Season 4 Episode 3 "Breaker of Chains": HAVE NOT NOT NOT read the books

K_user · 24-04-2014 12:47am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

OK, so they going to sow some seeds of revolution inside the city. Fair enough. As I said though, 8,000 men of any sort isn't enough to take a city that size directly, unless they're all The Hound or something...
In fact, if I was running that city I'd face Dany on the field ASAP. Just talking tactics, ta know.

8,000 well trained men are enough.

It all depends on the cities standing army. If they depend on slaves, or conscripts, then they'd lose on the open field.

Staying behind the walls would be their safer bet. If they have the supplies to wait out a seige. A half trained army can defeat huge numbers with the right protection.

But I'm sure they are aware of who she is. A few seige machines and 3 dragons might be enough to even things out.

Rebeling slaves, while there are 8,000 trained men, seige engines and dragons outside. Now that is enough to cripple the city.

Mickeroo · 24-04-2014 12:48am

Waving your dick around, hurling insults and mocking your opponent isn't a good way to begin if you want an honourable duel.

superglue · 24-04-2014 12:52am

The taunt of the city's champion was that the men of Dany's army were lacking certain equipment, so I'd imagine that Dario taking out his lad and pissing all over the place after his victory would have had just as much of an effect as the winning of the duel itself.

thefa · 24-04-2014 12:57am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Not really if they see can he clearly wasn't defeated in the normal course of a single combat duel. All this says to me is "we can't fight ye in single combat, we need to cheat to have any chance."

Your argument is based on there being rules set out or assumed but there appears to be none beyond the locals sending out a champion and expecting a challenger.

Your argument seems invalid also given that there appears to be no issues of cheating with their man attacking an unmounted man with a sword with far less of a range than their champion's lance. Where's the sense of fairness there? It would be double standards to begin complaining when the horse is cut down and removed from the equation. The option was there for the local to dismount if he had chose to. He had no problem dismounting to ridicule the unsullied.

K_user · 24-04-2014 12:57am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'd bet money it doesn't happen like that not n the books. It's like Indy shooting the swordsman, pure Hollywood cool factor the overriding objective. Dany knew the rules, in fact everyone knew the rules or they would have just killed him and not had the duel at all.

What rules?

This wasn't a summer fare. Thats an army sitting outside the city. Its war.

Remember Cersei explaining to Sansa what happens to the women once the walls are breached? Thats the thinking of the time.

If Dany fails all that is left of her army, and followers, will be enslaved.

Two champions met on the open field. One was going to die for the honour of his side. One had a horse, one did not. The guy on the horse could have dismounted. He didn't. He pressed his advantage and charged at a standing target.

If he was that worried about chivalry, that would never have happened.

You don't charge at a man, at high speed, with a lance, after insulting his Queen, and expect a list of tournament rules to be followed.

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 1:00am

Not really. If everyone and his mother is expecting a fairly standard duel by melee weapon, he historical/fantasy bog standard type, and what they get is a melee weapon thrown at a horse, nobody's going to say he beat our champion fairly.
So you're all with me then that every duel should therefore be won by a guy with a crossbow?

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 1:02am

K_user wrote: »

What rules?

This wasn't a summer fare. Thats an army sitting outside the city. Its war.

Remember Cersei explaining to Sansa what happens to the women once the walls are breached? Thats the thinking of the time.

If Dany fails all that is left of her army, and followers, will be enslaved.

Two champions met on the open field. One was going to die for the honour of his side. One had a horse, one did not. The guy on the horse could have dismounted. He didn't. He pressed his advantage and charged at a standing target.

If he was that worried about chivalry, that would never have happened.

You don't charge at a man, at high speed, with a lance, after insulting his Queen, and expect a list of tournament rules to be followed.

But Dany been told him to get a horse! She knew the way these things were supposed to be done. The other guy even waited for him to do so.

superglue · 24-04-2014 1:08am

Does it not bother anyone that neither of our brave warriors cared to wash their hands after pissing?

thefa · 24-04-2014 1:12am

I'd associate the use of horses with jousts as opposed to bog standard duels.

Dany questioning Daario not wanting a horse highlights how it is seen to put him at a disadvantage in my opinion.

