Book 2 – Page 50

[Kyrt]

I would think its reasonable to assume that GK was or might be waiting for the parley especially after they missed bombing Tram when he bounded off alone.

Which is why the units were moved.

Instead of "formal parley" he could have tried "formal parley to negotiate a cease-fire."

"I'd like to arrange a ceasefire so we can hold a parley to discuss a ceasefire." is a bit redundant. "I'd lik to hold a parley to hold talks of substance/negotiate a non-aggression pact/etc " all rely on such a request being treated as serious, believed and not part of the "adding insult to injury" process.

But it was still across zones. Vanna had the same restrictions GK had. If Vanna had the potential to devastate GK’s army GK possess the same potential.

And in the same hex. Acceptable according to Rob. "When an enemy comes to you on their turn, you can engage, and you can cast."

Umm… Summon perfect warlord could grab from anywhere and kingworld was cast without any GK units in the caster’s zone.

And there were GK units in the hex. Even then..that assumes that KW was cast on GK instead of JS.

(And what do you mean by involving thinkamancy? All links do that.)

For the link. Eyebooks use Thinkamancy to pass info between hexes but thats one of the aspect of Thinkamancy.

Nor is off turn movement impossible since turnamancy, and GK doesn’t need to move if they can attack across zones. We have numerous examples of ways to attack across hexes off-turn. Saying off-turns attacks are impossible is rediculus; Tram didn’t need to anticipate the specific exploit to worry about an attack, he just needs to realize such attacks are possible.

He did. And he dealt with the one way he considered such attacks were possible. And he was right....Parson didn't actually attack JS from the airspace in any other fashion.

[effataigus]

I can't help but hear Mr. President reading this like a Dr. Seuss story in the background of this unending discussion

If your plan doesn't plan for plans outside the plan, why, it's not a plan at all.

He's wringing hands about shaking hands as the flyers stall, fall, land, and stand up tall.

[Jay]

Just felt I had to post.. I know it's been said already:

The "lol" in a panel by itself is what makes this page epic.

[Sieggy]

<sigh> What Trem wanted, what JS wanted, sincere or not is all absolutely moot. It doesn't matter for the simple reason that as far as Parson was concerned, parley was the 'GO' signal for the attack. End of story. Ossomer was sent because he was A) expendable, B) highest ranking warlord, C) JS royalty (and known to the enemy), and as such was D) the perfect diversion. Consider how short a time space it was from when Ossomer pulled up to parley, and the time it took Trem to notice the fact that Dwagons were cwapping on his roof. What, 30 seconds? Maybe a minute? And during that time, Trem & Slately were distracted by their brother, as Parson intended.

Trem may have had the purest and highest of intentions and motives, but it takes two to tango. Parson had absolutely NO intention whatsoever of negotiating, irregardless of what Trem wanted. JS's desires and needs were and are absolutely immaterial to Parson - he intends to WIN, and parley was simply a way for him to set it all up. Trem was going through the standard negotiation process. When the enemy calls for parley, you don't send the general staff - you send someone you can afford to lose to find out what the enemy wants. He comes back and tells you, and you decide where to go from there. THEN you get the top brass involved.

He greeted his brother, bantered with him (though some call it 'insulted') as an opening, expressed dismay at Ossomer's current state, reminded him of his contempt for Stanley, expressed a desire to speak with Parson, and that's when things went to hell in a handbasket. From the instant that they signaled for parley, PARSON'S PLAN WENT INTO ACTION. There is NO way Trem could have foreseen what Parson planned. Remember Jack's reaction to hearing that Parson was going to attack during parley? Welcome to the crazy house? If Jack (who had been learning from Parson) was taken aback, how the hell do you expect Trem to have expected it?

Trem could have been conciliatory as many here would have wished, BUT IT WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED, BECAUSE PARSON'S PLAN WAS ALREADY UNDER WAY. Even if he had decided NOT to target only yellow Dwagons and opened fire on all units, GK was committed to a course of action, and there was NOTHING that JS could do to alter it in the slightest. Wanda was screened, and had as much chance of making it to the ground live then as now. The only difference was that perhaps Wanda might have had a slightly higher chance of being killed outright as opposed to merely being injured.

