RBF XXII Error

[Stephen]

We were wrong when, during the last game of last weekend after RBF XXII, it was thought that the Indy Squadron "AIDS" rule on light wounds was only in effect for pilots landing at their home field.

The rule actually reads:

Light/No Effect Wound Adjustments
Lightly wounded pilots who land successfully add 10% to their survival chances. Pilots with No Effect or Light Wounds who roll unsuccessful landing #5 add 5% to their survival chances. Pilots with No Effect or Light Wounds who roll unsuccessful landing #6 add 10% to their survival chances. Unwounded pilots who roll unsuccessful landing #6 automatically survive. Passed 4-0, November 17, 2007.

There is no reference to home airfields in the text.

[Stephen]

Wow... we blew it again. Man, we REALLY have to start reading our own rules before each game. I should have been prepared with all of our house rules ready, but I wasn't. My bad.

We need to adjust the score for the final outcome because Kevin did not hit Garrett's wing on the turn he went down. Indy Squadron house rules state (emphasis added):

+30 for shooting down an enemy aircraft. Kill points are split equally among any pilot who hits the same area that caused the plane's demise on the turn that it goes down, regardless of the number of hits. If a pilot hit is the cause of the plane's destruction, then in order for another player to split the kill, he/she must have also a) scored a pilot his (regardless of wound type), or b) reduced some area of the plane to zero, or c) inflicted a critical hit that would also have resulted in an indisputable kill.

I will post a final adjusted score sheet asap for everyone's review to make sure we get it right.

Thankfully, this doesn't change the outcome of the game. 1st, 2nd and 3rd place all stay the same. But we ought to get it right so that the game scores and records are correct for future comparisons.

[Stephen]

As mentioned on another thread, we should have actually looked up the rules on forcing escapes as well. As far as I can tell, my "force enemy to escape" claim is not valid and should come off my score.

The rule actually reads:

+10 for forcing an enemy to escape via normal escape rules or any other de facto means. Principle: was the escape made following damage inflicted by the plane in question for the purpose of avoiding an attack or potential attack on the following turn?

So here's the breakdown of escaping Camels:

Rick - +10 to Kevin... and Wayne? Ethan? Who else shot Rick on the turn prior to his engine shutting off?
Garrett - no forced escape
Stephen Dale - no forced escape
Dory - To Kevin and me (I shot her on Turn 2; I think Kevin did too, she began her escape on Turn 3 and was off the board after Turn 4)

[Stephen]

Pardon the messed up formatting but this forum doesn't accept charts.

Okay, here is the final score AS SUBMITTED ON GAME DAY:

Player HF pts Kills Assists Survival Force Total
Stephen 92 48 (SD, ½ Garrett) 0 15 5 160
Kevin 90 18 (½ Garrett) 0 15 15 138



Here are the CORRECT, ADJUSTED SCORES according to the rules:

Player HF pts Kills Assists Survival Force Escp Total
Stephen 92 60 (SD, Garrett) 0 15 5 167
Kevin 90 0 6 (Garrett) 15 15 126

I won't make any adjustments to the current scores until everyone has a chance to weigh in on it.

[albpilot]

Apr 26, 2011 11:48:39 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Wow... we blew it again. Man, we REALLY have to start reading our own rules before each game. I should have been prepared with all of our house rules ready, but I wasn't. My bad.

We need to adjust the score for the final outcome because Kevin did not hit Garrett's wing on the turn he went down. Indy Squadron house rules state (emphasis added):

+30 for shooting down an enemy aircraft. Kill points are split equally among any pilot who hits the same area that caused the plane's demise on the turn that it goes down, regardless of the number of hits. If a pilot hit is the cause of the plane's destruction, then in order for another player to split the kill, he/she must have also a) scored a pilot his (regardless of wound type), or b) reduced some area of the plane to zero, or c) inflicted a critical hit that would also have resulted in an indisputable kill.

I will post a final adjusted score sheet asap for everyone's review to make sure we get it right.

