Multiplayer Rules, All games should abide by these

Yeah this should go up there for certain. There is a way around it discovered by BlanketThief http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?showtopic=416

But it's still a pretty lame stunt to pull (as you're fairly screwed unless you know this work-around. have a friendly neighbour, or can mind hunt, but that's not a given against Jotunheim/LA Ulm etc, although you can still MH low path S mages)

Yeah that's the conclusion (too complex and fuzzy wuzzy) that was reached on Crap a few years ago. I think you can include a rule to cover when it's blatant, such as lone Scouts etc, but once troops start getting involved and when there's several attack options each turn, then it's time for the haze and any move-blocking that happens is going to most likely have to be called a gameplay incident. And as always the most simple solution is just to know the players you play with. (although maybe not the best as you just end up playing with the same players over and over again)

Although you might be able to stipulate a rule for token army move-blocks when it's used to move-block at choke points. As in one of my first games some guy was constantly stopping my army of several thousand Maenads from crossing a choke point (Cradle map) by attacking me with a token chaff army each turn. Think I was stuck for about 6 turns before I got around it (via a Pocket Ship). But I was way too newb at the time to realise he was just being a D-bag, as I thought that sort of tactic was just a part of the game (and think it was before the time when this was considered d-bag behaviour, as it was seen all the time back then). But it was clear his only intention was to move-block me, and so I think you can have a rule to cover this. Although maybe no token army attacks over choke points (when an opposing army is the other side) is perhaps a bit too vague and simplistic.

Someone on the SA IRC mentioned a way to counter fortblocking using the shift-x keyboard command and break siege, I don't know if it works I just heard it mentioned.

That is BlanketThief's solution which I linked to a few posts back. (I notified the SA crowd of this a few months back with TheDemon's help. So good to know it's info that's doing the rounds over there now, so that more players know about this workaround should someone use this bit of cheese against them)

Any thoughts on how we go about wording something regarding Move-Blocking? The grey areas should probably be left to game admins and whatever more descriptive interpretations of this they want to use, but I think the forum MP rules should make some general mention of Move-Blocking.

Maybe just have a definition that covers choke-points, as the chances of entering a grey area (such as the one I described several posts back) when Move-Blocking occurs at a choke-point is pretty slim. Since a token army of the "No hope of winning or causing damage" variety, sent to attack a major army across a choke-point doesn't really have any strategic objective other than "It might block their move" or "It might block their move, plus if my opponent complains that I Move-Blocked him then I can use the excuse that I was just probing his army".

I think you can also use the choke-point definition to cover situations where a choke-point is created by borders, and not just map choke-points. For example

AYZ
BCD
XXX

Red-Player 1 ... Blue-Player 2 ... Green-Player 3 ... XXX - denotes map border.

P1+P2 are at war, and P3 is Neutral to both P1+P2. As such the current borders create a choke-point, and if for example P1's capital is at B, and P2 has a major army in D and P1 has a token force in C, then if P1 attacks P2 from C->D with that token force then I think that constitutes Move-Blocking at a choke-point, since P1 can't really say "it's not a choke-point because P2's army could have moved to province Y or Z" as that would mean suddenly attacking a Neutral player rather than the very obvious alternative of continuing to head for P1's capital. So I think choke-points created by borders can also be covered without going into grey areas.

New request/suggestion for an expansion of rule 3. Which for reference is... (from OP)

"3. Creating a pre-game alliance is not allowed unless the game calls for it. While in a team game you may well be allied with another nation from the very start unless the game specifically calls for it you may not ally or enter in any other diplomatic agreement with another player before the game begins.

Reason: It is unfair to enter a game with an alliance simply because someone playing is your friend or because you both believe it is an advantage. Players should start on an equal footing. Since diplomacy is usually allowed in games there is no reason to conduct it beforehand unless you are trying to gain some unfair advantage."


Suggestion is that something is added that covers the issue of contacting others players very early in the game (say first 10 turns) that you have not yet encountered in game (through either borders or Scouting).

Reason - It really screws the game up if you are trading and making deals with other nations (you have no in-game contact with) after just a few turns. As it not only allows you early access to resources you likely wouldn't otherwise have access to (via trading). It also allows players to agree to tag-team other nations from the get-go. And this sucks if the two nations in agreement have had no in-game contact yet. As this isn't much different to pre-game alliances/agreements. (which is pretty much just cheating)

@ Sombre

I've added some info to the OP due to something that recently occured in the Recumbent Bliss game. Thought I'd let you know though as I've edited your post directly to do it. (but I've tagged my name to the part I added to make it clear)

YO.

I have added a fifth 'nono' to the list. It deems abuse of onebattlespell shapechange + crystal matrix communions as an exploit and NOT OK.