Book 2 - Page 15

[PlotArmour]

1) We don't know that she just can't turn, we haven't been told the mechanics.
2) If she takes Jetstone/turns Jetstone, then she'll have all the money she needs to start off, especially when the 13 other cities (we know of) that she controls also hand over their treasuries to her. Remember, almost the entire army works for her.
3) Wanda is bound to duty... but as I understand it, you can be bound to a higher duty (like to the titans, etc), and Wanda has explicitly stated she owes her duty to fate. We've already seen her showing she was happy to trade off Stanley's life when she first worked for him, because she thought he would die in the attack on FAQ.

I think there are alot of moments where disbanding long distance would have been helpful if it were possible, so it seems all the evidence is the other way... if it were possible, why not have the Queen of Unaroyal escape with a small band, and disband everyone else after spending the treasury?

[BCCroaker]

You're welcome, and there's another reference in there too though it's not as famous and as such is a bit problematic. Might require some detective work to locate.

Godhead Pickle Inspector "Fondly Regard Creation"

[MonteCristo]

2) If she takes Jetstone/turns Jetstone, then she'll have all the money she needs to start off, especially when the 13 other cities (we know of) that she controls also hand over their treasuries to her. Remember, almost the entire army works for her.
3) Wanda is bound to duty... but as I understand it, you can be bound to a higher duty (like to the titans, etc), and Wanda has explicitly stated she owes her duty to fate. We've already seen her showing she was happy to trade off Stanley's life when she first worked for him, because she thought he would die in the attack on FAQ.

2) again i repeat, Wanda is not a ruler/heir and thus can not become a ruler by herself; she can not become her own side. As per the mechanic's of erfworld, only a ruler/heir can start a new side
3) No, she was a faq unit and was working for banhammer back then. Stanely was just a fool from another side that she manipulated into serving her own ends; it was more like he was working for her... though it resulted in the unintended consequence of faq falling instead and her joining Stanely. THAT'S when she first started working for Stanely

[Sinrus]

only a ruler/heir can start a new side

Prove it. Find one shred of canon that says that.

[PlotArmour]

2) If she takes Jetstone/turns Jetstone, then she'll have all the money she needs to start off, especially when the 13 other cities (we know of) that she controls also hand over their treasuries to her. Remember, almost the entire army works for her.
3) Wanda is bound to duty... but as I understand it, you can be bound to a higher duty (like to the titans, etc), and Wanda has explicitly stated she owes her duty to fate. We've already seen her showing she was happy to trade off Stanley's life when she first worked for him, because she thought he would die in the attack on FAQ.

2) again i repeat, Wanda is not a ruler/heir and thus can not become a ruler by herself; she can not become her own side. As per the mechanic's of erfworld, only a ruler/heir can start a new side
3) No, she was a faq unit and was working for banhammer back then. Stanely was just a fool from another side that she manipulated into serving her own ends; it was more like he was working for her... though it resulted in the unintended consequence of faq falling instead and her joining Stanely. THAT'S when she first started working for Stanely

to paraphrase Sinrus, you're making stuff up. There is no evidence to support your point of view. We don't know anything about the banhammer situation, except she betrayed him (great duty on her part), and then joined Stanley in whatever capacity she currently is in (minus pliers), and intended to betray him (again, not speaking loudly to her interpretation of duty meaning the same as you want it to). After all, she didn't tell Banhammer she was leading Stanley to attack the city, so it's a plain violation of duty as you envision it.

[Cyanshine]

Wow, parley ? What a turn of events ! I wish Wanda had asked Parson's mathamancy about the odds... Doesn't seem such a good idea at this point. Maybe capture under veil would have been better. Can't wait to see the next comic

[Menas]

I have to agree that I haven't yet seen it proven either (that a side can't be ruled by a caster). I had an 'I wonder if' post regarding Wanda's potential to do this a while back.

If she gets croaked we may not have the opportunity to find out for a while. And I would be very surprised if she doesn't get croaked at this point - Wanda is heading to Spacerock under the assumption she doesn't have anything to worry about because she has superior airpower.

There's a huge bullseye on her head right now, especially after what she did to Ossomer. The best way to render her 'game-breaking' ability useless and remove the threat is to take her out. It's been shown that when forces engage, forces on one side can target a specific unit and give it priority.

I see no reason for her not to be the 'Most Wanted' unit for the entire RCC2, and Charlie's forces as well.

