unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Feb 19, 2018 10:22:07 GMT
Right there with you, Hubert. I don't care how detailed the 23 skulls are on my infantryman, they shouldn't be there in the first place. What is absurd is that GW's toys are now cheaper than PP's. That's a real issue. -und_ed You Triggered Bruh?
View Attachment
I need to find a safe space
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 19, 2018 10:36:17 GMT
I need to find a safe space How can you not love such a beautiful model, it's not cartoonish in the slightest, all 12 year olds agree skulls are cool!
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Feb 19, 2018 11:06:30 GMT
I need to find a safe space How can you not love such a beautiful model, it's not cartoonish in the slightest, all 12 year olds agree skulls are cool! My mummy gave me one and makes me wear it all the time!
|
|
|
Post by galrohir on Feb 19, 2018 11:34:00 GMT
So from what I can tell here, GW knew they were donating to a childrens' hospital, not just giving the guy money. They weren't piling on to a pity party, but rather his spontaneous charity drive. I'm all for a good GW bashing, but how the hell is that objectionable? If this guy was well-known to host charity drives then it just reinforces that Alex guy is a good dude. If his plan from the beginning was to take whatever winnings or special things he gets from winning LVO and donating it again reinforces the same thing. Keep in mind, you are basing it on the information here and while I could have skipped over that in the video or maybe in the other public post GW made that the other guy linked its simply because I honestly didn't notice it. Its true that negative news often outweighs the positive to only give one perception and not the whole picture. However, even then GW going, "yeah we know how shitty our rules are so we will donate to him anyways" is a really bad move as I explained earlier regardless. If they said "Hey, we know what our rules state but after watching LVO we decided to address some concerns and to showcase that we value sportsmanship over WAAC, we will donate to Alex's charity" would have set an entirely different precedence. GW already revises their rules all the time. Way more than PP does, in fact. Too much, some in the GW community say. And even then, this was purely sportsmanship, not rules. The rules behind Deep Striking aren't complicated, or ambiguous. Set units up at the end of your movement phase more than 9" away from an enemy model. So yes, Tony was in the right when he called Alex's Movement Phase as over after he'd deployed his assassins, but they had agreed to play with intent beforehand and it was obvious it wasn't Alex's intent to not move his entire army. Therefore, while he was right by RAW, it was a terribly unsportsmanlike move, and nothing to do with "shitty rules" as you put it. The only shitty rules on display here is the absence of a timer to prevent slow play, which is what caused the kerfuffle in the first place. Not to mention none of this has anything to do with donating to charity. GW can donate to charity and revise their rules, if they think it's necessary. They just thought donating to charity due to Alex's exemplary behaviour would be A) Something nice to do and probably B) A way to put across that they value good sportsmanship, none of which are bad things.
|
|
Hjard
Junior Strategist
Posts: 123
|
Post by Hjard on Feb 19, 2018 11:40:18 GMT
Uhh, finally someone who read / researched what actually happend! Have a like
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 19, 2018 11:45:48 GMT
At least GW are not fostering an illusion that their game is meant to be played competitively, and kudos to them for donating money to a good cause
|
|
|
Post by galrohir on Feb 19, 2018 11:49:30 GMT
At least GW are not fostering an illusion that their game is meant to be played competitively, and kudos to them for donating money to a good cause I mean, you can play competitively and not be a bad sport so I don't see how this is dispelling the illusion of competitive play. Unless you mean their rules and such in which case, yeah, they could fix some things, and hopefully they will. Why they haven't yet put any sort of clock in tournament play I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 19, 2018 12:05:44 GMT
At least GW are not fostering an illusion that their game is meant to be played competitively, and kudos to them for donating money to a good cause I mean, you can play competitively and not be a bad sport so I don't see how this is dispelling the illusion of competitive play. Unless you mean their rules and such in which case, yeah, they could fix some things, and hopefully they will. Why they haven't yet put any sort of clock in tournament play I don't know. Technically within the 'letter of the rules', the player who stopped Alex from moving his models after deep-striking was in the right, however GW coming out and effectively saying 'if you follow our rules to the letter, you are a bad sport', I feel is pretty indicative that they do not want their game to be played competitively. If I was at a major tourney and refused my opponent vengeance moves after they allocated focus, PP would not call me out for 'rules-lawyering'.
couple with the fact that they have no Steamroller equivalent for competitive play, or run any tournaments themselves, I think it's safe to say they do not like competitive play of their game.
and I am not saying that's a bad thing, it's their game, they can do whatever they like with it, and I respect them for being honest about it
|
|
|
Post by galrohir on Feb 19, 2018 12:26:33 GMT
I mean, you can play competitively and not be a bad sport so I don't see how this is dispelling the illusion of competitive play. Unless you mean their rules and such in which case, yeah, they could fix some things, and hopefully they will. Why they haven't yet put any sort of clock in tournament play I don't know. Technically within the 'letter of the rules', the player who stopped Alex from moving his models after deep-striking was in the right, however GW coming out and effectively saying 'if you follow our rules to the letter, you are a bad sport', I feel is pretty indicative that they do not want their game to be played competitively. If I was at a major tourney and refused my opponent vengeance moves after they allocated focus, PP would not call me out for 'rules-lawyering'.
couple with the fact that they have no Steamroller equivalent for competitive play, or run any tournaments themselves, I think it's safe to say they do not like competitive play of their game.
