So what the hell does Stanley have?

[Gilthans]

I'm pretty surprised this didn't rise to discussion yet (as far as I could see).
Note that this is a pretty long post.

Stanley is pretty clearly an idiot. The only thing he has going for him is the arkenhammer, and his extremely clever advisors and casters. Without Wanda, Stanley would've been in even deeper boop than he is in currently. Jack, Misty and Maggie gave him extremely good reconnaissance, but even that seems to me as an idea that Wanda managed to talk Stanley into, rather than a genuine spark of genius. Stanley is, by all accounts, a moron with a big hammer, with (according to the cast page and also what we know of him) no strategic ability, no human resource management capability, and barely enough brains to listen to his very capable assistants.

So why are they so loyal?

We know for a fact that Wanda and Jillian are having some sort of an affair. It probably started before Stanley took Faq, and the two of them clearly have a connection, perhaps a deep one. And yet, when Jillian tries to get Wanda to defect, Wanda kicks her ass and sends her with her tail between her legs, in the name of Stanley. She does this without being under the effect of any loyalty spell, probably because Stanley isn't smart enough to use one, and Wanda isn't stupid enough to suggest him to use one.
But Wanda is clever, so it is conceivable that her relationship with Jillian was a fraud meant to help Stanley's side (although it is unclear why she wants to do so).

But even more baffling is Jack. From what we know, Jack had some sort of crush on Jillian. His mind was extremely messed up, thanks to the Tool. Maggie said a way to fix it would be saying his name, and I think the reason is he needed something to pull him back to his old life, to remind him who he is. The way I see it, what fixed him was more than hearing his name: it was facing Jillian, an anchor to the life he knew that sucked him back to sanity. And the moment she sees him, and he sees her, he knows he has a chance out of Stanley's service, and back to Jillian. He can see Stanley's odds are underwhelming, and that without his help, it would be the Tool's end.
And yet he saves the Tool, using a sharp mind and clever tricks to get them out of danger's way. He stuck with Stanley till the end, risking everything to save him.

The big question unanswered in the comic so far, is why?
That's at least two very clever casters showing undiluted loyalty to a stupid warlord who mistreats and underestimates them. Parson we can understand, to some degree - he has no good reason to defect, and he's still considering joining Charlie. But why Wanda and Jack?

My guess: Stanley IS a tool. But not in the hands of titans: in the hands of Wanda, Jack and Maggie, perhaps even Misty. At least the first two we know came from Faq, and maybe they got tired of their peaceful and unambitious king. Maybe they want to wage this war on their own accord, using Stanley as means to an end, because they can't lead themselves, and no royal would ever take advice from lowly casters.

So, what do you think?

Boy, this ended up much longer than I intended it to be :)
Hope you survived this.

[PePe QuiCoSE]

something I mentioned in the comic thread: i wonder if the prophecy said more things that Jillian don't know about, but other FAQers do.

[brob]

Y'see, what you want there is your Predictamancy-Predictamancy. It's a more specialized art, but what you really want to know is: how will knowing the future affect the future, and would I be better off knowing or not knowing it? Is forewarned forarmed or just for suckers? Now. Some will argue that this is also what we call a "sucker's game", and that Predictamancy-Predictamancy-Predictamancy is where the smart shmuckers are. I myself do not think so, and think P-P-P as a whole is a bunch of crap (pardon my Gobwin). But if you're just going by plain old unitary Predictamancy, titans help you.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I'm pretty surprised this didn't rise to discussion yet (as far as I could see).

It's part of almost every good/evil love/hate Stanley thread.



Note that this is a pretty long post.

You ain't seen nuthin'. Why back in my day I read an GiantITP forum post this long...



Stanley is pretty clearly an idiot. The only thing he has going for him is the arkenhammer

An attuned Arken tool. That is a lot right there.



and his extremely clever advisors and casters

Luck falls to the brave or something like that. Anyway, Stanley also was a successful warlord for Saline IV in his own right. Saline made Stanley his heir. The kingdom fell to Stanley. So Stanley had a whole large Kingdom behind him. His treasury had at least enough to pay for the Perfect Warlord spell. Wanda's idea, I know. But even she did not predict how much of a world changer this was. Parson is another one of Stanley's assets now -- one Charlie covets.



So why are they so loyal?

We don't know exactly how and when units can turn. Only that they can, under some circumstances.



My guess: Stanley IS a tool. But not in the hands of titans: in the hands of Wanda, Jack and Maggie, perhaps even Misty.
Well that IS the million shmucker question: Is Stanley Plaid the Tool of the Titans? As for being manipulated by his underlings...he certainly is. But so is Ansom...in a different way. In my opinion, Stanley's underlings are more like dogs on a leash pulling their master than puppeteer's pulling a puppets strings. Though Wanda, Parson and even Jack can pull this way and that, the final decision is Stanley's. All he has to do is bring down his "gavel".

[teratorn]

That's at least two very clever casters showing undiluted loyalty to a stupid warlord who mistreats and underestimates them.

Huh? Sizemore was impressed and terrified with what he saw after the Jillian debacle, Stanley had no history of mistreating Wanda. Wanda was for all effects the second in command. Sizemore, Misty and Maggie call her Lady Firebaugh. Stanley liked her, trusted her, and listened to her. In GK she was a ruler.

Jack may be doing it from loyalty to Wanda, not Stanley. And he may get a kick out of these things.

[ChowGuy]

something I mentioned in the comic thread: i wonder if the prophecy said more things that Jillian don't know about, but other FAQers do.And as I said elsewhere, While "Predictamancy" is classified as "Hocus-Pocus" I don't think it equates to "Prophecy," at least not in the sense of "visions" (that would be "Spookamancy") or "reading the stars" ("Signamancy"). It instead shares an alignment with Findamancy and Mathamnacy, so I believe it's more a case of finding patterns and logically extrapolating from them. In this sense it falls more into the "predictions" we have today from pollsters and economists who whatever their track record usually make no claim to infallibility, much less knowing the long term future.
But if you're just going by plain old unitary Predictamancy, titans help you.Even if if involves casting chicken bones or dealing Tarot cards, Erf is a universe in which magic is real, so such things may in fact be valid tools.
Now. Some will argue that this is also what we call a "sucker's game"That would be Stagemancy actually :smallwink:

[Aquillion]

First, as I've pointed out elsewhere, Stanley does have a bit more going for him than the Arkenhammer, even if it isn't directly relevant to the subject (remember, he was promoted to warlord before he found it.) He seems extremely capable at fulfilling the 'local' warlord role (as opposed to chief warlord or overlord, which requires more interpersonal skills). He responded immediately and decisively to Transylvito's ambush (by breaking through, which was probably the best choice); he used the Arkenhammer in the best way possible (for an AOE attack on a stack vulnerable to him), and we have no reason to think he couldn't have taken Jillian if it came down to it (although, clearly, the risk-free escape after Jack recovered was preferable.) He seems to suck at management and planning, but he seems quite good at barking orders and making split-second decisions under pressure on the battlefield.

