Remove ads

Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
LadyLynn said:
I agree with pickle. And I also want to ask to please stop viewing the people voting for other plans as your enemies, who are unwilling to engage in good faith. Seriously, a lot more people here genuinely want to have a good experience for everyone involved - including you - than you're giving them credit for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't view any of the other voters as enemies, this is just a game at the end of the day. What I do think other voters are doing is trying to set an expectation of standards they like to enhance their preferred position, and if not pushed back on that will just continue to do so. Things like trying to set 3 waystones as the baseline we have to meet. There's no real way to push the window on these sorts of things back without calling it out.
 
Last edited:
I'm not keeping up with the thread as much as I used to. I'm a very busy woman right now. But I am continually baffled by how apparently deciding to do two direct Waystone actions instead of three for the first time ever is apparently neglecting our duty. I think I'm just not that in-tune with the thread anymore, but from the outside it just looks like workaholic syndrome had fully overtaken the thread.

I understand that the thread has fully taken over the concept of Waystones as Mathilde's Great Big Project and wants to show as much returns as possible, but I can promise that two actions on Waystones instead of three just one time isn't going to make or break this project or convict us on dereliction of duty.
 
Boney said:
[ ] Tributary: Dreaming Wood (specify province)
Liminal Germination requires the caster to spend a significant amount of time in the local Dreaming Wood. This is safe-ish in Nordland, Reikland, Hochland, and Talabecland, dangerous in Middenland, Ostland, and Ostermark, and impossible in other provinces.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Boney said:
[ ] Tributary: International (specify country)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
@Boney Does Laurelorn count as International? I assumed it was, which means that implementing tributaries in Nordland means making tributaries in the non-Laurelorn parts of Nordland, but in that case isn't that a part of the Forest of Shadows and therefore as dangerous to do the Dreaming Wood tributary in as Ostland? Or are there other Dreaming Woods in Nordland?

EDIT: also, wasn't the Reikwald a no-go for Dreaming Wood tributaries due to the Aethyric shunt?
 
Last edited:
Thomasfoolery said:
I don't view any of the other voters as enemies, this is just a game at the end of the day. What I do think other voters are doing is trying to set an expectation of standards of they like to enhance their preferred position, and if not pushed back on that will just continue to do so. Things like trying to set 3 waystones as the baseline we have to meet. There's no real way to push the window on these sorts of things back without calling it out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you genuinely don't view the other voters as your enemies, then I really have to ask you to think twice about the things you say, because it very much comes across that way. When you say things like...
Thomasfoolery said:
I'd honestly find the whole thing quite a bit less irritating if the anti apparitions bloc didn't come across like a FUD campaign, every potential downside is massively magnified, every potential loose end has to have space budgeted for turns in advance, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thomasfoolery said:
Yet somehow not a word is spoken about it in regards to this new project paradigm being championed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thomasfoolery said:
Instead as I mentioned before, there are just items people want to do and items they don't want to do, and people are applying one set of standards to things they don't want to do, and another to the things they do.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thomasfoolery said:
While blatantly ignoring a new project they were fine with starting. It speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Things like this all imply that other voters are untrustworthy, that they are hypocrites or not engaging in the thread with good faith. You can object to things like a 3-waystone-action-baseline without any of that.

Again, if it wasn't your intent to come across this way: please take a second look at the things you say, and consider how they might be interpreted.
 
Last edited:
Thomasfoolery said:
Again I seem to recall a Boney post that mentioned we could try to bind it in the first AP depending on how things go, but it would be riskier. If we roll well and Mathilde feels good about it I would be okay with voting to try that.

Anyway ignoring that acting as if the time limit if guaranteed to be some incredibly tight deadline based on basically very little evidence, and a decent amount of countervailing evidence doesn't particularly strike me as the most unbiased presentation of the likely asks.

All that aside my argument about double standards wasn't about people saying, this new action will take more investment than this other one, so lets not do it. It was "Oh of course we shouldn't start new projects" While blatantly ignoring a new project they were fine with starting. It speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As someone who has argued to not start new projects and thus someone with whom you definitely disagree with, let me state that all other things equal I prefer apparitions to codifying RoW.
However, I agree with pickle that the codifying RoW will likely be a single action and if not it can be delayed to a later turn. So I view the codifying as a single event and not as a project like apparitions.
On the other hand, if having codified RoW, the thread were to hypothetically push to enchanting multiple towers for a trade route I would view that as a new project and would push to not do that all.

