Questions on game

[Euri]

Does anything happen in the Discord? I usually avoid joining servers of people I don’t know but I might

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, Euri said:

Does anything happen in the Discord? I usually avoid joining servers of people I don’t know but I might

I don't pay attention to it.  I just have group chats for the projects I'm in or people's direct contact info if I need it.

[MrPotatoTed]

9 minutes ago, Euri said:

Does anything happen in the Discord? I usually avoid joining servers of people I don’t know but I might

Not much.  It’s mostly answering new folks’ questions about the game, and a few side chats among players of specific playtests.

[jnewt]

I was just looking through the Presidential primary rules to help me figure out if I should even run a candidate, and I came across the following under 2.9.1 at the bottom of "Step 2: Determining a Candidate's Strength":

Quote

 

Candidates may choose three focus states for a 5-6 die roll or 1-2 die roll chance of +/- 1.

If the candidate has charisma, the +/- is 4-6 die roll/1-2 die roll; 

if the candidate his likable it is 5-6 die roll/0 chance negative; 

if the candidate has uncharismatic it is 0 chance positive/1-2 die roll negative; 

if the candidate is unlikable, it’s 5-6 die roll/1-3 die roll. 

If the candidate has orator, then increase the + modifier by an extra number. 

If a candidate is the only candidate in the primary with “debate” skill, then there’s a 5-6 die roll 

chance of +1 nationally.

 

Is this referring to the "Campaign Focus" option during the primary actions phase? I've never noticed this before.

Edited May 4, 2023 by jnewt

[MrPotatoTed]

7 minutes ago, jnewt said:

I was just looking through the Presidential primary rules to help me figure out if I should even run a candidate, and I came across the following under 2.9.1 at the bottom of "Step 2: Determining a Candidate's Strength":

Is this referring to the "Campaign Focus" option during the primary actions phase? I've never noticed this before.

Let me tag @Cal, I think he was our election guru at one point.  (If others know, feel free to jump in).  Most of my own experience has been in the pre-primary eras, so I don't have a ton of experience playing or managing them.

[Cal]

3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Let me tag @Cal, I think he was our election guru at one point.  (If others know, feel free to jump in).  Most of my own experience has been in the pre-primary eras, so I don't have a ton of experience playing or managing them.

My knowledge is pretty outdated, but I can take a look tomorrow night if no one else chimes in.

[jnewt]

31 minutes ago, Cal said:

My knowledge is pretty outdated, but I can take a look tomorrow night if no one else chimes in.

Looking more closely, it looks like it might be a state modifier, similar to how a minor candidate gets a +1 in their home state, but a -2 outside of their home region. But in this case, they just get to pick three states before the primary starts, and roll for whether it is a positive or negative effect? I'm not sure if that rings a bell...

[Bushwa777]

What does this mean" : A player cannot block a non-controversial nominee from confirmation unless they are two ideologies away from their faction leader’s ideology. Thus, a moderate faction leader would have to support a conservative or a liberal. A faction with a leader that is “harmonious” will not block a non-controversial nominee. A faction with a leader with “integrity” will not block a nominee with “integrity.”

eric and i cannot figure this out.  Does block mean vote?

[MrPotatoTed]

36 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

What does this mean" : A player cannot block a non-controversial nominee from confirmation unless they are two ideologies away from their faction leader’s ideology. Thus, a moderate faction leader would have to support a conservative or a liberal. A faction with a leader that is “harmonious” will not block a non-controversial nominee. A faction with a leader with “integrity” will not block a nominee with “integrity.”

eric and i cannot figure this out.  Does block mean vote?

As a general note, it’s helpful to cite where you’re looking as that will help expedite me looking at the same wording in the same context.  Is this 2.3? I can take a look momentarily.

[Bushwa777]

7 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

As a general note, it’s helpful to cite where you’re looking as that will help expedite me looking at the same wording in the same context.  Is this 2.3? I can take a look momentarily.

2.8 under supreme court confirmation 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, Bushwa777 said:

2.8 under supreme court confirmation 

Thanks.  Given that the font varies throughout this section, I think it's been piecemealed together, possibly from multiple prior versions of the rules, without being cleaned up for consistently recently.  I often breeze past this section myself as my games rarely reach the Supreme Court stage, so this is my first time looking at it in a while.  I'll eventually clean it up, but I'm making my way through it page by page since that's how Anthony is working and I'm trying to stay ahead of him.  He's still in 2.1, so I'm focused for now on making 2.2 and 2.3 as spotless as I can.

As for 2.8, it references the rules in 2.3 (cabinet confirmation) so you have to look at those as well.  Those talk about how a Senate Majority Leader can block a nominee if certain criteria are met.  This means the nomination fails, no vote taken.

The rules in 2.8 say that a SML can only block a judicial candidate who is more than one ideology level away from the SML.  So a Majority Leader who is a Moderate can refuse to take a vote on a Progressive judge, but they can't refuse to take a vote on a Liberal Judge -- unless the Liberal Judge has controversial.
 

[Bushwa777]

Ok so it is a senate majority leader which gilded age does not have yet.  Reason i asked is grant has appointed 4 new justices in his court so far

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, Bushwa777 said:

Ok so it is a senate majority leader which gilded age does not have yet.  Reason i asked is grant has appointed 4 new justices in his court so far

Yes -- provided that the 2.3 rules don't reference the Senate President Pro Tempore having the same powers.  I don't know off the top of my head whether it does or doesn't.

[Bushwa777]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Yes -- provided that the 2.3 rules don't reference the Senate President Pro Tempore having the same powers.  I don't know off the top of my head whether it does or doesn't.

Well that one says a player not just senate majority leader. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Yeah, I think it's supposed to say Senate Majority Leader.  Just my personal interpretation of it.  I don't think I wrote that section myself.

