Remove ads

Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
Mopman43 said:
Do you think it might be poor timing to try binding an apparition immediately after being visited by a Changer of Ways?

In terms of how it looks when we reveal the process, I mean.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Boney said:
Expanding how? It won't teach them anything new, and if you mean perspective, their current perspective is less 'Apparitions are a type of spirit, and all spirits are icky' than it is 'I don't like Apparitions specifically on the grounds that they WANT TO EAT ME'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Boney said:
The Colleges don't have a problem with a hypothetical future apparition based spell.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Since there was some discussion on the optics of doing Apparition binding, I went back a bit because I vaguely remembered Boney already saying something about that and that WoB seems pretty clear to me.

LadyLynn said:
I just want to say again that I think apparitions are COOL AS FUCK and absolutely want to go for them. I just really don't want to commit to a new project right now.

I am very firmly of the opinion that finishing existing projects should take priority over starting new ones.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Deathbybunnies said:
The second reason is that I very strongly believe that in the long run, almost everyone in the thread would be happier if we committed to finishing off old projects over starting new ones. No matter what project you happen to be interested in
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm also coming around to the idea that it might be smarter to hunt in in two turns time, but sadly many of the arguments against it have boiled down to people just not being interested, and my trust for another chance at it actually winning in some nebulosly defined future Turn in which we miraculously have no other pressing concerns is pretty low at this point. At least for me the number other issues that have to be dealt with right now is low enough right now and I'm fine with sacrificing something else next turn ( probably research) to get it finally done.

I also don't agree this isn't finishing something already started, this is already payed for and AP has been invested.
 
Last edited:
Deathbybunnies said:
I have two main reasons I don't like the apparitions plan. The first is that it drops to 2 Waystone Project actions, and whilst noises have been made about the patience of Elves 1) There's a bunch of humans on this project too now, and 2) it's still not a great look to not be putting much time into it?

The second reason is that I very strongly believe that in the long run, almost everyone in the thread would be happier if we committed to finishing off old projects over starting new ones. No matter what project you happen to be interested in, assuming you don't actually think you'll get it completely finished before the ongoing projects are finished: in the long run you'll get it finished just as quickly if you start it later and it gets done every turn until completion, compared to starting earlier and having to alternate between other ongoing projects. And in the meantime, projects finishing more quickly from their start point means seeing the rewards of those projects much more quickly, preventing people from getting "bored" of seeing an ongoing project, even if it hasn't really had much screen time.

That's a coordination problem I don't really expect to see solved, but it's one I generally try to keep in mind when voting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The problem i have with the whole "finish things first" is that we almost never do in a reasonable timeframe because something else comes along.
Example #1 snake juice
Example #2 swording
Example #3 windherding

We have let some things sit for literal decades in universe and years out of it.
And we had good reasons and bad reasons but it still happened so the argument is (to me) pretty useless.
 
Tobtorp said:
The problem i have with the whole "finish things first" is that we almost never do in a reasonable timeframe because something else comes along.
Example #1 snake juice
Example #2 swording
Example #3 windherding

We have let some things sit for literal decades in universe and years out of it.
And we had good reasons and bad reasons but it still happened so the argument is (to me) pretty useless.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Your argument that we shouldn't prioritise finishing things off is that in the past not prioritising finishing things off has frustrated you?

Do you, um, maybe want to have another go at that?

MossPiglet said:
I'm also coming around to the idea that it might be smarter to hunt in in two turns time, but sadly many of the arguments against it have boiled down to people just not being interested, and my trust for another chance at it actually winning in some nebulosly defined future Turn in which we miraculously have no other pressing concerns is pretty low at this point. At least for me the number other issues that have to be dealt with right now is low enough right now and I'm fine with sacrificing something else next turn ( probably research) to get it finally done.

I also don't agree this isn't finishing something already started, this is already payed for and AP has been invested.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This doesn't really make sense to me - this is a vote. If there's enough interest to win a vote this turn, then there's explicitly enough interest in the idea to do it? And if there isn't enough interest to win a vote, then the whole point is moot anyway? Doing it earlier and stretching everything out doesn't get you past the hurdle of having enough people interested in doing it - if it's possible to do now, it's possible to do in a turn or two.
 
Last edited:
Deathbybunnies said:
Your argument that we shouldn't prioritise finishing things off is that in the past not prioritising finishing things off has frustrated you?

Do you, um, maybe want to have another go at that?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, my argument is that it's not gonna Happen anyway so why bother. Something will come in and interrupt and then it's back to square one.

Edit: the thread is too volatile to plan longer then one turn.
 
Tobtorp said:
The problem i have with the whole "finish things first" is that we almost never do in a reasonable timeframe because something else comes along.
Example #1 snake juice
Example #2 swording
Example #3 windherding

We have let some things sit for literal decades in universe and years out of it.
And we had good reasons and bad reasons but it still happened so the argument is (to me) pretty useless.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And the solution for this problem most certainly isn't starting a 4th thing.
 
