Subject: MN: Year 2, Week 21: Proposals

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:24:49 +0100 (BST)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORNINGTON NOMIC

Proposals for Voting on in Year Two, Week Twenty-One
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 487 - Checked Flag [Multiple]

1. Which Flag Were We Capturing, Again? [Amendment]

Reword Rule 2.8.4 (Capturing and Dropping) to:-

If a Player has passed through or moved to a Station containing a Flag
during eir Turn, e may perform the Action "[Collecting Flag (T)]" to
place the Flag of the specified Team in eir Luggage.

If a Player is carrying a Flag, e may perform the post-Move Action of
"[Flag (T) on <Station>]" to place the Flag of the specified Team at a
Station, where "<Station>" is any Station which the Actioning Player's
Piece has passed through this Turn, or started or ended its Move at.

{ Comments : Just in case we have numerous Flags about the place; I'd
overlooked this in the original Proposal. }

2. Running with Scissors [Enactment]

If a Player is carrying a Flag, e may not perform any Actions which
alter the location of eir Piece; all of eir Piece Movement must be
performed during the Movement phase.

{ Comments : Someone mentioned in their Voting that Flag-capturing was
far too easy with the "Home" Action (tsk to them for not
discussing it on the mailing list) - a very good point,
and this restriction (a la the Parcel) plugs that rather
gaping loophole. }

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 488 - Quorum, Schmorum [Amendment]

To Rule 0.5.4 (Abstentions and Quorum), append the following paragraph:-

"If a Rule fails to reach Quorum, its Proposer may repropose it unchanged
during the next Nomic Week - this reproposal does not count towards the
usual Weekly Proposal limit."

{ Comments : This means a gap of a Week, since the Proposer won't know that
it's failed Quorum until the Voting Results go out, along with
the Proposals for the new Week. But it's better than a kick in
the teeth. }

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 489 - Pointless Crusade Ahoy [Multiple]

{ Comments : "Release the Pigeons!" again, with a slight bit of tweaking to
make it more palatable (you can catch Pigeons without recourse
to bread products, but get two with an Overpriced Baguette).

I was bitterly, bitterly disappointed that this didn't get
through the other Week, and shall be mercilessly reproposing it
every time I can't think of a third Proposal, or until I'm
persuaded to shut up. Pigeons are good. }

1. Release the Pigeons! [Enactment]

Pigeons exist in the Game, as Possessions.

Any Player may perform the post-Move Action "[Catching Pigeon]" to add a
Pigeon to eir Inventory, provided that their Piece is situated at Charing
Cross (the Station nearest to Trafalgar Square). If the Actioning Player
is carrying an Overpriced Baguette, e instead adds two Pigeons to eir
Inventory.

Any Player may perform the post-Move Action "[Releasing Pigeon(s)]",
provided that their Piece is situated at a Park Station. Upon performing
this Action, all Pigeons carried by the Actioning Player are removed from
eir Luggage, and e gains one Gold Token for each Pigeon released in this
manner.

A Player carrying one or more Pigeons may not perform an "Eating"
Action, and if e is ever Shunted, all Pigeons e carries (bar any that
might be stolen by the Shunter) are removed from eir Luggage.

2. Not Words But [Action]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Rule Duration Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Catching Pigeon] 1.7.x
[Releasing Pigeons] 1.7.x
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 490 - Token Cascades [Other, Multiple]

1. Token Cascade actions [Actions]

Post-move action: [Token Cascade] : 15 mins : -4 Re/Bu/Bk
Post-move action: [Cascade Kill] : 10 mins : -2 Re
Post-move action: [Cascade Steal] : 10 mins : -3 Re

2. Basic Token Cascades. [Enactment]

A Player may initiate a Token Cascade if that Player has none
of a single plastic token colour, and is situated inside the
Circle line. 

Every subsequent Player must give the actioning Player N plastic 
tokens at the beginning of eir next turn, where N is the number 
of moves since the relevant Cascade action was played, as long 
as it has not ended since.

