Kreistor wrote:But listed separately on the Stupid Meal for RCC.
Irrelevant to current discussion. YOu are attempting to establish Wanda as thoroughly on the GK side, not an ally. To do this you cited evidence where she is listed as a GK unit. The fact that natural allies, who we know for a fact are not actually GK units, are also listed as GK units at various times means your evidence is inconclusive, as we can see a case where a known ally was referred to in the same way.
I don't have a standard. I have two character descriptions of people you are theorizing are in the same situation, but Rob described differently.
I feel like you missed my point there... it was essentially that the qualifications you have used to say Wanda has definitively turned applied to the natural allies would mean they also had turned. Since we know that is not the case, we can conclude your evidence is not definitive.
We have no idea how natural allies and so forth can turn/break contract. There was no contract signing for Jillian with the giants; they just said "as agreed?" and nodded. It was the decision then and there that did it, making it look exactly like turning. Contracts are only necessary if one side demands something of another; Wanda joining without condition would likely not require negotiation.
Except that he is describing this after the fact. He may not have had the senses to know at the exact time of her Turning, but he has had thousands of Turns to figure it out since, including discussion with his King. Further, contracts take TWO parties to agree, and are not unilateral. Stanley would have had to sign for her to be on contract. "Terms as agreed," remember? Ansom signing Charlie's contract for alliance.
Hardly thousands. The timeline is iffy, but I feel very confident saying under 1k turns. And actually, i realize now that Wanda did negotiate a contract with him when telling him about Faq; it was a pretty damn simple one, but there was a prior agreement there (which she planned to renege on). So
. Also, him worrying about Wanda being out there conquering and rivaling him in power makes a ton more sense if he has a legitimate reason to worry about her allegiance, as opposed to him just having ego problems. And describing after the fact is irrelevant if, as he did with how his Arkenhammer works, he just went "meh, whatever" and didn't worry about the details.
Yeah, we can.
[quote=Summer Update 49]That level 6 Jitterati warlord, Duncan Scone, was now her best fighter. Vanna had done some good work to turn him, but the dungeon didn't much interest Jillian.
Her best fighter. Turned by a Turnamancer. Not her best ally. On her Side. Turning is not the establishment of a contract. It is joining a Side. Wanda did it in FAQ to join Stanley. He was there. Ossomer did it after Decryption, and it didn't take a contract. Blink and he has new livery.
We do know what Turning is, we have seen it, and we know it's not a contractual arrangement.[/quote]
Agree entirely. And my entire point is that with available evidence, we don't know which Wanda has done. Imagine how the change of sides of the mountain giants looks to a warlord on the walls; boom, suddenly they are on a new side. The appearance of turning vs shifting allegiance is almost identical to anyone not privy to the actual negotiation.
Yeah, we do. It's right there on the character sheet. It's right there in Stanley's inherent trust of her, even while he believes she is a danger to him. It's there in her Duty, Obedience, and Loyalty. And it's there in Stanley's words. You could dismiss one, and I'd be okay with it. But dismiss everything? Sorry, no. There is too much evidence to dismiss everything.
Character sheet addressed. Stanley's feelings on Wanda addressed. And to speak of her Loyalty, its amazing that she is able to be Loyal to Fate magic, not her Overlord. Haven't actually heard of another unit like that. Would think that turning would require that loyalty to shift almost, since loyalty is the stat called into question by a Turned unit. And Stanley is an incompetent when it comes to how the world works frankly.
All of those reasons are far from airtight. Does it mean you are not right? no. But do you have the evidence to claim other theories are wrong? also no.
We could move the discussion to the other forum, but a) it's not like anyone else is using this thread at this point and b) that would be work