Book 2 - Page 15

[Nebulious]

Speculation: There is also the possibility that Wanda, having joined Gobwin Knob voluntarily, was never placed under any compulsion of duty. When shes says she can disobey Stanley "only if it will cause his destruction" she could be lying and be able to disobey anyone she pleases.

Erfworld has the unique pleasure of having some of the most unreliable narration of any story a reader can encounter. Even Holden Caulfeild knew he could move at night!

[Sinrus]

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.

If you read the comic you will know that Parson's plan is to ignore Tramennis completely.

Furthermore, if you "can't do anything", then how could you establish your own side?

Did you even read my post? I said that the frozen units can not establish a new 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.

See above.

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

I'm saying that if Wanda betrays Stanley, she doesn't need to go to another side. She can become a barbarian and then have Ossomer, Ansom, or maybe even herself start a new side. Frozen units in a city can not start a new side because, straight out, they are frozen. They can't do anything.

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 the units are sideless, then they are barbarians. See above, there is no evidence that she can't just betray Stanely and become a barbarian of her own free will.
There is a difference between betraying your ruler and having your ruler croaked. In the first situation you become barbarian, in the latter you disband. I honestly don't see the problem here.

[quote="Sinrus]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.[/quote]
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[/quote][/quote]

I see know reason why someone would need to be heir to any side in order to become ruler of a totally unrelated one. I think that the only prerequisite for rulership is the leadership special.

[StClair]

The laws of drama (that we have seen so far) pretty much require that smugness of that degree/kind is gonna get shoved right back in Wanda's face.
Again.
I'm looking forward to it.

[PlotArmour]

Let's go over this one at a time.

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.

The mechanics of a ruler dying remain unclear. I don't mean that flippantly, but we have several contradictory and unclear examples so far. Why didn't Jillian go back to FAQ with whatever portion of the army she possessed and retake it, long after Stanley had left it? Why did Jillian revert to barbarianism when Banhammer died? Parson thinks they're frozen in time, but maybe they just couldn't start a new side because they're out of warlords who could begin one (all their normal warlords were uncroaked, and Parson isn't of this world, so who knows what he can do). Maybe Wanda could have. We just don't know. Also, Stanley wasn't royal when he retook GK, so you clearly don't need to be a royal heir as some people also keep asserting.

Why do units in the field disband instead of becoming barbarians?

Who knows? It isn't proof for the claim you made.

Why can't units in a capitol start a new side if the ruler and heir croaks?

We don't know they can't. It seems (emphasis on seems) from what Parson thought (when he was learning the rules of Erf) that GK couldn't have done so... but maybe some units can, like casters or warlords... we just don't know. Perhaps one reasons Unaroyal sent their casters into the magic kingdom is because they wouldn't have disbanded when she died.

Tell me how wanda would start a new side that does not contradict this

To begin with, we don't know anything about Wanda's backstory to judge one way or the other. Perhaps Wanda is more than a caster. Perhaps she is not a minion, but a natural ally... perhaps Wanda is a former royal. Who knows. Her backstory is unclear. But leaving that aside, there are obvious ways she could do so now (namely, just make Ossomer/Ansom or someone the leader of this new side). Lastly, she has the arkenpliers, which potentially changes everything. I don't know what is going to happen, but there is ample room to allow Wanda to do any of this.

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.

If Wanda was for Banhammer the whole time, then leading an army of Dwagons on a poorly defended city, without telling Banhammer the attack was coming, and without having his best fighter (and whatever units she had with her), is completely irresponsible. Jilian describes their warlords as "clerks". Even the existence of FAQ was secret, and revealing the location is clearly treason against any duty she could owe which would mean anything. It was all so she could attune to an arkentool. That isn't a higher purpose, except insofar as it involves her loyalty to fate magic.

You are trying to play up Wanda as ignorant of her own sides strength, but really I don't think Wanda has shown herself to be ignorant to date (even Parson is skeptical of her attempts to downplay how much she knows). The rest is you imagining the story as you would have liked it to go, but is completely speculative. None of it changes the above points either.

Bringing this back to the original point, if "duty" can be stretched so far (by Wanda anyway) then the fact that she (might) owe it to Stanley becomes meaningless, because she might decide it is in his interests for her to take over, or to have a proxy side run by her, etc. She can justify any action under your logic, which defeats the argument you tried to make.

