTC

I propose the following be appendedto the “arrow of time” ruleset:

A Traveller may not propose a Local Rule which directly increases influence.  However, a Traveller may still create Local Rules that indirectly increase influence.  Indirection is defined as a Local Rule which changes a Traveller’s status in such a way that a non-Local Rule may increase influence.  A Traveller may only claim victory because of a Local Rule’s indirect effect.

As is worded, This only affects Local Rules proposed after this comes into affect.  Examples would be:
A global rule: While a Traveller is a Morlor then he has 5 additional influence.
or
A global rule: While a Traveller is a Morlor may attempt to claim victory
A local rule: Any Travellers local to this rule are Morlors.

This allows global players to keep checks on those outside of range.  I could see Artifacts of Time (see: other proposal) being created locally and yet give benefits due to a global rule which allows for it, as an example.

posted by kaddar at 07 Jul 2006 17:42:01 UTC Comments (8)

Comments

Bucky:

07-07-2006 19:17:14 UTC

against This proposal would effectively bar any victory condition but high influence.

kaddar:

07-07-2006 19:42:42 UTC

Apparently, I misworded something.  “A traveller may only claim victory because of Local Rule, because of it’s indirect effect.” would have been the correct syntax to represent it’s true meaning.

What is the standard action to do for miswordings?  I can Fail the proposal and repropose when it has failed?

And this shouldn’t “bar victory conditions but high influence” as far as I can tell.  It does bar Local Rules creating influence gains and win conditions that most players cannot vote to prevent. :)

kaddar:

07-07-2006 19:44:03 UTC

“A Local Rule cannot directly cause victory.  Only indirectly.”

Bucky:

07-07-2006 19:47:01 UTC

It defines “indiretion” specifically as “changing a Traveller’s status in such a way that a non-Local Rule may increase influence”.  It then states that all victory conditions must be caused by indirection.

Coldspell:

07-07-2006 20:52:48 UTC

against

Hix:

07-07-2006 22:42:32 UTC

against

kaddar:

08-07-2006 00:15:39 UTC

against
I’m failing this because it is not properly stated.  If I were to re-propose it, it would say something like:

Local Rules may not grant influence except in the case where a Local Rule modifies non-influence gamestate in such a way that a non-Local Rule is triggered which modifies influence.


Similarly, if I were to propose one for win conditions, it would read:

Local Rules may not grant win conditions except in the case where a Local Rule modifies the gamestate in such a way that a non-Local Rule triggers a win condition.

Would anyone support either of these if they were reproposed as above?  Or does anyone have a better suggestion to reword them?

Excalabur:

08-07-2006 19:06:04 UTC

The second paragraph from the bottom is overly wordy.  And unneccessary: the victory condition is a non-local rule according to that sentence, ergo, ‘a local rule may not be a victory condition’ would do the trick, no?