Erf 118, Pg 106

[CaptC]

Everybody seems to be expecting Parson and his new toys to just go pwnzor. I don't - I predict a continued rollercoaster. The answer to Charlie's question merely gives Parson a 60% chance of not losing in the next turn. I'd be disappointed if Parson's new sword turns the situation into an instant win.

The first time Ansom tangled with Parson, he didn't even know Parson existed. Ansom fell into a trap because he thought he was facing Stanley's battle plans. Ansom reacted aggressively and well, and evaded the trap while doing a lot of damage. Now Ansom knows better, and theoretically will not under-estimate Parson again.

The cereal box is telling us this: "Eat up, dood! You're gonna need it!" Surely that is sufficient foreshadowing to predict that this game ain't over yet. While I fully expect Parson to greatly damage Ansom on this turn, I also expect Ansom to show himself as a capable opponent on HIS. If this is a one-sided contest between super-warlord [Now FULLY FUNCTIONAL! (tm)] and a patsy, a lot of the dramatic appeal goes away, so I expect Ansom is gonna get a few more swings in.

[Finwe]

You do realize that Parson is huge, right? As in about twice the height and four times the mass of shrimps like Jilian and Ansom. That's a pretty big sword.

Actually, he's probably something more like 12+ times the mass. If he were the same build as them (i.e. athletic rather than obese), he'd probably be ~8x their mass.

[The Old Hack]

The difference is that Parson had the benifit of foresight.

No he didn't. He took a calculated risk based on partly flawed information, much like every military commander since the dawn of time. And it didn't pan out. That's all.

[Alexei P]

I really like this page.

So, now, we have two possibilities of what "Ruthlessness" might mean. Case 1, it turns out to be a special combat property, like a lot of people have suggested. Something to allow Parson to go berserk, or deal more damage, or push his troops to the fullest. In short, the sword grants badass-ness.

Or, Case 2.

The "Ruthlessness" granted by the sword is exactly what the word means: ruthlessness. As in, a shift in personality. That was the first thing I thought when I saw Parson's face on the last panel: the sword is changing him into the Perfect Warlord - mentally. With the completion of the Summoning spell, Parson will become the Perfect Warlord that Stanley envisioned. He might start to think and act as an actual Erfworldian unit: ruthless, military-minded, conquest oriented. No more mister nice guy. Sizemore will croak all units in his path and like it. Bogroll will be sent to the front lines, like the chess-piece he is. And if things turn out bad, no one gets a free ticket to the Magic Kingdom - the casters are too valuable, after all. Maybe Parson is in danger of even forgetting his home world with his new warlord job.

Too early to tell, I guess. Can't wait for the next strip to see which theory is true.

[tomaO2]

No he didn't. He took a calculated risk based on partly flawed information, much like every military commander since the dawn of time. And it didn't pan out. That's all.

You say calculated, I say needless and stupid (though not, as I once thought, completely moronic). He had better. I've demonstrated he had better. I've also shown that Parson knew what his options were but he decided to do what he did anyway. Besides, you are actually in the minority here by saying it was a mistake. As Steve said, we tend to agree Parson made a mistake, we just were disagreeing on the degree, or were.

You originally stated that no one has come up with a better plan. I have explained that a better plan has been come up with in respect to simply moving his A dwagons to a better hiding spot. This seems to upset you so you argue how no one thought if it before or it's not this or that or how such a small modification doesn't really count and whatever else.

Stop it. Your sour grapes are unbecoming. I'm done arguing with you.

[headhoncho]

You say calculated, I say needless and stupid (though not, as I once thought, completely moronic). He had better. I've demonstrated he had better. I've also shown that Parson knew what his options were but he decided to do what he did anyway. Besides, you are actually in the minority here by saying it was a mistake. As Steve said, we tend to agree Parson made a mistake, we just were disagreeing on the degree, or were.
You originally stated that no one has come up with a better plan. I have explained that a better plan has been come up with in respect to simply moving his A dwagons to a better hiding spot. This seems to upset you so you argue how no one thought if it before or it's not this or that or how such a small modification doesn't really count and whatever else.
Stop it. Your sour grapes are unbecoming. I'm done arguing with you.

Funny, I consider your dwagon fixation to be, if not "unbecoming," perhaps just a bit bizarre.

