Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index

How should we conduct lane changes in corners (see attachment in first post)?

Only allow for lane changes when the new space is at a true diagonal to the old one (red arrow only).
6
67%
Allow for lane changes as long as the new space is advanced further than the old one, even if not a true diagonal (red & black arrows).
3
33%
 
Total votes : 9
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Apr 2014, 6:13 am

Post 31 Oct 2014, 5:27 am

Tim makes good points.

I've never played on any of the original AH track expansion packs. I've only ever played the original board and then Doug's tracks. Did those expansion track packs come with an update to the rules to allow for those lane changes?

Again, I don't care which way we go, but I'll just reiterate that while it may be an optional rule, WBC has never (in the last decade at least) used those lane-changing rules. And as Doug states himself, the tracks were not designed with that in mind.

Also, the rules excerpt from Doug is nicely descriptive, thanks for adding that Mike. I would assume that those are the rules for when the game gets reprinted, so at best, the lane change rule Tim is advocating would be an optional rule in that game as well. But likely not the default.
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 4:41 pm

Post 31 Oct 2014, 11:48 pm

The answer to your first question was there a rules suppliant with the expansion packs, the answer is no.

Can you tell me which rule in the AH rules prohibits changing lanes in the corner?
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 01 Nov 2014, 8:19 am

I'll make a final decision on these rules prior to race 3. Here's where my thinking is right now:

Corner lane changes: I am leaning towards allowing them with stipulations. On straights, the RM will change lanes for the racers to avoid traffic and this has never been controversial. However, I have no intent of doing the same in corners. If lane changes are to occur, they must be explicitly requested by the driver. Any ambiguity in a plot will result in no lane change. For example, a standard order of preference for corner lanes (say, RL/80/60) does not imply intent to change lanes in that corner.

Default lane position: I think the default will continue to be lane 1 (inside). Slip opportunities must be asked for.

Again, these are the positions I'm leaning towards but are not carved in stone... yet.
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Apr 2014, 6:13 am

Post 03 Nov 2014, 6:32 am

tcbaker07 wrote:Can you tell me which rule in the AH rules prohibits changing lanes in the corner?


The same one you quoted earlier:

tcbaker07 wrote:1977 AH Rule 3.4 states that a car may never move horizontally.


I read that rule and it clearly says to me that you can't move a car the way you're suggesting.

I don't think the disagreement is about what the rules say, but more of an interpretation of what horizontal movement means. The way I was taught the game, you just can't move horizontally. You must always move forward, and that means either the space in front of you, or the space diagonal in front if the rows line up. And the rules as written confirm that interpretation pretty conclusively.

You are suggesting that horizontal movement means something different from that. But the problem is that you are using your own interpretation of the definition of horizontal, and you have no proof to back it up. All you have are your own interpretations of designer intent, and a bunch of rules that you quote which only support my position, not yours.

Did the original designers intend for the movement Tim suggests?
I doubt it. The rules seem pretty clear on the point that you can't. Furthermore, we're using the rules from the '77 AH game, which is already on its second set of designers. How could we possibly know for sure?

Did the AH expansion track Tim highlights introduce a new optional rule to allow for this horizontal movement?
Maybe. AH was pretty well known for releasing optional rules with expansions. Cosmic Encounter is littered with this kind of stuff. Heck, games today do this all the time. And it doesn't mean that the rules of the base game allowed for it retroactively. Merely that this was an idea they added later. But that said...

Is the track image Tim showed us just screwed up?
AH also had plenty of printing problems during this time, especially with expansion packs where the quality control wasn't as high because the profit margins were so much lower. This could easily be a printing press that shifted the red color-plate by a millimeter or so. That line is so close to the middle, it's a really odd thing to do in the first place, which was my first reaction when I saw it. In fact, a number of people have mentioned over the years how they original tracks were not always clear about how to follow the line.

--------

Personally, I'm not sure it's a misprint, but it could just as easily be poor design. For all we know there was an FAQ or a ruling about that track that cleared all this up. Except it's 35 years old, from a bankrupted company 15 years dead and we have almost no way of figuring all that out.

My best guess is that AH added an optional rule for horizontal movement when they released that expansion track Tim showed us. But that means the original rules, the ones we are playing with, do NOT allow for that.

