Pink Dot IT Office - Email and technical issues thread - All welcome, all the time

[MWIN]

By removing, part b, affected Elkad/ZPV both times. Strange...

[dsplaisted]

I still think it's a double move as the move order was:

125 - Elkad then ds
126 - ds (then Elkad should move)

I don't think that allowing this kind of move order was the intention of the rule, even though the wording is a bit unclear (to put it mildly). If double moves aren't allowed then you surely can't have a ruling that actually allows them!

My understanding of the rules is that there is no turn order, and the only real restriction is that in wartime each unit has to wait 9 hours after moving to move again.

Some teams decided to agree to a turn order when going to war, but I never did- I never brought the issue up and neither did ZPV or Elkad.

[dsplaisted]

By removing, part b, affected Elkad/ZPV both times. Strange...

Actually I have been at war with Elkad/ZPV since before ZPV dropped, so there was no war declaration involved in this instance.

[Swiss Pauli]

But if there's no set turn order then why bother with the double move rule at all?

I'm not saying that you knowingly made an illegal move, but looking at the situation dispassionately, it does seem a little absurd that a rule to prevent double moves should actually allow them.

[novice]

I still think it's a double move as the move order was:

125 - Elkad then ds
126 - ds (then Elkad should move)

I don't think that allowing this kind of move order was the intention of the rule, even though the wording is a bit unclear (to put it mildly). If double moves aren't allowed then you surely can't have a ruling that actually allows them!

That's a circular argument. But I agree that the turn order for the entire civ should be the same every turn. Civ is a turn-based game after all. Not that it is my business.

[dsplaisted]

But if there's no set turn order then why bother with the double move rule at all?

I'm not saying that you knowingly made an illegal move, but looking at the situation dispassionately, it does seem a little absurd that a rule to prevent double moves should actually allow them.

Hmm, well I always thought it was obvious that the rule didn't prevent all double-moves. It was supposed to be a compromise between not slowing the game down too much and not putting players at too much of a disadvantage due to double-moves.

[T-hawk]

I'm not saying that you knowingly made an illegal move, but looking at the situation dispassionately, it does seem a little absurd that a rule to prevent double moves should actually allow them.

It's absurd, but it happened. It clearly was a double move - civstats shows that Elkad logged in before dsp on T125, then dsp logged in before Elkad on T126. But it was legal by the letter of the rule, since dsp's moves on T125 happened with more than 9 hours remaining, so no unit moved twice within 9 hours. And there's no rule about enforcing a turn order.

[MWIN]

How do you enforce rule (D), act in good faith? If we have a rule then we should also have a way to enforce it....

It is a double move but not according to the rule. But what about rule D, how do you enforce it?

May be they can vote or agree on something that is good faith.

It's absurd, but it happened. It clearly was a double move - civstats shows that Elkad logged in before dsp on T125, then dsp logged in before Elkad on T126. But it was legal by the letter of the rule, since dsp's moves on T125 happened with more than 9 hours remaining, so no unit moved twice within 9 hours. And there's no rule about enforcing a turn order.

[novice]

Sounds to me like the rules were followed and dsplaisted acted in good faith, as he assumed no fixed turn order. (Clearly, if he was surprised by the double move claim, he acted in good faith. Acting in good faith means not doing something you think is wrong, as far as I know. (But I'm not a native english speaker.))

[Yazilliclick]

I don't understand how anybody can say that it's a double move for sure, because it really isn't. No unit moved twice within the 9 hour time period without giving Elk a chance to react. It may be a bit of a loop hole and against a good faith part but it's not strictly against the rules or a double move from what I've read.

I think it would make sense to rule against it though and require that a turn order occur during a war (at least for any units in enemy territory or potentially in a conflict situation) as these types of moves can be used to throw off opponents unfairly.