If the current Player cannot make such a payment, that Player must 
instead give the actioning Player all eir plastic tokens of a single 
colour of the current Player's choice such that this is the highest
amount of plastic tokens of a single colour e owns; the Cascade then 
ends.

3. Stealing and Killing Cascades [Enactment]

If a Token Cascade is in effect, a Player may 'steal' the Cascade, in
order to focus the benefits of the Cascade onto emselves, and may
kill the Cascade to end it.

If a Player plays a [Cascade Steal] action, all tokens transferred as a 
result of the Cascade should be transferred to this new Player instead 
of the Cascade initiator.

A player may also play a [Cascade Kill] action. The Cascade immediately
ends.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 491 - The Sensible Slope [Amendment]

Replace the text 'at the end of eir turn' in the second paragraph of
rule 1.6.2 (The Slippery Slope) with the text 'before eir Move'.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 492 - 'Towing the Line' Gag Here [Other, Multiple]

Tow Action [Action]

Neutral action: [Towing <Player>] : 10 mins : -2 Bk

Stubbed Tows [Enactment]

A Player may Tow another Player to a Station, provided that both
players hold at least one Ticket Stub, and the Towing Player
passes through the Station the Towed Player is situated at in eir 
move. The Towed Player's location becomes the Station the Towing 
Player moved to; and Towing cannot be continued beyond that Station 
(ie, through Straddles or other move extensions).

The Towed Player's LV is set to 0 after the Tow. Players in Spoon
cannot be Towed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 493 - Guiness is good for you [multiple]

1. Heineken reaches the parts other beers cannot reach [amendment]

Add the following condition to the list of conditions for placing tokens on
stacks given in Rule 1.4.19 (Token Tracking):

* It may not be eir Home Station.

2. Probably the best lager in the world [amendment]

Amend the first paragraph of Rule 1.14.3 (Token Dropping) to read as follows:

"Any Player may perform the Post-Move Action of "[<Token Colour> Token on
<Station>]" to place a Token onto a Token Stack, where "<Token Colour>" is a
colour of Token which the Player possesses, and "<Station>" is any Station
which the Actioning Player's Piece has passed through, or started or ended eir
Move at, except eir Home Station."

{Comment: only the last clause is different from the current wording}

3. Australians wouldn't give a XXXX for anything else [enactment]

{Comment: if enacted, this rule should go in the Team Play section of the
rules. The Speaker may give this rule a sensible name if e so wishes}

When a Player places a Token on a Token Stack (either tokens paid to perform
actions, or those tokens placed on token stacksby means of the [<Token Colour>
Token on <Station> Action]) e may not place it on a Token Stack on the Home
Station of emself or any other member of eir team, whether that Player is
active or inactive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 494 - Now hands that do dishes can feel soft as your face with
mild green Fairy Liquid [amendment]

Remove the action [LV=0] from the table in Rule 1.7.2 and amend Rule 1.6.3
(Greg! The Stop Sign!) to read as follows:

"A Player may perform the pre-Move Action of "[LV+X]" or "[LV-X]", where 'X' is
an integer between one and three, to adjust eir Line Velocity appropriately."

{Comment: Losing [LV=0], which is a redundant action -- it's equivalant to
Passing and has never been used in it's own right (ie without a move of pass)
as far as I can remember. I've also removed the condition about only being able
to do one of these actions per turn -- if anyone's daft enough to want, for
example, to raise eir LV by 3 then reduce it by 2 on the same go (rather than
just raise it by one) then let em}

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 495 - My Mate Marmite [multiple]

1. Um Bongo, Um Bongo, They Drink it in the Congo [amendment]

Amend Rule 2.8.1 (Capture The Flag) to read as follows:

"If the "Capture the Flag" Special Ruleset is in effect, the "Team Play"
Special Ruleset shall be considered to be in effect also, except that the
Action [Giving <Possession> to <Player>] may not be used to pass another Team's
Flag from one team member to another.

2. It's too orangey for crows, it's just for me and my dog [amendment]

Amend Rule 2.8.3 (An Englishman's Home)

In addition to the normal conditions for selecting a Home Station, Players may
not choose a Home Station outside of Zone 4.

