Carrier Based Fighters

@Bunnies:

(munches popcorn) I use OOB/FAQ rules mostly, but I wasn’t arguing.

(munches bacon) I use the bacon/six degrees of separation rules myself, and therer is no argument. Bacon rules!

Nice job, Tim. I suppose when you’re walking around with a can opener, everything looks like a can of worms to you, doesn’t it?

Look everybody. This is a family site. Fighter and wife swapping are to be done in the privacy of your own home ONLY. Now move along.

@U-505:

Look everybody. This is a family site. Fighter and wife swapping are to be done in the privacy of your own home ONLY. Now move along.

LOL, couldn’t be better said

@U-505:

Nice job, Tim. I suppose when you’re walking around with a can opener, everything looks like a can of worms to you, doesn’t it?

Well, I can’t say it was what I set out to do, but it’s been interesting to say the least.

Plus, I’ve got stock in holiday inn express.

That’s interesting, Craig, but I don’t know that using the Gleemax on-line game’s behavior as an argument in a rules discussion is really valid at this time (even if it does support our position!).  There are a few things that it does that are not exactly “according to Hoyle” right now.  Hopefully, the bugs will be fixed soon.

@Craig:

@Krieghund:

That’s interesting, Craig, but I don’t know that using the Gleemax on-line game’s behavior as an argument in a rules discussion is really valid at this time (even if it does support our position!).  There are a few things that it does that are not exactly “according to Hoyle” right now.  Hopefully, the bugs will be fixed soon.

You are right that there are still many bugs in the game, but I don’t think that this topic is one of them.

I agree that the on-line game is doing this particular thing correctly.  My point was that if you use the on-line game to support a rules argument, you set a precedent for others to do the same.  In future arguments, the on-line game may be incorrect in the way it handles the particular rule in question.

For example, the on-line game was allowing land units on transports to be taken as casualties in naval battles.  (This may be fixed by now, but I don’t know for sure.)  Do you really want someone arguing that this is legal because the on-line game allows it?

@Krieghund:

I thought I saw a thread somewhere (BGG?) where the designer of the computer game talked about working with Larry on this project, so I think that this was taken care from the right source. :wink: :-D

Actually, they said that they worked with Wizards of the Coast.  Larry wasn’t mentioned by name.  I’ve already pointed out a couple of problems in their “official” rules interpretations in that thread, one of which directly contradicts the FAQ.  If they’re all that “official”, why are they posted on BGG instead of the Avalon Hill site?