PDA

View Full Version : Stanley is SO dead!



pasko77
2009-04-23, 02:39 AM
My prediction for the last pages of the book is that Wanda (aka the Real BBEG) made FAQ fall, faked loyalty to Stanley and will take his role by killing him. In this way, she will also have control over Parson.
Still to explain Wanda-Ansom relationship, though.

Opinions?

Iain
2009-04-23, 04:21 AM
faked loyalty to Stanley and will take his role by killing him.
Take his role, or split off to her own, quite possibly. Or stay and continue to manipulate him works too. Killing him? Probably not - I've not noticed any foreshadowing about anyone else wielding the Arkenhammer, for one thing.

Oslecamo
2009-04-23, 05:58 AM
I doubt Wanda is strong enough to kill Stanley yet.

And the other mancers are loyal to him, not Wanda.

But yes, she'll probably start pulling more strings, but it will probably be a win-win relationship. There's plenty of space for them to expand togheter. Wanda wouldn't really want to kill one of her remaining allies when the rest of Efworld pretty much fears/hates her.

They make a pretty strong pair, Stanley providing the brawn and face while Wanda being the brains and hands.

Bookkeeper@Arms
2009-04-23, 06:15 AM
Wanda can only take up Stanley's role if he's designated her as his heir. There's no indication that Stanley has a Designated Heir or not. (More likely not - the last thing he'd want is a potential backstabber in his inner circle.)

Mind you, I still think that the summoning spell made Parson into Stanley's Designated Heir. After all, a warlord who can't take over when the Overlord falls is less than perfect, and the spell is supposed to summon a Perfect Warlord.

Crod
2009-04-23, 06:22 AM
But with Stanley dead and no heir, what's left of Gobwin Knob would be an abandoned city, so Wanda might be able to claim it while being barbarian and become the new Overlady.

mrlovanhey
2009-04-23, 07:34 AM
I for my part am just really curious as to what the pliers enable Wanda to do. The hammer gave Stanley the power over dwagons. Charlie's dish gave him archons (or at least that's how I perceived it). So it seems to me that every arkentool commands some kind of greater unit, that the wielder of said tool can control.

HandofShadows
2009-04-23, 08:20 AM
Wanada looks like she is about to uncroak Ansom. Revenge is a dish served cold I guess, in case corpse cold. But what if it isn't an uncroking? That the pliers can do more than that?

Gez
2009-04-23, 08:31 AM
Is there any reason to suppose that a single person can be attuned to several arkentools? That would seem to go against the tropes.

Sweetie Welf
2009-04-23, 09:54 AM
We don't know if Wanda was only pretending loyalty to Stanley; there could still be more to that thing. Wanda refused to turn when Jillian offered her the opportunity. And that was at a point in time where she expected her side to lose. If she switched sides, she could try to manipulate Ansom and backstab him later.

And Stanley is a seasoned, highlevel warlord with a bunch of dwagons. Wanda can only attack him with air units (if she finds some Archons) or magic. And Stanley has probably a really high saving throw. It's way easier for Wanda to manipulate him than to beat him.

SteveMB
2009-04-23, 10:06 AM
We don't know if Wanda was only pretending loyalty to Stanley; there could still be more to that thing. Wanda refused to turn when Jillian offered her the opportunity. And that was at a point in time where she expected her side to lose. If she switched sides, she could try to manipulate Ansom and backstab him later.

At that point, she may have expected her side to win. First, this was before Parson's ignorance of Erfworld basics became evident -- the last thing she heard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0024.html) before Stanley presented her "surprise treat" was that he'd just spent months thinking over variations of this specific scenario. Second, victory in this battle may have been part of the Predictamancy revelation of her destiny to obtain the Arkenpliers.

Also, there was never much chance of her getting into Ansom's confidence, given his feelings about Croakamancy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0135.html).

pasko77
2009-04-23, 10:14 AM
But with Stanley dead and no heir, what's left of Gobwin Knob would be an abandoned city, so Wanda might be able to claim it while being barbarian and become the new Overlady.

Yes, this is the "mechanic" i imagined, it would be allowed by the rules we know.

Mukashi
2009-04-23, 10:26 AM
I for my part am just really curious as to what the pliers enable Wanda to do. The hammer gave Stanley the power over dwagons. Charlie's dish gave him archons (or at least that's how I perceived it). So it seems to me that every arkentool commands some kind of greater unit, that the wielder of said tool can control.

Given that Ansom was describing it as a powerful weapon against the uncroaked, I have a feeling it will significantly enhance her already master level powers over the uncroaked.

