You will be missed.

Good luck buddy!

Steve makes a good point - if you ignore the fix-it-or-else statement. Steve, it should be noted that flagging works that way for a reason and having a perfect game balance is a hard ongoing process.

With that said, the point is still valid. In this scenario, why does 1st respect 3rd's weak flag? What can be done to change this?

Here's the first suggestion that comes to mind: like dom, delay the available flag place 1 round. So the player expands to 3rd, but is weak, and can't flag 3rd until his next turn starts. But since he's weak, he'll drop down to 4th/5th by his next turn. Thoughts?

I like that idea it could work..

But then again someone will rant and prove it wrong

Instead of that Ryan, why not make it so that you are only able to flag for a position if you have held that position OR higher for at least 3 consecutive rounds. That would eliminate ninjas completely.

If you have less then 5 lands by round 3 you should be forced out of the game..
lol

I like where this is going ryan

the problem with this is an obvious one.
Say 1'st place has 10 lands and 2'nd place had 7 lands and 3'rd place has 5 lands. 2'nd place wants to flag but he has to wait 3 turns... so 1'st doesn't want to be backstabbed and hits 2nd place. then 3'rd hits 2nd, then 1'st again then 3'rd again. Suddenly you have a player who deserved 2nd and really wanted to surrender...in 4'th place because of the new system. Ryan, i know this system isnt perfect, but its the best one youve had so far.

fiero..........if he has 7 lands odds are he's been in second for more than just 1 round.

yeah, it needs to be for more than 1 round. heres a hypothetical (which ive seen happen quite often): player 1 is clear 1st. player 2 is about to secure 2nd. player 3 ninjas into 2nd and flags, but has good stacks next to player 2, so player 2 cant attack for a couple more turns until he is completely built up with +dice. by the time he can roll, player 1 has already decided to attack him because he hasnt flagged 3rd.

well, not sure if that hypothethical made much sense.

a different approach altogether would be to go back to the system that flag = instadeath, no flagging for position. and no flagging allowed until round 3, so that no flagfest potential exists. cus that was the loophole of the instadeath flag originally, right? flagfest potential? i forget. someone please remind me of what instadeath flag negatives were. (cue sam to say: there were no negatives, it was the perfect system).

imho, (actually, impo since im a point whore), i really liked the instadeath flag, because there seemed to be less bitching about what place is deserved, and less time arguing the logic back and forth over who deserves what. honestly, my bitching/whining has been higher in the current flagging system than the instadeath system.

I knew it the posts are starting to get bigger, as the kargument begins :)