PDA

View Full Version : Parson In Battle - Good or Bad?



The Glyphstone
2009-01-02, 01:41 AM
There's been numerous arguments both for and against the idea of Parson going in to personally mix it up against the RCC and Ansom. He does have that sword, after all - but he's also a fat game geek who hates stairs and exists in Erf at all because of his tactical genius, not his physical power.

So, would it be bad writing/storytelling/Deus Ex Machina/intriguing plot twist/Nine Hundred and Fifty Kinds Of Awesome!!11 to see Parson take the field himself? Give an opinion, and if you're feeling up to it, explain why.

Me, I'm torn - it would be almost a betrayal of the character, but it might just be sheer cool enough to counteract it. Might.

DevilDan
2009-01-02, 01:59 AM
Personally, I'd be fairly disappointed if Parson wins by engaging in hand-to-hand combat.

Godskook
2009-01-02, 02:14 AM
Personally, I'd be fairly disappointed if Parson wins by engaging in hand-to-hand combat.

I'd be disappointed if he won by pulling an Ansom-style combat(hit things until they all die), but I can think of ways in which Parson taking the field would serve him well, character-wise. One way would be similar Hal Moore(Mel Gibson) in "We were soldiers". Hal is, for the most part, played as a strategist and leader, yet he doesn't hesitate to lead by example, "where the metal meets the meat".

bdares
2009-01-02, 02:34 AM
Well, the sword does grant him leadership, which is apparently a game attribute, not a mental one. I don't see why it can't grant leet combat skillz as a physical attribute. Then again, there's the mostly mental attribute of "ruthlessness." In short, there's not enough information.

This could be a deliberate non-Chekhov's gun. I can see it happening. Then again, the recent strips have been somewhat... predictable. I really was hoping for a big twist, but I suppose it's coming soon.

Altima
2009-01-02, 05:35 AM
Also remember that Parson has a good, oh, four feet on everyone else?

Also, he may have TWO artifact bonuses--his mathemancy gauntlet and the sword.

However, I don't think he needs to actually engage. He's, frankly, too low a level (he's, apparently, level 2, while even Webinar was level 5). Also, all the units in GK already get a city-wide leadership bonus from him.

ishnar
2009-01-02, 06:22 AM
Also remember that Parson has a good, oh, four feet on everyone else?

Also, he may have TWO artifact bonuses--his mathemancy gauntlet and the sword.

However, I don't think he needs to actually engage. He's, frankly, too low a level (he's, apparently, level 2, while even Webinar was level 5). Also, all the units in GK already get a city-wide leadership bonus from him.

Probably neither the sword or gauntlet is an artifact since neither is 3d rendered. However, there is the possibility that there is a distinction between artifact and arkentool.

raphfrk
2009-01-02, 09:11 AM
However, there is the possibility that there is a distinction between artifact and arkentool.

From here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0035.html), it seems that an 'artefact' is something that wasn't created by mortals.

Presumably, the sword and gauntlet count as being created by Wanda.

Kreistor
2009-01-02, 09:21 AM
With Ansom going down and almost dying, Parson won't be looking at the option of engaging in melee to win. Far too risky.

DevilDan
2009-01-02, 12:08 PM
Presumably, the sword and gauntlet count as being created by Wanda.

Or by the 'mancers who created the spell.


With Ansom going down and almost dying, Parson won't be looking at the option of engaging in melee to win. Far too risky.

If that's what it comes down to, he will do it. But I'll be disappointed if that's what it does come down to.

Haven
2009-01-02, 12:44 PM
Also remember that Parson has a good, oh, four feet on everyone else?

Also, he may have TWO artifact bonuses--his mathemancy gauntlet and the sword.

However, I don't think he needs to actually engage. He's, frankly, too low a level (he's, apparently, level 2, while even Webinar was level 5). Also, all the units in GK already get a city-wide leadership bonus from him.

What Altima said. I don't know about the items counting as artifacts, but the sword probably gives him a decent bonus and I can imagine he'll be able to use mathamancy to help him somehow (a little "awesomeness by analysis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwesomenessByAnalysis)", probably).

Anyway, I've always pictured the scenario of Parson fighting as a completely desperate one, where Gobwin Knob is infiltrated and overrun. Some soldiers find him, and he manages to surprise everyone by fighting his way out using that sword, his immense stature, and his urge to survive.

drachefly
2009-01-05, 03:56 PM
I expect that everything Stanley asked for will come true. If so, Parson will end up on the walls and frighten the coalition into disintegrating.
He doesn't need to fight while doing that, but he does need to get that close, and look scary.

If he hits someone hard, I won't complain. He is huge, after all. But if he displays *skill*, I'll find that annoying.

MadMaw
2009-01-05, 04:14 PM
However, I don't think he needs to actually engage. He's, frankly, too low a level (he's, apparently, level 2, while even Webinar was level 5). Also, all the units in GK already get a city-wide leadership bonus from him.

Nobody knows what level Parson is (his stats aren't visible) but the sword fixes up the issues with the leadership bonus (I don't think it's been divulged by how much the original bonus of 2 has increased) and also somehow gives him some ability in combat.

"Sword - 3 in 1
Leadership!
Combat!
Ruthlessness!"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0118.html

The box also indicates that his abilities will be on par with "The Perfect Warlord(TM)" when he has all the magic items (glasses, glove, sword) in his posession. Not sure if that means he'll be a match for Ansom in hand to hand combat or not though.

Dragonath
2009-01-05, 04:25 PM
The spell they got Parson with was created to summon the perfect WARLORD, not the perfect STRATEGIST or whatever.

The items now coming together making Parson the perfect warlord could very well enhance his fighting skills, along with leadership and a mental boost in the spirit of: "What the ****, let's **** em up real bad !!! RAAAAAWR!!!"

Ceasar fights in battle and is a strong unit, Stanley is a tough unit. Both chief WARLORDS, not strategists like Don King and Charlie for instance, who are overlords of their side.

Just my 2 cents...

SteveD
2009-01-05, 07:19 PM
Side question; how would Parson level without getting into combat directly?

Whispri
2009-01-05, 07:22 PM
Side question; how would Parson level without getting into combat directly?

By commanding a battle in which all friendly units involved gain his leadership bonus perhaps? Or just by keeping his stack between himself and his enemies as long as he defeats said foes.

Scylfing
2009-01-05, 09:39 PM
We've seen the leadership and we've seen the ruthlessness, but we still need to see the combat enhancement Parson received from the sword. There's a long tradition in this particular genre where the ordinary person from our world becomes a hero in another world partly by being magically enhanced, so I won't have a problem with it if that's the case here. Still, if I were Parson I would avoid engaging in combat until the very end.

I would withdraw the uncroaked from the walls once the coalition opens a breach (I'm sure they will on this turn now that Ansom has the 'pliers again) and use them as fodder to delay the siege as much as possible, then I would lead* garrison's defense of the courtyard walls, preferably with all the high-level units and heavies. I would however give up on the tower, there's too many archons in the airspace to make it defensible and not enough casters or air defenses left to even try, though it would be nice to leave some booby traps in there for when the archons take it over.

I would throw everything I had at Ansom's personal stack since he's the key for his side even if his lieutenants doubt him, but I would not make a last stand there so if we don't drop him before they overrun the courtyard I would withdraw to the dungeon, where I would have all remaining tunnel fighters ready to make the last stand and hope the cavalry comes riding in just in time.


*Not lead from the front however, this is where ruthlessness comes back in: Bogroll needs to put on his Parson outfit and lead the defense, while Parson directs him through Maggie. Foolamancy isn't the only way to deceive an opponent.

DevilDan
2009-01-05, 10:09 PM
We've seen the leadership and we've seen the ruthlessness, but we still need to see the combat enhancement Parson received from the sword. There's a long tradition in this particular genre where the ordinary person from our world becomes a hero in another world partly by being magically enhanced, so I won't have a problem with it if that's the case here.

I don't particularly like it, but it has been more than foreshadowed.

teratorn
2009-01-06, 03:27 AM
Nobody knows what level Parson is.

Oh yes we do:

1 Chief Warlord, Level 2, Special. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0084.html)

DevilDan
2009-01-06, 03:31 AM
Oh yes we do:

1 Chief Warlord, Level 2, Special. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0084.html)

Which may or may not mean much given that he's a special (read: probably unique) unit and has received a few magic items enhancing his abilities.

SteveD
2009-01-06, 05:44 AM
Well we know from Klog #4 that his leadership bonus was a 2, and that was well before he got any parts of the sword.

Don't think we've enough evidence to guess at what effect the sword has on his abilities (or even what his original stats were).

One thing I don't get however, is why a level 2?

BillyJimBoBob
2009-01-06, 10:10 AM
There's been numerous arguments both for and against the idea of Parson going in to personally mix it up against the RCC and Ansom. He does have that sword, after all - but he's also a fat game geek who hates stairs and exists in Erf at all because of his tactical genius, not his physical power.

So, would it be bad writing/storytelling/Deus Ex Machina/intriguing plot twist/Nine Hundred and Fifty Kinds Of Awesome!!11 to see Parson take the field himself? Give an opinion, and if you're feeling up to it, explain why.

