Book 2 – Page 72

[chefsotero]

Didn't want to tread again into the whole Magical Itens discussion, but reading back book 1 I stumble into this, When wand got smacked.

The staff of suckage got clearly shattered. And then parson is rocking it again.

Possibilities:

1 - Plain old mistake
2- Magic Itens get fixed by turn start
3- That was another one (kinda impling a D&D style list of std itens)
----3.1 - They had another one on the armory before
----3.2 - They got another one (either as spoil or made or bought)
----3.3 - (and that is the one hypotesis i find more interesting) Since cities come with libraries full of books already, maybe the armories also come stacked. So every level X city should come with a few itens already.


Just couldn't keep it inside. Cheers

[Sieggy]

Something I'm wondering about is the primary loyalty of the decrypted. It would seem to me that Ansom and Ossomer serve Wanda, and because Wanda says she's working for / with Stanley, they kind of go "ummm, OK, if you say so . . .". But as far as the decrypted are concerned, if it came down to a choice between Wanda & Stanley, Stanley is something of an abstraction. Wanda is boss, and that's that. I'm surprised that Ossomer hasn't told Slately straight up "Look, I don't serve Stanley. Stanley's a loose dog dropping. Wanda, however, is the Bitch Queen of Ultimate Hawtness, for She maketh my Codpiece chafe most painfully. She popped me again to serve her, not that idiot."

Of course, he may have that epiphany even yet - over and over, Slately has accused him of serving Stanley, and even someone as thickheaded as Oss should be able to figure this one out. Probably as Slately charges towards him shouting 'Ack Ack Ack!" . . .

I'm still wondering what would happen, though, if Slately falls and is decrypted. When he croaks, Field units vanish, and Garrison units go neutral, that's Canon. But if he's decrypted, what happens to the neutral units? It's been stated that Slately would no longer be ruler since he is now loyal to Wanda, but do we have any Canon on that? What happens to the loyalty and duty of those troops when Glorious Leader returns? Do they turn to Wanda, do they resume their previous state of subservience to their newly risen King, do they just sit there turning their thumbnails brown, or do they become something heretofore unknown on Erf - units with no loyalty or duty to any side at all? Assuming Trem survives (and he's just way too cool not to), think about the possibilities if Trem were a totally free agent with duty and loyalty to no one, not even the Titans . . .?

[Anias]

Wanda, however, is the Bitch Queen of Ultimate Hawtness, for She maketh my Codpiece chafe most painfully."

Quite possibly the best Erfworld-related line ever.

I'm still wondering what would happen, though, if Slately falls and is decrypted. When he croaks, Field units vanish, and Garrison units go neutral, that's Canon. But if he's decrypted, what happens to the neutral units? It's been stated that Slately would no longer be ruler since he is now loyal to Wanda, but do we have any Canon on that? What happens to the loyalty and duty of those troops when Glorious Leader returns? Do they turn to Wanda, do they resume their previous state of subservience to their newly risen King, do they just sit there turning their thumbnails brown, or do they become something heretofore unknown on Erf - units with no loyalty or duty to any side at all? Assuming Trem survives (and he's just way too cool not to), think about the possibilities if Trem were a totally free agent with duty and loyalty to no one, not even the Titans . . .?

Lots of issues arise. Since Slately will be Wanda's "Puppet," and subservient to her...do all his (i.e. Jetstone's) troops owe loyalty to her, then? Or does decrypting break that bond? We still don't know if Ossomer still counts as an heir for Jetstone, and there's still time for us to find out. As for turning barbarian...seems too boring a possibility, given that we have two Jetstone Princes, a Jetstone King, and their (potential) mistress, and her (theoretical) overlord all on hand (well, Stanley's back home, but still). Is all that potential drama and rule-breaking/creation of new rules going to be lost? I doubt it.

Possibilities include a decrypted Slately as JS leader, living Slately (captured), living Slately (escaped), living Slately (converted or allied, perhaps to be with his son(s), if he realizes that they're still people), decrypted Ossomer (loyal to Stanley, Wanda/Pliers, or even to himself/JS/honor), decrypted Tramennis, living Tramennis (captured) (well, he'll croak next turn if not healed, but there's no way he's going to die offscreen), living Tramennis (escaped), Wanda (as puppet-master), Stanley (as overlord of WHOEVER JS troops are supposed to be following). Did I miss any?

