Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 8 (Bardikin)

[n-factorial]

i'm a dork is why the goofy suit names. there is a reason i provided wequivs.

re: drawing, what aspects would you want to see? i cannot say i would implement them now, but if not this round i may look at doing so later

or at least others might, this is meant to make things more entertaining and if others adapt it to do so for everyone i'm game even if i dno't do it myself

[Tonfa]

Mm-mm.

Actually, mulling it over, I change my mind. I support this proposal. >_>

[n-factorial]

i see.

how intriguing, tonfa

[Carthrat]

I don't like the use of percentages to fuel extra draws, at least in conjunction with the reset option, and it brings up all kinds of weird rounding issues...

Can we get a flat scale that also prevents people from taking extra draws if they're low on points?

[n-factorial]

mmm. give me a moment.

[n-factorial]

306. All players in the current game of Nomic, as of the inception of this rule, will have the options of drawing from the Deck on their turn. Draws cost a certain amount of points listed below, deducted as soon as the card is drawn. The cards drawn counter resets on the player's next turn. All Draws must be done before the Voting Phase, but need not be done consecutively; all Draws and their results must be declared in topic, and a player cannot draw more than once if he is at or below 0 points.

First draw: 1
Second draw: 3
Third draw: 6
Fourth draw: 10
Fifth draw: 15
Sixth draw: 21
Drawing past six cards is not permitted.

There are twenty-one cards in the Deck, and when a card is drawn, it is immediately replaced and the deck is reshuffled.

The twenty cards are divided into four suits and four ranks; each card has a unique suit/rank combination. The four suits are phlegm, sanguis, cholera, and melancholia. The ranks are Jack, Queen, King, Ace, and Eight. (In order, these may be corresponded to spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs, and Jack, Queen, King and Ace when using a real deck to draw from). The twenty-first card is the Joker of Bane.

The suits change a player's stats as follows permanently, unless stated otherwise by the rank of the card. The maximum stat allowed by card-drawn mods is 8.

Phlegm/Spades: Intelligence +1, Spirit -1.
Sanguis/Hearts: Spirit +1, Intelligence -1.
Choleric/Diamond: Attack +1, Defense -1.
Melancholic/Clubs: Defense +1, Attack -1.

Jack: If this rank is drawn, another point is deducted from the player's score. This cannot reduce the player's score below zero.
Queen: Instead of accepting the stat modification as written on the card, the player may instead swap the two stats and then apply the stat modification. (So if someone with Int 4/Spi 1 drew the Sanguine Queen, for example, they could first swap Int and Spi (to Spi 4/Int 1) and then apply the stat mod (to Spi 5/Int 1).
King: The drawer may instead choose which stat is reduced, instead of following the suit's reduction. It cannot reduce the stat increased in this way.
Ace: The drawer may instead choose which stat is increased, instead of following the suit's increase. It cannot increase the stat reduced in this way.
Eight: Instead of accepting the stat modification as written on the card, the player may choose to stop drawing for his turn. If he does so, he gets a +3 to the stat that would have been boosted, and a -3 to the stat that would have been reduced. (The player may also accept the stat mod as normal and then stop drawing.) This boost lasts until the player's next turn.
Joker of Bane: The player's stats are reset to their base.

------

kneejerk adjustment. i don't know if i will have morning time to adjust this. appraise and comment please.

(willing to flipflop on % vs straight pointcost due to not caring either way myself)

[Magetastic]

I am against this proposal as stands. I will note vote for flat rates. It is punishing to those low on points, and inconsequential to those with many points. Make it % again, and remove the Joker of Bane. I feel it is balanced that way.

[Excal]

Each revision has made this rule less appealing.

As stated before, short term results with stronger cards, only one can be kept each round, with the ability to spend extra points (in a percentage system even) in order to draw more cards in which to choose from.  And make the cost increase less steep in this system, though just by a touch since it's percentages and not flat costs.

This will give you something where you can try to work up synergies to get a strong run going, though one that won't last and will therefore require you to act on it when you get it.  Also know as, forcing action, as opposed to this setup which will simply encourage stockpiling.

[Carthrat]

I won't vote for a percentage based system, regardless of other details. People behind on points already have a 'rebound' mechanism- they can get laws passed in the first place. I don't seriously think anyone is going to win on points, not when other people can pass arbitrary laws that make them lose all of them when they're close to winning, so I prefer to see them as flat currency that can be spent on other actions.

Excal does raise an interesting point though. Personally I don't think there's a 'stockpiling' threat, since everyone will be trying to do it and you don't expend resources to use your abilities, really. But on reflection I'm fine with them being either permanent or temporary.