and I am not saying that's a bad thing, it's their game, they can do whatever they like with it, and I respect them for being honest about it
It wasn't just because of calling Alex out, it was because they had both had a verbal agreement beforehand to play to intent, which Tony broke after intentionally slow playing his first turn to rush Alex. If Tony had not said anything at all during Alex's Deep Striking, I might be more lenient (although even then it would have been iffy.) But he helped him along knowing full well what would happen, which is just bad. Oh, and PP would not call you out for it, but they should. After all, per the rules, you have to resolve all effects that occur during the maintenance phase, meaning if they haven't, they have illegally entered the Control Phase. If they realise this in time and you don't let them take it back, you're being unsportsmanlike. Now sure, if they've hit the Activation phase, and then remember their Vengeance moves, tough cookie, but otherwise? Yeah you're rules lawyering. Now, the rest of your post I do agree with, up to a point. I mean, most of the FAQs they've released and point cost/rule changes they've done are specifically in response to tournament results (barring the first few which were mostly just proofreading), so they obviously care. Just not enough to implement stricter formats, which is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 19, 2018 12:50:06 GMT
galrohir
Just a quick note on Vengeance, the rule states 'each model in the unit can advance', it is not compulsory, it does not state 'must', so if you forget then you are not entitled to go back and do them.
With regards to slow playing, yeah that's a low move, but then what do you expect if they don't use clocks.
With regards to agreeing to 'playing to intent', that is completely untenable for a competitive game. I have played games where my opponent charged in with their jack, and then realised they forgot to but battle on it from the choir first. I am sure they intended to battle first, but they forgot, am I obliged to let them go back because they claimed that was their intent?
|
|
|
Post by galrohir on Feb 19, 2018 13:32:39 GMT
galrohir
Just a quick note on Vengeance, the rule states 'each model in the unit can advance', it is not compulsory, it does not state 'must', so if you forget then you are not entitled to go back and do them.
With regards to slow playing, yeah that's a low move, but then what do you expect if they don't use clocks.
With regards to agreeing to 'playing to intent', that is completely untenable for a competitive game. I have played games where my opponent charged in with their jack, and then realised they forgot to but battle on it from the choir first. I am sure they intended to battle first, but they forgot, am I obliged to let them go back because they claimed that was their intent? Why am I not entitled to go back and do them? This is going to be incredibly pedantic, and I'm just doing it to show why rules lawyering is awful, but nowhere in the Prime digest does it actually state what happens if I forget to do something (for that matter, it doesn't say "no backsies" either) during your phases. You claiming I don't get my Vengeance moves (if I remember them and want to do them) isn't actually RAW. Then again, neither is doing the Phases in the order listed, which is why claiming RAW is king is silly, even if I do get your point. As for playing with intent....I don't know. It is what happened, whether you consider it untenable or not. And this particular example (Alex v Tony) was different from yours for a number of reasons, the most crucial of which being there would be no interaction between their pieces if Tony did allow him to undo his mistake. But to answer your question, no, I wouldn't let them go back. But imagine if the situation is that they finish their Choir's activation and, before doing anything else, they go "Oh shucks, I meant to put Battle on that...uh Revenger (I don't really know my Menoth jacks sorrty). Do you mind if I do it?" By RAW, he can't, since he finished the Choir's activation. But he hasn't done anything else yet either, so the board state hasnt changed since he finished it. What do you do?
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 19, 2018 13:56:49 GMT
galrohir
Time to lawyer up! lets do a 'deep dive' on this baby!
The Prime Rules digest states the 3 phases of a turn:
'A player’s turn has three phases: Maintenance, Control, and Activation.'
Now Warmachine as a rule-set only states 'what you can do', it does not list everything you are 'not allowed to do', it does not explicitly say you can go back to the maintenance phase once you have started the control phase, so you are not allowed to.
With regards to Vengeance, I would like to point you to the rules below regarding 'triggered effects', the important part is in bold. It basically states that if you don't resolve an optional trigger (which Vengeance is because it states 'can', not 'must'), the trigger will still count as having been resolved. It does not matter that you did not do it because you forgot, the trigger has been resolved, and no where in the rules does it state you can re-resolve a trigger because you forgot about it.
'Some rules will describe conditional effects, also referred to as “triggered” effects. These rules will typically describe the trigger condition, the timing of the trigger, the resulting effect, and the timing of the resolution of this effect. If no specific timing is described, the effect is resolved upon the trigger condition being met. If a triggered effect contains an optional part, indicating the player “can” do something, the player can choose not to resolve that part of the effect but the trigger will still count as having resolved.'
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Feb 19, 2018 14:01:12 GMT
If the board state hasn't changed, I'll almost always allow a take-back. The "almost" is reserved for people who do not / have previously not shown me the same courtesy.
-und_ed
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 19, 2018 14:03:45 GMT
If the board state hasn't changed, I'll almost always allow a take-back. The "almost" is reserved for people who do not / have previously not shown me the same courtesy. -und_ed Same here, I let stuff go all the time when I play, even at tournaments, but my point is I would not feel someone was lawyering me or being a bad sport if they declined
|
|
|
Post by lovehugs on Feb 19, 2018 14:13:06 GMT
Yupp, sometimes I activate my caster too early cause I'm too eager to feat and realize I should of attacked with the Fury'd guys first before so I could hotswap.
Generally if I haven't done anything game changing I'll say "oh, I should of done this"
My opponent usually let's me do it. So I try to offer that back by letting them fix up their order of activation if they accidentally block their charge lane or something.
I am getting sloppy though, so, I should probably cut it out before tourneys.
Just depends, are you there to have a fun time playing toy soldiers with others? Or are you there because you want to win and re title Sun Tzu's book to the Art of Warmachine.
|
|