Erfworld 135 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 122

[KilltheToy]

This could explain why Wanda's the last member of her tribe. The Jetstones went and killed them all.

Also, MOSH! is the best ontomontopeia ever .

[Hatu]

Thanks for the thorough post Hatu. I'm not the greatest at keeping track of the mechanics involved, but I'll take a crack at it.

I'm glad it was worth reading. :-)


As far as trying to make sense of the zone situations, I think it can be done, but doing so requires assuming so many loopholes and quirks that Parson's Klogs is rendered almost pointless. Here's my best guess:

Charlie parks his Archons in the Airspace zone. Since they're currently neutral, both GK and Jetstone can traverse the Airspace safely.

At the start of his turn, Ansom orders his Siege weapons to attack the wall. Meanwhile, he flies into the Airspace zone, proceeds into the Outer Walls zone, and begins to attack the zombies manning the walls. Parson observes this, and decides he needs to reinforce the zombies on the Outer Walls. For some reason, only Wanda's forces are able to do this, and to do so they will need to move through the Airspace Zone.

Parson decides it's worth the risk. Wanda travels through the Airspace zone safely, and proceeds to attack Ansom. Either during their fight or before her arrival, Ansom flies into the Airspace Zone. The fight in that zone ends when Ansom is unseated, and he crashes back into the Outer Wall zone. He lands on top of the wall, but his Arkenpliers land at the base inside GK. Presumably, both he and his weapon would have to land in the same zone, so it seems likely that the Outer Walls zone includes the area just inside the walls as well.

Ansom then makes his deal with Charlie. The Archon who appears next to him is either a very strange loophole in the movement rules, or a very poorly illustrated effect of a think-o-gram Charlie uses to communicate with Ansom. I'll assume the latter. At this point, Wanda's party (who have not yet left the Airspace Zone) are attacked by the Archons. Wanda falls into the Outer Wall zone near the Arkenpliers, out of range of the Archons.

The Archons then fetch Ansom's carpet and somehow pass it between the zone barriers they cannot cross. He flies down to recover the Arkenpliers, but must retreat once Sizemore appears.

In and of itself, that narrative works. My objection is that it requires a lot of assumptions that are entirely unsupported by the rules outlined in the Klogs. By my count:

* Enemy fliers are able to enter the Outer Walls zone even if the walls have not been breached.

* GK-allied Fliers cannot pass through the Courtyard area of the Garrison en route to the Outer Walls, or do so at dramatically reduced "speed."

* It is possible to "fall" from the Airspace zone into other zones when defeated or dismounted. The rate at which you fall in defeat is apparently much faster than the rate at which you move by flying (even when flying costs no movement).

* The timing rules are somewhat arbitrary at best. Parson cannot send Wanda to intercept Ansom when he enters the Airspace Zone; he must wait until he reaches the Outer Walls and begins to attack the zombies. But Ansom is able to move from the Outer Walls zone back into the Airspace Zone either before Wanda gets to him, or during the battle itself. Once Ansom is sent back to the Outer Walls zone, the zombies cannot attack him until after the Archons fetch his carpet. Furthermore, Charlie is able attack Wanda the instant Ansom agrees to hire him, before Wanda can leave the Airspace Zone to pursue Ansom. (Alternatively, Parson inexplicably chose not to intercept Ansom at the time, even though his glasses/wristwatch would make it obvious that Ansom was going to annihilate the zombies on the wall. I think the timing issue is the lesser evil.)

* Even though enemy units without movement points cannot cross from one zone to another, they can pass objects between the zones.

* Even though the area inside the walls and the walls themselves are both part of the Outer Wall zone, units on the ground cannot easily get to the top of the walls (otherwise Sizemore could have been sent to counter Ansom, without risking Charlie's intervention).

There are other possible ways to explain the movement exhibited in the comic, but I think this causes the fewest issues. And even so we are left with a lot of rules we only learn about just when they happen. I find that extremely frustrating. At this point, why bother explaining rules in the Klogs if they wind up getting sidelined by loopholes the instant they come into play?

I just find the constant effort it take to fit what we see into the rules tiresome. Rob is writing both the story and the rules. I think it is reasonable for us to expect them to fit together without any retconning on our part. The fact that we do need to invent all these unmentioned rules indicates to me that Rob isn't really interested in matching what happens in the strip to the rules he laid out before hand. He sets up the rules as broad guidelines, then lets the story go where he feels it should and amends to the rules to justify it later. That is not my preferred method of storytelling: it tends to lead to stories that feel unfocused. And sure enough, that's exactly what seems to be happening here.

-H

[ShinyBrowncoat]

I think this may confirm that tactical combat is real-time...how else can we accept the "first to the arkenpliers" tension these last two strips have tried to instill?

Also, Parson should have immediately sent sizemore and his golems to secure the 'pliers as soon as Wanda had disarmed him. It's hard to see this as anything but a mistake.

[EBass]

I rarely post here, but I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring for this one.

I personally feel that most of the accusations of Deus Ex Machina are unfounded. No one said at the time of Charlie's ansoms arriving that their presence was such, yet now they have acted it is? Charlie's actions are thoroughly consistent with what we know of him.

The main problem I have with this, I feel these last two strips have really stretched my suspension of disbelief, because I instinctively feel based on what I've been told by the authors thats not how things *should* work in erfworld mechanics. I feel that for the events to have happened either A) The rules have been explained badly to us or B) The authors are stretching the rules for the plot.

I really really hope its A, especially as I can think of right now how the same sort of events could have occured without a stretching of the rules. Hatu has pretty much explained my exact misgivings about the whole workings of the "zones" above.

