[Pickles]

Posted by Kel:-

"That said, I think it *is* fair to say that people who want other people to NOT be able to make joint victories are trying to get them to play the game according to their 'vision' of how it should be played. That is, while they may feel they are trying to give themselves more options, regardless, they are clearly trying to take away options from the people who want to ally."

I would say it is the alliance players who are being unfair. The game Dominion allows only a single victor. If you play a game of dominiom you are expecting to have to defeat everyone - anything else is not the same game and it is unfair to spring this on someone.


Kel

"In summary, alliances have an implicit impact on your strategies while banning alliances explicitly limits those who want them."

Alliances are OK joint wins are verboten.

Kel
"Dominions uniqueness does not boil down to it's diplomatic/political system. I enjoy the game, whether I form an alliance or not in that particular game. If your enjoyment of the game really all comes down to whether or not two people can permanently ally, you always have the option of making house rules for new games. That might actually prove to be a good way to avoid artificially limiting the games options as only people who want to play that way, will join that game."

Allowing a joint win is a house rule.

I am arguing more logic than sentiment here too - as I have said I would love a team Version & in practice would be happy with emergent, rather than (secretly) prearranged alliance wins.


Pickles

[ July 01, 2004, 10:38: Message edited by: Pickles ]