[MonteCristo]

only a ruler/heir can start a new side

Prove it. Find one shred of canon that says that.

when a ruler croaks without an heir, the side ends... All units in the field disband (as opposed to becoming barbarians), and all units within cities freeze (unable to take any action of their own)
Simply tell me this... If any unit was able to start a new side, then would that not mean that those units frozen in the capitol be able to start a new side? But they can't... So how can wanda?
When Saline IV, croaked, Parson wondered why Sizemore and the rest did not disband; the reason was because Stanely was an heir and they remained under him. When Banhammer croaked, reason why Jillian remained and was able to reclaim her kingdom was because she was an heir. When Ossomer threaten to destroy Haggar, he threatened that they would take his side and spin it off as a new one with him, jetstone's heir, as ruler (though it's probably likely that the king is the only one who could approve of such a thing as he is the owner of the cities)... do we see a pattern here?

to paraphrase Sinrus, you're making stuff up. There is no evidence to support your point of view. We don't know anything about the banhammer situation, except she betrayed him (great duty on her part), and then joined Stanley in whatever capacity she currently is in (minus pliers), and intended to betray him (again, not speaking loudly to her interpretation of duty meaning the same as you want it to). After all, she didn't tell Banhammer she was leading Stanley to attack the city, so it's a plain violation of duty as you envision it.

It was not really a betrayal as she had intended for Stanely to croak when he attacked. She did not intend for banhammer to croak. Hell you could even argue that her intentions would have helped Faq as her atonement to the hammer would have been beneficial. And a reason to not let banhammer in on the plan was because he was a pacifist that would oppose taking part in such plans and an isolationist who would not want to risk exposing the kingdom. And if she got the ball rolling fight and then told him, he might have disbanded her for risking the kingdom. Furtharmore, Wanda has not yet tried to betray Stanely, unless you count betraying his trust when she manipulated him into attacking Faq.

[PlotArmour]

I have to agree that I haven't yet seen it proven either (that a side can't be ruled by a caster). I had an 'I wonder if' post regarding Wanda's potential to do this a while back.

If she gets croaked we may not have the opportunity to find out for a while. And I would be very surprised if she doesn't get croaked at this point - Wanda is heading to Spacerock under the assumption she doesn't have anything to worry about because she has superior airpower.

There's a huge bullseye on her head right now, especially after what she did to Ossomer. The best way to render her 'game-breaking' ability useless and remove the threat is to take her out. It's been shown that when forces engage, forces on one side can target a specific unit and give it priority.

I see no reason for her not to be the 'Most Wanted' unit for the entire RCC2, and Charlie's forces as well.

Wanda isn't getting killed off unless she can resurrect herself with the pliers... sorry, but from a narrative point of view, it doesn't make sense. She's also got lots of development and backstory to flesh out... killing her off at this stage would be bizarre.

[PlotArmour]

only a ruler/heir can start a new side

Prove it. Find one shred of canon that says that.

when a ruler croaks without an heir, the side ends... All units in the field disband (as opposed to becoming barbarians), and all units within cities freeze (unable to take any action of their own)
Simply tell me this... If any unit was able to start a new side, then would that not mean that those units frozen in the capitol be able to start a new side? But they can't... So how can wanda?
When Saline IV, croaked, Parson wondered why Sizemore and the rest did not disband; the reason was because Stanely was an heir and they remained under him. When Banhammer croaked, reason why Jillian remained and was able to reclaim her kingdom was because she was an heir. When Ossomer threaten to destroy Haggar, he threatened that they would take his side and spin it off as a new one with him, jetstone's heir, as ruler (though it's probably likely that the king is the only one who could approve of such a thing as he is the owner of the cities)... do we see a pattern here?

to paraphrase Sinrus, you're making stuff up. There is no evidence to support your point of view. We don't know anything about the banhammer situation, except she betrayed him (great duty on her part), and then joined Stanley in whatever capacity she currently is in (minus pliers), and intended to betray him (again, not speaking loudly to her interpretation of duty meaning the same as you want it to). After all, she didn't tell Banhammer she was leading Stanley to attack the city, so it's a plain violation of duty as you envision it.

It was not really a betrayal as she had intended for Stanely to croak when he attacked. She did not intend for banhammer to croak. Hell you could even argue that her intentions would have helped Faq as her atonement to the hammer would have been beneficial. And a reason to not let banhammer in on the plan was because he was a pacifist that would oppose taking part in such plans and an isolationist who would not want to risk exposing the kingdom. And if she got the ball rolling fight and then told him, he might have disbanded her for risking the kingdom. Furtharmore, Wanda has not yet tried to betray Stanely, unless you count betraying his trust when she manipulated him into attacking Faq.