[joosy]

Why didn't Jillian go back to FAQ with whatever portion of the army she possessed and retake it, long after Stanley had left it? ?

Any number of reasons - some are that she disliked being royalty or didn't have the funds to reestablish the capitol. Most likely is that the story didn't call for that scenario.

Why did Jillian revert to barbarianism when Banhammer died?

Because all of her sides cities fell and were razed. She didn't have a source of income nor a 'home' per se. It was what Vinnie hoped would happen to Stanley once Gobwin Knob fell to Ansom.

Bringing this back to the original point, if "duty" can be stretched so far (by Wanda anyway) then the fact that she (might) owe it to Stanley becomes meaningless, because she might decide it is in his interests for her to take over, or to have a proxy side run by her, etc. She can justify any action under your logic, which defeats the argument you tried to make.

The three things affecting all non-overlords/rulers are obedience, loyalty and duty. Obedience requires all units to follow orders or risk disbanding on the spot. Loyalty is an 'unknowable stat' that determines allegiance to a side - can be modified by Thinkamancy. Duty affects all commanders - that includes spellcasters - Chief Warlords greatest of all.

Wanda may be loyal to Fate magic but she does have Duty to Stanley since she operates under his banner. It is true that she does exhibit a strong independent streak, but she is often compelled to justify it so it would be in Stanley's benefit. She often tries to manipulate Stanley but in the end it is his word she has to abide by (to the letter if not the spirit). Cases in point: She didn't want to cast the summoning spell, but Stanley ordered her to not to pay for the casting or support plan. She grudgingly complied. She was also compelled to unleash the air defenses (plausibly that could be also be seen as a personal grudge attack against Jillian) and to go out to help protect Stanley with her meager air force.

Now, admittedly things may have changed since she got the Arkenpliers. Wanda hitched her wagon to Stanley as a way to reach her personal Prediction. Now that it has come true, she may be looking for a way to reach further independence. Duty forces her to obey his commands, but her loyalty (or lack thereof) lets her find as much wiggle room as possible. The most recent defiance is in forcing Ansom to actively deceive/mislead Stanley. It should be noted that Ansom's loyalty to Wanda appears to be overriding his Duty to Stanley.

I do wonder if there was more to the Prediction in FAQ that hasn't been revealed yet. And like many other posters ahead of me, I do see Wanda making the same mistake of overconfidence in her knowledge of Jillian's psyche. Last time it ended up wiping out 1/2 the dragons and nearly killing Wanda. Hopefully this mistake's repercussions won't be so dire.

[theseus2x]

The following speculations seem implied to me.

The mechanics of a ruler dying remain unclear. I don't mean that flippantly, but we have several contradictory and unclear examples so far. Why didn't Jillian go back to FAQ with whatever portion of the army she possessed and retake it, long after Stanley had left it?

Because it would have cost more Schmuckers than she had.

Why did Jillian revert to barbarianism when Banhammer died?

Because its what she wanted to do anyway.

Parson thinks they're frozen in time, but maybe they just couldn't start a new side because they're out of warlords who could begin one (all their normal warlords were uncroaked, and Parson isn't of this world, so who knows what he can do).

Well, Parson was TOLD that by people who seem to know the mechanic (Sizemore, i think). That doesn't mean he's 100% right, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. We have no reason to think it was related to the Warlords issue.

Maybe Wanda could have. We just don't know. Also, Stanley wasn't royal when he retook GK, so you clearly don't need to be a royal heir as some people also keep asserting.

I concur. Also remember Caesar is (was?) a non-royal heir.

Why do units in the field disband instead of becoming barbarians?

Strange... there was obviously a difference between what happened to Stanley (when Saline was gacked) and Jillian (was away when Faq fell) and those poor saps from Unaroyal who their leader would rather see disband than croaked/decrypted. It IS an interesting point.

Why can't units in a capitol start a new side if the ruler and heir croaks?

We don't know they can't. It seems (emphasis on seems) from what Parson thought (when he was learning the rules of Erf) that GK couldn't have done so... but maybe some units can, like casters or warlords... we just don't know. Perhaps one reasons Unaroyal sent their casters into the magic kingdom is because they wouldn't have disbanded when she died.

Well, first of all, the casters, unlike the rest of Unaroyal, had a chance to escape. No one else could flee through the portal, and running away may not have been an option. (Tough to outrun a Dwagon...)

