125 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 113

[Angband]

So I wonder if there's going to be a plot twist between Jack and Jillian... having Jack betray Stanley to help Jillian (or Jillian spare Stanley to save Jack) seems too simple.

The fact that Wanda is working for Stanley without any loyalty spells suggests to me that there is something we don't know about Faq's downfall. Maybe Jack could go so far as to blame Jillian for the destruction of his former faction? She was out adventuring instead of at home where she could have helped defend the capital...

[Aquillion]

The fact that Wanda is working for Stanley without any loyalty spells suggests to me that there is something we don't know about Faq's downfall. Maybe Jack could go so far as to blame Jillian for the destruction of his former faction? She was out adventuring instead of at home where she could have helped defend the capital...

Reminder: Natural thinkamancy isn't a "loyalty spell", at least not in the way Jillian was talking about it. It affects everyone (except faction leaders, I guess), and Jillian either just doesn't understand how it really works, or doesn't accept it (she says 'whatever loyalty spell he has on you', which isn't how natural thinkamancy is.) Even if you give Jillian the most credit possible, she's basically saying "of COURSE Wanda would roll low on her loyalty roll to a monster like that!" Which is nonsense, of course. As the mechanics have been described to us, Wanda doesn't actually get to choose whether she betrays or not; she has a low loyalty as a captured caster, but that doesn't guarantee anything.

My understanding of that exchange was that it was intended to tell us something about Jillian (that she doesn't understand how free will in Erfworld works), not that it was supposed to tell us anything significant about Wanda.

[Eraniverse]

Reminder: Natural thinkamancy isn't a "loyalty spell", at least not in the way Jillian was talking about it. It affects everyone (except faction leaders, I guess), and Jillian either just doesn't understand how it really works, or doesn't accept it (she says 'whatever loyalty spell he has on you', which isn't how natural thinkamancy is.) Even if you give Jillian the most credit possible, she's basically saying "of COURSE Wanda would roll low on her loyalty roll to a monster like that!" Which is nonsense, of course. As the mechanics have been described to us, Wanda doesn't actually get to choose whether she betrays or not; she has a low loyalty as a captured caster, but that doesn't guarantee anything.

My understanding of that exchange was that it was intended to tell us something about Jillian (that she doesn't understand how free will in Erfworld works), not that it was supposed to tell us anything significant about Wanda.

Interesting point, but then you have to ask yourself "Is Stanley such a poor Overlord that he would allow a powerful caster, commanding all his uncroaked forces to function with a low loyalty score?" Instant revolt if she makes the wrong roll. Seems like a bad idea, but certainly not outside Stanley range.

Personally I believe Wanda has high loyalty for some reason that will be revealed later.

[SteveMB]

Interesting point, but then you have to ask yourself "Is Stanley such a poor Overlord that he would allow a powerful caster, commanding all his uncroaked forces to function with a low loyalty score?" Instant revolt if she makes the wrong roll. Seems like a bad idea, but certainly not outside Stanley range.

Personally I believe Wanda has high loyalty for some reason that will be revealed later.

Note that one of the casters we know was captured/recruited from elsewhere (Jack) was in the Eyemancer gestalt, which blended and diluted their individual personalities. (Apparently Maggie was not from Faq, given that she didn't know Jack's name -- she may well have been one of Stanley's own casters.)

As for Wanda... there are apparently things yet to be revealed.

[jami]

It's from the video clip of Micheal Jacksons "Beat it", the song mixes rock and pop-music.

YES! I was wondering if I had to explain that one.

It could also be from West Side Story as some have pointed out though I don't remember if they locked arms in that scene. Been a while since I've seen it.

[kreszantas]

Interesting point, but then you have to ask yourself "Is Stanley such a poor Overlord that he would allow a powerful caster, commanding all his uncroaked forces to function with a low loyalty score?" Instant revolt if she makes the wrong roll. Seems like a bad idea, but certainly not outside Stanley range.