When the first member of a team declares eir Home Station, that Station becomes
known as the Team HQ, the Team Flag is created and is placed at this Station.
All other members of the same team must select the Team HQ as eir Home Station.
This rule takes precedence over any other rules governing Home Stations.

{Comment: fixing a potential loophole (ie capturing a flag and then giving it
to your team-mate, who is waiting at your Team HQ), adding the definition of
Team HQ and making the rule precedent explicit, and adding the condition of no
stations outside Zone 4, just to make it more difficult to protect your flag by
hiding it way out at the further reaches of the Northern, Metropolitan,
Piccadilly, District or Central Lines}

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:24:55 +0100 (BST)

>of a single plastic token colour, 

Hmm. Ambiguous. It must mean "that Player either has no Red Tokens,
no Black Tokens or no Blue Tokens", of course, otherwise you
couldn't ever play the Action (since you require some Tokens to
pay for it).

Aside from that and the other slightly tortured wording that was
mentioned, though, a fine implementation of Cascades.

>(ie, through Straddles or other move extensions).

A nice idea, but rather awkwardly implemented; it should really
be a post-Move Action that summons the Piece of a Player you've
passed, I think.

Hideously overpowerful in terms of Shunting, though - you need
no longer moderate your speed to Shunt someone; just rush past
them with an LV of 10, Tow them to your final location, then
belt them with a hefty Shunt. Quite, quite nasty.

And it could probably use a clause clarifying which Line the
Towed Player ends up on.

A fine idea, anyway. With a "no-Shunting" (and perhaps "no-
Shadowing") clause, I'd welcome it.

>Proposal 493 - Guiness is good for you [multiple]

All marginally superfluous in light of the new "Hoarding" Action, I
fear. Although this does highlight the fact that, er, Hoarding is
quite broken, being an instant-Stack-creation trick.

As for what it aims to achieve; I'm not sure if this is the best
way to go about it. Flipping Tokens to Stations which lurk behind
your Home Station (if it's blocking off a line branch) is equally
sneaky, but not too damaging unless the Player can be bothered to
go and get them back.

>as far as I can remember.

[does a search of the archives]

I've used it once, eating a Chocolate Bar afterwards to get my LV down
from six to one...

Kevan : [LV=0] [Purchasing Chocolate Bar] [Eating Chocolate Bar] 
Kensington (Olympia) (DS) [Bridges Up] 

Aside from that, it was only used back in the days when making a Move
of "Pass" required it.

I'm not sure how useful it is; it is *slightly* more handy than a Pass,
in that you can put your LV to zero and play the same Station again
(getting a reward if it's an Interchange, or whatever), but I think
we can live without it.

>I've also removed the condition about only being able

Absolutely right, yes. A sound Proposal.

>Flag from one team member to another.

Superfluous, I'm afraid, since only Small Possessions can be gifted,
and the Flag lacks such a Quality.

>not choose a Home Station outside of Zone 4.

Ah. Yes. Good idea. Morden or something would be far too irritating.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"Take the National Express when your life's in a mess."
-- The Divine Comedy, "National Express"

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 16 Sep 98 11:53:57 +0100

>belt them with a hefty Shunt. Quite, quite nasty. 

No, because in order to Shunt someone you need to Move to the Station 
they occupy. If you start at the same point as them, then they are safe 
from Shunts (unless some kind of loop can be arranged). 

>And it could probably use a clause clarifying which Line the 

Oh, definitely. 

My main problem with this is that I can't see the point, although I 
suppose it would be a fairly disruptive bit of behaviour and could be 
useful for Denying Gambits. 

However - 

> Neutral action: [Towing <Player>] : 10 mins : -2 Bk 

... shouldn't the Token cost be in Reds since it's a directly aggressive 
Action? 

-- 
Dunx 
IRL: Duncan Ellis, Senior Software Engineer, Business Modelers, Oracle 
<I work for Oracle, I don't speak for them>

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:15:34 +0100 (BST)

>from Shunts (unless some kind of loop can be arranged). 

Ah. True enough. Murky waters, though, since you can Tow someone
to an occupied Station and Shunt the Towee rather than the
Occupier.

