No, it doesn't mention units, it doesn't need to. If you and I agree not to fight, and then you kick me in the groin, does that mean you did not break the agreement because it did not specifically mention kicking in the groin?
The RoundTable
- Thread starter General_W
- Start date
Hi Denyd.
There was no ROP so our view is it's implied that where units are stationed doesn't matter.
Of course it has to mention units. Why wouldn't it mention units? All other MTDG I and II treaties we've had discussed them. Believe what you will. Like I said it's not like it will matter how we play it the way things have developed.
jb1964
Hunter of Fish
Man, the groin reference is rally making me.... 
OK, now I feel better.
OK, now I feel better.
Leave the beachhead be and let them land the rest of their units waiting just off-shore? Now that would be a foolish action indeed. They will certainly not be given the chance to withdraw, since the chances of that happening are infinitesimal. We would rather fight off two landing mounted warriors than the 28 units that can fit into the 14 galleys parked off our coast, waiting for a place to unload.
They broke the treaty by conduction an aggressive landing, clearly against our wishes, and not at all within the spirit of peace, which is what the treaty entails. We have done what they were not honorable enough to do, and declared war formally. They may get war happiness for it through their sneakiness, but so be it.
Of course it doesn't have to mention units! By the wording, the treaty is all-encompassing when it comes to hostile acts. You have agreed to live in peace with us, and yet you land military forces next to our lands. That is a violation to the peace treaty, and that's all there is to it. I could drag up the groin analogy again, which you so deftly eluded, but for jb's sake I won't.
I think you should have General W read the MIA/KISS peace treaty then. It specifically stated units, type, how and where. We specifically left it out with Council. Imply all you want but there was no hostility intended just an anti-Saber landing.
Empiremaker
Human Fish
I don't hold a grudge against BABE for the resignation business. It seems that to an independent observer, landing units in a team's homeland is an aggressive act. I am not sure why the teams are so concerned about their reputations. The alliances are pretty much set until some teams are eliminated. Let each team decide what they think of the landing and DoW.
EDIT:
No hostility? If you don't want war, then why are you so concerned about a SABER style blockade?
EDIT:
Whomp said:
No hostility? If you don't want war, then why are you so concerned about a SABER style blockade?You may want to be careful of the same thing. Beachheads galore is our motto.EDIT:
It matters not at all what other, older treaties have looked like. Just because our treaty was worded in a different, simpler way doesn't mean it isn't valid. But if you want specifics, I'm pretty sure that the specifically stated units and hows and wheres concerned a mutually shared landmass, with neutral land in between, no? I highly doubt that either side allowed even one unit inside their own borders, and such a thing clearly shouldn't need to be in a treaty since it's implicit.
Your argument here reminds me of someone waving their hands near someone else's face claiming "the air is free, I can do what I want in it". Well, clearly that's not quite true, thats a pretty aggressive thing to do, and it certainly doesn't mean you're letting the other part be in peace. The treaty says you agree to let us live in peace. You haven't let us live in peace, and thus you have broken the treaty. There really isn't any more to it.
(jb, was that better than a groin kick?
)If there was no hostility intended, you could easily have contacted us to ask our permission to land your units on our shores. We would of course have said no, but to land even without asking is certainly not to let us live in peace - which again is what the treaty said you should do. It doesn't matter if you didn't intend to attack with those units alone, since your main stack certainly wouldn't have hesitated to attack. And if you try to claim that the main stack wouldn't attack either, then why would you need a beachhead in the first place?
Also, we are not SABER, so why would landing in our lands be anti-SABER in any way?
And leave out all the fun of arguing the validity of the treaty? Spoilsport...
Seriously though, every letter of what you say is absolutely true. I'm just arguing for the sake of the treaty, no one is going to "win" the discussion and it will not change anything in how we play from here on. But we certainly wouldn't consider signing any more treaties with the well-coiffed people again.
There's precedence with old treaties (or no treaties) and you should read the treaty between MIA/KISS. Movement was discussed including moving on each other's lands which occurred. At this point I'm done discussing it since we'll agree to disagree on the semantics.
Right, we agree that we disagree. Now come get some. 
killercane
Deity
The treaty doesnt mention units, so its fair game. A groin kick is a fight, but preparing yourself for a groin kick by lining it up in your sights/putting on some steel toed boots is a better analogy!
donsig
Low level intermediary
I think we should settle this whole misunderstanding the old-fashioned way: Niklas and Whomp in personal combat.
killercane
Deity
Groin kicking contest?
ThERat
Deity
how come I walk away with this huge after reading this thread. I do recall that Babes were called whiners/losers/unsporting etc.. when talking about the blockade of Saber.Hairsplittingly we were told that saber was correct.
Turn the tables and we landed units on Councils land not breaking any treaty. Now, it is us again that is unsporting/traitors etc. Hmm, seems to me that some people are sore losers here
At least, this way we got more fun than millenia of boring builder style games. Finally we have a war here and it was Council who broke the peace treaty
Empiremaker
Human Fish
I don't think that The Council is saying that you broke a rule by landing units. They are saying that BABE is being dishonorable, and that other teams should not trust BABE. This is a purely in-game matter.
The SABER blockade was supposedly a rule violation, which caused BABE to make an out of game complaint. There is no rule violation in breaking a treaty.
The SABER blockade was supposedly a rule violation, which caused BABE to make an out of game complaint. There is no rule violation in breaking a treaty.
jb1964
Hunter of Fish
All this hubub is over TWO MW's!?!
Looks like somebody got some cheap war jollies.
Looks like somebody got some cheap war jollies.
Empiremaker
Human Fish
True. I don't think that this debate will change anyone's opinion about the honor of the two acts.