Personally I believe Wanda has high loyalty for some reason that will be revealed later.

I agree I think Wanda NOW has a balanced loyalty score, with the way she controls Stanley without him knowing, and pretty much gets to do what she wants, unless Stanley Orders her to do so (which may cause the loyality score to go down if it is against what she feels is HER better judgement and if she thinks it will cause the end of Stanley / her side) The explainations are best given when she casts the summoning spell and describes the effects of loyalty to Parson, and in the throne room when Wanda and Stanley discuss the Perfect Warlord spell

[Krelon]

Ambush. Probably, Transylvito has a free attack round. But seeing Stanley face, and by action-comic convention, next page should be dwagon's time.

So far the best theory to explain why the dwagons did not use their breaths against the bat swarms.

Okay, thoughts:

1. Even warlord-boosted bats probably don't have extra hit points, thus allowing them to be wiped out by an area of effect attack. Jillian's gwiffons are probably just about heavies in their own right (we've seen them eating (wounded) dwagons in one bite), and presumably have the hp to match. They may not die so easily.
...

It seems like the bonuses raise the attack (maybe the defense) but certainly not the hitpoints of the units. Probably the bats hit by the lightning are gone, not so the Transylvito chief warlord.

As to why Cesar atacked himself.. perhaps his attack would be good enough to croak Stanley while even the boosted bats are not good enough. Also, if this really IS the surprise round and the the dwagons could toast hundreds of bats on their next round it makes sense to take Stanley out quickly and risk Cesar, even if it would seem better to keep him in the back and just push the bats.

I think the most logical thing to follow is for Jack to put an illusion up to both allow Stanley to get past Jill but also prevent Jill from being killed by Stanley.

It's not most logical but it would end the fight before it's really resolved and keep some main characters alive in the game.

[Eugenitor]

I'm going to make another prediction here:

Stanley will reach the other side ALONE, maybe or maybe not with a foolamancer.

He will have his fat Wyrm, yes. Jillian and Caesar will be dead. Jack, if he's still alive, will be inconsolable. Stanley might even feel remorse... eh, maybe. And then he will contact his Chief Warlord, wanting to talk, and Parson will be like "oh hey, we're cleaning up over here, it's pwnage from here to Owned City, but don't end the turn yet, we still have some boop to kick".

And THEN Stanley will have his My God What Have I Done moment.

[CaptC]

RE: Why did Caesar go head to head with Stanley?

Other than dramatic tension? Well, in Warmachine miniatures, there are three main types of heroes. Casters, melee monsters, and assassins. Casters hit you from range but tend to die quick in melee. Melee monsters can generally take a lot of punishment and will eventually catch you and crush you.

Assassins tend to have tricksy powers that enable them to get close to an enemy target, and have very high damage output, but usually don't take much damage. Their defenses are that you can't hit them, so it doesn't matter that they can't take a punch. They win by getting to your most important target and killing it. (In Warmachine, if you lose your hero, you automatically lose the scenario.)

Caesar is an assassin. True to his nature, he made a run at Stanley. But Stanley has insane +hit chances, and nailed him first.

[Robak]

In Warlords(3?) you had three different types of buffs, each with a value ranging from +5 to -1; For example you had leadership (gained by having heroes), countered by Chaos from the opponent. So a good strategy would be to have all different buffs and debuffs in one stack and even the measliest units would pwn big time. You even could beaf up the hp.
The best-case rresult would be if you go up against a dragon (9 attack, 4 hp) with your bats (1/1), it would result in the dragon being 6/4 against the bat with 6/3. Thats transylvito style.
To really pwn you would have three heroes in one stak, decked out with all possible buffs and debuffs and the heaviest creatures (flying and with most move of course - say dragons) and they would put up a 15/4 against that unbuffed 6/4 dragon.
Moral of the story: Cesar should have used stronger units in his personal stack, like the gwiffons, so that his personal bonus counts for the most. Could of course be that you cannot have allied units in your own stack and they dont have anything other than bats, but that would suck big time.

