As an observation, when a commander is eliminated, all of the armies go to neutral immediately. Thus, no more orders are executed by that player.

I think this may have an unintended consequence on gameplay.

As I recall (can't find it) but games end as soon as the last player is eliminated. Thus, if there are extra orders (say by the winner), those never execute, and the game ends. I believe that this was implemented when commanders went into effect, or about the same time.

This brings me to the unintended consequence on gameplay. Say in a FFA, as soon as a commander gets killed, that players armies, and subsequent orders, go away immediately. Thus, if there were going to be extra attacks against other players, or even the attacker that killed the commander, they don't happen.

For the TLDR fans, if the player going to neutral is a side effect of a bug-fix Fizzer put in to end games when the last player is eliminated, then this impacts how games (mainly with more than 2 players) happen at the last turn.

I can't see a reason why committed orders wouldn't be executed. Do the armies out in the field not now how to follow orders?

Okay, I did some looking since no one responded to me!

https://www.warlight.net/blog/index.php/2016/01/update-3-12-4-new-card-images/
– When a game ends due to elimination, orders now stop executing immediately instead of playing out the rest of the final turn.

https://www.warlight.net/blog/index.php/2016/01/update-3-12-commanders-one-army-stands-guard-setting-membership-trial/

So, in short, going to Neutral when commander dies happened first, game ends due to elimination happens second in order of updates.

In any event, does that make sense? Should orders happen for the turn after the commander is eliminated?

Your patience is great Mr Pooh. It shall be rewarded.

I can't see a reason why committed orders wouldn't be executed. Do the armies out in the field not now how to follow orders?

This is to prevent to possibility of two commanders getting eliminated the same turn. A game can't have two losers.

Can you blockade a commander ?

kweshtun uv tha yeer ^^

You can emergency blockade and blockade a commander. (Now what happens if both players do it? Give me a min, then look for an edit)

You can not gift a commander.

EDIT: Same rule applies, when ther is one commander left the game ends. https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11323569

Edited 6/2/2016 21:20:44

New rule makes sense, once you're dead, you're dead.

Edit: Just to repeat saying this before, since it's on topic:

You can't do the abandon-gift trick anymore. As in, a team mate can't abandon his last territory and have you gift him a new one in the same turn, since abandons happen first, that player is eliminated before the gift happens and so it fails.

Edited 6/2/2016 21:30:11

The idea is that the commander is you. You're the one giving the orders in real time. Without a commander to give orders, that nation's armies will just stand around twiddling their thumbs (i.e. only defending, as a neutral does).

Except that you already issued orders to those armies that would act after your death. It is the commander that is us, not all the armies on the board.

Personally, I think it would make a lot of sense for the newly neutral armies to execute the last orders they were given prior to the commanders death. This approach seems to be an acceptable compromise as it would still avoid the prospect of a double loss in 1v1 games while providing logical closure to a defeated player's role in a larger game that would not immediately end.

Dogberry, I think you missed the point. If the orders are allowed to execute, the game could always end as a double loss, which is unacceptable.

If the orders are executed by neutrals after the player is eliminated, then those orders would never be executed unless there was more than one player remaining in the game.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I highly doubt that Warlight contains the ability to make "neutral attacks" at the moment. Interesting, perhaps!