Book 2 - Text Updates 039

[kagato23]

I'm confused now as to precisely what your trying to say. You think Warlords give 100% bonus to stack, and 50% to side, but not 1/3 to everybody? Because if that's the case, I think my argument still stands. I don't think Warlords give anything to their hex at all, based on this specifically saying "stack" and not hex.

[Nihila]

Okay. If there's a Chief Warlord, all led stacks' leadership is given by the following sum, provided that said led stack is not in the Chief Warlord's hex:
~.3*(Chief_Warlord_Level)+Warlord_Level
If said led stack is in the Chief Warlord's hex, it becomes:
.5*(Chief_Warlord_Level)+Warlord_Level
The Chief Warlord's stack receives the Chief Warlord's bonus.

Make sense?

[kagato23]

Okay. If there's a Chief Warlord, all led stacks' leadership is given by the following sum, provided that said led stack is not in the Chief Warlord's hex:
~.3*(Chief_Warlord_Level)+Warlord_Level
If said led stack is in the Chief Warlord's hex, it becomes:
.5*(Chief_Warlord_Level)+Warlord_Level
The Chief Warlord's stack receives the Chief Warlord's bonus.

Make sense?

I think we are all good on that part. It's how regular ol non-chief warlords affect their hexes/stacks that we are debating/speculating/scratching our heads over now.

[CNagy]

I believe the problem with that which is being pointed out is that it makes plenty of stacks stronger than the Chief Warlord's stack. Consider Chief Warlord Biggs and his subordinate Warlord Wedge (er... has this comic already done a Wedge and Biggs joke? I can't remember, but if so I'm not referring to them). Biggs is level 10, and gives his entire side +3, allied units in the hex a +5, and his own personal stack a +10. Warlord Wedge is level 8 (they've seen many adventures together that would otherwise be final for others). If Warlords give their level in bonus to their stack, Warlord Wedge gives his stack a +11 (Biggs' +3 and his own +8) at all times, and a +13 when he is in the same stack as Chief Warlord Biggs. If effect, his bonus is far greater in total than the Chief Warlord, an idea that meshes neither with the things we've scene nor the tone with which warrior Chief Warlords are regarded.

Therefore, it seems prudent to assume that Warlords give a bonus that is some percentage of their level, and that promotion to Chief Warlord brings with it superior stack leadership (i.e. a bonus equal to level rather than some percentage thereof.)

The trouble comes when we consider Parson, whose numbers do not fit the pattern. From http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F077a.jpg update, we know that Parson is level 2. From http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F040a.jpg update, we know that--as Chief Warlord--Parson gives all the units of his capital a +2. As the capital city is one hex, this would seem to be his Chief Warlord in the Hex bonus, which is somehow equal to his level. Is it possible that the numbers do not adhere strictly to a linear progression? Warlords have so many different characteristics, might an increased ability to lead be one of them? Of course, this is based on Parson's numbers, and the Stupid Meal refers to him as special so he might be a unique case.

[the_tick_rules]

I was trying to say I believe warlords give 100% to stack, 50% to hex, but nothing to entire side. But it's never been spelled out but it's not definate.

[Oberon]

Damn, drache, you're ripping him up.

Odd, I don't feel ripped up. I thought his response was polite and thoughtful.

The basis of my position is, all government types have some advantages to them, which if looked at away from any of the bad stuff that may have been present as well, will usually be seen to be a positive thing.
Elements of fascism which I approve of are a love for country. Without this love no one in their right mind would ever go to war, and the country would not last. So some amount of fascism is necessary for a nation to survive.
And I believe I could give similar examples for all other government forms, including anarchy.

The problem with much of our political dialogue these days is that the labels used are intended to be looked at in the worst possible light. Take Obama constantly being called a socialist. As if there aren't plenty of good things about socialism. Without socialism, we would not have an interstate highway system. The taxes to build and maintain this system are not measured and adjusted by how much you use the highways, and my 95 year old grandmother who does not drive or travel is still taxed just as much as the traveling salesman who is constantly on the road. This is a socialist calculation, and yet were the same Republicans who call Obama's policies socialist to rail against the interstate highway system they would be laughed at. Hell, I laugh at them already for misusing the label constantly.

