LogFAQs > #882794521

Lopen posted...

It definitely is interesting. I'll keep my thoughts on it to myself but I can see either way making sense.

WE HAVE COME TO TERMS already actually

Our joint decision was that true fairness dictates this match no-contests, because neither ability could resolve. But since we can't do a no-contest, Archer wins, because his wording is stronger. The reasoning is thus:

A) Archer makes it so only he and his master can be rostered (this incidentally prevents Terry from being rostered, I'm making the note here).

B) Kain makes it so illegal rosters incur punishments. He sets the legal upkeep max at 7.

C) Tiro can submit an illegal roster with no immediate ill effect. DC can explicitly field his entire team because Archer removes limitations from HIS side. (The fact he doesn't from his own is pure slop - it means you could technically perform a self-ownage by UBWing in lowbie, as Archer would take up all the roster slots and leave none for his master, thus submitting an illegal roster that would end with his master being rostered solo.)

D) When rosters are processed, Kain notices the illegal roster and tries to kick out Archer and Cloud, which would then as a side effect null their abilities. However, because Archer and Cloud explicitly cannot be affected by any abilities aside from UBW, Kain can't kick them out. Thus we get DC's team vs Archer and Cloud.

Is this a clusterfuck? Yes. Are there arguments for the other side? Yes. Does it make me unhappy to have to make this call, even if it was a joint one? Yes. But it feels like this makes more sense. If I had my way, I would absolutely push for the no-contest, but implementing such a massive rule change midway through the playoffs is out of the question. I'll think about it for a future iteration of mercs.
---

Shine on, you crazy diamond.