Battlefield spell + retreating?

[K]

MaxWilson said:

Logical arguments have the same criteria for "winning" as moral arguments: can you convince your audience? You're aware that there's no way to prove that a logical proof is correct without an invoking a shared metalogic. In practice nobody reasons about their metalogic, they just declare victory, as both you and Jim have done, or come to an understanding, as great men do.

Actually, that's wrong.

Logical arguments are supported by evidence, and thus the weight of the evidence determines who wins. I think you are talking about philosophical logic arguments, which are just pure arguments divorced from the rules of evidence.

Moral arguments merely have persuasive power. They can't be proved nor disproved because they neither need nor accept the use of evidence or other objective criteria.

[MaxWilson]

K said:
Actually, that's wrong.

Logical arguments are supported by evidence, and thus the weight of the evidence determines who wins.

[raises eyebrows]

-Max

[Sombre]

Riiiiight.

I haven't taken part in this thread. I just want to state for the record that K is apparently taking that I consier MoD + retreat even without any other spells to inflict damage to be an exploit and a 'lame' tactic and I have no interest in playing against someone who uses it.

[K]

Sombre said:
Riiiiight.

I haven't taken part in this thread. I just want to state for the record that K is apparently taking that I consier MoD + retreat even without any other spells to inflict damage to be an exploit and a 'lame' tactic and I have no interest in playing against someone who uses it.

Then play in a game that explicitly has rules against it. There are seven out of 37 playing now, so you won't be alone. You are just in the minority.

Heck, I might even join you. I follow all rules set by the admin. For the record, I've never taken the position that people should violate agreements.

I just advise you to take a little responsibility and don't expect people to read your mind about what you consider "lame."

[Gandalf Parker]

Lame is a term I can accept. Which I would still consider different than cheat.

I recommend that games specify at the beginning what can and cannot be done. Even if its to refer to something such as "nothing in Red in Edi's buglist"

Some games such as Velusians used a MOD to make somethings unusable. Would it be bettr to take MoD completely out of a game?

[Saulot]

Gandalf Parker said:
Lame is a term I can accept. Which I would still consider different than cheat.

This is an important distinction, just as there are between things I find distasteful, and things which are illegal.

Gandalf Parker said:
I recommend that games specify at the beginning what can and cannot be done.

I agree completely.

Gandalf Parker said:Even if its to refer to something such as "nothing in Red in Edi's buglist"

Here I have to disagree, rules should be stated once at the beginning of the game, and at that point set in stone. By referring to a third party, which in this case, tends to be edited sometimes, you change the rules of the game after the fact. Suddenly the players gain responsibility for reading through the buglist in case anything's changed everytime they submit a turn. That's far too excessive.

Rules should never be changed after a game begins.

Gandalf Parker said:
Some games such as Velusians used a MOD to make somethings unusable. Would it be bettr to take MoD completely out of a game?

Why? The problem isn't with MoD, but with the game mechanic of battle enchantments staying up if a caster is no longer around. I know little of coding, but if there's a check to end a spell when the caster dies, shouldn't it be relatively straightforward to do a similar one for when the caster retreats?

[Gandalf Parker]

Saulot said:
Why? The problem isn't with MoD, but with the game mechanic of battle enchantments staying up if a caster is no longer around. I know little of coding, but if there's a check to end a spell when the caster dies, shouldn't it be relatively straightforward to do a similar one for when the caster retreats?

Possibly true. But a MOD can be changed now, by us. In fact, many of the games running have a mod-file as part of the game already which means that the fix could be added mid-game. Eventually there might be a patch to take care of it but that might be awhile.

[DonCorazon]

Well at least 1 out of the 30 w/o explicit rules against it (Alexandria) had implict rules against it, which we have just made explicit.

We confirmed that we were all playing under the assumption that MoD - retreat was an abusive tactic and not in the spirit of the game.

In the future it probably makes sense to clarify up front as you never know who is in the game.

Ironically, check Figment, looks like MoD just got banned there too.

K, you're data set is shrinking!!!

[Gandalf Parker]

Figment is what I asked.
It has a MOD in place and I think that a change can be made to it to remove MoD from the game and still allow the game to continue

[K]

DonCorazon said:
Well at least 1 out of the 30 w/o explicit rules against it (Alexandria) had implict rules against it, which we have just made explicit.

We confirmed that we were all playing under the assumption that MoD - retreat was an abusive tactic and not in the spirit of the game.

In the future it probably makes sense to clarify up front as you never know who is in the game.

Ironically, check Figment, looks like MoD just got banned there too.

K, you're data set is shrinking!!!

And I think that's great. I'm sure that it's going to keep a lot of problems out of your game.

Now we're up to 9 out 37.