Erfworld 119, page 107

I think Wanda was the one who betrayed FAQ.

Why?

She's (one of?) the last members of the Croatan tribe, not the FAQ tribe. Given she was one of the members of FAQ's officers, I can only assume FAQ had a militaristic history that subsumed Croata and forced her to work for them. So when Stanley presented an opportunity, she took it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lamech

Banhammer didn't build up better defences (say erf style anti-airs), because his kingdom was doomed. Wanda should have been able to take erf-style defences, an army of archers, and blast the dwagons to bits, the coalition air-forces; which were even stronger than Stanly's barely survived the spells.
Perhaps predicting the doom of FAQ, was in-fact the reason it was doomed.

---

Um, 1 that wasn't a spell and 2 the airforce was prety dang weak. I don't know what comic you'r reading, but it's not the same as ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fendrin

Duty is not a stat, it is a Natural Thinkamancy.
You do your Duty, or you do not.

Failing to do your Duty is a betrayal.
A betrayal is more likely with a low loyalty.
Being captured lowers a units loyalty.
Therefore a captured unit is more likely to fail to do it's Duty.

This is not in any way contradictory to what I said.

---

Erm, Failure to do your duty is failure. Betrayal is a choice. Once must choose to not do their duty, or choose to do something that is against their duty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lamech

Multiple cities at a time would explain the loss of FAQ, but not the speed and surprise. Jillian would have known what was happening much sooner.

---

There is no need to do multiple cities at a time. In Rome: Total War. Once all the faction heirs are killed, any remaining cities go neutral.

I don't have to beat every city, just the cities led by Royalty. Then go mop up the neutral cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ishnar

Erm, Failure to do your duty is failure. Betrayal is a choice. Once must choose to not do their duty, or choose to do something that is against their duty.

---

Of course, this is a game-liek world, so...

*rolls loyalty* Up, Wanda only had a 20% chance to remain loyal to Banhamer. She is now disloyal. Let's see what she does. *rolls on results table* Betreyal, nasty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HOLEkevin

Is the blonde someone we know?

---

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0100.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fendrin

The only way a predictamancer-protected overlord can fall unexpectedly is if the is if the predictamancer turns traitor (or is no good, which we know is not the case with Faq's predictamancer).

---

Or if there's another predictamancer working for another side. Then there can be logical contradictions.

Example:
Side A is defending five cities, and has enough troops to defend two of them from side B's force.

Side A uses a predictamancer to determine which city/ies side B will attack the heavies. They then put most of their troops in those cities.

Side B uses a predictamancer to determine which city A will defend the least, and attack that city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zolem

Of course, this is a game-liek world, so...

*rolls loyalty* Up, Wanda only had a 20% chance to remain loyal to Banhamer. She is now disloyal. Let's see what she does. *rolls on results table* Betreyal, nasty.

---

My point is, if you try to do you duty, but due to circumstance are unable to fulfill that duty, you did not betray anyone.

If it is your duty to save the president, but all you have time for is to be a body shield, but the bullet goes through you and kills the president anyway, you didn't betray the president, even if you survive and he does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arkenputtyknife

I don't see that. Chess isn't a good example here, since there are so many ridiculous ways to force stalemate, but most games aren't Chess, and in most tactical games—shogi, othello, go, tic-tac-toe, hex—there's going to be a winner and a loser even if both players have perfect knowledge of the future, because the game's set-up can't be perfectly symmetrical. In some games, stalemates and draws aren't even possible. It makes playing the game a waste of time and not much fun, but it doesn't result in stalemate. Typically, the first player wins.

---

Tic-tac-toe is a really bad example, because it'll always be a draw if both players know what they're doing. Neither player is capable of forcing a win; the only way to win is for the other player to screw up and make a predictably losing move despite having an option that'll preserve the draw.

