Dark Knight

[Cor2]

My definition of an exploit is a little diffrent, i guess.
1 Does it greatly unbalance the game?
2 Was it NOT intended to be used that way?
3 Is it rarely used, usually by very experince players?
4 And most importantly does it signifigantly detract from the fun of the game?

To me the bogus "exploit" answers yes to all my conditions so it is an exploit.

The archer baiting, for me is
1 no 2 yes 3 no 4 no

So its not an exploit in my book.

Mists answers
1yes 2yes 3yes 4 yes
So mists is a exploit to me.

[Xietor]

I will add if you need to use exploits to win,"maybe poker just ain't your game."

Doc Holliday: Why Ike, whatever do you mean? Maybe poker's just not your game. I know! Let's have a spelling contest! ...

Tombstone

[thejeff]

The problem with house rules is: can they change during a game?

I don't believe either the Bogus exploit or the MoD were explicitly banned at the start of most of either llamabeast's or Velusion's games. Now both have said they are.
Is it fair to change the house rules part way through the game? Is it fair not to ban a newly discovered problem?

[Velusion]

thejeff said:
The problem with house rules is: can they change during a game?

I don't believe either the Bogus exploit or the MoD were explicitly banned at the start of most of either llamabeast's or Velusion's games. Now both have said they are.
Is it fair to change the house rules part way through the game? Is it fair not to ban a newly discovered problem?

Per my rules (not allowed):
� Exploit known bugs on Edi�s bug list (see main forum sticky) or obvious bugs that aren't on Edi's list.

KO's announcement that he recommends it not be used in MP play without everyone's permission is enough for me to label it an "obvious bug".

[Xietor]

It is my opinion that it was always improper to use them. shrug. I think this discussion just confirmed the general consensus.

As I mentioned previously the issue was raised in the middle of Alpaca. Many very experienced players in that game, and everyone said you could not copy the orders of the dark knight over to other commanders. Not 1 player argued that it was proper.

[Ironhawk]

Xietor, I'm unclear how you can "confirm general consensus" out of a hotly debated thread with veteran players taking clear stands with good points on both sides of a line.

[Xietor]

Ironhawk, your opinion is obviously as valued as any other player. But I think more people, numerically, have agreed that it is an exploit. Add to that the 10 players in the Alpaca game. Then add to that the developer who made the game-who designed and balanced it.

While the issue was not laid out before Alpaca began, when the issue arose, the player properly brought the issue up and it was decided 10-0 that the order could not be copied to other commanders.

I only see 3-4 people saying they think "anything goes."

So when I say general consensus, I mean the majority of people that posted on the thread, with KO's opinion being decisive in my mind.

[Ironhawk]

Well, I'm too lazy to go back and count exactly how many are for and how many against. But I take the length and continued debate on the thread to mean that the issue is still contentious. As for KO's opinion being the end-all of the debate I totally disagree. The fact of his intent on the Bogus problem is almost insignificant when you compare it to the analogous problem of archer decoying. That was intended to be removed and yet people still use it commonly without anyone crying foul.

As to the question of changing house rules while a game is playing: I think you definitely need to be able to do so. But thejeff's point stands that it is unfair to change the rules out from underneath a player in mid-game. IMO, the only reasonable solution to changing house rules is to just vote it out in the thread and have the game host break ties.

[Edratman]

Kristoffer O said:
They doesn't have the tactical, strategical or practical sense to order their fellows to do stuff in an orderly fashion. Works much like headmasters at schools, CEO's and other bosses. Most can make the organization around, but some are quite lousy at getting people work as a unit with a common goal.

In game terms they might just panic and shout 'fire', instead of telling their subordinates to 'fire at their incoming knights'.

Seems reasonable to me. Most mages have low leadershgip values to represent that they are unused to giving order during stressful situations such as battles.


Edit: Hmm, this was an answer to a post some pages back about lousy commanders. Didnt realize there was so many posts after that one.

This is reply to my question because I could not figure out the logic of your statement where you considered limiting the commands of weak leaders. Your answer clears that up now.

We were talking about two different types of commanders. I was thinking "weak commanders" meant the military type with leadership 40 to 120, with one map movement, nothing special in hit points, armor etc, which aren't even good ferry captains. You were talking about mages and others with low unit leadership, around 10 or so as an example.

There are about 2 gazillion posts in between our exchanges so this probably will get hidden in the fog of forum.

[WonderLlama]

thejeff said:
The problem with house rules is: can they change during a game?

I don't believe either the Bogus exploit or the MoD were explicitly banned at the start of most of either llamabeast's or Velusion's games. Now both have said they are.
Is it fair to change the house rules part way through the game? Is it fair not to ban a newly discovered problem?

As I am playing Caelum one of those games (Mongoose), I'm betting I'd be the one to benefit most from the MoD exploit. But I wholly support it being banned.

I'd suggest that the only time it becomes a problem to ban something mid game is if someone has already spent a good deal of resources under the assumption it was legal. Which is not the case about 12 turns into a game, as is about when this came up in the Mongoose game. If someone has spent a lot of resources that become wasted because of a closed exploit, I'd suggest it be up to them to demonstrate that. If they can, than leave the exploit open until next game.

<edited because I realised the point was less specific than I thought.>