There are a lot of moments in this strip that really don't make sense given the rules that we have been informed of.

[quindraco]

* Enemy fliers are able to enter the Outer Walls zone even if the walls have not been breached.

* GK-allied Fliers cannot pass through the Courtyard area of the Garrison en route to the Outer Walls, or do so at dramatically reduced "speed."

* It is possible to "fall" from the Airspace zone into other zones when defeated or dismounted. The rate at which you fall in defeat is apparently much faster than the rate at which you move by flying (even when flying costs no movement).
-H

I'm taking this idea from another poster earlier in the thread whose name I forget, but..... doesn't the following rule address all three of those?

"If a unit is flying, it is, by definition, in Airspace."

This has a correlary, since we've repeatedly observed flying units in combat with ground units:

"It is possible for flying units to attack units who are not in the same zone as themselves."

Does this one new rule cause any major new violations?

[Godskook]

"It is possible for flying units to attack units who are not in the same zone as themselves."

Does this one new rule cause any major new violations?

That is impossible. The Author made it very clear Archons can't attack outside the Airspace zone.

[VariaVespasa]

Anything that flies is in the airspace.

How hard is that?

Well that cant really be true, can it? Otherwise it would mean, for example, that the archons were limited to the airspace zone and couldnt attack the tunnels. Although that might be an interesting and previously unconsidered tactical implication...

[Hatu]

I'm taking this idea from another poster earlier in the thread whose name I forget, but..... doesn't the following rule address all three of those?

"If a unit is flying, it is, by definition, in Airspace."

This has a correlary, since we've repeatedly observed flying units in combat with ground units:

"It is possible for flying units to attack units who are not in the same zone as themselves."

Does this one new rule cause any major new violations?

I don't think that rule makes sense. First and foremost, the actual wording of Klog 11 makes it clear that Airspace is a separate zone, not just a status or set of sub-zones. It must be entered, costing movement points if you don't own the city*, and it is specifically distinct from the Outer Walls and Garrison zones.

Secondly, is raises serious logical issues. If all Fliers are in the Airspace by default, how does the flying Ansom attack the ground bound zombies on page 118? Also, why wasn't Parson worried about Charlie attacking Wanda when she was in the Tower? Her forces were still flying units then, so they must have been in the Airspace already. Sending them out would not expose them to any further danger.

No, clearly it is possible for fliers to not be in the Airspace zone.

As for the corollary, is demonstrably untrue in the broad sense: the Archons cannot attack the defeated Wanda or the zombies until they are able to move. It's also untrue in the next broadest sense: as mentioned above, the Archons could not attack the fliers when they where in the Tower (the part of the garrison that borders the Airspace).

If you mean specifically that Fliers in the Airspace Zone can attack enemy Fliers on the Outer Walls, I suppose that is possible. But it's an extremely specific and counter-intuitive rule that's never actually been mentioned. I'm not sure that's actually any better than just admitting that the story violated the rules for the sake of the meter.

-H

[* Technically, the Klog only implies that enemy forces must spend movement points to cross the zones, but that seems to be borne out by the Archons' (lack of) actions. I'm fairly comfortable with this interpretation.]

[Whispri]

Wanda's stack wasn't flying at the start though aside from the uncroaked Archon. And at that point Charlie was still holding back. Ansom could attack the same way the Dwagons did back when they hit the column, he just moves close enough and swings, it is his turn. But if units can float without entering airspace then I fear that carpet will give Ansom quite an advantage outside of his turn. Because if using the carpet means entering airspace he won't be able to zip about during Parson's turn if he's inside the City. And he can't be everywhere with those Pliers. But if he can just zoom over to whatever fresh tunnel the uncroaked burst from...

It does seem reasonable to assume that leaving the ground means entering airspace however.

Do you have any reason to believe "wounded" is even defined on Erfworld in a way which makes sense to you?

<Snipped for space reasons>

Well, yes, just look at the most recent page, Wanda barely being able to move and so on. If she was acting at full ability she'd have just grabbed the Pliers.

And he could easily have captured her. The Archons have carrying capacity (they were here for Parson remember) so he could just leave her in their hands while he returned to the Wall.

And Whispri, I think your moral complaints are valid but this is not a comic with clear black-and-white moral distinctions between characters. Sure, some characters themselves may think that they are shining paragons of virtue and their enemies are despicable fiends, and you yourself may think that about some of them, but honestly man there's been so many questionable acts by almost every character (Bogroll might be the only truly innocent one out there) that it's hard to pass judgment on one without leveling the same accusations at others on the opposing side. It's war, and as a wise man said, it's hell.

There's something different about Ansom in comparison to almost everyone else though, he's not a unit that's forced to attack when without leadership and whose last orders were to kill, he's not a Caster with direct orders that cannot be disobeyed, he hasn't been hit with a Ruthlessness upgrade, he isn't fighting in self defence or in defence of his Cities. It may well be that anyone who doesn't act the way he does would be the equivalent of a Paladin in Hell. But that still leaves Ansom as one of the Demons.

Nor with Ansom's morals in wanting to croak Wanda; it was his only option, if he moves her on the carpet and keeps fighting, she might poke the pliers or a healomancer might toss a heal her way. If he wastes time moving her back to the coalition time would be lost and more men would die. (And the coalition might begin fighting over her.) If he leaves her there she could be healed and return next turn to devastate the coalition.

Do you remember that the netlike thing the Archons were carrying?

You harp on and on and on about that, but you're thinking from the perspective of real-life morality. Erf is a world built around a turn-based war game, with a completely different social structure, natural laws, and pretty much whatever you could choose to mention.

