Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Proposal: Ghost Fire

Timed out 1 vote to 3 with 1 unresolved DEF. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 Aug 2019 09:37:10 UTC

If the proposal “Cast Turn Undead on Ghost Ships” enacted, then reduce by 1 the Armour Value of the oldest Transport controlled by Derrick, and reduce by 1 the Armour Value of the oldest Minelayer controlled by Thunder.

Pokes makes a fair point on Ghost Ships - some of us will have taken collisions into account when choosing our Orders for the previous Watch, to the extent of opting not to create a ship. The two players who decided it was worth the risk (or overlooked the rule) shouldn’t get a free pass.

Comments

TyGuy6:

08-13-2019 10:31:23 UTC

for Sure, seems fair.

pokes:

08-13-2019 12:53:42 UTC

for

derrick:

08-13-2019 13:42:47 UTC

against

No, not fair… its retroactively applying a broken rule to before it was fixed. Because Ghost ships needs to be enacted, those ships have the armor values of 4 and 2.

Kevan:

08-13-2019 14:13:14 UTC

What rule was broken? The Port collision rule was an unusual one thematically, but that’s all.

If it’s fair to refund two players the armour lost, it would also be fair to let other players resubmit Orders for that Watch, if any of them would have acted differently had the ruleset said “safe to collide in ports” at the time.

derrick:

08-13-2019 14:25:36 UTC

In armor value and damage the armor values of all vessels were fixed: “The armor value of Transports is two”. This makes it so damage cannot be sustained until ghost ships passes.

TyGuy6:

08-13-2019 15:02:47 UTC

Derrick is correct, it’s retroactively applying a fix (can take dmg) to a time when it was broken (ghost ships). I support rules as written, read not for the intent but for the language used. Kevan’s team could have abused the same broken state to get more ships out at once, had they noticed as well.

against CoV

Thunder:

08-13-2019 21:44:26 UTC

against per derrick. Both RAW and rule flavor fit together neatly on this. It’s only the mix that makes an issue.

Kevan:

08-14-2019 08:12:54 UTC

Ah, got it. There’s a significant difference between “collisions can happen in port” and “battleships are immortal”, though - the first seems like something we’d negotiate changing (and may even decide not to change), while the latter is a clear unintentional bug which might have been CfJ’d away at any time. But I can see the timings now.

Would be impolite to self-kill a proposal made to enforce another player’s suggestion, so:  imperial