Talk:Unit - Revision history

Charles at 09:39, 26 May 2011

2011-05-26T09:39:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:39, 26 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	That's really ~~thiknnig out~~ of the ~~box~~. ~~Thanks~~!	+	I'm going back and fixing my own mistakes as I go, using my Contribs page, the GITP archive, and Page Histories. Bleh.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	Don't worry. I did it already. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Statistics==
		+	There ARE more than four statistics. I know some of you want to go back and shange that to four, because of Klog 4, but Klog 10 specifically stats that Loyalty is a stat as well, so that makes at least five, and so Parson's original knowledge was incomplete and unusable. Remember that Parson does not get all of his info at once. He first got told about the basic 4, because the effect of Level is constant. A Unit will show its current stat, not it's original stat, and so that it is L3 with Move 9 doesn't matter... only Move 9 matters. The original unit had Move 6, and 3 levels increased the Move, but that's not important to the man fighting the Unit with Move 9.
		+
		+	Statistics are just numbers with meaning. That makes any number with meaning to a Unit a statistic. Level, Experience, Leadership, etc. are all statistics.
		+	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Leadership==
		+	I find the phrase "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command, if of [[Warlord]] level or higher (not [[Warlord\|Commanders]])''" unclear and misleading. What is clear is:
		+	* Warlords and Casters are Commanders (they can lead unit stacks)
		+	* Units with Leadership abilities (Warlords) confer a bonus to units under their command
		+	* Not all Commanders have Leadership (Warlords do and Casters do not)
		+	Therefore I changed the phrase to "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command''". Clear and concise. -- [[User:Muzzafar\|Muzzafar]] 07:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	::For similar reasons, I changed the comment that "units with Leadership" can see stats -- casters don't have Leadership but can see stats.[[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30
		+	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] Oh, wait. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's redundant, but okay. In my mind all those abilities are just part of being a Commander, and Leadership = bonus and Caster = spells, but in the absence of a Commander natural ability, if you don't want to just treat those capabilities as being part of being a Commander (like following orders, fighting, and moving are part of being a Unit), then applying them separately to both abilities is the best solution. I'll bite.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]
		+	===Recent LOaD Edit===
		+	So, an IP swooped in and added Obedience and Duty as unit stats. I don't think that's right. I'd peg them as ''mechanics'', myself, since only Loyalty is dependent on a hidden variable - obedience is a static rule, and duty is dependent on rank. Should I revert the change? [[User:Menlo Marseilles\|Menlo Marseilles]] 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
		+	:Apparently [[Special:Contributions/88.148.236.150\|88.148.236.150]] agrees with your analysis, as they have reverted the change on their own. If only all IP addresses were as condsiderate and prolific as 88.148.236.150. Kiitos! (apparently this IP is in Finland) ;-) --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Other==
		+	This is just a small thing, but when vinnie is talking about 'transylvito style' he says the bats in Bagota (Ceseare) stack is as good as advanced infantry. Is this an actual type? Or merely Vinnies nickname for them? [[User:Xewleer\|Xewleer]]
		+	<br>
		+	:Don't know, yet. Advanced may just mean "high level". "Light" and "heavy" are definitely Natural Abilities. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Actually, I suspect that "Leadership" as well as the other bonuses of the system are applied directly to the unit's level statistic, as a sort of "Temporary Level Bump". Sure, if you looked at them their level would still only say 3 (Or whatever), but their effective level could be 10 or even 27, depending on the circumstances. So bonuses on top of bonuses could turn low-level Doombats, a relatively weak unit type, into unstoppable croaking machines. [[User:Cjc7988\|Cjc7988]] 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Unit Points==
		+	Is anyone going to protest if I move out the SStatistics section and call it by the proper name -- "Unit Points"? Stanley uses that term a few times. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:Where does he say this? I don't doubt you, but I don't remember ever reading it and I'd like to see the context. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
		+	:: Page 40. Somewhere else, too. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::Hm. Stanley says he can't see his "points" and that Parson doesn't know about "unit points." Parson later mentions "Movement points." So in Parson's example, it's clearly the temporary number he's referencing. In the first example, he probably means the blue box of stats; the second is ambiguous; it could be referring to any measurable quantity. But, unless Stanley meant he couldn't see Parson's movement points or other temporary quantity, it's probably safe to say that "points" or "unit points" mean the main stats that commanders can see. No complaints here.-- [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
		+
		+	== Henchman, Lackey and Bodyguard ==
		+
		+	I was trying add "class" [[Bogroll]] and [[Mung]]'s stat boxes and realized that we don't really treat garrison classes/honorifics like "Henchman," "Lackey," or "Bodyguard" in the Units page. Are these being considered as not legitimate classes, or does it make sense to add them under speculation? --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

205.129.191.161: RnehVIunEQkLwJ

2011-05-26T08:58:45Z

RnehVIunEQkLwJ

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:58, 26 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~With the bases loeadd you struck us~~ out ~~with that answer~~!	+	That's really thiknnig out of the box. Thanks!