K_user · 24-04-2014 1:13am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Not really. If everyone and his mother is expecting a fairly standard duel by melee weapon, he historical/fantasy bog standard type, and what they get is a melee weapon thrown at a horse, nobody's going to say he beat our champion fairly.
So you're all with me then that every duel should therefore be won by a guy with a crossbow?

Who's everyone?

The wealthy slave owners? The enslaved?

Also the notion of duel by champion did come to an end because of the longbow and pikes being used against mounted knights.

And yes dueling did continue after, not necessarily with crossbows, but with guns, at 10 paces.

K_user · 24-04-2014 1:17am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But Dany been told him to get a horse! She knew the way these things were supposed to be done. The other guy even waited for him to do so.

Dany said nothing about "rules". She was just wondering if he wanted a horse. He said no. She walked off.

And again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the other guy attacked first. If he was comfortable with the arrangement why shouldn't you?

K_user · 24-04-2014 1:33am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But Dany been told him to get a horse! She knew the way these things were supposed to be done. The other guy even waited for him to do so.

In the defence of Kings Landing, at the battle of blackwater, Tyrion used that green flame on boats that had yet to land. He killed hundreds by flaming death. Not exactly in the book of fair rules. But it wasn't considering "cheating" because its war. Two armies met. Both knew that death was going to happen.

Rob Stark sacrificed a whole section of men to draw out the enemy, his reward was victory and a powerful captive.

The red woman used black magic, in the dead of night, to win. Now that was cheating. No one saw it coming and even if they had, what could they have done?

Tywin used the red wedding to settle the war. That broke every rule.

A knife versus a mounted knight seems a small thing to get offended by.

Grimebox · 24-04-2014 2:05am

K_user wrote: »

In the defence of Kings Landing, at the battle of blackwater, Tyrion used that green flame on boats that had yet to land. He killed hundreds by flaming death. Not exactly in the book of fair rules. But it wasn't considering "cheating" because its war. Two armies met. Both knew that death was going to happen.

Rob Stark sacrificed a whole section of men to draw out the enemy, his reward was victory and a powerful captive.

The red woman used black magic, in the dead of night, to win. Now that was cheating. No one saw it coming and even if they had, what could they have done?

Tywin used the red wedding to settle the war. That broke every rule.

A knife versus a mounted knight seems a small thing to get offended by.

I don't think you're comparing like with like with those examples. Daario's fight was actually supposed to be some kind of traditional duel as outlined by that fella

expectationlost · 24-04-2014 2:22am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

One scene I'm not really happy about is that "duel of champions" in front of the city Daenarys was about to liberate. I was under the impression that thrown weapons were pretty much bad form for this kind of combat. If anything it would make the guys in the city more irate rather than convince them that the army before them had better warriors.
I mean, anybody with a bow and arrow wins those duels every time then!

the point is dani is coming across cities who are maybe a bit too comfortable and stuck in their ways and she's taking advantage of that.

Anachrony · 24-04-2014 3:31am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But Dany been told him to get a horse! She knew the way these things were supposed to be done. The other guy even waited for him to do so.

They both assumed the mount would provide a major advantage and the mounted knight could just run down the poor fool on foot. Lances weren't invented just as a sport for formal jousting tournaments. Heavy cavalry was for a time able to mow down typical foot soldiers, prior to the invention of polearms meant to counter their advantage. Nobody would have expected the horse to be a hindrance to him, and if it was he could have just gotten off it and fought on foot. We've already seen at least one formal duel in this show (Tyrion's trial by combat), fought on foot, so it's not as if there's some established precedent that horseback is the only proper way to fight one.

If anyone would have been perceived as cheating it would be the guy using a horse to charge a guy without one. It was the cities champion and not Daeny's that chose to press forward with the charge despite that asymmetry, seemingly in his favor. His choice to attack that way, using a lance on horseback, didn't leave the guy on foot much opportunity for traditional swordplay. If he wanted swordfighting he should have come at him as a swordsman, not a lancer. If you're the one with the bright idea of having champions fight, you don't also get to be the one who decides exactly what weapons those champions are going to use. Blades are a perfectly valid way to fight, and in an "honorable" duel, it would have been up to the one accepting the challenge to decide.

Dany was questioning his tactical decision, not the propriety of how duels were to be conducted.

