| Viewing Single Post From: Besieging - Sunspear- Cenedil | |
|---|---|
| Athidoc | Oct 3 2008, 10:12 PM |
Lord of Harrenhal
|
I saw this problem coming, having realized that the amendment was very vaguely worded, and feel like an idiot for not having done something about it then. The original problem was that players under siege would tribute their money to allies, who would purchase troops on their behalf. That was what the rule amendment refers to, tributed troops that were purchased with the besieged player's money. If we disallow all tributed troops, then besieging becomes even more powerful, as it would completely isolate a player. And, judging from the early responses in the Injunction thread (before it became Season 4 discussion) the general consensus is that sieges need to be toned down, not buffed. I know this seems like I'm going back on what I said, but from the beginning my interpretation of the amendment was no tributed troops *purchased with the besieged player's money*. So this leaves us in (yet another) conundrum. If I (and my alliance) had known the amendment would be interpreted as such, I would have either reworded it, or kept it like it was and made preparations for this very situation, seeing as Cenedil's capital was vulnerable. And if I had reworded it or you had interpreted it like I had then I don't think you would have attacked. I apologize, everyone, for getting us in another situation like this, but I really don't know what to do. To concede and keep the rule the way it is would leave Cenedil hopeless, but to change the rule would put the White Bull in an unfair situation. Does anyone have any idea how we can resolve this? Edited by Athidoc, Oct 3 2008, 10:13 PM.
|
 |
|
| Besieging - Sunspear- Cenedil · The Battlefield | |
9:03 AM Dec 6
