Erfworld 83, Page 77

[Jasdoif]

The image of Ansom all alone and befuddled after the charge into the center hex makes me suspect that it's more a matter of "higher rank units" than of "very large number of them". However, that could simply be a matter of Jamie's dramatic composition, not intended to convey any tactical implications.

It might also involve the forest terrain. If the dwagons were veiled and hiding in the trees, it's possible the bat flying overhead would be unable to pick them up, or at least have difficulty doing so.

[fendrin]

Parson sent the dwagons east to sow hate and discontent BEFORE Jillian "made her daring escape."

Other than the small group of dwagons that capture Jillian, and the one that Wanda rides around on, we don't see any dwagons until Stanley initmidates Parson at GK. Between then and Jillian's release we don't see them. After, we see them in some trees. that could be almost anywhere. We don't know where any of the dwagons start.

The archons "Popping onto" his map when Ansom decided to hire them should have raised a serious red flag for Parson.

It did.

But basically since Wanda dropped Jillian off with a loving "goodbye kiss," Parson knows where Jillian entered the game, and that Jillian MOST LIKELY was still west of Ansom's position. He also knows where Webby is, and should assume that Jillian will be rendevouing (sp?) with "her side" as quickly as possible, Parson should also know that Jillian will be heading for Webinar.

It is, in fact, part of the plan

And there is no position Jillian reasonably could have either started out, or switched to, to hit the A-dwagon stack. Unless GK is due SOUTH of Ansom's position.

Notice on Ansom's map that the dwagon ring is in the middle of the column. Also notice that the road is curving. If we say that Ansom is on the North side of the map, Vinny and the Superfluous Elf are on the south side, then as was said, the weak hex (pointed to by Vinny) is to the south east. The lake is due east of the ring.

Then a few strips later, we see brown mountain hexes due west of the ring. This means that The column is moving along a curved road going around the mountain (i.e. around GK) to get to the twisty road. The road is on the west side of the mountain, as is (circumstantially) evidenced by the sunrise being away from the road.

This places GK to the west of the ring, due south of the column, right where you said it would need to be for Jillian to find the A dwagons.

personally, I think that at the cost of a few points of movement Parson should have concentrated all Dwagons over the lake hex. While it would have meant they wouldn't be able to kill as much, they would be guaranteed that what happened didn't. Ansom would not have had enough air power to assault all those dwagons cause the unwounded would take point and they would have to wound all the healthy ones before fighting wounded ones...They might have been able to kill a few, but not without a suicide run by their entire leadership core...not against healthy dwagon stacks...especialy if they were unable to bring any ground support and were forced into an arial battle over water.

Ah, but then instead of going on the offensive, Ansom would have brought his air forces in to cover the siege, preventing parson form destroying it. parson HAD to make Ansom believe he could eliminate the threat. Remember, it is better to lose a little less than half of your dwagons in order to destroy all (or almost all) of the siege.

[glissle]

"I...think this war is over." - Parson (judging by the font)

With Stanley out of GK and a Thinkamancer available, perhaps Parson can prevent an attack on GK by

Spoiler

Show

contacting the coalition's warlords and negotiating terms of surrender, such as: The coalition identifies a new leader for GK who would be sympathetic to its citizens/units (perhaps Vinny the vampire?). Specific members of the coalition agree to maintain the upkeep of and offer positions of dignity to Parson and each of his buddies. Parson orders the units of GK not to fight any coalition units that enter GK. The coalition orders coalition units not to fight any GK units in GK, except dwagons or Stanley and his personal guard.

The coalition leaders who find themselves responsible for Parson, Wanda, etc. might prefer to croak them or imprison them, but I don't see how they could keep the coalition together to mount a siege if the rest of the coalition knows the terms of surrender that have been offered. Even if the coalition thinks the offer is a trap or doubts Parson's ability to control GK's units, it would be better for the coalition if fighting broke out within the walls of GK rather than having to besiege it.

Though if Ansom gets croaked, Parson might need Wanda's insight on who else would be noble enough to keep them alive as agreed.

I think Parson anticipates that GK is going to change hands even if Stanley croaks the water hex and gets the Arkenpliers.

[fendrin]

You know, I'm starting to wonder whether the coalition would fall apart simply from receiving an offer of surrender. Some parts would want to take it, others wouldn't...

It kind of reminds me of how Ben Franklin leaked rumors that the French were going to attack the English, so the English started to talk about a cessation of hostilities with the colonies. That led to the French backing the colonies so much that it crashed the French economy... If it weren't for the French suport, th colonies probably would have lost.

The point is sometimes diplomacy is a weapon.

[Aquillion]

I hashed it out in that thread. You're asking an awful lot of Parson if you think he should have predicted Jillian's path when that path was a result of spending the first part of the turn "performing the search" and the second part of the turn "riding in to rescue the Fair Prince".

