Re: Mechanical discussion

[Theomore Tullison]

I always imagined tower shield to be like the roman scutum while large is more like a kite or heater shield. The first one made for creating an impenetrable wall in formation where the legionaries could stab through temporary gaps and such. The second better for more man to man, and especially mounted combat.

A bit of a problem with the system is that high mobility does not necessarily translate into an advantage.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Yeah, there'd have to be some way of determining, and limiting, the way the shield could be brought to bear. Which would be an intensely unfun system to try to model.

[Jon Cobb]

I always imagined tower shield to be like the roman scutum while large is more like a kite or heater shield. The first one made for creating an impenetrable wall in formation where the legionaries could stab through temporary gaps and such. The second better for more man to man, and especially mounted combat.

The tower shield certainly could be like the scutum, but how many instances of such shields do we know of from the books? I can't really think of any. I can't recall having read about or seeing any images depicting large, scutum-style shields being common in medieval times either (yes, yes, I know that "
medieval"
covers a very large swathe of history). So I do wonder where the inspiration for the tower shield came from, really - but then again, SIFRP was the first time I read about King Robert's warhammer being a specially forged, two-handed weapon as well...

[Baelon Drakeson]

Oh man, I just lost a REALLY long post analyzing what it was we all wanted out of shield house rules, and using that to come up with some suggestions.

Well, here's a brief summary of the suggestions:
Training penalties only apply to attacks with the shield.
Bucklers &
Shields are unmodified.
Large shields cause a -2 penalty on attack rolls (regardless of specialization). Possibly eliminate bulk penalty.
Tower shields cannot be used on horseback (stronger than Unwieldy to prevent Massive benefit abuse) and cause a -4 to attack rolls, but the wielder can choose to extend the shield's bonus to an adjacent character, but only against ranged attacks. Alternately only a -2 penalty, but increase bulk to 3.

The -2 to hit for a large shield might seem a bit extreme, but really it just makes using a large shield (relative to a standard shield) equivalent to using the Defensive maneuver in a joust, which as some of you will recall was one of the two most popular maneuvers (along with High in the Saddle). Further, it makes a standard shield viable without making a 'specialization tax'.
The result is a spread of options:

• a large shield will be preferred by those favoring defense at the expense of offense[/*1i4gmucb]
  
• a standard shield by those looking for defense but not at the expense of offense[/*1i4gmucb]
  
• a buckler/off-hand weapon will be used by those who want some extra defense, but are willing to sacrifice it for some extra offense[/*1i4gmucb]
  
• a two-handed weapon will be used by those who are willing to forgo defense in favor a of a strong offense[/*1i4gmucb]

[Loreia]

The second part is not my creation, it's Coldwinds, in particular, I really like his drawback section:

https://docs.google. com/document/d/19aRRns1VkyYRiM8zTt4l5Mt8SkY6LOlfiF42R-6YxzU/edit

My suggestion here is to have this list as a supplement, allow players to ask to use one or more of these qualities and approve on case to case basis. Custom qualities of their own if they feel so inclined.

Aagh, were was this when I needed it? It seemed that homebrew stuff for Ice and Fire was scarce when I was googling for it. This is what we need more of, there are just so few appealing drawbacks. I'll be browsing this for a flaw I could add to my sheet for another quality. Homebrew documents accepted for this campaign should be listed in the 'Quickstart Rules and FAQ' thread.

[Dunstan Tullison]

Make sure to check with Reader before investing your time in these drawbacks, he will of course have to give them a green light first.

[Loreia]

Oh whoops I already have the maximum number of qualities my character can have for her age, I'm sorry

[Ser Jorah Holt]

Oh man, I just lost a REALLY long post analyzing what it was we all wanted out of shield house rules, and using that to come up with some suggestions.

Well, here's a brief summary of the suggestions:
Training penalties only apply to attacks with the shield.
Bucklers &
Shields are unmodified.
Large shields cause a -2 penalty on attack rolls (regardless of specialization). Possibly eliminate bulk penalty.
Tower shields cannot be used on horseback (stronger than Unwieldy to prevent Massive benefit abuse) and cause a -4 to attack rolls, but the wielder can choose to extend the shield's bonus to an adjacent character, but only against ranged attacks. Alternately only a -2 penalty, but increase bulk to 3.

