The 12 hour fog 'rule'

[L M S]

lol, there is no rule, that's the rub to this whole thing.
There is definitely an uproar in games about it though.

The non-rule, rule.

[trapyoung]

You don't have enough time to allow a courtesy period or leave a note in the chat regarding what the other team would have seen, but you have enough time to live it up in Live Chat or the forums? Look, I understand some people enjoy the forums more than the gaming aspect of the site, but at a certain level it boils down to a level of respect for your opponents and I take it as an insult when someone who should have the sense to extend common decency, pulls that stunt. I consider both of you seasoned members of the site, we've interacted together in games or in threads, and if I saw you do that to me in a game I would take it as an insult. Now I understand new players or even veterans who need to glean an edge any way possible may not abide, but I don't take it as personally because they either are new to the site or don't respect the site.

It's the golden rule - if it would be sketchy to occur against you, just don't do it. And if people don't have the general sense of decency to abide that easy aspect, hell you all say "gl" already when really you mean "gfy" if you're pulling this tactic, you have enough time to either explain what happened or leave time.

I don't buy either of your excuses.

Edit: In response to LMS, I don't flip out in public game chat, but I do get steamed when I see people who I consider my peers pull that shit. And I reconsider my attitude toward them and have at least once used ratings (which I despise) to note my feelings.

[rdsrds2120]

if it would be sketchy to occur against you

I don't consider it sketchy, so I'm set?

-rd

[squishyg]

if it would be sketchy to occur against you

I don't consider it sketchy, so I'm set?

-rd

Ditto, the game begins when the last person joins. It's not like the last person to join automatically gets to go first, so I don't see what the big deal is. If it means that much to a player in a fog game, then they should take on the responsibility of contacting each player in the game and requesting that everyone wait 12 hours. I'd most likely agree to those terms. But I will not accept the burden of having to remember non-rules for any games I join.

[mcshanester29]

Yeah I am with you guys, don't care for the rule....its a fog game for a reason...you cant see

[Gold Knight]

if it would be sketchy to occur against you

I don't consider it sketchy, so I'm set?

-rd

Ditto, the game begins when the last person joins. It's not like the last person to join automatically gets to go first, so I don't see what the big deal is. If it means that much to a player in a fog game, then they should take on the responsibility of contacting each player in the game and requesting that everyone wait 12 hours. I'd most likely agree to those terms. But I will not accept the burden of having to remember non-rules for any games I join.

I think that's exactly the point of the thread. If it is not agreed upon before starting, then it is completely fine to take turns as is. The issue stated at the beginning was that players getting upset over not adhering to this when not agreed upon beforehand, and I can understand where thats coming from because ive been on both sides of it. I think that the clan-arena has shifted some of the playing population to make the playing field as level as possible with the aspects player's do have to work with and have some control over.

Im not really sure why there is such a giant uproar over some common courtesy and some suggestions of how to solves such problems without the arguments over a concept that obviously there is disagreement on. Putting something in place to finalize some kind of stance on this would relieve everyone the "burden of having to remember non-rules" is all I was getting after. I agree that this invisible standard is a pain in the ass, especially with some of the more serious players on here, which is why having something concrete would end this bickering.

[squishyg]

Quite true, I was unclear in my last post. I refuse to any carte blache agreement for an entire tourney or war. If a player would like to PM me shortly before a game starts to make such a request, that's fine. But I will not pretend that there's any chance of me remembering to wait 12 hours if I were to agree to it days, weeks, or months prior.

[Gold Knight]

Quite true, I was unclear in my last post. I refuse to any carte blache agreement for an entire tourney or war. If a player would like to PM me shortly before a game starts to make such a request, that's fine. But I will not pretend that there's any chance of me remembering to wait 12 hours if I were to agree to it days, weeks, or months prior.

Right, that'e fine. Just wondering what you're stance would be if your sexy clan were to enter a clan war/challenge in which part of the agreement were to adhere to a fog rule of sorts mentioned here(hypothetically). If you were to take your turn immediately and it was brought to your attention afterwards, would you have an issue telling the opposing team which territories your team had taken? This does not include where you attacked from, forts, or anything else, just the taken territories. Just trying to see all sides.

[wolfpack0530]

50% your team goes second. 15-20% you do not conquer a territory. And yes, there is a possibility you hide no information.

