[Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC
<h1 id="title">Elliquiy Role Playing Forums</h1>
		<h2 id="linktree">Play-By-Post: Light =&gt; Light: Human Small Groups =&gt; Topic started by: HairyHeretic on 06-02-2010, 00:41:46</h2>
		<dl id="posts">
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>[Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>06-02-2010, 00:41:46</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				I'd like to keep the rules thread free of comments, so we can discuss stuff here.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>06-02-2010, 01:04:19</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				I probably won't get all the rules posted up tonight, as having to recode the tables manually is a pain&nbsp; :P
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>06-02-2010, 01:40:38</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				The next section is construction, which includes a load of tables. I really don't fancy coding all those tonight, so I'm going to put up part of it now, the rest tomorrow.<br><br>Edit - I know there's stuff isn't likely to make sense at the moment. When you have the whole of the rules there, it should make a bit more.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>06-02-2010, 02:01:39</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				And something you can actually talk about while I'm busy getting the rules up ... open or secret?<br><br>I sort of designed this to be played over email, so each person would only see their own relevent information ... planets, infrastructure, ships, exploration and so on. Would you prefer that this remain the case, in which case a lot of this will probably play out over PM, or are you ok with seeing what others have.<br><br>
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>hgb</strong> on <strong>06-02-2010, 07:58:13</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				While I do like cloak and dagger esque play, I think that an open system would be better for now. Since the game is being play tested and balanced, having things open, will make it easier to see any imbalances in the system, and improve the overall quality of the test. Once all the kinks are worked out, I believe the game will flourish better in private, with players only seeing what their civilization's would know.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Schrödinger</strong> on <strong>06-02-2010, 11:26:49</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59900.msg2711262#msg2711262">Quote from: hgb on 06-02-2010, 07:58:13</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">While I do like cloak and dagger esque play, I think that an open system would be better for now. Since the game is being play tested and balanced, having things open, will make it easier to see any imbalances in the system, and improve the overall quality of the test. Once all the kinks are worked out, I believe the game will flourish better in private, with players only seeing what their civilization's would know.<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>Agreed. Working out the basics would be best before we implement some backstabbing skulldaggery, and it helps us all understand the system as it is played out.<br><br>Let's start with some of the Q&amp;A, then, working from the first post in your rules thread to the last. Unless otherwise noted, I understand other posts&nbsp; :-)<br><br><strong>First post (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59899.msg2710273#msg2710273)</strong>, you mention the home system being comprised out of a planet (or planets, given flavour), a resource-rich asteroid belt providing the RAW materials as well as some CC, and a gas giant providing only CC. <strong>What is CC, and what is it used for as a resource next to RAW?</strong> Could be Capacity, mentioned a little later. Suggested to provide any game terms in full, and give acronyms later, or let the players decide on them (though RAW kind of speaks for itself, I suppose, while CAP would make more sense for Capacity if it <em>is</em> CC&nbsp; :P<strong></strong>). <br><strong>Would it also be possible to lower points in one home system's 'stats' for an increase in another?</strong> Say, limiting your starting RAW by one, to increase your starting Census, for example, by the same amount?<br>Finally, <strong>consider including a list of common acronyms in the first post for reference, with their immediate explanation</strong> - that ought to save a whole hastle of questions and explanation back and forth through your game rules.<br><br><strong>Fifth post (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59899.msg2710421#msg2710421)</strong>, same issues of mentioning terms that might best be put in full first before using acronyms, though at least EP has been mentioned before as a means to 'buy' units. However, you bring up a whole slew of game terms like Attrition and some combat terms that, without a proper chapter on combat gameplay mechanics, mean little to nothing. There's also so many options right now that it would be quite daunting for new players to start out with - especially for a game system you haven't quite tested as much yet. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid - at least until the kinks are worked out. On the plus, at least you have a direction to expand towards, but let's get the basics worked out first&nbsp; :P<br><strong>What are my options for fighting, what works against what class-wise in spatial combat, etcetera?</strong><br><br><strong>Sixth post (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59899.msg2710455#msg2710455)</strong>, more acronyms and gameplay terms that haven't been brought up before like Basing and Factor, and again, choices are quite staggering. <br><strong>What are the guidelines and rules for building on a world, and the limitations besides your own resources and Census</strong>, if that applies?<br><br>Again, explain basics first before adding onto them. On the plus, you have direction and dedication&nbsp; :-)
