Erfworld 145 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 132

[Moechi_Vill]

Yup. It is very Un-Parsony to make a plan that will succeed only with a particular enemy move. I think he had plans for all other occasions.



Yup. He, as far as he saw it, already won, all while trying to prove his nobility.



And I think that if Ansom tried to pull that, he would pretty much lose all of his remaining prestige on the spot. He was already viewed as incompetent, if he send someone else he wouldn't prove that nobility is better, he would have appeared to be afraid, or, even worse, he would transmit message that this victory is worthless if he hadn't even bothered to confirm it in person.

He could've accepted the offer with a ground escort hovering just above ground but out of immediate reach of a disguised flier or unit that can leap high.

[MattR]

1) Why would Ansom suspect that it was a twoll disguised using foolamancy on the tower?

a) We have no indication that foolamancy scrolls are so common that the use of them should be expected in every situation.

b) Ansom was told that the foolamancer on the GK side had fled with Stanley, an action that is completely believable. It would make sense that the foolamancer showing up at the gap and enabling Stanley to flee would have been communicated to Ansom.

2) Why did Ansom accept the surrender himself?

a) he wanted to make a pretty speech to Parson about his superiority in person

b) Maybe only chief warlords can accept surrender. Every instance we've seen of a chief warlord in action has been on the front line e.g. Manpower, Ansom and Jillian. Only Parson was able to direct things from safety in the capital because of the benefits the trimancer hookup gave.

c) Ansom might be the only surviving warlord for his side at that location and if he doesnt trust the other members of the coalition he wouldn't delegate to them.

Also, fulfilling the requirements of the contract with charlie might mean he HAS to be the one accepting the surrender.

3) Why didnt Ansom dictate a different place to accept the surrender?

a) Parson might have rejected a change of location as trickery. Ansom wants a surrender and wouldnt jeopardize the offer by messing with the location.

c) He thought the location was secure. He had no reason to expect an attack given that he'd seen air defenses used up earlier and GK have no air forces nearby.

d) He thought he was dealing with Parson and didnt expect him to make a suicidal attack. If he'd seen a lackey Twoll standing up there I'm sure he'd have been more wary.

The only reason the attack worked is because he moved in close, we don't know if accepting the defeated person's weapon is required for the surrender to be made effective or if it was Ansom's pride at work again, having to lord it over the fallen just a little bit more.

4) Why didnt the Archons get involved?

a) Ansom didn't pay for spell security, there's no indication that this would be cheap.. in fact considering the cost of just 1 thinkagram it's probably fairly expensive.

b) The events transpired too quickly for the archons had time to act before Ansom passed outside the zone.

c) There's no indication that archons are able to carry people. The only time we've seen them with people it was the warlords from Transilvito who can fly anyway.

d) Ansom and Bogroll were very close together, an attack might have been just as likely to hit Ansom as Bogroll.... also killing Bogroll wouldn't stop Ansom falling.

e) Charlie expected to be able to take GK on his own, he held off his attack just to watch how things played out and its reasonable to assume he'd be happy to stand back again and let things unfold just to see what happens.

f) Maybe Charlie wants Ansom dead! But in a way where he can say his hands are clean. He might stand to gain if the contract is nullified by Ansom's death allowing him to keep his initial fee OR that if there's a forfeit cost for Ansom et al not fulfilling the contract in a set amount of time.

5) Why did Parson use Bogroll and not a different twoll?

a) Bogroll is totally loyal to Parson and he was told directly by Bogroll that he would willingly give his life for him. No other twoll could be trusted to this degree.

[Lemarc]

Why is everyone assuming the Arkenpliers are lost, buried underground, and up for grabs? Last we saw, the red-headed warlord had them. The city was collapsed, yes, but we know that won't destroy the army, and there's nothing to suggest that the warlord was among the casualties. It's reasonable to assume that she still has them.

[Werekat]

I was figuring someone else might bring this up but it seems like Ansom might not have had a choice in attempting the tower capture.

Parson is bound to provide Mathmancy calculations to Charlie as part of the deal he made to save Stanley. Everything that's happened since then makes it seem that Parson has no choice in fulfilling his part of the bargain as long as Charlie doesn't breach first. Especially since the first two calculations he asks for are to Parson's disadvantage (Can I beat you with this force? no? ok, how much more do I need to win?)