As a side note due to its nature, apparitions requires much thought put into it: such as which apparition to pick, and I would rather have a completed sword and the ability to use gambler before doing apparitions.
 
Thomasfoolery said:
Yeah, this just illustrates why I don't really buy this rhetoric at all. Literally this turn we have a new project (Codify) that has an uncertain number of actions until payoff. Yet somehow not a word is spoken about it in regards to this new project paradigm being championed.



My understanding is it might actually be possible to do it in a single AP yes, but it would mean less time for study so might be riskier. From what I remember Boney said something like depending on how it played out we might get a vote to try or to wait.



You say it's not, and then in the same post come up with this line, making something that is manifestly not a big deal, into something that we need to be worried about, which is not really helping your argument.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
People are viewing the codification of ROW as continuing the work on RoW, rather than a fresh new project in its own right. I'm not too chuffed about it myself, but it doesn't seem to be worth fighting over when it's very popular and a prerequisite for something kind of time sensitive (gettting the Swamp Bridge done quickly to weaken isolationist Eonir views on a timescale relevant to the Waystone Project).

If we're given the option to dive right in and bind the Apparition on the spot with no preparations - which would surprise me, given that this isn't a now-or-never moment like with Drycha - I have full faith that the thread won't vote to do soul surgery on ourself without preparing for it thoroughly.

I think it is a big deal! Whenever the idea of going below 3 actions in a turn has been floated before, it's been shot down because so long as we do 3 actions we're insulated from any possible blowback if things don't go well. You might disagree that it's a big deal, but to take the stance that not only is it not a big deal but that thinking that it is is unreasonable to the point of being a scare tactic is a pretty hefty accusation, and one that I don't think holds water. Especially given that I'm referring to a longstanding thread tendency, and not making it up out of thin air. The majority of the thread might feel differently today if the other vote wins, but this has absolutely been a belief I recall from previous votes.
 
Last edited:
mathymancer said:
@Boney Does Laurelorn count as International? I assumed it was, which means that implementing tributaries in Nordland means making tributaries in the non-Laurelorn parts of Nordland, but in that case isn't that a part of the Forest of Shadows and therefore as dangerous to do the Dreaming Wood tributary in as Ostland? Or are there other Dreaming Woods in Nordland?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Forest of Laurelorn will be dealt with as part of Nordland for this purpose. You can either go with the Dreaming Wood tributaries and focus on Laurelorn, or go with the Halethan ones and focus on the Forest of Shadows. The purpose at this stage isn't to achieve 100% saturation across the entire province, it's to shore up the Waystone Network where it's needed, to demonstrate the value of Waystones to Elector Counts that are currently varying levels of ignorant to apathetic about them, and to build up a proven track record to help with future negotiations.
 
LadyLynn said:
If you genuinely don't view the other voters as your enemies, then I really have to ask you to think twice about the things you say, because it very much comes across that way. When you say things like...

Things like this all imply that other voters are untrustworthy, that they are hypocrites or not engaging in the thread with good faith. You can object to things like a 3-waystone-action-baseline without any of that.

Again, if it wasn't your intent to come across this way: please take a second look at the things you say, and consider how they might be interpreted.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I do think the idea of some new project filtering criteria is a blatant double standard. That doesn't mean the voters are my enemies, that would be a bit ridiculous. I expect plenty of the people championing it just didn't think about how Codifying actually came across on that metric because it was something they liked so had no reason to come up with detraction for it.

It does still illustrate why I don't actually believe in these kind of ideas in quests though. You'd basically need some neutral governing body to try to enforce this kind of thing, which is a ludicrous expectation. So whenever people bring stuff like this up or the perennial, we'll get it done later idea. I don't view those things as having any kind of binding effect on future voting behavior, because it's impossible for them to do so. Maybe in a quest with a much smaller number of voters it could happen, but not in one of this size. So regardless of whether the voter actually means it at the time, they can neither speak for the hundreds of other voters in the thread, or even for their own position when faced with decisions potentially months or years in the future.
 
Thomasfoolery said:
If you want to roll codifying RoW in as part of the same project as creating the spell
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't though. And it didn't matter to me if it was or wasn't the same project.
I feel like posting on this topic to you may have been as mistake.
Just to make things easier for myself, I think things might be more simple for me going forward if you Thomasfoolery treat me BeepSmile as someone without principals, consistency or values.

