Book 2 – Page 87

[oslecamo2_temp]

You are of course assuming that you can simply promote CWL's freely as you wish without consequence or restrictions. For 1 I don't believe it's as simple as saying "I choose you to be my CWL" even though that's how they made it look. Simply put if you could just change CWL's on the fly then it would be as simple as flopping warlords in the middle of turns as it best suited you. Remember this is turned based combat, just because you have war on all sides doesn't mean you have to make them engage at the same time.. so you've got a battle going in 3 spots, oh look lets make my CWL the guy leading assault number 1, then after they succeed or fail or run out of move, then we'll make our CWL the guy leading assault number 2 and so on until your side is out of move and you end your turn. Furthermore I'd have to assume that changing CWL status off of your turn would be even more restricted, after all you wouldn't want the enemy to all the sudden promote a CWL in every hex you decide to attack on the fly like that, lets keep in mind stanley (formally a CWL of his own side) started out as a basic grunt unit, it was only after he found and attuned to the hammer that he started moving up the chain of command. With that knowledge in mind there isn't really anything stopping them from promoting stabber number 3 to being the CWL of their side, except the lack of a bonus. So if anyone could be a CWL then allowing them to be switched at will would lead to way too much abuse.. IMO there are rules that govern the leaders ability to change their CWL and you can only change CWL's once on your turn or whenever they get croaked/captured.

Of course this too can have ways to abuse and I'm sure there might be a parsons clog on the subject at a later time but if you had 2 forces working together but not allied. Since it is possible for 2 enemy forces to enter the same hexes and not engage with the control of a warlord, it would be very simple to flop warlords by having your Chief Warlord unstack as your need for him finishes in one area and have him walk alone into the "Friendemies" (yes its my own word thats a combination of Friend and Enemy) hex to be captured, then you promote the next guy and move on, when your Friendemy starts their turn they release your warlord into your hex and proceed to do the same with their warlords as needed.

However at any rate I think that its safe to say that at least until next turn there are rules in place that prevent stanley from opting to switch his CWL, unless parson was to be captured.. which the thinkamancer guild may or may not count as capturing him... I don't think they work for any "Side" to speak of, so can a non-side like marbits and/or gobwin tribes, or in this case a thinkamancers guild in the neutrality of the magic kingdom actually capture a unit (with his permission of course) and allow stanley to pick another CWL? That I don't know

From what we've seen I believe the "limiting" factor is that when you remove the CWL status from someone the whole side takes a moral penalty. When Stanley does it to Hamster, Maggie gets more outraged than she ever was in the comic, and even Vurp "My whole tribe got killed and I'm ok with that" gets shocked with that decision.

Compare with transylvito. Don believes it will be easier to send his own CWL into a suicide mission that simply "demoting" Caesar back to regular warlord and sending him into some back village where he can't bother him anymore.

Also

CWL change is already expensive, so I don't think there's any particular basis for expecting further restrictions.

If it was expensive money-wise, Slatey wouldn't have been able to promote Trems this turn, as they had already sinked all their money for their last stand.

This is a refreshing nail in the coffin of the whole "units auto-disband if they go against their side". We've got mancers everywhere leading their sides to their doom in the name of prophecies. No wonder Stanley has become paranoid.

No exactly. Remember a unit can go against their orders if they feel its within the best interest of the side; as such it stands to reason that a unit is able to do something that isn't in their side's best interests o long as the unit is able to rationalize it is in the sides interests. In maggie's case, while she primarily wanted Parson as CW for the psoinic war, she had the duel rationalization that making Parson CW of GK was in GK's best interest

No pratical diference between the two. One can "rationalize" anything they want to believe, so it's a blank chart to do whatever they please whitout any risk of auto-disband unless their ruler catches them red-handed.

[0beron]

CWL change is already expensive, so I don't think there's any particular basis for expecting further restrictions.

If it was expensive money-wise, Slatey wouldn't have been able to promote Trems this turn, as they had already sinked all their money for their last stand.

Slately (to our knowledge) HASN'T appointed Trem heir. Also, we know it is expensive and he hasn't done it precisely BECAUSE they didn't have enough money to start with (and still may not, if Charlie doesn't pay in due time)

[drachefly]

Commanding from afar IS unviable though, because Parson just said he has no plan whatsoever. So in the absence of a plan, all he has to offer his side is a better bonus.

