Commanders: Chime in

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

On the wiki (I dunno how many people go there) the Commander page is dominated by a particular question and several answers.

I won't get right into that, but I want to know if anyone here disagrees with the following statements, and why:

1. Casters are Commanders, and can lead units.
2. Warlords are Commanders, and can lead units.
3. Warlords have the Leadership natural ability, and confer a combat bonus to their troops because of this.
4. Casters do not have Leadership. However, some casters can confer a combat bonus to some troops.

Edit: Additionally, I'd like to poll people on which definition they prefer:

1. Commanders are units that can lead other units in battle. They all have the Leadership ability and convey a bonus to their troops.
2. Commanders are units that can lead other units in battle. They don't have the Leadership ability or convey a bonus to their troops.
3. Commanders are units that can lead other units in battle. Some have the Leadership ability and convey a bonus to their troops.
4. "Commander" is a loose term that is unspecific, and can apply to Warlords, some (but not all) casters, and perhaps others as well. It does not determine whether someone has the leadership ability or can convey a bonus to their troops.
5. Other

Also, for that matter: Does the Leadership natural ability:
1) Allow a unit to lead troops into battle. (ie without this ability, you can't lead a stack)
2) Provide a combat bonus to troops.
3) Both.

[Maldeus]

I won't say I'm sure, but I'll bet someone can find some incredibly obscure and unlikely reason to debate one of those.

Edited for rudeness.
-erk

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Kreistor has provided several perspectives on the question referenced above. As far as I can tell, most of them are based on other peoples' comments he's read.

However, if anyone does not agree with the above statements, I'd like to get their perspective(s) "unfiltered."

[Anton Gaist]

I disagree with the statement "Casters are Commanders and can lead units".

We have seen a Dirtamancer lead golems and a Croakamancer lead uncroaked, but that's not enough to make that a rule. I don't see Maggie leading units, nor Jack for that matter.

I would instead say "Casters are not Commanders, but some Casters can provide a Leadership bonus to units attuned to their respective disciplines". Maybe that statement can be improved, but it's as close as I can word it.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Okay, good. So we agree that some casters can lead units into battle, but you're not sure all casters can. The visual evidence leaves that possibility open (though I'd be more inclined to believe that if some can, the rest can, but don't, as it just doesn't make tactical sense - for instance, Maggie needs to stay back to make use of her powers safely, while Jack would hardly lead troops when he's been with Stanley the whole time).

However, I was basing that statement on Klog #10, in which Parson states that Casters are Commanders and can lead units. So, you either missed/forgot that part, or perhaps you think he's making a mistake/being inaccurate.

To continue on your statement, however, I don't agree that the casters provided a Leadership bonus to their units. I believe that the combat bonus they provided is special (since it only applies to certain units) and isn't tied to Leadership (which I don't think they have - I think only Warlords have that ability, as per Klog #4).

Now, judging from your statement, you were thinking Commanders are either a) people who can lead units in battle, or b) people who give bonuses to troops in battle, or c) both. I'd like to know which you were thinking, and if you still feel that way.

[cloudbreaker]

Here is my personal definition of a commander:

Commanders are units that can direct allied units in battle. All warlords, casters, and rulers are commanders.

Simple as that.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Okay. And how do you define the Leadership natural ability?

[cloudbreaker]

Fist of all, it seems not all commanders have leadership, so I would suggest that not being part of the definition at all, but since you asked...

To me, it seems that leadership is something that all warlords (and probably rulers) have, but at different values. However, it appears to me that casters do not give a leadership bonus to the units they command. We know that a croakamancer gives a bonus to uncroaked, and a dirtamancer gives a bonus to golems, but it doesn't seem to be a leadership bonus. I would say it would be more similar to something like a dance-fight bonus (as in they get a bonus from something other than leadership).

[Anton Gaist]

Okay, good. So we agree that some casters can lead units into battle, but you're not sure all casters can. The visual evidence leaves that possibility open (though I'd be more inclined to believe that if some can, the rest can, but don't, as it just doesn't make tactical sense - for instance, Maggie needs to stay back to make use of her powers safely, while Jack would hardly lead troops when he's been with Stanley the whole time).

However, I was basing that statement on Klog #10, in which Parson states that Casters are Commanders and can lead units. So, you either missed/forgot that part, or perhaps you think he's making a mistake/being inaccurate.

