Book 2 – Text Updates 052

[effataigus]

So, I have a hard time viewing American Indians as being a problem for the US military since the end of the US conflicts with the various tribes (which is when the supposed genocide would have had to have happened). Native Americans have the highest per-capita rate of military service of any US ethnic group, and they gave the US Military its Wind-Talkers.

Even limiting the discussion to the military applications, I'm not seeing how genocide could be construed as a good thing.

[multilis]

So, I have a hard time viewing American Indians as being a problem for the US military since the end of the US conflicts with the various tribes (which is when the supposed genocide would have had to have happened). Native Americans have the highest per-capita rate of military service of any US ethnic group, and they gave the US Military its Wind-Talkers.

Even limiting the discussion to the military applications, I'm not seeing how genocide could be construed as a good thing.

In ancient times the children of those you conquer may try to kill you in return, so genocide was sometimes used to reduce that threat.

Example: Rome verses Carthage... in the end something closer to genocide was used to make Carthage never rise again.

On american indians front... if you google american indian rebellion, they were sometimes trouble again after losing first time. Eg general custer's last stand is famous example.

As well the indians were *expensive*, billions of dollars spent on them every year still, and land rights reduce other possible sources of federal income. As well per capita several times as many indians are likely to be in federal prison, and crime/drug related problems.

Now to be fair, that is partially issue of integration, and flaws in a system of welfare spending, and things that could be done better. Ideal welfare system encourages the poor to become skillful/productive workers and mobile upwards to middle or upper class.

...

As far as game goals, average erfworld does not turn enemies as not worth the trouble, they don't have good systems to integrate enemies to become allies. Parson order of goals near top is conversion which means turning enemies into allies. That idea partially comes from Sun Tsu who wrote similarly that winning a close battle was a poor win, and best win was converting enemy to allies perhaps without even fighting, and gave similar other options.

When I play a game, especially if I have traits that help accomplish this... converting enemy to allies is *extremely* powerful. Eg I am currently playing a scenario in AOW2-SM (can by game for <$10 as digital game now), I am halflings/hobbits with peacemaker trait which means I get along with other races well (but may not gain as much XP in fighting... I am growing a huge army of trolls and golins by fighting them with a conversion force of guys that entangle them and taunt them, and then nymphs that *safely* seduce them... as result half my armies are big stacks of trolls, etc I could not afford to pop myself.

[Saladman]

Yeahhhh, so, on a non-genocide-related note for a moment, I think in focusing on Artemis shooting at Sylvia I missed how much luckamancy was floating around on both sides of that engagement.

She had never seen them fight quite like this. Titans, had any of them missed?

Artemis may not be a neutral reporter, but at "a point of turning of all turns" in Marie the Predictomancer's words, it's possible that's literally true. I still think Sylvia's protected for some reason, but the weird deflections could be less heavy-handed than they seem, and partly a consequence of an overload of Fate messing with probability.

Then of course Archer's comment at the end brings Fate back in on GK's side, but not in a way that's only about Sylvia, it's about him and Artemis as well.

Wanda as Jesus and this as the Rapture I hope is not the most exact analogy or this comic could get awkward, but in the immortal words of Vice Pwesident Joe Biden, this turn is a Big F'n Deal.

[dwn3]

First post with this particular profile... seem to have misplaced my previous one somewhere.

I love/hate what happened to Artemis here. She had to die, there was no other way, and there's no way I'd support her being brought back by Wanda in a few turns.

I say this for several reasons: firstly is that I have a massive love of the character that makes the heroic stand, and she did it beautifully. Even if she's never referenced in the actual comic section of the book, she did everything she could to have a serious impact, whether or not the comic section mentions it. She watched her 3 beautiful shots miss in ridiculous fashions and ultimately lost to the Redhead everyone seems to love. My own personal dislike of Sylvia aside, Artemis was right to ask why this was happening. If Parson is supposed to have any challenge when he gets there at all, there needs to be something to fight, something that can still cause a problem. She bought Tramenis time to recover and be brought to the king, she bought the king those extra few minutes/rounds/what-have-you to do his version of what she's doing. I won't stand to have Artemis reborn like KC or some other little text warlord working for goblin knob or Wanda or whatever comes to pass after she went out like that. I... would probably throw some little tantrum. Sometimes the best thing to do for a character is to let them die in their epic blaze of glory.

