[Sigil Runestone]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok-X

Post them PMs. I have no nothing to hide. While it may seem i attacked one turn early, i dont think thats true. What i think however is that you are a sore loser. I have been in like 20 games and i have yet to break a treaty. Make of that what you will.

I believe you have confused "sore loser" with "not amused with Treaty-Breakers", as I could have bailed back when Fomoria handed me my MonkeyButt on a platter with parsley, but that's not really my style.

As requested: (Starts on the bottom, works up)

*******

Im gonna make this really short. I still think my timing was perfectly fine. If it wasnt, anything besides trading is not binding at all.

Regarding your assasins. I had astral window open and knew about assassins, or rather, seducers. It would not have changed a thing.

laters


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigil Runestone
1. I believe I have committed enough hours to this game to express my feelings, thank you.
2. re-read my message. I specifically included the turn you declared in the three turns I listed. If both counting and reading are difficult for you, this world will be a challenging place.
3. Yup. Just don't mind that I'm happy to share your reputation with others. Consequences of own actions and all that.
4. You are a strange duck. This is the second time you have expressed surprise that I simply acknowledged your intent for war, when we are playing a game who's premise is that a bunch of players will attempt to kill each other off. Not sure about your obsession with my response, but I'm not offering my couch time to find out.
5. A single turn would not have changed the outcome of the gargoyle attacks, no. But the main army conflict? Most likely. For one, my scripting was not completed due to the toils of RL getting in the way of finishing the previous turn. More importantly, the 6 assasins in your lands waiting for the honorable turn to strike would likely have changed your line-up a tidge.

On the plus side, my time committment for micro'ing has just lessened, so thank you for that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnarok-X
1. Chill
2. re-read my message. i specificly said "including this turn"
3. even if 2. doesnt count
"Diplomacy: Machiavelli"
4. i gave you a chance to explain yourself but all you did was message me with "whatever".
5. would the single turn have changed anything ? i dont think so.

long story short, im kinda sorry, but you should have known better.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigil Runestone
Were you intentionally being a dick, or can you not count? You declared end of nap3 on turn 58. That should mean turn 58,59,60 must pass before conflict occurs on 61. See how I counted out three turns passing? That's the whole nap3 part of the deal.