L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V



  • @Amon-Sul said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

    Is a solution in which the sea battle dices are applied and ANZAC rolls for its 3 figs on rd 1, and then those results are implemented in previous sz 21 results acceptable to both parties?

    I mean,

    AAgamer is reluctant do to edit, and when Trulpen made a mistake he offered him a nullification.

    Trulpen is reluctant to do nullification, but he can offer edit .

    So in this scenario each player is offered by the thing he likes less, but it`s the same, each of them received this type of offer once in the game. I think it is a Solomon solution that should be able to satisfy both sides.



  • It seems Trulpen is not a fan of nullification, and AaGamer is.

    But what about a draw?

    I mean U played so much rounds, why wouldnt U get some points?

    Let’s assume u re both thier E.

    In that case win and loss against tier E are 7+3=10.

    So each of U gets the game registred and 5 points avoided.

    Dont know if the moderators will bless this though, but as long as no more points combined are given then it would be if any of u wins, i dont see a problem.

    Cheers



  • @Amon-Sul It’s kind of you to make the effort to suggest solutions. A cancellation of the game is equivalent to a draw, except for the history of number of games played. However, the game is what it is.



  • @Amon-Sul Thanks for trying to play peacemaker but there’s no way to continue the game and be fair to both parties. Even if there is a fair way to try and revise the latest combat, which I highly doubt there is, since we did not alleviate Trulpen’s early blunder than alleviating mine in any way and continuing the game is not fair to Trulpen. Continuing the game without Trulpen offering me the chance to nullify the game, since I offered to null the game for him, is also not fair. This is why I say there is no way to continue without one party or the other being damaged. Since both parties say it is only a game and the points don’t matter I do not understand why Trulpen is continuing to insist we play on. That seems contradictory and why I do not believe what he says as his actions do not match his words. As we say in America he talks the talk but he does not walk the walk.

    For @trulpen if you don’t see why you are wrong I cannot help you there. Am I right in this case; yes I am. That doesn’t make me right in everything. However, just as I know that humans breathe air, need to eat and drink and go to the bathroom I know that since I offered to null the game when you made a big mistake you should also offer to null the game for me when I made a big mistake. That is just common sense, standard acceptable behavior and what any fair minded person does.

    I really do not care anymore; as I have told you now multiple times. You are the one who’s integrity is being damaged, not mine. If you don’t care about that then fine move on. If you do, and to try and help you be a better person, I will make one last stab at trying to help you see your bad behavior in this episode since you seem not to recognize it.

    When Person A does one thing for Person B than it is expected that Person B will then do the same for Person A should the case arise. If I pay for dinner the first time then the second time you pay for dinner. If I allow you an edit in a game then later if I need an edit you allow it. If I save your life you are indebted to me until you can save my life. This tit for tat is expected and the honorable way to do things. No one likes a person who does not respond in kind.

    Let me give you an example that may sink in for you. You go to a bar with a friend. He pays for the first round of drinks. When the second round comes it is expected that you would pay. In this case your friend paid for the first round of drinks. Then when the second round came not only did you not offer to pay for the second round but after you both are standing there for a few minutes with the bartender staring at you he finally says “Ummm, are you not going to pay for the second round?” Now he should not have to say this and it is embarrassing to him to have to say it but it is your turn to buy the drinks so he finally says something. And you say “Hmmm, lets order another round and I will think about paying for it later; maybe.”

    If this happened in a bar any other friend listening in would think “My gosh what a jerk Trulpen is!” Which is why I say you are acting like a jerk. Now it is your right to be a jerk; no one denies you the right to be a jerk. But when you say you are a nice guy and honorable and fair and then you do not buy your round of drinks see how long your friends stick around.



  • Ok, i Understand Ur position.

    But in case of a draw, U dont have to continue the game.

    If I were in Ur place, I would feel kind of pitty for playing so much rounds and the game just nullifies as it havent happened.

    But, if U have enough games to play the playoffs and this one is not crucial, then , considering points, its not much of a gain with draw.

    Its Ur call.



  • i mean its not just about points, but about a one more game finished.

    but, its not obligatory, so i understand ur position.

    U have that nullification philosophy and its ok. U were honest about it from the start.

    I ve played 5 games with trulpen and i really didnt have any problems there, so i just hope U guys solve this in peace.

    cheers



  • @AndrewAAGamer said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

    if you don’t see why you are wrong I cannot help you there. Am I right in this case; yes I am.

