"Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Speculation, discoveries, complaints, accusations, praise, and all other Erfworld discussion.

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby MarbitChow » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:41 pm

Kreistor wrote:See my comment about Stanley remaining a Capital Side elsewhere. Only takes a City trnign into a replacement Capital. Backed by Sizemore's lack of knowledge he waa a barbarian. Jillian and Stanley are not 100% identical.


I missed it - where's the quote from the book that supports that?
You demanded rigorous evidence that invented nothing and was fully supported by canon.
I have provided that.

If you are going to say "Sizemore didn't know he was a barbarian", you need to support that.
If you are going to say "Another capital city prevented him from disbanding", you need to support that.

The proof I provided says nothing about cities. Simply croaking the leader is sufficient.
Please either rigorously disprove the break-down I've provided, citing pages as I have done, or conceed that we can't know anything about disbanding at all, because we haven't seen it.

I am not attempting to prove that disbanding = de-popping. I simply prove that it cannot mean the same as becoming a barbarian. If you wish to continue to claim that it does without explicit proof to the same level that I have provided, then I will assume that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing (rather than attempting to find the 'truth' for purposes of the Wiki), and that you are not in fact open to any argument at all.
Equilateratoria is now underway. New players are welcome to join at any time! (Rules)
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:09 pm

I miss themes in comics? What did you just miss? And it's the second time I copied this to this thread, and you admit to reading it the first time.


Are you serious? Are you paying attention at all? My point had to do with useful corpses which could be uncroaked vanishing, thus meaning they are no longer available for uncroaking. The existence of a bearskin rug doesn't change anything related to that (especially since bears appear to be ununcroakable).[/quote]
The general feel of the forum right now would be that all participating members are as fed up with your narcissistic rants as I am.


Yeah, another flame. Expected you couldn't stop yourself for very long.


That's really just a particularly blunt way of stating my opinion, so I'm not sure that qualifies as a flame. Regardless, I have been lobbing insults your way, and if I had as little self-control as you believe I'd be lobbing them at plenty of other people. You, for example, felt the need to call Cmdr. Noah sad and desperate, completely unprovoked. I could refrain if I wanted to. I just don't. You're not worth the trouble.
Based on Occam's Razor, yes. But the fact that Erfworld operates as a game-like (and regularly cruel and ruthless) world is compelling evidence whereas you have only simplicity to operate off of.


I've been so avoiding OR. It's been such a bother on this forum, when people get into debates on what it actually means. Look, if you want ot talk about it, please go back to the old forum and find a debate about it to see what I mean. It happened far too many times.


O-Chul versus Redcloak over and over and over again. Given I stated it was in your favor in this case, however, it is a bit of a moot point.

Compelling evidence of what, BTW? That disbanding turns people into trees, tortures them on crosses, fires them like rockets into the stratosphere? It's evidence of nothing specific, just that bad things happen. There are lots of other bad things, many far worse than de-popping.


That the game-like world will continue to operate like a game, where disbanding a unit causes it to vanish.

I will admit this is a possibility. But the odds are astronomical. You've demonstrated, from the start, an arrogant, condescending attitude towards every poster, and you've shown yourself incapable of even remembering which of your opponents said what, which is especially ridiculous given you could just open the thread itself in another window and have a perfect record on hand. You've blundered through a half-dozen odd bad arguments before you were able to arrive at a good one. You'd have to have been bluffing from the start, in which case your objective in even entering this debate would have to have been to try and find anyone who gets fed up with narcissism and try to humiliate them, in which case A) It won't work. Everyone is fed up with you, they're not going to think that much less of me if I make a few mistakes in my aggravation, and B) You're insane, and not in a good way. That's the craziest set of priorities I've ever seen in my life.


Heheh... you really can't see yourself from a neutral perspective, can you? I'll let that stand all by itself. It doesn't do what you think it does.

That's how you deal with something obvious. Obvious things need absolutely no explanation.


I can't escape the feeling you simply can't figure out a good way to respond to that. My point stands. Either your entire participation in this debate was an elaborate trap, or else you invented an elaborate trap after the fact to make yourself appear like as an ingenius master of the Xanatos Gambit because someone got irritated with you.

