Had an excellent first session with Capes on sunday. A real brain teaser.
Anyhow, three things came up, and I just want to make sure i get them right
1. Player 1 splits the dice of one side of the conflict into three dice. Can another player later split those dice? 1 dice gets split into 3 dice by a 3 level drive. Could someone else use his three level drive and split it further? How would that work? Would he split one dice into three, leaving 5 dice with the same total, or does he do it some other way leaving six dice with the same total?
2. On page 2 two players duke it out on a conflict. They are the only two intrested in it, so they are the only ones roling the dice. At the botttom of the page the score is 12 to 4. At the top of the next page, everyone can see who is going to win. So the starter claims the side that has 12, eventough he never has roled a die on that side. Is this possible?
3. Gloating. I have read somewhere on this forum about the danger of an endless gloat. Where both the sides of the conflict gloats for story tokens. Wouldnt that be impossible, since gloat only can be used when you are about to break the comic code?
cheers,
Karl Kristian Larsson
Quote from: Karlkrlarsson on May 02, 2006, 03:40:30 AM
1. Player 1 splits the dice of one side of the conflict into three dice. Can another player later split those dice? 1 dice gets split into 3 dice by a 3 level drive. Could someone else use his three level drive and split it further? How would that work? Would he split one dice into three, leaving 5 dice with the same total, or does he do it some other way leaving six dice with the same total?
Absolutely viable, and in fact, technically cheaper than splitting the first time. Though keep in mind, its not the Drives per se that split the die, but staked Debt (which resides in a Drive when not staked). Thus, if the situation runs thus:
Able is allied to a side of a Conflict and stakes two Debt to split the 5 he got in his Action into a 3 and a 2. Boris uses his Action to roll the 2, getting a 5 as well, then stakes two more Debt to split the resultant 5 into a 2, 2, and 1. Because the initial 5 had sufficient Debt staked to begin with, it only cost him 2 Debt to split a die 3 ways.
You can split a die as deeply as you have Debt to do it with (given that all that Debt originates from the same Drive and that you cannot invest more Debt in a given Conflict than the value of the Drive it came from). If you had 6 Debt invested from a single Drive, as a result of being disgustingly Overdrawn to begin with, for example, you could certainly split a 6 into six 1s. You have to split the die evenly and there has to be at least as much Debt staked on your side of the Conflict as the number of dice.
So, yes, a second (third, fourth, etc) person can split dice on a side so long as they're allied with it. Its a useful strategy. Its more useful when you factor in the evil of splitting off a side from one you're allied with ... See below.
Quote from: Karlkrlarsson on May 02, 2006, 03:40:30 AM
2. On page 2 two players duke it out on a conflict. They are the only two intrested in it, so they are the only ones roling the dice. At the botttom of the page the score is 12 to 4. At the top of the next page, everyone can see who is going to win. So the starter claims the side that has 12, eventough he never has roled a die on that side. Is this possible?
If and only if they have no Conflicts already Claimed by any of the Characters under their control. If that is true, then yes, they can Claim a Conflict they've never rolled a single die on either way. This makes being very aware of the turn order on the coming Pages very useful, and really is an advanced strategic technique the best
Capes players pick up on swiftly.
However, if someone does this, they're going to get bitten by the Splitting a new side mechanics. Harshly.
They Claim the Conflict on the 12 (let's assume 4, 4, 4, thus 3 Debt staked) side. That means they go before both Boris and Carrie, the two who were involved in the Conflict originally. Able, the Claimant, uses his Action on another Conflict, confident in the hold on the Conflict in question. Able goes next, stakes 2 more Debt (since the original 3 were his and his Drive is a 5), and splits two of the 4s into 2 and 2, taking both to his new side and reducing the original side to 4, 2, 2, or 8. He then rolls up one of those 2s with his Action. Carrie follows, and has the choice of staking more Debt and splitting her 4 up into 2, 2, or 1, 1, 2, or even 1, 1, 1, 1 if she has a few Story Tokens to burn on more Actions and wants to milk her low traits. She also probably Reacted to Boris' Action if the die roll was low, because its in her best interest to help Boris keep the Conflict from resolving, unless she can bring her 4 up to an 8+, which is statistically unlikely.
Able might manage to maintain Control of the Conflict even after this, but even if he does, it'll be Boris who decides who gets Story Tokens if more than just Carrie was on the opposing side. The only thing Able'll get will be to match up the Inspirations ... which might be his point, or he could be goading both Boris and Carrie in the metagame to get more Story Tokens from them as they try to take vengence.
Quote from: Karlkrlarsson on May 02, 2006, 03:40:30 AM
3. Gloating. I have read somewhere on this forum about the danger of an endless gloat. Where both the sides of the conflict gloats for story tokens. Wouldnt that be impossible, since gloat only can be used when you are about to break the comic code?
The "danger" is badly overblown. Yes, a Gloat can only occur if both sides intend to break the Comics Code. Several sides could Gloat on a Conflict ... but its bad strategy to do so, for all the reasons already covered. Add into that the fact that in actual practice they're exceedingly rare and only go on so long as everyone at the table is having fun with it. The very moment that stops, its trivial to win the Conflict and clear it from the table.
Quote from: Zamiel on May 02, 2006, 04:39:51 AM
Quote from: Karlkrlarsson on May 02, 2006, 03:40:30 AM
2. On page 2 two players duke it out on a conflict. They are the only two intrested in it, so they are the only ones roling the dice. At the botttom of the page the score is 12 to 4. At the top of the next page, everyone can see who is going to win. So the starter claims the side that has 12, eventough he never has roled a die on that side. Is this possible?
If and only if they have no Conflicts already Claimed by any of the Characters under their control. If that is true, then yes, they can Claim a Conflict they've never rolled a single die on either way. This makes being very aware of the turn order on the coming Pages very useful, and really is an advanced strategic technique the best Capes players pick up on swiftly.
I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying here, so I am going to direct both you and Karl to the FAQ (http://random.average-bear.com/Capes/CapesFAQ) where these answers can be found...
Quote
Which sides of a conflict can I claim?
If you are allied with a side, you can only claim that side. If you are not allied with the conflict (because you have never rolled on it), you can claim either side.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14857.msg157369#msg157369
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18082.msg191262#msg191262
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19134.msg203784#msg203784
Does that "claim either side if you haven't rolled" mean I can claim a side that others have worked to build up out from under them?Yes. As long as you are either unallied with either side, or allied with the side you want to claim, you can claim a side, regardless of what work others have put into it.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14890.msg157656#msg157656
I hate to double post, but another thing just occurred to me...remember that all claims cancel at the beginning of the page, so by definition there are no outstanding claims when the starter of the page goes to make the first free claim. Therefore, this sentence:
Quote
If and only if they have no Conflicts already Claimed by any of the Characters under their control.
Cannot apply in the situation Karl describes, since it is the starter who is involved.
Ok...Thanks for the Help Zamiel, and thanks for directing me to the FAQ Hans.
It is abit clearer now, just one thing more.
Quote from: Zamiel on May 02, 2006, 04:39:51 AM
They Claim the Conflict on the 12 (let's assume 4, 4, 4, thus 3 Debt staked) side. That means they go before both Boris and Carrie, the two who were involved in the Conflict originally. Able, the Claimant, uses his Action on another Conflict, confident in the hold on the Conflict in question. Able goes next, stakes 2 more Debt (since the original 3 were his and his Drive is a 5), and splits two of the 4s into 2 and 2, taking both to his new side and reducing the original side to 4, 2, 2, or 8. He then rolls up one of those 2s with his Action. Carrie follows, and has the choice of staking more Debt and splitting her 4 up into 2, 2, or 1, 1, 2, or even 1, 1, 1, 1 if she has a few Story Tokens to burn on more Actions and wants to milk her low traits. She also probably Reacted to Boris' Action if the die roll was low, because its in her best interest to help Boris keep the Conflict from resolving, unless she can bring her 4 up to an 8+, which is statistically unlikely.
At this point Able would have 5 debt staked. 3 at the original side, and 2 at his new side. That seem wrong according to what the Faq says. I get the feeling that the faq says he doesnt need to stake anymore debt. He can just take the debt he has allrady placed , move it with the dice (except for one dice) to his new side. Is the faq, Zamiel or I wrong?
Karl Kristian Larsson
Quote from: Karlkrlarsson on May 02, 2006, 11:33:15 AM
At this point Able would have 5 debt staked. 3 at the original side, and 2 at his new side. That seem wrong according to what the Faq says. I get the feeling that the faq says he doesnt need to stake anymore debt. He can just take the debt he has allrady placed , move it with the dice (except for one dice) to his new side. Is the faq, Zamiel or I wrong?
He doesn't NEED to stake any more debt (although he may want to). He can just take the debt he has already staked and create a new side. This doesn't have to be done at the time of staking; it can be done later (see here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14924.msg158028#msg158028)). (I need to number the FAQ so questions can be refered to by number.) However, if he does stake two more debt, he doesn't HAVE to move the other three onto the new side; he can leave them where they are. He can leave any amount of debt on the other side after the schism. Why would he do this? Not really sure, except perhaps to breed some extra debt onto the drive. But it is a legal play, I think.
Quote from: Hans on May 02, 2006, 03:31:04 PM
He doesn't NEED to stake any more debt (although he may want to). He can just take the debt he has already staked and create a new side.
Hmm - that asks for a clarification. When you split on a side, you have to stake 2 debt. Let's say you do this, and Player B also does this - now there's 4 debt (2 from each of you) and 3 dice (the original die plus one split from each of you).
If you schism, you have to leave at least one die behind.
Can you take your two debt and two of the dice when you schism, even if you only "paid for" one of them?
Quote from: Hans on May 02, 2006, 10:57:32 AM
I hate to double post, but another thing just occurred to me...remember that all claims cancel at the beginning of the page, so by definition there are no outstanding claims when the starter of the page goes to make the first free claim. Therefore, this sentence:
Quote
If and only if they have no Conflicts already Claimed by any of the Characters under their control.
Cannot apply in the situation Karl describes, since it is the starter who is involved.
Its possible that the Starter has more Characters out on the table than the one involved, and that Boris and Carrie are involved in other Conflicts as well or just were inattentive when the first round of Claims went around. In such a case, if Able, the Starter, Claimed another Conflict first, he cannot Claim an unjoined side on the Conflict in question.
Its a rare case, but it can happen.
Quote from: drnuncheon on May 02, 2006, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: Hans on May 02, 2006, 03:31:04 PM
He doesn't NEED to stake any more debt (although he may want to). He can just take the debt he has already staked and create a new side.
Hmm - that asks for a clarification. When you split on a side, you have to stake 2 debt. Let's say you do this, and Player B also does this - now there's 4 debt (2 from each of you) and 3 dice (the original die plus one split from each of you).
If you schism, you have to leave at least one die behind.
Can you take your two debt and two of the dice when you schism, even if you only "paid for" one of them?
Clarification - you only need one debt to split, not two...see pg 37. Tony has said elsewhere that there is essentially a "free" die on the conflict that does not have to have debt associated with it. So in the description above, the player who staked 5 could take all five of those debt to the new side, as long as they left one "free" die behind.
Also, note that only the original two sides have "free" dice...new schismed sides do not get a free die.
You only need two debt if you are leaving the debt on the original side.
Quote from: Zamiel on May 02, 2006, 03:46:38 PM
Its possible that the Starter has more Characters out on the table than the one involved, and that Boris and Carrie are involved in other Conflicts as well or just were inattentive when the first round of Claims went around. In such a case, if Able, the Starter, Claimed another Conflict first, he cannot Claim an unjoined side on the Conflict in question.
Its a rare case, but it can happen.
Ah, I think I see where you are coming from. Just to clarify, each player gets only one "free" claim (see here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16239.msg172914#msg172914) and page 22). Able will have to use a story token to make any additional claims, regardless of how many characters Able has.
Quote from: Hans on May 02, 2006, 04:00:47 PM
Ah, I think I see where you are coming from. Just to clarify, each player gets only one "free" claim (see here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16239.msg172914#msg172914) and page 22). Able will have to use a story token to make any additional claims, regardless of how many characters Able has.
Right, exactly. Part of why its so rare, but its one of the cases turn order is so brutal in.
Quote from: Hans on May 02, 2006, 03:51:21 PM
Clarification - you only need one debt to split, not two...see pg 37.
Ah, I see - the 2 debt is only needed for the initial split (since you can't split to more dice than you have Stakes).
I guess the question then is:
A pays 2 debt and splits D1 into D1 and D2.
B comes along and stakes a debt, and splits D1 into D1 and D3. Now there's 3 debt and 3 dice.
At any time, B could spend another debt, split D2 into D2 and D4, and take 2 dice to his own side - that much is clear.
What I'm asking is, could B Stake a second point of debt, choose
not to split, and then schism D1 and D3 off to his own side (with his 2 debt), leaving D2 as the 'free' die?
J
Quote from: drnuncheon on May 02, 2006, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: Hans on May 02, 2006, 03:51:21 PM
Clarification - you only need one debt to split, not two...see pg 37.
Ah, I see - the 2 debt is only needed for the initial split (since you can't split to more dice than you have Stakes).
I guess the question then is:
A pays 2 debt and splits D1 into D1 and D2.
B comes along and stakes a debt, and splits D1 into D1 and D3. Now there's 3 debt and 3 dice.
At any time, B could spend another debt, split D2 into D2 and D4, and take 2 dice to his own side - that much is clear.
What I'm asking is, could B Stake a second point of debt, choose not to split, and then schism D1 and D3 off to his own side (with his 2 debt), leaving D2 as the 'free' die?
J
Well, I think there are several questions here.
First, you can split with only one debt total; you take the debt, and split the die, taking one to your new side, and leaving one as the "free" die. You only need two debt to split and keep the dice on the same side.
Two, a person can always choose to take as much or as little of their debt and schism off a new side, as long as they take at least one debt. It doesn't matter if this is done in conjunction with new staking or not.
Three, the question of which DICE to take. There is a question on this in the FAQ, which I will quote here:
Quote
When I schism to make a new side with my debt, which dice can I take?
There is no clear rule on this, but Tony plays it that you can take ANY dice, as long as you don't take more than the debt you have staked. All you have to do is leave at least one "free" die behind.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19067.msg200148#msg200148
In my own group, we play it the opposite way from what is describe above. So, the way we play is this (notation is A,B = players A and B, T = debt tokens, D= dice
A stakes two debt, T1 and T2, which now have two dice on top of them D1 and D2.
B stakes one debt, T3, and splits D1 into D1' and D3.
At this point, B could make his own side with his one debt, taking D3 with him.
Assuming he doesn't, later, B comes along and stakes another debt, T4. He has a choice of three dice to split (D1', D2, D3). Lets say he splits D2 into D2' and D4. D4 is now sitting on T4.
B can now make a new side, but he can only make it with D3 and D4, as those are the dice sitting on his debt tokens.
Or lets say he doesn't split. He can still take his debt tokens to his side, but can only take D3 unless he splits, because that is the only die currently associated with his debt.
Again, this is just the way we play it. It seems that in Tony's games (correct me if I'm wrong, Tony), the dice are not associated with particular tokens and just sit there. When the time comes to schism to a new side, B could take any dice up to the amount of debt he has staked on the new side, as long as he leaves at least one die on that side. So, under that way of thinking, B COULD stake his second debt, not split at all, and take the highest of D1, D2, and D3 to his own side, forcing A to resplit at some later time and roll up again.
Originally, I thought we would play Tony's way, but then a situation came up that made it clear to use that taking any die you want was simply unbalancing, and made it too easy to completely undercut someone. I think the situation was where there were 4 die on the table (6, 5, 2, 1) with four debt. Note that by staking two debt, under the one rule, I could not split at all, and simply take the 6 and the 5 onto my own side, leaving the other side with 4 debt and two dice (a 2 and a 1). Under the other rule, I would have to SPLIT first to get dice associated with my debt tokens (probably the 6 and the 5), and end up with two new dice (probably 3's) on my new side. However, note that if I were the person whose debt the 6 and 5 are sitting on, I could schism with those dice onto my own side with impunity if I wanted to under our rule.
Quote from: Hans on May 02, 2006, 04:59:21 PMOriginally, I thought we would play Tony's way, but then a situation came up that made it clear to use that taking any die you want was simply unbalancing, and made it too easy to completely undercut someone. I think the situation was where there were 4 die on the table (6, 5, 2, 1) with four debt. Note that by staking two debt, under the one rule, I could not split at all, and simply take the 6 and the 5 onto my own side, leaving the other side with 4 debt and two dice (a 2 and a 1). Under the other rule, I would have to SPLIT first to get dice associated with my debt tokens (probably the 6 and the 5), and end up with two new dice (probably 3's) on my new side. However, note that if I were the person whose debt the 6 and 5 are sitting on, I could schism with those dice onto my own side with impunity if I wanted to under our rule.
Uh ... okay ... this is confusing me pretty badly. I feel like I'm only seeing part of the tactical situation. Can I ask to have the issue put in a larger context?
One side is at 6, 5, 2, 1, 0, 0. What's the
other side of the conflict at? Are they winning? Are they losing? Is it close?
Is there a side you're hoping will win? The other (yet-unmentioned) side? The new side you schism off? The side you schismed away from?
Quote from: TonyLB on May 03, 2006, 12:46:31 PM
Uh ... okay ... this is confusing me pretty badly. I feel like I'm only seeing part of the tactical situation. Can I ask to have the issue put in a larger context?
I'm not entirely sure it matters, but let's go with this simple setup:
Player A has been rolling up the Black side. He's staked 2 debt and split once, and he's got a 4 and a 3.
Players B and C have been rolling up the White side. B staked 2 and split, and C staked a third and split. Their dice are at 6, 5, and 3 - they're dominating!
Player A claims the Black side and B claims the White side. C (for whatever reason) either doesn't want B to control the conflict or doesn't want it to end this Page. Maybe it's a moral imperative to him to get to narrate Powerman getting an atomic wedgie, maybe he's Sindyr on a Gloatfest, I'm not sure.
Now, we know that C could drop another debt, split the 6 into a pair of 3s, and then take two dice (presumably the 5 and a 3) over to his new Blue side. He'd have an 8, Black would have a 7, and White would have a 6.
But if B has an inspiration, or is going after C, or is likely to spend a story token for an extra action. He might still pull ahead. C doesn't want that. Can C lay down a second debt, not split (leaving 4 debt and 3 dice), and then schism and take both 5s (and both of his debt) to his new Blue side? That would give him a 10, Black an 8, and leave White with a 3 (and a lot of work to get back into the running).
Now, when B's turn comes around, he can spend his resources trying to get back in (a tough sell). But if he's more interested in making A lose, it's probably better for him to try to roll down one of A's dice.
...I feel like a bridge columnist for the newspaper or something.
J
Quote from: drnuncheon on May 03, 2006, 01:59:19 PM
Can C lay down a second debt, not split (leaving 4 debt and 3 dice), and then schism and take both 5s (and both of his debt) to his new Blue side? That would give him a 10, Black an 8, and leave White with a 3 (and a lot of work to get back into the running).
Yes. I don't usually do it that way myself, but the rules are pretty clear that I
could.
I'm going to have to think for a while about
why I don't usually do it that way. Maybe it's just ignorance of the rules, or maybe I have a reason that's not surfacing consciously. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, either way!
Same setup:
Quote from: drnuncheon on May 03, 2006, 01:59:19 PM
Player A has been rolling up the Black side. He's staked 2 debt and split once, and he's got a 4 and a 3.
Players B and C have been rolling up the White side. B staked 2 and split, and C staked a third and split. Their dice are at 6, 5, and 3 - they're dominating!
At this point, player C could just take his one debt and any one of those three White dice to a new Blue side, right?
Could C stake two more debt for a total of three, split the 3 into a 2/1 (giving White 6/5/2/1, two debt from B, three debt from C), then take his three debt and the 6/5/2 over to Blue, leaving White with two debt and one die at a 1?
If so, I think I see why Hans said:
Quote
Originally, I thought we would play Tony's way, but then a situation came up that made it clear to use that taking any die you want was simply unbalancing, and made it too easy to completely undercut someone.
Quote
...I feel like a bridge columnist for the newspaper or something.
I'm almost ashamed to admit that I spent some time on my morning commute thinking about how I could draw ascii pictures of conflict cards, debt chips, and dice in a forum post. I gave up.
Quote from: TonyLB on May 03, 2006, 02:14:25 PM
I'm going to have to think for a while about why I don't usually do it that way. Maybe it's just ignorance of the rules, or maybe I have a reason that's not surfacing consciously. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, either way!
I can only regret that the chance to do it to you didn't come up in actual play.
J
What Jeff describes is pretty much exactly what happened in our game, except add in that player C (me) was the last player on the page, and everything was due to resolve once I was done acting. I tried to do what Jeff described, and it came up against two things:
1) The fact that the dice are sitting there on the debt tokens sends a pretty strong message that they are associated in some way, and since the rule had never been explicitly stated, the assumption around the table of everyone (except me) was that there WAS an association.
2) This seemed too easy to most of us around the table. A spiteful schism through splitting dice is already a powerful tactic in a lot of ways. This just seemed too much.
Therefore, we decided to make the visual connection between debt tokens and dice an actual mechanical connection. The die sitting on the debt is associated with that debt; it can't be taken off, but it can be split. A spiteful schism is STILL an incredibly powerful tactic. In Jeff's example if either the 6 or the 5 is on C's debt token, he can still mess over B's chances pretty royally. I'm not saying this is right for everyone...to be honest, I think if we had made what Tony says here explicit from the beginning, so that everyone knew it was a tactic to expect, it might have been no problem.
Quote from: Hans on May 03, 2006, 03:18:14 PM
Therefore, we decided to make the visual connection between debt tokens and dice an actual mechanical connection. The die sitting on the debt is associated with that debt; it can't be taken off, but it can be split.
Embarrassingly enough, I think I have also spent my entire Capes career operating under this unstated assumption. Which doesn't mean anyone else at my gaming table has been making that assumption ... I may have just gotten lucky, the few times schisming happened.
So ... uh ... I heartily endorse this house rule! And, err ... it may make its way into errata.
Feelin' a little sheepish here, I must admit.
Quote from: drnuncheon on May 03, 2006, 01:59:19 PM
Now, we know that C could drop another debt, split the 6 into a pair of 3s, and then take two dice (presumably the 5 and a 3) over to his new Blue side. He'd have an 8, Black would have a 7, and White would have a 6.
J, I think I have a textual solution for you on this, since I'd had my head inside the text of
Capes for days now, treating it like a mix of program spec and Derrida ...
The text says that when you split a new side, you can
only take the die or dice
you split from the single die that is being split from. Ie, you can only affect one donor die on the donor die, no matter how much Debt you have staked there. That's it. This also solves your problem with cruel splitting feeling too powerful; at most, they can affect the highest die on the side and can only take a cut of it based on how much Debt they have less than their Drive in question to stake.
So, C could drop another Debt and split the 6 into a 3 and a 3, then take that 3 (and that single point of Debt staked to split it) to his new side, but the other die he staked to split are inviolate.
This actually makes more sense than the original community's view, in that
no other
Capes mechanic affects more than one die with a given act. With this textual interpretation, then you don't get whole sides being raped by a single Debt invested split from a third party. Conversely, a heavily invested original side member can't effectively "kick out" a third party by splitting away and taking the bulk of the dice with them. Odds are they can't afford to split off a compeditive side at all.
Tactically, this means that an uninvested third party has a better chance of splitting a side and making a go of the new one, because they have the unbound Debt on the Conflict to split several times. A pricy, but certainly workable result.
This may be why Tony never really saw schisming occur in a different way; he's internalized the "one act, one die" meta-mechanic.
Quote from: drnuncheon on May 03, 2006, 01:59:19 PM
Can C lay down a second debt, not split (leaving 4 debt and 3 dice), and then schism and take both 5s (and both of his debt) to his new Blue side? That would give him a 10, Black an 8, and leave White with a 3 (and a lot of work to get back into the running).
Quote from: TonyLB on May 03, 2006, 02:14:25 PM
Yes. I don't usually do it that way myself, but the rules are pretty clear that I could.
I'm going to have to think for a while about why I don't usually do it that way. Maybe it's just ignorance of the rules, or maybe I have a reason that's not surfacing consciously. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, either way!
If what Zamiel is suggesting is correct, the rules are pretty clear that you
can't take any old die you please, only dice that you split with your own debt. I may be getting confused, but to me this kinda seems to support the Bound Dice (or Bound Debt, if you prefer) interpretation.
Hey, I could buy that! I was right all the time, I just didn't know it!
Quote from: TonyLB on May 03, 2006, 07:35:18 PM
Hey, I could buy that! I was right all the time, I just didn't know it!
That's what I'm here for, Tony, to prove you're right, and then explain why. ;)
The "unbound Debt" approach actually seems to be more consistant with the Capes mechanisms as stands, and fixes J's potentiated issue with a whole swath of the best dice taking a walk for one more Debt invested. I think its a good idea to add this thread to Hans' FAQ, if you're on board.
Quote from: Zamiel on May 03, 2006, 09:39:42 PM
The "unbound Debt" approach actually seems to be more consistant with the Capes mechanisms as stands, and fixes J's potentiated issue with a whole swath of the best dice taking a walk for one more Debt invested. I think its a good idea to add this thread to Hans' FAQ, if you're on board.
Please, its the Capes FAQ, not Hans' FAQ. It is my gift to the world...
However, it is obvious that an FAQ entry is going to be modified by this thread, so...
Q: When you schism to a new side, how many and which dice are you allowed to bring with you to your new side, and what happens to any debt you already have staked? (a similar question is in there now, which will be incorporated into this one)
A1: (My understanding of what Zamiel is saying) The only way to create a new side is by splitting dice. You cannot simply move existing dice to the new side. You must stake at least one new debt on the conflict, or have at least one debt staked on a conflict already that has not been used to split (i.e. there are fewer dice than debt at that moment), and split at least one existing die. More debt (either previously staked, or newly staked) can be used to schism, splitting more dice off into the new side. You cannot simply move dice to the new side, and if necessary, you must leave enough of your own debt behind on the old side to ensure that there are no more dice than debt on that side after the schism occurs.
A2: (The Mississauga "Bound" house rule) Each die is associated with a particular debt token. When you schism, you take some or all of your debt, and its associated dice, to a new side. You cannot take dice associated with other players debt tokens, but as part of the schism you can stake new debt and split new dice off of other players dice.
First, Zamiel, have I captured what you are saying? If not, please post a concise statement of what you are saying that answers the question in its entirety, that is 1) how many dice? 2) which exact dice and 3) what about existing debt already staked?
Second, Tony, assuming I have captured what Zamiel has said, or that he posts it, please let us know which answer is the right one. Then I (or someone else, if they want) will pop it into the FAQ.
Quote from: Hans on May 04, 2006, 09:16:13 AM
You cannot simply move existing dice to the new side.
Yeah, see ... this is something I'm pretty sure I want people to be able to do (for a variety of reasons).
I just went back through the book again. I didn't go back through the erratta or the FAQ or the older threads, because that's a lot of mass to move. I think I finally understand, though.
As Zamiel has pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any mention in the text of moving existing dice/debt to a new side. The text only says that you can stake debt, split dice to that debt (from the original die or dice that have already been split, either way) and can then take those dice and debt to a new side. It does not seem to address the issue of moving already-staked debt or moving the dice that the already-staked debt was used to create by splitting.
However, the attitude in the text seems to be that when I stake a point of debt and split a die, the die created is "mine" and I schism it to a new side, along with the debt I used to split. This does not create a Bound relationship between the debt chip and the die. The Bound/Unbound discussion is a red herring. What is important is which dice are "mine" to move.
Zamiel seems to suggest that a strict reading of the text would indicate that the "mine" status of the die only exists for a short time. If I stake and split, but do not schism, that status is lost. On my next turn, I can no longer move any of my debt that have been used to create dice, nor the dice created.
A more liberal reading might indicate that the "mine" status of the dice is permanent. My debt is mine to schism, as are the dice that I create with my debt. This seems to reflect the way the game is actually played, not only in Mississauga (and here in Mississippi as well) but by the author himself, which lends a certain authority to it. I suggest that this is the actual intent of the text.
I understand now why Tony originally questioned the "Bound" attitude. As you can see in the question phrased by Hans, the issue is not whether a die "belongs" to a particular chip. However, as you can also see in the A2 answer, the Bound attitude makes it really really easy to handle.
I suggest that the Mississauga Bound version be considered the authoritative rule, with suggested variant houserules based on Zamiel's strict reading (old debt/dice have to stay, only new debt/dice may schism) and the cut-throat interpretation (dice and debt are unassociated, and if I schism three debt, I pick any three dice from the old side to take with me).
Quote from: Hans on May 04, 2006, 09:16:13 AM
A1: (My understanding of what Zamiel is saying) The only way to create a new side is by splitting dice. You cannot simply move existing dice to the new side. You must stake at least one new debt on the conflict, or have at least one debt staked on a conflict already that has not been used to split (i.e. there are fewer dice than debt at that moment), and split at least one existing die. More debt (either previously staked, or newly staked) can be used to schism, splitting more dice off into the new side. You cannot simply move dice to the new side, and if necessary, you must leave enough of your own debt behind on the old side to ensure that there are no more dice than debt on that side after the schism occurs.
Probably needs a reminder there must already be staked 2 or more Debt total to that side of the Conflict (as its a requirement of the text. The last sentence probably needs to be rewritten not to suggest you can "move" Debt at all, possibly:
"Any Debt you had staked to to the original side remains there, except the one point used to schism off a new side." Simpler, easier, and more straightforward.
You do bring up an interesting issue, what to do with X points of staked but unbound Debt on the original side. The text doesn't address the issue at all, so implicitly there's no mechanism for moving it, but I'd be tempted to house rule unbound Debt can be moved on over to the new side, letting you immediately split your own di{e|ce} with that Debt. Bound Debt, already used to split dice on the donor side, probably has to remain because taking it would create a situation where there's more dice than Debt staked, which should be a validation check.
Incidentally, if we
don't concern ourselves with the validation check and allow any owned Debt (but not the dice its bound to) to be moved to the new side, we can end up with a situation on the donor side where you have to invest more than the number of dice you want if you're the next person to split on that side. Which might be what you want, but man, that can be even more evil than snatching away all the high dice. ("Not only did I turn your 6 into a 2, but I increased the cost for you to recover by 3 Debt.") This gets into the degenerate tactic (or at least I think it's degenerate) of a dominating Player "kicking out" a second party who'd heretofore been helping with a smaller investment of Debt and die rolling, right before the resolution, by schisming away and taking all their resources with.
Not to be at
obvious odds with you, Tony, but I think the "one targeted die" mechanic of schisming is way more in line with the rest of the system, and cuts back on the abuses J was mentioning earlier plus the "kick out" lock-out tactic. I can only use an Action to roll a single die, I can only React to the same die being rolled, I can only
split one die for a given investment of Debt ... Why should schisming get
two exception rules (the cost being half splitting,
and it can take multiple dice)? What does it give us in such a configuration that single-die-target schisming does not?
From a strategic perspective, I can see that it lets you schism off any dice that you may have previously "paid for." Which implies being heavily invested in a side gives you the ability to control who else can get invested in that side. In such an environment, there's very little impetus to get involved in an existing side when I can just split off my own side for the cost of one Debt. If I do get involved, the original inhabitant can just spin and schism away, retaining the bulk of the dice. It becomes less profitable to cooperate. Hades knows there are few enough reasons to cooperate at the mechanical level in
Capes, already.
From a philosophical perspective, the concept of
ownership of anything in
Capes is relatively thin. You don't own characters without a house rule, you don't own Conflicts without actually fighting over them, it doesn't quite make sense to make ownership of dice in a conflict one of the exceptions. (You do own invested Debt for the sole purpose of distributing that, but there's been enough question of whether the placer or the Conflict resolver distributes invested Debt that there's a case to be made for the interpretation that you don't own Debt either -- and, in fact, if one reads it as not owning Debt, this discussion gets simplified down into my suggested strict reading, anyway, because Debt, while bound, is not "yours" to take to the schism'd side.)
Just a few thought from my side. I know I'm an obsessive when it comes to mechanical consistency. Its my own personal bugaboo. But the more logical and consistent a rule-set like
Capes, the more the Players can concentrate on the interplay and working the system to their ends.
Quote from: Zamiel on May 04, 2006, 06:00:46 PMNot to be at obvious odds with you, Tony, but I think the "one targeted die" mechanic of schisming is way more in line with the rest of the system, and cuts back on the abuses J was mentioning earlier plus the "kick out" lock-out tactic. I can only use an Action to roll a single die, I can only React to the same die being rolled, I can only split one die for a given investment of Debt ... Why should schisming get two exception rules (the cost being half splitting, and it can take multiple dice)? What does it give us in such a configuration that single-die-target schisming does not?
Point of order - it's actually the first split that's the exception, not the schisming, because the initial die has not been "paid for". Once you've got 2 debt staked, you can split as much as you want for a cost of 1 debt per die.
Now, I'm going to step away from the pure mechanics side and bring in the "philosophy" behind what's happening, because I think that's equally important. Staking debt on a conflict is saying "this is important to this character", and winning justifies the use of that character's power. Looked at from that perspective, it's hard to see why staking debt on side A and then schisming to side C should be any different than just controlling side A - especially since the sides don't mean anything until the conflict is resolved! If the sides were set out before resolution, then I could see someone who changes their mind about what to support being conflicted (represented by the doubled return of debt from the losing side), but the way the rules are, the goal of side C might be exactly the same as the original goal of side A...
(I'd also like to note, going back to rigid textualism - I can't actually find where it explicitly says that Debt is staked on a particular side of a conflict - all the references I see just say 'Stake debt on the Conflict'. That could easily mean that the debt is staked on 'being on the winning side' rather than 'on side A winning')
J
Quote from: Zamiel on May 04, 2006, 06:00:46 PM
Probably needs a reminder there must already be staked 2 or more Debt total to that side of the Conflict (as its a requirement of the text. The last sentence probably needs to be rewritten not to suggest you can "move" Debt at all, possibly:
"Any Debt you had staked to to the original side remains there, except the one point used to schism off a new side." Simpler, easier, and more straightforward.
I think you are mistaken in the first sentence. Check the example of play given on page 37. It clearly shows only one debt being used to schism. Only one debt is necessary, not the three you seem to be implying. The particular section you are thinking of on page 37:
"Players may not split dice on a side with no Debt, or only one Debt Staked. But by Staking a single point of Debt a character may choose to create an entirely new side."
is pointing out an exception to the rule of no more splits than debt staked, as the example makes clear. There is an example of the same thing on page 63.
Zamiel, can you please post the exact text of how you would answer the question:
Quote
Q: When you schism to a new side, how many and which dice are you allowed to bring with you to your new side, and what happens to any debt you already have staked?
You can use my answer based on what I thought you said as a start, or start from scratch. That way we can all be completely clear regarding our positions.
On the issue of ownership, I will point out that the rule book refers to ownership of dice ("your die", "their dice") several times (pgs 30, 38, 39, 125 to name a few) and refers to ownership of sides as well in several places (your side, their side) as well. To me this indicates that dice ARE owned in some way, even though many other things in Capes aren't.
Tony, I suggest that the paragraph I quote above is ripe for errata, so that it directly addresses a) whether a single debt or at least three are necessary for a schism, b) what happens to any of your debt that is left behind, and c) whether more than one debt can be staked to schism.
Jeff, page 25, third paragraph, states you can only split on "your side" of a conflict, although it does not explicitly state debt is staked on a side. The errata for page 30 states ""Each player who Staked Debt on the winning side chooses how to distribute their own Debt as Story Tokens to other players." At the bottom of page 30 it says "All Staked Debt (on all sides) is treated as having lost." All of the illustrations in the rules imply you stake debt on a side of a conflict as well. There are a few other places (pg 37, for example) as well that seem to me to make it clear that you stake debt on a side of a conflict.
Quote from: drnuncheon on May 04, 2006, 07:42:37 PM
Point of order - it's actually the first split that's the exception, not the schisming, because the initial die has not been "paid for". Once you've got 2 debt staked, you can split as much as you want for a cost of 1 debt per die.
I'm not sure that's actually the case, if we see the mechanic as "there must be equal Debt to the number of dice after splitting." The first die on a side has no Debt associated, which may make it the exception, but the subsequent splitting mechanics follow directly from the above.
So, technically, once you have
1 Debt staked, you can split as much as you want for the cost of one Debt per die.
Quote from: drnuncheon on May 04, 2006, 07:42:37 PM
Now, I'm going to step away from the pure mechanics side and bring in the "philosophy" behind what's happening, because I think that's equally important. Staking debt on a conflict is saying "this is important to this character", and winning justifies the use of that character's power. Looked at from that perspective, it's hard to see why staking debt on side A and then schisming to side C should be any different than just controlling side A - especially since the sides don't mean anything until the conflict is resolved! If the sides were set out before resolution, then I could see someone who changes their mind about what to support being conflicted (represented by the doubled return of debt from the losing side), but the way the rules are, the goal of side C might be exactly the same as the original goal of side A...
Quote
All that is very true. But its not from that perspective that I dislike the "kick-out" tactic, but purely due to the fact its one of the few mechanics to make cooperating on / sticking with a side somewhat profitable (ie. if you're already invested, you'll get more out of staying than splitting), which leads to more interesting decision-making from my point of view.If you get to drag all your investments with you when you schism, then there's really a negative pressure to stay, because you'll get fewer resources for resolving the Conflict than otherwise. At which point, mechanically speaking, its a no-brainer. Whereas if your staked Debt has to remain associated with the side it was originally put on, it means there's more incentive to stick with it. Moreover, from a philosophical PoV, your character has vested in this particular set of options; should it then be cheap and trivial to change what he cares about?
Quote from: drnuncheon on May 04, 2006, 07:42:37 PM
(I'd also like to note, going back to rigid textualism - I can't actually find where it explicitly says that Debt is staked on a particular side of a conflict - all the references I see just say 'Stake debt on the Conflict'. That could easily mean that the debt is staked on 'being on the winning side' rather than 'on side A winning')
Quote
p19, on Splitting, says:
"A side may split to as many dice as it has Stakes."
This seems to imply, if not state outright, that stakes are associated with a side, else it would be "A Conflict may split to as many dice as it has Stakes."
p37 says:
"So long as they end up with no more dice than they have
Stakes, a side can split a die into two (or more, if they've got a
lot of debt) dice."
These two passages definitely support the idea that Debt is associated with a side.
Interestingly, its probably worth quoting another passage on p37, while we're in here:
"Players may not split dice on a side with no Debt, or
only one Debt Staked. But by Staking a single point of Debt a
character may choose to create an entirely new side. They split
a die from the side they're leaving, and leave one of the
resulting dice (usually the smallest) on that side. The other die
or dice go to found the new side the player is creating."
I think the telling bit here is "leave one of the resulting dice," which, in context, is extremely explicit about which dice are being taken, the ones being split from the donor die.
I hate it when I blow a closing quote ...
Quote from: Hans on May 04, 2006, 08:36:06 PM
Zamiel, can you please post the exact text of how you would answer the question:
Quote
Q: When you schism to a new side, how many and which dice are you allowed to bring with you to your new side, and what happens to any debt you already have staked?
You can use my answer based on what I thought you said as a start, or start from scratch. That way we can all be completely clear regarding our positions.
In my preferred solution:
A side of a Conflict must have at least two Debt staked before a new side can be schism'd off. If so, staking one point of Debt will let you schism off a new side, with that invested Debt going to the new side. If you want to split the donor die further, you can add one die per added Debt (so a 6 could be split 2, 2, 2 for a total cost of 3 Debt on the schism'd side). Of the set of dice involved in the schism (donor die and all split dice), you take all but one (generally leaving the lowest die behind). The split di{e|ce} and any Debt staked in schisming end up on the new side, any previously staked Debt and all other dice remain on the donor side.
Is that clearer? I think it hits all the points.
Okay, folks. We've departed from explaining rules and started writing entirely new ones. Here is how I
know the game can be played:
- If there is one die (say, a 5) on a side, you may stake one debt, split the die into a 3 and a 2, take the 3 and form a third side.
- If there is already two debt from someone else, and two dice (say a 5 and a 2), you may stake one debt, split the 5 into a 3 and a 2, take the 3 and form a third side.
- If you have staked two debt and have two dice (say a 5 and a 2) you may, without staking any further debt, split the 2 into a 1 and a 1, take two dice with your two debt, and go off and make your own side. You split to maintain a "free die" on the starting side.
- If you have a side which exists only because of your debt (say you split off to a third side and then somebody other than you allied and claimed it) you may make a new (fourth) side and leave them with nothing. Not a free die, not one of your dice ... nothing.
- In case this hasn't been made clear, you absolutely, positively may stake debt, play for pages and pages, and then later take your debt and some dice away to make a new side. You do not need to stake more debt and leave your old debt behind.
Are we clear on what I'm not debating? Cool ... now here's the bit that I didn't think through real well.
- If there are two debt, for two dice, are you allowed to add a new point of debt and simply take (not split for three dice and take one of the results of that split) one of those dice which you had no part in creating or increasing? Doesn't seem immensely fair, no it doesn't.
- Could you, in fact, stake two debt and take both dice, maybe splitting off a "free die" to hold down the side as before?
- Or, contrary-wise, are the dice "owned" by the debt that created them, so that while you can split bits off of them, you cannot take them wholesale?
I have been playing with that last assumption ... that you can't simply take dice when there's debt sitting there waiting to be split onto ... but rather, if you've just added debt that debt does not yet entitle you to any dice ... it entitles you to the
opportunity to grab some dice, by splitting them off of existing dice.
I'm working on the errata write-up here. I'd like to be able to do it without repaginating the whole book for the next printing, and that means it's going to have to be written fairly concisely. In the meantime, let's not go rewriting the rules in ways contrary to what I've stated above. 'kay?
Quote from: TonyLB on May 04, 2006, 11:31:00 PM
- If there is one die (say, a 5) on a side, you may stake one debt, split the die into a 3 and a 2, take the 3 and form a third side.
Except that this directly and specifically contravenes the text, and I'm not sure what advantage there is in doing so. Its more the latter point that bugs me than the former, mind you. Yes, yes, I know you wrote Capes and are the Final Authority, etc. I'm an obsessive logician, a playtesting author's worst nightmare. :P
So, that said ... Page 37 says you have to have two Debt on a side (yours or another's) before you can schism off a new side. Is that remaining textual, or are you deliberately errataing to the new rule?
Quote from: TonyLB on May 04, 2006, 11:31:00 PM
- If you have staked two debt and have two dice (say a 5 and a 2) you may, without staking any further debt, split the 2 into a 1 and a 1, take two dice with your two debt, and go off and make your own side. You split to maintain a "free die" on the starting side.
Just for clarity, this effectively reduces to your second point, just reiterating that Debt, for the sake of "at least two points" is not "owned" per se. Unless you're saying you can do it at the start of a Conflict, ie. no other Debt on the Conflict side, in which case see my point above.
Quote from: TonyLB on May 04, 2006, 11:31:00 PM
- If you have a side which exists only because of your debt (say you split off to a third side and then somebody other than you allied and claimed it) you may make a new (fourth) side and leave them with nothing. Not a free die, not one of your dice ... nothing.
This is where we go off into the high weeds, as far as I'm concerned. I understand wholly that the beginning two sides of a Conflict have a free die. By text as stands, if you take only split dice, then there is no situation in which a side can have no dice, and this is a good thing, because if there ever is a situation where a side has no dice,
there is no way to get any. Dice can neither be created nor destroyed, you can just split them. Leaving
no dice on a side violates that underlying conservation, and quite possibly puts someone in a position where they have Debt invested on a side and nothing they can do with it.
I think that's a bad degenerate case and probably grounds enough for
not playing with that understanding.
Quote from: TonyLB on May 04, 2006, 11:31:00 PM
- In case this hasn't been made clear, you absolutely, positively may stake debt, play for pages and pages, and then later take your debt and some dice away to make a new side. You do not need to stake more debt and leave your old debt behind.
I can deal with Debt being a mobile resource; once its allocated to a Conflict, its only the fact the Debt is bound to the
Conflict that's of concern, not that its associated with a side. That simplifies certain understanding about how Debt is moved (or rather, doesn't moved; Debt is present on all sides of a Conflict at once).
Quote from: TonyLB on May 04, 2006, 11:31:00 PM
Are we clear on what I'm not debating? Cool ... now here's the bit that I didn't think through real well.
Well, you may not be debating it, but there are still some issues with what you said that need to be hammered out. :)
Quote from: TonyLB on May 04, 2006, 11:31:00 PM
I have been playing with that last assumption ... that you can't simply take dice when there's debt sitting there waiting to be split onto ... but rather, if you've just added debt that debt does not yet entitle you to any dice ... it entitles you to the opportunity to grab some dice, by splitting them off of existing dice.
I'm working on the errata write-up here. I'd like to be able to do it without repaginating the whole book for the next printing, and that means it's going to have to be written fairly concisely. In the meantime, let's not go rewriting the rules in ways contrary to what I've stated above. 'kay?
Well, except for the inconsistancies, I'm happy to play along. :)
I think the best means of simplification would be to remove the idea of "taking" dice at all. Specify that he only way to "get more dice" is by splitting, We already have verbiage which specifies how splitting works; you stake enough Debt that the total Debt of players Allied to that side equals the final number of dice, then pick a die to split. Schisming a new side should function in the same way, possibly with a one Debt cost decrease if and only if there are already two dice present on the donor side (much easier to explain and, because of the way splitting works, guaranteed to have at least two Debt staked already). The requirement ameliorates the decreased cost.
Actually, I suspect we can make it
all rather more concise by merging the mechanics for splitting and schisming:
Quote
The main reason to Stake Debt on a Conflict is to Split the
dice. Two dice can roll from two to twelve, while one can roll
only one to six. When one side has more dice than the other
they have a statistical advantage.
So long as they end up with no more dice than they have
Stakes, a side can split a die into two (or more, if they've got a
lot of debt) dice. This split must be done as evenly as possible.
(Replaces next paragraph:)
The other use for Staking is that if you disagree with the side you've been supporting so far, you can split off and form your own side. Doing so functions just like normal splitting, except that you take all but one die (typically the lowest) and may take all Debt you have staked on the original side to the new one.
That's even shorter than the current schisming mechanics and explains how you move Debt around. I think its a more consistent presentation, too, given the proximity of the splitting mechanics.
In fact, I can do
even better:
Quote from: Zamiel on May 05, 2006, 04:51:12 AM
Quote
The main reason to Stake Debt on a Conflict is to Split the
dice. Two dice can roll from two to twelve, while one can roll
only one to six. When one side has more dice than the other
they have a statistical advantage.
So long as they end up with no more dice than they have
Stakes, a side can split a die into two (or more, if they've got a
lot of debt) dice. This split must be done as evenly as possible.
(Replaces next paragraph:)
The other use for Staking is that if you disagree with the side you've been supporting so far, you can split off and form your own side. Doing so functions just like normal Splitting, except that you take all but one die of those Split (typically the lowest) and may take all Debt you have staked on the original side to the new one. So, if you split a 6 into 2, 2, 1, 1, you could leave a 1 and start your new side with the other three dice and all the Debt you had Staked on the original side.
A bit longer than my first run at it, but working in an example is always good.
Quote from: TonyLB on May 04, 2006, 11:31:00 PM
[li]If you have a side which exists only because of your debt (say you split off to a third side and then somebody other than you allied and claimed it) you may make a new (fourth) side and leave them with nothing. Not a free die, not one of your dice ... nothing.[/li]
WOW, I love that! To me, that really helps me understand how you originally intended things to work.
Otherwise, awaiting the errata.
Quote from: Zamiel on May 05, 2006, 04:51:12 AM
So, that said ... Page 37 says you have to have two Debt on a side (yours or another's) before you can schism off a new side. Is that remaining textual, or are you deliberately errataing to the new rule?
The way I read p37, you only need one die to schism. The line "Players may not plit dice on a side with no Debt or one Debt staked" is just restating the original rule. It follows up with "But by staking a single point of Debt a character may choose to create an entirely new side". That's the exception - the "but" implies you can do it even with 0 or 1 debt staked.
J
Quote from: drnuncheon on May 05, 2006, 10:48:15 AM
Quote from: Zamiel on May 05, 2006, 04:51:12 AM
So, that said ... Page 37 says you have to have two Debt on a side (yours or another's) before you can schism off a new side. Is that remaining textual, or are you deliberately errataing to the new rule?
The way I read p37, you only need one die to schism. The line "Players may not plit dice on a side with no Debt or one Debt staked" is just restating the original rule. It follows up with "But by staking a single point of Debt a character may choose to create an entirely new side". That's the exception - the "but" implies you can do it even with 0 or 1 debt staked.
J
And as I mentioned earlier, at least two play examples (the one on page 37 and one in the long play example) go beyond implying and actually show exactly this occurring.
Quote from: TonyLB on May 04, 2006, 11:31:00 PM
- If there is one die (say, a 5) on a side, you may stake one debt, split the die into a 3 and a 2, take the 3 and form a third side.
Quote from: Zamiel on May 05, 2006, 04:51:12 AM
Except that this directly and specifically contravenes the text, and I'm not sure what advantage there is in doing so. Its more the latter point that bugs me than the former, mind you.
I think the text explicitly says exactly what Tony said there. J quoted the bit I mean, "But by staking a single point of Debt a character may choose to create an entirely new side". This doesn't seem to require any other circumstances.
Are you asking about the advantage in splitting with a single die? Or the advantage in contravening the text?
Quote from: Zamiel on May 05, 2006, 04:51:12 AM
So, that said ... Page 37 says you have to have two Debt on a side (yours or another's) before you can schism off a new side. Is that remaining textual, or are you deliberately errataing to the new rule?
I'm with J in that I don't see anything on 37 that supports what you're saying. Can you quote the text to support this?
Quote from: Zamiel on May 05, 2006, 04:51:12 AM
This is where we go off into the high weeds, as far as I'm concerned. I understand wholly that the beginning two sides of a Conflict have a free die. By text as stands, if you take only split dice, then there is no situation in which a side can have no dice, and this is a good thing, because if there ever is a situation where a side has no dice, there is no way to get any. Dice can neither be created nor destroyed, you can just split them. Leaving no dice on a side violates that underlying conservation, and quite possibly puts someone in a position where they have Debt invested on a side and nothing they can do with it.
Hrm. If I remember correctly, you can only schism to a
new side, never moving debt or dice from an existing side to another existing side, right? In that case, yeah, you can end up with stranded debt.
I'm fine with that. I created side C, using my action and my debt, then you step in, claim it, stake debt, and don't even split your own dice? Fine, you wanted it, you got it. Keep side C, I'm taking my debt and dice to side D. Now you're stuck and you're getting back double debt from side C no matter what the outcome because you left yourself open to it. I bet you'll never make that particular bad play again.
Quote
The other use for Staking is that if you disagree with the side you've been supporting so far, you can split off and form your own side. Doing so functions just like normal splitting, except that you take all but one die (typically the lowest) and may take all Debt you have staked on the original side to the new one.
I'm not sure that I understand what you're suggesting here, Zamiel. Could you give some "If there is one die, no debt/two dice, one debt/three dice, five debt/etc" examples of play using this rule?
Quote from: Matthew Glover on May 05, 2006, 02:15:56 PM
Quote from: Zamiel on May 05, 2006, 04:51:12 AM
Except that this directly and specifically contravenes the text, and I'm not sure what advantage there is in doing so. Its more the latter point that bugs me than the former, mind you.
I think the text explicitly says exactly what Tony said there. J quoted the bit I mean, "But by staking a single point of Debt a character may choose to create an entirely new side". This doesn't seem to require any other circumstances.
Exactly.
Hey, :)
Quote from: Zamiel on May 05, 2006, 04:51:12 AMQuote from: TonyLB on May 04, 2006, 11:31:00 PMIf you have a side which exists only because of your debt (say you split off to a third side and then somebody other than you allied and claimed it) you may make a new (fourth) side and leave them with nothing. Not a free die, not one of your dice ... nothing.
This is where we go off into the high weeds, as far as I'm concerned. I understand wholly that the beginning two sides of a Conflict have a free die. By text as stands, if you take only split dice, then there is no situation in which a side can have no dice, and this is a good thing, because if there ever is a situation where a side has no dice, there is no way to get any. Dice can neither be created nor destroyed, you can just split them. Leaving no dice on a side violates that underlying conservation, and quite possibly puts someone in a position where they have Debt invested on a side and nothing they can do with it.
Tony, I know you said this was the "not debate"part, but I'm with Zamiel. This... this is weird... I'm not even getting into the whys and therefores of these being "good strategic plays" or "horrible tactical blunders". From a strictly mechanical point of view, it's just bizarre. It's like the "third side" is more special somehow just because someone created it later...
Someone created the first two sides as well, by spending an action to lay down a conflict... I don't see it...
So, if this is really, really what you meant, I'd like to ask you to please repeat that yes, this is really, really what you meant. If not, I'd ask that you say something along the lines of, "neh, you guys are wrong, but I'm gonna look at it again, just to make sure"...
In fact, if this were a Capes game, I'd lay down Event: Tony Reevaluates This Mechanic... ;) (yes, event, not goal... I s'pose you could always veto...:)
Cheers,
J.
Quote from: JMendes on May 06, 2006, 01:09:50 AM
Tony, I know you said this was the "not debate"part, but I'm with Zamiel. This... this is weird... I'm not even getting into the whys and therefores of these being "good strategic plays" or "horrible tactical blunders". From a strictly mechanical point of view, it's just bizarre. It's like the "third side" is more special somehow just because someone created it later...
Someone created the first two sides as well, by spending an action to lay down a conflict... I don't see it...
Here's how I see the mechanics. You have three separate actions which are all being squished together.
1) You can stake debt. This involves putting debt onto a side of a conflict.
2) You can split a die. Once there is debt on a side, you can use it to split an existing die as many ways as there are debt. There must be at least two debt to split, unless you are intending to schism, in which case the original side is treated has having a "phantom" debt for the purposes of splitting.
3) You can schism to a new side. To do so, you must have debt that already has dice that has been split. You then move the debt to the new side, and the dice follow along.
Tony, is this how the mechanics are supposed to work?
Quote from: JMendes on May 06, 2006, 01:09:50 AMFrom a strictly mechanical point of view, it's just bizarre. It's like the "third side" is more special somehow just because someone created it later...
That's right. It
is special. 'kay?
Quote from: Kai_lord on May 06, 2006, 09:37:08 AM
Tony, is this how the mechanics are supposed to work?
That's pretty close, yeah. Still working on the errata entry.