The 10-Square Myth

First, my primary argument: there is no 10-Square "Rule" in this game - that is a myth that needs to be broken apart and shoved down the throat of Audrey in her awakened state.

There is only a 10-Square "restriction" in this game, coded in by the developers to restrict settlement specifically by the Exodus or Tenaril movement processes, and that restriction is overcome by Sov 5 on the desired tile.  We can ask GM Stormcrow all day long as to "why" this was coded into the game, but the history will only be partly beneficial.

You can Settle a town within 10 squares!!  A Settler can be sent within the 10-square distance and settle a town, so what does this say about the intent of the dev's?  Again, none of these game coding dynamics results in a town "owning" squares around it - so why do we insist in speaking of and labeling a "10-Square Rule" that does not exist?

Okay, so you say your alliance upholds the "10-Square 'Rule'" for your alliance's sake.  Let's be clear on the terminology, and the semantics matters - what your alliance publishes is not a rule, it is an alliance policy.  None of us alliance leaders set rules in the game, we can only try to publish and enforce alliance policy.  So before you flame this post, recognize that.

More terminology: "tradition" - or even "Dogma."  Please look those up in your dictionary of choice.  That's a bit of what we have here in game with the 10-Square "Rule."

Land Sovereignty (not ownership).  We need to first be reminded that Sovereignty as defined means that the area is controlled and free from external influence.  However, a "Sovereign" tile can most certainly be influenced in this game!  If you do not have an army actively camped on a sovereign tile, the "locals" are not chasing off a neutral/enemy harvester, cotter, miner, herbalist, and especially not an enemy army.  Sovereignty, while the game continues to disallow counter-sov claims, is a (for now) permanent label but there is only one thing that sovereignty prevents: Settlement!!  So why do you think this gives you further ownership, when ownership in itself is different than sovereignty?  Sovereignty is the only coded-in labeling system to show a player's claims outside a town.  But - there's no 10-Square restriction to claiming sovereignty!  Think about that - the game coded in a system to claim land anywhere on the map, so long as your army can hold the land for the claim, and so long as you can afford to pay the gold.   

Land Control.  Now this is different, and regardless whether sovereignty does or does not exist on the tile - an Occupying Army can control land in this game.  That control by the army(s) will not last past 14 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes, unless the army is back-filled with another army before that time to continue the process of controlling the land.  Neutral or enemy harvesters are killed on site if they attempt to harvest from the same square an Army is occupying. 

While I am stating the obvious in terms of game dynamics, code, gameplay for many of you, I am putting all this in one thread because the primary argument is that we have a "norm" that is over-stated and misused in this game, to try and tell alliance members, newbs, and the whole community that there is a 10-Square "Rule" - but the rule is a myth.  Each alliance can try to make this a policy, and then fight to uphold their policy, but for the love of pete stop saying there is a 10-Square "Rule" that does not exist!!!

Myll