The Council of Wyrms
 

I am announcing a new mega-MP game. This will be totally opposite from my last mega-game (RAND). Diplomacy will be crucial to winning this game. The following are the rules:

1. Diplomacy will be controlled by the Council of Wyrms. Any nation who selects a wyrm pretender will have a vote on the Council. If your wyrm dies in battle, you lose your vote until he is resurrected. If you select a non-wyrm pretender, you will never have a vote.
2. Any attack by any nation upon a province controlled by another nation must first be cleared by the Council. You may state your case before the Council, and you should try to be as persuasive as possible.
3. The Council has 24 hours to vote on a proposal. The game hosting will be delayed until after the ruling when a proposal is before the Council. The proposals must be worded such that the choices are either yes or no. Wyrms may abstain, and a failure to vote will be treated as an abstention. The proposing player may vote for his own proposal only if he has a wyrm pretender alive at the time of the vote.
4. When a wyrm is out of town for business or pleasure, he may either get a sub or designate another wyrm as his proxy if he so desires. Votes on weekends and perhaps some holidays will be extended to 48 hours.
5. A proposal must gain at least a tie vote (abstentions do not count) in the Council to succeed.
6. Bribes, vote trading, pre-vote solicitations, retaliation threats, discussions, etc., are all allowed. Anything goes.
7. Any nation that attacks another nation without approval of the Council becomes a rogue nation. All other nations are allowed to attack a rogue nation anytime and anywhere without requiring a Council vote.
8. Rogue nations can be removed from rogue status only with a proposal plus a ruling from the Council. Rouge nations are not allowed a vote in Council until removed from rogue status.
9. AI nations are always a rogue nation.
10. National defense is allowed at any time. If a neighbor wins a Council vote against a player, the losing player may defend his threatened territory however he sees fit. However, the defending player may NOT attack any provinces owned by the attacking player without a Council ruling. Once the territory in question is lost, the defending player may not retake it without a Council ruling. If the attacking player cannot take territory ownership (or have a fort under siege) within 3 months, then he loses the opportunity to win the province until another proposal succeeds before the Council.
11. Provinces that revolt against a ruler are fair game to anybody. If multiple players attack such provinces (or any other independent province for that matter), the winner of such a battle becomes the rightful owner, no matter where it is located. The sole exception is the capitols. Other nations may not take advantage of a successful revolt against an enemy national capitol without a Council ruling.
12. Provinces with one player owning a fort and another player owning the province remain contested until one nation controls both. Either side can commit any forces in such situations until ownership becomes clear.
13. Attacks on white provinces are allowed anywhere and anytime and from any nation. First come, first serve.
14. Attacks that convert an owned province to neutral (such as Ghost Riders) are not allowed without a Council ruling.
15. Spies, stealthy preaching, creating unrest with stealth, and assassinations are all fair game since those acts do not result in province ownership change. Stealthy attacks on enemy provinces are prohibited without a council ruling. Of course, if you annoy a neighbor too much, he could perhaps retaliate in Council with proper evidence.
16. Other matters may also be brought before the Council, such as turning a nation AI, squelching a nation due to excessive Council requests, designating a permanent sub for a departing player, etc. In fact, you may bring anything you want to a council vote, such as: "Vanheim owes me a Dwarven Hammer because I can't make one myself!"

I hope to get a full 17 players for the game. If so, the game will be played on Orania with the standard preset starting positions. I will host the game as PBEM on MWF evenings (in general), unless we can get a non-playing host to volunteer. Because Pangaea is the only nation I have yet to play in MP, I am claiming that nation henceforth.

Abysia ... Cainehill
Arcosephale ... Reverend Zombie
Atlantis ... Whollaborg
Caelum ... Zooko
C’tis ... Huntsman
Ermor ... Quantum Mechani
Jontunheim ... Wish for Blood Slaves
Machaka ... Arralen
Man ... ygorl
Marignon ... djo
Mictlan ... puffyn
Pangaea ... Panther
Pythium ... RonD
R’lyeh ... Izaqyos
T’ien Ch’i ... Tauren
Ulm ... Pasha Dawg
Vanheim ... Morkilus
Alternates/subs ... YC boron Archaeolept Naresh

Game settings:
Map Orania
Starting Provinces 1
Indy strength 8
Magic Sites 50
Richness Poor
Events Common
Graphs Enabled
HoF 15
Research Very Difficult
Victory Condition 17 VPs
Master password Enabled
Renaming Allowed
Cheat Prevention Active
Mods Zen 4.0

Astute players will note that low resources greatly favor the death themes that kill population and get free spawns. These will therefore be prohibited. What this means is that Ermor must play Broken Empire and Pangaea cannot play Carrion Woods.

