Combat as a strategy

Or in likely situations do what people usually tend to do and say "Hands for one?"

Lönkka wrote:

Or in likely situations do what people usually tend to do and say "Hands for one?"

It's very like how legislature in Russia works - "Why we need sane laws and regulations? In absurd situations people can just bribe the government inspector!".

elotar wrote:

Lönkka wrote:

Or in likely situations do what people usually tend to do and say "Hands for one?"

It's very like how legislature in Russia works - "Why we need sane laws and regulations? In absurd situations people can just bribe the government inspector!".

elotar wrote:

Lönkka wrote:

Or in likely situations do what people usually tend to do and say "Hands for one?"

It's very like how legislature in Russia works - "Why we need sane laws and regulations? In absurd situations people can just bribe the government inspector!".

Could you explain what you mean regarding vtes ?

Ashur wrote:

elotar wrote:

Lönkka wrote:

Or in likely situations do what people usually tend to do and say "Hands for one?"

It's very like how legislature in Russia works - "Why we need sane laws and regulations? In absurd situations people can just bribe the government inspector!".

No, it´s nothing like that. No third party (like social welfare system) suffers. It´s just to save time.

Actually there are no third party in all such interactions - everybody involved suffers. For example - question "hands for one" may provide unfair advantage for one of the participants if, for example, he have some card like swallowed by the night, which he want to keep for stealth, but is ready to use for some chance to save a minion against grandpredator, who blocked a bounced bleed. So if the opponent answer "yes" then everything fine and he can keep it, if he don't answer it than he may play something aggressive, so it's better to go to long, maybe opponent got no ranged strikes.

And it's just stupid in general.