Which brings me to what I hope happens with Jetstone now.

With those extra few minutes of siege not pounding the tower, the king has a few options, 1 take the jetpack and croak Ossomer and an archon or two and quickly name Tramenis heir before giving him the jetpack or otherwise getting him and the casters out of the city. If that proves too risky, his other option is to get everyone out of the city he can with Tramenis, sit at the top of the tower and do what Parson did back in the first book, drop the tower, the dungeon, the atrium, the walls, after of course firing off every city defense available still on the archons for the bounty. (He should do this all in addition to the jetpack heroics he's contemplating too) and after dropping everything to level one and getting all retreat-able units out of the city, disband everything else to avoid them being turned. If he had an especially close view of combat or was clever enough he could tell all units to fight until 1hp or close to death and then disband themselves to avoid leaving a body to uncroak.

In a game with other people, I'd call all of that poor sportsmanship, but if I had to do everything I could to save my friends and family, I'd probably tell my men to disband to avoid being turned against your soon to be mourning friends.

I say Artemis is ever referenced again, it should be that she's beyond recovery and it's just a little eulogy thing given by Sylvia for the one who failed against fate or something. It would just sicken me too much if someone who gave it their all in such an earnest fashion truly ended up fighting next to the person they failed to defeat, on the same side that she watched kill everyone she knew, and the same side that just wiped out her capital city.

Edit:

For the GK fans, be very afraid, since there is another similarity:

After the courtyard retreat, there was a huddle between the main remaining strategic mind and a bunch of casters. Also, book 2 is generally unfun for the protagionists if there is to be a book 3.

Clever, it's like he's writing the same book twice, but unless it turns out with the same rule-bending move caster link nonsense.
I think the similarities will end with possibly the King leveling the city.

"I think Rob is just trolling his fans here a bit. "Look what I had to do to keep Sylvia alive."

Seconded, that is until she outlives her welcome (which I'm betting is the end of this book.) I think I appreciate characters like Artemis so much more because they aren't operating with plot armor. We knew Sylvia had to live until the next page of the comic, because if it was to stand on its own having an off panel death wouldn't cut it for people who just read the comic pages once the book is complete.

Experience leveling probably messes with that need. You fight, you get experience, you level and you abilities/stats are improved, while it is possible no matter how hard you try with other things you will never gain a mechanical bonus (or the ability to do it).

This reminds me of my theory of leveling, which is that a given unit's stats will just start at one until the experience shows the potential.
My theory would say that all level x warlords are at least that smart, and the ones that are smarter(Parson)/more talented/have a higher base luck stat (Sylvia) will rise to the level that would compare them to ones of similar standing.

Ansom was level 9, so he was at least as smart as the other level 9's and if the chance to show that he was smarter or more able ever arose, he'd hit level ten. An explanation for why training is so useless after a certain point is that it's hard to prove you're smarter or more able than someone who's battle tested. Now that that argument's set, I'd say Artemis was allowed to level to 8 because, despite not having any novel or unique strategic situations to exploit in the hundreds of turns before goblin knob, her very determination and grit put her at what the Titan's considered a level above the other level 7's and the fact that that worked is what so stunned the people who were used to fighting in actual battles.
In short, my theory is that they start the game with their actual stats kinda just hidden from view like level (1/9) where 9 is the highest they'd ever hit before stopping at the limits of their talent or intelligence. The problem with this theory, is that barring some magic type that would analyze that, this is pure speculation and has no practical impact on how the mechanics of the world work.

