RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[MWIN]

Well, most of the players think that the rule is stupid. May be Krill should explain why the rule is needed and some sort of explaination for the punishment....

If they don't understand it, even after some explaintion, then let it go. No rule is bigger than the game itself. BTW, I support your rule...

[Cyneheard]

The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to agree with the Spullla/Dantski camp: They could have avoided this if they'd realized it was a rules problem (AND DON'T RESTRICT DIPLOMACY WITHIN A TURN; that's begging for unintended consequences). This is getting petty on both sides (and that's Krill vs. Spullla at this point, tbph). And now neither you nor they seem to be willing to back down.

[scooter]

I actually don't like the rule, but I don't think that's relevant... If they want to change it, I don't have a problem with that, if it's changed after they are properly dealt with for breaking the rules.

Cyneheard - the thing is they DID realize it was a rules problem within an hour or two of it happening... Check the post by Jabah in their thread. They ignored it, and when it finally was enforced, two days had gone by.

All that said and for all my frustrations with India right now (Speaker's childishness in particular), I do understand their argument that it had little impact on the game itself - meaning the same effect would've been achieved by capturing and then gifting the city. I think India would find themselves with a lot more sympathy if they would just see the other side's argument for the first time this game.

[Axiis]

Hence India are required to delete 7 Cav, and Dantski to delete 2 Muskets for breaking the rule. There is no excuse for not following the rule, as it has been posted for several months, and the Game Admin has been available to answer any queries about the rules which several others players have done.

This sounds like the Vogon (sorry, just read HGttG again and it was on the brain).

Anyway, the ruling is insane. Sorry, but it's a huge overreaction. Deleting every unit involved is a ridiculously harsh punishment for what is generally agreed to be a not-serious infraction. I feel like there's a convention against treatment like this.

[sunrise089]

So far three people in this thread, plus Sullla in the IT thread, have commented on the harshness of the ruling. Just a reminder:

Rifle + 4 cannons = 510 hammers
7 cav = 840 hammers

840/510 = 1.647

Is a ~50% penalty really vastly excessive?

EDIT:

If they don't understand it, even after some explaintion, then let it go. No rule is bigger than the game itself. BTW, I support your rule...

This:

I actually don't like the rule, but I don't think that's relevant... If they want to change it, I don't have a problem with that, if it's changed after they are properly dealt with for breaking the rules.

[Axiis]

Is a ~50% penalty really vastly excessive?

I do not approve of how you're presenting this situation. The units Nakor lost should NOT be counted because it's been said several times without rebuttal that the "rule break" did not ultimately change the outcome of the conflict +/- one crippled musket and the potential counter attack. So yeah, it is really vastly excessive. That's 840 hammers that disappear out of nowhere for the sake of a tenth of that. Not to mention that they are vastly more valuable seeing as how they are 10 exp+ or higher. The ruling was totally unreasonable, and Speaker is 100% in the right in his response.

[sunrise089]

I do not approve of how you're presenting this situation. The units Nakor lost should NOT be counted because it's been said several times without rebuttal that the "rule break" did not ultimately change the outcome of the conflict +/- one crippled musket and the potential counter attack. So yeah, it is really vastly excessive. That's 840 hammers that disappear out of nowhere for the sake of a tenth of that. Not to mention that they are vastly more valuable seeing as how they are 10 exp+ or higher. The ruling was totally unreasonable, and Speaker is 100% in the right in his response.

I guess we've read two different sets of posts. I've seen several people say (and I thought without rebuttal) that India couldn't have killed those units within the ruleset. Are we talking past one another because we have different assumptions about whether India could have gifted Gao (or whatever city it is) to Mali during the turn?

[MJW (ya that one)]

I guess we've read two different sets of posts. I've seen several people say (and I thought without rebuttal) that India couldn't have killed those units within the ruleset. Are we talking past one another because we have different assumptions about whether India could have gifted Gao (or whatever city it is) to Mali during the turn?

If they gift Gao this turn Dantski must go last. This is because Dantski has to accpet the gift in the diplo screen on his "turn". You don't get a liberate city option or the player you want to give it to must answer a prompt. This is seen during the failed Rego plot to take the AP win.

EDIT: In other words once Spulla gives the city; Spulla can not legally move. Dantski MUST accept the city gift on the diplo screen in order to get it on that turn. Once he does that he has moved and Spulla can not make any more moves.

[Serdoa]

sunrise, I guess that your question is exactly the issue here. Spullla are sure that they could capture and gift the city. Nobody so far told them, that they could not because Krills ruling includes ingame diplomacy as well - something they would not accept probably.

But as long as they are not told otherwise they will assume that the ruling is for not killing on their own one redlined defender. And I think it then becomes understandable why they are so reluctant to comply with this ruling.

I think, the best thing would be to explain to all players:

- why this rule is in place
- what exactly it covers (movements, ingame diplomacy, ...) and for what reason

before going on to talk about the ruling for this situation.

[novice]

Gifting Gao is clearly against the spirit of the rule - there's no need to ban diplomacy as a whole. Gifting Gao isn't diplomacy, it's tactics.

Better be careful, Speaker. You might end up alone in your sandbox.

Win. Slaze has a knack for cutting to the core of things.