[boegiboe]

Two theories, which are mutually incompatible:
One:
A warlord leading a stack gives bonuses to that stack. They give no bonuses to anyone other than their stack.

A CWL gives special CWL bonuses to those they lead, those in the same hex, and those in their stack. These are in addition to the warlord bonuses they give to their stack. So, the CWL of level 10 gives their stack +10 as chief warlord AND +10 (or whatever) as the leader of the stack. Does this seem OP? Well, a given side is only allowed one CWL, and the CWL's stack can only have 7 other members (except for doombats, which are allowed to stack in special ways).

Two:
Chief warlord stacks do NOT, as a rule, go out in the front of the fight. The very first comic showed how a CWL was taken out because of a clever flanking maneuver by the marbits. It's quite likely that dance-fighting requires the dance-lead to be in front, and that accounts for several other instances of the CWL being in front. Along this line of possibility, the CWL doesn't have quite as good a bonus as a powerful sub-warlord's stack, so they hang back on purpose. I have to give a lot of weight to the first description of a fight in the comic. In that fight, the CWL was clearly supposed to be protected.

[Oberon]

On bonuses:

His leadership would add three attack to all units on his side, five to those in his hex, and ten to those in his own stack. His mistress would add one to all Decrypted troops on her side, four to those in her hex, and eight to those in her stack.

And when Ansom, Chief Warlord of Gobwin Knob and a Decrypted unit himself, led a stack of six Decrypted heavies and knights with Wanda Firebaugh, Chief Croakamancer and attuned wielder of the Arkenpliers...

The worst unit in the stack had an attack of thirty.

Ansom himself attacked at thirty-three.

If we can get Ansom's 10 to a 33, we'll probably have a fairly accurate idea of how the system works.
10 - Ansom
08 - Stack bonus
08 - Wanda's bonus to decrypted units in her stack

I'm 7 short... Artifact bonus, maybe? Or are some bonuses cumulative? Does Ansom get the "three attack to all units on his side"? Or does he add his 10 leadership bonus to himself? (I'd be over 33 in that case, so I think not) Or is the "one to all Decrypted troops on her side" additive, or replaced by the 8 bonus for being stacked with Wanda?

[boegiboe]

Damn, drache, you're ripping him up.

Odd, I don't feel ripped up. I thought his response was polite and thoughtful.

The basis of my position is, all government types have some advantages to them, which if looked at away from any of the bad stuff that may have been present as well, will usually be seen to be a positive thing.
Elements of fascism which I approve of are a love for country. Without this love no one in their right mind would ever go to war, and the country would not last. So some amount of fascism is necessary for a nation to survive.
And I believe I could give similar examples for all other government forms, including anarchy.

The problem with much of our political dialogue these days is that the labels used are intended to be looked at in the worst possible light. Take Obama constantly being called a socialist. As if there aren't plenty of good things about socialism. Without socialism, we would not have an interstate highway system. The taxes to build and maintain this system are not measured and adjusted by how much you use the highways, and my 95 year old grandmother who does not drive or travel is still taxed just as much as the traveling salesman who is constantly on the road. This is a socialist calculation, and yet were the same Republicans who call Obama's policies socialist to rail against the interstate highway system they would be laughed at. Hell, I laugh at them already for misusing the label constantly.

Oberon, you have some good points. In particular, your condemnation of political discourse making certain words "bad words" that have some good to them is valuable.

You and I probably disagree on the nationalism thing. Nationalism, by its essence, must devalue non-nationals. I believe all people are equal, and that we're not in a race to succeed at the expense of other people, but with other people. Including those of other nations. What I have problems with are those states that demean, debase, and destroy some of their "citizens" in the name of solidarity or nationalism. Nazi Germany did it. Mussolini's Italy did it. The USSR did it. China does it now. Saudi Arabia and others do it. Tunisia did it until very recently. (Vive la Tunisie!) I don't see any good that ever comes from nationalism AS OPPOSED TO good ole love-thy-neighborism.