Thankfully, this doesn't change the outcome of the game. 1st, 2nd and 3rd place all stay the same. But we ought to get it right so that the game scores and records are correct for future comparisons.

You are incorrect. I was sitting right there beside him and I specifically asked him if you both had hit that area and he said yes.

[albpilot]

Apr 26, 2011 12:09:22 GMT -5 Stephen said:

As mentioned on another thread, we should have actually looked up the rules on forcing escapes as well. As far as I can tell, my "force enemy to escape" claim is not valid and should come off my score.

The rule actually reads:

+10 for forcing an enemy to escape via normal escape rules or any other de facto means. Principle: was the escape made following damage inflicted by the plane in question for the purpose of avoiding an attack or potential attack on the following turn?

So here's the breakdown of escaping Camels:

Rick - +10 to Kevin... and Wayne? Ethan? Who else shot Rick on the turn prior to his engine shutting off?
Garrett - no forced escape
Stephen Dale - no forced escape
Dory - To Kevin and me (I shot her on Turn 2; I think Kevin did too, she began her escape on Turn 3 and was off the board after Turn 4)

That's why I agreed Kevin should get 10 points, and it was in fact recorded in his score as turned in. Do you not take notes while scoring?

[albpilot]

So, while I hadn't been damaged in the prior 3 turns from any enemy aircraft, I was turning off my engine to avoid becoming a target of 4 planes so I thought it applied.

[albpilot]

Apr 25, 2011 22:47:11 GMT -5 Stephen said:

We were wrong when, during the last game of last weekend after RBF XXII, it was thought that the Indy Squadron "AIDS" rule on light wounds was only in effect for pilots landing at their home field.

The rule actually reads:

Light/No Effect Wound Adjustments
Lightly wounded pilots who land successfully add 10% to their survival chances. Pilots with No Effect or Light Wounds who roll unsuccessful landing #5 add 5% to their survival chances. Pilots with No Effect or Light Wounds who roll unsuccessful landing #6 add 10% to their survival chances. Unwounded pilots who roll unsuccessful landing #6 automatically survive. Passed 4-0, November 17, 2007.

There is no reference to home airfields in the text.

Moot point, he rolled low enough it didn't matter.

However...in the discussion leading up to this rule change, there WAS discussion about it being at home field or not, because the logic you used came from your viewpoint that immediate access to medical attention available at the home field should reflect that in the percentages. Such attention could not be guaranteed in the field and as such should not warrant said increase (or at least that's the way the arguments were running). Might want to revist this?

[albpilot]

Apr 28, 2011 6:32:26 GMT -5 albpilot said:

So, while I hadn't been damaged in the prior 3 turns from any enemy aircraft, I was turning off my engine to avoid becoming a target of 4 planes so I thought it applied.

And I probably should have played it out to see which Huns were silly enough to chase me down into the AA... LOL.

[Stephen]

Apr 28, 2011 6:29:32 GMT -5 albpilot said:

You are incorrect. I was sitting right there beside him and I specifically asked him if you both had hit that area and he said yes.

Glad you said that. I though sure he said just the opposite.

[Stephen]

Apr 28, 2011 6:32:26 GMT -5 albpilot said:

So, while I hadn't been damaged in the prior 3 turns from any enemy aircraft, I was turning off my engine to avoid becoming a target of 4 planes so I thought it applied.

And I agree, but it should probably be clarified in the rule. Would only take one sentence and would be quick and easy.

[Stephen]

Apr 28, 2011 6:40:37 GMT -5 albpilot said:

However...in the discussion leading up to this rule change, there WAS discussion about it being at home field or not, because the logic you used came from your viewpoint that immediate access to medical attention available at the home field should reflect that in the percentages. Such attention could not be guaranteed in the field and as such should not warrant said increase (or at least that's the way the arguments were running). Might want to revist this?

Yes, that was one of the rationales, and yes, we can revisit. These things are easy fixes if we just remember to address them at the next gaming day.