Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
It’s a hard line.. on the one hand it does seem a bit extreme, on the other some of the small items are seen differently by different players
In a current game I have an undefined Nap-X with another player. He has had a global for ages I would like to have cast, but I thought overcastting would be a NAP violation. He has just overcast one of mine, and never considered it to be anything to do with the NAP.
Because I read the NAP to be more restrictive than he did, I was penalised (probably, maybe I would have wasted a bunch of gems trying to overwrite his). A clear definition would have stopped that
While it looks exhaustive, if one or two sets of rules become standard, we'll all know exactly what a NAP means. It doesn't necessitate studying all the points of law each time, unless players want to use a lot of flexibility. Presumably almost all players would agree with about 90% of the OP rules as part of a NAP, and its just a few in contention? (mostly to do with globals and anonymous spells presumably
|
Lolo's and my drafts *are* very similar, where we differ is on this exact question of non damaging spells and actions, and how do you handle globals such as forge, utterdark, etc.
Under mine, since its called a non-agression pact - you essentially can't take any aggressive actions toward your signator. And you have to negotiate before casting certain globals.
I think *sleeper* naps - where a country for example could sign long term naps with all its neighbors - it allows that country to dedicate everything to research. Which is great - it makes a research game more possible.
But the restrictions I wrote in, prevents a person from being able to win, based on the long term honoring of the nap - ie., you can't stop me from winning because we're napped. At least thats part of the intent.
I don't think there ever will be *one* standard nap. But if these terms are useful enough, perhaps it will become standard to say: Ok.. napL-3, or a napc-3r