Re: On Proposal #26 (formerly #23)

by Le Roc at 2006-05-20 16:17:11

Ok, so I think I've cleaned up the issue related to paradoxes when the rule is implemented provided there are in fact enough squares for everyone to be moved to.
As far as this limiting your movement on a crampped board, it will to some degree. But then again you can spend your turns by attacking instead of moving and on a cramped board there will likely be lots of targets to go after. The wording of the proposal has changed here and there but I don't think the meaning has significantly been altered. I tried to make it a little more clear and concise.

I would agree with The T (see message Opinions on Proposal #25...) that this rule and currently proposal #25 do not work so well together. Elements of them certainly can (the player squares, Flutter orbs, and Lakitu orbs could work well together), but a lot of will not work so well. I guess its up to players to weigh the relative merits of both proposals and vote accordingly. Also if both are voted in then control of squares 8, 16 and especially 14 will be very important.

On the charge of being un-nomopoly-like, I cannot imagine in fact anything can be un-nomopoly-like given the nature of the game. I added this proposal for a few reasons:
1) Because it seemed to me to be the reasonably natural result of combining proposals 1 and 5 which both proved to be some of the most popular proposals this game,
2) Because the random moving around the board seemed to run counter to the idea of a strategy/role playing game,
3) Because I wanted to give some meaning to gaining experience and building forts and recruiting warriors, though the mining (scv's) already do this to some degree.

If people have any concerns and or comments please let me know. I'd rather not have to repeal and repost again but I will do so if I deem it necessary.