But what does Team 1 get? Absolutely zero benefit. In fact, I would say that while you confer a strategic advantage to Team 2 30% of the time, you also confer a strategic disadvantage to Team 1 that same percent of the time. So instead of having Team 2 be +1, really the detriment to Team 1 makes Team 1 -1, spreading the overall impact to 2 pts. Those are just arbitrary numbers, but it's not the benefit of first turn or dropping a small bonus; people may have to fight ghost bonuses, venture guesses as to where neutrals are, amongst other things. Yes, Team 1 may be put at this disadvantage only 50% of the time, but that does skew the game in Team 2's favor.

While most of this is true, i would still stress that using this tactic will flat out not work 70%-90% of the time. When you say that team 1 gets zero benefit, i point out that 50% of the time they get to go first regardless of who joins last.

All I want is an equitable game for both teams where non-luck based factors are taken out of the equation. This is one of those instances.

I completely agree to the sentiment, as does 90% of CCers. In my opinion though, we can classify this tactic in the 'luck based factor" category. and your non-luck based factors are exactly the same as before.
FACT: someone is going to join last no matter what. and a random team gets to start first. That team has an inherent advantage of getting to go first. This is INDEPENDENT of the action of joining last. It is the going first that really matters the most, and this is a universally accepted and planned for advantage. And plays a much bigger role in the outcome than the initial view.

INVALID ASSUMPTION: Joining and getting to see a snap while the other team does not puts the other team at a major disadvantage that directly results in an increased win percentage if employed constantly.
Lets not act like this game was never played before BOB was invented. Before snapshots only 1 of 8 people in the quads game actually got to see the map. Snapshots have reduced the need for this 'skill' which used to decide the good from the great. (deducing how the map was and how it will be using spare game log info, and game chat) Leaning on snapshots makes you a less skilled player.

FACT: The only advantage that joining last gives you, is that you get to see the board before the whoever is first gets to take their turn.
ASSUMPTION: This information gives a sizable enough advantage to one side, and unlevels the playing field as to overwhelm the luck based factors on which the fair rules are based.
I think that the follow play a much bigger roll in deciding a winner than getting to see first:
-going first
-good dice (killing more than you lose on either offense of defense)
-good drop
-good strategy and teamwork
-missed turns
-mis-clicks or accidental mistakes

To me, all of these factor far outweigh the snapshot advantage in significance. Regardless of who got the snap, if you had more of the above go right for you than the other team, you will win.
If you are able and willing to accept all of the above factors as part of the game, and you plan and strategize to maximize these factors, and you realize that all of these factors can be (and have been extensively) argued to 'unfairly unlevel the playing field, then you cant possibly say that the snapshot advantage isnt something that can be strategized for, planned and prepared for, and accepted as part of the game

As for your bonus points system, I didn't really follow that. I don't agree with forfeits either, but common courtesy would demand you give your opponent a sporting chance and inform them on what happened if you could not leave them enough time or goofed on accident. It is the golden rule, extend decency to others - and frankly, the better the opponent, the more likely abusing the fog glitch is to confer an actual advantage because the other team will be able to know how to exploit the situation. And if you are good enough to capitalize on the loophole, you are good enough to compete on a level playing field and leave those tactics behind. If you are inexperienced and goof, well there are thousands of people willing to (jump down your throat) correct you in etiquette but quite frankly, the caliber of player defending the fog tactic is shocking and quite unbecoming.

[/quote][/quote]
Basically make following the 12 hour "choice" a reward over a series of games or a clan challenge.
Lets say there is a 20 team round robin tourney. every team plays each other once. Whoever has the most wins is champion. best possible score is 19-0. however, if it is decided that if you follow the 'choice' whenever possible, you are granted with an extra win and a possible 20-0 record.

Too much, then let it be the tiebreaker even. two top teams finished 15-4. Yet one team followed the 12 hour rule every time they got to go first, and the other did not. The one team wins the tiebreaker.

[wolfpack0530]

Quite true, I was unclear in my last post. I refuse to any carte blache agreement for an entire tourney or war. If a player would like to PM me shortly before a game starts to make such a request, that's fine. But I will not pretend that there's any chance of me remembering to wait 12 hours if I were to agree to it days, weeks, or months prior.

Right, that'e fine. Just wondering what you're stance would be if your sexy clan were to enter a clan war/challenge in which part of the agreement were to adhere to a fog rule of sorts mentioned here(hypothetically). If you were to take your turn immediately and it was brought to your attention afterwards, would you have an issue telling the opposing team which territories your team had taken? This does not include where you attacked from, forts, or anything else, just the taken territories. Just trying to see all sides.