Even so, killing downed enemies is a very old tradition even in the real world, and I've no number for how many times fictional good guys have murdered bad guys they hated, without me feeling the least bit squeamish about it. Don't you think you're venting just a bit too much venom towards a fictional character? You're starting to remind me of the missionary guy in Rambo 4.

And yet life is still life, death is still death, and people get blamed for actions they have no control over. Which is another problem I have with certain characters, but I'm pretty sure I've gone over that already.

I don't feel any venom towards him. He is as you say a fictional character after all. But I don't have to feel venom to have a low opinion of him. I've never actually watched Rambo, so your comparison is lost on me I'm afraid. As for the tradition you speak of, yes it happens, and yes people do snap, but Ansom wasn't invited here and it's still wrong to do what he was doing. Oh and I don't generally assume someone's a good guy just 'cause the head creator wants him to be, actions speak louder than words, and some 'heroes'...

[Fjolnir]

"At the start of his turn, Ansom orders his Siege weapons to attack the wall. Meanwhile, he flies into the Airspace zone, proceeds into the Outer Walls zone, and begins to attack the zombies manning the walls. Parson observes this, and decides he needs to reinforce the zombies on the Outer Walls. For some reason, only Wanda's forces are able to do this, and to do so they will need to move through the Airspace Zone."

The reason for the WAF is that only archers and specific anti flier infantry can attack fliers, who can selectively attack infantry from the air without provoking AoO's, much like Jillian did to the twoll in the field a while back, the archons can't pull the swoop because they were neutral at the end of their turn or it requires Move to pull off as an attacker (unsure, the rules are unclear), I think combat is Turn based still, however the major "turns" determine when a particular faction has Initiative (basically think d&d with massive tactical strategy) so when the fliers come out to get to ansom, he attacks the croakamancer who blocks it, when his attack fails, he does the only reasonable thing, calls charlie, who in classic fashion, bends him over, since he has initiative he can parlay quickly (I also agree the contract is probably mostly the charlie standard X turns, though the fee has probably changed significantly since the last time), and they release their attack (this is as many archons that charlie needed to capture GK before the next turn ended, which is more than 15) on the only targets that are available to them, the WAF. The fact that archons are on a similar power level to dwagons (each of the archons blasts one out of the sky in the donut of doom failure)(also an arguement for your turn= initiative) makes it even more impressive that wanda lived (casters are generally a low hp unit to balance the whole "I can bend the laws of physics" thing) she falls from a lower height than the mucho macho ansom and her poor wizard bones can't take it, she drops to negative hp and is bleeding out or at 0 hp and the system doesn't allow you to move at 0, she IS trying to goad the pliers out of ansom by having her touch them, she knows something about them he doesn't I think. hopefully we'll be getting more answers than questions soon

[fendrin]

"Only when it is dark enough can you see the stars" -Rev. Dr. MLK Jr.

The events of this and the past strip have been foretold (or rather, foreshadowed). It's a simple recipe.
Take a chunk of '...a guy who'll shock and awe them, just standing on the city walls, commanding the fight.'
Add in some 'Leadership! Combat! Ruthlessness!'
Mix vigorously in 'Transylvito style.' with a generous helping of '...more than a thousand uncroaked Jetstone infantry...'
Serve with a garnish of 'The walls must fall!'

Pairs well with a glass of 'To save your life, my lord.'

There you have it, a steamy plate of delicious plot resolution. In other words, Wanda's defeat was necessary to bring about the level of desperation needed to make Parson's involvement strategically necessary enough for him to put his boop on the front line.

I expect Bogroll will go along and take a hit (though perhaps not fatally) for him, so that Parson doesn't become the next Manpower. Parson's presence on the front will force Ansom to retreat (to the Airspace, probably). The appearance of Sizemore coupled with the obvious first signs of a breach make me think we are about to see Sizemore repair the walls. The siege will not be able to breach the walls, and the coalition will lose hope (and possibly shatter).

Further, but without the culinary metaphor (too much Iron Chef, I fear):
Charlie's re-alliance with the RCC is also necessary for plot reasons. As others have pointed out, it means the Archons cannot attack GK until after GK's turn, in which Stanley and cohort will likely return. I suspect that the addition of six healthy dwagons, backed up by Stanley's not-insignificant bonuses, Parson's recently amped Chief Warlord leadership bonus, and a master-class foolamancer will render the Charlescomm force insufficient to take GK, and possibly croak most or all of them. A mano-et-mano duel between Stanley and Ansom would be appropriate but unnecessary. In fact, the entire war could end without a single additional named character death. I doubt it, though.

[Hatu]

The appearance of Sizemore coupled with the obvious first signs of a breach make me think we are about to see Sizemore repair the walls. The siege will not be able to breach the walls, and the coalition will lose hope (and possibly shatter).

If Sizemore can simply repair the walls to prevent a breach, why was there ever any concern over the siege equipment in the first place? For that matter, why bother sending out Wanda? have Sizemore repair the walls from time to time.

Further, but without the culinary metaphor (too much Iron Chef, I fear):
Charlie's re-alliance with the RCC is also necessary for plot reasons. As others have pointed out, it means the Archons cannot attack GK until after GK's turn, in which Stanley and cohort will likely return. I suspect that the addition of six healthy dwagons, backed up by Stanley's not-insignificant bonuses, Parson's recently amped Chief Warlord leadership bonus, and a master-class foolamancer will render the Charlescomm force insufficient to take GK, and possibly croak most or all of them. A mano-et-mano duel between Stanley and Ansom would be appropriate but unnecessary. In fact, the entire war could end without a single additional named character death. I doubt it, though.

