"Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

[Arkenputtyknife]

Thank you, Darkside007, for saying in a few sentences what would have taken me paragraph upon tedious paragraph.

In response to Kreistor's “Whoa up, Hoss” point: Did I miss some forum rule that says I'm not permitted to agree with my opponent on specific points? And I'm not “preaching” to anyone. I just want to learn more about Erfworld. Until we receive the Word of the Titans, research, logic, and argument are our only tools to that end.

Kreistor, you raised some good points that made for interesting reading. The problem is that, by and large, they just aren't relevant to Erfworld.

[Kreistor]

The problem with your argument (and yes, it is an argument.) is that the support of it only counts towards groups. Stanley has only used the word as an explicit threat against individuals, never against stacks. From all appearences (And I assumed this before speaking to anyone else about the comic) disband is an 'unsummon' or 'delete' command, used to free up upkeep and get rid of troublesome units.

When a Ruler falls with no heir, all units outside cities disband, in stack or out. Disbanding is not an event caused only by choice of the RUler, but by at least one non-intentional eent... there may be others we have not been made aware of. It is not just a threat by a Ruler, but a possibility for all units at all times, except in specific cases such as being inside a city when a Ruler falls (where the city becomes neutral, and certain restrictions are placed on the units, but it is unclear whether they are considered Barbarian, Neutral, or have another term assigned.)

Further, when a unit demonstrates a lack of Obedience, it may disband automatically. That's not a threat from the RUler, that's a choice made by the unit itself. What unit would risk oblivion for disobedience? (Klog 10. "Disobedience may cause the unit to disband." That doesn't say "Disbedience may cause a unit to be disbanded by the Ruler." So there's a second case where disbanding can occur without the intent of the Ruler.) If oblivion were the only possible result of disbanding, disobedience would never occur. Note that successful disobedience results in either disbanding at the hands of the Ruler (oblivion if you're right, so it's pointless to rebel) or disbanding as the result of a Fallen Ruler (again oblvion if youre' right), so win or lose, disobedience means oblivion under the theory that disbanding = un-popping. With no non-oblivion result of disobedience, there would be no disobedience.

Be complete folks. More than Stanley has used the word "Disbanding". Your theories must account for all instances, not just the ones that happen to be nice to your pet theories.

The phrase for removing a unit from a side is "break alliance".

Alliance is a defined term that refers to two sides uniting to operate as one, and has nothing to do with a single side operating alone. (Rob has made it clear that this affects Turn order, with all sides allying taking the turn of the last in the Natural Turn order. Alliance has a definite meaning uniting multiple sides.) "Breaking Alliance" is mentioned when Duke Nozzle (Sofa King) threatens to leave Jetstone (two different Sides), when Jillian intends to attack Caesar (Barbarian leaving alliance with Transylvito), when Ansom intends Jillian (Barbarian) to leave RCC and re-ally with Transylvito to change Turn position for the Faq defense, and I'll stop there since that ought to be enough. I don't think I need to track down specific comics in this case. Please cite a case where the term is used to refer to a Unit on the same Side being removed from that Side. That is not a rhetorical question -- you seem to think there is a case, and I want to know exactly where you think it happened: if I am forgetting something that I need to know (I'm a heavy contributor to the Wiki), then I need to know. I have three instances where it is used with reference to different sides re-organizing for Turn advantage or to get out of a nasty situation, against your hint that it might mean something else. Demonstrate my ignorance, please, so that I don't screw up the Wiki.

[Darkside007]

The problem with your argument (and yes, it is an argument.) is that the support of it only counts towards groups. Stanley has only used the word as an explicit threat against individuals, never against stacks. From all appearences (And I assumed this before speaking to anyone else about the comic) disband is an 'unsummon' or 'delete' command, used to free up upkeep and get rid of troublesome units.

When a Ruler falls with no heir, all units outside cities disband, in stack or out. Disbanding is not an event caused only by choice of the RUler, but by at least one non-intentional eent... there may be others we have not been made aware of. It is not just a threat by a Ruler, but a possibility for all units at all times, except in specific cases such as being inside a city when a Ruler falls (where the city becomes neutral, and certain restrictions are placed on the units, but it is unclear whether they are considered Barbarian, Neutral, or have another term assigned.)

Units in the Garrison go neutral, they don't disband. When Jillian became a barbarian, she didn't say "I was disbanded", she said "I was a barbarian."

Further, when a unit demonstrates a lack of Obedience, it may disband automatically. That's not a threat from the RUler, that's a choice made by the unit itself. What unit would risk oblivion for disobedience? (Klog 10. "Disobedience may cause the unit to disband." That doesn't say "Disbedience may cause a unit to be disbanded by the Ruler." So there's a second case where disbanding can occur without the intent of the Ruler.) If oblivion were the only possible result of disbanding, disobedience would never occur. Note that successful disobedience results in either disbanding at the hands of the Ruler (oblivion if you're right, so it's pointless to rebel) or disbanding as the result of a Fallen Ruler (again oblvion if youre' right), so win or lose, disobedience means oblivion under the theory that disbanding = un-popping. With no non-oblivion result of disobedience, there would be no disobedience.

And we haven't seen any disobedience, have we? What we have seen are natural allies break their alliance. We have not seen units of a side actually disobey a direct order.

Be complete folks. More than Stanley has used the word "Disbanding". Your theories must account for all instances, not just the ones that happen to be nice to your pet theories.