114.165.169.214: ZYWewTZlgJJ

2011-05-26T08:47:29Z

ZYWewTZlgJJ

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:47, 26 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~I'm going back and fixing my own mistakes as I go, using my Contribs page,~~ the ~~GITP archive, and Page Histories. Bleh.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+	With the bases loeadd you struck us out with that answer!
-		+
-	~~Don't worry. I did it already. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	~~==Statistics==~~	+
-	~~There ARE more than four statistics. I know some of~~ you want to go back and shange that to four, because of Klog 4, but Klog 10 specifically stats that Loyalty is a stat as well, so that makes at least five, and so Parson's original knowledge was incomplete and unusable. Remember that Parson does not get all of his info at once. He first got told about the basic 4, because the effect of Level is constant. A Unit will show its current stat, not it's original stat, and so that it is L3 with ~~Move 9 doesn't matter... only Move 9 matters. The original unit had Move 6, and 3 levels increased the Move, but~~ that~~'s not important to the man fighting the Unit with Move 9.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Statistics are just numbers with meaning. That makes any number with meaning to a Unit a statistic. Level, Experience, Leadership, etc. are all statistics.~~	+
-	~~--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	~~==Leadership==~~	+
-	~~I find the phrase "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command, if of [[Warlord]] level or higher (not [[Warlord\|Commanders]])''" unclear and misleading. What is clear is:~~	+
-	* Warlords and Casters are Commanders (they can lead unit stacks)	+
-	* Units with Leadership abilities (Warlords) confer a bonus to units under their command	+
-	* Not all Commanders have Leadership (Warlords do and Casters do not)	+
-	~~Therefore I changed the phrase to "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command''". Clear and concise. -- [[User:Muzzafar\|Muzzafar]] 07:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	~~::For similar reasons, I changed the comment that "units with Leadership" can see stats -- casters don't have Leadership but can see stats.[[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30	+
-	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)	+
-	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] Oh, wait. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's redundant, but okay. In my mind all those abilities are just part of being a Commander, and Leadership = bonus and Caster = spells, but in the absence of a Commander natural ability, if you don't want to just treat those capabilities as being part of being a Commander (like following orders, fighting, and moving are part of being a Unit), then applying them separately to both abilities is the best solution. I'll bite.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]	+
-	~~===Recent LOaD Edit===~~	+
-	So, an IP swooped in and added Obedience and Duty as unit stats. I don't think that's right. I'd peg them as ''mechanics'', myself, since only Loyalty is dependent on a hidden variable - obedience is a static rule, and duty is dependent on rank. Should I revert the change? [[User:Menlo Marseilles\|Menlo Marseilles]] 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)	+
-	:Apparently [[Special:Contributions/88.148.236.150\|88.148.236.150]] agrees with your analysis, as they have reverted the change on their own. If only all IP addresses were as condsiderate and prolific as 88.148.236.150. Kiitos! ~~(apparently this IP is in Finland) ;-) --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	~~==Other==~~	+
-	This is just a small thing, but when vinnie is talking about 'transylvito style' he says the bats in Bagota (Ceseare) stack is as good as advanced infantry. Is this an actual type? Or merely Vinnies nickname for them? [[User:Xewleer\|Xewleer]]	+
-	~~<br>~~	+
-	~~:Don't know, yet. Advanced may just mean "high level". "Light" and "heavy" are definitely Natural Abilities. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	::Actually, I suspect that "Leadership" as well as the other bonuses of the system are applied directly to the unit's level statistic, as a sort of "Temporary Level Bump". Sure, if you looked at them their level would still only say 3 (Or whatever), but their effective level could be 10 or even 27, depending on the circumstances. So bonuses on top of bonuses could turn low-level Doombats, a relatively weak unit type, into unstoppable croaking machines. [[User:Cjc7988\|Cjc7988]] 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)	+
-		+
-	~~==Unit Points==~~	+
-	Is anyone going to protest if I move out the SStatistics section and call it by the proper name -- "Unit Points"? Stanley uses that term a few times. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)	+
-	~~:Where does he say this? I don't doubt you, but I don't remember ever reading it and I'd like to see the context. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]~~	+
-	~~:: Page 40. Somewhere else, too. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	:::Hm. Stanley says he can't see his "points" and that Parson doesn't know about "unit points." Parson later mentions "Movement points." So in Parson's example, it's clearly the temporary number he's referencing. In the first example, he probably means the blue box of stats; the second is ambiguous; it could be referring to any measurable quantity. But, unless Stanley meant he couldn't see Parson's movement points or other temporary quantity, it's probably safe to say that "points" or "unit points" mean the main stats that commanders can see. No complaints here.-- [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]	+
-		+
-	~~== Henchman, Lackey and Bodyguard ==~~	+
-		+
-	I was trying add "class" [[Bogroll]] and [[Mung]]'s stat boxes and realized that we don't really treat garrison classes/honorifics like "Henchman," "Lackey," or "Bodyguard" in the Units page. Are these being considered as not legitimate classes, or does it make sense to add them under speculation? --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)	+

Abb3w: Undo cheerleader spam 53864 by 80.34.32.38 (talk)

