MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Decisive Action
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Questions 9: The Omicron Weekend.
If someone has a territory that borders an inland body of water that is not assigned an 's' number, can that territory be defined as coastal?
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 12:37 am
What would happen if you have a territory and there is a general right next to you with one territory: If you attack him and then he attacks you in the same turn, if you defeat him, does his attack still stand even though you attacked first and defeated him?
Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 11:06 am
I can add a moc during the attack window and have it count since you guys do calcs over weekend, right?

Permalink
| July 4, 2013, 7:22 pm
Is that Luke puppet, Alphonsus, no longer a player?
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 12:33 pm
If I want to replace a MOC, can I post a link here first to see if it's Specifications Accurate, then add it to ORBAT if it is? Somewhat of a safeguard against removing a perfectly okay MOC with something that could turn out not to be Specifications Accurate.
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 1:46 pm
Quoting Keith Goldman
Are you saying that with some actual knowledge or are you playing a game within a game?....

Oh, I say things sometimes to see what kind of responses I get! That's my game! :)

Thanks for answering my question about non-active/etc. players. I can appreciate the time you spend with the numbers too! Whether you do them by hand or wrote yourself a program to do them for you. Both actions take time and attention to detail! Thanks again! :)

Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 1:51 pm
Quoting Keith Goldman
Sure, you can post a link here and I'll check your model, or just put it in the pool and I'll check it anyway. Just remember that the ORBAT is all that matters when I calculate the battles.

Here you go then, thanks. http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/364268
Permalink
| July 7, 2013, 2:06 pm
Are cut-up Lego stickers okay or not?
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 6:21 am
Say a plate you have had been broken, but the break is clean enough for another plate attached at the break to keep the two pieces together(assuming the piece was given to you because it was broken). Can you use this plate in a DA MOC?
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 12:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Sam Sanister
Say a plate you have had been broken, but the break is clean enough for another plate attached at the break to keep the two pieces together(assuming the piece was given to you because it was broken). Can you use this plate in a DA MOC?


General Sanister.
Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: Nope because... Builders find a limit, and then they push that limit. So, while I'm sure in your case, it's just a broken plate, if I allow it, then in the following days, another builder would have two broken plates... that just happen to create an awesome shape for a wing... that would never be possible with regular bricks... and then builders start to slip in all sorts of mods by claiming that they are simply broken parts... yada yada yada... so "Nope".

Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 12:44 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford

General Sanister.
Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: Nope because... Builders find a limit, and then they push that limit. So, while I'm sure in your case, it's just a broken plate, if I allow it, then in the following days, another builder would have two broken plates... that just happen to create an awesome shape for a wing... that would never be possible with regular bricks... and then builders start to slip in all sorts of mods by claiming that they are simply broken parts... yada yada yada... so "Nope".

What about a rectangle plate broken in half down the middle(not lengthwise) in a rather straight line?
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 12:47 pm
Quoting Sam Sanister
What about a rectangle plate broken in half down the middle(not lengthwise) in a rather straight line?

I can foresee another "nope" coming.
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 12:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Sam Sanister
What about a rectangle plate broken in half down the middle(not lengthwise) in a rather straight line?


Are you kidding me?

Did you not just ask this question?

Did I not just answer this question?


Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 12:49 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford

Are you kidding me?

Did you not just ask this question?

Did I not just answer this question?


Sorry, should have clarified that in my first question.
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 12:51 pm
Quoting Topsy Creatori (StoveTopCreator!)
Keith or Michael, Am I not seeing something?
But in the last attack Bacca attacked Gen X. Both territories involved were coastal. YOU DID NOT INCLUDE POINTS FOR SEA STUFF!!!!

General Bacca did not have three coastal territories. This was addressed in a previous questions thread as well, do the admins of Primal Scream slack off in rule reading?
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 1:11 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
General Bacca did not have three coastal territories. This was addressed in a previous questions thread as well, do the admins of Primal Scream slack off in rule reading?

Hey, you still can count and read too!
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 1:15 pm
Quoting Topsy Creatori (StoveTopCreator!)
Hey, you still can count and read too!

