Talk:Commander - Revision history

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Commander&feed=atom&action=history Talk:Commander - Revision history 2013-05-24T05:43:48Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.16.5 http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Commander&diff=26132&oldid=prev Commander I. Heartly Noah: /* Demeaning Term? */ 2009-09-24T10:07:03Z

<p><span class="autocomment">Demeaning Term?</span></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 10:07, 24 September 2009</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 67:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 67:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>==Demeaning Term?==  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>==Demeaning Term?==  </div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Hey, I was looking at the people who have used the word commander to one another. With the exception of Jaclyn to Jillian, the people speaking to one another have a significant difference in rank. Perhaps 'Commander' is a term for a fellow leader of lower rank than the speaker.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Hey, I was looking at the people who have used the word commander to one another. With the exception of Jaclyn to Jillian, the people speaking to one another have a significant difference in rank. Perhaps 'Commander' is a term for a fellow leader of lower rank than the speaker.</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:I don't think it's demeaning - as far as ranks, there may be something to it being used for subordinates... "Warlord" is perhaps more of an honorific, what with the "lord" part - but the play of rank between Casters and Warlords is blurry</ins></div></td></tr> </table>

Commander I. Heartly Noah http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Commander&diff=26130&oldid=prev 71.218.20.225: /* Contradiction in Terminology */ 2009-09-24T02:08:47Z

<p><span class="autocomment">Contradiction in Terminology</span></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 02:08, 24 September 2009</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 64:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 64:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>::::::It's good, though it doesn't cover all that other stuff. It's succinct. I dunno about the use of the terms 'title' and 'rank.' As far as #2, it depends on Klog 4 being "wrong" while #1 & #4 show clearly that it is unnecessary to assume any mistake was made. So why complicate things? #3 "looks" like my explanations above, but convoluted and dependent on an unnecessary "Leadership 0" value for "commanders"/casters. Who supports these resolutions, and have they read my explanation?</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>::::::It's good, though it doesn't cover all that other stuff. It's succinct. I dunno about the use of the terms 'title' and 'rank.' As far as #2, it depends on Klog 4 being "wrong" while #1 & #4 show clearly that it is unnecessary to assume any mistake was made. So why complicate things? #3 "looks" like my explanations above, but convoluted and dependent on an unnecessary "Leadership 0" value for "commanders"/casters. Who supports these resolutions, and have they read my explanation?</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">==Demeaning Term?== </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Hey, I was looking at the people who have used the word commander to one another. With the exception of Jaclyn to Jillian, the people speaking to one another have a significant difference in rank. Perhaps 'Commander' is a term for a fellow leader of lower rank than the speaker.</ins></div></td></tr> </table>

71.218.20.225 http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Commander&diff=23297&oldid=prev Commander I. Heartly Noah at 15:27, 16 July 2009 2009-07-16T15:27:45Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 15:27, 16 July 2009</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 62:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 62:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>::::Wait - I may have figured out what is meant by "conflict of terminology" - tell me if I've got it right. When it says '"Commanders" or "Warlord[s]"' have Leadership, some people take that to mean two different unit types with leadership. So when it then says only Warlords have leadership, some people take that to be a contradiction, re: the status of Commanders and Leadership.  BUT I contend that the phrase '"Commander" or "Warlord"' is not naming two unit types, but giving two names to the same unit type. Only Warlords have Leadership, but a Warlord can also be called a Commander. No contradiction. Casters don't have Leadership and can also be called Commander, but that's not in conflict either. .[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>::::Wait - I may have figured out what is meant by "conflict of terminology" - tell me if I've got it right. When it says '"Commanders" or "Warlord[s]"' have Leadership, some people take that to mean two different unit types with leadership. So when it then says only Warlords have leadership, some people take that to be a contradiction, re: the status of Commanders and Leadership.  BUT I contend that the phrase '"Commander" or "Warlord"' is not naming two unit types, but giving two names to the same unit type. Only Warlords have Leadership, but a Warlord can also be called a Commander. No contradiction. Casters don't have Leadership and can also be called Commander, but that's not in conflict either. .[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::That's correct. There are two other ways to resolve the issue, though. Your explanation is covered under Resolution #1 already. I just cleaned up the explanations of 1-3 a little. Does that demonstrate #1 is what you were talking about better?--[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 13:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::That's correct. There are two other ways to resolve the issue, though. Your explanation is covered under Resolution #1 already. I just cleaned up the explanations of 1-3 a little. Does that demonstrate #1 is what you were talking about better?--[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 13:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">::::::It's good, though it doesn't cover all that other stuff. It's succinct. I dunno about the use of the terms 'title' and 'rank.' As far as #2, it depends on Klog 4 being "wrong" while #1 & #4 show clearly that it is unnecessary to assume any mistake was made. So why complicate things? #3 "looks" like my explanations above, but convoluted and dependent on an unnecessary "Leadership 0" value for "commanders"/casters. Who supports these resolutions, and have they read my explanation?</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</ins></div></td></tr> </table>