[Oslecamo]

Wanda is as loyal as they can get. Let's review:

1-She's on the losing side, and yet she has done EVERYTHING at her reach to protect Stanley, including attacking old friends, disobeying Hamster lord and expending all her energies to try to make a rescue party to the Tool, at the risk of her own skin.

2-Not only that, she wasn't exactly cornered. Jillian ofered her plenty of chances to escape to the winning side and start a new life, and Wanda always refuses.

3-Altough she indeed manipulates Stanley, it's for his own good, just like a mother lies to her children to protect them. Wanda has always puts the Tool's safety abover her own.

Something BIG hapened on Wanda's past, something that has made her decide to suport Stanley in his mad quest at all costs.

[fendrin]

Wanda is as loyal as they can get. Let's review:

1-She's on the losing side, and yet she has done EVERYTHING at her reach to protect Stanley, including attacking old friends, disobeying Hamster lord and expending all her energies to try to make a rescue party to the Tool, at the risk of her own skin.

2-Not only that, she wasn't exactly cornered. Jillian ofered her plenty of chances to escape to the winning side and start a new life, and Wanda always refuses.

3-Altough she indeed manipulates Stanley, it's for his own good, just like a mother lies to her children to protect them. Wanda has always puts the Tool's safety abover her own.

Something BIG hapened on Wanda's past, something that has made her decide to suport Stanley in his mad quest at all costs.

Or she has extremely low loyalty but needs to keep Stanley around (and thinking he's in charge) in order to accomplish her own goals.

[Welf]

Something BIG hapened on Wanda's past, something that has made her decide to suport Stanley in his mad quest at all costs.

I think it wasn't Stanley happening to Wanda, but Wanda happening to Stanley. Maybe she sold Faq out to Stanley and was behind Stanley's coup d'etat.
Loyalty secures the power of the kings and queens, who probably got their position by the titans. Maybe an arkentool of the titans can temper with this stat and make it possible for its attuned wielder to act free willed, even as subordinate, or change the aim of one's loyalty from his or her overlord to such a wielder.

[Oslecamo]

Or she has extremely low loyalty but needs to keep Stanley around (and thinking he's in charge) in order to accomplish her own goals.

What own goals? If Stanley was nothing more than an instrument, then Wanda would already have discarded him, because no matter how usefull Stanley may be, the fact that there are thousands of guys knocking at your door screaming for your blood means Stanley stoped being usefull years ago.

Yes, Wanda manipulates the Tool, but it's always for HIS own advantage, not hers. What has Wanda gained so far besides losing all her old friends?

And then Stanley abandoned Wanda to her own fate, and still she does her best to suport him.

If being abandoned, half dead, and cornered like a rat, with the possibility of peacefull surrender, yet keep serving your master, isn't a sign of loyalty, I don't know what is loyalty.

[Dragonath]

Sorry to say this, but I am simply craving for the next Erf update :<

I'm staying up waiting, even though it could come tomorow or next week....

I'm addicted :(

[Aquillion]

I gave one possible explanation for Wanda's seeming loyalty to Stanley elsewhere. Very simply:

She likes having a low loyalty score.

That's it. That's all there is to it. Does Wanda really seem like the sort of character who'd like being supernaturally-dominated to you? Well, to her, that's what normal life in Erfworld is like. Of course it would be something she couldn't stand. Do you think she'd be happy being like Sizemore?

So she fakes love for Stanley, or she outwits him in some other fashion (not hard) to convince him to not put it a loyalty spell on her. She is now effectively a free agent, as long as the can keep Stanley alive, convince him that everything is his idea, and avoid being croaked by him (or anyone else.) And Stanley, as she's pointed out, is usually easy to manipulate.