2011-05-26T03:41:30Z

Undo cheerleader spam 53864 by 80.34.32.38 (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:41, 26 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~More posts~~ of ~~this qaulity~~. ~~Not~~ the ~~usual c~~***, ~~please~~	+	I'm going back and fixing my own mistakes as I go, using my Contribs page, the GITP archive, and Page Histories. Bleh.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	Don't worry. I did it already. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Statistics==
		+	There ARE more than four statistics. I know some of you want to go back and shange that to four, because of Klog 4, but Klog 10 specifically stats that Loyalty is a stat as well, so that makes at least five, and so Parson's original knowledge was incomplete and unusable. Remember that Parson does not get all of his info at once. He first got told about the basic 4, because the effect of Level is constant. A Unit will show its current stat, not it's original stat, and so that it is L3 with Move 9 doesn't matter... only Move 9 matters. The original unit had Move 6, and 3 levels increased the Move, but that's not important to the man fighting the Unit with Move 9.
		+
		+	Statistics are just numbers with meaning. That makes any number with meaning to a Unit a statistic. Level, Experience, Leadership, etc. are all statistics.
		+	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Leadership==
		+	I find the phrase "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command, if of [[Warlord]] level or higher (not [[Warlord\|Commanders]])''" unclear and misleading. What is clear is:
		+	* Warlords and Casters are Commanders (they can lead unit stacks)
		+	* Units with Leadership abilities (Warlords) confer a bonus to units under their command
		+	* Not all Commanders have Leadership (Warlords do and Casters do not)
		+	Therefore I changed the phrase to "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command''". Clear and concise. -- [[User:Muzzafar\|Muzzafar]] 07:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	::For similar reasons, I changed the comment that "units with Leadership" can see stats -- casters don't have Leadership but can see stats.[[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30
		+	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] Oh, wait. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's redundant, but okay. In my mind all those abilities are just part of being a Commander, and Leadership = bonus and Caster = spells, but in the absence of a Commander natural ability, if you don't want to just treat those capabilities as being part of being a Commander (like following orders, fighting, and moving are part of being a Unit), then applying them separately to both abilities is the best solution. I'll bite.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]
		+	===Recent LOaD Edit===
		+	So, an IP swooped in and added Obedience and Duty as unit stats. I don't think that's right. I'd peg them as ''mechanics'', myself, since only Loyalty is dependent on a hidden variable - obedience is a static rule, and duty is dependent on rank. Should I revert the change? [[User:Menlo Marseilles\|Menlo Marseilles]] 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
		+	:Apparently [[Special:Contributions/88.148.236.150\|88.148.236.150]] agrees with your analysis, as they have reverted the change on their own. If only all IP addresses were as condsiderate and prolific as 88.148.236.150. Kiitos! (apparently this IP is in Finland) ;-) --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Other==
		+	This is just a small thing, but when vinnie is talking about 'transylvito style' he says the bats in Bagota (Ceseare) stack is as good as advanced infantry. Is this an actual type? Or merely Vinnies nickname for them? [[User:Xewleer\|Xewleer]]
		+	<br>
		+	:Don't know, yet. Advanced may just mean "high level". "Light" and "heavy" are definitely Natural Abilities. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Actually, I suspect that "Leadership" as well as the other bonuses of the system are applied directly to the unit's level statistic, as a sort of "Temporary Level Bump". Sure, if you looked at them their level would still only say 3 (Or whatever), but their effective level could be 10 or even 27, depending on the circumstances. So bonuses on top of bonuses could turn low-level Doombats, a relatively weak unit type, into unstoppable croaking machines. [[User:Cjc7988\|Cjc7988]] 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Unit Points==
		+	Is anyone going to protest if I move out the SStatistics section and call it by the proper name -- "Unit Points"? Stanley uses that term a few times. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:Where does he say this? I don't doubt you, but I don't remember ever reading it and I'd like to see the context. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
		+	:: Page 40. Somewhere else, too. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::Hm. Stanley says he can't see his "points" and that Parson doesn't know about "unit points." Parson later mentions "Movement points." So in Parson's example, it's clearly the temporary number he's referencing. In the first example, he probably means the blue box of stats; the second is ambiguous; it could be referring to any measurable quantity. But, unless Stanley meant he couldn't see Parson's movement points or other temporary quantity, it's probably safe to say that "points" or "unit points" mean the main stats that commanders can see. No complaints here.-- [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
		+
		+	== Henchman, Lackey and Bodyguard ==
		+
		+	I was trying add "class" [[Bogroll]] and [[Mung]]'s stat boxes and realized that we don't really treat garrison classes/honorifics like "Henchman," "Lackey," or "Bodyguard" in the Units page. Are these being considered as not legitimate classes, or does it make sense to add them under speculation? --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