Also, I will use the master password (on Turn 1 only) to publish a full report on the pretender design of all nations. We will have to rely on the honor system for a player declaring that his wyrm has died in battle.

The magic site setting will be used to counterbalance the advantage of the blood nations on these settings. I am thinking that somewhere in the 35-65% range makes sense, based on my game tests with these settings. I do not want it real high because then the late game will be too much dominated by gem income and it would really hurt base Ulm plus some other low magic themes.

Tauren tested Abysia on these settings (with 50% magic) and there appeared to be no clear advantage in the early and middle game for blood hunting. The big problem for all nations (including the blood hunters) is the lack of money with which to buy commanders. Indy 8 battles are very tough for everybody. The powerful wyrm really helps here, but you do run the risk of your pretender dying in battle.

As for the victory condition, 25% of the provinces does seem low. However, this will likely be difficult to achieve due to the Council. I am guessing that the only way to win is to stay in the Council until you get strong enough that you believe you can go rogue. Then you will need to blitz your way to victory in the hopes of winning before the Council members can take your own territory away.

As for the Council, I would ask that one player volunteer to maintain the Council on another web site, kind of like we are doing on Yarnspinners 2. I will have my hands full with hosting and do not want the added problem of running the Council site.

Of course, I am open to discussion on the rules and settings. Additions, deletions, modifications, and opinions are all welcome.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

As great as wordplay is, I think from a fun and thematic point of view giving human pretenders the voting privileges would be better.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

yeah I'll play... sign me up as either abysia or caelum
and i also have a few questions
1. say you want to do a sneaky attack you would have to tell every one about it right? wheres the fun in that!
2. humans, are they rogue or just no votes?
3. why not have the council here?
4. mods what does zen mod 2 allow?
thanks
Naresh-will conquer

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

map?

also, c'tis DT would be banned as well, would it not?

anyways, it sounds like a cool idea. I'd like to try c'tis. never played them in a real MP game, and they're so cute http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I have a bad feeling that the poor world is going to feel like a real slog.

But what the heck.

Pythium

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I have decided... caelum
Naresh-will conquer

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

You do not have to select a wyrm. If you do not, then you will not be labeled as rogue unless you disobey the will of the Council. It only means that you will never be able to vote in council. You can still bring proposals before the council, but you can't even vote for your own proposal.

By the way, the wyrm is the only pretender available to all 17 nations.

Also, I don't think I have ever played an MP game on a poor world. And yes, it is a VERY hard slog in my SP test games. As I said earlier, the wyrm helps an amazing amount for this, though it is quite risky to use him solo.

Sneak attacks are outlawed per the rules. They are not very useful anyway in that all they do is annoy the recipient unless you are at war with someone (in which case they are very useful).

As for using this forum for the Council, I see a heck of a lot of discussions on the Council, especially in the mid and late game. We must have a better method of organizing this then a forum which only allows time-linear posts. There are plenty of computer literate folks out there that could make a great site to take care of this. I hope, anyway.

As for the mods, it is Zen's 4.0. There is a ton of discussion about these mods on the other forum. You can read about it over there to your hearts content.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

The Wyrm may be the only pretender available for all 17 nations, but every nation has human pretenders as well. Oh, and if you do insist on wyrms instead of humans, I claim BE Ermor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

As stated above, the map is Orania if we get 17 players.

I had orginally banned C'tis DT also, but my son pointed out that they do not get free spawns. The tomb worms must be summoned by an expensive unholy priest. On a poor world, it will be a long time to get very many of these guys. Tauren therefore convinced me to allow it.

Of course, since you picked the lizards, you can ban it by simply not picking them, which I personally think would be a great idea, especially for an expert player like you.