She doesn't simply reject Jillian; she reacts to every offer to defect with violent fury (the only times we see her angry in the entire strip.) This is because, to her, Jillian is essentially offering to enslave her; if she "ran off" with Jillian, she would be willingly defecting to Jillian's side, and would be tightly-bound by natural thinkamancy again. Jillian doesn't think in those terms, and might not even really get natural thinkamancy at all; Wanda does.

This also explains a lot about her relationship with Jillian. To her, much of the attraction is likely the forbidden pleasure of dominating someone who is 'supposed' to be in charge of her.

[SteveMB]

This also explains a lot about her relationship with Jillian. To her, much of the attraction is likely the forbidden pleasure of dominating someone who is 'supposed' to be in charge of her.

And, on the other side, Jillian's submission was another form of rejecting the royal role she had so disliked.

[fendrin]

What has Wanda gained so far besides losing all her old friends?

Uh, what Aquillion said.

For that matter, she might be waiting for an opportunity to take the 'hammer for herself. She probably can't defeat Stanley one-on-one while he has it, but if someone else fights him, she could probably take on the victor and claim the 'hammer (and maybe the 'pliers) for herself.

[Eraniverse]

Color me convinced. Definitely not a stretch to see Wanda making an extraordinary effort to retain her will.

[Bongos]

I think natural Thinkamancy only applies to units that your side has popped,
Wanda is originally from FAQ, I think she is willingly allied with Stanley for whatever reason, Jack remains to be seen why he is with Stanley, maybe he was forced to be linked with Eyemancy and never had free will after that.

I don't remember if it ever said somewhere how loyalty affects captured troops or casters.

....and you know those might be buffed up bats, but those are also buffed up dwagons, so those "almost like heavies" bats are facing some super duper heavied up dwagons from Stanleys overlord bonus and the artifact bonus.

[Godskook]

Moral of the story: Cesar should have used stronger units in his personal stack, like the gwiffons, so that his personal bonus counts for the most. Could of course be that you cannot have allied units in your own stack and they dont have anything other than bats, but that would suck big time.

I was assuming that the warlord bonus of vinny/ceasear/et.al. worked like such:

+x to all
+y to bats

So bats would actually get +(x+y), and if you add enough of these types of bonuses, yeah, bat heavies are pretty convincing.

This strat is incredibly similar to the zombie build of necromancer in guild wars, except for theme. Get a bunch of nigh expendable units, buff the hell out of them, and let them rape and burn at random, while your strong units take out important targets. The problem with it in GW was that you ran out of zombies before you killed anything important *IF* you let the zombies go in first and alone. The only reason it worked is because you cluster-****ed everything, and few things would have a chance to target an asset before it died horribly.

This is what we saw back when Vinny/Ansom were surounded earlier. Bats are extremely expendable. (Remember Ceaser's statement? "Bats? Bats we got")

I picture translvito style running like this:

1.Get dance-off bonus?(see below)
2.Throw bats at *EVERYTHING*. (but what about...*EVERYTHING*
3.Warlords select critical targets, and coordinate so that valueable targets die early and fast.
4.Recover from inevitable counterattack, restack warlords with fresh bats.
5.Rinse and Repeat 2-4 till hair is a shiny....er till enemy stacks are all eliminated.

Against unled stacks, it rocks like none other, since units couldn't ever target a warlord due to bats *ALWAYS* being in the way. Against a seasoned warlord(which stanley is), with attacks that are better described as 'splash' than 'AoE', ~30 Heavy+ units which, traditionally, have AoE, Vinny & Co are probably screwed, and that becomes more likely ever round that critical enemy targets stay alive because like any Zerg-style offensive I've ever seen, long battles always favors the side with the heavier units.

If this battle was as winnable as Vinny makes it sound, they wouldn't have risked CharlseComm like they did, but rather have kept them in reserve elsewhere to deal with contingencies. Rather, this is Jillian & Vinny getting a taste of Parson's position - being screwed on the numbers, but still needing to find a solution that works, hence a slew of warlords from a side that values warlords(note that they only spared one for Gobwin Knob) more than most things.

