Can we Have Option for Block/No Blocking Games for People Who Hate SABOTAGE Players?

[Strode]

However, it's interesting to think about what an actual "no block" rule would look like.

As a house rule, I'd suggest playing with open tickets, and you must always leave a possibility for others to complete their tickets (i.e., must not block the last possible route). Unless it's the only way to complete *your* ticket. That would still allow blocking, maybe even self-blocking (force an opponent to take a longer route, because the shorter one would block you completely).

I doubt that would satisfy people. My guess is they aren't just bothered by 'absolute' blocking, but by 'inconvenience' blocking, which your rule would allow (and perhaps even validate). "You can still get there, it will just take four connections instead of one."

[Portanas]

I agree. I despise this type of game. If it happens while trying to grab the same route, fine, but to block just to be blocking is my least liked thing about this game. I know its a part of the game. I can't stop someone from doing it, but I will never do it to someone else. When it does happen, I immediately give that a red thumbs down

[Suoivax]

I agree. I despise this type of game. If it happens while trying to grab the same route, fine, but to block just to be blocking is my least liked thing about this game. I know its a part of the game. I can't stop someone from doing it, but I will never do it to someone else. When it does happen, I immediately give that a red thumbs down

how would you even enforce that rules-wise?

[Charlieboy80]

As blocking is totally fair game, I try and do my small routes (the ones that are easily filled by blockers) quicker. It's much easier for me to throw two whites down and block you then to save up 6 oranges and get that piece you really need.

[sight4]

OMG. Can't believe this is even a question. It's like asking if we can have a version of soccer where nobody plays with goalies or defenders.

Every sport, and every game where the highest score wins has two components. Offence. Defense. You are asking people to let you win the game. Wow.

[Secretdi]

ON the Days of Wonder site you could put "no blocking" in the game title and that worked well. I'm sad so many people on this forum are critical of this question. I also prefer to play with no-blockers and NO I don't mean crying if the other player legit needs the route - that's fair. But there really are two ways to play this game and I can propose a way this would work:

When setting up the game parameters (turn order before or after ticket selection, etc there could be blocking welcomed or no blocking. At least it would let players know how the opponents want to run the game. I can't see how there would be penalties, but it would be a GREAT START!

[Strode]

So Days of Wonder didn't enforce 'no blocking', but people tended to abide the request anyway?

[magical-sparrow798]

The goal of playing a game is to win. Blocking (especially in a 2 player game) is a very good strategy towards winning. I don't see the issue with it.

I agree, that is part of the strategy….you get your most vulnerable sections of your route first, if you don’t you risk the chance of being blocked by your opponent.

[irisquint72]

You could add a, buttom fair play only... I hate people who ruin my trail on purpose

[Ceaseless]

You could add a, buttom fair play only... I hate people who ruin my trail on purpose

What if we added a fair play button to handle people who try to cheat and say their opponents can't block. We wouldn't want to see such underhanded tactics in rated, after all.