PDA

View Full Version : Wanda and the Arkenpliers



Tanaar
2008-12-02, 11:50 AM
It has often been theorized that the 'Pliers are linked with Croakamancy in a big way, the same as the 'Hammer is thought to be associated with Carnymancy and the 'Dish with some sort of Thinkamancy.

What if Fate's appointed wielder of the Arkenpliers is Wanda? Hard to get more Croakamancy-affiliated than she is. Considering the awe-inspiring power of the 'Dish and 'Hammer in an attuned wielder, if Wanda got ahold of the Arkenpliers and they liked her...this battle would likely be over. Plus the fact that she'd probably have to take them from Ansom's cold, dead fingers.

Iain
2008-12-02, 12:46 PM
It has often been theorized that the 'Pliers are linked with Croakamancy in a big way, the same as the 'Hammer is thought to be associated with Carnymancy and the 'Dish with some sort of Thinkamancy.

Doesn't Healomancy seem more likely? They destroy the undead. And pliers are often used for fixing things.
Not sure how that'd fit in with Wanda, if at all.

Tanaar
2008-12-02, 05:05 PM
That's the other theory regarding how the 'Pliers are attuned. Could possibly be either way, and I don't recall there being direct evidence of Healomancy destroying undead. I was under the impression it was an assumption based on the 3.5 D&D idea of positive energy healing the living but harming undead and vice versa.

Ansom's easy destruction of the undead could be from the Arkenpliers being Croakamancy-based, and exhibiting total dominion over undead.

Eco-Mono
2008-12-02, 09:29 PM
Also worth noting (http://www.wanda-tools.com/), especially given this (http://stanleytools.com).

Daran
2008-12-03, 02:13 AM
Also worth noting (http://www.wanda-tools.com/), especially given this (http://stanleytools.com).

You Sir, just won the Internet! :smallbiggrin:

How on earth did you find that? Amazing.

ishnar
2008-12-03, 02:20 AM
Ohh, Wanda pliers. That makes it sound like a done deal. I was more or less hoping for it myself.

Btw, the arkenpliers are supposed to be linked to fate magic. And who cast the biggest fate spell ever?

Tanaar
2008-12-03, 03:33 AM
I'm reasonably certain all three 'Tools we know about are Fate magic. The Hammer is Carnymancy, the Dish is Thinkamancy, and the Pliers are mostly likely Croakamancy or Healomancy: both Fate-aligned.

Dragonath
2008-12-03, 03:50 AM
Also worth noting (http://www.wanda-tools.com/), especially given this (http://stanleytools.com).

Great find. This solves it imo.

rxmd
2008-12-03, 05:06 AM
Also worth noting (http://www.wanda-tools.com/), especially given this (http://stanleytools.com).
I'm impressed! How did you dig that up?

In a similar vein, "Charlie" is a term in the satellite TV community for a set of satellites (http://forums.dsstester.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=105808), which belong to a company called Dish (http://www.dishnetwork.com/) Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dish_Network) whose founder and CEO goes by the first name of Charlie. (Not being from the US I can't say whether they're prominent or not.) He runs a show called Charlie Chat where he talks about all sort of satellite- and TV-related things.

teratorn
2008-12-03, 10:18 AM
Also worth noting (http://www.wanda-tools.com/), especially given this (http://stanleytools.com).

Boop me in the boop! :smalleek:

Ok pliers go to mommy!

Godskook
2008-12-03, 11:13 AM
Btw, the arkenpliers are supposed to be linked to fate magic. And who cast the biggest fate spell ever?

Who? I give up. I've looked and can't find anyone...

Daran
2008-12-04, 04:48 AM
Who? I give up. I've looked and can't find anyone...

Wasn't the spell to get Parson a Fate spell?
Wanda cast it - look here: *Wanda's awesome* (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0017.html)

Tanaar
2008-12-04, 03:20 PM
Actually, it was mostly Findamancy, with some influence by Predictamancy. Findamancy, is Life element, Hocus Pocus class, and Erf aligned. Predictamancy is the same, but Fate aligned. Also, while certainly an epic-level spell, it may or may not have been among the biggest. Semantics.

Godskook
2008-12-04, 11:10 PM
Wasn't the spell to get Parson a Fate spell?
Wanda cast it - look here: *Wanda's awesome* (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0017.html)

No. It was a findamancy/lookamancy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0036.html) spell. Neither is fate aligned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0040.html).

The interesting fact is that both croakamancy and healomancy are fate alligned. Makes it hard to guess to which the pliers belong.

@Tanaar, where are you getting that Parson's summon spell is predictamancy related at all?

Tanaar
2008-12-05, 12:13 AM
Misremembering and laziness in looking it up.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-12-05, 03:23 PM
Here's a bigger question: If Wanda DOES get the Pliers, how will Charlie react, since Charlie basically wants the pliers for himself. All those archons wouldn't be too hard to take out a weakened Gobwin Knob even IF Wanda with the pliers AND His Toolship with his hammer show up.

Now, His Toolship seems to think that he is destined to get ALL the tools. This could spell trouble for Wanda when he finds out that she's not going to give them up.

Or, they really COULD be destined for His Toolship, in which case, Charlie had best watch his back, because he's the only other bearer of a Tool introduced so far

DevilDan
2008-12-05, 04:04 PM
No. It was a findamancy/lookamancy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0036.html) spell. Neither is fate aligned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0040.html).

You can argue that the Perfect Warlord spell does have some relationship to fate magic based on Sizemore's comments in this page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0013.html).
Sizemore:"Ooh. It pulses. With... what kind of magic? Fate?"
Wanda: "Your, mine, and ours."

Yes, that's not complete and unequivocal agreement, but it is suggestive. Also, she states that the spell was created by predictamancers as well as findamancers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html).


I'm reasonably certain all three 'Tools we know about are Fate magic. The Hammer is Carnymancy, the Dish is Thinkamancy, and the Pliers are mostly likely Croakamancy or Healomancy: both Fate-aligned.

This is sheer speculation, but each arkentool could have two fate magics associated with it too... would turning walnuts into birds (and vice versa) be changeamancy? Let's see, that would leave (just for the heck of it) both croakamancy and healamancy for the pliers. And what would be the other one for the 'dish after thinkamancy? What is dollamancy? Are archons some sort of construct unit? (Yes, they can be uncroaked, I'm just talking out my boophole here. For all we know, each tool can have powers from a variety of magics or that these abilities change to some degree depending on who the tool is attuned to.)

Godskook
2008-12-05, 04:16 PM
You can argue that the Perfect Warlord spell does have some relationship to fate magic based on Sizemore's comments in this page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0013.html).
Sizemore:"Ooh. It pulses. With... what kind of magic? Fate?"
Wanda: "Your, mine, and ours."

Yes, that's not complete and unequivocal agreement, but it is suggestive. Also, she states that the spell was created by predictamancers as well as findamancers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html).

WOW, good memory. Yeah, that does put some backing to the whole fate thing, but personally, I don't think it is enough. The dialog between Wanda and Sizemore sounds more to me like Wanda is referring to fate in the sense I might in normal conversation, not as a power source for the spell. More to the point, when I read it, Wanda sounds as if she's saying 'not in the way you think'. As far as being 'created' by a predictamancer, we know that caster-type does not restrict a caster to only using certain magics. Theoretically, predictamancers are used in all Magic Kingdom spellcrafting in order to ensure customer satisfaction(they 'predict' what the customer actually wants). If that were the case, it would help explain the breakfast 'toys' that Parson has been getting.

DevilDan
2008-12-05, 05:18 PM
Who knows how many disciplines a 350,000 shmucker spell of this nature would require? It searches the entire multiverse, apparently, and was "smart" enough to meet all of Stanley's weird requirements (a big guy, commanded many different kinds of battles, obsessed with wars, fights and kills for fun, eats gwiffons and marbits, and actually wants to be summoned, not to mention that everything seems familiar and safe). It was a tremendously tall order. Given all this, finding Parson could have been the trickiest part of the spell--it certainly seemed to be the longest and most stressful part for Wanda--so it wouldn't be surprising if Wanda, when discussing the spell conversationally with a non-caster, refers to the lookamancy/findamancy components.

Yes, Wanda's agreement with Sizemore's suggestion that the spell is pulsing with Fate magic could have been meant figuratively or poetically, but there's no reason to discount the serious involvement of Fate magic given that Fate casters were involved significantly with its crafting.


Theoretically, predictamancers are used in all Magic Kingdom spellcrafting in order to ensure customer satisfaction(they 'predict' what the customer actually wants). If that were the case, it would help explain the breakfast 'toys' that Parson has been getting.

I know you were speaking hypothetically, but if all or most spellcrafting involves predictamancy then why mention the participation of predictamancers at all?

Godskook
2008-12-05, 05:51 PM
Yes, Wanda's agreement with Sizemore's suggestion that the spell is pulsing with Fate magic could have been meant figuratively or poetically, but there's no reason to discount the serious involvement of Fate magic given that Fate casters were involved significantly with its crafting.

My wordomancy isn't real great. I don't discount it. I just don't find it personally compelling enough to change my personal belief on the subject. On the other hand, it is compelling enough that I can't assert my belief as fact any more.


I know you were speaking hypothetically, but if all or most spellcrafting involves predictamancy then why mention the involvement of predictamancers at all?

Honestly, I didn't think that far ahead in that train of thought. If I had to continue the theory, I'd say that predictamancy is only used on high-ticket spells where the price of adding the predictamancy is economical compared to the overall spell cost or where the importance of success is extremely important. Kinda like test-tube babies, using a predictamancer lets them know that this high-value spell is going to be what the customer is looking to buy. Also, along this train of thought, the spell could've been built using predictamancy without containing any of it, much in the same way a shirt is made with needles but most shirts don't have needles in them when you buy them(and the ones that do have needles in them don't have the needles that were used to make them, typically).

Another interpretation as to why predictamancers might be needed is that one is required when crafting spells made-to-order. Perhaps anybody can make a spell, but the spell actually made is only guarenteed if the caster has already learned that spell. Otherwise, there could be a lot of guesswork involved that would add unneccesary time to crafting the spell one actually wants. In this idea, making a commonly used spell would only require a caster who has used it before, but to make a custom one of a kind spell would require a Predictamancer much in the same way you need local-guide to help you find an unmapped village you've never been to before in rural South America, but to get to Chicago, all you need is a map.

ocdscale
2008-12-05, 08:10 PM
I believe the Arkenpliers are croakamancy aligned, and will very likely end up in Wanda's hands.

The Arkendish is probably Thinkamancy.
The Arkenhammer may be Carnymancy (theatrical, tames dragons).
If the Arkenpliers are Croakamancy, a very nice parallel emerges.

All three are aligned on the Fate axis. All three draw power from the "Motion" Element. As someone else on the forums noted, it would be especially fitting given that you could claim the tools seem to put fate into motion.

Lots of assumptions and caveats, but it fits nicely.

edit: Magic Chart (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0040.html)

Ave
2008-12-06, 11:35 AM
Well, Wanda pliers! Fun.

Was there a fourth arkentool?

Tanaar
2008-12-06, 02:44 PM
According to Parson's Stupid Meal, which I am too lazy to look up (see above, though I was right that time too,) there are four known Arkentools. We've only seen or heard of three. One popular theory is that it is the ArkenSaw. Say that out loud and you'll get it.

Until the suggestion that they were tied to the Motion element of magic, I'd assumed there were three additional unknown ones, one for each school within Fate-aligned magic. There being four Motion/Fate schools and four 'Tools is compellingly circumstantial, which leads me to believe it may be Dollamancy-oriented. As for Dollamancy, I'm guessing either voodoo-like, or remotely that the 'Dish is actually Dollamancy and related to the Archons.

SmallFurryMamml
2008-12-07, 07:11 AM
Until the suggestion that they were tied to the Motion element of magic, I'd assumed there were three additional unknown ones, one for each school within Fate-aligned magic. There being four Motion/Fate schools and four 'Tools is compellingly circumstantial, which leads me to believe it may be Dollamancy-oriented. As for Dollamancy, I'm guessing either voodoo-like, or remotely that the 'Dish is actually Dollamancy and related to the Archons.

The dish is definitley thinkamancy, Maggie warns Parson about the dangers of sending a Thinkagram to him in This comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0098.html) and he also sells Thinkagrams. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0057.html)

Miklus
2008-12-07, 01:22 PM
I believe the Arkenpliers are croakamancy aligned, and will very likely end up in Wanda's hands.

The Arkendish is probably Thinkamancy.
The Arkenhammer may be Carnymancy (theatrical, tames dragons).
If the Arkenpliers are Croakamancy, a very nice parallel emerges.

All three are aligned on the Fate axis. All three draw power from the "Motion" Element. As someone else on the forums noted, it would be especially fitting given that you could claim the tools seem to put fate into motion.

Lots of assumptions and caveats, but it fits nicely.

edit: Magic Chart (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0040.html)

Very nice theory! There is a fourth mancy related to motion: Spookism. The "Fate" axis of Spookism is "Dollamancy". I first read that as "Dollarmancy". But it must be like Voodoo, like some have already mentioned.

So the forth arkentool is...a doll??? Naaaaah. A sewing machine?.. A nailgun? No...A needle? The ArkenNeedle?

Anyway, Ansom don't know the first thing about croakamancy, so it is not surprising that he has not unlocked its powers. If he had, he could probably take control of those uncroaked troops.

Wanda, on the other hand...*shudder*. She is not quite right in the head either. What unit would be assosiated with the pliers? The hammer got dwagons. The dish got archons. It would be something dead and powerful. Liches? Is there also a building assisiated with the tools? Or is the "control tower" just part of Gobwin knob?

DevilDan
2008-12-07, 06:08 PM
I've half-wondered if a dollamancer makes cloth golems.

Tanaar
2008-12-07, 10:12 PM
Control tower? The Tower of Efdup (which always makes me giggle, say it out loud if you don't get it), is just Stanley's personal tower/residence/war rooms etc. Its essentially the centerpiece of Gobwin Knob, not anything related to the ArkenHammer.

rxmd
2008-12-08, 03:08 AM
I've half-wondered if a dollamancer makes cloth golems.
Or money, maybe.

I wonder what the exchange rate with the schmucker is?

Godskook
2008-12-08, 10:40 AM
I've half-wondered if a dollamancer makes cloth golems.

I love this theory.

Miklus
2008-12-08, 10:48 AM
Control tower? The Tower of Efdup (which always makes me giggle, say it out loud if you don't get it), is just Stanley's personal tower/residence/war rooms etc. Its essentially the centerpiece of Gobwin Knob, not anything related to the ArkenHammer.

I...still don't get it! :smallredface: Is it rude? I bet it is rude.

SteveMB
2008-12-08, 11:11 AM
I...still don't get it! :smallredface: Is it rude? I bet it is rude.

Efdup = Eff-d Up (eupehmism for F***ed Up)

Tanaar
2008-12-08, 11:19 AM
I'm reasonably certain that Miklus's statement was in playful, sarcastic jest. What, you can't hear tone of voice over teh intarwebs?

Brewdude
2008-12-08, 01:09 PM
Not everyone on da intarnets speaks da Engrish. Using sarcasm on the web is like using the right arrow key without hitting shift: Sometimes you translate right, but usually you end up spinning in circles.

Tanaar
2008-12-08, 01:14 PM
And apparently you also missed the gentle teasing nature of my post :smallbiggrin:

I'm fluent in English and Internet, and I don't think anyone meant offense. Back to Super Wanda, 'Pliers Lady of Death Croaking?

sentaku
2008-12-08, 03:06 PM
I believe the Arkenpliers are croakamancy aligned, and will very likely end up in Wanda's hands.

