-
Parson no onger bound to stanley?
This occured to me, the magic that binds parson to stanley, forcing him to follow orders, to do everything he can... could that have been voided when stanley left GK?
I had the impression that stanley left, basically abandoning GK when he took his dwagons, basically fleeing. if this was an abandonment, couldnt parson, as the high warlord, now be the one in charge? bascially the defacto leader now of GK?
we dont actually see the spell forcing parson to try his last ditch effort. If it wasnt for the casters questioning him on his orders (sending them to the magic kingdom) and wanda basically reminding him he was supposed to try everything in his power... had they not done so, it didnt look like anything was compelling parson not to order his casters away.
just thinking, it may be a possibility that if stanley returns... he may not have control of parson anymore. as a matter of fact he may have work cut out for him if he intends on claiming GK again.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hidufel
This occured to me, the magic that binds parson to stanley, forcing him to follow orders, to do everything he can... could that have been voided when stanley left GK?
I had the impression that stanley left, basically abandoning GK when he took his dwagons, basically fleeing. if this was an abandonment, couldnt parson, as the high warlord, now be the one in charge? bascially the defacto leader now of GK?
The thing is, Stanely did not OFFICIALLY abandon Gobwinknob, only figuratively... Even though he left the city, felt that it was doomed to fall, and had no plans of ever returning, he was still, for all intents and purposes, the overload of Gobwinknob.
If he had officially abandoned the city, the the city would most likely go neutral just as it would if the ruler of the city would have croaked... Parson is not an heir, so he would not become the ruler of GK
and Stanely had no reason to officially abandon the city... the treasurey of the city would sastisfy the upkeep for all the units, so keeping the city under his control doesn't cost him anything... however, by keeping the city under his control, the city remains a threat to the coalition and thus serves as a viable distraction while he sets up shop somewhere else...
All in all, Stanely left the city just as any ruler is able to... he just had no plns on coming back or for it to be standing later on... he never officially abandoned the city
Quote:
it didnt look like anything was compelling parson not to order his casters away.
but apparently something WAS... various spell effects have been playing a role on Parson's mind... i mean we don't see any visual cues that he is still being effected by "ruthlessness"; but his order for Bogroll to make a kamikaze attack was most likely an example of his sword driving him
If Parson was no longer in service to Stanely, then he would no longer be bound by "Duty"... and thus wanda telling him has to do everything he can would be meaningless since with out duty he would have the free will to go agaisnt duty... He could not give the casters an order to the magic kingdom; he likely wanted to, but could not... Duty and the spell that summoned him would not allow him to give an order that went against his Duty as chief warlord to Lord Stanely
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
He's giving all indications that he still is bound. It will be interesting, though, if his recent actions have made Stanley a barbarian and Stanley can't pay his upkeep. In many strategy games, not paying upkeep would make a unit disband. In something like Civilization, you can assume the soldiers just go back to being civilians, but there aren't any civilians in Erfworld... so disbanding would make you dead, most likely. However, the rules may be different for barbarians. For all we know, if you can't pay the upkeep on barbarian units, they may become independent barbarians no longer bound to you.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Just to be clear, Parsons and the casters are no longer bound to Stanley now anyways because with the fall of Gobwin Knob their side has ended and they revert to barbarism. On the one hand Parson did say that field units disband when a side ends, but on the other hand Jillian seemed to survive her side ending just fine, which leads me to believe that Warlords (and casters) and Warlord-lead stacks don't disband when a side ends but go barbarian.
The details are still unclear exactly, but it appears barbarian units are basically free from all ties and obligations to a side and therefore free from duty. This would mean that Parsons and the casters are free of Stanley, although we have yet to see how forgiving people in Erfworld are of turncoats (it could be that Charlie would still hire Parsons happily, or that Sizemore could get a job with Jetstone, or it could be that everyone's mad as hell and out for revenge).
I suspect the way barbarism works is that if a warlord is leading a stack at the time that their side ends, all units in that stack are barbarians under the command of that barbarian warlord. Example being the troops under Jillian when Faq fell. This means that the Dwagons, knights, and Jack who are with Stanley will still be under his control as barbarians, but that Wanda, Sizemore, and Maggie are completely free even if Stanley starts a new side. He'd have to rehire them (not likely they'd accept, unless everyone else is after their blood).
