splitting question

[Matthew Glover]

Thanks, Filip!

Yeah, I was concerned about Owned Overdrawn possibly doing something undesirable.  That's why I wanted to explicitly state it as a variant, rather than include it as a part of Dice Ownership.  I haven't had enough experience with overdrawn characters to be able to predict how this would change the game, so I didn't want to commit to it without getting some feedback.

I look forward to hearing how this stuff works for you.

[Sindyr]

With very little forethought, I'd write it up thusly, I think.  Optional Rule -- Dice Ownership:  When using a point of Debt to split a die, one of the resultant dice (splitter's choice which one) is placed upon the Debt chip to signify that the die is owned by the same player who staked that Debt.  Any player may use an Inspiration upon an owned die or roll any owned die as per the usual rules, but no one but the owner may move an owned die with a schism.  Owned Overdrawn Variant:  When overdrawn, a player must roll down his highest owned die first.  If no dice are owned by this player, he must roll down his highest allied die.

I obviously haven't done enough playing without ownership to really back up these feelings, so I welcome anybody who has played extensively without ownership (explicit or implied) to school me on what I'm not recognizing.

I like what you are saying and would suggest some small changes:
Optional Rule -- Dice Control:  When using one or more points of Debt to split a die, all but one of the resultant dice (splitter's choice which ones) are placed upon the Debt chip(s) to signify that the die is controlled by the same player who staked that Debt.  Any player may use an Inspiration upon an controlled die or roll any controlled die as per the usual rules, but no one but the controller may move an controlled die with a schism.  Exception:  You must *always* leave at least a single die behind if schisming away from one of the two original sides.  Schisming away from any other side has no such restriction.

Controlled Overdrawn Variant:  When overdrawn, a player must roll down his highest controlled die first.  If no dice are controlled by this player, he must roll down his highest allied die.
The two small changes are of course the broadening of the terms to include people who split a die with more than one debt, and since Tony feel unhappy with the idea of "ownership" being used, I thought the idea of "control" may be (at least slightly) less unappealing for him.

One general question though.  If a side has two dice say a four and a five), I know I can spend one debt to split one of the dice and immediately schism.  If I have TWO debt, can I spend one debt to split one dice, the second debt to split the second dice, and move my two new dice to my own side?  I am thinking yes.

Example: As I said, a 4 and a 5 exist on a side I am allied with. I stake two debt.  I split the 4 into a 2 and another 2, placing one of the 2's on my debt token.  I spend another debt to split the 5 into a 2 and a 3, placing the 3 on my debt token.  I then *must* immediately schism (since I only spent one debt per die) both the 2 and the 3 into a new side.

Sound fair?

In fact, here's another rule I think maybe should be added to clarify the whole idea of spending debt to split and immediately schism:
Optional Rule -- Schisms: You may spend one fewer debt per die you are splitting, as long as you leave one die uncontrolled by you per die so split. If you do so, you must schism all dice you control on this side to a new side on this turn.
Example:  You have four debt on a drive and are allied with a side that has a 2 and a 5.  You could:
-spend two debt, splitting the 5 into a 2 and 3, both of which you control, and not schism.
-spend two debt, splitting the 5 into a 2 and 3, both of which you control, and schism off both, leaving the 2 behind.
-spend two debt, splitting the 5 into a 1, a 2, and another 2 - (which would normally cost three debt) - you choose control the 2 and 2, but are *required* to then schism. You wind up with the two 2's.

if the two dice on this side are a 5 and a 5, you could:
-spend one debt to split the 5 into a 2 and a 3, taking the "gonna schism debt discount" and choosing to control the 3.  Spend another debt the same way on the other five.  Now you *must* schism all the dice you control to a new side. Result: the old side has two 2's, your new side has two 3's. Cost: two debt.
-spend two debt to split the 5 into a 1, a 2, and another 2, taking the "gonna schism debt discount" and choosing to control both two's.  Do the same with the other 5, spending another two debt.  Now you *must* schism all the dice you control to a new side. Result: the old side has two 1's, your new side has four 2's. Cost: four debt.