[BLANDCorporatio]

You missed the point. And i noticed that you left out Zeku's first example of the people who were in the "Holy Land" when the hebrews arrived. As described in the Old Testament, God keeps saying "Kill them all!" Then a few chapters later, God throws a fit because "Hey, i have looked into your cities and i see some of peoples X, Y, and Z, which i told you to kill, Now go finish the job!"

This was associated with religious pluralism, that is the toleration of people worshiping someone other than Yahweh. This was defined as a Problem by the authorities. Not by us, today we recognize what a big baby Yahweh is and we understand the politics of cultural control and the avariciousness of priesthoods. But back then? Problem. {snip}

Likewise the jews in Europe. Each wave of persecution blamed previous waves for not finishing the job. Why? Because jews were aliens who didn't fit in and so they were a danger to society. Problem. {snip}

As for the american indians, if they had all been wiped out, they wouldn't be around today, wining and complaining, trying to get old treaties enforced in court, etc. Some people still see that as a Problem.

In fact that's pretty common behavior throughout history.

I suppose you could interpret it that way, which is "Group A almost, but not quite, exterminates group B, then Group A decides this was a problem and repeats the job".

But it's kinda weird to interpret it that way since what

The true shape of war, especially historically, reveals that anytime the armies or nations develop the war weariness you're describing, the unwillingness to finish completely exterminating the enemy, (sometimes motivated by greed) that same enemy then becomes a problem which they have to deal with later.

is more naturally interpreted as "the children you spare today will come looking for vengeance tomorrow".

And, if this is what Zeku was saying, the examples were poorly chosen. At least the latter 2 of them, the first I don't know enough to comment on. The latter two though don't ring true, because while the populations in question have survived, they aren't looking to prolongue the blood feud. At the moment, anyway.

It seems to follow, from what Zeku says, that genocide is the norm and assimilation is the exception. Given the mixed heritage of, say, all the former territories of the Roman Empire, or the way the Persians managed conquered populations, or the religious tolerance of the first Caliphate, I'd say I need better data to decide. It's far from clear cut.

What is clear cut is that, at least in "pre-modern" warfare, genocide was a tactical option. It was rarely the case that an army would plow through a land and kill everything they saw. However, if a city put up more of a fight than could easily be beaten, then that city better win, because else it would be razed to the ground and inhabitants murdered or taken away into slavery.

The Romans used this tactic, so did the Mongols, I think the Persians used it too, not sure ... but none of the mentioned empires was so consistent in applying it that they left a completely empty land in the wake of their armies, to be taken up by the ethnically pure citizens of said empire.

And it's also worth noting that what brought said empires down was not a simplistic vengeance of the conquered thing either.

[Sixty]

If he had an especially close view of combat or was clever enough he could tell all units to fight until 1hp or close to death and then disband themselves to avoid leaving a body to uncroak.

DoTA Erfworld style.

[oslecamo2_temp]

With those extra few minutes of siege not pounding the tower, the king has a few options, 1 take the jetpack and croak Ossomer and an archon or two and quickly name Tramenis heir before giving him the jetpack or otherwise getting him and the casters out of the city. If that proves too risky, his other option is to get everyone out of the city he can with Tramenis, sit at the top of the tower and do what Parson did back in the first book, drop the tower, the dungeon, the atrium, the walls, after of course firing off every city defense available still on the archons for the bounty. (He should do this all in addition to the jetpack heroics he's contemplating too) and after dropping everything to level one and getting all retreat-able units out of the city,

Slatley can't do that. Hamster could only do it because he had Sizemore, a dirtmancer, to bring down the city on the enemy. If you could bring down your city over the enemy so easily, every damn side would be doing so and nobody would ever capture a city over lv1.

disband everything else to avoid them being turned. If he had an especially close view of combat or was clever enough he could tell all units to fight until 1hp or close to death and then disband themselves to avoid leaving a body to uncroak.

Also can't do that. Queen Bea had to order her troops to get out of the city and then kill herself to disband them, which means she couldn't just mass-disband them inside the city. Let alone when fighting the enemy.

In a game with other people, I'd call all of that poor sportsmanship, but if I had to do everything I could to save my friends and family, I'd probably tell my men to disband to avoid being turned against your soon to be mourning friends.