So many options! There's no way that the whole issue is going to be resolved as "Oh, that's the end of Jetstone, everyone can go home now." Plus, there's the relationships between the brothers, between the brothers and their father, between the father (king) and the Don...I could go on and on. There's just too much still to explore!

[Kreistor]

Lots of issues arise. Since Slately will be Wanda's "Puppet," and subservient to her...do all his (i.e. Jetstone's) troops owe loyalty to her, then? Or does decrypting break that bond? We still don't know if Ossomer still counts as an heir for Jetstone, and there's still time for us to find out.

Uhm... why don't we know? We do know. He does not count as heir.

Ansom died and was decrypted. His former Side was not made aware of his new existence, and so he did not become Chief Warlord of Jetstone the moment he decrypted. The timing of Ossomer's decryption is irrelevant. When he died, he lost all titles and responsibilities of his former life, including the position of Heir. The onyl difference between Ansom's death and Ossomer's is that Ossomer's death and decryption occurred in sight of surviving Jetstone units.

[oslecamo2_temp]

So many options! There's no way that the whole issue is going to be resolved as "Oh, that's the end of Jetstone, everyone can go home now." Plus, there's the relationships between the brothers, between the brothers and their father, between the father (king) and the Don...I could go on and on. There's just too much still to explore!

Not really interested in exploring that. In case you missed it, GK is out for a world-conquering spree. Jetstone is another step. So it will be more like "Oh, that's the end of Jetstone, who's next on our conquest list?".

Really it reminds me those people that wanted the Siege for GK to be an endless standstill. This is total war in Erfworld. Not a drama about some people or a story of a single city (altough those are included as subplots).

[drachefly]

People wanted that? Weird.

[Lamech]

Lots of issues arise. Since Slately will be Wanda's "Puppet," and subservient to her...do all his (i.e. Jetstone's) troops owe loyalty to her, then? Or does decrypting break that bond? We still don't know if Ossomer still counts as an heir for Jetstone, and there's still time for us to find out.

Uhm... why don't we know? We do know. He does not count as heir.

Ansom died and was decrypted. His former Side was not made aware of his new existence, and so he did not become Chief Warlord of Jetstone the moment he decrypted. The timing of Ossomer's decryption is irrelevant. When he died, he lost all titles and responsibilities of his former life, including the position of Heir. The onyl difference between Ansom's death and Ossomer's is that Ossomer's death and decryption occurred in sight of surviving Jetstone units.

IIRC, a new chief warlord was promoted before Ansom was decrypted. Furthermore Ansom kept his title of prince (or at least royal). So we have no idea what titles a decrypted king would keep. Although using the chief warlord as the example he won't replace any new king, and I would find it weird if his side went neutral and then reverted to Slately when he got decrypted.

[Infidel]

With a build-up like this, it's clear that the next page will be about Jillian or Don King, taking a tea break.

I hate your guts and am considering wrapping them around your neck as an improvised gallows.

Because you're totally right.

You both made me laugh.

Right now, I'm anticipating the tower falling, and Jack stays alive, although perhaps a bit squished, like a shoe that prevents the slamming of a door. Sure, slipping your foot in the door might keep the door open, but the foot won't be happy.

[Kreistor]

IIRC, a new chief warlord was promoted before Ansom was decrypted. Furthermore Ansom kept his title of prince (or at least royal). So we have no idea what titles a decrypted king would keep. Although using the chief warlord as the example he won't replace any new king, and I would find it weird if his side went neutral and then reverted to Slately when he got decrypted.

By "titles", I mena positions of power. Prince is a title that confers no power in Erfworld. Chief Warlrod confers power. Heir confers power.

We saw Ossomer decrypted. Was he immediately restored to Chief Warlord of Jetstone? Or, as a member of Gobwin Knob, was he just a Warlord of GK with no power over Jetstone troops? The latter, obviously. Decryption does not restore the positions of power that was lost with death, no matter how short a time passees between death and decryption.