We get it. Just like Stanley, your desire is to protect dwagons regardless of the strategic benefit, even if it's a calculated risk with a substantial, game-changing payoff (the destruction of the lead siege elements) that only results in major losses after multiple contingencies fail. Not sure why you're taking that position aside from the aforementioned dwagon fixation, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

I also find your claim that most people agree with you to be wildly inaccurate, and also disagree that your plan -- made with hindsight and perfect knowledge -- is somehow better than what Parson came up with based on what he knew.

If you choose to consider Parson's actions "needless and stupid," in stark contrast to how he's been portrayed in this entire strip, that's your prerogative. Please don't expect or claim that the vast majority of the rest of us agree with you, however.

[chaoschristian]

I look forward to the eventual publication of 'Erfworld: The Board Game!'

Imagine the countless hours of fun to be had arguing over optimal dwagon placement.

[The Old Hack]

You say calculated, I say needless and stupid

Yes, based on hindsight. Me, I disagree. Knowing everything I know now, if I personally had that Turn to do over, I would not change a blessed thing. So many things had to go wrong before that disaster happened that it bordered on the incredible. Even with the same setup, just one or two things going different would change the scenarion from disaster into brilliant victory for Parson.

He had better. I've demonstrated he had better.

Based on the assumption that he had more Move left for his dwagons, which we know nothing of, given that we do not know how far they had to move to reach the siege.

You originally stated that no one has come up with a better plan. I have explained that a better plan has been come up with in respect to simply moving his A dwagons to a better hiding spot.

But that is not a different plan. That is just shuffling the dwagons around. If we do not know precisely the direction Jillian chooses to take, and given a hex based movement system, she could potentially graze any dwagon hiding spot we might choose given the limitations of remaining Move.

This seems to upset you so you argue how no one thought if it before

Before it happened, yes. We had howls of anger from people who had the full benefit of hindsight. Not one of them let out a peep before the situation had come to pass. I'd be impressed with these armchair generals if they had voiced concerns about the dwagon positioning at, say, the point where Parson had just revealed that the dwagons flew above a hidden lake rather than after Gillian and Ansom had wiped them out.

Stop it. Your sour grapes are unbecoming.

*scratches head* I rise a couple of points of criticism against those who criticise Parson, and suddenly I am upset and complaining about sour grapes. I don't quite get it.

I'm done arguing with you.

Ah good, at least some benefit came from this, then. From now on I can comment on your posts without you getting upset or complaining about sour grapes.

[SteveMB]

If you choose to consider Parson's actions "needless and stupid," in stark contrast to how he's been portrayed in this entire strip, that's your prerogative. Please don't expect or claim that the vast majority of the rest of us agree with you, however.

Since he's referencing my comments specifically, I'll clarify:

Parson came up with an initial plan of hiding the wounded dwagons inside a ring of unwounded dwagons. After learning that Ansom's intel was limited to what his units could glean from the fog of war, he had a flash of inspiration and came up with a plan to set a trap for Ansom with a ring of unwounded dwagons that weren't actually protecting anything, while actually parking the wounded ones somewhere else.

To make that plan work, the ring had to be close enough to the column to give Ansom an inviting target, and the wounded dwagons had to be parked where the risk of detection and forces that could be brought to bear against them were minimized. Parson had to make some tactical decisions. It's possible, perhaps even probable, that his decisions were less than optimal, especially considering that he was under the gun and didn't have a lot of time to think through every detail ("Do what you need to do, but quickly." -- emphasis added).

(Admittedly, he'd no doubt had experience with making quick decisions to avoid being accused of holding up the game. That's hardly comparable to making a quick decision to avoid the possibility that he might "die here for reals".)

Mistake? Perhaps; it's a reasonable interpretation to say that it was.

Inconsistent with his established character (intelligent and well-versed in gaming)? No.

[headhoncho]

Mistake? Perhaps; it's a reasonable interpretation to say that it was.
Inconsistent with his established character (intelligent and well-versed in gaming)? No.

Right. Which is a far cry from "needless and stupid," as the other poster is claiming.

FWIW, I don't think it was a mistake at all; it was a very calculated risk. And sometimes, calculated risks don't pay off, even when they should.

My guess is that you feel similarly?

[ericgrau]

"Ruthlessness": The comic has been touching on the subject of compassion for quite some time now. And it has been getting in the way of victory. No doubt this "ruthlessness" is the end of that. Whether it's for better or worse - an influence over parson forcing him to be cruel or merely the ability to do what's necessary when necessary - we'll have to see.

The sword also has two other, seperate aspects which may be useful. It also hints that Parson won't destroy/ditch the sword later b/c then he'll lose these. It seems overly complicated to even introduce the other two aspects of the sword if they're gonna be gone so fast (w/o any interesting plot) after a confrontation with the 3rd aspect.