That enemy champion thought it was his lucky day, right up to the moment that he found out it wasn't.

SureYWouldntYa · 24-04-2014 3:45am

anybody else think that Joffrey may have been killed by his grandad Tywin

when he insulted him, saying his father won the war while he hid under Casterly Rock, bound to have struck a nerve with him

Penny Dreadful · 24-04-2014 7:55am

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

anybody else think that Joffrey may have been killed by his grandad Tywin

when he insulted him, saying his father won the war while he hid under Casterly Rock, bound to have struck a nerve with him

I think it was Tywin. Not so much because Joffrey insulted him but more so because he was too volatile and difficult to control. This time round he gets in at the beginning with the new king and Dan train him to be the king (front man) he wants / needs him to be. Tywin will be king in all but name this time.

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 8:38am

expectationlost wrote: »

the point is dani is coming across cities who are maybe a bit too comfortable and stuck in their ways and she's taking advantage of that.

Sure, but that doesn't' mean they'll have any respect or fear for their opponents if they don't adhere to the normal rules of a duel of champions. It'll have opposite effect.

Pepe LeFrits · 24-04-2014 9:08am

I don't think Dany gives a **** what the city rulers think. She doesn't negotiate or seek compromise with slave owners; she's been pretty consistent there.

K_user · 24-04-2014 9:16am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sure, but that doesn't' mean they'll have any respect or fear for their opponents if they don't adhere to the normal rules of a duel of champions. It'll have opposite effect.

You keep talking about the "normal rules of champions" like there are hard and fast rules. But there were not.

Meereens "champion" chose to charge a man on foot. He could have gone for hand to hand. He didn't. He had the perceived advantage. Not Daario.

Meereens man expect to win based by trampling Daario into the ground and all the Nobles watching would have cheered.

He would have then circled around and demanded another fight, more "worthy", while mocking Dany and her Army.

To reiterate, Meereens Champion chose to charge. He chose to keep his advantage. He lost.

Whats the problem?

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 9:18am

expectationlost wrote: »

the point is dani is coming across cities who are maybe a bit too comfortable and stuck in their ways and she's taking advantage of that.

Sure, but that doesn't' mean they'll have any respect or fear for their opponents if they don't adhere to the normal rules of a duel of champions. It'll have opposite effect.

K_user · 24-04-2014 9:22am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sure, but that doesn't' mean they'll have any respect or fear for their opponents if they don't adhere to the normal rules of a duel of champions. It'll have opposite effect.

LOL

Yes the locals arent afraid of the thousands of highly trained men, the siege engines, the dragons and the freed slaves, all because one of Danys men was able to take their best man down with a knife

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 9:45am

K_user wrote: »

LOL

Yes the locals arent afraid of the thousands of highly trained men, the siege engines, the dragons and the freed slaves, all because one of Danys men was able to take their best man down with a knife

OK, you probably just don't know any of this stuff, so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Damascus_(1148)

Arriving with 8,000 men at what appears to be a very large city like Meereen with extremely high walls and a protected port isn't just a joke, it's an irrelevance.
And yes, if you don't want to adhere to the usual rules of single combat and use a missile weapon (why didn't the horse have armour anyway?) then you will instil precisely no fear in your opponents. It's like cheating in football: you might win the match but you won't convince anybody you're better than them.
Another thing on siege tactics... if your opponent can catapult barrels of slave collars many metres inside your city walls, then your own catapults are also well in range for counterfire...

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 10:01am

K_user wrote: »

Whats the problem?

I've no problem at all with the way Daario chose to win the fight. The problem is that the duel of champions is supposed to be a morale booster for the winner and demoralizing for the loser.
If they didn't think there were any rules why didn't they just shoot him full of arrows and spears as soon as he came into range?

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 10:04am

K_user wrote: »

In the defence of Kings Landing, at the battle of blackwater, Tyrion used that green flame on boats that had yet to land. He killed hundreds by flaming death. Not exactly in the book of fair rules. But it wasn't considering "cheating" because its war. Two armies met. Both knew that death was going to happen.

Rob Stark sacrificed a whole section of men to draw out the enemy, his reward was victory and a powerful captive.