80.34.32.38: BtvkUPFrl

2011-05-26T03:31:30Z

BtvkUPFrl

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:31, 26 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~I'm going back and fixing my own mistakes as I go, using my Contribs page, the GITP archive, and Page Histories. Bleh.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+	More posts of this qaulity. Not the usual c***, please
-		+
-	~~Don't worry. I did it already. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	~~==Statistics==~~	+
-	~~There ARE more than four statistics. I know some~~ of you want to go back and shange that to four, because of Klog 4, but Klog 10 specifically stats that Loyalty is a stat as well, so that makes at least five, and so Parson's original knowledge was incomplete and unusable. ~~Remember that Parson does not get all of his info at once. He first got told about~~ the basic 4, because the effect of Level is constant. A Unit will show its current stat, not it's original stat, and so that it is L3 with Move 9 doesn't matter... only Move 9 matters. The original unit had Move 6, and 3 levels increased the Move, but that's not important to the man fighting the Unit with Move 9.	+
-		+
-	~~Statistics are just numbers with meaning. That makes any number with meaning to a Unit a statistic. Level, Experience, Leadership, etc. are all statistics.~~	+
-	~~--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	~~==Leadership==~~	+
-	~~I find the phrase "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command, if of [[Warlord]] level or higher (not [[Warlord\|Commanders]])''" unclear and misleading. What is clear is:~~	+
-	* ~~Warlords and Casters are Commanders (they can lead unit stacks)~~	+
-	* ~~Units with Leadership abilities (Warlords) confer a bonus to units under their command~~	+
-	* ~~Not all Commanders have Leadership (Warlords do and Casters do not)~~	+
-	~~Therefore I changed the phrase to "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command''". Clear and concise. -- [[User:Muzzafar\|Muzzafar]] 07:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	~~::For similar reasons, I changed the comment that "units with Leadership" can see stats -- casters don't have Leadership but can see stats.[[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30	+
-	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)	+
-	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] Oh, wait. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's redundant, but okay. In my mind all those abilities are just part of being a Commander, and Leadership = bonus and Caster = spells, but in the absence of a Commander natural ability, if you don't want to just treat those capabilities as being part of being a Commander (like following orders, fighting, and moving are part of being a Unit), then applying them separately to both abilities is the best solution. I'll bite.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]	+
-	~~===Recent LOaD Edit===~~	+
-	So, an IP swooped in and added Obedience and Duty as unit stats. I don't think that's right. I'd peg them as ''mechanics'', myself, since only Loyalty is dependent on a hidden variable - obedience is a static rule, and duty is dependent on rank. Should I revert the change? [[User:Menlo Marseilles\|Menlo Marseilles]] 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)	+
-	:Apparently [[Special:Contributions/88.148.236.150\|88.148.236.150]] agrees with your analysis, as they have reverted the change on their own. If only all IP addresses were as condsiderate and prolific as 88.148.236.150. Kiitos! (apparently this IP is in Finland) ;-) --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)	+
-		+
-	~~==Other==~~	+
-	This is just a small thing, but when vinnie is talking about 'transylvito style' he says the bats in Bagota (Ceseare) stack is as good as advanced infantry. Is this an actual type? Or merely Vinnies nickname for them? [[User:Xewleer\|Xewleer]]	+
-	~~<br>~~	+
-	~~:Don't know, yet. Advanced may just mean "high level". "Light" and "heavy" are definitely Natural Abilities. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	::Actually, I suspect that "Leadership" as well as the other bonuses of the system are applied directly to the unit's level statistic, as a sort of "Temporary Level Bump". Sure, if you looked at them their level would still only say 3 (Or whatever), but their effective level could be 10 or even 27, depending on the circumstances. So bonuses on top of bonuses could turn low-level Doombats, a relatively weak unit type, into unstoppable croaking machines. [[User:Cjc7988\|Cjc7988]] 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)	+
-		+
-	~~==Unit Points==~~	+
-	Is anyone going to protest if I move out the SStatistics section and call it by the proper name -- "Unit Points"? Stanley uses that term a few times. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)	+
-	~~:Where does he say this? I don't doubt you, but I don't remember ever reading it and I'd like to see the context. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]~~	+
-	~~:: Page 40. Somewhere else, too. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	:::Hm. Stanley says he can't see his "points" and that Parson doesn't know about "unit points." Parson later mentions "Movement points." So in Parson's example, it's clearly the temporary number he's referencing. In the first example, he probably means the blue box of stats; the second is ambiguous; it could be referring to any measurable quantity. But, unless Stanley meant he couldn't see Parson's movement points or other temporary quantity, it's probably safe to say that "points" or "unit points" mean the main stats that commanders can see. No complaints here.-- [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]	+
-		+
-	~~== Henchman, Lackey and Bodyguard ==~~	+
-		+
-	I was trying add "class" [[Bogroll]] and [[Mung]]'s stat boxes and realized that we don't really treat garrison classes/honorifics like "Henchman," "Lackey," or "Bodyguard" in the Units page. Are these being considered as not legitimate classes, or does it make sense to add them under speculation? --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 00:23, ~~12 June 2009 (UTC)~~	+

MisterB777: /* Recent LOaD Edit */ aparently, the revert has already been made.

2009-08-10T17:14:19Z

Recent LOaD Edit: aparently, the revert has already been made.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:14, 10 August 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:
	===Recent LOaD Edit===		===Recent LOaD Edit===
	So, an IP swooped in and added Obedience and Duty as unit stats. I don't think that's right. I'd peg them as ''mechanics'', myself, since only Loyalty is dependent on a hidden variable - obedience is a static rule, and duty is dependent on rank. Should I revert the change? [[User:Menlo Marseilles\|Menlo Marseilles]] 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)		So, an IP swooped in and added Obedience and Duty as unit stats. I don't think that's right. I'd peg them as ''mechanics'', myself, since only Loyalty is dependent on a hidden variable - obedience is a static rule, and duty is dependent on rank. Should I revert the change? [[User:Menlo Marseilles\|Menlo Marseilles]] 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
		+	:Apparently [[Special:Contributions/88.148.236.150\|88.148.236.150]] agrees with your analysis, as they have reverted the change on their own. If only all IP addresses were as condsiderate and prolific as 88.148.236.150. Kiitos! (apparently this IP is in Finland) ;-) --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

	==Other==		==Other==

Menlo Marseilles: In doubt about a recent edit to Unit's hidden statistics section

2009-08-09T08:24:29Z

In doubt about a recent edit to Unit's hidden statistics section

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:24, 9 August 2009
Line 19:		Line 19:
	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)		::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] Oh, wait. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's redundant, but okay. In my mind all those abilities are just part of being a Commander, and Leadership = bonus and Caster = spells, but in the absence of a Commander natural ability, if you don't want to just treat those capabilities as being part of being a Commander (like following orders, fighting, and moving are part of being a Unit), then applying them separately to both abilities is the best solution. I'll bite.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]		:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] Oh, wait. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's redundant, but okay. In my mind all those abilities are just part of being a Commander, and Leadership = bonus and Caster = spells, but in the absence of a Commander natural ability, if you don't want to just treat those capabilities as being part of being a Commander (like following orders, fighting, and moving are part of being a Unit), then applying them separately to both abilities is the best solution. I'll bite.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]
		+	===Recent LOaD Edit===
		+	So, an IP swooped in and added Obedience and Duty as unit stats. I don't think that's right. I'd peg them as ''mechanics'', myself, since only Loyalty is dependent on a hidden variable - obedience is a static rule, and duty is dependent on rank. Should I revert the change? [[User:Menlo Marseilles\|Menlo Marseilles]] 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

