Forum
The "Counter All?" Trend
|
Hart wrote
at 4:00 PM, Sunday April 29, 2007 EDT
I've noticed that in almost every game I've played in the 1800s, after any truce made, some player will ask for everyone else to counter. I can see where this might be useful in a blatent 1-2 truce situation, but most of the time its just lame as hell.
|
|
OracleGirl wrote
at 12:21 PM, Monday April 30, 2007 EDT how can you guys say that its ok for you to make a 1-2 truce, but then if someone tries to counter it than they are just being lame, are you really that stupid?
|
|
Lothros wrote
at 1:34 PM, Monday April 30, 2007 EDT My opinion: Truces are ok as long as the team has less than 50% of the lands. "Counter all" truces are good as long as the countering players have no more than 5 more lands than the team they countered.
Of course, there might be exceptions from this rule. When an involved plaer is cut or cannot attack te opposing team, his team might need more lands to establish a situation of equal chances. Which should be the reason for a counter. |
|
|
Tech wrote
at 4:22 PM, Monday April 30, 2007 EDT Just noticed huh? Oh, let me see, how did I put it back in February?
"Man, I hate truces, let's truce against them." "Truces are unfair, let's truce to stop truces" "Nuh-uh, It's a -counter-truce-. Just because it uses the word truce an in involves two people working together and is used to better our chances of winning and is done whenever we feel it's necesary, which is almost every game, and is, in most every other way, exactly like a truce...It's a COUNTER-truce, so technically, we aren't like you lame-ass trucers. Asses." Of course, none of those counters were ever really that articulate. It was more like "nuhuh its difernt" |
|
Nube wrote
at 4:43 PM, Monday April 30, 2007 EDT A truce is an HOSTILE movement. So the other players must defend themselves. And the best way is a counter-truce.
|
|
|
Tech wrote
at 4:46 PM, Monday April 30, 2007 EDT ...
Nube seems to have an interesting definition of either 'hostile', 'defend' or 'is' |
|
|
Anarki wrote
at 4:47 PM, Monday April 30, 2007 EDT a countertruce is good until the original trucers are destroyed, then everyone can get back at playing the game as they would. Trucers need to be punished for acting in such a lame and unfair way, therefor it's ok to counter them. If someone hits you in the face, it's ok to hit him back. if two guys hit you in the face, it's ok to bring your friends over to kick their asses. He who plays with fire will get killed by the fire, or something like that :p
|
|
Nube wrote
at 4:51 PM, Monday April 30, 2007 EDT Yes Tech. My english is great, isn't it? ^^
|
|
|
Tech wrote
at 4:52 PM, Monday April 30, 2007 EDT ...I can't tell if you were being serious or sarcastic. Seriously, you could say either way right now and I'd probably believe you. I mean, you statement sounds ignorant enough to actually believe in counter-trucing, but at the same time, it's so ignorant that you might be doing it on purpose to show how stupid the counters position is.
|
|
|
Tech wrote
at 4:53 PM, Monday April 30, 2007 EDT That was to Anarki, by the by.
|
|
|
Tech wrote
at 4:55 PM, Monday April 30, 2007 EDT "Yes Tech. My english is great, isn't it? ^^ "
Well, with a comma after yes and perhaps a capital e on English... Suffice it to say, it's better than most, and that's all one can really ask on the internet. |