DevilDan
2009-04-23, 10:41 AM
It seems likely that Wanda betrayed Faq, which is at best anomalous as far as we know. Another anomaly is Saline IV's death at the hands of opportunistic traitors.

There is a lot of fluidity to the "rules" of loyalty and duty: plotamancy has clearly trumped them a few times.

Sweetie Welf
2009-04-23, 10:42 AM
At that point, she may have expected her side to win. First, this was before Parson's ignorance of Erfworld basics became evident -- the last thing she heard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0024.html) before Stanley presented her "surprise treat" was that he'd just spent months thinking over variations of this specific scenario. Second, victory in this battle may have been part of the Predictamancy revelation of her destiny to obtain the Arkenpliers.

I was referring to the second time on the tower; at that time Stanley's defeat was very probable and he left Wanda in a surrounded city. From her 4 possible choices - run with some uncroaked fliers, use the portal, stay in the city and die, turn to Jillian - the latter was the most promising.
And for a woman like Wanda deep rooting distrust is just a little challenge.

DevilDan
2009-04-23, 12:11 PM
It seems likely that Wanda betrayed Faq, which is at best anomalous as far as we know. Another anomaly is Saline IV's death at the hands of opportunistic traitors.

There is a lot of fluidity to the "rules" of loyalty and duty: plotamancy has clearly trumped them a few times.

Fjolnir
2009-04-23, 12:19 PM
one problem with the "wanda claims GK over stanley's dead body" theory in order to not "go neutral" (that is just stand there until captured or killed) you need to be the heir to the throne or in the stack with the heir (both jillian and stanley go barbarian when their leaders die however this is stated not to be the norm for units in one of the earlier klogs)

LurkerInPlayground
2009-04-23, 12:44 PM
one problem with the "wanda claims GK over stanley's dead body" theory in order to not "go neutral" (that is just stand there until captured or killed) you need to be the heir to the throne or in the stack with the heir (both jillian and stanley go barbarian when their leaders die however this is stated not to be the norm for units in one of the earlier klogs)
The thing is that both Stanley and Jillian are designated heirs, and therefore do not go neutral, they become barbarians instead.

Parson would simply go neutral if Stanley got croaked and wouldn't have the option of being a barbarian, excepting any intrinsic rulebreaking plot magic.

It's clear at this juncture that Wanda is the puppetmaster type and is resigned to being the power behind the throne. She was born of relatively high status, but not high enough, so she'll settle for being influential instead.

The thing is that Stanley is easily manipulable, while Ansom generally despised her. Plus, she hates Ansom for stealing Jillian, so it's not likely that she'd be all that rational about it, even if she had a real opportunity to change sides.

Kreistor
2009-04-23, 12:58 PM
The thing is that both Stanley and Jillian are designated heirs, and therefore do not go neutral, they become barbarians instead.

Others can go barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0114.html). Including non-heirs.

You might start to consider Barbarian = neutral...

Fjolnir
2009-04-23, 01:09 PM
I think that that's unique to the magic kingdom, casters there don't need to belong to a side but they have go to be hired out, especially since it doesn't jibe with all the other facts given before and after the page. barbarian and neutral are 2 different things either explaining uncommon circumstances or conditions within the erfian rules

LurkerInPlayground
2009-04-23, 01:14 PM
Others can go barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0114.html). Including non-heirs.

You might start to consider Barbarian = neutral...
Umm. Yes to the first line. No to the second.

Barbarians can have turns independent of an actual territory. Jillian lost her side and was able to have her own turns.

Parson's Klog establishes that "neutrality" just means you're a bunch of units sitting around without any turns. So unless you have an official ruler, you can't actually have turns.

So basically, casters would become neutral if Stanley were dead. They'd presumably eat (consume upkeep funds) and could maybe go to the Magic Kingdom to socialize (since I assume the Magic Kingdom follows some sort of convenient in-house magic shop that technically doesn't "leave" the city), but they wouldn't be able to do much else.

If Stanley were alive, they'd become barbarians by virtue of Stanley becoming a barbarian.

HandofShadows
2009-04-23, 01:21 PM
I think a question people are overlooking is is Parson can take over GK without being designated the heir. He isn't from Efr and can break the rules.

SteveD
2009-04-23, 01:57 PM
It seems likely that Wanda betrayed Faq, which is at best anomalous as far as we know. Another anomaly is Saline IV's death at the hands of opportunistic traitors.