The red woman used black magic, in the dead of night, to win. Now that was cheating. No one saw it coming and even if they had, what could they have done?

Tywin used the red wedding to settle the war. That broke every rule.

A knife versus a mounted knight seems a small thing to get offended by.

Really really awful examples.
If there were no accepted rules for when two sides send out their champion, why not just have your 8,000 men chop him to bits?

mayordenis · 24-04-2014 10:04am

It was fairly bad ass from Daario, I'm pretty sure absolutely everyone looked at what he did and thought those are the actions of a bad ass.

They absolutely would be afraid of the skill that some has to hit a charging horse in the eye with a thrown dagger.

mayordenis · 24-04-2014 10:05am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Really really awful examples.
If there were no accepted rules for when two sides send out their champion, why not just have your 8,000 men chop him to bits?

You see you keeping saying things like this.

Can you really not see the difference between 1v1 and 8000v1.

The guy came out and laid down a challenge, if he wanted it to be hand to hand then he surely has to get off his horse.

Maximus Alexander · 24-04-2014 10:11am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I've no problem at all with the way Daario chose to win the fight. The problem is that the duel of champions is supposed to be a morale booster for the winner and demoralizing for the loser.
If they didn't think there were any rules why didn't they just shoot him full of arrows and spears as soon as he came into range?

An armoured man on horseback with a lance riding down a man with a knife is the equivalent of this:

Bearing down on this:

The fight clearly favoured one man. There was nothing dishonorable about what Daario did.

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 10:27am

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The fight clearly favoured one man. There was nothing dishonorable about what Daario did.

Like I said, give me a crossbow then and I'll beat every man on earth in single combat. Give me two crossbows and I'll even beat two of them at once.
Missile weapons and deliberately killing mounts are never part of the deal. Winning a fight isn't the same as winning a duel.

EDIT: Your armoured vehicle analogy would be a bit more accurate if the tank didn't have any guns. My money would then be 100% on the jeep!

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 10:28am

mayordenis wrote: »

You see you keeping saying things like this.

Can you really not see the difference between 1v1 and 8000v1.

But I keep being told there are actually no rules at all. Just kill the guy then already.

norrie rugger · 24-04-2014 10:33am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sure, but that doesn't' mean they'll have any respect or fear for their opponents if they don't adhere to the normal rules of a duel of champions. It'll have opposite effect.

seriously lad, what rules??
Show me the moment in the show the agreement.
If you want to go all formal then it was the mounted lad cheating.

I repeat, it is the party which has been challenged that decides the mode of combat.
He should have dismounted but saw an advantage in staying on horse. Why? Because no one agreed any bloody rules. This is the show where chivalry does not exist and charlemane would have been slaughtered before opening his mouth.
Seriously, it just looks now like you are just digging in to your position regardless of the amount of flaws being pointed out

Falthyron · 24-04-2014 10:36am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But I keep being told there are actually no rules at all. Just kill the guy then already.

Dude, it's just a TV Show.

Both sides of the argument can be expressed with equal legitimacy, so let's just leave it at that.

I really enjoyed the episode, but I want more. :P Each storyline is moving along quite slowly, and it is like torture. I want to know more about Reek (if he really is 100% 'neutered' so to speak :P ), I want to get on with Tyrion's story, and I want to see where the Walkers are. Bah! Release Season 5 like House of Cards is, all at once!

K_user · 24-04-2014 10:37am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

OK, you probably just don't know any of this stuff, so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Damascus_(1148)

Arriving with 8,000 men at what appears to be a very large city like Meereen with extremely high walls and a protected port isn't just a joke, it's an irrelevance.

Actually I know quite a bit about this sort of stuff, thanks.

Here is a post from earlier, where I stated that the walls of Meereen could easily be defended by half trained men:

K_user wrote: »

8,000 well trained men are enough.

It all depends on the cities standing army. If they depend on slaves, or conscripts, then they'd lose on the open field.

Staying behind the walls would be their safer bet. If they have the supplies to wait out a siege. A half trained army can defeat huge numbers with the right protection.

But I'm sure they are aware of who she is. A few siege machines and 3 dragons might be enough to even things out.

Rebelling slaves, while there are 8,000 trained men, siege engines and dragons outside. Now that is enough to cripple the city.

