Book 2 – Page 28

[effataigus]

Yeah, that bit about Parson breaking Erfworld? Forget it, Parson has barely any desire to just punch buttons on the calculator.

Jillian on the other hand WILL WRECK THE WORLD if she feels like it.

Hmmm, good point. Is Parson doing exactly what he said he had planned to do back in the real world? Is he just there to cheat the main characters again and again until they break Erfworld with lateral thinking? Jillian, Charlie, and Wanda are already starting to imitate Parson to some degree.

Who then are the main characters? Perhaps the ones with eye-whites? Manpower may have been a nobody, but he is who Parson replaced when he subbed in...

[multilis]

Haggar could always try "lets make a deal" with GK. First they need legal deal with Charlie that Charlie can't attack them. Then they might try negotiating for Sammy to be brought back to life then turned back to their side, in return for breaking alliance with Royals. After that they can go back to original plan.

Haggar may be taking body of Sammy because they know everybody has something helpful to contribute... http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F098.jpg

[Anias]

Hmm, just noticed. Jillian says she'll "handle Charlie for (Haggar)." So none of the contingencies for withdrawal involved Sammy dying (so we can throw that theory out) and so technically Haggar didn't abide by the conditions of Charlie's...agreement.

Was this just coercion, or a binding contract like the one Ansom signed or the one that forces Parson to give Charlie calculations? If the latter...what happens to Haggar? Does Charlie actually destroy them (unlikely) or force them to give him some concessions?

And how is Jillian, a highly-unstable "sword-swinging madwoman," going to convince Charlie to let up on Haggar for torturing and killing his archons, and then failing to do as Charlie ordered?

[DoctorJest]

Hmm, just noticed. Jillian says she'll "handle Charlie for (Haggar)." So none of the contingencies for withdrawal involved Sammy dying (so we can throw that theory out) and so technically Haggar didn't abide by the conditions of Charlie's...agreement.

The terms for withdrawal were explained by Sammy. Haggar was supposed to fight until they lost half their force (or achieved their other objectives, one of which was croaking Ansom).

Was this just coercion, or a binding contract like the one Ansom signed or the one that forces Parson to give Charlie calculations? If the latter...what happens to Haggar? Does Charlie actually destroy them (unlikely) or force them to give him some concessions?

It's just coercion. Sammy said Charlie gave him orders and "a reason to follow them". If it was a binding contract, that's all the reason he'd need. He wasn't obeying out of a binding contract, but because he feared the consequences of not obeying (Charlie sacking his capital city).

[Liam]

Not sure what's going to happen next, but this was one pretty bad-boop update. Kudos to everyone, Rob and Xin.

P. S. If Rob dies at the Con, can we have his stuff?

Dibs on the dice.

[DoctorJest]

Yeah, that bit about Parson breaking Erfworld? Forget it, Parson has barely any desire to just punch buttons on the calculator.

Do you remember Jack's discussion with Parson when they were making rounds in the city? Jack's argument was, despite Parson's disinterest he could not help but to wage war. His "talent demands it". So Parson doesn't want to make war any longer, and is barely helping, but Jack's prediction is that Parson will rise to the challenge because it's who and what Parson is.

So while we see a reluctant Parson right now, there's good reason to expect that despite his reluctance Parson is going to end up prominently changing the world, no matter if he likes it or not.

[multilis]

It's just coercion. Sammy said Charlie gave him orders and "a reason to follow them". If it was a binding contract, that's all the reason he'd need. He wasn't obeying out of a binding contract, but because he feared the consequences of not obeying (Charlie sacking his capital city).

Still possible that Sammy *got* a binding contract from Charlie, "if I do x then you are required to do y". Otherwise Sammy may not have agreed as not trusting Charlie to not take out his capital even if he obeyed.

[Welf von Ehrwald]

plus Stanley probably feels very "invested" in Ansom since he was the one who picked him to be chief warlord. Plus he's terrible at math so he probably doesn't actually appreciate the peril Ansom is in. I mean, this was Hagar voluntarily pulling back, and not being forced back, yet he thinks its a "victory"... oh well. No change in Stanley there

A victory is a victory. This time both in Erfworld and tactic terms. And since Haggar retreats Ansom didn't have to use more resources than necessary. Of course this is just the first wave, and only the last battle counts.

