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

Karlkrlarsson wrote:
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?

Karlkrlarsson wrote:
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?

Karlkrlarsson wrote:
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?

Zamiel wrote:

Karlkrlarsson wrote:
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.

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:

If and only if they have no Conflicts already Claimed by any of the Characters under their control.

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

It is abit clearer now, just one thing more.

Zamiel wrote:
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.

Karlkrlarsson wrote:
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?

Hans wrote:
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.

Hans wrote:
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.

drnuncheon wrote:

Hans wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:
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. 

Hans wrote:
Clarification - you only need one debt to split, not two...see pg 37.

drnuncheon wrote:

Hans wrote:
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

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

Hans wrote: 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 wrote:
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?

drnuncheon wrote:
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).

Same setup:

drnuncheon wrote:
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!

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 feel like a bridge columnist for the newspaper or something.

TonyLB wrote:
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!

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.

Hans wrote:
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.

drnuncheon wrote:
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.

drnuncheon wrote:
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).

TonyLB wrote:
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!

Hey, I could buy that!  I was right all the time, I just didn't know it!

TonyLB wrote:
Hey, I could buy that!  I was right all the time, I just didn't know it!

Zamiel wrote:
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.

Hans wrote:
You cannot simply move existing dice to the new side.

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).

Hans wrote:
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.

Zamiel wrote: 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?

Zamiel wrote:
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.

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?

drnuncheon wrote:
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.

drnuncheon wrote:
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...

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?

drnuncheon wrote:
(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')

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 ...

Hans wrote:
Zamiel, can you please post the exact text of how you would answer the question:

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.

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?

TonyLB wrote:

• 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.

TonyLB wrote:

• 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.

TonyLB wrote:

• 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.

TonyLB wrote:

• 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.

TonyLB wrote:
Are we clear on what I'm not debating?  Cool ... now here's the bit that I didn't think through real well.

TonyLB wrote:
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?

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.

In fact, I can do even better:

Zamiel wrote:

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.

TonyLB wrote:
• 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.

Zamiel wrote:
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?

drnuncheon wrote:

Zamiel wrote:
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

TonyLB wrote:

• 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.

Zamiel wrote:
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.

Zamiel wrote:
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?

Zamiel wrote:
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.

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.

Matthew wrote:

Zamiel wrote:
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.

Hey, :)

Zamiel wrote:

TonyLB wrote: 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.

JMendes wrote:
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...

JMendes wrote: 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...

Kai_lord wrote:
Tony, is this how the mechanics are supposed to work?