NA Napoleonic Wars League [Season 7] Champions: LG & AEF!

[RussianFury]

Also, in my opinion if a reset is requested the ref should be able to deny it. For example if it's a 5v17 and the 17 man line shoots the 5 man line's officer there should not be a reset. There can be a slay but there is almost no chance of the 5 man line winning

Although we all know there is no  chance of the 5 man line winning, I think it still should stand that a reset can be requested, as it is almost like a part of the game, and the penalty can totally reverse matches. If an american football team is down by 3 touchdowns, they aren't going to NOT call a pass interference just because the score is high.

hold on a minute. There is a difference between American football and NW linebattles.

[Glenn]

imo as a referee it should be the refs discretion. if the referee knows the resulting outcome of a 5v17 then there should be no reset.

[Windflower]

The acting officer is not an officer class, as he is only acting as an officer as the actual officer is dead. While your officer is dead the person at the front of the line is considered the acting officer. Shooting him would result in the same punishment of shooting the real officer.

I'm pretty sure that's what that means.

[GeneralSquirts]

imo as a referee it should be the refs discretion. if the referee knows the resulting outcome of a 5v17 then there should be no reset.

I think you guys need to re-evaluate what it means to be a ref. A referee does not distinguish who wins what round and a referee doesn't make calls based on probability. A referee is there to make sure that the integrity of a match is maintained and that league rules are followed throughout the entire match. If someone OAs, it is still breaking a rule. Regardless of the referees personal preference, he has to adhere to the league rules and give the proper call for a penalty. I think Jakester presented a good analogy. A football referee doesn't withold a call just because the other team is getting hammered. His job is to make the call as it goes against league rules.

[LiquidSkorpion]

imo as a referee it should be the refs discretion. if the referee knows the resulting outcome of a 5v17 then there should be no reset.

I think you guys need to re-evaluate what it means to be a ref. A referee does not distinguish who wins what round and a referee doesn't make calls based on probability. A referee is there to make sure that the integrity of a match is maintained and that league rules are followed throughout the entire match. If someone OAs, it is still breaking a rule. Regardless of the referees personal preference, he has to adhere to the league rules and give the proper call for a penalty. I think Jakester presented a good analogy. A football referee doesn't withold a call just because the other team is getting hammered. His job is to make the call as it goes against league rules.

[Amit_]

That is what is generally agreed upon. What I think this discussion is about is whether or not regiments that are clearly going to lose the round will attempt to take advantage of a rule that allows them to reset the round. However, people need to remember that the adversary must first shoot one of the officers of the regiment with less people for that possibility to even emerge. In which case, the rule that protects officers fulfills its purpose. So, from my perspective, the onus is on the regiment that outnumbers the enemy to not shoot the enemy officer. Mistakes happen where the person committing OA had obscured vision and that is unfortunate, but that is still a slayable offence and, if the officer killed by OA requests it, a resettable round. Rules should not change regardless of a perceived outcome.

[GeneralSquirts]

That is what is generally agreed upon. What I think this discussion is about is whether or not regiments that are clearly going to lose the round will attempt to take advantage of a rule that allows them to reset the round. However, people need to remember that the adversary must first shoot one of the officers of the regiment with less people for that possibility to even emerge. In which case, the rule that protects officers fulfills its purpose. So, from my perspective, the onus is on the regiment that outnumbers the enemy to not shoot the enemy officer.

Exactly there's no reason why the team that is out numbering the opponent should not have the trigger discipline to not shoot the enemy officer. At the end of the day it comes down to proper approach of the situation.

[Wastee]

That is what is generally agreed upon. What I think this discussion is about is whether or not regiments that are clearly going to lose the round will attempt to take advantage of a rule that allows them to reset the round. However, people need to remember that the adversary must first shoot one of the officers of the regiment with less people for that possibility to even emerge. In which case, the rule that protects officers fulfills its purpose. So, from my perspective, the onus is on the regiment that outnumbers the enemy to not shoot the enemy officer. Mistakes happen where the person committing OA had obscured vision and that is unfortunate, but that is still a slayable offence. And if the OA'd officer requests, a resettable round. Rules should not change regardless of a perceived outcome.

What if the losing regiment is purposefully not putting any spacing between their line and officer so that a loose bullet might hit him. With that many people shooting a small target it can be likely for a stray bullet to veer to the side

[Dan the Seagull Chef]

Spoiler

That is what is generally agreed upon. What I think this discussion is about is whether or not regiments that are clearly going to lose the round will attempt to take advantage of a rule that allows them to reset the round. However, people need to remember that the adversary must first shoot one of the officers of the regiment with less people for that possibility to even emerge. In which case, the rule that protects officers fulfills its purpose. So, from my perspective, the onus is on the regiment that outnumbers the enemy to not shoot the enemy officer. Mistakes happen where the person committing OA had obscured vision and that is unfortunate, but that is still a slayable offence. And if the OA'd officer requests, a resettable round. Rules should not change regardless of a perceived outcome.

[close]

What if the losing regiment is purposefully not putting any spacing between their line and officer so that a loose bullet might hit him. With that many people shooting a small target it can be likely for a stray bullet to veer to the side

[GeneralSquirts]

That is what is generally agreed upon. What I think this discussion is about is whether or not regiments that are clearly going to lose the round will attempt to take advantage of a rule that allows them to reset the round. However, people need to remember that the adversary must first shoot one of the officers of the regiment with less people for that possibility to even emerge. In which case, the rule that protects officers fulfills its purpose. So, from my perspective, the onus is on the regiment that outnumbers the enemy to not shoot the enemy officer. Mistakes happen where the person committing OA had obscured vision and that is unfortunate, but that is still a slayable offence. And if the OA'd officer requests, a resettable round. Rules should not change regardless of a perceived outcome.