As for the rest of it, Parson isn't a newb anymore. I'd like to think he's done his homework to the point where he knows "what would happen if... " etc.

Tell me how wanda would start a new side that does not contradict this

To begin with, we don't know anything about Wanda's backstory to judge one way or the other. Perhaps Wanda is more than a caster. Perhaps she is not a minion, but a natural ally... perhaps Wanda is a former royal. Who knows. Her backstory is unclear. But leaving that aside, there are obvious ways she could do so now (namely, just make Ossomer/Ansom or someone the leader of this new side). Lastly, she has the arkenpliers, which potentially changes everything. I don't know what is going to happen, but there is ample room to allow Wanda to do any of this.

True. The only other two Attuned we know about are both Overlords.

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.

Here's the problem with Stanley : He wasn't popped a Ruler; he was promoted. The Titans (or Erfworld...) seem to pop things with what they need. New sides pop casters and warlords not of the Ruler's choosing, but of a combination that is most effective for them. This isn't to say Royal Rulers are all geniuses; obviously they aren't. But we have yet to see a Royal Ruler who was incompetent per se. Even Banhammer's failings were due more to not knowing why the Titans gave him Jillian than any inherent mental deficiency.

Stanley was popped a Piker. He was popped with the smarts and abilities he needed to be a Piker, and was apparently a very good piker. Saline IV, in an example of the "peter principle", promoted his best piker to Warlord. Okay. Regardless of Stanley's pluses/minuses as a Warlord, he finds the Hammer. The Hammer and Dwagons make him VERY successful. I think its safe to say that his success had far more to do with the Hammer and Dwagons than any actual innate ability. But because he is successful, he winds up an heir designate, and the rest is history.

At his core, though, the Titans made Stanley to be a Piker. That's the #1 reason why he's not up to par.

If Wanda was for Banhammer the whole time, then leading an army of Dwagons on a poorly defended city, without telling Banhammer the attack was coming, and without having his best fighter (and whatever units she had with her), is completely irresponsible. Jilian describes their warlords as "clerks". Even the existence of FAQ was secret, and revealing the location is clearly treason against any duty she could owe which would mean anything. It was all so she could attune to an arkentool. That isn't a higher purpose, except insofar as it involves her loyalty to fate magic.

You are trying to play up Wanda as ignorant of her own sides strength, but really I don't think Wanda has shown herself to be ignorant to date (even Parson is skeptical of her attempts to downplay how much she knows). The rest is you imagining the story as you would have liked it to go, but is completely speculative. None of it changes the above points either.

So far, Wanda has a HUGE track record of being disloyal to her supposed side. There is no way she could have justified Stanley's attack to have been in Banhammer's interests.

So yes - I'm the group that thinks she's loyal only to "Fate".

[Sieggy]

Sorry, I can't buy the 'Wanda set Stanley up to attack Faq so he could get killed and bring her the hammer' scenario for the simple reason that if she was wanting to take Stanley down, she would have their most powerful warlord there to make sure of that little detail. The fact that Stanley attacked (if he actually did; it's really all conjecture at this point, and I wonder how far along a garden path these assumptions may have gone) with Jillian absent indicates that Wanda (if in cahoots with Stanley) set Faq up for destruction while sparing Jillian. And Jack, and perhaps Misty . . . It's possible that Wanda feared for Jillian's life, but to value the life of your subbie over your kingdom is a bit psychopathis, even for Wanda. And I'm sure that Wanda could have found a way to turn her safely; she's a clever girl.

Starting sides may not be what you think . . . consider, you're a barbarian commander who needs to feed her troops or starve. You find a chunk o' unoccupied land that hopefully has some resources on it that can be exploited, or drive someone else off of it, stick your flag in the ground, and you're a side . . . commensurate with your resources. You might just have a farmstead or fortified manor house, not a city nor castle nor tower. Not all sides need to be large . . . From there, you play the game. Build, engage in diplomacy and bluff and military campaigning, and carve yourself out a kingdom, just like it says in the rule book. Think of it like Tarl Cabot carving a Homestone for the city of Tarn (or whatever it was in the Gor novels) that inspired its citizens to fight off a superior enemy force. You form a side by standing on a piece of land as big as you can get away with, saying it's yours, and fighting off anyone wanting to argue the matter.