(In fact, this might be part of the reason why he was so eager to flee from Gobwin Knob -- he wanted to get 'back to his roots'. He knows what he's good at and hates those boardroom-meeting everyone-around-the-table settings where he has to rely on other people.)

[Occasional Sage]

First, as I've pointed out elsewhere, Stanley does have a bit more going for him than the Arkenhammer, even if it isn't directly relevant to the subject (remember, he was promoted to warlord before he found it.) He seems extremely capable at fulfilling the 'local' warlord role (as opposed to chief warlord or overlord, which requires more interpersonal skills). He responded immediately and decisively to Transylvito's ambush (by breaking through, which was probably the best choice); he used the Arkenhammer in the best way possible (for an AOE attack on a stack vulnerable to him), and we have no reason to think he couldn't have taken Jillian if it came down to it (although, clearly, the risk-free escape after Jack recovered was preferable.) He seems to suck at management and planning, but he seems quite good at barking orders and making split-second decisions under pressure on the battlefield.


More succinctly, because often that can spark conversation: strategy is a weakness, but tactics are a strength.

[Gilthans]

First, as I've pointed out elsewhere, Stanley does have a bit more going for him than the Arkenhammer, even if it isn't directly relevant to the subject (remember, he was promoted to warlord before he found it.) He seems extremely capable at fulfilling the 'local' warlord role (as opposed to chief warlord or overlord, which requires more interpersonal skills). He responded immediately and decisively to Transylvito's ambush (by breaking through, which was probably the best choice); he used the Arkenhammer in the best way possible (for an AOE attack on a stack vulnerable to him), and we have no reason to think he couldn't have taken Jillian if it came down to it (although, clearly, the risk-free escape after Jack recovered was preferable.) He seems to suck at management and planning, but he seems quite good at barking orders and making split-second decisions under pressure on the battlefield.

(In fact, this might be part of the reason why he was so eager to flee from Gobwin Knob -- he wanted to get 'back to his roots'. He knows what he's good at and hates those boardroom-meeting everyone-around-the-table settings where he has to rely on other people.)

And yet, even though he does seem to have great battle instincts and he acts well under pressure, that does not put him in a good position as a leader; his instincts may be great for battle tactics, but not for war strategy (as we have seen numerous times). Perhaps Wanda is the one who is manipulating him - we know that she is very capable at doing so - and Jack and the other only follow suit because they believe in her and her shadow leadership.

[SilverClawShift]

something I mentioned in the comic thread: i wonder if the prophecy said more things that Jillian don't know about, but other FAQers do.

My current personal theory is that FAQ never fell. Stanley made some kind of deal with FAQ to gain casters, is a genuine alliance of theirs, and has agreed for Gobwin Knob to act as a "big brother" kingdom to the small hidden group. Or something like that.

Jillian didn't become a barbarian when the kingdom fell. She became a barbarian because she was abandoned.

She never bothered to go back and find out what happened. Why not? She hated her home, but she loved a fight. She wants revenge so badly, without knowing who to take revenge on? I think she never went back because, deep down, she knows she was unceremoniously cut out, and is afraid of facing that fact.
She embraces being a "barbarian" so strongly out of insecurity.

My take on it, anyway. Time will tell.

[Olibarro]

My current personal theory is that FAQ never fell. Stanley made some kind of deal with FAQ to gain casters, is a genuine alliance of theirs, and has agreed for Gobwin Knob to act as a "big brother" kingdom to the small hidden group. Or something like that.

This rings true. I would love to see something like that. And I would love to see Jillian's face when she finds out all her hate and rage for all this time has been for nothing, because she never bothered to go back and look.

However, two things work against this theory:

A) Banhammer popped an heir because his predictamancer said FAQ would fall.
B) How would FAQ's cities remain hidden from Transylvito (and others) without Jack?

These aren't insurmountable, but they make the idea more complex than it ought to be.

[Gez]

Stanley is pretty clearly an idiot. The only thing he has going for him is the arkenhammer, and his extremely clever advisors and casters.
Stanley is not a complete idiot. He's an illustration of Peter's Principle: he was a pikeman who got promoted to warlord for his great valor and skill. Then he was so great a warlord he was promoted to heir. And outreached his competence level when Saline IV died and he became overlord.

So, Stanley: great warrior, great warlord, poor overlord.


But even more baffling is Jack. From what we know, Jack had some sort of crush on Jillian. His mind was extremely messed up, thanks to the Tool. Maggie said a way to fix it would be saying his name, and I think the reason is he needed something to pull him back to his old life, to remind him who he is. The way I see it, what fixed him was more than hearing his name: it was facing Jillian, an anchor to the life he knew that sucked him back to sanity.
This was proved when Parson called him by his name (through Maggie's thinkagram) without triggering much improvement in Jack's condition. Seeing Jillian was what made him snap out of it, not hearing his name or being manhandled by Stanley.

[SilverClawShift]

A) Banhammer popped an heir because his predictamancer said FAQ would fall.

Fantasy stories involing predictions and prophecy love chicken-and-egg type irony. Trying to avoid a prediction coming true almost always MAKES it become true that much faster.
What are the odds that an heir to the throne will be the one to destroy the throne? Especially when the heir was created specifically to avoid the thrones destruction? Pretty low.
Which is what makes it so incredibly likely in a fantasy story. I say even-money that Jillian single-handedly wipes out the FAQ nobility/leadership in a rage upon learning the truth, causing the kingdom to fall.



B) How would FAQ's cities remain hidden from Transylvito (and others) without Jack?

This one's trickier. And before I go rambling on, I'd like to point out that ANY theory based on the future of a fictional world can have strong cases made for or against it. We're really just guessing to pass the time until we find out what really happens/happened.