Of course, Wanda might be under some special compulsion of her own to follow Stanley, but the rest of them should be free and clear.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
It'd be interesting to see if Sizemore would rejoin Stanley's team out of his own free will.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dolash
Just to be clear, Parsons and the casters are no longer bound to Stanley now anyways because with the fall of Gobwin Knob their side has ended and they revert to barbarism.
Err, no. They've never been on Gobwin Knob's side but on Stanley's side. Unless Stanley was croaked off-camera, their side has not ended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dolash
The details are still unclear exactly, but it appears barbarian units are basically free from all ties and obligations to a side and therefore free from duty.
And free from the possibility to act. Free from having turns. Remember "helpless barbarism"?
Jillian is a barbarian mercenary because she was the heir to her side; in other words, she's in the position of Stanley, not of Parson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dolash
Of course, Wanda might be under some special compulsion of her own to follow Stanley, but the rest of them should be free and clear.
Wanda never had a spell on her, that's what Jaclyn died to tell Jillian.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gez
Err, no. They've never been on Gobwin Knob's side but on Stanley's side. Unless Stanley was croaked off-camera, their side has not ended.
And free from the possibility to act. Free from having turns. Remember "helpless barbarism"?
Jillian is a barbarian mercenary because she was the heir to her side; in other words, she's in the position of Stanley, not of Parson.
Wanda never had a spell on her, that's what Jaclyn died to tell Jillian.
As reported here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0092.html where it says that Stanley intends to start a new side in the ruins of Faq, here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0151.html where Vinny says that losing Gobwin Knob will make Stanley a barbarian, and here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0111.html where Vinny explains Stanley's whole plan to let Gobwin Knob fall and start his own side in Faq, barbarians clearly do have some power to act.
It's clear that losing one's capital ends the side as well as losing one's ruler without an heir. That's why Stanley would become a barbarian if Gobwin Knob was taken, because without a capital his side ends and he has to create a new side at a new capital (hence his plan to rebuild Faq). That's also why Jillian became a barbarian even though she was her side's designated heir, because even though she could have continued the side it had lost its capital and thus had ceased.
Not every barbarian is a former Ruler or heir, hence why there was some question between Vinny and Ansom as to whether Jillian was a royal or not, and how hard they found it to believe she came from a hidden kingdom like Faq. Likewise Parson makes it clear that he wants to send the casters into the magical kingdom so that they will become barbarians when Gobwin Knob is taken (he says this to them in the dungeon, before uncroaking the volcano). There is therefore some contradictory or at least inconsistent information on what happens to units when a side ends and what exactly a barbarian can do.
It's possible there's simply inconsistencies in how all this works and that the authors will need to smooth some things over. On the one hand, barbarian units like Jillian are created by the end of their side and are free to move about and take on jobs. On the other hand, Parson has warned about the side ending by Stanley's death turning Gobwin Knob into a neutral city and trapping everyone inside.
My theory is that warlords and casters (and any units they are leading) become free barbarians should their leader die without an heir OR if their capital city falls. However, any units inside a city that goes neutral due to an ending side are trapped there, and any unlead units in the field get disbanded. That way Jillian could be an active barbarian after the fall of Faq because she is a warlord without a city, Parson could still be worried about Stanley getting croaked and trapping him in a neutral city, and Stanley's plan to build a new side in Faq when his own capital falls would all fit neatly together.
Oh, and although Wanda isn't loyalty spell'd, Jillian still seems to think there's some unusual extra reason for her to follow Stanley, so she might choose to return to his service even if freed by barbarism.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Stanley starting a new site: I thought it was simply to get out of the RCC's hair -- by starting a new site, the RCC would get the report that Stanley's side has been eliminated, so he'd be free to re-develop from the secret ruins of Faq.
I'm not sold at all on the "GK is lost" thing. As far as I know, cities are lost when they're taken by the enemy. That it is destroyed or not may simply not factor in. I'm waiting for the next update to address the issue.
Finally, Jillian thinks there's something because she's persuaded that Stanley is the one who destroyed Faq and captured Wanda (and Jack). Which is possible, but doesn't seem likely (what really happened there is a mystery might be explained in book 2), it's more probable in my opinion she's simply in denial about it because she doesn't have all the pieces of the puzzle.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Parson never was bound to Stanley. The only thing that was ever shown that could even imply that, was when Parson was uncontrollably laughing at his bad jokes.