If you think about it, rulers are the only true players on Erf. Lower levels might have player capability where they engage, but only as defined by Erf rules as a subset of a larger game. A Piker can be an individual with a unique life and personality, but will stand pike in hand ready to die when ordered . . . he will play against enemy troops, but luck and numbers and fateamancy will determine if he survives, and he can play at no higher a level unless promoted. Then he can play a tactical squad game . . . and if you're Stanley, you can work (or perhaps, murder) your way to the top, where you can play for all of Erfworld.

[MonteCristo]

The mechanics of a ruler dying remain unclear. I don't mean that flippantly, but we have several contradictory and unclear examples so far. Why didn't Jillian go back to FAQ with whatever portion of the army she possessed and retake it, long after Stanley had left it? Why did Jillian revert to barbarianism when Banhammer died? Parson thinks they're frozen in time, but maybe they just couldn't start a new side because they're out of warlords who could begin one (all their normal warlords were uncroaked, and Parson isn't of this world, so who knows what he can do). Maybe Wanda could have. We just don't know.

Why didn't Jillian go back and retake her kingdom? She didn't want to (she made this very clear)
Why did Jillian revert Barbarianism? Because that's what happens when a ruler has no cities
Parson does not think, he KNOWS... his information comes from other informed people like Sizemore, other erfworlders and his stupid meals. Fact of the matter is that Parson was a chief warlord and thus would have the highest authority once Stanely was gone... if it were the case that he did not think he could start a side because he was not from this world or because they lacked funds, he would have mentioned it in his klog. That was half the purpose of the klogs, and way for Rob to tells us the mechanics of erfworld without making them sound like exposition and in a way that's faster than telling us within the comics... Unless Parson says it is only his thoughts or assumptions, the klogs should be treated as FACT.

Also, Stanley wasn't royal when he retook GK, so you clearly don't need to be a royal heir as some people also keep asserting.

And if you were actually paying close attention you will note that i have NEVER used the term "royal"... i have repeated said "ruler" and/or "heir"
Stanely was not a Royal but he was an heir... Wanda is not a ruler or an heir...
There is a difference as i mentioned in my pervious post

Ruler: a unit that rules over a side
Heir: a unit that takes over as Ruler when an heir croaks
Royal: a special stat that gives the unit additional bonus strengths and can only be popped by royal rulers

Perhaps one reasons Unaroyal sent their casters into the magic kingdom is because they wouldn't have disbanded when she died.

no it was because casters are very valuable and were capable of being saved... herself and her warlords would have been at high risk of being croaked if they attempted to run
The casters however had a way out, unlike the warlords they could port to the safety of the magic kingdom. Furtharmore, as we have seen with Vanna, they were capable of helping the other royal sides... In fact when they were talking about Saline IV, parson wondered why Sizemore did not disband, and he explained he didn't because of Stanely... casters will disband

If Wanda was for Banhammer the whole time, then leading an army of Dwagons on a poorly defended city, without telling Banhammer the attack was coming, and without having his best fighter (and whatever units she had with her), is completely irresponsible. Jilian describes their warlords as "clerks". Even the existence of FAQ was secret, and revealing the location is clearly treason against any duty she could owe which would mean anything. It was all so she could attune to an arkentool. That isn't a higher purpose, except insofar as it involves her loyalty to fate magic.

Like i said, A unit is capable of going against the wishes of their ruler if they believe it will help the ruler... however, just because a unit thinks it will help their ruler does not mean they are right.

You are trying to play up Wanda as ignorant of her own sides strength, but really I don't think Wanda has shown herself to be ignorant to date (even Parson is skeptical of her attempts to downplay how much she knows).

She has had 700 turns to learn

I'm saying that if Wanda betrays Stanley, she doesn't need to go to another side. She can become a barbarian and then have Ossomer, Ansom, or maybe even herself start a new side. Frozen units in a city can not start a new side because, straight out, they are frozen. They can't do anything.

If the units are sideless, then they are barbarians. See above, there is no evidence that she can't just betray Stanely and become a barbarian of her own free will.
There is a difference between betraying your ruler and having your ruler croaked. In the first situation you become barbarian, in the latter you disband. I honestly don't see the problem here.

