@Matty In fairness he has 2 cards and was not likely to attack anyone who were also all on 2 cards or less, apart from Nike, who was in control of the board when making his calculated decision and chose not to be a target. It was a normal and accepted move with who he attacked and how he did not block him at all. In a sense, he made MJD's decision for him, but knew that MJD would attack him anyway if he went to 5 cards, as anyone in that position would.
@MJD This sort of move is quite normal in Caps, when someone can't make a set from 4 they usually try for the cards of the next player if within reach and holds some chance of success, whereas not taking a card (when holding 2 pairs) or taking a card and not attacking holds virtually no chance of survival.
If it was me doing this, I would normally not fortify any after failing to ensure the next player gets my cards without fail (Nike had none to fortify anyway), because that is the honourable thing to do, seem as the attacker put the next player in a vulnerable position.
In this case, there are no blocks to other caps either, so quite legitimate what Nike did and you now have a 95% chance at a double set and in no danger if only 1 set, as everyone is on 2 cards or less. If only 1 set, you'd finish with 4 cards and others would now have to act like my first post and attack a lot of troops with a low percentage of 2 sets from 6 cards.
What is always unfair in these cases is that most of the time the defender is forced to turn in to defend (after killing the attackers Cap), but sometimes as in this case, without Nike attacking you, would either have to wait another round for a possible 3 card set or would take a chance and attack him for his 5 cards, with 5 troops and 4 territories between you and a 5 bonus, you quite possibly would have achieved this, but there's always a chance you wouldn't.
My opinion is, this is what we all expect in Cap's and we usually shape our strategy for it.
What are bad things are when a player kills you for no set, no high percentage chance of 2 sets or fails on you and you are not next or within reach of their Cap.
My only pet hate in your situation is when the attacker also fortifies too much for you to take their cap... that is really dishonourable and unfair. This has happened to me many times and is really annoying.
@Matty In fairness he has 2 cards and was not likely to attack anyone who were also all on 2 cards or less, apart from Nike, who was in control of the board when making his calculated decision and chose not to be a target. It was a normal and accepted move with who he attacked and how he did not block him at all. In a sense, he made MJD's decision for him, but knew that MJD would attack him anyway if he went to 5 cards, as anyone in that position would.
@MJD This sort of move is quite normal in Caps, when someone can't make a set from 4 they usually try for the cards of the next player if within reach and holds some chance of success, whereas not taking a card (when holding 2 pairs) or taking a card and not attacking holds virtually no chance of survival.
If it was me doing this, I would normally not fortify any after failing to ensure the next player gets my cards without fail (Nike had none to fortify anyway), because that is the honourable thing to do, seem as the attacker put the next player in a vulnerable position.
In this case, there are no blocks to other caps either, so quite legitimate what Nike did and you now have a 95% chance at a double set and in no danger if only 1 set, as everyone is on 2 cards or less. If only 1 set, you'd finish with 4 cards and others would now have to act like my first post and attack a lot of troops with a low percentage of 2 sets from 6 cards.
What is always unfair in these cases is that most of the time the defender is forced to turn in to defend (after killing the attackers Cap), but sometimes as in this case, without Nike attacking you, would either have to wait another round for a possible 3 card set or would take a chance and attack him for his 5 cards, with 5 troops and 4 territories between you and a 5 bonus, you quite possibly would have achieved this, but there's always a chance you wouldn't.
My opinion is, this is what we all expect in Cap's and we usually shape our strategy for it.
What are bad things are when a player kills you for no set, no high percentage chance of 2 sets or fails on you and you are not next or within reach of their Cap.
My only pet hate in your situation is when the attacker also fortifies too much for you to take their cap... that is really dishonourable and unfair. This has happened to me many times and is really annoying.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