If anyone, Parson was bound (figuratively) to Bogroll, Wanda, Sizemore, etc. Stanley is pretty much at the bottom of the list.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NemFX
Parson never was bound to Stanley. The only thing that was ever shown that could even imply that, was when Parson was uncontrollably laughing at his bad jokes.
Another only thing that could imply that:
Wanda, the spellcaster who cast the spells and can be expected to know what she's talking about because she's the spellcaster who cast the spell: "Commander Parson, if you refuse an order, the spell which summoned you will end your existence entirely. You must serve your Lord's will and desires. Forever."
Ooh, ooh, another only thing:
Stanley, who may be stupid but should be expected to know how Erfworld works, saying "I can end you with a thought, you know?"
Oooh, and there's yet another only thing on the same page: "Shut up until you're ordered to speak!" And it works. Though Parson manages to find a workaround since the command did not specify only Stanley could give that order.
The important point, though, is that Parson is not bound to Stanley, but to Bogroll, Wanda, Sizemore, Maggie, etc. He wouldn't order Bogroll to his death for Stanley's sake, nor would he for the same reason order his last remaining friends to practice a dangerous, mind-damaging magic, knowing first-hand how dangerous it can be. Stanley is at the bottom of the heap, that much is certain. Parson obviously doesn't angst about having lost his free will since he hasn't.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dolash
NONE of this indicates that units that become barbarians become free of their former ruler if that ruler is still alive...
In some Turn based games where you can keep fighting so long as the leader is alive, you can loose all your cities, but ALL of your units will remain under your control as long as you can pay their upkeep... the moment you can't pay the upkeep the unit disbands
As for Vinny and Ansom's uncertainty about Jillian, one thing you did not consider is the possibility is that their are natural barbarians in Erfworld... units that were popped out of nowhere to act as wondering units... its another element that comes up in turn based games; units that move around but have no actual side... usually controlled by the computer just to cause the player random trouble... only difference in erfworld is that sides have the ability to contract and work with barbarians instead of just being forced to fight them
Stanley was planning to start a new side... again this does not mean Parson would be free; nothing saying as such. If he actually managed to survive the fall of the city he would likely still be bound to Stanley... just like the foolamancer, the dwagons, and the 3 knights, Parson would become part of Stanley's new side... Obedience, Loyalty and duty... all three of these things that effect units indicate the units being bound in service to their rulers not their cities or sides... As wWnda said, Parson is magically bound to Stanley; she did not say he was bound Gobwinknob
Thus far the ONLY thing we have seen that would free Parson from Stanely's control, would be either Stanley croaking, or Parson being captured by another side.
No, if Parson was not magically compelled then he would have ordered the casters into the magic kingdom instead of having them perform a highly dangerous link up just to finish off the enemies... as that klog pointed out, Parson has been uncertain if he has lost his free will... only reason he doesn't angst about it is because it does not seem apparent enough to the point that he's been able to just ignore the issue and keep doing what he's doing; it's a little bit like how Jillian did not fully realize she was under a suggestion spell until she was faced with a contradiction... Parson has to worry about saving his own ass before he can go worrying about his free will
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slayerx
NONE of this indicates that units that become barbarians become free of their former ruler if that ruler is still alive...
In some Turn based games where you can keep fighting so long as the leader is alive, you can loose all your cities, but ALL of your units will remain under your control as long as you can pay their upkeep... the moment you can't pay the upkeep the unit disbands
As for Vinny and Ansom's uncertainty about Jillian, one thing you did not consider is the possibility is that their are natural barbarians in Erfworld... units that were popped out of nowhere to act as wondering units... its another element that comes up in turn based games; units that move around but have no actual side... usually controlled by the computer just to cause the player random trouble... only difference in erfworld is that sides have the ability to contract and work with barbarians instead of just being forced to fight them
Stanley was planning to start a new side... again this does not mean Parson would be free; nothing saying as such. If he actually managed to survive the fall of the city he would likely still be bound to Stanley... just like the foolamancer, the dwagons, and the 3 knights, Parson would become part of Stanley's new side... Obedience, Loyalty and duty... all three of these things that effect units indicate the units being bound in service to their rulers not their cities or sides... As wWnda said, Parson is magically bound to Stanley; she did not say he was bound Gobwinknob
Thus far the ONLY thing we have seen that would free Parson from Stanely's control, would be either Stanley croaking, or Parson being captured by another side.