I see a wall of text, but no evidence, just your personal belief. None of what you say constitutes proof of your claim that only a royal can spin off a new side. What you should say is "I personally think only a royal can spin off a side, though we don't know one way or the other", because that's a summary of what you've written above.

As for the FAQ duty stuff, it is not just your personal spin, but blatantly illogical. You aren't upholding your duty to a side if you secretly plot to have an army of dwagons attack it (when their heir and best warrior plus whoever is away) on the hope that they will survive (despite their troops being labelled as junk by Jillian). Even revealing the location of FAQ seriously puts it in danger, let alone having an army attack it. There is no way to spin not telling Banhammer of her plans as anything but a reckless violation of duty (at least as you want to set it up as). You even concede it here by saying "a reason to not let banhammer in on the plan was because he was a pacifist that would oppose taking part in such plans and an isolationist who would not want to risk exposing the kingdom". Well, then she wasn't loyal to Banhammer, was she. She is loyal to fate (much of which seems to coincide nicely with looking out for herself). Whether that is her spin on duty, or because she never owed allegience to either side in the first place, she clearly isn't loyal to them in any meaningful sense, which is what you claim (we don't know if she is a natural ally, or hired gun, or what). For heaven's sake, you admit her conduct would merit disbanding!

If she actually joined Stanley prior to the destruction of FAQ (which seems likely given you've admitted above that she screwed over FAQ) then she was also simultaneously disloyal to him, because she intended for him to die.

[Ambient]

I think... this might be leading up to the point where things get really interesting.

What do you think might happen were Wanda to give Ansom to Jillian, and offer assistance in getting her revenge against Stanley, contingent upon Jillian either not resisting or assisting with the slaying of Jetstone's leader? At that point, Jetstone's forces would either fall under the control of Ossomer, possibly Goblin Knob, or disband depending on the mechanics, which would potentially give Wanda an easy opportunity to shift off to her own side, ostensibly under Ossomer. This would also cause her orders to Ansom to make a bit more sense... She may not want him present to reduce the temptation to try and capture him, and he would only be able to return to GK if she failed anyway.

Put mildly, this would seemingly give all those parties actively involved exactly what they want, save for GK and Jetstone, the former of which should add to the appeal for Jillian...

Does make me wonder... Is Ossomer being treated as a turned unit and no longer able to be the heir, or would it instead be treated similarly to if he were captured... An odd thought, to be sure, but does open up possibilities, more so still when we note that the information we have on what is likely to happen is Parson's guess, and while he has been studying the mechanics of this world heavily, there do not seem to be enough examples that have been cited to be certain which course would occur. He himself is uncertain what will happen in the most recent comments on the topic. Other possible factor being the idea that heir status would be removed on death, but given how they are speaking about the matter... I would have to say Parson likely believes it still persists. Why say we have their heir, when it would be more accurate to say they no longer have one?

[YesNinja]

I know this is totally off-subject and probably completely nit-picky but.... EEEWWWW!!!!! Look at that EAR!!!! Panel 7

[HailGreen28]

I know this is totally off-subject and probably completely nit-picky but.... EEEWWWW!!!!! Look at that EAR!!!! Panel 7

Thing is, Ossomer and Mennis look similar.

[Sinrus]

only a ruler/heir can start a new side

Prove it. Find one shred of canon that says that.

when a ruler croaks without an heir, the side ends... All units in the field disband (as opposed to becoming barbarians), and all units within cities freeze (unable to take any action of their own)
Simply tell me this... If any unit was able to start a new side, then would that not mean that those units frozen in the capitol be able to start a new side? But they can't... So how can wanda?

You said it yourself, those units are frozen in time. They don't become barbarian, the side doesn't end, they just can't do anything. If Wanda was to turn, then she could establish her own side. If only royals can do that, then she could make Ansom or Ossomer King and then control them. There is a huge difference between being frozen without a ruler and becoming a barbarian.

[fractal]

You said it yourself, those units are frozen in time. They don't become barbarian, the side doesn't end, they just can't do anything. If Wanda was to turn, then she could establish her own side. If only royals can do that, then she could make Ansom or Ossomer King and then control them. There is a huge difference between being frozen without a ruler and becoming a barbarian.