Ah, but they do.

The phrase for removing a unit from a side is "break alliance".

Alliance is a defined term that refers to two sides uniting to operate as one, and has nothing to do with a single side operating alone. (Rob has made it clear that this affects Turn order, with all sides allying taking the turn of the last in the Natural Turn order. Alliance has a definite meaning uniting multiple sides.) "Breaking Alliance" is mentioned when Duke Nozzle (Sofa King) threatens to leave Jetstone (two different Sides), when Jillian intends to attack Caesar (Barbarian leaving alliance with Transylvito), when Ansom intends Jillian (Barbarian) to leave RCC and re-ally with Transylvito to change Turn position for the Faq defense, and I'll stop there since that ought to be enough. I don't think I need to track down specific comics in this case. Please cite a case where the term is used to refer to a Unit on the same Side being removed from that Side. That is not a rhetorical question -- you seem to think there is a case, and I want to know exactly where you think it happened: if I am forgetting something that I need to know (I'm a heavy contributor to the Wiki), then I need to know. I have three instances where it is used with reference to different sides re-organizing for Turn advantage or to get out of a nasty situation, against your hint that it might mean something else. Demonstrate my ignorance, please, so that I don't screw up the Wiki.

We haven't seen side-controlled units leave their side unless they are some form of Commander, and the term for that is 'turned'.

So it's either "break alliance" or "turn". My error.

[Kreistor]

Again, show me where "Break Allianze" is used in this manner. That you found a definition for what you were talking about that is different from your claim is nowhere near proof of your claim. Perhaps you need a demonstration.

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F093.jpg Page 93, Panel 9. "At the end of this turn you will rendezvous with additional Charlescomm forces, break your alliance with Jetstone, and ally with Transylvito."

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F139.jpg Page 139, Panel 1. "Sweetheart, if you break your alliance right now, we will drink your blood over a peppy campfire tune."

In the first case, Ansom is instructing the RCC fliers, none of which are Jetstone troops that we are aware of, to leave the alliance (not the side) and reform an alliance with Transylvito. In the second case, the Barbarian Zamussels (not a part of Transylvito side) attacks Caesar, which threatens to break her alliance, allowing the 10 or so Vampires she is allied with to cut her down. Neither of these cases demonstrates any association with "Break Alliance" and removing a unit from a Side.

Now, see? That's how you prove something. Cite, reference, explain, and thereby prove a case.

If you've got some proof that Break Alliance has a completely different meaning prove it, kinda like I just did. Right now, you're just confusing the issue by pretending to know something without any foundation for your claim. You seem to think you should be trusted to be right, just 'cause. No, my standards are a lot higher than that, when it comes to figuring this comic out. I'm dismissing you out of hand until I actually see an effort to demonstrate your case. Frankly, I know the task is impossible since you're flat wrong. I really have no idea where you got the impression Break Alliance has anything to do with a unit leaving its Side.

BTW, Turning means joining the enemy side, not just leaving. Just so's you knows.

[Kreistor]

Units in the Garrison go neutral, they don't disband. When Jillian became a barbarian, she didn't say "I was disbanded", she said "I was a barbarian."

Sigh... Disbanding is a process. It causes a change of state. Even the claim that the unit becomes un-popped is a change of state. What we don't know is the final state, or if it cna result in multiple final states. If disbanding results in a change of state to Barbarian, then Jillian could say, "I was a Barbrian" or "I was disbanded" and both are true and accurate. That she chose one and not the other is not evidence that only one is true.

And we haven't seen any disobedience, have we? ... We have not seen units of a side actually disobey a direct order.

Comic 2. Wanda disobeys Stanley's order to raise a Warlord from the ranks. This demonstrates the "may" part of the rule that a unit that is disobedient "may" disband. It's not automatic.

What we have seen are natural allies break their alliance.

Transylvito broke alliance with Jetstone at the same time. Not just Natural Allies.

Ah, but they do.

Insert dismissive comment about lack of evidence here. Claims require proof. You're wrong until you demonstrate. I only hold you to the standard I hold myself to.

We haven't seen side-controlled units leave their side unless they are some form of Commander, and the term for that is 'turned'.

Which is not evidence that "break alliance" has any additional meanings. There may be a word for what you want, which might be "disband", but it's not "break alliance", just because you lack a known term.

[Darkside007]

Units in the Garrison go neutral, they don't disband. When Jillian became a barbarian, she didn't say "I was disbanded", she said "I was a barbarian."

Sigh... Disbanding is a process. It causes a change of state. Even the claim that the unit becomes un-popped is a change of state. What we don't know is the final state, or if it cna result in multiple final states. If disbanding results in a change of state to Barbarian, then Jillian could say, "I was a Barbrian" or "I was disbanded" and both are true and accurate. That she chose one and not the other is not evidence that only one is true.

And yet they both appear to be specific mechanics, so it's unlikely they are the same thing.

And we haven't seen any disobedience, have we? ... We have not seen units of a side actually disobey a direct order.

Comic 2. Wanda disobeys Stanley's order to raise a Warlord from the ranks. This demonstrates the "may" part of the rule that a unit that is disobedient "may" disband. It's not automatic.

Actually, there are stated exceptions. "I'm allowed, I'm convinced it will lead to your destruction." is one.

What we have seen are natural allies break their alliance.

Transylvito broke alliance with Jetstone at the same time. Not just Natural Allies.

Ah, but they do.

