Darkside007 wrote:The problem with your argument (and yes, it is an argument.) is that the support of it only counts towards groups. Stanley has only used the word as an explicit threat against individuals, never against stacks. From all appearences (And I assumed this before speaking to anyone else about the comic) disband is an 'unsummon' or 'delete' command, used to free up upkeep and get rid of troublesome units.
The phrase for removing a unit from a side is "break alliance".
Kreistor wrote:Darkside007 wrote:The problem with your argument (and yes, it is an argument.) is that the support of it only counts towards groups. Stanley has only used the word as an explicit threat against individuals, never against stacks. From all appearences (And I assumed this before speaking to anyone else about the comic) disband is an 'unsummon' or 'delete' command, used to free up upkeep and get rid of troublesome units.
When a Ruler falls with no heir, all units outside cities disband, in stack or out. Disbanding is not an event caused only by choice of the RUler, but by at least one non-intentional eent... there may be others we have not been made aware of. It is not just a threat by a Ruler, but a possibility for all units at all times, except in specific cases such as being inside a city when a Ruler falls (where the city becomes neutral, and certain restrictions are placed on the units, but it is unclear whether they are considered Barbarian, Neutral, or have another term assigned.)
Kreistor wrote:Further, when a unit demonstrates a lack of Obedience, it may disband automatically. That's not a threat from the RUler, that's a choice made by the unit itself. What unit would risk oblivion for disobedience? (Klog 10. "Disobedience may cause the unit to disband." That doesn't say "Disbedience may cause a unit to be disbanded by the Ruler." So there's a second case where disbanding can occur without the intent of the Ruler.) If oblivion were the only possible result of disbanding, disobedience would never occur. Note that successful disobedience results in either disbanding at the hands of the Ruler (oblivion if you're right, so it's pointless to rebel) or disbanding as the result of a Fallen Ruler (again oblvion if youre' right), so win or lose, disobedience means oblivion under the theory that disbanding = un-popping. With no non-oblivion result of disobedience, there would be no disobedience.
Kreistor wrote:Be complete folks. More than Stanley has used the word "Disbanding". Your theories must account for all instances, not just the ones that happen to be nice to your pet theories.
Kreistor wrote:The phrase for removing a unit from a side is "break alliance".
Alliance is a defined term that refers to two sides uniting to operate as one, and has nothing to do with a single side operating alone. (Rob has made it clear that this affects Turn order, with all sides allying taking the turn of the last in the Natural Turn order. Alliance has a definite meaning uniting multiple sides.) "Breaking Alliance" is mentioned when Duke Nozzle (Sofa King) threatens to leave Jetstone (two different Sides), when Jillian intends to attack Caesar (Barbarian leaving alliance with Transylvito), when Ansom intends Jillian (Barbarian) to leave RCC and re-ally with Transylvito to change Turn position for the Faq defense, and I'll stop there since that ought to be enough. I don't think I need to track down specific comics in this case. Please cite a case where the term is used to refer to a Unit on the same Side being removed from that Side. That is not a rhetorical question -- you seem to think there is a case, and I want to know exactly where you think it happened: if I am forgetting something that I need to know (I'm a heavy contributor to the Wiki), then I need to know. I have three instances where it is used with reference to different sides re-organizing for Turn advantage or to get out of a nasty situation, against your hint that it might mean something else. Demonstrate my ignorance, please, so that I don't screw up the Wiki.
Darkside007 wrote:Units in the Garrison go neutral, they don't disband. When Jillian became a barbarian, she didn't say "I was disbanded", she said "I was a barbarian."
And we haven't seen any disobedience, have we? ... We have not seen units of a side actually disobey a direct order.
What we have seen are natural allies break their alliance.
Ah, but they do.
We haven't seen side-controlled units leave their side unless they are some form of Commander, and the term for that is 'turned'.
Kreistor wrote:Darkside007 wrote:Units in the Garrison go neutral, they don't disband. When Jillian became a barbarian, she didn't say "I was disbanded", she said "I was a barbarian."
Sigh... Disbanding is a process. It causes a change of state. Even the claim that the unit becomes un-popped is a change of state. What we don't know is the final state, or if it cna result in multiple final states. If disbanding results in a change of state to Barbarian, then Jillian could say, "I was a Barbrian" or "I was disbanded" and both are true and accurate. That she chose one and not the other is not evidence that only one is true.
Kreistor wrote:And we haven't seen any disobedience, have we? ... We have not seen units of a side actually disobey a direct order.
Comic 2. Wanda disobeys Stanley's order to raise a Warlord from the ranks. This demonstrates the "may" part of the rule that a unit that is disobedient "may" disband. It's not automatic.
Kreistor wrote:What we have seen are natural allies break their alliance.
Transylvito broke alliance with Jetstone at the same time. Not just Natural Allies.Ah, but they do.
Insert dismissive comment about lack of evidence here. Claims require proof. You're wrong until you demonstrate. I only hold you to the standard I hold myself to.
Kreistor wrote:We haven't seen side-controlled units leave their side unless they are some form of Commander, and the term for that is 'turned'.
Which is not evidence that "break alliance" has any additional meanings. There may be a word for what you want, which might be "disband", but it's not "break alliance", just because you lack a known term.