We have no reason to believe that a royal who is not heir can become king. Rather, we have evidence of the reverse - Parson thinks that it is possible to eliminate Jetstone without killing Trammenis. Furthermore, if you "can't do anything", then how could you establish your own side?

If a non-heir could establish his or her own side while frozen in a city, then why was Parson worried about Stanley getting croaked by Transylvito (besides Duty)? They had him (a warlord) as well as multiple casters, including Wanda.

Really, we have no evidence that Wanda can safely turn on Stanley without an outside ruler to turn to.

[MonteCristo]

I see a wall of text, but no evidence, just your personal belief. None of what you say constitutes proof of your claim that only a royal can spin off a new side. What you should say is "I personally think only a royal can spin off a side, though we don't know one way or the other", because that's a summary of what you've written above.

Then explain to me how Wanda can start her own side when being without a ruler means you either disband when you are in the field, or become frozen when you are in a city.
Why do units in the field disband instead of becoming barbarians?
Why can't units in a capitol start a new side if the ruler and heir croaks?
Tell me how wanda would start a new side that does not contradict this

As for the FAQ duty stuff, it is not just your personal spin, but blatantly illogical. You aren't upholding your duty to a side if you secretly plot to have an army of dwagons attack it (when their heir and best warrior plus whoever is away) on the hope that they will survive (despite their troops being labelled as junk by Jillian). Even revealing the location of FAQ seriously puts it in danger, let alone having an army attack it. There is no way to spin not telling Banhammer of her plans as anything but a reckless violation of duty (at least as you want to set it up as). You even concede it here by saying "a reason to not let banhammer in on the plan was because he was a pacifist that would oppose taking part in such plans and an isolationist who would not want to risk exposing the kingdom". Well, then she wasn't loyal to Banhammer, was she. She is loyal to fate (much of which seems to coincide nicely with looking out for herself). Whether that is her spin on duty, or because she never owed allegience to either side in the first place, she clearly isn't loyal to them in any meaningful sense, which is what you claim (we don't know if she is a natural ally, or hired gun, or what). For heaven's sake, you admit her conduct would merit disbanding!

As stanely proves on a daily basis, a ruler does not necessarily know what is good for himself. A unit is plenty capable of refusing an order if they believe it will be beneficial for the ruler. Just because Banhammer would not approve the action does not mean that it is not a beneficial action; what it may just mean(as far as Wanda is concerned) is that he is shortsighted by his own stubbornness and beliefs.... and merit for disbanding is entirely subject to the ruler... Banhamer would opposed and punished ANY decision that supported getting his side in danger, even if it was a good idea; a more ambitious ruler however would reward and support such decisions if they were good


As for the comment about having Dwagons attack when their Jillian was not around... this can be very simply explained by Wanda's own lack of information. Faq was a kingdom in near complete isolation, the only units that ever got exposure to the outside were those that left to fight in distance lands and possibly the casters when they went to the magic kingdom. With this it is an easy assumption to make that Wanda quite plainly did not know how big of a difference there was in the strength of other sides. She may have heard about Stanely in the magic kingdom and may have payed a thinkamancer to help her get in contact with him. But this alone would not tell her how strong dwagons were, how much of a bonus stanely gets and how ill-equiped Faq was for an attack... Faq's units being "junk" is Jillian's assessment, but she was alsways out in the field dealing with other sides and thus could always compare them; Wanda on the other hand was caster who likely never went very far outside her own kingdom

You said it yourself, those units are frozen in time. They don't become barbarian, the side doesn't end, they just can't do anything. If Wanda was to turn, then she could establish her own side.

The side DOES end; like how Unaroyal's capitol turned blank when the queen croaked herself; the units sit in their in a sideless city...
Turn to where? she needs a side to turn too... She can't just turn to her own side as that seems to contradict what happens to units when their side ends... If she could just turn to her own side then why wouldn't units just become barbarians if they are out in the field, or be unable to start new sides if they had access to a capitol.

If only royals can do that, then she could make Ansom or Ossomer King and then control them. There is a huge difference between being frozen without a ruler and becoming a barbarian.