Of course, the classic example remains:  If allied to a side that has a single 5, you can spend one debt and split it into a 2 and a 3, taking the "gonna schism debt discount" and choosing to control the 3. Now you *must* schism all the dice you control (the 3) to a new side. Result: the old side a 2, your new side has a 3. Cost: one debt.

I think this codifies schisming in a way that hasn't been done clearly before. What do you think? 

[Matthew Glover]

Optional Rule -- Dice Control:  When using one or more points of Debt to split a die, all but one of the resultant dice (splitter's choice which ones) are placed upon the Debt chip(s) to signify that the die is controlled by the same player who staked that Debt.  Any player may use an Inspiration upon an controlled die or roll any controlled die as per the usual rules, but no one but the controller may move an controlled die with a schism.  Exception:  You must *always* leave at least a single die behind if schisming away from one of the two original sides.  Schisming away from any other side has no such restriction.

I want to talk about this one thing before I move on to any other stuff.  Something about this seems weird:  "all but one of the resultant dice (splitter's choice which ones) are placed upon the Debt chip(s) to signify that the die is controlled by the same player who staked that Debt."

I'm not talking about schisming right now, just staking and splitting, so I have to stake two Debt.  This lets me split the single die into two dice.  Using your version, I get to place one of those upon a Debt chip, showing that I control (or own, depending on your parlance preference) that die.  The other die is uncontrolled and isn't placed on the other chip.   Is that right?  This seems weird.  Why is this?

Now if I *were* schisming, I'd split that original die into N+1 dice (where N = the amount of Debt I stake, assuming the original die had a value of N+1 or higher), put one die on each of  my Debt chips, move them to the new side, and leave one die remaining.   That makes perfect sense.

[Sindyr]

Quite right - brain fart and incorrect mental crosslinking.

This reframing may be more accurate:
Staking, Splitting, Schisming

• Staking:
  ---You can stake debt at any time on your turn before or after your action.  You can stake debt on any conflict or any side with only one restriction - you can only stake a maximum amount of debt on a conflict as drive strength of the drive from which the debt comes.  You can also only stake debt from one drive per conflict.
• Splitting
  ---You can used staked debt to split dice on a side you are currently allied with.  When using Debt to split a die, the resultant dice are placed upon the Debt chip(s) to signify that the die is controlled by the same player who staked that Debt.  Normally you must spend an equal number of debt to the resulting dice after the split. Of course, any player may use an Inspiration upon an controlled die or roll any controlled die as per the usual rules.
  ---However, you may spend one fewer debt per die you are splitting, as long as you leave one die uncontrolled by you per die so split. If you do so, you must schism all dice you control on this side to a new side on this turn.
• Schisming
  ---The controller of a die may move his controlled die or dice to create a new side at any time - this is called schisming.  The only exception is that when spending one fewer debt than required per die while splitting dice, you *must* schism all your dice on that side this turn.
Is that better? Clearer?  Rolled all the ideas into one.

[Matthew Glover]

Yes, glad to see that it was just a typo and not a fundamental change.

Hrm.  I knew this felt familiar.  We've gone over a lot of this territory before.  I even started a whole separate thread to deal with the question, and then I apparently forgot about it completely.  Now I feel like I need to go back and re-read all the crap I posted six months ago just to see if I already came to a conclusion and I've just forgotten what that conclusion is.

[Sindyr]

I checked those threads out, interesting stuff.

However, this thread is the first I have yet seen with actual proposals for not just how to do this, but actual rule text so the rules for how to govern staking, splitting, and schisming can be in black and white and a lot more clear than the one's in the actual text apparently are.

I think that's a good thing.  Answering confusion with examples showing how the game is meant to be played is good.  Citing rule text supporting that answer is even better.  Rewriting original rule text or adding new rule text to make things clear and unconfusing to start with is best.

YMMV, as always.