[Anias]

Lots of issues arise. Since Slately will be Wanda's "Puppet," and subservient to her...do all his (i.e. Jetstone's) troops owe loyalty to her, then? Or does decrypting break that bond? We still don't know if Ossomer still counts as an heir for Jetstone, and there's still time for us to find out.

Uhm... why don't we know? We do know. He does not count as heir.

Ansom died and was decrypted. His former Side was not made aware of his new existence, and so he did not become Chief Warlord of Jetstone the moment he decrypted. The timing of Ossomer's decryption is irrelevant. When he died, he lost all titles and responsibilities of his former life, including the position of Heir. The onyl difference between Ansom's death and Ossomer's is that Ossomer's death and decryption occurred in sight of surviving Jetstone units.

As to his role as Chief Warlord? Yes, you're right. As for remaining as a Royal unit? Seems likely, since Sylvia still speaks of being a Royal, and Ossomer at least still thinks of himself as Noble. And yes, Royal units are different from non-royal units, though that's an inherent (popped) characteristic, rather than an appointed one like "heir" or "chief warlord." From what I can find in the comic/text, though, there's debate, even among the characters, as to what will happen. Ossomer believes, as shown in a text update (http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -01-29.png) that killing Slately will cause the side to go barbarian, so he does not believe that he (or Slately for that matter) could lead Jetstone as a decrypted. Parson, for his part (http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -12-24.jpg) says that "You have Jetstone's heir, so the whole side should fall (if Slately is killed). Or possibly convert, we don't know." So Parson clearly believes - and Wanda doesn't contradict him - that Ossomer is, for the moment, still Jetstone's heir, though what that might mean is up for debate.

[Anias]

So many options! There's no way that the whole issue is going to be resolved as "Oh, that's the end of Jetstone, everyone can go home now." Plus, there's the relationships between the brothers, between the brothers and their father, between the father (king) and the Don...I could go on and on. There's just too much still to explore!

Not really interested in exploring that. In case you missed it, GK is out for a world-conquering spree. Jetstone is another step. So it will be more like "Oh, that's the end of Jetstone, who's next on our conquest list?".

Really it reminds me those people that wanted the Siege for GK to be an endless standstill. This is total war in Erfworld. Not a drama about some people or a story of a single city (altough those are included as subplots).

I see your point - and I certainly don't want this to be an endless standstill - but I think that there's too much involved storywise for total war to completely destroy Jetstone.
-We have a fair number of characters (who are named, and developed to varying degrees) who are current or former members of Jetstone, including FOUR members of its royal family
-We have a number of characters or sides with relationships with Jetstone or its various characters, say, Haggar-Jetstone (though I don't know if that's going to go anywhere), and Transylvito-Jetstone
-We know that Jetstone has several cities remaining, including a BACKUP CAPITOL SITE
-We know that there is at least some potential for either or both of two different Jetstone leaders to escape and carry on the side (Slately, by flying - though Ossomer states that Slately's odds of doing so are virtually nil - and Tramennis, though he would have to be healed somehow). Also note that Charlie's ex-archons are discussing how Charlie himself could benefit by milking Jetstone, assuming Jetstone survives, and Charlie's already managed to make overtures to Jetstone that paint him as at least a potential contact for them in the future - remember that no one else is talking to him right now)
-We have the opportunity (from a narrative standpoint) to make Book 2's ending mirror Book 1's nicely. In Book 1, GK is attacked with overwhelming force, but GK's top units (a couple golems, a couple casters, a knight, a couple dwagons, a warlord, and an overlord) eventually flee, survive, and rebuild; in Book 2, JS is attacked with overwhelming force, but JS's top units (say, the casters, a couple of the knights with Tramennis, a couple unipegataurs, Tramennis and/or Slately...) could flee, survive, and rebuild.
-We have a pattern of how events play out in the two major battles we've seen (at GK and at Spacerock): Side 1 attacks with overwhelming force, and is sure to curbstomp Side 2. Side 2 pulls unique ploy/sneaky trick/whatever and the tables are turned. Side 1 then manages to employ some tactic, strategy, etc. that reverses the odds again. Pattern continues. I really shouldn't need to point out any of the examples involved here, but they include Parson's dwagon rotation to hit the seige (vs. Ansom's and Jillian's counter), Parson's trioxin-dance-fight defense (vs. Ansom's DDR), Ossomer's caster-deployment-and-strategery to hold GK at the Bridge until they could bring enough force (via Haggar) to take down GK (vs. GK's flier-strike on the city, vs. Kingworld, vs. the dwagon drop...). The chances that after all this, GK is finally going to be able to just crush the remnants of Jetstone, which still include several casters(remember, it only took 3 - albeit in a trimancer linkup - to bring down GK)...I'd say the odds are pretty low.