Me, I'm torn - it would be almost a betrayal of the character, but it might just be sheer cool enough to counteract it. Might.I'm pretty much with you point for point. Parson is the typical portrayal of a veteran gamer: Overweight (let's just say it, he is very fat. Potato man and lipid golem, lol.), out of shape ("whew, stairs"), sloppy (images of his home and his clothing) and not at all inclined to physical over mental hobbies and pursuits. He works at Kinkos and plays tabletop games. We've seen zero glimpses of anything physical from him.

But now he has a sword providing Leadership, Combat, and Ruthlessness. If it were just Leadership and Ruthlessness a rod or a scepter would have been more appropriate a form. Combat though, that takes a weapon. And once the hero has a weapon it's pretty much a given that he's going to use it.

Now couple this with the fact that he is the same size as Bogroll. Bogroll is a combat 5, and Parson's Leadership bonus is 2. Jillian is "a 9", which could refer to her level, her combat stat, to her leadership bonus, or to something else entirely.

If Parson is personally a combat 5, that seems to be unfair to Bogroll, as a Troll in a warlike setting can be assumed to be more experienced in combat than Parson. But Parson should get his own Leadership bonus (I think), and whatever bonus his sword provides. I don't think the mathamancy item/artifact would provide a combat bonus, it's magic is in allowing the user to enter into more favorable battles if the user has the initiative to be able to make the choices. That in itself can make the user better in combat, but not via a direct bonus.

So speculating that Parson is a Combat 1-4, with a 2 Leadership bonus, and an unknown sword bonus but presumably 1 or greater, and Parson should be at 3-7 or higher. Probably still not a match for either Jillian or Ansom (for whom we have no numbers, but I'd assume that Jillian would not be interested in a low level Warlord), but potentially able to influence a battle in a significant way. Parson should be calculating his odds against other units constantly, that would allow him to use some fairly simple math to narrow down his own stats.


From here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0035.html), it seems that an 'artefact' is something that wasn't created by mortals.

Presumably, the sword and gauntlet count as being created by Wanda.I'd say it was made by the summoning spell. "Help the summon spell fix its goof". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0118.html) Which begs the question: If you can pay 500k shmuckers for a spell, summon the perfect Warlord, and he will be retrofitted with a 500k shmuckers or maybe more (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0060.html) and a magic sword, then you can afford to buy the spell over and over until you've got a legion of Warlords with a magic sword, selling the mathamancy artifact each time to pay for the next spell. In fact, by having Wanda cast the spell rather than purchasing the support contract you'd make 150k shmuckers per casting, or more depending on how much more than 500k the purchasers of the mathamancy item/artifact were willing to pay. On the second casting you could then afford to pay full price and get a perfect Warlord who doesn't need items to be awesome. This is a logical inconsistency within the storyline.

teratorn
2009-01-06, 10:23 AM
On the second casting you could then afford to pay full price and get a perfect Warlord who doesn't need items to be awesome. This is a logical inconsistency within the storyline.

Well, but if you sell the gauntlet then the guy who buys it can use it against you and take his money back. And if he had enough money to buy it, and you needed the money from the sell, then he's bound to be much more powerful than you.

If you don't sell it, you can attract people like Charlie, powerful enough to take it from you.

SteveMB
2009-01-06, 10:36 AM
Well, but if you sell the gauntlet then the guy who buys it can use it against you and take his money back. And if he had enough money to buy it, and you needed the money from the sell, then he's bound to be much more powerful than you.

If you don't sell it, you can attract people like Charlie, powerful enough to take it from you.

The proposed hack assumes that the artifact will work for anybody else. (Sizemore implicitly assumes as much in his evaluation of what some kings and overlords would pay for it, but we have no way of knowing that it's the case.)

Radar
2009-01-06, 11:05 AM
(...)
I'd say it was made by the summoning spell. "Help the summon spell fix its goof". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0118.html) Which begs the question: If you can pay 500k shmuckers for a spell, summon the perfect Warlord, and he will be retrofitted with a 500k shmuckers or maybe more (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0060.html) and a magic sword, then you can afford to buy the spell over and over until you've got a legion of Warlords with a magic sword, selling the mathamancy artifact each time to pay for the next spell. In fact, by having Wanda cast the spell rather than purchasing the support contract you'd make 150k shmuckers per casting, or more depending on how much more than 500k the purchasers of the mathamancy item/artifact were willing to pay. On the second casting you could then afford to pay full price and get a perfect Warlord who doesn't need items to be awesome. This is a logical inconsistency within the storyline.
It's not inconsistency, if you consider, that most probably the mathamancy artifact cannot work for anyone but Parson (a hole fitting his calculator watch would be a hint). The glasses aren't worth much, since seing someones stats is common among warlords at least. As for the sword, we don't know much about it yet.

DevilDan
2009-01-06, 11:38 AM
One thing I don't get however, is why a level 2?

Again, he may be a completely unique units whose very presence bends or breaks some rules. Comparing his level 2 to Jillian's apparent level 9 might be like comparing a level 2 dwagon to a level 9 marbit, not that I would necessarily bet on Parson if he had to go up against Jill.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-01-06, 12:15 PM
Well, but if you sell the gauntlet then the guy who buys it can use it against you and take his money back. And if he had enough money to buy it, and you needed the money from the sell, then he's bound to be much more powerful than you.

If you don't sell it, you can attract people like Charlie, powerful enough to take it from you.Meh, your logic is not completely off but your assertions that it'd be a bad thing no matter what is skewed. Look at it this way:

Assume a start of 500k shmuckers. Stanley could have afforded that, even though it would have been enough to "literally empty the treasury." Buy the spell for 350k, leaving you with 150k and pocket change. Summon Parson. Wait for the items/artifacts to appear. Let Parson keep the glasses (notice I never mentioned them, as they are indeed useless to any resident of Erf) and the sword, since the sword improves his stats. Sell the mathamancy artifact for a minimum of 500k. Assume the worst, and you've now got a treasury of 650k. Now buy the spell again, with the support contract. You're at 150k in the treasury, the same place you'd have been had you stopped with Parson and let him keep all the items. No loss there. But this time the spell is cast by experts, and you get a true "perfect Warlord", who doesn't need 3 items to bring him up to par. So you're up a perfect Warlord and you've still got Parson with glasses and sword.

On the down side, you do have a mathemancy artifact in the hands of a potential foe. Charlie sure wants it badly enough. Perhaps badly enough to pay and commit to a magically binding non-aggression pact, or something similar. And your point about the artifact making you a big target? True enough, but now it's in the hands of a potential enemy, and any such avarice will see two potential foes fighting it out and getting weaker while you remain static and wait for a survivor. If you don't sell it you have the status quo in our story: Charlie wants the item and Stanley has only Parson.


The proposed hack assumes that the artifact will work for anybody else. (Sizemore implicitly assumes as much in his evaluation of what some kings and overlords would pay for it, but we have no way of knowing that it's the case.)Sizemore is a very studious caster (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0013.html). If he says that someone would pay for the item/artifact, it's a safe bet that they can also use the item/artifact. It's no guarantee, but it would violate a few writing conventions to set someone up as a studious jack-of-all-trades on the subject of magic and then have them be wrong in such a casual discussion. These types of characters can be wrong about big things, but to be wrong in a situation with no dramatic impact invalidates their character concept.

Further supporting this is the fact that Charlie wants the item and Parson, but says he's willing to take the item off of Parson's corpse if that's how it has to go down. Charlie is shown to be a Thinkamancy master, either due to the Arcendish or natively and enhanced by his attunement to the Arcendish. For both he and Sizemore to mistake the utility of the mathamancy item/artifact in the hands of others is not only unlikely but story breaking.

DevilDan
2009-01-06, 12:26 PM
Sizemore is a very studious caster (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0013.html). If he says that someone would pay for the item/artifact, it's a safe bet that they can also use the item/artifact. It's no guarantee, but it would violate a few writing conventions to set someone up as a studious jack-of-all-trades on the subject of magic and then have them be wrong in such a casual discussion. These types of characters can be wrong about big things, but to be wrong in a situation with no dramatic impact invalidates their character concept.

Let's remember that Charlie also desires the mathamancy item, even if Parson is killed.

But let's also remember that the watch is a non-Erf item, an item the learned Sizemore considers almost as an artifact; it can have rules all its own, breaking the established order of Erf. What Sizemore or Charlie suspect or believe to be true about it could still be monumentally wrong.

teratorn
2009-01-06, 12:28 PM
Sell the mathamancy artifact for a minimum of 500k. Assume the worst, and you've now got a treasury of 650k. Now buy the spell again, with the support contract.

You're assuming the spell can be forged again soon. It may require something special, not just schmuckers. Maybe a gem that no longer exists, maybe a certain instant in time.

Another_Poet
2009-01-06, 12:40 PM
I would love to see it if it is written well, and I trust the creators to write it very, very well.

When people say it would suxxor or be out of character for him, they seem to be thinking of him charging into batle Braveheart style and overcoming Ansom in a duel. Yeah, boo.

But what about this: as the Garrison is invaded, Parson's in the thick of battle and Wanda tells him to get his butt in gear and do what a warlord does. He stares ather, stunned, and she gives him a pointed look, then glances at his sword. Oh, riiiight....

So he goes in swinging. No idea what he's doing, but his bonuses from being a warlord and being a Heavy unit replace his real-world athletic ability. Even though he's never trained, he finds he can do pretty well. He and Bogroll clear the room and then he collapses, sweating and exhausted. And more than a little horrified that he just killed people. For realz. Up close and personal.