For Stanley and Ansom, I think the Tool is more than invested in his CW. Ansom is everything wants in a warlord, he is pretty, smart, high-level, honourable and a true believer in Toolism. Basically what Stanley wants to be himself. Ansom is a wishfullfilment for Stanley, and he can imagine that his victories are his. From that point of view the idea of Parson planing Ansom's victories or Ansom croaking isn't something Tool wants to hear or picture.

[Urf]

Is there ANY blood in this story?

[SteveMB]

The terms for withdrawal were explained by Sammy. Haggar was supposed to fight until they lost half their force (or achieved their other objectives, one of which was croaking Ansom).

It's possible that if "half their force" is defined in terms of power rather than raw numbers of units, they did meet that condition when Sammy croaked. However, the presentation makes it seem more likely that the deal was simple coercion rather than an actual binding contract (like the one for a dozen calculations from Parson), and that Haggar's troops were therefore free to say "boop this" and pull out if they decided (for whatever reason) to change their minds.

[HandofShadows]

Is there ANY blood in this story?

Only if Parson is injured. Erfworlders don't bleed, period. It's one of the rules of the world.

[ftl]

Why would "coercion" and "a binding contract" be mutually exclusive? Charlie used coercion to get Sammy to sign a binding contract.

The contract is just a formalization of that. It's like in many games - when you make an agreement, you're required by the rules to follow up on it. When you talk about the reasons for doing something, there's no point to mentioning the fact that it's a binding contract; you mention the reason why you signed the contract in the first place. (When you ask somebody "why did you just give Charlie those schmuckers" the natural answer is "to use his archons", not "because the contract said so", unless it's a particularly weird and convoluted contract. )

As to what happens with the contract - there's several options that I can think of.
1) Haggar did lose half their forces at the bridge fight, either counting by total power (thus, the loss of Sammy being very significant) or by numbers (we didn't see much of the fight.)
2) Charlie made a deal with Sammy - now Sammy's dead, so there's no more deal anymore. If Parson suddenly croaked, we wouldn't expect Stanley or Wanda or whoever picks up and can use the bracer to owe Charlie any calculations; likewise, I don't expect whoever takes over command for Sammy to owe Charlie anything.

Both of those would mean that no contract has been broken.

Of course, there's possibility 3, that Charlie made a deal with Haggar as a whole (and thus, whoever takes over from Sammy inherits the deal as well), and then leaving would make that a broken contract. But 1 and 2 are both reasonable too.

[atalex]

Something I noticed wasn't touched on. Jillian comes in and basically tells Ansom 'You're mine' and Ansom say's 'No, I'm not.' It now looks like she's going to mind rape him into being that way.

What's the morality of all this? By earth standards this would be a Moral Event Horizon.

I hate Jillian. I think she's way too much at the center of everybody's (Jack, Wanda, Ansom, Vinny, Charlie, Don etc) various concerns, and is a shallow petulant character that does not deserve that distinction of being the central point in Erfworld's diagram.

However, if she tried to turn Ansom, I doubt that's a Moral Event Horizon, because a) she believes that Ansom, the Ansom she knew, would want to be rescued (turned) and b) my impression of Jillian has a hard time reconciling with premeditated, hardcore evil, for Jillian does not premeditate. I'd argue a MEH cannot apply to "crimes of passion".

Or of course, she just may discover that if she can bend people to her will, she can as well explore that possibility ... so yeah, that would take a turn to the darker side.

WRT to moral event horizons, it's funny because Old Ansom would have wanted someone to rescue him from the Decrypted state that New Ansom was grateful for because it freed him from what he now considers to be an irrational loyalty to a flawed world view, whereas New Ansom will probably fight being turned tooth and nail but will be grateful for his freedom if he is turned back into Old Ansom. Mind raping seems to me to be less of a moral hazard in a world where it seems that everyone is under some form of mind control. I suspect that even the rulers are magically compelled to support the old Titanic Mandate -- Slately's support for RRC1 seems to have been wholly excessive in light of how small a threat Stanley posed before Parson showed up, Bea committed suicide rather than submit to Toolism, and Don King shifted from a lax monarchy to a very hands-on one in response to the Toolist Crusade. Heck, even Sammy, despite harboring treacherous designs on Jetstone, was toying with abandoning his father's plan and acting as a real ally even before Charlie removed all his other options. That's why I don't think Haggar will ally with GK even though he now has good reason to.

