Possible issues with Enemy Territory rullings.

[Detective100]

Hello there! As some of you might have noticed, there's a new policy around that says you are now entitled to fight at least one opponent inside an enemy territory

When in enemy territory, you are generally entitled to fight at least one opponent before being permitted to flee. This is in part to ensure that there is gravity to being within enemy territory and avoid instances where characters enter and exit enemy territory without any repercussions.

It's also best to keep in mind that /flee is also typically necessary when hostilities start or tension starts to simmer. It's best not to just post an RP and leave during these cases as otherwise it may be construed as avoiding IC repercussions.

If there are any questions regarding this, you're always free to send in a ticket during the scene in question for further clarification.

I can understand where it comes from, to make it so that people won't be able to freely walk out once they enter hostile territory by relying on having higher flee rolls to avoid consequence.

However, there are currently two issues that I find with the current policy, I'll like to bring up:

1) 
As it is currently written, the rule can allow for one person in the enemy territory to engage while the rest abstain to ensure said person will get to fight. This can lead to circumstances where the enemy territory's size can always let the strongest one there to be the one to fight, rather than those of the highest speeds.

Example:
Player A walks into enemy territory where there are five people around.  Things get hostile, and player A tries to flee. Player B from the enemy side gives chase, and the rest of the players abstain from running so that player B will get a guaranteed fight.

2)
What about scenarios where the peaceful territory suddenly turns hostile? This can be more of a gray area, true: A witch that has been found out can be a valid reason for the nearby territory to turn hostile for example.
However, what if the reasoning isn't quite as clear cut? The territory turning hostile on a dime, in a place you would have never expected to have a reason to turn on you.

As someone who had to go through it, I can tell firsthand that it is an unpleasant sensation   . Having to also fight what can be the enemy's strongest regardless of speed as explained in issue 1 in a territory that was peaceful to you but a second before can be quite the sudden whiplash.

[QuietTheMind]

Hello there! As some of you might have noticed, there's a new policy around that says you are now entitled to fight at least one opponent inside an enemy territory

When in enemy territory, you are generally entitled to fight at least one opponent before being permitted to flee. This is in part to ensure that there is gravity to being within enemy territory and avoid instances where characters enter and exit enemy territory without any repercussions.

It's also best to keep in mind that /flee is also typically necessary when hostilities start or tension starts to simmer. It's best not to just post an RP and leave during these cases as otherwise it may be construed as avoiding IC repercussions.

If there are any questions regarding this, you're always free to send in a ticket during the scene in question for further clarification.

I can understand where it comes from, to make it so that people won't be able to freely walk out once they enter hostile territory by relying on having higher flee rolls to avoid consequence.

However, there are currently two issues that I find with the current policy, I'll like to bring up:

1) 
As it is currently written, the rule can allow for one person in the enemy territory to engage while the rest abstain to ensure said person will get to fight. This can lead to circumstances where the enemy territory's size can always let the strongest one there to be the one to fight, rather than those of the highest speeds.

Example:
Player A walks into enemy territory where there are five people around.  Things get hostile, and player A tries to flee. Player B from the enemy side gives chase, and the rest of the players abstain from running so that player B will get a guaranteed fight.

2)
What about scenarios where the peaceful territory suddenly turns hostile? This can be more of a gray area, true: A witch that has been found out can be a valid reason for the nearby territory to turn hostile for example.
However, what if the reasoning isn't quite as clear cut? The territory turning hostile on a dime, in a place you would have never expected to have a reason to turn on you.

As someone who had to go through it, I can tell firsthand that it is an unpleasant sensation   . Having to also fight what can be the enemy's strongest regardless of speed as explained in issue 1 in a territory that was peaceful to you but a second before can be quite the sudden whiplash.

IC reasoning should be made clear, but remain the same. It makes sense in most regards. But again, I believe it should ultimately be left to IC.

That aside, rules need to be made more clear.

[Divine Soldier]

1) 
As it is currently written, the rule can allow for one person in the enemy territory to engage while the rest abstain to ensure said person will get to fight. This can lead to circumstances where the enemy territory's size can always let the strongest one there to be the one to fight, rather than those of the highest speeds.

Example:
Player A walks into enemy territory where there are five people around.  Things get hostile, and player A tries to flee. Player B from the enemy side gives chase, and the rest of the players abstain from running so that player B will get a guaranteed fight.