The -2 to hit for a large shield might seem a bit extreme, but really it just makes using a large shield (relative to a standard shield) equivalent to using the Defensive maneuver in a joust, which as some of you will recall was one of the two most popular maneuvers (along with High in the Saddle). Further, it makes a standard shield viable without making a 'specialization tax'.
The result is a spread of options:

• a large shield will be preferred by those favoring defense at the expense of offense[/*1o3ul2cf]
  
• a standard shield by those looking for defense but not at the expense of offense[/*1o3ul2cf]
  
• a buckler/off-hand weapon will be used by those who want some extra defense, but are willing to sacrifice it for some extra offense[/*1o3ul2cf]
  
• a two-handed weapon will be used by those who are willing to forgo defense in favor a of a strong offense[/*1o3ul2cf]

I'm still wondering why we need to change the rules on shields. Not seen a compelling argument yet.

Agree training penalties only apply when attacking. Its a lot easier to do an actual hit with a smaller shield, as a larger shield is more suited to a knockdown. The impact is spread over a much larger area.
A large shield is awkward to run with. Having larped with one, it was a lot easier to block, but restricted your arm movement when getting up to any pace.
The normal shield is certainly more appropriate for those characters who emphasise speed and agility and acrobatic defense. By removing the bulk penalty, you allow their use during that maneuver.
Tower shield did strike as the equivalent of a roman shield. Certainly not something to be used on horseback though and not something to be easily moved to block attacks from behind.

[Baelon Drakeson]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19aRRns1VkyYRiM8zTt4l5Mt8SkY6LOlfiF42R-6YxzU/edit

Aagh, were was this when I needed it? It seemed that homebrew stuff for Ice and Fire was scarce when I was googling for it. This is what we need more of, there are just so few appealing drawbacks. I'll be browsing this for a flaw I could add to my sheet for another quality. Homebrew documents accepted for this campaign should be listed in the 'Quickstart Rules and FAQ' thread.

I've got to say I'm not particularly fond of most of those drawbacks;
in particular I feel that many of the voluntary penalty to regain a DP aspects can be gamed too easily, and there are too many drawbacks (particularly the intrigue ones) that on certain characters could be more beneficial than harmful. Playing an actual proper lady or true knight? Take Heartbroken! The penalty will likely never come up (unless you are manipulated into seducing in which case the penalty is probably good for you) and you get protection against being seduced, oh and the DP for taking a drawback. Others just are just too easy to mitigate, like a non-combatant taking Easily Winded. Or Cloying - oh no, I have to start off an intrigue with Charm, which is rarely going to be worse than the other techniques, and I am unlikely to defeat my opponent in a single round... and if I do, it just makes them easier to defeat in a second intrigue. How is that really a problem?

Some of them can be decent on an appropriate character, and I actually like some (that version of Debt makes so much more sense than the book one). Most however I do not like.

I'm still wondering why we need to change the rules on shields. Not seen a compelling argument yet.

Agree training penalties only apply when attacking. Its a lot easier to do an actual hit with a smaller shield, as a larger shield is more suited to a knockdown. The impact is spread over a much larger area.
A large shield is awkward to run with. Having larped with one, it was a lot easier to block, but restricted your arm movement when getting up to any pace.
The normal shield is certainly more appropriate for those characters who emphasise speed and agility and acrobatic defense. By removing the bulk penalty, you allow their use during that maneuver.
Tower shield did strike as the equivalent of a roman shield. Certainly not something to be used on horseback though and not something to be easily moved to block attacks from behind.

That was part of the post that got lost
Basically, the rules as written (and clarified in a FAQ somewhere iirc) give no mechanical reason for most characters to carry anything but a tower shield, or if the player has a strong sense of setting appropriateness, a large shield. The bulk increase just isn't enough to counter-balance the extra defense. One common way to try to counteract that (and based on a misinterpretation of the rules I think) is to have the training penalty apply to ALL attacks, not just attacks with the shield. However, as has been pointed out, that makes it difficult for players who want to split their character's focus between combat and something else, basically applying a 'specialization tax'. I had gone back and forth on that myself, but the big motivator for me is making all of the shield options viable and distinct rather than having everyone in large/tower shields.

You are right that the bulk penalty on large shields should probably not be eliminated. I threw that in there as an afterthought, and had not thought it through.

