Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
I must admit that I have raised an eyebrow at all the "no spoilers" admonishments that Krill posted in their thread. Not that it's very relevant to this current issue.
Posts: 614
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2005
There was one that ticked off Speaker. But that was posted to save Athlete more than anything else. Athlete didn't exactly read all of Spullla's thread and posted in reply to some remark. We all know what Spullla think of Athlete. Krill was simply warning him to read all of their thread before posting....
Don't remember anything else that got strong reaction from Spullla....
zakalwe Wrote:I must admit that I have raised an eyebrow at all the "no spoilers" admonishments that Krill posted in their thread. Not that it's very relevant to this current issue.
Mwin
Posts: 4,138
Threads: 54
Joined: Dec 2009
zakalwe Wrote:I must admit that I have raised an eyebrow at all the "no spoilers" admonishments that Krill posted in their thread. Not that it's very relevant to this current issue.
To be fair to Krill, policing the very thorny issue of spoilers in this game is a thankless task. You can let it slide and people will get annoyed, or sometimes be over-zealous and people will get annoyed.
Given the 'popularity' of the Spullan thread, I would favour over-zealous over leniency - as we all know that there have been leaks of a sensitive nature in the past.
Plus with Krill as the game admin he is the only one who can do it and carry authority really.
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
Posts: 8,809
Threads: 75
Joined: Apr 2006
zakalwe Wrote:I must admit that I have raised an eyebrow at all the "no spoilers" admonishments that Krill posted in their thread.
I can see that perspective, but keep in mind that there was some leakage from the no spoiler thread into the India thread. I'm not going to argue what action Krill should have taken (if any), I just think characterizing it as a vendetta is over the top.
Darrell
Posts: 70
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2007
Hang on, did anyone read this rule closely?
Krill Wrote:If two players want to attack a single target ie a city belonging to a third party, Civ C, then they must move sequentially. ie Civ A attacks with all of its' units, and then Civ B attacks with all of its' units during the phase of the turn belonging to them. Civ C must wait until the phase of the turn belonging to it before it may counter attack or promote any units etc as proscribed above.
Bolding added by me. The problem, as I understand it, is that a rule was broken because moves were made as such:
Spullla attacks a city
Dantski attacks same city
Spullla attacks a stack outside that city
thus interleaving their attacks. But the rule only prohibits interleaving attacks against a single target. The third attack was against a separate target, which is not prohibited.
Posts: 614
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2005
Just because I want to dig everything that is bad about Spulllaâ¦.
Does anybody think Spullla would have accepted Krill's decision in their fight against Jowy? As I see it, Krill instituted new rules during that controversy. There was no basis (based on existing rules) for awarding Spullla second half.
Mwin
Posts: 614
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2005
Add one more line at the start: Dantski attacks city with catapults
Also, there was some clarification regarding city gifting and using it (culture) to attack unit behind the city. Read Serdoa's post...
Sofis Wrote:Hang on, did anyone read this rule closely?
Bolding added by me. The problem, as I understand it, is that a rule was broken because moves were made as such:
Spullla attacks a city
Dantski attacks same city
Spullla attacks a stack outside that city
thus interleaving their attacks. But the rule only prohibits interleaving attacks against a single target. The third attack was against a separate target, which is not prohibited.
Mwin
Posts: 23,634
Threads: 134
Joined: Jun 2009
Serdoa, Beamup, guys, you have done a fantastic job here, I can't thank you enough for arguing the point and writing this draft. It is a much better post than I could have written, ever, so thank you for writing it 
Serdoa, the reason I'm not going to reference that you wrote that post is that I expect backlash from Spullla, and it is best that it is directed at myself rather than a lurker. I hope you understand, and I fully expect that the players will thank you for writing the post once the game is finished (you never know, that could be tomorrow...)
Current games (All): RtR: PB83
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71 PB80. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 PBEM23Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 15,388
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
I'd just like to take a short second to hijack this thread and remind you all how much more fun PBEM is than Pitboss. I mean unless you're into this kinda thing. Thanks, I'm done  .
Posts: 8,293
Threads: 83
Joined: Oct 2009
scooter Wrote:I'd just like to take a short second to hijack this thread and remind you all how much more fun PBEM is than Pitboss. I mean unless you're into this kinda thing. Thanks, I'm done . I'm having so much fun playing 1 turn per week
:2dance: <-- thats me and my pbem buddies, having fun
|