WRT Jillian's unlikability, I don't really care for her either. It concerns me that so many people are in love with her or at least dote on her. It reminds me too much of Buffy post-S3, and that's not a good sign. While I still enjoy Erfworld, we've spent way too long focusing on characters who are not The Protagonist.

And where the hell has Sizemore been all this time!

[CelebrenIthil]

Seeing Parson spoke about the coming need for GK to pick a new Chief Warlord from Wanda's group, I'm surprised not to hear much speculation- and especially not Scarlet/Sylvia fans trying to push her forward as candidate.
But I guess people still hope Ansom will manage to get out of this ordeal alive (well, un-dead...).
And I guess also that Ossomer is clearly a better choice than Sylvia, fan or not.
But still.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Seeing Parson spoke about the coming need for GK to pick a new Chief Warlord from Wanda's group, I'm surprised not to hear much speculation- and especially not Scarlet/Sylvia fans trying to push her forward as candidate.
But I guess people still hope Ansom will manage to get out of this ordeal alive (well, un-dead...).
And I guess also that Ossomer is clearly a better choice than Sylvia, fan or not.
But still.

Well, *cough*, GK has had a history of ... low life expectancy for Chief Warlords. Sylvia being nominated for that position would raise her life insurance premiums.

And where the hell has Sizemore been all this time!

Probably flaking like the pantsless hippie he is.

[Engy]

What I find interesting is that Parson is(except by name) the chief warlord. I mean sometimes people don't listen but it's him where GK does appear to get most of the strategy, he knows it too. He has all the power of the Chief Warlord with none of the spotlight, which fits him to a T.

[CelebrenIthil]

And where the hell has Sizemore been all this time!

I dunno but I kinda miss him! D:

Seeing Parson spoke about the coming need for GK to pick a new Chief Warlord from Wanda's group, I'm surprised not to hear much speculation- and especially not Scarlet/Sylvia fans trying to push her forward as candidate.
But I guess people still hope Ansom will manage to get out of this ordeal alive (well, un-dead...).
And I guess also that Ossomer is clearly a better choice than Sylvia, fan or not.
But still.

Well, *cough*, GK has had a history of ... low life expectancy for Chief Warlords. Sylvia being nominated for that position would raise her life insurance premiums.

True, true. But then again, pretty much every single unit under Stanley has really, really shaky chances of seeing another day aside the casters. (and then again, Misty...)
Just with the volcano event... even the knights and dwagons that accompanied Stanley during his retreat bit the dust pretty hard.
Let's say I am already expecting the worse for all of GK's units, so every turn they survive is a pleasant surprise! XD
So if Sylvia ends up Chief Warlord...well better end with a bang, no? (or by cutting a car in two with fire /Mythbusters)

But yeah, whatever allows her to get more screentime!

[Ninjaguineapig]

Panel 9 is awesome.
I wonder who will win: Ansom or Jillian?

Also, Sizemore is proly making crap golems.
OMG. I just came up with a name for Sizemore's workplace.

Spoiler: show

THE SHITPIT!!!!

[Best]

Parson's response to Stanley's inquiry is exceptionally fitting. And so is Jillian cutting Stanley's banner.

My money is on Jillian returning to get her turnamancer to attempt to turn Ansom. Though that's a fairly obvious possibility.

[homeosapiens]

I dont get how much you people get interested about the infantry fight - strategy wise. It was said that there is only 1300 units there +2 warlords + Ansom. Ansom is replaceable - Ossomers bonuses match his(more or less). GK has 9500 units stated in intermission(not sure where, but it is), probably more now. Whether Ansom gets croaked or not, even with his entire force it still doesnt mean much.

Jillian getting level 10+ warlord? That's a bonus for her, sure. She still isn't a serious threat, long term thinking.

The only thing GK should worry about now is Wanda(also Jack, but he is not game breaking as much as she is). If she survives to the next turn without loosing the arkenpliers, Charlie and RCC II will not accomplish anything.

Still the thing with Vanna and Charlie seems like sth they could repeat. GK has to eighter kill Vanna or deal/kill Charlie. Witch seems quite possible (9000 units vs 600 archons? Charlescomm has no warlords?)

That's why Charlie doesnt want GK to know. He's scared. GK has his Archons, and knows where his lv city 5 is.

All of this plot is strategy based, not plot related.