|
|
Post by Belfast on Feb 16, 2023 21:31:19 GMT -7
So in my set against Barry, we encountered a bit of an oddity.
While advantaged, Barry rolled an X5, and the red die indicated a penalty with a 4.
However, as he was advantaged, the rule states to change all penalties to an X3, so he would not have taken a penalty in this situation.
Which then begs the question of what happens to an X2 in such an occurance? Does that become an X3?
Do we see if the card results in a penalty and then see if its a "real" penalty by re-rolling the red die against a 3?
Or, are ALL penalties converted to an X3 at advantage?
That seems to hurt guys with X2's that might not actually take a penalty, and benefits guys who have X4 or X5.
Which is correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by revelstoke on Feb 17, 2023 6:47:59 GMT -7
Hmm... unfortunately that's not how some people are playing it - I distinctly remember being told (though I don't remember by who), that X are X3, X5 become X2, X4 to X1, and X3 and below become no penalty at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Feb 17, 2023 12:51:48 GMT -7
We did check the rule book as you say, but weren't entirely sure if X merely referred to a "penalty" in a general on the cards, or was only for an actual X. I mean an Xn still has X in it, but now we know, thanks much sir.
|
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Feb 17, 2023 18:00:06 GMT -7
Hmm... unfortunately that's not how some people are playing it - I distinctly remember being told (though I don't remember by who), that X are X3, X5 become X2, X4 to X1, and X3 and below become no penalty at all. I have encountered some interesting interpretations myself. While not supported by the rules, if the two players agree then there's no foul. My suggestion when a rule question comes up during a game is to check the rulebook. If I may inquire, what's the rationale/reasoning behind a straight X having a 50% reduction in the chance of it occurring but there being no change to those fractional chances? As an extreme case, Player Joe has 4 X5s on their card and Player Jack has 3Xs. At a time when the refs are supposedly less likely to call a penalty Player Joe still has 4 X5s on his card while Player Jack now has 3 X3s.
I was probably the one who advised that advised a reduction applied across all penalties hearkening back to the old CHL days. (Go Demolishers!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Feb 18, 2023 12:15:09 GMT -7
Having 2 goalies put out in a game was also supposed to be an infrequent result, and yet here we are with it happening 2 games in a row.
Though they may be infrequent, they can be influential in a game that any or may not result in standings differential.
In one case, allowing the player to keep his 2nd goalie in, could mean the opposition faces a superior goalie rather than, what should be, the league goalie.
In the other, a key penalty to a player with an Xn instead of just an X, could negate a PP opportunity.
Both of these are easily fixed with a quick addition to the Penalties and Injuries section of the Rules.
If both goalies are injured, the league goalie is used.
If on advantage, all penalties have a -3 result. X would be used as an X6.
Not overly complex or hindering. Are these something that we can suggest/discuss at the AGM perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Feb 18, 2023 15:51:09 GMT -7
Steve has done what he feels is appropriate for any of the in-game rules. This is not the NHL where they assess the rules constantly and make adjustments annually.
The goalie rule is absolutely clear and only became an issue because the rulebook was not read. Submit a proposal if you don't like it.
The penalty situation is clear if 6.8 and 6.9 are read, which are the relevant sections. Submit a proposal if you don't like it.
|
|