I did ban Carrion Woods from myself for similar reasons. The free troops on a poor world would be quite strong indeed.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Id like to claim T'ien Ch'i. All praise Kir'Doq, Conqueror of Life And Death, Ruler of the Stars, Eater of the Unholy, God of T'ien Ch'i.
C'tis Desert Tombs is not a true death theme. It does not kill population and get free spawns. It is no more a death theme than Broken Empire is.
Rule 3 states that the game hosting will be delayed for council rulings. This seems silly; Im sure there will be so many proposals by mid game that it would never host, and it is already a slow game. Also, there is no real reason any given proposal cant wait a turn for the results. Therefore I would suggest taking out the clause that states the game hosting will be delayed for council votes.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

The wyrm is non-negotiable, I am totally dead set on this. After all, the wyrm is the physically strongest pretender in the game, so why would they allow a lesser being into Council? Plus, there is always the endless arguments about what precisely constitutes a human pretender.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I agree with this logic. In fact, without an inherent delay, you could use the game timing to decide whether to put in a proposal with less than 24 hrs to go or greater than 24 hours, depending on whether or not you want your planned opponent to be forced to make a move before a ruling is official.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Of course, it is your game, but because I love a good debate, here are some counterpoints:

It is a little difficult to define strongest, for instance a carrion dragon, even with no magic, would eat a wyrm for breakfast. If you define purely in terms of statistics, there are a number of pretenders such bulls, shedus or manticores that are quite comparable. If you ask me, defining the stringest is a lot fuzzier than defining human pretenders, which are pretty clearly anything with 10 pathcost.

But aside from all that I simply imagine that humans are much more apt to diplomacy, forming councils, and politics in general than wyrms.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I have seen people claim werewolves are human, simply because they have 10 points per magic path. And many nations cannot get the werewolf.

I do understand your argument about us humans being the masters of diplomacy. However, I really like the general idea of a Council of powerful and mythical Wyrms making arbitrary but binding rulings. I especially like the idea that all nations can get them. For human pretenders, they are not all the same even though every nation can get one.

By the way, the wyrm IS the strongest pretender simply because it says so in it's thematic description. After all, we all know that those descriptions are gospel since they were written by God himself, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

It just says their might is awesome, and even dragons avoid them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

As for the werewolf, she is human as defined by almost every human pretender only game. Just because she can be used as an expander if you really work at it doesn't mean she would be overpowered, or even a clearcut better choice than other human pretenders for the nations that can use her.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Ha! You are precisely correct! I just went and reread the darn thing. Shame on the ol' Panther for relying on his aging memory. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

For the Carrion Dragon, he could almost surely beat the Wyrm in a one-on-one. But this is because the Carrion Dragon is immune to the dual death poison while the Wyrm is not immune to the dual sleep vines. However, the Wyrm has better fighting stats, which makes him physically more powerful (by Panther's Personal Definition). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

As for the bulls and Shedu, the Wyrm would own them both big time since the Wyrm can't be trampled and the dual death poison would hurt them really bad. The Manticore (poison immunity) would be an interesting battle. I would like to see that one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

As for the werewolf, she is not human, imho. Take a look at her stats and you will see that there is practically NO REASON to ever use the human form for her. Of course, I don't disagree that there are better human pretenders than the werewolf in many game settings and nations. I also wonder if the Freak Lord is human since the mage rides on a non-human mythical beast. The 10 magic path thing is somewhat arbitrary.

Were you, by any chance, on the debate team in high school? I should have been, for I too love a nice, amicable debate with no name calling or mud slinging.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Hello!

I would like to join as Ulm, and I expect to be voted in as the Chairman of the Council. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

The one thought I have is that the Council should not have the power to force a player to AI. That is too drastic.

Also, I assume that a player becomes a rogue nation if he/she disobeys a resolution of the Council (e.g., Vanheim shall give Caelum a dwarven hammer).

Pasha

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Yeah! We got Pasha Dawg. However, I do wonder if having a lawyer on the Council is a good idea or not...

As for forcing a player to AI, I see your point. However, I hate to restrict the Wyrms on anything. I see them as all-omnipotent and all-powerful on all subjects. Since forcing a player to AI is both irrecoverable and quite drastic, it should be extremely difficult to get a vote in favor. I, for one, would never vote to force a player to AI just because he is rogue and it looks like he about to win. That would be dishonorable in the extreme and not what Dominions is all about.

However, I could vote to move a player to AI (or to a forced sub if one is avaliable) because he/she has quit playing and participating in the game. We all know this happens all too frequently in these mega-MP games.

