Battlefield spell + retreating?

[thejeff]

Personally, I suspect if you polled the Dom3 community on whether or not they support the exploitation of unfixed bugs in public MP games, your answer would be vastly, overwhelmingly, devastatingly -almost- unanimous: and the answer would be "Sometimes".

On MoD, you're probably right. On reverse communions, which are also considered a bug, the response would probably be the reverse.

[Edi]

Reverse communions are a bug that turned out to be a feature in the bigger picture. It is not working exactly as it was originally envisioned, but it is not really breaking any game mechanics or causing out of bounds errors, as it were. Plus it's available to absolutely everyone with astral magic.

But MoD, force marching, sneaking out of sieges with non-stealthy units, haven't really seen anyone but K advocating those as acceptable tactics. All three happen to be red or violet bugs.

[Gandalf Parker]

Maybe its just semantics but isnt there a difference between non-acceptable tactics and cheat? I dont have a problem with people saying its rude, or its commonly not allowed. But until Dom3 doesnt allow it, or the rules of that game by the runner or the host, then it doesnt seem like a cheat.

It does bring up an interesting thought though. Rather than every host coming up with a list of "not allowed" it would be easier to bow to Edi's judgement. IF the game-starter or the host were to say right at the beginning "nothing colored Red or Violet on Edi's bug list are allowed to be used in the game". That would create a better source for validation than a generic expectation that everyone reads all of the threads (or lives in IRC).

[Edi]

Gandalf Parker said:
Maybe its just semantics but isnt there a difference between non-acceptable tactics and cheat? I dont have a problem with people saying its rude, or its commonly not allowed. But until Dom3 doesnt allow it, or the rules of that game by the runner or the host, then it doesnt seem like a cheat.

With MoD, we have a statement from the developers to go on that it is a serious bug. With the two movement issues, the game is actually violating its own rules due to incomplete validation of orders. In the force marching bug (first in the BHV section), units with a limited stratmove can move an arbitrary number of provinces, limited only by the stratmove and terrain limitations that affect the commander leading them. In the non-stealthy sneakers bug, units without stealth are actually moving according too rules that require stealth in the move phase, but they behave normally at the end of the move phase and trigger combat if moving to an enemy province.

So these three examples are all, in my opinion, clearcut cases.

Gandalf Parker said:
It does bring up an interesting thought though. Rather than every host coming up with a list of "not allowed" it would be easier to bow to Edi's judgement. IF the game-starter or the host were to say right at the beginning "nothing colored Red or Violet on Edi's bug list are allowed to be used in the game". That would create a better source for validation than a generic expectation that everyone reads all of the threads (or lives in IRC).

I'd not go that far. The above-mentioned three bugs are the only ones I consider outright cheating. The dome spells have a redlisted entry because stacking domes of the same kind is cheesy, but nowhere does it say that a province could not have more than one dome of the same type. It is, in my opinion, implied, but it is never stated directly anywhere, so interpretation of whether or not it's an issue may vary. I consider it an important issue, but not an automatic cheat like the others.

There is an easy answer to the MoD issue as an interim measure: mod the spell to be unresearchable, use that mod and you're good to go.

[Zeldor]

Isn't dome stacking as we know it already fixed?