Search results

Then it would depend on what both sides interpret to be 'strongest'; to go with Battletech again, the battle of Tukkayid involved the very best the clans had to offer; bidding away advantages to try and make the fight fair. Commstar then hit them with everything they had in a series of ambushes...

Yeah, but in fairness. Mechs throwing down is really cool. Like I don't want to excuse the seething fuckbaskets that is the entirety of the Inner Sphere leadership, nor the gibbering roided up tards that compose the clans. But if I were raised in either society I'd be jizzing my brains out...

True, but that I feel would be covered under 'intelligent and adaptable'. Turning an enemy nations cities into cinders because you have massive carrier groups, and they have fuck all air forces is fine. Turning your enemies cities to cinders when they have a giant moat around their island...

If you can get away with it yes. Though kicking him in the balls is something actually. If you are flagged down a point by kicking a man in the balls, and flagged down a point for dislocating his elbow; then you're better of trying to dislocate the elbow. Because you're still down just one point...

Any action, that results in your enemies destruction and your victory is a win. Conflict favours the prepared, the adaptable, the intelligent and only rewards those that survive.

Strength in terms of fighting someone or something is merely a shorthand for saying 'did I win'. So yes. Fantastic example of this is in BT. The clans had technological, fleet and individual superiority. But Fauct was more willing to do what it took to win; and saw any limitation on winning as...

I think the idea of fairness in a fight is insane.