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>06-02-2010, 13:52:43</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59900.msg2711441#msg2711441">Quote from: Schrödinger on 06-02-2010, 11:26:49</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Agreed. Working out the basics would be best before we implement some backstabbing skulldaggery, and it helps us all understand the system as it is played out.<br><br>Let's start with some of the Q&amp;A, then, working from the first post in your rules thread to the last. Unless otherwise noted, I understand other posts&nbsp; :-)<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>Fair enough. I have no problem with things being open.<br><br>Do you want that to include the game map? What I have is a hex map, with systems marked on it. Until a player enters a new system, and finds the exits, they don't know where they can expand to. <br><br>Would you prefer that everyone starts with access to the master map, showing all systems and connections?<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59900.msg2711441#msg2711441">Quote from: Schrödinger on 06-02-2010, 11:26:49</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><strong>First post (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59899.msg2710273#msg2710273)</strong>, you mention the home system being comprised out of a planet (or planets, given flavour), a resource-rich asteroid belt providing the RAW materials as well as some CC, and a gas giant providing only CC. <strong>What is CC, and what is it used for as a resource next to RAW?</strong> Could be Capacity, mentioned a little later. Suggested to provide any game terms in full, and give acronyms later, or let the players decide on them (though RAW kind of speaks for itself, I suppose, while CAP would make more sense for Capacity if it <em>is</em> CC&nbsp; :P<strong></strong>). <br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>CC is Carrying Capacity. On a planet, this is the number of Census (Population) the planet can support. For a gas giant, its the number of stations you can build on it.<br><br>RAW is raw materials.<br><br>RAW x utilised Production = Economic Points produced<br><br>1 census can utilise 1 production.<br><br>EPs are what you spend to build stuff, research, carry out intelligence ops and so on.<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59900.msg2711441#msg2711441">Quote from: Schrödinger on 06-02-2010, 11:26:49</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><strong>Would it also be possible to lower points in one home system's 'stats' for an increase in another?</strong> Say, limiting your starting RAW by one, to increase your starting Census, for example, by the same amount?<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>Possible, but I hadn't given it that much thought yet. The idea was that each player would start from an equal footing, have a couple of points to play with for customisation, but that hopefully wouldn't create an overwhelming edge.<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59900.msg2711441#msg2711441">Quote from: Schrödinger on 06-02-2010, 11:26:49</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Finally, <strong>consider including a list of common acronyms in the first post for reference, with their immediate explanation</strong> - that ought to save a whole hastle of questions and explanation back and forth through your game rules.<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>Noted. It will all make more sense when all the sections are up, and you can flick back and forth :)<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59900.msg2711441#msg2711441">Quote from: Schrödinger on 06-02-2010, 11:26:49</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><strong>Fifth post (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59899.msg2710421#msg2710421)</strong>, same issues of mentioning terms that might best be put in full first before using acronyms, though at least EP has been mentioned before as a means to 'buy' units. However, you bring up a whole slew of game terms like Attrition and some combat terms that, without a proper chapter on combat gameplay mechanics, mean little to nothing. There's also so many options right now that it would be quite daunting for new players to start out with - especially for a game system you haven't quite tested as much yet. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid - at least until the kinks are worked out. On the plus, at least you have a direction to expand towards, but let's get the basics worked out first&nbsp; :P<br><strong>What are my options for fighting, what works against what class-wise in spatial combat, etcetera?</strong><br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>As I said, I took an already established game, and have been heavily modifying it, so I'm reasonably certain the core of it should work ok. The combat stuff I haven't done much tweaking yet, though as I already mentioned I have some plans in that regard.<br><br>I'll give a brief overview of space combat<br><br>1 - Roll for fleet detection (if one fleet doesn't spot the other, that tends to make combat .. interesting ;) )<br>2 - Roll for fleet readiness state. Fleets can be caught unprepared, which makes them less effective for a couple of rounds til they come to full battle stations.<br>3 - Determine engagement length. If you're outnumbered, you want to keep it short, your opponent will want to take longer and try and destroy you.<br>4 - Fleet command issues orders. This is the bit I'm tweaking at the moment. Basically you can issue orders that will determine engagement range and intensity (short, medium, long / aggressive, balanced, defensive) and which enemy squadrons / ships you're targeting. Aggressive means you will do and take more damage, defensive you do/take less. Shooting is done in range bands, so if you choose to fire at long range your shots will hit home before the enemy firing at short range, but short range does more damage. Of course, they have to survive to get to short range first, so its a gamble.<br><br>Ships fire on ships first. Then ships against fighters. Lastly fighters fire on each other, then on ships. Fighters have the advantage that they can get close and target specific enemy ships easier than your main battle line. The mechanic is that specifying a specific enemy ship to target means it takes more damage to destroy, to prevent people simply picking off command ships or what have you without penalty.<br><br>Does that help any?<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59900.msg2711441#msg2711441">Quote from: Schrödinger on 06-02-2010, 11:26:49</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><strong>Sixth post (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59899.msg2710455#msg2710455)</strong>, more acronyms and gameplay terms that haven't been brought up before like Basing and Factor, and again, choices are quite staggering. <br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>*nods* One of the problems with creating your own stuff .. you always know what you're taking about, and it can be easy to forget someone coming in doesn't.