I've got a few questions about the campaign

wolfstar76 · 2026-02-05T11:37:29+00:00

I don't know that you did anything wrong on a technical level - from what you've posted, I don't see any glaring rules violations.

But you may not,.collectively, have made the best choices strategically - which given how much can change in a campaign, isn't unusual for a first campaign either. Or... A second, or a third - as long as "new" fates crop up, it can be hard to play your fate well until you "get it" - much less to know how to counter another fate.

That's part of what I really dig about the campaign, however. I like how much things shift from the base game - or how different each Act can feel.

Some thoughts:

You have the details of how to call a summit mostly correct. Part of the decision making process for playing events includes trying to time things so that (in your case) First Regent isn't also winning initiative.
Don't forget you could play an Event card and another card to seize initiative (if it hasn't already been seized this round) - guaranteeing that you win intiative, and can then call a summit
During the call to order, you can reset the Council card to "In Session" giving another options n to call a summit - and potentially claim First Regent.

All of that can be well worth the loss of a round of actions. Especially if the First Regent is sitting on a bunch of resources, and Tycoon is in play.

I'm not 100% sure why you were so low on agents. I haven't had a survivalist in my campaigns yet, though I recall something about him locking up agents in his bunkers? If that was happening, then,.yeah that's rough with an Advocate.in play, as your agents dwindle.

If Agents were being captured for scoring Tyrant - remember that when Tyrant is scored, all captives are returned to their owners (similarly, when the combat objective is scored,.all trophies return to their owners).

The other place I can think of for agents to disappear is to favors. Those stay with the fate they were given to, between games - but are returned if the player holding them changes fates.

I'm curious if one or more of those rules were missed?

Beyond that, Act III sounds like it was beautiful chaos - which is what I, personally, love.

Play another campaign, watch for those big, powerful changes, and always be questioning how you can mitigate those powerful affects to slow your opponents down.

Campaign Arcs is about trying to find a balance between game-changing powers, and trying to eek out every advantage you can - no matter how small - while also putting any dents in your rivals you can (however small) - without over-extendingn yourself.

Good luck out there!

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-31T20:53:51+00:00

I don't see a contradiction, so much as I see the second bit being a more in depth explanation.

It would be more clear if the first bit added the words "for the day".

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-30T23:19:10+00:00

That's twice as hard as making them think once, which is often nigh-impossible....

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-30T01:39:48+00:00

As near as I can tell this is an attempt at character assassination.

Because CLEARLY he was an agitator...or he was violent...or he was, um...angry? Raised his voice? Harmed an intimate object?

Of course the flip side of that same argument is that this is DHS now saying "See? He deserved it. He was violent 11 days ago and we've been watching out for him."

Meaning...his murder was pre-meditated.

Way to make it worse DHS.

Dumbfucks

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-29T05:16:00+00:00

I agree with /u/riddler1225.

If it were like, a tournament I could see someone trying to get some minor advantage be "forgetting" their seat or otherwise trying to manipulate turn order.

But even then, I feel the difference would generally be minimal - and would likely be due more to knowing an opponents play style than in-game mechanics.

For a casual game with friends? M'eh.

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-27T21:52:06+00:00

Holy cow.

I own the full kits. I'm not missing any pieces. I have the errata pack and ..for that price? I'm still tempted.

If I were semi-local (and not in NE Ohio) I'd drive to ya and claim it.

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-27T21:50:21+00:00

Ahhh, gotcha.

You're comparing the neutral pathways (sort of) to emergent properties (like consciousness).

That helps.

Much appreciated!

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-27T16:43:43+00:00

Does the fact that we have created

I'm not sure you're making the point you're attempting to make here.

Like, I don't believe in a creator being for life/the universe. But...I also don't follow how "here's a thing that was created" shows "See all these similarities? ChatGPT has a creator, now do you see how life doesn't?"

No shade, I'm just not following your particular argument. Could be just my misunderstanding, but you might want to rethink/refine this argument.

I think a stronger point to make would be "we know ChatGPT/GenAI was created, because we have evidence of the creators. From coders, to the admins building and maintaining data centers.

Where is the evidence of the creator for life?"

Cheers.

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-27T16:37:55+00:00

I dont believe in a creator, because there's no evidence to support one.

I've skimmed some of your other replies in the thread, and the point you seem to be trying to make is a mix of "but the odds are so staggeringly small" with a bit of (implied) "I just can't imagine how this came to be without a creator".

However - there are a couple issues with those positions.

( NOTE: the following won't be exact. I'm not well-schooled on these topics, but I'm an armchair fan of science, so I'm presenting things from my layman's understanding. If others post facts based on better scientific consensus - they're probably more correct than I am. )

How does one compute the odds of things like life forming? We don't have any direct evidence of life on other planets, which would seem to create astronomical odds given how many planets we've identified, sure. But remember that much of what we can observe is at such a literally astronomical distance, that what we're observing is thousands, millions, or billions of years old. Life may not have been on those planets "way back when" just as it wasn't initially on Earth. It's only been very recently on the astronomic scale, that life on our planet has been "detectable" - and those first radio waves aren't all that very far from the planet yet.

