Truce Protocol Question

[stealth99]

I do a lot of truces and was wondering if there is a specific protocol for when a truce ends. i.e. when a player gives one round notice of termination in a standard, sequential game; who is the first player who can attack and when?

I find that i always err on the side of caution which usually ends up with me taking the worst position every time. I am in a game right now where a guy served me notice on his last turn. It is now my turn. Can i attack him immediately or do i also have to wait a turn now that he has given notice?

[BigBallinStalin]

If there was no clause specifying a specific time, then the truce is void whenever either party declares it void.

Judging from what little you told us, it seems that you have to wait a round to attack? I'd go over the log to find a justification in order to attack now--depending on how profitable it would be to do so.

(this is why I don't agree to 1-round notice attacks; seems stupid. I like to leave it vague, which is good for the other party since they're just as free to maintain the truce or break it whenever).

[stealth99]

I appreciate the response, but i am talking about the most standard basic truce. The truce most players agree to. It is a simple truce where both parties agree to one round notice to break the truce. I am asking who attacks first and when? If player A gives notice, is player A the first player that can attack or because he has given notice, do i get to attack immediately.

There are two possible responses. Either i can attack him immediately when i see he has given notice, or he is the first guy who can attack on his next turn and all i can do right now is fortify and prepare for his attacks.

Just to be clear, it is my turn and i see that on his last turn he gave me notice to end the truce. He did not attack me on his last turn when he gave the notice (cause he's likely a stand-up player who stands by his word). I just want to know if it's perfectly appropriate for me to attack him right now or if he gets to be the first attacker because he gave the notice first.

[BigBallinStalin]

If they announce that they're going to attack you in one turn, then to me, that means they've ended the truce and are obviously now hostile. I'd attack them at that moment, instead of waiting like an idiot to be bludgeoned.

If they simply announced that they're ending the truce, then I wouldn't attack---unless I thought they were ready to attack and that I could afford to attack them first.

[loutil]

I would say the person who ends the truce has subjected himself to the first attack. Otherwise, it would be a very strong advantage to decide when the truce ends AND get to attack first.

Side note: do not listen to Bigballinstalin as he has no idea what he is talking about...

[BigBallinStalin]

I would say the person who ends the truce has subjected himself to the first attack. Otherwise, it would be a very strong advantage to decide when the truce ends AND get to attack first.

Side note: do not listen to Bigballinstalin as he has no idea what he is talking about...

Would you like to agree to a truce?

As a sign of good faith, you need to staple each testicle to the opposite thigh, so that your testies criss-cross---making it twice as uncomfortable!

[ManBungalow]

don't drop the soap when you're in a truce

-- manbungalow

[Jippd]

I think it is better to make temporary truces.

IE "truce until the start of round 5"

[loutil]

I would say the person who ends the truce has subjected himself to the first attack. Otherwise, it would be a very strong advantage to decide when the truce ends AND get to attack first.

Side note: do not listen to Bigballinstalin as he has no idea what he is talking about...

Would you like to agree to a truce?

As a sign of good faith, you need to staple each testicle to the opposite thigh, so that your testies criss-cross---making it twice as uncomfortable!

Hmmm, not as bad as I expected. Just mild discomfort ...