On Page 130 Panel 3, Parson guesses that Ansom is bound to capture him. Bound being the operative word -- If Ansom fails or refuses, he is in breach of his latest contract with Charlie.

I think Parson used a confirmed but well-educated guess about the contract - based on his own dealings with Charlie to put Ansom in a compromised situation.

Even if he would have normally been suspicious of Parson's motive's, he really can't afford to miss a capture opportunity with Charlie's contract hanging over his head.

The mechanics of magical contracts or bindings aren't explicit but everything so far suggests that they are potent -- powerful enough for Charlie to base his fees upon at least. Since he says he's in a no-lose situation, I'm guessing he has reason to believe they can be enforced even if we don't know exactly how.

This. I didn't think about the situation in this manner, mostly blaming Ansom's actions on his psychology, but this makes perfect sense to me.

[Wixit]

I have to ask cause I can't seem to find the relevant comic, how do we know Ansom knew the foolamancer was out? AFAIK, Jillian only mentions it to Transylvito troops during the hunt, so an even better question is how do we know Ansom even knew about Jack in the first place?

[Ravenwind]

My point with the comparison to "Julius Caesar", "No Country for Old Men", and "The Sopranos" is that anticlimaxes vary in quality and form. Calling this an anticlimax, either as a way of condeming or defending it, is pretty irrelevant (although it's the kneejerk reaction; I did the very same thing). What matters isn't whether it's anticlimactic but whether it's well-written, properly executed, and appropriate to the story. Do we find this anticlimax believable? Does it add or detract from the comic as a whole to consider that these characters died not because of rules or in-game powers but because of the simple laws of physics? Does hearing about it from Parson's point of view immerse us in his experience, or alienate us from the rest of the story? For that matter, are happy or pissed off that these characters were singled out to die at all? These issues (which are being discussed) are more important than whether the comic is anticlimactic. If we're happy with the execution, then it doesn't really matter what device was or was not used.

And I think you missed my point. Anston's death feels anticlimactic because it WASN'T the climax, as far as I can tell. Is his death part of it? Sure. But his death wasn't the action towards which the entire story was moving. I mean, he's certainly an antagonist, if not a villain.

As to whether it's more important to discuss whether it's well-written or not, than whether something is anti-climactic. . . isn't determining if something is anti-climactic for the reader a part of deciding for oneself if the story in question is well-written?

But, I'll play along. Do I think it's well-written? I think the pacing has been turgid for quite some time now. Some of that has to do with the update pace. Some of it has to do with the use of klogs to explicate, when showing is usually far more effective than telling. If you need to provide Cliff Notes to your book and your name isn't James Joyce, there may be a problem. So, at this point, we have a lot, a lot, a LOT of buildup.

We've seen quite a bit of the sort of situations one of my professors commented on as traditional in commercial writing: anything the protagonist does to resolve the situation, makes it worse. (It's not unique to sitcoms, by any means; I've seen it used as far back as Pandosto: The Triumph of Time, by Robert Green. There's a reason that book darned near out-sold the Bible in the 16th century, and why Shakespeare cribbed from it for The Winter's Tale.)

But I'm straying from the point. If the authors can take the level of inertia in their long, long buildup, and release it and resolve it here in the denouement in a satisfying way, then yes, I'd call it well-written. If it takes two pages to be resolved: "It was all a dream, and Parson wakes up," "Everyone dies," or whatnot, I wouldn't call it satisfying or well-written. And only waiting to see how the rest of the story plays out will tell me how I'll respond.

Just to give you an example from current writing. . . Robert Jordan spent the first HOW many 800+ page novels leading up to the cleansing of saidin? Yes, we know, we get it, men have been downtrodden for thousands of years because their magical power source is tainted and evil, yes, we get it, Rand is the one who's going to cleanse it, yes, every single new female character we meet is now the most powerful magic user anyone has ever encountered and may be the one to help him cleanse it, okay, already, will you just please cleanse saidin already. . . . wait a minute. He and Nynaeve just cleansed saidin? Wait a damn minute here. That took one page. *flip, flip* It's two pages from the end of this book. Whaddya mean, I've read roughly 10,000 pages to lead up to, "Okay, it's done. Slam, bam, thank you, ma'am?" And then, no follow up, no actually using the magic against the dark powers, no resolution, just "wait for the next book."

