Quote Originally Posted by Bishop View Post
Anri is correct. Our position will not change on this.

<Bishop> hmmmm
<Bishop> i dunno, i suspect it would eb ok
^^ hardly a resounding confirmation.

"And who says he wasn't going to hit the guy anyway?"
^^ Ryan.
Again, out of context. I could NOT break him. If I could have, with economic and strategic benefit, I would have.

10[20:32] <Ryan> it really wasnt even a 2 prov nap
10[20:32] <Ryan> it's a bluff war term i use to get all my wars
10[20:32] <Ryan> a) i wont send dragons in this war (not in range anyways)
10[20:32] <Ryan> b) i wont hit you in this war (cant break anyways)
10[20:33] <Ryan> war terms that dont negatively restrict my kd in any way
10[20:33] <Ryan> a2) I could get in dragon range by razing buildings / releasing some troops but it's not economically or strategically efficient
10[20:33] <Ryan> b2) i could get the offense to hit you but it's not economically or strategically efficient for myself or my kd
10[20:34] <Ryan> so I don't get why bishop gets to dictate what I should or shouldn't be doing in war in terms of strategy.
[20:35] <DHaran> i made the point who says you werent gonna hit the guy?
[20:35] <DHaran> tricking ppl into war is a FW now?
10[20:36] <Ryan> tricking people isnt a fw, bishop was fine with my no dragon term
10[20:36] <Ryan> but then he didnt want to understand how not hitting someone is the same concept
[20:38] <DHaran> my problem is the actions themselves broke no rules, but a few words about an agreement to not trade hits suddenly makes it illegal
[20:38] <DHaran> thats bogus
[20:39] <DHaran> if they still intervened, then they are completely deciding your targets for you in war, which is unacceptable