"Too"? I hope you're not including yourself in the counting and reading boat too, as there seems to be recent evidence to the contrary.
I would add a winking smile face, but I don't wish to distract you as you attempt to read this comment.
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 1:18 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
"Too"? I hope you're not including yourself in the counting and reading boat too, as there seems to be recent evidence to the contrary.
I would add a winking smile face, but I don't wish to distract you as you attempt to read this comment.

As nice as it is watching you two talk, can you take it to the conversation thread as this one is for questions and answers?
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 1:22 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
"Too"? I hope you're not including yourself in the counting and reading boat too, as there seems to be recent evidence to the contrary.
I would add a winking smile face, but I don't wish to distract you as you attempt to read this comment.

Oh everyone will be reading more of the other rules soon! Wait... what... did I give something away? :)
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 1:23 pm
Bickering is fun. Let us not forget the suddenly-very-quiet man in the bottom right hand corner. Oops, that's not a question either...
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 1:45 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Sam Sanister
Sorry, should have clarified that in my first question.


Ah, now I see...

Nope.
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 2:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Topsy Creatori (StoveTopCreator!)
Keith or Michael, Am I not seeing something?
But in the last attack Bacca attacked Gen X. Both territories involved were coastal. YOU DID NOT INCLUDE POINTS FOR SEA STUFF!!!!



General Creatori.

Thanks for your use of CAPITOL LETTERS in the last sentence. It really clarifies your observation.

The answer to your questions is:

Yes. You are not seeing something.

Three times the coastline is three times the fun, AND it makes you eligible to use Offensive Sea Power.

Hope that helps.

TTFN!




Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 2:19 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nick Barrett
Bickering is fun. Let us not forget the suddenly-very-quiet man in the bottom right hand corner. Oops, that's not a question either...


General Barrett.

Nice move so early in the game. A successful attack on another player, and on only your second turn no less! Happy days!

Glad to see you are getting enough meat in your diet.

Attack!

Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 2:24 pm
Regarding the Bomber MOC and bomb bay doors -- by your definitions do the bombs or cruise missiles have to drop from the bottom or can they be ejected from the side of the bomber through a door or panel?
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 2:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Ron L. Mitchell
Regarding the Bomber MOC and bomb bay doors -- by your definitions do the bombs or cruise missiles have to drop from the bottom or can they be ejected from the side of the bomber through a door or panel?


General Beard-a-donia.

They can eject, fall, roll out of, or otherwise exit the aircraft through ANY task built opening in the airframe. But this opening has to be task built. So, if it is a passenger door... then it has to have the munitions in a wrack or something that "holds them" in place before dropping them.

The point is this: you can't build a normal Lego airplane, and then simply label the passenger door a bomb bay. It has to somehow "No longer be" a mere passenger door.

See what I mean?

The bomb bay door on the bottom of the aircraft is the default option. It is sort of "automatically a bomb bay door".

I guess what I mean is: Don't build a model of a C-130, and then call the back cargo ramp a bomb bay.

Chewbacca! (not sure where that came from).

Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 3:19 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Topsy Creatori

Keith and Mike,
At this stage in the game, I see numerous 3-way/territory attacks for any TO being possible If we just considered borders & location.
But… Due to
#1 the existence of TO’s with no limit placed on their membership numbers
And…
#2 the way the Attack Smiley Number is required to be divided by 2.

none are possible!

Yes, you can say builders should start building better attack mocs. But honestly in the current climate who is going to give them enough smileys?!

We have several good builders here with many many smiley’s and even they can not go up against the current method of calculating attack points!

I really mean this is all sincerity. I am not trying to cause trouble, just wanting you and Mike to think about this seriously before the AW8.

Hey if this angers you or you think I'm a meddling woman. Throw me out. I feel strongly about this and am willing to take that chance!


General Crietori.

Your assertion that no attacks are possible is entirely incorrect.

Attacks are not only “Possible” but they are still occurring (along with the separate but equally important notion of “Successful Attacks”). Recent AW results support this counter-assertion.

