Willy 70 Share Posted February 5, 2012 ((I don't understand... Tarus, Samuel, And Pok agreed on the siege of renatus and now everyone is complaining including Tarus about how it shouldnt be on them.)) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
｡◕‿‿◕｡ Hawk Whitestorm 715 Share Posted February 5, 2012 ((I don't understand... Tarus, Samuel, And Pok agreed on the siege of renatus and now everyone is complaining including Tarus about how it shouldnt be on them.)) Because it makes no sense. Renatus just won the last battle, why would the siege be on us? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron™ 690 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Good luck both sides.. Don't destroy our guild house kay thanks <3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mylimo7 409 Share Posted February 5, 2012 In all honesty, I want atleast two skirmishes before this, if we win one, then the siege is off, however, you can seige us Rp'ly if you win both skirmishes, if we win both, then we seige you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
｡◕‿‿◕｡ Hawk Whitestorm 715 Share Posted February 5, 2012 So lets say the Germans, in WWII, just lost the battle of the bulge... are they gonna goand siege London? No, cause they just got pushed back! You're basically totally disregarding the battle fronts and jumping right past them. Realistic? No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy 70 Share Posted February 5, 2012 there has only been two official battles. I understand we should have more skirmishes, I am just going off of what Tarus, Samuel, and Pok agreed on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mylimo7 409 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Tarus didn't agree to this and Pok doesn't like how your sieging us either. He even says in earlier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noahjam325 53 Share Posted February 5, 2012 If I'm not mistaken, both leaders (or more in this case) need to agree. Shouldn't you be contesting this with your leader that agreed to this, instead of Hanseti? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
｡◕‿‿◕｡ Hawk Whitestorm 715 Share Posted February 5, 2012 If I'm not mistaken, both leaders (or more in this case) need to agree. Shouldn't you be contesting this with your leader that agreed to this, instead of Hanseti? Tarus already showed his want of more skirmishes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragnak 22 Share Posted February 5, 2012 ((The let there be more skirmishes? make a new War Claim and skirmish away, reject this one)) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkThunder247 31 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Ta WARR!!!! Me flatten lat ull, Lat be Durt under me funger nuils, whun me dun wif lat!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
｡◕‿‿◕｡ Hawk Whitestorm 715 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Lol why are some people talking IC. War claims is OOC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numrini'th Miiystra 2 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Lol why are some people talking IC. War claims is OOC. (Actually War claims are IC your the one that is mistaken) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouvo 205 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (Actually War claims are IC your the one that is mistaken) Actually they are ooc, you dont speak in character about destroying your enemy to your enemy....they are merely made to get ooc permission for the attack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
｡◕‿‿◕｡ Hawk Whitestorm 715 Share Posted February 5, 2012 War claims are OOC. War claims are made so GM can keep track of all the fights and wars to ensure no rules are broken while fighting. At least that's what I personally think they're for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.5ceba2d01f50d0d25c87532ab910c11a.gif)
.thumb.png.4e5370fc69f142d96a905e477cd5dd97.png)
Recommended Posts