I don't, haha. ^^;<br/><br/>I actually was gonna mention it makes sense whichever one we don't go with the player who likes that one can take it for their character. :)<br/><br/>I'm leaning more to Honest, just as I feel it gives more potential for compelling stories. There's a great way to use it for either helping or hindering rolls. I need to get sold more on how Adaptable on it's own is a double-edged sword, it doesn't seem to imply a hinderance for a particular type of situation/roll.<br/><br/>On 'War of Assassins'; my reading of it is that intent is announced and agreed upon prior to implementing it. I played Infinity (the minis game, though I do own the rpg too) and you 'played with intent' with that, in tournies at least. In essence, each time I activated a model to do something, I had to say to the opponent my intent and what exact actions and why I was doing, prior to doing them.<br/><br/>I'm not saying a War of Assassins is like that, though an intent prior to the face-off is decided (essentially ala<em>Crusader Kings</em>again; it's Casus Belli - you need a reason to say 'fuck you' and go to War), whether some stock the enemy holds, money, a prestigious title, etc. It's more open in regards to 'I want this and if my assassins win, I am owed it' and in general there is a defending side and attacking side, you either win the War yourself or put up a surrender and forfeit X. War of Assassins as presented in the lore is actual full on 'War'.