The Arkendish is probably Thinkamancy.
The Arkenhammer may be Carnymancy (theatrical, tames dragons).
If the Arkenpliers are Croakamancy, a very nice parallel emerges.

All three are aligned on the Fate axis. All three draw power from the "Motion" Element. As someone else on the forums noted, it would be especially fitting given that you could claim the tools seem to put fate into motion.

Lots of assumptions and caveats, but it fits nicely.

edit: Magic Chart (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0040.html)

All 3 also draw power from other sorces besides Motion.

Thinkamancy- is part of eyemancy which draws it's power from Motion and Life.

Carnymancy- is part of stagemancy which draws it's power from Motion, Life, and Matter


Croakamancy- is part of Naughtymancy which draws it's power from Motion and Matter.

these leaves us with needing a class that draws it's power from Life and Motion, which is Hippiemancy. Hippiemancy's fate magic is Signamancy.

Addionaly I belive that the Arkentool will go to Sizemore, as he is the only chracter to take an interest in (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0011.html)Hippiemancy. Furthermore with his dislike for war an Arkentool would make him a formitable opponent for the ultimate warlord in part 2 or 3.

Tanaar
2008-12-08, 03:10 PM
Yeah, but in the same link, we also found out that he's not very good at it. Good thought process though.






...ArkenShovel?

sentaku
2008-12-08, 03:22 PM
Yeah, but in the same link, we also found out that he's not very good at it. Good thought process though.






...ArkenShovel?

Stanly isn't even a caster, we don't know what Charlie is besides a mercenary, but I highly doubt that he is a caster. Both have attuned there respective arkenTools. Even though he hasn't managed to attune his, Ansome can still use the pliers. Being good or even able to use the respective magic of the arkentool dosn't seem to be a requirment.

DevilDan
2008-12-08, 03:42 PM
Stanly isn't even a caster, we don't know what Charlie is besides a mercenary, but I highly doubt that he is a caster. Both have attuned there respective arkenTools. Even though he hasn't managed to attune his, Ansome can still use the pliers. Being good or even able to use the respective magic of the arkentool dosn't seem to be a requirment.

It would not surprise me to learn that Charlie is a thinkamancer. Maggie says that the arkendish gives him a command of thinkamancy that she cannot match, but that's it.

quindraco
2008-12-08, 05:35 PM
While one of the Tools might indeed be an Arkenshovel, I'd like to point out that no tool store I know of sells dishes, and no one I know would think you were sane if you claimed a dish was a tool.

The signamancy tool (if there is one) could even BE a sign, or something like the dish (go arkenspork!), or something entirely different (mmmmm, this arkenchair is sooooooo relaxing).

DevilDan
2008-12-08, 05:55 PM
The signamancy tool (if there is one) could even BE a sign, or something like the dish (go arkenspork!)...

I think most of us assume that the arkendish is a satellite dish, not a dinner plate.

ocdscale
2008-12-08, 11:36 PM
All 3 also draw power from other sorces besides Motion.
...
these leaves us with needing a class that draws it's power from Life and Motion, which is Hippiemancy. Hippiemancy's fate magic is Signamancy.


Life + Motion gives you Eyemancy, which aligned to Fate gives you Thinkamancy.
Hippiemancy is Life and Matter.

Robak
2008-12-09, 06:13 AM
I think most of us assume that the arkendish is a satellite dish, not a dinner plate.

Is the actual word "arkendish" mentioned anywhere in the comic? I thought it is only hinted that Charlie possesses a "tool" or an arkentool and is atuned to it, but never said which one. His satellite dish is shown several times, rendered like the hammer and pliers (although its hard to tell really), but it might be called differently, couldnt it? It might even be something only touched by the real tool, the arkenscrewdriver.

SmallFurryMamml
2008-12-09, 06:38 AM
Is the actual word "arkendish" mentioned anywhere in the comic? I thought it is only hinted that Charlie possesses a "tool" or an arkentool and is atuned to it, but never said which one. His satellite dish is shown several times, rendered like the hammer and pliers (although its hard to tell really), but it might be called differently, couldnt it? It might even be something only touched by the real tool, the arkenscrewdriver.

No, it's the Arkendish. Maggie mentions it by name here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0098.html)

Robak
2008-12-09, 07:21 AM
Ah, there it is, thanks.

Godskook
2008-12-09, 10:43 AM
I've seen the arkendish, in panel 6. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0099.html)

DevilDan
2008-12-09, 11:28 AM
I've seen the arkendish, in panel 6. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0099.html)

And seen first, I believe, here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0046.html), forcing one to wonder what the size of the Arkendish really is. Could it be resized like the Eyebooks?

Miklus
2008-12-09, 12:07 PM
Efdup = Eff-d Up (eupehmism for F***ed Up)

Ah, thanks! I know the f-word, but it just did not click... I kept saying "Aif-dup" or "Eef-dup".

I still think the forth arkentool is a needle. It uses dollamancy to make cloth golems. It makes sense to me. Can be wielded as a rapier. I'm just not sure how it can be played. I bet the arkenpliers can be played like a harp and the disk like a steel drum. Hearing the disk makes people groove out and they are thus easy to defeat. The dark side of thinkamancy...

Tanaar
2008-12-09, 03:37 PM
YES. Wanda's not going after Ansom, she's going after the ArkenPliers! More evidence to support the 'Pliers link to Croakamancy. Not so crazy a theory now, is it?

BarGamer
2008-12-10, 01:03 AM
Hippiemancy is Life and Matter.

Hippies say, "Life matters." Wanda says, "Trioxin." Who wins? Time will tell...

DevilDan
2008-12-10, 01:14 AM
YES. Wanda's not going after Ansom, she's going after the ArkenPliers! More evidence to support the 'Pliers link to Croakamancy. Not so crazy a theory now, is it?

Parson did say that it was a retrieval mission.

vrellum
2008-12-10, 01:22 AM
Hmm, seems like RCC is falling apart. Who will be the bad guy next? Charlie or maybe Wanda? She's a bit evil (at least), very powerful to start with and given the boost of the pliers (which look like will attune to her) she'll be even more powerful. Not to mention she's got a lot of (weak) undead hanging around that aren't so weak when she's leading them. If the pliers further boost them, they'll be quite powerful (though they'd have trouble against the flying Archons).

There is the problem of how Erfworld is setup and it appears that Stanley is her liege and he can disband her if he so desires, but maybe something else is going on.

DevilDan
2008-12-10, 01:42 AM
Hmm, seems like RCC is falling apart.

Chalie is back in action and once again all bets are off.

Tanaar
2008-12-10, 02:46 AM
OMG

Earlier in the fight between Stanley and the Transylvitians Vinny was listing off Stanley's bonuses, and included his artifact bonus as a major factor. I'm reasonably certain its been referenced as such a few other times. vrellum's comment about all the flippin tons of uncroaked she's got around her made me realize...Wanda's huge croakamancer bonus to led uncroaked units, PLUS a possible artifact bonus...she could ATTACK and probably wipe out the Coalition. Add in the Tool's timely return with his Artifact-and-Overlord-led Dwagons, and the Gobwin Knob forces could suddenly be in a position to rout all hostiles. Including perhaps Charlie's.

DevilDan
2008-12-10, 02:55 AM
We still don't know the range or extent of the artifact bonus in a city or that of a croakamancer and the uncroaked units in a city hex.

Eco-Mono
2008-12-10, 03:43 AM
Yeah, but in the same link, we also found out that he's not very good at it. Good thought process though.






...ArkenShovel?
It's a possibility, although perhaps a bit of a stretch. (http://www.sizemoreinc.com/janitorial/)

Starwaster
2008-12-11, 06:12 PM
Efdup = Eff-d Up (eupehmism for F***ed Up)

Or, it could be FDUP, short for 'Full Duplex'

Surprise!
2008-12-11, 09:40 PM
Dollamancy could be literally linked to voodo. In the sense that it can control other units bodies. Unlike a suggestion or mind control spell that would sway the mind. Overcoming Loyalty would not be an issue. I am going with Arkenneedle as the fourth, and definitely betting Wanda is attuned to the pliers.

Fan
2008-12-11, 09:59 PM
We still don't know the range or extent of the artifact bonus in a city or that of a croakamancer and the uncroaked units in a city hex.

Well, it has been sated in the past that a artifact provides a major bonus as does a specfic caster being in with his/her created units. So, lets total bonuses for GK side, and the RCC.

GK:
Stanely if he makes it:
Overlord bonus
Artifact bonus
Dwagon bonus
Dance fight bonus?
Wanda:
Caster bonus
Uncroaking new units each turn.. may or may not be amplfied by the attunement of a artifact.
Parson:
Pimp ass warlord bonus...
New sword bonus... Not sure what this one does, but has obvious purposes.
Mathamancy artifact bonus.. Knowing where the odds are best in your favoru can do nicely for morale ,adn a de moralized army is no army at all.
And whatever awesome PLOT realted things he can do.
Sizemore:
Leads the Golems, and reinforces the walls. Quite a obvious purpose.
Caster bonus for the golems.
Does OKAY in combat.
Maggy: Thinkmancy... Not much else, but it helps to have intel.
Jack: Now here is the REAL clincher. He is a master class foolamancer. This is a HUGE bonus He can make the entire city seem to deserted to most if not all of the RCC's casters, and once the GK is in position to strike the take out all the command with focused, and pin pointed attacks. Very nice.
Walls: Obvious, but has to deal with siege.

RCC bonuses:
Ansom: Tough cookie, but just lost his carpet, and his artifact.... looked kind fo boned even with Charlies help.
Massive unit PWN!: They have numbers, but as the brave Spartans who fought at the Thermoplye pass have proven in a tight pass numbers can be useless against a elite force of men.
Vinnie: He is pretty awesome. He I believe, and the rest of Transylvito will be easily the best contributations to this fight.
The rest of the RCC: Not to big on casters, but DAMN they have alot of marbits, and Elves. Pretty elite, and pretty pissed... Big unit bonuses.
Siege: Obvious.
Archons (maybe) this will be the deciding factor in a otherwise damned close battle. The archons are powerful, and they fly with the ability to attack ground units. These also have a natural form of some sort of casting.
Weather or not the artifact goes will play a HUGE part in this.

DevilDan
2008-12-11, 10:57 PM
Among things we don't know I can list the "area of effect" or "range" of artifacts and of casters leading troops that can gain a bonus from their magic-type caster.

Fan
2008-12-11, 11:23 PM
Everything I do is a rough guesstamite.
I know a little, but not alot.
So I apologise for any wrong, or inaccurate figures in advance.:smalltongue:

Kreistor
2008-12-11, 11:53 PM
Add in the Tool's timely return with his Artifact-and-Overlord-led Dwagons, and the Gobwin Knob forces could suddenly be in a position to rout all hostiles. Including perhaps Charlie's.

Highly unlikely it would go that far. It would paradigm shift the comic too fast, obliterating a lot of the set-up. One Arkentool was not enough to hold back the coalition, and the dwagons it commands are now decimated. Attuned Pliers would not be any more powerful. It is probable that it would bring a new ally to the GK side (dwagons being the Hammer's ally).But alone being enough to throw the balance of power over to route the previously superior forces of the coalition? No, I just can't see that as possible.

Gaining the Pliers will do three things for certain:
1) Reduce Stanley's ire with his own warlords, eliminating his thoughts they were betraying him. It's a big gain for his side, and an embarrassment to Ansom, so Stanley would have to be overjoyed.
2) Provide an artefact bonus to allied units of the bearer, probably only those in the same hex.
3) Remove from the coalition a powerful anti-uncroaked item.

Since the coalition does not seem to use uncroaked, the anti-uncroaked abilities of the pliers are wasted on the GK side. Only if that ability is reversible will the Pliers come out as a big gain, unattuned. It is more like a big loss to Ansom personally, rather than a big gain for GK.

Tanaar
2008-12-12, 01:55 AM
Paradigm-shift, granted. But we've been led to believe that Erfworld will continue after "The Siege of Gobwin Knob" is over, which suggests a definitive end. That would provide such an ending. In that hypothetical case, I'm imagining Parson, Wanda and the Tool leading a massive counterattack, obliterating the RCC with few survivors. However, the Uncroaked have only turns to survive, creating a pyrrhic victory for the GK side. All sides now retreat to their capitols to recuperate, and the new chapter of Erfworld begins.

Additionally, the difference between the creature-control provided by the 'Pliers and that of the 'Hammer is more significant than you realize. Most pointedly, in sheer numbers. There were roughly 60 dwagons at the beginning of the siege, and they nearly tipped the balance by almost taking out the siege. There are thousands of uncroaked of various levels at Wanda's command. Remember how significantly massive bonuses to low-level Doombats changed things in Transylvito vs. the Tool? And thy didn't even an Arkentool bonus. Wanda's got similar bonuses to Cesar Borgata with uncroaked already. Add an Arkentool into the mix.

As for loss for the RCC vs gain by GK...this whole thread is predicated on the theory that the 'Pliers are Croakamancy-attuned, and will enable Wanda to gain unprecedented control over her uncroaked. So following our basic concept, this is an indisputable major GK gain.

Kreistor
2008-12-12, 04:52 PM
Paradigm-shift, granted. But we've been led to believe that Erfworld will continue after "The Siege of Gobwin Knob" is over, which suggests a definitive end. That would provide such an ending. In that hypothetical case, I'm imagining Parson, Wanda and the Tool leading a massive counterattack, obliterating the RCC with few survivors.

Part of the problem with your theory is that it diminishes Parson. Parson is the main character of this story. By winning the battle merely by having a single attuned Arkentool, Parson's learning, his genius, are unnecessary. Parson, in the end, has to win this through his gameplay. Wanda tearing the coalition apart with a conveniently overpowered Arkentool is a God in the Machine ending, suggesting Parson was incapable of winning. That's not a very satisfying conclusion to this battle. It undermines all of Parson's work with Charlie, getting into Ansom's head, etc. All of these are going to be important in the end.

it was Parson's plan that gained the Arkenpliers, so he is responsible thus far. It is an advantage, no matter how powerful it turns out to be in Wanda's hands. Will it attune to her? I give it 66% likelihood. Parson's victory here needs to turn into something that can help turn the tide, and boosting the strength of the Jetstone uncroaked would definitely buy him time to go forward with non-traditional warfare ideas.

You know, it's ironic. I just realized that if Stanley had not pulled a dine-and-dash, Ansom would never have attacked the walls like this. Dwagons would be keeping Charlescomm out of GK airspace, and could swarm him if he went out in front like that. Parson was only able to get Ansom to do that because Stanley and the dwagons were gone.


Additionally, the difference between the creature-control provided by the 'Pliers and that of the 'Hammer is more significant than you realize.

Purely speculative. We do not know the abilities conferred by an attuned Pliers, nor if the Pliers can even act as a positive force for the uncroaked, instead of the negative force Ansom used them for. This should resolve itself in a few comics, so long as the author doesn't shift scenes before Wanda and the Pliers is resolved.


There were roughly 60 dwagons at the beginning of the siege, and they nearly tipped the balance by almost taking out the siege. There are thousands of uncroaked of various levels at Wanda's command.