Commander I. Heartly Noah http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Commander&diff=23291&oldid=prev Kreistor at 13:48, 16 July 2009 2009-07-16T13:48:59Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 13:48, 16 July 2009</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 61:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 61:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::So, I can accept everything he says as true. Warlords are also called Commanders and have leadership. Casters are also Commanders and can lead stacks but usually don't. They have no Leadership. It usually makes sense not to have Casters lead stacks. Sometimes it does make sense. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::So, I can accept everything he says as true. Warlords are also called Commanders and have leadership. Casters are also Commanders and can lead stacks but usually don't. They have no Leadership. It usually makes sense not to have Casters lead stacks. Sometimes it does make sense. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>::::Wait - I may have figured out what is meant by "conflict of terminology" - tell me if I've got it right. When it says '"Commanders" or "Warlord[s]"' have Leadership, some people take that to mean two different unit types with leadership. So when it then says only Warlords have leadership, some people take that to be a contradiction, re: the status of Commanders and Leadership.  BUT I contend that the phrase '"Commander" or "Warlord"' is not naming two unit types, but giving two names to the same unit type. Only Warlords have Leadership, but a Warlord can also be called a Commander. No contradiction. Casters don't have Leadership and can also be called Commander, but that's not in conflict either. .[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>::::Wait - I may have figured out what is meant by "conflict of terminology" - tell me if I've got it right. When it says '"Commanders" or "Warlord[s]"' have Leadership, some people take that to mean two different unit types with leadership. So when it then says only Warlords have leadership, some people take that to be a contradiction, re: the status of Commanders and Leadership.  BUT I contend that the phrase '"Commander" or "Warlord"' is not naming two unit types, but giving two names to the same unit type. Only Warlords have Leadership, but a Warlord can also be called a Commander. No contradiction. Casters don't have Leadership and can also be called Commander, but that's not in conflict either. .[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>-</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::That's correct. There are two other ways to resolve the issue, though. Your explanation is covered under Resolution #1 already. --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 13:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::That's correct. There are two other ways to resolve the issue, though. Your explanation is covered under Resolution #1 already. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">I just cleaned up the explanations of 1-3 a little. Does that demonstrate #1 is what you were talking about better?</ins>--[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 13:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td></tr> </table>

Kreistor http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Commander&diff=23287&oldid=prev Kreistor at 13:44, 16 July 2009 2009-07-16T13:44:23Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 13:44, 16 July 2009</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 61:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 61:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::So, I can accept everything he says as true. Warlords are also called Commanders and have leadership. Casters are also Commanders and can lead stacks but usually don't. They have no Leadership. It usually makes sense not to have Casters lead stacks. Sometimes it does make sense. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::So, I can accept everything he says as true. Warlords are also called Commanders and have leadership. Casters are also Commanders and can lead stacks but usually don't. They have no Leadership. It usually makes sense not to have Casters lead stacks. Sometimes it does make sense. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>::::Wait - I may have figured out what is meant by "conflict of terminology" - tell me if I've got it right. When it says '"Commanders" or "Warlord[s]"' have Leadership, some people take that to mean two different unit types with leadership. So when it then says only Warlords have leadership, some people take that to be a contradiction, re: the status of Commanders and Leadership.  BUT I contend that the phrase '"Commander" or "Warlord"' is not naming two unit types, but giving two names to the same unit type. Only Warlords have Leadership, but a Warlord can also be called a Commander. No contradiction. Casters don't have Leadership and can also be called Commander, but that's not in conflict either. .[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>::::Wait - I may have figured out what is meant by "conflict of terminology" - tell me if I've got it right. When it says '"Commanders" or "Warlord[s]"' have Leadership, some people take that to mean two different unit types with leadership. So when it then says only Warlords have leadership, some people take that to be a contradiction, re: the status of Commanders and Leadership.  BUT I contend that the phrase '"Commander" or "Warlord"' is not naming two unit types, but giving two names to the same unit type. Only Warlords have Leadership, but a Warlord can also be called a Commander. No contradiction. Casters don't have Leadership and can also be called Commander, but that's not in conflict either. .[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::::That's correct. There are two other ways to resolve the issue, though. Your explanation is covered under Resolution #1 already. --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 13:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)</ins></div></td></tr> </table>