However the addition of Dragons changes the game a little. Like cannon did when it made its first appearance in battle. The use of gunpower helped to change the entire social and political order of Feudal Europe, because their use changed everything from military organization, to tactics.

In GOT terms, check out what happened to Harrenhal.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And yes, if you don't want to adhere to the usual rules of single combat and use a missile weapon (why didn't the horse have armour anyway?) then you will instil precisely no fear in your opponents. It's like cheating in football: you might win the match but you won't convince anybody you're better than them.
Another thing on siege tactics... if your opponent can catapult barrels of slave collars many metres inside your city walls, then your own catapults are also well in range for counterfire...

The most famous story of man to man combat is in the Bible, David versus Goliath.

The champion of the Philistines called for one man to step forward to decide the battle in single combat, that man was David.

So on one side there was Goliath with his armor, shield and weapons. On the other there was David with his sling.

One shot to the head and Goliath fell. The shock was to great that the Philistines fled the field and were pursued by the Israelites.

And no one has ever claimed that David cheated. The story is famous because the outcome was so unexpected. That one shot could take down such a heavily armoured man, a champion of the Philistine army.

Also single combat was often seen as a way for God to sort out who was in the right. A heavily armed, charging man, taken down with a single shot of a knife, could be a seen as a massive blow to the cities belief structure, that they are blessed by their Gods.

And again you have ignored the fact that Meereen's champion charged. He was happy with the arrangement. Its you thats not.

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 10:39am

norrie rugger wrote: »

seriously lad, what rules??
Show me the moment in the show the agreement.
If you want to go all formal then it was the mounted lad cheating.

I repeat, it is the party which has been challenged that decides the mode of combat.
He should have dismounted but saw an advantage in staying on horse. Why? Because no one agreed any bloody rules. This is the show where chivalry does not exist and charlemane would have been slaughtered before opening his mouth.
Seriously, it just looks now like you are just digging in to your position regardless of the amount of flaws being pointed out

No flaws evident I'm afraid.
I've never once denied it's a great way to win a fight, but like I said, a crossbow would have done a better job.
If there was no chivalry anywhere then why even send out a champion? Why did Dany agree to the duel? You can't have it both ways.

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 10:41am

Falthyron wrote: »

Dude, it's just a TV Show.

I knew the worst answer ever in discussing a TV show would turn up eventually... so nothing has to make any sense in TV shows?

norrie rugger · 24-04-2014 10:43am

and Daeny's dragons plus the 8000, plus sell swords, plus siege engines and plus the fact that she already has won battles are more than enough.

As it was, the nobles were wary but not feeling threatened. They sent out that guy for entertainment.
They felt threatened after tballs
Let's also look at a well known duel shall we. No one ever calls David a cheat for using a stone to kill Goliath.

Had the mounted lad followed your rules and come off horse he would have had a fair shot. He decided to, dishonourably, charge a man on foot.

Falthyron · 24-04-2014 10:44am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I knew the worst answer ever in discussing a TV show would turn up eventually... so nothing has to make any sense in TV shows?

It doesn't have to make sense. It is purely for entertainment purposes. If they just shot him with an arrow, we (the audience) would have barely reacted - 'meh' would probably be the most stirring reaction. Instead, Dario did something 'cool' and it created an excited response. In fact, it has created this tedious debate. So in many ways, the show's creators achieved what they set out to achieve: provoke a reaction.

K_user · 24-04-2014 10:47am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Like I said, give me a crossbow then and I'll beat every man on earth in single combat. Give me two crossbows and I'll even beat two of them at once.
Missile weapons and deliberately killing mounts are never part of the deal. Winning a fight isn't the same as winning a duel.

EDIT: Your armoured vehicle analogy would be a bit more accurate if the tank didn't have any guns. My money would then be 100% on the jeep!

Where are the crossbows?

Can someone please point out where Daario used a crossbow? Did I miss that bit?

Can someone explain how the damage and targeting capabilities of a crossbow is been compared to a man throwing a knife?

Your whole complaint is failing apart because you aren't even discussing the weapons involved. A crossbow, when it came out, was considered the height of technological advancement. While people have had knives since the stone age.

