Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CyberGenesis]

You can, eliminates any BS arguing anyone can pull later about Tere and I knowing eachother.

Round-by-round for large battles, aye. Small fights are run all at once simply because they'd take a couple days to roll otherwise

Tactics can be reassigned every round. I'm willing to ignore the -4 to rolls for Ligoria simply since Tere was using that 4pt advantage to cut their strength. I'll argue preoccupation of the commanders to prevent them from countering Ligorian tactics.

I'd say +1 from the earthworks walls and ditches. But to be honest, this should technically eliminate the hills/plains advantage of cavalry by causing rough terrain.
On a side note: Mileth was not intended to be anything but lightly forrested to begin with. They simply didnt have the infrastructure in place to harvest the lumber on a large scale. Though thats why they have Archers.

If you need help with the math Nuke, just ask.

To the 'petition':

Your own actions started this ENTIRE arguement Tari. You've been overreaching your semi-GM authority for some time now constantly assuming you have a say simply because you're a King. None of the rules in this game get changed without a damn good reason. Being pissed off is not one.

After Terenos created this little charade, my intent was to modify the tactics to be a +1 per unit instead. I could see the discrepency it caused.

So to reply:

1: +2 Tactics max per unit - The MOST you can manage now is +3 from ambush/tact.
2: Use of a d20 for tactics rolls - If we leave them +2? sure, switch to +1? possibly not.
3: No random maluses for no reason - The tactics? It isnt a random malus. It's in the rules already. As i stated above to Nuke, i'm in favor of the malus only existing if those tactics points arent being used for your own tactics.
4: Tactician only grants a +1, - agreed, but it would go into effect AFTER this battle. You charged into it knowing the stakes up front.
5: Besieged units cannot execute field manouvers (flanking, encircling, etc.), However can use tactics designed for siege defense - Sure, i can get on board with this, but splitting forces isnt really a field manouver. Gates, walled city and a complete lack of SIEGE units would allow a split to still work.
6: Common sense trumps maths if if circumstances are clear - I'd love to see what sense you're employing to say there's something wrong here. The battle is basically 'shock troops' vs 'special forces'. There's supposed to be a lop-sided draw here in favor of the smaller force, otherwise why have them? (insert your beloved RL-analogy here)
7: A cap on cumulative tactical rolls is required - Possibly true, possibly they simply confer a 'pool' per battle, not a modifier per round
8: Leaderless soldiers take a penalty to tactics - Tactical regiments would then negate themselves by your logic
9: Players can call a vote when there's a problem with the rules that need fixing soon and it's not clear who's right - We always have, but tactics is a math issue written in stone since before he created his character.
10: Transparent Dice rolls - Um, they are? I'm not the one rolling random +s and -s to things
11: NO retcons

[NUKE9.13]

Hey, I'm as annoyed by this situation as you (the players) are.
If not more.
I want to be fair, you know? I want to keep everyone happy, make sure that everyone enjoys the game, and feels that they have been treated right.
That ain't easy.

But.
I am not going to enact that petition before the conclusion of this battle, or any other rule changes for that matter.

I agree that the combat system is stupid and broken. I intend to design something better. But for this battle at least, you will have to deal with the old system.

[Ardas]

Point made here is : we all want to keep playing, preferably as our guys. We obviously poured a lot of time into this game, had having 5PCs killed at once is extreme.
Also, there has been a clear case of GM favoritism here. Something we want to adress as well.
Because in the end, this is a collaborative effort. We cannot have good time if we are constantly getting shafted by GMs, and playing on each other's nerves.

[thatkid]

Perhaps, perhaps. Maybe it should apply immediately after? But then we'll lose 5 PCs...Thats not very good. Oh I can see Laythe and Niko and even Kathos biting the dust, but the rest? Not really.

The way Iituem handled such a battle, and the way I would have handled it as well, in the prior incarnation of the game would be to roll for each PC with varying bonuses and negatives based on how much of a chance they might have to escape or otherwise play themselves off as not-worth-killing/capture. The rules haven't changed much, I'm sure people will get the same chances here.

Will people like Laythe have massive negatives? Yeah, sure. But such is the price of war.
At the same time, is it logical that at least a few of you are intelligent turn tail and run when you realize that your forces are being slaughtered to the man? Yeah, that too.
Is it logical to assume that even in an infantry-only regiment, the commander might be mounted? I guess, based on what the GM thinks. Actually, I'd say so - it means that they can better issue orders in the heat of battle. Does that provide a bonus to escaping? Maybe.

Basically what I'm saying is that 5 PC deaths are not guaranteed, they're just likely. You all knew the risk going into this. Were your characters have as intelligent as they claim to be, they wouldn't all be on the front-lines at once.

You have ALL been metagaming, regardless of what side you're on. Don't say you weren't. I think maybe character death might be an appropriate punishment, if it happens. :/

There's an IRC channel on irc.freenode.net called #YaK for those who do not currently know.

Fake-Edit: old post is old. But I still want to get my distaste for what's going on OOCly out there. So there.

