that is FAIR PLAY for me:

1. play as good as possible till the end - even if you have no chance to win.
2. you must do evrything to stop someone from winning, even if he is your ally. never be a kingmaker
3. dont break your word
4. peace/alliance is over when
- 1 of the allied players needs only 1 more city to win
- 1 of the allied players can win this round when you not stop him
- its round 10
(if you want peace in round 10, or if someone has only 1 city to win, this need extra negotiation)
5. even fair player break sometimes a fairplay-rule. if it happens dont grief till the end of days, but give others a second chance. take revenge on next occasion but than become friends again
6. in TRIATORS-mode rule 1+2 should still be followed

whats for you??

Last edited by Jim Banji on 2013-Sep-11 16:56, edited 2x in total

---

"Loras is a living legend. Half the girls in the Seven Kingdoms want to bed him" - Tyrion

the other 50% wants to do it again - Loras, Knight of the Flowers, High Marshal of the Reach

+1

---

Jousting, battling, feasting, drinking and whoring...just like King Robert !  

Is this a question, discussion or rules you want to plant?

---

- What do we say to New Features? Not Today.

2. you must do evrything to stop someone from winning, even if he is your ally. never be a kingmaker Adjustment: you do not need to do everything. If doing so would compromise the integrity of your lands (i.e. a third player can overrun you, and does not cooperate) it is unfair as well, giving advantage to that third player.

Concerning rule number 2. It often happens that if I do everything to stop one player from winning I will give the victory to other player. For instance in round 10 I can attack my ally and give a victory to a third player or decide not to attack and give the victory to my ally. If the third player is a guy with whom fought hard before (and maybe also betrayed me in some way, which made me mad why should I give him the victory?

@JM Grip : its a question what other players think is fair play + my opinion

and i say yes to what duesterwald and mrzygi said in addition to rule 2.
if by "doing evrything" to stop a player from winning, you give victory to another player - than its in your hands which player will win. you can decide how you want.

---

"Loras is a living legend. Half the girls in the Seven Kingdoms want to bed him" - Tyrion

the other 50% wants to do it again - Loras, Knight of the Flowers, High Marshal of the Reach

Well, the now famous quote goes "When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground." In a boardgame like this there can only be one winner, so it is never okay to be a kingmaker.

If you cannot reach victory, then you can at least reach the best possible result for yourself - and to hell with everyone else, including your "ally". After all "words are only wind".

Last edited by Modraneth on 2013-Sep-11 21:06, edited 1x in total

---

Well, I see that you have made your decision. Now... let's see you enforce it...

There is no middle ground then you can at least reach the best possible result for yourself Am I the only one, who sees a contradiction here?

Sure. Take two individual sentences out of their context and one can always see contradictions..., but I think you are missing my point.

One needs to play to win, even if one looks bound to lose, because even second best will not do. Would you willingly aid an enemy to a victory, that would mean your own defeat? I guess the answer to that is no.

So the point of my second comment is that if you cannot win in such a situation, you would go out fighting - not for someone else, because everyone else is your enemy. You would fight for your honour.

As King Theoden puts it in LotR: "If this is to be our end, then I would have them make such an end, as to be worthy of remembrance."

... or you could just roll over and die.

---

Well, I see that you have made your decision. Now... let's see you enforce it...

Thanks for clarifying. Do you forge alliances in your games? And if so, when do you break them?

Sure. Alliances are useful to avoid fighting on too many fronts all at once. I try to keep track of their army size and the number of cities under their control (much as I do for any player). If I don't like what I see, well then it's time to reconsider the alliances made.

---

Well, I see that you have made your decision. Now... let's see you enforce it...