Player 1 has finished with 17mil
During player 2s MB transistor burnt out causing flipper failure. Player 2 managed 2 trap up and call TD player 2 was on 7 mil
Player 3 is on 13 mil, Player 4 is in 48mil
I believe ruling should be IF machine can’t be fixed new 4 player game on another Medieval. ALL starting from zero.
Player 4 is contesting this saying he wants to carry over his 49 mil.
If game can be fixed, Players 2 3 & 4 then play a compensation ball on the same game which is added to their scores.
If I’ve learned anything from IFPAPA rulings, it’s that players should be screwed as hard as possible when things go wrong, so wipe the scores and new 4-player game on Ro Go.
If the flipper is dead from a blown transistor, that isn’t an easy fix.
Game should be thrown out and a new game should be played.
I thought for a second since player 1 was done he might not get to play the make up game, but I see that player 3 currently has a lower score then player 1, so his fate is not set in stone, so he will get to play in the makeup game as well.
Exactly the ruling I would have made - new 4 player game.
What actually happened is the TD ruled player 4 wins the game and the other 3 play again on a new game.
The reason this affects me is that it’s the loser of that 4 player game who drops out and I replace them. I just want to make sure I’m playing the right 4 people.
There’s no way anyone would have caught up to player 4’s score… I rarely see good ball 3’s on Medieval anyway, and 49mil is the highest score I’ve ever seen on that machine ever. SMH on that ruling.
Actually interesting point: if all that the game is supposed to decide is who is LAST in order to have that person drop out, then saying player 4 is “safe” since they already exceeded player 1’s score and just having the other three continue to see who is last doesn’t seem so wacky. Bit of a conflict here between “rules designed to be easy and uniform to apply” and “rules designed to be fair regardless of playing format.”
If was winners advance, that’s wrong. If it was last person drops out, I think it was ok, but just because of the format since he had already ensured that he wasn’t going to be last by beating player 1’s complete game.
Since Player 1’s game was considered complete though, they shouldn’t be participating in the new game. Only the 2 players in the middle should play… had the game not malfunctioned, P4 would have just walked off without playing.
If (and only if) the only meaningful result of this game was “last place goes home”, I’d be ok with giving P4 a pass, since she’d already clinched not-last (barring a DQ by playing out of order or slamming). But if finish order mattered for points, then it’s a complete do-over for everyone.
And scores are not comparable between different instances of a machine, so if the resolution is to replay on a different MM, then even P1 gets a mulligan, despite having a final recorded score prior to the malfunction.
Yeah, bad ruling. They should have all 4 played a different game. If another MM was available that really doesn’t matter. As TD, I would not feel obligated to put them on the other MM as opposed to a different game.
We had a very similar thing happen at Pinburgh on Avegers. Transistor blew and they put us on another game. I figured Avengers was done. Nope. The awesome Pinburgh tech pulled the board, replaced the transistor, and had the game fully operational in about 10-15 minutes!
No idea, Phil! It’s been kicking around in my head but I have zero of the technical knowledge to make it a reality. I think it would be a great tool though.