But by the time Jillian became a barbarian, Stanley was well on his way to getting the collective ire of Erfworlds nobility. He was about to call a storm of royalty-driven fury down on himself. It's a big enough event that any predictomancer would probably see at least some of it coming up.
Maybe FAQ knew that no one would be bothering to attack a tiny isolationist kingdom any time soon, because everyone would be forming a coalition to take down Stanley. Maybe they figured they had a better chance of survival with a city housing an actual army just a stone-throw away from them, acting as their lightning-rod. A city allied with them due to thanks for giving them the keys to the most powerful communication/survellaince in the world (which also adds another reason to ally with them).

And if all of that is true, then popping an heir only to abandoner her might be the key element that makes their kingdom fall. A scorned princess/barbarian who holds a grudge and knows they exist. See point A).

Or maybe Stanley looted and pillaged FAQ and Jillian has every reason to hate his guts. We'll see I guess :smallsmile:

[shamelessmerc]

My current personal theory is that FAQ never fell. Stanley made some kind of deal with FAQ to gain casters, is a genuine alliance of theirs, and has agreed for Gobwin Knob to act as a "big brother" kingdom to the small hidden group. Or something like that.

Jillian didn't become a barbarian when the kingdom fell. She became a barbarian because she was abandoned.

She never bothered to go back and find out what happened. Why not? She hated her home, but she loved a fight. She wants revenge so badly, without knowing who to take revenge on? I think she never went back because, deep down, she knows she was unceremoniously cut out, and is afraid of facing that fact.
She embraces being a "barbarian" so strongly out of insecurity.

My take on it, anyway. Time will tell.

"FAQ didn't fall" is where my money rests as well.

As for loyalty to Stan the tool, my personal theory is that the ex-FAQ casters have a serious axe to grind with [unknown] and that overrides any desire they might harbour towards Jillian.

I also think Jillian is seriously deluding herself on how much everyone loves her.

[shamelessmerc]

and at the risk of invoking Goodwins law;
Respected commanders who HATED Hitler's guts remained loyal in the face of endless opportunity to defect.

"My country, right or wrong!" it's clear that the Erflings have an equivalent to 'patriotism' and Webinar walked into the jaws death on the orders of a commander he CLEARLY mistrusted.

[The Rose Dragon]

However, Wanda wasn't even a member of the Plaid Tribe, or originally from Gobwin Knob. Why would she remain so loyal despite everything else?

[shamelessmerc]

However, Wanda wasn't even a member of the Plaid Tribe, or originally from Gobwin Knob. Why would she remain so loyal despite everything else?

No zealot like a convert

[Radar]

and at the risk of invoking Goodwins law;
Respected commanders who HATED Hitler's guts remained loyal in the face of endless opportunity to defect.

"My country, right or wrong!" it's clear that the Erflings have an equivalent to 'patriotism' and Webinar walked into the jaws death on the orders of a commander he CLEARLY mistrusted.
In Erfworld it's more then loyality it's Obedience, Loyality and Duty and it's induced on every single unit. See this Klog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html).

[shamelessmerc]

In Erfworld it's more then loyality it's Obedience, Loyality and Duty and it's induced on every single unit. See this Klog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html).

There is a pretty healthy debate ongoing about the meaning of Erfworld 'Loyalty', helpfully clouded by the vagueness of the term here on Earthworld.

I consider it pretty clear cut that 'Loyalty' on Erf is no more of a compulsion than 'loyalty' [note lowercase] on Earth. Considering it otherwise is just an Erfworld cultural convention.

[Aquillion]

There is a pretty healthy debate ongoing about the meaning of Erfworld 'Loyalty', helpfully clouded by the vagueness of the term here on Earthworld.

I consider it pretty clear cut that 'Loyalty' on Erf is no more of a compulsion than 'loyalty' [note lowercase] on Earth. Considering it otherwise is just an Erfworld cultural convention.I dunno. No matter how you frame it, Maggie, a professional Thinkamancer (who would presumably be the best expert on the subject we've been introduced to so far, aside from maybe Charlie) has indicated that Loyalty, Obedience, and Duty are all 'natural thinkamancies', supernatural effects that directly control your will. Wanda, when Parson was talking to her about her going out to save Stanley, says that if Parson knows how capital-d Duty works, then he knows he can't stop her (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0115.html).

Translation: Talking to her is useless; she is magically compelled to go save Stanley's ass. The only way Parson was able to dissuade her was by giving her an explanation that satisfied Duty.

Now, there may be more to it than that, certainly (captured casters supposedly have low loyalty, which according to Maggie, influences the chance of defecting when given the chance.) There may be other factors at work there. But Wanda's interaction with Parson there clearly shows that the normal way Duty works would leave her with no free will in the matter -- it doesn't matter what Parson says to her, since the natural thinkamancy of Duty compels her to save Stanley regardless of what she wants.

You can argue that Maggie was wrong or that Erfworlders misinterpret real-world emotions as natural thinkamancy, and that klog 94 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html) was lying to us as a result. But we haven't really seen anything that indicates that; everything that Jack and Wanda have done so far is perfectly in line with what Maggie said.

[ChowGuy]

Stanley made some kind of deal with FAQ to gain casters,
Like protection, and a more "suitable" philosopher heir (who might have popped in any of his 11 cities would but been useless to Stanley.)

A) Banhammer popped an heir because his predictamancer said FAQ would fall.
You can read my take on the "infallibility" of predictions above, and add to that Silver's chicken and egg observation. Or just consider that, if Banhammer believed the prediction was infallible, why would he believe popping an heir would change things? Unless perhaps the Prdiction was actually "Without an heir, the kingdom will fall!"

B) How would FAQ's cities remain hidden from Transylvito (and others) without Jack?
A demonstrably faulty defense. If Stanley found them, so could others. They needed something better.

A city allied with them due to thanks for giving them the keys to the most powerful communication/survellaince in the world
Part of the "something better" if that includes sharing their long-range data with the Predictamancer, and reason to include Jack in the deal since it doesn't work without him. And with 11 cities in his empire, it's possible Stanley already had the only approaches to FAQ covered and just needed the final piece to close the gap anyway. Oh yeah, I can see Wanda talking them both into a deal like that, but Jillian? That hothead wouldn't buy it, so we'll just cast her loose.

I say even-money that Jillian single-handedly wipes out the FAQ nobility/leadership in a rage upon learning the truth, causing the kingdom to fall.
Meh, she doesn't have to. She's about to lead an already suspicious Caesar and a whole pack of presumed hostile warlords (else why hide from them) right to their doorstep.


everything that Jack and Wanda have done so far is perfectly in line with what Maggie said.
Except for Wanda refuing to turn, twice, when asked by her fellow clanswoman presumptive rightful Queen, despite being "under no Loyalty Spell." Jack's state we don't know, but he too refused to turn for her.