The lost dragons: Parson was counting on the spell to keep Zamussels from attacking. Based on that assumption he had a great plan. Insufficient understanding of the world mechanics have been a problem since day one. And it's often contrasted to his great strategic abilities.

[The Old Hack]

I look forward to the eventual publication of 'Erfworld: The Board Game!'

Imagine the countless hours of fun to be had arguing over optimal dwagon placement.

*groan* I remember playing a WWII game for four players where two players were notorious for doing just that kind of thing. Though to their credit, they usually did the arguing before their turn was resolved, not after it.

Parson had to make some tactical decisions. It's possible, perhaps even probable, that his decisions were less than optimal, especially considering that he was under the gun and didn't have a lot of time to think through every detail ("Do what you need to do, but quickly." -- emphasis added).

Oh yes, the other benefit of hindsight. The advantage of unlimited time for failure analysis, and holding the lack of this advantage against the man on the spot.

(Admittedly, he'd no doubt had experience with making quick decisions to avoid being accused of holding up the game. That's hardly comparable to making a quick decision to avoid the possibility that he might "die here for reals".)

If Parson is the sort of player who actually speeds up in order to avoid either holding up the game or being accused of it, he has my admiration. The two military geniuses I mentioned in the first part of my post would certainly never allow such petty trivia to interfere with the majestic dignity of their decision-making process. *sigh*

Mistake? Perhaps; it's a reasonable interpretation to say that it was.

Agreed, though I personally disagree with that interpretation.

Inconsistent with his established character (intelligent and well-versed in gaming)? No.

Also agreed.

[teratorn]

Besides, you are actually in the minority here by saying it was a mistake. As Steve said, we tend to agree Parson made a mistake, we just were disagreeing on the degree, or were.

Well, I don't agree with Steve. It's hard for me to understand why people can even remotely assume that Jillian was on a straight line to the dwagons. Parson knew one of the choices available to Ansom was to call Jillian into the hex, and the logical expectation was to go on a straight line to the hex where the three dwagons had been killed. So he placed the wounded archons slightly to the side (he needed every bit of move he could get to finish siege).

He didn't expect the hunt,no one did (Vinny included).

[shamelessmerc]

Stop it. Your sour grapes are unbecoming. I'm done arguing with you.

So you're saying if someone consitantly refuses to bow to your powers of il-logic, and demolishes your flights of fancy with facts, that they are indulging in "sour grapes"???

have you considered a career in politics?

[Lamech]

Yes, based on hindsight. Me, I disagree. Knowing everything I know now, if I personally had that Turn to do over, I would not change a blessed thing. So many things had to go wrong before that disaster happened that it bordered on the incredible. Even with the same setup, just one or two things going different would change the scenarion from disaster into brilliant victory for Parson.

With the information Parson had he could have known the dwagons might die (however unlikely) and he could have hidden a warlord somewhere, random forest hex as a back up plan. I think someone might have posted something like this earlier, but Parson made a snap decision so making a mistake is something that happens.
Also if I knew everything I knew now I would have attacked one less hex, and shifted the dwagons a couple of hexes in a direction niether the bats or Jillian scouted; seriously you wouldn't change a thing? Of course, shifting the dwagons using the info parson had at the time would have been increadibly foolish and increased the risks he had info on, and decreased damage.

[Occasional Sage]

What still confuses me is how this debate can be *resolved* without 1) a clear look at the board, 2) the stats of relevant units, and 3) the rules of movement and terrain.

Without those, how is this anything but spinning wheels in the mud and digging an inescapable hole?

[fendrin]

Well, I don't agree with Steve. It's hard for me to understand why people can even remotely assume that Jillian was on a straight line to the dwagons. Parson knew one of the choices available to Ansom was to call Jillian into the hex, and the logical expectation was to go on a straight line to the hex where the three dwagons had been killed. So he placed the wounded archons slightly to the side (he needed every bit of move he could get to finish siege).

He didn't expect the hunt,no one did (Vinny included).

In Steve's defense, I know for a fact he doesn't believe that Jillian flew straight to Ansom's aid. He and I have both argued against that very point for quite a while.

Here's another point in Parson's defense: he was unaware at that point that the (hypothetical*) spell on Jillian would not prevent her from trying to save Ansom. Thus if it worked the way he had been led to believe, Jillian would have found a way to both not save Ansom and not find the dwagons. It wouldn't have been that difficult, just use up move in an inefficient search pattern searching areas that the dwagons probably weren't located.

