Originally
posted by
BlackHole:
Drow - do you think maybe it was bad faith pacting by M4D to attempt to get a pact with Mercs, but not aggressively pursue a pact with SoL, a close ally?
As an outsider looking in, and based on the initial declarations of M4D at the beginning of this set, it seems as if their goal this set was to divide and conquer. As if having 30+ members wasn't enough, they also wanted to split up alliances and coalitions, by only pacting some of them.
I said it at the beginning of the set, and I don't see any evidence to the contrary. M4D was intending on warring smaller tags that they thought they could easily handle. I predicted Stone and Rage, but SoL was definitely an option too.
If they didn't want to war Stones/Rage/SoL, why didn't they also pact those alliances?
In other words, I think the blame has to be placed on the alliance who didn't pact all the other alliances, if they didn't want to fight.
to my knowledge, M4D DID attempt to pact SoL, and got no response.
can't pact someone who won't talk to you.