|
Post by BioLogIn on Jul 30, 2008 13:41:46 GMT -5
...basically I have no idea I'll try to come up with something in next 24 hours. If you happen to have some ideas you'd like to test - please post here. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jul 30, 2008 14:16:30 GMT -5
We could always try a para replacement. I've been playing some FFW games (see slarty.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=arranged&action=display&thread=248) and they seem to be working out okay, although implementation is a bit wonky. I trust myself and other good players, but I'm not sure this rule is ready for competitive play. Alternatively, I have several zanier ideas I've been wanting to suggest lately, but my rather unimpressive league showings as of late have kept me from getting to use them. If you're still at a loss, I can suggest a few here.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Jul 30, 2008 17:44:52 GMT -5
Zanyish...i like rules that permeate the whole game...not just the first 5-10 turns before an ven keel is returned to.
So i say Samurai Warlocks: a player must stab once in every 5 turn interval (1-5), (6-10) Should make for some intersting strategy plus it should curb F chains nicely also.
One other thing, i thought about...this is not really the thread but for the whole FFF problem, i think PWPFSSSD should be changed so that the last gesture is not PARA friendly. Fear or amnesia friendly isn't the best either, so i say PWPFSSSP. Correct me if I'm wrong but that should throw one more 50/50 into the mix. Parachains aren't that bad when a monster is in play (see my games vs Succat), but the last two times i've lost have been to the pesky ParaFod. weaken the FoD/para combo and you weaken the para.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jul 30, 2008 19:16:36 GMT -5
Zanyish...i like rules that permeate the whole game...not just the first 5-10 turns before an ven keel is returned to. Agreed. This isn't the right thread to discuss this problem. You have a valid point, but there are a couple issues. Start a new thread and I'll discuss them there. A rule that I'm interested to try is "Endgame Warlocks." In this variant, the game ends as soon as one player is below 10 health (i.e. you're simulating the situation where both players start with 6 health). If there's interest, I can write up a more comprehensive description that covers most of the corner cases I could think of.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Jul 31, 2008 3:43:04 GMT -5
PWPFSSSF would have been the better choice...but the point is moot...doesn't make a lick of difference now that I've done the math. Therefore i won't start another thread.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jul 31, 2008 6:45:10 GMT -5
I'm starting it then: slarty.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=warlocks&action=display&thread=255As for month rule, I have one, but is quite complicated. Here comes Balance-in-all-things: After each tenth turn we check gestures made by each player. If that player has not gestured any of D,F,P,S,W (should C and\or > be included?) at least once during last 10 turns, he loses the game (i.e. he must surrender next turn). Invis and timestop are handled via honor system. If a player kills the opponent on any turn (even tenth), this rule has no effect, since would-be surrender to a corpse is a win. Feel free to break the rule for a kill, and be punished should you fail to achieve a kill ) So, what do you think? Is it an OK rule? I feel it is little bit too easy now, so maybe requiring to have a C OR > will spice things up?
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Jul 31, 2008 8:25:15 GMT -5
I like it --
A player must use every available gesture at least once (including at least one 'C' & one '>') in turns 1-10, 11-20, etc.
I'm sure there's an optimal string for 10 turns repeated (20 gestures to fit in at least one of the 7 "real" gestures)
Not requiring a null '-' is probably a good idea, though that would throw an extra level of insanity in -- when would be the optimal time to throw in a null?
|
|
|
Post by spamwise on Jul 31, 2008 11:30:44 GMT -5
Since we'd be looking back every 10 turns, I assume that guestures overridden by spells (charmed, anti spell, F/S/W vs para) count as their resultant guestures. I think it would be fun to throw "-" into the required mix. Might make you think twice about your charm.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jul 31, 2008 13:08:04 GMT -5
1) I'd actually also be in favor of requiring a '-'.
2) I'd say that what matters is what you actually gestured, not what you intended to (i.e. if I submit W/W but get charmed to W/-, then that counts as my null gesture). However, with antispell specifically, I'd say that you still get credit for performing whatever gestures you did, and you don't get credit for the null, as antispell doesn't actually replace your gesture so much as it nullifies it.
3) I'd assume a half-clap satisfies your C requirement?
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jul 31, 2008 14:48:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the input, guys!
I think requiring everything including '-' is a little bit harsh. I reviewed a few games and I think that while requiring CDFPSW> makes this game still playable (albeit with reevaluated spells), adding '-' makes it impossible to maintain any sane spellflow.
Yes, after mindspells like PSDF and FFF we take into account resulting gestures. And since Antispell doesn't replace gestures, exactly as awall wrote.
Yes 'C' requirement is satisfied even with a single C gesture on any hand, as with any other gesture for the purposes of this rule.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jul 31, 2008 15:02:48 GMT -5
Another assumption: This rule applies for every ten normal time turns. That is, if I have some kind of spellflow like:
123456789012345678 SPPFDCSPPFDCSPPCx> PWPWWCPWPWWCxxxCxx 12345--6-7-8-9-0--123... <= normal time
Then I've technically got my stab in within the first ten normal time turns and don't have to surrender?
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Aug 1, 2008 8:15:01 GMT -5
Another assumption: This rule applies for every ten normal time turns. That is, if I have some kind of spellflow like: 123456789012345678 SPPFDCSPPFDCSPPCx> PWPWWCPWPWWCxxxCxx 12345--6-7-8-9-0--123... <= normal time
Then I've technically got my stab in within the first ten normal time turns and don't have to surrender? My comment may be too late here -- I took it to be turns 1-10 as counted by the turn count -- which actually makes Haste and TimeStop *very* useful spells
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 1, 2008 8:59:32 GMT -5
hah. I guess we will never have a well-though rule ( Sorry, folks. I guess we should put it this way. This rule is applied to each player independently based on the amount of turns he actually taken. Example: PL1 12345678901 SPPFD>WSSCx WWWWWWWWWWx
PL2 12345678901 SPWFS CSSS> WWWWW CSSSS
Here both players fulfilled the rule and may continue. PL1 should clap on turn count 10, because it is 10th turn for him. But PL2 may stab on turn count 11th, because it is 10th actual turn for him.
|
|
|
Post by spamwise on Aug 1, 2008 9:09:27 GMT -5
I was wondering about time altering spells and I think I might have to side with Dubber on that. It's already going to be enough effort to look back at the previous ten turns and look for the 7 different characters. (Not to mention looking at submitted guestures on charmed turns, plus disclosure for blind/invis turns.) To then have the "time to check the previous 10 turns" counter get knocked off of the "0" turns ... ugh.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 1, 2008 9:15:34 GMT -5
spamwise You are correct, this is a bother, and that makes my rule quite ugly. However, in my opinion, this is better then turning one spell (haste) into a 'game win' condition.
|
|