Seriously, this topic has gotten ridiculous. This is worse than the Kingworld debate. And the worst part is that had Trem acted in the manner so many here have said he should have, the same people would be screaming that he was a Mary Sue. Jeezus H. Kerist on a propane powered pogo stick, give it a rest and let Rob tell the story the way he wants to!

[wrecan]

After all, in one of the earlier text updates Trems was gloating on how this battle would mark the begginning of Jetstone's recovery.

Do you mean here, where Tramennis is hoping that GK will want to parley in "earnest"? Jetstone's recovery is dependent on GK's cooperation.

So, I don't really believe they were in a lose-lose situation.

I don't see anybody else who thinks Jetstone can survive after the battle. Prince Sammy was all but gleeful at picking JS apart if they win.

However, he can't resist talking with decrypted Ossomer and testing his wits against Hamster. So he makes up the "we need a treaty or we lose!" situation to justify his actions to his father and himself.

Maybe, though you're putting a lot of stock in King Slately's assessment, and King Slately always preferred Ossomer to Tramennis.

[Smoker]

Wrecan, I still cant wrap my head around your objection to my proposal.

I think the point is clear that I feel a thinkagram direct from Tramennis to Parson is the best way to begin negotiations. You, in turn, feel that anything that needed saying was probably written on a scroll, and since there was no meaningful reply to these probable writings then there would definitely be no meaningful reply to a thinkagram.

I dont see the logic in this, especially when you consider that for all Tramennis knows, the contents of the scroll may have been relayed back to Wanda. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept the scroll as equal value to a thinkagram.

Please remember the whole point of this discussion was what could Tramennis have done differently, and that is to say, better. Now I'm of the belief that instead of talking to Ossomer he should have demanded to talk to Parson. The method chosen is the one that allows for the fastest, most accurate and most personal communication possible. How is this so blatantly incorrect?

Not only does the proposal above mean getting to the point and treating your priorities correctly, it also means that Tramennis would have co-incidentally had a chance to get a word in before Parson began his attack.

I dunno, man, it makes pretty solid sense to me. Explain it to me again.

[wrecan]

Wrecan, I still cant wrap my head around your objection to my proposal.

I think the point is clear that I feel a thinkagram direct from Tramennis to Parson is the best way to begin negotiations. You, in turn, feel that anything that needed saying was probably written on a scroll

No, I said anything that needed saying could have been written on the scroll... or communicated through the archon before the scroll was presented. I made no statement of probabilities.

I dont see the logic in this, especially when you consider that for all Tramennis knows, the contents of the scroll may have been relayed back to Wanda.

What makes you think that? We have no idea with whom Tramennis thinks the archon communicates. Again, since we don't know, assuming facts that make Tramennis an idiot is fishing for facts to justify your theory.

All I'm saying is that it is inappropriate to assume that facts not in evidence are helpful. I'm arguing that we have insufficient info to determine that Tram is holding the idiot ball. You are dismissing out of hand the possibility that we lack relevant facts.

the whole point of this discussion was what could Tramennis have done differently

I disagree. The point of the discussion is whether people are being fair when they declare that Tram is "holding the idiot ball".

I'm of the belief that instead of talking to Ossomer he should have demanded to talk to Parson. The method chosen is the one that allows for the fastest, most accurate and most personal communication possible. How is this so blatantly incorrect?

It's neither correct nor incorrect, blatantly or otherwise. It is simply an assumption for which we lack sufficient evidence and therefore is not subject to a rational conclusion. You may be right or wrong. We have no way of knowing for certain because we don't have all the facts.

