Deadlocks/Infinite loops/Stalling ...gentlemen's agreement? Gemp improvements??

[daisukeman]

Hey folks,
Didn't know where to put this...

I recently had a casual game in which my opponent and I bumped into an infinite loop.--  
He was trying to use his Hrethel, Rider of Rohan against my mounted Isengard Scout Troop..  
(so while he was trying to get a +3, I cancelled that action because I wanted to win the skirmish and control a site).


This went over, and over and over and no one wanted to give in because the game was even at the moment (I suppose the player who is apparently winning at the moment would normally give it up).
For casual games it could be ok because we could cancel the game (I also want to report my opponent for being an utter jerk and complete moron because he refused to cancel the game and kept doing this cycle mindlessly   --but that's another story).

-------------------

Now, what seems to worry me is, what happens if this shows up in a tourney/league game and it gets really crucial ? (say, site 9, perhaps Gollum, Vile Creature against Merry, Rohirrim Squire: the freeps letting gollum win the skirmish ends the game for the freeps -- e.g, by threat wounds or adding burdens)....  

So, shouldn't there be an explicit common/gentlemen agreement about these situations, at least until in Gemp we could have additional validations (to not allow a same pair of actions --same fp action, then same shadow action--- more than 4 times)?
A childish player like my opponent, could even do this with Lurtz, Servant of Isengard 's maneuver action, just to stall but keep the time running for both players!

-------------------

IMO, the free peoples would have to give in here because he/she does start actions after all.
So it's only fair that the fps does one, then the shadow does another (both players get equal amount of actions or passing).
This would be the temporary common agreement solution I can come up with (and of course, it would imply a CoC rule to punish those who do not follow this rule).
Any ideas/comments appreciated.


Best regards,

[sgtdraino]

From the Comprehensive Rules:

If a loop contains one or more optional actions
each controlled by different players and actions
by both are needed to continue the loop, the Free
Peoples player chooses a number. The Shadow
player then has two choices:
• He or she can choose a lower number, in which
case the loop continues that number of times,
with a final action in that loop by the Free
Peoples player.
• He or she can agree to the number chosen
by the active player, in which case the loop
continues that number of times, with a final
action in that loop by the Shadow player.
The Free Peoples player has Sméagol, Slinker
("Skirmish: Add a burden to make Sméagol strength
+2...") skirmishing a minion at Anduin Banks
("Skirmish: Spot your minion and remove a burden
to make that minion strength +2."). The repeated
adding and removing of a burden for strength
bonuses creates a loop, so the Free Peoples player
names a number of iterations for these actions. The
Shadow player then has two choices:
• He may name a lower number of iterations. The
loop would continue for that many iterations,
with the Free Peoples player taking the final action
(adding one final action at the end of the loop, if
necessary for the Free Peoples player to have the
final action).
• He may agree with the Free Peoples player's choice
of iterations. The loop would continue for that
number of iterations, with the Shadow player
taking the final action (adding one final action
at the end of the loop, if necessary for the Shadow
player to have the final action).

If your opponent refuses to abide by that rule, you can report him for cheating.

[ramolnar]

While technically correct, that rule has a lot of problems on gemp. The only way to offer a number is through the chat box. What if chat is closed?

Or what if my opponent is not English speaking? I don't think it would suffice to just type a number in the chat box.

For that matter, how many people really know Comprehensive Rules 4.0? As far as I recall they were English-only. I don't see a reference to them on gemp.

[Air Power]

While technically correct, that rule has a lot of problems on gemp. The only way to offer a number is through the chat box. What if chat is closed?

Or what if my opponent is not English speaking? I don't think it would suffice to just type a number in the chat box.

For that matter, how many people really know Comprehensive Rules 4.0? As far as I recall they were English-only. I don't see a reference to them on gemp.

I don't know which versions of the rules were translated, but the rule about loops was not new to 4.0; I think it came out in Fellowship block.

[sgtdraino]

Hitting F5 or "refresh" should reactivate your chat.

[ramolnar]

The loop rule appears in Comprehensive Rules 3.0 but not Comprehensive Rules 2.0 - those being two documents I still have on hand. Version 2.0 includes threats and initiative so it came out no earlier than King Block. This agrees with my 10-year-old memory which recalls the loop rule as an introduction around the third year of the game.