[Squishalot]

On bonuses:

His leadership would add three attack to all units on his side, five to those in his hex, and ten to those in his own stack. His mistress would add one to all Decrypted troops on her side, four to those in her hex, and eight to those in her stack.

And when Ansom, Chief Warlord of Gobwin Knob and a Decrypted unit himself, led a stack of six Decrypted heavies and knights with Wanda Firebaugh, Chief Croakamancer and attuned wielder of the Arkenpliers...

The worst unit in the stack had an attack of thirty.

Ansom himself attacked at thirty-three.

If we can get Ansom's 10 to a 33, we'll probably have a fairly accurate idea of how the system works.
10 - Ansom
08 - Stack bonus
08 - Wanda's bonus to decrypted units in her stack

I'm 7 short... Artifact bonus, maybe? Or are some bonuses cumulative? Does Ansom get the "three attack to all units on his side"? Or does he add his 10 leadership bonus to himself? (I'd be over 33 in that case, so I think not) Or is the "one to all Decrypted troops on her side" additive, or replaced by the 8 bonus for being stacked with Wanda?

What you're missing is Ansom's base attack, not linked to his level. Apply the same methodology to the heavies:

30 end attack - 10 (Ansom) - 8 (stack bonus) - 8 (Wanda) = 4. Bogroll had an attack of 5, but that presumably includes his bonus of 2 for being stacked with Parson, meaning his base attack was a 3.

It's not infeasible for Ansom to have a base attack of 7 as a Royal unit (being stronger than non-Royal ones).

[boegiboe]

It's not infeasible for Ansom to have a base attack of 7 as a Royal unit (being stronger than non-Royal ones).

Royalty provides no real bonus. That's the whole point of the comic.

Being noble in one's actions is generally a strategic failure, but the Royals believe that the Titans so favor such behavior that they, the Royals, should continue it. These Royals are being faced with the reality that nobility grants no bonus whatsoever. No one can see the bonus. Yet they believed it was there.

[drachefly]

I don't need to make assumptions, the discussion talks volumes on how little people understand what they are talking about.

That was a little on the vague side. Could you be a mite more specific?

[kagato23]

Two theories, which are mutually incompatible:
One:
A warlord leading a stack gives bonuses to that stack. They give no bonuses to anyone other than their stack.

A CWL gives special CWL bonuses to those they lead, those in the same hex, and those in their stack. These are in addition to the warlord bonuses they give to their stack. So, the CWL of level 10 gives their stack +10 as chief warlord AND +10 (or whatever) as the leader of the stack. Does this seem OP? Well, a given side is only allowed one CWL, and the CWL's stack can only have 7 other members (except for doombats, which are allowed to stack in special ways).

Two:
Chief warlord stacks do NOT, as a rule, go out in the front of the fight. The very first comic showed how a CWL was taken out because of a clever flanking maneuver by the marbits. It's quite likely that dance-fighting requires the dance-lead to be in front, and that accounts for several other instances of the CWL being in front. Along this line of possibility, the CWL doesn't have quite as good a bonus as a powerful sub-warlord's stack, so they hang back on purpose. I have to give a lot of weight to the first description of a fight in the comic. In that fight, the CWL was clearly supposed to be protected.

In the very first fight, all of the units appeared to be together in one tightly grouped stack, presumably to screen for the crossbows. During the Wanda/Ansom Dance off, Ansom is clearly Not in the very front. Also, stacks BONUS max out at 8 troops, not max stack size. And we don't know how good that bonus is. I suspect it's not actually +8, And I def dont' think Chief Warlord has a double bonus, and here's why:

We've all quoted Summer Update Page 33 ad nauseum, so I'll skip the link. Ansom' in his stack is 33 attack. He has 10 leader bonus if it counts on him, +8 from being decrycpted and having wanda in his stack, and a stack bonus we don't know.

If stacks give +1 for each person in them, then as mentioned, that's 26. Which means if his +10- counts twice instead, he's already at 36, which can't be. Even if Stacking bonus is not even considered, that'd be 28. Which means that his personal attack is only 7 in the first case, and less then 5 in the second. That means that when people level, they earn only a fraction of 1 to attack with each level? Which seems unlikely, if his weakest infantry units in a 3 hex line have 6 attack on their own, that he'd only have one more. And leveling definitely has an effect on stats, word of the titans confirms that. I'm guessing stack bonus is actually pretty small (we also don't know if fractions can be added to each other in this world), and that his leadership only counts once, since I would put his attack in the double digits by the time he's level 10.

