Cmdr I. Heartly Noah wrote:being left over after a side is left without a ruler.
What do we know about that? You're referring to Jillian, obviously, when Faq fell. Let's look at the rules that we do know.
Obviously nothing - I have to re-read my statement just to know what you're half-quoting here.
Klog 12: So what happens if Stanley is croaked? He has no heir so our side ends. Field units disband, and the city becomes "neutral".
Aha! This must be the crux of the issue. Parson says field units disband
. Personally, I believe this is one of those things (someone mentioned above) where Parson uses the wrong terminology. Ruler-generated Disbanding and destroyed-side "disbanding" are probably different things. BUT if we assume they are the same mechanic being activated in 2 different ways, then what?
1) Jillian is not an exception. If a Ruler disbands someone they become a Barbarian in the midst of a side, with all the issues that entails.
2) Jillian is an exception, (possibly because she is Heir). If a Ruler disbands someone they are 'deleted,' and the same thing happens to field units when a side is finished, clearing up the whole issue of random unled troops of a specific Side seeking revenge, or huge Barbarian field armies wandering about looking to take a city after a Ruler is ganked. (Since we know the in-city units are frozen in time and can take no proactive actions). Essentially, a Ruler can't rule from the grave.
hmm... actually, I like #2. I would be willing to go with that, and say Barbarians only pop randomly unless they are Heirs of lost sides.
Though it's possible that this may have happened solely because she was an heir, I highly doubt it. It's a pretty specific exception.
Exceptions tend to be specific. If the loss of a Ruler means the destruction (in effect) of his side, having an Heir would be the exception to make (as opposed to Warlords, or Casters, or all Commanders, or Tribe Members, etc). If the Heir is only a few hexes away with a big army, they could retake the Capital and have the side going again on the next turn. In this way, the Heir away from home has to fight for it rather than just automatically keeping control of the whole side, and if the Heir was to disband as well, what would be the point of having one?
If disbanding means "becoming Barbarian," then it only makes sense to bother popping an Heir if only an Heir can claim a city. Otherwise it's unwise (see Saline IV).
And I can say the same about "de-popping." I see no reason to surmise the existence of a de-popping process unless we get a near-explicit statement of such from the comic." I really can twist anything you say about this process and turn it right back against the unproven de-popping. That's a challenge of course. Can you come up with a statement I can't reflect right back at you?
Challenge rejected. I use my words to express my ideas and the reasons I've come to the hypotheses and conclusions I have, and why I think they're stronger than the alternatives I've been presented with. I don't use them to frustrate or aggravate an "opponent" or to sound smug or to "twist" someone's words. As you see above, I'm willing to re-think and re-shape my ideas, or at least seriously consider secondary possibilities as, well, possible
. People who talk like you do in the quote above, in my experience, aren't, and therefore aren't worth the trouble of catering to.
Barbarians need a purse, or they starve. Sizemore's best chance is in MK, but outside there he is likely to be enslaved. His future is possibly more horrible than death if he goes barbarian outside MK.
"Enslaved?" Who would treat him worse than Stanley, his own "blood?" Sizemore could easily find "employment" in almost any side. Certainly someone as self-serving, business-savvy, and open-minded as Charlie would find some use for him, at least temporarily.
Also, you're speaking to someone who doesn't believe in a future more horrible than death. And since there hasn't been any talk about "Going to be with the Titans" or any kind of nice afterlife, they may be inclined to agree, no matter how miserable they are.
What could be worse than, or as bad as, being (effectively) killed? Serving a harsh master, having no freedom? Sizemore seemed pretty attached to that kind of situation. Starving to death in the wild for lack of upkeep? Even if it's less likely than I think that they could survive, the chance would be greater than 0. And in the face of destruction by the RCC, it might be welcome. Anything but death at Stanley's hands (mind?) would be better than waiting in GK.
Also, doesn't it bother you that if Disbanding turns units into Barbarians, there would automatically be a fight with their old side, unless they had a Commander and both sides would be willing to part ways? You didn't comment on that at all, but it's one of the main reasons I think that your idea is wrong. That and a sneak attack on a Capital could leave huge Barbarian armies out there.
If and only if the creature is de-popped. If it remains popped but no longer a unit (a unit is a thing that fights... a thing that doesn't fight isn't a unit). A creature that isn't a unit might be recruited, although there are loyalty questions, so it would be rare if it did exist. Point is, we haven't seen farmers, but we have been assured they exist. Trades are real. There is a place for non-fighting units in Erfworld, but perhaps not in the comic due to constraints on time and story momentum.
Well, yes. I'm asking you to, for a moment, consider de-popping as a possibility long enough to see if the different pieces of evidence can add up. It isn't proof; even Sherlock Holmes repeatedly updates his theories as more information is added. The conclusion you come to with evidence A, B, and C will likely be far different than with A, B, C, and X. But your choices are to consider them and come up with a theory or deny anything is possible. It's clear you have a theory of your own, and yet you discount all other evidence as having no substance or "only working if X is true," but that's the idea
. X can still be true in the light of the evidence at hand, and seems a certain amount more likely than Y. You can't say, "well the evidence for X isn't valid if we presuppose that Y is true," when Y and X are conclusions at odds with each other. The fact that a piece of evidence doesn't support your theory does not invalidate it in supporting other theories.
Whew. That was convoluted.
