OOC Thread #2

[tassa_kay]

... I can help.

You know I'd certainly take the help, but I didn't wanna impose by asking.

[DXM]

... I can help.

You know I'd certainly take the help, but I didn't wanna impose by asking.

Psh.  This is the Spirits we're talking about here; I'm all about it.

[Iron Mongoose]

Just so long as you get to be the Periah of your respective group, right?

[DXM]

Heh.  Call me a sucker for the underdog.

[Dave Baughman]

Hi guys, I just removed a string of posts that involved a complaint that a GM (me) not properly upholding the rules. Lest anyone think I'm trying to do something sinister with regards to the complaint, let me recap it here:

The crux of the issue was the claim that at Taurus the damage from a Break Interdiction attempt in Op Round 1 was not properly adjudicated.

The reason this occured is because the Dark ground forces at Taurus could not legally attempt Break Interdiction, as the result of friendly naval forces in the system. This is outlind in the rules of the Break Interdiction order, found in the rules thread (key passage highlighted in red below).

Break Interdiction
Type: Battle
Requirement: Non-aerospace units attempting to execute a movement order
Effect: If a force has no remaining aerospace or naval units and thus cannot use Naval Engagement to contest interdiction, it may continue attempting to break through the interdiction by using its transports to attack. When this is done, the attacker rolls on the Interdiction chart with a +2 modifier for damage dealt to the enemy. The interdicting force also rolls on the Interdiction chart, with a -2 modifier to determine its damage dealt.

This process may be repeated until the interdiction is broken, the attackers are destroyed, the attackers surrender, or the interdicter lets them go. 

After a review of the combat thread by both myself and another player, the results as posted appeared to correspond with the rules.

[Dave Baughman]

On a related note, the combat thread which spawned the dispute has been locked and additional rules-related notes have been added for reference. The OOC comments which had previously been posted in that thread have been trimmed. Any discussion regarding either the rules issues that were raised or any other aspect of the Taurus invasion should be posted here or in the rules discussion thread.

[Dave Baughman]

One final item - a number of you have sent me PMs on important topics, including but not limited to the fate of certain orphaned factions, proposals for new plot lines, and feedback regarding some recent decisions by the GM team. A number of these have been delayed in terms of getting a response as the GM team is reviewing some issues that were raised. Please expect responses on these PMs either tonigh or tomorrow depending on how recently you sent in the messages (we'll be responding to them in the order they were received). Thank you for your patience.

[Dave Baughman]

All IS threads should be wrapped up now, except for Coventry which is on a 24 hour delay to allow any 11th-hour roleplay based on the first two rounds of expedited resolution. Clan threads should be all caught up except for a couple of the Clan vs SLDF fights which will be done tomorrow.

Please let me know if I missed any threads.

[Marlin]

Now it has happened, what I had feared..

[Cannonshop]

Now it has happened, what I had feared..

What? 

[Marlin]

CSA vs FWL. Huge losses.

[Cannonshop]

 both sides are too proud to back down, so we just have to kind of wait and see what the eventual outcome is going to be, and hope both sides learn something useful from it.

[chaosxtreme]

both sides are too proud to back down, so we just have to kind of wait and see what the eventual outcome is going to be, and hope both sides learn something useful from it.

Eh not a sentiment I entirely agree with.

That being said stuff gets blown up in a wargame. Just means I have to do my utmost to find someone the Adders don't mind Proxying their naval fights with so that this doesn't happen again.

Anyone want to volunteer? I would like to get that taken care of before the next turn starts because there will certainly be more naval fights and I do not want them as simple res battles if I can avoid it.

[Cannonshop]

both sides are too proud to back down, so we just have to kind of wait and see what the eventual outcome is going to be, and hope both sides learn something useful from it.

Eh not a sentiment I entirely agree with.

That being said stuff gets blown up in a wargame. Just means I have to do my utmost to find someone the Adders don't mind Proxying their naval fights with so that this doesn't happen again.

Anyone want to volunteer? I would like to get that taken care of before the next turn starts because there will certainly be more naval fights and I do not want them as simple res battles if I can avoid it.

Good luck with that-most of the MA players seem somewhat...hard to get ahold of, and I've NEVER seen the Adders willing to fight out an aero battle. (then again, there's a lot of this game I've either missed outright, or overlooked, so I'm not a credible source.)

[DisGruntled]

We've done it before, but as none of us are MA players, it's not our first preference.  I hate simple res, but I'm not interested in risking the major naval fights as a noob v. an experienced player. 

Dave missed a PM that would have changed Coventry.  Then there's the fact that the FWLN should have been dealt with in detail due to the blockade.  Not that I'm complaining about the outcome, but with the rolls it would have been even more lopsided in our favor in this case.