[Jon Cobb]

I had gone back and forth on that myself, but the big motivator for me is making all of the shield options viable and distinct rather than having everyone in large/tower shields.

You are right that the bulk penalty on large shields should probably not be eliminated. I threw that in there as an afterthought, and had not thought it through.

To be fair, how many characters in BITW used a tower shield at all? I agree that many people switched over to a large shield after having tested the combat rules, but there was never a tower shield in sight. So, basically, it boils down to whether one is concerned that we will have a larger proportion of large shields than normal shields.

I also find that mobility can be a great advantage under the right circumstances. Take the BITW melee final for instance;
Symon hade move/sprint 2/4, correct? Damon had move/sprint 4/15, so he could have kept his distance from Symon simply by walking, while stil maintaining his Acrobatic Defense. The only way for Symon to attack would have been to charge, meaning almost no chance of hitting due to -1D, or to double move and spend fatigue/DP. By careful positioning, Damon could thus have fought both Reynard and Willain without needing to worry about Symon at all.

A character can also wear quite heavy armor and wield a shield while still having move/sprint 3/9. Even that difference is enough to force a 2/4 character to charge or double move if they are to engage, and while the odds of hitting will be far better than against an Acrobatic Defense specialist like Damon, an armored character will be better able to absorb the hit. Also, he could sprint to make space, then spend his next turn setting up a counterattack in case the 2/4 character tries to engage. Add reach weapons to the equation, and the faster character's options improve further.

[Baelon Drakeson]

To be fair, how many characters in BITW used a tower shield at all? I agree that many people switched over to a large shield after having tested the combat rules, but there was never a tower shield in sight. So, basically, it boils down to whether one is concerned that we will have a larger proportion of large shields than normal shields.

To be generous I will chalk the lack of tower shields up to feelings of setting appropriateness. For my own part I was also at the time of character creation unaware that the tower shield would not have slowed me any more than the large shield did. By the rules as written, anyone in bulk 3 armor has no mechanical reason to take a large shield instead of a tower shield. Similarly, a

I also find that mobility can be a great advantage under the right circumstances. Take the BITW melee final for instance;
Symon hade move/sprint 2/4, correct? Damon had move/sprint 4/15, so he could have kept his distance from Symon simply by walking, while stil maintaining his Acrobatic Defense. The only way for Symon to attack would have been to charge, meaning almost no chance of hitting due to -1D, or to double move and spend fatigue/DP. By careful positioning, Damon could thus have fought both Reynard and Willain without needing to worry about Symon at all.

And Symon would have held his ground to force you to come to him, leading to the exact kind of stand-off that took place between Symon and Reynard. The real risk from lowered movement is in real combat, where an archer may be able to maintain distance while filling you with arrows. Of course, that's not an issue if you are mounted.

A character can also wear quite heavy armor and wield a shield while still having move/sprint 3/9. Even that difference is enough to force a 2/4 character to charge or double move if they are to engage, and while the odds of hitting will be far better than against an Acrobatic Defense specialist like Damon, an armored character will be better able to absorb the hit. Also, he could sprint to make space, then spend his next turn setting up a counterattack in case the 2/4 character tries to engage. Add reach weapons to the equation, and the faster character's options improve further.

Except again, there is nothing forcing the slower character to push the engagement (unless they are trying to keep the faster character from escaping, of course). For that matter, if mobility was so valuable, why did so many people opt for slower movement but higher defense? Simply put, higher mobility does not trump higher defense in most cases.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Oh, you boys and your shields and archers and horses.

Lets discuss things of REAL importance! Where are the detailed rules on NEEDLEPOINT?! How can I determine exactly how many bonus dice my embroidering entitles me to?!

Lets get back on track here!

[Baelon Drakeson]

Oh, you boys and your shields and archers and horses.

Lets discuss things of REAL importance! Where are the detailed rules on NEEDLEPOINT?! How can I determine exactly how many bonus dice my embroidering entitles me to?!

Lets get back on track here!

Needle would be considered a small sword, thus bonus dice in fencing would be the appropriate choice. :;
):

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

*adds a name to the List*

[Baelon Drakeson]

*adds a name to the List*

You may or may not already be on Gaerys' list... but it's not the same sort of list...