	==Other==		==Other==

Commander I. Heartly Noah at 06:56, 3 August 2009

2009-08-03T06:56:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:56, 3 August 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30		:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30
	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)		::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
-	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]	+	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] Oh, wait. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's redundant, but okay. In my mind all those abilities are just part of being a Commander, and Leadership = bonus and Caster = spells, but in the absence of a Commander natural ability, if you don't want to just treat those capabilities as being part of being a Commander (like following orders, fighting, and moving are part of being a Unit), then applying them separately to both abilities is the best solution. I'll bite.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]

	==Other==		==Other==

Commander I. Heartly Noah: /* Leadership */

2009-08-03T06:53:14Z

Leadership

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:53, 3 August 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30		:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30
	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)		::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]

	==Other==		==Other==

Kreistor: /* Leadership */

2009-07-30T05:24:57Z

Leadership

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:24, 30 July 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:
	::For similar reasons, I changed the comment that "units with Leadership" can see stats -- casters don't have Leadership but can see stats.[[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)		::For similar reasons, I changed the comment that "units with Leadership" can see stats -- casters don't have Leadership but can see stats.[[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30		:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30
		+	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

	==Other==		==Other==

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:39, 26 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	That's really ~~thiknnig out~~ of the ~~box~~. ~~Thanks~~!	+	I'm going back and fixing my own mistakes as I go, using my Contribs page, the GITP archive, and Page Histories. Bleh.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	Don't worry. I did it already. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Statistics==
		+	There ARE more than four statistics. I know some of you want to go back and shange that to four, because of Klog 4, but Klog 10 specifically stats that Loyalty is a stat as well, so that makes at least five, and so Parson's original knowledge was incomplete and unusable. Remember that Parson does not get all of his info at once. He first got told about the basic 4, because the effect of Level is constant. A Unit will show its current stat, not it's original stat, and so that it is L3 with Move 9 doesn't matter... only Move 9 matters. The original unit had Move 6, and 3 levels increased the Move, but that's not important to the man fighting the Unit with Move 9.
		+
		+	Statistics are just numbers with meaning. That makes any number with meaning to a Unit a statistic. Level, Experience, Leadership, etc. are all statistics.
		+	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Leadership==
		+	I find the phrase "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command, if of [[Warlord]] level or higher (not [[Warlord\|Commanders]])''" unclear and misleading. What is clear is:
		+	* Warlords and Casters are Commanders (they can lead unit stacks)
		+	* Units with Leadership abilities (Warlords) confer a bonus to units under their command
		+	* Not all Commanders have Leadership (Warlords do and Casters do not)
		+	Therefore I changed the phrase to "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command''". Clear and concise. -- [[User:Muzzafar\|Muzzafar]] 07:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	::For similar reasons, I changed the comment that "units with Leadership" can see stats -- casters don't have Leadership but can see stats.[[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30
		+	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] Oh, wait. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's redundant, but okay. In my mind all those abilities are just part of being a Commander, and Leadership = bonus and Caster = spells, but in the absence of a Commander natural ability, if you don't want to just treat those capabilities as being part of being a Commander (like following orders, fighting, and moving are part of being a Unit), then applying them separately to both abilities is the best solution. I'll bite.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]
		+	===Recent LOaD Edit===
		+	So, an IP swooped in and added Obedience and Duty as unit stats. I don't think that's right. I'd peg them as ''mechanics'', myself, since only Loyalty is dependent on a hidden variable - obedience is a static rule, and duty is dependent on rank. Should I revert the change? [[User:Menlo Marseilles\|Menlo Marseilles]] 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
		+	:Apparently [[Special:Contributions/88.148.236.150\|88.148.236.150]] agrees with your analysis, as they have reverted the change on their own. If only all IP addresses were as condsiderate and prolific as 88.148.236.150. Kiitos! (apparently this IP is in Finland) ;-) --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Other==
		+	This is just a small thing, but when vinnie is talking about 'transylvito style' he says the bats in Bagota (Ceseare) stack is as good as advanced infantry. Is this an actual type? Or merely Vinnies nickname for them? [[User:Xewleer\|Xewleer]]
		+	<br>
		+	:Don't know, yet. Advanced may just mean "high level". "Light" and "heavy" are definitely Natural Abilities. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Actually, I suspect that "Leadership" as well as the other bonuses of the system are applied directly to the unit's level statistic, as a sort of "Temporary Level Bump". Sure, if you looked at them their level would still only say 3 (Or whatever), but their effective level could be 10 or even 27, depending on the circumstances. So bonuses on top of bonuses could turn low-level Doombats, a relatively weak unit type, into unstoppable croaking machines. [[User:Cjc7988\|Cjc7988]] 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Unit Points==
		+	Is anyone going to protest if I move out the SStatistics section and call it by the proper name -- "Unit Points"? Stanley uses that term a few times. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:Where does he say this? I don't doubt you, but I don't remember ever reading it and I'd like to see the context. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
