Hmm.

May add a 0-1 rule in a certain context, but can't guarantee that scenario would crop up.

Here is another example:

USFL/WFL, 2021 season, week #13, Gold vs. Hawaiians.

The Gold have an offensive gameplan rule called "SECOND DOWN (and 3 or 4 yards to go)" that is set up to activate in every possible game circumstance as follows:

Down: Second
Distance: 3 - 4 To Go
Location: Own 0 - Own 25, Own 25 - 50, 50 - Opp 25, Opp 25 - Opp 0
Quarter: First, Second, Third, Fourth, Overtime
Time: 15:00 - 0:00
Score: Down 29+ - Up 29+

This gameplan rule did not "fire" in the 4th Quarter when it should have even though all gameplan conditions were met. We know there was a failure because the play-by-play text does not show the gameplan rule. In the occurrence shown below, all conditions of the gameplan rule are met but no gameplan rule is shown and a random offensive play was selected that is not a play from the gameplan rule had it "fired" properly:

2-4-HON 38 (11:52)
11-Barton McDonnell pass complete to 44-John Riggins III to HON 24 for 14 yards.
Offensive Play: Weak I Normal WR Corner TE Middle
Defensive Play: 4-3 Under Crowd Middle Deep Man
Pass Key

My squad was lucky in this instance that the unintended play worked out, but it was still a play that was not associated with the gameplan rule for the defined conditions.

If I knew how MFN addressed "the rounding issue," my offensive rule making life would be so much easier.
NOt knowing rounding is partly why i don't make offensive rules.
1-3 yards. Does that include up to 3.99 yards?
If i make a rule that covers 1-3 yards, and then another rule that covers 3-7 yards, do those rules overlap?
Which one of the above rules would (perhaps should is the right word) have priority?
If I have those same 2 examples, should i have rule #1 as 1-3 yards and rule #2 as 4-7 yards?
and if so - what happens for 3-4 yards? Do I need to make a rule to cover the in between yard, or are my rules over-lapping each other and thus in contridiction?
If i make a rule for 3-4 yards, does that rule overlap rule #1 and rule #2?

And after answering all of that - how the heck do we players prioritize any of such rules involved?
The above thought exercise is exactly why i don't do O rules by yardage. I sure would like to have the confidence to do so, tho!

First in last out. Priority matters, increments - the in between the yard - matters. A lot.

How to make and use rules rules are something we should have full transparency on.
please do not mention MFN homepage definition of s/m/l yardage, it has nothing to do with the in-betweens, and that is exactly what the OG post is about.

If knowing is half the battle, then not knowing is the other half.
There's a lot of stuff - mathy things - we just don't know, but we really, really want to!

Cue the "the numbers imputed don't matter" line from the D rules page... Yet, if one changes those numbers, it changes the both the priority and the ratio of order called for any plays included in that rule.

Clearly, THE NUMBERS MATTER.

The problem is, it doesn't currently round down.

The display rounds down, much like in real life. Gain of 6.534 yards? Commentators call it as gain of 6, next down X and 4.

The next down would really be X and 3.466 - so rules of X and 4+ yards wouldn't fire - BUT because you see the down as X and 4, you expect the rule to rule.

The issue is that the display is less granular than the game engine when it comes to yardage. The problem then is how to equalise both. The output from the game engine needs to be non whole number - if it was, you lose X and inches downs.

So JDB's mooted approach would be that where 4.567 yards are left to go, then in terms of calculating if the rule should be triggered, the ytg would be considered to be 4.

I think it's one of those things that you'd consider easy to approach but it's the nuances that are the difficulties. We can't have owners specifying rules to trigger if the yards to go is at least 6.535783323232. That would be ridiculous.

I think JDB's proposed idea would be a good start, but suspect this area may need to be fixed a few times as edge cases emerge.

The problem is, it doesn't currently round down.

The display rounds down, much like in real life. Gain of 6.534 yards? Commentators call it as gain of 6, next down X and 4.

The next down would really be X and 3.466 - so rules of X and 4+ yards wouldn't fire - BUT because you see the down as X and 4, you expect the rule to rule.

The issue is that the display is less granular than the game engine when it comes to yardage. The problem then is how to equalise both. The output from the game engine needs to be non whole number - if it was, you lose X and inches downs.

So JDB's mooted approach would be that where 4.567 yards are left to go, then in terms of calculating if the rule should be triggered, the ytg would be considered to be 4.

I think it's one of those things that you'd consider easy to approach but it's the nuances that are the difficulties. We can't have owners specifying rules to trigger if the yards to go is at least 6.535783323232. That would be ridiculous.

I think JDB's proposed idea would be a good start, but suspect this area may need to be fixed a few times as edge cases emerge.

Can anyone affected by rules not firing when they should answer this quick q.

In the time element of the rule do you have it high to ow or low to high, ie 15:00 to 0:00 or 0:00 to 15:00?

Can anyone seeing rules not being fired please check the times they've set up.

If your rule is failing and the time is low to high, ie 0:00 to 15:00, can you please change to high to low, ie 15:00 to 0:00.

Testing a theory atm.

Thank you for the heads up, martin! Why would anyone do 0:00 first? The game clock runs down ward.

In all my gameplan rules, across all leagues (including the examples that I have provided), the time is set from 15:00 to 0:00.

You can select the times that way.

The game engine should consider 0:00 to 15:00 as equal to 15:00 to 0:00.

JDB has applied a fix to all versions of the game engine, so 4.6 and bleeding edge in mfn-1.