Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: In need of a ruling rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alexander Müller
Germany
flag msg tools
hi guys,
Not sure this is the right forum, though I couldnt find a more suitable one. Tell me if i missed it : )
we recently ran into a difficult to judge situation, whose final ruling is more metagame/abstract than the rulebook could ever answer, so I figured any interested gamer could give a qualified answer and id really love to hear some opinions.
consider this, if you will:

A Game Of Thrones, a complicated and lengthy strategy game with risk-like mechanics, is in its final stages.
Player B can, if nobody intervenes, win in his next turn. The only one to move before him is Player A, who is not aware of this (as is the rest of the group). He contemplates attacking one of B's strongholds (potentially preventing B's victory) and is pretty much ready to go when he notices that he has to take all his troops for a succesful attack, which would completely abandon his own position.
Thus, he opts against the attack and takes a second look at the board.
Note that at this point he a) had already touched his troops and b) declared along the lines of "Ok, im gonna attack B in Area C, well wait, no, all my troops ... blabla let me think again". this (touching+declaring), by the rules we agreed upon and usually enforce strictly, binds him to actually execute the attack, no second chances. But: Nobody intervenes and he gets to reconsider.
Picture B silently rejoicing.
After some thought, he decides on launching a different attack, with a different army against a different enemy. Again, he grabs his troops and declares "I'll attack some1else in somedifferentArea" (again binding him to the attack by agreed-upon rules). B remarks now, to everyones shock, "Yes! with you reconsidering I just won the game".
Upon hearing this and realizing his mistake, but after finishing his declaration, A puts down his pieces and demands to be allowed to change his move to the first attack, preventing B's victory.


A arguments
a) "You let me change my mind just 15 seconds ago, so its only fair if i can do it again."
b) "I shouldnt have been allowed to call of the first attack, that one has to be executed."


B arguments
a) "If nobody objects to you breaking/bending the rules, that does not mean you have the right to do it again later"
b) "You shouldnt have been allowed. But nobody noticed/cared, you took your liberty to call of the attack, reconsidered and chose a different one."


Although I was involved I tried my best to convey the situation factually correct, without leaving or adding anything, and without a suggestive bias.
All comments, opinions and voices of reason are highly appreciated!

happy gaming, and may your involvements in similar conflicts be a rare occasion : )
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Choice C. Let people reconsider their actions as long as it is still their turn and before any dice have been rolled or hidden information revealed. Unless you are playing a tournament game, the type of "no take back" rule does not belong in a friendly board game.
22 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Cepeda
United States
Anthem
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
casualgod wrote:
Choice C. Let people reconsider their actions as long as it is still their turn and before any dice have been rolled or hidden information revealed. Unless you are playing a tournament game, the type of "no take back" rule does not belong in a friendly board game.


This is exactly what I was thinking the whole time I was reading that!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Morgan
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
B sounds like the kind of guy you need to invite to Poker Night. laugh

I think it's on the rest of the group for not calling him out the first time he switched his plans. He does have a point with "you let me do this", but I don't agree that it means he gets to do it again. If I was making the call, I'd say "We made a mistake by letting you take back your first choice, but you need to follow through with the second declaration."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iidhaegn wrote:
...
This is exactly what I was thinking the whole time I was reading that!


Ditto on David and Daniel.

This looks like a friendly game, therefore re-playing again should be fine.

If you are all playing competitively with some expertise, then I recommend that you adhere to your rules on the next game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelly Bass
United States
Venice
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
c0rt3z wrote:
...by the rules we agreed upon and usually enforce strictly, binds him to actually execute the attack, no second chances.

If you only usually enforce something strictly, but don't always enforce it, then there are going to be problems.

c0rt3z wrote:
... (again binding him to the attack by agreed-upon rules.

It's not really binding if you don't always enforce it.

So, imho, I'd say that if your group were consistent, the first attack must take place, and if your group is not consistent, then he can recosider & touch & move pieces all he wants as nothing is really binding, so in this case the first attack could take place too.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gert Meyer
Denmark
Trekantsområdet
flag msg tools
badge
Skål - Cheers - Gom Bui - Prost - Almien - Salut - Kampai - Na Zdrowie - Gan Bae - Qapla
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to agree with the others that the rigid "declare and touch" rule is the main culprit here. I find that being a bit more lenient about taking back moves that have not caused any consequences leads to less AP as you do not have to consider everything carefully 5 times before even touching your pieces.

But given the described situation I am going to have to side with Player B. It is not his fault that the rest of the group let the first declaration slide. But the fact is that no one objected to it at the time. Now, someone is objecting and that changes the situation completely.

