|
Post by Dubber on Jan 6, 2010 13:15:31 GMT -5
although going by that game my opinion may be a bit biased Heh, yeah, just checking on you
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Jan 7, 2010 16:24:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xade on Jan 7, 2010 17:15:31 GMT -5
Same here Dubberoonie. Plenty of time left so far though...
|
|
|
Post by saypin on Jan 11, 2010 0:00:44 GMT -5
That was my Internet provider's a New Year gift... Sorry for a delay
|
|
|
Post by saypin on Jan 12, 2010 23:31:37 GMT -5
And... why aren't we see a pretty light blue coloured forum design?
|
|
|
Post by hermit on Jan 17, 2010 16:10:26 GMT -5
Saypin and I are playing in the league, and I made a small error: games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=74086I didn't target my para to 'no-one'. although it does not change the game in any way (he would have had to para himself this turn anyway), it is a technical violation of the rules. I asked Saypin if he'd like me to surrender, continue playing, or even restart, and he suggested we put it up to the judge. So, BioLogIn , whats your verdict? I think either of us are fine with whatever you decide.
|
|
|
Post by saypin on Jan 18, 2010 1:16:18 GMT -5
Yes, but I think replay is not a good variant due to next week's deadline
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jan 18, 2010 10:49:51 GMT -5
Well, my humble opinion is that because League is about having fun, breaking rules (which are not supported by the game engine and are hard to maintain by hand) should be punished only if it has affected game state. In this very case, it is clear to me that Hermit's mistake didn't affected the game state at all - the same hand of Saypin made the same gestures, and he is dying in few turns regardless of everything.
So I'd say that since this mistake hasn't affected the game state, the game should be continued as is.
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Jan 19, 2010 16:37:43 GMT -5
Ellipsis seems to have badly misinterpreted the league rule. Game: games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=74138&turn=48Ellipsis gets hit by a para(2) on turn 48 and an anti-spell on turn 49. On turn 50, he gestures a P on the para(2)'d hand, rather than the - he would need to if hit by two turns of paralysis. He argues that since the hand was a P when it was originally paralyzed, he is allowed to enter a P as if the paralysis 'sees' only the gesture which the first turn of paralysis hit. (The difference in interpretation also happened at a very critical time - during a permanency weave where the extra - would have cost him at least 16% of survival chance)
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jan 19, 2010 17:37:13 GMT -5
The current version of rule description is kinda vague and doesn't allow me to rule this situation out.
I'd like Ourjake to comment on how he _intended_ Para2 to work in such situations (ones involving antispell); of course this comment is better to be theoretical and not biased by\based on this specific game and its participants.
I'll try to judge this position later based on Ourjake's comments.
|
|
|
Post by saypin on Jan 20, 2010 6:17:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Jan 20, 2010 10:56:18 GMT -5
my apologies for the poor wording in the rule description. clearly i did not think it through as well as i thought.
i intended for it to check the gestures each turn (the blank would have been para'd). this is more in keeping with the way permanency works (and haste to my knowledge).
for the perm i would think that since dubber got +1 every turn last month against ellipsis i would think you would get +1 every other turn since the para lasts two.
in hindsight there probably should have been a contingency for people forgetting and whatnot as it was bound to come up a lot...but c'est la vie i suppose.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Jan 20, 2010 18:02:11 GMT -5
i intended for it to check the gestures each turn (the blank would have been para'd). this is more in keeping with the way permanency works (and haste to my knowledge). Well, haste works much more messily, but that is how permanency works. In that case, we can consider the battle to have ended in Mike's favor that turn.
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Jan 20, 2010 21:50:42 GMT -5
i hardly ever get a chance for a clean haste, and have not gotten to fool with it much. from everything i have read, it are tricky waters
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Jan 21, 2010 14:14:30 GMT -5
Probably worth pointing out that BigJim hasn't logged in this month, or accepted my duel (and I assume the duels of everyone else he was paired against).
|
|