RBP3 IT Office - Email and technical issues

[Ruff_Hi]

I wonder why you didn't bring this up when the wording was being discussed, given that the aim was to prevent double moves

Because I was too busy working on my Lurker Code of Conduct! Do I have to do all of the critical thinking for you guys!

[antisocialmunky]

Easy way to tighten the rule that we have is to say that they must move in the half they are claiming on the declaration turn too.

Longer term, Krill is right about the 'has a team moved' part. How about we add a flag that people can trip to let everyone else know that they are in WHEOOHs mode?

That would be nice to have the tool record this.

[scooter]

Why not just adopt the RBP2 rule that Krill put together? I think most agree that it's the most complete/thorough rule that anyone's come up with so far. There will never be a perfect double-move rule, but that's as good as anyone's gotten so far.

[Jowy]

At some point this will get so complicated that this double-move rule actually causes more problems than what it was created to prevent. It'll be interesting to see what we'll do when we hit that point.

[sunrise089]

Guys, we just voted on a set of double move rules here. No need to talk about changing them on T12. The rules, posted in the 2nd post of the planning thread, make the progression clear.

On any turn, the attacker can DoW. They are also allowed to pick their half of the turn.

On all successive turns there is an enforced turn split. Yes this system gives an advantage to the attacker, but that was known when it was voted for.

The only exception to this simple system is possible double moves from units that were moved the turn prior to the DoW. So if I move a warrior late and then DoW next turn and choose first half, and want to move my warrior, I've double moved, right? So the solution, already put into the rules, is that I must secretly follow the turn split system the turn prior to DoWing. So I play a turn in the first half, turn rolls, I DoW and claim first half.

EDIT: Ok, to be sporting we can plug the "holl" here Ruff found - When we say "attacker can claim their half" we don't mean the attacker can move in one half and then claim the other half. I thought such was obvious, my apologies it wasn't.

[sooooo]

I agree with wot sunrise wrote.

[Krill]

How about just make it:
-Attacker must declare and end turn on the turn half they want.
-If it is the first half, the defender must wait for the attacker to finish moving on the first war turn.
-If it is the second half, the defender must finish all its moves before the attacker moves the first turn.

I would prefer a simple rule as more words does not a better ruleset make.

There are a multitude of problems with this. For instance, look at when Jowy declared war on Spullla. He declared in the second half of the turn, but Spullla wanted to move afterwards. Your rule would have either enforced a double move, or precluded Spullla from having one turn to move units in.

If you take this example for one player teams that may only have a 2 hour window to play the turn, it's easily possible that the one person team would be unable to make any moves, unless the game was constantly paused for them.

On any turn, the attacker can DoW. They are also allowed to pick their half of the turn.

Not according to the rules as written; small teams have a limited amount of time to play, and limited windows of opportunity to play in. This automatically forces smaller teams to play at unreasonable times, and thus hands the advantage to those teams that can play early on in the turn. As it is I'm almost never going to be able to choose what part of the turn I get in a war, and I don't even know what is going to happen once we get to multi party wars. The way the current rule is set up a team could have the end part of a turn in one theatre, start in another...

On all successive turns there is an enforced turn split. Yes this system gives an advantage to the attacker, but that was known when it was voted for.

It doesn't really benefit the attacker, it benefits the large teams. Not that it's wrong, provided that the smaller teams don't get completely screwed over on play times.

I agree with antisocialmunky, a simple rule works. I think this overthought example just gives people more licence to exploit and misconstrue and deceive. I wonder if that may be what some were gunning for?

The problem is that a simple rule doesn't usually work for a complicated situation. This game has 16 sides, and the rule as written doesn't even say anything about multi-party wars, which this game almost certainly will contain. Which is what the rule I quoted above was designed to address; at the core it is almost identical to the current rule. Now, we could continue along until we hit another problem, or we could try and sort out any problem now before it occurs.

[antisocialmunky]

That's true, but now that sunrise has cleared up the loop hole, lets just get on with everything until the next one.

That also doesn't preclude a person getting attacked by multiple unallied parties on the same turn.

[dazedroyalty]

Guys, we just voted on a set of double move rules here. No need to talk about changing them on T12. The rules, posted in the 2nd post of the planning thread, make the progression clear.

On any turn, the attacker can DoW. They are also allowed to pick their half of the turn.

On all successive turns there is an enforced turn split. Yes this system gives an advantage to the attacker, but that was known when it was voted for.

The only exception to this simple system is possible double moves from units that were moved the turn prior to the DoW. So if I move a warrior late and then DoW next turn and choose first half, and want to move my warrior, I've double moved, right? So the solution, already put into the rules, is that I must secretly follow the turn split system the turn prior to DoWing. So I play a turn in the first half, turn rolls, I DoW and claim first half.

EDIT: Ok, to be sporting we can plug the "holl" here Ruff found - When we say "attacker can claim their half" we don't mean the attacker can move in one half and then claim the other half. I thought such was obvious, my apologies it wasn't.

I agree with this. There is no way to make a totally fair system. While it may seem self serving coming from a three player team, I think that it is only natural to have an advantage as a larger player team. No one had to play solo. That said, I have no problem with a solo player enlisting temporary help from a lurker somehow to make the move in the proper time frame if needed or in a pause taking place to make sure the right part of the turn is happening when a player is available.

[haphazard1]

That said, I have no problem with a solo player enlisting temporary help from a lurker somehow to make the move in the proper time frame if needed or in a pause taking place to make sure the right part of the turn is happening when a player is available.

I (personally, not representing my team) agree with this. And if necessary, the turn timer can be extended if/when multi-sided conflicts create issues with teams being unable to play in their designated "slice" of the turn. Longer turns might work better than pauses.