Insert dismissive comment about lack of evidence here. Claims require proof. You're wrong until you demonstrate. I only hold you to the standard I hold myself to.

You've read the comic as much as I have, if not more, I'm not going to jump through hoops for you simply because you refuse to accept that you may very well be wrong.

We haven't seen side-controlled units leave their side unless they are some form of Commander, and the term for that is 'turned'.

Which is not evidence that "break alliance" has any additional meanings. There may be a word for what you want, which might be "disband", but it's not "break alliance", just because you lack a known term.

Actually, it's turn. Not just to hostile sides, Webinar uses it to Jillian in reference to simply killing him and running.

When you disband a squad, the squad no longers exists, it is unmade. There is a mechanic-word for treason (turn), we have seen no insubordination that was not a protected exception, and disbanding fills in the important TBS mechanic of deleting ineffective or space- or resource-consuming units.

While there is always the possibilty that you may be right, since it hasn't been confirmed, it's also possible that the whole thing could be an alien abduction of Parson, running him through this to say how humans react. That hasn't been expressly denied, either.

[Daefaroth]

And we haven't seen any disobedience, have we? What we have seen are natural allies break their alliance. We have not seen units of a side actually disobey a direct order.

If (and this is a big speculative if), if Stanley were even indirectly responsible for King Saline's death, that would would be a pretty huge display of disobediance.

On a more defensible arguement, Wanda gave the location of Faq to Stanley to help him to lead an attack against it. Even if she intended for Stanley to fail, she still clearly went against King Banhammer's policy of no contact with nearby sides.

[Bobby Archer]

First, this has gotten quite a bit off topic. I'd suggest that any further discussion of the nature of disbanding be moved to a thread centered around that topic.
Second, Kreistor, please don't double-post. Particularly if the second post is only minutes after the first. If you realize you have more to say after you're done with a post, just edit the earlier post. Sorry, it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Back to the topic, a few things occurred to me when reading the original premise:

Okay, this strategy relies on some basic assumptions:

1: It's possible to "Pop" low level infantry quickly.
2: Units on your side can be ordered to attack and/or croak other units on your side.
3: It could be possible to arm said infantry with at least some form of ranged weapon each.
4: Although 8 man "stacks" are preferrable, there aren't any limits on how many units you can have in a single hex.
5: It will always be at least "Theoretically possible" for even the lowest level unit to hit another unit with a ranged attack.

The plan:

1: Pop thousands upon thousands of Lvl 1 basic infantry.
2: Croak them.
3: Decrypt them.
4: Arm the new decrypted forces with some form of ranged weapon.
5: Always move this force within the same hex.

Benefits: This "ranged" force will be able to attack any unit entering the hex, even with a minsiscule chance of hitting, the unit being attacked will be swarmed with projectile weapons, more than enough will get through. Such a set up could effectively kill almost any single or small group of higher level units.

So, does this sound like a broken mechanic?

The assumption that units can croak other units on the same side is likely false, although, as was mentioned by Cmdr. Noah, there are (convoluted) workarounds to this. It's even more straightforward if "disbanding" means a unit becomes barbarian or neutral as opposed to simply ceasing to be. However, if the more restrictive (for our purposes) definition of disbanded is true, and units can't croak units on their own side, the difficulty in getting someone to kill your units then letting you decrypt them is a limiting factor to this strategy,

Also, an assumption that you didn't take into account is the idea that there is no upward limit to the number of units Wanda can decrypt. She certainly hasn't run into it yet, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

The idea that you can take this super-stack on the road is also problematic. The scenario that Parson was playing with involved him on the parapet of the Tower of Efdup, which is higher than the city's walls (judging by the picture in the first SU and assuming the courtyard walls are of similar height to the outer walls). The killing power of the brick relies on it reaching terminal velocity. If I throw a brick at you, it'll hurt. If I manage to hit you with one I dropped out of a building... Let's just say this stack only works in certain circumstances.

Finally, it would be better to just use archers (decrypted archers if you want), as long as there isn't a significant time/resources difference between popping infantry and archers (Welf von Ehrwald brought this up more eloquently than I'm going to try to be).

The strength of Parson's idea that stands behind this is in the possibility of repurposing units on the fly. If infantry have some use that archers don't (even if that's just the ability to pop them quicker and in greater numbers), then being able to make them makeshift archers on the fly is a good tactic if you don't happen to have enough archers on hand. Getting a bunch of infantry for the sole purpose of using them as archers is a less than effective use of resources.

Now, where Parson could have used this idea was after uncroaking all those Jetstone units during the Battle for Gobwin Knob. If they'd been able to croak a few RCC units by way of thrown crap (figurative or literal) while they were standing out on the walls, it might have made a difference.

[Kreistor]

And yet they both appear to be specific mechanics, so it's unlikely they are the same thing.

Barbarian is a noun -- it's a state. Disband is a verb -- it's a process. It is neither likely nor unlikely that they are independent. The suggestion that Disbanding results in un-popping requires the invention of an unmentioned event, that is "un-popping". "Un-popped" then is also a state, but unliek "Barbarian", it is not referenced at all in the comic. Disbanding leading units to Barbarism does not invent anything new. Nowhere has the final state of the disbanding process been described, so it's speculation either way, but the un-popped speculation lacks proof that that state even exists. You really hope to convince me you've got a superior case? Yes, there are two mechanics, but they are not mutually exclusive, and they don't require any invention to interlace to become linked. The unpopped theory requires an absolute invention that defies certain mentions in the comic tf what can cause disbanding, requiring units to commit suicide to do what any normal human walks away from, that is, commit treason.

Actually, there are stated exceptions. "I'm allowed, I'm convinced it will lead to your destruction." is one.

And that justifies your oversight? You stated that it hadn't happened, ever: that's an absolute. You were wrong. It does not matter that Wanda was allowed at the time, you presented it as an absolute. In the same way as you presented that only Natural Allies had broken alliance. Oh, yeah, BTW, Barbarians aren't Natural Allies either, so Jillian breaking alliance was another case against your contention that only NA's had broken alliance. You're asking me to believe you're right without citing references, when you lack the capacity to remember details about the comic. Details are what scupper theories. That's why I expect citation and references when it comes to claims of rules. Either you're fastidious and ensure your theory fits the entire comic, and not just your faulty memory of the comic, or you aren't. If you're fastidious, you'll know exactly where to get your references in moments, and it won't take any time at all. You don't have the time, so you're obviously not fastidious and haven't done the work to ensure teh accuracy of your claims, which means you haven't done your homework. That's why you can't cite, and why I've been able to cite against you so very easily. It's not that you're just lazy,it's that you think you can't forget the events in the comic, and so trust only to memory. I think there's an "A" word that describes that belief. You know, the belief that you can make claims without having to prove them because you're so good you can't be wrong. That "A" word.

[quote=me]Insert dismissive comment about lack of evidence here. Claims require proof. You're wrong until you demonstrate. I only hold you to the standard I hold myself to.[/quote]

I'm not going to jump through hoops for you simply because you refuse to accept that you may very well be wrong.

I didn't ask for anything I didn't do myself. You refuse to cite, because it's impossible to prove your point, not because it's jumping through hoops. Like I said, if you'd done your work to be certain your theory held true, you wouldn't need to take time to hunt the references down, you'd find them in moments.

Thanks for playing, but you're not getting the benefit of the doubt. No one does here, not even me.

Actually, it's turn. Not just to hostile sides, Webinar uses it to Jillian in reference to simply killing him and running.

I went through the trouble of tracking down comic pages to prove my point, and did not ask you to look up my references by providing them myself. You can't be bothered, and blame me for asking you to jump through hoops? You just did exactly what you accuse me of -- asking me to jump through hoops for you, but worse, you do it in reference to your own point. I never asked you to look up what I was trying to prove, only what you were. You're expecting me to look up the source for your own point. I believe there's an "H" word for what you just did.

When you disband a squad, the squad no longers exists, it is unmade. There is a mechanic-word for treason (turn), we have seen no insubordination that was not a protected exception, and disbanding fills in the important TBS mechanic of deleting ineffective or space- or resource-consuming units.

Be careful with words, and this is a warning for anyone thinking of participating that's readin this, not just Darkside. Stanley calls unit stats "points", while Parson uses the term "stats". Erfworlders are not born with a lexicon of rules in their head, not in the way we get rules in a game box, codified and organized. The rules are concepts to them, not absolute sentences on paper. So though the individuals use the word "turn", that does not mean there is a rule in Erfworlders' heads that says, "Turn means to commit treason." This is something that complicates this comic and our analysis of it. Two people talking of the same thing call them by different words, and sometimes those words can conflict and confuse by the same word being used by two different people for two different unrelated things. "Turn" can have different meanings for different people. So be careful in seeing these references as absolutes: they aren't. We invent absolutes to codify the rules because we know that they can be codified, but the Erfworlders do not require such rules. To them, it's a natural part of existence to simply know how the world works: in that way, their knowledge is more advanced, but more limited than ours. They won't push the edge of knowledge the way we probe the edges of physics. They think they know ahow the world works from the moment of their popping, so there's no reason to press any further. Parson, lacking the inborn knowledge of how the world works, benefits from the freeform world of physics, and overcomes the limits that inborn knowledge turns into tradition for the Erfworlders. What Parson (and we for that matter) is trying to do by learning these ideas as "rules" is quite unnatural to the local Erfworlders, which is why he's having such a hard time of it: they don't need to codify and discuss these concepts, because they all know them naturally. They don't need hard definitions for particular words, since it's there conceptually in their heads.

BTW, don't forget what happens to an individual soldier in a unit that is disbanded. He's not "unmade", only reassigned or dismissed from service.

While there is always the possibilty that you may be right, since it hasn't been confirmed, it's also possible that the whole thing could be an alien abduction of Parson, running him through this to say how humans react. That hasn't been expressly denied, either.

Which doesn't change the fact that there are rules to figure out. Even in the alien abduction scenario, Parson is perceiving Erfworld. We perceive that Erfworld, and those of us that try to codify the rules do it regardless of Parson's true situation -- Erfworld, abduction, or stroke. That is irrelevant to the rules, until it influences the rules by becoming known.

So, this is it. You're wrong, because you are either incapable of proving, or lack the interest in proving, your claims. When you can actually take the time to prove something, I'll pay attention. Until then, I am simply ignoring any of your claims as unfounded and unproven, based on a faulty memory of the comic, and therefore irrelevant and confusing to the true effort of puzzling out the rules. Your standards are deficient, and your methodology non-existent.

You're welcome to have the last word. I really don't care what someone that can't even bother to try has to say.

