Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Call for Judgment: Because I’d prefer to win legitimately this dynasty

Times out. Passes 6-1.—Clucky

Adminned at 09 Dec 2011 10:49:37 UTC

In the rule “Routes”, change

This moves the Route to the bottom of the list, makes it Inactive, and, if that Route was Active and the Driver did not Avoid it, causes them to get the effects, if any, described in the subrule corresponding to that Route.

to

This moves the Route to the bottom of the list and makes it Inactive. Subrules of this rule may specify events that happen upon Driving a route, but those effects do not happen unless the route was Active before it was driven.

Change the values of GNDT-tracked gamestate to the values they would have if non-Active routes had never had any effect when Driven, and the effects of each Route had only happened once on each occasion it was Driven while Active.

Rule 2.3 specifies that Driving a route causes its effects to happen. Its subrules, the way that they’re written also specify that Driving a route causes something to happen, in the definition of the effect. This has two effects:

  • Pretty unambiguously, driving an Inactive or Blocked route causes its effects to happen, because rule 2.3’s subrules say so, and are not overriden anywhere (as rule 2.3 only defines effects of driving an Active Route).
  • More controversially, I think it’s reasonable (most reasonable?) to read 2.3 as causing the effects of a route to happen if it’s driven while active, in addition to its subrules causing them to happen, i.e. driving a route causes its effects to happen twice.

As a result, the gamestate’s pretty unintentionally screwed up right now, and the actual gamestate is very exploitable and grindy (with the best strategy being to hit all your double-dailies and get Cash from each of them); and rather than scamming this, I’d prefer if it were just fixed and reverted. Given that nobody noticed this earlier, the GNDT is currently incorrect but in the desired gamestate; so this CFJ, although it changes the gamestate, shouldn’t require adjusting the GNDT, and I suggest we just play as if the rules were right all along.

Comments

Prince Anduril:

06-12-2011 12:42:22 UTC

against Good catch, but I’m not enamoured with the solution’s wording. Surely if a route has ever been active before you drive it, then you fulfil the condition.

ais523:

06-12-2011 12:42:28 UTC

If it seems out of character for me to point this out rather than exploit it: I admit, I was tempted to just buy a Golden route using double Cash generation and drive it five times, but I don’t think I could keep up the grinding, and other people might notice (and be in a better position to win than I was). And we’d have ended up in a huge row about whether the scam actually existed or not, like usual.

Prince Anduril:

06-12-2011 13:32:17 UTC

Sure. Found the whole dynasty a bit grindy though to be honest.

ChronosPhaenon:

06-12-2011 17:36:36 UTC

for

Cpt_Koen:

06-12-2011 17:50:38 UTC

for I would prefer, though, if all Routes subrules were reworded instead:
“An Airport Route has a Scouting Cost of 10. When a Driver Drives an Active Airport Route, that Driver earns 3 Cash.”

Pavitra:

07-12-2011 00:11:03 UTC

for I don’t think Prince Anduril’s bug exists.

Clucky: he/him

07-12-2011 02:56:20 UTC

for

Bucky:

07-12-2011 03:34:56 UTC

for

Prince Anduril:

07-12-2011 13:21:54 UTC

“those effects do not happen unless the route was Active before it was driven”

means the same as:

“The only situation in which those effects happen is if the route was Active before it was driven”

So, if I have an Active route and drive it, then it becomes Inactive. However, there is nothing to stop me driving that Inactive route again (if it is at the front of my pool) because it was “Active before”.

Since this is the only rule which defines what can or cannot be driven, this “fix” still leaves all routes (including Blocked routes) drivable.

Murphy:

07-12-2011 15:43:10 UTC

for

Cpt_Koen:

07-12-2011 16:01:31 UTC

If the text was:
“those effects do not happen unless the Route has been Active before Driven”
Then I would agree. But as it is written now, though it is a little ambiguous, I don’t think it can be interpreted the way you say.

Prince Anduril:

07-12-2011 16:23:29 UTC

Google definition of the word “was”: past tense of be (Verb)