|
Post by ephemerr on Sept 20, 2011 10:35:21 GMT -5
The rule needs some clearing. What I have understood is next -1pt for casting non-summon spell at myself lose game for stab or casting non-summon spell at opponent But how can I force him to target spells at himself?
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Sept 20, 2011 11:48:44 GMT -5
Ephemerr, I think we decided that the intention of the rule was simply that whenever you target a spell at either yourself or your opponent, you lose 1 pt (and he gains 1 pt), and vice versa. And stabs technically aren't spells, so as far as I'm aware they're legal.
And Xade, I might also have interpreted this rule that way if not for the fact that it included a clause at the end about winning via rule violation. That seems to make the intention clear that this is a rule not meant to be taken as a mere point-exchange. In the past rules like this often said "if you target a spell at yourself or opponent you forfeit", but obviously there are problems with that, too - half the games include someone self-targeting a shield without thinking about it. I don't think we should return to "forfeit" style rules, but if a rule is meant to be seen as "this is the cost of doing business", then they need to be much more balanced than this rule is, and if the penalty is rather "we assume you're not going to violate the rule, but if you do, once, by accident, you lose 1 point," that needs to be more clear.
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Sept 21, 2011 18:11:42 GMT -5
the points were kind of tacked on afterwards. the -1 was what we went with because we didn't figure everybody wanted "check your target boxes or you LOSE!" as the rule. in hindsight, we should have looked at it more as a cost of doing business, but we didn't think that anyone would break the rules on purpose, and we didn't want to overcharge for the first-turn shields.
*by "we", i mean "me", this is my logic. other people may have other reasons, but this is what we went with
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 22, 2011 1:29:44 GMT -5
I wonder how a successful Disease counts under the rules? (am considering casting one... )
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Sept 22, 2011 7:52:19 GMT -5
if it's successful i would think that you'd lose a point for casting and then the game for winning with the spell you cast illegally
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Sept 22, 2011 11:17:17 GMT -5
For the record, Ourjake, I assumed that was what you meant, and it was a reasonable thing to think in formulating the rule. Assuming that everyone plays with that understanding, it's not a problem, but again, the temptation to violate the rule is particularly juicy, as there's virtually no punishment for doing so (and, for instance, I'm pretty sure my game with Saypin went from almost-certain-win to almost-certain-lose as a result of that one rule violation, though I'm admittedly not helping myself out by continuing to adhere to my para-limit self-imposed rule here).
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Sept 23, 2011 11:00:36 GMT -5
I will also note that in Dubber's most recently reported game comes back to Jes' question that went unanswered in the thread. Spells Saypin inadvertently cast as part of a surrender perhaps should not result in penalties (if they have no result on the outcome). That's what I suggested earlier in this thread, though an argument in favor of penalizing surrender is that a player can still choose to target spells at "Nobody" when surrendering.
|
|
|
Post by ephemerr on Sept 25, 2011 8:34:04 GMT -5
And who will decide have rule been violated by accident or by purpose? The court with judges? Rules must give each game situation single meaning. My last understanding is following: -1 pt for each non-summon spell casted at a player +1 pt for each of non-summon spell casted at a player by your opponent Your loose game if your opponent died in turn when he had been affected by some of your spells. And everything that's not forbidden is allowed.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Sept 25, 2011 23:41:11 GMT -5
I agree that's what the rule literally says, ephemerr, but I'm suggesting that it was written under an assumption that players would all make good faith efforts not to intentionally violate the rule, because if not, and especially if some players are willing to violate the rule and others try not to, then it immediately becomes a very bad rule.
I'm trying to avoid focusing on the match I had with Saypin, because I think this is worth discussing on more abstract merits, but he made no pretense of having paralyzed my giant-summoning hand by accident. It's pretty clear that he interpreted the rule as "this is the cost of doing business" and I interpreted it as "everyone is expected to adhere to the rule, but we expect that a couple accidents will happen and don't want to force people to forfeit". This disparity meant that Saypin and I were effectively playing different games, and that's a problem worth discussing.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Sept 26, 2011 7:52:39 GMT -5
Ever the literalist, I merely scored it as the rules declared. It never occurred to me that one would consciously choose to violate the rules. The +/- scores are how we score, hence my scoring of my game with Saypin.
That said, the idea of consciously violating the rules for advantage is interesting. Not ethical, perhaps, but we *are* the evil warlocks on the hell plane, right? So it could/should sort of be expected...
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Sept 26, 2011 8:58:11 GMT -5
Good point, Dubber, but this is league play, which by design is about all agreeing to play according to temporary rules in good faith for the purpose of fun and gameplay experimentation. It's always possible for league players to go against the spirit of the rules to their advantage, but as these are unranked games, the consequences of playing according to the rules and losing are not serious. Intentionally violating those rules is, on the one hand, also not that serious, but is bad sportsmanship.
For the record, I intend to continue playing attempting not to violate the rules, and will play assuming that my opponents are also playing this way. If my remaining opponents decide to target spells at themselves or at me, they're free to beat me doing so.
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Sept 26, 2011 21:05:59 GMT -5
i tend to view it as THESE ARE THE RULES! DO NOT BREAK THEM! then at the end of the game we check the points
I did not assume that someone would intentionally break the rules; because the whole point of the league is to play by the special rules. When there have been rules that were meant to be a kind of risk/reward they are clearly framed as such (new spell rules:+1/-1 for use, "ends in D/F" target rule). This rule was clearly meant as a way that the game was meant to be played. The points system is only there as a minor punishment for what was an expected accident. I understand where it might sometimes be considered a cost of doing business; but when the rule intends for that, it, generally, says so clearly.
|
|
|
Post by saypin on Sept 27, 2011 5:57:20 GMT -5
Cast WFPSFW and win? FFFFFFFF
Seems dull and boring to me. And I'm glad to see at least an interest in this rule.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Sept 27, 2011 6:26:45 GMT -5
I see it more as "Allow your opponent to successfully summon a Giant and lose" Cast WFPSFW and win? FFFFFFFF Seems dull and boring to me. And I'm glad to see at least an interest in this rule.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Sept 27, 2011 6:27:29 GMT -5
Oh... wait... I see it more as "Allow your opponent to successfully summon a Giant and lose" Cast WFPSFW and win? FFFFFFFF Seems dull and boring to me. And I'm glad to see at least an interest in this rule.
|
|