I'd put one dwagon up against an entire army of Jetstone undead, under the rules of most game systems. It's a question of Rock-Paper-Scissors. Unit A is strong against Unit B which is strong against Unit C which is strong against Unit A (sometimes the circle is larger with Unit D and E, and maybe an F in the middle of the circle, and so on... it can be complex, but one way to resolve these games is down to R-P-S). Dragons, through area effect damage, can annihilate low HP units by the hundreds. since their defences are usually high enough that weak units can't hurt them. (In D&D, for instance, skeletons would have normal weapons, and can throw up a ton of arrows, but dragon DR subtracts from the rolled damage so that none gets through to deal HP damage). Lots of weak units, on the other hand, beat low defense high damage units, like casters (no DR, so though they blow up a bunch of skeletons, the arrow swarm kills the caster... and the skeleton losses are a small percentage of the original unit). And casters, which can punch through Dragon often have ranges longer thanthe dragon's breath (killing the dragon before he breathes). How the specific rules of each unit figures into that R-P-S game in Erfworld, we simply do not know. What we do know is that the Jetstone forces in the tunnels were armed with melee weapons, which can't touch a flying dwagon, so they are vulnerable to strafing fire breath attacks, and massive bonuses wouldn't change that. A unit that can do zero damage to another unit can still only do zero damage no matter how many bonuses you stack on it.


Remember how significantly massive bonuses to low-level Doombats changed things in Transylvito vs. the Tool? And thy didn't even an Arkentool bonus.

I remember the Tool dropping Caesar and his bats like a bad habit, and coming away unscathed himself (113.6 to see Caesar getting knocked back HARD and 113.7 where the Tool is grinning in victory, still on his dwagon, which was merely injured according to Jillian in 114.1). The tool lost his dwagon to Jillian and her orlies in 114.4 and 114.5, NOT the doombats. Also see 116.4, where the Tool is escaping with other dwagons (you can also see the dwagons fighting doombats all through the background of 115, with dwagons becoming increasingly common and bats not so much). Caesar and his doombats may have won the battle, but it was hardly overwhelming. Remember that the final pre-evaluation was that even with all those bonuses "it'll be tight'" (113.5), which means the bonses were not enough. And that was an evaulation to get Caesar a shot at killing the Tool (which failed), NOT to wipe out the stacks of dwagons. That kind of strategy usually means pinning stacks by making sacrificial attacks to prevent those stacks from aiding in the defense of the target stack. Many game systems have rules that a unit that is being attacked simultaneooulsy with a second unit being attacked, that neither unit can help defend the other. That is just speculation, because most systems do not allow multiple stacks in the same hex. (113.4 and 113.5 talk about the stacking in the hex, which means we have multiple allied stacks in the hex.) Those sacrificial stacks are usually lost entirely, and the attacked stacks unscathed.

How the mechanics worked in 113, I cannot be certain. There are inconsistencies. In 113, Stanley looks likethe attacker... he's moving into the hex already occupied by the coalition. Further, he continues moving after he flees, but the coalition cannot follow him out of the hex, which means the coalition has already ended turn and can't leave the hex to follow. As the attacker, Stanley should be choosing which of his stacks attack which of the enemy's... that is the attack advantage. Attackers pick which units are attacking. Defenders gain their advantage by having the choice of terrain, usually. But here, the coalition chooses which of their stacks are attacking which of the Tool's stacks. Okay, this is an aside, but if someone knows of an explanation of why the defenders were able to force a confrontation between Caesar and the Tool, I'd like to hear it. I expect the answer is "Stanley wanted the confrontation because he's an overconfident boob", but that's not how it's described by Vinnie (the narrator in 113, as per 113.2). Vinnie describes it as their own choices forced the confrontation. (Perhaps it's forced in the rules? When two leaders are in the same hex, they must fight each other? Potentially true, but not historically true in our own world. Very limiting and abusable.)

So, no we don't know yet how badly the Tool got his nose bloodied in 113. We should get a report when he gets back to GK, and then we'll know how many of his 30 dwagons he lost, but clearly it was not all of them.


As for loss for the RCC vs gain by GK...this whole thread is predicated on the theory that the 'Pliers are Croakamancy-attuned,

Really? The title doesn't say that. It is "Wanda and the Arkenpliers", not "Wanda and the Arkenpliers -- assume they're croakamancy attuned." You may have wanted only one side of the Wanda-Arkenplier's possible situation, but the OP does not get to choose what happens in the thread. I am still on topic by the title. This thread will wind its way wherever it happens to go, as is the nature of all web forums. the mods might pull it back if it gets too far off topic, but I'm still on topic, despite your own desires.


and will enable Wanda to gain unprecedented control over her uncroaked. So following our basic concept, this is an indisputable major GK gain.

So, you're syaing that since the premise is A, that A is therefore proven? Fairly cyclic logic, isn't it? You're speculating, which means nothing is proven. So, no, if Wanda gets the Pliers, it is not a major GK gain, since Attunement is speculative. If she attunes,then yes it is a major gain. If she doesn't, then it is merely a major coalition loss.

SteveMB
2008-12-12, 05:08 PM
How the mechanics worked in 113, I cannot be certain. There are inconsistencies. In 113, Stanley looks likethe attacker... he's moving into the hex already occupied by the coalition. Further, he continues moving after he flees, but the coalition cannot follow him out of the hex, which means the coalition has already ended turn and can't leave the hex to follow. As the attacker, Stanley should be choosing which of his stacks attack which of the enemy's... that is the attack advantage. Attackers pick which units are attacking. Defenders gain their advantage by having the choice of terrain, usually. But here, the coalition chooses which of their stacks are attacking which of the Tool's stacks. Okay, this is an aside, but if someone knows of an explanation of why the defenders were able to force a confrontation between Caesar and the Tool, I'd like to hear it. I expect the answer is "Stanley wanted the confrontation because he's an overconfident boob", but that's not how it's described by Vinnie (the narrator in 113, as per 113.2). Vinnie describes it as their own choices forced the confrontation. (Perhaps it's forced in the rules? When two leaders are in the same hex, they must fight each other? Potentially true, but not historically true in our own world. Very limiting and abusable.)

We know that warlords can control which units engage, including when the warlord is on the defense (e.g. Jillian's initial capture (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0012.html) by the stack of dwagons Stanley sent after her (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0024.html)).

It's a bit more complex when there are warlords on both sides trying to control the engagement in mutually exclusive ways (e.g. one side wants to hit a particular target; the other side wants to screen that target behind other units). The clearest example we've seen is the battle over the lake ("Open the front door and let me at the warlord!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0075.html) seems to indicate that when the other side is screening the target you're after then you need to engage the screening units. In the case of the battle at the choke point (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html), it seems that the other Transylvito warlords and their bats were "opening the door" for Caesar.)

Jasdoif
2008-12-12, 05:35 PM
It's a bit more complex when there are warlords on both sides trying to control the engagement in mutually exclusive ways (e.g. one side wants to hit a particular target; the other side wants to screen that target behind other units). The clearest example we've seen is the battle over the lake ("Open the front door and let me at the warlord!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0075.html) seems to indicate that when the other side is screening the target you're after then you need to engage the screening units. In the case of the battle at the choke point (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html), it seems that the other Transylvito warlords and their bats were "opening the door" for Caesar.)What comes to mind here is Master of Magic--When two sets of units with different owners meet, combat is resolved on a "zoomed-in" grid of the same type of terrain, each side taking turns moving/attacking its units. Units physically block others, you need to go around or eliminate intervening units to get at what's behind them (if you're intending to use melee anyway).

Combat ends by defeating the other side or retreating; and if the attacker is retreating it returns to the square (on the "normal" map) it launched the attack from. I'm...honestly not sure where the defender ends up when retreating.


I don't think it's exactly the same here, but I see some similarities.

Kreistor
2008-12-12, 05:40 PM
The clearest example we've seen is the battle over the lake ("Open the front door and let me at the warlord!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0075.html) seems to indicate that when the other side is screening the target you're after then you need to force your way through the screening units.)

From 60.4, we can see that the screens in this case are all in separate hexes. 113.4 and 113.5 suggests that there are bats in other stacks inside the same hex with Caesar. If all units in a hex are forced to a single stack for defense (more common in games like this in my experience), then there is no reason to specify that Caesar is conferring a different bonus to units in the hex and units in his personal stack. This situation isn't parallel, unfortunately.

The rule I am talking is a reinforcement rule, and runs about like this. When a unit is attacked, units one hex away may move one hex to reinforce a stack that is being attacked. Units that participate in a defense may not later be used to reinforce elsewhere (since they are basically being attacked for the entire enemy turn.) Imagine Attacker Stacks A1, A2, and A3 across from Defender Stacks D1, D2, and D3.

All stacks have 5 units of equal strength. Attacker moves 4 units from each of A1 and A3 into A2, giving A2 13 units, A1 and A3 ave 1. A1 attacks D1 at a 1:5 ratio, wiping out A1. A3 attacks D3 with the same result. A2 now attacks D2. Normally, D1 and D3 could reinforce D2, but they have both been forced to defend already, so cannot reinforce. A2 hits D2 at a 2.5:1 ratio, which can often result in D2 taking heavy losses as well as being forced to retreat if anything survives. This punches a hole in the Defense, and may allow the attacker to disperse behind enemy lines such that it can put D1 and D3 out of supply (weakening the unit on the next turn, making the Defender pull them out of the problem hexes making the gap wider, and so on), This can be even more devastaing if D1=3, D2=9, and D3=3. A2 disperses into A1, A2 attacks D2, and then A1 attacks D1 at a 3:1, which almost always results in massive losses for D1. It also threatens D2 with being completely surrounded, if A3 can be reinforced from the rear to allow it to overwhelm D3, resulting in encirclement of D2 (always a very bad thing).

Anyway, as I said, the situation in 113 is difficult to resolve. We aren't dealing with multiple hexes here, but a single hex with many stacks, something I don't have much precedent for. Normally, when you attack a hex, all defense is united, but it's fairly clear in this case, stacks defend only gainst individual other stacks. Now, I understand that Warlords can direct a fight, but both sides have Warlords here. What is the Attacker advantage, if the defender chooses which units attack which defenses? Just think about this from a ground combat situation. The defenders hunker down and build berms and defenses. The defender has a warlord, therefore the attacker archers are forced to move into melee to attack the pikemen behind the wall? Absurd. The attacker chooses his heavy infantry to attack the pikemen, and if the defender doesn't like that, he can retreat. That's the only decision a defender makes, once commited to defending. The defender advantage is that he gets those berms, traps and walls, giving him a force multiplier requiring more attacker numbers to achieve the goal than defenders in the hex (ie. it takes 3 attacker units to rout a single defender unit reliably, if that defender has built reasonable defenses). Even if a Warlord can choose which attacking units he defends against, this would force them to leave any prepared defenses, eliminating the defender advantage. The warlord can reposition his own units, but he moving them to face an enemy (even if disorganized) pulls them out of their defenses. Essentially, the Warlord gives the defenders the attacker advantage while sacrificing the defender advantage (and the unled attackers have no advantage at all) But when facing an attacker with leadership, the attacker should be able to reorganize in the same way, thus a defending warlord that tries to reposition loses the defender advantage while not gaining the attacker advantage.

The attacker advantage is the R-P-S advantage: he has the best chance of victory by attacking the unmoving defenses with the units that are most effective against those defenses. A rule that allows the defender to negate the attacker advantage by retaining the defender advantage of building defenses at the same time as gaining the R-P-S advantage is unfair and unrealistic. The defender defends with scissors behind walls, and now gets to force the Attacker to attack with paper? Nope, I can't see it. Stanley's presence should negate the enemy's warlord advantage, putting things back to normal attacker advantage.

There is more. Wanda in 113.2 is clearly not with the Transylvito stacks. And "If he gets by, you gotta stop him" 113.7, suggests that Wanda is in the next hex; otherwise, if she were in the same hex, Stanley could assign attackers to pin her and she could not engage him. This suggests that by beating Caesar, Stanley has won the hex. No game allows two enemy units to occupy the same hex, so even though the fighting isn;t over, the battle has already been won. Stanley is the victor so he gets to continue to move, into the hex with Jillian. There is only one stack there, which he must attack, so Stanley faces Jillian. Special units in many systems cannot be targetted by normal units, unless all allied normal units are eliminated, but this system denies that. Jillian orders orlies to attack the Warlord. I think there's a little fudging in Jillian's favour here, since Stanley could order the dwagon to attack Jillian, if the orlies can be ordered to attack him. Her fall would rout the orlies inthe same way he won the last hex by dropping Caesar. Stanley is smart enough to get through one hex by dropping a warlord, but not the next?

Godskook
2008-12-12, 10:00 PM
From 60.4, we can see that the screens in this case are all in separate hexes. 113.4 and 113.5 suggests that there are bats in other stacks inside the same hex with Caesar. If all units in a hex are forced to a single stack for defense (more common in games like this in my experience), then there is no reason to specify that Caesar is conferring a different bonus to units in the hex and units in his personal stack. This situation isn't parallel, unfortunately.

Everything we know about Jillian fighting the wounded dwagons says that they are all in one hex. This comic makes it pretty clear, picture form (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0072.html).


The rule I am talking is a reinforcement rule, and runs about like this. When a unit is attacked, units one hex away may move one hex to reinforce a stack that is being attacked. Units that participate in a defense may not later be used to reinforce elsewhere (since they are basically being attacked for the entire enemy turn.) Imagine Attacker Stacks A1, A2, and A3 across from Defender Stacks D1, D2, and D3.

We've never had a multi-hex battle shown before(for sure, at least), but I doubt this is possible.


Stanley is smart enough to get through one hex by dropping a warlord, but not the next?

Jillian is in the same hex as Ceaser.

Kreistor
2008-12-13, 11:40 AM
Everything we know about Jillian fighting the wounded dwagons says that they are all in one hex. This comic makes it pretty clear, picture form (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0072.html).

What is this arguing against? I was talking about 113 in the section you quoted, the fight to kill Stanley, but the example you're using is from 72, where Jillian destroys the wounded dwagons over the lake, a completely different battle. Can you please specify a little more what I was saying that you're countering? I never said the wounded dwagons were not all in one hex. (We can see from 60.4 that the wounded dwagons are in one hex over the lake, where Parson's trap of six dwagon groups in a ring around an empty hex encompasses 7 hexes in total. The table is a better representation of hex edges, and unfortunately it's gone.)


We've never had a multi-hex battle shown before(for sure, at least), but I doubt this is possible.

Reinforcing from a second hex? It's pretty typical of these types of combat games. Well, yes we have. The battle for the wounded dwagons is one. There was no reinforcing there, but Ansom would not have expected that. Parson would save the reinforcements for moving in to defend the wounded dwagons in the middle.


Jillian is in the same hex as Ceaser.

It is not obvious that this is so.

Tanaar
2008-12-13, 12:00 PM
I've not really bothered to respond to most of your arguments, Kreistor, because, as stated several times on this thread, I'm too lazy to look stuff up. Also, many of your arguments miss my basic premises, one of which was that the whole idea of Wanda attuning to the ArkenPliers was highly theoretical a few strips ago, and that's what the OP was suggesting as a wild theory. You've gone on several tangents, including this one, and your suggestion that I derailed the thread has become pretty ironic, and frankly hypocritical. Further, a lot of the arguments against the Wanda/Pliers theory that you've supplied are just as hypothetical and unsupported as my suggestion that there would become a link. The idea behind theory analysis is to have only one unprovable hypothesis, and debate it using evidentiary support.