[Kreistor]

First, this has gotten quite a bit off topic. I'd suggest that any further discussion of the nature of disbanding be moved to a thread centered around that topic.

Threads go where they go. Getting hung up on that is only going to make your life more stressful.

Second, Kreistor, please don't double-post. Particularly if the second post is only minutes after the first. If you realize you have more to say after you're done with a post, just edit the earlier post. Sorry, it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Sorry, I don't perform to other people's expectations. Even on GitP I double posted once in a while. Early on I slaved to the no double rule, but people that see the first post, miss the edit, so I stopped. It happens so rarely, no one bothers reporting unless it becomes a habit. That's all I 'll promise. I wont make it a habit.

The assumption that units can croak other units on the same side is likely false, although, as was mentioned by Cmdr. Noah, there are (convoluted) workarounds to this. It's even more straightforward if "disbanding" means a unit becomes barbarian or neutral as opposed to simply ceasing to be.

Whoa up, Hoss, that's how we wound up discussing Disbanding. I suggested disbanding leading to barbarianism leading to auto-attack and croacking of popped units to solve the problem of friendlies conflicting. Others demanded Disbanding only un-popped, and so we argue. It is relevant to this discussion, though not obviously by first-order analysis. I was surprised to find you complaining about the side topic, then bringing it up yourself.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Sorry; TL, DNR

To Turn means to switch allegiance from one side to another; this does not necessarily mean it's a treasonous act; though it's easy to see why it would be considered such, especially if done mid-battle. We know that survivors of battles (particularly after the destruction of a side, and particularly casters) may turn to their captors rather than be killed or imprisoned indefinitely. Jillian was asked to turn (by Jetstone and their allies!), likely to free them from her conflicted, seemingly inept commands.

My best guess for Disbanding is that it means the destruction/deletion/"de-popping" of a unit. I can't prove it, but there are several reasons I think so.

1) I have seen nothing to indicate that Disbanding is a process that creates a Barbarian unit. We already know two ways Barbarians are made: random popping in the wild, and being left over after a side is left without a ruler. I see no reason to surmise there is another way unless we get a near-explicit statement of such from the comic.

2) Sizemore's fear and Parson's Klogging seem to indicate that, whatever its form, Disbanding would be the end of them. If they were merely made Barbarians (and could leave), they'd actually be better off.

3) If you became a Barbarian, you would be killed instantly in a battle with your ex-side. This is bad news for both the Disbander and the Disbandee, as even a 1-on-100 fight could result in a lost unit for the side involved. The only way to avoid a fight is if the Disbandee is (or includes) a Commander. Then if neither side wants to fight, they can move off on their next turn.

4) Real World Evidence. I don't like references to other games to be the key evidence in an argument, but I don't mind when it supports what evidence you have from the comic. In this case, all instances of Disbanding I know of mean "releasing" a unit from its duty, for the purpose of saving upkeep costs, opening up room (in situations where cities, map squares, or stacks have upper limits) or simply "cleaning house," or de-cluttering the world. Now, in my mind those units were "retired," got to go home, or join a new unit later. BUT - in the actual game interface, they're gone - deleted - the same as if they had been eliminated in battle. This is important - the end result is the exact same as being killed, as far as the game is concerned. Also, though I have seen games that allowed you to give units to allies, I've never seen one that allows you to make them neutral. I have seen "random events" that make a city (and any units in it) neutral, but nothing by choice, and nothing you can select individually.

So, from the unit's perspective, though it's not as painful as being chopped in half or burned alive, the result is the same - their "ending," going wherever units that aren't uncroaked go.

Now, none of this is proof, but I think this is our Best Guess until we see evidence to the contrary.

[Kreistor]

being left over after a side is left without a ruler.

What do we know about that? You're referring to Jillian, obviously, when Faq fell. Let's look at the rules that we do know.

Klog 12: So what happens if Stanley is croaked? He has no heir so our side ends. Field units disband, and the city becomes "neutral".

Page 83. "I take it Faq did fall?" "Instantly. One turn I got a frantic message about a large overflight of dwagons, On my next turn I was a barbarian."

So, what happened to Jillian? Her side ended. Despite having an heir, the side had no cities, and it takes a capital to make a Side. So what happened to Jillian is what could havehappened to units outside GK. Ergo, Jillian became a Barbarian because she disbanded when her SIde ended. Units with the warlord became barbarian with her.

Though it's possible that this may have happened solely because she was an heir, I highly doubt it. It's a pretty specific exception.

I see no reason to surmise there is another way unless we get a near-explicit statement of such from the comic.

And I can say the same about "de-popping." I see no reason to surmise the existence of a de-popping process unless we get a near-explicit statement of such from the comic." I really can twist anything you say about this process and turn it right back against the unproven de-popping. That's a challenge of course. Can you come up with a statement I can't reflect right back at you?

2) Sizemore's fear and Parson's Klogging seem to indicate that, whatever its form, Disbanding would be the end of them. If they were merely made Barbarians (and could leave), they'd actually be better off.

Barbarians need a purse, or they starve. Sizemore's best chance is in MK, but outside there he is likely to be enslaved. His future is possibly more horrible than death if he goes barbarian outside MK.

4) Real World Evidence. ... This is important - the end result is the exact same as being killed, as far as the game is concerned.