[note to other people, I consider myself to have those, I just don't want to risk being held to a standard as that might result in me having the work of explaining why said standard has been incorrectly applied. Which what I was doing in this post originally.]

Because that feels like at lot less work for me than what I was originally typing about, how I did not in fact consider 'Make RoW' and 'Codify RoW' as part of the same project, about how I just pointing out the fact that players actually were discussing Codifying RoW from the very inception of the idea to make the spell.
----
I just disliked how you said that there was no discussion about how Codifying RoW might take multiple AP as it is the shiny new thing, when there has been a lot of discussion on the matter over a long period of time, and over the past few turns as I recall.

In large part by me salivating OVER THE POSSIBLITIES11one1.

A complaint about how there wasn't any discussion about the matter this turn wouldn't have jumped out to me as factually incorrect and as something that disregarded the energy and thought I put into getting people excited for Codifying RoW. Though I would have disregarded that complaint as 'the people discussing turn plans already know it might take more than one AP/fail entirely'.

---
There's also the thing where we're just not obligated to discuss every action the same way or evaluate their utility in the same way. A lot of people wanted to Codify RoW this turn and after that AP slot had been spoken for there was going to be greater scrutiny put on the remaining slots due to greater competition between less popular actions.

Differing amounts of scrutiny put on actions that both might take more than one AP is fine, because there are other significant considerations regarding the the utility of those actions outside of 'How much AP might [action] take?'.
 
Last edited:
Deathbybunnies said:
If we're given the option to dive right in and bind the Apparition on the spot with no preparations - which would surprise me, given that this isn't a now-or-never moment like with Drycha - I have full faith that the thread won't vote to do soul surgery on ourself without preparing for it thoroughly.

I think it is a big deal! Whenever the idea of going below 3 actions in a turn has been floated before, it's been shot down because so long as we do 3 actions we're insulated from any possible blowback if things don't go well. You might disagree that it's a big deal, but to take the stance that not only is it not a big deal but that thinking that it is is unreasonable to the point of being a scare tactic is a pretty hefty accusation, and one that I don't think holds water. Especially given that I'm referring to a longstanding thread tendency, and not making it up out of thin air. The majority of the thread might feel differently today if the other vote wins, but this has absolutely been a belief I recall from previous votes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Study and prep over a 6 month span of time is not exactly no preparation. Again it all depends on how the action plays out, It might be Mathilde rolls well and finds a good capture Method and bags one quickly, giving more time to tailor an approach. That's an optimistic scenario sure, but that's my point. I could see optimistic scenarios where it does make sense to give it a try.

In regards to the Wasystones specifically, I think you're right that we've never gone below three. In other work scenarios we have, so I guess you could call it a longstanding thread tendency to some degree. I don't think the idea that it was necessary that we maintain 3 actions per on waystones actually has much of anything in the way in IC or OOC backing though. So yeah, I do find the idea that we should be worried about whether we map this turn or not, to be going way too far.

That's what I mean about the window getting moved, Three actions being the median that needs to be argued to be deviated from strikes me as too high. Where my preferred mean would be something like, measurable progress is made every year, project members are being utilized.

BeepSmile said:
There's also the thing where we're just not obligated to discuss every action the same way or evaluate their utility in the same way. A lot of people wanted to Codify RoW this turn and after that AP slot had been spoken for there was going to greater scrutiny put on the remaining slots due to greater competition between less popular actions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's exactly my point and why I don't like this idea of trying to have some kind of gate-keeping standard. It will never actually be properly applied because it is not at all reasonable to expect it to be in this kind of format. So acting like it's some thing that should be acknowledged and for people interested in a project to pay heed to and vote against their interests for is something I'm not a fan of.
 
Last edited:
Thomasfoolery said:
In regards to the Wasystones specifically, I think you're right that we've never gone below three. In other work scenarios we have, so I guess you could call it a longstanding thread tendency to some degree. I don't think the idea that it was necessary that we maintain 3 actions per on waystones actually has much of anything in the way in IC or OOC backing though. So yeah, I do find the idea that we should be worried about whether we map this turn or not, to be going way too far.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Other than the turn Belegar specifically told us to take a break, do you have an example of us putting less than 3 actions towards our work? I'm under the impression that it's a much older tendency than that, borne of Boney's old estimations of what a safe not-blamable number of work actions is, from way back in the day.
 
