Summer Updates - 040

[The Shadow]

*groooan* Along with all the other great things in this update, I only just now noticed the "River Phoenix" pun. :)

[Furousha]

On another note, anyone want to hazard a guess as to what a Regency is? Yes, obviously its there for the pun. However, its apparently not ruled by royalty. Historically, a Regent was an individual who ruled when the actual monarch was still to young to effectively rule and were suppose to step aside when the monarch reached maturity. How that translates in a world where heirs are popped fully formed... I'm still debating.

Historicaly, a Regent was often a member of the royal family, and sometimes the heir (e.g. the British Regency period when George III was mentally incapacitated and his son and heir (the future George IV) ruled as Prince-Regent).

That suggests that a "Regency" in this context may be a city or group of cities managed by an heir who has not split off into a separate side but is generally allowed to run things without much interference from the ruler.

There is a bit of a flaw in that theory... with those parameters, Jetstone could be considered a Regency... It's been established that the King of Jetstone is extremely Hands off, letting the chief warlord to make much of the decisions without his interference... I think it would be pretty unlikely that Ossomer would take the time to make the distinction that Hyatt was technically a Regency if in fact Jetstone was as well... Though it is possible that the distinction is made between "unwilling" and "incapable" perhaps jetstone isn't a regency because the King is technically able to do whatever he wants with his side whenever he wants to, he just chooses to let the chief warlord run things, but if he was unable to perform the duties of a ruler than the person who was filling those duties would be considered a Regent... but if the person who was filling those duties was, in fact, a born Prince and a Royal heir, why make the distinction?

Another possibility is that some circumstances may cause a ruler to become incapacitated (the spell backlash that hit Wanda shows that there are some things that don't just go away when units heal at the start of the turn), and the heir assumes the ruler's duties.

With the little information we have at the moment this seems much more likely... though it seemed like Ossomer was looking down his nose at Hyatt with his thoughts... that may just be speculation or reading too far into things. I would think that a royalty obsessed faction wouldn't disapprove of a Prince Chief Warlord ruling a kingdom for an otherwise incapable ruler. if that ruler had been croaked instead of incapacitated, that "Prince-Regent" would have become King, and be of legitimately Royal blood... So why make the distinction? (except to get a chuckle with a pun...)

Perhaps the difference is between a "Popped" Heir and an Heir Designate? I could see a faction like Jetstone making a differentiation between an heir by "titanic Mandate" (that is being popped, or "born" as an Heir, like Ansom, Ossomer, Tramennis, and Jillian. And being made an "heir Designate" such as Caesar or Stanley-as-chief-warlord... the former being "barely a Royal" the latter being nothing more than common infantry...

It's a very minor differentiation.. but Ceaser was ordered as a Warlord when he was popped, Jillian, Ansom, Ossomer, and Tramennis were ordered as heirs... heirs seem to be considered "children" of the current ruler, therefore a member of the Royal bloodline, and Designated Heirs are not members of the Royal Bloodline (at least not directly).

So is it possible that a "regency" would be a kingdom being ruled by someone who is not a born heir or "child" of the former ruler? For example, (not saying these examples are likely, or even possible, just using them as examples) had Ossomer gone through with his threat and "spun the conquered Haggar off into a new side with Ossomer himself as king" (or if Ansom had captured GK and spun that off into his new side) Wouldn't that new side be considered legitimately Royal? With a Ruler as a direct descendant of a Royal Family i don't think either example would considered a Regency of Jetstone, even if they were allied... OTOH if Caesar has spun off Faq into a new side maybe that would be considered a Regency of TV since he wasn't born a prince? Or if a completely non-Royal chief Warlord (ala Stanley) was nominally running a side?



Although, this is what I think makes the most sense at this particular point:

Maybe the Ruler was incapacitated as Steve suggests and there was not a popped heir, just a non-royal chief warlord and an heir in production. Say the "Prince" was croaked in battle, on the next turn the ruler Designated his highest ranked Warlord as "heir designate" to prevent the side from going barbarian if the ruler was croaked, and on the same turn ordered a new Heir to be popped. Then on some subsequent turn after the new heir had been ordered, but before they were popped, the ruler was in fact croaked or incapacitated, making the non-royal Heir-Designate chief warlord the new ruler by default, meanwhile, there is a Royal heir who is a "child" of the former Royal ruler "in production" perhaps this is the Erfworld equavilancy of childhood/infancy/in the womb, there is technically a Royal heir in existence, because he/she has been ordered, but he/she is unable to Rule, so there is a non-royal regent ruling in the interim until the heir officially pops, and the current Regent plans to step aside once the new heir is popped, such intentions would be in line with Ossomer's "but committed to preserving Royal supremacy" comment...

or maybe we're just reading too far into a pun...

[DevilDan]

What about my theory that it's a side that was spun off under the leadership of a warlord or noble?

[raphfrk]

Maybe the Ruler was incapacitated as Steve suggests and there was not a popped heir, just a non-royal chief warlord and an heir in production. Say the "Prince" was croaked in battle, on the next turn the ruler Designated his highest ranked Warlord as "heir designate" to prevent the side from going barbarian if the ruler was croaked, and on the same turn ordered a new Heir to be popped. Then on some subsequent turn after the new heir had been ordered, but before they were popped, the ruler was in fact croaked or incapacitated, making the non-royal Heir-Designate chief warlord the new ruler by default, meanwhile, there is a Royal heir who is a "child" of the former Royal ruler "in production" perhaps this is the Erfworld equavilancy of childhood/infancy/in the womb, there is technically a Royal heir in existence, because he/she has been ordered, but he/she is unable to Rule, so there is a non-royal regent ruling in the interim until the heir officially pops, and the current Regent plans to step aside once the new heir is popped, such intentions would be in line with Ossomer's "but committed to preserving Royal supremacy" comment...

That seems reasonable. However, it could also be that the "Prince" has actually popped, but the side is still ruled by an overlord.

Thus, a regency could be a side with an Overlord as Ruler, but with a Royal as Heir. The point being that it is still a Royal side, it is just being ruled by an Overlord until the Overlord croaks.

[Justyn]

Although, this is what I think makes the most sense at this particular point:

Maybe the Ruler was incapacitated as Steve suggests and there was not a popped heir, just a non-royal chief warlord and an heir in production. Say the "Prince" was croaked in battle, on the next turn the ruler Designated his highest ranked Warlord as "heir designate" to prevent the side from going barbarian if the ruler was croaked, and on the same turn ordered a new Heir to be popped. Then on some subsequent turn after the new heir had been ordered, but before they were popped, the ruler was in fact croaked or incapacitated, making the non-royal Heir-Designate chief warlord the new ruler by default, meanwhile, there is a Royal heir who is a "child" of the former Royal ruler "in production" perhaps this is the Erfworld equavilancy of childhood/infancy/in the womb, there is technically a Royal heir in existence, because he/she has been ordered, but he/she is unable to Rule, so there is a non-royal regent ruling in the interim until the heir officially pops, and the current Regent plans to step aside once the new heir is popped, such intentions would be in line with Ossomer's "but committed to preserving Royal supremacy" comment...

I've been thinking something similar. But I'm not sure if a Ruler can just "step down", without disbanding himself (if that can be done at all), so I'm not sure how it would work.

EDIT: Whoa, hivemind.

[raphfrk]

I've been thinking something similar. But I'm not sure if a Ruler can just "step down", without disbanding himself (if that can be done at all), so I'm not sure how it would work.

It seems that a Ruler can cede cities to his Heir (as Ossomer threatened to do) and then that Heir becomes a Ruler. Standing down could be achieved by ceding all of his cities.

Also, it seems that Rulers do seem to care about their Heirs. Otherwise, there would be no reason to ever split the side into 2. The Ruler might as well keep all of his cities.

[Justyn]

I've been thinking something similar. But I'm not sure if a Ruler can just "step down", without disbanding himself (if that can be done at all), so I'm not sure how it would work.

It seems that a Ruler can cede cities to his Heir (as Ossomer threatened to do) and then that Heir becomes a Ruler. Standing down could be achieved by ceding all of his cities.

Also, it seems that Rulers do seem to care about their Heirs. Otherwise, there would be no reason to ever split the side into 2. The Ruler might as well keep all of his cities.

Something gives me the impression that Ossomer wouldn't have asked Slately for permission to just take some cities and make a new side... if he actually planned to do so rather than just used it as a threat.

[Furousha]

I've been thinking something similar. But I'm not sure if a Ruler can just "step down", without disbanding himself (if that can be done at all), so I'm not sure how it would work.

It seems that a Ruler can cede cities to his Heir (as Ossomer threatened to do) and then that Heir becomes a Ruler. Standing down could be achieved by ceding all of his cities.

Also, it seems that Rulers do seem to care about their Heirs. Otherwise, there would be no reason to ever split the side into 2. The Ruler might as well keep all of his cities.

Something gives me the impression that Ossomer wouldn't have asked Slately for permission to just take some cities and make a new side... if he actually planned to do so rather than just used it as a threat.

I believe what he meant that after Ossomer took the cities by force they would technically belong to the king of Jetstone, and then the King would Cede those cities to Ossomer, thus creating a new side... though it hasnt been established what exactly is the benifit of splintering off a new side... beside loosing your best warlord...

[Justyn]

It seems that a Ruler can cede cities to his Heir (as Ossomer threatened to do) and then that Heir becomes a Ruler. Standing down could be achieved by ceding all of his cities.

Also, it seems that Rulers do seem to care about their Heirs. Otherwise, there would be no reason to ever split the side into 2. The Ruler might as well keep all of his cities.

Something gives me the impression that Ossomer wouldn't have asked Slately for permission to just take some cities and make a new side... if he actually planned to do so rather than just used it as a threat.

I believe what he meant that after Ossomer took the cities by force they would technically belong to the king of Jetstone, and then the King would Cede those cities to Ossomer, thus creating a new side... though it hasnt been established what exactly is the benifit of splintering off a new side... beside loosing your best warlord...

Which is why I would assume that the Ruler has nothing to do with it, and it's all on the heir.

[Furousha]

Maybe the Ruler was incapacitated as Steve suggests and there was not a popped heir, just a non-royal chief warlord and an heir in production. Say the "Prince" was croaked in battle, on the next turn the ruler Designated his highest ranked Warlord as "heir designate" to prevent the side from going barbarian if the ruler was croaked, and on the same turn ordered a new Heir to be popped. Then on some subsequent turn after the new heir had been ordered, but before they were popped, the ruler was in fact croaked or incapacitated, making the non-royal Heir-Designate chief warlord the new ruler by default, meanwhile, there is a Royal heir who is a "child" of the former Royal ruler "in production" perhaps this is the Erfworld equavilancy of childhood/infancy/in the womb, there is technically a Royal heir in existence, because he/she has been ordered, but he/she is unable to Rule, so there is a non-royal regent ruling in the interim until the heir officially pops, and the current Regent plans to step aside once the new heir is popped, such intentions would be in line with Ossomer's "but committed to preserving Royal supremacy" comment...

That seems reasonable. However, it could also be that the "Prince" has actually popped, but the side is still ruled by an overlord.

Thus, a regency could be a side with an Overlord as Ruler, but with a Royal as Heir. The point being that it is still a Royal side, it is just being ruled by an Overlord until the Overlord croaks.

yeah, that also crossed my mind... just didnt want to make my scenario too overly complicated by adding other possibilities. ^_^

This brings the question of how much knowledge someone is popped with, and how much they gain through leveling (a question that will hopefully be answered when Jillian's heir is popped) the new heir should be a level 1 warlord... though to my knowledge it's hasnt been said that heir's absolutely CAN'T be casters so that possibility cant be excluded. it's quite possible that the Regent has 8 or 9 levels and three or four hundred turns of experience on an heir that is just a few turns "old" and is grooming the heir and passing his/her knowledge along.

It also brings up the question, does a heir designate HAVE to be the chief warlord? or can it be any warlord? Having a level 1, 2, 3 etc chief warlord would seem highly inadvisable if you've got warlords in the 5-10 range...

So if the Heir to Hyatt was in fact, just a Lvl 1-4 regular warlord, would it be possible that we may see that character leading Hyatt's faction of the RCC #2? To level up and gain experience so that he/she may move closer to becoming the leader of their faction? (though we may likely see Jillian's heir in the same capacity... assuming He/She isnt a philosopher/hippiemancer... :p)

[Furousha]

Which is why I would assume that the Ruler has nothing to do with it, and it's all on the heir.

Maybe it just has something to do with an Heir capturing a capital site, giving the heir the option to create a new side, whether it's with or without their former Ruler's blessing is pretty hard to speculate on...

[Glenn]

There might also be advantages to splitting off some cities to create a new side. For example, is there such a thing as an Emperor on Erfworld? If a Ruler has the allegiance of one or more other Rulers, is he elevated to a higher status? If something like that is possible, then maybe Stanley might be willing to allow Wanda to take personal control of UniRoyal, once she's conquered that side, in return for her continued allegiance?

[raphfrk]

Maybe it just has something to do with an Heir capturing a capital site, giving the heir the option to create a new side, whether it's with or without their former Ruler's blessing is pretty hard to speculate on...

That is an interesting question. Maybe a capital cannot be taken without forming a new side.

[raphfrk]

There might also be advantages to splitting off some cities to create a new side. For example, is there such a thing as an Emperor on Erfworld? If a Ruler has the allegiance of one or more other Rulers, is he elevated to a higher status? If something like that is possible, then maybe Stanley might be willing to allow Wanda to take personal control of UniRoyal, once she's conquered that side, in return for her continued allegiance?

Maybe Parson can bring the idea of a federation to Erfworld and the "higher" natural loyalty that it entails.

[Yosarian]

Historically, a "regency" usually happens when the current hair to the throne, the current rightful king, can't rule (when the actual king is, say, a small child); in that case, someone else does the practical job of ruling, often an uncle or something, in the King's name, until the King comes of age and can rule in his own name.

Not sure how that would work in Erfworld, though.

[Furousha]

Maybe it just has something to do with an Heir capturing a capital site, giving the heir the option to create a new side, whether it's with or without their former Ruler's blessing is pretty hard to speculate on...

That is an interesting question. Maybe a capital cannot be taken without forming a new side.

That's an interesting point... it would go hand in hand with the natural state of Erfworld (war) as it would prevent one faction from overrunning all others... however I think this idea is contradicted by Ossomer threatening King dickie with: "Unless they accepted alliance, Jetstone would march on the capital and annex Haggar into a greater kingdom, perhaps then spinning it off into a new side with Ossomer himself as King."

Emphases on "Annex Haggar into a greater kingdom" I'm pretty sure this implies that Jetstone (and anyone else conquering an entire side) would have the option of keeping all of Haggar's cities, including their capital site, or re-founding the faction under Ossomer, so it would not seem to be mandatory...

Maybe the benefit of spinning off new sides is that you get to keep the natural allies? that is to say if you just claimed a kingdom's city's and absorbed them into your own, those cities would now be able to produce your natural allies, but would loose the ability to produce the former kingdom's natural allies?

That would also further explain why TV was so adamant about Jillian reclaiming Faq, and not taking it for themselves... if TV claimed the Faq city sites they would no longer be able to produce Megalogwifs and gwiffons, and instead would be able to produce bats... Which would explain also why Don King was thinking of having Caesar claim Faq as a new side, to keep the ability to produce flying heavies. Though he wasnt really keen on loosing his best warlord in order to get those flying heavies... hence pushing Jillian into it...

TV's got fighters in spades, but they lack battleships that can take dwagons on 1 to 1. a but load of bats with several warlords seem to be able to hold their own against a flight of dwagons, but what are the odds that TV is going to keep a half dozen warlords in the same hex for an entire war? and if they do, the uber stack cant be at every city on the front line at once... so getting some flying heavies that they can supplement with a butt load of bats and only one warlord would allow TV to field a half dozen or so stacks able to take on a stack of GK airpower, which would be much better for battlespace coverage...


Oh, and does anyone else think Haggar is going to be about as helpful in the RCC #2 as the Tardy Elves were in the RCC #1... they kinda seem like a buncha slackers to me...

[Guurzak]

If they can manage to stalemate Wanda somewhere...keep her tied up for a while...tie her down

I like the way you think.

Hey, I though Wanda was the one that did the tieing up in this comic?

Breaking a domme's will is SO much more fun than having a sub just give it to you...

[Danetrix]

Oh, and does anyone else think Haggar is going to be about as helpful in the RCC #2 as the Tardy Elves were in the RCC #1... they kinda seem like a buncha slackers to me...

At last Haggar's kingdom is much closer to Jetstone then what the Tardy Elves appeared to be. So they may be forced into usefulness.

[gaiaswill]

Unlike Ossomer, I don't see any great value in having an ally that hates you and is your neighbor. I think I'd rather "secure the border" than risk (another) ambush. Haggar has already proven their lack of respect for Jetstone by attacking them post-RCC I. Unless Ossomer can make sure Haggar forces bear the brunt of combat, I'd be concerned about betrayal or desertion per Murphy--at the poorest timing.

[Lightbender]

It was an empty threat, it says as much in the update. That is, he couldn't just waltz in and take it with easy like he threatened, he was bluffing.