Information
Welcome to the AGM motions page. For the Gory details on how the AGM works, see: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/tt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=155
Assume the following: The AGM will be both long and painful, the sooner it can be gotten out of the way the better.
AGM Motions: For the good of all of us, it is suggested that you write your motion on this page, at which point members of the society with opinions will surely write them here. It is very rude to remove peoples
opinions on a motion, even if they have been accounted for. A given motion may go through several rounds of revisions to tighten wording or improve it or make it more agreeable to people. If it is starting to
get long, don't be afraid to move all the discussion to a separate page and link to it, keep all the old comments on V1 of motion and totally rewrite up a V2 of motion.
A motion must be emailed to the Exec before a deadline whgich will be announced soon. Putting it up here does not make it happen! A motion must have a proposer and a seconder (someone else who is willing to attach their name to it)
Remember the AGM is LONG! A goal is to keep debate to a minimum. Therefore a good motion is very specific. E.g. A bad motion is "The warrior melee skill is too powerful and should be nerfed." This would produce
20 different arguments at the AGM as to how. A better working is "The melee skill is is too powerful and should be replaced with the following ... (setting out your new melee skill)". This turns the motion into
a single argument: "yes or no".
Please remember to thread and sign your comments, it makes discussion so much easier.
Past proposals
For reference, please note that "put single through earlier in streetfighter" failed at the last AGM. Resubmitting the same proposal is thus contraindicated. --Tea
- For full details of which motions passed and failed at the last 3 AGM's see here on the website: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/tt/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=41&Itemid=242
Model motion to copy and paste
Insert motion title here
- Proposed by: Name of proposer
- Seconded by: Name of seconder
Body of motion, phrased as a yes/no statement.
Explanation of reasoning
Comments
First Comment
- Indent your comments on which thread they are using multiple : (and reformat the comment block as necessary) and make sure you sign them --Drac
Proposals
Permit thrusting attacks with collapsible-tip polearms
- Proposed by: Tea
- Seconded by: Drac
This motion is to permit collapsible tip polearms to be used for thrusting attacks, subject to the normal rules requiring two-handed use and polearm competency checks. Individual fighters will be required
to be certain they are wielding a collapsible-tip weapon before making any thrusting attacks.
Reasoning: With Odyssey and Empire, among other games, more and more of the society now own collapsible tip polearms. These weapons are safe, effective, and tactically interesting when used to thrust. By
not allowing them to be used one-handed, we avoid the potentially dominant fighting style of long spear + big shield, and by only permitting thrust-safe polearms for thrusting we avoid the option of
buying a very short 'javelin' and using it as a sword to stab with. Tea is also volunteering to provide the armoury with a collapsible tip spear physrep, so we'll have at least one available in order that
new players aren't shut out from using them. Before the AGM, Empire 1 will have happened, which is permitting a mix of both stabsafe and non-stabsafe polearms to be used on the same field in battles, and
Tea intends to withdraw this motion in the event that such a mix proves to be a safety catastrophe.
Comments
I am being a horrible person and starting the AGM debate, although I hope this one shouldn't be too controversial. --Tea
- I err on the side of this is a safety nightmare as it is very easy to get polearms and brain mixed up. - Porange
- If you aren't sure if a spear is stabsafe, don't stab. If you are sure a spear is stabsafe, but aren't sure how to safely stab with it, don't stab. If you pick up a spear off someone else in the middle of an encounter, don't stab. --Tea
- Does not cover brain farts. - Porange
- It's making a conscious decision to stab before each stab. That will cover every brainfart apart from "picked up a physrep and reflexively stabbed", which is already an issue due to lots of people playing games which allow stabbing. --Tea
- I think it does cover brainfarts because your best option if you are worried is to totally ignore this motion ever existed and never stab which is no different that the current situation. As long as we have polearm comp cover both types and possibly get a bit tighter on briefing not to use polearms without comp, I don't believe it'll cause trouble. --dp
I've seen 2 safety problems with them, both of which the motion addresses: 1. people being generally unsafe, is no worse than regular polearms and we have weapon comp testing and advice for that. 2. People using them 1 handed when they are really not strong enough and having no control, we address that by forcing it to be a 2 handed weapon. --Drac
So, Empire 1 has now happened. Empire, notably, has a system where you can stab with a stab-safe polearm, but not all polearms have to be stab-safe. I therefore had a chat with PST and asked whether they
had found this lead to dreadful confusion. Apparently there were "1-2 incidents" reported to him of confusion between a stabsafe and a non-stabsafe, causing no serious injuries (probably therefore a few
more which happened and didn't get reported). And that's in a game with over 1100 people on the ground for the battles, and a much lower level of direct ref presence than we have. As long as we run
sensibly, make sure to teach people about the difference, and so on, I think it should be fine. --Tea
- I heard rather more than 1-2, from the refs briefing the Sunday battle, but still not enough to make me think this motion is a mistake. --I
- He said "1-2 which got reported to me, so that doesn't mean there weren't a few more on the ground". My general assumption is that roughly 1/50 people will stab with non-stab-safes anyway, so I don't believe allowing stab-safe weapons as well has made a serious difference to the number of stabs with non-stab-safes at Empire. --Tea
I also went and chatted to Chris of Saxon Violence, and got some instructions for how to make a stabsafe spear, so I'll turn a spare piece of core into one over the summer if we pass this. --Tea
Introduce a call permitting close-range archery without physically shooting an arrow/bolt
- Proposed by: Rosemary
- Seconded by: Megan
This motion will introduce a call, likely to be "LOOSE", to permit calling damage with a bow or crossbow at close range without the associated OOC safety concerns of actually shooting point-blank at someone. Use of this call should only be permitted at close range; suggest 3m because that is mass range so nobody has to remember a new distance.