<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59900.msg2711441#msg2711441">Quote from: Schrödinger on 06-02-2010, 11:26:49</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><strong>What are the guidelines and rules for building on a world, and the limitations besides your own resources and Census</strong>, if that applies?<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>The only real limitation is the size of the world will determine the ammount of stuff that can be built on it. Practically it shouldn't come up that often I think.<br><br>Census is limited by the CC of the world, but there's always a need for colonists for the colonies ;)<br><br>I found that colonising early allowed me a place to send census from my homeworld, which both speeded up the colony becoming productive, and let my homeworld population continue to grow.<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59900.msg2711441#msg2711441">Quote from: Schrödinger on 06-02-2010, 11:26:49</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Again, explain basics first before adding onto them. On the plus, you have direction and dedication&nbsp; :-)<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>*nods*<br><br>As I said, if you had the the entire rule set to flick back and forth through, these would make more sense. The problem is coding those 'ing tables takes time :)
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Schrödinger</strong> on <strong>06-02-2010, 14:25:12</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				You can curse, chief, but thanks for at least providing some answers. And like you said, work in progress, and readability and clarity, while of utmost importance, will always be improved on as you continue tweaking your stuff.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>06-02-2010, 14:37:15</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Of course. I have to disappear for a couple of hours or so, but I'll start putting some more up when I get back into the house.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>07-02-2010, 00:46:04</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				The stuff I've placeholdered has a lot of tables and stats, so I'm leaving that til tomorrow.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Kate</strong> on <strong>07-02-2010, 03:59:29</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				this is getting really complicated hairy.<br><br>im worried it will turn into a game of mechanics so much that role playing suffers for it.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>07-02-2010, 14:53:30</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				The game was designed with wargamers in mind, moreso than roleplayers. There can certainly be aspects of roleplaying in it, but at its heart it is a strategic level wargame. I'm reasonably sure I said as much in the intro thread.<br><br>You're not going to be playing a single character here. You will have total control over an entire species as they expand out into the universe. You control if they're going to try and make peaceful contact with others, or conquer everyone you meet. And given most wargamers I know, peaceful contact is the preparation time for assembling your war fleets in the right place ;)<br><br>Edit - If you've ever played Master of Orion, Sins of a Solar Empire, or even Civilisation on the computer, that's sort of what we have here.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>07-02-2010, 20:37:00</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				I've been trying to find if there's forum code to properly display tables, as it will make the rest of this a lot easier to read. So far I haven't got it displaying that well.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>hgb</strong> on <strong>08-02-2010, 07:50:34</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Well there is always the table commands that appear to be identical to HTML. That's kind of a pain in the rear to get it right though. Lots of manual typing on your part. The alternative would be to take a screen shot, crop the photo, and upload the picture to the post instead of actual text. The shortfall of this&nbsp; *quick* method is that you aren't able to easily edit the text once it is posted up. 
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>08-02-2010, 10:18:45</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				They're not quite identical. Believe me, I've been messing with them a chunk of yesterday.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>08-02-2010, 23:52:58</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Ok, from what I've been reading on the forums, in the core space combat rules, it tends to devolve into destroying the enemy flagship first off, so I wanted to try and reduce the reason for that. Yes, it should have some effect, but it shouldn't be crippling. A squadron that loses its flagship has its combat stats halved for a round, and when a new squadron takes over task group command, it suffers the same effects.<br><br>It may take twice as much firepower to destroy a flagship, but that means that entire squadron is crippled for a turn, and another squadron is also effectively crippled when it takes command of the task group.<br><br>I don't think a flag squadron should have its combat strength halved simply because it is a flag squadron. Doing away with that negates the advantage of the Ballistic trait, so I'd have to find something to offset that.<br><br>Equally I'm thinking that I can find a better command structure. What I've been toying with is that the task group commander can issue a number of orders equal to the CR rating of the flagship. An order can be given at fleet, squadron or individual ship level, with each in turn superceding the previous. Fleet orders apply unless the squadron is given specific orders. Squadron orders apply unless the ship is given specific orders.<br><br>If the fleet flag is then destroyed, command would pass to the next highest CR rated ship in the fleet, and they can issue fresh orders. If they're not as good, it means less specific orders, but that the entire fleet could continue fighting.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>09-02-2010, 23:57:45</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				So, no questions or comments on what I have up?
