[SPOILERS] - Tredje and Mardoc are Sheelba of the Clan of Embers

[Rowain]

Mardoc I salute you for your integrity and I agree with your PoV.

Nowhere in the agreement is the words 'you don't use xy to rush me' so interpreting that as anti-rush only is breaking the deal. It might have been a mistake; But one shouldn't break a NAP just because it lasts longer than you need it.

[Bremen]

That's basically my interpretation. In Tredje's quote he essentially said "we could set rules about when this agreement is valid, or just agree not to use the world spells to hurt the other at all, ever" and Tredje agreed to the latter, all-covering agreement. Which isn't to say you couldn't use the Sons, but in my mind it would be breaking a treaty.

Iskender is either extremely very lucky or a genius, but the treaty as agreed enormously favors him.

[Gaspar]

Mardoc I salute you for your integrity and I agree with your PoV.

Nowhere in the agreement is the words 'you don't use xy to rush me' so interpreting that as anti-rush only is breaking the deal. It might have been a mistake; But one shouldn't break a NAP just because it lasts longer than you need it.

That's basically my interpretation. In Tredje's quote he essentially said "we could set rules about when this agreement is valid, or just agree not to use the world spells to hurt the other at all, ever" and Tredje agreed to the latter, all-covering agreement. Which isn't to say you couldn't use the Sons, but in my mind it would be breaking a treaty.

Iskender is either extremely very lucky or a genius, but the treaty as agreed enormously favors him.

All I'll say on the subject, and then I'll leave it alone forever, is that people, "respected" people break deals like this around here all the time. There's a reason I really don't favor many out-of-game agreements, because they're all so subject to interpretation. If you win, and you interpret the agreement differently than they do, a few lurkers will scorn you for a few days and then life will go on. If you lose, and you interpret the agreement at its strictest, you'll feel like a schmuck, I guarantee you that. I guess what I'm saying is, interpret the deal the way you believe it should be interpreted. Don't worry about what other people think, and do what you think is right. And you'll sleep just fine either way. I've personally never been in your shoes, but I'd never sign a deal like this, without the terms laid out specifically, so I don't know that I ever will be.

I think the fact that Iskender has to feel like he hit the lottery tells you a lot. And I promise, that was my final sentence on the topic, no matter what.

[Last thing - I'd be curious to hear what some players who've been in similar-ish situations think, regardless of what Mardoc does - i.e. Bob, Selrahc, etc; players who've been in a few of these.]

In actual turn terms, nice work on the Sheaim front, and I agree with getting your Civics up. I would probably wait until all the Balseraph cities are out of revolt, and then pop it. Probably I'd go Warfare -> Sanitation -> Corruption of Spirit -> Smelting -> Iron Working and then go kill everyone. Do we have Priesthood, I don't recall? Obviously that should come before Smelting then.

[Selrahc]

The agreement was incredibly vaguely worded, and wasn't even with the person currently playing. The deal hasn't been discussed since the player changeover AFAIK. Does Iskender even know that you know about the deal?

The worst "diplomatic repercussion" that will come out of this, is that people won't be sure that you stick to the vague agreements of your predecessors. Especially when you have that same predecessor, as well as your other ded lurkers, yelling at you to use the sons.

So yeah. Do whatever you want. The situation is complex enough that you'll face minimal blowback.

One thing to take into account though, might be the fun factor. If you think planning and running an attack without the sons could be fun, then go for it. Seeing ogres running around could be fun. As could watching whatever your opponents muster as late game armies.

[Krill]

One thing to take into account though, might be the fun factor. If you think planning and running an attack without the sons could be fun, then go for it. Seeing ogres running around could be fun. As could watching whatever your opponents muster as late game armies.

This. I for one would appreciate being able to watch a game develop with CoEs' later units, and a late game Luirchip army, it's something we haven't seen before. You've demonstrated early archmages and summon spam really well.

[Bobchillingworth]

On the subject of the Sons, I had posted this in the lurker thread about a week ago:

I can sort of see it either way. It really depends on if the NAP was intended to protect against the use of the worldspell to deliberately hurt the other party, or if it was a protection against the effects of the worldspell in general. The relevant conversation between Tredje and Iskender that Selrahc posted is pretty vague, but seems to lean more towards the first interpretation.


If it is indeed the former, then I think Mardoc is fine with using the Sons against the Sidar. Tredje deployed the worldspell many turns ago, and his targets were clearly me and especially Sareln. He didn't use it to attack Iskender, and so now that so much time has elapsed and his intended targets are gone, he's free to do what he wishes with his surviving worldspell units (obviously meaning the Sons). Under this interpretation, Iskender would also be justified using any remaining invisible units he has against the Clan.


