Mjmd is doing the lord's work right now in Amica's thread. Mucho kudos for being the breaker of bad news! 
|
[PB64] Lurking Randomly
|
|
The rule as written, about a peactime turn split existing when a player knows about it, should be revised. It puts an increasingly large burden on the player as the game grows more complex. In the simplest case where you have two mutually visible settlers next to each other, then it's straightforward that the player who moved second shouldn't double move. Here we have a scenario where Amica saw a settler on a previous turn, then saw the workers, and I'm not convinced that he was supposed to have recognized that they were in a settling race. But advance further into the tech tree and now we have railroads and modern ships and either player could double move a settler 20 tiles across continents. Do peacetime double moves just get disallowed entirely at that point?
Put another way, if Amica was supposed to know about a turn split on t190 and not double move, why wasn't naufragar supposed to know about one on t189 and not double move? Wanting to resettle during enforced peace after cities were razed should be reasonable to both players. Is the difference that Amica saw something and naufragar didn't? Would the ruling be different then if naufragar had espionage city visibility or a sentry unit? 
If Nauf saw the settler it 100% would be a different ruling. There really isn't any thing else those two workers could have been doing. You can't even argue they were roading an attack path because Amica had plenty of turns to pillage. I believe Amica just missed it, but none the less you can see why Nauf thinks there is no way that Amica missed it. Should we punish Nauf?
Edit: I'm fully in favor of rule change, but probably something like 3-5 T not 10 for after war. And all other double move into settler race get turn order decided by die roll, but again discussion for about a week from now in etiquette thread.
Didn't naufragar double move on t189 to put those Workers onto that tile? So the burden here was on Amica to see it then and ask for a reload, but he didn't so he is stuck playing second on t190?
Yeah, an enforced turn split after war sounds like a much better alternative.
Indeed, the way I read the rules, Amica would have been within his rights to request a reload of T189 to overrule Nauf's double-turning and ask for an enforced peacetime turnsplit thereafter where he goes before Nauf...if he had noticed the 2 workers, suspected a settler race, and made the request. But we've moved past that now, so I guess Amica could be advised to just chalking it up to not paying laser-like attention and move on? As a player, I suspect it would be paradoxically easier to accept an outcome if you know it came from your own oversight rather than referees interpreting a rule in what seems like an arbitrary way.
I would like to see a rule change too. I feel the rule should capture that a turn split should mimic how the turns have been played in the preceding X number of turns. So that in the instance of naufrager - amicalola where they have been both double moving each other then because that was the established pattern there would have been no reload.
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
So Nauf was in his right to double move. Amica did not inform him of a turn split so he could double play. What sucks about this rule is the burden here is actually on Amica to spot and then the rule forces Amica to concede the spot basically because Amica HAS to then start a turn split being second. That is why its not a great idea to just rely on players best intentions because the rule as written just sucks for person who identify if they aren't in the position they would like to be in. This happened to me twice in PB54 and I couldn't do anything about being second because Van just played instantly. I could have solved this issue by double playing into the contested zone, which again this rule allows and encourages! because you get rewarded for doing so. In PB62 Bellarch who I was ded lurking CONSTANTLY played withing like 20 min of the turn roll so generally would be first in a split. Someone double played the turn they moved into contested area and got first in settler turn split. Rule straight sucks, but as I've constantly been reminded it is the current rule......
(September 5th, 2022, 22:41)pindicator Wrote: I would like to see a rule change too. I feel the rule should capture that a turn split should mimic how the turns have been played in the preceding X number of turns. So that in the instance of naufrager - amicalola where they have been both double moving each other then because that was the established pattern there would have been no reload. The problem is where do you draw the line. Well x players played first for 5 turns in a row but then a player played 2 turns before in a row ect. In this case because it was post war I like the 3-5 turn peace split upon request because it gives advantage to first in war turn which lord that player needs. Outside of a prior war should just be a dice toss for turn order up so people are incentivized to play clock games.
September 5th, 2022, 22:52
(This post was last modified: September 5th, 2022, 23:00 by El Grillo.)
I'm not sure how you would write this into a rule, but I think the players should both realize that they were in a settling race until all the razed cities were resettled. Making a distinction on seeing or not seeing a settler under those circumstances is not the same as in the opening stages of the game.
EDIT: I'm imagining how clunky this could get with railroads and transports involved. I could see a lategame war where both sides are ready to resettle multiple spots the turn peace is declared. I think keeping the war-time turn split is the only way to handle that, unless you want to flip coins for each city 
|