Oh, and for the record, the red-shirted warlord that is 'reeling' in panel 3 is actually preparing for that ninja-kick she launches in panel 4.

[fractal]

....and you know those might be buffed up bats, but those are also buffed up dwagons, so those "almost like heavies" bats are facing some super duper heavied up dwagons from Stanleys overlord bonus and the artifact bonus.

Sure, but 300 units going from 1 to 6 is probably a much larger improvement than 30 units going from 10 to 20. That's the principle behind mass buffs on large numbers of weak units.

[Oslecamo]

I gave one possible explanation for Wanda's seeming loyalty to Stanley elsewhere. Very simply:

She likes having a low loyalty score.

You're forgeting a very important part.

It's a game. And it has rules. Wich everybody must follow.

Wanda can't choose to have a low loyalty score. Even if she may have started with a low loyalty score when she joined his Toolship, the fact that she's gone trough heaven and hell to suport Stanely shows that she indeed developed a high loyalty score to him

The archons proved it. Wanda has NOTHING to force her to serve Stanley. She's as loyal to him as the KISS army and Sizemore. And then Wanda went and risked her life to stop Jillian. She was ready to die for Stanley.

Also, remember this klog:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html

It's clear as water, in the loyalty part. If Wanda had a low loyalty score, she would have already run away or betrayed Stanley. Because that's what a low loyalty score does.

But no. She has holded on strong. And since she's a unit in a game and must follow the game rules, she definetely has not a low loyalty score.

[fendrin]

You're forgeting a very important part.

It's a game. And it has rules. Wich everybody must follow.

I see it as a game-like world, not a game, but that is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is that Wanda seems to have found a loophole or something similar. It happens all the time in games.

Wanda can't choose to have a low loyalty score.

True, because she cannot be aware of her score, she cannot be choosing based on that criterion. What she can know and apply as a feedback loop is her own level of self-determination.

Even if she may have started with a low loyalty score when she joined his Toolship, the fact that she's gone trough heaven and hell to suport Stanely shows that she indeed developed a high loyalty score to him

The archons proved it. Wanda has NOTHING to force her to serve Stanley. She's as loyal to him as the KISS army and Sizemore. And then Wanda went and risked her life to stop Jillian. She was ready to die for Stanley.

Was she? Or was she embodying the trope of the scorned woman whom hell hath no fury like? I look at those two pages and see nothing but personal anger. I don't see Stanley weighing in anywhere except in Jillian's assumptions.

Also, remember this klog:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html

It's clear as water, in the loyalty part. If Wanda had a low loyalty score, she would have already run away or betrayed Stanley. Because that's what a low loyalty score does.

1) No, it does not say that is what loyalty does. It talks about likelyhood not guarantee.

2) Wanda is betraying Stanley every time she acts for her own purposes instead of his. Even if it helps him.

3) The contents of that klog are Parson's understanding of Maggie's understanding of a stat which may or may not actually exist. Parson may have misunderstood, Maggie may be wrong (yes, it's her specialization but just think about how many ideas that scientists in our own world have come up with and been wrong).

[PyritePyro]

I see it as a game-like world, not a game, but that is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is that Wanda seems to have found a loophole or something similar. It happens all the time in games.



True, because she cannot be aware of her score, she cannot be choosing based on that criterion. What she can know and apply as a feedback loop is her own level of self-determination.



Was she? Or was she embodying the trope of the scorned woman whom hell hath no fury like? I look at those two pages and see nothing but personal anger. I don't see Stanley weighing in anywhere except in Jillian's assumptions.



1) No, it does not say that is what loyalty does. It talks about likelyhood not guarantee.

2) Wanda is betraying Stanley every time she acts for her own purposes instead of his. Even if it helps him.

