Another Proposal

[Sartan]

What about if the Warlord lost the right to challenge for the rest of the cycle upon going after the Overlord directly? The negative to that would likely be a spike in end of the cycle challenges, but it gives Warlords direct access to the Overlord and comes with a cost.

[G]

What about if the Warlord lost the right to challenge for the rest of the cycle upon going after the Overlord directly? The negative to that would likely be a spike in end of the cycle challenges, but it gives Warlords direct access to the Overlord and comes with a cost.

When you say "Lose the right to challenge for the rest of cycle" are you referring to challenges to the OL, or challenges for ALL titles?

[Kalamere]

I won't speak for Sartan, but my opinion would be all titles.

I see Marc's point regarding the want of peer wins, but I would maintain using a simple "wins" value rather than peer wins is better. It's easier to track, wouldn't suffer too much if attendance sinks again and removes the old issue of Warlords only wanting to fight other warlord's and above. At the same time it still makes the warlord have to accomplish something and satisfies the desire of seeing the duelist proved to be active (or, at least does so to the same degree peer wins do).

G, am I reading correctly that there is no drawback for the Renegade Barons who decide to sponsor the challenger? I thought that would have provided some fun scenarios.

[Sartan]

I meant all titles. My idea was that a Warlord who challenged directly for Overlord would forfeit the ability to pursue any other title for that cycle, Baron included.

[G]

G, am I reading correctly that there is no drawback for the Renegade Barons who decide to sponsor the challenger? I thought that would have provided some fun scenarios.

It would have provided fun scenarios if there were a drawback to the Ren Barons sponsoring challengers? Or No drawback is fun?

If there should be a drawback, then what kind would be good? Also, I don't want to overcomplicate challenge rules again.

I meant all titles. My idea was that a Warlord who challenged directly for Overlord would forfeit the ability to pursue any other title for that cycle, Baron included.

Okay, cool deal. And yeah, I like that idea.

Basically, I'm looking to try and balance risk vs reward, whereas

Reward = Overlord Title
Risk = ?

The ? being loss of ability to challenge for any title is good, but then you have Warlords who will then just challenge for a Barony in order to get a clearer path to OL if they really want that title, with little risk there.

Which then leads us down the path of:

Reward = Baron Title
Risk = ??

I don't really want to put in Peer Wins again. At least not yet. But if we are doing it in conjunction with the previous idea where OL has more Ren Barons the WL can challenge OL providing the WL has (2) Ren permission slips... etc. etc....

Well, now we're sounding like we're complicating the rules again.
::sad panda::

I know we're doubtful in getting a cut and dry, black and white, dark vs light really easy to understand challenge rules...

But I also want to avoid "Jacob vs Man in Black" rules(For Lost Fans out there, 6 seasons of episodes is really complex) scenarios where One detail ends up being a problem later down the line, that we didn't guess even if we hand a hint of it... etc. etc.

Sorry, went a little off there.

Easy to read and understand challenge rules = good
Latin Calculus in Chinese challenge rules = bad

[Kalamere]

If a lost challenge means no more challenging, at all, for the rest of the cycle then I agree, you can go without a wins / peer wins qualifier... probably. We'll have to see how it works out in practice. I kinda like it though.

re: Negative consequences, I mean it could be interesting to have them and make the Ren. Baron actually think about whether or not it is wise to offer support.

It is mildly more complicated, but not terribly so. It was something Vanion proposed earlier in the thread, though I've bastardized it a little to make it easier rules wise. It is simply this: If the Overlord beats the Warlord challenger, s/he then has the right to directly challenge any Renegade Baron to have supported the Warlord. This would be a Challenge of Retention. Baron wins and we go about our business. Overlord wins and the barony is forfeit. The ring goes into the next WL Tourney.

With such a rule in place, I'd suggest only requiring one of the Renegades support the Warlord challenger instead of two. I'd also only allow the Overlord to issue the challenge of retention against 1 of the supporters, even if there were multiple. It would get too complicated having 2-5 Overlord to baron challenges and would take to long.

[Jake]

re: Negative consequences, I mean it could be interesting to have them and make the Ren. Baron actually think about whether or not it is wise to offer support.

It is mildly more complicated, but not terribly so. It was something Vanion proposed earlier in the thread, though I've bastardized it a little to make it easier rules wise. It is simply this: If the Overlord beats the Warlord challenger, s/he then has the right to directly challenge any Renegade Baron to have supported the Warlord. This would be a Challenge of Retention. Baron wins and we go about our business. Overlord wins and the barony is forfeit. The ring goes into the next WL Tourney.

With such a rule in place, I'd suggest only requiring one of the Renegades support the Warlord challenger instead of two. I'd also only allow the Overlord to issue the challenge of retention against 1 of the supporters, even if there were multiple. It would get too complicated having 2-5 Overlord to baron challenges and would take to long.

