Hi All,
A situation occured today in a game which has shown us a gap in the 4th age rules.
The strategic pop centre win can only occur on or after turn 12, this is not mentioned in the current rules but will be mentioned in any future rulebooks.
Thanks
Rob
Post:
UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: ME Games Ltd, 73 Edgewood Terrace, South Bound Brook NJ 08880
Telephone:
Phone Times: 10am-6:30pm UK Time (BST); 5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main engaged)
(Dial 011 44 29 2091 3359 if in the US)
US Phone: (732) 642-8777 EST
Fax:
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 (24 hours)
US Fax: 1-503-296-2325
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I dont mind losing a game fair and square but when you go and change the
code just so that a game ends when the opposition have reached Victory
Conditions (which to be fair aren't mentioned in the rules as being
disallowed) you create a large amount of bad will amongst players.
We paid extra for the Special Set-Up and paid for 7 turns in good faith only
to be told that the rules we are playing with are wrong and misses out vital
information. How am I, or anyone else for that matter expected to accept
that ?
All things considered 'we' are not amused!
Thomas Crane
Hi All,
A situation occured today in a game which has shown us a gap in the 4th
age rules.
The strategic pop centre win can only occur on or after turn 12, this is
not mentioned in the current rules but will be mentioned in any future
rulebooks.
I dont mind losing a game fair and square but when you go and change the
code just so that a game ends when the opposition have reached Victory
Conditions (which to be fair aren't mentioned in the rules as being
disallowed) you create a large amount of bad will amongst players.
We wanted the game to continue nearly as much as you guys do.
We paid extra for the Special Set-Up and paid for 7 turns in good faith only
to be told that the rules we are playing with are wrong and misses out vital
information. How am I, or anyone else for that matter expected to accept
that ?
We didn't change the code. The code was in error and the rules were implemented - Victory condition C as per the rulebook on Page 5. I've asked the opposition if they want to continue. If this had happened after turn 12 then you'd be in exactly the same situation though all we did was clarify to everyone what the situation is. You guys weren't aware (or all your emails to me have been that you didn't think the Strategic site victory conditions were in this game).
Though I understand your concern I think what we did was fair and above board. Sorry guys I know it's hard on you all.
In the past we had it that if a player didn't check the hand-moderated relations then we'd correct the relations if something happened (or the players noticed at a later date) but not the impact of not noticing - eg not being able to attack as your relations weren't at disliked.
I think that we changed (so that now we would do the edit) that but need confirmation from someone who actually played in a Grudge game where this was changed. Get back to me if you were in such a game please.
We didn't change the code. The code was in error and the rules were
implemented - Victory condition C as per the rulebook on Page 5. I've
asked the opposition if they want to continue. If this had happened after
turn 12 then you'd be in exactly the same situation though all we did was
clarify to everyone what the situation is. You guys weren't aware (or all
your emails to me have been that you didn't think the Strategic site
victory conditions were in this game).
Well at the time we weren't aware that the rule was actually active in the
Game. In all the others it hasn't it was assumed that it was not being used
in this game either.
I think you will find the code is like that because the game isn't really
designed to played as a Grudge Scenario. All Neutrals must declare by turn
12 and at which point Victory Condition C comes into effect (Since all
allegiances are now confirmed)
But still the fact remains that in the code we haven't lost and as such the
game continues or at least should and why would the opposition continue when
they went to all that effort of getting the Strategic Site victory ?
Though I understand your concern I think what we did was fair and above
board. Sorry guys I know it's hard on you all.
My concern is the amount of money that I put into the game for this to
happen. If the code allows it I wouldn't have minded, well not as much, but
it doesn't and from now on wont either. So basically we have put money into
in effect a Play-Test which is not what we were after.
To be devil's advocate, I assumed that a Fourth Age
game, grudge or not, permitted a strategic site
victory. Was there a basis for the assumption that
because it was a grudge game, that certain FA rules
did or did not apply? Is it an assumed by the playing
community that any strategic victory is unable to
occur before turn 12?
My own answer to the last question is no. I'm fairly
recent to FA (say 6 games under my belt), but I do
know when I played with some very experienced FA
players, and it was turn 8 or so, we became very
concerned about the opposition gaining a strategic
site victory. Never was it mentioned anything by
those players about turn minimums.
> We didn't change the code. The code was in error
and the rules were
> implemented - Victory condition C as per the
rulebook on Page 5. I've
> asked the opposition if they want to continue. If
this had happened after
> turn 12 then you'd be in exactly the same
situation though all we did was
> clarify to everyone what the situation is. You
guys weren't aware (or all
> your emails to me have been that you didn't think
the Strategic site
> victory conditions were in this game).
Well at the time we weren't aware that the rule was
actually active in the
Game. In all the others it hasn't it was assumed
that it was not being used
in this game either.
I think you will find the code is like that because
the game isn't really
designed to played as a Grudge Scenario. All
Neutrals must declare by turn
12 and at which point Victory Condition C comes into
effect (Since all
allegiances are now confirmed)
But still the fact remains that in the code we
haven't lost and as such the
game continues or at least should and why would the
opposition continue when
they went to all that effort of getting the
Strategic Site victory ?