Consider this: In most Tabletop games (which this world is heavily based on) is the guy in charge of the battle generally in the weakest group? Odds are, he's in one of if not the strongest. I can't think the system here is reverse rigged so that subordinate stacks could constantly and easily be more powerful (a level 1 or 2 chief warlord would have every stack in his hex stronger then him in this case!). Aside from feeling completely wrong for the established world, it would lead us to expect a lot instances of stacks that weren't the chief warlords cutting a swath, when again, from what we've seen in comic the chief warlords stack is generally the big bad one.

Thus, I think the theories (including mine, yes ) that have lesser leadership bonus for warlords are the only ones that, while not proven persay, fit without having to make too many handwaves.

It's not infeasible for Ansom to have a base attack of 7 as a Royal unit (being stronger than non-Royal ones).

Royalty provides no real bonus. That's the whole point of the comic.

Being noble in one's actions is generally a strategic failure, but the Royals believe that the Titans so favor such behavior that they, the Royals, should continue it. These Royals are being faced with the reality that nobility grants no bonus whatsoever. No one can see the bonus. Yet they believed it was there.

Ummm... no, yes they can. This is a world where people can see each others stats. So Royalty could literally see that it does in fact come with better stats then the "common" warlords and infantry popped, and that they take less time to level. Now, the question is, if that gives them a MANDATE to rule. But their statistical superiority can in fact be validated quickly.

[Squishalot]

It's not infeasible for Ansom to have a base attack of 7 as a Royal unit (being stronger than non-Royal ones).

Royalty provides no real bonus. That's the whole point of the comic.

Being noble in one's actions is generally a strategic failure, but the Royals believe that the Titans so favor such behavior that they, the Royals, should continue it. These Royals are being faced with the reality that nobility grants no bonus whatsoever. No one can see the bonus. Yet they believed it was there.

Yet Parson believes otherwise.

Being Royal confers no 'right' to anything. It does, however, confer attribute bonuses and faster levelling.

[Oberon]

What you're missing is Ansom's base attack, not linked to his level. Apply the same methodology to the heavies:

30 end attack - 10 (Ansom) - 8 (stack bonus) - 8 (Wanda) = 4. Bogroll had an attack of 5, but that presumably includes his bonus of 2 for being stacked with Parson, meaning his base attack was a 3.

It's not infeasible for Ansom to have a base attack of 7 as a Royal unit (being stronger than non-Royal ones).

I was kinda under the impression that Ansom was a 10 attack, given that he is 10th level and has a 10 leadership. Parson is 2nd level and has a 2 leadership bonus, so there is some precedent to attack being linked to level.

[davesnothere]

"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over" --Fud's First Law of Opposition.

"And just to think I only had to put the balls on the other side"
"And with the invention of the automated pushover, Man, woman, child all up against the Wall of Science."

Sorry, I'm late to reply, but I did like it. There does seem to be a dearth of bozos on this bus.
Some of these kids, seem to think FUD started with MS.

[Squishalot]

I was kinda under the impression that Ansom was a 10 attack, given that he is 10th level and has a 10 leadership. Parson is 2nd level and has a 2 leadership bonus, so there is some precedent to attack being linked to level.

Mm, but that would suggest that low level warlords are actually weaker than the units that they command, in certain instances. For example, would a level 1 warlord have an attack of 1, with no other bonuses? That would mean that, by definition, their stack would have a minimum attack of 2, (base 1 + warlord bonus, ignoring stack bonus for now), whereas the warlord would only have an attack of 1 (base 0 + warlord bonus). Just doesn't seem right.

Another example - Webinar is level 5. Assuming that heavies have a base attack of 3-5, the cloth golems and heavies in his stack would have an attack of 8-10 or thereabouts, whereas his own personal attack (not affected by leadership) would only be 5.