And while I know to refresh the page, sgtdraino, those instructions appear nowhere on the website. I cannot imagine personally reporting someone for cheating based on not knowing an undocumented feature.

[sgtdraino]

And while I know to refresh the page, sgtdraino, those instructions appear nowhere on the website. I cannot imagine personally reporting someone for cheating based on not knowing an undocumented feature.

Good points. To that I would say, it seems like there should be a link on Gemp to the comprehensive rules and current rulings documents, and that a notation about refreshing should be added to the Instructions tab.

But the bottom line is, NO rules for playing LOTR currently exist on Gemp, yet everyone is required to abide by them. The loop rule is simply one that gemp doesn't automatically enforce. I wonder if there'd be a way to code that in? Maybe if a loop persists a certain number of times, Gemp prompts you to pick a number, and then your opponent to choose a number. I guess probably MarcinS wouldn't be coding that in anytime soon, if ever.

[daisukeman]

Yeah, agree with sgtdraino about gemp does not have explicit rulebook refs so it has to be common sense that we follow the rulebook, and I have also well understood the loop resolution!
Thank you all for the clarification.

And as I was expecting, yeah, coding those validations do not seem possible in a nearby future, so whenever I (we?) should run into this situation, we could use this topic's link to suggest to the FP: "hey, stop doing that and stick to this... ".

For this to work, can some moderator confirm that not abiding to this rule causes penalty in gemp (perhaps automatically losing the game) ?

[daisukeman]

Another thing.. I'm uncertain if my opponent didn't know about the rule (it would seem so), apart from being a jerk. This is an extract of the conversation I did save in notepad :

....
Rider's Mount required triggered effect is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to Rider's Mount
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
War-warg is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to War-warg
War-warg cancels effect - •Hrethel, Rider of Rohan
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
War-warg is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to War-warg
War-warg cancels effect - •Hrethel, Rider of Rohan
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
War-warg is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to War-warg
War-warg cancels effect - •Hrethel, Rider of Rohan
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
daisukeman: dude
daisukeman: foreveer and ever?
War-warg is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to War-warg
War-warg cancels effect - •Hrethel, Rider of Rohan
hobbiciak: stop preventing
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
War-warg is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to War-warg
War-warg cancels effect - •Hrethel, Rider of Rohan
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
War-warg is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to War-warg
War-warg cancels effect - •Hrethel, Rider of Rohan
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
daisukeman: whats wrong with you now?
War-warg is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to War-warg
War-warg cancels effect - •Hrethel, Rider of Rohan
hobbiciak: with me? it's you who's still preventing
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
daisukeman: yeah
daisukeman: give it up
daisukeman: nothing better to do?
War-warg is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to War-warg
War-warg cancels effect - •Hrethel, Rider of Rohan
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
War-warg is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to War-warg
War-warg cancels effect - •Hrethel, Rider of Rohan
hobbiciak: yeap 3:)
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
War-warg is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to War-warg
War-warg cancels effect - •Hrethel, Rider of Rohan
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
hobbiciak: just give it up
hobbiciak: u still there? ;-)
daisukeman: I'm back.. so game cancel uh?
War-warg is used
Isengard Scout Troop exert due to War-warg
War-warg cancels effect - •Hrethel, Rider of Rohan
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan is used
•Hrethel, Rider of Rohan heals Isengard Scout Troop
daisukeman: lets cancel then
daisukeman: its not gonna change
hobbiciak: nope :p cancel your canceling

[Valtor]

From the Comprehensive Rules:

If a loop contains one or more optional actions
each controlled by different players and actions
by both are needed to continue the loop, the Free
Peoples player chooses a number. [ etc .... ]

It seems to me that this "rule" is a rather long winded way of saying that the loop is to be resolved as the Shadow player may decide.

In which case daisukeman should have been allowed to win the skirmish in his game.

Or am I missing something?

[bibfortuna25]

Yeah the Shadow player tends to have the advantage in this kind of situation. All the Shadow player has to do is agree, and the net result will be that Hrethel will never be able to get his +3 vs a mounted Warg-rider.