Edit To Add:

OK I never said it was probable, merely plausible. But oh hey! Here's a couple more things to consider:

1) Jillian says they "occasionally" saw Transylvitan units, but Caesar claims no-one in Transylvito believes there's anything there. So apparently no-one's been that way since the cities "fell." Well, why the heck would they go that way anyway, if they "know" there's nothing there, unless they were "just passing through." But...
2) She further says the only way in or out of FAQ was by air or tunnel. She also implies there is only on way in by air - the choke point we're at now.
OK, that's the only way Stanley can go with dwagons, but what about the Transylvito bats? Bats love tunnels. Now ...
3) A lot of people have speculated that the "special" mission Stanley took "some of the casters" on was in fact the "raid" on FAQ. I note though that Sizemore doesn't actually say they attacked anybody and his apparent shock at his first taste of close combat (Golems versus Marbits) strikes me as odd if he had indeed been involved in any before, anywhere. And just what the heck does a Dirtamancer do on a dwagon raid anyway?

But... if the two are one and the same, then it would have been Saline ("a good man') in charge of GK at the time. Now suppose that it was he (with Maggie and/or Charlies help) who negotiated the deal with Banhammer. More in character? And as part of that deal, GK sends our Lookmancer to demonstrate the flaw in your defense against "passing through," and our Dirtamancer to collapse those tunnels leading to Transylvito to stop them using your valley as a freeway.

Then the Gobwins revolt for no good reason ("strange"satys Sizemore) and whack Saline. Did Charlie hav a hand in instigating that, and is that why Stanley has issues with him? Charlie doesn't want GK, but he'd be more then happy to see runt like Stanley running it, stirring up wars rather then making peaceful deals. That's good for business, his mercenary business. He doesn't want to see Saline put together an "unmatched intelligence" asset because that's bad for his information peddling business.

Stanley returns, re-takes GK, but he's got all he needs from FAQ. He never goes back, but neither does he expressly break the deal either since that would lose him his casters.

[Nastysasquatch]

Jack never outright refused to turn.

at the time he was offered to turn he was sitting in a veil on a dragon far healthier than the one he was illusioning and if he jumped off there was nothing to catch him.

jacks refusal to turn was a refusal to turn because he didnt have a good opportunity for it.

[Aquillion]

A demonstrably faulty defense. If Stanley found them, so could others. They needed something better.Except that their kingdom is right on Translvito's doorstep (not someplace Stanley can reliably protect them alone.) Even if Jack doesn't provide 100% protection, he is still absolutely critical to their defense (we know he's a very very good foolamancer, good enough that the very idea of Faq surviving without him was flatly absurd to Ansom); I don't think we can seriously credit any theory where they'd willingly trade him away.

I can see Faq seeking additional defense, to supplement what Jack gives them. I cannot see them willingly giving Jack up, ever; nor can I see Stanley providing any sort of meaningful concealment that would allow them to last long without Jack's protection. (Stanley is hardly the 'subtle' kind of guy.)

Jack might not have provided 100% perfect defense, but he is still once-in-a-generation quality, unimaginably good defense, beyond anything that Ansom (for instance) imagined possible. For protecting a city, Jack is literally as good as it gets, and implying that they'd trade him for a pact with a young hothead who can barely defend his own cities is silly.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

The FAQ didn't fall isn't a very good theory. Without a foolamancer, there would be no one to veil it whenever a bat flew past. No the kingdom fell to dwagons like Jillian said. However the big mystery is, why are Jack, and Wanda so loyal to Stanley. Captured casters have low loyalty (from the Klog) and they are not under a loyalty spell (from the archons).

As for Stanley's competence, he is a capable warrior. He rose from piker to warlord through his own merit in combat. Give him a battle and he will easily do well through conventional tactics. However he is no good at the big picture approach needed to be a overlord. He only got that far because he had the hammer, not because he proved capable at the job.

[Oslecamo]

The big question unanswered in the comic so far, is why?
That's at least two very clever casters showing undiluted loyalty to a stupid warlord who mistreats and underestimates them. Parson we can understand, to some degree - he has no good reason to defect, and he's still considering joining Charlie. But why Wanda and Jack?


I think the answer is very simple. Stanley may be an awfull resource manager, and be as arrogant as they come, however...

Stanley is the only one willing to take the mantle of leadeship

Wanda, Jack, Sizemore and all his other underlings may be smarter than him, but they're also selfdoubtfull persons, who don't like to atract more atention than needed. They don't want to yell at people, they don't want to make inspirational speeches. They don't even want to increase their power, just to keep doing what they like, be it making rock golems or bondage sessions with enslaved barbarians or playing Joker.

Not the Tool. He's ready to make decisions when the need comes, and he's ready to aim high on those decisions. He's decided, ambitious, confident, isn't afraid to tell people to go to work, and knows how to make a dire situation look good in his words. Those are all characteristis indispensable for a main military leader. Saline IV saw on him an amibitious man who would be able to keep his underlings togheter when the time came and increase Gobwin's Knob power.

And then you have the advisors to remember you where the enemy army is exactly located. Like said above, they're more like guiding dogs than pupeteers.

Remember, making choices may cost you, but don't making them will cost you even more.

[Welf]

I think Oslecamo pinned it. Nobody else wants the job. Moreover, he is a man with a destiny. He is on a holy mission to collect the tools of the titans himself. He rose from a common pikener to an overlord, and even seeks to become more. Few commoners made such a carrier, maybe nobody that haven't previously popped as warlord, and probably nobody ever tried to become more than a king or queen. Who knows what will happen if he obtains all arkentools? He could rise to some kind of divinity, at least be the most powerful ruler on erfworld. The arkenhammer gave him the command about the dwagons, the arkendish could give him power about tinkamancy, the arkenwench about the death, the forth tool maybe about live. Such determination and the pursuit of such a power surely gets its followers.
BTW: There is more to Stanley than "just" being a formidable warlord and owing a divine tool; he came up with the idea of the Eyemancer-link as confirmed by Wanda (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0053.html).

[Earendill]

The reason Wanda and Jack act so loyal is guilt.

They both caused, directly or indirectly, the fall of FAQ. The Tool was....a tool in their attempt to leave FAQ. Wanda felt opressed and restricted in her interests. Jack was (maybe) in love with Jillian and could not stand her being away (or some other motive).