Made me glad I'd never bought any of them, only checked them out of the library. ;) But that's just me, and what in my opinion makes for a satisfying read.

[SteveMB]

I have to ask cause I can't seem to find the relevant comic, how do we know Ansom knew the foolamancer was out? AFAIK, Jillian only mentions it to Transylvito troops during the hunt, so an even better question is how do we know Ansom even knew about Jack in the first place?

Ansom knows that Stanley has a Foolamancer. However, there's no indication that he knows that Stanley took the Foolamancer with him -- though he might have guessed it, since it would obviously make it easier for Stanley to run and hide.

[Opal Tide]

I think everyone in the forums is in agreement that the RCC is effectively broken (we'll see if that s the case next strip). What I think is a more interesting thought is how this will affect the relations between these factions at their capitals.

Were these faction former enemies that united to defeat Stanley and now have even more reason to hate each other? Were these factions good allies and this loss will strain, but not end their relations? What other factions might take advantage of the new weakness of RCC member factions?

I think there is a lot of potential for chaos within Erf World if the RCC factions were major players. Foriegn Policy, much like nature, abhors a (power) vacuum. If any wars of opportunity to transpire away from GK, that may buy Parson and Co. time to rebuild before any of the RCC factions return for revenge.

I wouldn't be surprised if the second GK book was about the fallout of the RCC's failure and subsequent destruction. That would be pretty interesting, seeing Parson in the field trying to play different feuding fuedal factions off against eah other. Maybe even discovering more about Stanley and GK, pre-Tooolship.

Also Re: Jackson and Lee, as a resident of Northern Virginia, they have WAY too many streets and roads/highways named after them, which makes giving directions to out of towners quite irksome. Apart from that, there are other Forum spaces to refight the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/The Time of Unpleasantness between the states. Let's leave Scarlet O'Hara out of Erfworld (Johansen on the other hand...)

[Cybaster]

Man, while satisfying indeed after being so pompous and that speech of his about royalty, that's...a rather cheap way for Ansom to go. But if rezzing your heroes was possible in Warcraft III, it might be possible here (Although if the Alliance could ressurrect their heroes, they'd have done so long ago with Webinar and Dora).

Nonetheless...until Sizemore actually retrieves Ansom's corpse and we're positive he won't be coming back, I ain't holding my breath. X(

[Natio]

Stanley will shortly arrive with a strong force of dwagons, probably pursued by the Vampire faction and Jillian. Depending on timing and the actions of the Archons, there will be an aerial battle over the city, which Stanley needs to win since this is his last capital. I'm assuming the dwagons and Archons can't go underground.

Everyone seems convinced that Stanley will be coming with lots of dwagons but I am curious why this is so.

Jillian and the vampire warlords forced him to abandon his stack of Dwagons in the fight. He does have a master-class foolamancer and one pretty Red Dwagon.

[Lukmar]

Everyone seems convinced that Stanley will be coming with lots of dwagons but I am curious why this is so.

Not lots of dwagons, but 6 as shown in panels 4 and 6 in this comic.

[ishnar]

Not lots of dwagons, but 6 as shown in panels 4 and 6 in this comic.

Uncroaked Ansome next turn? He might be unrecoverable though due to the cave-in.

If the coalition caves in, they might do a nice slow uncroak and keep his stats. But I'm expecting another big night-of-the-living-dead moment.

[Natio]

Not lots of dwagons, but 6 as shown in panels 4 and 6 in this comic.

Ok, 6 dwagons an artifact and a foolamancer. Sounds better than one dwagon an artifact and a foolamancer. Thanks for the link.

[VariaVespasa]

Everyone seems convinced that Stanley will be coming with lots of dwagons but I am curious why this is so.

Jillian and the vampire warlords forced him to abandon his stack of Dwagons in the fight. He does have a master-class foolamancer and one pretty Red Dwagon.

He's got 5 dwagons left (2 green, 2 yellow and 1 blue), not including his armored red dwagon, and at least 1 KISS left of the 3 he took with him (riding on the blue). One of the greens is unmounted, but the picture detail isnt good enough to tell about the other 3 dwagons. This is all from http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0128.html

The KISS were originally riding a blue, a green and a red or brown (red when leaving GK, brown charging into battle), so it looks like he can have no more than 1 more KISS with him (on the too-small-to-see-the-saddle-band-green), but the red/brown rider is toast.

