Re: Proposed Rules V2
 

If a spectator may offer a sugestion?

If you don't want to riak taking a province with a stealthy unit, simply set him to retreat.

Sure you'll lose him if discovered, unless on your own borders, but you can scout to your heart's content without fear of going rogue.

Actually reading the rules, any stealthy attack without permission is considered a violation. Taking the province is not necessary. Since the game considers catching a scout to be an attack on the province by the scout, the rules would have to be amended to allow non-attacking stealth units to be caught without consequences. Orders to retreat should be enough to signify non-hostile intent.

Re: Proposed Rules V2
 

Being a wimpy little scout with no equipment ought to be another clue as to non-invasion intent.

However - assassination is explicitly allowed. An assassin can't very well be scripted to retreat, and might be equipped. If caught, and if strong enough to defeat the residents, that "legal" assassin could trigger a rouge declaration.

Perhaps a better solution: no one would be declared rogue after inadvertantly taking a province (by virtue of getting caught by patrols) IF they immediately allow the province to be retaken and repay any gold and gem income they obtained. Profuse apologies by fawning diplomats may also be required, at the discretion of the offended party.

Re: Proposed Rules V2
 

I had thought about this issue when I first wrote the game rules. Moving a stealthy army into enemy territory is not against any explicit rule as long as they do not actually attack a controlled province. Keep in mind that discovering a stealthy army is really an attack by the party which owns the province, not the stealthy party.

If a sleathy army gets caught and a battle ensues, that I believe it would fall on the involved parties to resolve it as best they can. Most likely, there would be a Council proposal (or even 2 proposals!) on how to handle the situation if the stealthy army were to win the battle. Surely a group of intelligent wyrms could decide such a wee issue, right?

With the right bribe to Ronan the Mighty Centaur-ruling Wyrm of Pangaea, I think ANY issue could be easily resolved in Council http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Proposed Rules V2
 

I agree with panther here. not hostile to be attacked by local defenses when minding your own business in a stealthy way. Should you win, I guess the wyrm losing the province should make a case why he deserves the province after his forces attacked the scout, who was not breaking any council rules by simply being stealthy.

my vote is certainly buyable as well.

Although I survived my turn two assault, I was not one of the lucky 7 :/

Re: Proposed Rules V2
 

Be sure and check out Proposition 4 on the subject of stealth.

Re: Proposition 5
 

Prop 5 is open for voting as well.

Re: Proposition 5
 

prop 5 has already earned enough nays to be rejected

Re: Proposition 5
 

I am missing turns from Ermor and Mictlan. Hosting will be in a couple of hours.

Re: Proposition 5
 

Turn 4 has been sent out. No wryms showed up dead in the HoF this time. Several nations took a province. Man has 2 VPs. Lots more troops died.

Deadline is Thursday 8 PM MDT.

Re: Proposed Rules V2
 

The presumption in many of these posts is that the stealth actor is not being malicious. Consider the situation where nation A has a very valuable province which for one reason or another has not been castled. Nation B realizes this and *decks out* an assassin and just sits it in the valuable province until such time as it is eventually "accidentally" caught by nation A's PD. Nation A objects and nation B simply says that it was accidental, the assassin's target was elsewhere. Since no one can gainsay that claim, given the sentiment of the above posts, nation B would now have legitmate control of that province. Clearly an exploit but there is no game-enforcable way of detecting it.