Of course we can decide to include that optional rule. I don't really see the point, because you almost never want to do that but whatever, we can do it if you like. Scenarios where that lane change would be useful come up like once every 5-6 races I see. But again, that might be the tracks I play on, because Doug's tracks are designed without that optional movement rule in mind.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 03 Nov 2014, 10:58 am

Chris, I think you make good points as well. I suppose what it may come down to is what we want in our game. Even if we could discern intent of the designers, it is certainly acceptable to have a set of house rules that make clarifications or even run counter to well-established rules (some of Doug's rules run counter to the AH rules, for example).

I may put this one to a vote.
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 4:41 pm

Post 04 Nov 2014, 8:28 am

All, let me address Chris' points starting at the bottom and working to the top:

Is the track image Tim showed us just screwed up?

I actually own all the tracks published by AH and I bought them when they were released. (I had them laminated to preserve them.) I'm looking at the track in question and it has 8 red arrows on the track and they all cross vertices exactly and are not misprinted. I reviewed several other tracks and they all have the arrows crossing vertices. Most of these tracks were designed by Mark Maticek (according to info from All Star Replay magazine.)

No, the track is not misprinted

Did the AH expansion track Tim highlights introduce a new optional rule to allow for this horizontal movement?

No, they did not. There was a set of optional rules first published in All Star Replay Vol. 1 No. 2 titled Speed Circuit Souped Up written by Mark Maticek. These rules introduced weather, pits, and qualifying sections as optional rules. These were released with Accessory Pack 1 and were titled "The Speed Circuit Campaign Game" This set of optional rules also had a discussion on running races as a season and scoring a campaign. They can be found here:

http://www.russgifford.net/PDFs/SC_AHExtraRules1980.pdf

NOTE: I originally stated that there were no additional rules, however looking through All Star Replay magazines, I found reference to the optional rules, so I did a little more research and found them. I also have the original set of rules that came with Expansion Pack 1 in my SC game box.

I'll continue in another post.....
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 4:41 pm

Post 04 Nov 2014, 5:53 pm

Okay, I'm back.

Did the original designers intend for the movement Tim suggests?

Let's address the issue of this being a release of the rules from the original 3M rules released in 1971. In "The Dugout" by Bruce Milligan (editor of All Star Replay) from Vol. 1 No. 2 the following statements were included:

"We've had some questions from our audience about how different our new versions of Speed Circuit, Win, Place, and Show are from the original. In both games, the rules have been clarified, and in both games new things have been added. (...and the various tables in SC)." He goes on to say order the new rules and the performance pad, AH added the various charts (e.g Cornering, Decleration, etc.).

In the section on How to Move are these two rules:

2. Cars may move straight ahead or diagonally . They may never move sideways or in reverse.
3. A car may change lanes at any time

These rules can be found here:

http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/10415 ... tion-rules

As you can see there is little difference. The horizontal wording was added by AH, replacing sideways.

I have to come back again, when I do I'll get into the heart of the difference in the rule interpretations.
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Apr 2014, 6:13 am

Post 05 Nov 2014, 11:52 am

tcbaker07 wrote:I actually own all the tracks published by AH and I bought them when they were released.


That is freaking awesome. I am quite jealous.

tcbaker07 wrote:I'm looking at the track in question and it has 8 red arrows on the track and they all cross vertices exactly and are not misprinted.


Well that's good. That takes one thing out of the equation. To be honest, I didn't really think that was the case, but I know AH occasionally had problems with printing in their expansions. I don't know about this game specifically, but I'm glad this isn't the case.

tcbaker07 wrote:I reviewed several other tracks and they all have the arrows crossing vertices.


Yeah, I was looking at all of the tracks from that expansion set on BGG, and they seem good. In fact, that was the only corner in ALL the tracks that I could find that was like this. Do you have any other examples you could find or is this corner unique? Because I wasn't able to find any others like it.

And honestly, some of those red arrows are a little confusing. You can work out what spaces you're supposed to follow, but some of them get a little close. I don't think the designer did his best job with some of them.

tcbaker07 wrote:There was a set of optional rules first published in All Star Replay Vol. 1 No. 2 titled Speed Circuit Souped Up written by Mark Maticek.


That's the other thing that makes figuring out AH designer intent difficult... they published this stuff in magazines. I mean, it just seems so difficult to me to be able to say that we have all the articles from those magazines which deal with Speed Circuit. Of course, you certainly have more of these than I do and were collecting Speed Circuit at the time, so maybe you have a better idea than I of how hard a task this is.

tcbaker07 wrote:Let's address the issue of this being a release of the rules from the original 3M rules released in 1971.