And yes, if a player disobeys the rules of the council, then they become a rogue nation. Of course, there is always the defense of, "Hey, I don't have a Dwarven Hammer myself, nor do I have the research and gems to even make one! I ask to be given 5 months in which to obey this ruling!!!"

As for the Council Chairman, this would entail the creation (or least the maintenance) of the Council Website. Did you just volunteer for that???

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

If you want to disqualify the carrion dragon's vines as a special ability, not fighting statistics, you also have to disqualify the wyrm's poison. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

If you are arguing from a purely thematic perspective, I think both the freak lord and werewolf fit in just fine as humans. One is simply a human with large pet, the other has an unfortunate illness. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Also, there is a reason to leave the werewolf in crone form, she has twice the precision that way, and for most battles not against indies, it is inadvisable to use her in melee anyway.

And no, I was never in a debate team either.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Alas no. I have no such skills (nor the time to learn them).

Again, I would urge that the Council not have the power to banish players from the game. That is too much. To the extent a player "disappears", that should not be a matter left to the Council's discretion. (All other matters are not irrevocable.) Instead, it should be decided by a consensus of all players, just like in other games.

Making a player AI also goes against the principle that the ONLY sanction that the Council can impose is a declaration that a given nation is a "rogue."

Also, I think players will need to keep in mind that this sort of hardcore diplomacy wacked-out game will require an extra-high degree of good sportsmanship. If the council is unduly capricious, players could end up getting quite cranky and the fun would be lost. (I am almost of a mind that there should be some strict limitations to the "jurisdiction" of the council, but broad jurisdiction is probably ok as long as the Council's power is limited by its ability to impose only one kind of sanction.)

Pasha

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Hey, QM just pointed me to this game and I had a look through the rules and your thread. Even tho I'm not going to be playing due to time constraints I just wanted to point something out about the rules.

1) When even a couple of wars have broken out the council will be literally swamped with requests to attack provinces. Say there are three wars going at one time, so six combatants. Each combatant attacks and average of... i dunno 4 provs a turn? So you are wading through 24 proposals a turn (and all the diplo that entails) - and thats just for combat proposals.

2) The constraints on rogue behavior (no sneak attacks, all targets publicly announced) practically force a player to go rogue to wage any kind of meaningful warfare.

3) The penalty for being a rogue nation is not effective enough to deter it. Yes, council nations can attack you at will... but if you think about it, this is no different than a normal FFA game. And there is nothing stopping the rogue nation from getting NAPs with thier council neighbors.


I'd suggest that you amend the rules such that a nation only needs to petition the council for the ability to go to war with another nation. And, if granted, that the ability be time limited somehow.. say 5 turns or so. That way you:

1) dont clutter up your council system with reams of province attack requests

2) give combatants a freer hand in the day-to-day mechanics of warfare but still constrain the overall fighting in the world

3) make rogue status more rare tho still useful (like if you lose your vote to extend a war, or want to launch a sneak-attack preemptive strike)

just my 2 cents...

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I go along with iron hawk asking to attack would have alot of council ideas just one to go to war for 5-8 turns would be enough, then all players would know who is at war and guerilla war fare would be back in!
and what does NAP stand for anyway?
but what if you are playing say...
man, you get tramform you transfrom your self from a titan to a wyrm then what? would you get a vote?

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

NAP stands for non-aggression pact.

The transformation spell cannot result in a wyrm. Nor is there anyway other way to turn your pretender into one.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

thank you but how do you know what tranformation turns you into?
and what are the possibilites for it

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Somewhere there is probably a complete list, but about the most powerful thing you are likely to get is a cave drake. Other options include wyverns, fire drakes, ice drakes, basilisks, and other crossbreed results.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

you could wish for a wyrm.... maybe you could just ask the council for attack permission for a certain number of turns and must after that time ask for more time if neccisary for the war,

i am very interested here but seems a bit too restrictive and my favourite nations have been picked.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Yes, but it would not have the pretender ability, so would not qualify.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Check out about Transformation here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I only got a Chimera, a Griffon, 2 Ice Drakes, a Boar, 2 Foul Spawn and Black Hawk when I tried it out.


I will host the game as PBEM on MWF evenings (in general) .. ok I ahould better read the whole thing thoroughly ...