Kreistor http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Commander&diff=23286&oldid=prev Commander I. Heartly Noah at 12:53, 16 July 2009 2009-07-16T12:53:04Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 12:53, 16 July 2009</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 59:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 59:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::So what's left? "Commander," "Caster," and "Warlord." I'm saying that the term "Commander" is the same as the term "Officer," or "Commissioned Officer," (as opposed to NCOs... which there doesn't seem to be a parallel here, so throw that out). Now under the umbrella of "Officer," or "Commander," are various other ranks... Lieutenant, Major, Colonel... Caster, Warlord. Except that I don't believe Warlords inherently "outrank" Casters. More like a caster would be the Company Quartermaster or Intelligence officer, while a Warlord would be a Company Commander. But you see? Just like a Major and a Lieutenant are both Officers, a Caster and a Warlord are both Commanders... why else would both have been referred to as Commander in the comic?</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::So what's left? "Commander," "Caster," and "Warlord." I'm saying that the term "Commander" is the same as the term "Officer," or "Commissioned Officer," (as opposed to NCOs... which there doesn't seem to be a parallel here, so throw that out). Now under the umbrella of "Officer," or "Commander," are various other ranks... Lieutenant, Major, Colonel... Caster, Warlord. Except that I don't believe Warlords inherently "outrank" Casters. More like a caster would be the Company Quartermaster or Intelligence officer, while a Warlord would be a Company Commander. But you see? Just like a Major and a Lieutenant are both Officers, a Caster and a Warlord are both Commanders... why else would both have been referred to as Commander in the comic?</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::So that's my base assumption. And from that, when I read Klog #4, I see: Anyone with Leadership (which I take to mean the Leadership Bonus, nothing more or less) is called a "Warlord" or "Commander," which is accurate. When I read #10 and it says only Warlords have Leadership, that is also true - Warlords, who are also called Commanders, have Leadership (bonus) and Casters, who are also called Commanders, do not. They have no Leadership bonus. However, both Warlords and Casters, ie all Commanders, can lead stacks. But since Casters are rare and valuable and offer no Leadership bonus, they generally don't. This makes sense. ''EXCEPT'' when certain situations make it reasonable to have a Caster lead a stack, like when they have offer a special bonus to certain troops, and those troops are the majority of your force, and you are short on warlords anyway.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::So that's my base assumption. And from that, when I read Klog #4, I see: Anyone with Leadership (which I take to mean the Leadership Bonus, nothing more or less) is called a "Warlord" or "Commander," which is accurate. When I read #10 and it says only Warlords have Leadership, that is also true - Warlords, who are also called Commanders, have Leadership (bonus) and Casters, who are also called Commanders, do not. They have no Leadership bonus. However, both Warlords and Casters, ie all Commanders, can lead stacks. But since Casters are rare and valuable and offer no Leadership bonus, they generally don't. This makes sense. ''EXCEPT'' when certain situations make it reasonable to have a Caster lead a stack, like when they have offer a special bonus to certain troops, and those troops are the majority of your force, and you are short on warlords anyway.</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>-</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::So, I can accept everything he says as true. Warlords are also called Commanders and have leadership. Casters are also Commanders and can lead stacks but usually don't. They have no Leadership. It usually makes sense not to have Casters lead stacks. Sometimes it does make sense.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::::So, I can accept everything he says as true. Warlords are also called Commanders and have leadership. Casters are also Commanders and can lead stacks but usually don't. They have no Leadership. It usually makes sense not to have Casters lead stacks. Sometimes it does make sense. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">::::Wait - I may have figured out what is meant by "conflict of terminology" - tell me if I've got it right. When it says '"Commanders" or "Warlord[s]"' have Leadership, some people take that to mean two different unit types with leadership. So when it then says only Warlords have leadership, some people take that to be a contradiction, re: the status of Commanders and Leadership.  BUT I contend that the phrase '"Commander" or "Warlord"' is not naming two unit types, but giving two names to the same unit type. Only Warlords have Leadership, but a Warlord can also be called a Commander. No contradiction. Casters don't have Leadership and can also be called Commander, but that's not in conflict either. .[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]</ins></div></td></tr> </table>