On the other hand, tic-tac-toe may be the most appropriate example here. I believe it's the only one of those games that's actually a solved problem, and thus the only one where both players actually can have perfect knowledge of the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zolem

Um, 1 that wasn't a spell and 2 the airforce was prety dang weak. I don't know what comic you'r reading, but it's not the same as ours.

---

1) They were Spell defences. Panel 5
2) Umm... strong enough that the fliers were too strong to ambush. So I'm assuming that means the air-force can (or could before being blasted) beat the dwagons in a fight. Otherwise Parson could have hit the airforce, and plop the dwagons on the lake, and laugh.
So... um yeah, I'm reading the comic on the internet how 'bout you guys.

I'll join the wagon which believes that wanda was banhammer's predictamancer. having low loyalty, she switched for stanley and probably set up the attack details. her low loyalty could come from not being assigned as croakmancer (her specialty) and being a captured unit from croatan tribe.
I still feel kinda hanging with the wait for stanley actions, I expect him to at least wipe all the extras from transilvito. You know what i'm hopping for? the message parson is sending to jack. something like: "Jack, tell stanley that's there's a trap waiting for him in FAQ, but it's made of transilvito's warlords. Know what means? Don king is exposing his neck at the capital, just waiting for the arkenhammer." Heh, guess I'm just a big fan of stanley! :D
Not to forget, The comic is at it's best. great work!

There are some interesting paradoxes about predictamancy. Let's say it's absolute, then it must include the reactions to itself (that is, calling for the veil, and what happens after the veil). Example:

1. Predictamancer predicts dwagons will cross the hex where Faq is and will attack and kill the ruler.
2. Banhammer knows they are doomed, the veil won't work for if it did (1) would not happen, that is the prediction would not see the dwagons attacking.

This doesn't seem right, for you can always behave in a way against what is shown in the prediction. Banhammer can decide to attack the dwagons before they reach the city and not die there, or he can ask another unit to kill him, or he can destroy the city so the dwagons get only ruins.

Assuming that one can only make predictions at the start of one's turn, and that one can not factor in the prediction the reaction to the prediction, there can be surprises, no need for traitors:

1. Predictamancer predicts dwagons would reach Faq and destroy it were it not for the prediction
2. Banhammer orders the veil based on the prediction, and with that action changes the future and no further predictions can be made on this turn
3. Banhammer crosses his fingers.

That is, you are only allowed to change your future once per turn, not twice or more.

What would the point of the Magic Kingdom be if casters popped already knowing their speciality and spell sets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ishnar

Erm, Failure to do your duty is failure. Betrayal is a choice. Once must choose to not do their duty, or choose to do something that is against their duty.

---

I suppose I make a distinction to fail to do your duty and failure to successfully achieve the goals of your duty.

To me, 'failing to do one's duty' means choosing not to do it.
Choosing to do what duty demands and failing is different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralphmerridew

Or if there's another predictamancer working for another side. Then there can be logical contradictions.

Example:
Side A is defending five cities, and has enough troops to defend two of them from side B's force.

Side A uses a predictamancer to determine which city/ies side B will attack the heavies. They then put most of their troops in those cities.

Side B uses a predictamancer to determine which city A will defend the least, and attack that city.

---

The simplest way I can see to reconcile that is if you assume that predictamancy can only function based on the current parameters.

To use your example, Side A's predictamancer predicts what Side B would do if Side A did not move their forces. Thus if Side A consulted the predictamancer, moved their forces accordingly, then consulted the predictamancer again, they would get a different answer.

This would make predictamancy much less useful, even if it is 100% accurate, because that accuracy is predicated on not acting on the information in such a way that causes the relevant parameters to change. This of course makes predictamancy only particularly relevant in the short term... make long-term predictions such as Banhammer needing Jillian unusual.

All the more reason to suspect that the predictamancer wanted Jillian popped for reasons of their own...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teratorn

There are some interesting paradoxes about predictamancy.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teratorn

Assuming that one can only make predictions at the start of one's turn...