3) The contents of that klog are Parson's understanding of Maggie's understanding of a stat which may or may not actually exist. Parson may have misunderstood, Maggie may be wrong (yes, it's her specialization but just think about how many ideas that scientists in our own world have come up with and been wrong).

Actually, Wanda is a caster, and all casters are commanders, aka warlords. This means that Wanda suffers from Duty. Duty overrides loyalty. So when she goes by her own inititive, and does what's best for the Tool, whether he likes it or not, she's actually following her duty, which is required by the rules. Duty is tied into loyalty, but it goes further.

[Oslecamo]

1) No, it does not say that is what loyalty does. It talks about likelyhood
not guarantee.

Just like all likelyhoods that proven to be true, like dirtmancers greatly buffing golems and telling Jack his true name would awaken him. Yep, just likelyhoods, allright.

2) Wanda is betraying Stanley every time she acts for her own purposes instead of his. Even if it helps him.

Nope. Betrayal would demand that Stanely gets hurt on the middle. What Wanda is doing is duty. She must help Stanley, even if against his will.

And when did she act on her own purpose anyway? The time she booped the units that were hunting Stanley? Summoning the perfect warlord to save the day of his master? Wow, she's surely self interested.

3) The contents of that klog are Parson's understanding of Maggie's understanding of a stat which may or may not actually exist. Parson may have misunderstood, Maggie may be wrong (yes, it's her specialization but just think about how many ideas that scientists in our own world have come up with and been wrong).

Really valid theory, specially because it would just contradict everything that has apeared in the comic so far. So far every single fact that hamster has been told has been proven correct.

Nobody in Efworld wonders if a unled stack may choose their targets whitout a warlord. They simply know it. And the same thing for scores.

[shamelessmerc]

3) The contents of that klog are Parson's understanding of Maggie's understanding of a stat which may or may not actually exist. Parson may have misunderstood, Maggie may be wrong (yes, it's her specialization but just think about how many ideas that scientists in our own world have come up with and been wrong).

emphaticly agree

[valce]

Good prediction :) Didn't really think about that till now... :0

Let's review the bidding:

--Jack apparently has all his marbles back, and has recognized Jillian;

--Having all his marbles back, he probably remembers that Parson just sent him an urgent message to get the Tool back to Gobwin Knob, pronto;

--He also probably realizes that if he doesn't do something, Jillian and/or Stanley and himself are probably going to be croaked.

Prediction:

Spoiler

Show

Jack reacts by throwing up an illusion that makes the Tool think that he's blasted through Jillian and past the rest of the forces on the way to Faq, when he's actually missed her and is going back in the direction of Gobwin Knob with his force. The illusion would presumably also cloak the Tool's forces against detection, which would cause the Transylvito forces to start searching along the route to Faq on their next turn.

[valce]

I don't think the hammer attack was clasical AOE attack, but mor an splash effect. With center attack on the warlord and splash the the heavies, and I think if the splash (ussually much less dmg than the main attack) looked enough to kill what would be almost heavies, the main was more than enough to kill a warlord.

Maybe the bats only get attack bonuses and not health/defense bonuses?

[Krelon]

Maybe the bats only get attack bonuses and not health/defense bonuses?

If warlords 3 with the bonuses to stacks (leadership. morale, fortification, siege, fear and chaos, stack limitation to 8 units,...) is indeed the main source of inspiration to the stack bonuses in Erfworld then the bats probably have a high attack (maybe also defense) but most likely not additional hitpoints. HP increase in WL is possible but only through very powerful rare artifacts and a spell that only one or two types of warlords posses.

I wonder if what Stanley does is one of the plans that Vinney had prepared for Ansom while they were surrounded by the dwagons: fill their faces with bats and break thorugh. It looks like he doesn't have to kill all in the hex to only punch through after all, but why shouldn't he fight on when he can win? What can the Tool possibly do to improve his situation if he does not fight to the bitter end? He will be attacked on the alliance turn if there are survivors, won't he?