|
Post by Dubber on Sept 1, 2011 8:28:03 GMT -5
Shouldn't the League Rule thread be posted over in the Cathedral Narthex? Saypin, Bio, Slarty can one of you move it?
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Sept 1, 2011 8:29:59 GMT -5
Also, the pairings thread should be over there, too
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Sept 1, 2011 12:17:37 GMT -5
Moved the Rule thread. I'll move other threads when Saypin creates em.
|
|
|
Post by saypin on Sept 1, 2011 22:10:22 GMT -5
I have no permission to create threads in the Cathedral Narthex
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Sept 2, 2011 0:04:24 GMT -5
Saypin I know. Just create the thread in another subforum, and I'll move it to Narthex.
|
|
|
Post by saypin on Sept 4, 2011 22:42:46 GMT -5
N | Player | Opp1 | Opp2 | Opp3 | Opp4 | Opp5 | 1 | Dubber
| Hermit
| Toyotami | Saypin
| #Utis
| Jes
| 2 | Ellipsis
| Ephemerion
| Freesoul
| #Utis
| Jes
| Saypin
| 3 | Ephemerion
| Utis
| Ellipsis
| Toyotami | Freesoul
| Xade
| 4 | Freesoul
| Ellipsis
| Jes
| #Ephemerion
| Ourjake
| Hermit
| 5 | Hermit
| Saypin
| Dubber
| Xade
| Toyotami | Freesoul
| 6 | Jes
| Freesoul
| Ourjake
| Ellipsis
| Xade
| Dubber
| 7 | Ourjake
| Jes
| Xade
| Freesoul
| Saypin
| Toyotami | 8 | Saypin
| Xade
| Hermit
| Ourjake
| Dubber
| Ellipsis
| 9 | Toyotami | Dubber
| #Utis
| Hermit
| Ephemerion
| Ourjake
| 10 | Utis
| Toyotami | Ephemerion
| Dubber
| Ellipsis
| BYE | 11 | Xade
| Ourjake
| Saypin
| Jes
| Hermit
| Ephemerion
|
|
|
|
Post by jes on Sept 6, 2011 14:13:51 GMT -5
If a player surrenders and targets shield at themselves, is that -1 per shield or for the turn?
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Sept 6, 2011 15:20:50 GMT -5
It probably shouldn't, but then again, there's no real reason to surrender (these are VF games so nothing happens if you die).
Also, just a clarification - you get a point whenever your opponent targets a spell at himself or at you because of the first point-giving rule. The second rule refers to "making" your opponent target you - does that refer to an extra point for being tricksy about it (I doubt that's what was meant), or is it just a colorful way of saying the same thing as the prior sentence?
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Sept 6, 2011 15:22:53 GMT -5
Also, I've been wanting to play a Magic style monster-focused league match for a while now, but this rule is much more extreme than what I was going to propose (that you cannot target opponent warlock while he has a monster in play). I'll be interested to see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Sept 8, 2011 6:52:17 GMT -5
please properly count your score: +10 for a win, +1/-1 for other. When it's a double death, neither player is the "winner" so I used "+/- 1" & "-/+ 1" to show the relative points. Should I have used myself as the "winner" when I reported it?
|
|
|
Post by jes on Sept 8, 2011 10:57:16 GMT -5
please properly count your score: +10 for a win, +1/-1 for other. When it's a double death, neither player is the "winner" so I used "+/- 1" & "-/+ 1" to show the relative points. Should I have used myself as the "winner" when I reported it? Think that was directed at my post (which I have since edited)
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Sept 8, 2011 22:07:45 GMT -5
putting the number of points that you gain or lose and why helps; since it's not always 1 point per turn and it makes it easier to double check if there is a question.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Sept 13, 2011 8:00:01 GMT -5
Challenges away... 3 of my opponents have been away for a significant amount of time - That's 3 spots which I cannot use for two months (or until the challengees return). This is suboptimal in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Sept 19, 2011 12:38:20 GMT -5
I think it's worth raising the concern that this rule provides an unusually high motivation for violation. Freesoul and I noted to each other in private messages that several of our games could have been entirely turned around by a single illegal self-targeted shield (suffering -1 in exchange for victory), and in the match I'm currently in with Saypin, he targeted me one turn with paralysis, targeting my left hand which had gestured "WFPSF", and preventing a potentially game-changing giant.
The rule provides for a greater punishment than a single point in only a narrowly defined case - one in which you target an opponent with a spell that kills him that turn. This doesn't even, as worded, protect against a situation in which I target an opponent with a lightning bolt that reduces him to 1 HP, and then stab him the next turn (which he won't shield against because he's actually following the rules, and the stab is not a spell, so it's legal to target at an opponent).
While I usually assume (as the rule writer probably did), that most players will adhere to the rule on principle and not see the penalty in this case merely as a minor cost associated with targeting, in other months the rule IS effectively set up to be a cost that you will inevitably incur while playing. I think we will want to be more clear in setting up rules how violations of the rule are meant to be interpreted.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 19, 2011 18:48:57 GMT -5
I kinda saw that as a part of the rule- that the unscrupulous warlock *could* turn the tide a little at the overall cost of total points- but you're right, I reckon point isn't deterrent enough- 2 might have done the trick, maybe 3.
Maybe even weight it- if you're indiscression enables you to cast a spell, or prevents a spell, or lose an amount of points equal to the spell effected. (though I spose you'll get people claiming that their Charmed "P-" *totally* would have been a PWPFSSSD and that's 8 points noob."
|
|