Commander I. Heartly Noah http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Commander&diff=21517&oldid=prev Commander I. Heartly Noah at 22:01, 1 July 2009 2009-07-01T22:01:38Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 22:01, 1 July 2009</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 54:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 54:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Need to explain the other yet. Easy one first. --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Need to explain the other yet. Easy one first. --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Okay, here's how it runs. I think you're saying that Parson is using Commander as a title instead of a rank in Klog 4. If so... that's exactly the point of Resolution #1. Is Resolution #4 unique from #1? If so, how? --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Okay, here's how it runs. I think you're saying that Parson is using Commander as a title instead of a rank in Klog 4. If so... that's exactly the point of Resolution #1. Is Resolution #4 unique from #1? If so, how? --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::::Do you mean when he's standing at the door at the bottom of the tower? Maybe he needs to see the battle but doesn't want to be all the way at the top of the tower if he needs to fall back with his men? Doesn't want to get separated? I dunno, but he's not stacked with anyone. Even if he was, his bonus is only 2, so even if he added double that on top for the stack he's in (best case scenario: all units get his Leadership bonus and his stack gets double that on top of it as the special bonus), that would only be 6. Whereas with Caesar, let's say he's Leadership: 6, and is adding 3 to all units and 6 (or 9 if he provides both bonuses to his own stack) to his own stack. If the other warlords are mostly 1-3, his stack is better. Or if all the units get 6 from him and his personal gets another 6, or 4 or 8 or some other random "Chief Warlord Stack" bonus, they're still better. And since the doombats are so crappy to begin with, the bonuses might be more important than normal. There may be a special thing going on there. Double Leadership bonuses, maybe?</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::::Okay, this is one of the things I don't get... title vs rank. What do you mean? There aren't official "ranks," there's barely a coherent chain of command - it's Ruler-Chief Warlord-everybody else, based on a series of factors and the Ruler's personal preference. If Warlord is a "rank" above Caster, then the Uncroaked Warlords would outrank Wanda, who is clearly #2, and only is subordinate to Parson when he gives a direct order to her. And then only to the letter of that order.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::::But let's go with an outside parallel: British Military, 19th-20th century. Okay? There are men who are Knights and Lords in the military- those are titles. In Erfworld, this would be things like Duke Nozzle, Count Vinny, and Prince Ansom. The titles, practically speaking, are worthless - they only indicate the Nobility or Royalty of the Unit, which is inherent anyway (like Jillian is still Royal even though she hides it). So throw that out. Forget it. No titles. Titles bad.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::::So what's left? "Commander," "Caster," and "Warlord." I'm saying that the term "Commander" is the same as the term "Officer," or "Commissioned Officer," (as opposed to NCOs... which there doesn't seem to be a parallel here, so throw that out). Now under the umbrella of "Officer," or "Commander," are various other ranks... Lieutenant, Major, Colonel... Caster, Warlord. Except that I don't believe Warlords inherently "outrank" Casters. More like a caster would be the Company Quartermaster or Intelligence officer, while a Warlord would be a Company Commander. But you see? Just like a Major and a Lieutenant are both Officers, a Caster and a Warlord are both Commanders... why else would both have been referred to as Commander in the comic?</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::::So that's my base assumption. And from that, when I read Klog #4, I see: Anyone with Leadership (which I take to mean the Leadership Bonus, nothing more or less) is called a "Warlord" or "Commander," which is accurate. When I read #10 and it says only Warlords have Leadership, that is also true - Warlords, who are also called Commanders, have Leadership (bonus) and Casters, who are also called Commanders, do not. They have no Leadership bonus. However, both Warlords and Casters, ie all Commanders, can lead stacks. But since Casters are rare and valuable and offer no Leadership bonus, they generally don't. This makes sense. ''EXCEPT'' when certain situations make it reasonable to have a Caster lead a stack, like when they have offer a special bonus to certain troops, and those troops are the majority of your force, and you are short on warlords anyway.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::::So, I can accept everything he says as true. Warlords are also called Commanders and have leadership. Casters are also Commanders and can lead stacks but usually don't. They have no Leadership. It usually makes sense not to have Casters lead stacks. Sometimes it does make sense.</ins></div></td></tr> </table>