---

I would say that a predictamancer has a limit based on fatigue, like Maggie does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter

Wow, now that one is worthy of the TFHA name. Here's your hat - you are number 11. :smallbiggrin:

---

Who is Number One?

You are Number Six.

Another thought regarding Ruthlessness:

Spoiler

Show

Parson is now not merely willing to believe, but absolutely convinced that Stanley is his own cause's worst liability. He is restoring the Foolamancer to keep him effective by removing Stanley from play until Parson has won. Expect Stanley to be taken far afield and kept safe and distracted. Also expect Parson to disable his own Thinkamancer from communicating with Stanley.

Regarding my TFHA theory:

Spoiler

Show

Banhammer would allow the conquest of his kingdom if he had absolute assurances that his house would someday ascend -- world rulership, direct servitor of the Titans, that sort of thing. There may be greatness in Jillian's future. No guarantees regarding happiness, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fehler

What would the point of the Magic Kingdom be if casters popped already knowing their speciality and spell sets?

---

Training after levelling up, of course.

I'd imagine that casters pop knowing the basic spells of their discipline. Cross-discipline learning, or learning advanced spells, could be done at the Magic Kingdom.

Well I have to say that I think that Wanda is definitely the predictamancer from Faq. Quite frankly we have no information on the mechanics to know if it is possible or impossible for a caster to change specialties. We do know that casters are extremely valuable units however and that they would most certainly be captured if possible. Combine that with the fact that only two specific casters have ever been mentioned as being in Faq, a predictamancer and a foolamancer and we know of only two casters that are from faq Wanda and Jack.

I also think this completely explains Wanda's inexplicable loyalty to Stanley. She didn't betray Faq, she screwed up. She failed (or at least feels that she failed) in her job of protecting Faq by stationing the foolamancer to prevent detection. She ended up working for Stanley (in a capacity that she enjoys much more) and because of all this she is desparate not to fail another leader. Guilt is a powerful motivator.

Also I think the picture of the predictamancer looks like Wanda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winston

Also I think the picture of the predictamancer looks like Wanda.

---

What picture?

This is the first time we see Wanda in FAQ. The man next to her is almost certainly Jack, since he looks exactly like the man on this page.

One of the main arguments for Wanda having once been a predicamancer is that Banhammer would have had no need for a croakamancer.

I think you're forgetting what kind of person Banhammer was. He was concerned with philosophy. He probably had big discussions like what we saw in that one panel from Jillian's story. He didn't need to pop a bunch of soldiers because they didn't do much fighting (just the occassional merc job). So what is he going to spend his turns popping? If he wants to have philosophical discussions, he'll probably pop a wide variety of types to get a bunch of different viewpoints for his discussions. And this is pure speculation, but my guess is that casters are going to be, by their nature, smarter and more inclined to that kind of discussion than say a piker. So you want casters for intelligent conversations, but you don't want 20 foolamancers because then you don't have different viewpoints as such. So you pop a variety of casters. Hell, a croakamancer's way of looking at things could bring a very interesting new perspective to the discussions. And why not? It's not like he was in desperate need of anything else.

If the Predictimancer predicted that FAQ would fall, that's a pretty strong prediction. Not "probably will."

So maybe Banhammer ordered Jill to pop, and then deliberately sent her away when the appointed time was nearing. If FAQ is destined to fall, he figured he could at least save the royal bloodline.

Datalaughing raises a very good point, one I'll have to think more about. Exactly what kinds of units would a pacifist in a wargame world want or need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Name Lips

If the Predictimancer predicted that FAQ would fall, that's a pretty strong prediction. Not "probably will."

So maybe Banhammer ordered Jill to pop, and then deliberately sent her away when the appointed time was nearing. If FAQ is destined to fall, he figured he could at least save the royal bloodline.

