On October the 9th, 2017 R4GE TASK FORCE launched an operation with the intent of uniting the Milsim community. This bold operation, backed by the ICON coalition, attempts to standardize rules through force. Many crews, including Stricom have been offered an ultimatum: Join ICON, or be destroyed. There is no middle ground. As an avid fan of Halo, I can't help but be reminded of the Covenant Empire. The Covenant was a theocratic military alliance consisting of multiple alien species. All of these species, working together towards their goal of "salvation". When they encounter a new species, they give them an ultimatum: Join us, and fall under Covenant jurisdiction, or reject their beliefs, and be annihilated. The Covenant used their overwhelming force to grow larger and larger. However, their beliefs were flawed, guided by an ignorance. Eventually, the Covenant started fighting internally, as such a force so widespread could not avoid questioning it's own mission forever. The Covenant destroyed itself as violently as it destroyed others. You see, it's a story as old as time, big coalition is created, they try to "take over", and destroy themselves through their eventual realization of their greater Hipocrisy.
Am I implying ICON's beliefs are flawed, and ignorant? That ICON is hypocritical in their mission? Yes. Let me explain how.
These "milsim" rules are so poorly written there are no references to any proper military regulation whatsoever. In fact, the drafter of these first 12 rules had the balls to disable spellcheck altogether. Let's go through each rule together, shall we?
1. Every war has it's own set of rules.
Thanks for establishing that.
2. The challenging crew picks the war rules and aiming preference but the opponent gets to pick 1-2 rules as long as it doesn't go against the set rules and they also get to host the session
So, I can declare war, decide what rules there will be in the war I wish to wage, and the enemy has the privilege to decide any rules that the attacking side didn't come up with? Sounds like bullshit for every clan that has war declared on them. That's like the United States declaring war on China, and expecting China to follow their rules, AND invade the United States. It doesn't work that way pal. If you declare war on someone, you should expect to fight on the enemy's terms.
3. A raid is when a crew joins a game without warning and attacks
This isn't a rule, this is a definition, and context for word usage throughout the document. Should have been included at the bottom.
4. In order to win a battle (fight) the winning crew must have the must screen shots and at least 1 person from the crew has to stay in the game till the enemy has left to win
Yes, this is copied, word for word, grammatical errors included. Assuming he means "the most screen shots", this is yet another example of poor writing. The open ended usage of "most screenshots" could literally be defined as:
Broadly: the crew, whose members captured the most screenshots using the Xbox DVR.
Narrowly: the crew captured the most screenshots containing killfeed.
Since there is no context, or further explanation, the interpretation is subjective, person to person.
5. An assassination is when you are stabbed with a knife and killed while the assassin is up on you or tied with you for it to count
Yet another definition, and why is an assasination important? It is not directly referenced anywhere else, though it is indirectly referenced in the next rule. (So why is this here then?)
6. At a meeting if you are sniped or stabbed and killed then you were setup and that counts as a win for the attacking crew (the attacking crew then has the right to leave after setting the other crew up at the meeting)
So, "sniping or stabbing" an enemy at a crew meeting counts as a win for the attacking crew. This is one of the only rules that has some sort of reasonable basis.
7. If you are allied with a crew you can't attack or threaten your allie unless you want to end the aIIiance
What is the logic in this? The only reason anyone would attack an ally would be to end an alliance. This rule is very redundant.
8. In order for a crew to rule (dictate) a milsim the crew ruling must be a military/milsim and must be undefeated if the crew is to be defeated then the crew that defeated them are the next rulers until they are defeated (if a ruling crew is defeated they can take their leadership back by defeating the people that beat them later on)
If this is meant to imply a milsim crew can rule another milsim crew, this is ridiculous. Nobody has, and ever will, submit to the rule of another crew. Sure, they may merge, but most crews would rather fight until they fall apart. This makes no sense in the Milsim realm, and it's actual application is extremely acute.