Edit- bah, this is what I get for taking so long archive-diving while writing this post. :P

[ishnar]

As to whether it's more important to discuss whether it's well-written or not, than whether something is anti-climactic. . . isn't determining if something is anti-climactic for the reader a part of deciding for oneself if the story in question is well-written?

I have to agree with you. Well written? Lots of authors are well written but suck. Shakespeare is a great example of this, everyone tells me how great he is, but while he has great one-liners, I'm still unimpressed. I find his comedies tragic and his tragedies comedic. His characters are unlikeable so I feel no compassion at all when Romeo and Juliet die, rather I feel like singing a hymn to God that the show is finally over. In the face of so many teachers preaching that Shakespeare is great, and so many of their loyal brainwashed students swearing to never read another book in frusteration after getting out of College, I've had to form my own theories about what constitutes good writing and ultimately I've concluding that what people consider "good writing" is this:

Writing that reaffirms the reader's values.

Good grammar and sentence variety is good too. But people will wade through lackluster grammar and simple sentences and still be happy if this one criteria is met. The Little Engine that Could. Great story, poor writing, but who cares. It's a great story, because it reaffirms most people's values, even if it lacks great prose and a lot of other "must have" elements people say must be in a story.

I finally concluded that the reason I hate Shakespeare is not, as my detractors often accuse, because I'm unable to read the non-modern English. I can do it just fine, but it's not the grammar and diction that annoys the crap out of me. The reason I hate Shakespeare is because he walks all over my personal values and spits on them, then goes to a latrine and scoops up a bucket or offal and pours it all over them.

I think that's what is happening here. The people that are annoyed is not due to "bad writing" it's because the writers just stomped all over one or more of their personal values and expectations about the "right" way for a story to turn.

[T-O-E]

Hope the plier doesn't bring him back to life...

[HandofShadows]

Why is everyone assuming the Arkenpliers are lost, buried underground, and up for grabs? Last we saw, the red-headed warlord had them. The city was collapsed, yes, but we know that won't destroy the army, and there's nothing to suggest that the warlord was among the casualties. It's reasonable to assume that she still has them.

Sizemore's statments about the RCC not being hurt by GK collapsing was based on them being outside the walls when it came down. But nearly all of the RCC's local forces where inside the walls and things where brought down in a fashion to casue the most damage. GK fell into the tunnels below in a controled demolitions. The central tower first, then the courtyard (which crushed the troops near the tower), the walls which fell and croaked those on them and crushed those in the courtyard. Just take a look at the RCC's troops. They are terrified. The Red Warlord was near the tower where Ansom dies and would have had almost no cahnce to make it out before everything fell on her.

[krossbow]

As much as this is going to sound wishy washy, i'm REALLY going to miss ansom. He wasn't a bad guy really, just... a little off sometimes with his views, and goblin knob certainly had it coming (based on the statements about their aggressive campaign).









Now, i'm almost feeling a backstab by charlie coming on, with the coalition smashed, having the archon's hammer gobwin knob mercilessly in a grab for everything, including the pliers and parson's items (if he refuses to surrender completely).

[shamelessmerc]

I have to agree with you. Well written? Lots of authors are well written but suck. Shakespeare is a great example of this, everyone tells me how great he is, but while he has great one-liners, I'm still unimpressed. I find his comedies tragic and his tragedies comedic. His characters are unlikeable so I feel no compassion at all when Romeo and Juliet die, rather I feel like singing a hymn to God that the show is finally over. In the face of so many teachers preaching that Shakespeare is great, and so many of their loyal brainwashed students swearing to never read another book in frusteration after getting out of College, I've had to form my own theories about what constitutes good writing and ultimately I've concluding that what people consider "good writing" is this:

Writing that reaffirms the reader's values.

Good grammar and sentence variety is good too. But people will wade through lackluster grammar and simple sentences and still be happy if this one criteria is met. The Little Engine that Could. Great story, poor writing, but who cares. It's a great story, because it reaffirms most people's values, even if it lacks great prose and a lot of other "must have" elements people say must be in a story.