Last edited:
Deathbybunnies said:
Other than the turn Belegar specifically told us to take a break, do you have an example of us putting less than 3 actions towards our work? I'm under the impression that it's a much older tendency than that, borne of Boney's old estimations of what a safe not-blamable number of work actions is, from way back in the day.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Picklepikkl has a great rundown of the Loremaster period, you could maybe quibble with some of their categorizations if you wanted, but overall I think it's quite fair. There were quite a number of times in that period. It's been a while since I read that part but Stirland Mathilde was basically when the thread was in their peak rebel phase, so my memory of it happening quite a bit then should be correct as well.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan Lore and Metal, Windfall Edition. (ft. Red Riders)
[X] Plan Lore and Metal (ft. Red Riders and mapping)
[X] Plan Codifying and Swords

Vote update;
I don't like the current leading vote but these three are fine.

Oh well atleast RoW will hopefully finished. That one I wanted to do.
 
[X] Plan Lore and Metal, Windfall Edition. (ft. Red Riders)
[X] Plan Codifying and Swords

Adjusting my vote slightly as if Red Riders doesn't win I'd prefer Codifying and Swords because that opens up a project slot to doing it next turn.
 
Thomasfoolery said:
In regards to the Wasystones specifically, I think you're right that we've never gone below three. In other work scenarios we have, so I guess you could call it a longstanding thread tendency to some degree. I don't think the idea that it was necessary that we maintain 3 actions per on waystones actually has much of anything in the way in IC or OOC backing though. So yeah, I do find the idea that we should be worried about whether we map this turn or not, to be going way too far.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think most of the objection has been to not doing mapping in particular beyond the desire to remain doing three waystone actions. The primary objection was lets not start another multi-turn project which will have to wait for the last action to be complete to gain the benefit while we still have multiple such projects ongoing. There were also some objections to the safety of doing apparitions now, with sword not being complete and gambler being on another action.
The new research we are probably doing has the benefit of probably being a single-action event (unless we are unlucky) and thus doesn't contribute to the above issue, being on every single plan (there is one plan with one vote that doesn't do it) and thus while it isn't my personal choice it is highly wanted action. And it also has the benefit of giving immediate (i.e. this turn) benefits.
In light of the above, I don't think the thread is being hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
VoiceOfTheRiders said:
In light of the above, I don't think the thread is being hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sorry if it feels like I'm calling you out, but you demonstrate a pretty clear example of what I'm talking about with regarding the actions being evaluated differently.

VoiceOfTheRiders said:
probably being a single-action event (unless we are unlucky)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The idea that we'd have to get unlucky for codifying to be more than one action has no real basis, what we've actually been told is that there's no way to know how the odds on codifying will play out, but it's a difficult task and many wizards that create spells don't end up managing to codify them.

Meanwhile the chance that whatever apparition containment method Mathilde comes up with will require getting locked into an action next turn is basically being argued about as if it's a sure thing.

That all being said, I'm not accusing the thread of being hypocritical for liking codify more than apparitions, the fact that people like one action more than another is completely normal. What I find distasteful is attempting to claim there should be basically a filtering mechanism before certain actions can be proposed in plans, as that sort of gate-keeping will never actually be neutrally implemented.
 
Thomasfoolery said:
Picklepikkl has a great rundown of the Loremaster period, you could maybe quibble with some of their categorizations if you wanted, but overall I think it's quite fair. There were quite a number of times in that period. It's been a while since I read that part but Stirland Mathilde was basically when the thread was in their peak rebel phase, so my memory of it happening quite a bit then should be correct as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was thinking more about K8P anyway, Stirland Mathilde was a different beast, blatantly embezzling funds and answering to a conspiracy.

It looks like we haven't gone down to 2 work-related actions since Turn 26. That's actually more recent than I thought, but at the same time that's long enough for me to be comfortably calling it a longstanding trend - it's over 3 years ago, now.
 
VoiceOfTheRiders said:
I don't think most of the objection has been to not doing mapping in particular beyond the desire to remain doing three waystone actions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A lot of people wanted the 3 action thing, but there definitely a few pages with a lot of assertions that mapping is incredibly important and we need to get it done because skaven/ulthuan apathy in the face of a lost waystone/whatever.

Yes, thomas is perhaps being somewhat overly adverserial, but having half the thread dogpile everything he says isn't a great look either honestly.

If apparition containment turns out to be a highly volatile thing but we *really* don't want to take the time to bind it next turn, I imagine just killing the thing and trying again later with actual experience at apparition hunting and containment would be an option, it's not like Mathilde is just gonna lock it in a closet and forget about it until it breaks out and starts killing people.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top