[NCE] Poll: Territory Income Rolls

[Orngog]

I would argue that rules should be followed in the order they appear... I don't think this is a clarity issue so much as a change issue.

 

[Ben_S]

I don't think it's a choice between clarifying the rule and changing the rule, because both of those presuppose knowing what the rule currently is. If the rule is indeterminate, then we can't know whether a replacement is a clarification of the original intent or in fact a different rule from what was intended.

And the RAW seems indeterminate; both alternatives in the poll interpret or disambiguate the wording in different ways.

RAW: The player chooses the territories he wishes to collect income from and adds up the total amount generated

Interpretation 1: The player chooses all of the territories he wishes to collect income from and then adds up the total amount generated
Interpretation 2: The player chooses the territories he wishes to collect income from one by one and adds up the total amount generated

I prefer interpretation 1 myself, but both of these are just interpretations - they both involve reading in or assuming something that is not explicitly stated. I've always played it as being interpretation 1 and would prefer that to be in NCE, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that's what the rule currently is, because I don't think anyone playing the other way is obviously mistaken about the rules, just interpreting them differently.

(It's not my area, but I'm vaguely aware that there is actually a dispute in legal theory around an analogous point. Some people think that the 'law of the land' may have gaps in it, so judges effectively make law when they decide these things. Others think that there is in principle a right answer - best fitting with all existing legislation - that judges must discover.)

 

[Orngog]

Beyond that, rule as written means not adding to the text, but applying what there is to its extent. So:
Choose territories (not singular)
...
Calculate total.

There is no option to do it more than once. And if there were, it wouldn't be a total would it ¿)

In fact the two versions you give above are equivalent: choose territories one by one, then work out the total.

I really don't see any room for ambiguity; to assume otherwise, you have to add more to the rule and *break what is there already*.

 

[Ben_S]

You can't simply 'apply what's there' without first interpreting it. The problem is it never tells you when to calculate the result of each territory. So here's another way of putting it:

Choose territory 1. Calculate income from territory 1 (e.g. d6x10).
Decide whether to work another territory.
Choose territory 2. Calculate income from territory 2.
Decide whether to work another territory.
Choose territory 3. Caculate income from territory 3.
Add up the total income.

Decide how many gangers will work territories, e.g. 3.
Choose territories 1, 2, and 3.
Calculate income from territory 1.
Calculate income from territory 2.
Calculate income from territory 3.
Add up the total income.

Both of those involve all territories being chosen before adding up the income, so nothing in either approach contradicts what's there, because what's there says nothing about when to calculate the income of each territory.

 

[Ratboy sr]

So than can we suggest a Change to the next version of the NCE? I propose the rule be set to indicate the player must choose all territories before calculating the income from the any individual territory. Totaling income seems self explanatory and unnecessary.

 

[Orngog]

@Anthony !

 

[undertaker]

Yeah.. I'm not sure really.

All the high rolls are variable income territories, so are you not being penalised for rolling high? With static income territories you can game the income brackets with certainty, but variable income opens you up to rolling low. And if you do roll low or rack up a huge gambling debt there's then no opportunity to react to that if you have to declare them all. How do Archeotech Hoards work in regard to when do you declare how many dice to roll? Why would you need to declare territories but not foraging (or expanded post game actions in general)?

Thematically I think a reactive system makes just as much sense. The post game sequence doesn't seem to represent a specified time period and I can't imagine the gang workings are on the clock 9-5 affairs. If a gang leader sees the local mine has been having trouble with a buckled cart, why couldn't he order Gunjaw Ironhands to stop faffing around in the drinking dens looking for traders and get his arse into the Chem Pit to make up the shortfall?

Gameplay-wise I don't see having to declare all territories as being any more interesting. It's a single decision compared to something that's more interactive which helps break up the post game sequence rollathon. Is there a particular reason you couldn't extend it to income in general (i.e. rolling for loot counters before territories)?

Most territories don't lose you income, so if I had to choose between 10 credits or D6x10, I think I know which one I'd pick. In the case of running a Gambling Den, it is always a risky business, and wise to prepare for occasionally losing by getting income from other sources. As for Archeotech Hoards, from the way it's written, first you decide how many dice to roll, then you roll them all at the same time. How would a gang know what the strange scrap it's looted from the Archeotech Hoard is worth until the end when it tries to sell it?

The actual time that passes between games is a bit hard to nail down. Due to the constraints of player availability, one gang could have several games in a weekend while another has none. On the other hand, if the time between games was really that flexible, why couldn't a gang just spend twice as long getting income, roll the income twice and go to the trade post twice, or even three times? It's a tricky argument to use in either case.

Foraging suffers from the same ambiguity as territory income. It does not specify in the OCE whether you can send more to forage after you roll for a few. Thematically, I would say it makes more sense to decide first, then roll for all, since you don't know how much any individual will forage until they've spent some time doing it. In the meantime, everyone still needs feeding! Foraging (and working a territory) is not instantaneous. Each ganger invests their post-battle time doing one particular thing, and they won't know the pay-off until the end.

Whatever the decision on how the territory income is rolled, it should probably also apply to foraging. Loot could be the only exception, since you don't need to invest time to get it, you just go to the market after the battle and sell it.

 

[Orngog]

Exactly, surely the post game sequence is intended to represent roughly the same amount of time for each gang? So every ganger does their thing, then you realize the worth of that once the work has been done.

The problem with the boss telling Dave to go work another territory is that the boss doesn't know the other gangers have come up short...

And on the subject of when to calculate territories, it does tell you when to calculate. It says, declare territories, then calculate a total. I really can't see how anyone could interpret that as declare some, calculate, declare some more.

 

[undertaker]

Exactly, surely the post game sequence is intended to represent roughly the same amount of time for each gang?

In an ideal world that would be the case, but it rarely works out that way. Unless it is rigidly-structured, at the end of a campaign some gangs would have played more battles (and rolled more times for income) than others in what is nominally the same period of time. That's why I think 'fixed post-battle time' is a tenuous argument.

The fact that there is disagreement in this thread is testimony to the ambiguity of the rules. The NCE should clarify one way or another, if only to reduce the confusion for new players. The poll is currently reasonably decisive in favour of one option. At the end of the day, the edit in the NCE will be in red text, so it's up to the individual group whether to use it.

 

[Orngog]

That's very true, and I hate to argue with you, but I really think you're reading beyond, rather than into, the rule.

Ofc in our campaigns (which I would not describe as rigid) we take campaign turns involving every player so that hasn't been an issue for us, with a drop-in style I can see that could be problematic.

It is indeed an issue that the gang which fights least *should* be earning the most.... Fixing that could lead to some interesting campaigns, where all you want is to be left alone for your turn to take in the cash. Now I'm thinking about a game where you have to pay tithe to your House, and suddenly Outlanders start to look a lot more attractive...

Edit: removed that that that that was where the that the is now.

 

[Ben_S]

It is indeed an issue that the gang which fights least *should* be earning the most.... Fixing that could lead to some interesting campaigns, where all you want is to be left alone for your turn to take in the cash.

There's an interesting idea. You could run a campaign at a weekly club or something and say that everyone gets to generate income (and rare trade?) once per week, regardless of whether they fight one game, two games, or no games. But I guess things do work how they are, since there's no fixed timeframe and plenty of other things gangs might be doing during downtime.