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>12-02-2010, 18:48:20</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				So, does the lack of response mean everything looks understandable, or that I've scared everyone off with the volume of rules? :)
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>hgb</strong> on <strong>14-02-2010, 13:16:52</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				I've looked at most of the rules, and skimmed through what I didn't actually read. I don't really have any problems understanding any of it, now having it committed to memory, or even a good playing knowledge of the ruleset, I don't have. I think I'd be alright, I would just have to reference the rules fairly frequently, which isn't a problem with a play-by-post setting.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>14-02-2010, 14:39:53</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				That's hardly going to be a problem :) The rules are there to be referred to.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>16-02-2010, 20:14:17</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Anyone else still interested in this? Realistically I'd like a small group to test it with.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Schrödinger</strong> on <strong>16-02-2010, 21:19:38</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Still interested. Sorry if I hadn't been posting, busy IRL, so that has precedence&nbsp; ;)
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>16-02-2010, 21:32:07</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				RL tends to :)<br><br>It was quiet, that's why I asked :)
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>17-02-2010, 00:26:43</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				More random commentary :)<br><br>I want to tweak the combat section more than currently is to try and work in long range strikes. This would be using fighters, and maybe gunboats, as an offensive strike force that would let a fleet commit to action but keep its line combatants out of range.<br><br>Going as the rules are all capital ships are effectively in range of each other for combat. Question is, how do we go about tweaking things? Thoughts?
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Schrödinger</strong> on <strong>18-02-2010, 18:19:48</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=59900.msg2747894#msg2747894">Quote from: HairyHeretic on 17-02-2010, 00:26:43</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Going as the rules are all capital ships are effectively in range of each other for combat. Question is, how do we go about tweaking things? Thoughts?<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>Well, I can only offer so much, since you said you based it on an existing game system - just use it as is, and add or remove from it only when everyone has understood it. What I'd suggest sometime soon to happen is for you just tell us to make our homeworld, fleet and dynasty, you run it through a moment to check for inconsistensies and the like, and when all submissions are legal and alright, just run the game. When problems do pop up, they can be handled quickly before the entire balance of a whole slew of build options and new units is introduced. We can discuss immediate problems in the game thread, while the underlying mechanics can be discussed and examined in this thread.<br><br>Just my suggestion&nbsp; :P
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>18-02-2010, 20:44:43</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Well, as far as I can see there are three of us here. Ideally I'd like one or two more, but do you think that's enough to start with?
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Schrödinger</strong> on <strong>20-02-2010, 18:34:18</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Re-open the interest check thread you posted earlier and get another pair of people in? <br><br>Go ahead!
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>20-02-2010, 23:53:00</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Yeah, can try a bump and see if we can get another warm body or two.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>27-02-2010, 23:43:17</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Well, no other takers, which is a bit disappointing. I'd have liked at least 1 or 2 more to test this out with. You guys want to give things a go as is then?
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Schrödinger</strong> on <strong>28-02-2010, 18:47:54</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Certainly. At worst, we have a few players less, at best, we may start drawing newcomers - just give them a link to the discussion thread when you do start things off.<br><br>And just in case, wait for the rest to assent as well&nbsp; :P
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: [Ad Astra] - Rules discussion and OOC</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>HairyHeretic</strong> on <strong>03-03-2010, 21:48:42</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Since it just seems to be the two of us I think I'm going to shelve this for the moment. I'd hoped for a bit more interest than it got.
			</dd>
		</dl>
		<div id="footer" class="smalltext">
			
			<span class="smalltext" style="display: inline; visibility: visible; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?action=credits" title="Simple Machines Forum" target="_blank" class="new_win">SMF 2.0.19</a> |
 <a href="https://www.simplemachines.org/about/smf/license.php" title="License" target="_blank" class="new_win">SMF © 2021</a>, <a href="https://www.simplemachines.org" title="Simple Machines" target="_blank" class="new_win">Simple Machines</a>
			</span>
		</div>