>useful for Denying Gambits. 

I can see lots of possible tactics with this one, actually, but
shall, I think, save them for the Games...

>... shouldn't the Token cost be in Reds since it's a directly aggressive 

It falls between stools, really - not all its uses are really
that aggressive (particular in a Team Game). Maybe Blue, but
Black seems alright.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"Sad-veiled bride, please be happy. Handsome groom, give her room."
-- The Smiths, "I Know It's Over"

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:05:50 +0100 (BST)

>>but not too damaging unless the Player can be bothered to
>>go and get them back.
>
>...I came to the same conclusion. Also, there are other ways to get to a dead
>end (eg wild) without passing through another player's home station.

Actually no - the "[Wild]" Action makes Moves legal during Step 3
of the Valid Move thing in Rule 1.5.0, and other Player's Home
Stations make Moves illegal in Step 4, so the latter takes
precedence.

It's this that's letting me mercilessly block miKi on the East
London Line in Game 9...

>That is a use of the action which I hadn't considered, and which on reflection
>I think is a useful enough application to justify keeping the action.

I don't know; it's a bit cheeky, really. I wouldn't miss the
presence of the "[LV=0]" Action too much, myself.

>>(getting a reward if it's an Interchange, or whatever)
>
>I don't think that would be allowed -- isn't the token reward gained for
>*moving to* the station?

Moving to the Station you're already at sounds alright, really;
if you can go round the houses and return there with an LV of
ten or something, playing the same Move with an LV of zero seems
permissible. After all, the LV limit only says:-

* If the distance between the target Station and the Player's
current Piece Location is not precisely the same as that Player's
LV, the Move becomes Invalid.

>I think that implies that your turn starts with you at
>a different station, and haven't we discussed this one before anyway?

Have we? I quite forget.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"People in glass houses seldom throw parties."
-- David Devant and his Spirit Wife, "Miscellaneous"

---

From: "Graeme Jefferis" <grimace@s...>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:36:22 +0100

> from Shunts (unless some kind of loop can be arranged). 

The original idea was as a defence against shunting; if you're in danger of
being shunted, tow the prospective shunter to your own position where they
can't get you, without so much of a tactical rethink required. Assuming, of 
course, you both have stubs - the stub requirement is the bit I'm least happy 
with (when did we last see a stub in a game?) but I couldn't resist the rule
name. Perhaps only the Actioner ought to require a stub...

> ... shouldn't the Token cost be in Reds since it's a directly aggressive 

Well, that's the thing: it's not necessarily aggressive. One example is 
towing a team member, to assist in gambitry or token running; unlikely 
perhaps but possible. At any rate, I felt Reds have enough attached to 
them, and Blues generally need saving for more important things.

It ought to be post-move though. I'm notoriously bad at that: my thinking
goes something like 'well, you pass a player during movement, so you
have to start Towing at that point, therefore neutrality is required'.

Tahnkasm, which was a wonderful mistype of 'Thanks,'
-Graeme.

---

From: Richard Brockie <rmb@r...>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:48:38 +0100 (BST)

On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, I am the Water Boatman wrote:

> Maybe I'm being really dense, but I just don't see why miKi can't just Wild
> emself off to somewhere else if e so wished.

Curiously, I too am wondering about Kevan's reasoning.

--- miKi

---

From: Graeme Jefferis <Graeme.Jefferis@f...>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:09:06 +0100

I stared at my cascading proposal for a little longer than is
sane toady, and came up with a fix which both tidies the wording up
and brings the implementation into line with Dronery and Spoon.

Essentially, playing a [Token Cascade] gives the Actioner the
Cascade Counter, set to 0. Before a move, the player has to increment 
the counter by 1; this gives the amount of tokens to pay the
Counter owner. This approach makes implementing the Steal much 
easier, but the extra stuff, to define the counter and such, mean 
the rule is a bit longer.

The question is, is this preferable and should I go ahead and
propose it, or, is it a sledgehammer/walnut scenario and should
I just fix the wording and stop trying to be clever?

Thanks,
-Graeme