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I really wish I had time for this game...

One thing you might want to do is have people declare wyrm/no wyrm when they join. If you don't get enough wyrms (2/3?), the system probably isn't going to work.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

This looks pretty much a like a Wyrm-only game to me:

- without Wyrm, no vote (how important this will turn out - no idea !? )


- difficult research,
- high indies
- low ressources
=> ..... everything in favour of a magic-less or buff-level-magic Wyrm Pretender used as SC from the very first turn

I would suggest either indies-6 or 9 - the later makes tough special troops/bodyguards and items on commanders much more likely, so there's some reward fighting strong indies.

Is there any 'penalty' for a Wyrm player that I overlooked?


EDIT: I nearly forgot : I'll take over Machaka, if noone objects !

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I want to be a wheeling, dealing, backstabbing, bloodsucking wyrm! Maybe there will still be room when I cave in to temptation...This is a great idea.
-yc

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Sympathetic and still resisting...

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

On the subject of wars, I see people asking for permission to go to war with another player to the bitter end. For example: "Pangaea is too weak to be allowed to persist in this world. I request to eliminate them from their miserable existence if I can. Give me 15 months to complete this mission." Or: "I request to take every province from Ermor on my side of the mountain chain because ..." Stuff like that. Anything goes, limited only by the players imagination and diplomacy skills.

And sure, NaPs are clearly allowed since they violate no rules. The difference is that two allied nations cannot attack a third without clearing it through the Council. This seems to be a big change to me.

Obviously, though, any NaP is instantly null and void if one of the nations goes rogue. I would love to have a NaP with a neighbor where I have a long, undefended border who decided to go rogue. Easy territorial expansion! Sure, a rogue nation might be able to convince a dangerous neighbor to delay an attack on them for a few turns with the proper bribe (like perhaps 50 gems, something QM actually got me to accept in order to call off a major invasion for 10 turns in a recent game). But a rouge nation runs a big risk with this, especially if it appears the rogue might be near to winning the game. There is nothing stopping the other player from taking the offer and then doing whatever they want to do anyway. After all, rouge nations have no status in the Council and would get very few sympathy votes.

I am open to opinions about the rogue status. It can't be too severe such that a player won't be able to go rouge and still win the game. It also has to be totally enforcable within the mechanics of the game.

On the subject of the wyrm pretender, it is an excellent and very powerful pretender under the Zen mods at only 75 points with a very nice 3 dominion. He also is completely versatile with respect to magic, allowing any school(s) that any nation might want. The only drawback is that you won't be able to get a lot of magic or artifacts on him, so he will be more of a fighting type God instead of the typical near-unbeatable VQ or Virtue type of SC (which is not necessarily a bad thing). You can also easily get a single bless with the wyrm. Heck, even a dual bless is possible if you want to totally trash your scales. I have been testing the N9 wyrm for my white centaurs, and it can definitely be made to work even on a poor world. The wyrm also gets afflictions at 25% the normal rate, and he has a very hard time losing all 4 of his eyes.

I expect that pretty much every nation will get the wyrm. I would be very surprised if someone didn't. I mean, why would they sign up in the game if they don't want to participate in the Council? Without a wyrm, how can you accept bribes or trades for your vote? Without a wyrm, how can you vote against a neighbor that wants to invade you?

On the victory condition, my son pointed out that merely sieging a fort puts the province on your side for the province count determination. He could envision a player with maybe 40 provinces doing a blitz using enough mages (or fliers) with a couple of devils each to siege 35 forts in one or two turns. That is not what I had in mind to win the game.

I agree with Iron Hawk that the rules need to be modified. They are now different than my original thoughts on the subject due to all the excellent input I have been receiving.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Actually, you DO have time for the game. The hosting schedule is Monday, Wednesday, Friday at about 9 PM Mountain Time. I have noticed that a 17 player game cannot move faster than this anyway except maybe for the first 10 turns or so. And as the host, I know I would not be able to move faster either with all the emailing I will be doing.

Also, djo, I was hoping you would have time to put together a nice website for the Council, kind of like you did for Yarnspinners 2. You have plenty of time, for it will probably be another 2 weeks or so to get this game off the ground. You would surely have my vote for Council Chairman if you do this! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I can't take credit...the site was puffyn's (with I believe Sedna's help). Once it was up, I did some work in shaping the wiki, but the hard work was theirs. I don't actually have a server I can host that kind of things on.