Jillian assumes they were captured - but it does not look like it.

You can understand why both of them are reluctant to face Jillian and "explain" her the context FAQ was destroyed.

[Welf]

My current personal theory is that FAQ never fell. Stanley made some kind of deal with FAQ to gain casters, is a genuine alliance of theirs, and has agreed for Gobwin Knob to act as a "big brother" kingdom to the small hidden group. Or something like that.

If so, why are the casters staying loyal? Stanley was going to Faq to start a new side. And that requires a neutral or newly conquered city. If the casters serve him to protect a still existing Faq, they should now use every opportunity to stop him. Jack is a quick thinker, Jillian was the perfect opportunity to get rid of Stanley.


Jillian didn't become a barbarian when the kingdom fell. She became a barbarian because she was abandoned.

We don't know if it's possible to declare a units as barbarian if its side continues. Jillian was pretty sure that they are destroyed and we have little reason to doubt that. And if Banhammer was sick of her he could dissolve her with a thought. Or order her to stay at least 1000 hexes away from Faq and earn a lot of money.

[DevilDan]

Perhaps warlords in the field become barbarians when their side falls. Ansom would not be so ignorant as to miss an inconsistency of that magnitude in Jillian's story.

Alternatively... she became a barbarian because she was "abandoned" (we've seen no mention whatsoever of an "abandon" mechanism), and she assumes she was abandoned by someone in Faq (presumably Banhammer) so that the wouldn't be disbanded when Faq was conquered.

I'm still hung up on what Wanda did or did not tell Jillian during Jillian's stays in Stanley's various dungeons.

[ChowGuy]

Alternatively... she became a barbarian because she was "abandoned" (we've seen no mention whatsoever of an "abandon" mechanism), and she assumes she was abandoned by someone in Faq (presumably Banhammer) so that the wouldn't be disbanded when Faq was conquered.

We Haven't? You yourself said the word: "Disbanded." - to have connection with an organization severed.

Now because I know what your response to that will will be, I'll head it off. Yes, perhaps when [most] units are produced they "pop" into existance, but no, it has not been stated anywhere in canon that units who are disbanded either croak or pop out again. Stanley tells Parsom "I can end you with a thought" but Parson is summoned unit, not a one. In most games of this type, summoned units are the effect of a spell and do cease to exist when that spell is revoked, although it's unclear whether they cease to exist or "return whence they came" - an important distinction if your Parson, less so to Stanley, or to Wanda who "must prevent our lord and master from disbanding you. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0053.html)." Normal units, on the other hand, when disbanded may cease to exist within the game world or may become leaderless independents, and I can think of examples of both.

It seems clear, also, that an overlord has the power to do so, not only to Parson but to Wanda and Sizemore, and what the in-world consequences of that are: "There's no point in disbanding you. Your upkeep will be paid, as long as the city stands." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0078.html)

Of possible further significance to the question is here: "When the city fell, shouldn't you have disbanded? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html)" Note Parson doesnot say "croaked" or "unpopped." The common contention here is that Jillian became an idependenat (a barbarian) when her city fell, because her city fell - ie, she was "disbanded" but she didn't croak!. But wait! you say, she was special! she was a Noble* and that's why she didn't croak! Maybe she[/i was, but her [i]gwiffons weren't, and they didn't croak either. There's also the problem that Jillian's "barbarian warlord" status didn't clue Ansom, Webinar or anyone else into her Nobility. What exactly then, in canon, can you point to that states that a unit that is intentionally "disbanded" by their overlord is any way distinguishably in-world from any other one who for one reason or another survives the fall of their side? And if there is now, how does Jillian's becoming one prove the fall of FAQ, rather then her "abandonment"?



*Cities ruled by royals pop nobles, like Vinny. Being a Noble is less unique then being a Royal or Heir, so go with that as your hypothetical dividing line excuse. Still would make a difference to someone as class-obsessed as Ansom: "He's [Stanley] not a Noble Vinny."

[SteveMB]

Of possible significance to the question is here: "When the city fell, shouldn't you have disbanded? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html)"

Sizemore's answer: "Normally, yes. But... He promoted Stanley to Heir Designate..." That indicates that the Plaid units would have disbanded if not for the fact that Saline had an heir. Banhammer had an heir (Jillian); therefore, the surviviing Faq units didn't disband.

See also Parson's description (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) of the situation:

"So what happens if Stanley is croaked? He has no heir, so our side ends. Field units disband, and this city becomes "neutral," which is not as nice as it sounds...." (emphasis added).

The implication I get from this is that Faq's units in the field did not disband because Jillian survived as heir. If there had been a whole slew of Faq units in the field, they would have all become barbarians -- ergo, Ansom had no reason to suppose that any specific barbarian unit was a royal heir.

[Greg]

*Cities ruled by royals pop nobles, like Vinny. Being a Noble is less unique then being a Royal or Heir, so go with that as your hypothetical dividing line excuse. Still would make a difference to someone as class-obsessed as Ansom: "He's [Stanley] not a Noble Vinny."
Isn't a noble a warlord that pops as one, rather than being promoted?

[ChowGuy]

Isn't a noble a warlord that pops as one, rather than being promoted?
No. Parson actually spells out he distinction.
In Klog #4: "Big cities produce warlords, but it takes a lot of time. Infantry units can be promoted to warlords in the capital, but it takes mucho scmuckero."
And in Klog #8 "But Royalty is different. Royal and noble units have slightly stronger stats, and level faster. Cities ruled by royals pop nobles (and more royals)." Note that it does not even say that Nobles need be warlords. Thus "Lady" Firebaugh may be more then just a title of respect from the grunts.

[DevilDan]

No. Parson actually spells out he distinction.
In Klog #4: "Big cities produce warlords, but it takes a lot of time. Infantry units can be promoted to warlords in the capital, but it takes mucho scmuckero."
And in Klog #8 "But Royalty is different. Royal and noble units have slightly stronger stats, and level faster. Cities ruled by royals pop nobles (and more royals)." Note that it does not even say that Nobles need be warlords. Thus "Lady" Firebaugh may be more then just a title of respect from the grunts.

Like "Lord" Hamster? Hmmm... it's hard to fit him in any scheme. He was summoned as a chief warlord from the start, probably, but is neither royal nor noble.