Commander I. Heartly Noah http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Commander&diff=21509&oldid=prev Kreistor at 17:24, 1 July 2009 2009-07-01T17:24:25Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 17:24, 1 July 2009</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 53:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 53:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: The Chief Warlord must be adding his own bonus twice. We're used to MtG and DnD where similar bonuses don't stack... it's an assumption that a unit can't add its own bonus twice. Now Parson being in the vicinity makes sense and Caesar's is more powerful. arson adds +2 for being in the City, +2 for being in the stack.  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: The Chief Warlord must be adding his own bonus twice. We're used to MtG and DnD where similar bonuses don't stack... it's an assumption that a unit can't add its own bonus twice. Now Parson being in the vicinity makes sense and Caesar's is more powerful. arson adds +2 for being in the City, +2 for being in the stack.  </div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Need to explain the other yet. Easy one first. --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Need to explain the other yet. Easy one first. --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::: Okay, here's how it runs. I think you're saying that Parson is using Commander as a title instead of a rank in Klog 4. If so... that's exactly the point of Resolution #1. Is Resolution #4 unique from #1? If so, how? --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</ins></div></td></tr> </table>

Kreistor http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Commander&diff=21507&oldid=prev Kreistor at 17:20, 1 July 2009 2009-07-01T17:20:16Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 17:20, 1 July 2009</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 50:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 50:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::In the end, I don't understand any of the other resolutions. I get the opening statements, even agree with them, but I don't understand the conclusions. I can see the possibility of me being wrong on Casters having Leadership:0 vs no Leadership (it's a small but important difference, but I could be off). But I don't understand the overall confusion here and I don't understand the other arguments.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]] July 1, 2009</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::In the end, I don't understand any of the other resolutions. I get the opening statements, even agree with them, but I don't understand the conclusions. I can see the possibility of me being wrong on Casters having Leadership:0 vs no Leadership (it's a small but important difference, but I could be off). But I don't understand the overall confusion here and I don't understand the other arguments.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]] July 1, 2009</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Parson: he must have a reason for putting himself in harms way. We know he's trying to stack bonuses, so it falls to reason that he's in Courtyard to add a bonus. But we know he already adds one to all units in the City...</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Parson: he must have a reason for putting himself in harms way. We know he's trying to stack bonuses, so it falls to reason that he's in Courtyard to add a bonus. But we know he already adds one to all units in the City...</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>-</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Hark back to Caesar. Vinnie mentions Caesar turning his own stack into the equivalent of heavies. Unless that came from being merely an extremely high level unit compared to everyone else, adding his full bonus shouldn't be that exceptional. In fact, if he adds 1/2 his bonus to stacks with Warlords providing other bonuses, the stacks with two leadership bonuses should be more powerful than his own. GO ahead and write that out, if you need to. The math behind it might need some examples. Make a stack with a Warlord <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">5 </del>with a Chief Warlord 10 in the hex. That stack gets leadership bonuses of 6+(10/2) = 11. The Chief Warlord's gets only +10. Chief Warlord stack is weaker. So why is the CW's heavy and the others lighter?</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Hark back to Caesar. Vinnie mentions Caesar turning his own stack into the equivalent of heavies. Unless that came from being merely an extremely high level unit compared to everyone else, adding his full bonus shouldn't be that exceptional. In fact, if he adds 1/2 his bonus to stacks with Warlords providing other bonuses, the stacks with two leadership bonuses should be more powerful than his own. GO ahead and write that out, if you need to. The math behind it might need some examples. Make a stack with a Warlord <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">6 </ins>with a Chief Warlord 10 in the hex. That stack gets leadership bonuses of 6+(10/2) = 11. The Chief Warlord's gets only +10. Chief Warlord stack is weaker. So why is the CW's heavy and the others lighter?</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: The Chief Warlord must be adding his own bonus twice. We're used to MtG and DnD where similar bonuses don't stack... it's an assumption that a unit can't add its own bonus twice. Now Parson being in the vicinity makes sense and Caesar's is more powerful. arson adds +2 for being in the City, +2 for being in the stack.  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: The Chief Warlord must be adding his own bonus twice. We're used to MtG and DnD where similar bonuses don't stack... it's an assumption that a unit can't add its own bonus twice. Now Parson being in the vicinity makes sense and Caesar's is more powerful. arson adds +2 for being in the City, +2 for being in the stack.  </div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Need to explain the other yet. Easy one first. --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::: Need to explain the other yet. Easy one first. --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</div></td></tr> </table>

