The Rules - Official

[Maniac]

Looking good.
One little suggestion. How about changing this:

• Retro-engineering allowed

to this:

• Retro-engineering allowed, except for using the probe rover chassis before researhing Doc. Mobility

?

[-SafaN-]

what about crawlers suplying with no moves left ~ formers with no moves left?
(u can click them and then press o even if greyed out)

[Drogue]

Maniac: Any reasoning? I'd prefer a blanket rule for simplicity unless there is a good reason for caveats?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by -SafaN-
what about crawlers suplying with no moves left ~ formers with no moves left?
(u can click them and then press o even if greyed out)

That's fine, just like it's fine for formers. It's the bug of getting moves back, by clicking them again, that's disallowed.

[Maniac]

Personally I have no problem with putting them on supply on end of move. Besides, if we'd forbid it, the only difference would be that people move their crawler 2/3 of a movement point (on roads of course) instead of a full movement point before reassigning them to supply resources. It would only increase the PIA factor.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue
Maniac: Any reasoning? I'd prefer a blanket rule for simplicity unless there is a good reason for caveats?

If retro-engineering the probe team design is allowed, people can build rovers once they have Planetary Networks, and without even needing to research Doctrine:Mobility.

Edit: Extra argument: AFAIK this rule against probe rover retro-engineering exists in every PBEM.

[GeoModder]

I'll accept those rules, and in case Maniac's modification comes in the ruleset, I accept that too.

[Snowflake]

I have not voted, because exactly what Maniac mentioned (retro-engineering probe team). I cannot vote yes before this is corrected.

I would also like to ask about the upgrade before attack thing, didn't we decide to forbidden it? Also is it the decision that choppers can never attack the base?

[Googlie]

I too have not voted. As the Angels are in this game, they can immediately build rover units under the proposed rules, thus negating the Spartan faction advantage

Extracted freom proposed Rules
It is not allowed to set the home base (Control-h) for a unit to be the base of another faction when the diplomatic stance is pact. The unit will then require no support from either faction.

I thought that had been corrected in release smax #2

extracted from the readme.txt
· You can no longer have a pact brother support one of your factions units.

[jtsisyoda]

Haven't voted yet...

We should add the prohibition on retro-engineering from probes. I consider this very important.

Upgrading and attacking on the same turn is usually prohibited, and I prefer it that way.

We should add, "Using the 'i' key for airdrops will ensure compliance." Otherwise people could easily lose track of which units have already dropped.

I think it's ok for crawlers to upgrade/gather with no movement remaining. Not allowing this does nothing but add a hassle.

[Googlie]

I went back in and voted, as the "View results" showed a 7 - 1 majority in favor of accepting them as they are. Didn't want our objections to just get railroaded aside.

I suggest other "yes, but" players also vote no - remember, this is a Democracy game, and the will of the majority prevails

G.

[Kassiopeia]

I know that repolling is considered nowadays the spawn of all that is evil in the world, but this retro-engineering question is pretty important, considering that it's basic stuff in PBEM's too.

So I suggest a repoll, or we could accept the rules now as they are and then amend them with a new poll that will decide whether we'll restrict retroengineering (but that might take longer and postpone the game, again).

[Maniac]

I thought that had been corrected in release smax #2

Yeah I forgot to remove it from the list.
There's also the issue of bases that revolt to another faction. That's also a bit an outdated point. Now another poll seems fine to use Codicil, a revolted base could just be returned to its original owner. However we can always decide that later.

So I suggest a repoll

Considering that in my original post on which Drogue has more or less based this poll retro-engineering the probe rover chassis was forbidden, considering that no one had objected to it there, and considering that here too in this thread about everyone seems to be in favour of not allowing probe rover retro-engineering, can't we just consider it accepted without a repoll?

[Kassiopeia]

Considering that in my original post on which Drogue has more or less based this poll retro-engineering the probe rover chassis was forbidden, considering that no one had objected to it there, and considering that here too in this thread about everyone seems to be in favour of not allowing probe rover retro-engineering, can't we just consider it accepted without a repoll?

Of course, I'd be more than happy to consider it accepted without a poll. I just want to make sure that, should I vote "YEA" in this poll, it won't mean that someone can point back to this when they are caught doing probe rover retro-engineering and use it to justify their actions.

[Googlie]

and that's exactly my point, Kass