And the ability to react to the situation as it develops, with Parsonian methods. In the absence of a plan, and Maggie's juice running out, his presence goes from being mildly helpful to utterly crucial.

CWL change is already expensive, so I don't think there's any particular basis for expecting further restrictions.

If it was expensive money-wise, Slatey wouldn't have been able to promote Trems this turn, as they had already sinked all their money for their last stand.

Simply having a CWL is so crucial that going without one is completely inviable. Promoting Tramennis was a necessary expense if it was possible to do. Easily worth spending some of your troops' upkeep money. Without a CWL, they'd be dead anyway.

[0beron]

This is also true, good point Drache.

[NYbear]

So yes, Maggie DID force him into this.

No one forces you to do anything. At best they force you into making a choice. In the end its Parson, not Maggie, who makes the choice to go through the MK. That being the case, I also don't see the benefits of him going personally to SR to bring his +2 CWL and other associated pro's being anywhere near worth the con's of violating MK neutrality.

It just seems like a huge risk (with many unforeseeable consequences) for very little gain. But then again, that just my 2cp.

Perhaps the story further long (maybe in a klog) will delve more into it. Either way, great work Rob and Xin, love this comic.

[0beron]

No one forces you to do anything. At best they force you into making a choice.

True. However when someone else removes all your other viable options so you only have one even remotely useful choice left, then ignoring the semantics of the term, they "forced" you to make that choice.
Maggie had no appreciation of this, and I still like her. But she unknowingly "forced" Parson to do this by ignoring his complaints/advice.

[oslecamo2_temp]

CWL change is already expensive, so I don't think there's any particular basis for expecting further restrictions.

If it was expensive money-wise, Slatey wouldn't have been able to promote Trems this turn, as they had already sinked all their money for their last stand.

Simply having a CWL is so crucial that going without one is completely inviable. Promoting Tramennis was a necessary expense if it was possible to do. Easily worth spending some of your troops' upkeep money.

So you're seriously arguing that Slatley purposedly disbanded troops at the start of this turn just for the chance that Ossomer got croaked but there was still an army left to lead? I believe that would've been worth a commentary on his part.

And again, if money's the only limitation, why hasn't Don apointed a new one yet, one that agrees more with his vision of running Transylvitto?

Without a CWL, they'd be dead anyway.

CWL keeping them alive? You mean the guy that knocked himself out multiple pages ago running near the enemy siege after shooting his own warlords? Unless uncoscious leaders still provide a leadership bonus, but that would be somewhat bizzarre.

Plus, if Trems hadn't tried to diplomacy his way out, Slatley would've just ordered GK's airforce shot out of the air and they would've been victorious already.

[bladestorm]

At this point, why would Slately promote Tramennis to heir when he has Ossomer back?

[DevilDan]

Sooo much awesome going on!

[effataigus]

And the ability to react to the situation as it develops, with Parsonian methods. In the absence of a plan...

It may be that I am overestimating Parson here, in that I would assume he would see bringing down the tower as the obvious post-requiem plan if he doesn't try to get through TMK. I *guess* I can believe this might not be clear to everyone in GK since Jack had to suggest it. I'd rather believe that Parson is being moralistically petulant than dumb though, as it seems more in-character post ruthlessness.

It just seems to me that Parson had a raised sledgehammer over JS's prone body... and instead of bringing the sledgehammer down he started fumbling around in his pocket for a knife.

Alternately, vintermann's suggestion that he is finding ways to rationalize what fate is compelling him to do does makes some sense.

Definitely a cool strip!

[wrecan]

Revealing Charlie's ability to intercept thinkagrams can only hurt tGMtTA.

Charlie already binds himself by contract. Any contract can have a confidentiality provision in which Charlie agrees to keep confidences revealed in his thinkagrams. AND, he could then start selling espionage services, in which he agrees to hack the thinkagrams of his client's enemies. Heck, Charlie could probably sell hackers' insurance to all sides in a conflict! This would mean fewer people would rely on Thinkagrams -- probably switching over to hat magic as a means of communication -- and thinkamancers would quickly finding themselves starving for Schmuckers.

The only reason Charlie wouldn't reveal (and sell) his ability to hack thinkagrams is because it would then be open war with every thinkamancer on Erf, and I think Charlie tries to avoid open warfare whenever possible, since it would be a costly Pyrrhic victory at best.