I'm still not sure why Charlie would have to act on Ansom's turn. Charlie clearly can act before Parson when "on his own." But so can Transilvito, and Transilvito remains allied to Jetstone while acting on their own. So why wouldn't Charlie agree to join the alliance but act on his own initiative, thereby guaranteeing him the chance to capture Parson and his widget if Ansom doesn't win the battle on this turn? Charlie's clearly calling the shots when it comes to terms, and that would seem to be the no-brainer obvious move from his point of view.

-H

[Godskook]

I'm still not sure why Charlie would have to act on Ansom's turn. Charlie clearly can act before Parson when "on his own." But so can Transilvito, and Transilvito remains allied to Jetstone while acting on their own. So why wouldn't Charlie agree to join the alliance but act on his own initiative, thereby guaranteeing him the chance to capture Parson and his widget if Ansom doesn't win the battle on this turn? Charlie's clearly calling the shots when it comes to terms, and that would seem to be the no-brainer obvious move from his point of view.

-H

1.TV is not currently allied with the RCC.

2.The Author has made it clear that allied troops all have the same turn, and that turn happens during the latest turn-slot of all allied sides in the alliance. Since the RCC has their turn after GK, so will Charlie, now that he's allied. This is the cost of alliances.

[ishnar]

The problem I have is we don't know the rules, so every 3rd strip has an unforseen change, basically a Deux Ex Machina.

Dem has nothing to do with being unforeseen, it has to do with being unforeseeABLE. Sure, there have been some things that go against reader anticipation, but that's not DeM. I'm getting progressively frustrated with the story, but it does not have DeM issues.

[Tweed]

I've found the last few pages gripping. I can't understand why everyone is complaining about plot twists - you really want the story to end so soon? Parson wins! Strip over! Thanks for reading!

I've already made this point but I am going to make it again because I do not want people misconstruing what I and, I think, people like Hatu and Headhoncho are saying. We are not saying that we want the story to end right now with Parson emerging victorious and all our wishes coming true. Our point is not that Parson is losing or continues to suffer reversals. Our point is that the reversals Parson continues to suffer are getting progressively less believable. Parson keeps making progress, then that progress gets eliminated not through Ansom's brilliant strategizing or keen insights, not through Parson's own personal limitations, but through repeated deus ex machina like Charlie, "luck" and nonconventional interpretations of the rules that permit Ansom to accomplish a dozen feats in one action while his enemies accomplish none.

That's what we're talking about. We are not complaining because Parson is losing. We are complaining because every tenth strip, for a year or more, has ended this way: Parson hatching a brilliant scheme, and it being thwarted through happenstance, luck, Ansom's epic "I'M A WARLORD!"-ness, or just sheer Plot.

[Hatu]

1.TV is not currently allied with the RCC.

2.The Author has made it clear that allied troops all have the same turn, and that turn happens during the latest turn-slot of all allied sides in the alliance. Since the RCC has their turn after GK, so will Charlie, now that he's allied. This is the cost of alliances.

The author cannot have it both ways. Ansom's original goal in releasing the Archons back on page 103 was that they would then ally with TV, allowing them to move again before Stanley and catch up with him. In order for this to make any sense, it would require that TV be "independent" from Jetstone, yet still willing to work towards shared goals.

There's no reason why that same arrangement couldn't work here. Charlie agrees to attack GK independently of Ansom. That might limit their ability to jointly attack, but that isn't happening this turn anyway. Meanwhile, it would give Charlie his best chance to grab Parson before anything else can change.

Now, I could understand why Ansom might not like such a deal, but he's clearly only accepting this deal because he had no choice. I see no reason why Charlie should willingly give Parson more time to defend himself.

-H

[fendrin]

If Sizemore can simply repair the walls to prevent a breach, why was there ever any concern over the siege equipment in the first place? For that matter, why bother sending out Wanda? have Sizemore repair the walls from time to time.

Simply put, Sizemore would run out of magic quickly if he were the sole thing defending the walls. I anticipate that if he repairs, it will be on GK's turn (after he 'replenishes' his magical reserves).

The author cannot have it both ways. Ansom's original goal in releasing the Archons back on page 103 was that they would then ally with TV, allowing them to move again before Stanley and catch up with him. In order for this to make any sense, it would require that TV be "independent" from Jetstone, yet still willing to work towards shared goals.

There's no reason why that same arrangement couldn't work here. Charlie agrees to attack GK independently of Ansom. That might limit their ability to jointly attack, but that isn't happening this turn anyway. Meanwhile, it would give Charlie his best chance to grab Parson before anything else can change.

Now, I could understand why Ansom might not like such a deal, but he's clearly only accepting this deal because he had no choice. I see no reason why Charlie should willingly give Parson more time to defend himself.

-H

If the RCC and Charlescomm are not aligned, then any unled troops from one faction would auto-attack units from the other faction. Not the best thing to do in a war.

[TamLin]

EDIT: My last post was under a diff name, "Nerd_Paladin", a forum name I stopped using because I had forgotten the password for it and could for some reason never get the site to email it to me. Then last night I was trying to recover the password for THIS name and got that one instead. Don't ask me what happened there. Now I'm pretty well sorted. I don't expect any of you to keep track of/care about whether I can managed my account, I'm just clearing up potential confusion as to why I'm responding to responses resonding to a diff screenname. My head hurts....

Webinar was a Warlord too.

But it wasn't his turn. Like I said, it was just an idea. I don't know the specific rules or how they affect the physics/free will of Erfworld, but we know that there IS an effect. Add this to the standard liberties that most writers take with time in favor of suspense, plus the usual complexities of time in the medium of comics, in which time is expressed by the spacing of images but at an inconstant rate (thank you Scott McCloud) and it's not really that strange.

