The Double Move Rule

[ruff_hi]

Why not say that Templar's act of pillaging a road that they agreed we could build is an act of war and thus we invoke the double move rule. I think we only need to invoke this against 1 team to gain the advantage. It would be unworkable if Imperio tried to gain this advantage against us after we have it against Templar.

Thus we are at war outside the game but not in it - war and trade routes .

[sooooo]

Hmm, not sure Dreylin. That's not that I see any downsides, just that I'm genuinely not sure if we want to say that.

[T-hawk]

I agree with Dreylin, let's send this and avoid any question of double moving or initiative. I think we should also say that we moved first on T130 and T131, so we expect and have the right to continue doing so.

[sunrise089]

The following assumes we don't plan to declare war ourselves:

I don't agree, though I can see your collective wisdom. The way I see it, the downside to saying nothing is that Templars may move first and cost us initiative. The downside to invoking the double-move rule without authority is that we tip our hand and Templars may now try to deliberately move before us during the last peace turn. I'm more confident letting them move randomly than expecting them to move after us because we unilaterally command them to.

If Krill will be involved I'll change my vote.

[Dreylin]

Some tweaks to add more explicit details:

Templars / Imperio,

Your recent actions (particularly Templars' pillaging of a road we obtained their explict agreement to build) make it clear that your intention is to declare war. As such, we consider the "War" clause of the double-move rule invoked.

Since we have almost always finished our turns before either of you, and were particularly careful to do so on turns 130 and 131, we assert our right to the first 24hrs of the timer during which to play our turns.

TeamRB

[Zeviz]

EDIT: Crossposted with modified version.

Please mention that we've always played early. For example:
"Since we have almost always finished our turns before either of you, and were particularly careful to do so on turns 130 and 131, we assert ..."

[ruff_hi]

I would drop the reference to T130 and T131. No need to draw undue attention to the fact that we are actively making sure that we are playing before them.