[CyberGenesis]

Perhaps, perhaps. Maybe it should apply immediately after? But then we'll lose 5 PCs...Thats not very good. Oh I can see Laythe and Niko and even Kathos biting the dust, but the rest? Not really.

They wont need die. As terenos pointed out we've only lost the characters tht people basically threw away (And adwarf because he tried to pick a fight with what, 1 regiment vs the entire royal army in YAK?) Elf suicided, Ghaz was a suicide at that point

I've said this multiple times: We fudge rolls to prevent player death.

I agree that the combat system is stupid and broken. I intend to design something better. But for this battle at least, you will have to deal with the old system.

Which is where the retcon can take effect. What REALLY annoys me is that Tari has been throwing his weight around and despite SEVERAL attempts to get him to run the odds, he decided to be a tard and rush to battle. A battle Me and You (nuke) BOTH discouraged. Did anyone else honestly think we'd throw 6 regiments to a player if they didnt have the odds to beat 50% greater numbers? They're bad odds if played intelligently, but intelligent this battle proceeding has not been.

And in less than 5min, i've already been abel to prove tactics based on +1 mods and a d20 are so broken you need 5-9 regiments of tatics to reliably succeed a BASIC tactics

[CyberGenesis]

Point made here is : we all want to keep playing, preferably as our guys. We obviously poured a lot of time into this game, had having 5PCs killed at once is extreme.
Also, there has been a clear case of GM favoritism here. Something we want to adress as well.
Because in the end, this is a collaborative effort. We cannot have good time if we are constantly getting shafted by GMs, and playing on each other's nerves.

We also cant have a good game if people are INTENTIONALLY gunning for someones death either

Speaking as the King in the previous game, Kid has his shit in order. Tari! You should be the easiest to convince about retconning bullshit. The battle of Miring was a shining example of what metagaming does around here. Iituem GM-ruled you couldn't be killed because of it - as did Nuke here. What did someone do? Did it anyway basically to be an ass. You can't honestly say there was any IC reason to knife a guy with broken ribs and mostly unconcious

Not a GOD DAMN one of you even bothered to make the diplomatic approach despite all the information we dumped about the AF being sent out here to succeed or die. The conditions of the attainment of a Storm Coast trade route were vague at the very least. There could have been a nice alliance, every goes and fucks up the DE's enemies - the World signs on to kick the shit out of the land north of the mountains.

Instead? We're dealing with calls that would have gotten any real monarch knifed in their sleep.

[Terenos]

So. Heres the dramatic reveal. The cunning long term goal of the Arctic Fox. Brace yourselves.

I was securing a trade route.

The Dragon Empire needs an influx of wealth, given it has no real trading partners to speak of. Attempts to negotiate a trade route through the Storm Coast is always met with hostility and/or ridiculous taxation. Thus, the Dragon Empire sends troops to secure cities on the coasts. Just bypass everyone all together. Maybe do a little subterfuge where storm coast citizens carry their goods to other ports.

The Storm Coast, still responds militarily thinking this is an invasion. But in truth? Its all for the trade, to secure the money to fund their debilitating war in the south. Only a rare few DE generals who are sent on this mission actually understand what they are doing. Most just throw their weight around the Storm coast, get outmanuevered and die.

My plan was only ever to secure a city, Make peace/alliance with Ligoria(probably at the cost of most of the taxes of Mileth) because Ligoria wanted an empire. So having my assistance might have helped. As I said, secure flank, military aid, and I'd pay them for their time. Looks like a sweet deal doesn't it? Then I would build better fortifications, a highway returning to the Dragon Empire, plus forts along the trade route, and a much larger port. Then retire with prestige.

[Shootandrun]

Why would you keep this secret for so long? One messenger to Ligoria and all of this could have not happened... Instead you invaded a city and then you remained silent. How were we supposed to guess?

[Taricus]

The pissed off bit, it's not JUST me, it's a lot of players and some of your recent posts have contributed to this. Sure, I may've been out of step in the wrong and I apologize for that. It is however jarring to see you straight out saying Terenos is a GM endorsed player as well as directly insulting some players

3: Well, that means appending a reasonable explaination for WHY it's being penalized
4: It could stay at +2 if tactics are switched to a d20 system if the cost and upkeep was bumped up.
5: It's more the fact that between them having to go through chokepoints and us being behind barricades that split forces doesn't make sense, including the fact I have one scout regiment. If we were fighting insdie mileth I could understand it working, just not outside
6: Thing is, we've got them up aganst the wall, they can't pull alot of their tricks while they're trapped like that.
7: A "Pool" for tactical bonuses sounds alright.
8: As in the main commander being killed or otherwise incapacitated. And Tactician regoments negating the penalty sounds fair, as they do still have a source for orders they would have a harder time co-ordinating
9: Maybe, but that should not try and stop us from fixing it, no?
10: We do feel some of the more recent rolls may've been tampered with. Whether or not they have is a different thing, but that mistrust is there.
11: Pretty much what it says on the box, unless it makes Itu go boom.

As for the earthworks removing the fifth point of Str from the cav, that's acceptable.

@Terenos: You do realize that plan could've been done if you accepted the queens offer, right? That money from Mileth wasn't going towards any war effort but rather infrastructure and such. And shoot has a great point, diplomacy is a two-way street.

