I am sure that this is the result of a debate and discussion. Please share some snippets as to the logic behind it, cause for me it seems convoluted and would result in more work for the admins.
Either my logic is flawed, usually is, but now I am curious as to how.
English is not my first language:
- Can attack any ship that is the target of a contract
So, in order for them to attack any ship or a ship that is neutral or friendly with them *Rep sheet, as according to rules 2.3, 2.4*, they need a contract that makes that ship a target. Is my logic flawed?
BH takes an escort contract from E: The Contract is " escort and defend until I reach destination".
Case 1: The "Target" of the contract is E, that hired BH, because the contract stipulates "Escort and Defend E"; therefore BH can attack E - Reverse Uno time!
Case 2: If C, which is neutral Rep with BH but hostile to E, attacks E - according to the new ID & server rules, BH cannot engage C unless E draws up another contract on the spot making C the target of the contract. As per the contract BH can fight C to defend its escort BUT C is not the target of the initial contract. Therefore problem in ID lines vs Server rules 2.3, 2.4.
Previous ID lines were broad and open to interpretation "Can attack any ship in pursuit of a contract." - Escort Contract > Attack any ships that are engaging me - regardless of Rep sheet stance (neutral or friendly).
Contract - Bounty Board, Escort, Delivery, etc. BH had impunity to attack any ship - even lawful ones - if they interfered with the "Contract" - I hire BH to deliver Xeno Relics to Bretonia and CDI stops them for obvious reasons. They have the choice to fulfill contract and fight the lawful ship or abandon contract and cargo.
Please share the discussion behind this change, because there was a vote and a discussion behind this, but the wording or my own logic is/are beating me savagely at this moment.
