deal we made in a FFA game

A: Hi, we are both utterly surrounded so I guess we'll be both better off making peace with each other? With 2 turn notice before fighting?

B: that would be great. things are tough for us indeed

A: Great! Also since we don't know each other I'll just say that if you betray me (by breaking the terms of the deal) I'll do my best to drag you down with me naturally I expect no less from you

B: i am a man of honor
B: turns means if we are on turn 5 and we say let's break the truce, it means we can only fight at turn 7 or 8?

A: if we are on turn 5 and end the truce then fighting begins turn 7 we can also add clause that fighting begins immediately if we are the last 2 players if you'd like that

B: :-) i like your optimism! when the last one goes, it's on!
B: but let's discuss it further or because the game can be in a position that is much more advantageous to one in the end so making taking the last one delicate

A: sure, but then if one side refuses to finish off the opponent the other side can just end the truce normally with 2 turn notice

B:sure :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A thinks that the deal lasts until there are last 2 players standing unless one side refuses to finish an opponent, in which case truce can end with 2 turn notice

B thinks the deal can be ended with 2 turn notice at any time and the last 2 player standing part was not agreed upon

in this scenario, let's say both parties are genuinely trying to honor their word and believe the other is simply twisting the interpretation to squeeze an advantage out of it

I experienced this before; I used to think that 2 turns advice prevails always, but most of the times other players doesnt see it in same way and attacks at 1st turn both players are the only ones remaining.

So, since time ago I do the same.

the best could be to ask on the turn that situation changes...and if not answer...just attack.

but most of the times other players doesnt see it in same way and attacks at 1st turn both players are the only ones remaining

both A & B agree with that, the question is whether it was even agreed upon (to wait till last 2 players)

[writing for posterity b/c I'm on Grimer's blocklist so he won't see this, lol]
Regardless of how you got there, the result is that you don't have clear agreement on what happens when the game is near end (either you are only 2 players left or you 2 + some other nominal player who 1 player isn't eliminating but could), so you're stuck with just breaking the alliance

And if you feel truly grievanced by it & think your opponent is actually twisting the agreement to his advantage, just consider your opponent PE, all agreements are void, play on

But if you do truly believe both parties are acting in good faith and not being dishonest, breaking the truce is the only fair option

blocklists don't affect forum posts

To clarify - the end game situation never really happened

B wishes to end the truce prematurely with 2 turn notice while the fighting is still ongoing
A says that would be against the deal and insists that the truce lasts until the endgame

I would argue that both players are wrong because it is an FFA.

However, if what you said in this previous post is accurate:

B wishes to end the truce prematurely with 2 turn notice while the fighting is still ongoing
A says that would be against the deal and insists that the truce lasts until the endgame

then player A would clearly be misunderstanding the agreement.

A: if we are on turn 5 and end the truce then fighting begins turn 7 we can also add clause that fighting begins immediately if we are the last 2 players if you'd like that

B: :-) i like your optimism! when the last one goes, it's on!

That is a clear proposal with an attached clause followed by the other party agreeing to the proposed terms

Edited 7/21/2023 15:31:42

thx for your input, it's already solved though


In any case I was A and I was going by B's follow up to adding the clause

B: but let's discuss it further or because the game can be in a position that is much more advantageous to one in the end so making taking the last one delicate

This to me signaled that the whole deal is being overhauled and we expect to stay till we are the very last in the game, then after B denied ever agreeing to the clause in the first place just cemented my position that he understood it the same way I did and is now just wiggling out of it
Someone pointed out that in my answer

A: sure, but then if one side refuses to finish off the opponent the other side can just end the truce normally with 2 turn notice

the part "but then ... normally" could be interpreted as though we can still do the normal 2 turn notice at any time whilst I only meant it as another amendment

also yes it's an FFA and yes technically any deals are not enforceable, but since we both maintain that we are not breaking the deal and have no intention to do so, then arguing about it is meaningful (unless one of us is dishonest but in that case why would they bother to defend it?)

Didn't know blocklists didn't affect forum posts

Agreements in FFAs are tricky, so many people live by the 'betray your allies before they betray you' philosophy that it's hard to trust others. That typically makes me the one being betrayed first, but so be it, I honour my agreements

yes!