OLYMPIC GAMES is wrong?

[Leto]

Hi.
As I remember from boardgame rules, if You play OPLYMPIC GAMES when DEFCON is 2, and opponent declines games - HE loses, because it`s his actions caused Armageddon. But today I was deafeated by my opponent when he declines to take part in OG.
Any clarification about this?

***
Как я помню из правил настольной игры, если ты играешь ОЛИМПИЙСКЕ ИГРЫ, и при этом DEFCON 2, и противник отказывается принимать в них участие (что уменьшает дефкон еще на 1 пункт), то проигрывает он, т.к. это его действия привели к уменьшению дефкона. Но сегодня меня выиграли именно таким образом - я сыграл ОИ, он отказался в них учавствовать, и победил.
Требуется уточнение, или внесение в следующий патч. Разрабы вообще тут бывают?

[VR Stufffs]

No, you do actually lose in this circumstance, it's the phasing player (ie: the person who played the card) who loses the game, no matter who triggered Armageddon.

[Xeinar dies a lot - ITA]

I was exaclty writing the same question. It seems a bit incoherent being the boycotted player the one to lose the match.

(and in case a warning should be raised before committing)

[VenomXmoneV]

Why? You're boycotting, you're causing tension and turmoil over your decision. You're making a political stance that you don't like someone.

There's been discussion over just how many warnings to give people. I don't think the potential suicide cards need to be among the warnings, you'll learn to watch out for them.

[Starfinder]

On your Action Round, you are the phasing player. The phasing player always loses if DEFCON goes to 1. Personally, I prefer to see players to be given a warning prior to committing DEFCON suidice - it's a tough way to lose, especially for newer players that might night understand the concept.

[RotorHed]

Yes the game is correctly applying the rules even if at first they seem counter-intuitive - changing it so the person boycotting in this situation loses would be a change to the underlying TS rules.

There was a fair bit of discussion in the beta about how much hand-holding someone should be given for this kind of siutation. The developers added warnings for most obvious scenarios about defcon suicide or holding scroing cards - some would argue they've already gone too far to aid players with the rules.

Warning about this kind of thing seems to be going too far to me - it is an ill-advised card play but is not a guaranteed "suicide" move since the oppoent doesn't have to force the defcon to lower.

[☢Ｄιαмση∂ѕρι∂єя☢]

I just ran into this in the game and it seemed clear to me I would lose if the computer boycotted... glad I was right, as I went on to win :)

[☢Ｄιαмση∂ѕρι∂єя☢]

Originally posted by VenomXmoneV:

Why? You're boycotting, you're causing tension and turmoil over your decision. You're making a political stance that you don't like someone.

There's been discussion over just how many warnings to give people. I don't think the potential suicide cards need to be among the warnings, you'll learn to watch out for them.

The boycotter actually wins. The mistake was calling Olympic games when there is so much tension.

[davidvipac]

You are wrong, indeed this particular defcon suicide example by olympic games is in the rulebook.

[skarabath]

always lose the player in turn so if you played the card you lose. Carefull that's happens with more cards.

[Xeinar dies a lot - ITA]

Thanks guys, it's clearer now

[bcwjarvis]

Just won my first game vs the AI during the Headline Phase of Turn 3 with this... Defcon was 3, I headlined "Duck & Cover 3" and the AI headlined "Olympic Games 2"... D&C brought Defcon to 2, and I boycotted his Games... ta da!

[Xeinar dies a lot - ITA]

Looks like the AI is not aware of its consequences... like us noobs :-)

[Buzz Killington]

Lone Gunman at DEFCON 2 = lose also... yeah the game needs to let us know in advance, it's hard enough without this "gotcha" BS.

[RotorHed]

I'm not sure why the game should let you know in advance you're taking a losing move. The scenarios listed here are all valid ways to win/lose the game - the rules from the boardgame are being enforced.

If anything, I think the "winner" should have the the choice of continuing the game or forcing the win to stand - that way if a game is fun the winner can choose to continue it. That seems more like the kind of thing that happens with the boadgame version.

The danger is that there are so many safeguards against losing that it makes some winning strategies impossible because the opponent is forewarned of every trap laid by the opponent.

There's already big warnings about impending defcon changes and unplayed scoring cards - I don't feel yet more hand holding from the game is required otherwise there's little pooint in playing at all if the computer will basically warn of losing moves every phase.

[davidvipac]

In friendly game warning the opponent if he is going to commit automatically defcon suicide is something usual when it is an obvious mistake (say to play Lone Gunman/CIA created with defcon 2 and battlegrounds available in America/Africa) (Or coup when you are under Cuban Missile Crisis).

I think that offering warnings when the suicide is granted by those specific actions or because you make a great mistake (i.e. couping a battleground with defcon 2 because for one moment you forgot or misunderstood the Defcon situation) would be something to consider at least as an option selected by the players.

The other cards and situation for me are out of this. There are several circumstantial suicide cards and it is not practical to warn every hipotetical defcon drop or suicide possibility.

Remember that apart from the common noob mistake with CIA created and Lone Gunman, most of defcon suicide cases are forced by a daring play of circumstancial suicide cards or by your opponent's maneuver discarding cards from your hand and therefore forcing you to play a suicide card at last. Thats part of the game.