NAP

The_Tauren13 · #1 March 29th, 2005, 02:00 PM

Due to a dispute I am having with rex_havok, I propose the question:

Oversway · #2 March 29th, 2005, 02:10 PM

Isn't the global replaced chosen at random?

The_Tauren13 · #3 March 29th, 2005, 02:17 PM

I mean if you cast the same spell, specifically targetting the global of whoever you had the NAP with.

Jurri · #4 March 29th, 2005, 02:38 PM

Ach! Pardon the DP, s'il vous pla�t!

Jurri · #5 March 29th, 2005, 02:39 PM

Wouldn't that be up to the terms of the NAP? If it's a blanket statement, as is usual, I certainly can't see how I could consider dispelling my global (which is the case when one is replaced) not to be a violation. Of course viewpoints may vary, but I'd say it's very clearly an act of aggression when one player uses her resources to deprive another of his.

BigDaddy · #6 March 29th, 2005, 03:13 PM

Ok, I voted NO before I read the rest of the thread. You may need to start a new thread, with a more carefully worded question. It definetely is a violation if I STEAL your spell. If yours just happens to be the one that gets dispelled when the list is full, I'd say thats not a violation. Also, if the circumstance is you having ALL or MANY of the globals, you may have to give him so leaway...

alexti · #7 March 29th, 2005, 03:54 PM

I wouldn't consider it as a violation of generic NAP. It is just an economic battle for dominance. Same as grabbing unique summons, artifacts etc... However if that global is something destructive that actually kills other sides troops, then I'm not sure...

Generally, I'm assuming that NAP just prevents open attacks while allowing both sides concentrate on the economic race. Of course, custom-tailored NAPs may include variety of other conditions...

Oversway · #8 March 29th, 2005, 04:08 PM

What do people think about stealth preaching in their territory? Does that violate a NAP? What about causing unrest via spies?

Tuidjy · #9 March 29th, 2005, 04:45 PM

I always try to fully state the terms of a NAP before I enter it. My 'standard'
clauses include:

Agreed upon borders.
No excessive temples on the border, i.e. enough to maintain your domain, but
not two rows deep. No blood sacrifice.
No stealth preaching, no unrest inciting, all sneaking troops set to 'retreat'.
No dispelling or replacing globals. Usually I try to even coordinate globals.
No stealing mercs (well, I do not use mercs anymore, but I used to)

As for the survey, I'd say that replacing the global is way up there as
violations go.

The_Tauren13 · #10 March 29th, 2005, 06:18 PM

@ big daddy
Perhaps I should have explained more of what was going on beforehand.
The global in question is Well of Misery, and the former owner of it also has Mother Oak. The new owner has no other globals.
I had assumed it would be obvious that I was discussing casting the same spell; why else would there even be a remote reason to call it agression? Oh well.
I was just hoping this thread would dissuade rex_havok from throwing the game away (giving all his VPs to the 3rd player) in a fit of anger.