However, I'll rise to this one. Jillian is absolutely, positively, without question or alternative, in the same square Caesar is in. First point, they were specifically blocking off the single bottleneck hex. If he got past Caesar with Jill in a backup hex, Stanley could just go around her. Second and a lot simpler and more hard-coded, units cannot move out of their own hex on someone else's turn. Proven ad nauseam in Parson's failed attempts to circumvent the quaint turn-based rules of Erfworld, and in Jillian's own failure to leave the hex to pursue the Tool.

Can we get back to the original topic of Wanda potentially attuning to the ArkenPliers? I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for Erfworld 134/121.

Edit: We've had several multi-hex battles, actually. The dwagons' strikes on a several-hex-long siege train and Ansom's punch into the dwagon 'fort', and subsequent strike over the lake. The catch is that only the side whose turn it is can move from hex to hex. Though I suppose it draws the semantic question of what defines a 'battle'. Contextually you could argue that those engagements were multiple battles in rapid succession. Semantics, ultimately. And off-topic.

Edit Edit: My ninja skills are well-honed, Steve-san.

SteveMB
2008-12-13, 12:03 PM
Reinforcing from a second hex? It's pretty typical of these types of combat games. Well, yes we have. The battle for the wounded dwagons is one. There was no reinforcing there, but Ansom would not have expected that. Parson would save the reinforcements for moving in to defend the wounded dwagons in the middle.

Ansom moved in from the middle of the ring to the lake (from three hexes away, which he just barely had enough Move to do). Parson saw him coming in, but didn't manage to respond sufficiently.




Jillian is in the same hex as Caesar.
It is not obvious that this is so.

Jillian is with the rest of the group after Gobwin Knob started their turn (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0119.html) (and she couldn't move to a different hex once that happened). Also, Jillian is clearly in the same hex as the rest of the battle when Stanley makes his escape (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0127.html).

Kreistor
2008-12-13, 12:20 PM
Ansom moved in from the middle of the ring to the lake (from three hexes away, which he just barely had enough Move to do). Parson saw him coming in, but didn't manage to respond sufficiently.

He couldn't. He'd ended turn. By moving to the lake, Ansom did not attack any occupied hexes, and so Parson could not move dwagons to reinforce.


Jillian is with the rest of the group after Gobwin Knob started their turn (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0119.html) (and she couldn't move to a different hex once that happened). Also, Jillian is clearly in the same hex as the rest of the battle when Stanley makes his escape (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0127.html).

If Jillian moved to reinforce from one hex, she would end in the same hex as Caesar. That's still consistent.


First point, they were specifically blocking off the single bottleneck hex. If he got past Caesar with Jill in a backup hex, Stanley could just go around her.

A hex has six sides that it can be entered from. Hex A has one enterable side on opposite sides has four blocked sides. It has sides A1 through A6. We'll arbitrarily choose A1 to be open, which makes A4 open.

Side A1 can only be entered from hex B4. Further, with only one side to exit from, A4 borders on only C1. This means that where there is a single chokepoint of one hex, the unit must pass through B, A and then C. Caesar can be in B with Jillian in A, or Caesar can be in A with Jillian in C. Stanley must pass through all 3 to transit the pass.


Second and a lot simpler and more hard-coded, units cannot move out of their own hex on someone else's turn. Proven ad nauseam in Parson's failed attempts to circumvent the quaint turn-based rules of Erfworld, and in Jillian's own failure to leave the hex to pursue the Tool.

All turns were ended. There was no possibility for even reinforcement movement, which is dependent on an enemy attacking. Parson was trying to move units at night, when no reinforcement was possible. We have not yet eliminated the possibility of reinforcement movement.

Kreistor
2008-12-13, 12:49 PM
The tool lost his dwagon to Jillian and her orlies in 114.4 and 114.5, NOT the doombats.

Made a mistake here. Jillian did not kill the dwagon. She killed a veil. Vinnie passes his hand through the dwagon corpse in 115.5, and you can see the still living, armored dwagon mount Stanley always used emerging into the next hex in 115.11. So, Stanley didn't order the dwagon to kill Jillian because it wasn't Stanley in the first place. Jillian's whole fight was only an illusion. Stanley was never threatened by Jillian. (I'm wondering if the word "COMPOS" in 113.9 is the casting of the veil, since that's where Jack becomes sane again. The veil has to start before Jillian kills the dwagon since it didn't die.)

teratorn
2008-12-13, 01:00 PM
The veil has to start before Jillian kills the dwagon since it didn't die.

If you look carefully, in the second panel of #0126 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0126.html) there is no cloud of bats near the dwagon, while on the third panel one can see a cloud a bats just beside the dwagon. My guess is that Jack started the veil between those two (Jillian was even covering her eyes, so that helped).

Wow, we're drifting from the thread's topic...

Godskook
2008-12-13, 07:05 PM
If Jillian moved to reinforce from one hex, she would end in the same hex as Caesar. That's still consistent.

She was also ordered by Caesar to 'stack up' so they could end turn, here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0116.html). That order only makes sense if she is in the same hex as Caesar when TV ends turn.

Tanaar
2008-12-13, 10:55 PM
He couldn't. He'd ended turn. By moving to the lake, Ansom did not attack any occupied hexes, and so Parson could not move dwagons to reinforce.

No, he hadn't. He was about to go search for the Dwagons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0068.html) when he got the Thinkagram from Jillian, and he had the move remaining to join her. Sides, not units, take their turns as a whole. This is a basic premise of Erfworld combat.


If Jillian moved to reinforce from one hex, she would end in the same hex as Caesar. That's still consistent.

Units. Can. Not. Move. When. It. Is. Not. Their. Turn. Period. Let go of this "reinforcement" concept. It is specifically disproven again and again. Example-instead of evenly spreading out his dwagons (tilted toward the column) in the dwagon fort, Parson would simply have made strong points and guards in the others, reinforcing when a weak point was attacked. Far more efficient use of his forces.



A hex has six sides that it can be entered from. Hex A has one enterable side on opposite sides has four blocked sides. It has sides A1 through A6. We'll arbitrarily choose A1 to be open, which makes A4 open.

Side A1 can only be entered from hex B4. Further, with only one side to exit from, A4 borders on only C1. This means that where there is a single chokepoint of one hex, the unit must pass through B, A and then C. Caesar can be in B with Jillian in A, or Caesar can be in A with Jillian in C. Stanley must pass through all 3 to transit the pass.

Rotate it 120 degrees and you'll see the flaw in the above. Assuming A1 is the top left bordering hex, and it is oriented vertically with the east and west sides as the blocked ones, you still have a one-hex bottleneck, but with up to four possible exits from that hex. Hopefully my diagram below will work. ^=blocked by mountains, X=passable terrain, O=bottleneck. Periods are to frame-shift every other line to create hexes.

.^^^^^^XX^^^^^
^^^^^^^XX^^^^
.^^^^^^^O^^^^^
^^^^^^^XX^^^^
.^^^^^^XXX^^^^


All turns were ended. There was no possibility for even reinforcement movement, which is dependent on an enemy attacking. Parson was trying to move units at night, when no reinforcement was possible. We have not yet eliminated the possibility of reinforcement movement.

One more time, there is no such thing as reinforcement movement. Movement between hexes off-turn is not possible. If it were possible in any way, there would be massive tactical differences. What you suggest...no. There would be massively abundant evidence for it. Something as tactically valuable as that would have obviously been in use any number of times. There is a small mountain of evidence against it, and absolutely zero to support it.

Kreistor
2008-12-14, 12:39 AM
No, he hadn't. He was about to go search for the Dwagons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0068.html) when he got the Thinkagram from Jillian, and he had the move remaining to join her. Sides, not units, take their turns as a whole. This is a basic premise of Erfworld combat.

Uhm, dude, please go back and reread what I quoted of you to restore context. You said, "Parson saw him coming in, but didn't manage to respond sufficiently." I said, "He couldn't.", meaning "Parson couldn't.", not "Ansom couldn't." Parson could not respond sufficiently, because Parson could not respond at all during Ansom's turn. I was not saying Ansom couldn't do something: it was his turn so he certainly could do many things. Since Ansom did not attack any hexes in leaving for the lake, Parson could not use reinforcement movement, which can only ocur in response to an attack. Further, he had no units beside the wounded dwagon stack, so no reinforcement movement there either. Your own position is that there is no reinforcement movement at all, so your statement is at its face false. Parson could not respond at all, so "responding sufficiently" is a gross misrepresentation of Parson's abilities. It implies he had options and chose poorly, when he actually had no options and could not choose at all.


Units. Can. Not. Move. When. It. Is. Not. Their. Turn. Period. Let go of this "reinforcement" concept.

No. Nothing you've presented has even remotely eliminated any of my interpretations. Reinforcement movement is still possible.


It is specifically disproven again and again. Example-instead of evenly spreading out his dwagons (tilted toward the column) in the dwagon fort, Parson would simply have made strong points and guards in the others, reinforcing when a weak point was attacked. Far more efficient use of his forces.

Remember that all six hexes were initially attacked by a single bat (56.1 and 56.2). Under normal reinforcement rules, none of those units could now reinforce. Units that have defended during a turn cannot reinforce other units on that same turn, and you'll find that in my earlier explanation of typical reinforcement rules. By attacking with bats first, Vinnie had pinned all six hexes down, preventing reinforcement movement, meaning Parson can't use any of them to reinforce later when Ansom slams into the weak hex. So, Beeep, wrong answer, try again.

BTW, if Parson chooses not to enact a rule, then that does not mean that rule does not exist, even if you think it was dumb for him not to. Had those dwagons not been hit by bats, Parson may have wanted to hold all the possible reinforcements back to defend the wounded dwagons when that stack was hit. He'd lose the three in the weak stack, and save the 30 in the wounded stack. Remember, this was a ruse to draw Ansom in. Making that center hex seem vital was the whole point.


Rotate it 120 degrees and you'll see the flaw in the above.

.^^^^^^XX^^^^^
^^^^^^^XX^^^^
.^^^^^^^O^^^^^
^^^^^^^XX^^^^
.^^^^^^XXX^^^^

Which is a second possibility, and equally possible with my own. This does not eliminate my own map, since it also creates a chokepoint. (BTW, for those that don't see the second possibility, use the same map, but ^ is passable and X is impassable, instead of the other way around. There's still only one chokepoint at O, since the hexes beside O can be entered from 4 hexes, which doesn't qualify as a chokepoint.) Are you trying to suggest that since you can come up with a second possible map that yours is the only possible map? It has to be your map, and not mine? Why?


One more time, there is no such thing as reinforcement movement.

So certain. And yet, unable to prove it. I don't like to commit to such absolutes in the face of alternatives, myself. I'm embarrassed less often that way. Making such absolute statements sticks one's neck out to be chopped off. Me, I see both possibilities and can't commit at this time.


There is a small mountain of evidence against it, and absolutely zero to support it.

You can always say, "No you're wrong", but that is only opinion, not proof. Nothing you've said has actually disproven my interpretations: you've only provided alternate interpretations. That there are multiple interpretations does not mean my own are inherently wrong. I won't claim that reinforcement movement is the only possibility -- in hex reinforcements are also a possible interpretation. But at the moment there is insufficient evidence to prove that is the only possibility.

As for the mountain of evidence:

You can't prove Jillian begins in the same hex in 113 (reinforcement movement ends her turn in Caesar's hex, which I mentioned earlier, so that does not prove she begins in that hex... you need to prove she begins in the same hex to disprove reinforcement movement, since reinforcement movement automatically ends with her in the hex she has defended), so take that rock off the mountain.

The dwagons could not reinforce against Ansom's attack in the ring trap, because they'd already been attacked by bats making them unavailable as reinforcements. There's another boulder that more closely resembles a pebble.

The discussion with Misty was about movement at night when it was no one's turn, so reinforcement movement, a concept a gamer like Parson would fully understand, was not even going to be presented by Parson as a possibility. He would not consider asking about Reinforcement movement at night, because he would know it can only occur in response to an attack, which does come at night (by convention or rule, the erfworlders do not attack at night... besides reinforcement movement is very restrictive, and Parson wanted to move a lot more than one hex). So, again, there's no evidence there against reinforcement movement, since Parson himself would discount it as a usable mechanic in the context of movement at night..

I seem to remember something about mountains and molehills... maybe the quote will come to me later.

Tanaar
2008-12-14, 02:35 AM
Uhm, dude, please go back and reread what I quoted of you to restore context. [snip]It implies he had options and chose poorly, when he actually had no options and could not choose at all.

Apologies on this, I was under the impression you were saying Ansom had ended turn but Jillian had not. I made no reference to Parson.


Which is a second possibility...[snip] Are you trying to suggest that since you can come up with a second possible map that yours is the only possible map? It has to be your map, and not mine? Why?

Your hex map suggestion is absolutely feasible, except for one thing that just came to me. In her story to Ansom, Jillian stated there was only one bottleneck hex. Okay, maybe it wasn't in that story, but I'm not searching ~70 strips for a minor point. There's one bottleneck hex, your map makes at least two.

My response on the hex issue was not "I'm right, you're wrong", but rather, "here's an alternative". It doesn't have to be my map, but your configuration is not the only one. I'll copy it below, for reference. Read it, see how it is very clearly phrased as exclusive.


A hex has six sides that it can be entered from. Hex A has one enterable side on opposite sides has four blocked sides. It has sides A1 through A6. We'll arbitrarily choose A1 to be open, which makes A4 open.

Side A1 can only be entered from hex B4. Further, with only one side to exit from, A4 borders on only C1. This means that where there is a single chokepoint of one hex, the unit must pass through B, A and then C. Caesar can be in B with Jillian in A, or Caesar can be in A with Jillian in C. Stanley must pass through all 3 to transit the pass.



You can always say, "No you're wrong", but that is only opinion, not proof. Nothing you've said has actually disproven my interpretations: you've only provided alternate interpretations. That there are multiple interpretations does not mean my own are inherently wrong. I won't claim that reinforcement movement is the only possibility -- in hex reinforcements are also a possible interpretation. But at the moment there is insufficient evidence to prove that is the only possibility.

As for the mountain of evidence:

You can't prove Jillian begins in the same hex in 113 (reinforcement movement ends her turn in Caesar's hex, which I mentioned earlier, so that does not prove she begins in that hex... you need to prove she begins in the same hex to disprove reinforcement movement, since reinforcement movement automatically ends with her in the hex she has defended), so take that rock off the mountain.

The dwagons could not reinforce against Ansom's attack in the ring trap, because they'd already been attacked by bats making them unavailable as reinforcements. There's another boulder that more closely resembles a pebble.

The discussion with Misty was about movement at night when it was no one's turn, so reinforcement movement, a concept a gamer like Parson would fully understand, was not even going to be presented by Parson as a possibility. He would not consider asking about Reinforcement movement at night, because he would know it can only occur in response to an attack, which does come at night (by convention or rule, the erfworlders do not attack at night... besides reinforcement movement is very restrictive, and Parson wanted to move a lot more than one hex). So, again, there's no evidence there against reinforcement movement, since Parson himself would discount it as a usable mechanic in the context of movement at night..

I seem to remember something about mountains and molehills... maybe the quote will come to me later.


No. Nothing you've presented has even remotely eliminated any of my interpretations. Reinforcement movement is still possible.


Remember that all six hexes were initially attacked by a single bat (56.1 and 56.2). Under normal reinforcement rules, none of those units could now reinforce. [snip] Making that center hex seem vital was the whole point.


So certain. And yet, unable to prove it. I don't like to commit to such absolutes in the face of alternatives, myself. I'm embarrassed less often that way. Making such absolute statements sticks one's neck out to be chopped off. Me, I see both possibilities and can't commit at this time.