There would have to be some sort of agree upon resolution for when some players "forget" or "accidentaly" click the start turn button. most are happy with copying the game log for the turn in the chat box.

I would not be part of any challenge in which this provision was not in place, and breaking the rule resulted in immediate forfiet. Talk about unfair advantage. setting up a rule that so favors the type of player that only has 20 active games and scrutinizes every turn as part of their normal play, whereas the majority of players analyse a map and log for less than 20 seconds before deciding the best move, and only scrutinize the really difficult or crucial turns. This player runs a high risk of accidentally forfeiting a game for his team or clan, and that sucks.

[trapyoung]

INVALID ASSUMPTION: Joining and getting to see a snap while the other team does not puts the other team at a major disadvantage that directly results in an increased win percentage if employed constantly.
Lets not act like this game was never played before BOB was invented. Before snapshots only 1 of 8 people in the quads game actually got to see the map. Snapshots have reduced the need for this 'skill' which used to decide the good from the great. (deducing how the map was and how it will be using spare game log info, and game chat) Leaning on snapshots makes you a less skilled player.

This is incorrect. Before BOB (and even after) I have known players to do ctrl+print screen to take down images and share them with teammates. Also, having a glance at least gives you an opportunity to write down in team chat or "note to self" something about the map.

You speak of luck-based and non-luck based factors. You mention as having a more sizable impact on the game: (1) going first, (2) good dice, (3) good drop, (4) good strategy and teamwork, (5) missed turns, and (6) Mis-clicks and accidental attacks.

But of what you list (1)-(3) are luck-based factors and (4)-(6) can be controlled by the player. If your strategy sucks or you miss turns, play maps you know, learn them better and play less games or get a sitter to reduce the influence of those factors. While (1)-(3) you cannot control, if you add the (7) factor of not seeing the board in fog, you can see that (A) it is a factor that can be controlled and is not an inherent luck-based constant in the game and (B) it only amplifies what you list as the factor of going first.

You say these above factors must be accepted as part of the game, but my entire point is that the elements of the game that can be controlled by the player should be put within the REALM of control of the player. The site lets you chose your teammates, it lets you look at maps being played by other players as well as gives descriptions of game play, etc. and it places the onus and risk of missed turns and accidental clicks on YOU, the player. But what does the fog coding do? It places the opportunity of missing the map within the power of not the site or yourself, but your opponent. And frankly, if you want to plug your ears and say there are more controlling factors in the game, well I have to say "well no shit." But there are two types of factors and when you permit a controllable factor to sway the odds and outcome, it undermines the teamwork and strategy that you concede is important.




As for Squishy and RDS, you both make terrible role models for members of the site then. If the site should promote fair play and especially if the mod system is supposed to promote those ideals, then your ignorance of both game play etiquette and common decency are shocking. Hell, even when this is admittedly not against the letter of the law, as members of the mod staff you should hold yourselves to a higher standard. It's as if Klobber was made a moderator, would he not feel pressure to not foe everyone and only play new recruits and avoid point inflating? For so long it wasn't against the rules, but there are tactics which are cheap and those both qualify.

McShanester, read the rest of the thread and then come back here and make an informed comment. It is beyond pointless to write a 20 second blurb that ignores the merits, reasoning, or necessity of such a feature.


Lastly, I don't bitch at people in the game chat, but I support their right to do so. People used to bitch about letting time run out in freestyle to retain first move and guess what, it fucking worked. It fucking worked 5 years down the road, but the community should recognize that it is sketchy and how else are you supposed to know what the sentiments of the community are if there's merely 1 thread about it here and 70% of people who respond on this thread fail to read/address any of my arguments (wolfpack has been a pretty big exception).

[L M S]

Breathe TY, it's not worth getting this worked up over.

Maybe the moral/lesson here is there are things that are out of the user's control, this particular twist being one of them. I happen to think its part of playing foggy games. Weather you like it or not, gamesmanship, in all its forms, IS definitely part of the game, otherwise things like truces in a three player game would be outlawed. (and many, many other things)

I can live with not seeing the board as it were on the first turn. I can live with the way it is because its not that big of a deal and 90% of the time I or one of my partners can figure out what happened anyway.

Insisting that a non-rule be enforced then suggesting punishment be handed down in the event a mistake is made I cannot live with.