To continue on your statement, however, I don't agree that the casters provided a Leadership bonus to their units. I believe that the combat bonus they provided is special (since it only applies to certain units) and isn't tied to Leadership (which I don't think they have - I think only Warlords have that ability, as per Klog #4).

Now, judging from your statement, you were thinking Commanders are either a) people who can lead units in battle, or b) people who give bonuses to troops in battle, or c) both. I'd like to know which you were thinking, and if you still feel that way.

Good point, I completely forgot Klog #10. I just ran back and read it, and you're totally right. But it also says on Klog #4 that "Any unit with leadership ability is called "Commander" or "Warlord"". So after taking a few minutes to weight it all in, here's what I've come up:

"Casters are Commanders whose Leadership bonus is only applied to units attuned to their respective disciplines."

That would explain the bonus Wanda gives to uncroaked units, and leaves open the possibility Maggie could give a bonus to Thinkamancy-attuned units.

I was thinking of Commanders as units that both lead units in battle (which Casters do) and give a bonus to units under their command. Now I believe (assumption based on the Klogs) it's mostly (a) with very specific exceptions.

[cloudbreaker]

I just want to point something out, even though it doesn't actually prove or disprove anyone's suggestions, but I still think it is important.

The klog says, "Any unit with leadership ability is called "Commander" or "Warlord."" It does not say that "any unit called a commander or warlord has leadership." It's a bit confusing, but true.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Good point, cloud. Theoretically, there could be a warlord without Leadership. But I don't think that's actually possible. Maybe a Leadership bonus of 0, but still having the "natural ability" of Leadership.

...but now I see your point is "If you have leadership, you are a Warlord/Commander, but being a Commander doesn't guarantee Leadership.

And I always read it to mean that Warlords had leadership and were also called Commanders.

Looking at it with new eyes, it looks like Casters, being "Commanders," could have Leadership. But Klog 10 says "Only Warlords have Leadership," which eliminates Casters from having leadership (unless, somehow, Casters are also Warlords).

So that's why I say Casters don't have a Leadership combat bonus - and the bonuses they do confer in special situations are some other kind of bonus, not based on Leadership.

[cloudbreaker]

Yes, we are seeing eye to eye now.

[Kreistor]

I take it now you have a slightly better understanding of why I do what I do on the Wiki, Noah?

[Anton Gaist]

Yes, we are seeing eye to eye now.

Same here.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

I take it now you have a slightly better understanding of why I do what I do on the Wiki, Noah?

No, but I'm having a better understanding of why you do what you do in here.

I was trying not to make this about you, not to make this about the question/"contradiction"/issue (that I don't think exists) on that page, and get some different, untainted perspectives on the surrounding information.

I haven't changed my conclusions on the specific matter at hand; indeed, this has only served to reinforce my belief that the only people who might think there is a contradiction in terms or a "problem" to be solved simply haven't seen the whole picture taken together, like Anton here, who has good ideas but was missing parts of the puzzle.

The fact that you have all the parts of the puzzle, and have probably seen them and re-read them more than anyone, and yet remain affixed to the idea that there is a mistake somewhere in one of the Klogs, to the point of threatening to abandon rational thought in favor of a brute force "undo war" (your words) because I chose to edit some sentences in other wiki pages for clarity and quality, not content, because they may have seemed to agree with me (even though they already did). And that rather than appreciate the fact that I took the effort to make this thread and honestly seek a logical, rational explanation for why someone would think there is a contradiction, to find another explanation for how things work, to gain a new perspective on how people might have read the comic, for the expressed purpose of legitimizing YOUR point of view and the "resolutions" clogging up that page, you come in here and act snotty and superior, as if I had no idea that not everyone agreed with me about everything. (I have been shown to be wrong before - only once so far, when I've been right far more often than you, but I'm not perfect).

[Kreistor]

Okay, you don't get it then.

It's not about what I believe. It's not about what any one person believes. It's about being objective.

You might be right, you know. Your answer may be the right one. But that doesn't give you the right to ignore other people's ideas. I thought you might realize that with the idea above. You now see that there is an idea you didn't think of. But you were writing that page based solely on what you believed to be the truth, and who cares what anyone else thinks?

This is about being objective. Not eliminating other people's ideas just because we disagree with them. You don't like my idea. Guess what? That doesn't make it impossible. Even if your idea is more likely, what right do you have to decide, unilaterally, that another person's idea is not worthy of representation? Sure, I've eliminated some ideas, especially since the Summer Updates, but those were speculations that were written before the evidence that denies them -- factual evidence to the contrary.