[Oberon]

My favorite explanation (as multiple people have advanced here) is simply that magic items, unlike combat units (until recently), don't change hands after a loss... tilting the balance in favor of creating units when spending your juice.

AAARGH! But that's the silliest thing I ever heard! Am I the only one seeing this?! I feel like I'm taking stupid pills.

No, you're not the only one. The events of the strip demonstrate that magic items do indeed change hands during combat. Jillian was captured, and also two magic items.

[BLANDCorporatio]

My favorite explanation (as multiple people have advanced here) is simply that magic items, unlike combat units (until recently), don't change hands after a loss... tilting the balance in favor of creating units when spending your juice.

AAARGH! But that's the silliest thing I ever heard! Am I the only one seeing this?! I feel like I'm taking stupid pills.

No, you're not the only one. The events of the strip demonstrate that magic items do indeed change hands during combat. Jillian was captured, and also two magic items.

Units, regardless of level/leadership skills, also may very well get croaked in battle. Nonetheless, this doesn't stop sides from having wars, and fielding said units.

"Thou shall not bank on failure."

[drachefly]

Wait. So you're seriously saying that taking a strategy that amplifies losses when you do have them has nothing wrong with it?

I'd see your saying and raise you "Thou shalt not bank on an uninterrupted string of success"

[BLANDCorporatio]

Wait. So you're seriously saying that taking a strategy that amplifies losses when you do have them has nothing wrong with it?

I'd see your saying and raise you "Thou shalt not bank on an uninterrupted string of success"

Whatever gave you that impression?

Here's me, two pages ago:

What I think is obviously wrong though is the idea that the possibility of items changing hands is an argument against items. {effataigus} put it best: "one shouldn't bank on failing".

Of course, if an army is faced with a hopeless situation, then arranging for the high level Warlords to get the hell outta Dodge, with all the high-powered items they can carry, completely makes sense. What doesn't is to have the possibility of a hopeless situation as the default assumption. Why go to war at all in that case?

In other words, if you think a high-powered asset is too precious to risk just because you might lose- not just, might lose in the specific situation you're in right now, but you assume loss as the likely outcome, whatever happens- you're not planning properly. As a consequence, you're not using your powerful asset and in effect cause a danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy (loss).

Planning properly includes contingencies for things going awry. In specific ways, with specific responses. Whatever happens to the plan (because it may need changing to adapt to new facts), it should be such that you use your capabilities properly. But you do not just throw something in the closet on the off-chance the nasty neighbour might get a hold of it and call it a plan.

EXAMPLE:

Stealth bombers are incredibly advanced pieces of tech. We sure don't want them **** in possession of it. We cannot afford to have a stealth plane shot down and captured by the enemy to reverse engineer. So we'll never use stealth bombers.

The above is stupid. It skips the question "can the enemy plausibly shoot down one of our stealth planes?" If the answer is NO, then stealth bombs away. If the answer is YES, you find ways to make it NO, or just use something else at your disposal.

[Infidel]

But you do not just throw something in the closet on the off-chance the nasty neighbour might get a hold of it and call it a plan.

EXAMPLE:

Stealth bombers are incredibly advanced pieces of tech. We sure don't want them **** in possession of it. We cannot afford to have a stealth plane shot down and captured by the enemy to reverse engineer. So we'll never use stealth bombers.

The above is stupid. It skips the question "can the enemy plausibly shoot down one of our stealth planes?" If the answer is NO, then stealth bombs away. If the answer is YES, you find ways to make it NO, or just use something else at your disposal.