Thanks for digging this up. To be honest, though, I don't know how much we really benefit from going back to the old rules. I think we're getting a bit off-track here, so let me try to summarize my main points, because I feel we're bogging ourselves down in side arguments.

My points are essentially:

1. The rules clearly state that sideways movement is not allowed.

1a. Sideways movement is any movement that does not move you forward.

1b. Forward movement can only be made by moving to the space in front of you in the row, or switching to another row on a diagnoal when the front edge of the spaces line up.

2. I accept entirely that there is an optional rule that allows you to move pseudo-forward the way Tim is suggesting. But optional is the part I wish to stress here.

3. There is no confusion over whether or not this movement is allowed in WBC. It is not. Either myself or Doug has run that event for well over a decade, and this type of movement is not allowed in that ruleset.

3a. We are currently playing with the WBC ruleset.

4. I'm perfectly fine playing with the optional rule in future races. As Mike said, we should decide what *We* want to do and who cares what the rules were 30+ years ago. Or at WBC. We just need to understand the ruleset before we start, and agree upon it.


I could be wrong, but I think (outside of the designer intent arguments) that Tim's big sticking point is 1b, or maybe 1a depending on interpretation. Either way, I don't think there's any big disagreement about my other points. If there is though, please let me know. Maybe I've misunderstood.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 05 Nov 2014, 1:51 pm

When I split the topic, I may have lost an attachment or two. Tim, are you missing any attachments from posts on page 1?
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 4:41 pm

Post 05 Nov 2014, 3:06 pm

The third installment:

Did the original designers intend for the movement Tim suggests?

I agree that this issue is not about a rule disagreement, but an interpretation of the rules, and I'll address this at the end of this post.

There are two rules that come into play on movement:

Last sentence of AH '77 rule 3.2: Cars must always move forward, either straight or diagonally and may change lanes at any time.

Ant the first part of AH '77 rule 3.4: Cars may never move horizontally, ...

But first, I'd like to provide my interpretation of the rules in terms that show the actions on the track.

Terms:

LANE A lane is a continuous set of spaces that are straight in front of one another.

ROW Cars are considered to be in the same row when the front edges of their spaces line up. (Redscape GP rule 14.)
A corollary of this rule is: A row consists of two or more spaces whose front edges line up?
(Does anyone disagree with the phrasing of the corollary?)

FORWARD A forward move is a move from the current space into an adjoining space in the next available row towards the finish line.

STRAIGHT A straight move is a forward move in the same lane.

DIAGONAL A diagonal move is a forward move into a different lane.

HORIZONTAL A Horizontal move is a move from the current space into a space in the same row. This movement is not forward and is not allowed!

In affect this set of definitions only provides a few options for every move. Movement is either straight or diagonal. If a car is in the right lane, the car can move straight or diagonally left. If the car is in the left lane, the car can move straight or diagonally right. If the car is in a center lane, the car can move straight, diagonally right, or diagonally left. In the case where the track transitions from 3 to 2 or 2 to 3 lanes there are tracks where only a single move is available. (See example below.)

This is the way that I originally interpreted the rules some 35 years ago and how I have played the game since. These definitions are supported by Grand Prix-cision racing (a online version of Speed Circuit developed by Robert Lattore) and they match the movement provided in the game. This was an excellent program, unfortunately Rob quit supporting it. Here is a link to a site on the game and the game is available for download: http://cryhavocgames.net/GrandPrixcisionRacing.htm

So let's ask ourselves a question. Do these definitions fit the AH rules? Yes Horizontal movement is prohibited, all move options are forward either straight or diagonal, and you may change lanes at any time.

For any math junkies out there, straight moves could be called vertical moves to put the moves into geometry terms. So a straight or vertical move is along the Y axis (e.g. X=0 where Y is greater than 0), horizontal moves are along the X axis (e.g. Y=0), and diagonal moves have a positive Y value with any X value. (e.g. Y=|X| or Y=|2X| or |Y=X/2|).


This set of definitions can be applied to any of the examples I have provided and they will work quite nicely, allowing a car to follow the arrow or take the chicane at 80 miles an hour without using a wear point.

I'd like to revisit a simple example and apply the above definitions to the movement in this particular corner.

Before I start, I do want to provide one more rule from the WBC 2014 Rule Definitions from the April 2010 section.

Rows: I've clarified that when determining what spaces are in the same row in a corner, the important part is that the spaces share a front edge. So in a basic corner with 1 space in the inside lane and 2 spaces in the outside lane, the second space outside and only space inside are considered to be in the same lane. The first outside space is in a lane by itself. This is important for determining crash involvement.


