atalex wrote:My suspicion, however, is that "Pinochet" was used to invoke the idea that most of us who are NOT students of Chilean history have of the real-life Pinochet, i.e. an elderly and somewhat ruthless leader who was forced from his throne and sent into exile at the end of his life. YMMV. I really can't think of a better word for Slately to have used that wouldn't have been even more obscure than Pinochet.


atalex wrote:Also, rereading some of the Pinochet-related comments, I have to ask: How can Rob's use of the name be considered insulting to anyone? All he did was use the name, and there's not enough context to even attach a political slant to that use. And even if you choose to view the use of the name as somehow directly comparing Slately to Pinochet, how is that insulting to either? Are we talking about a tyrannical bastard who finally got what he deserved or an elderly ruler chased into exile in the twilight of his life? Either interpretation is potentially valid for Slately, Pinochet or both.
kreszantas wrote:
Ok, well that to you is the in the eye of the beholder again. Do you even know who and how this all got started? Well a group called the Chicago Boys decided to do a little "field economic experiment" those boys had to practically dismantle the old economy to restore it to a "USA" friendly economy meaning removing the Socialist aspects from it. This experiment is the basis of what Obama is now doing only in reverse to the USA... makes you wonder now does it. The Chileain example was actually used as a South American model that it can succeed but it had a higher cost than was expected. I am not excusing or an apologist for Pinochet merely stating at it related to the economy and that alone and it should stick to just that.
shadowdemon wrote:First of all, I 'd like to point out that Tramennis's signamancy has been changing. He's getting taller, more regal. Compare a picture of him in the bridge fight to now to see what I mean. Also, I gotta position myself against the whole "Ace will turn sides" deal. Ace is the perfect way to make Jet Stone still be a credible threat to GK after the taking of Spacerock. GK isn't going to know what hit it when the next Jet Stone city they lay seige to is defended by infantry with rifles. Suddenly that whole flying advantage the Dwagons have wont look so hot...


GaryThunder wrote:Top-level warlords don't seem to lose against any opponent but other top-level warlords, commanded dwagons, or similar huge threats. I'd say they're not at that much risk, usually.

Althernai wrote:GaryThunder wrote:Top-level warlords don't seem to lose against any opponent but other top-level warlords, commanded dwagons, or similar huge threats. I'd say they're not at that much risk, usually.
Bogroll took out Ansom and we know the twoll was much lower level because he leveled twice just from that single act. I think they're pretty safe from low level units in ordinary situations, but we've seen plenty of things that can take croak, capture or incapacitate them -- special items, large mounts, casters, siege -- so they're hardly safe.

Althernai wrote:Bogroll took out Ansom and we know the twoll was much lower level because he leveled twice just from that single act. I think they're pretty safe from low level units in ordinary situations, but we've seen plenty of things that can take croak, capture or incapacitate them -- special items, large mounts, casters, siege -- so they're hardly safe.

teratorn wrote:Althernai wrote:Bogroll took out Ansom and we know the twoll was much lower level because he leveled twice just from that single act. I think they're pretty safe from low level units in ordinary situations, but we've seen plenty of things that can take croak, capture or incapacitate them -- special items, large mounts, casters, siege -- so they're hardly safe.
Yes, but Ansom probably lost most of his hitpoints from the fall and not from damage from Bogroll.

shadowdemon wrote: Also, I gotta position myself against the whole "Ace will turn sides" deal.


teratorn wrote:Althernai wrote:Bogroll took out Ansom and we know the twoll was much lower level because he leveled twice just from that single act. I think they're pretty safe from low level units in ordinary situations, but we've seen plenty of things that can take croak, capture or incapacitate them -- special items, large mounts, casters, siege -- so they're hardly safe.
Yes, but Ansom probably lost most of his hitpoints from the fall and not from damage from Bogroll.


Not to mention the previous damage suffered during the action on top of the walls (getting blasted off the carpet by ZomboWebinar, falling, getting swarmed by uncroaked, etc). You could tell he was injured because of his tattered Evel Knievel outfit and missing tooth . . .
Three falls, and none fatal. HAX!GaryThunder wrote:Ansom falls a lot, doesn't he. Fell onto the wall, fell when Bogroll knocked him off his carpet, fell when Ossomer knocked him off his carpet.
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Users browsing this forum: Oberon and 9 guests