OrangeP47 Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, Voe said: Yeah, and instead we get Shade (whom I remember as being afk 3/4 of the games he was in) and his new "colleagues" whom i don't even recognize :c Shade is many things, but afk is never one of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said: Shade is many things, but afk is never one of them. I mean, he has the fourth highest postcount on the forums and he's only been here like a year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeod Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 The “wrong religion” you say? Sounds like you think your needs outweigh the needs of the kingdom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voe Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said: Shade is many things, but afk is never one of them. Things have changed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voe Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, Jeod said: The “wrong religion” you say? Sounds like you think your needs outweigh the needs of the kingdom. Has this ever been a matter in question? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeod Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, Voe said: Has this ever been a matter in question? Jon Snow is that you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voe Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Jeod said: Jon Snow is that you? Nah, he's too edgy for my tastes ##vote Shade if i haven't already. Been meaning to in every post up to this point. I wager this level of confidence in kings immediate abolition warrants placing oneself on the appropriate side of the argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeod Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 You really haven’t spent enough times in games with Shade. He’s off my vote table today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voe Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jeod said: You really haven’t spent enough times in games with Shade. He’s off my vote table today. How tragic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheIrishman Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said: I offer the alternative theory that many of us want to build up our own resources, and figured we'd be safer doing that under the "protection" of the royalist banner, rather than joining the rebels where we'd likely have to expend what little we started with. Basically. I figured I'd skate by while building up myself to be a strong enough king by the time whoever ended up as the first king lost. From my understanding, it's not like we'll go down with the ship the moment the king dies anyway. On 7/15/2019 at 8:22 PM, VERTi60 said: If the total Rebellion Force exceeds (aka gets bigger) the total Royal Forces, the current King's reign is over and he or she can decide to step down for new election or keep fighting until eliminated, but other Royal Houses will have the possibility to abandon the Royal faction and become independent (except for the House being the Hand of the King and the House currently having their Lord as King). Independent houses are allowed to attack but they won't have access to exclusive attack actions as the Rebellion ones. Once the Rebellion is defeated, the cycle of joining Royal and Rebellion can start again. Although after rereading the rules, I can't tell if the rebellion is quelled once the king resigns. I feel like it should otherwise the next king would be forced to abdicate immediately as well. But another part that I'd like some clarification on is say there's 5 Rebels and 4 Royals, if the king chooses to fight until he's eliminated while the other two choose to become independent, them it'd be 2/2/5. What's to stop the 5 from picking off the independents and/or controlling the vote so that they kill the king last? It seems like the King resigning is the best option unless he's extremely powerful. Or say they do kill the king, is a new election started? Because it says "Once the Rebellion is defeated." I feel like it should say once the Royal's are defeated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, TheIrishman said: Basically. I figured I'd skate by while building up myself to be a strong enough king by the time whoever ended up as the first king lost. From my understanding, it's not like we'll go down with the ship the moment the king dies anyway. Although after rereading the rules, I can't tell if the rebellion is quelled once the king resigns. I feel like it should otherwise the next king would be forced to abdicate immediately as well. But another part that I'd like some clarification on is say there's 5 Rebels and 4 Royals, if the king chooses to fight until he's eliminated while the other two choose to become independent, them it'd be 2/2/5. What's to stop the 5 from picking off the independents and/or controlling the vote so that they kill the king last? It seems like the King resigning is the best option unless he's extremely powerful. Or say they do kill the king, is a new election started? Because it says "Once the Rebellion is defeated." I feel like it should say once the Royal's are defeated. I guess it probably should say when the rebels OR royals are defeated, but honestly, I guess the rebels *could* pick off indies if they wanted to. From a GM perspective I'd argue they'd be allowed to do that. From a "is this a smart thing to do as rebels" perspective, I'd argue it's pretty dumb though, so they won't. See my comments last night regarding the fact that rebels want to usurp not destroy. This is of course assuming indies rejoin the normal flow of things upon one faction being defeated, which I see as likely. I see that whole process as more or less certain individuals having the opportunity to "step aside" and not go down with the ship if the King wants to pull a scorched earth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 I think whenever a ruler loses, we repeat what we did on d1 again and it's up to the new ruler to be inspiring enough to get people to stay loyal to them. But hopefully that won't happen any time soon b/c long live King Euron I Greyjoy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheIrishman Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said: I guess it probably should say when the rebels OR royals are defeated, but honestly, I guess the rebels *could* pick off indies if they wanted to. From a GM perspective I'd argue they'd be allowed to do that. From a "is this a smart thing to do as rebels" perspective, I'd argue it's pretty dumb though, so they won't. See my comments last night regarding the fact that rebels want to usurp not destroy. This is of course assuming indies rejoin the normal flow of things upon one faction being defeated, which I see as likely. I see that whole process as more or less certain individuals having the opportunity to "step aside" and not go down with the ship if the King wants to pull a scorched earth. Why should it say once the Rebels are defeated? If the rebels are defeated, only the loyalists and the king are left, pretty sure that means game over? Assuming there's no independents or outside factors like White Walkers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 1 minute ago, TheIrishman said: Why should it say once the Rebels are defeated? If the rebels are defeated, only the loyalists and the king are left, pretty sure that means game over? Assuming there's no independents or outside factors like White Walkers. Look at what you quoted. It DOES say once the rebels are defeated. Apparently, once they are defeated, people get to decide if they want to rebel again, or something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Though is that your point? That that shouldn't be the case? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, TheIrishman said: Why should it say once the Rebels are defeated? If the rebels are defeated, only the loyalists and the king are left, pretty sure that means game over? Assuming there's no independents or outside factors like White Walkers. Rebels can be sent to the wall tho, and they can choose to fight there or even abandon their post and do who knows what so we don't really know what might be happening down the road. I think it's not really clear what causes a game over in this game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Regardless, we still have the WIN to deal with rebels or no, so the game wouldn't be over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voe Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 What happens if we send the king to the wall? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voe Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 As in, we vote the king, and then the king and the hand agree they should go north. Is it even possible? Can the king be simultaneously the lord commander? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheIrishman Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, OrangeP47 said: Look at what you quoted. It DOES say once the rebels are defeated. Apparently, once they are defeated, people get to decide if they want to rebel again, or something. I realize, which is why I think it was a TYPO on Vert's part, hence why I said it should say Royal's instead. 1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said: Though is that your point? That that shouldn't be the case? If we keep recycling no matter which side wins, how does the game end? That is my point. I feel like this game is essentially ran in two phases, before Winter and after Winter. The before Winter part should be us fighting amongst ourselves, deciding who gets to be king. The problem is, why the needless fighting once all the rebels are defeated? Not to mention how each defeat would weaken ourselves as a whole, making it that much more difficult for us to deal with the WIN. At that point we should unite to face the White Walkers, right? But say it's not ran in two parts, that there is only fighting to be King, why then would we keep fighting after the Rebellion is quelled? For the WIN still? If the King ended up being Stark then they wouldn't have any WIN to deal with. Therefore once the Rebellion is defeated the game should end. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 That's actually a decent question. I would assume we're not allowed to vote the king to trial, but I don't think Verti technically made a rule about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 1 minute ago, TheIrishman said: I realize, which is why I think it was a TYPO on Vert's part, hence why I said it should say Royal's instead. If we keep recycling no matter which side wins, how does the game end? That is my point. I feel like this game is essentially ran in two phases, before Winter and after Winter. The before Winter part should be us fighting amongst ourselves, deciding who gets to be king. The problem is, why the needless fighting once all the rebels are defeated? Not to mention how each defeat would weaken ourselves as a whole, making it that much more difficult for us to deal with the WIN. At that point we should unite to face the White Walkers, right? But say it's not ran in two parts, that there is only fighting to be King, why then would we keep fighting after the Rebellion is quelled? For the WIN still? If the King ended up being Stark then they wouldn't have any WIN to deal with. Therefore once the Rebellion is defeated the game should end. I assume we're all trying to end the game as King as part of a personal win condition or something that's not stated. It's hard for me to put into words, in part because I didn't sleep well last night and can't muster my usual brain power, but just because we're loyal now doesn't mean we're always loyal. I mean, several of us, while claiming to be loyalists, have openly admitted to half-assing it, yourself included. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voe Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, TheIrishman said: I realize, which is why I think it was a TYPO on Vert's part, hence why I said it should say Royal's instead. If we keep recycling no matter which side wins, how does the game end? That is my point. I feel like this game is essentially ran in two phases, before Winter and after Winter. The before Winter part should be us fighting amongst ourselves, deciding who gets to be king. The problem is, why the needless fighting once all the rebels are defeated? Not to mention how each defeat would weaken ourselves as a whole, making it that much more difficult for us to deal with the WIN. At that point we should unite to face the White Walkers, right? But say it's not ran in two parts, that there is only fighting to be King, why then would we keep fighting after the Rebellion is quelled? For the WIN still? If the King ended up being Stark then they wouldn't have any WIN to deal with. Therefore once the Rebellion is defeated the game should end. Given that according to Jeod his internal king actions are disabled until tomorrow, as well as the "current capital project" meter, I would not be surprised if the crown had an objective to subjugate and centralize power at our cost. There has to be some incentive for toppling the ruler. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheIrishman Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, OrangeP47 said: I assume we're all trying to end the game as King as part of a personal win condition or something that's not stated. It's hard for me to put into words, in part because I didn't sleep well last night and can't muster my usual brain power, but just because we're loyal now doesn't mean we're always loyal. I mean, several of us, while claiming to be loyalists, have openly admitted to half-assing it, yourself included. True and I don't necessarily have a problem with us having the ability to reelect the king and choose sides after the rebellion is defeated, I'm mostly concerned about whether it would continue happening until there's only 2 people left - The King and his hand. Because that would take an incredibly long time, be very annoying. So I'm wondering how else there'd be a victory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeod Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Internal king actions and capital projects are one and the same from what I can see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, TheIrishman said: True and I don't necessarily have a problem with us having the ability to reelect the king and choose sides after the rebellion is defeated, I'm mostly concerned about whether it would continue happening until there's only 2 people left - The King and his hand. Because that would take an incredibly long time, be very annoying. So I'm wondering how else there'd be a victory. Oh, I see the issue. I don't think we reelect the king if the rebels are defeated. Rather, everyone gets the option to start a new rebellion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheIrishman Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, OrangeP47 said: Oh, I see the issue. I don't think we reelect the king if the rebels are defeated. Rather, everyone gets the option to start a new rebellion. Then what happens if no one picks Rebellion after quelling them? Game Over? Obviously you don't know for sure, I'm indirectly asking Vert. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 1 minute ago, TheIrishman said: Then what happens if no one picks Rebellion after quelling them? Game Over? Obviously you don't know for sure, I'm indirectly asking Vert. Verti said if no one rebels people are compelled to rebel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, OrangeP47 said: Verti said if no one rebels people are compelled to rebel. Which I mean, isn't ideal, but I'm willing to accept it because he implied there was some sort of system for it rather than it being purely random. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheIrishman Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, OrangeP47 said: Verti said if no one rebels people are compelled to rebel. :\ Then it sounds like the game would in fact continue until there's only 2 people left >.> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.