(I believe that there are typos in this statement and should read as follows: "...the second space outside and the only space inside are considered to be in the same row (not lane). The first outside space is in a row (not lane) by itself." )
(Lane does not make sense to me, does anyone see this differently?)

Movement example:

La Calxa Corner.gif
Pic

Car A – This space has only one option which is moving straight.
Car B – This space has two options to move straight into space E or diagonally left into space D.
(Space D is in the inside lane, while space B is in the second or middle lane.)
(Note: space D and E are in two different rows, see WBC rule clarification above.)
Car C – This space has only one option which is moving diagonally left into space E.
(Changing from the 3rd to the 2nd lane.)
Car D or F – These spaces have two options moving either straight into the space in the outside lane to catch the arrow, or diagonally right to take the space on the inside lane.
Car E – This space has two options to move straight into space F or to move diagonally left into space D.
(Keep in mind that space D and F are in the same row, and E is in a row by itself. See WBC rule clarification above.)

Chris, this brings me to the point where I believe the rules have been interpreted differently. You mention horizontal, and while that may be in question, I believe the real issue is in how we interpret diagonal.

I don't think the disagreement is about what the rules say, but more of an interpretation of what horizontal movement means. The way I was taught the game, you just can't move horizontally. You must always move forward, and that means either the space in front of you, or the space diagonal in front if the rows line up. And the rules as written confirm that interpretation pretty conclusively.


I understand that this is the way you were taught, but I would challenge this part of the statement: “the space diagonal in front if the rows line up”. This is the fundamental difference in our interpretations. The rules do not state if the rows line up, but once that statement is added to the definition of diagonal, then there are tracks that do not work, you may not change lanes at any time, and options in turns are limited instead of letting drivers make decisions to break or swerve and spend wear point(s).

I believe that my definitions above fit allthe rules and clearly explain the movement options available. While I understand the way you were taught and have played the game is different, my opinion is that it takes an addition to the rules as they are written. I’m pretty sure you will disagree, but I think this definition is the heart of all the discussion.

Before I stop, I want to go back to the corner above and set up a scenario as to why I think it is important to allow lane changes in the corner. Chris is in the lead coming to the corner and is 2 spaces away from the corner with Mike and Fabio on his outside in the same row. I am lined up in the row behind the three of you. We all go 80 MPH in the corner. Chris moves through the corner spending 1 wear point and takes the line. Mike, who is low on wear points, decides to take the outside corner and ends up on the last row of the corner on the outside 80 space.

Here’s where it gets interesting. In your interpretation, Fabio has two options, move through the 60 corner and take the inside lane next to you spending 1 wear or pull into the 80 outside corner behind Mike and spend 1 wear slamming on the brakes. In my interpretation there is a third option. Fabio can take the outside corner at 80 and then dive to the inside of Mike spending 1 wear point. Now Fabio has the slipstream option on you and the inside on Mike. And what could be more important has hung me in the outside corner going 80. I shake my fist angrily at Fabio! Now that is racing!

There are definitely two interpretations of the rules, and I will support the decision made by the group. I feel that the set of definitions I have provided lets the racing be decided on the track and not by a rule. (This is my opinion.) I would challenge everyone to try my definitions on a couple of tracks to see if there are any issues.

And with this lengthy post, I rest my case.
Last edited by tcbaker07 on 05 Nov 2014, 11:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 4:41 pm

Post 05 Nov 2014, 3:06 pm

Mike, the pic issue was actually mine, I edited the post and fixed it.
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 4:41 pm

Post 05 Nov 2014, 3:50 pm

Chris,

You have summed you the issue quite nicely, my only disagreement is on which part of your points, the last half of point 1b or 2 is best supported by the rules. I would contend that rule 2 is supported by the rules as written, and 1b would requires an interpretation that is not written in the rules. So I agree to disagree on that point. :smile:

I totally agree with 1a, however I do think we might interpret it differently, but is more about 1b and 2.

The other two places where the track didn't make sense were posted in an earlier post, there were two chicanes of 3 spaces each, not aligned with the 80 space in the middle space in the opposite track, the only reason to set it up like that was to provide a driver a way through the corner at 80 by changing lanes twice in that section of the track.

I also noticed one track where a lane ended in the middle of the square next to it(again it was intentional best I can tell) so if you held exactly to 1b if you drove into that space you were stuck forever. Just park and get out and walk back to the pits.

