if you think about that for a moment it probably wont net you any more points in the long run than just playing 1/3. what i am saying is, giving up a chance to fight for first to kill the weaker of the three players and as a consequence probably taking 2nd isnt as conducive to winning points as simply fighting for first every time. that being said you might occasionally play with a person that is up to truce you and kill the weaker player but more often than not the weak player will just suicide you and then you've probably already lost. very rarely will a player do everything in his power to give you an equal shot at first in this situation and as a result it is unlikely you will not suffer any detriment to your chances at winning when reacting in this fashion... and that's why this sort of thing happens all the time.

of course if you don't care about points then its a moot point, then again if you don't care about points why do you care what place you get, and if you only care about winning then why are you forgoing a chance to win to kill someone on a principles which seems to be intrinsically necessary in this game?

uhm ur the noob for not killing him if he was super weak LOL!

Yes player I was the super noob......thats the point. Don't be the super noob and kill the retards all the time......ie-Don't let a slick noob con ya!!!!!!!!

I think ya missed my theory on handling the situation Boner.......Allow me to ellarobate; Blue has ten lands, I have ten lands, noob has 6 lands. Blue and I should truce together and make the noob 3rd before our fight. Then Blue and I fight for 1st.........The other player who posted was right I was the true Noobs for making this decision. My master plan was to get Blue to flag and kill the Noob to teach him a lesson......and wound up with egg on my face..............In closing I repeat: Always kill the sitter!!!!!!!!

Gotta agree with BO here, the correct play is to take the chances for 1st, especially when dom is involved.

The one who doesn't agree with the sitter is more than likely to lose the chance for 1st, and sometimes, even the 2nd, as sitter essentialy gives other player a win. For example, one of my recent games forced me to sit for 2, one of the players suggested the other to truce against me, I instantly truced that other player (he accepted, as I was too small to be a threat for 1st)and we raped the "no sitters" guy together. Was fun, I must say. Wouldn't have been fun if I were the one truced against, but I do allow sitting so that doesn't happen to me.

You could always dump the points to get some emotional satisfaction by killing the smallest guy, but that's hardly the best play.

BO is right here. port, you are talking about doing what is "fair", but in reality a good player that wants to maximize EV, will either go 1/3 or even truce the little guy and offer him 2nd. The only time I would kill off the little guy is if I had already been working with the other big player. Then of course we would kill little guy and fight for first.

I just sat for 2nd,
and i gotta say it was chill.. auto turn was on and i was having a blast waching the guy i flagged getting 3rd ^^,

I just sat for 2nd,
and i gotta say it was chill.. auto turn was on and i was having a blast waching the guy i flagged getting 3rd ^^,