THIS is a list of observations which I think are true:
1. The initial phase of play was characterized by unchallenged expansion. DA generals have pushed the game beyond the initial phase. White territories are all but gone.

2. DA generals now face a much greater challenge because all growth is at another players expense, and the rules favor defense.

3. Independent attack is almost impossible.

4. Success in the attack can now only be achieved through effective coordination.

5. Effective coordination is a communicative and leadership challenge. Not a building challenge.

6. Many DA generals are locked out of attack by the limitations of geography, offensive military power, diplomatic options, and of course an unwillingness to leave the security of the TO network.

7. Generals who fail to find ways to grow will lose interest in the game (as many already have).

8. Generals who fail to find ways to grow will not actually quit DA, but will instead go dormant. Loaning their yellow heads to a TO strength, but not contributing to the game beyond that.

9. Generals who find ways to grow will continue to win.

10. Generals who fail to find ways to grow will feed the victories of those few who do.

11. In the initial phase of play, TOs were not crucial because generals lacked the offensive strength or the mobility to attack one another.

12. As the offensive strength of some generals increased, and the map became more crowded, the diplomacy of “inclusion” dominated the strategic thinking of most generals. “Safety before Power.”

13. As this network of TO fire walls begins to choke out growth, most generals will be stymied because they are unwilling to sacrifice the safety of the TO for the ability to attack and grow.

14. A small few will be able to break through this deadlock, and they will feed on those who remain mired in their TOs.

15. Most generals are already mentally defeated because they believe the notion that the game is a “lock out”… beyond their control. Many, like General Hayden have already “Checked out” and have become living place holders because DA is not an uninterrupted stream of happy easy victories (like you expect in a fast paced computer game).

16. Winning is fun, waiting is not. Attacking a white territory is a sure win (ie, sure fun). Attacking a tough, thinking enemy, who adapts, anticipates, has good MOCs and a daunting list of buddies is not a sure win (ie, sure not fun!).

Lets take a look at the key points of your position:

You say:
“Due to
#1 the existence of TO’s with no limit placed on their membership numbers
And…
#2 the way the Attack Smiley Number is required to be divided by 2.

none are possible!”

I say:
False. Ask the recently attacked if it was possible or not. Further, as the game progresses, and more and more Generals become disinterested, detached, and inattentive, the predator Generals will pick them off like the young, sick and aged members of a heard of food animals.

You say:
Yes, you can say builders should start building better attack mocs.

I say:
Yes. Many of the MOCs in our pool are place holders that were never updated. Serious about winning? Then get serious about building!

You say:
But honestly in the current climate who is going to give them enough smileys?!

I say:
Honestly, I don’t know or care. First, you’re the general. Adapt, develop new strategies, try new methods… Goldman and I will make sure it’s all legal. Beyond that, build, post, fight, and win. That’s YOUR job General.

You say:
We have several good builders here with many many smiley’s and even they can not go up against the current method of calculating attack points!

I say:
Wrong. They need to coordinate. Persuade. Plot. Scheme. Devise. Deceive. Feed on the weak, feed on their allies, back stab, take the high road, put on a black hat, put on a white hat, lead, direct…. In short, make a plan, coordinate with other pack members, and then execute the plan. Notice that the word “Easy” does not appear any place in this answer.

What was easy yesterday is difficult today. In the weeks ahead, generals who are patient, who exert effort, who attempt coordination, and who provide leadership, will continue to win. The generals who lack those traits will be their food.

This is Decisive Action.

Indecision kills.

Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 4:10 pm
 Group admin 
All,
I just wanted to get Mr. Goldmans take on this issue over onto this "questions" thread.

Quoting Topsy Creatori (StoveTopCreator!)
Keith and Mike,
At this stage in the game, I see numerous 3-way/territory attacks for any TO being possible If we just considered borders & location.
But… Due to
#1 the existence of TO’s with no limit placed on their membership numbers
And…
#2 the way the Attack Smiley Number is required to be divided by 2.

none are possible!

Yes, you can say builders should start building better attack mocs. But honestly in the current climate who is going to give them enough smileys?!