		+	:: Page 40. Somewhere else, too. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::Hm. Stanley says he can't see his "points" and that Parson doesn't know about "unit points." Parson later mentions "Movement points." So in Parson's example, it's clearly the temporary number he's referencing. In the first example, he probably means the blue box of stats; the second is ambiguous; it could be referring to any measurable quantity. But, unless Stanley meant he couldn't see Parson's movement points or other temporary quantity, it's probably safe to say that "points" or "unit points" mean the main stats that commanders can see. No complaints here.-- [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
		+
		+	== Henchman, Lackey and Bodyguard ==
		+
		+	I was trying add "class" [[Bogroll]] and [[Mung]]'s stat boxes and realized that we don't really treat garrison classes/honorifics like "Henchman," "Lackey," or "Bodyguard" in the Units page. Are these being considered as not legitimate classes, or does it make sense to add them under speculation? --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:47, 26 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~I'm going back and fixing my own mistakes as I go, using my Contribs page,~~ the ~~GITP archive, and Page Histories. Bleh.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+	With the bases loeadd you struck us out with that answer!
-		+
-	~~Don't worry. I did it already. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	~~==Statistics==~~	+
-	~~There ARE more than four statistics. I know some of~~ you want to go back and shange that to four, because of Klog 4, but Klog 10 specifically stats that Loyalty is a stat as well, so that makes at least five, and so Parson's original knowledge was incomplete and unusable. Remember that Parson does not get all of his info at once. He first got told about the basic 4, because the effect of Level is constant. A Unit will show its current stat, not it's original stat, and so that it is L3 with ~~Move 9 doesn't matter... only Move 9 matters. The original unit had Move 6, and 3 levels increased the Move, but~~ that~~'s not important to the man fighting the Unit with Move 9.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Statistics are just numbers with meaning. That makes any number with meaning to a Unit a statistic. Level, Experience, Leadership, etc. are all statistics.~~	+
-	~~--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	~~==Leadership==~~	+
-	~~I find the phrase "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command, if of [[Warlord]] level or higher (not [[Warlord\|Commanders]])''" unclear and misleading. What is clear is:~~	+
-	* Warlords and Casters are Commanders (they can lead unit stacks)	+
-	* Units with Leadership abilities (Warlords) confer a bonus to units under their command	+
-	* Not all Commanders have Leadership (Warlords do and Casters do not)	+
-	~~Therefore I changed the phrase to "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command''". Clear and concise. -- [[User:Muzzafar\|Muzzafar]] 07:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	~~::For similar reasons, I changed the comment that "units with Leadership" can see stats -- casters don't have Leadership but can see stats.[[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30	+
-	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)	+
-	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] Oh, wait. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's redundant, but okay. In my mind all those abilities are just part of being a Commander, and Leadership = bonus and Caster = spells, but in the absence of a Commander natural ability, if you don't want to just treat those capabilities as being part of being a Commander (like following orders, fighting, and moving are part of being a Unit), then applying them separately to both abilities is the best solution. I'll bite.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]	+
-	~~===Recent LOaD Edit===~~	+
-	So, an IP swooped in and added Obedience and Duty as unit stats. I don't think that's right. I'd peg them as ''mechanics'', myself, since only Loyalty is dependent on a hidden variable - obedience is a static rule, and duty is dependent on rank. Should I revert the change? [[User:Menlo Marseilles\|Menlo Marseilles]] 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)	+
-	:Apparently [[Special:Contributions/88.148.236.150\|88.148.236.150]] agrees with your analysis, as they have reverted the change on their own. If only all IP addresses were as condsiderate and prolific as 88.148.236.150. Kiitos! ~~(apparently this IP is in Finland) ;-) --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	~~==Other==~~	+
-	This is just a small thing, but when vinnie is talking about 'transylvito style' he says the bats in Bagota (Ceseare) stack is as good as advanced infantry. Is this an actual type? Or merely Vinnies nickname for them? [[User:Xewleer\|Xewleer]]	+
-	~~<br>~~	+
-	~~:Don't know, yet. Advanced may just mean "high level". "Light" and "heavy" are definitely Natural Abilities. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	::Actually, I suspect that "Leadership" as well as the other bonuses of the system are applied directly to the unit's level statistic, as a sort of "Temporary Level Bump". Sure, if you looked at them their level would still only say 3 (Or whatever), but their effective level could be 10 or even 27, depending on the circumstances. So bonuses on top of bonuses could turn low-level Doombats, a relatively weak unit type, into unstoppable croaking machines. [[User:Cjc7988\|Cjc7988]] 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)	+
-		+
-	~~==Unit Points==~~	+
-	Is anyone going to protest if I move out the SStatistics section and call it by the proper name -- "Unit Points"? Stanley uses that term a few times. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)	+
-	~~:Where does he say this? I don't doubt you, but I don't remember ever reading it and I'd like to see the context. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]~~	+
-	~~:: Page 40. Somewhere else, too. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	:::Hm. Stanley says he can't see his "points" and that Parson doesn't know about "unit points." Parson later mentions "Movement points." So in Parson's example, it's clearly the temporary number he's referencing. In the first example, he probably means the blue box of stats; the second is ambiguous; it could be referring to any measurable quantity. But, unless Stanley meant he couldn't see Parson's movement points or other temporary quantity, it's probably safe to say that "points" or "unit points" mean the main stats that commanders can see. No complaints here.-- [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]	+
-		+
-	~~== Henchman, Lackey and Bodyguard ==~~	+
-		+
-	I was trying add "class" [[Bogroll]] and [[Mung]]'s stat boxes and realized that we don't really treat garrison classes/honorifics like "Henchman," "Lackey," or "Bodyguard" in the Units page. Are these being considered as not legitimate classes, or does it make sense to add them under speculation? --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)	+