Honestly, I don't think that this element of the strip warrants intense analysis. Time is malleable in fiction, we've all noticed in movies how 30 seconds on a bomb's timer somehow becomes three minutes of screentime while the heroes race to the rescue (usually brawling with stubborn should-be-dead-but-aren't bad guys along the way). I'm not saying it's not annoying, but you just kind of shrug and accept it. I do anyway. As for rules inconsistency, well, the paradox of free-willed people and real-world physics being constrained by turn-based "rules" (enforced in some unknown way by some unknown force) and the tension that results is, I think, part of the basic concept. Sometimes the rules are going to bend. Sometimes they might even break. How/why this happens and whether the Erflings are aware of it is fascinating to consider.

To clarify: I agree that the last couple pages have handled such matters clumsily. I just don't care as much.

The only person she's 'tortured' liked it

I don't think Jillian is the only person that Wanda has tortured. And even if she is, she only "liked" it because she was being magically compelled. Or maybe she liked it in the first place and it was just a convenient way to magically compel her (which is actually worse).

Beyond that, it's pretty clear that her sadistic tendencies extend beyond the bedroom (or dungeon, which in her case is a literal term). Physical violence, while objectionable, is sort of inevitable in war, and in wargaming, and in fantasy literature, but the kind of sick, twisted, emotional and psychological violence that she clearly enjoys inflicting is a whole other ballgame. And then there's the zombie stuff, which you have to admit is pretty bad. People might invoke the "neccesity of war" defense for her, but that strikes me as a double standard, overlooking morally objectionable acts by certain characters on the grounds of pragmatism but holding others (Ansom) to near-Papal expectations.

I find Wanda a fascinating character, but surely not a sympathetic one, and so far I'm very incredulous to most of the non-villainous interpretations of her actions. Erfworld may not be black-and-white, but some characters are less grey than others.

As for Ansom, he's a violent thug who's sent men to fight and die 'cause he didn't like how Saline IV chose his heir.

Respectfully, so many things are wrong with that sentence:

1. Saline didn't choose an heir, he was overthrown. I got the impression that it was at least implied that Stanley was behind that coup. I've no real evidence of that, but it was noted how strange it was for the gobwins to turn on the king, and it's hard to overlook the fact that Stanley benefited the most from a very suspicious string of events. Of course, that's a bit more clever than is usual for him, but even Ansom acknowledged the "occasional clever move" from Stanley (linking the casters, for example).

2. That possibility aside, what about Stanley's megalomania, his aggressive wars on all his neighbors, his obession with the Arkentools, etc? Might THAT have something to do with why Ansom and the coalition are interested in overthrowing him, because he's a murderous tyrant with delusions of grandeur?

3. Given how frequently Ansom puts his own life in danger to protect his troops (it's been established as one of his primary character traits), even to the degree of being somewhat stupid about it at times, it's really not fair to criticize him for "Sending men to die." He's doing what a military leader has to do, and on top of it he endangers himself to a disproportipnate degree.

Plus he's rather keen on things like sacking defenseless cities and murdering defenceless people and he'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for the Big Damn Heroes.

Again, I was under the impression that preventing the sacking and massacring of HIS cities and the cities of his allies was what he was really going for there. Further, I haven't seen any evidence that he's planning on putting the women and children to the sword once the walls are down. Not saying it's not possible, just saying there's nothing to indicate it. He seems more interested in stopping Gobwin Knob's aggression.

Like many readers here, I am able to be fond of the villain -- I am a big fan of Xykon from OOTs, and I am sure there are many people here who are, even though he is unequivocally evil-with-a-capital-"E" and has committed many heinous acts. Still, he is a character, and a well-developed one, so I appreciate him and his actions.

Hmm, well, I don't really consider Ansom the villain here (and Stanley would seem to have the most in common with Xykon if you ask me, not that it's really a relevant comparison), but I suppose "antagonist" is a fair term, since he IS in opposition to our hero.

Ansom is an entirely different story. We have no insight into what he's all about, no exposition on why he's at war with Stanley.

Well, strictly speaking, I think we do have some insight. Either he's motivated by a sense of duty to the leader of Jetstone (whose name escapes me), the desire to defend his nation and his nation's allies, a distaste for Stanley probably focused on his low birth, or some combination of all (plus others I might not have thought of). It's true we don't know for sure what's going on in his head, but that's what makes him interesting.

For every ounce of competence he's demonstrated he's shown himself ten times the fool. Yet he emerges each time victorious.

Again, it depends on your point of view. Either Ansom's tactical errors are the result of a rash temper and poor judgment, or they're evidence of how his sense of honor and personal responsibility can get in the way of his better sense. As is usually the case, how you feel about the character will color how you interpret his behavior. Still, speaking personally, I like seeing a character who makes mistakes but can still perservere. Too often in fiction we seem to get an "either/or" scenario: Either you're a brilliant mastermind who is always one step ahead, or else you're doomed to fail. It's rather artificial.

Now, in these past two strips, he's acting in essentially god mode: falling from his mount, sustaining no real damage, reviewing a contract, calling in the tac-nuke archons to save his butt, remounting, flying into the courtyard, seizing the 'pliers, engaging in dialogue, then flying away, all while being surrounded by a horde of undead. I'm sorry, but I call foul.

This actually reminds me of the fan complaints after Xykon massacred the Sapphire Guard last year. I don't like to do Erf/Stick comparisons, since I don't think they really have much with each other, but it's interesting.

