Board Game Arena

The problem in this conversation is that we are reaching the 7th page soon and not a single time have you adressed the core argument of: Taking no action is an action, therefore in many scenario's you kingmake whatever you do.

It's that simple.

Nope, I have addressed it, I repeatedly said not helping triggering end game. If null action doesn't help trigger end game during the end game sequence, it's the right action to take to avoid king making.

So, in a generation that might be the final generation (but might not), the player who is in third place is supposed to continue playing, but not use his heat or plants or money in an attempt to maximize his own score?

That seems like a difficult stance to defend.

"I lost because the player in 3rd place kept playing instead of passing" is weak. It's a cop-out way of saying, "I played poorly because I put myself in a position where I win only if the game goes 10 generations even though it was obviously going to end on generation 9 given everyone's plants, heat, and other resources and actins available."

RoyalRook wrote: ↑21 October 2025, 15:32 Nope, I have addressed it, I repeatedly said not helping triggering end game. If null action doesn't help trigger end game during the end game sequence, it's the right action to take to avoid king making.

Nope, your first take was that even in the final conversation phase when the end of the game is triggered the third player is not allowed to convert greeneries.

primrose1234 wrote: ↑21 October 2025, 18:51

RoyalRook wrote: ↑21 October 2025, 15:32 Nope, I have addressed it, I repeatedly said not helping triggering end game. If null action doesn't help trigger end game during the end game sequence, it's the right action to take to avoid king making.

Nope, your first take was that even in the final conversation phase when the end of the game is triggered the third player is not allowed to convert greeneries.

I think in those cases, you can tell if it's 100% king making or not. For example if an ecoline player convert away from her own cities to make specific player the winner. But if he will be third no matter what, then don't convert the greenery next to other player's cities to decide a winner, it's just common courtesy at that point.

If placing my final greenery next to my city makes player A the winner over B(because his city also borders that greenery), that means that not placing the greenery makes player B the winner over A.

Sonid wrote: ↑23 September 2025, 21:05

uo111 wrote: ↑20 September 2025, 02:49 It depends on who ate more of my plants

This is the correct answer.

This guy gets it 10/10

ChesterDeBester wrote: ↑22 October 2025, 17:07 If placing my final greenery next to my city makes player A the winner over B(because his city also borders that greenery), that means that not placing the greenery makes player B the winner over A.

Exactly, so in this case null action is the right action, let the tie breaker decides the top placement/1st place. This is exactly what I was trying to express earlier regarding to null action. Or more precisely when both players have city right next to you.

RoyalRook wrote: ↑22 October 2025, 20:47

ChesterDeBester wrote: ↑22 October 2025, 17:07 If placing my final greenery next to my city makes player A the winner over B(because his city also borders that greenery), that means that not placing the greenery makes player B the winner over A.

Exactly, so in this case null action is the right action, let the tie breaker decides the top placement/1st place. This is exactly what I was trying to express earlier regarding to null action. Or more precisely when both players have city right next to you.

Null action is also an action, that is what we are trying to discuss when we are arguing for 7 pages now. There is no thing as pure neutrality.

Give credit to one player for getting a city in a spot that will score a point when someone else places a greenery. Right?