MarbitChow wrote:You're the one who mentioned that disbanding means turning barbarian. There is no evidence of that.
There's no mention of de-popping units, either, but you seem perfectly happy inventing that idea.
What we know:
Overlord dies, no heir: field units disband.
Correct, state dby Parson in a Klog.
Overlord dies, capital falls, designated heir: heir becomes barbarian
Not stated. It is known that Jillian became a barbarian when Faq fell, but it is not known that this is restricted to only Heirs. It can equally be explained by "Warlords become barbarian when their side falls." That also explains Casters in MK, which yuo've overlooked.
(Assumed:) Overlord lives, capital falls: Overlord becomes barbarian
Stated by Vinnie to Jillian, but it also was stated anyone with him becomes barbarian. It's not restricted to just the Overlord.
Disbanding is described as distinct from barbarian.
Because Barbarian is a noun and Disband a verb. Disband is a process. Barbarian is a state. Don't you see the symmetry in the process causing the state? We have a process with an uncertain end state and an end state with an uncertain process. Can't you see the elegance in the two uniting to a single rule? It literally does explain everything, every threat, and every case.
Examples of disbanding indicate that it's a horrible fate.
No, it doesn't. It is used as a threat, yes, but not as a torturous threat. We have no indication of the end state. We know that it is a threat, but it does not need to be instant oblivion to be a threat in any f the cases it isused as a threat. A barbarian surrounded by an entire Side's garrison forces is just as dead, and far more painfully dead, as if he disappeared.
Examples of barbarianism indicate that it's simply a capital-less state.
Yes, but with cash-flow problems. Jillian survived it by going merc, which she conveinetly adored. Imagine Ansom in that state... he'd be miserable as a merc forced to give up his prideful egotism to serve others' morality simply to eat.
As to the uncroak mechanism: summoning your lowest infantry, and turning them into equivalent uncroaked infantry with a croakamancer leading them actually improves them. Yes, they'll decay, but you're not paying upkeep during that time, and they are substantially more powerful than they were as plain infantry.
"Casters are too rare and valuable to risk". Klog 10. Parson used Wanda for the same reason Stanley summoned Parson. Stanley couldn't keep the treasury if he lost GK, and Parson couldn't win tBfGK without risking casters. Now tha the situation has changed, Wanda will not be risked on the front line. With the Arkentool turning enemy Warlords into slaves, Wanda is better used decrypting enemy warlords than leading uncroaked stacks. And, actually, does she even give decrypted the same massive bonus she gives uncroaked? Decrypted are intelligent, sentient creatures that want leadership, not mindless drones that need instruction. We might never see Wanda lead a stack through the rest of the comic.
I simply mentioned this because, from a game-design point-of-view, it would make sense to me that, if disbanding is an at-will power that eliminates a unit, there should be no way to benefit from the ability (from a risk-reward standpoint), and leaving a body allows for potential benefits. If there is no risk to an owner disbanding a unit, there should be no potential reward (other than no longer having to worry about the unit).
Without upkeep vs. unit cost ratios, we don't know the financial viability of the plan. But we definitely know Croakamancers don't lead uncroaked stacks as a general rule: this is saved for desperate times, like when a Side is backed up against a wall like GK. The value of the caster is the balance making this plan too risky to consider.
Oh, and the slam of Loyalty as troopers watch their friends become drones. Nothing screams "Get out of dodge" like your friend's arm rotting off.
All of this talk of good / evil and what not is tangential to the original point of "Disband = De-pop":
Uhm... didn't I say that? To both you and the other guy? I don't mind arguing it, but it doesn't hurt my case to lose it, so I don't know hwy you're arguing about it.
You've raised possibilities that Disband means "turn barbarian", but there is no evidence for that and strong evidence against.
No evidence against. Only the suggestion that the threat of painful stabbity death isn't enough to justify Sizemore's fear. That's just opinion, not evidence. Do you have anything else at all? Because that's not evidence.
Barbarians pop spontaneously, so "Disband" can't be exactly equivalent to "become barbarian", and the mechanism that existing units become barbarian has been explained. Thus, there is a strong case against this possibility.
Jillian "became" barbarian. Or did you forget? We have evidence of a warlord becoming a barbarian. Knowledge that a Ruler and associated troops would become barbarian. Casters in MK would become barbarian. Lots of people become barbarians.
You've raised the possibility that Disband means "become a non-military unit". We have not seen non-military units.
Yeah, and I said that was speculation. I also said that we're getting lots of rules over the summer. For instance, n old argument was resolved today. Archons are not casters as Wanda and Sizemore are: their casting is a natural ability. Until today, they might have been casters. (Actually, that was strange argument. Some epoepl insisted that Archons were also great meleers. Ugh. Glad that's over. I was wrong, BTW. I didn't think the casting would be natural.)
(Pigeons don't count, since they are there for comedic effect only.)
You don't find non-unit men funny, then? Farmers are a great bunch of jokers.
Disband is always spoken of as a horrible fate.
To me, getting stabbed with swords is a pretty horrible fate. Maybe you think a gut wound is a clean way to die, but I don't like the idea of lingering for a few days while becoming slowly delirious from the pain, blood loss, and toxic shock as...
Sizemore is peaceful by nature.
And a natural coward that prefers living in a septic tank to risking his life. Remember that to him, barbarianism is merely a temporary state on the way to being a captured, indentured servant, who risks being a mind-slave to the Thinkamancer from the side that finally captures him. Fear of the unknown is the most powerful fear of all.
If Disbanding meant he could go off and live peacefully, he'd LEAP at the chance.