I agree to the WBC rules this is an optional rule (even included in PBEM rules), but as that rule states it is intuitive. I believe I have provided straight forward definitions that are supported by the AH rules that provide more flexibility. I also agree that it will not come up often.

Mike, I'd like to see definitions added to our rules to support whichever decision we reach, as I think the ones I put together add a lot of clarity.

Chris, I actually spent a big part of yesterday going thru my collection of ASR mags, checking for anything that would help explain this issue either way. BTW, I had all my track maps laminated, so they will outlast me!
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Apr 2014, 6:13 am

Post 06 Nov 2014, 12:23 pm

Tim, thank you for taking the time to clarify all this with me. I don't know about you, but this discussion has been quite draining. :)

I wish we were talking face to face. It would have taken a lot less effort.

tcbaker07 wrote:ROW Cars are considered to be in the same row when the front edges of their spaces line up. (Redscape GP rule 14.)
A corollary of this rule is: A row consists of two or more spaces whose front edges line up?
(Does anyone disagree with the phrasing of the corollary?)

FORWARD A forward move is a move from the current space into an adjoining space in the next available row towards the finish line.


Yeah, this is clearly the sticking point. Just for clarity, here's what I said previously...

You must always move forward, and that means either the space in front of you, or the space diagonal in front if the rows line up.


I must admit, I'd look all through the rules and I couldn't find any actual reference to what defined forward movement. The bit about the rows lining up must have been something I was *taught* rather than something set in the rules. So clearly, this is a difference in interpretation between your play-group and the one who taught me.

tcbaker07 wrote:These definitions are supported by Grand Prix-cision racing (a online version of Speed Circuit developed by Robert Lattore) and they match the movement provided in the game. This was an excellent program, unfortunately Rob quit supporting it.


I understand why you bring it up, but can we please just leave out non-sanctioned implementations of the game? It's really mostly irrelevant to us. Suffice it to say, this guy's interpretation of the rules matched yours.

tcbaker07 wrote:(I believe that there are typos in this statement and should read as follows: "...the second space outside and the only space inside are considered to be in the same row (not lane). The first outside space is in a row (not lane) by itself." )
(Lane does not make sense to me, does anyone see this differently?)


Yeah, that clearly seems like a mistake in terms.

tcbaker07 wrote:Chris, this brings me to the point where I believe the rules have been interpreted differently. You mention horizontal, and while that may be in question, I believe the real issue is in how we interpret diagonal.

I understand that this is the way you were taught, but I would challenge this part of the statement: “the space diagonal in front if the rows line up”. This is the fundamental difference in our interpretations.


Agreed. And I think we can mostly put this to rest at this point. You play with your definition which fits the original rules and track designs, a case which you've made very well.

I play with my interpretation which also fits the rules, although it doesn't fit some original track designs. That said, the optional WBC rule of lane changing pretty clearly illustrates that my interpretation is "correct" for the WBC rules.

So we're both right, and the rules are ambiguous enough to fit both interpretations. The original track designs fit your interpretation, and the clarification of the optional rules fits mine.

tcbaker07 wrote:Before I stop, I want to go back to the corner above and set up a scenario as to why I think it is important to allow lane changes in the corner. Chris is in the lead coming to the corner and is 2 spaces away from the corner with Mike and Fabio on his outside in the same row. I am lined up in the row behind the three of you. We all go 80 MPH in the corner. Chris moves through the corner spending 1 wear point and takes the line. Mike, who is low on wear points, decides to take the outside corner and ends up on the last row of the corner on the outside 80 space.

Here’s where it gets interesting. In your interpretation, Fabio has two options, move through the 60 corner and take the inside lane next to you spending 1 wear or pull into the 80 outside corner behind Mike and spend 1 wear slamming on the brakes. In my interpretation there is a third option. Fabio can take the outside corner at 80 and then dive to the inside of Mike spending 1 wear point. Now Fabio has the slipstream option on you and the inside on Mike. And what could be more important has hung me in the outside corner going 80. I shake my fist angrily at Fabio! Now that is racing!


This is a great example, because it perfectly illustrates why I don't believe we should allow these types of lane changes. I really disagree conceptually with the idea that Fabio should be able to move around Mike through the corner in that manner.

To my way of thinking, the whole purpose behind the "no horizontal movement" rule is so that you cannot "eat up" speed (in the form of spaces) to get yourself out of trouble. Formula De has a similar rule and its for the same purpose. By eating up spaces you cheat the game mechanic of 20mph per space, and make the mechanics of late-braking or collision less important.