Lots to think about. As a side, Faq is gone. Jill didn't start a side, though, automatically. (Or she was, anyway, one of possibly many barbarian sides. And we know nothing about how unaligned barbarians function within Erf's rules.) Just like Stanley's side wouldn't survive GK's fall even though its Overlord remains hale and hearty.

I wonder if there's ever been a turn-based strategy game that has needed this much depth?!

[ChowGuy]

I wonder if there's ever been a turn-based strategy game that has needed this much depth?!

Well since most TBS are "god-games" in which, at best, there is a "leader" unit who is the the avatar of the human player but neither they nor any other unit has the capacity for independent actions except possibly desertion, no, probably not. On the other hand, there are plenty of precedents for a side being able to disband a unit, even a warlord, for tactical reasons. In the HOMM series for example, where the number of allowable Heroes was limited, it was not uncommon to "dismiss" one who was of no practical use in order to "recruit" another elsewhere who was. In that same game, a side only "fell" when they had neither any cities, nor any Heroes left*. In other series, it's equally common to "disband" units who are too weak or far from the action to contribute just to save on their upkeep. As noted, even within the same series, the rules vary as to what then happens to those units. But dismiss a unit just because an overlord is peeved at them? That implies free will, and while overlords do have that in Erf, yes it's a "depth" that most games lack.




*Although there was a 7-turn time limit for a remaining hero to re-take a city, much as Stanley re-took GK when it fell. Jillian however claims she immediately became not-FAQ but (if we go by Wanda) ought still to have been a member of the Croatan tribe, which raises the question of whether Stanley as well was a "barbarian" of the Plaid tribe at the time. Another point to ponder in the question of the relationship between "tribe," "side," and "capitol." We know that Stanley did re-take the city to become it's overlord, much as Ansom believes Jillian could re-take FAQ to become a Queen, but we don't know if being an heir is a pre-requisite for that to happen. I suspect so, otherwise why have heirs.

[ChowGuy]

The implication I get from this is that Faq's units in the field did not disband because Jillian survived as heir.

But my point is "Disband" does not imply "cease to exist" and a unit that finds itself a "barbarian" might have no way of knowing if it arrived at that state through a voluntary act of their (former) overlord, or the "fall" of their (former) capitol. Jillian only "knows" the latter because she did become one, but even though she admits Banhammer "hated" her and would have preferred some other heir, she could never bring herself to believe the former.

She also "knows" she was popped as an heir only to safeguard FAQ from falling, but it did anyway. Could her pride accept that Banhammer found another way to prevent that, say by a secret alliance with Saline, and no longer needed her I think not. At least not that she would be willing to admit to others, even if she had private doubts.

She says she has no desire to return and reclaim "the Kingdom Stanley cost me" - her sole reason for hating him - but does she privately worry also that she cannot? At least, not as long as Stanley is around?

[headhoncho]

But my point is "Disband" does not imply "cease to exist"

In every significant turn-based wargame I know, disbanding a unit is the equivalent of destroying it. Making it cease to exist.

[ChowGuy]

In every significant turn-based wargame I know, disbanding a unit is the equivalent of destroying it. Making it cease to exist.
Master of Orion, Master of Magic, Age of Wonders I (but not AoW II)... of course you may not consider any those "significant."

Don't know yet how StarDock's new "not-MoM" TBS will work, since the Beta isn't out yet, but I suspect that Brad's penchant for details will at least suggest to him that having deserters / rogue units / pillagers running around causing trouble is a realistic concept. It's been a very real problem for armies for centuries.

[Aquillion]

Everyone in the strip has used "disband" as an explicit synonym for death. Stanley has threatened Parson with it repeatedly; he's often threatened Parson with instant annihilation as well. We have no reason to think that those two are different; indeed, if it was anything short of instant annihilation, it would hardly be a significant threat, would it?

In any case, it is plain that disbanding is considered an extremely dire threat, on par with death. It is not something you normally walk away from (this doesn't mean Parson won't be treated differently on account of being from another world. But 'normal' Erfworld units are plainly obliterated when disbanded, just like units in any other wargame.)


BTW: There is more to Stanley than "just" being a formidable warlord and owing a divine tool; he came up with the idea of the Eyemancer-link as confirmed by Wanda (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0053.html).Maybe. Remember, Wanda mentioned that the best way to manipulate Stanley is to let him think that everything is his idea. That could be one of those; she'd have no reason to take the risk of explaining the truth to Parson in detail. (My own pet theory is that Wanda arranged it in order to get Jack and Maggie out of the way, since they were potential rivals for power.)

[ChowGuy]

Everyone in the strip has used "disband" as an explicit synonym for death.

Cite please. Give just one instance of someone explicitly using the terms "disband" and "croak" in the same converstaion. You can't, because no-one in this strip has ever done so. Your "I extrapolate this to mean" does not count.

[MattR]

So what happens if the Royal leader isnt defeated, the unit is in a city and is then disbanded? the city isnt going to be neutral and it isnt in the field so wont go barbarian...

[Krelon]

In Parsons case being disbanded probably means that he simply returns to Earth.

What it means for other units is hard to say. Let's speculate...
Probably disbanded units would be expelled to the nearest free (neutral) hex. No one pays upkeep, therefore no food is popping. In the spirit of TBS games the unit in question could become a "neutral guard" if it happened to be on a special location that needs some protection (like neutral resource at the beginning of a game that have to be captured before they can be used; for example a group of neutrals could be stay on a "farm" and live from the "crops" there). Units that just happen to be disbanded and left in a barren hex would vanish within a few turns or instantly. Warlords probably can turn barbarian and become mercenaries, because at it seems warlords can have a treasury of their own and pay upkeep for their troops.

Lot of speculation but since erfworld is a game-wold not an actual balanced strategy game with known rules speculation is all I have.

[Aquillion]

Cite please. Give just one instance of someone explicitly using the terms "disband" and "croak" in the same converstaion. You can't, because no-one in this strip has ever done so. Your "I extrapolate this to mean" does not count.
"Parson you-- Do you wish to be the shortest-lived warlord we ever had?" ... "For I must prevent our lord and master from disbanding you." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0053.html) Unless you think she randomly segued from the threat on his life to a threat to send him safely home (which would be completely nonsensical), she is using 'disband' synonymously with 'execute', there.

Sizemore terrified of being disbanded (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0080.html). If it was something he survived, why be so worried?
Likewise, here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0081.html). Note that in both these cases, Sizemore is advocating avoiding the mere risk of a disbanding over what he sees as certain death in the upcoming fight -- in other words, disbanding is something at least as bad as getting killed. This kills outright any theories of it being something that is normally survivable.