Especially since she did that because she loves Ansom--something Parson was unaware of when he made the plan (and which worried him considerably when he learned about it.)

Parson made the plan on the assumption that Jillian would be a non-factor due to Wanda's magic; Wanda's hold on her was presented as one of the big advantages Parson had, and he relied on it completely (why shouldn't he? Wanda was basically the most competent person he'd met in Erfworld, and she insisted that she controlled Jillian's mind.)

None of the people who are calling Parson stupid now were saying it back when his plan was being executed. The reason is simple; Parson had no way of knowing that Jillian would break free. He knew very little about magic, but the best expert on magic his side did have assured him Jillian was totally taken care of. His assumption, considering all the options Ansom had available to him, was likely that (1) Ansom was unlikely to take the risky path of having Jillian search at random instead of rushing to his aid, and (2) if Ansom did have Jillian search at random, it wouldn't matter because Wanda would just be able to put a stop to it.

[teratorn]

None of the people who are calling Parson stupid now were saying it back when his plan was being executed. The reason is simple; Parson had no way of knowing that Jillian would break free.

You make a number of good points and I agree with nearly everything but I think that what frustrated our surfing friend and some others (myself included) is that Parson didn't "need" this setback, his situation was already bad enough. I don't agree with them that it was a blunder on Parson's part but Jillian getting "lucky" seems a bit arbitrary and unfair. You won't convince me that Rob and Jamie are not making Parson suffer on purpose. Ok, it makes him feel it's for real and not a game, but...

In a way I prefer it like this, I want to see the fight in the tunnels and at the walls.

[Sky_Schemer]

When we haggled this out on the other threads, neither of us convinced the other. But that's life. You agree to disagree, and move on.

What's so maddening about your posts is that you speak as if you have a copy of the map on your desk and know exactly where all the units are located. You speak in such absolutes, and yet, really, none of us know much more than the tiny tiny snippets of maps that we've seen. Everything else is supposition.

[Vreejack]

You make a number of good points and I agree with nearly everything but I think that what frustrated our surfing friend and some others (myself included) is that Parson didn't "need" this setback, his situation was already bad enough. I don't agree with them that it was a blunder on Parson's part but Jillian getting "lucky" seems a bit arbitrary and unfair. You won't convince me that Rob and Jamie are not making Parson suffer on purpose. Ok, it makes him feel it's for real and not a game, but...

In a way I prefer it like this, I want to see the fight in the tunnels and at the walls.

I've always maintained that Parson knew the combined attack was possible (he does allude to it), and therefore likely assuming Ansom knew what he was doing, but it was also an absolutely necessary tactic for Parson, and it might have ended the entire war this turn had The Tool not not taken the reigns himself.

Parson referred to Jillian and her crew being far away, but not out of range, and Parson did everything he could to force Ansom to spend his movement points in a wild wounded dwagon chase, but it wasn't enough. So Ansom hurt Parson as much as he could, but Ansom still should have lost his life the next day, and Parson could have still taken the rest of the siege out as they approached the city. I might have had some minor quibbles with Parson about the fine details of troop placement but I do not really know enough about his troop conditions at the time to say for sure. I thought that placing the wounded dwagons in the hex Jillian was sure to pass through if she came looking was a blunder.


Did Parson need this setback? No, but all these misfortunes are probably designed to drive Parson towards some specified end. He no longer has either the dwagons or the lookamancer or the foolamancer. Or the croakamancer, it seems. Or even Jillian. Those are all the advantages he has relied upon until now. What resources remain to him? Two uncroaked warlords who can no longer be remotely commanded, himself, Sizemore, Bogroll (who clearly has odd talents) his mathamancy device, and a thinkamancer. What can be done with all this?

In Parson's shoes I would estimate the cost of eliminating more siege weapons. It is probably far too difficult without faster troops but the mathamancy glove might reveal a way. Failing that I would use the thinkamancer to contact Ansom and tell him that Stanley was gone. I know that Ansom wanted Stanley, not Gobwin Knob, and so I would negotiate terms. Without the dwagons those terms might be harsh, but then again maybe not. Ansom seems too noble to want to crush a defeated foe that has not actually offended him. Parson might not be entirely aware of Ansom's attitude towards the Tool, however.

[The Old Hack]

IMO, the bottom line is that the fact that the debate continues proves that, if Parson did make a mistake, it wasn't an obvious n00b error, and is thus not out of character.

I am personally not even convinced that it can be called an error. Rather, he took a gamble based on what he knew, and if it had worked, Ansom would now have been shy a siege train. Also, if the Tool hadn't interfered, Parson might have been able to salvage something, possibly kill Ansom and even capture the Arkenpliers. Since we cannot see the map, we do not know if the B-dwagons have enough move to reach GK and then return -- but I suspect they do not, given Parson's reaction to their reappearance at GK.