...Yeah, actually, some do. The insanity of your priorities in that assumed confrontation is inane, however. You start subtly trolling everyone who's opinion differs from your (unlikely) position, just so you can find out who's going to counter-troll you for it? Seriously? I'm not buying it.


No, you don't, do you? And you may never. It'll take the right epiphany from the right person in the right way to hold the mirror up for you to see what you are. You look through a mirror darkly, and miss all that you choose. Someday, something will happen to show you how very much you're losing. Once I understand you well enough, I might pull that off without doing too much damage, but the shading is very dark in your case. I've damaged people before that I didn't want to. You're not yet bad enough for me to risk that.


You have no evidence and know very little about me, therefore I see little reason to believe you know anything I do not. On top of that, you can't even keep track of what was said by me and what was said by others. Further, what I said I wasn't buying was that you planned this whole thing out. I never said anything about myself. And please don't go on about how I've said a lot of things about myself because of the way I'm acting. I know that. I meant literally.


In a war game, there are no humans, just plastic pieces. No real physics, just game rules. Erfworld is a world and a game, and it's a mistake to think that a Game Rule that can be broken is as much a Law as Gravity.


Erfworld is a literal interpretation of a war game, which means that certain game rules may well be as hard-coded as the laws of physics. The exact nature of how Parson is capable of breaking the rules is, as of this moment, completely unknown to us. Whether or not he could teach other units to also break the rules is similarly unknown.


They disappear because that's what's most likely to happen in a war game. Are you paying attention?


So can I begin to insert rules from my favorite war games now? Or are only you allowed to do that? Or are we trying to figure out which game rules Rob implemented and which ones he didn't based on evidence?

That one game or many games implement a rule is not evidence Erfworld implements that rule.


Yes it is. War games follow certain conventions. Erfworld, being based very heavily off of war games, can therefore be expected to follow said conventions. If you want to assume the existence of a certain rule because most war games in existence follow it, I'm not going to stop you, primarily because you'd be hard-pressed to find one such rule that isn't already canon.
Regardless, admitting an error to feign humility so as to disguise one's arrogance isn't anything like actual humility, it's just clever. And a trick I learned when I was...Fifteen, actually. You haven't convinced me of anything and I'm not sure why you're trying. You're still trying to win, which means you're still in it to feed your ego.
[/quote]

Am I trying to win? Oh, I won long ago. You lose with every post, now. You just don't realize what you lose, because you're thinking of the wrong paradigm. This ceased being about the game rules long ago. I'm playing the meta-debate game now, and you're still thinking on the debate level. And, no, I am not winning anything anymore. Just watching you lose.[/quote]

So I'm losing a game I'm not trying to win? Okay. I don't care.

I'll say this: if an arrogant man accuses another of being arrogant as a fault, he's being hypocritical. If the other has no problem with arrogance, and does not treat it as being a heinous flaw, he's not hypocritical. Which one does a third party respect more, and does it matter a whit if the hypocritical man turns out to be correct? That's all the hint (ans warning) I'll give you, for now.
[/quote]

Arrogance is the other side of confidence. It's both a strength and a flaw and we both have it in the extreme, the difference being that I don't flaunt it. You started this. I'm just in it for the lulz. It's true, I overlooked the fact that Saline (presumably) had other cities (it is possible, of course, that he didn't, and Stanley captured all ten of his other cities using his dwagons and the Arkenhammer, but I doubt it). You're now contending that Sizemore is an inaccurate source with no evidence. You're contending that Stanley did not become a barbarian when, in fact, he might not have been a barbarian (I honestly have no idea whether or not the Side ended, because either could be expected of a war game).

Further, you say that Parson's question is redundant. Yes. Yes it is. But what Parson means is "why didn't you disband." People ask questions that are redundant literally but not redundant in context because they clearly mean something else, it happens all the time. For example, it is not unreasonable for someone else to ask "shouldn't you be dead?" Well no, clearly they shouldn't be dead, because they aren't, unless you're talking to a corpse. What the person means is "why aren't you dead?"

Now, then...

Parson: When the city fell, shouldn't you have disbanded?
Sizemore: Normally, yes. But the King was very fond of Stanley, so he did something that rarely happens. He promoted Stanley to Heir Designate, at great expense. That way, when the city fell it wasn't the end of our side.

This tells us a couple of things. First, the fall of the city is the end of the Side unless there is an Heir, even though Stanley has won lots of battles since finding the Arkenhammer (which is why Saline liked him so much), so they almost certainly have at least one other city. It is most likely, therefore, that fall of city=end of Side, unless the Ruler or Heir is out and about (or they become barbarians, possibly?).

Second, Sizemore could either have been saying that it wasn't the end of their Side because they continued as barbarians, or it wasn't the end of their Side because the capital city switched to somewhere else and Stanley became the new Ruler. I'll come back to this bit later because it's going to get complicated puzzling that one out. Thirdly, whatever happened out there, it didn't end with Stanley or Sizemore disbanding, because Sizemore can be assumed to be an accurate source of information concerning these things, because he is intelligent and knowledgeable. Bogroll was neither, and thus much more prone to giving inaccurate information. It is possible that they did disband and Sizemore didn't know it, but most unlikely.

Now then, on to that second one. The phrasing of it suggests that the Plaid Tribe never ceased to exist at all, and thus they were never barbarians, however as the Ruler can leave the city at will (as Stanley does at the Battle for Gobwin Knob), then it begs the question as to why the Side ends if the city is taken and the Ruler lives on, but not if the Ruler is killed, the city taken, and the Heir survives. One of these two statements must have been a simplification. Either Sizemore meant that Saline promoted Stanley to Heir so that his Side would possibly continue after he died, if Stanley managed to take a city from whatever forces had captured it, or that Saline would never leave the city, thus the city being taken and the death of Saline would be more or less the same. I'm leaning towards the latter.

Ultimately the evidence is not as thoroughly conclusive as I might have hoped, but the way Parson says "shouldn't you have disbanded" is yet another instance where it's implied to be a death threat even outside of the threat of being hacked to pieces by Plaid units in Gobwin Knob. If disband=/=de-pop, it's probably because Rob is intentionally misleading us.

All this being said, Kreistor has bounced around from one failed argument to another in support of his pre-determined conclusion until he stumbled across one that actually made sense. I'm no longer amused by this, so I'm leaving this alone until I'm sufficiently bored to come back to it. Good-bye, all.

Also, yes I'm aware I left some messy [/quote]'s lying around. I'm far too lazy to clean them up right now.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:40 am

Maldeus wrote:Are you serious? Are you paying attention at all? My point had to do with useful corpses which could be uncroaked vanishing, thus meaning they are no longer available for uncroaking. The existence of a bearskin rug doesn't change anything related to that (especially since bears appear to be ununcroakable).


Rob has decided that "useful" is determined by whether someone wants something specific at the moment it might de-pop, not that something is generally or potentially useful. You're trying to use a different definition of useful from Rob. So take it up with him. Argue to him that any corpse is useful, even if some individual doesn't want it specifically right now. I'm not going to debate that. That's how Erfworld operates.

But a useful thing that does nto de-pop is like a useful thing here. It does not cease to exist. It does cease to exist when an equivalent item in our world would be thrown in the trash.

That the game-like world will continue to operate like a game, where disbanding a unit causes it to vanish.


Squad Leader doesn't de-pop any units. They are injured, or die. Prove that Rob did not model soldier level combat mechanics on Squad Leader. You're thinking solely about games where "units" are made up of tens or hundreds of men, so a "unit" that disappears is not actually men disappearing, but merely a regimental loss of the organization of that group of men. The men themselves are theoretically used as replacements, and that minutiae is too low level fo such games.

Erfworld does not take place solely on the company level. It also takes place on the individual level, and in individual level games, there is no arbitrary disappearance of men. Squad Leader is the best example, of course. That's why I asked if I'm allowed to introduce my own games. I contend that individual level rules are not sourced from high level games where "units" are companies and armies, but from Squad Leader, where a "unit" is a single man.

So, like I said, are we using evidence to figure out what games to use as sources for rules, or picking whatever rules from our favorite games to invoke, and hope we're right?

