Oberon wrote:I'm amused that you would decide to phrase it so, when I took great pains to describe the exact situation you now insist that I "continue to ignore." Why stand up such a weak straw man?
It isn't a straw man.
It is the very definition of a straw man to present an argument which your opponent has not presented and then to dismantle it. I said the exact same thing you said, but you've decided to state that I said the opposite, and then attacked that opposite position. Hence, a straw man argument.
ryanroyce wrote:You insist that Tramennis, a rusty warlord at best, should have come to a better tactical conclusion than far more experienced warlords like Jillian or Duncan. That is absurd.
I don't really disagree here. But please explain your logic to all the people who claim that it was perfectly logical for GK to send Ossomer as their envoy, when he had been on the GK Side for less than a full turn. If a warlord can become "rusty" through a focus on diplomacy, then a warlord new to a Side should also be "learning the ropes" of his new organization. You imply that a newly popped warlord can't be trusted to "know the ropes" specific to the Side he was popped on. And again, I am not saying that I'm against that position. It is interesting and deserves some more thought.