Though I agree that natural barbarians are quite possibly part of Erfworld and thus Vinny and Ansom might have been debating whether she was a natural barbarian or an ex-faction leader, if we can agree that losing the capital ends Stanley's side and reduces them to a state of barbarism then I would argue that this would end the ties of loyalty, duty, and obedience.
My reasoning for this is that barbarians are apparently a single pool of units, like being "neutral" or "creeps" in most computer strategy games. If all side-related loyalties carried over when a unit becomes a barbarian, then becoming a barbarian would be meaningless - it would be the same as being a side, except without any cities.
We do have evidence that barbarian warlords can lead troops, yes, in the form of Jillian leading her troops from Faq and Stanley leading the stack of Dwagons, knights, and Jack after the fall of Gobwin Knob. What we don't know is whether they can still command the loyalties of troops outside of those they were personally leading when their side ended.
We don't know if only designated "overlord" or "heir" barbarians can start new sides. It could be that there are no overlords among barbarians, just troops and warlords, and that any warlord that can get to a ruined city and pay the startup cost can start a new side. What this means is that if/when Stanley starts a new side at Faq, it could be a brand new side commanding none of the old loyalties and thus exerting control over no barbarians who were former warlords.
Yes, we haven't yet seen enough definite evidence of this, but we haven't seen any evidence against it and from what we *have* seen, it makes a great deal of sense. Otherwise a caster like Sizemore could go barbarian when Gobwin Knob falls and then get disbanded next turn when Stanley fails to pay his upkeep. Or he could get hired by another side as a barbarian then suddenly turn into a Stanley caster when Stanley restarts his side and reasserts his control over all of his troops that went barbarian.
It's only logical, to me, that when a side ends by losing the capital the unlead troops might disband but the warlords and casters become barbarians free to pursue their own ends and they simply don't belong to that side any more. The side truly did end with the fall of Gobwin Knob, after all, in the same way that it would if Stanley had been croaked without an heir. In that case they'd *definitely* be free of him, so why not now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slayerx
No, if Parson was not magically compelled then he would have ordered the casters into the magic kingdom instead of having them perform a highly dangerous link up just to finish off the enemies... as that klog pointed out, Parson has been uncertain if he has lost his free will... only reason he doesn't angst about it is because it does not seem apparent enough to the point that he's been able to just ignore the issue and keep doing what he's doing; it's a little bit like how Jillian did not fully realize she was under a suggestion spell until she was faced with a contradiction... Parson has to worry about saving his own ass before he can go worrying about his free will
I think the guy you're commenting on here actually agrees with you and was using sarcasm. I think.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dolash
Though I agree that natural barbarians are quite possibly part of Erfworld and thus Vinny and Ansom might have been debating whether she was a natural barbarian or an ex-faction leader, if we can agree that losing the capital ends Stanley's side and reduces them to a state of barbarism then I would argue that this would end the ties of loyalty, duty, and obedience.
In Parson take on those three stats, he specifically mentions them applying in regards to the ruler... Obedience to the ruler or higher orders, and Duty to serve the ruler... not the side
Quote:
My reasoning for this is that barbarians are apparently a single pool of units, like being "neutral" or "creeps" in most computer strategy games. If all side-related loyalties carried over when a unit becomes a barbarian, then becoming a barbarian would be meaningless - it would be the same as being a side, except without any cities.