Cue a full page of him questioning his morality and whether or not these people are real, then him acting sort of shellshocked as he tries to make it to [plot point X]. He is still only Level 2, so even though he's surprisingly competent in battle he's no uber knight like Ansom. The gasp of pain the first time he loses hit points might be particularly interesting. He might also gain a new respect for Stanley, who does this for a living.

Of course, at some point I suspect Bogroll will lay down his life defending Parson, which will probably weight heavily on Parson's mind.

All in all, a little hand-to-hand could be a great way to develop Parson's character, give us a better understanding of his stats as a unit, and change the pace of the story for a few pages. It would also show the weak side of our Lord Hamster without making him look like a bad tactician. All in all I like it.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-01-06, 03:38 PM
Let's remember that Charlie also desires the mathamancy item, even if Parson is killed.Let's remember? I mentioned it in the post you're replying to...

But let's also remember that the watch is a non-Erf item, an item the learned Sizemore considers almost as an artifact; it can have rules all its own, breaking the established order of Erf. What Sizemore or Charlie suspect or believe to be true about it could still be monumentally wrong.As I pointed out, it would be contrary to literary convention for knowledgeable scholars and potent casters to be so wrong about an item when there is zero dramatic tension about the facts in question.

Let's see... Charlie sends in his Archons, conquers GK, Parson is slain in the process and Charlie mourns his loss of the Warlord, but collects the mathamancy item/artifact. Next frame: Charlie: "Aw, darn, it doesn't work for me, shucker-doo. Sure wish I hadn't killed Parson and lost all of those Archons." That's not terribly likely.


You're assuming the spell can be forged again soon. It may require something special, not just schmuckers. Maybe a gem that no longer exists, maybe a certain instant in time.I'm assuming nothing that isn't shown in the comic. Rather, you are assuming that the spell isn't available to anyone with the shmuckers to buy it, or that it requires some unnamed resource or time period to forge. It would be a fantastic coincidence, would it not, for Wanda to have just happened to pay a visit to the Magic Kingdom at the same moment as the spell to summon the perfect Warlord was completed and put on the market. If this kind of stroke of luck had occurred, there would have been some mention of it, again by literary convention. But there was no such mention, Wanda simply mentions that this spell exists and can be purchased, even if the cost is enormous. So the rational assumption is that anyone willing to spend 500k (or 350k w/o the service contract) shmuckers can buy this spell.

DevilDan
2009-01-06, 03:49 PM
Let's see... Charlie sends in his Archons, conquers GK, Parson is slain in the process and Charlie mourns his loss of the Warlord, but collects the mathamancy item/artifact. Next frame: Charlie: "Aw, darn, it doesn't work for me, shucker-doo. Sure wish I hadn't killed Parson and lost all of those Archons." That's not terribly likely.

Charlie is making sure he is being amply remunerated for his troubles, I'm sure, particularly now that he had Ansom over a barrel and made him make even more concessions.

I don't think that there is any reason to suspect that the watch and bracer won't work for other Erfworld units or at least for commanders. It is possible that Sizemore and Charlie don't fully understand the watch's nature. Sizemore may not be that well informed about this sort of magic item; remember that he thought it could be an artifact? And Charlie hasn't had a chance to examine it closely; he may only know of the brace (which is, by definition, a magic item) and be unaware of the watch itself, which sits underneath the brace.

I don't know what the capabilities of the watch and the magic item are or what their limitations may be; I just know that it wouldn't surprise me terribly if Sizemore and Charlie have drawn some erroneous conclusions about them. Would it be anticlimactic if the story evolves along similar lines to what you suggested? Possibly. But it would just add further fodder for more conflict and plot development.


If this kind of stroke of luck had occurred, there would have been some mention of it, again by literary convention. But there was no such mention, Wanda simply mentions that this spell exists and can be purchased,

What she says is that the casters "have forged a spell." That suggests that it didn't happen ten years ago, anyway. I'm not going to worry about 500,000-shmucker magic items that popped up from a spell that would normally cost 500,000 shmuckers to cast, particularly when the spell that was only meant to produce a perfect warlord "goofed" in a spectacularly unforeseen manner and took several turns to "fix" the situation.

My point? Very peculiar circumstances, including the fact that Wanda cast the spell and the fact that Stanley was shouting idiotic demands at Wanda at the same time, led to highly unpredictable results.

Sure, you could--assuming more spells are available--spend a minimum of 350,00 shmuckers and hope that you get another item of equal value by replicating these peculiar circumstances. That may or may not be a good investment. If you don't have a caster with Wanda's skill, then there's no profit to be made casting a possibly risky spell for 500,000 shmuckers to get an item worth about 500,000. At best you can do this a few times before you flood the market, possibly, or before others start to do what you're doing, lowering the value of the mathamancy items.

sswhaley
2009-01-06, 04:08 PM
It's not entirely unreasonable to assume that the spell was unique. After all, there should only be one "perfect" warlord.

teratorn
2009-01-06, 04:11 PM
It would be a fantastic coincidence, would it not, for Wanda to have just happened to pay a visit to the Magic Kingdom at the same moment as the spell to summon the perfect Warlord was completed and put on the market.
??? You lost me there. Of course it is a huge coincidence. Wanda didn't order the spell!! She says to Stanley such a thing exists and that it would solve their problems. It was already forged, she just bought it.

Coincidence is rampant in literature since classical times. In Oedipus King the servant who found Oedipus as a baby is the same who comes to inform him of the death of his adoptive parents. What's the chance of that?


If this kind of stroke of luck had occurred, there would have been some mention of it, again by literary convention.
What the heck are you talking about? What kind of books do you read? I wasn't aware of that convention.

NobodySpecial
2009-01-06, 04:17 PM
Dumb question.

Why wouldn't the spell just summon Parson again? Either he's the perfect Warlord or he's not.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-01-06, 04:40 PM
??? You lost me there. Of course it is a huge coincidence. Wanda didn't order the spell!! She says to Stanley such a thing exists and that it would solve their problems. It was already forged, she just bought it.

Coincidence is rampant in literature since classical times.Sure. But when coincidence happens it needs to be explained. Or the readers don't know it's a coincidence, right? And if the readers don't know, then it isn't a coincidence. Do you follow?

If Wanda just happened to be visiting the Magic Kingdom at the perfect moment to learn about this spell, traveled back to GK, told Stanley about it, and the spell (a most powerful spell, remember?) was still waiting there to be bought when she returned, this would need to be remarked upon. This didn't happen. So the logical conclusion is that there was no coincidence, and that the spell is available for anyone with the Shmuckers to buy it.


Dumb question.

Why wouldn't the spell just summon Parson again? Either he's the perfect Warlord or he's not.An insightful observation. But Parson isn't the perfect Warlord. The spell fixed it's boopup by providing him with 3 necessary magic items, and together they deliver what was paid for. So even if Parson was summoned over, you'd still get another (or perhaps the same, whisked away from the Ruler you sold it to!) mathamancy item/artifact with the second summoning, even if you lost out on having a "perfect Warlord" who didn't need those items.

teratorn
2009-01-06, 04:40 PM
Dumb question.

Why wouldn't the spell just summon Parson again? Either he's the perfect Warlord or he's not.

That's not dumb... it's a rather good question. You just needed to specify you wanted a guy who doesn't snack on gwiffons.


Sure. But when coincidence happens it needs to be explained. Or the readers don't know it's a coincidence, right? And if the readers don't know, then it isn't a coincidence. Do you follow?

I give up. Strip #005 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html):

Wanda: I've been to the magic kingdom. The findamancers and predictamancers have forged a spell together. With it, one can summon the perfect warlord.

sswhaley
2009-01-06, 04:44 PM
It's not a dumb question:

There are three possibilities (3 that I can think of)

1. Parson is the perfect Warlord, hands down
2. Parson is the perfect Warlord for this situation (ex. He tells Stanley he's been thinking about strategic defense of a city atop of a volcano with tunnels underneath for months.
3. Parson is not the perfect Warlord and Stanley booped up the spell by asking for someone "big", who "eats marbits for breakfast" and all that jazz.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-01-06, 05:16 PM
I give up. Strip #005 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html):

Wanda: I've been to the magic kingdom. The findamancers and predictamancers have forged a spell together. With it, one can summon the perfect warlord.I've read the strip, I just don't see your point. You're claiming that it was some kind of wonderful coincidence that the spell was available. But in context, it was not. Wanda could have been saying:

"I've been to the grocery store. I saw a new kind of soft drink for sale. Want me to pick it up for you?"

If this hugely powerful spell just happened to be available at the moment Wanda just happened to be visiting the Magic Kingdom, and Wanda grasped that this was the single way to avoid the defeat of GK in the next battle, the reader should expect a little more indication from the context.

The authors provided no contextual indication that the availability of the summoning spell was anything other than a good and readily available (if greatly expensive) alternative to the certain failure (in Wanda's opinion) of promoting some dashing pretty boy from the ranks to be the Chief Warlord.

Godskook
2009-01-06, 06:53 PM
The authors provided no contextual indication that the availability of the summoning spell was anything other than a good and readily available (if greatly expensive) alternative to the certain failure (in Wanda's opinion) of promoting some dashing pretty boy from the ranks to be the Chief Warlord.