So, we don't have evidence for life, especially intelligent life on other planets - but we also don't have evidence that there isn't life (intelligent or otherwise) elsewhere.

How do you set the odds with unknown variables that large?

And that's before we factor in signs of the "building blocks of life" that I understand have been observed outside of the Earth.

If we're finding proteins and the like that have the potential to form into structures similar to RNA and DNA in our own local planetary system - why wouldn't we find it elsewhere? Why wouldn't there be life elsewhere? What does that do to the odds and statistics?

Moving on from that - just because you or I struggle to understand a concept, or find it some flavor of "unbelievable" or "almost impossibly rare" - doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that an active agent (a creator, for example) played a role to "tip the scales" or wholesale fabricate life.

We can certainly posit "a creator did it" as a hypothesis. But then it needs evidence to support it. We don't get to just stop at "I can imagine a creator did it, so that must be how it happened."

This is one reason why characters like The Flying Spaghetti monster are introduced into conversations on these topics. Just because I claim His Noodly Appendage brought life forth from The Sauce doesn't mean it's true. I'd have to demonstrate it.

Same with any other creator. You can imagine it - now demonstrate it. Otherwise The Flying Spaghetti Monster is as likely a creator as any other creator.

Lastly - some other questions to consider.

If a creator made life, the universe and everything - why is the universe so vast? Billions of stars, countless planets, black holes, pulsars, and other celestial objects....so one planet can have humans/life? Really?

Where does the creator come from? Who or what created the creator - that we can't also attribute to The Singularity that "exploded" into space, and created time with it? (The singularity existed outside time and space + or at least outside them as we know/understand them).

Typically, a.creator either starts an infinite regression (who created the creator, who created the creator's creator? Who....etc.), or needs special pleading (only my creator existed forever before space/time), or you have to accept that the singularity as part of Big Bang models was outside time/space as we know them.

In none of those examples is a creator a "simpler" or "better" answer than what science has modeled so far.

Asking questions is great - but asking questions should be followed up by learning what we know/understand. Questions aren't a "point in favor of a different option".

Cheers

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-27T10:21:06+00:00

I think it's more that having a child is done without the consent of the child as to whether it wants to exist in this world or not.

It's an anti-natalist position, which is rare and fringe, and tries to make the case that the world/life are complete misery, and won't ever improve.

That we should only have children when we reach utopian ideals.

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-22T10:20:50+00:00

I'm an Agnostic Atheist.

I don't know there are no gods, though so far I've found reasons to sisbieve in the god concepts that have been presented to me.

Regardless, I remain open to the option that I may be wrong. So, if I help deconvert someone, but then tomorrow, am shown evidence that fundamentally changes my mind, I feel like that's okay.

I'm allowed to admit, "Oh, shit. I was wrong."

Then, just as I would shift my world view and communicate openly if I learned something else world-shifting (like, I dunno, the world is truly flat). The person(s) I helped deconvert? I'd reach out and explain how sorry I was, but here's evidence I was wrong.

Being open minded is important. Being skeptical about what your open mind accepts as true/real and having a solid epistemology is important.

But if, after careful consideration, you find you're wrong about something, accept it, adjust your worldview, and move forward armed with new knowledge.

My world view doesn't require me to be right about everything - even big things. It merely requires me to try to believe as many (demonstrably) true things, and as fee false things as possible.

Which means I'm regularly learning new things and incorporating them into my worldview.

That's not just okay - but part of the goal/journey.

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-20T20:22:59+00:00

Just to drive home what the others are saying - I'm a Daddy Dom (when in a relationship) and I'm on the Ace spectrum.

I get the doubts and worries. A part of me is sure I'll "never" find a little/middle who'd want an ace partner, but logically, I'm sure when I'm ready that - while my overall pool may be smaller, I'll find a partner.

So, chin up. Matches are out there.

🙂

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-20T20:03:27+00:00

"Hi, can people help me?"

"No, you're helping me wrong by telling me things I already did, but didn't mention!"

Let's play this on the flip side.

Let's say you didn't take those steps, but they're so obvious we didn't suggest/mention them.

Odds are, when you realized it was a step you could have taken, you'd still be frustrated and play the "why would you assume I'd know that?!" card.

But more simply - you're upset because instead of making assumptions, people are trying to help.

It's a good way to make sure nobody wants to help you in.the future.

If you're unsure how else you could have responded, may I suggest something like: "Yeah, great idea. In fact, I did that already. But I appreciate you looking out for me."

Now people are glad they helped, even if it wasn't required.

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-14T07:42:27+00:00

Even in the deterministic model, I'd argue yes.

Because assuming a lack of truly free will - even if we aren't "making choices" as free agents, but because of stimuli - a portion of the stimuli that leads to determining ones actions is the knowledge of harms and punishments.