...Under normal reinforcement rules...

Most of this is complete nonsense. You're confusing other games with Erfworld. There has been nothing to even remotely suggest that the reinforcement rules of other games are applicable. Further, I play a lot of turn-based strategy games, and can't name a single one that has something like that.

It is a basic premise of Erfworld combat that units cannot move from hex to hex except on their turn. There have been at least half a dozen people commenting on your theory, none of them think it even slightly plausible. You have no factual evidence. End it. Go start your own thread if you want, let the rest of the Erfworld forum laugh at it. This one is for Wanda and her ArkenPliers.

I'm moving back on track. I won't respond to the above drivel again, no matter how tempting the non-arguments are.

Kreistor
2008-12-14, 08:36 AM
Apologies on this, I was under the impression you were saying Ansom had ended turn but Jillian had not. I made no reference to Parson.

We're cool, then.


Your hex map suggestion is absolutely feasible, except for one thing that just came to me. In her story to Ansom, Jillian stated there was only one bottleneck hex. Okay, maybe it wasn't in that story, but I'm not searching ~70 strips for a minor point. There's one bottleneck hex, your map makes at least two.

No, that was my point in the response. Because the two entry hexes have four entrances/exits, they cannot be interpreted as bottlenecks or chokepoints -- if you enter them from one spot, you can leave from three others, so if you don't like the straight forward option, you aren't trapped into going that one direction. It is the central hex with one entrance on either side that makes it the lone chokepoint, since it eliminates all but directly returning on your previous flightpath. Those two hexes are not restricted to only a single movement direction. A unit flying perpendicular to the pass would path through that hex normally.

.^^X^^
^^XX^^
.^^X^^
^^XX^^
.^^O^^
^^XX^^
.^^X^^
^^XX^^
.^^X^^
^^XX^^

^ passable and X impassable. A unit flying north along the edge of the mountain could utilize the entry square without hindering movement. That eliminates that hex as being a chokepoint on its own. It is O that chokes movement east west, even though the unit moving east west must also pass through the two entry hexes.


My response on the hex issue was not "I'm right, you're wrong", but rather, "here's an alternative".

That's not how it reads. "Rotate it 120 degrees and you'll see the flaw in the above." You called my map flawed, which means you felt that it was wrong. If yours is merely a second alternative, it does not eliminate my map as being possible, so it is not flawed.


It doesn't have to be my map, but your configuration is not the only one.

Remember that my stance is not one of "reinforcement is the only possibility". I don't need my way to be the only way. Go back to my original discussion to see that I discuss multiple possibilities, without rejecting any of them. I prefer reinforcement movement, but I don't see it as being the only possibility, yet.


Most of this is complete nonsense. You're confusing other games with Erfworld. There has been nothing to even remotely suggest that the reinforcement rules of other games are applicable. Further, I play a lot of turn-based strategy games, and can't name a single one that has something like that.

You don't imagine that Erfworld is unique and different do you? That the author of this has invented a game with ideas and rules never before seen?

This link provides a list of all the old Avalon Hill games. Avalon Hill Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Avalon_Hill_games). Squad Leader, Fortress Europa, Afrika Corps, Third Reich, Tobruk... there were over a hundred. Every rule the author is using has been used somewhere before. There are just too many systems for them not to have been used. What? You think I invented the concept of reinforcement movement? Hardly.

It is not inappropriate to come up with ideas for rules from other systems, simply because these may have been inspiration for this system. we don't know which games the author played, or did not play, so we can't reject any possible rule. Heck, the author may not even remember the games he got the ideas from.


It is a basic premise of Erfworld combat that units cannot move from hex to hex except on their turn. There have been at least half a dozen people commenting on your theory, none of them think it even slightly plausible. You have no factual evidence. End it.

Actually, it is relevant. We do have a unit moving not on her turn, and it directly impinges on the Pliers.

Wanda in 119 and 120.

Ansom is attacking the Outer Wall. Wanda enters airspace (controlled by Charlie), which only borders on Tower, so she began in Tower. Moves to Airspace, which is not garrison (so not 0-cost movement). Moves to Outer Wall to attack Ansom (also not garrison). And finally appears to be moving to Courtyard to retrieve the Pliers.

All movement is on Jetstone turn.

Your absolute is not as absolute as you suggest.

The only resolution I see is reinforcement movement of some kind, though it is even less restrictive, if Wanda can reinforce through Airspace, meaning a 2 movement used on enemy turn, instead of most reinforcement rules' restriction to one.


I'm moving back on track. I won't respond to the above drivel again, no matter how tempting the non-arguments are.

Wow, you do like characterizations, don't you? The best you can come up with this time is "Everyone else thinks its this way"? And you characterize my evidence as non-arguments?

If you wish to drop the conversation, that is always your right. But I do get the last word. Don't expect me to give that up.

But I can go back to the Pliers, if you like. No one else has said anything pertinent on that subject for a long time, so this thread was already dead even had I not hijacked it a little. Frankly, that's because there's been nothing to say. If your pretense must be adhered to, then there's nothing to discuss, because there are no options. Yes, let's discuss that the sun is orange, but you're not allowed to say the sun is any other colour. Not much room for discussion... "It's such a pretty orange, isn't it?"

There will be severe problems on the GK side, if Wanda attunes to the Pliers. 33.1 "Because it is the will of the Titans that I control the Arkentools." Stanley expects that he will attune the Arkenpliers to himself. He has power over Wanda. If she attunes to them, he will not be pleased at all, regardless of her newfound powers. I expect he'd croak her just to ensure that no one else that exists could attune to them. Given Stanley's known position, Wanda is probably racing after the Pliers to deliver them to Stanley, with no expectation that they'll work for her. I also expect her to give them up to him, even if they do attune. She has a loyalty to Stanley that is currently unexplained and seemingly absolute. Whatever makes her loyal to Stanley goes beyond possession of a merely useful toy.

Fjolnir
2008-12-14, 09:23 AM
ok, I've been reading this and I'm fairly surprised nobody has pointed out that rob balder has adressed this himself in a different thread entirely. I quoted the whole thing because it's fairly relevant.


Okay, I know it's bad policy to explain as the narrative is going on. Maybe a sign of bad storytelling that I feel like I have to. My fault, if so. But I can't watch you guys squirm any more. Future pages will touch on some of this, but it's very, very simple.


You can only move when it is your turn.
When it is not your turn, and someone moves into the space you're on (meaning hex or city zone), then you can engage them.
Every side gets exactly one turn a day.
There is a natural turn order. When sides ally, their next turn is shared at the latest slot in the day of any of the allied sides.

On this day, Charlescomm has had their turn. The Archons ended that turn in Gobwin Knob's airspace. If they ally with Jetstone (I am not saying they will), then they do not get another turn until tomorrow, after Gobwin Knob's next turn. If they don't ally, they'll go before Gobwin Knob. Either way, until their next turn, the Archons can only engage units that enter Gobwin Knob's airspace.

I think the main thing that's confusing people is this:

If you own the city, you can move around in it without move cost.

That means even zone to zone, and even when it is not your turn, so the constraint does not apply to the defenders. Sorry if that's confusing, but it was more or less explained in a Klog.




oh and the "I saw dragons attacking the siege line" thing happened during the GK turn NOT ansom's

Suicide Junkie
2008-12-14, 11:06 AM
We're cool, then.
No, that was my point in the response. Because the two entry hexes have four entrances/exits, they cannot be interpreted as bottlenecks or chokepoints -- if you enter them from one spot, you can leave from three others, so if you don't like the straight forward option, you aren't trapped into going that one direction. It is the central hex with one entrance on either side that makes it the lone chokepoint, since it eliminates all but directly returning on your previous flightpath. Those two hexes are not restricted to only a single movement direction. A unit flying perpendicular to the pass would path through that hex normally.You appear to be running under a very restrictive definition of chokepoint.

Note that if you enter a hex with enemies they WILL have the chance to attack you. (Neglecting flying leaders vs non-archery ground forces, leaders on both sides with orders to not attack, etc) So it doesn't matter how many entrances there are. If you must pass through that hex, you need to be willing to take some hitsies.

Chokepoint:
If you travel from Hex A (GK) to Hex B (FAQ' capital), there is a hex such that all possible paths from A to B include it.
There are in fact a minimum of 2 such hexes; the degenerate solutions of GK itself, and FAQ. But as we know from the story there is also at least one chokepoint hex in the mountains somewhere.

(Note: personally I'd consider it a pretty good chokepoint even if the path were two or three hexes wide.)

Given the views of the combat we have seen, this particular chokepoint hex appears to have only two passable entrances. Which means there is a row of three chokepoint hexes formed into one high quality chokepoint.

The layout of this particular chokepoint may or may not mean anything as far as the underlying combat rules are concerned. Either way, Stanley can't get to FAQ without taking some hitsies.

Suicide Junkie
2008-12-14, 11:16 AM
Actually, it is relevant. We do have a unit moving not on her turn, and it directly impinges on the Pliers.

Wanda in 119 and 120.

Ansom is attacking the Outer Wall. Wanda enters airspace (controlled by Charlie), which only borders on Tower, so she began in Tower. Moves to Airspace, which is not garrison (so not 0-cost movement). Moves to Outer Wall to attack Ansom (also not garrison). And finally appears to be moving to Courtyard to retrieve the Pliers.

All movement is on Jetstone turn.

Your absolute is not as absolute as you suggest.

The only resolution I see is reinforcement movement of some kind, though it is even less restrictive, if Wanda can reinforce through Airspace, meaning a 2 movement used on enemy turn, instead of most reinforcement rules' restriction to one.The entire city is one hex with zero movement cost. Bogroll (zero move garrison unit) can go to the courtyard to get bombed, and he can go to the dungeon to guard a door.

Wanda can also go from somewhere in the garrison (likely the tower) to the airspace to the wall.

1) Note that Stanley's turn is ended since RCC has started theirs; all of Parson's units have zero move left now. (Except for Parson himself, who has move = NaN)

2) If you try to cross a hex boundary off-turn (when you have no move), this happens:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0127.html

3) Therefore Wanda could not have crossed a hex boundary any time during this action.

Kreistor
2008-12-14, 03:26 PM
The entire city is one hex with zero movement cost.

You're probably right from Klog 11, but let's point out that a "zone" is undefined. A zone could encapsulate more than one hex, or be a small part of a single hex at this point.

In Klog 11, Parson states, "they're all considered part of the city, so we can deploy and redeploy units without expending move." If all zones were inside one hex, then this statement would be unnecessary. If Wanda is indeed a reinforcement inside the same hex in 113, then redeployment inside a hex is inherent in all hexes (since she does it in a mountain hex), making the specific case of the city zones unexceptional. If, on the other hand, the city encompasses multiple hexes, then this specification of zones (a group of hexes) being allowed free movement becomes a noteworthy point. It is the exception that bears mention, instead of the standard rule that becomes obscured by specific mention of city zones.


Wanda can also go from somewhere in the garrison (likely the tower) to the airspace to the wall.

Wanda is allowed to do far more than just reinforce. She moves from zone garrison to airspace to outer wall to attack Ansom, and then down to Garrison (courtyard) to retrieve the pliers. that final movement is not in response to an attack, so that isn't reinforcement. Yes, by Klog 11 she uses no movement, but she does move, even if it is from one zone to the next.

If the more common interpretation is true, then we have an excessively abuseable mechanic. It provides defense with far too much advantage, negating the normal attacker advantage. In the attack on Stanley, we see a fixed formation of bats screening the warlords. Let's go with the "reinforcement inside the hex" concept. As Caesar, I make a frontline formation of one bat, with everything else held back as reinforcements. If Stanley is not allowed to attack reinforcements on the initial attack, Stanley can only engage the one bat. Now Caesar has the entire advantage. He can assign reinforcements in response to Stanley's deployment against the bat, giving him the RPS advantage, as well as the terrain advantage (well, no terrain advantage in air combat, but the same rules applied to ground combat would have terrain advantage). Abusable mechanic.

Remember that this discussion encapsulates ground combat as well. There the defender advantage is based on their ability to select the terrain of the fight -- they end turn on a hilltop, for instance, and so they get the advantage of longer ranged ranged combat and a foe tired from the climb.

Further, it promotes over-occupation of a single hex -- entire armies piled into one hex, to ensure maximum availability of reinforcement. Spreading out to create a wide front line is senseless, since it allows an enemy to mass in a single hex and face your army piecemeal.

I'm not saying you're wrong. There are just repercussions to you being right that can result in a game with bad mechanics.

Godskook
2008-12-14, 05:05 PM
Kreistor, the Author has made it very clear that:

1.Units can not cross a hex wall except on their own turn.l
2.GK is divided into city zones.
2a.Defenders can move from one zone to another without expending move.
2b.Attackers can not.

Not only that, but there is not one instance in the comic to support your 'reinforcement' rule that you're speculating about. It contradicts the current rules. It even makes the story confusing at times, because tacticians in-story *NEVER* use it, despite places where it would be beneficial if it existed.

Tanaar
2008-12-14, 05:18 PM
Let it go, folks. There are Holocaust-deniers whose arguments make better sense than Kreistor. I want my thread back. :smallfrown:

SteveMB
2008-12-14, 06:44 PM
If the more common interpretation is true, then we have an excessively abuseable mechanic. It provides defense with far too much advantage, negating the normal attacker advantage. In the attack on Stanley, we see a fixed formation of bats screening the warlords. Let's go with the "reinforcement inside the hex" concept. As Caesar, I make a frontline formation of one bat, with everything else held back as reinforcements. If Stanley is not allowed to attack reinforcements on the initial attack, Stanley can only engage the one bat. Now Caesar has the entire advantage. He can assign reinforcements in response to Stanley's deployment against the bat, giving him the RPS advantage, as well as the terrain advantage (well, no terrain advantage in air combat, but the same rules applied to ground combat would have terrain advantage). Abusable mechanic.

We know that warlords on either attack or defense have some latitude in determining which of their units engage which of the enemy units. Specifically, we've seen that warlords can designate some units to screen off some of the enemy units ("buy me some time to solo the blue"); I'm not sure how that differs, really, from what you're describing as an abusable mechanic.


Remember that this discussion encapsulates ground combat as well. There the defender advantage is based on their ability to select the terrain of the fight -- they end turn on a hilltop, for instance, and so they get the advantage of longer ranged ranged combat and a foe tired from the climb.

Assuming that Erfworld mechanics even includes any of that. Given that the overall mechanics are described by Parson as "simple", I suspect that it's more like each terrain type having a simple list of combat bonuses for certain types of units, extra movement costs for certain types of units to enter, prohibitions against certain types of units being there at all, etc.


Further, it promotes over-occupation of a single hex -- entire armies piled into one hex, to ensure maximum availability of reinforcement. Spreading out to create a wide front line is senseless, since it allows an enemy to mass in a single hex and face your army piecemeal.

The basic concept "you can't move to a different hex off-turn" means that there's a disadvantage to spreading your army across more than one hex. Presumably there is some countermanding reason (e.g. you can only put so many units in a hex; there are attacks that can hurt every unit in a hex; something) for doing so anyway, or the column wouldn't be deployed that way -- Ansom has his flaws, but he isn't a downright moron.


I'm not saying you're wrong. There are just repercussions to you being right that can result in a game with bad mechanics.

I'm not sure that it's necessarily bad mechanics. The turn-based nature of the world gives the attacker a huge advantage in taking the initiative while the defender sits by with very little he can do in response (recall Parson's lament while sweating bullets over whether or not the wounded dwagons would be found). If the way combat works within the hex gives the defender a big advantage, as you assert, it may all balance out OK.