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

*starts to add it again...realizes that's not really feasible...gets a sullen expression*

Gwyn may need a braid, so she can tug it. And sniff.

[Benedict Marsten]

Oh lists! I do like lists.

[Jon Cobb]

To be generous I will chalk the lack of tower shields up to feelings of setting appropriateness. For my own part I was also at the time of character creation unaware that the tower shield would not have slowed me any more than the large shield did. By the rules as written, anyone in bulk 3 armor has no mechanical reason to take a large shield instead of a tower shield.

And since it worked in BITW, why do we need house rules to discourage people from picking up tower shields this time? :;
):

And Symon would have held his ground to force you to come to him, leading to the exact kind of stand-off that took place between Symon and Reynard. The real risk from lowered movement is in real combat, where an archer may be able to maintain distance while filling you with arrows. Of course, that's not an issue if you are mounted.

So Symon would have turtled, making himself irrelevant to the fight. Since he would still have had to hit Damon, I wouldn't have been too concerned about his counterattack. Also, there's no reason why it had to be Damon deciding to take him out - Ser Willain would have just walked through Symon's best hit and put him down. And again, the only time turtling is a useful tactic is if someone eventually has to bring the fight to you, instead of just ignoring you.

Except again, there is nothing forcing the slower character to push the engagement (unless they are trying to keep the faster character from escaping, of course). For that matter, if mobility was so valuable, why did so many people opt for slower movement but higher defense? Simply put, higher mobility does not trump higher defense in most cases.

See above - there will just as often be nothing forcing a faster character to go after the slower character. And as for mobility vs. defense - as far as I know, Symon and Roland were the only characters who opted to tank their movement. Everyone else had move 3 or better.

[Baelon Drakeson]

So Symon would have turtled, making himself irrelevant to the fight. Since he would still have had to hit Damon, I wouldn't have been too concerned about his counterattack. Also, there's no reason why it had to be Damon deciding to take him out - Ser Willain would have just walked through Symon's best hit and put him down. And again, the only time turtling is a useful tactic is if someone eventually has to bring the fight to you, instead of just ignoring you.

Very true. Of course, off the tourney field Symon would be on horseback with a war lance, and he would not be turtling at all. So when he could turtle he was, and when he couldn't turtle he didn't need to. Where's the problem? Bulk did not matter much to him at all.

See above - there will just as often be nothing forcing a faster character to go after the slower character. And as for mobility vs. defense - as far as I know, Symon and Roland were the only characters who opted to tank their movement. Everyone else had move 3 or better.

Exactly. Symon and Roland made it to the final, but many with less bulk did not. Defense trumps mobility. It isn't that mobility is unimportant, but going from 3' to 2' per move was worth it for the +2 to CD, never mind the same reduction in speed for a +4 to CD with a tower shield.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I was looking over the houserules thread, and I have a few questions.

Adaptable weapons
Gain Powerful while wielded with both hands

Does this completely replace the original +1, add to it, or do you take the better of the two? It seems odd that adaptable weapons would no do more damage when two-handed unless the character explicitly has strength bonus dice.

Battle axe:
Damage increased to Athletics +1. This damage bonus doesn't apply when using Axe Fighter III.

Mace:
Damage increased to Athletics +1. This damage bonus doesn't apply when using Bludgeon Fighter II or Bludgeon Fighter III.

These are now mechanically superior to a longsword, while still a fraction of the price.

It used to be that each weapon had a niche - the battleaxe was adaptable (with no training penalty), the longsword had extra damage, and the mace... ok, the mace wasn't a great option unless you were taking the Bludgeon Fighter benefits, in which case it's the only 1-Hand bludgeon without a negative (a club has -1 damage, a ball-and-chain has a training penalty, and a morningstar is vicious). Of those three, the +1 damage was mechanically superior but came at the cost of, well, cost. Now the battleaxe is superior to the sword on it's own (basically the same stats plus adaptable) and the mace is equally good but cheaper (and arguably a better line of benefits). A battleaxe is now the best of both worlds of a longsword and bastard sword;
both weapons are now (mechanically) obsolete.

Shattering quality:
Only reduces armour AR for the duration of the combat to represent the impact of consecutive concussive hits.