Actually, a possible interpretation is that Wanda described her problem to the spell-shop people, they forged her a spell that would solve her problem(remember, predictamancers), and then, having created it, offered to sell it to her at 500k schmuckers. Since the spell(in this theory) was made to order, it would, by virtue of the process making it, be unique. However, the process that provided it would be a normally occurring thing.

Oslecamo
2009-01-06, 07:41 PM
Remember that the spell doesn't exactly summons the "perfect" warlord.

It summons the "best" warlord possible for your situation.

There isn't such thing as a perfect warlord, otherwise all factions would be slaughtering themselves to get said spell.

From my interpretation, the spell searches in existence the best guy available for the job at hand.

In this case, a big guy who eats marbits for breakfast, breathes, eats, wants to be summoned and just happens to have spent several weeks thinking of that particular battleground.

If you think carefully, there really wouldn't be much great tacticians who would want to be summoned to another land and forced to fight someone else's war.

And since Hamster still had some shortcomings, the spell provided him with some shiny equipment to shore up those weakness. A way to see unit's stats, a calculator to preview the odds and the three in one sword.

As for the OP question, yes Hamster will battle. He's running out of warlords. And the wall's going down soon. Hamster has nowhere to run, and Sizemore won't be able to hold the breach. Not alone at least. But add a giant marbit eating warlord with a pointy stick to the equation the line may be able to hold. They'll probably retreat inside the tunnels first possibly.

DevilDan
2009-01-06, 08:00 PM
There he is, in Page 123, announcing that he will lead the battle.

Lamech
2009-01-06, 10:10 PM
At above: Will he lead Erfworld style and just give his bonus. Or will he get into actual combat? That is the question. Maibe if he stands really still I bet he can make Ansom think he is a trick. Especially if Ansom knows the foolamancer is gone...:smallamused: "Silly, Parson I can't see your stats and you have no fool."


??? You lost me there. Of course it is a huge coincidence. Wanda didn't order the spell!! She says to Stanley such a thing exists and that it would solve their problems. It was already forged, she just bought it.
Predictamancers = not a conincidence.

I think all there sales go like this...
Predicatamancer Bob the spell sales man: You want a custom spell to be forged for your unique three-caster link this turn, that only has application in one specific situation? Luckly we just got three in.

Capt'n Ironbrow
2009-01-07, 06:11 PM
I got the impression that the leadership-style of Erfworld involves actual cutting, slashing, slapping, biting, burning, bashing, pulverising and in other ways croaking enemy units. I think all warlords and commanders lead in this way when they're in a contested hex. The Erfworld ranks of warlord and commander units are also considered a level capability for a unit, both (game) rating and rank.
using a warlord in combat is beneficial, because they deal a lot of damage.

so if a Warlord or commander is requested/popped, he probably starts with higher stats than a commoner, unit possibly even stronger than the nation's elite trooper. Parson should, as requested, be at least as powerfull as a fresh warlord lvl 2 now the spell has ungoofed.

So yeah, Parson can fight now, and he will, in a clever, calculated manner that gives him the best odds of survival for another turn.

Parson should have stats now, because he has combat ability which implies that he now has the approproate stats for combat and of course, movement speed... which could be rather slow (probably). It hasn't been mentioned yet if his stats have become visible, no time, and maybe not an issue yet (more pressing matters at hand).
besides, Ansom does not have any information about the Faq mission, only that he arranged it and an attempt has been made/is in progress. for all he knows, the foolamancer never left Gobwin Knob (he didn't get a Stupid Meal).

Tarvok
2009-01-15, 03:46 PM
The thread's a week old, I know, but it's still on the front page, and it appears to lack my prediction.

I still think that Parson's status as a L2 warlord will, in the end, turn out to be insignificant in comparison to his status as an epic level game designer. I think he has some heretofore unrevealed powers of literally Titanic scale. In other words, he might still discover "god mode" or the "cheat codes" or what have you.

DevilDan
2009-01-15, 03:54 PM
I think he has some heretofore unrevealed powers of literally Titanic scale. In other words, he might still discover "god mode" or the "cheat codes" or what have you.

So he suddenly realizes that he is a demiurge or god. It's not the classic deus-ex-machina, but it's close to it.

(I can't believe I find myself even using the phrase. Look at that to which you've driven me!)

Doomduckie
2009-01-15, 04:35 PM
Yeah, I should hope that doesn't happen. I trust the authors' ability to write a little bit better than to pull a Deus Ex Machina of literal proportions. Or at very minimum to do a better one than that.

I'd like to see Parson leading from the back- fighting, but not in the thick of things, and not being good at fighting. There's a lot more to battles than having a sword, magic or not. Athletics, instinct, experience, luck, et cetera. Parson suddenly becoming Conan would be completely out of character and kind of weird.

But a leader fighting in a battle is nothing unusual- I can see him behind lines of uncroaked infantry, with golems protecting him and other soft targets like a foolamancer or thinkamancer, directing a battle, occasionally having to deal with enemies that come by via himself and his bodyguards.

But out on the front lines, eating marbits for breakfast? A little silly, considering his physique and the fact that he's never fought before.

headhoncho
2009-01-15, 04:43 PM
This whole strip is set up so that the protagonist is a guy like many gamers. He's transported to a world where he can fulfill the role he's always wanted fulfill. It's fanboy-heaven.

He's commanding the armies, enacting his schemes and plans, and there's no question in my mind that he's very soon going to wade into battle, with his sword, and that he's going to be great at it. (Plus there's the potential for a big, "What have I done," moment that might happen right after the fight.)

Half of me is expecting him to go work for Charlie at the end just so the authors can show him walking off with three Archons just like Vinnie did.

I'm telling you, it's fanboy-heaven. Which is one reason I love it.

DevilDan
2009-01-15, 04:59 PM
I'm telling you, it's fanboy-heaven. Which is one reason I love it.

Surely Parson is not the average Mary Sue?

headhoncho
2009-01-15, 05:05 PM
Surely Parson is not the average Mary Sue?

No way! Which is another reason I love it. :smallsmile:

#94
2009-01-17, 05:57 PM
(Plus there's the potential for a big, "What have I done," moment that might happen right after the fight.)

my prediction is this will not happen.

remember, one of his bonus's is "Ruthlessness" i suspect that will translate into parson-the-destroyer described above not having much of a problem with wiping out his enemy.

besides, there are better ways for parson to use himself in battle, for example ansom is definitly ballsy enough to try and fight parson man on man (even if he barely comes up to Parson's belt.). he might try and use himself to lure ansome (or jillian?) in to an ambush.

Godskook
2009-01-18, 05:18 AM
Surely Parson is not the average Mary Sue?

He isn't? Perfect warlord, remember? Admittedly, he's been given character development and been shown to have limitations, but none of his limitations affect his 'job'. He's turned a so-called sure-win for the RCC into a possible win for GK in ~6 turns, and he did it without a single 'important' casualty. Plot-wise, there are only 7 important people on GK's side: Stanley, Jack, Parson, Maggie, Wanda, Sizemore and Bogroll. Parson can't really affect what happens to Stanley/Jack, and we're all pretty sure that Parson lives till part two. That leaves the 3 casters and Bogroll, and I'm calling at least a minor gary stu if all 4 of them make it. Hell, I'll call it if one dies without it being Parson's 'fault'. Normal characters need to fail, and since I know Parson is going to successfully defend GK, the only way to make him normal is to have him is for him to fail at protecting someone close to him, i.e., a caster or Bogroll. And before anyone suggests it, heroic sacrifice would only make it worse, and I don't know of another way for him to die believably.

Also, for what he describes himself as (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0016.html), he has almost no character flaws. He's intelligent, assertive(not passive, not aggressive), has initiative, and can communicate well. I can't find in him one character flaw worthy of his background, and that, to me, says gary stu.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like the strip. In fact, Parson reminds me of an idealized version of me, and I'm sure others think that for themselves too.

FoE
2009-01-18, 06:08 AM
I can't find in him one character flaw worthy of his background, and that, to me, says gary stu.

This is too rich. First people were complaining that Parson's plans didn't work, and now you're saying he's too perfect. When does this madness end?

kreszantas
2009-01-18, 06:59 AM
I dont see how selling the items and trying "sploit" the mechanics make Parson any good in battle and to end that part of the thread as mentioned earlier. 1 the watch is "magic" from his world. Technology has been considered "magic" by time travelers that are older than the time they are in. 2 the watch takes Parsons knowledge on how to use it. 3 it combines things that only he would know like any other erf unit would pop with automatically. 4 even charlie states I want the artifact AND the warlord goes along with it meaning he knows the truth about the condition of needing both to work.

So is he good or bad to polar of a question, I say average for his type Cesar got his butt handed to him by a Foolish Stanley (not the real one) Jillian has be one shot and captured several times. Ansom just got crowned, so these Chief Warlords can be neutralized by various ways. I say he is probably a Webinar class and "Gaining" power as he gains knowledge of erf. Most mental generals never did the best on the front lines, Patton vs Rommel anyone? So brute strength is not always needed to WIN but being able to do the right manueauers at the right time is the key to victory which is all Parson cares about. In the end he would do merely defensive personal kills as he indicates with his personal stack until either surrender or is cwoaked.

DevilDan
2009-01-18, 11:54 AM
Now I'm sorry that I brought up "mary sue."