No it wouldn't be meaningless... a side without cities will have difficultly maintaining upkeep. No city means he no longer earns any smuckers by default, and thus the upkeep is paid out of his pouch... the moment that pouch starts drying up he will start loosing units. He essentially needs to keep pillaging the country side to keep his units or they will fall apart under him... also, without a city you can not create any new units, so if you loose a unit you can not replace it
Having no city puts the former ruler in a very vulnerable state
Quote:
We don't know if only designated "overlord" or "heir" barbarians can start new sides. It could be that there are no overlords among barbarians, just troops and warlords, and that any warlord that can get to a ruined city and pay the startup cost can start a new side. What this means is that if/when Stanley starts a new side at Faq, it could be a brand new side commanding none of the old loyalties and thus exerting control over no barbarians who were former warlords
No, if this were the case than Stanley croaking would not be a bad thing for Parson... He would be a Barbarian warlord inside of the gobwinknob capitol... if any barbarian warlord was able to claim the city and start a new side then Parson would be able to start a new side
Quote:
Yes, we haven't yet seen enough definite evidence of this, but we haven't seen any evidence against it and from what we *have* seen, it makes a great deal of sense. Otherwise a caster like Sizemore could go barbarian when Gobwin Knob falls and then get disbanded next turn when Stanley fails to pay his upkeep. Or he could get hired by another side as a barbarian then suddenly turn into a Stanley caster when Stanley restarts his side and reasserts his control over all of his troops that went barbarian.
No he wouldn't... remember what Parson said happens to units when the ruler croaks... all units out in the field disband, but units in the city remain alive but revert to barbarians and the city become neutral... Parson was sending the casters to the magic kingdom... it is very likely that the magic kingdom has a similar effect as a city, in that any caster that looses it's side/ruler while in the magic kingdom will remain alive as a barbarian and go neutral within the magic kingdom and thus will not disband... so in other words, while in the magic kingdom, casters are not considered to be "in the field" and thus are not subjected to disbanding when there ruler croaks or can no longer pay their upkeep
Quote:
It's only logical, to me, that when a side ends by losing the capital the unlead troops might disband but the warlords and casters become barbarians free to pursue their own ends and they simply don't belong to that side any more. The side truly did end with the fall of Gobwin Knob, after all, in the same way that it would if Stanley had been croaked without an heir. In that case they'd *definitely* be free of him, so why not now?
think about what happens when a ruler croaks and their is no heir... all field units disband... if it were the case that warlords and casters were able to continue their own as barbarians then why is it that the field units disband instead of just reverting to barbarianism when they loose their rulers? If things were as you think, then logically, for a unit in the field, loosing the capitol, and loosing the ruler should have the same results...
not to mention one thing you did not take into account is the possibility that all field units disband except for the ones that are with Stanely, and thus only Stanley and his units remain while the rest just end...
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dolash
My reasoning for this is that barbarians are apparently a single pool of units, like being "neutral" or "creeps" in most computer strategy games. If all side-related loyalties carried over when a unit becomes a barbarian, then becoming a barbarian would be meaningless - it would be the same as being a side, except without any cities.
I believe that barbarians actually fall into the same class as marbits, elves, gobwins, etc. instead of neutral cities. When a warlord, chief warlord, or overload becomes a barbarian, the commander's underlings would still be on the commander's "side" so long as the commander can afford them. If the top of the command chain is killed, I would then expect equally ranking direct underlings to split into two separate barbarian clans though they would likely form some sort of a coalition for mutual benefit.
At least, this is just what I would surmise of the game/world mechanic given the sorts of arguments that other folks have made in addition to my own interpretation of the comic's world so far.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
This boils down to one of two possibilities.
1. Parson is bound to Stanley, regardless of if Stanley has a kingdom.
2. Parson isn't bound to Stanley, because Stanley is a barbarian now.
I doubt a spell would end simply because a side was eliminated, since it affects two individuals, rather than a side and an individual. Therefore, i say that Parson is still bound to Stanley, but he fulfilled his orders from Stanley to the letter: he tried everything in his power to defeat Jetstone.
He doesn't have to be in close proximity to Stanley to qualify as "bound."
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dolash
It's only logical, to me, that when a side ends by losing the capital the unlead troops might disband but the warlords and casters become barbarians free to pursue their own ends and they simply don't belong to that side any more.
There is no reason to suppose that a side ends when the capital is lost. The only evidence so far is that a side ends when the LAST city is lost. If a side could be taken out by simply taking out the capital, then Efdup would have been the first city. FAQ was semi-defensless trio of cities that could have been taken out my the same flight of dragons. Dragons have a lot of move and we've no evidence so far that a unit can only make one attack per move phase.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ishnar
There is no reason to suppose that a side ends when the capital is lost. The only evidence so far is that a side ends when the LAST city is lost. If a side could be taken out by simply taking out the capital, then Efdup would have been the first city. FAQ was semi-defensless trio of cities that could have been taken out my the same flight of dragons. Dragons have a lot of move and we've no evidence so far that a unit can only make one attack per move phase.
