Post originally by Ralph Mazza at 2004-02-14 17:48:16
Converted from Phorums BB System

===or just plain silly (like that "best player" stuff...seriously, what were you smoking?).===

I'll try this one again, since plainly I wasn't very clear.

Lets postulate a situation where player #1 is the best player at the table...most skillfull, most experienced, whatever.

Sitting across from him is player #3 a good player who through fortuneate rolls and draws is currently in the strongest position in the game.

The situation is such that Player #3 clearly needs a good smack down or he'll run away with the win. Unfortunetely Player #1 can't give it to him...because of the rule that prevents attacking across the table.

Therefor player #1 must rely on Players #2 & 4 to smack Player #3 down. But in our hypothetical 2&4 don't. Maybe they're not experienced enough to realize that's what they need to do. Maybe they just lack aggression, whatever.

So for several turns player #1 has avoided attacking #2 or #4 because he knows they will need all the strength they have to topple 3...yet they don't...and 3 goes on to a steamroller of a victory because #1 couldn't actually do anything to stop him (with the exception of a few god powers that allow you to arm across).


This is a known problem in games. If you don't believe me just ask any bridge expert whose forced to play with a novice partner about how a poor player can simply hand the game to someone else through stupid plays.

This particular rule about not being able to attack across the table doesn't create that problem by any means, but it does exasperate it because it can prevent the 1 player who does know what needs to be done from doing it.

And for what.

What is gained by this rule?

What is the purpose of having this rule...what does it do...?

Nothing good, and potentially something detrimental. Ergo...poor rule.