There will need to be an implementation detail of the form "only do this if you have a clear shot" as per Backstab, and probably a rule that the arrow must be returned to the quiver and another one put on the bow before another shot can be taken, or something similar, perhaps with a time limit.
Explanation of reasoning
Being shot at close range often hurts. Bows aren't all that powerful stats-wise. Enough said.
Comments
- Would there be a cap on the number of times this could be done per encounter? --Jacob
- I think that the specifics of how this works should be nailed down a lot more, as there seems to currently be some confusion about details. --Tea
- Yes please! I was hoping people who are better at writing rules than me would do exactly that :-) --Pufferfish
- In the spirit of being helpful: "if you are in a situation where you could trivially shoot the target (bow drawn/crossbow loaded, aimed, clear line of fire), but you are very close to them due to e.g. a cramped bar or being charged, you call LOOSE [Damage call] instead of actually firing the projectile, and then unload and reload your weapon." --Tea
- Addendum: "this is intended to make close range archery that would be IC sensible OC safer, not to provide combat advantage. As a first priority you should try to avoid shooting targets at very close range. If you are being e.g. charged down, but successfully load and draw before they actually reach you, this is the situation to use the Loose call in. Do not take the piss, please". --Tea
- I have some experience of this being used and don't have a problem in principle. The biggest single issue I find is the possibility of doing it too often (as well as the fact some archers suddenly get much more accurate, especially if shooting into a melee). Since it only replaces a point blank shot which should not be taken for safety reasons, you could argue that at that stage the archer is effectively in a melee where it is often impractical to reload. Thus they should not use their bow again in that encounter, which gives some realism and hopefully discourages taking the piss. --TimB
- I have a general habit of then running away for a while and fully reloading, at which point I think it's fairly justified to shoot again. This is because I've normally found a loose type call useful when I'm off to one side and someone decides to charge me, but I get the bow loaded just before they reach me. --Tea
- Has anybody played in a system where this call is common? I do recall LT used to have it probably decades ago now but removed it due to abuse. I doubt it'd be a huge problem in a local system. The issues I do see are shields (comes under Tim's point of archers suddenly get a lot more accurate) and always hitting the body - potentially quite a decent mechanical benefit in the right circumstance. --dp
- Is anyone with a shield in the right general arc at liberty to not-take the shot? Anyone with cover (and someone they are in melee with counts if in the right arc)? If there is ever a situation where someone who can use a bow at short range safely (and honestly, if not, I'm not sure they should be passing bow comp) wants to use loose instead for mechanical advantage, this rule fails. Crossbows are, at least, impossible to part-draw, so I can see a case for using it on the Fairbow style ones. --I
Make the effects of Blessing 4 easier to remember
- Proposed by: Joey
- Seconded by: Steph
Blessing 4 should also protect against DISARM
Explanation of reasoning
At the moment, Blessing 4 protects against all the other status effects and it looks like an oversight to me that it doesn't protect against DISARM. Protecting against DISARM would make the effects of blessing 4 easier to remember.
Comments
- I wouldn't call it an oversight, because Valour buffs and Spirit Weapons are already excellent spiritual ways to protect against DISARM, and the list of things it protects against is stated in the description twice. There is a lot of DISARM resistance/immunity in the system already, and I'm not sure it's a good thing to offer more access to it. Could it be worded as "You may ignore two status effects that are not DISARM"? -Jim.
- I don't think it makes a big difference to balance, and just makes things far simpler. --Steph
- I'd probably vote for it on the grounds of "this is simpler" but it does look like it misses out DISARM for a reason there. -Jim
Make Blessing 3 work more like Grey Resists
- Proposed by: Nobody now.
- Seconded by:
Blessing 3 should read:
"Call "Inflict 3: You may ignore any two damage calls you would otherwise take, except for a call containing [COLOUR] or MAGIC. These do not have to be the next two calls you suffer"
Explanation of reasoning
Dispel Magic and Dispel Damage explicitly state that you can't resist SPIRIT calls with them. This is because Magic and Spirit interact poorly. It seems logical to mirror that description here so that Spiritual Defences don't work against Magical attacks, and vice versa.
Comments
- In the basics of basics sense. Question: Does this make the system more complicated. Answer: Yes. Therefore I consider it not a good idea. --Malselene
- Also fundamentally this doesn't make sense. Spirit on a metaphysical level is more intelligent than magic and does 'stop damage'. 'Magic dispels only dispel other magic. See under dispel magic. It also doesn't work on " a weapon blow, a call containing 'Spirit', SLAY, DROP or a potion". Spirit is only one of the things it can't deal with. Blessings and Grey anti magic stuff really aren't the same. --Malselene
- +1. Magic defenses are a shield of magical energy. Spirit defenses through Blessing are a spirit of the god sitting on your shoulder blocking weapons for you. --Tea
- On perhaps a related note: the current wording means that Dispel Magic resists work on, e.g. the Smite Soul tree, as these calls don't contain Spirit in. This doesn't seem to be what is intended. Possibly this should be fixed? -- Salavant
- I can't think of any way to do this that doesn't result in Too Many Words or a similar form of 'oh gods no'. --MorkaisChosen
- +inf --Tea
- Add "Spirit" as a modifier to such effects?
- As an addendum to numerous points I agree with above, Priests get a lot less spirit than mages get mana. This is balanced by the fact miracles are generally a bit better, spirit damage is harder to resist than magic and that priests can solv