Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Okay, so I've always been of the mind that you should defend as much as you're able, and not let somebody win unless you can't do anything more, but a situation recently came up that might make me change my thoughts on that.
Situation:
5 Players. 4 people have 4 lost souls (two shared a 2 Liner), 1 (player B) has 3. Player A has 4 and makes a rescue attempt against Player Sauce (who doesn't have defense), and he has Falling Away in his hand. Should he play it on Player A, and keep the game going as long as he can (even though Player C would undoubtedly win, causing the other 4 to tie for 2nd), or play it on players C and D and give player A the soul, causing Player Sauce to take second, and Player A to win.
This is in a district tournament.
So should Player Sauce do the selfish thing and take second, or the general thing to fight until the end?

I do not believe it is unethical to play your cards in such a way that it benefits yourself the most. At a tournament a few weeks ago, (in a MP game obviously), I played Angel of the Lord during my brother's rescue attempt because I feared the blocking player was going to make a play to discard a Hero I needed to keep. Yes, the dominant benefited my brother, but it wasn't because I was trying to help my brother--it was simply that I felt that play would be the most beneficial to me and in the end I won a very close game because of that play.

hehe yeah that reminds me of ct states last year me rob m and sam nurge me and rob keep fighting and i keep punishing sam with my cards

However, should you pick on one player who's in last place, but has been established as a good player?

No. Fight who is winning.

As to the scenario, honestly, you aren't truly defending anyways. You're influencing lost souls, not stopping a rescue. I've done similar. I was at SE regionals at the top table, knowing that whatever I placed in at the table would be my place. I purposefully played ANB to try to stop the player who would of gotten third from achieving that so I could have third.

I am a stout believer in if you can block DO NOT give free souls unless if some one else is going to win the game and your block will be wasted. For this case im of the opinion that his falling away should have been played to drag the game out. But that is just me and I honestly dont care if I win or lose games.

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.

I'm not sure I agree with this.  

Scenario:  I have only 2 lost souls.  I'm NOT going to win or get second place.  I'm holding Falling Away.  The leading player has 4 lost souls but also has GOYS in play.  The second and 3rd place players both have 3 lost souls, and no GOYS.  Leading player comes after me for lost soul number 5, and I have no way to stop it.  Before I hand over that lost soul I'm probably going to break the tie for second place by playing FA on one of the "3 soul" players, AND I'm most likely to play it on the player that usually wins all the tournaments.  It's just part of my nature to root for the underdog and give other players a chance, if I can't win myself.  

Is it wrong to always target the best player at the table when all other things are equal?  Do I instead need to be flipping a coin every time, so as to not appear partial?  Or am I "ethically obligated" to keep FA in my hand and not play it before the end of the game?

Yes, it's incredibly frustrating.  Why go through all that work to become good if it just means that people are going to go after you more?

Simple solution: If you're playing Booster Draft, don't take it so seriously. It's just that type of category. If you're playing T1-MP, that's your own fault. T1-MP is awful.

One of these days I'm going to make a T1 MP tournament deck with every card in it that can search for GOYS.  Cards like FA (especially combined with the "Lost Souls" card) are just murder on T1 multi, and can actually lead to some hurt feelings when they are tossed around with reckless abandon.

Quote

Before I hand over that lost soul I'm probably going to break the tie for second place by playing FA on one of the "3 soul" players, AND I'm most likely to play it on the player that usually wins all the tournaments.

I would be infuriated if I saw this. You had nothing to gain from the play and it was pure spite. Redemption goes way out of its way to avoid NPE and you just created it. If I were hosting the tournament I would even ban you from participating in Multiplayer in the future.

I don't play Multiplayer myself, so I would never have a bias in this argument. Sandbagging is wrong, especially in the scenario you just described. Manipulating the scoreboard so that you do well is A-ok, but manipulating it so that someone else does worse is nasty.

You seem to assume that I'm doing it to hurt another player, but I'm specifically doing it to help a player that has never won a tournament before.  I also disagree that Redemption goes out of its way to avoid cases like this, because they are the ones who created a dominant that can do exactly this, and then refused to ban it (like I wish they would).

I'm one of the two best players in our local playgroup.  When I play multi-player, I can expect all the other players to play their Christians Martyrs on all my rescue attempts, and play their Angel of the Lord on all my blocking ECs, even when its not their turn.  Not good strategy on their part, but certainly allowed within the rules.  They're just so used to me winning, that they want to slow me down and give everyone else a chance.  In a weird way its a compliment to my abilities too, so there IS something to be happy about.  It's frustrating, but it's just a game, and I shrug it off.  I certainly don't call a judge over and whine that everybody's targeting me and ask that they all be banned.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but on what basis could you ban a player for playing a card that is allowed to be played at any time, for any reason?  The best solution to this is what you and many others have done, DON'T PLAY MULTIPLAYER.  But a judge banning someone because they don't like their dominant play?

So if you're judging a game like this and you are not certain why a player targeted so and so, you call them out and ask them to defend their reason for targeting said player?  I'm sorry, but this just seems like over-zealous judging to me, and taking a game a little too seriously.  If I don't like how someone plays, I don't play again with that person.  That type of person faces eternal consequences far worse than being banned from a tournament.  If that means that I sit out of an event or two, so be it.  

On a side note, are we in agreement that Falling Away is a BAD card, for specifically these types of reasons?

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.

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...