Kaladry wrote: ↑13 December 2024, 03:13
The second quote is open to interpretation. However, neither quote supports malicious blocking.
His quote is:
For instance, if someone is collecting yellow, orange, and pink, chances are they are trying to build Seattle-NY. If someone is collecting black, green, and red, they are trying to build LA-Miami. Etc. When a player claims his first route on the board, you may be able to guess what at least one of his Tickets is and be able to plan possible blocks.
Why would Alan use the language of "plan possible blocks" if it was a route I needed? That wouldn't constitute blocking - that would constitute "claiming the route first". But he doesn't use that language. Why might that be?
Also, context is important. That page uses the word "block" many times. Read the whole page. In the context of that discussion, block clearly isn't referring to claiming something that you need. Examples:
2. What percentage of effort should be devoted to blocking? Is it worth spending several turns drawing the cards needed to block an opponent's long destination instead of using those turns to complete destinations of your own?
This is literally the first post, and clearly sets the context of the thread - his use of the word `instead` would mean that blocking, in the context of that bgg thread, is what you would refer to as malicious blocking.
Another example:
I taught a couple of friends the game tonight and we played 3 games total. Chris was totally intent on blocking and he did it every chance he got and won the first 2 games. Although during our third game it bit him in the butt because he used 3 red cards to block me, trying to cut my longest route. A few turns later his girlfriend placed her last trains and Chris could no longer make the 5 red to Miami because he had used red cards to block me and hadn't drawn anymore. It cost him -32 points because he had a couple of route cards to there.
Again - clearly what you would define as malicious blocking.
Now if Alan Moon means something different by blocking than every other comment on that thread, then he certainly doesn't state that. As such, contextually, we must assume he is working with the meaning of the words that everyone else on that thread is using.
But even so, let's take another quote from Alan Moon on the same page.
In 4 or 5 player games, of course, you need some cooperation from other players to block, unless table talk is allowed.
How would you interpret that statement in a way that is
not referring to what you would call malicious blocking @Kaladry?
Is there other evidence? I'd argue that Ticket to Ride is a pretty clear evolution from Elfenland - it has many of the same design elements. And, like TtR, it has mechanisms for blocking. And he is clearly pro blocking in other designer's games too -
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/258913 ... lan-r-moon . But honestly:
As for blocking, the amount of blocking that is possible or beneficial depends a lot on the number of players in the game. Blocking is best in the 3 player game, next best in the 5 player game, then the 2 player game, and least helpful in the 4 player game. If you don't agree, again I suggest you go online and play in some 2 player games with the good players (often the best players will only play in 2 player games). The best way to learn to play a game well is to play with someone who is better than you. Unfortunately, most people don't try the game often, or at all, with 3 players, which is my favorite.
is a pretty compelling argument. He states that blocking works best in 3 player, and that he thinks 3 player is his favourite. Contextually it just isn't possible to read that quote and think "he hates blocking other players".
In fact, that paragraph as a whole is talking about numbers of players and skill in a way that strongly implies that Alan Moon thinks blocking is a skill that is useful to a skilled player.
And I ask again - What evidence from Alan Moon do you have to support your view? Please provide links if possible.