[Nnelg]

No exactly. Remember a unit can go against their orders if they feel its within the best interest of the side; as such it stands to reason that a unit is able to do something that isn't in their side's best interests o long as the unit is able to rationalize it is in the sides interests. In maggie's case, while she primarily wanted Parson as CW for the psoinic war, she had the duel rationalization that making Parson CW of GK was in GK's best interest

No pratical diference between the two. One can "rationalize" anything they want to believe, so it's a blank chart to do whatever they please whitout any risk of auto-disband unless their ruler catches them red-handed.

I think there is a difference between the two. Remember that Duty, a natural form of thinkamancy, is what forces units to act in the interests of their side. Now, because it's thinkamancy what the unit thinks becomes very important. Not to mention the fact that short-sightedness isn't taken into account; for instance, Jack ordering the demolishment of the tower wasn't really in GK's best interest.

Although, I don't think there is an auto-disband feature. Only a sort-of mental conditioning that forces units to act in ways they see as helpful, or at least harmless to their side.

At this point, why would Slately promote Tramennis to heir when he has Ossomer back?

Ossomer was dusted, remember?

[Salem]

This comic has revealed however that Parson didn't really INTEND to go! It was a decision essentially forced on him by Maggie making him CWL# Yes, he made it out of moral reasons, but Maggie is the one who put him in the position of being forced to consider it

XD

Giving the opportunity =/= forcing someone to do something.

"No, your honor! He is the one that opened the liquor store. He forced me to consider robbing it!"

Nor is obligating someone to complete a task tantamount to being responsible for their actions in completing it. The government forces me to pay my taxes, but if I burn my house down for a tax break it's still arson.

[/quote]


If we're going to bring the law into it I think there are examples more on point. Such as Person is thrown into a shark infested tank and made to forge documents to survive, because some rich madman wants to get a minion into her majesty's secret service.

Or for an air of subtlety we can talk about entrapment. Now lets look at it from the reasonable person standard. What would an average reasonable person do.

Example 1#
An Officer pretends to be an unconscious homeless person in a rich neighborhood with $100 hanging from his/her pocket.

Example 2)
An Officer pretends to be an unconscious homeless person in a poor neighborhood with $100 hanging from his/her pocket.

Example 3)
An Officer pretends to be an unconscious homeless person in a rich neighborhood with $3,000 hanging from his/her pocket.

Example 4)
An Officer pretends to be an unconscious CEO of an National Bank chain and/or a CEO of a Payday loan company in a neighborhood crippled into financial destitute by sub-prime loans. The officer is carrying a briefcase that sits ajar with the twinkle of countless diamonds glittering like a starry sky within.

Though ignoring cases of grand and petite and an argument for robbery over theft depending on how things play out, it's the same crime in every situation but some of them border on coercion.

Now lets do the same for Parson rather than Person.

Example 1)
Parson rushes into a battle that is already for all intents and purposes won, entering into a controlled environment. Little risk nil reward. He at best saves a few troops.

Example 2)
Parson rushes into a battle that is for all intents and purposes already won. However the enemy are not contained and safety is not guaranteed. Higher risk, almost same reward.

Example 3)
Parson rushes into a battle that could go either way and his +2 bonus shifts 50/50 into a decryption cascade leading to a heavy victory.

Example 4)
Parson rushes into a losing battle and succeeds at nothing more than being a martyr for a cause no one knew or cared he was fighting for.

Example 5)**
Parson, who is madly in love with Maggie, realizes that she just made an insane mistake. The moment ANY battle turns against them and there is no way to justify not having a CWL bonus in the field, the tenuous hold she has over their leader snaps like a rubber band, she is disbanded, a fate to Parson that is unacceptable. So he heads into battle, creating a win/win. If he survives and his bonus goes up and leads competently, Stanley will not have reason to question the suggestion, if he dies, The suggestion will be rendered moot, sparing the life of his beloved.

Example 6)
He is fighting a war not a battle, getting that +2 bonus there will make the battle go smoother and help with win with more units. Additionally if he doesn't go now they may never have a CWL bonus in the field. A bonus that can never help in any battle. Not to mention if he doesn't fight hat bonus will never grow and as long as the suggestion is there will be all they have. A bonus people want for a reason even if not multiplicative.