    Sorry, I’m probably stupid. I can’t see that I’m dead wrong. I’d like to, but I just can’t. I think however that there are many truths here and some gray zones as well.

    Let me give you an example that may sink in for you. You go to a bar with a friend. He pays for the first round of drinks. When the second round comes it is expected that you would pay. In this case your friend paid for the first round of drinks. Then when the second round came not only did you not offer to pay for the second round but after you both are standing there for a few minutes with the bartender staring at you he finally says “Ummm, are you not going to pay for the second round?” Now he should not have to say this and it is embarrassing to him to have to say it but it is your turn to buy the drinks so he finally says something. And you say “Hmmm, lets order another round and I will think about paying for it later; maybe.”

    Ok, so we’re in the bar. My friend buys a first round of drinks. I thank him for his gesture, but decline the drink and say that water will be fine with me. When my friend then orders the second round of drinks the aforementioned situation arises. It’s very awkward indeed. I’m expected to pay for the drinks although I do not drink myself. I could do that, but if my friend tries to force me into paying for the drinks he isn’t much of a friend, isn’t he?

    I don’t believe the observer would come to the expressed conclusion.

    It’s of course only an analogy. Precise or halting, it doesn’t matter. In the game the blunder was big, but not at all game-changing. I’ve pointed it out already that the only thing that was game-changing and might have saved Japan was the dice. Hail Mary luck. The blunder of leaving out 3 figs in a battle with over 100 units participating had nothing to do with it. Zip. Zilsh.

    And I say “might have”, because what I can see Japan looks pretty much screwed anyway.

    The two blunders aren’t comparable. It’s not fair to claim they are.

    To my mind there’s no objective call for a nullification.

    If Andrew would’ve done a similar or comparable blunder, I would’ve first gone to lengths to correct it, and if he wouldn’t allow it in regard to his editing-policy, then I would offer a nullification without a blink.



  • @trulpen I cannot believe I am still wasting time and effort on this but for some stupid reason I feel compelled to try and help you see what a jerk you are being.

    You are right the blunders are not comparable; mine was bigger. How you can argue that your loss of 78 TUV is greater than my loss of 180+ TUV is unbelievable. Your argument that the 3 additional fighters does not change the battle is hogwash. Since three additional dice would have been added to the Allied defense the entire battle would have rolled differently from the second round on. You are trying to say the same battle occurs with different amounts of units and that is not true. But feel free to justify you being a jerk by your own delusions.

    And honestly which blunder was worse is not the issue. I offered you something that you are more and more apparently unwilling to offer me and are doing your best to try and justify your dishonorable behaviour. Whether you accepted my offer is irrelevant; I still offered it.

    Which guy do you want to be? The one who after his opponent made a huge mistake without any prompting offered to cancel the game? Or the guy who after his opponent made a big mistake cared nothing about it and then when reminded he was offered to cancel the game says that is meaningless and will not cancel the game?

    I prefer the former myself.



  • @AndrewAAGamer

    I think that in the future, U should not allow Ur opponent to change its move once it is done. U have that strict rule, and its ok. Trulpen was aware of that in the beginning.

    In some way U re both right about what U say, U just look it from another angle. For U Gamer, nullification is something normal, and editing not. For trulpen its vice versa.

    The only move i am not fan about is truplen s trying to win over bumps, especially after he told U U dont have to hasten.

    It seems that only solution acceptable to both parties is a draw. Each of U gets 5 points, and one game played.

    This how Gamer U get some sort of a nullification, and U trulpen one more game to the score sheet.



  • @Amon-Sul said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

    The only move i am not fan about is truplen s trying to win over bumps, especially after he told U U dont have to hasten.

    I fully agree with that and made amends.



  • @AndrewAAGamer said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

    You are right the blunders are not comparable; mine was bigger. How you can argue that your loss of 78 TUV is greater than my loss of 180+ TUV is unbelievable. Your argument that the 3 additional fighters does not change the battle is hogwash. Since three additional dice would have been added to the Allied defense the entire battle would have rolled differently from the second round on. You are trying to say the same battle occurs with different amounts of units and that is not true. But feel free to justify you being a jerk by your own delusions.

    You, my former friend, are amazing. I can tell you’re a very intelligent and logical person, but in this case your logic is very flawed. You hang on to it for everything you’re worth in order to justify that I’m a creep and jerk and fully wrong here.

