Proposal: Alliance Warfare

Add a new Rule called Alliance Warfare

At any time, if an Alliance has no pending Attack declaration the Leader may post an attack declaration in the format "Attack: [Warlord]", where [Warlord] is a Warlord not in the Attacking alliance. In the comments for this entry, Warlords in the Attacking Alliance and the Warlords in the Alliance of the Attacked Warlord (Defending Alliance) , must indicate, using the FOR and AGAINST icons whether they will participate in the battle with the exception of the Attacked Warlord, who must participate.

After 24 hours, if no Warlords in the Attacking Alliance have voted FOR, the Attack automatically fails and the Leader at the time of the declaration loses 15 Reputation. Otherwise all Warlords in the Attacking Alliance who voted FOR Attack the Defender and any allies which voted FOR participating, with the Leader serving as Attack coordinator and the Defender as the Defense coordinator.

If the attack fails, all Warlords in the Attacking Alliance lose 5 Reputation, and those who did not participate lose an additional 5 Reputation. If the attack succeeds, all Warlords in the Defending Alliance lose 5 Reputation, and those who did not participate lose an additional 5 Reputation.

If there are no rules for multiple Warlords attacking multiple Warlords in the Ruleset, this Rule may not be used.

This does a few interesting things. It gives an actual meaning to Leadership, and gives an actual reason for an alliance to not want weaker people in it, as they will be forced to constantly defend them or lose reputation.

8-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos - Aaron's vote not counted, as he's not in a Alliance