I think that example 6 gives a different view to Parson's mad dash, he's been forced into a situation he's not comfortable with. He's risking his life for a bonus that's less than promoting someone in the field. But he has to, now we take this upset possibly scared/angry parson he gets jumped by a caster in the tunnel. He doesn't know if he's friend or enemy, he has too little information, secrets are kept from him. He's probably easy for this caster to kill, so he talks, when he's chased off he NEEDS intel is he friend, enemy, frenemy, can he expect more to know he's in the tunnel. So he asks questions tired of running blindly. Because losing his life is not something he wants to do. There's a difference between being brave and being suicidal. He goes because it is in the best interest of his side's future, not just this battle. But maybe this battle DOES need that small bonus to push it in their favor. That side the bonus may be necessary in every battle from now on. It may be necessary to win every battle by a larger margin so that they have more units coming out of every fight even the easy ones so that at the final battle they stand a chance.

Also I don't know how bonuses work but if it works like #Unit stat +CWL# X Pliers X Croakamancer bonus. That +8 can get big.


As to one of the other topic, I believe even if Captain Awesome was alive Slately has decided that the best leader they can have IS Trem.

[effataigus]

I kinda read that Salem... and think I'd agree with you if Parson could teleport there instantly. A knife is indeed marginally better than a sledgehammer (well, in my mind at least), just as parson in JS is marginally better than Parson in GK.

However, the cost of putting Parson in GK was:
1. angering the magic kingdom.
2. risking Parson.
3. separating his own forces (even aside from the likely ramifications for Ossomer and the air battle that I don't fault Parson for not predicting, Artemis' attack would have likely gone smoother for GK if Wanda's bonus were present and she were decrypting the fallen, and presumably the decrypted dwagons could down the tower sooner with her bonus).
4. or delaying the downing of the tower till he arrives.

Of these potential costs, GK is now paying the first 3 (and would have paid 4 if Jack had thought through it more). It is a very steep price that I believe is not worth the gain. As I said before, others are welcome to disagree. Moreover, I'm sure I will be wrong in the long run for this realization since my meta-knowledge that Parson is the protagonist tells me that his actions in JS will help to resolve the conflict in some way.

I choose to reconcile my tactical judgement with the knowledge that Parson is a schmott guy by believing that either:
1. The mechanics of Erfworld and the bracer have told Parson something that doesn't jive with my intuition for the relative value of a +1 on a unit that is around a 20.
2. Fate is calling Parson toward JS (or away from GK )
3. Parson is being a little petulant... the purely emotional decision falls flat for me, since emotions would dictate that he not put his troops in any additional danger.

[0beron]

Remember however effataigus, that this battle did not go as planned for GK. Kingworld was supposed to be a game-ender, and when Parson initially left for Spacerock, it was working. So when Parson initially decided that he was needed in Spacerock, I think he was justified. It wasn't until he was out of contact that GK started regaining ground. Given his experience with Wanda's abilities, perhaps he should have predicted that she'd recover on her own, but at the time he made up his mind, his presence in Spacerock was valuable.

[Oberon]

Not at any price, no it isn't. The price would be high, even if everything had gone according to plan. He was guaranteed to alienate the Magic Kingdom, possibly with very bad consequences. He was quite likely to be captured or croaked (in fact, he's pretty much captured now).

Parson was already alienated by the MK, or at least large portions of it (all the co-conspirators of the SPW scroll excepted). GK was having trouble even buying scrolls from the MK. Parson's plan was to dash through the tunnel and be in Spacerock before anyone could react. It didn't work like that, but to Parson it could not have been quite likely that he'd be captured or killed. I have to wonder why he didn't use the bracer, but that's probably for reasons of plot. However, he isn't yet captured or killed, so if he gets through the gate the bracer still would have given him high odds for success. Time will tell. Hopefully no more than one text and one comic update from now.

The Sword of Ruthlessness was an artifact of terrible corrupting power, like the One Ring. The only way to effectively use such a thing is to become as ruthless as it wants you to be. So do you hide it in the vaults of Minas Tirith, or throw it in the fires of Mount Doom?

Keeping the sword might of made him a better warlord, but throwing it away made him a better man.

Agreed. But it's "might have."

Jetstone also marched a huge amount of troops into their city. Enough troops that they had planned to hold the 'visible' GK infantry and siege at Exposition Bridge. Unless they loose huge amounts of foot units Jetstone should still be a tough nut to crack.

That was a bridge, a chokepoint where an army can easily hold twice their number at bay... If the invaders cannot bypass it. Now Spacerock's shell has already been 'cracked': GK units are in the garrison, the heart of the city. Jetstone's troops are broken and leaderless, and if Slately stops to rally them he risks being captured as the garrison falls. It isn't worth the risk.