I think my fear here is that we'd wind up working against the parent rule.

If we're talking about implementing a rule that allows Warlords to challenge the Overlord, but only when the majority of Barons are Renegade...then the incentive is for the Overlord to *want* Loyal Barons.

If the sub-rule is that a Warlord must be sponsored by a Baron, but if the Warlord loses the Overlord gets to try and remove the Baron from the title, then what's my incentive (as a Baron) to sponsor a Warlord?

From the perspective of the Overlord it's all cake. If my Barons are Loyal, I can't be challenged by a Warlord. If my Barons are Renegade, then the Barons are likely to be reluctant to sponsor a Warlord if I can then challenge them to retain their title. Either way as Overlord, I win, and we've lost the incentive for the Overlord to actively try and obtain the Loyalty of his/her Barons.

If I'm a Baron, rather than sponsor a Warlord, which might end up costing me my title, why wouldn't I rather just challenge the Overlord myself? Then his/her title is on the line, not mine.

[Kalamere]

I'd like to see some form of risk applied to the sponsoring barons, but yeah, that's a fair point.

Maybe give the Overlord a grant of challenge against the baron? Probably too similar...

Brain's not kicking in yet, I'll think on it and get back.

[Jake]

I'd like to see some form of risk applied to the sponsoring barons, but yeah, that's a fair point.

Maybe give the Overlord a grant of challenge against the baron? Probably too similar...

Brain's not kicking in yet, I'll think on it and get back.

Some additional grist for the mill...

To some extent, Renegades already have the raw end of the stick.

Renegade characteristics:
1. Subject to an unlimited number of challenges per cycle (unlike the Loyals)
2. Have no protection from the Overlord (via intercession) in the event of a challenge from a Warlord.
3. Can champion a Warlord in the event of a Test of Worthiness, but are then subject to immediate challenge from the Tester if they fail in their duel to block the Test.

Continuing along the lines already started, if a Warlord elected to challenge the Overlord, and came to me as Baron for my sponsorship (with the knowledge it might cost me my title), rather than sponsor him, it seems to make more sense to encourage him to challenge one of the other (Loyal) Barons and then challenge the Overlord on their own.

What benefit do I as Renegade gain from sponsoring a Warlord against the Overlord?

If I want to see the Overlord dethroned, I can:
(a) challenge him/her myself.
(b) wait for another Baron to challenge.
(c) wait for the winner of the WLT to use their intercession-free/Test-free shot at the Overlord.
None of which require that I put my Barony at risk.

Also, requiring Baronial sponsorship sort of feels like a double-tax. In addition to the majority of Barons needing to be Renegade, I *also* need the sponsorship of a Baron, *and* I likely will also need some activity requirement (if not peer wins, then some # of duels in the current/previous cycle).

So...

It seems to me like the Renegades already have the greatest risk/exposure to challenge. (In addition to those listed above, they are also subject to challenges from Overlord Grants.) For that reason, I think an additional risk to their title is unnecessary. -- Also, if you consider the Overlord Grants, the Overlord *already* has a mechanism to target Barons they want to get rid of.

That said, I think we should look at the requirements from the Warlord side, and perhaps more strongly at some activity requirement (other than peer wins, which are a pain to track/verify, and as Kal pointed out tended to encourage peer-win hunting and Warlords avoiding duels with lower ranks).

RECAP!

1. Allow challenges from Warlords against the Overlord, but only when there are a majority of Renegade Barons.

2. Require some activity level from the Warlords in order to be eligible to challenge. (e.g., 5 duels in the current and/or previous cycle.)

This gives the Overlord reason to *want* to have and seek Loyalty from the Barons, which I think would foster potential RP/story-lines (for those Overlords that wish to do so).

The above would accomplish what I think would be the two primary goals (1) allow challenges from the Warlords, (2) create a reason for the Overlord to *want* Loyal Barons.

Add in the activity requirement (for both challenges against the Overlord and Barons), to replace the previous peer wins system, and I think we'd have a pretty good set of changes that have minimal impact/high simplicity/easy verification.

[G. Iulius Fortis]

You know, maybe a combination approach might be viable here. How's this idea look?

1) Allow the Warlord to challenge the Overlord directly (without needing Baronial approval) if two-thirds of Barons are Renegade. Right now, that'd take 5 of the 7.

2) If two-thirds of Barons are NOT Renegade, then a Renegade Baron may champion a Warlord against the Overlord... but the Overlord can fight a Test of Retention if they win. Should the Overlord win the Test, then the Barony becomes a potential prize in the Warlord's Tourney.

3) A Renegade Baron may only champion one Warlord against the Overlord in a given cycle. Should another Warlord wish to challenge the Overlord, they must find a different Baron to support.