[atalex]

<sigh> What Trem wanted, what JS wanted, sincere or not is all absolutely moot. It doesn't matter for the simple reason that as far as Parson was concerned, parley was the 'GO' signal for the attack. End of story. Ossomer was sent because he was A) expendable, B) highest ranking warlord, C) JS royalty (and known to the enemy), and as such was D) the perfect diversion. Consider how short a time space it was from when Ossomer pulled up to parley, and the time it took Trem to notice the fact that Dwagons were cwapping on his roof. What, 30 seconds? Maybe a minute? And during that time, Trem & Slately were distracted by their brother, as Parson intended.

Trem may have had the purest and highest of intentions and motives, but it takes two to tango. Parson had absolutely NO intention whatsoever of negotiating, irregardless of what Trem wanted. JS's desires and needs were and are absolutely immaterial to Parson - he intends to WIN, and parley was simply a way for him to set it all up. Trem was going through the standard negotiation process. When the enemy calls for parley, you don't send the general staff - you send someone you can afford to lose to find out what the enemy wants. He comes back and tells you, and you decide where to go from there. THEN you get the top brass involved.

He greeted his brother, bantered with him (though some call it 'insulted') as an opening, expressed dismay at Ossomer's current state, reminded him of his contempt for Stanley, expressed a desire to speak with Parson, and that's when things went to hell in a handbasket. From the instant that they signaled for parley, PARSON'S PLAN WENT INTO ACTION. There is NO way Trem could have foreseen what Parson planned. Remember Jack's reaction to hearing that Parson was going to attack during parley? Welcome to the crazy house? If Jack (who had been learning from Parson) was taken aback, how the hell do you expect Trem to have expected it?

Trem could have been conciliatory as many here would have wished, BUT IT WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED, BECAUSE PARSON'S PLAN WAS ALREADY UNDER WAY. Even if he had decided NOT to target only yellow Dwagons and opened fire on all units, GK was committed to a course of action, and there was NOTHING that JS could do to alter it in the slightest. Wanda was screened, and had as much chance of making it to the ground live then as now. The only difference was that perhaps Wanda might have had a slightly higher chance of being killed outright as opposed to merely being injured.

Seriously, this topic has gotten ridiculous. This is worse than the Kingworld debate. And the worst part is that had Trem acted in the manner so many here have said he should have, the same people would be screaming that he was a Mary Sue. Jeezus H. Kerist on a propane powered pogo stick, give it a rest and let Rob tell the story the way he wants to!

A-booping-men!

[oslecamo2]

After all, in one of the earlier text updates Trems was gloating on how this battle would mark the begginning of Jetstone's recovery.

Do you mean here, where Tramennis is hoping that GK will want to parley in "earnest"? Jetstone's recovery is dependent on GK's cooperation.

No, I meant earlier, here. On Trem's own words before talking to Charlie:

And after that? The whole war would turn around. The Arkenpliers would return to Jetstone. (Indeed, to him, he supposed. What a thought.) The Coalition he had helped to assemble and re-assemble would finally prevail. The Titans would once again smile upon the Royal powers, and Father would be insufferable, for having been given the proof of it.


In your link he's just fooling himself and his father so he can have a chat with Hamster. C'mon, he's even smiling! Is that the face of a cornered man? Or of someone who feels in complete control of the situation?

So, I don't really believe they were in a lose-lose situation.

I don't see anybody else who thinks Jetstone can survive after the battle. Prince Sammy was all but gleeful at picking JS apart if they win.

And he was removed out of the picture. When his remainining troops return home, they'll tell everybody to don't try to double-deal Jetstone, because he'll get Charlie up your ass.

However, he can't resist talking with decrypted Ossomer and testing his wits against Hamster. So he makes up the "we need a treaty or we lose!" situation to justify his actions to his father and himself.

Maybe, though you're putting a lot of stock in King Slately's assessment, and King Slately always preferred Ossomer to Tramennis.

[/quote]
Slately has been around longer and saw a lot more stuff. And I see no hint he preferred Ossomer. The later was only made Chief Warlord because he knew they needed a big strong dude to hold the choke point, not a diplomat. Chief Warlords do get combat bonus if I'm not mistaken, and Chief Warlord Ossomer was a pretty scary melee machine, just what Slatley needed.