There is a lot of fluidity to the "rules" of loyalty and duty: plotamancy has clearly trumped them a few times.

Or...

...the Predictimancer told Banhammer his Kingdom would never last, but if he allowed it to fall to Stanley it would trigger a chain of events that would summon Parson and perhaps one day end the fighting and spread his utopian ideals across Erfworld. So he popped an heir to make sure those ideals out-lasted him, and was rather disappointed when she showed no interest in learning them.

No need for plotmancy if Banhammer told Jack and Wanda to join with Stanley. :P

As for Saline IV, I still believe Charlie has some connection to that. His backstory with Stanley still needs explaining.


Back on topic for a second, why does everyone assume that Wanda never told Stanley she'd get the Pliers one day? It might explain the 'I know why; He's bringing them to me." comment from way back.

Side note: Vinny once asked if Ansom could use the Arkenpliers to 'cancel' the Hammer, but Ansom said no because he wasn't attuned to the pliers. He didn't say they couldn't cancel each other out.

DevilDan
2009-04-23, 02:22 PM
No need for plotmancy if Banhammer told Jack and Wanda to join with Stanley. :P

As for Saline IV, I still believe Charlie has some connection to that. His backstory with Stanley still needs explaining.


Back on topic for a second, why does everyone assume that Wanda never told Stanley she'd get the Pliers one day? It might explain the 'I know why; He's bringing them to me." comment from way back.

Side note: Vinny once asked if Ansom could use the Arkenpliers to 'cancel' the Hammer, but Ansom said no because he wasn't attuned to the pliers. He didn't say they couldn't cancel each other out.

We don't truly know the fate of Faq. What if Jillian and the Transylvitonians find that Faq is alive and well and that Banhammer faked her out and made her a barbarian to get rid of her (and possibly for her own good too).

"He's bringing it to me" is, of course, a far cry from, "he's bringing them to Wanda."

Regarding the duelin' arkentools, I always assumed that this was a general discussion: Vinnie was asking if the bonuses and combat advantages of one arkentool couldn't cancel the other one. He was asking if the playing field wasn't more or less even in that regard, not positing that the magic of one item neutralizes the magic of the other. That was my interpretation, anyway.

Kreistor
2009-04-23, 03:39 PM
Parson's Klog establishes that "neutrality" just means you're a bunch of units sitting around without any turns. So unless you have an official ruler, you can't actually have turns.

Oh, that's what you're talking about. Hate to burts the bubble, but the city becomes neutral. Specfically. It's Klog 12 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html). 'Field units disband, and this city becomes "neutral", which is not as nice as it sounds. Units here freeze in time. We can do noting until attacked. Ansom takes a few turns to get his ducks aligned and then curb stomps us.' He mentions the effects on the units, and does not assign them the same term, "neutral".

See, the great debate is what "disbanding" means. The destruction or capture of Stanley, a Ruler, turns him barbarian, as are any units stacked with him, so long as he can pay the upkeep. Same with Jillian. But how far down does that go? Chief warlord? Warlord? Commander? Casters go Barbarian, and they're only Commanders.


So basically, casters would become neutral if Stanley were dead.

No, the city goes neutral. Everyone may go barbarian or some other thing, but are limited because the city is neutral. But you can't extend the "neutral" status as a state applicable to units outside a city: it's not mentioned as a state for troops, just the city.

So what it comes down to is: there is only one term for units that exist but are in a quasi-affiliated state, and that is barbarian, but we suspect that there are other states. There is a process for units to leave an affiliated state called Disbanding, however not all units go through that process in all cases. Cities that lose their Ruler become Neutral. Beyond that, how all of those link together is still uncertain.


If Stanley were alive, they'd become barbarians by virtue of Stanley becoming a barbarian.

That might be possible, but Parson makes no suggestion that they will still be under Stanley's control when that happens. They are in the Magic Kingdom, far from his control. It is also possible that they become Barbarian because their Capital Side collapsed and they are outside the Capital, essentially gaining their freedom, and the same would go for any Commander, Warlord, or Chief Warlord. We have too small a sample space to conclude that only Heirs and Overlords become Barbarians when their Capital Side collapses -- a sample space of 2 is woefully insufficient to draw a conclusion.

SteveD
2009-04-23, 06:45 PM
We don't truly know the fate of Faq. What if Jillian and the Transylvitonians find that Faq is alive and well and that Banhammer faked her out and made her a barbarian to get rid of her (and possibly for her own good too).

"He's bringing it to me" is, of course, a far cry from, "he's bringing them to Wanda."