[n-factorial]

i am... pretty much as stated previous neutral to points/percents, think i will keep point mechanic as it is still cheap this way (and frankly btoh methods have the first few cards be pretty inconsequential). one temptation is to implement %/flat simultaneous (pay whichever is higher) but not terribly excited for that finagling.

excal: if you wish to set up a system in which you can have a hand and hold/discard as such, do so, but i do not think i will attempt to make the setup that broad on this implementation. it sounds interesting but this does enough as is, more should be done in other amendments.

mage: no interest in removing the joker of bane.

reasoning: one, this is a gamble. while most options offer some shifting it is possible to slowly increase your total stats. to forbid complete abuse the JoB is present. as there is a lot of control capable over what is increased/decreased on average and how it is done i can't really condone it.

two: benefit still outways risk under this. 1/21 chance of reset is not that high since it never will increase, and stats can be accumulated. can someone be burned? naturally. will it happen? rarely.

[n-factorial]

also i think time is pretty much up, and even if it isn't it's close

voting time start now, hey?

[Taishyr]

No fun descriptions because I'm fucking exhausted and mood's shot to hell.

Rat: Energize: Excal Int
Excal: Energize: Rat Int
Tonfa: Energize: Bard Int.
Bard: Protect Bard
n!: Energize: Mage Int.
Mage: Derpwall.jpg

Rat: Yea
Excal: Nay
n! Yea
Tonfa: Yea
Bard: Abs
Mage: Abs

Proposal is passed! (...)

Okay, Excal, your turn to propose, 48 hrs then 24 hrs yadda yadda send in votes and actions when shit happens so I can keep the game a' going.

[Excal]

I propose an addition to rule 304, aka the Battle Rule

The rule, as it stands, shall be left alone except for the following action which will be added at the bottom.

Duel: A duel can only be selected by the player making a proposition if he still has his legislative maneuver action when his turn comes around, and must be made at the same time as he makes his proposal.  If he does not issue his challenge publically at that time, then he has forfeited his right to make a challenge on that pass.  Also, the challenge counts as your action for that round.  Issueing a challenge involves stating who you are challenging, declaring which stat you are using to attack with (Defense can never be used to attack), and which stat you are targetting (Attack can never be attacked in this way).

In the discussion phase, the challenged party has three options.  They can accept the challenge, decline the challenge, or ignore the challenge.  An ignored challenge is the same as accepting the challenge, save that the challenger automatically wins.  If the challenged declines, they may do so by ceding the greater of the following two amount of points to the challenger.  A) 5 points, or B) If the declining party has more points than the challenger, 10% of the difference between them.  If the challenged party accepts, then the challenge goes forth.

Each player who is not engaged in the challenge can give support to either party.  This must be declared by PM to the moderator, and there is no cost to doing so, in points or actions, and it can coincide with their regular action for the round.  A person giving support adds half of their relevant stat (ie. the one the party they are supporting is using) to the score used for the duel.

The duel is resolved by having each party adding 1d6 to their final score and the greater number wins.

The aftermath of a duel is as follows.  Assume in all cases that when Attack/Defense comes up it is decided by the winner.

If the challenger lost, they give one point of their attacking stat to the defender.  If this would drop the stat below 1, they instead give 10 points.

If it is a tie, nothing happens.

If the challenger wins, and they had a higher or equal base offense stat than the defender's base defense stat, then the defender gives them one point of their defending stat, unless it would drop them below one point, in which case they give nothing.

If the challenger wins and they had a lower base offensive stat than the defender's base defense stat, then the defender gives them two points of their defending stat.  If this would drop the defender below one, then they drop to one and the challenger gains however many points the defender dropped by.

[Magetastic]

I, personally, find this addition a lesson in futility. It is merely adding more options that are not needed, nor do they really enhance/enrich the game, in my view. All I see it doing is being a more useless form of Assault, with possibly situationally useful uses. I view it as clutter and detracting from the game.

[Excal]

And what game do you see it as distracting from?  The main game is where we change rules in order to try and change things such that one of us wins.  Now, we can either get something to fiddle rules about or we can go the traditional Byzzantine rules route.  That said, I'm not sure how many people want to go with highly technical, very confusing, and pretty fiddly warrens of red tape, so I'll try and make the distracting second order game more interesting.

After all, if I have to either be boring or follow the path of unbalance, I think the choice is clear.

[Tonfa]

Meh.

[Tonfa]

Furthermore. I would like to ask the Judge to clarify something. Every amendment made in this fashion so far has created a new rule and made the old rule obsolete, yet the old rule still remains in the list. Do these overwritten rules count toward the 25 mutable rule limit?

[n-factorial]

looking in quickly before depart

i'm not sure i feel the appeal of duel, - i like the further team-stratification attempts of it though i'm not sure the executon will be optimal - i suppose my issue is with the reward list. i would agree that that feels too complex (part is needing two variants for stats on win, which seems just unneeded - perhaps also i object to gaining stats in this fashion along with the points confusion that's listed)

basically i don't mind base concept but recommend streamline i think, can't say i support as stads because it feels both awkward and cluncy

also i don't see anything b: favoritism influencing choices of who people side with, which basically creates a gangjack dynamic over actual balancing of weighted costs

tonfa: you mean rules that have been overwritten eg 209/212? my interp guesses they no longer count as rules for that, but i could be mistaken

[Bardiche]

Meh, not particularly interested in this rule. Fighting for stat changes seems a bit boring.

