League General Discussion Thread

[Adam514]

Bidding rules have been territory-based over unit-based in all my games I think, and NG inf is a classic. I see no reason to change how most people have been bidding. It doesn’t break the game, far from it.

[ksmckay]

I am fine with it, but I dont think its ok for the rules to be unclear.

[trulpen]

Mutual agreement is key. If both players agree upon a diversion from the rules, of any kind within the general rules, it’s of course ok.

[trulpen]

@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:

I am fine with it, but I dont think its ok for the rules to be unclear.

I think they’re actually quite clear and straight-forward. A player can always push for the default rules to be active.

[trulpen]

Distinction: League rules and game rules (general above).

[ksmckay]

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:

I am fine with it, but I dont think its ok for the rules to be unclear.

I think they’re actually quite clear and straight-forward. A player can always push for the default rules to be active.

I meant I am fine with adjusting things. The existing rule is not unclear. But if it needs to be changed (or players want it changed), then it should be changed. And I think the beginning of the year is an appropriate time for such a discussion.

[666]

Years and years ago, bidding was wide open, players could place anything, anywhere they wanted, which led to multiple units being stacked or placed in strategic locations. That was changed to the one unit only, being allowed to be placed in territories which already had a unit of that country…
I for one, wouldn’t mind go back to a wide open bid placement, w/BM, bids are much less, so stacking would be minimized anyway…

[ksmckay]

@666 Took me a second to find it, but one of the reasons I was reminded of this was a discussion you and JDOW had in

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33804/jdow-vs-jww-666-allies-6-game-2/271

JDOW tried to bid inf NG, and you rejected it.

A ton of games include this as a bid and I just think if the community is ok with it then change the rules or something (even if just for playoffs). I just dont see the point in having a rule that is only followed when convenient. Either its the rule or it isn’t.

Its just a game of course but I didnt want to bid a certain way and then find out my bid is illegal and have second thoughts about my bid.

[666]

@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:

@666 Took me a second to find it, but one of the reasons I was reminded of this was a discussion you and JDOW had in

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33804/jdow-vs-jww-666-allies-6-game-2/271

JDOW tried to bid inf NG, and you rejected it.

A ton of games include this as a bid and I just think if the community is ok with it then change the rules or something (even if just for playoffs). I just dont see the point in having a rule that is only followed when convenient. Either its the rule or it isn’t.

Its just a game of course but I didnt want to bid a certain way and then find out my bid is illegal and have second thoughts about my bid.

the current rule set basically says if the two players agree then go for it, that works for me too…

[simon33]

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Bidding rules have been territory-based over unit-based in all my games I think, and NG inf is a classic. I see no reason to change how most people have been bidding. It doesn’t break the game, far from it.

While I agree that it doesn’t break the game, I would say that it is a negative for gameplay. Just makes it too easy for ANZAC to collect its objectives.

More generally, I think the rule is correct the way it is and shouldn’t be changed. Just needs greater enforcement. However, if people feel differently, I guess it could be changed.

[Adam514]

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Bidding rules have been territory-based over unit-based in all my games I think, and NG inf is a classic. I see no reason to change how most people have been bidding. It doesn’t break the game, far from it.

While I agree that it doesn’t break the game, I would say that it is a negative for gameplay. Just makes it too easy for ANZAC to collect its objectives.

More generally, I think the rule is correct the way it is and shouldn’t be changed. Just needs greater enforcement. However, if people feel differently, I guess it could be changed.

That’s not different from using a sub in sz98 to destroy the Italian fleet easier.

[simon33]

In the sense that it’s a bid unit which causes a large IPC swing on the board? Well, that is the general idea of what to do with bid units. Although in your example, in days before the SZ92 stack was preferred, you would have done Taranto with or without that bid.

I see where you’re coming from though. I just don’t really agree.

[trulpen]

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

In the sense that it’s a bid unit which causes a large IPC swing on the board? Well, that is the general idea of what to do with bid units. Although in your example, in days before the SZ92 stack was preferred, you would have done Taranto with or without that bid.

I see where you’re coming from though. I just don’t really agree.

Actually, it’s only really relevant if JDOW1.

[Adam514]

NG bid saves a transport pretty much.

[trulpen]

So mainly that NG bid placement is a deterrant against a JDOW1 strategy.

[simon33]

It’s a big swing if Japan wins in SZ62 J1. Otherwise it’s less of a swing, although if there isn’t a J1 DOW I will normally claim Java as ANZAC and then I would like a second transport in case there’s a J2 DOW to claim DNG.

[Tizkit]

If I’m following this correctly, here’s a summary:

1. New Guinea infantry bid is not legal according to the posted default bidding rules for 2019
2. If both players agree to allow it then the default bidding rules can be ignored (ideally you should find this out before you make any bids)

It seems reasonable to have a vote on if league players want the default bidding rules changed, however it seems more appropriate to consider changing for the 2020 league rules as the 2019 playoff rules have been posted for a year now.

For what it’s worth, I prefer the existing rule that makes it illegal, but the most important thing is that there’s no surprise.

[trulpen]

To reiterate: It’s only illegal if the opponent doesn’t accept it. Simple as that.

[gamerman01]

I’m leaving signup for 2nd and 3rd playoff brackets open this weekend, so please wait a little longer. BobbaRossa actually did pop in and want to participate, and fortunately didn’t seem too upset that he’s #1 seed in 2nd playoff instead of in the main one. Stand by, 2nd and 3rd bracket players…

[gamerman01]

I already re-drew the brackets, but these could change again depending on who else joins in. Just giving you a tantalizing preview.