The reason i brought it up is because if any unit can just step up and become a barbarian then their is not reason why units should disband or become frozen when their side ends... why should units that loose their side get so shafted... hell what this means is that in a time of crisis when the ruler seems ready to fall, all units should try to turn to barbarism so that they don't automatically croak with the rest of their side; it's a mechanic that is actually harmful to erfworld. It's an easy way out for any unit, that is harmful to the ruler...
units that loose their ruler should be no different than units that leave their side. Hell in other turnbased games, sometimes you do have the case that units disappear when the ruler does, while in others the units remain as roaming barbarians/marauders; you never get a case where units can just become those things. Those kinds of units only appear when a side is lost or by popping up naturally like other wandering monsters.

I see know reason why someone would need to be heir to any side in order to become ruler of a totally unrelated one. I think that the only prerequisite for rulership is the leadership special.

Thus far ONLY heir's have been able to start sides, while other units are known to be completely dependent on them

I think you are probably misinterpreting what the "leadership special" is
This is a stat that can be gained by common units such as archons. More than likely it is a stat that is meant to give bonus's during combat, such as placing that unit at the head of a stack. It's unlikely to have anything to do with ruling a side as the stat would likely be less common.

Sorry, I can't buy the 'Wanda set Stanley up to attack Faq so he could get killed and bring her the hammer' scenario for the simple reason that if she was wanting to take Stanley down, she would have their most powerful warlord there to make sure of that little detail. The fact that Stanley attacked (if he actually did; it's really all conjecture at this point, and I wonder how far along a garden path these assumptions may have gone) with Jillian absent indicates that Wanda (if in cahoots with Stanley) set Faq up for destruction while sparing Jillian. And Jack, and perhaps Misty . . . It's possible that Wanda feared for Jillian's life, but to value the life of your subbie over your kingdom is a bit psychopathis, even for Wanda. And I'm sure that Wanda could have found a way to turn her safely; she's a clever girl.

If Jillian was there she would have fought, and if she fought hard enough stanely would rather croak her than try to capture her. Even if Faq did not fall Jillian could be croaked. Only way to Jillian to turn was if she did not fight which would require her to agree with Wanda's plans.

Starting sides may not be what you think . . . consider, you're a barbarian commander who needs to feed her troops or starve. You find a chunk o' unoccupied land that hopefully has some resources on it that can be exploited, or drive someone else off of it, stick your flag in the ground, and you're a side . . . commensurate with your resources. You might just have a farmstead or fortified manor house, not a city nor castle nor tower. Not all sides need to be large . . . From there, you play the game. Build, engage in diplomacy and bluff and military campaigning, and carve yourself out a kingdom, just like it says in the rule book. Think of it like Tarl Cabot carving a Homestone for the city of Tarn (or whatever it was in the Gor novels) that inspired its citizens to fight off a superior enemy force. You form a side by standing on a piece of land as big as you can get away with, saying it's yours, and fighting off anyone wanting to argue the matter.

Or barbarians just operate like natural sides do...
pick a spot and either hunt for food or earn smuckers to pop food and more units... but picking a spot to maintain yourself and your units does not make you a side

[Angband]

Also, Stanley wasn't royal when he retook GK, so you clearly don't need to be a royal heir as some people also keep asserting.

Stanley wasn't royal when he became Overlord, he had been named Heir Designate. So Gobwin Knob didn't end because it had an heir when Saline IV died.

Disbanding happens to units in the field when a side ends. Units in cities become "neutral" and freeze in time until someone comes to capture the city.

But GK had an heir, so their side didn't end when Saline IV croaked.

When a side loses their last city, but the Overlord isn't croaked, the ruler becomes a Barbarian. Their units are still loyal but upkeep becomes a real issue.

We don't know what happens to a side that loses its capital, but still has other cities. So when Saline IV died, Stanley could have remained a GK overlord, or he could have become a barbarian until he retook the capital.

A side loses its Ruler with no heir? Units disband or freeze.
A side loses all cities (or possibly just its capital) but not its ruler? Units become barbarians.

[pSycHOtic chICkeN]

Wanda, Wanda, Wanda, will you ever learn? You've already been burned once by Jillian, why do you think that it will be different this time? That woman will be the death of you.

Anyone else think we're going to get a repeat of http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F095.jpg this scene? Just with Wanda asking Jillian to turn?

The following page is important. http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F096.jpg. Wanda did not fry Jillian. The stage is set for most of Stanley's dragons to get killed. Wanda can then decrypt the dragons.

Wanda can rejoin FAQ and bring her army along.

[Dancing Cthulhu]

Awww, Trem's making me sad. What an awful position to be in, possible about to loose his father, his side and (depending on how it works if Jetstone has no heir and Slately does croak) maybe himself and his troops and he can't do anything. Yet he still seems dignified. And his closing was touching as well.

Also - what a mighty jaw that warlord has in the second panel.

And Oss wants to go for the throat (and we learn Jillian's heir still hasn't popped...) but is foiled by Wanda...

Hmmmm - my Wanda is confident. Too confident. Overconfident. Is it delusion or does she actually have Jillian's number? Interestingly Jillian certainly seems to have Wanda figured out. She predicted, to a degree, that Wanda would want to talk first. So, does this mean Wanda will send the forces in to destroy the tower and go off alone or lightly defended to chat? Or destroy the tower then talk? Or wait to destroy the tower till after the chat?

Ultimately I'm guessing Wanda is wrong, or right but in the wrong way. And at the very least the last couple of panels make her seem creepy and rather uncaring about Jillian (beyond the desire to control her).

And what is jillian's problem with Stanley? Okay, he killed her father and stuff, but you'd think she got over that by now. It's not like she did like the old guy. And she kinda should be thankful, because he set her free from all her duties.

What does she have against the guy who killed her father and her side/kingdom/nation? Is Wanda's boss (Jillian may have though Stanley had originally killed her)? Is the public face of the side that killed Ansom?

And relationships are strange things, maybe even in Erfworld. I mean she was very different from he father, but to not be be a little angry when someone kills him? And almost everyone else she knew?

So she hates Stanley for taking away a kingdom she didn't wanted, and never claimed, when she could. Even when Vinnie told her that Ceasar would claim the cities and make any rebuilding of Faq impossible, she cared more for croaking Stanley. Now she has the kingdom back, and could get her old friends Wanda and jack back by allying to GK. But still she is obsessed with Stanley. Maybe she is more obsessed with royalty than old Ansom, but does not admit it.

I don't think it is the fact Stanley is non-royal. Jillian has shown the less interest in the whole royal superiority thing then most of the royals we have seen. And to be honest I can still understand why she would hate Stanley for what he did, even if he did it to something Jillian had no personal desire to rule, it was still her side, her clan and her home.

And why would she be fussed about Caesar claiming the ruins? She didn't want to be a queen and besides, it wasn't Faq any more. It's only called Faq now because Jillian couldn't think of a better name.

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

I don't know if we've been shown that as true yet. So far we really only have Caesar's POV, which might not be the most reliable.

So any world ruler will have administrative underlings doing the really important stuff like making sure the streets are repaired and clean, that the roaming barbarians stay clear of the trade caravans, that the various populations stay happy with each other. Leaving Stanley with nothing else to do than fondly regard creation.

And get bored. And pester his underlings. Like constantly calling Ansom back from the front. I think Stanley, at the moment, just lacks the maturity to step back and let more level heads do everything.

Now the Tardy Elves on the other hand...

[Slowness]

If Wanda kills the king, but fails to kill the prince, something like the following is BOUND to happen:



Ahhh, I love character development! Tremennous will be changed by these events, I'll tell you that right now...

[Dancing Cthulhu]

1) We don't know that she just can't turn, we haven't been told the mechanics.

True. And I guess it looked like Jack could have turned if he'd wanted to back during the ambush (but who to - Barbarian Jillian or TV?).

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.

I don't know, if she takes Jetstone/turns it the cities and the money at least should be GKs, even if the decrypted troops are hers. And she doesn't control any cities at the moment - GK does.

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 didn't think it was shown she was working for Stanley when that happened. The tone to me suggested she was doing some duty gymnastics - believing Stanley wouldn't win she gets him to attack Faq, he croaks, Faq and her get an Arkentool.

Now if she was also aware of King Banhammer's prediction about the fall of Faq...

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.

Because King Banhammer was a merry old soul committed to non-confrontation. If Wanda had told him she probably would have known what his response would have been - no. Not for all the Arkentools on Erf. Which begs the question of whether Wanda really believed Faq would win and whether she felt duty compelled to try and get Stanley in, even if she thought Banhammer wouldn't approve.

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.

I think it depends, theoretically, on whether Wanda (or any unit for that matter) can only turn to an existing side, or whether she can become independent. And do Oss and Ansom still count as royals? Ansom certainly doesn't go by prince anymore - he seems just like a warlord.

