Falling with no move, Duty physically enforced for Summoned

[Hari Seldon]

Exactly.

[moose o death]

that's the point though, parson cannot ride dwagons, so this was demonstrated by slamming them both into the ground. this all happens after the turn ends so it has zero impact on the metagame the dwagon and parson aren't injured per se and tomorrow morning they'll be fully repaired. this little event is nothing more than narrative exposition. rob had a choice to tell us via sizemore it wont work, or to prove the point. proving it was more fun.

he could have stopped it at the dwagon apparantly struggling to even stand up properly. but decided he'd really hammer home the point parson is not mounting up.

[Hari Seldon]

Argh for the last time Sizemore said that Parson couldn't even mount the dwagon as I quoted before. Parson proved them wrong then proceeded to prove that he could actually get the Dwagon to move him around.

THINK. Couldn't Banana WALK Parson around? (Banana could run and leap off of that wall with him riding it after all). Sizemore expecting Parson couldn't even mount the dwagon would similarly expect he couldn't even get the Dwagon to walk him around (but Parson could).

Yes I know Banana glided instead of falling but big deal we still learned something.

[moose o death]

we did learn something. parson failing to ride a dwagon is hilarious. it was the funniest update i've read in ages.

[Wyvern]

Argh for the last time Sizemore said that Parson couldn't even mount the dwagon as I quoted before. Parson proved them wrong then proceeded to prove that he could actually get the Dwagon to move him around.

THINK. Couldn't Banana WALK Parson around? (Banana could run and leap off of that wall with him riding it after all). Sizemore expecting Parson couldn't even mount the dwagon would similarly expect he couldn't even get the Dwagon to walk him around (but Parson could).

Yes I know Banana glided instead of falling but big deal we still learned something.

From the looks of it, it's physically possible for the dwagon to walk around with Parson on its back. But when it comes to enforcing the actual rules in a meaningful context (situations in which stats are affected), I don't think Parson would get any in-game benefit from his makeshift mount. Banana probably couldn't cross a hex boundary in that state...or if he could, it would still cost Parson the same as if he had walked across it (as a garrison unit, this would just cause him to be pushed off by the hex barrier, which is solid to him and permeable to Banana). Otherwise anyone could carry a unit across a boundary and circumvent the move rules. Parson is on Banana's back, but he still doesn't have the "mounted" status, and doesn't follow the rules for being mounted. I also doubt that Banana could fight like that, at least without taking some sort of considerable penalty.

[Guurzak]

Otherwise anyone could carry a unit across a boundary and circumvent the move rules.

There are plenty of wargames which allow you to mount infantry into APCs, boats, or otherwise be carried in excess of their movement. For that matter, we've clearly seen that Jillian's flight capability is based on her gwiffon's move, not her own. The idea of a dwagon carrying Parson across a hex border isn't all that unreasonable. If Parson counts as a heavy and thus cannot usefully ride a mount, then that issue comes into play, but by itself the idea that riding a mount can "circumvent" a unit's unmounted move is perfectly normal.

[DevilDan]

Presumably a dwagon on foot could not move as quickly as a dwagon in the air.

Parson was injured, however.

[moose o death]

there is a difference between mounted and plonked onto.

sizemore said parson couldn't mount the dwagon, in erf terms that could translate too you can do the riverdance on that dwagons back but you still aren't flying anywhere.

[Wyvern]

There are plenty of wargames which allow you to mount infantry into APCs, boats, or otherwise be carried in excess of their movement. For that matter, we've clearly seen that Jillian's flight capability is based on her gwiffon's move, not her own. The idea of a dwagon carrying Parson across a hex border isn't all that unreasonable. If Parson counts as a heavy and thus cannot usefully ride a mount, then that issue comes into play, but by itself the idea that riding a mount can "circumvent" a unit's unmounted move is perfectly normal.

That's exactly my point, though. Properly mounted units DO use their mount's movement instead of their own. But one Pikeman can't carry another Pikeman across the hex border piggy-back and keep him from losing move. That would just be silly. I think this is the relationship between Parson and Banana. He's on his back, but he's not officially mounted, and doesn't follow the rules for being mounted.

[DevilDan]

That's exactly my point, though. Properly mounted units DO use their mount's movement instead of their own. But one Pikeman can't carry another Pikeman across the hex border piggy-back and keep him from losing move. That would just be silly. I think this is the relationship between Parson and Banana. He's on his back, but he's not officially mounted, and doesn't follow the rules for being mounted.

Well, now that you've brought up that idea Rob will patch up that crack!

[moose o death]

that one's easy, over burdened troops expand +2 move each hex, so your costing more move trying to break the rules. (it's 3 move for the piggybacked units to cross a hex on the burdened unit, 0 for the cargo unit) overall this those two troops assuming they swap at the end of the first's move will only achieve 66% of their original distance.

if it's carrying wounded, they'll only cover a third of the distance they normally do.

[Wyvern]

that one's easy, over burdened troops expand +2 move each hex, so your costing more move trying to break the rules. (it's 3 move for the piggybacked units to cross a hex on the burdened unit, 0 for the cargo unit) overall this those two troops assuming they swap at the end of the first's move will only achieve 66% of their original distance.

if it's carrying wounded, they'll only cover a third of the distance they normally do.

That could still confer an advantage. If one squad has 4 move, and another equally-sized squad has 1, and the two want to team up to attack a large enemy force 2 hexes away, your idea would still allow all of them to get there by having one group carry the other into the first hex (the fresh group spends 3 move then 1, and the tired hex spends 0 then 1). I'm pretty sure something like that shouldn't be allowed.

[moose o death]

well we fall back to troops can't be mounted on troops and move would be deducted regardess then.

[Wyvern]

Yeah, that's my assumption. Maybe if a unit gets a wounded leg during a retreat and can't walk (can that even happen in Erfworld?), they could be hauled out of a hex like that as long as they had move left, but I think that's the most benefit anyone's likely to get out an impromptu "mount". (Unless such an injury drops your move to zero automatically specifically to prevent that sort of thing.)

[moose o death]

i don't think units would suffer crippling injuries, too much effort to maintain and if they survive the turn they get healed back to full the next turn anyway. if crippled leg were plausible there would have to be an incentive to it. combat seems to be calculated as squads rather than individual fighters so calculating crippled damages over a whole squad would be too problematic. essentially we're talking about a world were you can have organs visible and still be alive, then the next day be fully healed.