Alicornutopia

The Kludge worked well in the Annulet Championship fifth round where it was introduced, but, it's a kludge. It doesn't generalize especially well. In particular, we have the same number of players as listed rule sets now. It'd end with each player consistently following different rules, and that's just asking for unilateral anticounting. If we make it alternate after each full cycle of turns instead of after each turn as the Christchurch Kludge usually does, that problem goes away.

Are closed circuits going to be judged counterclockwise, or widdershins? The Red Loop is the most obvious place where the difference matters, but in the unlikely event that numerology comes into play this could affect almost any directional play.

Nemo Consequentiae wrote:If we make it alternate after each full cycle of turns instead of after each turn as the Christchurch Kludge usually does, that problem goes away.

Ah, sorry, this is my mistake. I should have remembered that Aminev uses nonstandard terminology. By "switch rulesets each turn" I indeed meant switching after each of what you're calling a "full cycle of turns." This seems like the obvious thing to do; I'd only dimly remembered that it wasn't what was originally used at the Annulet.

Are closed circuits going to be judged counterclockwise, or widdershins? The Red Loop is the most obvious place where the difference matters, but in the unlikely event that numerology comes into play this could affect almost any directional play.

Provided all of us are in the Northern Hemisphere, I see no reason not to settle on anti-clockwise. If we have e.g. Australian players it's worth discussing more carefully, though.

Regarding choice of board, I'm sentimentally partial to this one, though yours has obvious advantages. Perhaps the Hertfordshire compromise?

Oh, that board is much more legible than the one I found. But it doesn't mark handicapped accessibility, which can matter a lot in some rulesets. I'm all right with the Hertfordshire compromise, though.

jalapeno_dude, I too was confused about what you meant when you described switching rulesets every turn. How did this not come out when I was concerned with first-mover advantage?

I can't speak for jalapeno_dude, but personally, when you mentioned first-mover advantage, I assumed you were thinking of how the standard response to the [2;3]-converse scholar's opening under Aminev wouldn't work under Britannica, so taking the Red Line from Lancaster Gate is basically equivalent to getting an extra parity token.

Oh, that. I was assuming everyone would keep the number of parity tokens distributed in the starting ruleset held in escrow for the entire game unless something requiring tiebreakers, betting, or derailing a train got involved, and this wouldn't come up. Apparently I don't understand the Christchurch Kludge at all. Can't we just agree on a single variant? We can always do something different next time.

We could always just use the Zamoskvoretskaya rules so nobody has home field advantage. I have a friend who found a copy at the bottom of a boiling lake in formerly Soviet territory, I can get it for scans.

Well, I was going to close signups today (all of the rulesets we're using except Stovold have provisions for Late Entry, so it wouldn't prevent new players from joining for long), but it looks like we need to have a bit more discussion. AndaisQ, could you distribute Zamoskvoretskaya through the usual channel? I haven't seen that one before.

On board choice, the Hertfordshire compromise seems fine to me.

Regardless, I think it's time we determine Initial Turn Order. Alicorn, unless I misunderstood this is your first game. It is therefore an especially inviolable tradition that you go first. As Game Proposer, it is my privilege to choose the means of determining ITO besides that. I am going to use the method in Aminev (initial Test Game with the modifications described in Chapter 3 and Appendices G-K). I'll invoke variant 6.H (Total Transit Stoppage).

I have already conducted my own Test Game. My results were Brent Cross with a triple widdershins twist (magenta). (The Baggage Handling Fee change is already making a difference!)

Please post your own results. (If you're not familiar with my notation for outcome reporting, consult the context-free grammar in the 3rd Foreword to Castelluccio 5th, which differs in several important respects from the earlier one presented in the 3rd.) Alicorn, there's of course no need for you to conduct a Test but it's good practice so I recommend doing so anyway.

I don't mind going first if I'm the only person who's never played before; has that been established?

If I did the test right (I'm happy to accept double-checks), my results are Harrow (disjunction!) Wealdstone (twice north twice south, almond, 330-Q-M-12*).

Cockfosters on pot of gold, no doubles. That'd certainly bode ill, if I were the superstitious type.