FG: GO 13 - Orthodox New Year Edition!

[joncha]

We can always debate your changes after the game.

[snoopy369]

I have no objection for this game, I was too busy to send in orders.

However, I think the attacker has the impetus to remember to send in an OOB first, or no battle at all takes place.

Penalizing stupidity is more in the spirit of the game, I see no reason to penalize only one and not the other.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I have no objection for this game, I was too busy to send in orders.

However, I think the attacker has the impetus to remember to send in an OOB first, or no battle at all takes place.

Penalizing stupidity is more in the spirit of the game, I see no reason to penalize only one and not the other.

perhaps a compromise can be made, Snoopy loses his bases, but the attacker loses his fleet due to ships running into each other and such.

[joncha]

I support the ruling on the field.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by Whoha


perhaps a compromise can be made, Snoopy loses his bases, but the attacker loses his fleet due to ships running into each other and such.

That's not much of a compromise, now is it?

[Ljube]

Originally posted by joncha
I support the ruling on the field.

Thanks joncha. Furthermore, I doubt a situation like this will occur ever again, so the most important thing is to have provisions in the rules for such situations, not what those provisions are. It's not like everybody will suddenly start to send in attack orders without OoB.

[Skanky Burns]

Ljube

Sent.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by joncha
I support the ruling on the field.

[Whoha]

The ruling on the field is quite adequate, I just want to screw over two people that aren't me

[Kassiopeia]

Sent.

[Spaced Cowboy]

How in the heck do you send in order to attack but no oob.

I also support the ruling on the field, but I think that in the future, the attacking fleet goes home. No OOB, no battle.

[Jonny]

Semt.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
How in the heck do you send in order to attack but no oob.

I also support the ruling on the field, but I think that in the future, the attacking fleet goes home. No OOB, no battle.

Agreed on both counts.

[:) Smiley]

sent

[Hercules]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I think we need to make a couple of rules on this sort of silliness:

- If the attacker attacks with no OOB, and the defender has ships and an OOB, the entire attacking fleet is completely destroyed.

- If the attacker has no OOB, and the defender has ships but no OOB, neither fleet is damaged and no bases are taken.

- If the attacker has no OOB, and the defender has neither ships nor an OOB (as was the case here) then the attacker takes the bases.

- If an attacker with no OOB hits a shield, the ships are taken smallest-first, with no regards to weapon type.

I think this proposal from Jaguar is closest to a solution. But may need adaptation.
in case 1) say, a 100 titan laser fleet attacked (without an OoB) on a base with 1TF with an OoB. This proposed outcome above, is unfair: a mere 1TF defeating a 100 Titan fleet?.

So perhaps, with more work for the GM (when it happens), a better solution is, worst case attack OoB against best case defence OoB.

in case 2), say again with more work for the GM, on the rare occasion this happens, an attacker has 110 Laser titan fleet,(but no OoB) but the defender has 1000 Torpedo titans ( but no OoB) . The proposal is status quo, however this itself may evolve into at tactic. I wonder would it be better to have: worst case attack versus worst case defence ot best case attack v best case defence ,and divide.

case 3) is 'ruling on the field', no question.