There are many flavors of the idea that it sometimes seems as if any hyped protagonist could fit the pattern. There are trade-offs; one is the fact that Parson does seem to be doing a lot of maturing off-screen; it's either that or end up getting impaled by a munchkin.

Tubercular Ox
2009-01-18, 03:31 PM
remember, one of his bonus's is "Ruthlessness" i suspect that will translate into parson-the-destroyer described above not having much of a problem with wiping out his enemy.

It's a good point, but just to be a pain, I've heard the argument that ruthlessness is the only true compassion. Someone dead and famous, my brain comes with a poor bibliography. The argument is that only by weighing people's lives as one would weigh gold can one in fact choose the best way to save the most lives. A modern example is the bomb in wwii: It supposedly stopped a massive loss of life that would come with a ground invasion.

You better hope that that ruthless warlord has complete information and can foresee all consequences or trouble will result,though. But anyone making decisions for the future suffers the same problems.

Gez
2009-01-18, 04:16 PM
Also, for what he describes himself as (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0016.html), he has almost no character flaws. He's intelligent, assertive(not passive, not aggressive), has initiative, and can communicate well. I can't find in him one character flaw worthy of his background, and that, to me, says gary stu.

Intelligent, to an extent, yeah. He's geeky. This implies a certain type of intelligence.

But, assertive, having initiative, and good communication skills? He's passive and has no initiative (list of grievances about why he's an escapist and an all-around no-life loser, followed by "I don't care trying to change any of that"). He doesn't communicate that well (nobody reads his webcomic, and he has no friends outside of that small group of gamers).

To some extent, the Sue comment can apply. Erfworld is a story of wish-fulfillment -- a no life dork obsessed by turn-based strategy game is magically, and through no effort of his own, transported to a world which reflects his hobby, where his mostly-useless-for-real-world hobby skills are extremely important, and where he's made an important leader immediately. But this is turning the concept on its head. The typical Sue is an annoyingly-perfect character, often an idealized author insertion. Here, on the other hand, a very flawed human being is sent to a bizarro world where he can be perfect only because the expectations aren't the same.

Kreistor
2009-01-18, 04:49 PM
113.4 "Having the Chief Warlord in the Hex adds another bonus..."

Parson does not have to be in combat to influence the strength of his units. Of course:

113.4 "The ones in his [Caesar's] personal stack will have his full bonus..."

So if Parson does get into combat with a full stack, he'll have significant protection.

Now, this runs up against...

Klog 4 "As Chief Warlord my leadership bonus applies to all units of my capital, so we know that my bonus is 2."

This means that the sentence "You and I will do that together, Wanda. We can turn this garrison into a meat grinder." is satisfied without Parson entering combat himself. Just by being in the city, Parson is helping Wanda's uncroaked. The only way to add a better bonus to a stack might be to only a single personal stack. I can't see Parson making himself vulnerable on the front line just to help a single stack, while risking losing the entire war.

Note that Parson told Maggie to use the spells, but to "Save your own juice." We know how Parson used Maggie in the past -- he calls a friend. He's going to be giving direct instructions via Maggie to Wanda and Sizemore in real time, otherwise there's no reason to hold Maggie back. He might do that from the front line, but I seriously doubt it, and he's not going to put Maggie on the front line, ever. Parson is no fool: he doesn't think with a leadership bonus of 2 he's going to have a really great personal combat score, and Parson won't test his sword on a faint hope that the sword makes him truly unbeatable. I really can't see Parson not watching this from the best observation post... the Tower, where he can look down on the battle real time and doesn't need to use reports or move tokens on maps. He's pretty much invulnerable there, for the moment, since Ansom has no air to use this turn except himself and he's injured already.

From the tunnel fighting, we can see that Ansom lacks significant communications. Parson has Maggie, and I think that is what will grind down RCC. He can see the battle, and order responses directly and immediately.

Hands_Of_Blue
2009-01-18, 06:15 PM
His sword is probably a good weapon, but Parson did make mention that he appears to be the only one who gets tired from all the walking they do, so the longer the battle goes on the worse it will be for him.

Olibarro
2009-01-18, 06:29 PM
This means that the sentence "You and I will do that together, Wanda. We can turn this garrison into a meat grinder." is satisfied without Parson entering combat himself. Just by being in the city, Parson is helping Wanda's uncroaked. The only way to add a better bonus to a stack might be to only a single personal stack. I can't see Parson making himself vulnerable on the front line just to help a single stack, while risking losing the entire war.
Unless he and Wanda are both included in a single stack of 3,000 units.

Tubercular Ox
2009-01-18, 06:54 PM
Unless he and Wanda are both included in a single stack of 3,000 units.

It's crazy how I think sometimes. This quote made me think the rules might be like Risk. You can only throw as many dice as you have troops, up to 3 for the attacker and 2 for the defender. So you send out stacks in groups of 2 or 3. For Erf, the max stack number is eight.

I also think the person who said that there is the big hex map for strategic movement and a small map for battles within a hex is right. With every new battle described I'm sold more on the idea.

So Ansom sends in troops in stacks of 8. Is Parson going to put together a stack of 3000 and throw it after a stack of 8, leaving all the other many stacks of 8 into the Courtyard unchallenged where, hopefully, if the rules make sense, they can do more damage than if they are challenged? I mean, yes, the current theory is that Parson wants stacks inside the courtyard, but how many exchanges can he leave them there unmolested as he pops off stacks one at a time with his stack of 3000 that only gets bonuses for the first 8 anyways?

If I were writing tabletop rules for Erf, I wouldn't have a small map in a hex -- that is, there's no tactical movement -- but I would have resource management: Separating your total units into stacks and throwing them against similar stacks separated by the enemy. I'd go into more detail, but it's pure speculation and not appropriate for the thread. Unfortunately, there simply aren't any plausible tabletop rules that can have a fight between thousands of units in a reasonable amount of time that matches the way the fights are described in the comic unless a computer is involved. Wow, that was a complicated sentence. As an example, Europa Universalis and other Paradox Interactive games have the most complex in-hex (well, in province) fighting rules I've ever seen, but the code is written in a way that most people don't even know what they are.

I suppose it could be a campaign-rules system. I mean, you do the strategic movement on the first of the month, and then spend the next four weekends fighting the battles in each hex that gets one.

Godskook
2009-01-18, 09:14 PM
But, assertive, having initiative, and good communication skills? He's passive and has no initiative (list of grievances about why he's an escapist and an all-around no-life loser, followed by "I don't care trying to change any of that"). He doesn't communicate that well (nobody reads his webcomic, and he has no friends outside of that small group of gamers).

All your examples are pre-comic. His history has flaws, but Parson, during the comic, has not been shown to keep them. Passive? C'mon, he's challenged Stanley, Wanda, and Sizemore on issues, to name a few; hell, with Sizemore he was able to clean up the emotions from the conflict well enough for Sizemore to be joking with him later that day(pages 76 and 78). As for initiative, all his learning of Erfworld was done on his initiative. We know this because Wanda/Stanley gave him almost no help, and Sizemore/Maggie are typically only offering him help in response to him seeking it. As for communication... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0093.html)

Olibarro
2009-01-18, 09:22 PM
So Ansom sends in troops in stacks of 8. Is Parson going to put together a stack of 3000 and throw it after a stack of 8, leaving all the other many stacks of 8 into the Courtyard unchallenged where, hopefully, if the rules make sense, they can do more damage than if they are challenged?
But we're not talking about the courtyard. That's lost. We're talking about pulling all our units back to the dungeon and turning the garrison into a "meat grinder."

In a limited space like that, have we seen anything that says that a single stack can be engaged by one and only one other stack? I don't think so. Have we seen anything that says that stacks of more than 8 units can only attack with so many of their units? No. It says the stacking bonus caps at 8, but not that you can't have stacks that are larger.

Thus, I could have Stack A made of 8 uncroaked and Stack B made of 6 uncroaked plus Parson and Wanda. They're in the same hex, so Stack A gets Parson's leadership bonus and Wanda croakamancer bonus plus the max stacking bonus. Stack B gets all of that but also get "the full bonus" from Parson and Wanda for being in their personal stack, plus artifact bonus.

As long as the rules don't say that you can only have 8 attacking/defending units in a single stack (and we've seen nothing that indicates we have that limit), then by combining Stacks A & B into a single stack, you ensure that ALL of the units now get those full bonuses that previously were only for Stack B.

Keep extending this, and it makes sense to pile a ton of units into a single stack so that ALL of them get the max warlord bonus, the max caster bonus, and the max artifact/item bonus (if any). Sure, the stacking bonus caps at 8, but that just means they have the same stacking bonus whether they have 8 or 800.

So far, we haven't seen anything that indicates that only so many units per stack can attack, therefore, mega-stacks could be perfectly reasonable--especially when you're backed into an extremely confined space--like the dungeons.

Erf commanders seem to take 8-unit stacks for granted. Maybe Parson has found a situation where he can surprise them and turn a mega-stack into an advantage that might not be applied in a more open space.

teratorn
2009-01-18, 09:48 PM
Erf commanders seem to take 8-unit stacks for granted.

Transylvitians attack with tens of bats in their stacks. So it's not granted.