Changing vote

[X] Plan Lore and Metal, Windfall Edition
CeBrudras said:
Mathilde+Johann+Mapping just feels so safe that adding some spice can't really mess it up. Keeping him at home seems unnecessarily conservative.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Askel is not in WEB-MAT. We only have three people - Max, Johann and Egrimm who can do WEB-MAT actions, sadly.
I've not paid attention to the Project Actions, personally, but if there were a variant of what I'm currently voting for that includes Askel, I'd switch to it in an instant, even if we risked mild friction between participants.

Edit: on the other hand, Egrimm still not writing that paper might start to be funny again, so I consider dropping the above vote if P:CandS picks up more steam.

[X] Plan Codifying and Swords
Edit Edit:
[X] Plan Lore and Metal, Windfall Edition, Don't exclude Aksel
[X] Plan Lore and Metal, Windfall Edition, Aksel on Capstone
 
Last edited:
Deathbybunnies said:
This doesn't really make sense to me - this is a vote. If there's enough interest to win a vote this turn, then there's explicitly enough interest in the idea to do it? And if there isn't enough interest to win a vote, then the whole point is moot anyway? Doing it earlier and stretching everything out doesn't get you past the hurdle of having enough people interested in doing it - if it's possible to do now, it's possible to do in a turn or two.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This turn it's between this and mapping, which isn't pressing in my opinion. In future turns it will be against more pressing and exiting options, and we will have access to our magically insulated lab again,which will probably be an auto include in most plans. My point is, if we aren't progressing this action chain now, when will we realistically do so? There will always be something else we could do, and this is something we started T29/T30, which has languished in our backlog since then.
 
Tobtorp said:
It hasn't worked with just 2 things why bother?
Your all arguing like we already finished so much. Of the big chains we haven't. So again i will vote for what i think will be fun next turn, not what might be fun in 2 or 3 or 17.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm arguing that we haven't finished things because we don't focus. If we want that to change we need to actually focus on finishing things: which is what I am pushing to do.
The second thing I argued is that just because we might not have an answer to the problem, does not mean that it is an excuse to make the problem worse.
 
MossPiglet said:
This turn it's between this and mapping, which isn't pressing in my opinion. In future turns it will be against more pressing and exiting options, and we will have access to our magically insulated lab again,which will probably be an auto include in most plans. My point is, if we aren't progressing this action chain now, when will we realistically do so? There will always be something else we could do, and this is something we started T29/T30, which has languished in our backlog since then.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The most obvious time to start progressing this action chain would be after our current self-improvement action chain is done and we can start a new one with a clear conscience; so, T43 if Lore and Metal Windfall wins, or T42 if Codifying and Swords wins. A lot of people, myself included, had been talking about doing Apparitions once Branarhune was done. "Progress one project at a time" is something we can't always do (e.g. last turn we needed to grab the Lovely Laurelorn action for Eike's education rather than train Branarhune, and this turn we need to codify Rite of Way rather than progress AV because our lab is out of commission), but it's something we've been pretty good at mostly doing for the last few turns, if you look at the history of the actions we've taken.
 
MossPiglet said:
This turn it's between this and mapping, which isn't pressing in my opinion. In future turns it will be against more pressing and exiting options, and we will have access to our magically insulated lab again,which will probably be an auto include in most plans. My point is, if we aren't progressing this action chain now, when will we realistically do so? There will always be something else we could do, and this is something we started T29/T30, which has languished in our backlog since then.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So one advantage of waiting until projects finish is that you're not arguing against the entrenched fans of those projects - indeed, they'll be looking at new projects and deciding what they want to focus on next. You're likely to see more success on those turns explicitly because the number of competitors has dropped, and specifically heavily-invested competitors at that.

As for having started this project already - whilst you can look at it that way, I don't think that's how most players see it, myself included. Technically an AP was expended, but I think it's mostly seen as a time-sensitive follow up to offloading the Skaven tech, so everyone voted for it despite many people explicitly not planning to actually do anything with it anytime soon. This is the first time I've heard the perspective that this is already an ongoing project - up until this point, whenever it's been brought up, the proponents are excited to "get started on" apparitions binding.

On a more specific note, I don't think you have to worry about us never doing apparitions at all. It's a cool idea that's generated a lot of discussion, and I suspect it's in a lot of people's heads as the next thing they want to do. (For me personally it's a tossup between apparitions and the seviroscope for poor old Kragg, but I'm under the impression that's a less popular action.)
 
Last edited:
BeepSmile said:
I've not paid attention to the Project Actions, personally, but if there were a variant of what I'm currently voting for that includes Askel, I'd switch to it in an instant, even if we risked mild friction between participants.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are two Aksel variants of this plan:
'Plan Lore and Metal, Windfall Edition, Don't exclude Aksel' puts him on the tributary
'Plan Lore and Metal, Windfall Edition, Aksel on Capstone' puts him on the Capstone

Both options are a bit problematic imo, but I'm approval voting them and so should you, especially if you actually prefer them.
 
