Huh. I thought I read differently about a ruling at Pinburgh. I could be remembering wrong though, and it’s not an easy search term.
I may have it wrong, it’s been a while since i remember it being covered.
Was this on a Premium or LE? I saw this happen on an LE, but I have never seen it happen on a Pro
It was on a Pro
I honestly wasn’t sure what the ruling was supposed to be but I trust the judgment of the person that made the call so if it was wrong then no hard feelings are present. Fortunately it didn’t impact me qualifying anyways. I saw this thread pop up and figured I’d make a post though as getting stuck in Stark while the rest of your group gets Martel or Tyrel puts you at a pretty big disadvantage. It sounded like this wasn’t all that uncommon and could be a reason why TD’s avoid the game which is a shame as it’s such a great tournament game strategy wise, so I figured I’d ask the question.
I’m not sure a fresh game would have been fair (it was discussed) as I would then know the final target score I needed before plunging ball 1. On GOT that would be a massive advantage.
Yep, still the same applies with what @jmg linked - you lose agency over a key decision in the game that everyone gets before they play and should be compensated for it.
If the issue continues, fix the offending switch. If that’s not doable take the game out, or swap to Novice Mode.
I can see JJPOTC characters being a bit more fuzzy, for reference.
I agree with this in terms of fairness, and think it’s an appropriate solution — but I don’t feel that the IFPAPA rules specifically provide for this ruling. I went back and reread as well. Could you point me to the sentences that capture this interpretation? I would prefer to make this ruling.
I guess character selection on Stern Star Wars also falls into the ‘major feature denied’ category then? I’ve been calling that one wrong, it’s happened a couple times in our league. Also been denied choice of awards at start of ball from time to time, I’m inclined to call that a minor malfunction- play on but it’s kind of important too. If your strategy is go for TIE fighter multi-ball those free fifteen TIE fighters available to certain characters is kind of a big deal.
If this was a one-player qualifying, I could see giving a fresh game. But if you’re in a multi-player situation and one player has already completed a ball, then I call ‘play on’ every time.
As a player here’s a tip: Pull out the plunger before the ball is launched. This can prevent the accidental triggering of the shooter lane switch even when the barrel spring is screwed up.
Or immediately hit the left flipper after pressing start. Haha.
That only helps on a one player game for which it’s already been stated that the game would be restarted in that instance. In this case I was player 2 and player 1 stood at the game until their bonus finished (which they have every right to do). The second the bonus is done the next ball goes into the plunger lane. I’d have no time to get in-front of the game to do this.
FWIW, we don’t lock-in until valid playfield (unless you use button, which you should do 100% of the time), so it would take very specific and unlikely-to-be-flaky switches going bad to have this issue.
I assume this comes from the Minor Malfunction description which include “…without providing any player a significant advantage over others.”
Significant advantage is open to TD discretion. My understanding is that pinburgh TDs agreed upon some specific conventions for consistency outside of the written IFPA / PAPA unified rules (which are maybe not as unified now due to this)
OK. I could see that interpretation. But evaluating the solution (the affected player gets to play a single-player game after the conclusion of the other three players) against the same criterion, I’d argue that there’s even greater advantage given to the player who now gets to play her/his own single-player game with full knowledge of the other three players’ scores – on GOT, in particular.
One unorthodox solution to this pickle: compensate the affected player with the single-player game, but require them to leave the area and not see/hear the outcome of the other three players’ games. This way, the affected player doesn’t get the significant disadvantage of being robbed of their House choice, while not getting the significant advantage of full knowledge of opponents’ scores.
It’s one thing to remove the advantage, but your solution gives the player an extra disadvantage.
Isn’t removing an advantage logically the same thing as providing a disadvantage? That’s the point. Or am I missing what you’re trying to say?
Trying to put myself in the position of the affected player: I would rather get my preferred House (vs the default Stark) while playing out a single-player game with no knowledge of opponents’ scores vs having to compete as House Stark with the usual ball-by-ball knowledge of 1-3 players’ status.
Part of normal gameplay is being able to react to your opponents during the game – reading their feeds, anticipating the strategy and score you’ll need, etc. The affected player misses out on all this.
You’re not wrong Steve, but what solution do you propose? Assume Player X has lost their house choice in a four player match. Now what, and why that solution?