If and only if the creature is de-popped. If it remains popped but no longer a unit (a unit is a thing that fights... a thing that doesn't fight isn't a unit). A creature that isn't a unit might be recruited, although there are loyalty questions, so it would be rare if it did exist. Point is, we haven't seen farmers, but we have been assured they exist. Trades are real. There is a place for non-fighting units in Erfworld, but perhaps not in the comic due to constraints on time and story momentum.

Now, none of this is proof, but I think this is our Best Guess until we see evidence to the contrary.

it is no more or less provable than my alternative, except that I don't invent a process or state that doesn't exist, while you do. De-popping is not a fact, it is speculation. Though I speculate that Disbanding results in Barbarianism, neither of those terms are invented. They are used to explain each other, and so there is one fewer invention to my theory.

[Maldeus]

I find this whole disbanding argument rather tiresome. Erfworld's physics operate more like a game than reality, thus saying that the real world definition of disbanding trumps the average game world's definition is ludicrous. True, it's possible that these units simply disappear from the game's system but remain in the game's world, but remember that in Erfworld, the system is the world. The rules of Erfworld are not abstractions to allow the game to be processed by humans/computers who couldn't possibly keep track of all the variables present in an accurate simulation of war. The rules of Erfworld are the laws of physics in that world.

Case in point; Gobwin Knob's reconstruction. It wasn't a bunch of construction units, civilians who are otherwise invisible to the game system, showing up and constructing the city in record time. It's exactly what we see in the war games; turn starts, poof! New city. In an actual game, the new city poofing is meant to be an abstraction, and the player is meant to assume it was actually constructed by the civilians who are presumed to inhabit the game world. Erfworld is a literal interpretation of this abstraction, however, so the city literally poofs into existence. I know I'm being a bit redundant here, but I want to make my point absolutely clear.

Now, what happens when you disband a unit in one of these games? Do any other units of the same type gain a few reinforcements from the disbanded unit? Do the units join a visible civilian workforce? No. They are deleted. In computer games, lazy designers will frequently key the disband button to a literal kill command, causing the unit not only to cease to exist, but to play its death animation as it does so. Even in games without death animations (such as the non-virtual wargame Parson was playing), the unit simply vanishes. They cease to exist. They die.

Why do they use the word "disband" instead of "croak?" The same reason we use the word "execute" instead of "kill." It's a specification.

Why didn't Jillian croak when her Side ended? She's an Heir. Possibly warlords/casters would become Barbarians as well, but I doubt it. There's no way of knowing, because Gobwin Knob had no warlords outside the city, and the comic was referring to a specific situation, not general rules.

Does "to turn" have a literal meaning in comic terms, not just the general meaning taken from real life? Hard to say for certain, but almost certainly yes. So Stanley used a little slang. That proves absolutely nothing. And given that Erfworlders are popped into a game-like world fully gifted with knowledge of how things work, it's safe to say that yes, they are in fact popped with a lexicon of game terms.

I will concede your theory is possible, however it's unlikely. Maybe Stanley thought he was threatening Parson with a civilian life under the assumption that he was a military man, but nothing in the comic implies this. Maybe Stanley was referring to his ability to get Parson killed with a thought, but what he literally said was that he could actually kill Parson just by thinking about it, and we've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Disbanding, literally, has the same function as killing in a war game. Erfworld operates on war game rules. Therefore the default most likely result of disbanding is death, and the burden lies on you to prove it otherwise. You have failed to do so. Thank you and good night.

EDIT: Also, your blatant flaunting of forums ettiquette accepted throughout the entirety of the internet is not going to win you any friends. Your response to this will almost certainly be that you're not here to make friends, and my response to that is that if you don't want a healthy connection with people, why are you trying to forge a connection at all?

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

being left over after a side is left without a ruler.

What do we know about that? You're referring to Jillian, obviously, when Faq fell. Let's look at the rules that we do know.

Obviously nothing - I have to re-read my statement just to know what you're half-quoting here.

Klog 12: So what happens if Stanley is croaked? He has no heir so our side ends. Field units disband, and the city becomes "neutral".

Aha! This must be the crux of the issue. Parson says field units disband. Personally, I believe this is one of those things (someone mentioned above) where Parson uses the wrong terminology. Ruler-generated Disbanding and destroyed-side "disbanding" are probably different things. BUT if we assume they are the same mechanic being activated in 2 different ways, then what?

1) Jillian is not an exception. If a Ruler disbands someone they become a Barbarian in the midst of a side, with all the issues that entails.

2) Jillian is an exception, (possibly because she is Heir). If a Ruler disbands someone they are 'deleted,' and the same thing happens to field units when a side is finished, clearing up the whole issue of random unled troops of a specific Side seeking revenge, or huge Barbarian field armies wandering about looking to take a city after a Ruler is ganked. (Since we know the in-city units are frozen in time and can take no proactive actions). Essentially, a Ruler can't rule from the grave.

hmm... actually, I like #2. I would be willing to go with that, and say Barbarians only pop randomly unless they are Heirs of lost sides.

Though it's possible that this may have happened solely because she was an heir, I highly doubt it. It's a pretty specific exception.

Exceptions tend to be specific. If the loss of a Ruler means the destruction (in effect) of his side, having an Heir would be the exception to make (as opposed to Warlords, or Casters, or all Commanders, or Tribe Members, etc). If the Heir is only a few hexes away with a big army, they could retake the Capital and have the side going again on the next turn. In this way, the Heir away from home has to fight for it rather than just automatically keeping control of the whole side, and if the Heir was to disband as well, what would be the point of having one?

