by sparr0
apocalyp wrote:
Because if you didn't go into Tokyo you would've been 3 points short of wining which means you probably wouldn't have won next turn barring the improbable chance that the right card was there and your opponents let you have it and if you meant you would have survived I'm fairly sure the player in Tokyo was rolling for claws all day long meaning you most likely would have died on his turn ... doesn't seem like you had a good chance of winning.
It's like you haven't even read the rest of the thread. I needed five points after getting into Tokyo, so 6 beforehand. I already explained the card situation above.
And the player in Tokyo only gets to attack if they started their turn there. If either of the other players took Tokyo, then no one would get to attack me that round.
stevelabny wrote:
You were counting on cards being available to get you five points because "nobody else could afford them" which ignores the fact that any of the other players could have rolled energy to take the cards, or wipe them.
Your "I was going to win on my next turn" seems to completely disregard anything that other players could have, and if they were playing to win, WOULD HAVE done to stop you.
Your "I was going to win on my next turn" seems to completely disregard anything that other players could have, and if they were playing to win, WOULD HAVE done to stop you.
There are two very separate conversations going on in this thread about odds and you seem to be confusing the two.
One of them is the odds that I would win at the moment of the roll that eliminated me. The odds there were 1/6 chance of last place, 5/6 chance of first place, 0 chance of second or third place)
The other is the odds that I would win on my next turn, as viewed from my position just before being forced into Tokyo on my last turn, if I had not been forced in. I never said I was going to win from there. I said "those odds? I'd put it about even, depending on how hard the other two players try to take Tokyo". If either of them had taken Tokyo, no one would have gotten to attack me that round.
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
This means that you can not say your loss came down to a single dice roll.
Rather it came down to the cumulative effect of all the dice rolls, and all the decisions, made throughout the entire game.
King Of Tokyo is not a game of pure luck, like tossing a coin.
Rather it came down to the cumulative effect of all the dice rolls, and all the decisions, made throughout the entire game.
King Of Tokyo is not a game of pure luck, like tossing a coin.
I never said it was pure luck. LCR is a game of pure luck. Candyland is a game of pure luck. KoT is a game of *mostly* luck. Yes, there were many other lucky events, an ebb and flow of chance, but in the end it was down to a single die roll. As I said above, I had a 1/6 chance of losing and a 5/6 chance of winning on that die roll and that die roll alone.
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
It's a game of strategy, skill, and risk management, like poker.
These are the aspects of the game you seem to be failing to comprehend.
These are the aspects of the game you seem to be failing to comprehend.
I comprehend them. They played no part in my loss. I went from 9 health to 1 health while keeping every heart I could get. There are many choices I could have made that would have resulted in me losing sooner. None that are apparent, or that have been suggested by anyone here, that could have delayed my loss, except for "be luckier".