Chris are you saying you think enough time has passed and you think there should be replacement players?

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 09:38 am: Edit

As the player Brendan Lally beat before disappearing I would advance to the next round. At least under one of the rules.

The_Rock rightly followed orders to assign the vacancy to The_Hood, even though such an assignment did not follow the posted rules.

Captainron was the first replacement applicant that I saw; 9:00 PM August 28. On August 31 Paul posted a request that replacement players e-mail him, which I did on September 3rd after getting blowed up.

If The_Hood and Devil had gotten their fight done this would all be moot, but a month and a half later the tournament is still hung up on this match.

I still want to fight.

By Gregg Dieckhaus (Gdieck) on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 11:02 am: Edit

Last stated on Feb 4, Game 3.4 is through 8 turns
and they are on opposite time zones...

By Andrew J Koch (Droid) on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 11:33 am: Edit

If they are through 8 turns it would most likely be an adjudication situation not a replacement.

Paul was giving them some slack the last I knew due to living on opposite sides of the planet, but a few weeks have gone by, maybe it's time to consider a judgement.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 11:35 am: Edit

Roger that. Once the game is begun the question moves from replacement to adjudication. No one likes adjudication.

Would it be possible to establish the replacement procedure prior to next year's Platinum Hat?

By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 12:14 pm: Edit

There is a replacement procedure and it was established prior to the PH. I happened not to know of it, but it was there and was referenced to me by SPP when I asked. It is different from the one we, as a community, have established for our online games, but there is nothing unclear about it.

If a game requires replacement (this one will not), the next up in this tournament is Ken Lin, since he is the only player to have lost in the semi-final round, and that is the first selection criteria - person who lost deepest in the tournament.

If there is more than one, you determine which losing player came closer to winning.

I think that is all spelled out in the Tournament Module.

By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 12:43 pm: Edit

I'll also express an opinion on all of this that is probably contrary to my reputation. As a judge, I have a pretty strong preference for games ending on the player's terms - whether that be a concession, a victory or a request for adjudication.

It matters a lot to me who is doing the complaining. If Steve (Moose) or Paul (Grim) were upset about the delays or if SVC were to tell me - look, I really need something for CL XX - those things would matter a lot to me as a judge. Spectators not getting web updates fast enough actually do matter to me, but not as much.

So, from my perspective we have a game that is holding up the tournament, but it is one of only three games left in the entire tournament. None of the players of that game are frustrated (or if they are, they have not said so). Their opponents in-waiting are not frustrated and the game designer is not frustrated. Under those conditions - and then especially considering the conditions of the game itself, e.g. progress and time zones - I am willing to be pretty patient.

I understand (having been there myself) that the desires of spectators also matter, but for me the balance of all interests tells me to wait. If something in my working assumptions were to change, that opinion might also change and I might be inclined to quickly move the game to adjudication. But I am not there yet.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Agreed, spectators take a back seat to participants.

At the moment the Platinum Hat page lists replacement procedures that are not in force. When the next Platinum Hat comes around it would be nice if it does not include these miscues.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Is it legal in the WYN TAxBC to take the options Hellbore, ADD 12, ADD 12, Phaser G?

By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 08:15 pm: Edit

Josh, yes, the 2 ADDs fulfill the 2 local weapon requirements so that is a legal package. Not a particularly good one, but legal.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 10:38 pm: Edit

If Moose would just take 4xADD, we might stand a chance against him...

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 10:32 am: Edit

That is certainly an, uh, innovative package idea. I could certainly see an argument for HB, PG, ADD, Drone, but 2xADD seems excessive.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 01:53 pm: Edit

It does have some major issues.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Saturday, May 03, 2014 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Does the TLM have casual deck crews?

A TLM starts the game holding 2 suicide shuttles and begins charging 2 more suicide shuttles.

It launches and later recovers both stingers but the deck crew are still working on the SS arming process.

The suicide shuttles could launch as early as impulse 3.1, but what impulse could the deck crews start rearming or repairing the stingers?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 03, 2014 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Pretty sure there is not such thing as a casual deck crew.

Also pretty sure that you don't need to assign any sort of crew (deck crew or otherwise) to arm suicide shuttles.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Saturday, May 03, 2014 - 08:29 pm: Edit

I mean the 2 deck crew granted under rule J4.814 to all ships.

Does the TLM have them or does it only get the deck crew for its stingers?

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Saturday, May 03, 2014 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Your right, I see nothing in the suicide shuttle rule saying you have to use a deck crew action.

Its servicing them when they are recovered that takes a deck crew action.

Thanks Richard

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Saturday, May 03, 2014 - 08:46 pm: Edit

(G9.4222) mentions that a crew unit is required in the shuttle bay to load up Suicides and Weasels. I thought there was a ruling somewhere (on the BBS?) that a Deck Crew (or "casual DC" (J4.814) ) was needed to prepare any special shuttle.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 03, 2014 - 09:33 pm: Edit

I don't see rule G9.4222 in the master rule book. G9.42 (which it would fall under) is about undermanned ships, which does not apply in tournaments (which do not use crew units).

G9.422 talks about using crew units on an undermanned ship to operate system boxes, it does not specifically mention shuttles and does not refer to suicide or wild weasel shuttles at all.

J4.814 does not use the term 'casual deck crew' or in fact have the word 'casual' present at all.

In fact, using the electronic rule book, searching for 'casual deck crew' fails to come up with a hit.

I don't remember any such ruling myself. Can you provide a link or the date and thread in which it can be found?

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Saturday, May 03, 2014 - 09:44 pm: Edit

"(G9.4222) Multi-turn arming weapons must be continuously supervised . . ."

Its in there.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 03, 2014 - 10:09 pm: Edit

What product is that rule in? It's not in the electronic MRB.

Also, your quote above does not actually say a crew unit (or deck crew) is needed. I'd like to see the rule, so please let me know in which product that it can be found.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Sunday, May 04, 2014 - 12:35 am: Edit

In the errata section of this website, there is a file Update D which includes many subrules under the (G9.42) rule including the (G9.4222) rule. See the fourth page of the PDF.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, May 04, 2014 - 02:47 am: Edit

There it is. Therefor in tournament play, the answer is no deck crews are needed for suicide shuttles or wild weasels.

G9.4222 Only applies if a ship is undermanned (as that's what G9.42 is about) and all of this only applies if you are using crew units.

As tournament play does not use crew units, G9.4222 can not apply in a tournament game. Ever. If tournament play did use crew units, G9.4222 would only apply if a ship was undermanned.

Now, you will need to check the rules on this but I think that the deck crews provided under J4.814 are only present if a ship doesn't have any deck crews otherwise. That's off memory though, I could be wrong.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Saturday, July 26, 2014 - 12:32 am: Edit

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Questions to this point have been downloaded for Captain's Log #49.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Thursday, January 01, 2015 - 07:06 pm: Edit

From T2012 "TIME LIMITS: Players will have a maximum of five minutes (or one minute longer than your opponent, whichever is more) to complete their Energy Allocation Form each turn. Opponents are responsible for timing each other. If the form is not completed within the time limit, any unallocated energy is lost. Players will have a maximum of 30 seconds each impulse to make movement decisions and 60 seconds to make fire and other decisions. Players are responsible to time each other; this provision will only be required in the case of obvious stalling. Some judges might specify longer limits."

Are time limits imposed or followed or even attempted when playing tournament games over SFBOL? Does this speed up games?