Breaking World should be blocked by Armistice and Truce

[turmoilbyrd]

Armistice

Armistice says

cannot harm each other or Free buildings

Breaking World

harms all the buildings

If a planet only has buildings that belong to some Commonwealth member, Breaking World is harming the buildings, but not harming the players they belong to (not choosing those players as defender), so a Planet Eater who is a CW member can technically bypass Armistice and destroy those buildings?

Truce

Related question, can Breaking World bypass Truce Law and destroy rival regent buildings

Truce Law.: Regents cannot harm Imperial ships except for hits they take as attacking ships in battle, and they cannot harm or tax Rival Regents in systems with Imperial ships.

Since Breaking World is, again, not technically "harming Rival regents" (not choosing them as defender)

[turmoilbyrd]

Re-reading the text on Truce Law

Regents cannot ... harm or tax Rival Regents in systems with Imperial ships.

The language of "tax Rival Regents" is peculiar.

I am now of the opinion that there are some implicit rules linking the pieces to their players

Implicit rules:

• When an action taxes a piece, it is also considered taxing the player it belongs to
• When an action harms a piece, it is also considered harming the player it belongs to

@jdyearsley Would you say these are accurate to the intention of rules?
If so Breaking World doesn't need errata. And we should understand it as being blocked by both Armistice and Truce

[turmoilbyrd]

Oh I just saw the comment from @jdyearsley in #48

(This also prevents Imperial-on-Imperial violence in the presence of Imperial ships, etc.)

I think the intention is that the Truce Law blocks Breaking World then.

I propose the following FAQ

Q: Is this action blocked by the Truce Law or $link:Armistice$?
A: Yes, you cannot initiate the action at all if you are blocked by them.

This also means

• Warrior golem is blocked by Truce Law and Armistice
• Freedom Fighter is blocked by Armistice (this is probably worth calling out as a FAQ, since it's been asked before)