[Lubawski]

I'm completely with Trap here. Though I don't "bitch" when someone doesn't wait for my team to take a snap in a foggy game, I (and my team) always wait as long as we can, even when not previously decided on. When others don't wait, I just make a mental note of who I don't like. I'm less likely to wait for them next time around and much less likely to join their games. There should be an auto snap. I'm sure someone can figure that out. The best reason for this was already said by trap. Both sides know where their armies are. Perhaps it's more of an issue of fixing the log to indicate where the territories you lost were located (since you would know this). Either way, I play almost all my games in the fog, most as team 1. I'd prefer not to ever use the cheap tactic of holding one player out of my team so we can look at the map. We did that once as a clan (against KORT) because they refused to agree to the 12 hour rule. It came down to both sides waiting until 1 minute to go on the deadline to join games. Such a waste of time. Common sense should prevail here.

[trapyoung]

Breathe TY, it's not worth getting this worked up over.

*Inhale* *Exhale*

Maybe the moral/lesson here is there are things that are out of the user's control, this particular twist being one of them. I happen to think its part of playing foggy games. Weather you like it or not, gamesmanship, in all its forms, IS definitely part of the game, otherwise things like truces in a three player game would be outlawed. (and many, many other things)

I can live with not seeing the board as it were on the first turn. I can live with the way it is because its not that big of a deal and 90% of the time I or one of my partners can figure out what happened anyway.

Insisting that a non-rule be enforced then suggesting punishment be handed down in the event a mistake is made I cannot live with.

Gamesmanship is part of the game, but I guess my feelings are at least the other elements you have control over. You can out-logic someone trying to talk another into a truce. While idiots abound, you at least have an impact. My view is that while there is an opportunity for the second team to capitalize, team one is left either neutral or worse off, no opportunity to benefit.

I'm not insisting a non-rule be enforced to punish violators, but discourse is the best way to change the policy. And, for better or worse, some on the site cannot necessarily verbalize their position and will bitch in game chat and while it may just lead to arguing, it may help promote a common ground of equitable rules and maybe the site will one day catch up. As people mentioned, the clan environment has largely recognized why and how to resolve the issue, why limit it to that portion of the site? If the "custom" remains purely custom, there will be conflict, but the thing about Conquer Club is the game is all code. You can code resolutions, nothing is an absolute given and it can be amended. My frustration is with people repeating the logical fallacy that "it is how it is" because it's not. We've seen freestyle fixed with regard to back to back turns and many of the elements you take as given, such as turn order, can be changed and people do not need to accept the current state of affairs and should listen to the arguments for and against change.

What is the detriment to fixing the game log to show which of your territories (which were sunny) were lost? What detriment is to providing a quick link to pre-turn 1 map so you have a frame of reference? Absolutely none besides the time to code the solution. And compared to the alternative, I am just beside myself as to why the status quo is so vigorously defended when the current suggestions waiting to be coded are new medal ideas.

[L M S]

Breathe TY, it's not worth getting this worked up over.

*Inhale* *Exhale*

Maybe the moral/lesson here is there are things that are out of the user's control, this particular twist being one of them. I happen to think its part of playing foggy games. Weather you like it or not, gamesmanship, in all its forms, IS definitely part of the game, otherwise things like truces in a three player game would be outlawed. (and many, many other things)

I can live with not seeing the board as it were on the first turn. I can live with the way it is because its not that big of a deal and 90% of the time I or one of my partners can figure out what happened anyway.

Insisting that a non-rule be enforced then suggesting punishment be handed down in the event a mistake is made I cannot live with.

Gamesmanship is part of the game, but I guess my feelings are at least the other elements you have control over. You can out-logic someone trying to talk another into a truce. While idiots abound, you at least have an impact. My view is that while there is an opportunity for the second team to capitalize, team one is left either neutral or worse off, no opportunity to benefit.

I'm not insisting a non-rule be enforced to punish violators, but discourse is the best way to change the policy. And, for better or worse, some on the site cannot necessarily verbalize their position and will bitch in game chat and while it may just lead to arguing, it may help promote a common ground of equitable rules and maybe the site will one day catch up. As people mentioned, the clan environment has largely recognized why and how to resolve the issue, why limit it to that portion of the site? If the "custom" remains purely custom, there will be conflict, but the thing about Conquer Club is the game is all code. You can code resolutions, nothing is an absolute given and it can be amended. My frustration is with people repeating the logical fallacy that "it is how it is" because it's not. We've seen freestyle fixed with regard to back to back turns and many of the elements you take as given, such as turn order, can be changed and people do not need to accept the current state of affairs and should listen to the arguments for and against change.

