Maeltne wrote:This seems to indicate a coup.
But for a side without an Heir, or with an Heir in close proximity, I fail to see how that could happen... Wait is Caesar still heir (was he ever)?
Caesar is still heir. He has been the Heir Designate of Transylvito for some time now, but is supposed to be replaced once the Royal Heir pops.
When faced with death would you choose to destroy your killer and your people or to spare your killer and your people?
I find it hard to believe that, within the rules, that situation would come up.
If you're still alive when you have the chance to destroy your killer(s), then you destroy them and heal fully at the start of next turn, business as usual goes on (minus whoever was croaked in the insurrection). If you're croaked or incapacitated, then you don't have the chance to destroy them in the first place. When do you envision a ruler having that choice?
Of course, it's true that we don't yet understand how insurrections are even possible when rulers can disband underlings. My pet theory is that there's something in the rule mechanics about WHEN you can disband someone - for example, that disbanding only happens at the moment when you have to pay upkeep for the unit and choose not to. Or maybe the disbanding takes effect at the end of the turn, or the end of the day, or something. But I quite realize that's not supported by canon, as far as I know the only canon we've seen is that "I could disband you with a thought!" line from Stanley. But that's the scenario I have in mind when I'm thinking that there's no way for someone to be alive and having to make that choice, maybe you have something different in mind.
Slately cleverly arranged to be outside and far away from the city when his coup sprung. If King Saline IV had suspected I'm certain he could have instantly disbanded him.
First, you're talking about Stanley, not Slately. Slately is the current Jetstone King, and we've got no indication that he got his throne through a coup. Stanley is current overlord of GK.
Second, from what we we've been told, Stanley didn't arrange the coup. He happened to be outside the city with the casters when there was a gobwin insurrection that killed Saline. While I'm sure many of us around here suspect foul play of some sort (and I'm not arguing against that), it's not at all clear or even hinted at that Stanley was the one responsible.