~~ War #6 - Round 1 Results and Countdown ~~

[bripod]

Well, no we know how Hain feels about the situation...

Without knowing all the details about this match, it just doesn't feel right... Now I'm not saying that the ruling should be overturned, cause there's just not ample clarification of the rules IMO. I do hate that a player has to be so severely penalized (yes n00b, I said penalized) for making such an easy mistake. I know I've gone into Plat arena before with a specialized deck for a specific FG before and smacked my forehead with a good 'ol Homer Simpson, D'oh! and taken my loss and tried to learn my lesson...

The main argument I can see is that the offending player now has some idea as to the deck his opponent has... albeit, on most occasions, not very much. Can this be exploited? Sure!, and this is where things become very unclear as to what needs to be done about it...

In many cases this minute bit of recon could be the difference between winning or loosing but in War the specifics are not as open ended as would be within the normal confines of the game... War decks are pre-chosen and not changeable. So, you probably didn't alter that much by knowing a bit about the other deck anyways, but yes, it could mean changing the outcome of the match if the decks were fairly close in strength...

Problem now being that precedence has been set in this War and should therefore not be changed during this event. I do feel, however, that this issue should be on the top of the list for the WM's of next war to deal with.

Now, go inform all of your teammates to TRIPLE CHECK THE DECK YOU HAVE LOADED BEFORE YOU START YOUR MATCH!

We have learned from the n00b. Allow us all to commit this to memory, not relive his mistake, move forward in a cautious and civil manner and try our best to have fun in this community event.

[Zso_Zso]

IMHO, an auto-loss of 1 game -- but not the entire match (3-0) would have been fair along with the card-penalty. So the game entered with the wrong deck would be automatic loss, but then the remaining games of the match could be played with the correct deck, still having a chance to come back from the 0-1.

[willng3]

Except that in this case the wrong deck was used for 3 games.

[bripod]

Well, that certainly clarifies things......

[deuce22]

Can the WMs clarify their reasoning? The more I think about it, the more I disagree with the ruling. I think initially they ruled a replay, then changed. So please share your thoughts on why you rule this the way you did.

[nilsieboy]

Can the WMs clarify their reasoning? The more I think about it, the more I disagree with the ruling. I think initially they ruled a replay, then changed. So please share your thoughts on why you rule this the way you did.

Agreed, I think it'd be better if they still played the match with a penalty for team life.
Water getting a free 3-0 isn't really good choice in my opinion...

[Helston]

A full explanation is on the way.

[Jaymanfu]

Oh yes because a team has never suicided giving a team a free 3-0 and salvage...thats never happened in war, this was just not as intentional

[ddevans96]

Every game an illegal or incorrect deck (by any means) is used should be an auto-loss. This is how it works with Strategists, this is how it should work in any other event. WMs made a proper and precedented call.

[deuce22]

Every game an illegal or incorrect deck (by any means) is used should be an auto-loss. This is how it works with Strategists, this is how it should work in any other event. WMs made a proper and precedented call.

This is a unique situation and your statement is not necessarily true. When I get time (probably the weekend), I can post the pros and cons of the different options, and then you can decide was is the most fair/proper call. But at that point, my post will likely be moot, so I may not even bother. I just want to hear what the WMs considered and why they ultimately settled on their decision. This situation is not as black and white as you might initially think.

[hainkarga]

Oh yes because a team has never suicided giving a team a free 3-0 and salvage...thats never happened in war, this was just not as intentional

Yes of course, it is totally the same. Like there is not a well defined suicide rule already. Maybe you should mention false bid penalty during the auction too ? This also looks like the same situation to me. Or you can mention conspiring with other teams, or making a vault mistake. After all these all cause a penalty, they all must be the same with current situation. Giving examples well done Jay, you made a solid argument and illuminated us. unicorns and rainbows all around.

First of all,  if it is legal, the suicide deck is going to lose if played. If it is not legal, it cannot even be played at all. Second, suicide is something tactical and intentional (which i hate for the sake of game spirit. i raged on deuce on several occasions last war because he wanted a suicide even when it would be better for us).  There is something you gain and if you made it correctly, you suicide on an opponent who already has good chances to win that match and/or on a team which will cause you less trouble in the future and/or to lead strong opponents to destroy each other.

This, on the other hand, is totally random. While whoever made the mistake should be given a severe penalty to prevent future abuse, the winning team should not get away with a free award without doing anything (doing something includes being a suitable tactical target).

[Helston]

Water being awarded the win has been addressed in the suggestions and feedback thread. If you'd like to comment on it, please do so there.

I'd also ask that the sarcasm is toned down. Using it in an attempt to be humourous is fine, however if the topic isn't as clear cut as whether sundial should last for two turns, arguments can quickly degenerate into insults and flinging words such as "strawman" around, which will not be tolerated.