While I agree with your point, that sort of thinking has taken hold now and again. Always to bad ends. For example, the clearly inferior Chauchat gun was adopted by the US in WW1 by General Pershing and was retained as long as possible over the Browning Automatic Rifle, to keep Germans from capturing and reverse engineering the superior Browning.

We have had at least one incident that I am aware of a Stealth Bomber being shot down. In general, the policy is rescue the pilots, and bomb the crap out of the plane to make it unsalvageable. Historically, it has been proven pretty conclusively that it is better to stack the odds in your favor as much as possible compared to deliberately giving the enemy an advantage for mere hypothetical gain.

[Sieggy]

Actually, it was a stealth fighter, the F-117 that was shot down by a missile in the Bosnian conflict. I'm familiar with the circumstances of the mission, and I can safely say that the shootdown was a combination of some rather brilliant improvisation on the part of the missiliers and a pure bloody cockup on the part of the coalition forces. Had they followed their own procedures and mission parameters, the mission would have been scrubbed, but arrant stupidity and a sense of superiority (they can't hit US, we're invisible!) on the part of the UN staff led to the loss of the supposedly invincible aircraft. Proof that wishful thinking, unproven assumptions, and blind arrogance are a great recipe for rude awakenings . . .

[Oberon]

The good thing about you, there's so many of you.

Cubbins is the biggest flaw in this theory that I see, since we don't know that he can make units at all.

It's actually even worse than that. The flaw in any theory about the relative merits of unit creation is that we don't have unit stats. Sure, it's easy to say that a dwagon is superior to a pikeman, but in any balanced system the multiple pikemen popped in a single turn and multiplied over the several turns needed to pop a dwagon should result in a fairly equal final comparison. In other words, if you can pop a dozen pikes per turn and one dwagon in 6 turns, 72 pikes should be able to destroy the dwagon in a straight up fight, since the dwagon comes with breath weapon specials, flight, and a much higher movement rate on top of being a superior combat unit to any single pike unit. The pikes can be distributed across several hexes, but that's not a special so much as it is the advantage of numbers.

[Infidel]

Actually, it was a stealth fighter, the F-117 that was shot down by a missile in the Bosnian conflict. I'm familiar with the circumstances of the mission, and I can safely say that the shootdown was a combination of some rather brilliant improvisation on the part of the missiliers and a pure bloody cockup on the part of the coalition forces. Had they followed their own procedures and mission parameters, the mission would have been scrubbed, but arrant stupidity and a sense of superiority (they can't hit US, we're invisible!) on the part of the UN staff led to the loss of the supposedly invincible aircraft. Proof that wishful thinking, unproven assumptions, and blind arrogance are a great recipe for rude awakenings . . .

In the US, it is always US vs. Them.

Thanks for the correction, it was a few years ago. I remember the surrounding circumstances. Checking again my sources, I noticed that some refer to the F-117 as a fighter, and others as a bomber. For what it is worth, it was making a bombing run when it was shot down.

[sleepymancer]

Right now, I'm anticipating the tower falling, and Jack stays alive, although perhaps a bit squished, like a shoe that prevents the slamming of a door. Sure, slipping your foot in the door might keep the door open, but the foot won't be happy.

Interesting viewpoint. Are you implying that the moment that Jack realised the implications of playing jenga, Duty compelled him to stick his head through the portal to force it to stay open for as long as possible? That would certainly fit with how I understand the world mechanics. It would also add weight to the argument that the portal closing won't be like unto a guillotine.

Question for the rules-lawyers, regarding the head-through-the-portal-only: are we taking that to mean that Jack hasn't left his hex? Which presumably would mean that he can't use Foolamancy in the Magic Kingdom hex to help Parson. Or is that already a moot-point as Foolamancy can't be done off-turn?

In other words, if you can pop a dozen pikes per turn and one dwagon in 6 turns, 72 pikes should be able to destroy the dwagon in a straight up fight

nah - I reckon it would take 73 pikers in a straight up fight against a Dwagon, otherwise it would be mutual destruction :p