I would not want many units in my stack, just enough to maximize the bonus, and when those die I'd ask a reserve stack to join. When a stack is engaged all units there are vulnerable. If you have 100 weak units in a stack attacked by an archon all of them can be killed by a single shot. Likewise for any kind of ranged attacks.

I only see value in a big stack if you're covering a very large front and even then I'm not sure about the area limits for a stack.

Olibarro
2009-01-18, 09:56 PM
If you have 100 weak units in a stack attacked by an archon all of them can be killed by a single shot. Likewise for any kind of ranged attacks.
Everything you posit, along with everything I'm saying, may or may not be true and may or may not apply to real situations in Erf based on many rules that have yet to be revealed.

I agree that what you say is probably true for combat in open space, but Parson is specifically looking at pulling everything back to the dungeon and working from an extremely confined space. Who knows what "area-of-effect" means in Erf at all, much less in a portion of a portion of a space like the dungeon part of the garrison?

I think the "meat grinder" effect Parson mentions will be something very like the "mega-stack" I'm proposing: all the units piled into a single tiny space, and all taking maximum bonuses and multipliers for all available effects. Just like the bats in Cesar's personal stack "were all like heavies," well so all the normally-weak uncroaked in Parson and Wanda's personal stack will be "like heavies" or even moreso with all the bonuses Parson brings to bear.

We'll see.

Gez
2009-01-18, 10:12 PM
All your examples are pre-comic. His history has flaws, but Parson, during the comic, has not been shown to keep them. Passive? C'mon, he's challenged Stanley, Wanda, and Sizemore on issues, to name a few; hell, with Sizemore he was able to clean up the emotions from the conflict well enough for Sizemore to be joking with him later that day(pages 76 and 78). As for initiative, all his learning of Erfworld was done on his initiative. We know this because Wanda/Stanley gave him almost no help, and Sizemore/Maggie are typically only offering him help in response to him seeking it. As for communication... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0093.html)

He's in a game. He feels in his element. Plus, he's in a position of authority and responsibility, instead of having a crappy job at Kinko's.

How many people do you know, on the Internet, that would never be assertive or show initiative "in real life" to the extent they do through their avatars? Same thing.

quindraco
2009-01-18, 10:14 PM
I'd say it was made by the summoning spell. "Help the summon spell fix its goof". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0118.html) Which begs the question: If you can pay 500k shmuckers for a spell, summon the perfect Warlord, and he will be retrofitted with a 500k shmuckers or maybe more (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0060.html) and a magic sword, then you can afford to buy the spell over and over until you've got a legion of Warlords with a magic sword, selling the mathamancy artifact each time to pay for the next spell. In fact, by having Wanda cast the spell rather than purchasing the support contract you'd make 150k shmuckers per casting, or more depending on how much more than 500k the purchasers of the mathamancy item/artifact were willing to pay. On the second casting you could then afford to pay full price and get a perfect Warlord who doesn't need items to be awesome. This is a logical inconsistency within the storyline.

Assuming you lack your own caster, you will lose schmuckers by the thousandfold if someone attempts your plan, since the Warlord has upkeep to pay: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0042.html

Assuming you have your own caster, the cost of the caster must be included in the analysis; if Parson costs 350k, 150k strikes me as reasonable for Wanda. Note also that Wanda was fed *variables* while casting the spell; it is implied that you'd get someone different from Parson if you specified different attributes (I think the spell defines "Perfect" based on what the user asks for). Thus, the mathamancy gauntlet may well be Parson specific; if by Perfect warlord you wanted a close combat monster, for example, you might instead summon a martial artist from our world.

If I'm 100% wrong, then your theory definitely fails; if there's one definition of Perfect set by the spellcrafters, then the spell always summons Parson. Summoning Parson when you already own Parson might be fun at parties, but you can't earn money by moving him across the hex.

You also assume the existence of buyers; Sizemore's estimate is NOT about selling the gauntlet back to the universe, it's about finding a fellow Erfer who wants to buy it. Not only are wealthy, interested buyers presumably rare, but every time you pull this stunt, the value of the gauntlet drops, because the number in existence goes up.

Suicide Junkie
2009-01-18, 10:21 PM
On the 8-stack: A square arrangement of 3x3 would allow for 8 units on the outside capable of attacking.

Just because the strategic map is hex based does not mean the tactical grid must be hex if it exists.

Bonuses to combat for up to 8 guys, with the penalty of #9 and up not being able to fight until one of the 8 slots is freed up... That would make for a compelling reason to stack to 8 or 9 and rarely if ever more.

I'm thinking of the Dwagons hiding in the ring; there could be a mechanic along the lines of "fully concealed units can only be attacked by one stack at a time, and get automatic initiative".
In order to beat dwagons with initiative, you'd need a stack that can survive that first attack, so that you get a chance to do damage in return. A max stack provides cannon fodder to absorb the hitsies, and even though you might lose a dozen infantry and take splash damage to your heavies, you'll still have more troops to hurt back with.

Fliers with leadership would get to make the first blow, even if they lose initiative, since ground based enemies can't reach them.
If the flying leader can strike one unit and destroy it fast enough, they could save enough time to disengage by flying up before the ground forces have a chance to strike back... they'd be immune to anything other than archers.
I'm thinking both Jillian vs the skellies and twoll (massive overkill instant death on each skeleton), and Ansom on the walls (auto-dust instant death: dip-swipe-bob, repeat ad nauseum)
Against units with enough stacking/leadership/caster bonus to avoid instant death shots, the ground forces would get a chance to hit back.
This would be more like the "Nom Nom Nom" during the Siege attack (sapper marbits worthy of attack?)



But we're not talking about the courtyard. That's lost. We're talking about pulling all our units back to the dungeon and turning the garrison into a "meat grinder."As of 138 (page 125), the courtyard is not lost.

Panel 8 clearly shows the situation from above: There are still a few stragglers outside GK. The rest of the units are flowing through the outer walls, and gathering in the city around the intact courtyard walls.

Within a page or two, the courtyard will probably fall, and only then will Ansom have control of a part of the garrison (the courtyard specifically). After he takes the courtyard, he can climb the stairs to attack the tower, or descend the stairs to attack the dungeon.

Presuming that he has enough troops left in fighting condition after the courtyard battle, that is.

Tubercular Ox
2009-01-18, 10:32 PM
But we're not talking about the courtyard. That's lost. We're talking about pulling all our units back to the dungeon and turning the garrison into a "meat grinder."

Hasn't there been enough argument about this? Gobwin Knob has four defenseive zones. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0109.html) Garrison: Can only be attacked with total control over one of the other zones. If the zone you attack from is the outer walls, the garrison walls must also be breached.

Garrison zone has three parts. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0129.html) Courtyard borders Outer Walls.

Ansom is clearly between two walls (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0137.html) in the last panel. This is why he pulls up the siege (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0138.html) in this last panel.

Conclusion: The courtyard is behind the garrison walls, because it is a part of the Garrison, and the Garrison cannot be attacked from the outer walls unless the Garrison walls are breached, and Ansom has not breached the Garrison walls; hence, the courtyard has not been lost. Also, it will be the first zone that Ansom enters. The whole breaching-the-walls thing drives me nuts because it's so vague about where people die. At least when there was fighting in the tunnels, we knew the dead were in the tunnels. If Ansom were not in the Outer Walls zone, his only other option would be to be in a hypothetical zone known as the main city area, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0136.html) except that we have been told the Courtyard, protected by the Garrison walls, borders the Outer Walls.


Keep extending this, and it makes sense to pile a ton of units into a single stack so that ALL of them get the max warlord bonus, the max caster bonus, and the max artifact/item bonus (if any).

That is exactly the flaw. If it made sense, people would do it. Maybe Ansom's that big an idiot, but Vinnie isn't, and he certainly made the distinction between the warlord's personal stack and other stacks in the same hex when fighting Stanley. Okay, yeah, I'm assuming that fight all happened in the same hex, but if it didn't, Stanley could have just flown around the hex with the Chief Warlord in it, or, if he could not, the Chief Warlord would not have needed other stacks to screen for him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html) so he had a shot at Stanley.


Maybe Parson has found a situation where he can surprise them and turn a mega-stack into an advantage that might not be applied in a more open space.

Parson's great revelation in the last few comics has been that combat is about multipliers, something Vinnie already realized, so yeah... I think multiple stacks have an advantage, even when some of them will not have the biggest bonus possible, since Vinnie was probably smart enough to divide stacks optimally in the Stanley battle.


So far, we haven't seen anything that indicates that only so many units per stack can attack,

You may have something. The only evidence I have is circumstantial... We know that flying stacks with a commander may selectively engage non-fliers on their own turn (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0052.html) But the marbit pikemen still got a chance to attack a green dwagon. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0056.html) My interpretation is that engaging the siege allowed other units in the same stack as the siege to attack the dwagons.

Let's move on to Ansom. He's assaulting the outer walls using the same rules. So, Parson, whom you assume would secretly know the benefits of a massive stack that the rest of the Erfworlders clearly missed, could have put all one thousand undead into a single stack, and all one thousand would have gotten a chance to attack ansom in the first round of combat. I don't think even Ansom would have survived that.

Hot damn, I took too long writing this. So many responses. Ah well, posting anyways without reading.

Massive EDIT: Alright, I've read them. The same-stack-attack theory still applies if the marbits are sappers: His sapper buddies in the stack got to attack the Dwagon while he was nomnomnom on the one sapper.