Darkside007 wrote:And we haven't seen any disobedience, have we? What we have seen are natural allies break their alliance. We have not seen units of a side actually disobey a direct order.
Malanthyus wrote:Okay, this strategy relies on some basic assumptions:
1: It's possible to "Pop" low level infantry quickly.
2: Units on your side can be ordered to attack and/or croak other units on your side.
3: It could be possible to arm said infantry with at least some form of ranged weapon each.
4: Although 8 man "stacks" are preferrable, there aren't any limits on how many units you can have in a single hex.
5: It will always be at least "Theoretically possible" for even the lowest level unit to hit another unit with a ranged attack.
1: Pop thousands upon thousands of Lvl 1 basic infantry.
2: Croak them.
3: Decrypt them.
4: Arm the new decrypted forces with some form of ranged weapon.
5: Always move this force within the same hex.
Benefits: This "ranged" force will be able to attack any unit entering the hex, even with a minsiscule chance of hitting, the unit being attacked will be swarmed with projectile weapons, more than enough will get through. Such a set up could effectively kill almost any single or small group of higher level units.
So, does this sound like a broken mechanic?
Darkside007 wrote:And yet they both appear to be specific mechanics, so it's unlikely they are the same thing.
Actually, there are stated exceptions. "I'm allowed, I'm convinced it will lead to your destruction." is one.
I'm not going to jump through hoops for you simply because you refuse to accept that you may very well be wrong.
Actually, it's turn. Not just to hostile sides, Webinar uses it to Jillian in reference to simply killing him and running.
When you disband a squad, the squad no longers exists, it is unmade. There is a mechanic-word for treason (turn), we have seen no insubordination that was not a protected exception, and disbanding fills in the important TBS mechanic of deleting ineffective or space- or resource-consuming units.
While there is always the possibilty that you may be right, since it hasn't been confirmed, it's also possible that the whole thing could be an alien abduction of Parson, running him through this to say how humans react. That hasn't been expressly denied, either.
Bobby Archer wrote:First, this has gotten quite a bit off topic. I'd suggest that any further discussion of the nature of disbanding be moved to a thread centered around that topic.
Second, Kreistor, please don't double-post. Particularly if the second post is only minutes after the first. If you realize you have more to say after you're done with a post, just edit the earlier post. Sorry, it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
The assumption that units can croak other units on the same side is likely false, although, as was mentioned by Cmdr. Noah, there are (convoluted) workarounds to this. It's even more straightforward if "disbanding" means a unit becomes barbarian or neutral as opposed to simply ceasing to be.
Cmdr I. Heartly Noah wrote:being left over after a side is left without a ruler.
I see no reason to surmise there is another way unless we get a near-explicit statement of such from the comic.
2) Sizemore's fear and Parson's Klogging seem to indicate that, whatever its form, Disbanding would be the end of them. If they were merely made Barbarians (and could leave), they'd actually be better off.
4) Real World Evidence. ... This is important - the end result is the exact same as being killed, as far as the game is concerned.
Now, none of this is proof, but I think this is our Best Guess until we see evidence to the contrary.
Kreistor wrote:Cmdr I. Heartly Noah wrote:being left over after a side is left without a ruler.
What do we know about that? You're referring to Jillian, obviously, when Faq fell. Let's look at the rules that we do know.
Klog 12: So what happens if Stanley is croaked? He has no heir so our side ends. Field units disband, and the city becomes "neutral".
Though it's possible that this may have happened solely because she was an heir, I highly doubt it. It's a pretty specific exception.
And I can say the same about "de-popping." I see no reason to surmise the existence of a de-popping process unless we get a near-explicit statement of such from the comic." I really can twist anything you say about this process and turn it right back against the unproven de-popping. That's a challenge of course. Can you come up with a statement I can't reflect right back at you?
Barbarians need a purse, or they starve. Sizemore's best chance is in MK, but outside there he is likely to be enslaved. His future is possibly more horrible than death if he goes barbarian outside MK.
If and only if the creature is de-popped. If it remains popped but no longer a unit (a unit is a thing that fights... a thing that doesn't fight isn't a unit). A creature that isn't a unit might be recruited, although there are loyalty questions, so it would be rare if it did exist. Point is, we haven't seen farmers, but we have been assured they exist. Trades are real. There is a place for non-fighting units in Erfworld, but perhaps not in the comic due to constraints on time and story momentum.
it is no more or less provable than my alternative
except that I don't invent a process or state that doesn't exist, while you do. De-popping is not a fact, it is speculation. Though I speculate that Disbanding results in Barbarianism, neither of those terms are invented. They are used to explain each other, and so there is one fewer invention to my theory.
Maldeus wrote:Why do they use the word "disband" instead of "croak?" The same reason we use the word "execute" instead of "kill." It's a specification.
Daefaroth wrote:Darkside007 wrote:And we haven't seen any disobedience, have we? What we have seen are natural allies break their alliance. We have not seen units of a side actually disobey a direct order.
If (and this is a big speculative if), if Stanley were even indirectly responsible for King Saline's death, that would would be a pretty huge display of disobediance.
On a more defensible arguement, Wanda gave the location of Faq to Stanley to help him to lead an attack against it. Even if she intended for Stanley to fail, she still clearly went against King Banhammer's policy of no contact with nearby sides.
Users browsing this forum: Lilwik and 1 guest