Author Topic: Question about Defending Ethics (Read 8307 times)

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #25 on:** April 12, 2011, 11:04:08 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on April 12, 2011, 10:45:00 AM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 12, 2011, 10:26:49 AM
Again, I appeal to the precedent of table-talk. It's not illegal, but I've heard of plenty of people being disqualified/threatened with disqualification over it.
I thought there was a rule against it now? Or maybe that's just in MN, where we're a bunch of manipulative ne'er-do-wells who coerce RLK's into doing our bidding at every turn...

I'm not aware of a rule against Jedi mind tricks...

SomeKittens · « **Reply #26 on:** April 12, 2011, 11:04:42 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on April 12, 2011, 10:20:43 AM

People are free to do anything legally they want, and IMO a judge should only comment on things that happen that are illegal gameplaywise. If a person wants to do something as Steffer describes, he certainly can, and leave everyone else to decide how they feel about it. I personally probably wouldn't do anything to hurt another person's placing, etc. if it doesn't help me, but I wouldn't say that's a judge's call to say what someone can and can't do as long as they're following the rules.

Quote from: stefferweffer on April 12, 2011, 10:19:38 AM
On a side note, are we in agreement that Falling Away is a BAD card, for specifically these types of reasons?

I think it's nice in 2P, but if it were banned for multiplayer categories, I would nary shed a tear. If NJ were similarly banned for multiplayer, I would actually consider playing T1-multi once in awhile.

I agree, a judge shouldn't call anything except that which is explicitly against the rules.

Table talk is a huge issue in our group, and I'm pretty strict about it. I define what is/isn't ok as "It's alright to tell someone what they can't do, but not ok to tell them what they can do." However, this is only in a tournament setting. I encourage teaching in casual play whenever possible.

The M · « **Reply #27 on:** April 12, 2011, 07:41:11 PM »

My question:

Is it ok to play Mayhem in T2 multi on the first turn right after I have put down my cards?
What if I know I probably wouldn't benefit from it?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #28 on:** April 12, 2011, 07:43:11 PM »

A first round Mayhem is basically always a benefit.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #29 on:** April 12, 2011, 08:11:26 PM »

Quote

I agree, a judge shouldn't call anything except that which is explicitly against the rules.

Table talk is a huge issue in our group, and I'm pretty strict about it.

lol wut

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #30 on:** April 12, 2011, 08:21:58 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 12, 2011, 10:02:37 AM

Playing a dominant with no benefit to yourself and for no purpose other than to make one player place lower than another player does not fall within the parameters of fun and fellowship.

I agree with this. However, I can imagine one scenario within the parameters listed where playing FA could be to your benefit. Perhaps you have no chance to come in 1st or 2nd in that particular game. However, you have enough points going into that last round that you will place 2nd or 3rd as long as player X doesn't get any points that round either. In that case if player X is tied for 2nd and you play FA on them at the last turn before handing over the winning LS, then you would be ensuring you placing in the tournament.

Of course if the player attacking for #5 did NOT have GoYS, then you would have to play the FA on them in order to keep the game going. But if you truly had no defense other than the FA, and they already had GoYS out, then there's not anything you could have done.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #31 on:** April 12, 2011, 08:25:31 PM »

Quote

In that case if player X is tied for 2nd and you play FA on them at the last turn before handing over the winning LS, then you would be ensuring you placing in the tournament.

Then there would be benefit to yourself and I would have no problem with it. The scenario being presented was one in which there was no benefit on any level, and the only goal was to hurt a player and favor another.

JSB23 · « **Reply #32 on:** April 12, 2011, 09:18:07 PM »

There are no ethics of defending, do whatever you want

The Guardian · « **Reply #33 on:** April 15, 2011, 03:13:15 PM »

Acceptable table talk:

"I am about to surrender a LS to Justin, does anyone want to do anything first?"

Unacceptable table talk:

"Justin is about to get a LS, you should play your Christian Martyr on his Hero!"

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #34 on:** April 15, 2011, 03:18:21 PM »

Good table talk...

"I am about to surrender a LS to Justin, does anyone want to do anything first?"

Better table talk...

"I just realized something. If someone were to play Grapes and discard my EC--since he is dying anyway--you could shuffle all of Justin's Heroes into his deck."

Even better table talk...

"New house rule--no one is allowed to use their dominants on anyone other than Justin."

Best table talk ever...

"No, that is Jordan. Justin is the other guy."

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #35 on:** April 19, 2011, 01:55:02 PM »

Semi-necro:

I've been thinking about the situation I mentioned on the first page more. 4 player multi, everyone has four souls. No defense is left besides player one and two both have falling away. Plenty of no SA souls to rescue and everyone has at least one hero. Player four makes a rescue. If player one plays his FA, player two wins the game. If player two plays his FA, player one wins the game. If neither of them play it, player 4 wins the game. Assume whoever wins won't effect the outcome of the tournament rankings.