We don't know what happened at Faq and there are more than a few clues that Stanley and his dwagons took it out. Remember there was only a rport of a flight of them being seen. Nothing more.
I would point out that if Stanley DID take out Faq, he coudl have split up his forces and hit all three cities at once (and taken out Banhammerz). But it's likely that most anyone else could do that as well.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HandofShadows
We don't know what happened at Faq and there are more than a few clues that Stanley and his dwagons took it out. Remember there was only a rport of a flight of them being seen. Nothing more.
I would point out that if Stanley DID take out Faq, he coudl have split up his forces and hit all three cities at once (and taken out Banhammerz). But it's likely that most anyone else could do that as well.
Well, all speculation about who took Faq aside, in Standard wargames, if a capital falls, the capital just moves automatically to the next city. I don't see any reason why Erf would follow a different model.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
In Civ, it's a bit more complicated. When a side that's grown beyond some critical size loses its capital, part of it splits off to form a new side.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
We don't even know if Goblin Keep is gone. Possible it is now a lvl 0 city, still under Stanley's control, in need of rebuilding but not captured. (The rules of game apply even when they may not be real life logical, and we dont know what they are)
Just as Stanley could order Maggie around after he left, possible he can still order the remaining 4 to join up with him somehow.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MadScientistMat
He's giving all indications that he still is bound. It will be interesting, though, if his recent actions have made Stanley a barbarian and Stanley can't pay his upkeep. In many strategy games, not paying upkeep would make a unit disband. In something like Civilization, you can assume the soldiers just go back to being civilians, but there aren't any civilians in Erfworld... so disbanding would make you dead, most likely. However, the rules may be different for barbarians. For all we know, if you can't pay the upkeep on barbarian units, they may become independent barbarians no longer bound to you.
In many games, if you can't pay the upkeep on a mercenary (summoned or otherwise), they just go away and become available for other people to recruit.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HandofShadows
We don't know what happened at Faq and there are more than a few clues that Stanley and his dwagons took it out. Remember there was only a rport of a flight of them being seen. Nothing more.
I would point out that if Stanley DID take out Faq, he coudl have split up his forces and hit all three cities at once (and taken out Banhammerz). But it's likely that most anyone else could do that as well.
That raises another interesting question. If Stanley was the one to destroy Faq, why didn't he colonize the cities then? Does it cost resources to take over a city and he wasn't interested in spending that much at that point?
Spoiler
Show
We do know that he has at least one caster from Faq (Jack) and there's the implication that Wanda was also from Faq though it's not explicitly stated. Jillian just says she recognized a caster from Faq and we're shown a picture of Wanda - could be misdirection by the writers, though not likely.
Given that, he may have been going for particular resources such as the casters, or information on where the other Arkentools were. Since the side was full of intellectuals, maybe their library was more complete than the one he had access to.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aquillion
In many games, if you can't pay the upkeep on a mercenary (summoned or otherwise), they just go away and become available for other people to recruit.
If i recall, the turn based stradegy games that i've been familiar with in the past had disbanding result in the unit simply disappearing... that's if i recall correctly as it's been awhile
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greywords
That raises another interesting question. If Stanley was the one to destroy Faq, why didn't he colonize the cities then? Does it cost resources to take over a city and he wasn't interested in spending that much at that point?
Spoiler
Show
We do know that he has at least one caster from Faq (Jack) and there's the implication that Wanda was also from Faq though it's not explicitly stated. Jillian just says she recognized a caster from Faq and we're shown a picture of Wanda - could be misdirection by the writers, though not likely.
Given that, he may have been going for particular resources such as the casters, or information on where the other Arkentools were. Since the side was full of intellectuals, maybe their library was more complete than the one he had access to.
Actually, the most likely reason was that he wanted FAQ to remain a secret... the only reason the city was never found was because a foolamancer was keeping the cities hidden. If the cities were rebuilt and a foolamancer was not kept there, then the capitol site would have been discovered. But Since Stanley wanted to use the foolamancer, he was not able to protect the FAQ cities from being discovered... those cities were his back up plan should his plans fall apart at any point.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slayerx
Actually, the most likely reason was that he wanted FAQ to remain a secret... the only reason the city was never found was because a foolamancer was keeping the cities hidden. If the cities were rebuilt and a foolamancer was not kept there, then the capitol site would have been discovered. But Since Stanley wanted to use the foolamancer, he was not able to protect the FAQ cities from being discovered... those cities were his back up plan should his plans fall apart at any point.