I wondered that about Faq too at some point, but it doesn't add up. Without a foolmancer it would only be a matter of time before someone found the cities, plus Jillian does say she's sure Stanley hasn't rebuilt them (although not how she's sure).

And it is indeed a far cry, but he also said it was the Will of the Titans that he controlled the Arkentools. Did that come from Wanda too? We know he hasn't won a battle since he started looking for them, so that means Faq happened before the quest began.

DevilDan
2009-04-23, 08:28 PM
We know he hasn't won a battle since he started looking for them, so that means Faq happened before the quest began.

That one statement by Wanda has been the subject of extensive debate.

slayerx
2009-04-23, 08:33 PM
But with Stanley dead and no heir, what's left of Gobwin Knob would be an abandoned city, so Wanda might be able to claim it while being barbarian and become the new Overlady.

No she couldn't... read up on what happens when a heir croaks (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html)
If any barbarian could just claim the city and become the new overlord then Stanely croaking would NOT have been a problem for Gobwinknob. If Stanley croaked then all that means is that Parson could claim the city and take over as overlord himself... but that's NOT how it works, all the units "freeze" and can't do anything until attacked


plus Jillian does say she's sure Stanley hasn't rebuilt them (although not how she's sure).
Wanda told her the first time she got captured by Stanley

Fjolnir
2009-04-23, 09:33 PM
Field units disband is part one of your quite kriestor, disbanding is a fairly fancy word for "croaks" and they describe how neutrality works (units stand around without turns waiting to be captured or killed), so unless you are a caster in the MK, OR in a stack led by the heir of a side when the heir croaks you either DIE or are forced to stand there and wait for your opponents to slit your throat.

Kreistor
2009-04-23, 10:14 PM
Field units disband is part one of your quite kriestor, disbanding is a fairly fancy word for "croaks"

Show me. Quote for me.

Prove it.

Bogardan_Mage
2009-04-24, 12:58 AM
Oh, that's what you're talking about. Hate to burts the bubble, but the city becomes neutral. Specfically. It's Klog 12 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html). 'Field units disband, and this city becomes "neutral", which is not as nice as it sounds. Units here freeze in time. We can do noting until attacked. Ansom takes a few turns to get his ducks aligned and then curb stomps us.' He mentions the effects on the units, and does not assign them the same term, "neutral".
He mentions the effects on field units. His description of the neutral city quite clearly has units in it ("We" rather than "It" and why would Ansom need to "get his ducks aligned" if he was attacking an empty city?).

Kasavin
2009-04-24, 02:16 AM
My prediction for the last pages of the book is that Wanda (aka the Real BBEG) made FAQ fall, faked loyalty to Stanley and will take his role by killing him. In this way, she will also have control over Parson.
Still to explain Wanda-Ansom relationship, though.

Opinions?

Objections!

1) The rules do not seem to allow for a subject to break duty in that way. SWITCHING sides is certainly common practice, but there is no example of someone breaking duty to kill their king or overlord. Furthermore, it seems every unit must be part of a side, and barbarians are essentially a side that has leaders but no cities. Even Stanley, if it was his plan, had to game the system to become Overlord. It was the gobwin "allies" who technically form their own side which killed Saline IV making Stanley Overlord. So, unless Wanda can find a different side to join, she's stuck with Stanley. There's no "going it alone" it Erfworld.

2) Stanley is a leader whose fought and won countless battles, he wields the Arkenhammer, and sits on a stack of Dwagons (apparently one of the most powerful units in Erfworld). He'll undoubtedly continue to command the loyalty of Sizemore and (though no one knows anything about her motives) Maggie. Long story short, It's unlikely Wanda could kill Stanley.

3) Anyone becoming a "BBEG" would be a blow to the comic's strengths. Whose been the villain so far? Sure, Stanley and company share a lot of "evil" tropes, but they have plenty of humanity to go around as well, including Wanda who I enjoy far more as a character when she's showing her very real vulnerable side. Instead of a fight against a "villain" the comic is a compilation of people struggling to find their place in Erfworld. Parson has some unusual difficulties in the task, but its not any easier for the natives. Sizemore is a great example, how does one be a pacificist in world formulated around war?

4) I'm still holding out hope the last two comics are part of a herb/hippiemancy induced vision quest, which would explain some of the anamolies.

Kreistor
2009-04-24, 02:28 AM
He mentions the effects on field units. His description of the neutral city quite clearly has units in it ("We" rather than "It" and why would Ansom need to "get his ducks aligned" if he was attacking an empty city?).