*Yes, I'm still not convinced that Jillian was under a mind control spell, and if she was, I'm not convinced it was Wanda that cast it. Don't bother arguing, though, as at this point I will only be convinced if Wanda outright admits to it or the authors clearly state that Wanda did it.

What still confuses me is how this debate can be *resolved* without 1) a clear look at the board, 2) the stats of relevant units, and 3) the rules of movement and terrain.

It can't be. Simple as that.

[Lizard Lord]

Actually, I doubt that -- what Parson knows is what we know (i.e. what it says on the box). Also, he's going to be busy now that his turn has started.

He seems to know what ruthless does. We don't know, not for sure at least.

[The Old Hack]

Also if I knew everything I knew now I would have attacked one less hex, and shifted the dwagons a couple of hexes in a direction niether the bats or Jillian scouted; seriously you wouldn't change a thing?

Seriously, yes, for by then this wouldn't have happened yet and would have remained only a small future possibility. We do not know how much siege 'one less hex' represented, but let us say it was about five percent, meaning that Parson attacked eight hexes total. I personally am a greedy bastard who is always willing to take (as I perceive it) small extra risks to maximise enemy casualties when I get a direct shot at his most valuable units. In this case, the siege. And nailing 40% instead of 35% would sucker me into it, believe me.

Often this results in me getting a bloody nose, but the sheer temptation of setting sharks loose in a swimming pool of enemy valuable units acts on me like red cloth waved in front of a bull.

What still confuses me is how this debate can be *resolved* without 1) a clear look at the board, 2) the stats of relevant units, and 3) the rules of movement and terrain.

Without those, how is this anything but spinning wheels in the mud and digging an inescapable hole?

Beats me. It's not me who is insisting on Parson being a dummy who should have known better. All I am saying is that I don't think he is one, and I would likely have done the same thing in his spot -- if I could even have come up with a plan that good.

[teratorn]

In Steve's defense, I know for a fact he doesn't believe that Jillian flew straight to Ansom's aid. He and I have both argued against that very point for quite a while.

Yes, I was aware of that, and I should have been more clear. I didn't agree with Steve in thinking that Parson had made a mistake. I still don't. It was bad luck, but the kind of bad luck that makes the story more interesting. Think of it this way. There are lets say 10 alternate realities from that point, corresponding to 10 different paths followed by Jillian. Jillian doesn't find the dwagons in 9 of them, but then Parson wins easily. That's not the kind of story you want. I remember when we were all making scenarios for Parson's victory someone saying something like "wait, it can't be that easy, the hero must fail first. The situation needs to become even more desperate."

Parson didn't care about croaking Jillian or Ansom on that turn, he was blinded by siege, and probably planned for every single bit of move, to get the most out of his next turn.

He's obsessive, and now he's ruthless, and can use a sword.

[SteveMB]

Yes, I was aware of that, and I should have been more clear. I didn't agree with Steve in thinking that Parson had made a mistake.

What I said is that it's a reasonable interpretation either way. My main point is that if it was a mistake, it was a believable one that doesn't undermine his character development.

Parson didn't care about croaking Jillian or Ansom on that turn, he was blinded by siege

It looks to me like he saw an opportunity to get both the siege units and Ansom, and acted on it. He took a calculated risk that may, or may not, have been the best calculation he could have made if he'd had more time to consider the full situation.

He's obsessive, and now he's ruthless, and can use a sword.

Getting back to the current storyline, I'll be very interested to see what, if anything, happens to the personal dynamics between him Sizemore.

[Heavy]

Critique of the placement of the "A" dwagon group must take into account the (then) current tactical situation as well as future operational requirements. Independent of the "donut of doom".

In the opener raid Parson's dwagons had needed a lot of move to reach and destroy about 2/5 of Ansom's siege units. There's still essential siege left to the coalition side - prime target for any further tactical considerations.

Assuming all the siege units were spread along the column in an even pattern the dwagons would have needed a lot of move again next turn to hit the rest of the siege.

Parson might have put the dwagons completely out of reach of coalition air forces, but this would have robbed him of the ability to carry out any significant operations against the remaining siege next turn. Placing them closer to the column would have meant better economics of move points, but at far higher risk of detection and loss.

I would judge his placement of the "A" dwagon group sound and realistic.

