dramatispersonae

Iolite

[Upon entering your team's cloud of mist, you find yourselves transported to a bare stone room with a single stone table and chairs. (The chairs have been bolted to the floor.) On the table are a 16 red stones, 8 blue stones, and a 2 black stones. There are also indentations around the edge of the table, each one marked in the color of one of the teams.]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You disagree?

Not that it's a logical conclusion. Not the one I would have reached though, I suppose.

I wouldn't have called it logical, but it's an option. What would you do with them?

I would probably play the red and blue stones on the same team, at this point, and use the black stones on two other teams.

All on one? There's been some discussion of picking a few teams to spread the burden.

Edited 2012-05-11 00:50 (UTC)

I said all on one, yes.

It keeps coming down to this then. Who would you pick to place them all on?

Jasper . . . ? They have a lot of knights.

...They are a new team. Others might be less likely to steal their defense, at least.

And more likely to give them defense, too. If our actions are revealed, then it would look threatening to a number of establish teams. So, we can leave it to them to decide what they will from it. Besides, they're a very clever group.

You were one of the first to suggest distributing them evenly. What changed your mind?

It would spare everyone else if one team takes on the burden. We'll give them all of our defense to soften the blow.

The odds are against sparing anyone, even if we concentrate on just one team.

If everyone else decides to spread it evenly and lay everyone equally to waste, then they are welcome to. We won't add to anyone else's trouble if we keep our stones together.

That's a bit of a misleading presentation. No matter how you look at it, we're adding to someone else's trouble.

Re: Discussion

dormancy - 2012-05-11 01:20 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion

sticksofthejedi - 2012-05-11 01:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion

dormancy - 2012-05-11 01:24 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion

sticksofthejedi - 2012-05-11 01:32 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion

dormancy - 2012-05-11 01:33 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion

sticksofthejedi - 2012-05-11 01:42 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion

dormancy - 2012-05-11 01:44 (UTC) - Expand

Jaina, there's no way for us to be accountable for the other team's choices. We need to look at this from what we're doing and we alone.

And if we're looking only at what we're doing, do we do as little damage to each team, or badly hurt one team?

Have you changed your mind from earlier, Spitfire?

Edited 2012-05-11 01:20 (UTC)

Re: Discussion

fallinflames - 2012-05-11 01:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion

sticksofthejedi - 2012-05-11 01:26 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion

fallinflames - 2012-05-11 01:30 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion

sticksofthejedi - 2012-05-11 01:37 (UTC) - Expand

Because there gets to be a point where spreading out the pain doesn't accomplish that much.

[...sigh, but finally nodding.]

... They might get a higher level of defense in preference to their newness as well.

It'd look pretty shitty to target a new team.

Mm, there is that chance. But who would you have take their place?

I already said what I thought we oughta do. You've already decided to ignore it.

Mmm, I've decided that we've discussed more than enough. So, you would like spread it out, then?

They're likely to get protection from it though. [sighs] It's a pretty shitty game in general, honestly, no matter who we target. If you go by Vincent's criteria, there are several other teams with a number of knights on them as well.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only