|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Aug 18, 2008 12:12:30 GMT
There I've said it. I'm sure there are other people who think the same. I'm also sure there are people who disagree too.
Here are my reasons - in no particular order.
1 - They didn't use the official terrain
2 - John used unpainted models. No penalty has been applied for this, but should anybody do the same now there will be a very stiff penalty - this doesn't seem fair
3 - Two lists were outstanding when they played - one of which is from a player in their league
Applying the (now stated) unpainted penalty to John would be Draconian, as he wasn't aware what it would be, only that unpainted minis weren't allowed. But ignoring the infraction is unfair to the other players - several of which would have played last week too, but are who are desperately trying to finish off their armies.
Therefore I feel that a replay would be the fairest solution all round.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 18, 2008 13:00:49 GMT
Personally, I'm not overly fussed by this - and I'm not gonna get all stressed about it either
After all, we have mercilessly ribbed John about this for the past
In the final analysis, despite all of Mark's objections, it was a fair game - and therefore a valid result
As far as I'm concerned the only issue is whether or not Dave feels aggrieved - if he does, they replay - if not, the result stands
Anything more is, to my mind, a bit too rules lawyery (is that a word?) for what is, after all, meant to be a friendly little internal competition
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Aug 18, 2008 13:23:24 GMT
In the final analysis, despite all of Mark's objections, it was a fair game - and therefore a valid result I never suggested that it wasn't a fair game. However, I don't think it is fair on the rest of us that this game wasn't played according to the competition rules. I think a couple of us might have used different armies had we known we could get away with using some unpainted figures. I know I would have. As far as I'm concerned the only issue is whether or not Dave feels aggrieved - if he does, they replay - if not, the result stands I can understand this point of view, I just don't agree with it. Players shouldn't be allowed to pick an choose which rules they follow. That way lies madness. Anything more is, to my mind, a bit too rules lawyery (is that a word?) for what is, after all, meant to be a friendly little internal competition Again, I can understand where you are coming form here, but I just don't agree. Would it be OK, as long as my opponent didn't object of course, if I decided to break some of the other rules, used a old army list perhaps, or one of the new ones, or a different one each week? Where do you draw the line? IMHO if you take the time to put rules in the rulespack then you must enforce them. Otherwise what is the point of having rules in the first place? Friendly competition - yeah, right  |
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 18, 2008 13:40:53 GMT
1 - They didn't use the official terrain [/quote True. Although the terrain used was intentionally chosen to disadvantage Dave's Empire less. 2 - John used unpainted models. No penalty has been applied for this, but should anybody do the same now there will be a very stiff penalty - this doesn't seem fair Again true, and as it was in the rulepack and I should of been aware of it, it is a valid reason to invalidate the game if so wished. 3 - Two lists were outstanding when they played - one of which is from a player in their league If this is the case, do myself and Dave have to enter new army lists? After all, if it is important for people not to have seen other peoples armies then that is the only course of action. The fact I have finished my Black Knights and Second Corpse cart since I handed my first list in is purely coincidental. - - - I'm not going to lose sleep over having to re-play the game if that is what is decided. I am also absolutely happy to re-play if Dave wishes. But it does seem a little like the fact I used 9 undercoated models, chose to let my opponent have more favourable terrain and that Brian might abuse the sight of our game to re-tool his list is being used as a trojan horse to advocate invalidating a maximum point victory, with the only possible outcome being a net point loss to myself. Mike was also looking for a tournament game for last Monday, and my game with Dave was agreed a week prior at which point the general view at the club was that it was fine to start playing. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Aug 18, 2008 13:53:20 GMT
But it does seem a little like the fact I used 9 undercoated models, chose to let my opponent have more favourable terrain and that Brian might abuse the sight of our game to re-tool his list is being used as a trojan horse to advocate invalidating a maximum point victory, with the only possible outcome being a net point loss to myself. If you seriously think that is what I am doing then I couldn't be more insulted.  |
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 18, 2008 14:11:29 GMT
It was a badly chosen choice of phrase. I certainly don't think that was your intention and my implying it was entirely out of place. I have never seen you be anything less than fair and agreeable player. I can only ask you treat this as an immiedate withdrawl and apology. A long day at work at the risks of discussion via internet evidently haven't reflected well on me today.
Edit: I guess I just don't see the enormity of the issue. With the exception of the undercoated models the other points seem trivial to extreme.
I of course am aware that is merely my own view of it and others are perfectly valid in feeling otherwise, but there were enough people around last week while we were playing who didn't see any issue then. We could of easily agreed to play on a different date and played Cowboys and Indians if we had even the remotest idea that the game might of been voided.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 18, 2008 15:53:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Aug 18, 2008 16:14:06 GMT
True, but my response was only meant for Dave - whose list I had checked. I should have been more specific. However, when I was asked last week if I thought you should play the game I said that I didn't think you should. I still think that now. The third point really is the minor one of the three though, as I am sure neither Brian or Terry would change their lists to counter something they saw in your game. It's a shame you didn't paint the 9 models in the two weeks after arranging the game. Would have saved a lot of grief. Of course had Steve detailed the penalty for using unpainted figures then I'm sure you wouldn't have played the game. I just don't understand why you were both in such a rush to play the game. |
|
|
|
Post by ralkr56 on Sept 15, 2008 23:51:20 GMT
Been off line for a while so did not have my say. I do not want to stir up old wounds but feel I should explain why I made the final decision as I did.
First of all I totally agree with Mark that there were two potential reasons for the game not being valid:-
1 - They didn't use the official terrain
2 - John used unpainted models.
When I drafted the rules I did expect this to be a "friendly" competition. My definition of friendly is that where a situation arises in a game it should be settled if possible by the two parties concerned amicably without the need for a third party to adjudicate every issue. In this case either party could have declined to fight the game as a competition game as they did not have the official game maps and Dave could have declined as his opponent had unpainted figures. Despite these issues they agreed to fight the game as a competition game and I do not think either issue affected the actual outcome of the game. I believe the fairest outcome to both parties was therefore to let the result stand. In fact to overrule their decision to my mind will mean that every rule decision/clarification agreed by both parties during a game could later be challenged and overturned by another player if it is found to have been made in error.
However the rule on the use of unpainted figures is there to maintain club standards (to be frank and honest the fact that the club secretary had chosen to fight an opponent with unpainted figures was also a key factor and had it been say a junior member who I felt may have been under pressure to play the game then I would probably have come to a different decision) and had been agreed by all players. I therefore felt that we could not allow this rule to continue to be breached at the discretion of the players so made it clear what penalty would be carried out in all future cases.
With regards to Mark's point 3
3 - Two lists were outstanding when they played - one of which is from a player in their league
I was happy for any people who wanted to get started and that had submitted a valid list to do so. Everyone knew which lists were outstanding and it was their choice if they wanted to arrange a game or not.
I would not have expected any one to have agreed to play an opponent with an invalid list and indeed would have then almost certainly have insisted that any game fought be replayed - but who knows every situation is different and we did not get that one. If the invalid list had given them an unfair advantage but they had still been massacred well tough......................................
Gods, Fortune and the dice are all fickle as so am I?
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 16, 2008 11:13:25 GMT
Thank you for your ruling Steve.
And again my apologies Mark, my earlier post was way out of line.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave3 on Sept 16, 2008 20:30:00 GMT
Thanks for that final clarification, I am happy with that, if John is.
Dave
|
|