Kreistor
2008-12-14, 09:06 PM
We know that warlords on either attack or defense have some latitude in determining which of their units engage which of the enemy units. Specifically, we've seen that warlords can designate some units to screen off some of the enemy units ("buy me some time to solo the blue"); I'm not sure how that differs, really, from what you're describing as an abusable mechanic.

The abuseable mechanic is one that denies the attacker any inherent advantage for choosing which units he is attacking with. A warlord reorganizing a defensive formation to deal with an unlead attacker, sure. That I can see. But when the defender can reorganize in the face of a stack with another leader, then there is no advantage to having a leader in an attacking stack, outside basic bonuses. The defender is in charge of which units defend against the attacking units, denying the attacker any choice in the matter. This means the attacker always faces the bad end of the R-P-S game, and can only succeed without major losses when the defender is missing an element.

Okay, I guess my point isn't getting through. Imagine a game where you're playing rock paper scissors, but you have to reveal your choice before the other guy. Can you win this game? Never. The other guy, given the advance knowledge of your choice, will always choose the optimum response and always win. That's the situation an attacker faces in an erfworld where the defender can hold back reinforcements in the same hex as the main defense.

Ultimately, the attacker must make the choice of how which defending units face which attacking units. If that is not true, then the attacker must always have vastly superior forces in order to win a battle, since he faces terrain disadvantage and R-P-S disadvantage.


Assuming that Erfworld mechanics even includes any of that. Given that the overall mechanics are described by Parson as "simple", I suspect that it's more like each terrain type having a simple list of combat bonuses for certain types of units, extra movement costs for certain types of units to enter, prohibitions against certain types of units being there at all, etc.

Terrain advantage can also come from the building of defenses. Throwing up a berm, or sharpened stake wall doesn't take long, and this acts as a force multiplier for the defense. However, such a makeshift defense requires the defending units not move, or they leave their defenses behind. The attacker should be making the choice of which attacking units engage the entrenched defenders, not the defender, with or without a Warlord.


The basic concept "you can't move to a different hex off-turn" means that there's a disadvantage to spreading your army across more than one hex. Presumably there is some countermanding reason (e.g. you can only put so many units in a hex; there are attacks that can hurt every unit in a hex; something) for doing so anyway, or the column wouldn't be deployed that way -- Ansom has his flaws, but he isn't a downright moron.

I originally thought it was the 8 unit-stacking-bonus rule that limited each hex to eight units (by choice of the commanders rather than a rule forcing that situation), but now we know that multiple stacks can occupy the same hex, so that's not it.


I'm not sure that it's necessarily bad mechanics. The turn-based nature of the world gives the attacker a huge advantage in taking the initiative while the defender sits by with very little he can do in response

That's not yet demonstrated in the comic. We've only really seen exceptional battles. We have not seen a set-piece field battle of two more-or-less equal armies. Exceptional fights don't demonstrate the common rules well, since they usually bog down in specific rules. that's not going to change until the siege ends, and Parson goes on the offensive.

Godskook
2008-12-14, 10:32 PM
The abuseable mechanic is one that denies the attacker any inherent advantage for choosing which units he is attacking with. A warlord reorganizing a defensive formation to deal with an unlead attacker, sure. That I can see. But when the defender can reorganize in the face of a stack with another leader, then there is no advantage to having a leader in an attacking stack, outside basic bonuses. The defender is in charge of which units defend against the attacking units, denying the attacker any choice in the matter. This means the attacker always faces the bad end of the R-P-S game, and can only succeed without major losses when the defender is missing an element.

Combat does not seem to be organized in a attacker v. defender style. It seems instead to work in a very true-to-real manner.

Kreistor
2008-12-15, 08:31 AM
Combat does not seem to be organized in a attacker v. defender style. It seems instead to work in a very true-to-real manner.

That's what the rules of game systems try to emulate, at least the ones developed in the heyday of war gaming. Rules for movement were intended to emulate what real units could achieve. Rules of deployment were meant to force real world formations to be ideal.

Units being unable to move very far to respond to attacks across a wide battlefield is actually very unrealistic. That was one of the functions of cavalry with its faster and longer movement. It could be used to reposition to threaten a flank (forcing it to defend in two directions), attack a weak spot to force an enemy to rout, shore up a weakening front line, rallying the men there at the same time as increasing fighting power, or to chase down a fleeing enemy.

Units being unable to move on an enemy turn, even to rout, is unrealistic. It makes a lost defense an automatic annihilation. Most battles result in only 10% casualties on a loss (there are exceptions with complete annihilation of an army, such as the Romans wiping out the Carthaginian army at Carthage). This system permits only attackers to rout, since they are the only ones who can move out of the hex, so defenders on a loss are annihilated 100%.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the formations in 113.1 don't make a lot of sense, unless there are rules that force the defenders into creating a formation. Such rules eliminate "simple" as a description of this game system.

Tanaar
2008-12-15, 11:41 AM
No one claimed that this was supposed to be realistic. Its based on a game, not reality. Seriously, go make your own thread. Call it "Rob Balder's Mistakes in Creating Erfworld" or "My Gross Misinterpretations and Warped Logic". Argue your baseless and often irrelevant theories there.

But get out of my Wanda thread. :smallmad:

Kreistor
2008-12-15, 12:01 PM
I'd stop, if people weren't responding to me. They want to talk to me, so I'll talk to them. Your best plan is to ignore me.

Or post something about your own topic people might want to discuss with you.

Xiander
2008-12-15, 01:55 PM
That's what the rules of game systems try to emulate, at least the ones developed in the heyday of war gaming. Rules for movement were intended to emulate what real units could achieve. Rules of deployment were meant to force real world formations to be ideal.

Units being unable to move very far to respond to attacks across a wide battlefield is actually very unrealistic. That was one of the functions of cavalry with its faster and longer movement. It could be used to reposition to threaten a flank (forcing it to defend in two directions), attack a weak spot to force an enemy to rout, shore up a weakening front line, rallying the men there at the same time as increasing fighting power, or to chase down a fleeing enemy.

Units being unable to move on an enemy turn, even to rout, is unrealistic. It makes a lost defense an automatic annihilation. Most battles result in only 10% casualties on a loss (there are exceptions with complete annihilation of an army, such as the Romans wiping out the Carthaginian army at Carthage). This system permits only attackers to rout, since they are the only ones who can move out of the hex, so defenders on a loss are annihilated 100%.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the formations in 113.1 don't make a lot of sense, unless there are rules that force the defenders into creating a formation. Such rules eliminate "simple" as a description of this game system.

May I point out that "realism" is a very funny term to use about a world structered to work in turns? Yes, from our perspective being unable to move when it is not your turn is very unrealistic, but from Stanleys point of view everybody having turn all at once is just as unthinkable.

My point is that trying to argue that erfworld is badly constructed based on tactical facts from our world fails to take into account the fact that Erf might not try to simulate Earth.

Kreistor
2008-12-15, 02:18 PM
May I point out that "realism" is a very funny term to use about a world structered to work in turns? Yes, from our perspective being unable to move when it is not your turn is very unrealistic, but from Stanleys point of view everybody having turn all at once is just as unthinkable.

My point is that trying to argue that erfworld is badly constructed based on tactical facts from our world fails to take into account the fact that Erf might not try to simulate Earth.

However, there are many games that try to take real world battles and translate them into turn based rules. Yes, they are less common now than in '90, but once there were hundreds of such games competing for the gamers' bucks. Avalon Hill was the biggest manufacturer of such games, but hardly the only one. These games took real world real time battles and made them turn based, similar to the rules of Erfworld.

So, no, it is not inappropriate to look to the rules of similar games to puzzle out the rules of Erfworld. I could, for instance, compare the rules of Fortress Europa to Afrika Corps. Fortress Europa was a game of the lead up to D-day and the fall of Germany. Afrika Corps was about WW2 in Africa. Now, you don't imagine that these two games didn't share some mechanics. do you? That they could not be compared, simply because one was in Europe and one in Africa? A different location does not mean different rules. Part of Erfworld is figuring out which rules are the same and which rules are different. Walking into this game analysis thinking that it can't have similar mechanics to rules designed to emulate our world, especially when those mechanics are written by an inhabitant of our world who does not actually have any experience with Erfworld (or if he thinks he does, then we need to show him to the local psyche ward).

Since the rules are written by an inhabitant of Earth, not Erf, the only experience he can use to create this system is knowledge of our battles. The basic rules are going to draw on the same historical results, regardless of Erf or Earth... there is only our own history and its wars. A Jetstone cavalryman and a French Lanceur are going to fight in similar ways, so the mechanics governing Jetstone cavalry must be applicable to the French Lanceur. There may be detail differences (shorter move, more damage, less armour, and so on), but fighting from animal back with a weapon will be no different, despite the presence of magic, in either world. There will be specific rules to deal with the inherent differences in the universes (ie. different laws of nature, such as the presence of science vs. magic), but so far, sharpened metal still cuts flesh in Erfworld, and that means our own historical results still apply.

dr pepper
2008-12-15, 02:22 PM
Ok, using the Arkendozer to pull this back on topic. But you'll be sorry...

Wanda and pliers have another reason to go together that has nothing to do with the undead.

Picture this: Wanda with the Arkenpliers. In her dungeon. With a naked and bound prisoner. She's heating the pliers in the fireplace.

DevilDan
2008-12-15, 03:24 PM
Wanda and pliers have another reason to go together that has nothing to do with the undead.

Picture this: Wanda with the Arkenpliers. In her dungeon. With a naked and bound prisoner. She's heating the pliers in the fireplace.

Ouch. And you'll be sorrier: There's plenty you could do with pliers even without a fire, starting with subtracting fingernails.

Tanaar
2008-12-15, 04:24 PM
So, we know Parson is using Ansom's attack as an opportunity to decapitate the RCC and gain the 'Pliers, but is Wanda's single-mindedness in retrieving them at Parson's orders or does her fervor in going after them mean she suspects the same thing we do?

And yeah, I can think of a lot of kinky torture applications for those 'Pliers :smallwink:

Also, the thread is back on track. Take other discussions elsewhere or I'll ask the moderators to step in.

Kreistor
2008-12-15, 06:23 PM
So, we know Parson is using Ansom's attack as an opportunity to decapitate the RCC and gain the 'Pliers, but is Wanda's single-mindedness in retrieving them at Parson's orders or does her fervor in going after them mean she suspects the same thing we do?

119.7 "Sending up some fliers, Charlie. On a little retrieval mission. You want it to succeed." This immediately after mentioning that Charlie bit on getting the Pliers. Her orders must be to retrieve retrieve the Pliers; however, it is one of Stanley's primary goals to gain all of the Arkentools ("Because it is the will of the Titans that I control the Arkentools." 33.1). This makes Duty far more likely in directing Wanda, over and above direct orders. She has the chance to retrieve them, so even if her orders are otherwise, Duty would obligate her to retrieve them over and above the Chief Warlord's orders.

DevilDan
2008-12-15, 07:00 PM
119.7 "Sending up some fliers, Charlie. On a little retrieval mission. You want it to succeed." This immediately after mentioning that Charlie bit on getting the Pliers. Her orders must be to retrieve retrieve the Pliers; however, it is one of Stanley's primary goals to gain all of the Arkentools ("Because it is the will of the Titans that I control the Arkentools." 33.1). This makes Duty far more likely in directing Wanda, over and above direct orders. She has the chance to retrieve them, so even if her orders are otherwise, Duty would obligate her to retrieve them over and above the Chief Warlord's orders.

What she is doing probably is based not only on Parson's direct orders but also on the relative importance to Stanley's and GK's survival.

SteveMB
2008-12-15, 07:10 PM
What she is doing probably is based not only on Parson's direct orders but also on the relative importance to Stanley's and GK's survival.

It's also notable that Parson doesn't exactly propose handing the Arkenpliers over to Charlie. Rather, he points out (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0117.html) that Charlie will be better situated to take them if he sits back and let GK and the RCC have their "hatchet fight".

That may be Natural Thinkamancy at work (he knows that the Arkentools are Stanley's top priority, so he may be unable to willfully and explicitly use the Arkenpliers as a bargaining chip for something Stanley considers less important), or it could be Parson playing Charlie while keeping open the possibility of acquiring the Arkenpliers in the hope that its bonus and its powers (whatever they turn out to be) will prove helpful.

DevilDan
2008-12-15, 07:28 PM
It's also notable that Parson doesn't exactly propose handing the Arkenpliers over to Charlie. Rather, he points out (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0117.html) that Charlie will be better situated to take them if he sits back and let GK and the RCC have their "hatchet fight".

That may be Natural Thinkamancy at work (he knows that the Arkentools are Stanley's top priority, so he may be unable to willfully and explicitly use the Arkenpliers as a bargaining chip for something Stanley considers less important), or it could be Parson playing Charlie while keeping open the possibility of acquiring the Arkenpliers in the hope that its bonus and its powers (whatever they turn out to be) will prove helpful.

Plus, Ansom and the RCC are the immediate danger. I can see him offering his services to Charlie as ransom for GK once GK is safe from the RCC. As for the pliers, that's a harder call. I like how your mind works, though: he shrewdly did not offer them to Charlie even though he was probably telling the truth when he said that he anticipated having them in the next turn (something that seem about to occur).

Kreistor
2008-12-15, 08:44 PM
Parson can't afford to play Charlie. Parson needs allies. The RCC will have far superior production. We're seeing this after Stanley has lost a number of non-Capital cities. Stanley's production is down to one city, which may have depleted its crystal production, so is operating entirely on cash stores. the other sides have production that defeated the much larger army of Stanley at his prime. Even if they lose this fight, they can regroup and prepare another army much faster than GK can. Parson has to think about the long term, too. What little he might gain from backstabbing Charlie will result only in a long term loss. For now, Parson has to play it clean.

DevilDan
2008-12-15, 09:50 PM
Parson can't afford to play Charlie.

For all we know, Parson realizes that an alliance with Charlie would be short-lived once Stanley returned to GK, so he may need to get what he can from Charlie now.


We're seeing this after Stanley has lost a number of non-Capital cities. Stanley's production is down to one city, which may have depleted its crystal production, so is operating entirely on cash stores. the other sides have production that defeated the much larger army of Stanley at his prime. Even if they lose this fight, they can regroup and prepare another army much faster than GK can. Parson has to think about the long term, too. What little he might gain from backstabbing Charlie will result only in a long term loss. For now, Parson has to play it clean.

We do not know how the numbers were stacked up on each side of the Great Western Conflict originally. Perhaps they were even even, but we know that Stanley has no patience for strategy and would rather have impressive-looking pretty-boy warlords than capable leadership. In addition, his obsession with the arkentools made him such a poor leader that he didn't even know how close the RCC was to taking GK at the start of the story.

Clearly, fielding an army is in some ways expensive or burdensome; perhaps this is why RCC warlords are seeking to continue the current siege despite facing serious setbacks.

Whispri
2008-12-15, 09:58 PM
Parson can't afford to play Charlie. Parson needs allies. The RCC will have far superior production. We're seeing this after Stanley has lost a number of non-Capital cities. Stanley's production is down to one city, which may have depleted its crystal production, so is operating entirely on cash stores. the other sides have production that defeated the much larger army of Stanley at his prime. Even if they lose this fight, they can regroup and prepare another army much faster than GK can. Parson has to think about the long term, too. What little he might gain from backstabbing Charlie will result only in a long term loss. For now, Parson has to play it clean.
Wanda wouldn't have tried to persuade Stanley to literally empty the Treasury if Gobwin Knob's income was insufficient to cover upkeep costs. And his enemies are a long way from home for the most part, it would take an age for reinforcements to reach Gobwin Knob on foot.