Still at the moment at least we have no evidence a caster can start a new side. We know former heir barbarians can (Jillian), naturally popped barbarians probably can as well, and from the summer updates it seems a royal heir can,through different means again.

I think joosy makes a good point as well in terms of obedience, loyalty and duty as well.

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

A good question, and an enduring mystery. Maybe he was a naturally popped barbarian. Maybe he was a non-royal made heir designate... maybe something stranger, like a sentient Arkentool or a rogue Marbit or Parson from the future or (there are threads about such speculation).

Why didn't Jillian go back to FAQ with whatever portion of the army she possessed and retake it, long after Stanley had left it? Why did Jillian revert to barbarianism when Banhammer died?

My thoughts - we know Faq only consisted of three cities. And only one of them was worth much (the capital). Stanley blitzes all three - Faq is ruins, gone, bam Jillian is a barbarian because there is nothing left for her to be ruler of. Or loosing the capital turns an heir in the field barbarian unless another capital site is available (GK has two at the moment, GK itself and the former Unaroyal capital).

As to Jillian not going back to retake it - well, that is more her character then mechanics. She didn't want to be queen, and besides, she wasn't stupid. She'd have known that refounding Faq with no resources, no Jack, no predictamancer wouldn't have ended well. She could only do it safely now because of her allies and their aid.

Also, Stanley wasn't royal when he retook GK, so you clearly don't need to be a royal heir as some people also keep asserting.

But he was the heir designate to GK. So what happened, I can think of some options:

A. Saline died, Stanley automatically became the new ruler, returned and put down rebellion.
B. Saline died, Stanley, as an heir, became a barbarian, returned and put down rebellion.

Now the gobwins/hobgobwins didn't raze GK (like Faq was), and apparently natural allies can't become a side like GK or Jetstone so they didn't claim it, so GK was just waiting for someone to come back an reactivate it - which Stanley did. Or maybe it didn't even need reactivating. Can natural allies occupy a city? Was GK "lost" when Saline died until Stanley came back? Was it Frozen?

[raphfrk]

The mechanics of a ruler dying remain unclear. I don't mean that flippantly, but we have several contradictory and unclear examples so far. Why didn't Jillian go back to FAQ with whatever portion of the army she possessed and retake it, long after Stanley had left it?

She preferred the mercenary life.

"I was way out in the field, and on my own. So I just ... keep going."

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F083.jpg

Why did Jillian revert to barbarianism when Banhammer died?

It is unclear, she may have gone

Heir --(banhammer dies)--> Queen --(Last city destroyed)--> Barbarian.

Parson thinks they're frozen in time, but maybe they just couldn't start a new side because they're out of warlords who could begin one (all their normal warlords were uncroaked, and Parson isn't of this world, so who knows what he can do).

That is just adding complexity. If most warlords can start when the Ruler dies, then there is little point in having an heir (other than deciding the line of succession, and maybe keeping the side together).

Why do units in the field disband instead of becoming barbarians?

Who knows? It isn't proof for the claim you made.

The klog says field units disband, if the Ruler dies without an heir.

Ofc, Ossomer seems to indicate that the Faq units will disband if they kill Jillian. This could mean that units in other side's cities also count as field units. You aren't safe from disbanding if you are in an allied city.

It seems (emphasis on seems) from what Parson thought (when he was learning the rules of Erf) that GK couldn't have done so

You are just adding complexity. There has to be some rules, or the comic is pure deus ex machina. The whole point is that you establish rules and then have the characters operate within those rules.

To begin with, we don't know anything about Wanda's backstory to judge one way or the other. Perhaps Wanda is more than a caster.

Well, she is an attuned caster. Surviving a Ruler's death seems to require that you are an heir or with an heir.

It is possible that attuning means that a unit won't disband with their Ruler.

If Wanda was for Banhammer the whole time, then leading an army of Dwagons on a poorly defended city, without telling Banhammer the attack was coming, and without having his best fighter (and whatever units she had with her), is completely irresponsible.

Incompetence is not the same as disloyalty. She judged Stanley's fighting ability based on his intelligence. She may have fooled herself.

Bringing this back to the original point, if "duty" can be stretched so far (by Wanda anyway) then the fact that she (might) owe it to Stanley becomes meaningless, because she might decide it is in his interests for her to take over, or to have a proxy side run by her, etc. She can justify any action under your logic, which defeats the argument you tried to make.

Wanda wouldn't be a good person to trust absolutely.