Not "royals" but "rulers/heirs"... not all royals are rulers/heirs, and not all Ruler/heirs are royals
but you see that is different from what was being said... That would be Ossomer THE HEIR who is starting the new side, not wanda... which continues along the lines that Wanda can't just start a side and that only ruler/heir's can... With Ossy as her personal slave, this would be a case of wanda finding a loophole in the machanics... though this relies on Ossomer maintaining his Heir status even after decryption, and that Ossomer can start a new side without Stanely's approval

[Guppy]

Wanda is not a ruler/heir and thus can not become a ruler by herself; she can not become her own side. As per the mechanic's of erfworld, only a ruler/heir can start a new side

Not "royals" but "rulers/heirs"... not all royals are rulers/heirs, and not all Ruler/heirs are royals

A question... so, how did the non-royal Charlie end up as his own side?

[Raza]

Don King risks poor strategy for sentimental attachment to titles no one else in his Side likes anymore.

Not at all sure it's sentiment - Don King seems cagier than that.

But I'm not sure what it is, either. We don't have much of a read on him as yet, at least on this subject. We may be in for a surprise; I certainly don't think that Caesar's perspective is the whole story.

You know, getting Bunny's perspective would be interesting. Because she sees both sides. She also knew Queen Bea.

Aaaidunno. He's a thinker, but he seems the intuitive kind; his insights are more sensory/observational than logical. He also seems like the decadent philosopher type that thinks (knows?) it's the little pet pleasures that matter in life, and that even seemingly big things like military power and political support aren't worth self denial.

I have to say, Wanda showed outright contempt for Jillian in the last panel. Telling her personal secrets to an underling and sneering while doing so? That certainly isn't any sort of intimacy. Of course, this may not be the only emotion Wanda has for JIllian, but friends I don't think they are anymore.

I'm not seeing sneering so much as pleasant recollection. I also think that wasn't so much telling a secret (are such things supposed to be secret in erfworld? they don't seem to have quite as many obscure hangups about social norms in intimacy as we do) as somewhat cryptically refering to it.

[splintermute]

I have to say, Wanda showed outright contempt for Jillian in the last panel. Telling her personal secrets to an underling and sneering while doing so? That certainly isn't any sort of intimacy. Of course, this may not be the only emotion Wanda has for JIllian, but friends I don't think they are anymore.

Wanda might not think of Ossomer as an underling - I would have no qualms telling intimate secrets to a house pet.

[Angband]

I see a wall of text, but no evidence, just your personal belief. None of what you say constitutes proof of your claim that only a royal can spin off a new side.

You use "wall of text" as an excuse to ignore the evidence people are sticking in your face.

What you should say is "I personally think only a royal can spin off a side, though we don't know one way or the other", because that's a summary of what you've written above.

He is absolutely correct, with in-comic support, and you are wrong. I'm not gonna go dig up the relevant links. O WAIT I ALREADY DID AND YOU IGNORED IT.

As for the FAQ duty stuff, it is not just your personal spin, but blatantly illogical. You aren't upholding your duty to a side if you secretly plot to have an army of dwagons attack it (when their heir and best warrior plus whoever is away) on the hope that they will survive (despite their troops being labelled as junk by Jillian).

Here's the logic, as explicitly laid out in book 1:

A. Gaining an attuned Arkentool is a big benefit.
B. Duty compels me to do things that help my side, even things like disobey direct orders.
C. Stanley has an Arkentool.
D. Stanley is a moron.
E. If Stanley attacks us, he'll probably lose (see D) and we'll capture the Arkentool.

Wanda's only failing was in evaluating the likelihood of E. If she seriously thought he would lose, then it was perfectly logical.

To put it another way: if she thought (Benefit * Chance of Winning) > (Cost * Risk of Losing), then luring Stanley to attack Faq was the logical move.

Even revealing the location of FAQ seriously puts it in danger, let alone having an army attack it. There is no way to spin not telling Banhammer of her plans as anything but a reckless violation of duty (at least as you want to set it up as). You even concede it here by saying "a reason to not let banhammer in on the plan was because he was a pacifist that would oppose taking part in such plans and an isolationist who would not want to risk exposing the kingdom". Well, then she wasn't loyal to Banhammer, was she.

Commanders can disobey a direct order from the Overlord if they think it's in the Overlord's best interest.
Duty compels commanders to use their initiative to help the Ruler.

If she actually joined Stanley prior to the destruction of FAQ (which seems likely given you've admitted above that she screwed over FAQ) then she was also simultaneously disloyal to him, because she intended for him to die.

That is EXACTLY what she intended for Stanley to do. Attack Faq and die, so that Wanda could get the Arkenhammer.

Have you ever played boardgames like Diplomacy? Or Junta? If so, then you would know that getting someone to ally with you in order for you to be in a position to completely boop them over is a common tactic.