cs, get it on, when ppl dont have to attack for dom, they wont... right? so lets close this discussion (;

I see.. so if you have more dice than anyone you don't have to attack for DOM so you won't and therefore that system sucks..

but.. if you have more lands than anyone you don't have to attack for DOM so you won't and therefore that system rules..

You have an excellent bias to what exists already. You'd make a good conservative.

the dom system is fine as it is. reward for aggressive play and funny connects. it keeps the game dynamic. more rolls per turn, more fun.

thats what i think.

A liberal Christian Soldier?

interesting..............

CS,

Can you give a reference for your saying that dom was introduced to discourage gang-ups on first?

It was my impression that dom was intended to to penalize players who had few lands but high place because of their being protected by a bigger player.

Also, I would think that dom would encourage gangups because you can force the first place player to flag as soon as possible (to preserve dom) and therefore award each gangerupper with an increase in place.

skrum I think I gave a misleading summary above. The problem in the early days was that the person who achieved 1st place had total say over how many points anyone on the board got since it entirely depended on what position they ended. So you would have pga's (before the term), or just in-game truces that were more heavily rewarded at the end than what most people thought was fair. You also had VERY long games where a 1st place person would whittle down a 2nd place person to make a protected (but generally useless) ally 2nd place.