Yeeeessss... "the city becomes "neutral"." The units in the neutral city are frozen in time, which does not mean they are inherently "neutral" themselves. They suffer particular effects, but they themselves are not given the descriptor "neutral".

In many games, where there are several sides, they provide rules for areas that are not being controlled by a player -- naming these areas neutral. The units inside are not called neutral, though, because they are still all operating together, just not against any player. Those units will fight back against any aggressor. Since all normal rules apply to those units, they don't get a descriptor themselves.

See, those units may actually be "barbarian", but because they are inside a "neutral" city, they are affected by an additional rule set, otherwise operating under barbarian rules. That's speculation too, and just as consistent with current provable knowledge as anyone has proposed.

We just know so very little about "disbanding", "Barbarians", and "neutrality" that at this point, we really can't draw any conclusions. Everyone has to make heaps of assumptions to propose anything.

Bogardan_Mage
2009-04-24, 03:34 AM
Yeeeessss... "the city becomes "neutral"." The units in the neutral city are frozen in time, which does not mean they are inherently "neutral" themselves. They suffer particular effects, but they themselves are not given the descriptor "neutral".

In many games, where there are several sides, they provide rules for areas that are not being controlled by a player -- naming these areas neutral. The units inside are not called neutral, though, because they are still all operating together, just not against any player. Those units will fight back against any aggressor. Since all normal rules apply to those units, they don't get a descriptor themselves.

See, those units may actually be "barbarian", but because they are inside a "neutral" city, they are affected by an additional rule set, otherwise operating under barbarian rules. That's speculation too, and just as consistent with current provable knowledge as anyone has proposed.

We just know so very little about "disbanding", "Barbarians", and "neutrality" that at this point, we really can't draw any conclusions. Everyone has to make heaps of assumptions to propose anything.
Ok, but seeing as they are in a city does it really matter what the units are called when the city is neutral? What disbanding means may not be explicitly stated, but what happens to citybound units when the leader is croaked is. This is not in Wanda's best interest.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-04-24, 03:48 AM
Or...

...the Predictimancer told Banhammer his Kingdom would never last, but if he allowed it to fall to Stanley it would trigger a chain of events that would summon Parson and perhaps one day end the fighting and spread his utopian ideals across Erfworld. So he popped an heir to make sure those ideals out-lasted him, and was rather disappointed when she showed no interest in learning them.

No need for plotmancy if Banhammer told Jack and Wanda to join with Stanley. :P

As for Saline IV, I still believe Charlie has some connection to that. His backstory with Stanley still needs explaining.


Back on topic for a second, why does everyone assume that Wanda never told Stanley she'd get the Pliers one day? It might explain the 'I know why; He's bringing them to me." comment from way back.

Side note: Vinny once asked if Ansom could use the Arkenpliers to 'cancel' the Hammer, but Ansom said no because he wasn't attuned to the pliers. He didn't say they couldn't cancel each other out.
I really think it's a lot simpler than that.

King Banhammer was told that His Kingdom Was Doomed unless he had an heir. And technically, that Prediction came true. Because Jillian is, in some sense, a faction unto herself, and has the potential to start his Kingdom back up.

It's just that King Banhammer thought his heir would be like himself, when, what was really needed was a warlike commander who would survive becoming a barbarian and keep their side going, even if no land remained to Jillian's name.

Basically, the prophecy was far more literal and straightforward than King Banhammer expected.

Jack was snatched up into Stanley's service. He doesn't like Stanley, so he fakes his own insanity to limit his usefulness to Stanley and then uses this excuse to try and get Stanley killed.

Wanda might've sold out Faq in order to advance herself.

Crod
2009-04-24, 03:55 AM
As there are casters in the magic kingdom, it makes sense that a side that falls (overlord killed), but where the caster is not captured makes the caster neutral/barbarian. For the caster not to be without a turn, there must exist a neutral/barbarian turn where casters can move, unless they are auto-teleported to the magic kingdom, which I doubt.

However, this does not mean that warlords obtain the same status. They are probably stuck commanding the same stacks as when the overloard was croaked, but they have no actual turn where they can do anything. I guess you have to be caster or royal to go barbarian and act on that turn.

So I guess a neutral city with troops pay no upkeep and expand no resources. Hence the term 'frozen in time', because they are outside of the turn system but somehow continue leading their day-to-day lives waiting to be captured or croaked. Or maybe cleansing/food happens at dawn but then do require resources from the neutral city, unless the treasury is emptied and all units disband. Sort of like you have to pay upkeep during the neutral/barbarian turn, but without any actions.