[SeriousConcentrate]

I do have to question WHY you didn't mention it when you met with Kathos and Laythe. Even a simple 'may we discuss business?' would have gotten at least one's attention...

[Terenos]

A trade route potentially worth say, 100 ducats a year. Maybe as high as triple that. The DE is huge, with few trading partners, the Storm coast, is big on trade.

And you're saying Ligoria would not have taken even a single step to grab more of that. You'd have been content with 20 D/year in tithes from Mileth in order to stay out of the way? Knowing the ridiculous value of the trade route (which you would have, was it running through your territory) You'd tax the shit out of it. CHEERFULLY.
And you guys always thought you could kick my ass. If you knew about the trade route, you'd have done it after it was set up. Revealing this information in no way brings about the profit I was out to acquire.

But the Dragon Empire won't accept any taxes on it. 10% will lead to 20%, the taxes will keep mounting till its just not valuable anymore.
I offered 10 ducats RIGHT THEN, Right there. And a negotiable amount of Mileth's taxes in order for Ligoria to go away. You, decided you wanted me serving Ligoria, My forces disbanded, Mileth turned over to you, the entire Mileth treasury and.. wow, quite a steep list of demands.

That would have gotten my char assassinated by Dwarmin or an NPC. Betraying the Dragon Empire bears that price.

---
Tari? I am a GM endorsed player. I messaged them specifically to play an antagonist, start with a little more and have a hidden win condition, then have everything hinge on MY cunning to get there.

And yeah I can still pull tricks even if you're sieging. 1. I have archers and can clear a section of your earthworks when I want to move through it. Logical? Sure. Tactically possible? +4 tactics.

I can order my whole force to bullrush out one gate, crunching through your lines and establishing a field battle. Logical? Sure. Tactically possible? +4 tactics again.
Im arguing my point and backing it up with in game reasons. (My tactical ability)
You, are arguing your point and backing it up with not a hell of a lot of reasons why your version should be accepted over mine.

[Ardas]

I am a GM endorsed player.

So you admit that it you were scheming with GM against other players?

That is reason enough to question the currect GM setup.

[Taricus]

Nobody said you couldn't have gone into deep cover, and accoomplished your mission from there. And the queen isn't going to risk raising taxes above 15%, and as such the tax would've been around 15-45 ducats. Considering that could've ended up LESS than the tithes...

[thatkid]

@CG and Nuke: My rant continues!

From what I understand, you've been providing Terenos with a variety of benefits not seen by other characters. I do not give a flying fuck if you want him to just be an antagonist, it's still essentially GM metagaming and frankly it's disgusting.
Yes, I agree he died unfairly. That does not mean you get to waive an established rule just for him.
If you're going to retcon for the first time in this clusterfuck, it CANNOT just be ONLY if it brings Terenos back. Once again, I agree that he was killed unfairly. Doesn't change things.

Next, I have to seriously question your impartiality here, CG. I know that you and Terenos are close friends. I just got through flipping the fuck out on the players in the IRC channel on the false premise that they were using the channel to metagame (it was just made a few hours ago), and so I'm going to assume the worst here as well despite not knowing whether or not this is what is going on!

GM favoritism ruins the game for fucking everyone, and I think it's incredibly pathetic. You should both be ashamed of yourselves. You ramble on about how the purpose of this game is to tell a story collaboratively, yet your own actions go against this.
If you want a fucking antagonist for the players, do it legitimately. Do NOT prop up a player unfairly, because, believe it or fucking not, they're still a player! Hell, in the original YaK even the NPCs were on the same level as the players. If you lack the ability to come up with long-reaching and coherent strategies, recruit someone who can as a third GM, don't toss favoritism around willy-nilly like it ain't no thing.
"GM endorsed" is not a thing. It's blatant favoritism. If you want a fucking antagonist, set one up from the position of a GM.

I am under the effects of substances right now that are supposed to make me happy beyond reason and I am still so pissed off that I feel like I'm going to be sick. This is absurd, and I'm not even sure I want to play anymore after seeing this as a precedent. Honestly.
And if I'm not welcome here after this rant, then so fucking be it. As I've said, I'm not entirely sure I want to play in a game with such blatant metagaming on the part of both GMs and Players.

Spoiler: Me, Right Now (click to show/hide)

Also, all of you stop posting so much. I have to keep amending these rants like five or six times.

[Terenos]

I asked no favors from the GMs, No special rolls. You might note, my character was captured, against my wishes for a retcon, and then killed when I was away. And no favoritism kept me alive.
Just a stronger start condition.
Let me reiterate. They gave me NOTHING but a stronger start condition. I worked out how to capture Mileth flawlessly -myself-. I worked out how to win this battle right here? Myself. Im not getting mysterious +'s to my rolls. And CG' just gave up rolling the battle over a question of his impartiality.

---
Why would we trust the Mad Queen of Ligoria? Every time the DE tries anything in the Storm Coast, they get attacked, or taxed heavily. Now, working with me might have established some trust, but on the whole to start? No trust.