Thoughts on Kingmaking in Ark Nova?

[jinsokkp]

Hello everyone, my friends and I were engaged in a spirited debate about "kingmaking" in Ark Nova and just wanted to get the thoughts of fellow Ark Nova players.

I've linked the replay of the game if anyone wants to see: https://boardgamearena.com/gamereview?table=464482611

But basically here is the scenario:

Player A (myself) triggered endgame thinking that it would be advantageous because Players B and C had used most of their money and workers and would have a lackluster last turn.

Player B (my friend) was significantly behind and was unlikely to win the game. In their last turn they could have drawn cards (triggering break), sponsored (triggering break), taken an x-token, or made a pavilion. They chose to sponsor and trigger a break, which ended up giving Player C (also my friend) a turn with full income and workers, which they eventually parlayed into a game winning turn.

For full disclosure, Player B acknowledges that they were helping Player C by triggering the break and that it would likely result in Player C winning. We also all agree that he had the right to do what he did. The debate centers on whether it was "appropriate" to do so. Obviously, I contend that they should they have stayed "neutral" in this scenario and done nothing to actively help Player C. My friend, however, disagrees and says that he was in a "kingmaking" situation and that by staying "neutral" he was effectively helping me, so instead he decided to trigger a break, because that was his plan for his next move anyway.

What do you guys think?

[vikingerik]

Yeah, such a thing can happen, in many games, a player can't win but can directly decide who else does.

I think your friend's action here was fine. Doing what he was going to do anyway seems like a neutral approach. There is no special privilege for triggering endgame in Ark Nova, so friend B has no obligation to choose the endgame-triggerer as the winner.

I would argue this is a point of strategy for you: your strategic approach should include the possibility that player B might break so that player C gets a good turn.

[Monkeyunit]

From what I hear, played B did not really have other good options.
Had there not been an end game trigger, it seems player B would also likely trigger the break.

It's not like they had money themselves, but chose to spend a bunch of X tokens triggering the break using sponsor.

From the situation you perhaps could have predicted this, and not trigger end game yourself there and waiting a round?

[Artymysia]

You should have anticipated this. Triggering the endgame in any match should take into full account what possible moves our opponents can do to overtake us. This includes consequential actions from multiple opponents. Maybe you should have stayed under the 100pt threshold, and instead, had the opportunity to one up.