Had a few fellow up questions for the answer (above) I received from my last question. The answer implies any “crossfire” based death ending involved in an action that ends the round isn’t punishable, warning or not. Seeing as the rules have been revised and there’s no existence or mention of this anywhere: Will this be mentioned somewhere in the ruleset in the near future? Does role matter? If an innocent jihads and ends the round winning for the innocents without warning, will he be punished for crossfire? What about a detective using the good old “frag jihad” method to end a traitors life and kills a fellow detective while ending the round? What if two innocents coordinate to plant and quickly fail to disarm a c4 and end the game successfully for the innocents without warning. Will he be punished? The loose wording does allow for this interpretation. What I’m getting at is this wording is so loosely goosey here that it should probably be defined and implemented tightly if it’s a thing, rather than leaving it open to player and staff interpretation
from what i remember, the whole reasoning of the rule was not specific to jihad but the situation, If you kill someone and end the round (win ofc) by whatever means, any other damage / kills at the same moment that made no difference to the outcome of the round ending are fine, as what harm did it really do? (apart from your own karma) in cases of none traitors, those collateral kills cant be traitors that you have no right to kill as you wouldn't of ended the round if you didn't kill them the C4 example could theoretically fall under the rule but very low chance of pulling that off vs high change of mass RDM ban, and all traitors your kill you would need valid reasons to do so I'm going to tag @Teroxa for any other advice and if hes aware of any documentation of this change that happened or if he wants to add to rules
The way this is worded really confuses me. Let me ask with an example: if an innocent is killing a traitor and another innocent is killing another innocent at the same time, that innocent death is nullified. Am I getting this right? This would make sense to me because the round would have ended so shortly afterwards that reporting would be pointless.
Here’s a quick list of things I can think of that sound valid without warning, granted they have reasoning and end the game 1. Literally any explosive based case can be arugued if it ends the game (gauss, frag, lion, c4) 2. Prop kill that ends the game but has unintended crossfire (throw by throw basis) 3. Activating the black mesa t trap as means to kill an extremely wounded last target(assuming any unintended deaths/damage happen the same exact tick so it may be considered collateral)
I'm meaning a scenario say, one detective left, three unconfirmed players left. He knows it's just them three and him. He has gotten a harpoon. So he penetrates the three of them, because it'll win the game should he hit them all. I imagine this extreme shot of accuracy would work for this.
NO the kill must be legitimate, he must be targeting someone who he has the right to kill This ruling is simply for collateral damage, generally thats fine with a warnings and thats it
I mean the triple poon case could fall under common sense in a way with this ruling, assuming his aim is up to the task; he knows someone’s gotta be the bad boy, and theoretically has a none discriminatory method of achieving his goal of simultaneous genocide to win; Id argue if he could pull it off (whether it be genocide by poon, jihad), it should be fair game. Like you said earlier, failure not only costs the game but a few slays.
Same could be said if I RDM the entire server and win Fact is you cant kill someone without reason. and since your point isn't a specific person just it has to be 1 of them, its RDM
I’m getting word from a man upstairs that this may change after a discussion in the nearish future. in the mean time