Now, many of the comments thus far HAVE clearly been about a dislike of Ansom as a character rather than his role in and the direction of the story. Even so, I can see where you're coming from. However, being as I'm almost NEVER in synch with the rest of the board about the quality of the strip, I'm going to disagree. I think that these couple of pages, while maybe not the best work from Mr. Balder, are continuing an important theme in the strip. Rather than analyzing the role of Ansom here, I really think this is more about Parson.

It seems like Parson is the mastermind who cannot succeed, as his plans have all been clever but none have ever worked (not completely, anyway). However, I disagree that it's deus ex machina that has screwed him. I think it's his own mistakes that keep derailing his plans. For example, his original plot to ambush and capture Ansom failed because Ansom turned out not to be as predictable as he thought. He made the mistake of trying to anticipate a man he didn't know, trusting secondhand information from other people (whom he also he didn't really know).

Similarly, his second attempt to nail Ansom failed because he put too much faith in Wanda's magic. While that might seem reasonable, note that the decision also involved making a judgment about Jillian, another enemy he didn't know and had no real insight about. He trusted Wanda's assesment, but the fact that she incorrectly anticipated Ansom's move earlier should have been a warning to him. He might also have observed that there was more to Wanda and Jillian's "relationship" than meets the eye, and questioned her objectivity. Besides, he doesn't know a thing about magic, he shouldn't have put all his eggs in one basket. An understandable error, perhaps (I probably would have done the same thing), but an error nonetheless.

Nn the present situation, Parson had a chance to ally with Charlie but passed it up, and now it's costing him. His previous interaction with Charlie taught him that Charlie never goes back on a contract, so he should have known that pushing Charlie into a formal agreement while he still had leverage over him was the smartest way to remove him as a threat. Similarly, he knew from many warnings that, outside the context of contractual agreements, Charlie is strictly not to be trusted. He was warned about Charlie's double-crossing ways, but somehow failed to ancipate that he would be double-crossed. Really, Paron's actions back on page 105 were pretty dumb. Of course, he was confident in his strategy, he had even calculated his odds of success out to a specific percentage, but that wasn't taking into account what Charlie would do.

Do you see a pattern? I do. Parson is great with tactics, numbers, and strategy, but he's lousy at reading people. That's why he never accurately predicts what his enemies will do (well, not never; he knew how to provoke Ansom), why he needed Wanda's help to get into Stanley's good graces (such as they are), why he alienated Sizemore, and why, in my opinion, he's trusting Wanda far more than he should. Bad people skills are in keeping with his gamer-geek cliche lifestyle back in the "real world". Ansom, on the other hand, only seems to be an average strategist, but is very charismatic, inspirational, and great at managing morale (look, for example, at how large and diverse his coalition is and how he's managed to hold them all together, at his close relationship with Vinny, at how he comforted Webinar's fears while at the same time reminding him of his duty, etc. Hell, even his romance with Jillian represents a sort of triumph of personal magnetism over poor straegy; his propositioning of her way back on page 8 was surprisingly crass, but she still fell for him anyway. Incidentally, I think that that page, both in terms of the writing and the art, is a great study in how much the strip has changed. Those are some BIG heads...).

So in a sense, the last couple of pages are just the next cycle in a previouslyu established pattern. In that context, I think they're a bit less outlandish.

Wanda is clearly "bad" but interesting and, at least to some, a likable character. Ansom is clearly "good", but not so interesting, and to most, an unlikable character. That's part of what makes this comic interesting. Unfortunately, it also makes it painful when Ansom gets away.

Now, that one I'll get on board with. Personally I DO find Ansom likable, but that's because I think I approach these stories from a different point of view than most people. You'll forgive me because here I'm going to start getting broad and theoretical, as I have a habit of doing, but the way I see it, in modern American pop culture, the worst thing you can be in most people's eyes is an arrogant hero.

Being an arrogant villain is fine, people love an arrogant villain, and it's sort of hard to be a humble villain anyway (I'm sure there are some, I just can't think of any off the top of my head, except perhaps the "Loyal enforcer" type of character who is subordinant to a more powerful villain, ala Darth Maul or Harley Quinn. Although even then, there's a kind of pride and grandeur that comes with the close association with a powerful figure, so perhaps they're not so humble as all that). Similarly, being an arrogant anti-hero, in the rebel maverick loose-cannon way, is fine. In fact, people eat it up (Wolverine, Jesse Custer, the Man With No Name, Jack Bauer, etc). Even a humble hero can get on the fans' good side (Superman comes to mind), although that's a bit tricky because s/he can't seem callow.

But an arrogant hero just pisses people off. I think this stems from some writer's habit of approaching traditional "Good guy" characters, deciding they're too one-dimensional, and making them judgmental pricks so that we can all sit back and say "Oh, so that's the REAL evil!", etc. Or perhaps not, perhaps that's just the way to conform fiction to the likings of an audience that was getting tired of cliches. But in any case, no one likes a loudmouthed boy scout, because the holier-than-thou schtick gets pretty old.

Audiences care about a character's attitude, not his/her behavior. A "cool" character can get away with almost anything and still please most fans, whereas a character who rubs audiences the wrong way can do no right, even if their behavior is morally superior (or at least equivalent) to the more popular cast members. That's why Vinny is popular while Ansom is not (Notice how Vinny's humility comparative to Ansom's pride was worked in very early, during their first significant dialogue exchange back on page 34), why people object more to Stanley belittling his subordinants than to the fact that he's a tyrant, and why people sympathize with Wanda as the jilted lover and long-suffering voice of reason despite the fact that she's pretty clearly off her rocker (Wanda fans who are objecting right now might sit back and ponder how comfortable they would be with the prospect of her living next door). Of course, I'm applying rote classifications to characters that are supposed to be complex and nuanced, which means that not everyone will agree with my interpretations here, but hopefully you get my drift all the same.