That's why most games that specifically reward you for killing enemies have built-in mechanisms that prevent you from doing that. Can't disband during combat usually. Again queen Bea couldn't just disband her troops in masse with a flick of her hand, she had to order them out of the city and then kill herself.

DoTA Erfworld style.

For the record it would be Warcraft III Erfworld style. Pro players were doing their best to deny the enemy kills for exp long before Dota was modded. And even then it demands god-like micro, and it was a real-time game. Erfworld being turn-based certainly doesn't allow for that level of control.

[BakaGrappler]

First post with this particular profile... seem to have misplaced my previous one somewhere.

I love/hate what happened to Artemis here. She had to die, there was no other way, and there's no way I'd support her being brought back by Wanda in a few turns.

I say this for several reasons: firstly is that I have a massive love of the character that makes the heroic stand, and she did it beautifully. Even if she's never referenced in the actual comic section of the book, she did everything she could to have a serious impact, whether or not the comic section mentions it. She watched her 3 beautiful shots miss in ridiculous fashions and ultimately lost to the Redhead everyone seems to love. My own personal dislike of Sylvia aside, Artemis was right to ask why this was happening. If Parson is supposed to have any challenge when he gets there at all, there needs to be something to fight, something that can still cause a problem. She bought Tramenis time to recover and be brought to the king, she bought the king those extra few minutes/rounds/what-have-you to do his version of what she's doing. I won't stand to have Artemis reborn like KC or some other little text warlord working for goblin knob or Wanda or whatever comes to pass after she went out like that. I... would probably throw some little tantrum. Sometimes the best thing to do for a character is to let them die in their epic blaze of glory.

Okay, I have to point a few things out.

1st, I think the reason you have a prejudice against Artemis having any kind of importance, and that you are writing her off, is because she was introduced through a Text Update. May I remind you that Ossomer and Tremennis were introduced in Text Updates as well? Queen Bea's entire screen time was during a single text update, and her existence is influencing events to an enormous degree even now. Just because Artemis was introduced, fought, and then croaked in Text Updates does not make her a trivial character, or a filler character, or a stop-gap filler existence just so we can have some fun with Scarlet. Rob created her for a reason we do not yet know, and I cannot imagine Rob giving the name Artemis to someone that exists only to be used for a week. The likelihood that Artemis will be playing a role in the future is very high because of the pre-planning and follow through that Rob has done for this combat event, going all the way back to saying "The archers positioned on the outter walls" may have even been in preparation for this stuff.

I believe the reason you would not support her return as a Decrypted would be because you view her as a character that serves only to have a cool fight with Sylvia Lazarus. I think it is Rob's decision as to if she should be Decrypted, and she may in fact have needed to be Decrypted, for the sake of the story. If it works for the story and makes it more interesting, then it should be done.

2nd, KC was actually mentioned in the drawn comic pages, when Parson was thinking about who to make the new Chief Warlord as one of the choices. The Text characters are not automagically never mentioned again. And like I said before, the more GK Warlords that we actually know the names and faces of, the better for when we have the military combat maneuvers down the line. Would we have been as mindful of the Fighting Retreat in book one if we had not met the Archduke and Ensign Toast? Or the Dwagon Charge on the Siege and the annihilation at the hands of Jillian and Ansom? Familiarity makes us invested in events, and how invested were we when all we had was names and faces to put towards walking corpses? Right now, we have Ossomer, Sylvia, Antium, and the annoying guy Antium enjoyed killing (too bad it didn't stick, huh, buddy?). That is four Warlords. The council table that Ansom had in book 1 had 5 Warlords to help track troop movements and opposing ideas about tactics. Is it really so bad to get differing personalities working on the same side? If it makes the comic more interesting, then it's something that you'll enjoy, right?