    It seems you didn’t really relate to my arguments here.

    I never said the extra 3 figs wouldn’t impact the battle. They certainly would. They would however not change the outcome or huge TUV-change much.

    Lets say the extra 3 figs hit statistically, i e 2 hits each battle round. Then the impact would be:

    Battle round 1
    1 more ac and a des sunk, so 1 less dice in the next battle round.

    Battle round 2
    12 hits on defense. 4 more units killed for J than in the original battle. Total causalties would be 1 sub, 1 des, 3 cr, 6 fig, 1 tac

    Battle round 3
    Despite the less dice, every allied unit is obliterated. 3 hits on defence instead of 1, which kills off lets say 2 fig, 1 tac, leaving 8 fig, 7 tac left as opposed to the 12 fig, 9 tac in the original battle.

    Allies get an extra -30 TUV and J gets and extra -60 TUV, so the final TUV-change would’ve been +152 in J’s favour.

    Of course only an example based on statistical mean value. The 3 figs could’ve hit more or less. In any case the recollection shows I’m right.

    I’m also fed up with this tedious discussion about nothing, simply going back and forth not reaching any rational conclusion.

    I’ve never heard about a game that is cancelled because of dice. Have you?



  • You are taking the exact same dice rolled and adding in 3 more dice independently of the battle rolled and NOT CHANGING the actual dice rolls. That is not how it works. Adding in 3 more dice at the end of the first dice roll string changes the entire dice rolls after those three dice are entered. The result you are so desperately trying to hang your hat on would NOT be the same result with 3 more dice added into the battle. The three additional dice rolled change the result of every die rolled after them, not just those three added to the battle.

    Apparently, all you care about is the result of the battle of lucky dice that would not even have been that same result with three additional units in the dice string. Not that I made a major error. Certainly forgetting to move the 3 ANZAC fighters onto the fleet changing a 34% battle to a 78% battle would be considered by anyone to be a major mistake. Especially since we are not talking about some small land battle but a huge sea battle in the Pacific.

    If your whole criteria whether to offer me the same courtesy I offered you is based solely on how big my error is in your eyes, which I disagree with that cirieteria BTW, why don’t you ask around and see if other Players would think that taking a major fleet battle from 34% to 78% would be considered a major mistake.



  • And when have I ever proposed that it wasn’t a major mistake?

    I’ve explicitly and repeatedly referred to leaving the 3 figs out as a blunder. We are in full agreement about that, so why do you try to make it like that is the issue?

    The argument about dice-string is true, but irrelevant. The dice rolled stand. That’s the reality. Adding 3 figs afterwards is possible, but any extra rolled dice only concern those added units. That’s how I see on it anyway and always have handled similar situations previously.



  • @trulpen said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

    They would however not change the outcome or huge TUV-change much.

    Ok, I understand why you brought forward the dice-string. I agree with that if the 3 figs would’ve been present, they would’ve likely changed the outcome radically.

    As I’ve previously stated I would’ve attacked that fleet anyway, without hesitation. Was my only shot.

    This branch of our argument is however strictly hypothetical.



  • This is also not about win or loss or points or whatever. This is about what is right. I would really love it if we could reach common ground.


  • 2019

    this nullification business is nonsense.

    Andrew said he wanted a game with no edits and up to this point no edits. Andrews policy is if you make mistakes you live with him and right now the only person not willing to uphold that is Andrew. Andrew getting up in arms about a nullification just because he offered one is silly. Andrew was more than welcome to offer whatever he wants but that doesnt require trulpen to do the same.

    Andrew wants a black/white rules policy just to get away from things like this and yet he is the one looking for and expecting gray right now.

    Trulpen made a bad decision trying to claim the game with bumps but beyond that everything else is now on Andrew. Just move on Trulpen and neither of you waste your time on things that arent fun.


  • 2019

    *^live with them



  • @ksmckay said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

    this nullification business is nonsense.

    Andrew said he wanted a game with no edits and up to this point no edits. Andrews policy is if you make mistakes you live with him and right now the only person not willing to uphold that is Andrew. Andrew getting up in arms about a nullification just because he offered one is silly. Andrew was more than welcome to offer whatever he wants but that doesnt require trulpen to do the same.

