Jump to content

The Knights Radiant Declaration of War


Dalinar
 Share

Recommended Posts

So? BK aggressively attacked NPO so your MDP does trigger, it doesn't matter what the chain clause is - it's straight aggression and you avoided honoring your treaty with them.

 

Nice job backstabbing NPO in support of OOC reasons.  Congrats. :)

Lmao you are literally the last person that can even begin to mumble the word backstabbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Word of advice? Just merge. It'll be a lot more honest. If you value T$ even above honouring a defensive call to anyone else, stop pretending and just merge.

Defensive call? Made by who?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lmao you are literally the last person that can even begin to mumble the word backstabbing.

Way to dodge my post like you dodged your defensive obligations to NPO.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lmao you are literally the last person that can even begin to mumble the word backstabbing.

Then i will.

What you guys decided to do is bull****

Have fun backstabbing the NPO.

Hope it was worth it.

 

Edit: Ad Hominum noted

Edited by Goddess Hestia
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget treaties and cbs and everything for a second.

 

You do realize that BK, TKR's bloc mate is also fighting with tS. Y'all are asking TKR to not help their two long held allies in order to help their single relatively new ally? That doesn't make sense.

  • Upvote 4
6XmKiC2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then i will.

What you guys decided to do is bull****

Have fun backstabbing the NPO.

Hope it was worth it.

 

Edit: Ad Hominum noted

What exactly is BS? That we defended our long time ally in tS? How did we backstab NPO exactly?

 

Way to dodge my post like you dodged your defensive obligations to NPO.

How did we backstab NPO exactly?

I want you to really explain it to me Steve.

 

You want us to counter BK, our blocmate/longtime ally who we have a non aggression treaty with? You want us to counter tS, our long time ally who we have a non aggression treaty with?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget treaties and cbs and everything for a second.

 

You do realize that BK, TKR's bloc mate is also fighting with tS. Y'all are asking TKR to not help their two long held allies in order to help their single relatively new ally? That doesn't make sense.

Okay fair point, then why sign the treaty? Or why not just sit out and let your friends have a dust up, if they did value NPO?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

treaty.png

 

I'm not well versed in FA, but M stands for mandatory yes?

 

13e0d5bce06183a71401004b81d43c9c.png

So? BK aggressively attacked NPO so your MDP does trigger, it doesn't matter what the chain clause is - it's straight aggression and you avoided honoring your treaty with them.

 

Nice job backstabbing NPO in support of OOC reasons.  Congrats. :)

Shut up Steve

  • Upvote 2
 ^oo^
 (..)
 ()  ()
 ()__()
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay fair point, then why sign the treaty? Or why not just sit out and let your friends have a dust up, if they did value NPO?

We definitely valued NPO, but we also recognize that they have firmly entrenched themselves in the other side of the treaty web and that ending up on opposite sides of a war is almost inevitable.

 

 

I don't see how us sitting out is any different than what we're doing now in relation to NPO? We're at war with VE lmao. You expect us to sit out when our bloc, tS, and Guardian are all at war just because we're on the opposite side of NPO?

 

EDIT: grammar

Edited by Lordship
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay fair point, then why sign the treaty? Or why not just sit out and let your friends have a dust up, if they did value NPO?

Well I'm not in TKR, but I can only assume that they wanted good relations with NPO or already had it. Either way, to help NPO they would need to attack tS or BK since tS and BK are the ones who hit NPO.

 

They could sit out, but then there is a good chance two of their close allies get rolled.

6XmKiC2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is BS? That we defended our long time ally in tS? How did we backstab NPO exactly?

 

How did we backstab NPO exactly?

Spirit vs Letter of the law.

The fact that you have a MDoAP with all three combatants means at best you should have done nothing against ANYONE. Just sit the war out. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would have been the fairest if they just flipped a coin to decide their side considering only about 50% of people will agree with the decision anyways.

Edited by Nao
  • Upvote 5

Resident DJ @ Club Orbis

Founder of The Warehouse

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We definitely valued NPO, but we also recognize that they have firmly entrenched themselves in the other side of the treaty web and that ending up on opposite sides of a war is almost inevitable.

 

 

I don't see how us sitting our is any different than what we're doing now in relation to NPO? We're at war with VE lmao. You expect us to sit out when our bloc, tS, and Guardian are all at war just because we're on the opposite side of NPO?

Your damaging the capacity of their allies to help them? This hurts NPO, don't try and pretend it doesn't. I'm just wondering why you even bothered signing the paper if it's worthless. Hell, the build up to this wars was at least a week long, just cancel the treaty and go in honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spirit vs Letter of the law.

The fact that you have a MDoAP with all three combatants means at best you should have done nothing against ANYONE. Just sit the war out.

Riiiight, sit out and let tS/BK get rolled just so we don't end up on opposite sides of a war with an ally. /facepalm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spirit vs Letter of the law.

The fact that you have a MDoAP with all three combatants means at best you should have done nothing against ANYONE. Just sit the war out. 

A. It's non-chaining, so by technicality, we are allowed to hit a friend of a friend.

B. We sort of have a major case of blue balls, so if IC had refused war their might have been a rebellion.

I don't sleep enough

Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian

Lastly, Hello world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would have been the fairest if they just flipped a coin to decide their side considering only about 50% of people will agree the decision anyways.

Why, so people could complain about the coin obviously having been weighted?

Edited by hadesflames
  • Upvote 1

gkt70Td.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.