As you can probably guess, I approach characters a bit differently than the parameters laid about above. I loathe loner anti-heroes, and you have to be a pretty impressive villain to get me to root for you, so it's natural that I'd prefer Ansom to some of the other characters. Of course, for all I know, I'm mischaracterizing everyone else's approach to the characters too. Like I said, it's all theoretical.

[Jeivar]

(snip)

Do you see a pattern? I do. Parson is great with tactics, numbers, and strategy, but he's lousy at reading people. That's why he never accurately predicts what his enemies will do (well, not never; he knew how to provoke Ansom), why he needed Wanda's help to get into Stanley's good graces (such as they are), why he alienated Sizemore, and why, in my opinion, he's trusting Wanda far more than he should. Bad people skills are in keeping with his gamer-geek cliche lifestyle back in the "real world". Ansom, on the other hand, only seems to be an average strategist, but is very charismatic, inspirational, and great at managing morale (look, for example, at how large and diverse his coalition is and how he's managed to hold them all together, at his close relationship with Vinny, at how he comforted Webinar's fears while at the same time reminding him of his duty, etc).

(snip)

The more I think about this post, the more it rings true. An excellent analysis.

[Godskook]

The author cannot have it both ways.

Yes, yes they can.

Ansom's original goal in releasing the Archons back on page 103 was that they would then ally with TV, allowing them to move again before Stanley and catch up with him. In order for this to make any sense, it would require that TV be "independent" from Jetstone, yet still willing to work towards shared goals.

Vinny is a close personal friend of Ansom. His is also a noble, so his influence with the Don is not negligable. That he can get the Don to do Ansom a 'favor'(fits with their mob theme, don't it?) is pretty logical.

There's no reason why that same arrangement couldn't work here. Charlie agrees to attack GK independently of Ansom. That might limit their ability to jointly attack, but that isn't happening this turn anyway. Meanwhile, it would give Charlie his best chance to grab Parson before anything else can change.

First, Charlie has demonstrated several times already that he'll only follow blatant contracts. His word is only as good as ink.

Second, Charlie's contract stated a minimum 2 turn duration, which means that he's in for the full siege(probably). He's also protective of his Archons and doesn't want Ansom's unled stacks shooting at them(I wouldn't in his shoes). An alliance is the only way to prevent this.

Now, I could understand why Ansom might not like such a deal, but he's clearly only accepting this deal because he had no choice. I see no reason why Charlie should willingly give Parson more time to defend himself.

-H

Because he can get paid twice!

[Hatu]

Blasted insomnia. But while I'm up...

If the RCC and Charlescomm are not aligned, then any unled troops from one faction would auto-attack units from the other faction. Not the best thing to do in a war.

That is obviously not true, since the Archons engaged neither Ansom nor Wanda when they fought in the Airspace zone. So it seems clear that neutral stacks are not obligated to attack, even if leaderless.

Vinny is a close personal friend of Ansom. His is also a noble, so his influence with the Don is not negligable. That he can get the Don to do Ansom a 'favor'(fits with their mob theme, don't it?) is pretty logical.

What are you talking about? I understand why the Don agreed to the plan, but that's not the point. My point is that Charlie is the one calling the shots in this new contract, and if he wants to remain independent of the RCC while still saving Ansom's bacon, Ansom is in no position to argue. Since staying independent maximizes the odds of obtaining his goal (the capture of Parson), that would seem to be the logical action for Charlie to take.

First, Charlie has demonstrated several times already that he'll only follow blatant contracts. His word is only as good as ink.

Second, Charlie's contract stated a minimum 2 turn duration, which means that he's in for the full siege(probably). He's also protective of his Archons and doesn't want Ansom's unled stacks shooting at them(I wouldn't in his shoes). An alliance is the only way to prevent this.

First of all, where does Charlie say the contract is for two turns? Did I miss something?

Secondly, I must once again point out that Charlie is the one writing this contract. The comic makes it clear that Ansom is accepting outrageous terms. He does so because he has no other choice. Under these circumstances, I don't see any reason for Charlie to even OFFER a formal alliance. Co-belligerent status serves Charlie's interest far more, and it still offers Ansom what he needs.

As for the risk of Ansom backstabbing him, that seems near zilch. The only RCC flying unit within range of GK seems to be Ansom himself. The Archons are more than powerful enough to defend themselves from him. We also know they're in the Airspace zone, so they're entirely out of the way of the entire allied army, until and unless one of them captures the Tower.

Besides, at the start of this day Charlie was willing to capture GK himself, without Ansom at all. It seems to me that he's quite willing to accept Archon casualties if it gets him what he wants.

-H

[dr pepper]

Hmm, TamLin's analysis seems to boil down to identifying Ansom as a highschool football star.

[TamLin]

I'm not sure I follow? I'm saying he's better at diplomacy than stragegy, whereas Parson is a great tactician but doesn't seem to "get" people (hence why Erfworld is the most challenging "game" he could ever play; because he has to think about more than just artificial units with no free will).

[Aquillion]

I'm not sure I follow? I'm saying he's better at diplomacy than stragegy, whereas Parson is a great tactician but doesn't seem to "get" people (hence why Erfworld is the most challenging "game" he could ever play; because he has to think about more than just artificial units with no free will).