I think I get the reason for this : it eliminates a lot of the need to worry about replacing damaged gear, so the lack of regular income becomes less of an issue.
However, it seems odd that the damage is repaired instantaneously at the end of the combat;
particularly in the context of multiple sequential fights. It would make more sense to me if it were considered to be repairable - having it be fully repaired the next day would make more sense (an armorer pounded out the dents &
patched the holes while you were of doing other things). Just a thought.

Long Blade Figher II
- This is pretty useless as we're using the advanced combat actions, so this now allows you to make an attack as part of your "
maneuver action"
, capturing your ability to attack and defend simultaneously with a sword's flexibility.

by 'maneuver action' do you mean moving, or do you mean the Maneuver advanced action (p 174)? LBFII already takes effect on an attack, so I'm a bit confused about this.

[Jon Cobb]

Nathan and I fell into a discussion on dispositions in Intrigues over in this [url=thread][/url]. Rather than clutter up the thread, I'm moving the discussion here. Input, especially from you Reader, is welcome.

Here's a summary of our posts from that thread:

Remember, each particpant can evolve their Disposition by one step temporarily at the start of each turn. Your permanent Disposition may currently be indifferent, but you can evolve it to amiable at the start of the first exchange. You can always evolve up, but you may not evolve down if you were influenced in the previous exchange.

Once the Intrigue is over... your disposition returns to it's permanent level... then is modified by any results of the intrigue.

Exactly. If you were to lose this friendship intrigue (with a Charm Influence defeat) your Disposition would drop back to Indifferent at the end of the Intrigue from wherever it had evolved to and then shift permanently up by one (or more if the person had something like Magnetic)

The distinction between permanent disposition and temporary disposition is important. For example, if you were to lose to a Seduce Influence defeat, your temporary disposition may go straight to Affectionate, but you would shift down a step each day until you hit your permanent disposition which is, in fact, one step lower than it was before the Intrigue. Your permanent disposition would also have an effect on the outcome of the Intrigue if you did not start with at least Amiable or higher.

This is where I tossed in my post:

Whoa there! What "
permanent disposition"
? That is not a term used anywhere in the Intrigue chapter. Your Seduction example only talks about disposition and starting disposition. The latter is set at the beginning of every intrigue and, in the case of Seduction, is only important for the long term consequences. The immediate consequences depend on the disposition you had when the intrigue ended. (though perhaps this is just a case of your terminology confusing me)

Your example about winning by Charm is wrong - starting disposition is not mentioned in the consequences of defeat, so the improvement to the loser's disposition would be from whatever it was when the intrigue ended. There is no "
reset"
involved before applying the consequences.

My advice to Daveth is to read each technique carefully, especially the consequences of defeat section, since the effect of losing is unique for each one.

And Nathan's reply:

In our game have always considered effects of the Evolving Disposition rule was confined to the Intrigue, as Carriker said in the old forums that it was intended to represent the current view of the opponent. (I am Affectionate to my wife but sometimes I Dislike her a lot.)

So, the major point of contention for me is Nathan's assertion that there is a permanent disposition which you reset to before applying the consequences of defeat for a particular technique. By my reading, the immediate consequences of defeat are applied to the disposition the loser had when the intrigue ended. In the case of Incite and Seduce, there are also long-term consequences which are measured against the loser's starting disposition, but this is something that is set at the beginning of an intrigue. It's only permanent insofar as you're expected to set your starting disposition to something reasonable, based on prior knowledge or interaction with the other character (per the sidebar Managing Disposition on p. 144 of the GoT rules).

Nathan: Regarding your last statement, I think you're misapplying the Evolving Dispositions rule in this case. I haven't read Carriker's statement, but the way you present it is not at odds with my interpetation of the rule - all it does is give rules for how to voluntarily change your dispostion in an ongoing intrigue, it has no effect on the resolution of the intrigue or on what starting disposition you pick when you engage a character in an intrigue. There is certainly nothing in either the rules text or Carriker's statement that leads me to believe that there is a reset condition before applying the consequences of defeat.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Well... I didn't expect to create contention. I was just trying to be helpful

I can only give the interpretation we use in our game, based on the rules and comments made in the old forums and you can decide how you feel.

I realize now, that I am in error under RAW because we do something the rules only force NCs to do. We force PCs to keep their Dispostions just like NCs.

You see...