Other, lesser examples:
Stanley threatens Parson with disbanding (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0019.html). A threat to send him back home would hardly be intimidating.

"I can end you with a thought, you know." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0032.html) It is logical to assume that this goes with what he's been saying all along about disbanding.

"But... *sigh* There's no point in disbanding you." ... "The three of you just... stay out of my sight if you want to live." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0078.html) Again, the idea that he would be seguing between threatening their life and letting them go peacefully is nonsensical.

Parson speculates that maybe if he's disbanded, he'll just be sent home (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0082.html). Implying that this is not normally the case, and certainly not what anyone else is assuming.

One of the key themes in the strip -- for Sizemore, in particular -- is that units are trapped. They are bound by the natural rules of their world to obey their lords completely for their entire life. The idea that Stanley is simply threatening to let people leave -- to put them out of work -- goes against everything in the strip.

[Oslecamo]

Bear in mind that Parson is a very special case. He is there to obey his Toolship. If he evades it in anyway, he is to get croacked.

So, if Parson was ever disbanded, the spell would probably kill him.

Besides, remember waht disbading means in this world:
1-No money, no food.
2-No home, no safe shelter.

Disbanded units become creeps, neutral beings who can't do anything on their own and await to be killed for exp or get dust untill someone shows up.

More or less like most people are terrified of losing their jobs.

[Welf]

Disbanded units become creeps, neutral beings who can't do anything on their own and await to be killed for exp or get dust untill someone shows up.

More or less like most people are terrified of losing their jobs.

Either that or they are erased from existence. And losing one's job on a sinking ship like Gobwin Knob doesn't seem so bad.

[Welf]

Maybe. Remember, Wanda mentioned that the best way to manipulate Stanley is to let him think that everything is his idea. That could be one of those; she'd have no reason to take the risk of explaining the truth to Parson in detail. (My own pet theory is that Wanda arranged it in order to get Jack and Maggie out of the way, since they were potential rivals for power.)

But why would she keep up such a charade for someone she expects to be disbanded/croaked at th beginning at the next turn? There is no gain making Parson believe that the Tool came up with the idea. She is very irritated at this moment, and probably is to busy screaming at Parson to have the time for such deception. A simple "shrewdest thing we/Gobwin Knob ever made" would have been enough. Furthermore she emphasize the outstanding brilliance of this idea compared to Stanley's other ideas. A very useless additional information if she only wants to scare Parson, after she told him that he tampered with their single most valuable asset.

[SteveMB]

But why would she keep up such a charade for someone she expects to be disbanded/croaked at th beginning at the next turn? There is no gain making Parson believe that the Tool came up with the idea. She is very irritated at this moment, and probably is to busy screaming at Parson to have the time for such deception. A simple "shrewdest thing we/Gobwin Knob ever made" would have been enough. Furthermore she emphasize the outstanding brilliance of this idea compared to Stanley's other ideas. A very useless additional information if she only wants to scare Parson, after she told him that he tampered with their single most valuable asset.

Valid points, though to play devil's advocate it could just be that her strategy of letting Stanley take credit for everything has acquired a certain force of habit.

[BRC]

Whose to say that Stanley couldn't have ordered the Trimancer link himself.


Remember, Stanley worked his way up from a rank-and-file piker to a warlord before he got the hammer. Link (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html) Ergo, he must have some stratigic savvy.

Personally, I believe Stanley to be an increadibly competant commander when actually commanding troops in the field. He's a great warlord, not a good overlord. GK was losing battles because Stanley didn't know how to pick warlords. Also, he obviously wasn't following how the campaigns were going, he was surprised to hear that the next battle would be at gobwin knob. Though he's probably very good at commanding troops, he's not good at commanding warlords, coordinating long-range campaigns just dosn't hold interest for him.

I find it likely that Ansom never really encountered him before Stanley became Overlord, and therefore dosn't know about Stanlys tactical skill. He knows about the skill of Stanleys warlords, people who stanley picked because they were good looking, and from that assumed stanley to be stupid. Throw in all the other Baggage Ansom has concerning Stanley and you get the reputation that Stanley is a total idiot, rather than a competant warlord who isn't intrested in anything directly involving commanding troops.

[SteveMB]

Personally, I believe Stanley to be an increadibly competant commander when actually commanding troops in the field. He's a great warlord, not a good overlord. GK was losing battles because Stanley didn't know how to pick warlords. Also, he obviously wasn't following how the campaigns were going, he was surprised to hear that the next battle would be at gobwin knob. Though he's probably very good at commanding troops, he's not good at commanding warlords, coordinating long-range campaigns just dosn't hold interest for him.

It occurs to me that the Trimancer setup, while useful for any side, is especially so for a side leader who's weak on grand strategy and thus needs all the help he can get to understand what's going on when the scale goes beyond that of a single battle.

[DevilDan]

The sophistication of the three-caster spell and the advantages that it confers is to me one of the strongest indicators that Stanley has unknown allies, advisers, or bosses. And Wanda doesn't know about them: why else say something that would lead Parson to suspect that Stanley demonstrated unusual shrewdness in ordering the casting of the spell?

[BRC]

It occurs to me that the Trimancer setup, while useful for any side, is especially so for a side leader who's weak on grand strategy and thus needs all the help he can get to understand what's going on when the scale goes beyond that of a single battle.
Indeed, Perhaps Stanley ordered the link in order to bring himself closer to the battle, although he didn't take command directly (Perhaps you can't. Perhaps the commanding warlord for a battle needs to be relativly close).


Hmm, this sheds light on alot of Stanleys personality.

Stanley achieved succsess through his own actions and decisions. While Ansom is proud of his lineage, Stanley is proud of his personal achievements. That is why the way you get stanley to agree to somthing is to convince him that it was his idea, he trusts his own ideas above all else because thats what got him in power. He continued to chose his warlords with the same method even after repeated defeats because choosing the warlords based on looks was his idea. The tactical decisions that lost the battles were other peoples ideas, and therefore, according to Stanley, not his problem.

Stanley places great emphesis on his Dwagons because they are somthing that he personally (As the wielder of the Arkenhammer) Provides, that's why he gets upset when Ansom and co croak three dwagons.