    Andrew wants a black/white rules policy just to get away from things like this and yet he is the one looking for and expecting gray right now.

    Trulpen made a bad decision trying to claim the game with bumps but beyond that everything else is now on Andrew. Just move on Trulpen and neither of you waste your time on things that arent fun.

    But trulpen says that AAgamer is in better position (even without adding those anzac figs to play). Why would AAgamer go for nullification if he has the upper hand, but because of his philosophy?

    and I agree in one here, i think it would be best to include those anzac figs to that battle, from round one, and implement that rolls in other rounds, so the score will probably not be soo much in trulpen s favour, and the game can continue, aa gamer did not lost anything (except he got bad dices, but it has nothing to do with 3 figs, they come back and the game can continue)



  • @AndrewAAGamer said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

    Do what you want with the game; it does not matter to me.

    @AndrewAAGamer said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

    I really do not care anymore; as I have told you now multiple times.

    I know this was said, but I also know things may change.

    I’m giving it another week and then if the game is not resumed I’ll note it as a disagreement-based WO in the result-thread.


  • 2020 2019 2018 '16 '15

    @ksmckay said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

    this nullification business is nonsense.

    Andrew said he wanted a game with no edits and up to this point no edits. Andrews policy is if you make mistakes you live with him and right now the only person not willing to uphold that is Andrew. Andrew getting up in arms about a nullification just because he offered one is silly. Andrew was more than welcome to offer whatever he wants but that doesnt require trulpen to do the same.

    Andrew wants a black/white rules policy just to get away from things like this and yet he is the one looking for and expecting gray right now.

    Trulpen made a bad decision trying to claim the game with bumps but beyond that everything else is now on Andrew. Just move on Trulpen and neither of you waste your time on things that arent fun.

    I’m with ksmckay on this one. First of all, I absolutely don’t understand why Andrew continues to denigrate Trulpen with his angry words, calling him jerk and what not. It’s just immature and uncalled for, sorry. I will give credit to Trulpen for not returning in kind. And exactly as ksmckay stated, just because YOU Andrew offered something, doesn’t mean you should DEMAND the same be offered to you. Sorry but that’s rubbish. When you declined his request, he decided to accept his mistake and carry on (which BTW was a very understandable mistake given that this is a new game with many new rules, and therefore should’ve been offered an EDIT, not a nullification; I know I wouldn’t hesitate to offer an edit in this situation). Now YOU too should accept your mistake, and his deciding to not offer any nullification, and carry on. It’s really as simple as that.



  • @axis-dominion said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

    @ksmckay said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

    this nullification business is nonsense.

    Andrew said he wanted a game with no edits and up to this point no edits. Andrews policy is if you make mistakes you live with him and right now the only person not willing to uphold that is Andrew. Andrew getting up in arms about a nullification just because he offered one is silly. Andrew was more than welcome to offer whatever he wants but that doesnt require trulpen to do the same.

    Andrew wants a black/white rules policy just to get away from things like this and yet he is the one looking for and expecting gray right now.

    Trulpen made a bad decision trying to claim the game with bumps but beyond that everything else is now on Andrew. Just move on Trulpen and neither of you waste your time on things that arent fun.

    I’m with ksmckay on this one. First of all, I absolutely don’t understand why Andrew continues to denigrate Trulpen with his angry words, calling him jerk and what not. It’s just immature and uncalled for, sorry. I will give credit to Trulpen for not returning in kind. And exactly as ksmckay stated, just because YOU Andrew offered something, doesn’t mean you should DEMAND the same be offered to you. Sorry but that’s rubbish. When you declined his request, he decided to accept his mistake and carry on (which BTW was a very understandable mistake given that this is a new game with many new rules, and therefore should’ve been offered an EDIT, not a nullification; I know I wouldn’t hesitate to offer an edit in this situation). Now YOU too should accept your mistake, and his deciding to not offer any nullification, and carry on. It’s really as simple as that.

    Yeah, edit for an edit.

    But I understand that from AA gamer s point of view is different, just in that case its Trulpen right to take the victory, since AAgamer does not wish to continue.

    I think this is a leason for AA gamer. If he is so strict about his rule (and he, is and, its ok) he, shouldnt be giving opponents oportunity to edit.

    If he does, he can get edit in return, but he can not have nullification for sure.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 26
  • 51
  • 49
  • 141
  • 84
  • 118
  • 34
  • 123
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

55
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts