Part II is going to be from the Wack from Faq's point of view. *Sob* Coooooome baaaaaack Waaandaaaaaa! *Sniffle*
This means that either there's going to be a huuuuuuuuuuge time jump... Or Jillian was likely popped in response to Marie spotting Wanda. I'm thinking 'self fulflilling prophecy'...
Oberon wrote:I've brought up the 'Lady' issue before. Fact is, in Stupidworld 'Lady' and 'Lord' are titles of nobility. The usage in Erfworld may differ in meaning, but in a non-noble side with an Overlord rather than a King or a Queen, having units popped into that side with the title of Lady does muddy a lot of water.
So are Knights though, I agree that the title 'Lady' indicates some sort of heightened social status, perhaps minor nobility, but when they say 'noble', they seem to mean someone like the Vicount of Vitalis. Of course, Wanda's has the whole 'Overlord's daughter' thing going, in terms of position in her Side she's the social equivalent of a Princess.
I would think "Lord Hamster" would settle it, he was not popped royal or noble (or hell, even popped), and furthermore he is not even on a noble or royal side. He is quite literally as far removed from the concept as a unit can be, and boom, five minutes into Erfworld and he gets to pick the title and from then on it is his. For free. In Erfworld terms, Lord (and by extension lady) is pretty much meaningless as a title. All the good titles cost schmuckers.
Furthermore, units even KNOW that Lord is not worth a hill of beans, check it out.http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F091.jpg
I suppose the only question is why we don't see MORE ladies and lords.
I will have to reread to find out!
He could have called himself the Baron of Fentlewick just as easily. He could actually, really be
the Baron of Fentlewick and it would hold as much value on Erf as if he'd invented the title on the spot. Actually now I think of it, have they ever used the title of 'Baron'?
It doesn't necessarily mean that 'Lord' has no
value, just that it isn't enough for Ansom's standards.
No you mention it, we may actually have seen more Kings/Queens than we have Lords/Ladies.
Kreistor wrote: I have no idea how you got there from my statements.
Anyway, I just reviewed Book 1, and Wanda's scrolls came from her private stash. But note that when Wanda was asked why she didn't mention them, she does not respond with "They're mine to use as I please", but with "You didn't [ask]". Remember that this game treats all Units of a Side somewhat as slaves. Possession and ownership are cloudy issues.
You don't give an allied Barbarian 500000 schmuckers to buy a spell and let her walk into the MK with it.
There is no chance that we're this deep into Book 2 and it hasn't been mentioned that Wanda is a Barbarian ally. I don't know how you can even entertain the idea. That would have been on the original character pages.
Barbarian is barbarian, regardless of how you got there. No one can tell the difference. Ansom couldn't tell Jillian was a Royal, much less a dethroned Overlord. Wanda is, in Book 0, a Barbarian, and it matters not one little bit how she got that way, except to her own ego. We know barbarian casters can join Sides, so at this point, no, Wanda is a member of GK until something specifically says otherwise.
Go back and re-read that. You grossly misinterpreted my statement. I was calling a rule that distinguished between Barbarian and Sided Warlords for the purposes of determining who could Turn as petty, which is dead opposite to your interpretation. I want them treated identically with no exception for Side status, which treats both the same: fair treatment for two differently described individuals cannot be characterized as petty.
It is what you are arguing in support of, with regards to Wanda and Parson. We are after all, talking of a scenario in which she is an ally, rather than another of his slaves.
Notice how he interrupted her before she could finish speaking? What was it she was about say he didn't ask about, hmm? Allied, means allied, it means she has her own purse and her own possessions, things that are hers and no one elses.
You do if you trust her implicitly and the alternative is letting the money fall into the hands of your sworn enemy. Even if she spent the money on a perfect girlfriend spell and eloped, he'd still have had all the money he'd need if Ansom couldn't be stopped.
By that argument, neither Wanda, nor Jillian can be deposed Rulers/Heirs as it wasn't mentioned in the cast pages.
The only time a Barbarian Caster from the Magick Kingdom is known to have joined forces with a Capital Side, Jillian's Turnawitch, she did so under contract. To head off any claims about the Vampires' Moneymancer, captured Cities keep on popping the same kind of Units as they did prior to capture unless razed and rebuilt, mark that. Barbarians can be hired. They've been shown to be hired. Never have they been shown to be absorbed.
Barbarian Warlords are
Sided Warlords. Non-Capital Sides. Some of them, like Wanda, lead
non-Capital Sides, as an Overlord would lead a Capital Side. No Ruler has ever been turned. Nor for that matter, has their been any known occurance of Natural Allies, non-Capital Sides against whom Barbarian Sides would be balanced, turning. Breaking alliance yes, abandoning their Tribe to serve as a Capital Side Unit? Never. And again, Wanda was promoted to heir at great expense, that isn't something that can be handwaved away, to do so would violate Numbers. Sure it's an invisible stat, but so what, so's a Caster's Discipline.