pass… I could go either way on this one, but also keen to see if one of the two players that follow me have a better counter offer than media circus.
Judging by the events we know of:
- we might gain 1 threat per district in unrest. We’ll gain 4 threat in our current state (5 if outage counts as unrest, not sure)
- we might gain 3 threat for unrest in a tier 2 district.
So we’re looking at 3-5 threat, which is considerable, given the trouble we’ve gone to satisfy the demand for just a little more threat. Things are going to get hairy as we approach the halfway point – let’s not lose to the federalist.
But if Perky_Goth’s card goes through, he’ll be able to pick an event that generates no or a small amount of threat? Unless he’s a federalist, but giving us a bad event will be such an obvious tell that there is no way he’ll be able to get the 25 capital needed to win as a federalist by the end of the game.
Yes, there’s no way I’ll get 25 capital. Or not lose, really. Don’t know why I decided a negotiation game would be a good idea for me to do.
I promise to recheck my math to get the lowest threat right now if that’s what you want, but I don’t know if that’ll be the best choice for later. We can have an informal vote or whatever, but I don’t know if I can discuss while choosing.
We’re all out to further our personal agendas. Mine just happens to be out and out against federal interference and the accumulation of threat. Handing total control over to someone just prior an event is a bad idea, akin to XO’ing the person next in line (to use military parlance.) If one event is bad for the city but good for personal investments – it’s pretty clear what anyone would pick. I don’t believe Mme Haas is a dirty federalist, but the smart move is not to put ourselves in a position to find out.
You are not allowed to discuss card specifics regarding the events.
Much as I’d love to make a better counter-offer, most of my cards increase unrest and the rest aren’t helpful either. So I’ll pass.
@lantz I vow to take the meager capital (everyone’s assets are safe!) from this underwhelming thief, so there isn’t much of a margin for me. You stand to gain more capital than I do just from your short sale asset (our mutual friend Haas benefits as well) + NBN contract from reducing unrest. For your support, I will happily discharge our prior agreement, since its wording persists beyond your next discard phase, and I wouldn’t want its shadow to darken our good relationship.
I hope that you will add cards to guarantee this action, as it is the best course for the city, but also because our rivals are out there who may not want to see us gain +2 (and in your case, +3, and Haas +1) capital from its passage.
Surely the good of the city should be enough for you! Tell you what, you get to keep the asset.
Hm, the Asset will trigger if you win. But of course you can let someone else decide which asset to steal, or transfer the Capital.
I thought we could negotiate anything. But, anyway, yeah @Lantz, I’ll do the choices you want and transfer the result to you.
I meant that the Asset triggers when it is claimed, so it can’t be transferred before the effect triggers. But you can of course transfer the Asset you steal with it.
@lantz Sorry, I just reread NBN’s card, I just realized that you don’t get 2 capital for unrest reduction, but 1 per unrest level decreased. Since there’s no sector in strike, it’ll only be 1 capital from your contract + 1 from your asset.
So I’ll understand if you want to change your mind. I will make an additional offer to compensate though – if you continue your support, and if the event increases threat less than 2, I’ll give you an additional capital at that point.
I’ll wait for Lantz to play the mulligan before saying what I will do.