If disbanding means "becoming Barbarian," then it only makes sense to bother popping an Heir if only an Heir can claim a city. Otherwise it's unwise (see Saline IV).

And I can say the same about "de-popping." I see no reason to surmise the existence of a de-popping process unless we get a near-explicit statement of such from the comic." I really can twist anything you say about this process and turn it right back against the unproven de-popping. That's a challenge of course. Can you come up with a statement I can't reflect right back at you?

Challenge rejected. I use my words to express my ideas and the reasons I've come to the hypotheses and conclusions I have, and why I think they're stronger than the alternatives I've been presented with. I don't use them to frustrate or aggravate an "opponent" or to sound smug or to "twist" someone's words. As you see above, I'm willing to re-think and re-shape my ideas, or at least seriously consider secondary possibilities as, well, possible. People who talk like you do in the quote above, in my experience, aren't, and therefore aren't worth the trouble of catering to.

Barbarians need a purse, or they starve. Sizemore's best chance is in MK, but outside there he is likely to be enslaved. His future is possibly more horrible than death if he goes barbarian outside MK.

"Enslaved?" Who would treat him worse than Stanley, his own "blood?" Sizemore could easily find "employment" in almost any side. Certainly someone as self-serving, business-savvy, and open-minded as Charlie would find some use for him, at least temporarily.

Also, you're speaking to someone who doesn't believe in a future more horrible than death. And since there hasn't been any talk about "Going to be with the Titans" or any kind of nice afterlife, they may be inclined to agree, no matter how miserable they are.

What could be worse than, or as bad as, being (effectively) killed? Serving a harsh master, having no freedom? Sizemore seemed pretty attached to that kind of situation. Starving to death in the wild for lack of upkeep? Even if it's less likely than I think that they could survive, the chance would be greater than 0. And in the face of destruction by the RCC, it might be welcome. Anything but death at Stanley's hands (mind?) would be better than waiting in GK.

Also, doesn't it bother you that if Disbanding turns units into Barbarians, there would automatically be a fight with their old side, unless they had a Commander and both sides would be willing to part ways? You didn't comment on that at all, but it's one of the main reasons I think that your idea is wrong. That and a sneak attack on a Capital could leave huge Barbarian armies out there.

If and only if the creature is de-popped. If it remains popped but no longer a unit (a unit is a thing that fights... a thing that doesn't fight isn't a unit). A creature that isn't a unit might be recruited, although there are loyalty questions, so it would be rare if it did exist. Point is, we haven't seen farmers, but we have been assured they exist. Trades are real. There is a place for non-fighting units in Erfworld, but perhaps not in the comic due to constraints on time and story momentum.

Well, yes. I'm asking you to, for a moment, consider de-popping as a possibility long enough to see if the different pieces of evidence can add up. It isn't proof; even Sherlock Holmes repeatedly updates his theories as more information is added. The conclusion you come to with evidence A, B, and C will likely be far different than with A, B, C, and X. But your choices are to consider them and come up with a theory or deny anything is possible. It's clear you have a theory of your own, and yet you discount all other evidence as having no substance or "only working if X is true," but that's the idea. X can still be true in the light of the evidence at hand, and seems a certain amount more likely than Y. You can't say, "well the evidence for X isn't valid if we presuppose that Y is true," when Y and X are conclusions at odds with each other. The fact that a piece of evidence doesn't support your theory does not invalidate it in supporting other theories.

Whew. That was convoluted.

Anyway. "Popped but is no longer a unit." As in, not a Barbarian.

OK, let's look at this. In a vacuum, this would be at least as likely as 'de-popping.' Some games eliminate the unit with no immediate benefit. Some games actually increase your population when you disband units, so that's a wash.

So let's look at how it would happen and how it would be looked at by Erfworlders, and if there is any information for or against it in the comic.

If you are "not a unit," what are you? How do you interact with the world? Are you like a pigeon? Or are they Units because they can be Hammered? What have we seen that is Not A Unit? Anything alive? Not that I know of. It's possible that there are non-unit "people" living in the cities; that was my original belief, but since a city can go from ruins to city in one turn, from lvl 1 to lvl 5 in one turn, with no labor and seemingly no resources; since there are no births, only "popping," and we can probably assume that every "person" popped is a Unit, since a city's production/economy is sent, in aggregate, to the Ruler's treasury, automatically, each turn; That no mention of "Civilians" or "Populace" or deaths other than the Units involved in the conflicts is ever made; That the world's pacifists are also combat troops; etc. etc., that either:

1) Non-Unit "people" do not, and cannot exist. The world doesn't need them. Everything alive or Uncroaked is a Unit. Everything else is Terrain, Cities, Magic Items, and Food. "Everything that fights is a Unit," is not meant to mean that there are people who don't fight, just things that don't.

2) In some sense or fashion, there are non-Unit people. They are an abstract of Erfworld, faded into its tapestry, like the Terrain itself; They don't speak to or interact with the Units in any real way; out of sight and out of mind; and that no Unit can become a non-unit (other than being croaked and left) or vice versa. In which case, disbanding wouldn't be the same as croaking, exactly, but it would be "like unto death."