[jnewt]

On 5/4/2023 at 8:21 PM, Cal said:

My knowledge is pretty outdated, but I can take a look tomorrow night if no one else chimes in.

Any chance you got to look at this?

[Bushwa777]

Ok i pulled pineapple primary in 1868 before midterms.  @ebrk85 told me to keep it until 1872.  I did.  I was under impression that it is used after convention as it deals with a election boost but im told it was before. We dont have primaries yet.  When is it used?

[MrPotatoTed]

It says "not revealed at this time" and "during primaries."  So I'd say waiting until 1872 was the right call.  It's admittedly unclear.  My personal ruling in your scenario would be that it goes right before the convention, given that you don't have primaries yet.

In the very first game I gm'ed, I think it happened in like 1788 to Samuel Adams (he survived the attack).

 

[OrangeP47]

Yeah, we just use it for the conventions.  It's killed Grant one year, then Tweed the next for us in 1840.

[DJBillyShakes]

A few other convention questions.

One, do candidates have to take inter-ballot actions or can they choose to do nothing?

• Force a Rules Change: A faction leader can call on a vote to change the rules: suspend the unit rule, apply the unit rule or decrease the number of delegates to a straight majority. A vote does not occur unless two faction leaders happen to request this action. If they do:

  • Each faction gets votes = to the number of politicians they have that have the trait “kingmaker”. A majority will determine a rule change. 

  • Kingmakers will vote for a ½ rule, ⅔ rule, ¾ rule or unanimous rule. The ½ rule means the nominee needs 50%+1 of the delegates. ⅔ needs 66%+1. ¾ needs 75%+1. Unanimous needs 100% support for nomination. 

  • Kingmakers will vote on the unit rule. If supported, then the candidate with the most support among state delegates will get all of that state’s delegates (winner takes all). If the unit rule is not supported, then the state delegates are free to split their vote. 

  • If there is a tie vote for any of the rule changes, then the vote change fails. 

  • If the Party Leader has “Iron Fist” then he or she sets all the rules unilaterally or they can allow a vote. If the Party Leader has “Leadership,” then they can attempt to roll to force rules unilaterally by rolling a 5 or 6.

Two, based on this rule, does an iron fist party leader still need another FL to make rule changes? Say the PL has iron first. Does the PL need another FL to request the rule change before unilaterally changing the rules? Or can the PL change the rules without needing another FL to request it?

Three, can an iron fist PL veto rule changes? Suppose the four other FLs propose the same rule change. Can the PL prevent a vote?

[Bushwa777]

42 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

It says "not revealed at this time" and "during primaries."  So I'd say waiting until 1872 was the right call.  It's admittedly unclear.  My personal ruling in your scenario would be that it goes right before the convention, given that you don't have primaries yet.

In the very first game I gm'ed, I think it happened in like 1788 to Samuel Adams (he survived the attack).

 

Dang it did not use it 

[MrPotatoTed]

31 minutes ago, DJBillyShakes said:

A few other convention questions.

One, do candidates have to take inter-ballot actions or can they choose to do nothing?

• Force a Rules Change: A faction leader can call on a vote to change the rules: suspend the unit rule, apply the unit rule or decrease the number of delegates to a straight majority. A vote does not occur unless two faction leaders happen to request this action. If they do:

  • Each faction gets votes = to the number of politicians they have that have the trait “kingmaker”. A majority will determine a rule change. 

  • Kingmakers will vote for a ½ rule, ⅔ rule, ¾ rule or unanimous rule. The ½ rule means the nominee needs 50%+1 of the delegates. ⅔ needs 66%+1. ¾ needs 75%+1. Unanimous needs 100% support for nomination. 

  • Kingmakers will vote on the unit rule. If supported, then the candidate with the most support among state delegates will get all of that state’s delegates (winner takes all). If the unit rule is not supported, then the state delegates are free to split their vote. 

  • If there is a tie vote for any of the rule changes, then the vote change fails. 

  • If the Party Leader has “Iron Fist” then he or she sets all the rules unilaterally or they can allow a vote. If the Party Leader has “Leadership,” then they can attempt to roll to force rules unilaterally by rolling a 5 or 6.

Two, based on this rule, does an iron fist party leader still need another FL to make rule changes? Say the PL has iron first. Does the PL need another FL to request the rule change before unilaterally changing the rules? Or can the PL change the rules without needing another FL to request it?

Three, can an iron fist PL veto rule changes? Suppose the four other FLs propose the same rule change. Can the PL prevent a vote?

I don’t have the rules in front of me, but I assume they can do nothing.  Of course, they may still face scandal rolls, etc. can’t just opt out of that.  Haha.

 

I think I’m probably too tired (it’s almost 2 am here) to give a good answer to the rest of your questions.  Plus I’ve never much of an election guru anyway.  Others can probably answer this one better.

[ebrk85]

9 hours ago, DJBillyShakes said:

If the Party Leader has “Iron Fist” then he or she sets all the rules unilaterally or they can allow a vote.

I don't know for sure as I've never done conventions. From reading this it looks to me an Iron Fisted PL has full control over the rules. They set all the rules at their choosing. Or it says they " can" allow a vote. So I also take that to mean yes they can block anybody from forcing a rules change.

[Bushwa777]

Need interpretation.  In 1868 we have reached 10th ballot in convention.   We have chosen 2 replacements now.  We have been doing unanimous votes but the way i read rules it says  balloting continues under the normal rules but with these candidates. 

So is vote supposed to be unanimous still or back to original voting rules with winner getting more then others combined?

[ebrk85]

I would say it continues with whatever rules are in place. Doesn't make sense they would revert back without the delegates proposing to change them.