Kreistor http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Commander&diff=21506&oldid=prev Kreistor at 17:19, 1 July 2009 2009-07-01T17:19:15Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 17:19, 1 July 2009</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 49:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 49:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::As far as both Casters and Warlords being able to lead a stack and offering it different bonuses: Yeah. Exactly. So? A Chief Warlord offers a bonus to his stack that other Warlords don't. (or, alternatively, he offers the same bonus but also offers a lesser bonus to the rest of the hex, depending how you read Vinny's comments) A high-Leadership Warlord offers a better bonus than a low-Leadership one. But what if the low-Leadership one is a better fighter, or has a magic item? Casters can lead stacks but offer no bonuses. But they can cast spells, and might have, say, the Arkenpliers, and in certain special circumstances they offer special bonuses. There will be reasons for and against any Commander leading a stack; the primary one, shared by all, is the ability to give the Units in that stack directions. Everything else (Leadership bonuses, other bonuses, rarity & value of the Commander, status as Heir, combat ability, expendability, etc. etc.) must be considered by the Ruler when making decisions of who leads whom. Why not have multiple choices? Why would it be as simple as "Highest level Warlord with the best stack, etc?" Maybe you want a great Warlord on a weak stack and a crummy on on the Heavy stack, for balance. Maybe you want two Warlords in the same stack.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::As far as both Casters and Warlords being able to lead a stack and offering it different bonuses: Yeah. Exactly. So? A Chief Warlord offers a bonus to his stack that other Warlords don't. (or, alternatively, he offers the same bonus but also offers a lesser bonus to the rest of the hex, depending how you read Vinny's comments) A high-Leadership Warlord offers a better bonus than a low-Leadership one. But what if the low-Leadership one is a better fighter, or has a magic item? Casters can lead stacks but offer no bonuses. But they can cast spells, and might have, say, the Arkenpliers, and in certain special circumstances they offer special bonuses. There will be reasons for and against any Commander leading a stack; the primary one, shared by all, is the ability to give the Units in that stack directions. Everything else (Leadership bonuses, other bonuses, rarity & value of the Commander, status as Heir, combat ability, expendability, etc. etc.) must be considered by the Ruler when making decisions of who leads whom. Why not have multiple choices? Why would it be as simple as "Highest level Warlord with the best stack, etc?" Maybe you want a great Warlord on a weak stack and a crummy on on the Heavy stack, for balance. Maybe you want two Warlords in the same stack.</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::In the end, I don't understand any of the other resolutions. I get the opening statements, even agree with them, but I don't understand the conclusions. I can see the possibility of me being wrong on Casters having Leadership:0 vs no Leadership (it's a small but important difference, but I could be off). But I don't understand the overall confusion here and I don't understand the other arguments.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]] July 1, 2009</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>:::In the end, I don't understand any of the other resolutions. I get the opening statements, even agree with them, but I don't understand the conclusions. I can see the possibility of me being wrong on Casters having Leadership:0 vs no Leadership (it's a small but important difference, but I could be off). But I don't understand the overall confusion here and I don't understand the other arguments.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]] July 1, 2009</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::: Parson: he must have a reason for putting himself in harms way. We know he's trying to stack bonuses, so it falls to reason that he's in Courtyard to add a bonus. But we know he already adds one to all units in the City...</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::: Hark back to Caesar. Vinnie mentions Caesar turning his own stack into the equivalent of heavies. Unless that came from being merely an extremely high level unit compared to everyone else, adding his full bonus shouldn't be that exceptional. In fact, if he adds 1/2 his bonus to stacks with Warlords providing other bonuses, the stacks with two leadership bonuses should be more powerful than his own. GO ahead and write that out, if you need to. The math behind it might need some examples. Make a stack with a Warlord 5 with a Chief Warlord 10 in the hex. That stack gets leadership bonuses of 6+(10/2) = 11. The Chief Warlord's gets only +10. Chief Warlord stack is weaker. So why is the CW's heavy and the others lighter?</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::: The Chief Warlord must be adding his own bonus twice. We're used to MtG and DnD where similar bonuses don't stack... it's an assumption that a unit can't add its own bonus twice. Now Parson being in the vicinity makes sense and Caesar's is more powerful. arson adds +2 for being in the City, +2 for being in the stack. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">:::: Need to explain the other yet. Easy one first. --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)</ins></div></td></tr> </table>

Kreistor