I like the theory that overcoming initiative is a good reason to use stacks larger than 8. It beats my theory that the number of units in a stack that can attack might be related to relative size, because size rules would just bung up the works while an initiative rule would be easy to implement. Occam's razor isn't proof but oh well.

Snarky comment: I have proof that Parson is still not the perfect warlord. His daily breakfast has yet to make him dashing and handsome (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0017.html).

teratorn
2009-01-18, 11:04 PM
I do believe that the meat grinder is to let Ansom and all his troops pour into the courtyard in a disorganized way and then flood them with a large stack of undead lead by Wanda and Parson, so they'll all use their bonuses (TV style).

That'll ensure huge casualties on both sides. But it doesn't need to be thousands in the same stack, probably just a few tens or hundreds. Wanda just needs to keep adding new units to the stack as the ones in the front are de-uncroaked.

DevilDan
2009-01-18, 11:12 PM
This means that the sentence "You and I will do that together, Wanda. We can turn this garrison into a meat grinder." is satisfied without Parson entering combat himself. Just by being in the city, Parson is helping Wanda's uncroaked. The only way to add a better bonus to a stack might be to only a single personal stack. I can't see Parson making himself vulnerable on the front line just to help a single stack, while risking losing the entire war.

Note that Parson told Maggie to use the spells, but to "Save your own juice." We know how Parson used Maggie in the past -- he calls a friend. He's going to be giving direct instructions via Maggie to Wanda and Sizemore in real time, otherwise there's no reason to hold Maggie back. He might do that from the front line, but I seriously doubt it, and he's not going to put Maggie on the front line, ever. Parson is no fool: he doesn't think with a leadership bonus of 2 he's going to have a really great personal combat score, and Parson won't test his sword on a faint hope that the sword makes him truly unbeatable. I really can't see Parson not watching this from the best observation post... the Tower, where he can look down on the battle real time and doesn't need to use reports or move tokens on maps. He's pretty much invulnerable there, for the moment, since Ansom has no air to use this turn except himself and he's injured already.

It sounds to me as if he is not staying with Maggie, so there is some reason why he feels he needs to be closer to the front lines, possibly because he knows that he will be guiding a lot of the action and making decisions on the fly. Why would he include himself with Wanda or mention his part if his bonus would apply whether he stays, hides in a closet, or takes a nap? (Of course, he could just be mentioning that he'll be overseeing things through Maggie, but that would possibly tie up Maggie unnecessarily when she could be whacking their leadership. Plus, it sounds a little self-important or silly: "We'll both be doing this together, Wanda, it's just that I'll be back here chillin' and you'll be up front hacking and slashing... but I'm jazzed about teaming up with you!)

I kinda think that one reason he wants Maggie to save her own juice is because he will still be trying to communicate with someone in the RCC or with Charlie.

I think that there's some possibility that Parson's bonus has improved since he first popped. There's also a possibility that it's better if he's at least in the courtyard rather than in the dungeon. And he already gave up his vantage point in the tower.

Eisen
2009-01-19, 10:59 AM
I think that there's some possibility that Parson's bonus has improved since he first popped.

This. Don't forget the sword kids. It might have improved his stats. It has to do SOMETHING.

DevilDan
2009-01-19, 11:48 AM
This. Don't forget the sword kids. It might have improved his stats. It has to do SOMETHING.

Particularly the specific mention of Leadership and Combat. Although I suppose they could refer to as intangible traits as Ruthlessness, the third bonus.

Tubercular Ox
2009-01-19, 02:46 PM
Particularly the specific mention of Leadership and Combat. Although I suppose they could refer to as intangible traits as Ruthlessness, the third bonus.

"Dance fighting, for boop's sake!" I would prefer to make the exception conform to the norm rather than conform the norm to the exception. IE, I'd rather believe Ruthlessness was a stat bonus; there's precedent for all sorts of weird specials and bonuses.

MadMaw
2009-01-19, 07:09 PM
Why would he include himself with Wanda or mention his part if his bonus would apply whether he stays, hides in a closet, or takes a nap?

The stack that includes Parson will have his "full bonus" whatever that means, seepage 125 panel 5 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html). In the example, combined with the other bonuses mentioned, it makes bats the bats in Caesars stack "almost like heavies". It's unclear whether having two warlords (or a warlord and a croakamancer) in the same stack gives a higher bonus than one, but Parson has merged stacks led by seperate warlords in the past to try to deal with Jillian (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0076.html), so maybe. We know stacks lead by other warlords (if they have any left) have a bonus boosted by Parsons hex-wide bonus.

The implication of this klog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html) is that the caster (or warlord) bonus only applies to the stack that the caster is leading, so my guess is that a mega-stack of uncroaked lead by Wanda (and maybe Parson too) most likely outweighs the benefits of splitting the stacks into 8 to maximise the stacking bonus.

DevilDan
2009-01-19, 09:51 PM
The stack that includes Parson will have his "full bonus" whatever that means, seepage 125 panel 5 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html). ...

My point was precisely that there are probably reasons why he will not be just way in the back, even if he may be GK's most valuable unit.

MadMaw
2009-01-19, 11:17 PM
My point was precisely that there are probably reasons why he will not be just way in the back, even if he may be GK's most valuable unit.

Ah yes, so I see. I was a fool to doubt you DevilDan

LurkerInPlayground
2009-01-19, 11:38 PM
I see it as Parson imparting a warlord bonus to units in his immediate stack, something similar to Caesar's own bonus to the bats in his stack.

He may chop a few heads, but I see him being present more for leadership reasons, than for any reasons of related to combat efficacy.

And for all that, he wouldn't even have to be skilled to kill a few mooks. He has a magic sword after all.

Kreistor
2009-01-20, 01:30 AM
It's crazy how I think sometimes. This quote made me think the rules might be like Risk. You can only throw as many dice as you have troops, up to 3 for the attacker and 2 for the defender. So you send out stacks in groups of 2 or 3. For Erf, the max stack number is eight.

No, that's not true. The stack bonus caps at 8. Klog 4: "groups of units get a stack bonus that caps at 8, so you see a lot of 8 man formations." Nothing in that caps the stack limit at 8. In fact, the same logic as to why a huge stack in Risk is more powerful than a dozen small stacks applies. On a tie, a 3 vs. 3 man fight in Risk becomes a 2-2, where the odds favor the defender. In a 10 vs. 3 then 3 then 3 then 1, the attacker has much better odds. About 1/3 times, both sides lose 1. If that happens early, when facing a 2 or 3 stack enemy, the big stack attack always rolls three dice and the attack continues. The small stack defender faces periodic 1 die rolls, and suffers increased losses.

Same goes with Erfworld. Even though the bonus begins at 8, once battle begins, a single loss brings that bonus down to 7. Imagine a 16 unit stack facing two 8 unit stacks. If either of the 8 unit stacks loses a man, that stack drops to a 7 bonus. If the 15 man stack loses 1, then it retains the 8 stack bonus. It is now a 15 with 8 vs. 8 with 8 and 7 with 7 fight. The advantage now lies with the 15 man stack.

Why 8 man stacks are prevalent, I cannot imagine. It is on the cusp of losing it's 8 bonus all the time, and you can't expect a stack to not sufer losses.


I also think the person who said that there is the big hex map for strategic movement and a small map for battles within a hex is right. With every new battle described I'm sold more on the idea.

I'm not. I see no evidence in the formations that inside a hex there are any limitations on position. The best evidence is Jillian's battles with the various dwagons. She chooses to move up to its neck. She knows exactly how and where to strike to hit its most vulnerable spot. There is no hex position limiting her to staying outside the dwagon's general area. Also, Stanley's fight with the bats shows no evidence whatsoever of a positional limitation on the bat swarms: they are a jumbled mass of unidentifiable stacks. If there was a hex grd, there would be discernable borders in the swarms where the hexes edged.


So Ansom sends in troops in stacks of 8. Is Parson going to put together a stack of 3000 and throw it after a stack of 8, leaving all the other many stacks of 8 into the Courtyard unchallenged where, hopefully, if the rules make sense, they can do more damage than if they are challenged?

This is highly unlikely to be a problem. 3000 men use up a lot of space. Just because they are "stacked", in Erfworld they still take up physical space. You can't bypass enemies just because someone else is fighting them. Heck, Stanley couldn't even bypass Jillian while he was veiled: he was only allowed to run away, despite her inability to engage him or physically prevent his forward movement.


I mean, yes, the current theory is that Parson wants stacks inside the courtyard, but how many exchanges can he leave them there unmolested as he pops off stacks one at a time with his stack of 3000 that only gets bonuses for the first 8 anyways?

Okay, you need to reread Klog 4. That's not what it says. The stack bonus maxes at 8. There's no mention of any penalty for a 9th man in a stack, so the 9th unit also gets a stack bonus of 8. A stack of 8 that suffers a loss has a bonus of 7, while a stack of 3000 that loses 1 still has a bonus of 8.

There has to be something more that inspires smaller stack sizes. I can think of half a dozen things, but until the author releases more rules, I have to say that if this is all, then the guy that stacks in 16's will probably win until the enemy does the same and he has to up it to 32.

Oh, and hey, there's another advantage to large stacks, especially when dealing with Chief Warlords. The Chief Warlord's personal stack gets his full bonus. the larger his stack, the more men get that bonus.