[Goshen]

Ugh, she's falling for the old "I know this chick, she won't hurt me" thing again? Shouldn't someone who commands a legion of switched over zombies know that sometimes personal history doesn't matter, people change completely and can't be trusted? I mean, it had some pretty terrible consequences for her earlier when she underestimated Jillian's freewill. I think she'd have gotten the memo.

Right, you are, but love blinds and so does pride. Wanda has both going against her in this.

[Dancing Cthulhu]

If Wanda kills the king, but fails to kill the prince, something like the following is BOUND to happen:



Ahhh, I love character development! Tremennous will be changed by these events, I'll tell you that right now...

I like the way you think. But who would be the target of his vengeance?

Stanley? But nearly everyone hates him already.

Parson? Have any other sides, other then Charlie (and the MK, kind of), ever really acknowledge him or his part in GK's resurgence and expansion? A non-Charlie nemesis... hmmm.

Wanda? The most logical I guess.

Or Oss and/or Ansom - now what a conflict that would be.

Although I guess "everyone" would also be possible. Now he just has to not croak/disband/convert should Slately fall.

That is just adding complexity. If most warlords can start when the Ruler dies, then there is little point in having an heir (other than deciding the line of succession, and maybe keeping the side together).

I agree. For the time being, until something pops up to challenge it, I am just going to stick with designated heirs - both royal and non-royal - and barbarians (in a different way) having that luxury. It might be incorrect, but it seems to go with what we have been shown so far.

It would be interesting to see if a caster could be designated heir for a side.

[SteveMB]

If Wanda was for Banhammer the whole time, then leading an army of Dwagons on a poorly defended city, without telling Banhammer the attack was coming, and without having his best fighter (and whatever units she had with her), is completely irresponsible. Jilian describes their warlords as "clerks". Even the existence of FAQ was secret, and revealing the location is clearly treason against any duty she could owe which would mean anything. It was all so she could attune to an arkentool. That isn't a higher purpose, except insofar as it involves her loyalty to fate magic...
Bringing this back to the original point, if "duty" can be stretched so far (by Wanda anyway) then the fact that she (might) owe it to Stanley becomes meaningless, because she might decide it is in his interests for her to take over, or to have a proxy side run by her, etc. She can justify any action under your logic, which defeats the argument you tried to make.

(emphasis added)

That's how I interpret her actions leading to the fall of Faq -- she was able to rationalize them as consistent with Duty and Loyalty (presuming that she was originally a Faq unit, given that we have no reason to suppose otherwise, she would be bound by Duty and Loyalty to Banhammer) on the grounds that she was leading Stanley into a trap that would result in obtaining the Arkenhammer for Faq. (Of course, her intention was to obtain it for herself, but putting it that way supports the rationalization better.)

The loophole that allows disobedience if obedience goes against higher orders or the Ruler's interests opens the door to that sort of rationalization -- the question of whether or not those circumstances apply is a matter of individual judgment, and individual judgment isn't always perfectly logical or objective. It's for booping sure that Wanda's isn't, and it looks like that's about to bite her, hard....

[shawndream]

Agree with the most interesting and likely plot being Wanda's offer to join Jillian.
She would bring all her croaked ("belong to me, not goblin knob") but not neccessarily others (hence her desire to croak Jack).

Of course, Trans, Charles, and Jet all want her dead badly, so they may shoot themselves in the foot trying to assasinate the person who could join them.

In all fairness though, probably her first offer will be for Jill to join her, and her fallback position is to croak everyone and puppetize them.

Also near the beginning I saw speculation on heir parentage - Erfworld doesn't have children, folks pop fully formed, constructed like tanks. Now, clearly royalty IS special in this regard as they pop only from sides led by other royals, so there might be some juju regarding the last royal to visit influencing parentage (this might explain Don's insistance on Faq and Tran both popping heirs asap)

Oh - and someone asked why Unaroyal didn't just disband most of their folks and make a run for it... because dwagons are FAST, that's why, no escape.

[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.

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.

Killing her at this stage would fit in perfectly with all of the foreshadowing that's been going on. Whether or not it makes sense is up to the author.

[theseus2x]

If they kill Wanda NOW, the rest of the story is anti-climatic, IMHO. She's the #1 wild card in the story. Besides, we don't know what happens to the decrypted when she croaks.

However : I certainly agree something nasty is about to happen to GK to put the rest of the war into question.