[Rumex]

You won't convince me that Rob and Jamie are not making Parson suffer on purpose.

Most stories I write have the main character suffer on purpose. Sometimes a lot. Authors like to torment their characters. Sometimes, they do it for plot reasons, sometimes because it's interesting or funny, sometimes, to explore a scenario they couldn't get to otherwise.

It actually struck me as really odd that somebody would think it remarkable that an author would torment a character. Even if you've never written a story, there are lots of people here who have been DMs, right? How many DMs have put their PCs into seemingly impossible situations to see what happens?

How many DMs have put PCs into actually impossible situations and still had them find some tiny loophole or other way to at least come out alive?

[factotum]

I thought that placing the wounded dwagons in the hex Jillian was sure to pass through if she came looking was a blunder.

And how do you know he did? As pointed out up above, you don't have a full map of the field any more than the rest of us do, and it seems certain that Jillian was, at least at first, carrying out Ansom's orders to search for the dwagons--Webinar, who is hardly Jillian's bestest friend, even admitted as much. Only once she was sure she could drop Webinar and Dora did she head straight for Ansom, and it's while doing that she blundered straight into the dwagons.

[The Old Hack]

Most stories I write have the main character suffer on purpose. Sometimes a lot. Authors like to torment their characters. Sometimes, they do it for plot reasons, sometimes because it's interesting or funny, sometimes, to explore a scenario they couldn't get to otherwise.

It actually struck me as really odd that somebody would think it remarkable that an author would torment a character. Even if you've never written a story, there are lots of people here who have been DMs, right? How many DMs have put their PCs into seemingly impossible situations to see what happens?

The woman who taught me most about the basics of writing also taught me this formula for writing a story:

1) Get your character up a tree.
2) Throw rocks at him.
3) Get him down again.

She did it tongue in cheek but I liked it even so, and it stuck. I see nothing wrong in giving your characters a hard time, especially if they also get the opportunity to learn from it and grow. What is important is not that Parson is suffering but how he responds to it.

[galdon]

Most stories I write have the main character suffer on purpose. Sometimes a lot. Authors like to torment their characters. Sometimes, they do it for plot reasons, sometimes because it's interesting or funny, sometimes, to explore a scenario they couldn't get to otherwise.

It actually struck me as really odd that somebody would think it remarkable that an author would torment a character. Even if you've never written a story, there are lots of people here who have been DMs, right? How many DMs have put their PCs into seemingly impossible situations to see what happens?

How many DMs have put PCs into actually impossible situations and still had them find some tiny loophole or other way to at least come out alive?

luck based torment is what is objectable. in this, things just happen to occur that screw him up, his plans go good, good, then smash, all ruined by some wierd 1 in a billion chance occurance. if ansom had ridden into every, single, jillian rescue, why did vinny pick this ONE to object to it? if jillian started to fly at ansom one hex earlier or later, she would have passed right by the dwagons. it is obvious that parson's difficulties are all entirely based on bad luck. (i would not be surprised if the coalition suddenly turns out to have a luckomancer)

in writing, tormenting your characters would be, more understandable circumstances not just a string of bad luck

[teratorn]

It actually struck me as really odd that somebody would think it remarkable that an author would torment a character.

I know it's not remarkable. It's the classical Greek tragedy setup. But those guys fall because their pride, or because their ancestors offended the Gods, and in the end things generally go bad for them. But Agamemnon won his war, Oedipus ruled his city. Parson starts losing and is made to suffer a setback in something that was already bad. And he is not some sort of horrible person nor has done something which needs punishment. I'm in no way saying it's bad storytelling or something like that. It's not that I don't understand that it was needed to the story (Parson needs to see that his friends can die, see that Ansom is not predictable). It's just that it seems so unfair.

[CommandNC]

So. Can you uncroak dwagons? Does the quality of an uncroaked (not ressurected, but animated) unit depend on the strength of it when it died (eg would a dragon that was missing a limb before it got croaked still miss a limb as animated creature and thus be weaker)? Would uncroaked dragon fall under base 'uncroaked' category or would it require arkenhammer to control? I am just thinking that there is a whole lot of dwagons just waiting to be uncroaked at a certain lake! Although I guess with all dwagons taken by Stanley, Wanda wouldn't even have a way to get to the lake.

[the_tick_rules]

whose body is that parson is holding?

[Aquillion]

I thought that placing the wounded dwagons in the hex Jillian was sure to pass through if she came looking was a blunder.

She didn't pass through while looking; she only entered that hex because she was making a beeline for Ansom, and she was only making a beeline for Ansom because she was in love with him, which was something Parson had not been informed about. He can't prepare for things he isn't aware of.