Tubercular Ox
2009-01-20, 03:26 AM
Why 8 man stacks are prevalent, I cannot imagine. It is on the cusp of losing it's 8 bonus all the time, and you can't expect a stack to not sufer losses.

Yeah, I'm rethinking the idea of no big stacks. Starting with the very first page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0001.html) we see rather large masses of troops. While in theory they could be several small stacks huddled closely together... why? There's no good reason.

I see no evidence in the formations that inside a hex there are any limitations on position.

Well, there's no evidence of limitations on position when they draw strategic terrain either. We only see actual hexes on maps drawn by erfworlders... or when Jillian slams into the glass wall at the end of a hex.

But yeah, I'm leaning away from a small map, hexed or otherwise. OTOH I do see LOTS of evidence that there's more going on than just a single die roll, or even chuck-a-luck Warhammer style. My current imagination includes some sort of mapless tactical resolution. I wish I could think of a good contemporary example. As a germ to get your mind headed in the right direction, think of the combat mechanics in Magic the Gathering -- no I'm not suggesting it's a card game! -- You declare your attackers, your opponent declares defenders, you line them up against each other according to set rules, and then they exchange blows. It's dead simple. Erfworld obviously uses dice at some point, else there'd be no Luckmancers. Then you add flying, trample, first strike, rancor, etc. etc. Does anyone here remember Banding? If you imagine the player's life total as the stack leader, you can see why Vinny needed screens to give Caesar a shot at Stanley. You have to occupy all your opponent's stacks. I feel like if I went through every battle with this in mind, I'd have some pretty detailed, usable rules.

Just because they are "stacked", in Erfworld they still take up physical space.
So is there a small map or isn't there? Maybe an in-hex fight is a good old fashioned bring-your-tape-measure wargame, wherein individual troops can take up space. But IMO there simply aren't enough stats showing up on the 3-D glasses to support that. For starters, you'd have to believe that a unit's strategic move in hexes is the same as their tactical move in, oh, inches or centimeters. Which is a sorry thing for Bogroll. OTOH, from Jack's stats, we know the glasses do not in fact reveal all.


There has to be something more that inspires smaller stack sizes.
Yes. There must. Because people are not building huge stacks. Vinnie had hundreds of bats, and if it were at all useful, Caesar would've been in charge of all of them.

The 8-man stacks we see tend to be big troops. 3 warlords and 5 dwagons, Webinar and 7 heavies. I think at the very top end of the scale like this, the limiter is economics. You want a lot of stacks of heavies to give you strategic options -- for example, rescuing Jillian -- but heavies are expensive, so you want them to be well protected. If you keep adding heavies to the stack, they get stronger and stronger until you hit 8. So while it's true the 9th heavy would give the stack more depth, the marginal advantage of that 9th heavy is a lot less than the 8th heavy's, which makes it a good stopping point... you can use that 9th heavy to beef up a stack of medium units, giving you more flexibility.

Capt'n Ironbrow
2009-01-20, 05:16 AM
Space issues within hexes... hmmm... I think that's not really a problem, as far as I have seen, the amount of space in a single hex is more than enough for hundreds of units and even leaves room for manoeuvre. The City is a single hex, isn't it?

for all we know, the battle of Warchalking might have been a single-hex combat.

Aquillion
2009-01-20, 06:13 AM
Snarky comment: I have proof that Parson is still not the perfect warlord. His daily breakfast has yet to make him dashing and handsome (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0017.html).He's been dashing everywhere since he arrived in Erfworld.

And... well... maybe Bogroll thinks he's handsome. :smalltongue:

teratorn
2009-01-20, 09:38 AM
Why would he include himself with Wanda or mention his part if his bonus would apply whether he stays, hides in a closet, or takes a nap?

Because his bonus will apply twice. The stack will get his bonus as overlord in the hex, plus the bonus as stack leader. Same thing as with Caeser, the units in his stack were like heavies from getting his bonus twice.

The Caeser example is why I think you can't simply stack every thing in the same stack or he would have put way more bats there. There must be a limit on unit number or volume/area taken by units.

SteveMB
2009-01-20, 10:11 AM
Because his bonus will apply twice. The stack will get his bonus as overlord in the hex, plus the bonus as stack leader. Same thing as with Caeser, the units in his stack were like heavies from getting his bonus twice.

Ansom mentions that his units would lose "my direct bonus" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0064.html) if he left.


The Caeser example is why I think you can't simply stack every thing in the same stack or he would have put way more bats there. There must be a limit on unit number or volume/area taken by units.

Tarfu refers to "a max stack" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0064.html), implying some sort of limit.

kreszantas
2009-01-20, 10:26 AM
I agree and it has to be more than in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0063.html panel 5 where we actually see 8 man stack of archers... so there whole stack is higher than 8 but could be dependant on command or lack thereof as well.

Manga Shoggoth
2009-01-20, 11:33 AM
It's a good point, but just to be a pain, I've heard the argument that ruthlessness is the only true compassion. Someone dead and famous, my brain comes with a poor bibliography. The argument is that only by weighing people's lives as one would weigh gold can one in fact choose the best way to save the most lives. A modern example is the bomb in wwii: It supposedly stopped a massive loss of life that would come with a ground invasion.

Is this what you were thinking of?

To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty. - Maximilien Robespierre, 1794

Lamech
2009-01-20, 01:24 PM
The Caeser example is why I think you can't simply stack every thing in the same stack or he would have put way more bats there. There must be a limit on unit number or volume/area taken by units.
I'm wondering about that too. I think it could have been Ceaser had enough units to kill Stanley; IF they stayed heavies, but if Stanley had a kill-warlord, or a kill-stack button, no stack could have done the trick. Also he needed other stacks to screen; if those warlords only had a few bats they could have been killed and not done there jobs. Or this is an example of stack limits...

Tubercular Ox
2009-01-20, 01:26 PM
Tarfu refers to "a max stack" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0064.html), implying some sort of limit.

This strengthens my opinion that when Ansom debates punching out of the hex and says "leaving our forest units here in the dwagon's nest" he has his strategic flexibility in mind and not (only) altruism.


To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty. - Maximilien Robespierre, 1794

Aargh, no, I think it's Chinese, which makes it hard to google because someone's translating the word differently. I'm frustrated because I can't find it. If I do, I'll edit this post.

EDIT: It might have been a commentary on the line in the Daodejing that exhorts the sage to treat all people as straw dogs. People tend to think of them as without value; one source says they were used as scarecrows. So the source is saying, in this opinion, to treat people as having no value -- be unattached to them. In this way one can rightly judge what is truly best for all the people, without favor or prejudice. Apologists will drop the "valueless" and say it is an exhortation to treat all people equally.

The opinion I have, and it's hard for me to articulate and I don't think I've seen it elsewhere, is based on the use of straw dogs as votive objects. You would make one, put it in the temple, treat it as sacred for a while, then when its time was up, you broke it in half and left it on the garbage heap without a second thought. So I have my own little tautology to sum it up: People are important until they aren't. It's my own little zen koan.

But I still don't think this is the source. I'm almost certain it was a military treatise, and it definitely encouraged taking borderline immoral actions if it could close the war more quickly in your favor, thus saving lives and materiel. You know, things like violating the eternal rest of a thousand Jetstone troops and putting them on the walls. Or lacing the tunnels with poisonous gas traps.

Capt'n Ironbrow
2009-01-20, 04:40 PM
I think that the only good military treatises about strategy follow the opinion that a war should be resolved quickly, preserving life and materiel. None of the western and eastern military classics advocate a long and costly war... that is: for the attacking army. In some cases, it is best for the defending side to wait it out, prolong the conflict to stretch the resources of the invader to breaking point after which a decision can be made by force, treaty or the withdrawal of the invader.

as to maximum stacks, I've read somewhere that from ancient times 'till now, the most men a single unit leader could control was about 20-50 men. Maybe that's true in Erfworld too... otherwise, it "max stack" could refer to the number of available bonus points for the stack...

I don't believe there is a natural limit to unit size. In a lot of pictures there are formations that appear much larger than 8 units (if each erfworlder is a unit on it's own)... which could be circumstantial, a real life company is 80-200 men divided into several smaller units who are in-turn subdivided in to even smaller parts (platoons of 32, squads of 8) the big formations at warchalking and Gobwin Knob might simply be heaps of 8-men stacks.

Aquillion
2009-01-20, 05:00 PM
I'm wondering about that too. I think it could have been Ceaser had enough units to kill Stanley; IF they stayed heavies, but if Stanley had a kill-warlord, or a kill-stack button, no stack could have done the trick. Also he needed other stacks to screen; if those warlords only had a few bats they could have been killed and not done there jobs. Or this is an example of stack limits...And we did, in fact, see Stanley using a kill-stack button. The problem in many games with putting all your weak units together in one place around a multiplier is that generally those multipliers only increase attack or defense (against normal attacks), and not hitpoints... so one AOE attack can still kill all of them.

And that is, in fact, what happened. If Ceasar had had more bats, it just would've given Stanley more kills when he used his 'Van de Graf' attack.

fehler
2009-01-20, 05:08 PM
Unled stacks do stupid things, such as attack indescrimately and the like. And leadership can be targeted by led stacks. Therefore, if you put your entire army in one giant stack, it could soon be running around like a chicken with its head cut off.