Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Proposal: Won the Cattle but not the Boar

Reached quorum 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 26 Jun 2019 18:27:55 UTC

If the rule “Battlefields” does not exist, this proposal has no effect.

Create a new rule, “Battle”

A battle has a battlefield and two forces. A force has a commander, which may be a Wizard, the King, or the Armies to the West. A force also has 5 creature slots numbered 1 to 5, which may be a valid creature, or empty.

The score of an occupied creature slot is determined by that creature’s score given the battle’s battlefield. An empty creature slot is given a score of 0. A force’s wins in a battle is given by the number of N in the range 1-5 such that their Nth creature slot has a higher score than the opposing force’s Nth creature slot. In the case that the forces have an equal number of wins, an additional win will be awarded to one force by way of a random DICE2 roll in the GNDT. The force that has the most wins is the battle’s victor.

Create a new rule, “Duel”

Any Wizard may announce a duel, by posting a blog entry with a title including the word “Duel”. A Wizard who announces a duel is that duel’s challenger. The challenger may further specify a list of valid opponents, defaulting to a list of all Wizards, and a list of valid judges, defaulting to a list of all Wizards and the King. Any valid opponent may become the opponent by stating such intention in a comment on the blog entry. Likewise, any valid judge may become the judge by stating such intention in a comment on the blog entry. The judge, opponent, and challenger must all be different. The challenger and opponent are the two duelists.

At the time that the judge, opponent, and challenger are all assigned, the duel begins. The duelists must submit a plan by sending a private message to the judge listing an ordered list of 5 elements, each being either a creature or left empty. Any creature listed must be in the duelist’s Stable, and no creature may be listed twice in the same duel.

If 48 hours have passed since the start of the duel and only one of the duelists has submitted a valid plan, that duelist is the victor. If 48 hours have passed and neither duelist submitted a valid plan, a victor is decided by way of a random DICE2 roll in the GNDT.

Once both players submitted a valid plan, a battle takes place. The first force is the challenger, and the second force is the opponent. Their creature slots are the lists submitted the the judge. The judge must then post a comment on the duel’s blog entry detailing the creature slots, scores, wins, and which duelist was the victor. The victor of the duel’s battle is the victor of the duel.

If “Proposal: They Are Coming” passes:

Amend Duel by appending “The challenger specifies the duel’s battlefield from the list of current battlefields. Battles conducted during this duel have the duel’s battlefield as their battlefield.” after the words “A Wizard who announces a duel is that duel’s challenger.”

If “Proposal: They Are Coming” does not pass:

Amend Duel by appending “The battlefield is randomly determined” to after “a battle takes place.”




25-06-2019 20:28:12 UTC

This is a solid proposal. I would prefer if duels are called off if either or both duelists don’t submit valid battle plans. Otherwise, provisional green-tick.


25-06-2019 20:30:45 UTC

Quick fix “the the” before someone votes! ;)


25-06-2019 20:45:42 UTC

I like it.  for


25-06-2019 21:14:58 UTC

[naught]  Yeah, got back to it too late but I’d vote for a fix to do that.


25-06-2019 21:22:58 UTC

Eh, seems harmless in the short term . Also cool idea. for


25-06-2019 21:48:37 UTC


derrick: he/him

25-06-2019 21:50:07 UTC


This is not what I had planned. I like it.

Kevan: City he/him

26-06-2019 08:31:12 UTC

We are being surprisingly relaxed about using the term “victor” in a Nomic where the main goal is to “achieve victory”.


derrick: he/him

26-06-2019 12:07:36 UTC

against CoV, as per Kevan. I personally would not be voting for someone who “Achieved Victory” in such an implicit manner, but I can see someone attempting such a scam, and the hiatus would cost us a lot of momentum.

I’m writing a call for judgement to clear this up.

Kevan: City he/him

26-06-2019 17:57:08 UTC

for CoV now that the fix has enacted.

Brendan: he/him

26-06-2019 18:15:48 UTC


derrick: he/him

26-06-2019 18:19:13 UTC

for CoV