Event Four Rule Change

**TinCow** · 01-23-2009, 14:14

Text of Event Four

I have lately received several requests for use of the Hashshashin. However, I have had to turn them all down because they violated this rule:

5) Senators involved in a Civil War cannot hire Hashshashin and cannot be targeted by Hashshashin.

I originally created this Event as a way to help spark Civil Wars, back when they were not occurring. I figured that once Civil Wars started, the Hashshashin would have served their purpose. It now seems that people want to use them most in conjunction with existing Civil Wars, not to start them. Since the rules were set down a long time ago and people are already at war, I do not want to change them without the consent of the players.

The various options I see are:
1) Keep the rule as it is.
2) Eliminate the rule completely (this allows all Senators to use the Hashshashin, regardless of whether anyone is in a Civil War)
3) Allow the hiring Senator to be in a Civil War, but not the target Senator. (Half of the current rule)
4) Allow the target Senator to be in a Civil War, but not the hiring Senator. (The flip side of #3)
5) Eliminate the rule completely, as per #2, but add in a risk of exposure of the identity of the hirer if either the hirer or the target is in a Civil War.

Please vote on these options in the above poll. Feel free to add a post with further explanations or suggests if you wish.

**TheFlax** · 01-23-2009, 14:26

In my opinion is that Senator's at war are already in enough risk as it is, but I don't see why they can't use this event to cause problems to those who stayed out of the conflict. I'm probably very biased though because I'm involved in a war and on the verge of a PvP battle. I really wouldn't want to be Hashashin spammed at the moment.

**TinCow** · 01-23-2009, 14:31

For the record, any rule change will not go into effect until next turn, after all PvP battles from the current turn are resolved. It would not be remotely fair otherwise.

**Ituralde** · 01-24-2009, 14:59

The dangers of completely abolishing the rules are well summarized by TheFlax. Once you're in a Civil War you're in a precious situation and Hashashin can really get to you. On the other hand removing the rule completely would ensure that no gamey elements remain about the Hashashin. Meaning that maybe two Senators agree to be at war secretly just to avoid being targeted or some such nonsense.

Maybe #5 presents a good compromise. I'm a bit torn between #2 and #3 currently.

**TheFlax** · 01-24-2009, 15:24

In my line of thinking, I see Senators at war having increased security among their ranks. That's how i'd explain #3, but it also works for #5. In terms of abolishing the rule, #5 seems by far preferable to #2 as the payoff of sabotaging a Senator at war can be much greater than when he is at peace, thus the risks should be greater.

**Zim** · 01-25-2009, 06:59

Can I have my vote taken off? Thinking about it more, I'm not sure where I stand.

**TinCow** · 01-25-2009, 17:10

Noted. At the moment, the votes are pretty evenly split between 1, 3, and 5. I will not make any changes to the rule unless there's a clear majority in favor of one particular option. Discussion can continue for several turns, if necessary.

**Ituralde** · 01-25-2009, 18:03

How about a modification of #5 where there's only a risk of exposure if the target is in a Civil War. Might get enough support from those now voting for #3 to get a majority? I know, I'd vote for it!