> Though I understand your concern I think what we
did was fair and above
> board. Sorry guys I know it's hard on you all.
My concern is the amount of money that I put into
the game for this to
happen. If the code allows it I wouldn't have
minded, well not as much, but
it doesn't and from now on wont either. So basically
we have put money into
in effect a Play-Test which is not what we were
after.
> Though I understand your concern I think what we did was fair and above
> board. Sorry guys I know it's hard on you all.
My concern is the amount of money that I put into the game for this to
happen. If the code allows it I wouldn't have minded, well not as much, but
it doesn't and from now on wont either. So basically we have put money into
in effect a Play-Test which is not what we were after.
I understand - I'll wait to see what the other team says and then get in touch with you.
I am currently in a game where this happened. The relations for the
neutral pairs were reversed. The mistake wasn't noticed immediately,
saving a town of one such nation. When I finally realized why this
happened, another turn had already. The relations were corrected, but
that was all. It was unfortunate, but seemed like the only thing that
could be done without re-running a turn.
I think it would help most for you all to remind new (all) players of
12v12 scenarios to check explicitly (you may have and I just missed
it).
In the past we had it that if a player didn't check the hand-moderated
relations then we'd correct the relations if something happened (or the
players noticed at a later date) but not the impact of not noticing -
eg not being able to attack as your relations weren't at disliked.
I think that we changed (so that now we would do the edit) that but
need confirmation from someone who actually played in a Grudge game
where this was changed. Get back to me if you were in such a game
please.
My last game I was reminded to check. They send out
the front sheet with information on it, not sure what
else they have to do besides go knocking on all the
player's door...my wife would likely call the cops and
immigration before she let Clint in to talk to me
about Middle Earth, though...
Brad
I am currently in a game where this happened. The
relations for the
neutral pairs were reversed. The mistake wasn't
noticed immediately,
saving a town of one such nation. When I finally
realized why this
happened, another turn had already. The relations
were corrected, but
that was all. It was unfortunate, but seemed like
the only thing that
could be done without re-running a turn.
I think it would help most for you all to remind new
(all) players of
12v12 scenarios to check explicitly (you may have
and I just missed
it).
In the past we had it that if a player didn't check
the hand-moderated
relations then we'd correct the relations if
something happened (or the
players noticed at a later date) but not the impact
of not noticing -
eg not being able to attack as your relations
weren't at disliked.
I think that we changed (so that now we would do the
edit) that but
need confirmation from someone who actually played
in a Grudge game
where this was changed. Get back to me if you were
in such a game
please.
Thanks
Clint
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
Yahoo! your home page
Aussie WC team had a similar situation. Corsairs
relations were not changed as to Harad, and our
Corsairs on turn 4 attacked Harad and the attack
failed (no battle). Clint told us that the rules said
on grudge games we are to check startups as they are
hand done and prone to mistakes, and we got upset (too
upset in some cases, but its in the past). Their
policy was they edited the relations on that turn but
did not change the battle. I may have the
Harad/Corsairs situation mixed up (i.e. we wer CS of
Harad), but that was the deal.
Sidenote: The US team we were playing generously
offered to have the battle resolved that the turns
were re-run. This was not the moderators stance, but
the opposing team agreed to it, and they certainly did
not have to. They also could have hung it over our
headswhen we eventually won, but did not. An
honorable move both sides.
JB
My last game I was reminded to check. They send out
the front sheet with information on it, not sure
what
else they have to do besides go knocking on all the
player's door...my wife would likely call the cops
and
immigration before she let Clint in to talk to me
about Middle Earth, though...
Brad
> I am currently in a game where this happened. The
> relations for the
> neutral pairs were reversed. The mistake wasn't
> noticed immediately,
> saving a town of one such nation. When I finally
> realized why this
> happened, another turn had already. The relations
> were corrected, but
> that was all. It was unfortunate, but seemed like
> the only thing that
> could be done without re-running a turn.
>
> I think it would help most for you all to remind
new
> (all) players of
> 12v12 scenarios to check explicitly (you may have
> and I just missed
> it).
>
> -JR
> JohnnyRoyale@gmail.com
>
> >
> I'm looking to check a ruling about the game.
>
> In the past we had it that if a player didn't
check
> the hand-moderated
> relations then we'd correct the relations if
> something happened (or the
> players noticed at a later date) but not the
impact
> of not noticing -
> eg not being able to attack as your relations
> weren't at disliked.
>
> I think that we changed (so that now we would do
the
> edit) that but
> need confirmation from someone who actually played
> in a Grudge game
> where this was changed. Get back to me if you were
> in such a game
> please.
>
> Thanks
> Clint
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups.
Make
> Yahoo! your home page
>
... not sure what
else they have to do besides go knocking on all the
player's door...my wife would likely call the cops and
immigration before she let Clint in to talk to me
about Middle Earth, though...
What you having sleepless nights again thinking about Game 80...
> > What you having sleepless nights again thinking
> > about Game 80...
> >
> > Clint (player)
>
>Sleepless with anticipation sonny. You're going to
>crash so hard you grandkids will be born with
>headaches and irrational fears of forests....
Urgh - grand-kids - just about able to cope with
kids - shiver runs down
spine....