I finally concluded that the reason I hate Shakespeare is not, as my detractors often accuse, because I'm unable to read the non-modern English. I can do it just fine, but it's not the grammar and diction that annoys the crap out of me. The reason I hate Shakespeare is because he walks all over my personal values and spits on them, then goes to a latrine and scoops up a bucket or offal and pours it all over them.

I think that's what is happening here. The people that are annoyed is not due to "bad writing" it's because the writers just stomped all over one or more of their personal values and expectations about the "right" way for a story to turn.

It sounds like you dislike Shakespeare because you had him rammed down your throat for years. I don't think that there is an army of brainwashed shakespeare drones out there (although it is an amusing mental image :-))

In fact I think there is a far larger proportion of people out there that hate Shakespeare because he was rammed down their throats. In between is a large number of people who, like me, enjoy Shakespeare because we were allowed to come to our own understanding of his work.

Also, outside of a classroom, you should never, ever READ a play. Would you sit down with a mug of cocoa and the script of "Die Hard"? Go see a GOOD production (because going to see a bad production of a play is like sitting through a bad remake of a classic movie).

I have to say you are right on the money about affirming people's values though.

[Natio]

Now, i'm almost feeling a backstab by charlie coming on, with the coalition smashed, having the archon's hammer gobwin knob mercilessly in a grab for everything, including the pliers and parson's items (if he refuses to surrender completely).

Chances are with the tower down there are no more air defences but if Charlie sends his forces down into the dungeon they might be vulnerable to Sizemore.

While an attempt at a backstab might be made by Charlie I think Parson has got something prepared in response, or will when it is Gobwin Knob's turn.

[Chadwick]

Honorable men, I agree... but they still fought for the wrong cause.

Now this is how most "Northerners" see these men.

[Devoured_Dude]

My concern is how this the knave's surrender maneuver affects the relationship between Parson and Charlie. Reputation matters in Charlie's business (see #100), and Parson betraying his word, then destroying the city he was supposed to defend can't be great for his reputation.

1. With Ansom dead, does Charlie still get paid? If not he'll be awfully upset.
2. Does Ansom's death damage Charlie's reputation as a mercenary? Ansom was escorted by his Archons when he was killed.
3. Does Parson's treachery ruin his reputation as a warlord? Does he then become less valuable to Charlie? Would anyone hire Charlie if they knew he had the treacherous warlord Parson on his team?
4. Does Parson's wanton disregard of property in pursuit of victory diminish his value as a warlord? Destroying most of your city so your enemy can't take it would not look very good on a warlord's resume! Who would hire him? Again, would anyone hire Charlie if they knew he had the reckless warlord Parson on his team?
5. If Parson is made less valuable by his treachery/recklessness, is his only value to Charlie the artifacts he carries? The big question I have as a result of Parson's maneuvers is: Is Parson now worth more dead than alive to Charlie?

[fendrin]

1. With Ansom dead, does Charlie still get paid? If not he'll be awfully upset.

Charlie is a smart & devious mercenary, and Ansom's boops were in a vise. Smart & devious mercenaries get paid up front, and when your boops are in a vise you don't have much leeway to argue.

2. Does Ansom's death damage Charlie's reputation as a mercenary? Ansom was escorted by his Archons when he was killed.

It depends on the terms of the contract. We know Ansom did not pay for magical security. It is also possible that he did not pay for personal protection/rescue. It's also possible that the Archons were incapable of assisting. They may not be able to carry another person in flight without that net (maybe it's a magic item?), or maybe they couldn't get to him in time. Really, we don't know whether or not any archons tried to save Ansom. If they tried, they failed. If they didn't try, I'm sure there's a way for Charlie to defend his reputation. Of course, I think Charlie wanted Ansom to croak so that he could take the 'pliers with the rest of GK.

3. Does Parson's treachery ruin his reputation as a warlord? Does he then become less valuable to Charlie? Would anyone hire Charlie if they knew he had the treacherous warlord Parson on his team?
4. Does Parson's wanton disregard of property in pursuit of victory diminish his value as a warlord? Destroying most of your city so your enemy can't take it would not look very good on a warlord's resume! Who would hire him? Again, would anyone hire Charlie if they knew he had the reckless warlord Parson on his team?