[atalex]

Please remember the whole point of this discussion was what could Tramennis have done differently, and that is to say, better.

No, the whole point of this discussion is whether or not Tramennis is an idiot. I think everyone would agree that he's made mistakes since he has gone from the brink of overwhelming victory to being in very serious trouble in just under two minutes. The debate is between those who think these mistakes were obviously the result of completely logical assumptions and bad intel which do not necessarily reflect badly on Tramennis as a diplomat or a warlord (at least when up against the perfect warlord) versus those who think that Rob gave Tramennis the "idiot ball" because Rob couldn't think of another way to advance the plot except to make Tramennis so HUKK-DURRR stupid that he failed to anticipate exploits in the fundamental physical laws of Erfworld (even though no one else in the history of Erfworld has spotted those exploits either).

Honestly, we have reached the point in this debate where people are suggesting that Tram is a terrible diplomat because he failed to include his desire to form an alliance with GK as part of his request for parley! WTF!

[Oberon]

The opening line isn't so critical once he's got Parson actually paying attention to him, and there is no doubt in my mind that Parson would have given him at least a few minutes to state his case - he's not the type to slam shut a possibility, and he really was not comfortable about taking the risk of Wanda falling. I'm confident that Tram would have had a chance at sorting something out.

I agree with this. It fits both Parson's personality, his post-TBfGK reluctance to cause deaths on his Side or any other, and his stated acknowledgment that GK needs to expand via alliance since it had run up against the diminishing returns point.

As for calls for me to provide a specific opening line, that's not my job. It is the author's. But I have said several times earlier that I'd give Tram a pass on his idiocy if he had only made an honest effort which would have demonstrated his much discussed but never actually seen skilled diplomatic abilities, as opposed to opening up the discussion with the typical insults that could only be interpreted as leading to the typical attack.

[atalex]

Slately has been around longer and saw a lot more stuff. And I see no hint he preferred Ossomer. The later was only made Chief Warlord because he knew they needed a big strong dude to hold the choke point, not a diplomat. Chief Warlords do get combat bonus if I'm not mistaken, and Chief Warlord Ossomer was a pretty scary melee machine, just what Slatley needed.

I disagree. It seemed pretty clear to me that Slately has at least some sort of bias against Tram because he doesn't fit the mold of a Jetstone prince. Looking the part is extremely important to all the Royals (and really to Stanley, though he'd never admit he shared their biases).

[ryanroyce]

IMO, Tramennis' only REAL mistake was counting his eggs before they hatched <see p44> and believing his enemy to be completely helpless. Given the nature of Erfworld, this isn't as foolish a mistake as it would have been on Earth, but a mistake nonetheless.

As a result of this error in judgement, Tremannis believed that he had the rest of his turn to negotiate in. He had no real incentive to rush things or deviate from established protocol for this sort of thing; doing so would only have tipped Tram's hand prematurely. He didn't have to convince Parson that he was sincere because, from Tram's POV, he held all the cards. However, Tram wasn't holding all the cards, which points back to mistake I mentioned above.

I suspect that Tramennis had a different opening salvo planned for whoever his negotiating opponent turned out to be. Tram almost certainly would have behaved differently if, say, Jack or Sylvia had been sent instead of Ossomer. But, Tram got Ossomer, so he used the opportunity to (1) push his brother's buttons and see how much of Ossomer was really left, (2) learn what he could about Parson from someone other than Charlie, and (3) push for direct talks with Parson once he'd learned all he could about him.

Tramennis did not fail as a diplomat since he never got the chance to actually talk to Parson. I think that chance is coming, though. If we write Tramennis off as an idiot-ball-carrying failure already, then we're really just repeating his mistake, aren't we?

[atalex]

[

As for calls for me to provide a specific opening line, that's not my job. It is the author's.

