Rules clarification

[arsenalpow]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

yeah, because it's totally happened every single time prior when it was used against TMO. Totally forgot that, thanks.

We don't want to play like that. It's ridiculous.

The bottom line is BDA had 40+ clearing juggs for numerous hours sitting at jumpy and TMO laid claim to Trak using first to 15 rules lawyering. It's shady, and it's bullshit. I personally called the raid off because tempers were flaring, and we weren't going to sit there and try to FTE trak and deal with the aftermath. BDA will not play that way.

I'm sorry TMO had to deal with IB pulling that type of shit but the cycle needs to stop for the health of the server.

[Ele]

Originally Posted by arsenalpow [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

we weren't going to sit there and try to FTE trak and deal with the aftermath.

FTE wouldn't have applied in that situation anyway, unless the guilds had otherwise stipulated.

The rules of engagement for raid bosses on Project 1999 are First to Engage (FTE) in any situation that is not covered below.

With one of the situations being:

Q: Can we camp raid mobs?
A: If you choose to lay a claim to an unspawned raid npc, your raid must be at the npc's spawn point with sufficient force. (within aggro range of the npc when it spawns, with at least a 15 member raid party). e.g. (inside Nagafen's Lair) This is the ONLY way claims of unspawned raid targets will be respected.

[arsenalpow]

Originally Posted by Ele [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

FTE wouldn't have applied in that situation anyway, unless the guilds had otherwise stipulated.

This was assuming we felt we were still entitled to Trak. If he had spawned it would have been a FTE shitfest with GMs having to sort it all out, but again we left, it's moot.