As for Parson, he's playing for time and strengthening his army, there are ways of doing the second that don't involved surrendering a Powerful Artifact like the Arkenpliers to Charlie.

Kreistor
2008-12-15, 10:43 PM
Wanda wouldn't have tried to persuade Stanley to literally empty the Treasury if Gobwin Knob's income was insufficient to cover upkeep costs. And his enemies are a long way from home for the most part, it would take an age for reinforcements to reach Gobwin Knob on foot.

Yeah, she would. They were facing imminent destruction with no Chief Warlord. As she said, the treasury was going to wind up in Ansom's hands, so might as well spend it.


As for Parson, he's playing for time and strengthening his army, there are ways of doing the second that don't involved surrendering a Powerful Artifact like the Arkenpliers to Charlie.

I don't see any evidence of the army strengthening. The uncroaked Parson gained are the weakest sort, lasting only a few turns, and were the result of Wanda's spells, not the production of the city.

Further, I have seen no evidence that Parson has any control over army building. That may be the purview of the Ruler -- Stanley in this case. It usually takes money to buy units, and the only people who have talked about spending money are Rulers.

DevilDan
2008-12-15, 11:47 PM
Yeah, she would. They were facing imminent destruction with no Chief Warlord. As she said, the treasury was going to wind up in Ansom's hands, so might as well spend it.

But she wouldn't recommend spending it if they couldn't afford to upkeep their unit. Plus, I don't think that they had only exactly 500,000... they probably had some extra, who knows how much? 10,000 shmuckers? 50,000? And Stanley does specifically state that he doesn't feel that it's worth it to disband Parson since the city is paying for his upkeep (and he's at least one of the most expensive units to maintain).


I don't see any evidence of the army strengthening. The uncroaked Parson gained are the weakest sort, lasting only a few turns, and were the result of Wanda's spells, not the production of the city.

Further, I have seen no evidence that Parson has any control over army building. That may be the purview of the Ruler -- Stanley in this case. It usually takes money to buy units, and the only people who have talked about spending money are Rulers.

There is some foreshadowing. Parson mentions that he doesn't know the mechanism by which the units popped by GK are selected or what units are being created, but that he intends to find out...

And the more he waits, the more he learns and the more expensive the whole enterprise is for the members of the RCC.

And, yes, the undead last only a few turns, but don't forget that all the entirety of the action thus far has transpired over less than a week's time. A few turns is not that short a time. It is enough to continue psyops, continue negotiating, for Stanley to return, for Sizemore to make more golems, etc.

Ansom possibly jumped into his seemingly suicidal attack because he could feel the RCC beginning to crumble and not just because he was angry.

SteveMB
2008-12-16, 12:08 AM
For all we know, Parson realizes that an alliance with Charlie would be short-lived once Stanley returned to GK, so he may need to get what he can from Charlie now.

Parson has no way of knowing that Stanley will return, and no reason to even believe it likely. His attempt to talk to Jack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0121.html) and get him to influence Stanley to return was, as far as he could tell, a total failure. (There is arguably a second layer of meaning to Jack's babblings, but if so I don't see any indication that Parson picked up on it.)

That said, when I say that Parson is trying to "play" Charlie, I'm referring to his stalling for time rather than trying to get an obvious upper hand for the moment (especially if that "moment" would be fleeting, leaving him in a worse position with Charlie too cautious to fall for it again).

DevilDan
2008-12-16, 01:25 AM
Parson has no way of knowing that Stanley will return, and no reason to even believe it likely.

Except that he can contact Jack or Stanley at any time through Maggie...
That's a possibility.


Hisattempt to talk to Jack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0121.html) and get him to influence Stanley to return was, as far as he could tell, a total failure. (There is arguably a second layer of meaning to Jack's babblings, but if so I don't see any indication that Parson picked up on it.)

Parson does say "I hear ya"; yes, that could simply be a dismissive or patronizing noncommittal response, but Parson is a smart guy.
That's a possibility.


That said, when I say that Parson is trying to "play" Charlie, I'm referring to his stalling for time rather than trying to get an obvious upper hand for the moment (especially if that "moment" would be fleeting, leaving him in a worse position with Charlie too cautious to fall for it again).

I don't think he can get an upper hand until all his strategies come to fruition. All I wanted to do was mention multiple reasons why waiting even a few turns would be advantageous, seeing as some people suggested that there was little real advantage to the uncroaked army solely because they'll be gone soon.

SeraphRainy
2008-12-16, 02:36 AM
Except that he can contact Jack or Stanley at any time through Maggie...
That's a possibility.

exept that he cant talk to stanley cause he thinks hes still pissed and he thinks that jack is still cracked so why would he

I don't think he can get an upper hand until all his strategies come to fruition. All I wanted to do was mention multiple reasons why waiting even a few turns would be advantageous, seeing as some people suggested that there was little real advantage to the uncroaked army solely because they'll be gone soon.

Well in response to this I say think this through. Parson has no master plan. He is planning for things like a good strategist but the odds are just crushing him down it will stil take a miracle to get GK out of this. Parson is using every advantage just to grasp at straws. He has made several good moves and at least one end game gambit. Two if you count the failed jillian ambush. (I speak here of the dwagons croaking the siege.) But all this has still not evened the enormous 25 to 1 odds. He has a long way to go for this tooth and nail battle or at least one reaaaaly freeeaking brilliant idea.

DevilDan
2008-12-16, 02:52 AM
exept that he cant talk to stanley cause he thinks hes still pissed and he thinks that jack is still cracked so why would he

Heck, I don't even know why he wanted Stanley back to begin with--save perhaps to prevent Stanley's death and GK's automatic fall--but he did. Whatever reasons he had for wanting Stanley back possibly still hold.


Well in response to this I say think this through. Parson has no master plan. He is planning for things like a good strategist but the odds are just crushing him down it will stil take a miracle to get GK out of this. Parson is using every advantage just to grasp at straws. He has made several good moves and at least one end game gambit. Two if you count the failed jillian ambush. (I speak here of the dwagons croaking the siege.)

In other words, he's doing creditably well for being in a very bad situation.

And a man like Parson is always thinking of the endgame. I will bet dollars to shmuckers on that. Thinking of how to get to the win is a defining characteristic of a good strategist.


He has made several good moves and at least one end game gambit. Two if you count the failed jillian ambush. (I speak here of the dwagons croaking the siege.) But all this has still not evened the enormous 25 to 1 odds. He has a long way to go for this tooth and nail battle or at least one reaaaaly freeeaking brilliant idea.

Oh, of course. Parson's meager progress is obviously the reason Ansom is facing serious dissension among the RCC warlords and the possible defection of the RCC's second largest contingent. Obviously. Or why Ansom, while holding the upper hand still, somehow ended where he is now.

SeraphRainy
2008-12-16, 03:13 AM
But thats just it he is facing disparity. While he has tried several endgames and will contue to try them. (Not to mention chipping away at the alliance slowly) He is still facing death by numbers. Ill bet you smuckers and cash that hes doing only what any good strategist would do planning for every little thinghe can and doing his best to win despite "inevitable failure." Sure he could brake the coelition but if they stuck to the books and were patient they would boop GK badly parson or no. Just. Because. Of. The. Numbers.

Oh, of course. Parson's meager progress is obviously the reason Ansom is facing serious dissension among the RCC warlords and the possible defection of the RCC's second largest contingent. Obviously. Or why Ansom, while holding the upper hand still, somehow ended where he is now.

Well you do have a good point here but not as good as you think. His "meager progress was simply speaking of how much he has reduced the actual number ratio. But your right in that this makes it his third brilliant idea. To realy piss Ansome off. Thats all it is. If he hadnt ticked him off he would have lost the turn they sent webinar into the tunnels, also then the warlords would not be threatening disention for the RC, and finaly ansom would not have gotten on the wall. This is not however an inescapable situaition, if the RCC stick to their original plan, back off get everything in a row and curb stomp GK they win all the same.

Kreistor
2008-12-16, 10:07 AM
Parson has no way of knowing that Stanley will return, and no reason to even believe it likely. His attempt to talk to Jack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0121.html) and get him to influence Stanley to return was, as far as he could tell, a total failure. (There is arguably a second layer of meaning to Jack's babblings, but if so I don't see any indication that Parson picked up on it.)

Parson knows that Stanley is alive, or else he'd have gone barbarian. Parson knows that if he holds GK, Stanley will return in time.


That said, when I say that Parson is trying to "play" Charlie, I'm referring to his stalling for time rather than trying to get an obvious upper hand for the moment (especially if that "moment" would be fleeting, leaving him in a worse position with Charlie too cautious to fall for it again).

You're only playing someone if you get them to do something they otherwise wouldn't in order to hurt them and gain advantage yourself.

Charlie does not have the same motives as other members of the RCC. He does have a vested interest in seeing the Royals damaged as much as possible, since as a non-Royal Ruler, he's somewhere on their "To Do" list. And for those convinced he's just a mercenary, the longer the battle runs, the more money he makes. So, no Charlie is not being played, since buying time is exactly what he wants Parson to do. He might even want Parson to win this; thereby continuing the war (for Charlescomm profit) and/or keeping the Royals distracted/losing units while Charlie gains strength.


And a man like Parson is always thinking of the endgame.

I assume for the moment that by "endgame" you mean the end of the current battle for Gobwin Knob. No, I don't think Parson has a plan for this endgame. His chance of not losing GK this turn was only 60%. But in that 60%, there are a thousand possible results, each requiring a different plan to exploit. There are simply too many possible outcomes for Parson to plan more than a turn or two ahead. He needs to revise his plan to deal with the constantly changing situation, which means there is no chance to plan an endgame. Parson, even if he won, clearly did not have a plan...

116.9 "If they wait, that gives me time for all kinds of stuff... siege raids, psy-ops, a deal with Charlie or someone in the coalition. And if Ansom orders them to attack, his alliance just might crumble."

Parson does not have specific plans, only general ones to deal with potential opportunities. The tactics he is discussing rely on the opportunities he detects at the time he can choose what to do. Parson is very much reacting to the situation right now, not acting according to a grand design. For one thing, he doesn't know enough about the world or his opponents to predict them very well. (He clearly underestimates Ansom's ire and overconfidence, since he does not foresee Ansom putting himself in a suicidal position.) Long term plans rely on long term foresight, and that's something Parson doesn't have at the moment.

Xiander
2008-12-16, 11:16 AM
Parson knows that Stanley is alive, or else he'd have gone barbarian. Parson knows that if he holds GK, Stanley will return in time.

This is of very little relevance. Stanleys return is only significant if it happens while the battle is still going. In other words: Parson has no way of knowing that Stanley will return in time to make a difference.
We on the other hand must assume he will, since we have been told that he is returning, and it would be unnessesary to tell us that if it was not going to be important.



You're only playing someone if you get them to do something they otherwise wouldn't in order to hurt them and gain advantage yourself.

Charlie does not have the same motives as other members of the RCC. He does have a vested interest in seeing the Royals damaged as much as possible, since as a non-Royal Ruler, he's somewhere on their "To Do" list. And for those convinced he's just a mercenary, the longer the battle runs, the more money he makes. So, no Charlie is not being played, since buying time is exactly what he wants Parson to do. He might even want Parson to win this; thereby continuing the war (for Charlescomm profit) and/or keeping the Royals distracted/losing units while Charlie gains strength.

Okay, for the sake of the argument, i accept your use of the term "Playing someone".
My postulate, even given this meaning of the term, making charlie wait a turn with his invasion og Gobwin Knob would still be playing him, since it would make him trade the sure gain of a valuable resource (the mathemancy bracelet) for a les certain chance of getting more (The pliers and the bracelet).
And on top of that talking charlie into waiting counts as playing him since it makes charlie give parson something which parson desperately needs: Time.

Even if the playing of Charlie does not turn the situation around, i still hold that charlie was at least slightly played. You could say that he let him self be played because he had nothing to loose, but that changes nothing.


I assume for the moment that by "endgame" you mean the end of the current battle for Gobwin Knob. No, I don't think Parson has a plan for this endgame. His chance of not losing GK this turn was only 60%. But in that 60%, there are a thousand possible results, each requiring a different plan to exploit. There are simply too many possible outcomes for Parson to plan more than a turn or two ahead. He needs to revise his plan to deal with the constantly changing situation, which means there is no chance to plan an endgame. Parson, even if he won, clearly did not have a plan...

116.9 "If they wait, that gives me time for all kinds of stuff... siege raids, psy-ops, a deal with Charlie or someone in the coalition. And if Ansom orders them to attack, his alliance just might crumble."

Parson does not have specific plans, only general ones to deal with potential opportunities. The tactics he is discussing rely on the opportunities he detects at the time he can choose what to do. Parson is very much reacting to the situation right now, not acting according to a grand design. For one thing, he doesn't know enough about the world or his opponents to predict them very well. (He clearly underestimates Ansom's ire and overconfidence, since he does not foresee Ansom putting himself in a suicidal position.) Long term plans rely on long term foresight, and that's something Parson doesn't have at the moment.

No one has a plan for the endgame during the middelstages of a battle. But that does not mean that they ae not thinking about the endgame. In this situation parson is very much thinking about the endgame: every chip he takes of the coalition makes his chances of survival bigger, every unit he looses lowers them. Parson is very much thinking about the endgame, even if he does not have a detailed plan for it.

SteveMB
2008-12-16, 11:31 AM
Parson knows that Stanley is alive, or else he'd have gone barbarian. Parson knows that if he holds GK, Stanley will return in time.

That does not follow. As far as Parson knows, Stanley could have headed off to start some new base of operations where he intends to remain indefinitely. In fact, that was apparently his plan, thwarted by his failure to get through the choke point.

That does give Parson another reason for wanting the Arkenpliers -- if he can somehow get in touch with Stanley and get Stanley to actually listen to him, it would be just the thing to draw Stanley back. For that matter, Wanda might want them for the same reason, in which case becoming personally attuned to them might be a complication rather than a benefit.

Kreistor
2008-12-16, 11:47 AM
This is of very little relevance. Stanleys return is only significant if it happens while the battle is still going. In other words: Parson has no way of knowing that Stanley will return in time to make a difference.

Stanley is a major character. What happens to him is important, regardless of its effect on Parson. In a Batman and Robin comic, we still see Robin's activities when he is apart from Batman, despite being a supporting character.


My postulate, even given this meaning of the term, making charlie wait a turn with his invasion og Gobwin Knob would still be playing him, since it would make him trade the sure gain of a valuable resource (the mathemancy bracelet) for a les certain chance of getting more (The pliers and the bracelet).

Except that Charlie made it clear he had no intention of invading GK on his own. Charlie tried to get Parson to jump into a net and escape. Charlie wants Parson to come willingly. An invasion of GK to achieve only that end comes at an extremely steep price, which we have no evidence he was willing to pay.


And on top of that talking charlie into waiting counts as playing him since it makes charlie give parson something which parson desperately needs: Time.

We have no certainty that Charlie intended to go through with an invasion of GK. Parson seems to think it was a bluff. "You don't want any part of this hatchet fight." 105.2.