---

Also a very good point, and possibly why Banhammer wanted a philosopher-prince or princess. He wanted to preserve a way of thinking, not a kingdom doomed to fall anyway. Then he sent Jillian to safety anyway when the time came even if she wasn't precisely what he'd wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VariaVespasa

If its actually or effectively multiple hexes (Like Titan, forinstance, for those who have played that boardgame), and there are some indications that it is (eg having to have the angels clear a path to the warlord for Jillian in the wounded dragon stack battle), then other possibilities come into play. Mostly these revolve around modifying the combat odds, or forcing involuntary enemy moves.

---

Yay, Titan! Good analogy. Just because one stack is 100 points while another is 80 doesn't mean the 100 point stack wins every time, or even that it is necessarily the favorite to win in a given terrain.

That said, it's not at all clear what odds Parson is calculating for Charlie. Obviously he's including his own intended but not yet executed strategies (or else his probable survival would be obvious to Charlie), but presumably he can't include anything tricky that Ansom might do. Of course, since he only gave the odds of "not losing" for one turn, perhaps that's assuming Ansom's most aggressive tactics (which might be simple and obvious), not his optimal long-term strategy for breaking down the citadel. The latter could be a better plan, but with a greater chance of Parson "not losing" this turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMB

Even without the Foolamancer, the place is relatively isolated. Given that it's hard to get to, and that as far as anybody knows there's no real reason to go there. it could remain unvisited for some time -- especially when everybody in the region has more pressing business (the war against Stanley) to attend to.

---

If in peace/absence of fighting you have good reason to scout your country's neighborhood, you have even better reason to do so during times of war. To take the surprise out of 'unpleasant surprise'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fendrin

If I were an Erfian, I would be on the lookout for a placve as defendable as Faq. If I found one that was unoccupied, I would build a city there as a fall back if my other cities were destroyed.

etc.

Kind of like what Charley, Stanley, and Banhammer all have/had.

---

A place that looks like a strong and easily fortifiable position, with no foolamancer to veil it or distract intruders there for several turns. We know that a city that is destroyed may be built up again. There would be some remains of FAQ visible. Still no one went there to have a look. Or if they went they didn't find anything that would indicate a former settlement.

Jillian is still the only witness for her own story about FAQ. Quite suspicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Old Hack

Datalaughing raises a very good point, one I'll have to think more about. Exactly what kinds of units would a pacifist in a wargame world want or need?

---

Hmm, well, plenty of games have non-combat routes to victory, including some games otherwise focused around combat, like Age of Empires (a game with at least three separate non-combat victory conditions). So maybe Banhammer could "win" or at least improve his situation (like presumably Ansom et al. are attempting to do) by achieving one of those goals? A true "bubble kingdom" would be a great opportunity to take a roundabout non-military approach.

Maybe having one of each type of caster achieves something good. If so, then Faq might be only popping casters, trying to achieve the whole set (and Jillian might be encouraged to capture others, like Wanda). Panel 3 on page 82 suggests a circle of people who might all be casters (Wanda and Jack are), which implies that Faq had at least 5 casters. I definitely like the idea that the type of caster is random or partly random.

Quote:

---

Also a very good point, and possibly why Banhammer wanted a philosopher-prince or princess. He wanted to preserve a way of thinking, not a kingdom doomed to fall anyway. Then he sent Jillian to safety anyway when the time came even if she wasn't precisely what he'd wanted.

---

Maybe a given side has a running score to hold onto, or there are achievements which stay achieved, even if material resources are lost. Lucky Jillian, she has 5/24 of a non-military caster victory in the bank?

re: jack

Not saying it's the source, but I keep thinking about the foolish and vainglorious 'knight' Falstaff in Henry the IV, "Jack (John) Falstaff". Particularly the famous line

'Sweet Jack Falstaff. Kind Jack Falstaff. True Jack Falstaff. Valiant Jack Falstaff. And therefore more valiant being as he is old Jack Falstaff, banish not him. My Harry (Stanley) is company. Banish plump Jack, banish all the word. '

Of course, the Foolamancer isn't fat, and he isn't likely to be banished, by stanley at lesast.

great installment!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MReav

I think Wanda was the one who betrayed FAQ.