What is the detriment to fixing the game log to show which of your territories (which were sunny) were lost? What detriment is to providing a quick link to pre-turn 1 map so you have a frame of reference? Absolutely none besides the time to code the solution. And compared to the alternative, I am just beside myself as to why the status quo is so vigorously defended when the current suggestions waiting to be coded are new medal ideas.

The best part of this being, even though we are on slightly different sides of the issue (although not that far apart anyway), is that we are both simply looking for a solution. I think my auto-snap idea has merit even if the logistics are a bit hairy to work out...that's what we have smart guys like Dako and Company for though right?

[Gold Knight]

Quite true, I was unclear in my last post. I refuse to any carte blache agreement for an entire tourney or war. If a player would like to PM me shortly before a game starts to make such a request, that's fine. But I will not pretend that there's any chance of me remembering to wait 12 hours if I were to agree to it days, weeks, or months prior.

Right, that'e fine. Just wondering what you're stance would be if your sexy clan were to enter a clan war/challenge in which part of the agreement were to adhere to a fog rule of sorts mentioned here(hypothetically). If you were to take your turn immediately and it was brought to your attention afterwards, would you have an issue telling the opposing team which territories your team had taken? This does not include where you attacked from, forts, or anything else, just the taken territories. Just trying to see all sides.

There would have to be some sort of agree upon resolution for when some players "forget" or "accidentaly" click the start turn button. most are happy with copying the game log for the turn in the chat box.

I would not be part of any challenge in which this provision was not in place, and breaking the rule resulted in immediate forfiet. Talk about unfair advantage. setting up a rule that so favors the type of player that only has 20 active games and scrutinizes every turn as part of their normal play, whereas the majority of players analyse a map and log for less than 20 seconds before deciding the best move, and only scrutinize the really difficult or crucial turns. This player runs a high risk of accidentally forfeiting a game for his team or clan, and that sucks.

I never mentioned a forfeit in any part of this, and would also not take any part in a challenge in which is was the outcome. All I asked if it was that major of a deal posting which territories were taken. If it were to be a big deal, then there still remains an issue. If there was no issue and as you suggested the player would copy the game log or name the territories taken, then I see no reason why there shouldn't at least be discussion on how to implement an pre-emptive solution and avoid the issue altogether.

The best part of this being, even though we are on slightly different sides of the issue (although not that far apart anyway), is that we are both simply looking for a solution. I think my auto-snap idea has merit even if the logistics are a bit hairy to work out...that's what we have smart guys like Dako and Company for though right?

I believe there's already a quote in here saying Dako saying an auto-snap without entering the game isn't possible, which is why I think the solutions ultimately lies in a short delay, such as the first turn of a manual deployment game, giving players an opportunity to get their snaps, and players that dont care about it would worse case scenario have to wait 24 hours for their game to start, if not shorter depending on what could be developed. Again, as a clan leader that has never implemented a fog rule in any challenge I have been a part of, I think some kind of stance/solution should be made to clarify whether anything would or could be done to end the debate.

[L M S]

But if the snap was taken immediately upon either team entering and hitting begin that is not possible...pending the details being worked out?
I'm not smart enough to know the answers but, we can put a man on the moon and all that stuff......

[squishyg]

Quite true, I was unclear in my last post. I refuse to any carte blache agreement for an entire tourney or war. If a player would like to PM me shortly before a game starts to make such a request, that's fine. But I will not pretend that there's any chance of me remembering to wait 12 hours if I were to agree to it days, weeks, or months prior.

Right, that'e fine. Just wondering what you're stance would be if your sexy clan were to enter a clan war/challenge in which part of the agreement were to adhere to a fog rule of sorts mentioned here(hypothetically). If you were to take your turn immediately and it was brought to your attention afterwards, would you have an issue telling the opposing team which territories your team had taken? This does not include where you attacked from, forts, or anything else, just the taken territories. Just trying to see all sides.

If my clan agrees to that rule, I will abstain from playing.

Trap, you're breaking my heart! What I'm saying is that I know I will not remember to wait. Personally, I think it's much ado about nothing, but I've made my points already. But I find your criticism of me and rds to be overly harsh. We disagree with you, that doesn't make us cheaters. Let's keep it classy.

