...Attacking the city of someone who declared war on me? Tyrell had a full stack right next to me, why would I think he wasn't attacking? I said not to give me free passage, and Tyrell didn't say anything to indicate that he would. We talked via PM and it was clear we were at war. I told him I was going for Bitterbridge and Tumbleton, and I attacked Tumbleton. Explain to me what happened that was dirty.
I already quoted where I clearly said that I wasn't requesting or expecting free passage. To actually surround Renly's army from 8 directions so that he literally could not move one step first turn while I was banned from attacking would have been extremely cheap and certainly a "hostile action", and I trust Martin not to pull something like that. But with units blocking off the bridges and Garlan's full army in the only direction I could move, it didn't seem like Tyrell was going to let Renly walk back to the Stormlands. We never said Renly was getting free passage, Tyrell if you didn't read my posts I don't know what to tell you. Even if you didn't I would have thought the fact that my entire army was holed up in fort next to Tumbleton would have made it clear that I wasn't walking away, if you thought I was leaving I don't understand why you made no comment that turn.
From Tyrell via PM:
Yes, so dirty of me to attack someone who said that.A bummer, I suppose I will just have to destroy you and use your lands to attack them.
I understand and appreciate that Tyrell offered to give Renly passage, but it seems pretty to clear to me from my posts that I declined. Tyrell if it seems more fair to you, I won't siege Bitterbridge this turn.