We have several good builders here with many many smiley’s and even they can not go up against the current method of calculating attack points!

I really mean this is all sincerity. I am not trying to cause trouble, just wanting you and Mike to think about this seriously before the AW8.

Hey if this angers you or you think I'm a meddling woman. Throw me out. I feel strongly about this and am willing to take that chance!


Topsy I'm not sure what your issue is, just ask General X, General Deus or General Ian if attacks are possible or not. With just two more points in the favor of the attackers, General X would have gone from 5 territories to 1 in a single turn, so no...I'm not buying your thesis...yet.

Look at General Barrett for a counter example: new player, few MOCs, great smiley power, and a successful attack last turn.

As for the treaty group issue...I guess some of you big-bad groups out there are going to have to start feeding on weaker members in order to keep expanding. In short, I'm really not buying your arguments...yet. It is still too early in the game to make sweeping generalizations about the attack rules.

I appreciate that you feel strongly about the issues presented, but I very much doubt that any major structural changes will be made to the rules before DA2.

Frankly, I'm more interested in why you think we would be angry or throw you out...The only person to be kicked from the group was one very rude, uninvested little boy. I admit to being mildly irritated that you started a separate thread for your concerns, but trying to keep the threads corralled is near to impossible.

So my advice is to relax and see how it plays out. We the DAS might be absolutely wrong and you may be absolutely right in the end, but for now, please stick with us while we continue our experiment in wargaming.

Thanks again to all of you who have made the game such a success so far, it has certainly exceeded our wildest expectations. We hope you guys are having as much fun as we are.

Good luck!

Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 4:14 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford

General Creatori.

Thanks for your use of CAPITOL LETTERS in the last sentence. It really clarifies your observation.

The answer to your questions is:

Yes. You are not seeing something.

Three times the coastline is three times the fun, AND it makes you eligible to use Offensive Sea Power.

Hope that helps.

TTFN!

Yeah, dig it in Michael! Twist it a few times too! I deserve it! Been doing it to myself too! I should have realized I needed some R&R and didn't take it! Oh well!
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 4:37 pm
Michael, As to your other reply to my other comment on attack points calculation... It was not necessary to state all your points 1-15 or was it 16? I do appreciate the time you took to delineate them. I do not necessarily disagree with them either. as all had played a factor into my theory on the attack points calculation. At this time, we just see them leading the game down different roads and a different endpoint. Fair enough. :)
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 4:48 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford

General Barrett.

Glad to see you are getting enough meat in your diet.

Attack!

*chomp, chomp* Thanks, I will.
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 5:12 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford

General Beard-a-donia.
---
Chewbacca! (not sure where that came from).

uhhhh - thanks
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 6:02 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Chewbacca! (not sure where that came from).

Lord Bacca - Chewbacca

Think about it.
Permalink
| July 8, 2013, 6:28 pm
Any particular reason why ORBAT is still locked?
Permalink
| July 9, 2013, 9:31 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Sam Sanister
Any particular reason why ORBAT is still locked?


Click... open.
Permalink
| July 9, 2013, 10:06 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Ron L. Mitchell
uhhhh - thanks


It's totally a compliment. Chewbacca is to Star Wars what Scotty is to Star Treck. The quit guy who has almost no lines, but who consistantly solves problems.

And unlike Scotty, Chewbacca has a beard!

So you know... Chewbacca!
Permalink
| July 9, 2013, 10:09 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Lord Bacca
Lord Bacca - Chewbacca

Think about it.


Yea, thats not bad. But dude, you have one giant eye in the middle of your face... yo.

So no. No Chewbacca for Bacca.

Brontes!
Permalink
| July 9, 2013, 10:16 am
Shouldn't STUDS public remove Alphonsus from their membership roster since he is no longer listed on the ORBAT? Also, Ian #1 and Ian #2 are both listed in the ORBAT. Shouldn't Ian #1 be removed for clarity?
Permalink
| July 9, 2013, 3:37 pm
Group moderators have locked this conversation.
Other topics
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Decisive Action


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use