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:41, 26 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~More posts~~ of ~~this qaulity~~. ~~Not~~ the ~~usual c~~***, ~~please~~	+	I'm going back and fixing my own mistakes as I go, using my Contribs page, the GITP archive, and Page Histories. Bleh.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	Don't worry. I did it already. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Statistics==
		+	There ARE more than four statistics. I know some of you want to go back and shange that to four, because of Klog 4, but Klog 10 specifically stats that Loyalty is a stat as well, so that makes at least five, and so Parson's original knowledge was incomplete and unusable. Remember that Parson does not get all of his info at once. He first got told about the basic 4, because the effect of Level is constant. A Unit will show its current stat, not it's original stat, and so that it is L3 with Move 9 doesn't matter... only Move 9 matters. The original unit had Move 6, and 3 levels increased the Move, but that's not important to the man fighting the Unit with Move 9.
		+
		+	Statistics are just numbers with meaning. That makes any number with meaning to a Unit a statistic. Level, Experience, Leadership, etc. are all statistics.
		+	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Leadership==
		+	I find the phrase "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command, if of [[Warlord]] level or higher (not [[Warlord\|Commanders]])''" unclear and misleading. What is clear is:
		+	* Warlords and Casters are Commanders (they can lead unit stacks)
		+	* Units with Leadership abilities (Warlords) confer a bonus to units under their command
		+	* Not all Commanders have Leadership (Warlords do and Casters do not)
		+	Therefore I changed the phrase to "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command''". Clear and concise. -- [[User:Muzzafar\|Muzzafar]] 07:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	::For similar reasons, I changed the comment that "units with Leadership" can see stats -- casters don't have Leadership but can see stats.[[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30
		+	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] Oh, wait. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's redundant, but okay. In my mind all those abilities are just part of being a Commander, and Leadership = bonus and Caster = spells, but in the absence of a Commander natural ability, if you don't want to just treat those capabilities as being part of being a Commander (like following orders, fighting, and moving are part of being a Unit), then applying them separately to both abilities is the best solution. I'll bite.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]
		+	===Recent LOaD Edit===
		+	So, an IP swooped in and added Obedience and Duty as unit stats. I don't think that's right. I'd peg them as ''mechanics'', myself, since only Loyalty is dependent on a hidden variable - obedience is a static rule, and duty is dependent on rank. Should I revert the change? [[User:Menlo Marseilles\|Menlo Marseilles]] 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
		+	:Apparently [[Special:Contributions/88.148.236.150\|88.148.236.150]] agrees with your analysis, as they have reverted the change on their own. If only all IP addresses were as condsiderate and prolific as 88.148.236.150. Kiitos! (apparently this IP is in Finland) ;-) --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Other==
		+	This is just a small thing, but when vinnie is talking about 'transylvito style' he says the bats in Bagota (Ceseare) stack is as good as advanced infantry. Is this an actual type? Or merely Vinnies nickname for them? [[User:Xewleer\|Xewleer]]
		+	<br>
		+	:Don't know, yet. Advanced may just mean "high level". "Light" and "heavy" are definitely Natural Abilities. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Actually, I suspect that "Leadership" as well as the other bonuses of the system are applied directly to the unit's level statistic, as a sort of "Temporary Level Bump". Sure, if you looked at them their level would still only say 3 (Or whatever), but their effective level could be 10 or even 27, depending on the circumstances. So bonuses on top of bonuses could turn low-level Doombats, a relatively weak unit type, into unstoppable croaking machines. [[User:Cjc7988\|Cjc7988]] 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Unit Points==
		+	Is anyone going to protest if I move out the SStatistics section and call it by the proper name -- "Unit Points"? Stanley uses that term a few times. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:Where does he say this? I don't doubt you, but I don't remember ever reading it and I'd like to see the context. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
		+	:: Page 40. Somewhere else, too. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::Hm. Stanley says he can't see his "points" and that Parson doesn't know about "unit points." Parson later mentions "Movement points." So in Parson's example, it's clearly the temporary number he's referencing. In the first example, he probably means the blue box of stats; the second is ambiguous; it could be referring to any measurable quantity. But, unless Stanley meant he couldn't see Parson's movement points or other temporary quantity, it's probably safe to say that "points" or "unit points" mean the main stats that commanders can see. No complaints here.-- [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
		+
		+	== Henchman, Lackey and Bodyguard ==
		+
		+	I was trying add "class" [[Bogroll]] and [[Mung]]'s stat boxes and realized that we don't really treat garrison classes/honorifics like "Henchman," "Lackey," or "Bodyguard" in the Units page. Are these being considered as not legitimate classes, or does it make sense to add them under speculation? --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:31, 26 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~I'm going back and fixing my own mistakes as I go, using my Contribs page, the GITP archive, and Page Histories. Bleh.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+	More posts of this qaulity. Not the usual c***, please
-		+
-	~~Don't worry. I did it already. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	~~==Statistics==~~	+
-	~~There ARE more than four statistics. I know some~~ of you want to go back and shange that to four, because of Klog 4, but Klog 10 specifically stats that Loyalty is a stat as well, so that makes at least five, and so Parson's original knowledge was incomplete and unusable. ~~Remember that Parson does not get all of his info at once. He first got told about~~ the basic 4, because the effect of Level is constant. A Unit will show its current stat, not it's original stat, and so that it is L3 with Move 9 doesn't matter... only Move 9 matters. The original unit had Move 6, and 3 levels increased the Move, but that's not important to the man fighting the Unit with Move 9.	+