What if the losing regiment is purposefully not putting any spacing between their line and officer so that a loose bullet might hit him. With that many people shooting a small target it can be likely for a stray bullet to veer to the side

Then put yourself in a position to charge, aim for the opposite end or middle of a line, it isn't an impossible situation. But the base foundation of a referee shouldn't be altered for what can be fixed with good leadership and training.

[Wastee]

That is what is generally agreed upon. What I think this discussion is about is whether or not regiments that are clearly going to lose the round will attempt to take advantage of a rule that allows them to reset the round. However, people need to remember that the adversary must first shoot one of the officers of the regiment with less people for that possibility to even emerge. In which case, the rule that protects officers fulfills its purpose. So, from my perspective, the onus is on the regiment that outnumbers the enemy to not shoot the enemy officer. Mistakes happen where the person committing OA had obscured vision and that is unfortunate, but that is still a slayable offence. And if the OA'd officer requests, a resettable round. Rules should not change regardless of a perceived outcome.

What if the losing regiment is purposefully not putting any spacing between their line and officer so that a loose bullet might hit him. With that many people shooting a small target it can be likely for a stray bullet to veer to the side

Then put yourself in a position to charge, aim for the opposite end or middle of a line, it isn't an impossible situation. But the base foundation of a referee shouldn't be altered for what can be fixed with good leadership and training.

But you see moving to them and then charging them depending on how close you are is the kind of thing that makes a 5v15 a 5v7

[Amit_]

That is what is generally agreed upon. What I think this discussion is about is whether or not regiments that are clearly going to lose the round will attempt to take advantage of a rule that allows them to reset the round. However, people need to remember that the adversary must first shoot one of the officers of the regiment with less people for that possibility to even emerge. In which case, the rule that protects officers fulfills its purpose. So, from my perspective, the onus is on the regiment that outnumbers the enemy to not shoot the enemy officer. Mistakes happen where the person committing OA had obscured vision and that is unfortunate, but that is still a slayable offence. And if the OA'd officer requests, a resettable round. Rules should not change regardless of a perceived outcome.

What if the losing regiment is purposefully not putting any spacing between their line and officer so that a loose bullet might hit him. With that many people shooting a small target it can be likely for a stray bullet to veer to the side.

That is true. At the moment, rule 23.2 only recommends that officers maintain 2-4 man spacing from their line while forming up or remaining stationary. To avoid this, perhaps we should make it a rule that they need to have at least 2 man spacing to prevent abuse from happening? I'm with Squirts on this. We should not change the way referees uphold the rules to accommodate poor leading. 

[Wastee]

Spoiler

That is what is generally agreed upon. What I think this discussion is about is whether or not regiments that are clearly going to lose the round will attempt to take advantage of a rule that allows them to reset the round. However, people need to remember that the adversary must first shoot one of the officers of the regiment with less people for that possibility to even emerge. In which case, the rule that protects officers fulfills its purpose. So, from my perspective, the onus is on the regiment that outnumbers the enemy to not shoot the enemy officer. Mistakes happen where the person committing OA had obscured vision and that is unfortunate, but that is still a slayable offence. And if the OA'd officer requests, a resettable round. Rules should not change regardless of a perceived outcome.

What if the losing regiment is purposefully not putting any spacing between their line and officer so that a loose bullet might hit him. With that many people shooting a small target it can be likely for a stray bullet to veer to the side.

[close]

That is true. At the moment, rule 23.2 only recommends that officers maintain 2-4 man spacing from their line while forming up or remaining stationary. To avoid this, perhaps we should make it a rule that they need to have at least 2 man spacing to prevent abuse from happening? I'm with Squirts on this. We should not change the way referees uphold the rules to accommodate poor leading. 

That would suffice for me

The acting officer is not an officer class, as he is only acting as an officer as the actual officer is dead. While your officer is dead the person at the front of the line is considered the acting officer. Shooting him would result in the same punishment of shooting the real officer.

I'm pretty sure that's what that means.

So Russian or I don't have to go officer?

[Amit_]

Rule 19 states the following.

19. Maximum of 2 officers. Officers intending to lead the line MUST choose the officer class.

       19.1 If all officers are lost for whatever reason, the ranker that takes over leading is now classified as the acting officer.

Only a ranker will ever be an acting officer. If you start with 1 officer and he dies, the ranker taking over is the acting officer. That's what acting means in a command context; it's a temporary command position. If there are 2 officers and one of them dies, there is no acting officer yet. The other officer must die before a ranker takes over as the acting officer.

[Wastee]

Rule 19 states the following.

19. Maximum of 2 officers. Officers intending to lead the line MUST choose the officer class.

       19.1 If all officers are lost for whatever reason, the ranker that takes over leading is now classified as the acting officer.

Only a ranker will ever be an acting officer. If you start with 1 officer and he dies, the ranker taking over is the acting officer. That's what acting means in a command context; it's a temporary command position. If there are 2 officers and one of them dies, there is no acting officer yet. The other officer must die before a ranker takes over as the acting officer.

Just looked and saw that sorry.

So we could shoot the person leading if there was a reverse march and he wasn't an officer correct