At the beginning of an intrigue, all participants must set their starting disposition. The default is indifferent when dealing with new characters, but player characters are free to choose whatever disposition they like.

Which means, no matter how many Charm Intrigues a PC or NC wins against me, I can technically set my Disposition to Indifferent at the start of the very next Intrigue. So if Nathan wins a Charm Intrigue with Jon Cobb and I get him to friendly, he will be friendly with Nathan, but only till the very next Intrigue (which could be seconds later) and which point he is free to set his Disposition to whatever he wants again.

So, in order to be fair (and realistic) Disposition should be sticky for PCs as well as NCs. If and NC with Magnetic manages to win an Intrigue and increase a PC's disposition from Unfriendly to Affectionate, it's hardly fair that the PC can choose to start the very next Intrigue at Unfriendly again if they wish. It negates the entire previous intrigue (other than the bonus test die).

In order to accommodate this, we have Permanent and Temporary Disposition.

When I refer to Permanent Disposition, I mean how a person feels for another long term. This is is usually affected by such things as losing to a Charm Defeat or someone spending a DP. Changes to Disposition usually happen as a result of an Intrigue or factors outside an intrigue.

When I refer to Temporary Disposition, I mean how a person feels for another in the moment. This is usually affected by such things as evolving your disposition or being affected by Shield of Reputation. Changes to Disposition usually happen within the Intrigue itself.

I realize now that I gave Daveth some bad information strictly by RAW, but we have been using this system weekly for four years. I did not intend to mislead him and I will send him a message.

However... since we are all PCs in this game... and we are all following RAW... I guess there is no point now for Friendship Intrigues between PCs... since we are free to choose whatever Disposition we like at the very next Intrigue.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

I realize now that I gave Daveth some bad information strictly by RAW, but we have been using this system weekly for four years. I did not intend to mislead him and I will send him a message.

No need. I'm paying attention.

Edit: ... too late!

[Nathaniel Mason]

I realize now that I gave Daveth some bad information strictly by RAW, but we have been using this system weekly for four years. I did not intend to mislead him and I will send him a message.

No need. I'm paying attention.

Sent you one and then saw this.

As far as Nathan is concerned, I track my dispositions with both PCs and NCs. Any Disposition I am Intrigued will stick, even if it isn't RAW. I am so used to doing it that way, I can't really see me doing it any differently. It won't much matter as I will just be picking the Disposition that is based on past history.

The choice of disposition should always be based on what the character knows about their opponent, past encounters with the Narrator character, and their feelings regarding the character’s behavior.

For me, this will apply equally to player characters.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I realize now, that I am in error under RAW because we do something the rules only force NCs to do. We force PCs to keep their Dispostions just like NCs.

You see...

At the beginning of an intrigue, all participants must set their starting disposition. The default is indifferent when dealing with new characters, but player characters are free to choose whatever disposition they like.

Which means, no matter how many Charm Intrigues a PC or NC wins against me, I can technically set my Disposition to Indifferent at the start of the very next Intrigue. So if Nathan wins a Charm Intrigue with Jon Cobb and I get him to friendly, he will be friendly with Nathan, but only till the very next Intrigue (which could be seconds later) and which point he is free to set his Disposition to whatever he wants again.

So, in order to be fair (and realistic) Disposition should be sticky for PCs as well as NCs. If and NC with Magnetic manages to win an Intrigue and increase a PC's disposition from Unfriendly to Affectionate, it's hardly fair that the PC can choose to start the very next Intrigue at Unfriendly again if they wish. It negates the entire previous intrigue (other than the bonus test die).

Well, the very next part of the text reads:

The choice of disposition should always be based on what the character
knows about their opponent, past encounters with the Narrator character,
and their feelings regarding the character’s behavior.

While it may be tempting to think in game terms, weighing the mechanical
benefits of each disposition, avoid doing so. <
snip for length>
In short,
consider how your character ought to feel about the NC (Narrator character)
and pick a disposition that best fits your character’s perspective.

So while technically, yes, we are free to set whatever disposition we want, it should be based on previous interactions. Some variation would, I think, be acceptable (everyone has a good days and bad days where their dispositions are up or down in general), but in the case of a friendship intrigue being immediately followed by another intrigue, then no, there should be no change.

I for one have created a thread in my personal forum to track my dispositions, to help me remember.

[Sponsored content]