That's what this is about. It's not about who's right, or who's more likely to be right. This is about playing fair on a public blackboard. HAving the respect to accept that even if one does not agree, one must allow for equal representation.

Noah, when I started into the re-organization of the Wiki rules pages, I did so with the knowledge that many peopel don't respect my actions on this forum. In order to remove the appearance of impropriety, I had no choice but to leave in place many ideas I had significant problems with. It does nto matter whether I agree with those ideas, I must subsume my own opinion to ensure that the people whose ideas they were are respected.

I'm not going to tell you if I believe in the specific Conflict on the Commander page. I will tell you that others did. I re-wrote the page to give equal representation, and added one idea of my own, because frankly, it was an argumentative mess that no longer represented any of the solutions well. By not continuing that process, by choosing one idea over another and moving that to another page, you diminish the concept of the Wiki as a Tool for all users, not just one person.

Are you capable of that kind of objectivity? So far, no. You are approaching the Wiki as your own personal playground, where only your opinion of what is true gets a say. You want me to argue about it, but I can't. The approach I developed in order to maintain that objectivity does not permit it. In short, it doesn't matter whether you agree with the idea, others do, and that must be respected. That is why I accused you of a lack of objectivity. I have demonstrated over and over that I will represent all people's ideas on the Wiki. Whose ideas are you representing?

It's simple, though. If you want to take it all over, I can't stop you. I've played nice, not stomping on what you've done, yet. I'm hoping that you will realize what I'm doing, and recognize that objectivity and respect are greater than being right. That how you play the game is greater than the game itself. No one gains respect for being right, Noah. People do not respect "Told ya so"s, so what good does being right make in the first place? We argue, but do you think the arguing gains us anything, if we cannot respect the opponent?

Above you had a flash of insight: someone presented a new idea that you understood. Maybe you don't think it carries the weight of your own, but does it not deserve the respect of representation? You understand it, even if you don't think it as great as your own. Now, can you turn that respect into representation? That's objectivity, Noah. When you can extend that concept to even your greatest enemies, then you finally win.

[DevilDan]

I never saw any conflict. To me, "Only warlords have leadership" actually means "only warlords have a leadership bonus." After all, the immediate preceding statement is directly discussing how casters give no leadership bonus to their stacks.

The bonus that casters do give to related units (dirtmancer to their golems, croakamancers to uncroaked and perhaps to decrypted, presumably dollamancers to cloth golems...) is not a leadership bonus as is understood in the wider context of warlords and of command, who give their bonus to any unit in their stack as far as we know.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Okay, here's a completely new thing to look at that struck me:

(quoting myself from wiki)

When Parson is summoned, Wanda refers to him, seemingly from habit, as "Commander." However, Stanley then corrects her, saying, "I haven't made him a Commander yet."{{erf|1|019}} (Then, after renaming himself Tool, Stanley officially names Parson Chief Warlord).

This leads to the inference, you are [[pop]]ped (or summoned, or promoted) as a Warlord or Caster. That's what you 'are'. Commander is a position that you may fill at the behest of your [[Ruler]]. So, theoretically, when a Warlord pops, the Ruler can decline to make him a Commander. This might make it impossible for him to lead [[Stack]]s of that [[Side]]'s troops, in essence making that Warlord a solo act.

The only possible motivation I can see is fear of treason or incompetence from a Warlord with low Duty, Loyalty, or Obedience. It also brings into question the regular references of Barbarian Warlord Jillian Zamussels as "Commander," but that's explainable by a)her commanding the [[Gwiffon]]s in her stack, and b) being her own Ruler, and therefore able to "name" herself Commander.

What do you think?

[DevilDan]

Okay, here's a completely new thing to look at that struck me:

(quoting myself from wiki)

When Parson is summoned, Wanda refers to him, seemingly from habit, as "Commander." However, Stanley then corrects her, saying, "I haven't made him a Commander yet."{{erf|1|019}} (Then, after renaming himself Tool, Stanley officially names Parson Chief Warlord).

. . .

What do you think?

Stanley may, in his fashion, be a stickler for military titles and discipline. As such, he mightn't approve of Wanda treating Parson as if he already has a place in GK's command structure. More to the point, Stanley is underscoring how he is unconvinced that he wants anything to do with the "potato man" or put him in charge of anything at all. Stanley is deeply skeptical at that point in the story.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

So you're saying you think this is a matter of propriety (he wanted to get rid of 'potato man" altogether) and not a matter of official office/structure?