VoiceOfTheRiders said:
I'm arguing that we haven't finished things because we don't focus. If we want that to change we need to actually focus on finishing things: which is what I am pushing to do.
The second thing I argued is that just because we might not have an answer to the problem, does not mean that it is an excuse to make the problem worse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes and your arguing not with one person but with 150. Focusing them is not something easily done and people are fickle.
So my argument is that instead of trying spreadsheet the turns (oh you get your wish In 3 turns, then we finished a and b if nothing happens) we go with "is this actual fun or are we just ticking things on a list to get the list complete?"
And if i got the choice between "mapping a country i don't care about and who's language we don't speak" and "capture a cool notdemon to make into our pokemon with our buddy Johann" then you can guess which i want to win.
 
I really think the doomsaying about apparitions never happening is misplaced. After swording is done, apparitions will be the most clear next combat upgrade action chain, and I don't think people are gonna stop wanting Mathilde to up her combat potential.

EDIT: To lay my expectations out more clearly: I am convinced that Apparitions will gain a large influx in support after swording is complete.
 
Last edited:
mathymancer said:
There are two Aksel variants of this plan:
'Plan Lore and Metal, Windfall Edition, Don't exclude Aksel' puts him on the tributary
'Plan Lore and Metal, Windfall Edition, Aksel on Capstone' puts him on the Capstone

Both options are a bit problematic imo, but I'm approval voting them and so should you, especially if you actually prefer them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I only skimmed the leading votes, so thank you for this.

The more I think about it, the more conflicted I am about going for Windfall or taking three [non-mapping] Project actions.
 
LadyLynn said:
I really think the doomsaying about apparitions never happening is misplaced. After swording is done, apparitions will be the most clear next combat upgrade action chain, and I don't think people are gonna stop wanting Mathilde to up her combat potential.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Same was said about windherding, we got one bad result and the thread hadn't looked at it again since then...
 
Tobtorp said:
Yes and your arguing not with one person but with 150. Focusing them is not something easily done and people are fickle.
So my argument is that instead of trying spreadsheet the turns (oh you get your wish In 3 turns, then we finished a and b if nothing happens) we go with "is this actual fun or are we just ticking things on a list to get the list complete?"
And if i got the choice between "mapping a country i don't care about and who's language we don't speak" and "capture a cool notdemon to make into our pokemon with our buddy Johann" then you can guess which i want to win.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes people can be fickle and I can't boast that great success (certainly with the social votes), but I am going to accomplish nothing by throwing in the towel.
Next, I get enjoyment by actually finishing things so if you are going to argue "Well I am going to seek to maximise my personal enjoyment" it is one that I can also make.
Thirdly I haven't actually voted on doing the mapping. The option I took doesn't do the mapping, so your argument isn't that relevant to me. In addition, people tend to view the mapping as 1) A waystone action and 2) as a waystone action that can trigger WEB-MAT bonuses. So the discussion about mapping tends to be separate from personal actions.
(At least that is how I view it and how I believe a majority of the thread does).
 
VoiceOfTheRiders said:
Yes people can be fickle and I can't boast that great success (certainly with the social votes), but I am going to accomplish nothing by throwing in the towel.
Next, I get enjoyment by actually finishing things so if you are going to argue "Well I am going to seek to maximise my personal enjoyment" it is one that I can also make.
Thirdly I haven't actually voted on doing the mapping. The option I took doesn't do the mapping, so your argument isn't that relevant to me. In addition, people tend to view the mapping as 1) A waystone action and 2) as a waystone action that can trigger WEB-MAT bonuses. So the discussion about mapping tends to be separate from personal actions.
(At least that is how I view it and how I believe a majority of the thread does).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh i wasn't trying to convince you of my point, i was trying to make people understand why i don't hold "we do it next turn" in high regards.
 
Tobtorp said:
Same was said about windherding, we got one bad result and the thread hadn't looked at it again since then...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Tobtorp said:
Oh i wasn't trying to convince you of my point, i was trying to make people understand why i don't hold "we do it next turn" in high regards.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
In fairness to windhearding, I think the reason we haven't picked it up again is due to a concerted effort to focus on and complete AV research (which we did successfully for every turn since the windhearding attempt). It is also currently the plan in the lead and while I am not voting for it right now, that is only because I am seeing an opportunity to complete the sword tree (also windhearding isn't something I have been particularly invested in, having invested my attention to AV).
 
Deathbybunnies said:
I see. I can't really argue against the stance that "no plans we make matter at all, so just pick whatever's convenient at the time". I'm content that having this reasoning spelt out for the rest of the thread is enough.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't mind the plan that finishes swording but other plan pushes apparation 2 turns foward and that is too long of a wait.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top