If the latter interpretation is more valid though then Mardoc is in more of a bind. The Sons are the direct product of the worldspell, and if their agreement prohibits the offensive any units gained or altered by their respective worldspells then they'll just have to sit back and play defense. This does mean though that Iskender can't use any units who gained invisibility from the worldspell against Mardoc, so it's not an entirely raw deal for the Clan (granted, it's still pretty bad).

If I were in your situation I'd take interpretation #1 and put this game to rest. Tredje certainly seems to have thought it as the first option from the very start, so it's not like you're suddenly reinterpreting the agreement to suit you after the fact. I probably would have never let Iskender get those priests back home, actually- Fire Elementals in the back as soon as those final skeletons were dealt with. Maybe you were blocked at the time by a separate NAP, idk. I do try to always uphold my agreements, even if they aren't binding in-game. Although like Gaspar said about himself, I'd have probably never signed something so vague to begin with.

If you manage to lose this game just because you refuse to use the Sons now (after stomping three civs with them with hardly a second thought), you'll have only yourself to blame and will have earned some well-deserved scorn & derision. If you can win without them, I guess you'll have proven that with the land of four civs the Clan can indeed win the game, which might be marginally better somehow from a moral standpoint than showing that the Clan can destroy everyone on a small map using four super-powered archmages from turn 20 or whatever.


Whoops, I'm starting to sound bitter! Well, I'm hardly unbiased in what I want you to do- which is kill Iskender, who I probably blame for every ill in the world at this point

[Tredje]

By asking for the lurker's opinion I think you have proven that the issue is open for interpretation Mardoc, and you will get to hear arguments from both sides. Ultimately you have to decide what you want to do.

Regarding the deal itself I realize I could have clarified that it was intended as a no-rush agreement, but since I had no expectation of converting any Sons, I didn't feel that it was necessary. As such it is my fault for signing a vague agreement. On the other hand, I signed a vague agreement, which to me makes it open for interpretation. Sure, Iskender can be pleased beyond measure for getting so much out of the deal, but that is only if whoever leads the Clan feels that he is obliged to never use the Sons against him. And as I stated earlier, I would use them.

That being said, we have shown the damage four Sons of the Inferno can do, and by using them against Iskender we would probably win the game. But I do agree with Selrahc and Krill that the fun factor could be taken into consideration as well. It certainly would be fun to see a giant army of Ogres face off with whatever SL or Iskender can muster (not together, mind you - we don't want the game to be that fun... )

Also, Bob, would you care to explain your animosity towards Iskender? Is it because he teamed up with us against you?

[Caustic Soda]

I don't particularly care if you interpret the worldspell-NAP one way or another, but if you choose to see it as a rush-only agreement, telling Iskender so in advance would be the honorable thing to do. In my opinion, re-interpreting an agreement and keeping it secret to aid a sneak attack is dastardly.

[Bobchillingworth]

Is it because he teamed up with us against you?

Yeah, just this. You had a very good reason for wanting to take me out, and as I told you before in a chat, I'd have done the same in your place. Iskender had (in my opinion) very little reason to join in against me- he'd have been much better off either picking off your ill-defended western holdings or at the least just staying out of the conflict so that you and I stalemated. Instead he worked against his own interests and gave the Clan a decisive victory, and I want to see it blow up in his face. My feelings on the matter were not at all helped after the act by finding out that he apparently conspired to do this from possibly before he and I even had contact, and then stuck with the plan even after he learned about the Sons, and he invested himself in it to the point where his empire borders on pathetic for turn 150 or whatever you're on because he spent so many hammers and tech preparing to run literally across the world to dogpile me.


I have a more "detailed" analysis of the subject in my thread. I apologize for hijacking this one with my petty grudge.

[Mardoc]

Holy Cow, I've opened the floodgates . Thanks to all for your input, I'll think it over. I suppose I'd better decide fast, since Caustic Soda, you've got a good point about making sure things are clear on both sides.

@Bob - would we really have stalemated? It seems to me that you'd have wiped the floor with the Clan, Sons and all. Even assuming skeleton spam was insufficient to do the job - we only knew to hit Ocells because of Iskender's Hawk presence, so you'd definitely have gotten Gibbon. And, well - with Gibbon, and maybe a stable of Sons - how the heck could anyone have stopped you?

Also, apparently we'll be going for Iskender very soon anyway - he rejected a T185 NAP out of hand as being too long, before we even got into details. The Sons will start trekking westward again, since I'm 100% sure I can use them on defense, and I might give in and use them on offense too.

Anyway, turn coming soon.