Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

HRC territorial claim

Jokken
Drogon
We have made a declaration in the Brighthaven forum that may affect this declaration. We are open to discussions regarding our declarations.

https://goblinworks.com/forum/topic/4904/

Noted. We invite you to discuss this discrepancy with us in person and will not recognize your claim until you have done so. This will not be worked out in the forums. Please, let us know when your representatives are available for a meeting in Golarion Mumble.
Go West for freedom and adventure! Join the free soil settlers of High Road. Be a positive and constructive force for freedom in the Bulwark Hills. www.coalroad.com/hrc
MidniteArrow
As a point of clarification, what is the HRC justification for laying claim to the disputed hexes?
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
Drogon
Jokken
Drogon
We have made a declaration in the Brighthaven forum that may affect this declaration. We are open to discussions regarding our declarations.

https://goblinworks.com/forum/topic/4904/

Noted. We invite you to discuss this discrepancy with us in person and will not recognize your claim until you have done so. This will not be worked out in the forums. Please, let us know when your representatives are available for a meeting in Golarion Mumble.

I will discuss a workable meeting time and advise you as soon as I have an answer for you
HpoD - "I have, however, sat and watched as others took things more personally (on both sides) and became zealots, charging forward on a shining white horse into a pile of shit. Forum Warriors at their peak, striding the battlefield knee deep in the bloody, broken arguments of their adversaries before the burning village of their credibility….Chill guys. "
Bringslite
MidniteArrow
As a point of clarification, what is the HRC justification for laying claim to the disputed hexes?

Possibly that they laid claim to them first. That it is messy and clearly provocative to claim territory INSIDE of another entity's claimed territory. That it is an extremely BAD PRECEDNT to start centering territory claims on structures that cannot be removed by any means save the owner's will or failure to put a few coins in a slot.

Just claim the hexes. You do not need to hang them from something like this. Bad mojo. Bad idea. Just bad for the game.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
harneloot
Bringslite
MidniteArrow
As a point of clarification, what is the HRC justification for laying claim to the disputed hexes?

Possibly that they laid claim to them first. That it is messy and clearly provocative to claim territory INSIDE of another entity's claimed territory. That it is an extremely BAD PRECEDNT to start centering territory claims on structures that cannot be removed by any means save the owner's will or failure to put a few coins in a slot.

Just claim the hexes. You do not need to hang them from something like this. Bad mojo. Bad idea. Just bad for the game.

I disagree and think it is GOOD for the game - look at all the content created! Of course you have to hang territory claims on things like proximity to settlements and other permanent in-game structures - what else is there that is more meaningful to hang them on? Provocative is good as long as nobody is being a jerk about it. smile
Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
Bringslite
harneloot
Bringslite
MidniteArrow
As a point of clarification, what is the HRC justification for laying claim to the disputed hexes?

Possibly that they laid claim to them first. That it is messy and clearly provocative to claim territory INSIDE of another entity's claimed territory. That it is an extremely BAD PRECEDNT to start centering territory claims on structures that cannot be removed by any means save the owner's will or failure to put a few coins in a slot.

Just claim the hexes. You do not need to hang them from something like this. Bad mojo. Bad idea. Just bad for the game.

I disagree and think it is GOOD for the game - look at all the content created! Of course you have to hang territory claims on things like proximity to settlements and other permanent in-game structures - what else is there that is more meaningful to hang them on? Provocative is good as long as nobody is being a jerk about it. smile

Who exactly is being obtuse here? Is it good policy for claims of territory to be based on things that cannot be destroyed and that cannot be captured by other players? Does that fit the original and current Developer intent for these Taverns? That they be considered as settlements? If they can be twisted and morphed into structures that serve the full functions of settlements and used as a basis to try and make a normally reasonable(or at least recognizable) two hex radius, they should certainly be on the list of vulnerable structures. Even if they are not yet. Just like real settlements.

Just as much "content" could be generated by someone claiming a group of hexes inside of previously declared opposing group's territories. You don't need a dog and pony show.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Caldeathe Baequiannia
harneloot
I disagree and think it is GOOD for the game - look at all the content created! Of course you have to hang territory claims on things like proximity to settlements and other permanent in-game structures - what else is there that is more meaningful to hang them on? Provocative is good as long as nobody is being a jerk about it. smile
Jerkiness is in the eye of the beholder. From some points of view, there's been plenty of it recently.

Regardless, a member of the group that's trying to use a guaranteed safe building as basis for a land grab thinks it's good for the game. Surprise!
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Seraph
I don't think the devs have any official intent on what territory is supposed to be claimable. People can claim whatever they want to claim, it's just policy. I think we've all been going about this process of "I do/don't recognize your claim" all wrong… recognition isn't nearly as important as execution.

You certainly want your allies to recognize your claim, of course – supporting each others' territory is an important part of being allies. But everyone else just needs to be aware of the declarations being put forth by a political entity so that they can properly gauge how that entity will respond to their interactions with that territory.

If I say tomorrow that I claim the (currently unclaimed) monster hex east of Kindleburn and will attack anyone I catch working escalations there, the last thing I care about is a faction giving me their recognition or approval. The only thing that matters is that if I catch someone there, I will consider it an offense and attack them, and they will know going in that I will do that because I declared publicly that I would – and anyone who wants to remain in good political standing with me as an entity would need to observe that. Could you declare war on me, bring a bunch of people, and kill me a bunch of times out there, then farm the escalation anyway? Certainly, and that's one way of contesting my claim!

In this case, Brighthaven has stated that our claim to hexes around the tavern is negotiable. We're willing to talk about it because we would prefer to establish recognizable ownership out there of a few hexes without causing unnecessary strife with HRC, but we don't have to. Ultimately if HRC says "no, you don't own the hex with your tavern in it and we will attack anyone from Brighthaven that tries to get there or use it", then, well, that's their prerogative but we might have a problem.

A better case would be, "Sure, we recognize that's your tavern and it constitutes part of your territory, but we have certain stipulations about its use and the use of the hexes around it, let's negotiate", or just, "Yep, you're good, we don't actually need those hexes anyway and you're welcome to use them as you will."
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Seraph
I don't think the devs have any official intent on what territory is supposed to be claimable.
I'm pretty sure the existence of shield hexes invalidates that.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Seraph
In this case, Brighthaven has stated that our claim to hexes around the tavern is negotiable. We're willing to talk about it because we would prefer to establish recognizable ownership out there of a few hexes without causing unnecessary strife with HRC, but we don't have to.
Since our claim very clearly and specifically indicates that no restrictions are imposed on any of the Thornguard protect hexes (in one of which, the building in question sits), I'm not sure what assurances you'd be seeking with the claim? Your claim is enveloping at least 4 hexes that currently have HRC holdings and outposts in them. How is claiming them an attempt to do anything "without causing unnecessary strife with HRC?"
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post