Charging armoured knight versus a knife. Not a crossbow. A knife.

mayordenis · 24-04-2014 10:48am

I think there a fairly big difference between throwing a knife and shooting a crossbow, a crossbow is as close to a gun as you can get in this setting really.

It's also a big risk/reward scenario, anything but a perfect shot and you're fairly ****ed too.

K_user · 24-04-2014 10:49am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I knew the worst answer ever in discussing a TV show would turn up eventually... so nothing has to make any sense in TV shows?

Well when discussing a TV show its normal to complain about what happened. Its not normal to change the events and then complain about it.

Mickeroo · 24-04-2014 10:49am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I've no problem at all with the way Daario chose to win the fight. The problem is that the duel of champions is supposed to be a morale booster for the winner and demoralizing for the loser.
If they didn't think there were any rules why didn't they just shoot him full of arrows and spears as soon as he came into range?

Daario only had one shot to take the guy down though. Also the Folks in the city looked pretty damn demoralised to me.

Also, surely Selmy and Mormont would have protested if they thought not using a horse was so out of order what with all their duelling experience. I really think you're getting worked about nothing.

K_user · 24-04-2014 10:51am

Falthyron wrote: »

It doesn't have to make sense. It is purely for entertainment purposes. If they just shot him with an arrow, we (the audience) would have barely reacted - 'meh' would probably be the most stirring reaction. Instead, Dario did something 'cool' and it created an excited response. In fact, it has created this tedious debate. So in many ways, the show's creators achieved what they set out to achieve: provoke a reaction.

Actually check out Indiana Jones. The famous scene where the guy with the swords challenged him. Indy pulled a gun and shot him dead. Everyone laughed and its still considered funny today.

norrie rugger · 24-04-2014 10:52am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No flaws evident I'm afraid.

1. No rules agreed upon
2. Were they go be rules the the horse was a cheat move. The challenger does not dictate the style of combat.
3. A knife vs a horse still favour the horse
4. The challenger was an insult, sent by the slaveowners. To do exactly what Daeny prevented. Have one of her generals potentially sacrifice himself.

road dog · 24-04-2014 10:52am

This thread is fast becoming very boring with all the silly little debates

Falthyron · 24-04-2014 10:53am

K_user wrote: »

Actually check out Indiana Jones. The famous scene where the guy with the swords challenged him. Indy pulled a guy and shot him dead. Everyone laughed and its still considered funny today.

Agree completely. However, Indy is light-hearted so it passed as humour, where as GoT is super cereal and should be treated so. :P

K_user · 24-04-2014 10:58am

road dog wrote: »

This thread is fast becoming very boring with all the silly little debates

I'm finding it hilarious that someone is giving out about rules and crossbows.

And how someone will continuously ignore the FACT that the Meereen man was perfectly happy to press his perceived advantage.

norrie rugger · 24-04-2014 11:03am

exactly. Why is he taking the side of the guy cheating on horse?
Harrison Ford always cheats btw. Shot the swordsman as Indy and Solo shot first

Dan_Solo · 24-04-2014 11:08am

K_user wrote: »

Actually I know quite a bit about this sort of stuff, thanks.

You could then give us a few examples of where 8,000 men successfully besieged a city of a few 100,000 people with 100ft walls, a protected port?

K_user wrote: »

However the addition of Dragons changes the game a little.

No doubt they will, but IIRC we haven't seen them yet at Meereen.

Artful_Badger · 24-04-2014 11:09am

Think its time to un-follow this thread. See you all in the next un. o/

K_user · 24-04-2014 11:09am

norrie rugger wrote: »

exactly. Why is he taking the side of the guy cheating on horse?

It seems that our fellow member believes very strongly that a city that hangs dead children up as sign posts have very strict, and slightly unheard of, rules when it comes to combat. And these rules should be obeyed without question.

And if you don't obey them, well the weapon used to defeat them will be upgraded ten fold in the retelling...

After that I get confused...must be my age showing... :P

norrie rugger wrote: »

Harrison Ford always cheats btw. Shot the swordsman as Indy and Solo shot first

Get off my PLANE! :P

Season 4 Episode 3 "Breaker of Chains": *HAVE NOT NOT NOT* read the books

Comments

Season 4 Episode 3 "Breaker of Chains": HAVE NOT NOT NOT read the books