However, I also think it was rather tactless of Player B to declare his victory as soon as Player A touched his pieces. If he had waited until Player B had executed his attack I believe none of you would even have been discussing this.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I think it's foolish to have a rigid rule about taking moves back, which you probably recognize and that's why you don't enforce it effectively.

However, it is a little annoying to allow a takeback after B reveals that information about his pending victory. B might just be trying to be helpful, in that by announcing his victory, he can save you the trouble of going through a potentially long/tedious resolution of your move. But if you take back your move and attack B, that just means B will no longer want to be helpful in future games.

I should think we would want our metagame rules to encourage helpful behavior, not discourage it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
C. Ask the the other players at the table. If they are "all" cool with it then no problem. If not, then tough.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kirk Thomas
United States
North Kansas City
MO
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought for sure that the punchline was going to be that everybody but A realized that A attacking B would prevent B's victory, and then somebody "educated" A, leaving B feeling cheated.

So it was a bit of a letdown to hear the actual issue which 1) sounds overly strict and, yet, 2) inconsistently enforced.

In the situation as it was described, I'd side with B - the intent was to play it as he is now demanding, even if very recently the same rule was "broken". I have no idea why B would exalt like that so quickly, which as somebody else pointed out, brought this issue to a head.

But I'm also left wondering why A then suddenly wanted to deny B the victory. Presumably somebody was going to win, it wasn't going to be A, and A had just finished taking extra liberty in making the exact move he thought was best. Personally, I'd be relieved I hadn't had to "choose" the winner as A, and I don't typically care a lot about who wins if it's not me. Kind of strange.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Steward
United States
flag msg tools
designer
Fretboard Gamer
badge
p/g
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We allow changing of your move up to the point where the next player has done some sort of action. (However, we often will allow overlooked things like collecting a missed resource, etc. even when the next player is having his turn.)

However: If, after you've moved, someone points something out that you didn't see... we don't allow you to change your move based on that. You have to have seen it for yourself.

(When learning a game, though, none of this matters. Everyone shares their ideas openly and "take-backs" are flexible.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derek
United States
Sioux Falls
South Dakota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Depends.

Tournament play, no... you can't do that.

Casual... I'm just happy to be playing a game! Do whatever you gotta do!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Psylocide wrote:
Depends.

Tournament play, no... you can't do that.

Casual... I'm just happy to be playing a game! Do whatever you gotta do!


QFT. It has taken me a long time to get to this point, but now that I care less about winning and more about enjoying company and the gaming experience, I enjoy games 100% more.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kentaro Sugiyama
United States
Redondo Beach
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"This (touching+declaring), by the rules we agreed upon and usually enforce strictly, binds him to actually execute the attack, no second chances."

It sounds like your group is playing tournament rules, sort of like "Touch Move" in chess. If you wish to continue playing "tournament" rules, contrary to how others have responded (and how I felt at a gut level), that is your group's choice.

Player A had violated the binding rule, upon reconsidering his first attack.

The group was silent. Silence doesn't necessary mean consent, although this could be argued ad infinitum. Perhaps everyone at the table was so engrossed with the tension-filled moment that they forgot to be rule enforcers?

However, I find it very convenient that Player B suddenly wished to enforce the binding rule when it was clearly to his benefit!

Does this mean Player B was aware that Player A was violating the binding rule in the first place, and chose to ignore it? I can only speculate.

He compounded it further by gloating even before any action has taken place: "Yes! with you reconsidering I just won the game." With Player A then demanding to change his move to the first attack, it sounds like Player B was now enforcing the binding rule. In this manner, it seems Player B had tacitly acknowledged that the binding rule was violated prior.

Per your description, the game state had not changed. If this were the case, Player A should have been allowed (even compelled) to carry out his original declaration of attacking Player B, unless the attack was physically impossible or illegal to do so.

In our games, if the game state has significantly changed by the time a rule violation is discovered, we either:
1) Continue to play with the current rule interpretation, so that it applies to everybody; or
2) Chalk it off and say the game has an "asterisk", meaning if the player who violated the rule eventually won, that would not be considered a "real" victory by that player (and we really mean that tongue-in-cheek); or
3) If convenient (like within a turn), immediately revert back to the game state where the rule violation first occurred, and proceed with the new rule interpretation. Note that if the rule violation had occurred a number of times by the time of discovery, we either restart the game or continue with choice #1 or #2.

Good luck.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Riddle
United States
Oxford
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
we are pretty easy going for new games but as we get going it gets harsher
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.