Hey, did anyone die? I guess that’s the first order of business.
Much appreciated.
As I understand it in this case, no-one’s actually too worried about this specific deal. It’s more the principle of the thing and making sure we know what to expect down the line, as summarised:
I would very much like to be able to rule always in favour of the spirit of the law rather than the letter. In a face-to-face game I’d certainly much prefer this, as it keeps the legalese to a minimum and limits players setting verbal traps. I can understand that many players might want to play it the other way though.
The primary difficulty with this when playing on a forum is that there are many posts, and a player in a rush may have only really read the bolded deal post, not any modifications thereafter and certainly not any surrounding context. That makes it very difficult to be sure that all players were accepting the same agreement in spirit.
It’s clear from how the game’s been going that multi-player deals tend to get suggested and reworded a few times before being finalised and even then there are often sizable loopholes if someone’s looking for them.
So it’s really down to what sort of game players want.
- Do we want to always deal in good faith, aiming to avoid differences in interpretation and to arbitrate when they inevitably arise anyway?
- Would we prefer to put the onus on the players to ensure they word deals carefully?
In either case, it would seem good to set out some guidelines:
- Try to state what you’re looking to get out of the deal in the post in which it’s proposed.
- Make any amendments in later posts very clear.
- Consult me or other players for suggested wording.
My understanding from the rules is that player-run arbitration in the form of votes is the ultima ratio of the Agreements system, anyway, regardless of how carefully the agreements are or are not worded. Is this not true?
That vote feels like a last fallback more than anything, and those rules don’t allow for a moderator of course. I reckon we should work with me as ultimate arbitrator of disagreements, though of course disinterested players are welcome to contribute.
There’s unfortunately only limited guidance in the rules on whether to rule in a way sympathetic to the intent of the deal or sticking to the letter. It feels as though this is deliberately left to the group to decide.
Right, I think I’ve now got all the cards correctly exchanged and played. Let me know if anything’s missing.
When should I have named Quinctius faction leader? Revolution? If so, I did want to make that happen.
That happens in the Forum Phase.
The 2nd Punic War moves from Imminent to Active.
Sad news this day of the death of a renowned and influential elder statesman of Rome. Flaminius was once consul and currently holds the roles of Censor and leader of the New Men. He is succeeded by his son.
Poking @scottagibson as this news affects him most.
The way things are going I’m honestly a little surprised Scipio didn’t die.
Factions
| Player | Senators | Knights | Concessions | Offices | Total | Previous |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @CraigM | 5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
| @Kolbex | 5 | 2 | 7 | 0* | 14 | 10 |
| @scottagibson | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
| @Navaronegun | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 4 |
| @Juan_Raigada | 5 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 16 | 17 |
| @Panzeh | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 3 |
* Pontifex income 2 - 2 (for evil omens) = 0.
Players, please distribute these funds as you see fit between faction and personal treasuries.
You may also trade money at this time.
State Revenue
| Base | Wars | Legions | Fleets | Land Bills | Provinces | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | -40 | -42 | -2 | -10 | 0 | 6 |
- Gallia Cisalpina (1d6-1): 3 - 1 - 2 (evil omens) = 0
As things stand, the senate will have 96 talents to disburse this round.
Senators may make contributions to the state to gain influence
(10T => 1 influence, 25T => 3 influence, 50T => 7 influence)
Also I am fairly certain I have only one concession. Sadly.
That’s 2 talents from your one concession, yes.
Right. So I lose the concession I just (finally) got, and both knights, and I’m back to 5 revenue. Glad we didn’t make the ‘contribute all our money’ deal.
5 Talents to Son of Flaminius
Sadly so. On the plus side, the senate may decide to assign the concession back to you.
Also, I lose all the accumulated influence. On the plus side, no one hates Flaminius anymore.
Edit: Is it me, or does the RNG really dictate this game?
11T to Claudius, who then makes a 10T contribution to the Roman Treasury.
Republic of Rome is a very RNG-heavy game.
28 talents to Papirius, who contributes 10 talents to the treasury.
It certainly seems to be on the ‘kick in the crotch’ mode.
All 8 to Aemilius.
Do we have to contribute now? Or is that just something you are doing in advance?
Contributions are the last player action this turn, and in turn order if anyone cares. It’s fine to wait if you’re worried about others holding on to money, or to act immediately if you don’t care who sees what you’re doing. I do not believe there is any agreement in force that compels contributions.