by Stu Holttum
trimoe19 wrote:
.....it would be best to let Jason win thus resulting in a tie and forcing more games to be played to name the world.
To me, THIS is what it comes down to. The rules of the game do NOT say play more games - they say "tie-break on continents named, then roll off".
What was Blake's understanding of the rules? Was he expecting the campaign to stop after this game? If so, what would have been the result? If Jason had won that game, with rules as written, who would have won the world?
If you'd all agreed waaay back to keep playing until after game 15 or later there was a clear winner, then that's one thing - Blake would have been playing with that in mind through the campaign.
But is SOUNDS like he was playing the campaign, and entered game 15 thinking "if I can just stop Jason here, then I win" (or possibly "even if Jason wins, I will win on continents") but then halfway through the game you not only revealed that he was fighting against three people, but that you had decided to change the campaign rules without consulting him - and if THAT is the case, then I'm not surprised he stormed off. And no, I don't think that would be fair.
A lot rests on when your group decided to change the victory conditions in the rulebook - can you clarify that please?