Asulon Rules, ( Aegis 2.0 )

[shiftnative 3103]

If it is a small and modest town, ultimately yes, if the place has walls, that will be a pain in arse to traverse and what is your safeguard against another Ivrae situation happening might I ask?

GM's monitor these events, the read the war decelerations and the players meet and speak at the cloud temple about their terms. What kind of meta are you worried about? Allies gathered who aren't in conjunction? a readied defense? You say "Ivrae Situation" but you haven't described what exactly it is your worried about

[Midnus_Anarion 50]

I Agree, And if i may say so it is very nice to have clear, simple, and up to date rules. several questions i had have been answered.

[shiftnative 3103]

What I'm getting from this is that nations have no jurisdiction outside their cities.

Land outside of city limits is not under the jurisdiction or protection of the Kingdoms or the Temple.

I'll change this to "Have no jurisdiction outside their nation"

[Samson Option 9652]

Shift, if we wish to discuss from that viewpoint you hold, then how are Villain App players able to steal from chests when the chest owner is not available? Once again, I said for Skirmish and Raiding, this is based upon an in-character desire for either succeeding in giving forth a threat to the victim or desire to loot. We have Cprivate, so the looters may not have the keys to certain chests and quite frankly, it can be an arse sending my blade through a thick padlock perhaps? In terms of skirmishing, you can't just attack nothing, you have to attack the opposing entities. Declaration of War should have a legitimate Roleplay reason.

[CommanderCaleb 34]

One thing I strongly disagree on is a seige. I think more ruling needs to go into that, because it would be terrible for tons of effort you put into building a place be destroyed. As when the Black Cross attacked the Nical once and burned our flags, I was in ruins, they didn't burn down my city but they put some damage into it. I was very upset over just that small loss but there needs to be rules over a seige. Such as you have to have permissions out of character from the owner of the town/plot to do such. Or they have two choices, a seige or surrender. But by surrender you have to give them some items and make a treaty and then do as what they say. But they can not say "destroy your town" or something.

I don't know but I surely dislike that.

[Samson Option 9652]

GM's monitor these events, the read the war decelerations and the players meet and speak at the cloud temple about their terms. What kind of meta are you worried about? Allies gathered who aren't in conjunction? a readied defense? You say "Ivrae Situation" but you haven't described what exactly it is your worried about

Ivrae Situation: Due to the forewarning that settlement was going to be attacked OOCly, Ivrae readied all defenders albeit we were dressed as Monks and logically couldn't be seen as threatening. You take away the logical and tactical sense of surprise. Also if these rules state that even skirmishes must be pre-approved, then who is to say that the leader of the attackee isn't going to 'sense an army coming' and do things illogically?

[VonEbs 1224]

I think some of us are going to have a problem with the no cybering rules.

[argonian 14254]

I think some of us are going to have a problem with the no cybering rules.

That rule was added months ago, get over it.

[Lawrence Berell 226]

I'd change it to remain in character whereever possible. Else you face the wrath of me and Cataris.

[CommanderCaleb 34]

I am just really worried about the seige.

I hope we can work something out with that. The other rules seem okay but I haven't gone fully detail in them yet.

[shiftnative 3103]

Ivrae Situation: Due to the forewarning that settlement was going to be attacked OOCly, Ivrae readied all defenders albeit we were dressed as Monks and logically couldn't be seen as threatening. You take away the logical and tactical sense of surprise. Also if these rules state that even skirmishes must be pre-approved, then who is to say that the leader of the attackee isn't going to 'sense an army coming' and do things illogically?

What we've provided is a fair way, for things to happen. You can still attack a place with a "surprise" but it will need a villain app. You can only kill their players, pillaging and seiging aren't available without this OOC contract. We all have lives to deal with. If you have a way of actually turning your view into a rule, please bring it forward!

[shiftnative 3103]

Shift, if we wish to discuss from that viewpoint you hold, then how are Villain App players able to steal from chests when the chest owner is not available? Once again, I said for Skirmish and Raiding, this is based upon an in-character desire for either succeeding in giving forth a threat to the victim or desire to loot. We have Cprivate, so the looters may not have the keys to certain chests and quite frankly, it can be an arse sending my blade through a thick padlock perhaps? In terms of skirmishing, you can't just attack nothing, you have to attack the opposing entities. Declaration of War should have a legitimate Roleplay reason.

As far as chests are concerned, when choosing to "pillage" a GM will be there to unlock any chest that needs to be opened.

"you can't just attack nothing, you have to attack the opposing entities. Declaration of War should have a legitimate Roleplay reason."

Ofcourse.. that's implied

[Trouvo 205]

GM's monitor these events, the read the war decelerations and the players meet and speak at the cloud temple about their terms. What kind of meta are you worried about? Allies gathered who aren't in conjunction? a readied defense? You say "Ivrae Situation" but you haven't described what exactly it is your worried about

I have to partly agree with Gaius, and Shift on this. I understand that it needs to be known before hand so people are actually there in the city being "attacked", but for the city to use this knowledge to fortify locations that are not normally fortified would be meta, such as what happened in the "Ivrae" situation. I think that after the war is officially declared in OOC that a GM should be present to avoid any Meta actions taken on the defending side, and that normal routine and guidelines of the city gaurds should be established before hand, such as how many people are normally at the gate? or on the walls? or watching the city via on foot in the city etc.

I think that the defenders definitely need to know before hand because there are times when only like 3 out of 30 people are on for that city, and they need to know they need to be on OOC, but having a gm there with the afore mentioned guard outlining of duties should help aleviate most of the possible Meta that could happen based on the OOC information.

so bullet points

• defenders need to know before hand
• defenders need an outlined guard/army/officials activity log of normal day to day activities to avoid meta

[Dash_Rogers 130]

Are minimap mods aloud? It gives a small advantage over players who don't have it. Seeing stuff that's not in your eye sight exspecially if it's new areas to your character.

[Trouvo 205]

Are minimap mods aloud? It gives a small advantage over players who don't have it. Seeing stuff that's not in your eye sight exspecially if it's new areas to your character.

I say yes they are in my opnion, because personally my memory sucks, and the minimap helps me to actually remember where i have been in character, if you do not use it to meta i dont see a problem with it.