When Jillian breaks the spell and Ansom wipes out the wounded Dwagons, Stanley responds by going out again on his own. The Failure of Wanda's spell and Parson's plan, although due to luck, cemented this worldview in Stanleys mind, thats why he broke off and headed out alone. The way he saw it, when he started entrusting other people to do things, everything started going wrong.



Wanda says that the Trimancer link was the shrewdest thing Stanley has ever done, what in that sentence implies that Stanley hasn't done other shrewed things. First of all, assuming Stanley picked her up during his secret mission, she never really saw him in direct command. Secondly, she could simply be saying how very useful the Trimancer link is. If I say, for example, that Hamlet was the best play that Shakespear ever wrote, it dosn't mean that all of Shakespears other plays were bad.

[Welf]

Valid points, though to play devil's advocate it could just be that her strategy of letting Stanley take credit for everything has acquired a certain force of habit.

You're maybe right, but I doubt it. In such a situation of stress Wanda has no time to make conscious choices about her habit. And if she can't, she have to believe what she says. I don't think Wanda would auto-suggest herself into believing that it was Tools idea. Also she has a history of teasing the Tool. When she first meet Parson she questioned Stanley's competence right in front of him with her "or 25:1" comment.
Anyway, until the next comic starts with "Stanley, remember the time when Wanda totally made you order that link..." we only can guess.

[Arkenputtyknife]

Personally, I believe Stanley to be an increadibly competant commander when actually commanding troops in the field. He's a great warlord, not a good overlord. GK was losing battles because Stanley didn't know how to pick warlords. Also, he obviously wasn't following how the campaigns were going, he was surprised to hear that the next battle would be at gobwin knob. Though he's probably very good at commanding troops, he's not good at commanding warlords, coordinating long-range campaigns just dosn't hold interest for him.

That's pretty much how I've been seeing it. Makes me wonder, though; assuming Parson is better at running campaigns than running kingdoms, and Wanda has as much ambition as I suspect she may have, then having Wanda as overlord, Parson as chief warlord, and Stanley as field commander could be a scarily potent combination.

We've all been wondering what Wanda is up to and why she's so loyal to Stanley. As far as we know, there are only two ways to become overlord of a kingdom: be named heir, or be popped as one. And Stanley doesn't have an heir.

[Pyrian]

I also think Jillian is seriously deluding herself on how much everyone loves her.Agreed. Why the heck would Wanda or Jack want to defect to the person who doomed FAQ by galivanting around having fun when she - as a powerful, fighting warlord - could certainly have contributed a great deal to its defense?


Jill didn't start a side, though, automatically. ... Just like Stanley's side wouldn't survive GK's fall even though its Overlord remains hale and hearty.A "side" seems to require both an Overlord and a Capital. Ansom even mentioned that Jillian could rebuild FAQ and thereby become a queen!


In every significant turn-based wargame I know, disbanding a unit is the equivalent of destroying it.In the Total War series, disbanding a unit makes it a mercenary unit which can potentially be recruited by any side.

[DevilDan]

We don't know that "capital" means anything special if the overlord isn't in it. A city is likely a de-facto capital if, like GK, it is the only city in a side, on the other hand.

[Pyrian]

Perhaps. But I have the impression from the current storyline that Stanley cannot preserve his side by re-occupying FAQ before Gobwin Knob falls, implying that Capitals are indeed special.

[DevilDan]

Perhaps. But I have the impression from the current storyline that Stanley cannot preserve his side by re-occupying FAQ before Gobwin Knob falls, implying that Capitals are indeed special.

That may be because will have lost all his cities, not because he lost his capital specifically.

[headhoncho]

In the Total War series, disbanding a unit makes it a mercenary unit which can potentially be recruited by any side.

OK fine, then I will revert to Aquillon's post #43. :)

The key influences on this series, IMO, are Warlords and Heroes of Might and Magic. Disband = death in those games.

[Pyrian]

That may be because will have lost all his cities, not because he lost his capital specifically.No it can't, because he'd have FAQ. :smallconfused:

[DevilDan]

No it can't, because he'd have FAQ. :smallconfused:

Wanda's description of Stanley's plan is based on the assumption that Stanley would be a barbarian (because of GK's fall) before he reached a Faq city or Faq itself. We don't know what would happen, precisely, if he reaches Faq before GK falls because no one, except for Parson, has believed that GK could hold.

(Or am I missing the question/point/issue here?)

[Pyrian]

Wanda's description of Stanley's plan is based on the assumption that Stanley would be a barbarian (because of GK's fall) before he reached a Faq city or Faq itself.It seems instead to be based on the assumption that he becomes a barbarian via Gobwin Knob's fall, regardless of whether he's got another city. As evidence, I submit the fact that he can spend the treasury willy-nilly, yet cannot actually move it. If he could, he would have a great deal to gain via the simple expedient of leaving a turn earlier. That was clearly not an option. Note also that in virtually all city-capture style games, treasuries do not have locations in the first place, and money simply "pops" and is spent regardless of logistics and locations.


We don't know what would happen, precisely, if he reaches Faq before GK falls because no one, except for Parson, has believed that GK could hold.But we do know that there was apparently little or nothing to be gained. Stanley had formulated his retreat plans before Wanda even mentioned the Perfect Warlord spell.

[DevilDan]

It seems instead to be based on the assumption that he becomes a barbarian via Gobwin Knob's fall, regardless of whether he's got another city. As evidence, I submit the fact that he can spend the treasury willy-nilly, yet cannot actually move it. If he could, he would have a great deal to gain via the simple expedient of leaving a turn earlier. That was clearly not an option. Note also that in virtually all city-capture style games, treasuries do not have locations in the first place, and money simply "pops" and is spent regardless of logistics and locations.

But we do know that there was apparently little or nothing to be gained. Stanley had formulated his retreat plans before Wanda even mentioned the Perfect Warlord spell.

Just because he'd formulated the plan doesn't mean that he expected to use it. He only decided to leave after Parson's plan failed.

Faq is a last ditch effort. He wouldn't leave his capital city, an eminently defensible position with the bulk of his troops, just to get one more city--and "rebooting" Faq would have meant that it might have been detected by Transylvito or others, greatly reducing its utility as a fall-back position. He lost ten other cities and that didn't even seem to worry him unduly (it didn't worry him enough to start paying more attention to the coalition's progress towards GK).

He didn't think that he'd need to use his retreat plans; in fact, before Wanda told him about the Perfect Warlord spell he apparently didn't even realize how close he was to losing GK. Because of his belief in his fate as a Tool of the Titans, he tends to overestimate his chances for success.