(Quick run down of personalities: Antium, rigid and exact. Lacrosse, the comic relief idiot that likes everyone but doesn't understand that he's a crude nitwit. Scarlet, the battle happy lady that only feels alive in a fight. Ossomer, Mr. Might-Makes-Right and a sense of lost self. Archer, (speculative, as he's only had 1 line) the crafty professional that doesn't mince words. And if added, Artemis, the Huntress that is driven to be effective and productive, and cannot stand being idle. That seems like a very good set of characters to see battlefields through. Almost like a D&D party.)

3rd, I have to say what happened was not beautiful, it was wonderfully tragic. I actually had to sit around a little while and process what had happened. With the complete shutting down of every act Artemis took, as if the game was cheating her every effort, I can only take comfort in the possibility that she may be given a second chance to do something worthwhile if she is Decrypted. I can't help rooting for her to get a chance at redeeming her abilities in the service of GK and Wanda than having her story end on such a note. If there is anything I have learned from studying story structure it is that characters have to hit bottom (a story term used is they have to die, this time it as literal) before they can mature and experience character growth, i.e. have their turning point.

I do not think of what happened to Artemis as being a blaze of glory. It is her blaze of glory that I am looking forward to, once she has matured even more as a character.

[Swodaems]

inside her there was a former Royal who had been there.

Wait a second, was Sylvia's thinking of herself as a former Royal in the sense that she was once part of a Royal side or as someone with the powerful Royal attribute? Was she once one of Bea's daughters? She's currently refered to as Lady Sylvia Lazarus, but Lady seems to be a generic title applied to anyone of rank.

[lodo_bear]

inside her there was a former Royal who had been there.

Wait a second, was Sylvia's thinking of herself as a former Royal in the sense that she was once part of a Royal side or as someone with the powerful Royal attribute? Was she once one of Bea's daughters? She's currently refered to as Lady Sylvia Lazarus, but Lady seems to be a generic title applied to anyone of rank.

She could have been a Duchess. Warlord Adam Antium used to consider himself a Duke until he was Decrypted. I suspect that most of the Warlords on Royal sides are semi-royal themselves, like Duke Lacrosse or Count Vinny.

[The.Healing.Mage]

American Indians? Not exterminated. Became a problem later.
Eastern European jews? Not exterminated. Became a problem later.

Dude, WTF?!
...
And the Eastern European Jews example is so bizzarely beyond the pale it's ridiculous. Who-wha-why? You mean, Hitler (so this argument is now officially over, carry on in the next thread) lost because some Jews got away?

Many the scientists in the Manhattan Project were German Jews who fled Nazism right before the war. However, that doesn't necessarily validate what he said in any way.

Also, Godwin's Law. This conversation is officially over. Which of course means that Rob has to put up another comic or text update. (Success? )

[BLANDCorporatio]

Hah, I missed this-

Random debris represents an unlucky critical failure. Blocking with her sword is a defending action that may have some bonus to defence.

You shouldn't think about it in terms of the physics of the matter. If Sylvia's bonus is less than Artemis' then there's nothing she can do to stop the arrow. The debris simply represented a critical failure on the shot. In actuality what happened was something like this.

{snip. Lots of detail, imo completely unsupported by canon}

I'll take your numbers and systems for the characters' stats to be an illustration of a point, rather than a model of how Erfworld actually worked in that occasion.

With that understanding, I'm still puzzled. Obviously Artemis can still miss, and whether you call that a bad roll or whatever, the possibility exists. You also admit that Sylvia's defensive actions are, system-wise, another roll which in effect reduces the other, the attack roll. I'd not use such specific language, but just say that Sylvia can nudge the chances of Artemis' attacks, through her defensive actions.

Lots (all?) gaming systems work like that. So why is it unbelievable that Sylvia could have knocked one of Artemis' arrows out of the sky with a parry?

Many the scientists in the Manhattan Project were German Jews who fled Nazism right before the war. However, that doesn't necessarily validate what he said in any way.

Considering how the atom bomb was actually used, yeah, little relevance to that overarching point.

[drachefly]

Parrying is unbelieveable not mechanically, but narratively. If the point is that probability is going haywire, then it's made. Sylvia parrying wouldn't make any point at all.

