RAH rules VI: No Spamming!

[Ljube]

Nobody accused me of spamming before. I am offended.

And related to the rule, I think one should be allowed not to repeat the moves exactly. Even "duplicate to the best of your abilities" is somewhat questionable.

I think it should be duplicated if important and seen by others. Otherwise, play as you wish.

[rah]

Well that's the point. My fortified warrior not being moved had no impact. All my other moves I duplicated. If you forget a move and an opponent reminds you, because it has some impact to him, then you must reload and make the move. But as pointed out, everyone is not perfect, and as long as the spirit of the rule is to duplicate, I have no problem with it.

And thanks for your opinion.

[Deity Dude]

Actually it came up during our game, not because I was worried about RAH or others. In the game, I was considering changing one of my moves but wanted to know if it was legal. I figured I knew what the answer would be before I asked it. I just wanted it agreed on by all the players before we proceeded.

[rah]

Of course that leaves the more tricky question of, if there was an attack that occured, would you keep reloading until the same resolution occured?

[ColdWizard]

Seems to me that reloading for specific resolutions for combat would be a major pain in the ass, especially if it was an unlikely outcome.

But I thought y'all stopped and waited without advancing when somebody dropped, lengthy drop this time or did no one notice?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by rah
Of course that leaves the more tricky question of, if there was an attack that occured, would you keep reloading until the same resolution occured?

Under the "best of ability" clause, I would say repest the attack as it happened to the best of your ability. If it turns out different, it was still attempted to be the same to the best of your ability. same goes with huts.

[Ljube]

Re: RAH rules VI: No Spamming!

Originally posted by ColdWizard
2b. Allowed:

...diploguiding...

Why do you allow diploguiding?

[deity]

Re: Re: RAH rules VI: No Spamming!

Originally posted by ljcvetko

Why do you allow diploguiding?

Because...

[Ming]

Re: Re: RAH rules VI: No Spamming!

Originally posted by ljcvetko
Why do you allow diploguiding?

I think it's because most of the original players in the group had no problem with it. It was always considered part of the game... and nobody raised hell when it was originally discussed.

[Ljube]

Well, diploguiding renders forts useless for defensive purpose.
And diploguiding negates zone of control.

Isn't this enough to at least start a discussion about it?

[-Jrabbit]

My 2 cents --

What's the big deal? I think the ZOC abilities of dips/spies is in total alignment with their intended use.

The real question should be:
Should walls and fortresses make a city impenetrable by diplomats and spies?
The answer should be obvious.

With 1x movement, if you can't foresee and forestall violation of your ZOC from a fortress, I can't muster much sympathy.

[rah]

Yes, diploguiding has been around so long that people take it for granted. It makes diplos be even more useful as part of your attack force. Since it adds to strategic thinking, I thinks it's good for the game. Very few people have ever voiced an opinion against it.

[Deity Dude]

I always considered diploguiding as an intentional feature of diplomats and not an unintended exploit.

[rah]

Yeah, that's kinda how we saw it too.

[deity]

Me too