Yes, you provide more options to the racer, but you short-change other aspects of the game design unfairly. In your example, I feel like Fabio should have better planned his turn and/or guaged the actions of myself and Mike better. If he's stuck with sub-optimal decisions, well that's just his fault.

Who says the game has to be nice to you? :P
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 4:41 pm

Post 16 Nov 2014, 10:52 am

I had to travel this week, so i'm just now getting back to the discussion.

I understand why you bring it up, but can we please just leave out non-sanctioned implementations of the game? It's really mostly irrelevant to us. Suffice it to say, this guy's interpretation of the rules matched yours.


I won't provide the details, but there are at least another half a dozen sites that support lane changes in the corner.

Personally I would provide clarification in the WBC rules describing the definitions that you are using by including "if the rows line up", in the movement rules. Also the last statement in 3.2 should also be addressed (“and may change lanes at any time.”) as the above addition would negate this statement as written, (This is just my opinion.) rather than rely on an optional rule that really doesn't clarify what is allowed.

Mike Wrote:
The question is, can you move to a different lane even when there is a shared border? Based on feedback from Doug (when I tried it in his COTA race), you cannot do this - it would be viewed as a horizontal move. I'll make a final ruling on this after some feedback from the field. It won't become relevant for at least another turn.


Clearly others did not get a clear picture from the WBC rules.

So, I agree that we can put the above to rest at this point.

I would like to explain in a little more detail my example and why I think the extra option should be allowed.

This is a great example, because it perfectly illustrates why I don't believe we should allow these types of lane changes. I really disagree conceptually with the idea that Fabio should be able to move around Mike through the corner in that manner.

To my way of thinking, the whole purpose behind the "no horizontal movement" rule is so that you cannot "eat up" speed (in the form of spaces) to get yourself out of trouble. Formula De has a similar rule and its for the same purpose. By eating up spaces you cheat the game mechanic of 20mph per space, and make the mechanics of late-braking or collision less important.

, you provide more options to the racer, but you short-change other aspects of the game design unfairly. In your example, I feel like Fabio should have better planned his turn and/or guaged the actions of myself and Mike better. If he's stuck with sub-optimal decisions, well that's just his fault.
Who says the game has to be nice to you? :P


First, Fabio has several options with or without the lane change rule, so there is NO issue with planning or gauging the actions of either Mike or you. There is no sub-optimal decision, just choices. Fabio committed to moving 3 or 4 spaces and spending 1 wear this turn, just as you did. Mike made a decision to just move 4 spaces and not spend any wear, but he could have made a different move that required him to spend a wear point. Each player has several options available when they move
.
There is no cheating of the game mechanic of 20 mph per space, every move described consists of a move that is either 4 spaces forward or 3 spaces forward after breaking. Let’s take a little different look at each move.

Moves in both rule sets:

1. Fabio can move forward 4 spaces (20 mph per space) through the 60 corner (using one wear point) and take the inside lane next to Chris.

2. Fabio can move forward 3 spaces into the 80 outside corner behind Mike and spend 1 wear slamming on the brakes.

3. Fabio can move forward 3 spaces into the 60 inside corner behind Chris breaking before the corner using 1 wear. (Missed this one previously.)

Move in lane changing rule set:

4. Fabio can move forward 4 spaces and take the outside corner at 80 and then dive to the inside of Mike spending 1 wear point. (Keep in mind that both Mike and Chris had this option available to them as well, there would have been no passing involved had they chosen this move.)

Based on the definitions I provided this is not a horizontal move, there is no bleeding off of speed, the car moved 4 spaces at 20 MPH which equals 80 MPH. But think about it like this, Fabio started and ended in the exact same rows as Mike, so either both bled off speed, or neither did. As both cars are now 1 row behind Chris.

Here’s what I see: There is a fast lane through the corner (the 60 space), a slow lane through the corner (the two 80 spaces), or a path that starts in the slow lane followed by a lane change into the fast lane that potentially stresses the car (the first 80 space turning sharply into the 60 space).

So if the game does not have to be fair to you then why can’t Fabio pass Mike in the corner?
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 21 Dec 2014, 8:47 am

We're going with the majority on this issue. You can only change lanes at a true diagonal.

I am appreciative of both Tim and Chris's time and effort in defending their positions and both make good cases. I think, in the end, it is a matter of league preference and I will abide by the votes above (5 to 3).