-		+
-	~~Statistics are just numbers with meaning. That makes any number with meaning to a Unit a statistic. Level, Experience, Leadership, etc. are all statistics.~~	+
-	~~--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	~~==Leadership==~~	+
-	~~I find the phrase "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command, if of [[Warlord]] level or higher (not [[Warlord\|Commanders]])''" unclear and misleading. What is clear is:~~	+
-	* ~~Warlords and Casters are Commanders (they can lead unit stacks)~~	+
-	* ~~Units with Leadership abilities (Warlords) confer a bonus to units under their command~~	+
-	* ~~Not all Commanders have Leadership (Warlords do and Casters do not)~~	+
-	~~Therefore I changed the phrase to "''A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command''". Clear and concise. -- [[User:Muzzafar\|Muzzafar]] 07:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	~~::For similar reasons, I changed the comment that "units with Leadership" can see stats -- casters don't have Leadership but can see stats.[[User:SteveMB\|SteveMB]] 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	:::I want a much bigger change, but I'm refraining from jumping in there myself. Several of the abilities listed I believe all Commanders (Casters and Warlords) have. However, only Warlords have the Leadership ability, so anything a Caster can do must be removed. IE - we know all Commanders are affected by Duty, and Warlords have a higher effect, and Chief Warlords higher still. Since Casters are Commanders (and can lead units) but don't have leadership, this ability should be removed. Likewise leading units. Seeing stats - I assume Casters can see stats. Is this proven? Wanda knew Ansom was still level 10, so I guess so. Yeah, all that stuff needs to go. Leadership, as far as I can tell, only covers the combat bonus supplied. If anybody disagrees with this, lemme hear it.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] July 30	+
-	::::"As you can see, he is still Level 10." Yes, Casters can see stats. In fact, so far, the only thing a Caster cannot do that Leadership xan is provide a general LEadership bonus. Casters may not have "Leadership", but "Caster" inscludes all of the functions that Leadership does. So it's really quite moot that they don't have the Leadership Special: they can do anything a Warlord can. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)	+
-	:::::...right. So we don't need to be attributing all those things Casters can do to the Leadership ability. Which is what I was talking about. Also, it's been noted that when Parson saw stats, it never included Level. So the ability to know level might not be the same as seeing stats. Though that doesn't mean Casters can't. Anyway. Yeah, so is there any reason not to change the Leadership entry to just saying "provides a bonus to the units in the Warlord's stack?"[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]] Oh, wait. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's redundant, but okay. In my mind all those abilities are just part of being a Commander, and Leadership = bonus and Caster = spells, but in the absence of a Commander natural ability, if you don't want to just treat those capabilities as being part of being a Commander (like following orders, fighting, and moving are part of being a Unit), then applying them separately to both abilities is the best solution. I'll bite.[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|CIHN]]	+
-	~~===Recent LOaD Edit===~~	+
-	So, an IP swooped in and added Obedience and Duty as unit stats. I don't think that's right. I'd peg them as ''mechanics'', myself, since only Loyalty is dependent on a hidden variable - obedience is a static rule, and duty is dependent on rank. Should I revert the change? [[User:Menlo Marseilles\|Menlo Marseilles]] 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)	+
-	:Apparently [[Special:Contributions/88.148.236.150\|88.148.236.150]] agrees with your analysis, as they have reverted the change on their own. If only all IP addresses were as condsiderate and prolific as 88.148.236.150. Kiitos! (apparently this IP is in Finland) ;-) --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)	+
-		+
-	~~==Other==~~	+
-	This is just a small thing, but when vinnie is talking about 'transylvito style' he says the bats in Bagota (Ceseare) stack is as good as advanced infantry. Is this an actual type? Or merely Vinnies nickname for them? [[User:Xewleer\|Xewleer]]	+
-	~~<br>~~	+
-	~~:Don't know, yet. Advanced may just mean "high level". "Light" and "heavy" are definitely Natural Abilities. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-		+
-	::Actually, I suspect that "Leadership" as well as the other bonuses of the system are applied directly to the unit's level statistic, as a sort of "Temporary Level Bump". Sure, if you looked at them their level would still only say 3 (Or whatever), but their effective level could be 10 or even 27, depending on the circumstances. So bonuses on top of bonuses could turn low-level Doombats, a relatively weak unit type, into unstoppable croaking machines. [[User:Cjc7988\|Cjc7988]] 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)	+
-		+
-	~~==Unit Points==~~	+
-	Is anyone going to protest if I move out the SStatistics section and call it by the proper name -- "Unit Points"? Stanley uses that term a few times. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)	+
-	~~:Where does he say this? I don't doubt you, but I don't remember ever reading it and I'd like to see the context. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]~~	+
-	~~:: Page 40. Somewhere else, too. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~	+
-	:::Hm. Stanley says he can't see his "points" and that Parson doesn't know about "unit points." Parson later mentions "Movement points." So in Parson's example, it's clearly the temporary number he's referencing. In the first example, he probably means the blue box of stats; the second is ambiguous; it could be referring to any measurable quantity. But, unless Stanley meant he couldn't see Parson's movement points or other temporary quantity, it's probably safe to say that "points" or "unit points" mean the main stats that commanders can see. No complaints here.-- [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah\|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]	+
-		+
-	~~== Henchman, Lackey and Bodyguard ==~~	+
-		+
-	I was trying add "class" [[Bogroll]] and [[Mung]]'s stat boxes and realized that we don't really treat garrison classes/honorifics like "Henchman," "Lackey," or "Bodyguard" in the Units page. Are these being considered as not legitimate classes, or does it make sense to add them under speculation? --[[User:MisterB777\|MisterB777]] 00:23, ~~12 June 2009 (UTC)~~	+