Additional points:

1) The idea that there could be an ex-Unit or would-be Unit, like a Unit but not, free from combat, is one of the bigger reaches I've heard. This is a world in which Sizemore is forced to kill - and for what? Obedience? I do not think he would follow those orders if he had any choice, and we know some people can overcome Obedience in certain situations. Especially if "Disbanding" meant a) he would still be alive, b) he wouldn't have to follow those kind of orders, and c) he wouldn't be able to be attacked. He'd do everything he could to get Disbanded, not hide from Stanley.

2) We have not been assured farmers exist. Far from it. We know that Barbarians and Natural Allies (and even, I think, Capital Sides) can supplement their income by farming, mining, hunting, etc. However - the only mining we have witnessed has been carried out by Units. Fighting, Combat-oriented Units who also mine. Marbits, Gobwins, Sizemore. All fight. All Units. We've seen Hobbittm Units with picks and shovels - they used these to take down a wall, but why couldn't they use them to mine for their side? We've seen no Hunting going on, but who better than Archery Units, especially Woodsy Elves, for instance? Why couldn't a Unit farm, or to flip that, what would make a Farmer Not A Unit? Farmers the world over have fought for their defense for the history of the institution. Why couldn't you attack a farmer, in a world as war-torn as Erfworld?

Only one reason that I can think of - that the Farmer is an integral, inseperable, and indistinguishable part of a Farm - like the Cows, Wheat, and Fences, they exist, live, and die together, interacting with nothing but the Ruler's orders (if they include anything more detailed than "be a Farm,").

That is, of course, if Farms exist in such a manner at all, and aren't just a line on a budget summary - we don't have any indication how in-depth city management is, it might have no interface beyond level, defenses, and unit production.

it is no more or less provable than my alternative

That's right, but you seemed to be demanding proof, whereas I want a logical approach that considers all the available information and makes the best guess, and I think my guess is better, and I want you to consider my guess and its evidence as possible, and not attempt to shout down the evidence as "not proof."

except that I don't invent a process or state that doesn't exist, while you do. De-popping is not a fact, it is speculation. Though I speculate that Disbanding results in Barbarianism, neither of those terms are invented. They are used to explain each other, and so there is one fewer invention to my theory.

De-Siding, or Barbarianating, (or de-Uniting, or Civilianning) depending on which theory we're talking about) is a process you've invented. You just haven't named it. You call it Disbanding because a) you can use a term we've heard before so you sound more "official" or "right," and b) because that's what you want it to mean. But you don't know what Disbanding really means any more than I do, so you don't know you're using the right word. I make up a word so you understand what I'm talking about, but that is no indication that I'm wrong. I may just be using a synonym, or describing a part or result of an actual process.

De-popping doesn't "not exist," it just hasn't been seen or named. (Like farmers). But that's only "De-popping" as the result of Disbanding.

1) If I call it "Deletionism," suddenly it's an official, named Mechanic. It even fits. But since nobody really knows what Deletionism is, and neither do I, I use "de-popping" to be safe and clear.

2) "De-Popped," as a state (and not a process) does exist, and we have seen it. It's what happened to Misty and every other Croaked person who isn't brought back. They cease to exist. It is because they don't exist that the state doesn't have a name. But that lack of a name doesn't mean the state isn't real.

"But," you might say, "Disbanding doesn't Croak people." To that I say, "Disbanding doesn't Barbarian(ize) people." That's what we're arguing, isn't it? Only I suggest a possibility and offer criticism on the alternatives, while you wave around "official" Language and decry made-up terms as if that means something.

It's not the words, it's the concepts that are important. Words are a Tool. And so are some people. Like Stanley. But wait - how can Tool mean two different things? One must be wrong.

[Maldeus]

Now I'm waiting for the Arkendictionary.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

The Arkenpedia!

[Housellama]

To the various and sundry folks talking about Stanley threatening to disband Parsons... Parsons is both an individual and a unit. He is a Warlord. Therefore he is an individual and, at that time, a single unit.

[MarbitChow]

Why do they use the word "disband" instead of "croak?" The same reason we use the word "execute" instead of "kill." It's a specification.

Actually, if croaking leaves a corpse, and disbanding doesn't, that would be a significant distinction. A side w/ croakamancy couldn't uncroak disbanded units.
They would only be able to uncroak their own units that have fallen in battle or slain enemy units.
This is a pretty standard limitation to necromancy in most games, to prevent the unlimited creation of cheap undead troops.

[Darkside007]

And we haven't seen any disobedience, have we? What we have seen are natural allies break their alliance. We have not seen units of a side actually disobey a direct order.

If (and this is a big speculative if), if Stanley were even indirectly responsible for King Saline's death, that would would be a pretty huge display of disobediance.

On a more defensible arguement, Wanda gave the location of Faq to Stanley to help him to lead an attack against it. Even if she intended for Stanley to fail, she still clearly went against King Banhammer's policy of no contact with nearby sides.

But she made certain it would fall under "benfits her side" exemption. It required some false logic, but she convinced herself it was a Good Move for Faq.

[Darkside007]

You know what Kreistor? It seems to me that you aren't really interested in figuring out how Erfworld works, but only in being right. See how you danced over my skipping Wanda's exception to the obedience rule as a win for you, despite having no actual effect on the current discussion whatsoever, as an example. I was aware of it, I assumed you were aware of it, you were aware of it, but you were seemingly thrilled that I had erred, despite it not being relevent.

I haven't really gotten that vibe from anyone else, though some people invest to much emotionally in their pet theories. While that results in them wanting a specific outcome too much to engage in rational analysis, you seem to care less about the theory in question than that you be proven correct.