I can see some of that, but Ansom's abilities have limits -- he still doesn't seem to really understand Jillian at all (and that's only partially because he doesn't know key details of her background -- he even missed the parts that she flat-out told him.) He also misjudged Charlie, which let Stanley get away. And I'm not sure, if you go back and look at Webinar's expression, that Ansom's little speech to him was anywhere nearly as effective as you think it was -- I don't know if morale is a factor in the game, but going by Webinar's expression, he went into his final battle with a penalty. And more generally, if you look at Webinar's interactions with Jillian and the 'stunningly disfunctional group dynamic' -- that was pretty much all Ansom's fault, ultimately. (Earlier, he sent Webinar to shadow Jillian while saying that 'she may be very grateful', for crying out loud! Usually good diplomatic leaders do not order their men to risk their lives by openly saying that they're doing it to get inside of a girl's pants.)

If I had to say what Ansom's saving grace in the story so far has been, I wouldn't say that it's his diplomatic abilities (if anything, Parson has exploited his problems in that area.) His saving grace has been his decisiveness and the speed with which he's been able to accept new situations -- look at him breaking out of the donut strategy, or attacking the walls when his coalition was about to crumble, or signing with Charlie just now. Ansom is very good at making the right decision quickly under pressure, which is an extremely important trait for a leader to have. He's also -- despite his massive ego -- capable of recognizing when he's in trouble, even if it took him a moment in the Donut of Doom case.

[TamLin]

Hmm, you're right, Ansom doesn't neccesarily have any greater insight into people than Parson does. But like I said, the characters are allowed to have flaws but still succeed. Parson isn't always the perfect strategist, so we can't expect Ansom to the perfect diplomat. Still he couldnt' have managed the coalition for this long if he didn't have notable talents for diplomacy.

Rather than demonstrate a lack of competance on Ansom's part, I think the dysfunctionality of the coalitions shows just how good of a job he's actually done. Of course that large and that diverse of an alliance of peoples (many of whom have probably fought each other in the past) is going to have internal conflicts (Ansom himself said as much during one of his early pep talks to the troops, back in a strip I'm now too tired to go hunt for). And yet they've hung together this long and apparently done a good job of beating Stanley back. That's a credit to Ansom that he's kept everything from falling completely to pieces.

My real focus was on Parson and why I think he keeps coming up short no matter what his plan is (in short, he's not good with people. Although he does seem likable enough. Ansom, on the other hand, is kind of a jerk, but seems charismatic anyway), and from there I was toying with the idea of Ansom as a foil for Parson. For one reason or another, Ansom is a guy that a lot of people are willing to follow, while Parson is someone almost nobody had confidence in at first (except maybe Bogroll, but he's not exactly hard to impress), they just followed his lead because no one else was there to do the job (and even then Stanley almost put the kibosh on him). Even Ansom's decisiveness, which you pointed out, contrasts with Parson's role as a long-term planner. Then again, Ansom is supposed to think about the long-term as well, but he relies on impulse often too. It's not an airtight comparison, and no two characters are total inversions of each other, but it's a notion I like, and I'm now curious to see how/whether the rest of the strip supports it.

[Simanos]

It's his turn, so he would just have had to spend a movement point to swap zone.

No, that's BS.
Fliers can't attack the courtyard until they take the walls/tower.
Objects may be allowed to pass through zones (or hexes), but it would make sense if it took 2 people, one in either zone. One passing the object to the other. Here Ansom picks up the pliers on his own, because they are sticking up in the air. It's LUDICROUS.
Lame.

I dislike Stanley. I wanted the Coalition to win, but not by cheating. This is cheating.

[Suicide Junkie]

No, that's BS.
Fliers can't attack the courtyard until they take the walls/tower.
Objects may be allowed to pass through zones (or hexes), but it would make sense if it took 2 people, one in either zone. One passing the object to the other. Here Ansom picks up the pliers on his own, because they are sticking up in the air. It's LUDICROUS.
Lame.

He's not attacking the courtyard. He's grabbing the pliers from the outer walls zone.

I'm not sure why people have latched on to the idea that the "outer walls" zone contains only the physical walls themselves.

After all, the airspace zone covers the area from the outer edge, across the city, and right up to the tower windows.
And the tunnels cover the area from the outer edge, across the city and up to about the garrison wall (Remember all the houses?)
There is even a nice square wall with which to defend the courtyard, including its access to the tower and dungeon.
So, why are people claiming that the city is in the courtyard?

It's LUDICROUS.

[Gez]

Not if lichhood counts as self uncroaking.

Why would it be any different? Everything we know about the uncroaked says they're basically meat puppets, nothing more. At first they kinda look like zombies, but they continue to decay and end up as skeletons, before eventually falling to pieces for ever.

The vampires (Transylvito) do not appear to be uncroaked in that world; they aren't undead, they're just a race of people that look like vampires.

So why would there be something like the lich? If such units existed, why didn't Gobwin Knob have some? Why wasn't that prospect raised for Misty, instead Parson being told that uncroaked casters are merely infantry?

It seems pretty clear to me that liches do not exist.

[EBass]

2.The Author has made it clear that allied troops all have the same turn, and that turn happens during the latest turn-slot of all allied sides in the alliance. Since the RCC has their turn after GK, so will Charlie, now that he's allied. This is the cost of alliances.

I think the movement rules regarding alliances are more complex than we've been told so far, or else it would simply be way way too exploitable.

For example, say a side has some hit and run units out in the open, very vulnerable but their turn is up before their enemy and so they will be able to get away. The enemy simply contacts a side who may have absolutely nothing to do with the conflict and be miles away and says "We need our turn early, we'll pay you some small sum 500 smuckers to ally with us for a turn, and break the alliance after one turn.".

A huge proportion of the tactics in a turn based game are ending your turn in order to mimimize vulnerability during your enemies turn, a time you can do nothing. If teams could just swap their turns around through meaningless alliances? Nah way too exploitable.

[Glome]

So wait, where did all the arrows sticking out the flying carpet go?