[Wender]

I know it's not remarkable. It's the classical Greek tragedy setup. But those guys fall because their pride, or because their ancestors offended the Gods, and in the end things generally go bad for them. But Agamemnon won his war, Oedipus ruled his city. Parson starts losing and is made to suffer a setback in something that was already bad. And he is not some sort of horrible person nor has done something which needs punishment. I'm in no way saying it's bad storytelling or something like that. It's not that I don't understand that it was needed to the story (Parson needs to see that his friends can die, see that Ansom is not predictable). It's just that it seems so unfair.

That's just it. Parson is used to games. Games, within reason, are fair. But Ansom is not here to challenge Stanley, or Parson. He's here to wipe Stanley off the map, and he's pulled out all the stops to make it happen.

I don't think that Rob and Jamie would have given us Parson's soliloquy unless it was significant. Nor do I think the context is accidental. Parson got what he wished for, except that he's learning that when it's not just hex paper and miniatures there is loss, and unfair odds, and death, and yes, love. How much did the battlefield change because Jillian loves Ansom and Wanda loves Jillian?

If we accept that there are two parallel stories here, the Erf plot and Parson finding his feet, then perhaps what Parson needs most is to have a lot of his assumptions shattered. This sequence of events is one way of letting him know that it's probably not in his head and he's certainly not the GM of a game anymore. (It's hard to say what, if anything, Erf needs at this point, as we've seen so little of it.)

[Burrito]

whose body is that parson is holding?

Misty. Unfortunatly.

[Sky_Schemer]

luck based torment is what is objectable.

How is luck any different from any other plot device?

[Lord Zentei]

luck based torment is what is objectable. in this, things just happen to occur that screw him up, his plans go good, good, then smash, all ruined by some wierd 1 in a billion chance occurance.

That's what he gets for working for the bad guys in a fantasy world.

[fendrin]

That's just it. Parson is used to games. Games, within reason, are fair.

on the contrary, Parson has been studying asymmetric warfare, which by definition is not fair.

[The Old Hack]

on the contrary, Parson has been studying asymmetric warfare, which by definition is not fair.

Well, the original poster stated 'within reason.' I believe that no-one actually dying in a game might be said to be within reason even if the odds are highly unfair. But Misty dying is neither fair nor reasonable. She died for no other reason than because of the Tool throwing a tantrum.

And if anything shows that Parson is slowly falling out of the 'game' situation, it is him saying 'this is hardball, man.' He is becoming aware that the losses hurt a lot more than when you just lose tokens from a battlemap. It's a harder game than he had bargained for.

[teratorn]

on the contrary, Parson has been studying asymmetric warfare, which by definition is not fair.

Well, his starting position was already unfair enough. No need to get more asymmetric than that.

In his games game over just meant starting another game, here it may mean life is over. He got more than he wished for.

But what I want to know is how Wanda is doing.

[Wender]

on the contrary, Parson has been studying asymmetric warfare, which by definition is not fair.

If the "underdogs" are hardened guerrillas, and the "favorites" are, well, redcoats, then is it actually unfair? More specifically: Parson almost certainly expected to challenge his players to muster every last bit of ingenuity in getting through his campaign. But did he design the scenario with the specific intent of wiping them off the map, given adequate knowledge of what they were capable of? If the latter then it's not really a game, is it? And that's what he's running into: Ansom isn't offering a worthy challenge, he's going for the nearest thing he can muster to utter, one-sided annihilation. Parson only had the chance he had because there were some resources that were not available to Ansom for whatever reason.

At this point the odds aren't 25:1. They're a lot worse. Unless the Alliance breaks--that and the leadership being wounded over the lake are the remaining vulnerabilities on Ansom's side--it will not merely be asymmetric. It will be a rout. Maybe it will be helpful to Parson to be on the wrong side of that rout?

[ANBU]

So now he's Paul Stanley? Are the 3 Knights going to look like Gene Simmons, Tommy Thayer, and Eric Singer? And what does that make the Foolamancer?

[Rumex]

So now he's Paul Stanley? Are the 3 Knights going to look like Gene Simmons, Tommy Thayer, and Eric Singer? And what does that make the Foolamancer?

Stage tech.

[fendrin]

The more I think about it, the less I think the foolamancer is going to be veiling.
I'm thinking that Stanley is doing something else shrewd.

Like maybe go to Ansom with an illusion of hundreds of dwagons, and getting him to surrender?

No, that doesn't seem right.

It has to have something to do with only taking three of KISS. I seriously doubt that is just because of the band. The authors have yet to have a gag reference influence the plot, so I doubt they will do that now.

[teratorn]

The more I think about it, the less I think the foolamancer is going to be veiling.
I'm thinking that Stanley is doing something else shrewd.

Then why the "goodbye and good luck?"

[GWvsJohn]

Then why the "goodbye and good luck?"

Maybe he thinks the attack on GK will continue and be successful even without Ansom?