Crod
2009-04-24, 04:05 AM
Vinny implies that Stanley could only hang on to the foolamancer as long as he can pay his upkeep after turning barbarian here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0151.html).

I wonder if Jack could continue following Stanley even if he couldn't pay upkeep, or if Jack would have to return to the magic kingdom to avoid 'starvation' because of no upkeep.

What happens with upkeep of barbarian royals and casters when they are in no side? Do they still require upkeep? I'm guessing no, so maybe Jack could continue following Stanley because of loyalty, but he wouldn't have to. But without knowing more of the whole loyalty/upkeep/neutral side of the rules, these are just speculations.

Kasavin
2009-04-24, 04:39 AM
Vinny implies that Stanley could only hang on to the foolamancer as long as he can pay his upkeep after turning barbarian here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0151.html).

I wonder if Jack could continue following Stanley even if he couldn't pay upkeep, or if Jack would have to return to the magic kingdom to avoid 'starvation' because of no upkeep.

What happens with upkeep of barbarian royals and casters when they are in no side? Do they still require upkeep? I'm guessing no, so maybe Jack could continue following Stanley because of loyalty, but he wouldn't have to. But without knowing more of the whole loyalty/upkeep/neutral side of the rules, these are just speculations.

A) Its a well known fact that faction leaders and their heirs and whatsever in their stack become barbarians if either the capital falls or the last city falls (redundant difference for Stanley).

B) Vinnie in your link confirmed that Barbarians pay upkeep for everything in there stack. Thats one reason (I believe) why Jillian has to take mercenary work, to pay for upkeep.

C) Different Games have different rules about not being able to afford upkeep. Considering how straightforward the rules are elsewhere, I'd guess failure to pay upkeep isn't a loyalty check, its an automatic disbanding.

pasko77
2009-04-24, 04:43 AM
Objections!

1) The rules do not seem to allow for a subject to break duty in that way. SWITCHING sides is certainly common practice, but there is no example of someone breaking duty to kill their king or overlord. Furthermore, it seems every unit must be part of a side, and barbarians are essentially a side that has leaders but no cities. Even Stanley, if it was his plan, had to game the system to become Overlord. It was the gobwin "allies" who technically form their own side which killed Saline IV making Stanley Overlord. So, unless Wanda can find a different side to join, she's stuck with Stanley. There's no "going it alone" it Erfworld.

2) Stanley is a leader whose fought and won countless battles, he wields the Arkenhammer, and sits on a stack of Dwagons (apparently one of the most powerful units in Erfworld). He'll undoubtedly continue to command the loyalty of Sizemore and (though no one knows anything about her motives) Maggie. Long story short, It's unlikely Wanda could kill Stanley.

3) Anyone becoming a "BBEG" would be a blow to the comic's strengths. Whose been the villain so far? Sure, Stanley and company share a lot of "evil" tropes, but they have plenty of humanity to go around as well, including Wanda who I enjoy far more as a character when she's showing her very real vulnerable side. Instead of a fight against a "villain" the comic is a compilation of people struggling to find their place in Erfworld. Parson has some unusual difficulties in the task, but its not any easier for the natives. Sizemore is a great example, how does one be a pacificist in world formulated around war?

4) I'm still holding out hope the last two comics are part of a herb/hippiemancy induced vision quest, which would explain some of the anamolies.

1) Maybe there is a rule for forming new sides. :)

2) Well, objective strenghts have never been a problem for plot-driven battles, and this comic in particular often disregards "probable outcomes".

3) true

4) nope, too lame :)

SteveD
2009-04-24, 12:06 PM
I really think it's a lot simpler than that.

King Banhammer was told that His Kingdom Was Doomed unless he had an heir. And technically, that Prediction came true. Because Jillian is, in some sense, a faction unto herself, and has the potential to start his Kingdom back up.

It's just that King Banhammer thought his heir would be like himself, when, what was really needed was a warlike commander who would survive becoming a barbarian and keep their side going, even if no land remained to Jillian's name.

Basically, the prophecy was far more literal and straightforward than King Banhammer expected.

Jack was snatched up into Stanley's service. He doesn't like Stanley, so he fakes his own insanity to limit his usefulness to Stanley and then uses this excuse to try and get Stanley killed.

Wanda might've sold out Faq in order to advance herself.

Right, but that ignores Jacks loyalty to Stanley even with the possibility of being recaptured by Jillian.