Anyway. "Popped but is no longer a unit." As in, not a Barbarian.
OK, let's look at this. In a vacuum, this would be at least as likely as 'de-popping.' Some games eliminate the unit with no immediate benefit. Some games actually increase your population when you disband units, so that's a wash.
So let's look at how it would happen and how it would be looked at by Erfworlders, and if there is any information for or against it in the comic.
If you are "not a unit," what are you? How do you interact with the world? Are you like a pigeon? Or are they Units because they can be Hammered? What have we seen that is Not A Unit? Anything alive? Not that I know of. It's possible that there are non-unit "people" living in the cities; that was my original belief, but since a city can go from ruins to city in one turn, from lvl 1 to lvl 5 in one turn, with no labor and seemingly no resources; since there are no births, only "popping," and we can probably assume that every "person" popped is a Unit, since a city's production/economy is sent, in aggregate, to the Ruler's treasury, automatically, each turn; That no mention of "Civilians" or "Populace" or deaths other than the Units involved in the conflicts is ever made; That the world's pacifists are also combat troops; etc. etc., that either:
1) Non-Unit "people" do not, and cannot exist. The world doesn't need them. Everything alive or Uncroaked is a Unit. Everything else is Terrain, Cities, Magic Items, and Food. "Everything that fights is a Unit," is not meant to mean that there are people
who don't fight, just things
2) In some sense or fashion, there are non-Unit people. They are an abstract of Erfworld, faded into its tapestry, like the Terrain itself; They don't speak to or interact with the Units in any real way; out of sight and out of mind; and that no Unit can become a non-unit (other than being croaked and left) or vice versa. In which case, disbanding wouldn't be the same as croaking, exactly, but it would be "like unto death."
1) The idea that there could be an ex-Unit or would-be Unit, like a Unit but not, free from combat, is one of the bigger reaches I've heard. This is a world in which Sizemore is forced to kill - and for what? Obedience? I do not think he would follow those orders if he had any choice, and we know some people can overcome Obedience in certain situations. Especially if "Disbanding" meant a) he would still be alive, b) he wouldn't have to follow those kind of orders, and c) he wouldn't be able to be attacked. He'd do everything he could to get Disbanded, not hide from Stanley.
2) We have not been assured farmers exist. Far from it. We know that Barbarians and Natural Allies (and even, I think, Capital Sides) can supplement their income by farming, mining, hunting, etc. However - the only mining we have witnessed has been carried out by Units. Fighting, Combat-oriented Units who also mine. Marbits, Gobwins, Sizemore. All fight. All Units. We've seen Hobbittm Units with picks and shovels - they used these to take down a wall, but why couldn't they use them to mine for their side? We've seen no Hunting going on, but who better than Archery Units, especially Woodsy Elves, for instance? Why couldn't a Unit farm, or to flip that, what would make a Farmer Not A Unit? Farmers the world over have fought for their defense for the history of the institution. Why couldn't you attack a farmer, in a world as war-torn as Erfworld?
Only one reason that I can think of - that the Farmer is an integral, inseperable, and indistinguishable part of a Farm - like the Cows, Wheat, and Fences, they exist, live, and die together, interacting with nothing but the Ruler's orders (if they include anything more detailed than "be a Farm,").
That is, of course, if Farms exist in such a manner at all, and aren't just a line on a budget summary - we don't have any indication how in-depth city management is, it might have no interface beyond level, defenses, and unit production.
it is no more or less provable than my alternative
That's right, but you seemed to be demanding proof, whereas I want a logical approach that considers all the available information and makes the best guess, and I think my guess is better, and I want you to consider my guess and its evidence as possible, and not attempt to shout down the evidence as "not proof."
except that I don't invent a process or state that doesn't exist, while you do. De-popping is not a fact, it is speculation. Though I speculate that Disbanding results in Barbarianism, neither of those terms are invented. They are used to explain each other, and so there is one fewer invention to my theory.
De-Siding, or Barbarianating, (or de-Uniting, or Civilianning) depending on which theory we're talking about) is a process you've invented. You just haven't named it. You call it Disbanding because a) you can use a term we've heard before so you sound more "official" or "right," and b) because that's what you want it to mean. But you don't know what Disbanding really means any more than I do, so you don't know you're using the right word. I make up a word so you understand what I'm talking about, but that is no indication that I'm wrong
. I may just be using a synonym, or describing a part or result of an actual process.
De-popping doesn't "not exist," it just hasn't been seen or named. (Like farmers). But that's only "De-popping" as the result of Disbanding.
1) If I call it "Deletionism," suddenly it's an official, named Mechanic. It even fits. But since nobody really knows what Deletionism is, and neither do I, I use "de-popping" to be safe and clear.
2) "De-Popped," as a state (and not a process) does
exist, and we have
seen it. It's what happened to Misty and every other Croaked person who isn't brought back. They cease to exist. It is because they don't exist that the state doesn't have a name. But that lack of a name doesn't mean the state isn't real.
"But," you might say, "Disbanding doesn't Croak people." To that I say, "Disbanding doesn't Barbarian(ize) people." That's what we're arguing, isn't it? Only I suggest a possibility and offer criticism on the alternatives, while you wave around "official" Language and decry made-up terms as if that means
It's not the words, it's the concepts that are important. Words are a Tool. And so are some people. Like Stanley. But wait - how can Tool mean two different things? One must be wrong.