I didn't say it was done deal for either side. Just that there was a substantial Jetstone ground force which might be a counter to the remaining GK ground forces.

Giving the opportunity =/= forcing someone to do something.

"No, your honor! He is the one that opened the liquor store. He forced me to consider robbing it!"

C'mon now, that's not even close to the situation. Here's a better hypothetical:
POTUS: Colonel, I'm promoting you to general of the expeditionary forces.
New General: Cool beans. I'll just shirk that duty and take action X even though my tactical and strategic analysis tell me that I should be taking action Y.

Parson was placed in a position of responsibility over thousands of lives, and as a conscientious person, he is doing what he can with what he has to best carry out his duty. This bears no relationship to someone burning down their house to avoid their responsibility to pay their taxes...

Simply having a CWL is so crucial that going without one is completely inviable.

Doesn't seem to be non viable for Charlie.

[effataigus]

Giving the opportunity =/= forcing someone to do something.

"No, your honor! He is the one that opened the liquor store. He forced me to consider robbing it!"

C'mon now, that's not even close to the situation. Here's a better hypothetical:
POTUS: Colonel, I'm promoting you to general of the expeditionary forces.
New General: Cool beans. I'll just shirk that duty and take action X even though my tactical and strategic analysis tell me that I should be taking action Y.

Simply having a CWL is so crucial that going without one is completely inviable.

Doesn't seem to be non viable for Charlie.

There are definitely better analogies for this case, but I was taking it to the illogical extreme to demonstrate that the argument made (as I understood it) is wrong at first principles. This got him to clarify his disagreement enough that I can see now that we just disagree tactically, so mission accomplished.

I'd like to agree with you re: Charlie, but we both know that Charlie's units are mercs, and so presumably typically operate with the hiring side's CWL bonus. Would be interesting to see if he pops a CWL if/when someone made a run at his one lvl 5 though.

[Salem]

I kinda read that Salem... and think I'd agree with you if Parson could teleport there instantly. A knife is indeed marginally better than a sledgehammer (well, in my mind at least), just as parson in JS is marginally better than Parson in GK.

I get that you kind of read it. My argument was more that there could be other factors that change the balance of whether it's a worthy decision or not.

1. Maggie's life.
2. A CWL present in future battles.
3. His bonus maybe at some point being necessary in this battle.

Remember as it stands he'll probably have trouble getting TO the front and as he's stuck CWL that bonus gets locked up and can't grow above 2. Even if he had the sledge hammer over Spacerock, was the sledge hammer the best method of victory? Probably, but was it the best option with all future events considered. Maybe. But that's my point in short and in a rush.

[bladestorm]

Charlie seems like a min/maxxer. Minimize unit variety and upkeep costs by not having casters, warlords, nobles, infantry, ground troops, etc. Find one unit that acts as a long-range, flying tactical nuke, and dump everything into that, using it as your means of offense. Minimize the number of cities you have and dump everything into the defenses of that one city.

Maybe Charlie was an earlier attempt to summon someone from the outside to break the game. In Charlie's case, he doesn't go to war and try to expand his Side like all of the other Sides do. Instead, he min/maxxed and holed himself up in his impenetrable fortress, sending his minions out to assist different Sides in their conflict, for a fee. Instead of focusing on expanding his Side, he focused on his autonomy and withdrawing from engaging directly in conflict. That could be considered breaking the Erfworld rules, but not to the likings of those who had summoned him. So we make another spell, use a different caster, and expect different results.

Or they used Wanda last time, to summon a perfect warlord for Haffaton, and Charlie bailed on that side, set up his own city, and isolated himself from the conflict.

[effataigus]

But that's my point in short and in a rush.

Gotcha this time... yeah, there's a million ways this can go down, and I'm betting in a bunch of them Parson is very glad that he took the portal (especially if GK is sneak-attacked and Parson finds himself a new vassal to the queen of Goodminton).

I'm just guessing in around 50% of them Parson stayed behind and is currently sending Wanda a thinkagram saying "Grats on sacking the city. Now decrypt everything you can find and pray that Charlie doesn't do anything too weird on his turn."

Of course, my theoretical Parsons are still in the dark about GMTTA and Charlie. Sometimes you put the wrong number into the wrong equation and still get the right answer.

Also, I am risk averse to the point of nigh-cowardliness in most strategy games. I imagine I would be even more so if it weren't a game