Why?

She's (one of?) the last members of the Croatan tribe, not the FAQ tribe. Given she was one of the members of FAQ's officers, I can only assume FAQ had a militaristic history that subsumed Croata and forced her to work for them. So when Stanley presented an opportunity, she took it.

---

This has been brought up before. It's a mistake, though; go and look at the rest of the cast page. Nobody is in the "Gobwin Knob" faction; they're in the "Plaid" faction, which is otherwise unmentioned. Likewise, units from the city of Faq would not be members of a Faq tribe; they would have their own name for their tribe (which is, by all indications, Croatan.)

And Faq's Croatan tribe hasn't have a militaristic history; we know that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by datalaughing

One of the main arguments for Wanda having once been a predicamancer is that Banhammer would have had no need for a croakamancer.

I think you're forgetting what kind of person Banhammer was. He was concerned with philosophy. He probably had big discussions like what we saw in that one panel from Jillian's story. He didn't need to pop a bunch of soldiers because they didn't do much fighting (just the occassional merc job). So what is he going to spend his turns popping? If he wants to have philosophical discussions, he'll probably pop a wide variety of types to get a bunch of different viewpoints for his discussions. And this is pure speculation, but my guess is that casters are going to be, by their nature, smarter and more inclined to that kind of discussion than say a piker. So you want casters for intelligent conversations, but you don't want 20 foolamancers because then you don't have different viewpoints as such. So you pop a variety of casters. Hell, a croakamancer's way of looking at things could bring a very interesting new perspective to the discussions. And why not? It's not like he was in desperate need of anything else.

---

I like this theory. One of the nice things about it is that it explains not only why Wanda was croaked, but why she has such a wide range of abilities; King Banhammer would want his philosopher-casters to have the equivalent of a liberal arts education so they could discuss any topic intelligently.

FFT: The clerk yawning in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0091.html looks alot like Sizemore to me that also goes with his "pacifist" mentality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Old Hack

Datalaughing raises a very good point, one I'll have to think more about. Exactly what kinds of units would a pacifist in a wargame world want or need?

---

Hippiemancers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Old Hack

Also a very good point, and possibly why Banhammer wanted a philosopher-prince or princess. He wanted to preserve a way of thinking, not a kingdom doomed to fall anyway. Then he sent Jillian to safety anyway when the time came even if she wasn't precisely what he'd wanted.

---

That sounds very parental: she wasn't exactly what he wanted, but she was still his daughter, so his last and foremost concern was to ensure her safety. I highly doubt that he really hated her, Jillian's oppinion on the matter is biased, she feels that she hated him; but it looks to me like if they were from Earth, what would be a squabble between a father and teenaged daughter where the daughter comes to the conclusion that her father hates her. Jillian has some complex emotions reguarding Banhammer which will likely never be fully resolved because of his death (If you ask me, I would say an inferiority complex -"Only instead of the perfect little philosopher-prince he wanted? ...He got a sword-swinging madwoman,..."- perhaps combined with abandonment issues and never resolving her anger at the father that would never acknowledged her; but take that with a grain of salt, I'm no shrink).

Then again, most of this is moot if Banhammer really did hate her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fendrin

I suppose I make a distinction to fail to do your duty and failure to successfully achieve the goals of your duty.

To me, 'failing to do one's duty' means choosing not to do it.
Choosing to do what duty demands and failing is different.

---

Only problem with this is the danger of speaking your own personal language. In English, the word fail does not imply cause, only result.

There is a reason why Stanly said, "I don't know if you betrayed me, or if you only failed me."

You can fail a test because you didn't study. Or you could fail a test because the teacher used the wrong key--I've had this happen. Since it was the final exam in college, I had to fight tooth and nail to get the teacher to validate my test. Or you could fail because your car broke down on the way to school and your teacher doesn't allow makeups.

Too many people noadays presume to assign causation to results. It's no different that presuming that a statistic shows causation when it does not, only results.