Furious Noobs -EA- (Newbie Game, 10/10, Running)

[Trumelunki]

Originally Posted by ghoul31

"Trade agreements in this context are defined as any simple trades that are completed within a few turns"


It wasn't a trade it was a borrow, and it wasn't completed in a few turns.


So it doesn't count on either point.

I don't care about whether it was called a borrow or trade. It was an agreement that exchanged gems for gems.

But you have a valid point in that it was not clearly very simple and it was not completed in a few turns.

For example, I would still hold that an agreement to borrow X gems for 2-3 turns would be binding.

I will have to agree that you have some good points and this might be a borderline case. I will withdraw my first judgement and wait till I hear some more opinions.

[GoodKnight]

Do you guys want me to ask Cal or Maer?
(for those of you who don't know they are the most veteran in the community.. That I know of )

[GoodKnight]

I'm biased of course But I'm in the idea that it is binding since gems did change hands and there was an agreement.

But in my opinion anything that includes gems and items in it is a trade agreement. If it was agreed that they would be returned in a few turns they should be returned..

Just my 2 cents I'd be glad to ask Maer and Cal if you guys want.

[Happyfungi]

Cal or Maer have probably run across this before, I would ask Maer first though, I think cal has a lot on his plate right now.

ghoul31 may be right he has been around a long time, but I also know ghoul31 likes a good argument. I am not sure if he is practicing his semantics or if he is trying to help.

[revenant2]

Originally Posted by Happyfungi

Cal or Maer have probably run across this before, I would ask Maer first though, I think cal has a lot on his plate right now.

ghoul31 may be right he has been around a long time, but I also know ghoul31 likes a good argument. I am not sure if he is practicing his semantics or if he is trying to help.

I'm not exactly sure what the agreement was with BC, but the "trades are binding" pertain to clear-cut item trades like "I'll give you 20 gems for item X". This rule is in effect due to the imitations in how turns are processed. Without it, nobody would trade items with each other because it would be real easy to take advantage of someone.

The deal with GK and BC appears to be outside that scope and shouldn't be regulated in my view. This isn't to say BK doesn't have a grievance, but Dominions 3 is a Machiavellian game and you need to watch your back. I would have asked for the gems back and then declared war afterward

Just remember who you deal with so the next time you play, you know who not to trust.

[Trumelunki]

Awesome TimeLegend and congratulations!

You beat me fair and square with superior tactics. I have to admit it did not cross my mind that one spell could be that devastating for my army. Well it shows how much there is to learn in this game.

For others, I guess - the not that mighty anymore - Kailasa will continue the fight, but maybe from a little more defensive position now.

Arcane Domination and magic beings do not mix very well.

[revenant2]

Originally Posted by Trumelunki

Awesome TimeLegend and congratulations!

You beat me fair and square with superior tactics. I have to admit it did not cross my mind that one spell could be that devastating for my army. Well it shows how much there is to learn in this game.

For others, I guess - the not that mighty anymore - Kailasa will continue the fight, but maybe from a little more defensive position now.

Arcane Domination and magic beings do not mix very well.

There are several nasty battlefield spells out there that can cause a lot of devastation if you're not careful. If you're susceptible to a tactic, you need to keep your eyes open for when your opponent will use it and then counter it. For something like AD, that would probably be Will of Fates to bump up the MR of your troops, or if you're desperate cast AD after your opponent to try to seize back your troops. You can also just not use low MR troops until you have a counter -- or try to soften him up first with remote attack/assassination spells.

[Trumelunki]

Originally Posted by revenant2

There are several nasty battlefield spells out there that can cause a lot of devastation if you're not careful. If you're susceptible to a tactic, you need to keep your eyes open for when your opponent will use it and then counter it. For something like AD, that would probably be Will of Fates to bump up the MR of your troops, or if you're desperate cast AD after your opponent to try to seize back your troops. You can also just not use low MR troops until you have a counter -- or try to soften him up first with remote attack/assassination spells.

Let's face it. I had checked alteration (I knew Tir had researched that one to high level) but simple had completely missed that spell. Never used it - never had seen anybody use it. I was pretty confident against any 'normal' Tir na n'Og tricks. This game is quite amazing with all these tricks and counter-tricks.

[revenant2]

Originally Posted by revenant2

There are several nasty battlefield spells out there that can cause a lot of devastation if you're not careful. If you're susceptible to a tactic, you need to keep your eyes open for when your opponent will use it and then counter it. For something like AD, that would probably be Will of Fates to bump up the MR of your troops, or if you're desperate cast AD after your opponent to try to seize back your troops. You can also just not use low MR troops until you have a counter -- or try to soften him up first with remote attack/assassination spells.

Correction: I meant Antimagic and not Will of Fates (http://dom3.servegame.com/wiki/Antimagic), although luck might help as well (never really tested luck with this type of spell, so I'm not 100%).

[mattyburn7]

Not sure what was a sadder butchery...the Red Wedding on a Game of Thrones or the army battling itself on the fields of Tir Na