So in other words, you cannot conceive of anything Tram could have said at the start of parley that would have averted the sneak attack which was triggered by the initiation of parley, but you remain convinced that such magic words existed, but Rob opted to just give Tram the idiot ball instead.

I don't think it's possible for me to take you any less seriously.

[Smoker]

No, I said anything that needed saying could have been written on the scroll... or communicated through the archon before the scroll was presented. I made no statement of probabilities.

Ok, so its not "probable"; its "could". I still maintain that if it was, it's still not an effective method of communication.

I dont see the logic in this, especially when you consider that for all Tramennis knows, the contents of the scroll may have been relayed back to Wanda.

What makes you think that? We have no idea with whom Tramennis thinks the archon communicates. Again, since we don't know, assuming facts that make Tramennis an idiot is fishing for facts to justify your theory.

Now, now. Dont be like that. I'm clearly not saying he thought that, I'm saying for all he knew it .."could".. have been. Now its true, we dont know who Tramennis thinks the archon is communicating with, but its a reasonable position to say he probably doesn't know for absolute certain, since he is not even there when the archon does her photo-fingers-thingy to it. If he were on an active thinkagram, he would know for certain, so he should have taken this opportunity to ask for one, instead of hoping that the scroll, which "could" have something nice written on it, made it all the way to Parson's lap.

All I'm saying is that it is inappropriate to assume that facts not in evidence are helpful. I'm arguing that we have insufficient info to determine that Tram is holding the idiot ball. You are dismissing out of hand the possibility that we lack relevant facts.

good heavens. If that's your argument, why are you arguing with me? I've made it abundantly clear that I dont buy into this idiot ball business. In fact, I can only think of one other poster who has pushed the idiot ball theory very strongly.

the whole point of this discussion was what could Tramennis have done differently

I disagree. The point of the discussion is whether people are being fair when they declare that Tram is "holding the idiot ball".

Well some people are going hammer and tongs on that point, yes, but that doesn't mean others cant discuss the same situation from a different point of view. This is, after all, the reactions thread, not the "idiot ball" thread. I suggest you read posts with greater care in future.

I'm of the belief that instead of talking to Ossomer he should have demanded to talk to Parson. The method chosen is the one that allows for the fastest, most accurate and most personal communication possible. How is this so blatantly incorrect?

It's neither correct nor incorrect, blatantly or otherwise.

Then why do you take such umbridge to it? I answered what I thought was an interesting question, and you dived on it. Whats so wrong about saying "Well yes, that's quite possible, Smoker, it will be interesting to see if anything furthar happens that will prove/disprove that theory." If this is really how you feel, then either you totally over reacted to someones opinion, or I'm starting to change your mind

It is simply an assumption for which we lack sufficient evidence and therefore is not subject to a rational conclusion. You may be right or wrong. We have no way of knowing for certain because we don't have all the facts.

Well, since we've just established you've been barking up the wrong tree, I'm reluctant to start picking on your reasoning again. Suffice to say I still find the potential facts you've suggested to be unlikely, but maybe in time we will find out for certain.

No, the whole point of this discussion is whether or not Tramennis is an idiot.

To different degrees, and mine is a somewhat minor one.

Also, there are posters here, myself included, who think that although Tram was a bit foolish, it was in perfect line with his character, and not a failing of the story, or of Rob. I mean, c'mon. Everyone knows I want to have Rob's babies.

As for calls for me to provide a specific opening line, that's not my job. It is the author's.

So in other words, you cannot conceive of anything Tram could have said at the start of parley that would have averted the sneak attack which was triggered by the initiation of parley, but you remain convinced that such magic words existed, but Rob opted to just give Tram the idiot ball instead.

I don't think it's possible for me to take you any less seriously.

Again, I'm butting in, but y'know, if you dont like, email him

I kinda agree, that Rob set Tramennis up for failure. I think it was deliberate, and it was kinda cool. We were all so geared up to see Tramennis and Parson go mind-to-mind, that when Parson threw Ossomer at him in a kind of "Look at the shiney!" way, and he fell for it, we all felt the pain. When these two DO finally face each other, it will be tantric.