[Manoftyr]

I'm somehow reminded of the Eternal Champion series by Michael Moorecock, in the sense that I gather that the 'ruthlessness' is a character trait that the sword imparts on Parson 'sort of like the Black Sword' which will basically make him colder, more calculating, more well 'ruthless' so long as he wields it, almost like by wielding it he dons an alter-ego, the alter-ego of the 'perfect warlord' so to speak.

I also have a strong feeling that after this is said and done and he puts down the sword he will 'not' want to pick it up again.

[chaoschristian]

It makes sense that the sword bestows a stat/trait that is active only when Parson wields the sword.

He cannot see unit stats without the visors; he cannot calculate odds without the mathemancy bracer.

Since all things happen in threes within the literary world, it follows that Parson will not be 'ruthless' without the sword in hand.

[valce]

For me, this strip is the best evidence so far that Parson is in a coma-induced hallucination. In a world without children, Parson's items come in the guise of children's toys but accompanied by more adult language. The meal creation seems too close to Parson's personality to be a natural process of that universe. The latest meal tells Parson the attitude he needs to win the battle. It seems more likely Parson is regaining the will to live and the meals come from his subconsciousness, rather than a natural process can read people's values and beliefs and issue advice for their current situation.

Didn't we see his friends comment on Parson's sudden disappearance?

[Vreejack]

It makes sense that the sword bestows a stat/trait that is active only when Parson wields the sword.

He cannot see unit stats without the visors; he cannot calculate odds without the mathemancy bracer.

Since all things happen in threes within the literary world, it follows that Parson will not be 'ruthless' without the sword in hand.

Then again, he could be all of these things without the devices, albeit with some difficulty. With experience he could find ways to determine unit stats without seeing them so prominently, I know this isn't always easy but I have done it myself in MMORPG's. It takes some work but it is doable, especially if the other units are cooperating. Note how Parson was able to determine his own leadership bonus. Actually it was so simple that the Tool figured it out for himself. Other stats are harder but experiments can be performed and with experience you can often judge values from informal settings, such as a careful description of a warlord's pas performance.

The calculations done by mathamancy could--as Parson seems to admit---be done by "magic" from our world. Calculating odds from known units stats is a piece of cake. Some games (Civilization comes to mind) indicate the odds before battle commences. Apparently math beyond addition and subtraction is considered "theoretical" in Erfworld. (In some cases I was able to determine unit stats by working known odds in reverse after changing the players a bit. It is truly a labor-intensive scientific technique, but with practice the calculations become obvious. I doubt Parson is unaware of this.)

This "ruthlessness" might be a subtle form of mind control, but that's not to say that is impossible for Parson to assume this attitude himself if he wishes. All good generals must be ruthless, but few were born that way---those such people usually make poor officers, actually. All good generals have to make that decision internally, to become ruthless in order win. If they could do it, so could Parson.

[Vreejack]

Didn't we see his friends comment on Parson's sudden disappearance?

That could have been something in Parson's imagination, but I suspect that it doesn't really matter. I have some suspicions on where this story is going and I predict that Parson's "disappearance" will become real to his friends if it hasn't already.

But predictions in Erfworld are happily made in vain, so keeping that last one vague enough to come true, I'll make some unlikely specific predictions concerning the coming plot singularity.

The Tool will be killed by the party waiting for him. Parson & co. will lose their turn after nearly kicking Webinar's wood-reinforced butt. Ansom & co will then charge in and get themselves demolished by Uber-Parson, at which point Charlie will make his move, only to get his head handed back to him.

Actually I can think of way to many possibilities for that individual scenario to come true, but it struck as plausible the moment I wrote it.

[SteveMB]

One of the other hanging threads is the Foolamancer -- my guess is that Wanda will turn out to know his name when Parson has an opportunity to simultaneously 1)think of the matter and 2)talk to her. Whether this will enable Stanley to sneak through the choke point is an unresolved question -- we know that Ansom believed that a veil could conceal a large group of dwagons from a single scout unit, but expected them to be exposed when he led his main force into the hex.

[Occasional Sage]

That could have been something in Parson's imagination, but I suspect that it doesn't really matter. I have some suspicions on where this story is going and I predict that Parson's "disappearance" will become real to his friends if it hasn't already.

But predictions in Erfworld are happily made in vain, so keeping that last one vague enough to come true, I'll make some unlikely specific predictions concerning the coming plot singularity.

Actually, this suggests that the whole ordeal is real. There are other interpretations, naturally, but.

[HOLEkevin]

I love the cereal box. I had to sit there and do the maze with my cursor. Yay! I won all the neat magic toys!