9. In order to win a war a crew must win 3 battles and at that point the defeated crew has to surrender or they are no longer considered milsim/military
Let us ask ourselves, since we are milsims, how does that make any sense. Just because a milsim refuses to surrender, because obviously they didn't join the coalition to begin with, doesn't mean they aren't a milsim.
10. A coalition must consist of at least 3 people
Another definition, and why would crews be apart of different coalitions? And is ICON supposed to be military allies? Or something like the U.N. where different clans within can still be enemies to each other. If so, how would ICON engage non ICON members with internal fighting? If not, how useful are the rules if nobody is fighting each other?
11. Im order to be considered milsim/military your crew must have a crew uniform and your crew must follow these rules
So if a crew declares war on me, and makes the rules that it must be in auto-aim, and that my whole crew may not enter any vehicles during the entire battle, and I refuse to follow those rules, I am not a milsim? K. Also, the uniform doesn't have any restrictions???
12. If you are against these rules then you must fight ICON and win then you may change the rules
But if someone beat ICON, they would want to abolish the rules, not feed into the system. Since the only people capable of beating superior numbers are skilled players, that's beside the point. Just as ICON wishes to destroy it's enemies, it's enemies wish to destroy ICON.
As of publication, ICON is made up of the following crews:
R4GE Rask Force
Joint Task Force Sentinels
United States Marine Corpv
Sabre Task Force
United Regiment Corps
13th Marine Regiment
Divided Secret Forces
Semper Fidelis Special Forces
Order of the Black Hand
R4GE TASK FORCE claims that they are spearheading a milsim coalition, but the rules they have created fail to acknowledge a fact of circumstance. It did not take much investigative research to find the reasoning for the broadness of the terms used, the poorness of intent, and the barbaric nature of such a coalition.
The answer is simple, it's not a milsim coalition.
What evidence do I have to support such a bold claim? Let's start with R4GE Task Force, R4GE has been long known as an auto aim military crew. I have confirmed that R4GE did in fact draft those rules. The rules above spoke nothing of what most military crews consider milsim, that includes weapon restrictions on the use of explosives, the use of passive mode, the use of BST, and other game breaking exploits. It could be by accident, but it is likely a choice of design. R4GE, using the coalition as their army, much like how the prophets used the Covenant to maintain power. Some members in R4GE are known "tryhards", players who dislike restrictions on their playstyle, and only value that they see as the true identifier of skill, the score card system. This doesn't mean R4GE are pure tryhards, but they are far from the title of military simulation, if the only thing they care about "simulating" is petty assassinations, and shortcuts to the way we fight wars.
Next up, would be Joint Task Force Sentinels, (you had to know this one was coming), JTFS is even better known as the tryhard crew that wears military outfits. One of JTFS' own members refuted a claim that they were tryhards in this way: "Just because we wear military outfits doesn't mean we have to play like a military, we just like the theme." JTFS is one of the largest Auto-aim "militaries" so it is not surprising they must have had a say in the drafting of the rules.
Finally, United States Marine Corpv, while I don't know you very well personally, i do recall your crew's public instagram page giving shoutouts to tryhards via your story. As a fellow free-aim crew, i understand the appeal ICON may have for you, but after showing these facts, I ask for you to reconsider the path you are on.
This goes to the other crews in ICON as well. Question your involvement, ask yourself whether the rules can be improved, and the method of spreading them through the community, and advocate for your crew.
To top this off, if ICON declares war on SCDF, it will be to ultimately show their ignorance to the flaws of their poorly created rules that echo the same issues as the Revival Agreement. Many of the issues presented are solved in the Los Santos Conventions, which has it's own tab above. Thank you for reading this.
We are for hire! Contact us with any information, and arrange a meeting here.
Contact us via Gamertags
ASEC Zero- CEO
Kelmy98- Chief Informations Officer
ASEC Ventral- Caelus Squadron Commander
ForceSith1- Victoria Battalion Commander
© COPYRIGHT 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.