[Oberon]

A great many people have expressed this, using similar words, as if it was significant:

Taking extra long to take a turn in stratego doesn't mean that my opponent can suddenly take out all of my pieces.

It is not significant. They forget that this isn't Stratego, or Civ IV, or Monopoly, or Axis and Allies, or any other TBS game. It is Erfworld, and your opponents are not locked in time and unable to act when it is not their turn. Comparisons to opponents in games where they are locked in time are therefore irrelevant. In Erfworld your opponents can and do take many actions while it is not their turn, and every Side and Unit is well aware of this fact. Your opponents, even while it is your turn, can do trivial things, such as spend shmuckers on promoting units to heavies, or they can do significant things, such as casting trimancer spells which alter the entire battlefield. They can also attack with any units which are led and are able to attack. If you are playing Erfworld and choose to go watch a football game and return to find that you have dead units, this is not an indication that you have been cheated. It is only an indication that you should have been paying better attention to the actions your opponents had available to them before you chose to walk away from the game and assume that you would return to find that nothing had changed.

[Ditto]

Atalex's post: It's nice! Just is like Sieggy's analysis, but shorter.

There must not be any such thing as a diplomat, if that's the standard one is held to. Thinkagramming directly to Parson may have turned out better. Possibly. It's not *necessary* to label Tram as a failure, so long after Parson explicitly said 'We just proved we can't parley with Jetstone' back on page 38. We've got options, team! And they just might be borne out over the next few pages. Remember how disappointed some folks were when Tram was confused by all dragon types falling? The next comic, (and about 3 seconds later), he got what was going on. Even had the archers launch into the correct response to this action, which is pincushion everything. Give him some time. Monday morning quarterbacking can be done for a whole week after the game. Let's let the book unfold and not snipe every play with a shoulda-coulda-woulda before it's over.

Oberon, Erfworld is turn based. It has FAR more things in common with TBS games than RTS games, even if there are specific actions sides can take off-turn. Specified types of attacks and movement (without penalty) are things that cannot be done off turn. So if a red flamed the tower while you went to watch the game, then yes you've been cheated. If all of your enemies committed suicide in the hopes that one of them would resurrect and be the new messiah for their side, they can do that... it's probably not a good idea, but they might get lucky! That's what's happening here, and that's half of GK's plan. They *always* had the option of diving off their mounts or killing their own mounts and chancing what happened when they landed. It just didn't seem like a good idea. The other half of the plan, getting movement off-turn without a falling penalty, that's a straight up cheat.

[Smoker]

A great many people have expressed this, using similar words, as if it was significant:

Taking extra long to take a turn in stratego doesn't mean that my opponent can suddenly take out all of my pieces.

It is not significant.

I wonder if there was an exploit in Monopoly (for example) where if you were down to your last $5 and facing a string of "enemy" hotels, you could say, attempt to swipe a note from the bank while the other players were distracted. Then you (deliberately) get caught, and house rules send you to jail. You then use your get out of jail free card. You are now past a side of the board dominated by other players, and are in perfect position to attempt a grab at that last train station, way ahead of all the other tokens.. an unwinnable situation turned around, or at least made playable?

..or whatever. The example itself isn't important. If someone pulled something like that while playing some of the posters here, I wonder what the reaction would be?

[Smoker]

The other half of the plan, getting movement off-turn without a falling penalty, that's a straight up cheat.

You're talking about the Heavies, right? I wonder about this: Is there anything solid that says they dont take a penalty? Because I was thinking the reason for it was that a random number of the dwagons would survive the fall which means they can fight for a while before they have to be decrypted, and you getting better bang for your... dwagon.

[GaryThunder]

There has to be some advantage to the heavy falling exploit, or else Parson would have just had his Hobgobwins harvest their mounts like everyone else. I think they fall much more controlled, are capable of hitting the ground alive (the dwagons, clearly, if not the riders), and possibly cushion the riders' descent as well.