And Godwin's thread-ending rule doesn't apply to discussions of genocide.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Parrying is unbelieveable not mechanically, but narratively. If the point is that probability is going haywire, then it's made. Sylvia parrying wouldn't make any point at all.

You're late:

I guess. But when random debris can do the job, you'd think a purposeful blade stands a chance as well.

Of course, the purposeful blade carries a different meaning. We'd be speculating less about Titanic involvement and GM fiat, and more about how Sylvia counted to infinity twice, in that case.

Added emphasis, for emphasis.

[The.Healing.Mage]

I guess. But when random debris can do the job, you'd think a purposeful blade stands a chance as well.

Of course, the purposeful blade carries a different meaning. We'd be speculating less about Titanic involvement and GM fiat, and more about how Sylvia counted to infinity twice, in that case.

Added emphasis, for emphasis.

Once one of our gaming buddies rolled a natural 20 on his tumble check landing on a sloop that was attacking our frigate. The DM spent five minutes concocting a story about how epic the roll was, adding several Ghouls to the enemy party solely for the purpose of killing them in the mini narrative. It involved him firing a musket and two pistols into the crowd of ghouls before pulling a Jillian-vs.-Jenkins landing.

So I totally agree: mechanics-wise, it doesn't matter what blocks the shot, that's just narration. Falling rock or helmet or arrow, it's just a representation of rolling a miss. And everyone's overstating that last one - the arrows were more or less next to Artemis when they collided. She had barely released hers when the arrows broke each other. All things considered still highly improbable, but not the next-to-nothing middle-of-nowhere collision that it might seem like otherwise.


EDIT: also, is there any other reason to add emphasis?

[drachefly]

You're late:

I know. Someone didn't get the telegram, so I repeated. For emphasis. Sorry for not citing your original research.

[effataigus]

I wanted to complement the idea by (I always forget who says cool stuff) that the craziness of the misses is a reflection of the mentalities of the two individuals involved... Sylvia's fatalism and Artemis' overconfidence both demanding outrageous reasons for mundane misses. I don't buy it, but... neat idea.

However, if this is the case, this tells us something pretty booping crazy about Erfworld... that its narrative is governed by the expectations of the people living the story. Reminicient of Sphere (the novel).

This would have pretty profound implications for predictamancers... they might be on par with Titans and not even know it.

[Oberon]

Question: What major action has Lazarus done outside of text updates? I know she's a favorite, but I don't think she's any more important than the newly decripted in the portal room, she's not much more than a face if you only read the comics. If that is true it would acutally make sense to have her demise be in a text update, since thats where all her character development is.

She was one of the RCC warlords at the final assault on GK. She held the 'pliers (briefly, before being killed by the volcano) and felt their power call to her. This was all main comic action, and not text updates (although some of the explanation how holding the 'pliers felt to her was text update). She is still a fairly minor character, but no character seen in a comic is able to die during a text update unless that update is also published in the printed materials.

Her Knights accounted for more than the maximum number of targets for two reds

So even area attacks, no matter how destructive, could still leave quite a few uninjured survivors in the middle because they can only affect X number of units. [...] Oddly, it's a point in favor of quantity over quality, because it means even the most powerful unit in the world could swarmed by more enemies than they are allowed to attack at once.

I noticed the same thing and arrived at the same conclusions. It is a large point in favor of the TV model of combat bats. When those bats are boosted to the status of heavies and the dwagons they are facing can only hit so many with a breath weapon, the dwagons can be ripped apart by the weakest and probably cheapest of units.

One of the things I was really struck by in this update was how weak dwagons seemed to be. As far as we know, the main the the Hammer does is tames Dwagons. The arkenpliers can raise a whole army. So it seems like the dwagons should be really powerful if that's all the hammer gets. And they were unled, but still there were six dwagons vs. 12 knights and a warlord right? And they killed like 1 knight and hurt most of the others, but that's it?