Charlie wanted the Mathamancy artefact and Parson. If he was invading, he was doing so to ensure he got those, because he thought Ansom was going to get them. Parson informs him that there is only a 40% chance of the city falling. That's not playing Charlie, especially when Parson wasn't lying. You can't play someone by telling them the truth.


Even if the playing of Charlie does not turn the situation around, i still hold that charlie was at least slightly played. You could say that he let him self be played because he had nothing to loose, but that changes nothing.

Just because Parson gains what he wants, that doesn't mean he played someone. Charlie did not lose a lot this turn, whee an invasion would have cost him -- reputation, Archons, and hope. Charlie did not lose the reputation he would have from appearing to steal GK from Ansom. He did not lose the units an assault on GK would have cost him. And He still has hope of gaining Parson in a favorable way -- forcing Parson into his service would be unfavorable.


In this situation parson is very much thinking about the endgame: every chip he takes of the coalition makes his chances of survival bigger, every unit he looses lowers them.

That's normal midgame tactics, not endgame thinking. The midgame is characterized by trading pieces and reducing the total number of pieces on the board, looking for endgame advantage. It is midgame strategic thinking. The endgame occurs when you take the advantage you gained in the midgame and use it to achieve checkmate.

DevilDan
2008-12-16, 12:02 PM
This is of very little relevance. Stanleys return is only significant if it happens while the battle is still going. In other words: Parson has no way of knowing that Stanley will return in time to make a difference.

Don't forget, though, that Stanley cannot return until the start of GK's next turn, which will follow the Transylvito and Charlescomm turns the next day.


ure he could brake the coelition but if they stuck to the books and were patient they would boop GK badly parson or no. Just. Because. Of. The. Numbers.

Parson isn't playing this just to cause maximum casualties. If he could cut down the numbers of the RCC enough to defeat them outright, he would. But he is smart enough to know that he can't win it outright. He almost captured Ansom twice already (this would be his third chance), nearly halved the siege capabilities of the RCC, croaked a significant number of Jestone troops while bolstering his own numbers (albeit temporarily), secured the tunnels, and used negotiation and psyops to affect other aspects of the environment. My point? Number aren't everything; I trust that Parson has some idea of how to win this. And every turn that he can win enables him to use unconventional and asymmetric strategies, such as making Ansom, described previously as painstakingly methodical, blunder into battle single-handed.

And this has strayed far enough away from the original point of discussion that I don't think I'll be addressing if further unless I need to correct factual errors.


Parson knows that Stanley is alive, or else he'd have gone barbarian.

Just a minor point, but what would have happened to GK is that all unit would be somehow frozen or lose all initiative.


So, no Charlie is not being played, since buying time is exactly what he wants Parson to do. He might even want Parson to win this; thereby continuing the war (for Charlescomm profit) and/or keeping the Royals distracted/losing units while Charlie gains strength.

But at some point Parson must dissuade him, in one way or another, from taking out GK just for the mathamancy artifact or for capturing Parson.


I assume for the moment that by "endgame" you mean the end of the current battle for Gobwin Knob. No, I don't think Parson has a plan for this endgame. His chance of not losing GK this turn was only 60%. But in that 60%, there are a thousand possible results, each requiring a different plan to exploit. There are simply too many possible outcomes for Parson to plan more than a turn or two ahead. He needs to revise his plan to deal with the constantly changing situation, which means there is no chance to plan an endgame. Parson, even if he won, clearly did not have a plan...

...

Parson does not have specific plans, only general ones to deal with potential opportunities. The tactics he is discussing rely on the opportunities he detects at the time he can choose what to do. Parson is very much reacting to the situation right now, not acting according to a grand design.

So he has multiple plans and ideas and is very adaptable. Why, that's even better than having a single endgame strategy. Thank you for pointing out why Parson is earning the title of ultimate warlord. After all, who doesn't plan for multiple contingencies, trying to achieve multiple goals when he can and being prepared to take advantage of opportunities as they arise? Parson knows enough to know that no plan, however ingenious or thorough, survives first contact with the enemy.


For one thing, he doesn't know enough about the world or his opponents to predict them very well. (He clearly underestimates Ansom's ire and overconfidence, since he does not foresee Ansom putting himself in a suicidal position.) Long term plans rely on long term foresight, and that's something Parson doesn't have at the moment.

Of course, Ansom has Parson right where he wants him. Or, wait, could Parson have foreseen just such a thing given that he anticipated having the arkenpliers at the end of this day?

I'd say that not only does Parson have a single endgame strategy (or a good idea of one and a good idea of how to get there), but several ones.

Kreistor
2008-12-16, 01:13 PM
Don't forget, though, that Stanley cannot return until the start of GK's next turn, which will follow the Transylvito and Charlescomm turns the next day.

If Charlescomm allies with Jetstone, they won't move first, which means they'll be in GK arispace before Stanley returns, which means he'll have to fight his way through to GK. That's why I think Ansom won't sign... it would kill Stanley, and that ends the comic. As for Transylvito, Jack will veil Stanley, preventing them from finding him.


Just a minor point, but what would have happened to GK is that all unit would be somehow frozen or lose all initiative.

Klog 12. "Units here freeze in time. We can do nothing until attacked." You're right, but the point stands. Parson would know, since he could no longer order attacks.


But at some point Parson must dissuade him, in one way or another, from taking out GK just for the mathamancy artifact or for capturing Parson.

Since he told Charlie the truth, that he had a 60% chance of not losing, in order to achieve that end, he didn't play Charlie.


So he has multiple plans and ideas and is very adaptable. Why, that's even better than having a single endgame strategy. Thank you for pointing out why Parson is earning the title of ultimate warlord. After all, who doesn't plan for multiple contingencies, trying to achieve multiple goals when he can and being prepared to take advantage of opportunities as they arise?

If every good warlord does that, then how is Parson exceptional? And that is true. All warlords do that same thing in the midgame.


Parson knows enough to know that no plan, however ingenious or thorough, survives first contact with the enemy.

Not actually true. There are attacks in history that did go exactly as planned, or at least proceeded within the expected parameters. Case in point the Roman attack on Carthage. Their new tactic for defeating war elephants worked perfectly, and then their cavalry sweep to encompass the enemy worked, resulting in total annihilation of the enemy.


Of course, Ansom has Parson right where he wants him. Or, wait, could Parson have foreseen just such a thing given that he anticipated having the arkenpliers at the end of this day?

Parson was playing the man. He predicted Ansom would do something rash when he saw Jetstone uncroaked, and that's what he relied on to get him the pliers. He did not predict Ansom would start the siege. Ansom is known for trying to fdo it all himself, so the order to begin the siege was out of character. The personal attack on his own uncroaked people was expected.


I'd say that not only does Parson have a single endgame strategy (or a good idea of one and a good idea of how to get there), but several ones.

Which is standard midgame thinking. The midgame is when you try to gain a usable advantage for the endgame. But everyone thinks like that: Parson is not unique in trying to turn midgame play into an endgame advantage he can use. This does not make Parson exceptional.

Parson's genius comes from broader expereince and recognition of the difference between tradition and rules. For instance, Klog 10 is all about Erfworlders traditionally not using Casters as Commanders of stacks. They don't have leadership, so they don't add much. Parson notes that they do have leadership bonuses when leading certain types of units. Parson's genius is to throw out the tradition of not using casters as Commanders, and throwing his Casters straight into the fight. He created the unexpected -- leadership -- where RCC thought he had none to fear. That is genius, to the Erfworlders.

Parson is doing what the Erfworlders don't... looking for loopholes in the rules that will give him an advantage. That is the way gamers think. Rules simulate reality, but they are absolutes and inaccurate representations of reality, which has no such loopholes. Parson recognizes the game-like rules of Erfworld and looks for exploits, where the locals think of it as reality, and don't see the way they can abuse their own world's rules.

DevilDan
2008-12-16, 01:39 PM
If Charlescomm allies with Jetstone, they won't move first, which means they'll be in GK arispace before Stanley returns, which means he'll have to fight his way through to GK. That's why I think Ansom won't sign... it would kill Stanley, and that ends the comic. As for Transylvito, Jack will veil Stanley, preventing them from finding him.

That would assume that Ansom knows that Stanley is returning. Also, I assume that Charlie is offering something that Ansom will accept, even if the cost is very high in one way or another.


Since he told Charlie the truth, that he had a 60% chance of not losing, in order to achieve that end, he didn't play Charlie.

Yes, that worked. It delayed Charlie for exactly one turn and one turn only.


Not actually true. There are attacks in history that did go exactly as planned, or at least proceeded within the expected parameters. Case in point the Roman attack on Carthage. Their new tactic for defeating war elephants worked perfectly, and then their cavalry sweep to encompass the enemy worked, resulting in total annihilation of the enemy.

An exception! A freak occurrence! Run! Scatter! Flee! Oh, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!

Excellent tactics were employed, but Publius Cornelius Scipio would have been a prize fool if he hadn't at least considered the possibility that the war elephants would not have panicked as thoroughly (and as disastrously for Hannibal) as they did. You prepare for the worse, or you are setting yourself up for serious reversals.


Parson was playing the man. He predicted Ansom would do something rash when he saw Jetstone uncroaked, and that's what he relied on to get him the pliers. He did not predict Ansom would start the siege. Ansom is known for trying to fdo it all himself, so the order to begin the siege was out of character. The personal attack on his own uncroaked people was expected.

I'm afraid that I don't know what your point is. All I was suggesting is that winning isn't necessarily about killing all your enemies.


Parson is doing what the Erfworlders don't... looking for loopholes in the rules that will give him an advantage. That is the way gamers think. Rules simulate reality, but they are absolutes and inaccurate representations of reality, which has no such loopholes. Parson recognizes the game-like rules of Erfworld and looks for exploits, where the locals think of it as reality, and don't see the way they can abuse their own world's rules.

Actually, in Erf the rules are reality. There are no loopholes any more than nuclear fusion or the photoelectric effect or the forging of iron are loopholes.

As to Parson's abilities: He is clearly capable. He hasn't only used "loopholes." He's used psychological observations and the fog of war to his advantage, using his strengths against his opponent's weaknesses. If you look back, my comments were aimed at those people who suggest that Parson isn't even thinking about the endgame. I submit that he is smart enough to begin with a general outline (or outlines) of an endgame strategy and worked his way back rather than just extemporizing without any real strategic thinking.

Kreistor
2008-12-16, 05:05 PM
Of course, Ansom has Parson right where he wants him. Or, wait, could Parson have foreseen just such a thing given that he anticipated having the arkenpliers at the end of this day?


Parson was playing the man. He predicted Ansom would do something rash when he saw Jetstone uncroaked, and that's what he relied on to get him the pliers. He did not predict Ansom would start the siege. Ansom is known for trying to fdo it all himself, so the order to begin the siege was out of character. The personal attack on his own uncroaked people was expected.


I'm afraid that I don't know what your point is. All I was suggesting is that winning isn't necessarily about killing all your enemies.

There are many ways of winning. Winning through superior strategy, tatics, or weaponry are some. In this case, Parson was winning by playing on the weaknesses of the enemy commander's personality.

116.9 and 116.10 show Parson's predictions about the RCC reactions when they see 1000 uncroaked Jtstone infantry on the walls. The alliance "might crumble", and Ansom's head might explode. The uncroaked were part of the plan, so though the author waited for the act, Parson already had those expectations earlier in the day. So, yes, I say it is highly likely that Parson anticipated a rash action by Ansom in response to the uncroaked appearing, and given the knowledge that Ansom tends to go about things personally, the Arkenpliers would likely become obtainable.

Sieggy
2008-12-17, 12:16 AM
I think that Charlie is a player, like Parson. He can think outside the box and look for exploits as well. Look at his hacking the books . . . That being said, I think he's a guest at this party, not a participant. He had no involvement with the war on Stanley until his price was met. The Archons conducted some missions for RCC, and the contract was canceled to do the turn switch gambit. He has no real dog in this fight. He doesn't care who Stanley stomped (though there may be more there).

At that point, he contacted Parson. Since he was no longer under contract to anyone, he was just an interested observer. Parson bartered to keep Charlie off of Stanley, and Charlie started getting REALLY interested in the possibility of picking up 2 artifacts and a war god.

He doesn't need to do anything, really . . . He can simply lay back and let Parson and the RCC go at it and wear themselves down or get desperate enough (like Ansom) to go for an offer they can't refuse. But I think Charlie is just having way too much fun watching Parson in action to really want to put a stick in it. And he is in absolutely no rush at all. Though certainly not above seizing an opportunity when it presents itself . . .

The Archons are, to all intents and purposes, invulnerable when airborne (OK, so the archers get their hitsies), and the Wanda AF will go down fast (unless the pliers do some serious mojo). But in ground operations, I suspect they're not so great . . . If Parson withdraws into the depths of the fortifications and the caverns (what's left), they would play merry hell catching him down there.

Parson was right, he really didn't want a part of this hatchet fight. He can simply pick up the pieces when the shouting and unpleasantness is over . . .

keeganknorr
2008-12-25, 10:25 PM
I think it's worth noting that in 0133, we see the pilers go right through wanda in the first panal. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0133.html

Tanaar
2008-12-29, 01:44 AM
Err, no. That panel shows Wanda blocking a 'Plier attack. Nowhere is there evidence of the 'Pliers going through her.

Kreistor
2008-12-29, 10:54 AM
I think it's worth noting that in 0133, we see the pilers go right through wanda in the first panal. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0133.html

I agree with Tanaar. That's not happening. I see a white weapon motion arc over Ansom, which could be either:
a) The Arkenpliers coming down on Wanda to be stopped by her staff
or
b) her staff coming up to block the Arkenpliers.

We do not see an arc of weapon motion through Wanda's body.

Bilgore
2008-12-29, 12:34 PM
Also worth noting (http://www.wanda-tools.com/), especially given this (http://stanleytools.com).

Suddenly, more things make sense (http://www.multichannel.com/blog/350000435/post/960037696.html).

Kreistor
2008-12-29, 08:12 PM
Well, the OP is not about to be solved any time soon. Wanda is down and out, and in need of rescue herself. The Pliers will not be touched by Wanda, and so will be gifted to Stanley without Wanda ever coming into contact with them. And from there, a slim to none chance they'll be traded to Charlie. If she could attune, it will have to wait a very, very long time until Stanley happens to ask her to take them somewhere for him.

starburst98
2008-12-30, 12:26 AM
wanda will crawl, hand over hand and grab them, they will shine and everyone all her enemies die.

Tanaar
2008-12-30, 12:48 AM
Kreistor's appraisal makes sense, but I should mention Elan's and V's differing perspectives (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html) but similar conclusions on the nature of how this kind of thing works. That makes Starburst's assertion quite possible, as what is mere remote possibility in life is often near-certainty in a Story.

Decius
2008-12-30, 06:25 AM
Suddenly, more things make sense (http://www.multichannel.com/blog/350000435/post/960037696.html).
Stanley and Wanda may be tools, but Parson is the engineer? (http://www.parsons.com/)

Kreistor
2009-01-02, 09:17 AM
Okay, with 122 we have a change. Wanda says, "Touch me with them." mening the Arken pliers. 122.9.

Now I will say that I think she suspects that she'll attune.

Tanaar
2009-01-02, 02:11 PM
Curious. You reversed a bit on reading it and so did I...I interpreted that to mean "Kill me, you bastard" like all of her uncroaked had been killed by its touch.

I like your point of view better :smallbiggrin:

Iain
2009-01-05, 05:44 AM
Now I will say that I think she suspects that she'll attune.
Or that she knows she's in need of some healing... :smallwink: