The Council of Wyrms - Page 34

Wish · #**331** October 23rd, 2005, 08:09 PM

which is one nay away from being veto'd

The Panther · #**332** October 23rd, 2005, 09:32 PM

It looks like we will be having 2 stales:

1. The wyrm-less nation of Ermor.
2. The absent wrym of Caelum.

I will be hosting about when game 2 of the world series ends.

Panther

The Panther · #**333** October 24th, 2005, 02:49 AM

Turn 3 has hosted and all players got their moves done. It turns out that I had Zooko's file all along, but he is using some kind of totally weird mail format which threw me for a loop. Luckily, a simple renaming to caelum.2h worked just fine.

News:
1. At least two more wyrms died.
2. Seven nations took a province.
3. Lots of national troops died all over the place.
4. These settings are definitely the hardest I have ever played in an MP game.

Don't forget that you must announce when your wyrm has died and also when he is resurrected for voting purposes.

The next turn is due on Tuesday evening.

Morkilus · #**334** October 24th, 2005, 03:02 AM

The wyrm Suli-Krom has taken a temporary leave of absence. The vanjarl Vile will take over administrative duties until further notice.

Whollaborg · #**335** October 24th, 2005, 08:46 AM

Leviatan is temporaly in the pub. He shall be back.

silhouette · #**336** October 24th, 2005, 08:58 AM

I, a lowly spectator, have a question for the Council (thought diminished in number may it not be so in wisdom). The Wiki rules section 16 specify stealthy actions as fair-game. But, if a stealthy intruder is accosted by province defence and is well equipped enough to win, is that considered a hostile (rogue-making) act, or would that takeover be considered like a 'revolt' case and not a cause for action? If it is considered a hostile act, then by whom, the stealthy actor who may just have been passing through, or the defenders who in a sense initiated the conflict?

Sill

Ironhawk · #**337** October 24th, 2005, 03:07 PM

An excellent question. It would have to be considered a hostile act of the stealth actor since they are the one truly taking "action" in this sense. If it were any other way then you should just make stealth thugs and put them into enemy provinces until they get "caught". As for whether this makes you go rogue I couldnt say... its really a tough call.

Cainehill · #**338** October 24th, 2005, 03:39 PM

I'd have to say it'd be a neutral act -- act of god, so to speak.

Otherwise any number of scouting mechanisms are essentially unusable for fear of going rogue : Jotun scouts (which can easily win against low PD without being equipped), black servants, Pan's mages, and all of the stealthy unique demons / devils.

Edit : Hmm. Sneaking units supposedly don't get caught by PD less than 11, and I doubt the Jotun scout could win except against pitiful PD (Machaka perhaps). But the black servant, stealthy mages, and devils still could easily do so.

shovah · #**339** October 24th, 2005, 03:49 PM

but what if someone tried to passa stealthy army (say villians) through nation A's province to preform an attack on nation:B's province and his army gets discovered while sneaking (but he had gotten a council ruling to attack nation b?)

Morkilus · #**340** October 24th, 2005, 04:20 PM

I like to think "accidental" battles happened quite a bit in medieval times. IN any case, aren't spies and such considered to be not affiliated with the government proper? Perhaps they are part of an independent security contract. They are villains after all. However, Vanheim has no official say in this until its wyrm returns from its spiritual journey.