Ah, but it's Charlie's reputation that matters. If Parson is working for Charlie, he's just one more (talented) mind-slave following Charlie's orders. If Charlie orders no betrayals, Parson will be unable (short of a failing a loyalty check) to betray anyone. Same thing with no-destruction orders. Besides, you don't hire mercenaries because you like them. You hire them because they are effective. No one can argue that Parson hasn't been effective (I'd wager that any erf-native commander in his place would have failed by now).

5. If Parson is made less valuable by his treachery/recklessness, is his only value to Charlie the artifacts he carries? The big question I have as a result of Parson's maneuvers is: Is Parson now worth more dead than alive to Charlie?

I doubt it. If anything, I think Charlie is getting more impressed by Parson.

[HandofShadows]

Chances are with the tower down there are no more air defences but if Charlie sends his forces down into the dungeon they might be vulnerable to Sizemore.

While an attempt at a backstab might be made by Charlie I think Parson has got something prepared in response, or will when it is Gobwin Knob's turn.

Maggie already burned the remaining air-def spells, so the tower being brought down has no effect there. I agree that sending the Archons into the tunnels will make them vulnerable to Sizemore. And I suspect that they loose a number of advantages as well (they have reduced mobility/agility. And they seem to fairly easily damaged) And after getting screwed by Charlie once, I am sure that Parson has contingency plans for Charlie backstabing him.

[Wixit]

Ansom knows that Stanley has a Foolamancer. However, there's no indication that he knows that Stanley took the Foolamancer with him -- though he might have guessed it, since it would obviously make it easier for Stanley to run and hide.

Ah, yes. It was Wanda who told us he knew. Still, a guess isn't something you rely on completely.

[PapaSloth]

My concern is how this the knave's surrender maneuver affects the relationship between Parson and Charlie.

I'd have to say that if I had to choose between having Parson on my side, or having Parson on the enemy's side, I'd choose to have Parson on my side. Therefore, Parson's reputation as a warlord has been enhanced by this campaign.

[TheTurnipKing]

What I don't get is, why did Parson bother to have Bogroll kill Ansom if they were going to collapse the whole thing anyways. All they would have needed to do was get Ansom of his flying carpet, and he would have croaked with everyone else. It seems un-Parson like to finsih a personal vendetta, when just doing the second part of the plan would have achieved the same results.

It wouldn't have achieved the same results. Most, if not all of the remaining anti-air defences were wasted on the DDR Archons, so there wasn't realistically any other way to get Ansom off that carpet and make him vulnerable to the collapse of the tower like his troops.

But the attack is absolutely consistent with Parson's overall strategy, Render the enemy unable or unwilling to take Gobwin Knob, and preferentially croak the leadership to remove or reduce unit bonuses. It doesn't strike me as an act of malice any more than the death of Webinar or Dora was.

[Kilkrazy]

It wouldn't have achieved the same results. Most, if not all of the remaining anti-air defences were wasted on the DDR Archons, so there wasn't realistically any other way to get Ansom off that carpet and make him vulnerable to the collapse of the tower like his troops.

But the attack is absolutely consistent with Parson's overall strategy, Render the enemy unable or unwilling to take Gobwin Knob, and preferentially croak the leadership to remove or reduce unit bonuses. It doesn't strike me as an act of malice any more than the death of Webinar or Dora was.

Several reasons to attack Ansom with Bogroll.

1. A surprise attack is most likely to succeed.

2. Ansom might not be killed in the collapse, so best to make sure of him straight away.

3. If he survived the attack of Bogroll, he would be more vulnerable during the subsequent collapse because he would be severely wounded, knocked off his carpet and separated from the Archons.

4. With Ansom dead before the collapse begins, any escape and rescue attempts by the coalition forces are going to be worse coordinated. In fact there may even be infighting as some factions try to escape at the expense of the others.

5. Calling for a truce allowed time for Parson to reorganise his remaining units and for the coalition to bring more units into the danger zone of the collapse.

[MattR]

Ah, yes. It was Wanda who told us he knew. Still, a guess isn't something you rely on completely.

Also: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0119.html Vinnie confirms that Ansom knew.

[Hann]

Ansom, weakened by Wanda's uber witchslap into falling damage and hordes of undead, perhaps a direct damage spell from a scroll or twelve, takes... um, 9.81 m/s^2 + Bogroll... 487d6 falling damage (cookie for reference catch) ...

Is it Goblins?