By all accounts, the units with Artemis were all high level. Stanley's KISS units were called "knight class", and the one on Sylvia's mount was called a "Valkyrie-class Knight", which by the power of long labels means she was an especially potent knight. And these knights and high level knights were led by a very high level warlord whose bonus tops Sylvia's. Unled dwagons vs these elite and powerfully led units seems to be a fair match up.
The "arkenpliers can raise a whole army" theme rises from time to time. The 'tools are equal but different. If allowed their most advantageous circumstances they can be vastly potent. The 'pliers requires a win to be potent. Lose a combat or be forced to retreat, and you decrypt nothing and gain nothing. They are also a front line power. Neither the 'hammer nor the 'pliers risks Stanley or Charlie in combat. But Wanda has to be there to decrypt the fallen. I'm not at all arguing that the 'pliers don't have a significant ability, I'm just pointing out that it is equal but different from the abilities of the other 'tools.

It's like the GM rolling dice behind the screen, and cheating on the rolls. "Nope, your crit missed."

Yeah, this is why, when I GM, that I roll every roll in front of the players, with the sole exception of those rolls for which they do not know the meaning (and those are rare). I really hate "deus ex GM" campaigns, even if it means that luck can sway battles which ought to have gone one way or another. Speaking of luck, a falling ill-set flagstone, an arrow in flight, and a helmet blasted from the head of a unit are all vanishingly small probability blockers for arrow shots. Sylvia must have been breakfasting on luckamancy charms this morning...

Heh, n00b. Should have prerolled the 1s.

But, but, but...what if you accidentally shake out the 20s?1?One!??1!One!?Twenty(SEE!!!)?!

What the hell?

I've gotta agree. That was a post I was just going to ignore and hope it died the death of being ignored.

Sylvia was facing a close range level 8 archer warlord, while the chief warlord was in the city.

Does an unconscious CWL provide any bonus at all? I hope not.

[Dr Pepper]

I guess. But when random debris can do the job, you'd think a purposeful blade stands a chance as well.

Of course, the purposeful blade carries a different meaning. We'd be speculating less about Titanic involvement and GM fiat, and more about how Sylvia counted to infinity twice, in that case.

Added emphasis, for emphasis.

Once one of our gaming buddies rolled a natural 20 on his tumble check landing on a sloop that was attacking our frigate. The DM spent five minutes concocting a story about how epic the roll was, adding several Ghouls to the enemy party solely for the purpose of killing them in the mini narrative. It involved him firing a musket and two pistols into the crowd of ghouls before pulling a Jillian-vs.-Jenkins landing.

So I totally agree: mechanics-wise, it doesn't matter what blocks the shot, that's just narration. Falling rock or helmet or arrow, it's just a representation of rolling a miss. And everyone's overstating that last one - the arrows were more or less next to Artemis when they collided. She had barely released hers when the arrows broke each other. All things considered still highly improbable, but not the next-to-nothing middle-of-nowhere collision that it might seem like otherwise.


EDIT: also, is there any other reason to add emphasis?

I was in a game once where i threw a boomerang and missed, immediately afterward taking a sword blow that did a lot of damage and knocked me down. My opponent's arm came up to finish me and-- the GM rolled a 2. The GM said he didn't know how but the easy kill missed. I said maybe the boomerang had come back around and knocked the sword out of line. The GM said ok, we'll go with that.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Added emphasis, for emphasis.

EDIT: also, is there any other reason to add emphasis?

Of course not. I was just being redundant, by being redundant.

Speaking of luck, a falling ill-set flagstone, an arrow in flight, and a helmet blasted from the head of a unit are all vanishingly small probability blockers for arrow shots. Sylvia must have been breakfasting on luckamancy charms this morning...

In my country, such luck is usually greeted with a quesclamation about the lucky person's breakfast, implying that it consisted of rather unsavoury materials.

I've gotta agree. That was a post I was just going to ignore and hope it died the death of being ignored.

Yeah, I guess that'd have been wiser.

Does an unconscious CWL provide any bonus at all? I hope not.

Tremennis phtagn!