I can't see how this is an issue; if someone is in enemy territory, it makes sense they'd be forced to fight the strongest person there if that's how the 'enemy' group wanted to RP it. As a general rule, being in enemy territory is something players should avoid. Even if you include your second issue, which effectively acts as a trap, it's the same, just with better IC (setting a trap will always be better IC than someone arbitrarily walking into an enemy settlement).

[ACuriousGrey]

Your first concern is a non-issue, considering who goes in the fight is generally based on IC anyways, not who rolls highest. Not to mention the very obvious fact that you're deep in enemy territory- it's supposed to be unfair for you. You're surrounded entirely by the settlement's guards and the magi that live within it and make up its fighting force.

Your second concern is also a non-issue, for the same reason listed above. You're an enemy of the settlement now, and whether it happened decades ago or thirty seconds ago, the entire town guard is now after you.

Ultimately, I agree entirely with this ruling both because it has been ruled as such in the past (therefore making the "new policy" a clarification, not an actual new policy) and the fact that it does more good than it does bad by a very large margin. We all have probably heard of the scenario of someone randomly rolling into a settlement, doing something stupid, and then using an escape bomb with a full agility build, getting away without any real punishment.

[AbstractTraitorHero]

Your first concern is a non-issue, considering who goes in the fight is generally based on IC anyways, not who rolls highest. Not to mention the very obvious fact that you're deep in enemy territory- it's supposed to be unfair for you. You're surrounded entirely by the settlement's guards and the magi that live within it and make up its fighting force.

Your second concern is also a non-issue, for the same reason listed above. You're an enemy of the settlement now, and whether it happened decades ago or thirty seconds ago, the entire town guard is now after you.

Ultimately, I agree entirely with this ruling both because it has been ruled as such in the past (therefore making the "new policy" a clarification, not an actual new policy) and the fact that it does more good than it does bad by a very large margin. We all have probably heard of the scenario of someone randomly rolling into a settlement, doing something stupid, and then using an escape bomb with a full agility build, getting away without any real punishment.

This does make it feel like a /flee is worthless inside of a settlement doh as your going to be forced into a fight no matter what?

[ACuriousGrey]

Your first concern is a non-issue, considering who goes in the fight is generally based on IC anyways, not who rolls highest. Not to mention the very obvious fact that you're deep in enemy territory- it's supposed to be unfair for you. You're surrounded entirely by the settlement's guards and the magi that live within it and make up its fighting force.

Your second concern is also a non-issue, for the same reason listed above. You're an enemy of the settlement now, and whether it happened decades ago or thirty seconds ago, the entire town guard is now after you.

Ultimately, I agree entirely with this ruling both because it has been ruled as such in the past (therefore making the "new policy" a clarification, not an actual new policy) and the fact that it does more good than it does bad by a very large margin. We all have probably heard of the scenario of someone randomly rolling into a settlement, doing something stupid, and then using an escape bomb with a full agility build, getting away without any real punishment.

This does make it feel like a /flee is worthless inside of a settlement doh as your going to be forced into a fight no matter what?

No. If you beat everyone's pursue, you're only subject to one fight. If your flee is beaten by several others, you're subject to a chainverb. For a weaker opponent, it doesn't really matter too much either way, but for stronger opponents that try to flee from enemy territory, it's a very important distinction.

[AbstractTraitorHero]

Ahhh, yes that does clear things up a bit there.

[Enginseer-42]

I mean, I don't really see the point of gutting flee like that. It's not like those hypothetical town guards would be able to catch or inconvenience someone the towns magi can't.

You're in a difficult situation and use mechanics to get out of it
It's no different than if you had some broken build and just chainverbed the entire town, which has happened.

[Lammy]

I mean, I don't really see the point of gutting flee like that. It's not like those hypothetical town guards would be able to catch or inconvenience someone the towns magi can't.

You're in a difficult situation and use mechanics to get out of it
It's no different than if you had some broken build and just chainverbed the entire town, which has happened.

That is why you ahelp for the two v one scenario. If you don't read the rules of engagement within the settlement and need to expel them, then only you (the people that do not read the rules properly, not you, Engineer,) are at fault.

[ACuriousGrey]

I mean, I don't really see the point of gutting flee like that. It's not like those hypothetical town guards would be able to catch or inconvenience someone the towns magi can't.

You're in a difficult situation and use mechanics to get out of it
It's no different than if you had some broken build and just chainverbed the entire town, which has happened.

Which has happened and which, notably, also now has a policy to prevent happening again (using Cap 0's to force them out of the settlement whether the intruder wins or loses).

Besides, this has been a ruling since E3, so. Edit: "This" as in regarding fleeing inside of cities.