Still resisting...but the nation(s) I'm eyeing are still unclaimed...

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

The only thing I would say about rogue status is to make an amendment that states: "All diplomacy, trade, and other agreements with rogue nations are null and void.". That way you can break agreements with them without it hurting your reputation for future games.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

This sounds like a very interesting setting.
I would like to join the party http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Please give me control of lovercraft's hideous creations. R'lyeh if you please.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Question: Is there a significantly higher chance of indy commanders with artifacts on 9 than on 8?

I really wanted indies hard, for the key to doing well in this game should be indy grabbing from the very start. We can't have people waltzing over them like they were mush.

I then backed off a bit because of the poor world. It will definitely be a hard slog for all players. One bad decision or bad battle result could set a player back for a long, long time if the wyrm dies. Mercs are VERY expensive given such low incomes for all nations. I expect people will be winning mercs with a minimum bid, even with 17 players!

I then settled on 8 because I have never had an MP game with this setting. I have had an MP game with 5,6,7, and 9 (the most frequent by far) setting. Besides, 8 happens to be my favorite number!

At this point, I am inclined to leave indies at 8 unless there is a general hue and cry about the sheer difficulty of the game settings.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I agree with the reasoning for strong indied. 8 is good, 9 (imo) better.

sorry for OT question but,
@djo, could it be by chance that your avatar is a GSP (germen pointer)?

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

A reading suggestion for this game: "Tooth and Claw" by Jo Walton. It's a novel of mannered society a la Jane Austin, with politics and marriages and dowries, except everyone involved is a dragon.


Actually, Dusty is a Brittany. The orange coloring is the give-away.

Our family has, however, had a couple GSPs over the years. If I ever change my avatar, I'll use one of them.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Hrm, this looks like an interesting game... however, I really don't have time to play a third long-term dominions game. Really. Quite too busy. Way, way too busy to even consider it. (I'll think about it.)

I would however be willing to create a similar site to the Yarnspinners 2 site, since it was not hard to set up and I have the server space just sitting there, begging to be used for Dominions related program activities.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Sounds like fun - I'll join in as, mmm, Abysia.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

You have some very interesting ideas there. Too bad that my new semester soon begins and i am still in the faerun nightmare http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif. So i have to pass also but i will probably follow the gamethread closely http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

This is a SPLENDID idea. It would be great if you would do this, puffyn. I would even vote you in as Chairman of the Wyrms (after you decide to join and pick a nation) so you can maintain the council site for the game. However, I would also be willing to vote for any other volunteer to run the council after the web site is up and running (Pasha?). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Alneyan is not going to play in the game, but he volunteered to be the Chief Justice of the Wyrms. He will set up the first turn and pick a Master Password. After that, he will turn the Fatherland file over to me so I can host and email the turns to everybody.

PLEASE NOTE: All players MUST have a password on their pretender so I cannot view your turns.

In case of disputes, I can mail the appropriate files to Alneyan so can use the Master Password to check for truth. For example,
Caelum: "Hey, I never did get the dwarven hammer from Vanheim in exchange for my vote!"
Vanheim: "I sent it!!!"
Arcosephale: "Wow, how did I build this nice hammer when I don't even have an E3 mage?"

We can also use the Chief Justice to make a ruling in case Pasha's fears are realized and the Council becomes too capricious. For example:
Mictlan: "I request that Marignon must give 20 gold to everybody since he is so filthy rich", figuring enough greedy wyrms will want the gold to make it possible to win the vote.
Chief Justice: "I rule that Mictlan must give 100 gold to Marignon for making a frivilous request."

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

fine by me!
who says wyrms and evil little ferocious beasts!
(me!)
but who says Im going to be one...

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

My name was merely submitted for the office of Chief Justice: my candidature is currently waiting for confirmation in Senate. I fear that getting the necessary votes might prove to be difficult, so you ought to consider naming someone else to fill the vacancy.

All bribes shall be sent to the usual address.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

The good news is that the French have a long history of corruption-free politics, and so no bribes will be necessary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

This must be very deep analysis from some archaic, New England legal journal which I never heard about before. Or it is lawyer/diplomat speak??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I'd guess it's more sarcasm than anything!

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Rule 17:

No Wyrms into death match !