4) If the Overlord decides to test the Warlord, then the Sponsoring Baron has first right of refusal to defend the Warlord's right (trumping other Renegades, who in turn trump the Warlord's choice.)

5) Warlords, to challenge the Overlord, must have dueled at least 10 times in the previous two cycles. This brings it closer to once a week.

6) A Warlord who challenges the Overlord in this fashion and loses may not challenge for any title until the week after the following Warlord's Tourney. They may also be barred from said Tourney, as an additional risk. This risk does not apply to awarded direct challenges (see: WLT prize, also Madness prizes, given a Warlord can use them on the Overlord.)

[Amaltea]

RECAP!

1. Allow challenges from Warlords against the Overlord, but only when there are a majority of Renegade Barons.

2. Require some activity level from the Warlords in order to be eligible to challenge. (e.g., 5 duels in the current and/or previous cycle.)

This gives the Overlord reason to *want* to have and seek Loyalty from the Barons, which I think would foster potential RP/story-lines (for those Overlords that wish to do so).

The above would accomplish what I think would be the two primary goals (1) allow challenges from the Warlords, (2) create a reason for the Overlord to *want* Loyal Barons.

Add in the activity requirement (for both challenges against the Overlord and Barons), to replace the previous peer wins system, and I think we'd have a pretty good set of changes that have minimal impact/high simplicity/easy verification.

I like this. I also like Sartan's option, that if they lose they can't challenge again. That plus activity in order to challenge, plus having the OL work to get loyals I think makes a good combination.

[Artemus Kurgen]

RECAP!

1. Allow challenges from Warlords against the Overlord, but only when there are a majority of Renegade Barons.

2. Require some activity level from the Warlords in order to be eligible to challenge. (e.g., 5 duels in the current and/or previous cycle.)

This gives the Overlord reason to *want* to have and seek Loyalty from the Barons, which I think would foster potential RP/story-lines (for those Overlords that wish to do so).

The above would accomplish what I think would be the two primary goals (1) allow challenges from the Warlords, (2) create a reason for the Overlord to *want* Loyal Barons.

Add in the activity requirement (for both challenges against the Overlord and Barons), to replace the previous peer wins system, and I think we'd have a pretty good set of changes that have minimal impact/high simplicity/easy verification.

While glad to see some of my idea used, why don't we add this...

As it has been brought up the Ren. Barons get the shaft simply for being Renegade; and they can be dissuaded from supporting a Warlord because it forefeits their barony should the Warlord lose, why not simply make it so that should the Warlord win, the 2 Ren. Barons that supported him are IMMUNE to challenge for the following cycle.

S/he wins, they can't be touched. S/he loses, then they have to fight to protect their Barony and the Warlord can't challenge for anything for the rest of the cycle. Risk and Reward are on an equal field.

[Kalamere]

I rather like the way Guill lays it out. In that scenario a Warlord can challenge the Overlord, even if s/he is popular with the barons, as long as there's at least 1 Renegade (or 2, depending on how many sign offs are required). I'll grant you it is fairly complicated, but I like the avenues it opens up.

The one exception would be his item #6, I don't think I would keep a failed challenger out of the following WLT.

[Jaycy Ashleana]

As it has been brought up the Ren. Barons get the shaft simply for being Renegade; and they can be dissuaded from supporting a Warlord because it forefeits their barony should the Warlord lose, why not simply make it so that should the Warlord win, the 2 Ren. Barons that supported him are IMMUNE to challenge for the following cycle.

I can't agree with making 2 (or more) of the 7 baronies unchallengable for 13 weeks, especially with no fair way to cap the eligible barons (because what could stop the OL title from changing hands 4 times and immunizing all the barons?).

Also, the titles are there to be challenged and create RP from the challenges. Giving barons (especially multiple barons) immunity from that for so long runs counter to that.

[Jake]

I rather like the way Guill lays it out. In that scenario a Warlord can challenge the Overlord, even if s/he is popular with the barons, as long as there's at least 1 Renegade (or 2, depending on how many sign offs are required). I'll grant you it is fairly complicated, but I like the avenues it opens up.

The one exception would be his item #6, I don't think I would keep a failed challenger out of the following WLT.

Same issue tho'

I can't imagine any scenario, especially if/when Renegades are in the minority, where I'd risk my Barony to sponsor a Warlord to challenge the Overlord.

The cycle immunity idea isn't going to fly. As Jaycy pointed out, that's just too long a period of time.

Instead, I'd point the Warlord at another Baron, which would (a) increase the number of Renegade Barons (which potentially opens the Overlord up for other challenges), and (b) keeps me off the Overlord's radar.

If I as a Baron want to invoke the Overlord's ire, I can do so by challenging directly.