The units that are typically captured, and forced to become mindslaves due to unknwon Loyalty are... Casters! Sizemore as Barbarian will never know peace outside the MK. Why do you think Parson specifically wanted to send them to the MK, where a Barbarian Caster is safe from capture?
You've raised the possibility that Disband means "croak".
No, I didn't, but I debate against it. Don't know who mentioned it first, but frankly I treat it as synonymous with de-popping from a perspective of arguing. Drop dead and vapourization aren't different enough to me to require different thought processes to argue against.
The counter-arguments you've raised against "Disband = De-pop" primarily required faith in a just universe,
No, actually. My arguments demand that all cases be handled by this proposal. If disbanding = de-popping, the exceptions of Jillian, Stanley, Casters in MK, etc. must all be included. Why don't they de-pop when the side ends? I don't like exceptions. A simple rule can explain all of these with no exceptions.
Further, you need "Captial falling" and "Ruler dying" to require different rules. So you have two events to explain, where I only require one. In one case you have depopping. In the other you don't. That's needlessly complex. The }disbanding results in the state of barbarism" explains all cases of sides ending with barbarian fielded units, explains the threat posed to Sizemore and Parson, explains why we have a process with no end result and an end result with no process, is simple to implement, understand, and all parts are known things. I don't invent anything, just bring what is already there together into one cohesive entity.
which Erfworld has been shown not to be. The symmetry of all things in Erfworld popping and depopping does not appear to move you, but I'll mention it again none-the-less.
Useful things pop. Useless things de-pop. Very symmetrical. Problem is: a fielded unit is not useless. It's still useful to itself.
So, to summarize, based on our current available knowledge, "Disband=De-pop" appears to be the likeliest possibility.
You can't even prove it's a possibility, much less a probable event. At least I can pint at cases where Sided units become barbarians. I can point at cases where Disbanding occurs. As I said, I'm connecting a known state to a known process that changes one state to another. You're connecting an unmentioned process to a known process because you don't think croaking is an adequate threat to a unit known to be non-violent and cowardly. That's like saying, "Shaggy is too scared for the bad guy withthe gun to be threatening him with only death. He must be a vampire threatening to drink his soul!" Shaggy, like Sizemore, hates pain, and not just in himself, but also in others. Sizemore not wanting to see Parson injured is more than adequate to explain his intention to prevent Parson from doing what might get him disbanded.
As an aside, I believe you're actually arguing just for fun and don't believe most of what you're trying to prove,
You'd be wrong. I'm a heavy contributor to the Wiki, and am behind most of the Proposed Spec. I am arguing to see if you can actually prove it. As I said, there's not quite enough for me to move my own theory to Prop Spec, and so it's not there yet. You've literally got no evidence of anything yet, so it's not going to be there either. I really am ony a side comment away. Everythign I am wrking with is known to exist. I'm only connecting dots. You're inventing something unmentioned. That doesn't get to be Prop Spec.
so I doubt that any of the arguments raised here are actually going to be heeded.
They're not heeded because they are based on an opinion about a threat level, at least that's all you've got so far. Everythign else an extension from a belief that pain of death isn't a threat. From that you invent de-popping of living units, disconnect two versions of a side ending, requiring two rule sets, and add exceptions wherever anything doesn't agree with your original premise. I don't see an argument, I see scrambling to prop up a pet theory.
I'm betting that you'll ignore the ones that are too difficult to challenge and attempt to confuse the remaining issues with paragraphs of text that don't actually contradict the point being discussed.
Let's see... yep, faced it all. You're still basing your beliefs on Siezemore's reaction to a threat, that is adequately explained by pieces of metal being shoved into flesh. If you think that opinion is an argument worth serious consideration, then you're not going to get anywhere.
Look, it's this simple.
A unit in the field disbands when its Side ends.
1) If the unit has leadership, it becomes a Barbarian Warlord.
1a) Where multiple units with leadership from the same side become barbarian in the same hex, the units with lower leadership take service with the unit having the highest leadership.
2) If the unit does not have leadership, it becomes a Barbarian.
2a) Units in the presence of a unit with leadership that becomes a Barbarian Warlord remain in the service of that unit.
And everything is explained. It covers all of the known instances of a Side ending.
1) Jillian turns barbarian when Faq falls. She retains the service of all units with her.
2) According to Vinnie, Stanley retains the services of his stack should GK fall.
3) Casters (which are commanders) become barbarian in the MK.
It also explains the threat to Parson. He would die from auto-attack by all nearby unlead units by beig painfully stabbed, beaten, spindled, or especially burned if Stanley is with a dwagon at the time.
Can you write your rule in such a simple, succinct, elegant fashion? Can you reference all of these events without resorting to exceptions based on details? Can you reference a single unit that has disappeared without being croaked first?
I really don't see any justification for your claims of superior position. You literally cannot prove even the smallest part of your belief. You don't have a single person that's disappeared. your foundation is an opinion of a reaction of a cowardly and sensitive man that fears any pain to anyone, not just himself. At least I can prove that units go from a Capital Side to a Barbarian Side uner knwon conditions. I can prove that units without a Side disband (or worse inside a city). I can prove that these are not limited to just Heirs and Rulers, since it happens to Casters in the MK where Heirs and Rulers cannot go. I can prove something of my case.
Your basic contention that living units de-pop has no evidence whatsoever. You have to make two rules: one for a Side ending when the Capital falls, and another when the Ruler dies. You need to make exceptions for Heirs and Rulers and Casters in MK. In fact, you can't point at anything except the exceptions. Don't you see the flaw in having only the exceptions to your rules as evidence of those rules?