Frankly, you saying "it is his right", does not add to
this conversation.
We know what the current rules are. We are trying to discuss
what the rule "should be".
SHOULD IT be the right of a lone hold-out, to continue a game
that has clearly been dominated by a given team.
Which bit of my response didn't you understand? Yes, it SHOULD
be his right.
As, indeed, it is MY right to say that the rules shouldn't
be changed. Of course, if you only want other views
expressed, preferably supporting your view, then I suppose
your charge of not adding to the conversation might hold up.
> Frankly, you saying "it is his right", does not add to
> this conversation.
> We know what the current rules are. We are trying to discuss
> what the rule "should be".
>
> SHOULD IT be the right of a lone hold-out, to continue a game
> that has clearly been dominated by a given team.
Which bit of my response didn't you understand? Yes, it SHOULD
be his right.
I am with Gavin. There is no need for Clint to be involved the rules
are fine as they are.
Brad
···
As, indeed, it is MY right to say that the rules shouldn't
be changed. Of course, if you only want other views
expressed, preferably supporting your view, then I suppose
your charge of not adding to the conversation might hold up.
> > I am with Gavin. There is no need for Clint to be involved the
> rules
> > are fine as they are.
> >
> > Brad
> Any chance we could have the majority of players decide and not
just
> you and Gavin?
Just expressing my opinion as I thought I was free to do on this
board. Or are you the only one whose opinion is supposed to be
considered?
Not just mine, you or Gavin's. If Clint takes any of this
seriously, I'm sure he'll look at the majority of players.
Hopefully more players will vote. I almost said, hopefully more
players would speak up, but I think this subject has been beat into
the ground. It was a fun debate and like someone said a day or two
ago, nothing else useful can be added...plus it's my last day off
from work! This is my last e-mail concerning this topic.
I think this would make a whole lot more sense with a little
explanation. Care to elaborate?
Keith
P.S. Also, the existence of an auto-termination rule is not
exclusively tied to the 2:1 ratio that was originally suggested. As a
matter of fact, if you look at the poll the group sentiment seems to
be running more in the 4:1 area.
If the 2-1 rule were in effect then the 4th age game I'm in
currently
would have been ended turn 0 as my team was outnumbered 14-5.
jmason86 wrote:
>
> > I am with Gavin. There is no need for Clint to be involved the
> rules
> > are fine as they are.
> >
> > Brad
>
> Any chance we could have the majority of players decide and not