That attributes a much higher level of strategy and contingency planning to Stanley than I think he has. Recall that he didn't even know how dire his situation was after Manpower croaked (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html). I don't think he really believed he could lose since he was so attuned to the arkenhammer so wouldn't have left an "escape tunnel" to Faq.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Stanley did things a certain way, but that doesn't make him an idiot.
It could be he never rebuilt the cities because they'd be too far away from his capital site and too close to Transilvito to be properly defended.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
multilis
We don't even know if Goblin Keep is gone. Possible it is now a lvl 0 city, still under Stanley's control, in need of rebuilding but not captured. (The rules of game apply even when they may not be real life logical, and we dont know what they are)
This is a good point, and something I had just started wondering about.
GK was still Stanley's when the "Dirtamancy Trap" (as the universe has classified it) went off. That trap killed all enemy units in the city, and the alliance disbanded. Presumably none of them ventured back into the now-worthless bubbling magma pit of death. Stanley and others are still alive, and while they aren't in GK neither is anyone else... so it hasn't been taken yet. I think that means that it still counts as the capital city, even though it's completely nuked.
Not that it does anyone a lot of good...
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Yes, I'm still not sure what GK's status is at this point. Nobody else has claimed it. Is it now a dead city like the Faq cities?
I don't think you can normally eradicate a city or city site. As Parson noted, the RCC could have taken over rubble itself. Of course, recent events do not conform to the usual way things occur on Erf. All bets are off, just like all bets are off in terms of control/croaking/disbanding for Parson, which is one explanation for why he was able to successfully enter the Magic Kingdom.
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greywords
That attributes a much higher level of strategy and contingency planning to Stanley than I think he has. Recall that he didn't even know how dire his situation was after Manpower croaked (
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html). I don't think he really believed he could lose since he was so attuned to the arkenhammer so wouldn't have left an "escape tunnel" to Faq.
Actually, he did believe it, as the next page shows, he did not even hesitate for a moment to say that he could just take his hammer and leave... why did he not hesitate to retreat and that he'd rather loose the city than loose all those smuckers (though a bit lack of thought as wanda points out loosing the city means loosing both)? it's because he knew he had someplace to retreat to... He knew he could run to FAQ, start over and continue his quest... heh, even Ansom admits that Stanely was capable of a shrewd trick or two
And besides, who even says it was necessarily HIS plan to begin with... It could have very easily been Wanda who suggested the plan to him and thus he took it... He Captures her and makes her one of his units and one of her first actions was sugessting that he not rebuild the cities... afterall, Wanda does know how to convince him of a good plan
-
Re: Parson no onger bound to stanley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slayerx
Actually, he did believe it, as the
next page shows, he did not even hesitate for a moment to say that he could just take his hammer and leave... why did he not hesitate to retreat and that he'd rather loose the city than loose all those smuckers (though a bit lack of thought as wanda points out loosing the city means loosing both)? it's because he knew he had someplace to retreat to... He knew he could run to FAQ, start over and continue his quest... heh, even Ansom admits that Stanely was capable of a
shrewd trick or two
And besides, who even says it was necessarily HIS plan to begin with... It could have very easily been Wanda who suggested the plan to him and thus he took it... He Captures her and makes her one of his units and one of her first actions was sugessting that he not rebuild the cities... afterall, Wanda does know how to
convince him of a good plan
That's true - it could very well have been spoon fed to him by Wanda. She seems to be the much more strategically conscious of the two. I'm still not convinced that Stanley has a mind for strategy so much as brute force. The shrewd trick or two he's pulled could have been under Wanda's (or a previous warlord's) advisement.
I do believe the idea that Faq is just too far away from his other cities to properly defend is quite plausible, and still think the cost of recolonizing them might have been a factor.
Spoiler
Show
Still, I'll say there's still an outside chance he wasn't actually the one to destroy Faq. I'd put it at about 4 to 1 odds against this being the case, though, if I had to make a bet.
