First session

[Karlkrlarsson]

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

[Zamiel]

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.

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.

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.

[Hans]

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 where these answers can be found...

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

[Hans]

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:

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.

[Karlkrlarsson]

Ok...Thanks for the Help Zamiel, and thanks for directing me to the FAQ Hans.

It is abit clearer now, just one thing more.

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

[Hans]

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).  (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.

[drnuncheon]

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?

[Zamiel]

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:

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.

[Hans]

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.

[Hans]

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 and page 22).  Able will have to use a story token to make any additional claims, regardless of how many characters Able has. 

[Zamiel]

Ah, I think I see where you are coming from.  Just to clarify, each player gets only one "free" claim (see here 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.

[drnuncheon]

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

[Hans]

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:

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.

[TonyLB]

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.

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?

[drnuncheon]

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