[InsomniaRed]

I hardly think he said or implied you were a cheater.

Anyway, pretty much most of the people who abide by this unwritten 'rule' are those who wait to discuss moves with their partner(s) and are very competitive and serious about the game which is why they feel so passionately for it. Obviously some people don't care simply because they don't get it's purpose.

[squishyg]

Thank you for your insights Insom.

[trapyoung]

Trap, you're breaking my heart! What I'm saying is that I know I will not remember to wait. Personally, I think it's much ado about nothing, but I've made my points already. But I find your criticism of me and rds to be overly harsh. We disagree with you, that doesn't make us cheaters. Let's keep it classy.

I didn't say violating the rule was cheating. I said the tactic was cheap, but I've conceded that it breaks no current rule of the site. But throughout the history of the site there have been many unspoken "rules" (or perhaps a better term would be etiquette) for the forums and games and my point was that a portion of the site has adopted this custom, I support the logic and reasoning behind said custom and it should be adopted by more of the site. Then I stated that as part of the moderation staff, you should be more apt to toe the line and although nothing is outright against the site, there are tactics and techniques which are clearly shady that should be avoided.

I agree with LMS's statement earlier that although we find ourselves not in agreement over the situation, it has been nice to discuss it with some people willing to find an answer. Please don't place words in my mouth. I, sometimes unfortunately, am more than willing to state how I really feel and if I wanted to call you and RDS a cheater, I would have. But, luckily for all, I am seldom incorrect and I know quite clearly that the tactic is not actually against site rules. I find it more useful to actually discuss the merits of the situation.

[trapyoung]

[Link to Suggestions thread re: Fog change from e'vr ago]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=130255&p=2857084&hilit=trapyoung#p2670494

[wolfpack0530]

i think insom summed it up well.

trapp, well stated as usual.

before we end this, i would like to bring up the small factor that nobody ever mentions:

The Reverse Negative Luck Opposition Benefit Factor
or just
TRNLOBF for short. just rolls off the tongue doesnt it
Defined roughly as the team going first has such a terrible turn, that they are now much more at a disadvantage, than if they would have gone second

Basically it is the small percentage of the time when being lucky initially directly benefits the opponents. The effect can be minor, or can catapult a team to certain victory before they even take their own turn.

This is where the cheap tactic is employed, and it works. Team waitslonger gets the snap and gets to go first immediately. And then they go 0-fer. Then team letsjustplay nonchalantly starts their turn, with all the same benefits of getting to go first. (this is the minor effect example)

The catastrophe can occur in a manual game, unlimited forts, large map 1v1s, ect where you lose a huuuugge stack due to bad dice (i know this example doesnt pertain to the fog rule debate, but i am on a tangent here), and cripple yourself or your teams chances.

I know there is human choice element to these, but not entirely as you cannot control or predict for sure that your good luck, may actually be my good luck.

Seahawks win the toss, they defer to the 2nd half and will kickoff

[L M S]

i think insom summed it up well.

trapp, well stated as usual.

before we end this, i would like to bring up the small factor that nobody ever mentions:

The Reverse Negative Luck Opposition Benefit Factor
or just
TRNLOBF for short. just rolls off the tongue doesnt it
Defined roughly as the team going first has such a terrible turn, that they are now much more at a disadvantage, than if they would have gone second

Basically it is the small percentage of the time when being lucky initially directly benefits the opponents. The effect can be minor, or can catapult a team to certain victory before they even take their own turn.

This is where the cheap tactic is employed, and it works. Team waitslonger gets the snap and gets to go first immediately. And then they go 0-fer. Then team letsjustplay nonchalantly starts their turn, with all the same benefits of getting to go first. (this is the minor effect example)

The catastrophe can occur in a manual game, unlimited forts, large map 1v1s, ect where you lose a huuuugge stack due to bad dice (i know this example doesnt pertain to the fog rule debate, but i am on a tangent here), and cripple yourself or your teams chances.

I know there is human choice element to these, but not entirely as you cannot control or predict for sure that your good luck, may actually be my good luck.

Seahawks win the toss, they defer to the 2nd half and will kickoff

I <3 Wolf.

[AAFitz]

An auto-snapshot really would be the easiest solution to this. Ill assume that its been suggested before though. Both sides should get to see the board at inception. It also has to be the easiest fix to level the playing field.