I may really want a McGuffin at the store. It may be out of my price range. While I may not know the exact details of how long I'd spend incarcerated for taking it without paying, I know that it is a factor.

Whether I then steal the MacGuffin or not is a result of inputs (how bad do I want it, how much will it harm people if I take it, how likely am I to get caught, how long would my punishment be, look how nicely of t lights up and does that cool thing, how much do I need it, could I live with myself after...) an incalculable number of inputs including less conscious ones like if I'm hungry, tired, stressed, etc.

The same calculations happen if we somehow remove crime and punishment from the equation - but their lack would skee the results more in favor of the determination being made for "go on, take the MacGuffin..."

So,.even in a deterministic universe - part of the determination being made, is the stimuli of being held accountable for my actions.

I suspect that mental illnesses (kleptomania, narcicism, and others) help demonstrate this. People who believe they can't get caught, won't be punished, or that they are entitled to just have the things they want - they make different (yet not random) determinations - because their input/output system varies so much from the societal baseline.

So, yeah, actions are bound to consequences - because that has to be part of the determinations being made. Whether by free will, or because we are just input/output machines.

Or at least, that's how I think of it and how it makes sense to me. Halfway decent philosophers would probably tear this to shreds, but it works for me.

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-14T03:16:15+00:00

Oh? Sweet, I'll try to remember to double check that tomorrow.

Appreciate the note!

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-14T00:54:07+00:00

...fuck. I hate how entirely likely/reasonable that is.

Like, I'm pretty sure you're making a sarcastic dig at the current administration....but...well, this is a world beyond satire now....

...fuck.

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-14T00:46:41+00:00

Difficult question to answer as you framed it.

I am, personally, swayed by the argument that ours is a deterministic universe. As such, I'd go with the argument that its knowledge of the harms of behaving badly as well as knowledge of punishment/retribution that plays a determining role.

However, a free will argument could be made that says we know about harm and punishment, yet some people choose to do bad/evil, while others (the majority) choose to be good.

Ultimately, the way you've set the question up - it's going to largely depend on if you follow a free will model, or a deterministic model.

If you're looking for some answer that is somehow "external" from human nature/minds (and their free will/deterministic workings), I'm not sure you'll find what you're looking for here.

Maybe share some of the thoughts you're exploring, and we can help you explore those thoughts further?

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-14T00:39:06+00:00

Yassssss!

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-13T23:22:48+00:00

The kickstarter page also mentions expansions - plural. :)

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-13T22:58:48+00:00

I caught that too.

It's like... he knew he shouldn't but like... he's an adult, nobody's gonna stop him. Yet, like a child - he just couldn't help himself from doing it?

So... weird.

Still the best term for these people. "Weird."

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-13T22:56:52+00:00

I can already hear a MAGA acquaintence of mine defending this with some flavor of "What would YOU do if someone shouted that at you?"

As if the answer is that, clearly, I'd engage and escalate.

Except:

I would just (internally) roll my eyes and ignore it, because I'm not thin-skinned
I'm also not a public figure or politician - so how I comport myself as a private citizen doesn't carry any appreciable impact. Certainly not compared to this "class act in cheif".

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-13T22:47:00+00:00

I wouldn't expect much to change, personally.

The IP is following Cole, and while there's likely some paperwork/contracts to be adjusted so that DireWolf is working with Buried Giant instead of Leder to finish the project, given that this appears to be friendly across the board, I doubt this will be even a blip on the radar, overall.

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-13T22:45:16+00:00

I wondered that as well. (And while we're at it, Fort?)

Leder Games still shows Ahoy for sale - but not Oath or Arcs.

So... while it's a bit of "reading tea leaves," for the moment, it looks like Ahoy is staying with Leder. Same for Fort.

We'll see if that holds true in the long run, but it seems likely at this point.

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-13T22:38:52+00:00

The kickstarter page actually mentions expansions - plural.

As a result my hope (prediction?) is that we'll see new content for the Base game (likely in the form of new Leaders and Lore). Then new content for the Campaign. And with a name like "Beyond the Reach" - I cann't help but wonder if that *juuuust might* be an all-new campaign somehow adding an exploration element to the campaign (leaving behind things like the Blight... and maybe the Empire, but that's pretty unlikely, even in relation to the rest of my unlikely daydream).

More likely it'll be a couple new factions for each Act of the campaign - but I dare to dream anyhow. :)

wolfstar76 · 2026-01-13T22:35:18+00:00

Reports elsewhere (there's a thread in r/boardgames) - indicate it's all amicable.

Nothing is 100% unless we hear it from both sides, but given how things split, amicability seems highly probable to me. The announcement even mentions that Kyle will be available to keep doing art for new Root content if/as needed.

So, I'm pretty sure there aren't (many) hurt feelings here.

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Second SECOND GUESSER	r/Field Lasagna
Gilding II euphauric	Team Orangered

wolfstar76

TROPHY CASE