Note what you've said as well - Parson is 2nd level and has a +2 leadership bonus. However, that says nothing about his attack stats, so there's no precedent at all.

Hypothetical example 1: Pikeman with 2 attack. Is promoted to Warlord, and becomes a level 1 warlord. By your theory, his attack should drop to base 0, +1 for personal leadership bonus = 1 attack, i.e. lower than previously. By my theory, his attack should remain at base 2, +1 for personal leadership bonus = 3 attack.

Hypothetical example 2: Ossomer and Tramennis have (e.g.) 9 and 8 leadership respectively as Warlords. Suppose it's a warlord stack of doom. Other Warlords in the stack may have anywhere between 3 and 7 leadership, from Duke Antium to <warlord in the xth panel>. By your theory, Ossomer's leadership bonus overrules the other warlord bonuses, and gives everyone in the stack a final (base attack 0 + leadership bonus 9 = ) 9 attack. By my theory, someone like Ossomer has a higher base attack than Tramennis or <warlord in the xth panel>, meaning that his final attack stat will be (e.g. 7 + 9 = ) 16, vs (e.g. 3 + 9 = ) 12.

Thoughts?

Edit: Further note. Ossomer wasn't boosted by any other bonuses in his battle with Ansom. Ansom, on the other hand, had all the bonuses he had in the assault on the city, and should have been fighting at an attack of 33, less any penalty for being injured. Ossomer couldn't possibly have competed with an attack of 9-10.

[Lamech]

If bonuses add directly to attack then Ansom had 10 (himself) + 8 (wanda) +8 (stack) + 1 or more (artifact) + 6 or more (base attack)
http://www.erfworld.com/summer-update-2009-archive/?px=%2FE033_KavinScalf_AnsomWanda.jpg That comes to 10+8+8+1+?+6+?=33+?
We know Ansom had a 33 so that means his attack was 6 and the arkenpliers bonus is 1. Which seem really low. Ansom was one of the lowest attackers in the whole group, barely better than bogroll, and he is probably wielding the best magic weapon GK has (sans arken). So better weapon and he is still one of the lowest? And the arkenplier the divine tool of the titans, gives a 1?
I don't think that bonuses+combat gives attack. It would just seem way to wierd.

[Squishalot]

If bonuses add directly to attack then Ansom had 10 (himself) + 8 (wanda) +8 (stack) + 1 or more (artifact) + 6 or more (base attack)
http://www.erfworld.com/summer-update-2009-archive/?px=%2FE033_KavinScalf_AnsomWanda.jpg That comes to 10+8+8+1+?+6+?=33+?
We know Ansom had a 33 so that means his attack was 6 and the arkenpliers bonus is 1. Which seem really low. Ansom was one of the lowest attackers in the whole group, barely better than bogroll, and he is probably wielding the best magic weapon GK has (sans arken). So better weapon and he is still one of the lowest? And the arkenplier the divine tool of the titans, gives a 1?
I don't think that bonuses+combat gives attack. It would just seem way to wierd.

Well, yes and no. Ansom, by himself, with a base attack of 6, would still fight at 16 due to his leadership bonus. Base attack of 5 would seem reasonable (i.e. Ansom the non-Warlord, Royal swordsman unit, would fight at similar strength to a heavy), with +2 arkentool bonus. I'd imagine that the Arkenhammer would give better combat bonuses than the 'pliers.

If anything, your argument about Bogroll only strengthens my case. If Ansom only gets a net attack of 10 after leadership, why should Bogroll get a net attack of 15? :O And how is it possible to get an attack of lower than Ansom's, if his base attack is zero?

[Lamech]

If anything, your argument about Bogroll only strengthens my case. If Ansom only gets a net attack of 10 after leadership, why should Bogroll get a net attack of 15? :O And how is it possible to get an attack of lower than Ansom's, if his base attack is zero?

Wait what? We know that every unit in the column had a base attack of 6 or more. Ansom's base attack is at least 6. Ansom gets a net attack of 16 after leadership (if we assume that leadership adds directly to base attack.)
I think it would be wierd if Ansom had one of the lowest base attacks in the group if he is a level 10 royal warlord, and presumably equiped with the best weapon available. (sans arken)