[Carthrat]

I sort of object to the presentation of the text. The new rule seems.. messy, for want of a better word. It seems so complex that using it would be a daunting task, and I had to read it a few times to get it.

For instance, if you can only use legislative manuever or this thing, it might be better to assign a neutral term to the charges used for actions, here.

Can you specify if the percentages round up or down or something, or will we wind up with like 13.5 points? I don't want that, personally. Same for other fractions. We must define how they're implemented properly.

I also think defenders should beat attackers on ties, and that you should only gain or lose one point of a stat after any conflict, regardless of the difference between scores.

I like the concept of the rule enough, though.

[Taishyr]

Tonfa: Any rule that has been amended + the amendment to that rule count as one rule, not two. So if a partial amendment is done, then it's still one rule.

At least that's my call.

[Excal]

Right, I was a bit rushed when I got that rule out.

So, let's streamline this sucker.


The rule, as it stands, shall be left alone except for the following action which will be added at the bottom.

Duel: A duel can only be selected by the player making a proposition and must be made at the same time as he makes his proposal.  If he does not issue his challenge publically at that time, then he has forfeited his right to make a challenge on that pass.  Also, the challenge counts as your action for that round.  Issueing a challenge involves stating who you are challenging, declaring which stat you are using to attack with (Defense can never be used to attack), and which stat you are targetting (Attack can never be attacked in this way).

In the discussion phase, the challenged party has three options.  They can accept the challenge, decline the challenge, or ignore the challenge.  An ignored challenge is the same as accepting the challenge, save that the challenger automatically wins.  If the challenged declines, they may do so by ceding the greater of the following two amount of points to the challenger.  A) 5 points, or B) If the declining party has more points than the challenger, 10% of the difference between them.  If the challenged party accepts, then the challenge goes forth.

Each player who is not engaged in the challenge can give support to either party.  This must be declared by PM to the moderator, and there is no cost to doing so, in points or actions, and it can coincide with their regular action for the round.  A person giving support adds half of their relevant stat (ie. the one the party they are supporting is using) to the score used for the duel.

The duel is resolved by having each party adding 1d6 to their final score and the greater number wins.

The aftermath of a duel is as follows.  Assume in all cases that when Attack/Defense comes up it is decided by the winner.

Whoever wins takes one point of the stat used for defense (unless it's Defense, then it's winners choice of attack/defense).  Ties go to the defender.





Alright, with amendments out of the way, I'll note that the ganging up aspect is also intentional.  It's to work as a catch up mechanic, and prevent abuse, while also making it an interesting mechanic if you want to deal with other people to watch your back.  If we're going to have a system that encourages diplomacy, then lets use this sucker and enhance it.

[Carthrat]

You gotta clarify the percentages, yo. I also see we can now duel infinitely?

[Taishyr]

I believe Voting Phase has now commenced, unless my count is totally off.

307:

The rule, as it stands, shall be left alone except for the following action which will be added at the bottom.

Duel: A duel can only be selected by the player making a proposition and must be made at the same time as he makes his proposal.  If he does not issue his challenge publically at that time, then he has forfeited his right to make a challenge on that pass.  Also, the challenge counts as your action for that round.  Issueing a challenge involves stating who you are challenging, declaring which stat you are using to attack with (Defense can never be used to attack), and which stat you are targetting (Attack can never be attacked in this way).

In the discussion phase, the challenged party has three options.  They can accept the challenge, decline the challenge, or ignore the challenge.  An ignored challenge is the same as accepting the challenge, save that the challenger automatically wins.  If the challenged declines, they may do so by ceding the greater of the following two amount of points to the challenger.  A) 5 points, or B) If the declining party has more points than the challenger, 10% of the difference between them.  If the challenged party accepts, then the challenge goes forth.

Each player who is not engaged in the challenge can give support to either party.  This must be declared by PM to the moderator, and there is no cost to doing so, in points or actions, and it can coincide with their regular action for the round.  A person giving support adds half of their relevant stat (ie. the one the party they are supporting is using) to the score used for the duel.

The duel is resolved by having each party adding 1d6 to their final score and the greater number wins.

The aftermath of a duel is as follows.  Assume in all cases that when Attack/Defense comes up it is decided by the winner.

Whoever wins takes one point of the stat used for defense (unless it's Defense, then it's winners choice of attack/defense).  Ties go to the defender.

[Taishyr]

Voting Results:

Excal: Yea
Carthrat: Yea
Tonfa: Nay
n!: Abs
Mage: Nay
Bard: Nay

This proposal was REJECTED!

It's now Bardiche's turn to submit a proposal!

I'll edit the first post so it's caught up. Apologies for the delay in that.