Is anyone obligated to extend the game? Obviously if you understand the other person isn't going to use their FA on player 4, you're going to lose the game, so should you then play yours? Should you just let player 4 win? Should you be stubborn and try to win?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #36 on:** April 19, 2011, 04:07:59 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on April 19, 2011, 01:55:02 PM

Is anyone obligated to extend the game? Obviously if you understand the other person isn't going to use their FA on player 4, you're going to lose the game, so should you then play yours? Should you just let player 4 win? Should you be stubborn and try to win?

Player 1 should play Falling Away on Player 4 so that they will at least get a turn. Then on their turn they should play Mayhem to get rid of Player 2's Falling Away. Then they should win and rejoice

Seriously, you never know what will happen. You might draw that Mayhem, or you might draw that Guardian, or you might draw enough defense to stop Player 2 from winning even if they do play Falling Away on you. Regardless, you should try to keep the game going as long as you can.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #37 on:** April 19, 2011, 04:58:17 PM »

If I was Player 2, I'd burn Player 1 by playing Falling Away immediately after he plays it on Player 4.

crustpope · « **Reply #38 on:** April 19, 2011, 05:03:45 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 12, 2011, 03:25:20 AM

Multiplayer is total war. Make whatever plays you feel will end up getting you the best position at the end of the day. However, it is unethical to sandbag a notable player when there is no benefit to yourself.

Unless of course you believe that person has a reasonable expectation to win the game/beat you.

In the first scenario I would have played for second and I would not have felt bad about it because that is how Multi is. It is total war and you take what you can and you do what you can to whomever you feel has the best shot of beating you.

edit- Seriously? a negative? thats childish...

The Guardian · « **Reply #39 on:** April 19, 2011, 06:06:16 PM »

Quote

Assume whoever wins won't effect the outcome of the tournament rankings.

If that's the case, then it doesn't matter too much who wins because everyone should feel good about being part of what presumably was a pretty epic game if it came down to 4-4-4-4 with a couple FAs floating around...

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #40 on:** April 19, 2011, 06:26:01 PM »

If I were player 1, I'd let player 4 win, and then rant about how much of a noob player 2 is for not playing his falling away.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #41 on:** April 19, 2011, 07:01:04 PM »

If I were in this situation, I'd be player 3, wondering what the heck "ʇuɐʌɹǝs lnɟɥʇıɐɟ" means.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #42 on:** April 19, 2011, 08:17:48 PM »

hmmm I would "go to the bathroom" and accidently pull the fire alarm. I need time to think things like this through.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #43 on:** April 20, 2011, 11:18:33 AM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on April 19, 2011, 08:17:48 PM

hmmm I would "go to the bathroom" and accidently pull the fire alarm. I need time to think things like this through.

In our dorm, you don't even have to pull the fire alarm. Just make some popcorn.

katedid · « **Reply #44 on:** April 20, 2011, 12:39:58 PM »

pulling a fire alarm takes seconds. Burning popcorn at least five minutes

SomeKittens · « **Reply #45 on:** April 20, 2011, 01:57:57 PM »

But hey, popcorn!

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #46 on:** April 20, 2011, 02:24:03 PM »

I agree with Some Kittens. I would much rather think things over a bowl of popcorn than loud beeps.

katedid · « **Reply #47 on:** April 20, 2011, 02:43:46 PM »

LOL. horribly burnt popcorn? mmmm....yummy

browarod · « **Reply #48 on:** April 20, 2011, 04:44:32 PM »

Burnt popcorn has a certain appeal to it.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #49 on:** April 20, 2011, 07:13:13 PM »

Heh, if I have a card that I can play, well, why not? What's the point of having a card and not playing it because it's serves you no purpose? Like, if I know I'm not going to win the tournament, but I can still wreak a little havoc on those that can win, why not? We had a guy do that and somehow ended up winning. I agree that you shouldn't play a card just to spite someone, but if you have the card and can play it, go for it! Just play it and see what happens. If it means that you get to basically choose who will win, then simply make that decision. If Player B will win because you don't play FA on them before surrendering the soul, or if Player C will win because you do play FA on player before surrendering the soul, then pick who you think should win. No one will know that you had to make that decision unless you mention it because no one is supposed to know what's in your hand. Basically your choice serves as the tie-breaker for who wins, so pick. It's just a game.

If any of that makes sense, then there just might be some hope left for me haha

-C_S

News:

Author Topic: Question about Defending Ethics (Read 8307 times)

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

TheHobbit13

Warrior_Monk

browarod