[/quote]
K wrote:Heheh... you really can't see yourself from a neutral perspective, can you? I'll let that stand all by itself. It doesn't do what you think it does.

That's how you deal with something obvious. Obvious things need absolutely no explanation.


I can't escape the feeling you simply can't figure out a good way to respond to that. My point stands. Either your entire participation in this debate was an elaborate trap, or else you invented an elaborate trap after the fact to make yourself appear like as an ingenius master of the Xanatos Gambit because someone got irritated with you.[/quote]

A trap? Well, yes. But you began this. You thew the first bait. You wanted me to play. Don't you remember? "I've no interest in hiding my disdain for your lack of logic any longer. This is little more than idiocy at this point, and I intend to treat it as such." Now how could I possibly pass up an opening like that? Someone has decided I lack logic, and am an idiot? Oh, the fun we'll have...

If there was any trap, you really baited and set it for yourself, and I merely ensured you stepped in it. Of course, you expected an easy mark. Arrogant people can't take being insulted, can they? All you have to do is keep at it, and they'll crack. They can't stand being questioned. And they are so convinced of their own superiority that it's easy to appear cleverer than they...

Didn't turn out to be so easy, though. I'm not reacting like an arrogant man should. I'm not taking up the gauntlet of a flame war like I should.

You have no evidence and know very little about me, therefore I see little reason to believe you know anything I do not. On top of that, you can't even keep track of what was said by me and what was said by others. Further, what I said I wasn't buying was that you planned this whole thing out. I never said anything about myself. And please don't go on about how I've said a lot of things about myself because of the way I'm acting. I know that. I meant literally.


Do you think it's important what your height, weight, income, age, or local facts are? Every time you post, you reveal how you think. Unless you are practiced at hiding and deceiving people into underestimating you, you are an open book. For most, that does not matter. But you want to play with me. You'd better have something more than the hand you're playing. Look at this last paragraph. You've called me "narcissistic" twice now, at least. Didn't work, did it? If it failed the first time, it won't work the second. Or the third. Or the fourth. That ploy fails, and yet you re-use it. Other attempts, like "insane" and "idiocy" also fail to get the desired result. So what do you know of how I think? Clearly you have misjudged me. I spoke of you losing, didn't I? Every time you insult me and fail to get a rise, you've failed and I've won. Every time I get to turn my cheek, you embarrass yourself. And you don't see it, because you cannot view your own posts from a third person perspective without prejudice.

Erfworld is a literal interpretation of a war game, which means that certain game rules may well be as hard-coded as the laws of physics. The exact nature of how Parson is capable of breaking the rules is, as of this moment, completely unknown to us. Whether or not he could teach other units to also break the rules is similarly unknown.


You will see what you want to see.

They disappear because that's what's most likely to happen in a war game. Are you paying attention?


So can I begin to insert rules from my favorite war games now? Or are only you allowed to do that? Or are we trying to figure out which game rules Rob implemented and which ones he didn't based on evidence?

That one game or many games implement a rule is not evidence Erfworld implements that rule.


Yes it is. War games follow certain conventions. Erfworld, being based very heavily off of war games, can therefore be expected to follow said conventions.


All war games are different. Not all include all the same rules. They take place over different time frames, different map sizes, and different unit sizes. Picking the war games that support your belief system is not proof of existence, when games at other levels and sizes have different rules entirely. Combat in erfworld takes place on the level of each individual soldier, not at the army level. Disbanding at the army level when applied to the individual level is oviously a mistake. Rules from a individual soldier level are more appropriate for the individual soldier.

If you want to assume the existence of a certain rule because most war games in existence follow it, I'm not going to stop you, primarily because you'd be hard-pressed to find one such rule that isn't already canon.


Squad Leader. One of the single most popular war games of all time. Action at the individual soldier level. Completely applicable to this game. And soldiers don't disappear in it, unless they die. They can be injured, break and run, surrender, etc. But they don't conveniently disappear.

K wrote:Regardless, admitting an error to feign humility so as to disguise one's arrogance isn't anything like actual humility, it's just clever. And a trick I learned when I was...Fifteen, actually. You haven't convinced me of anything and I'm not sure why you're trying. You're still trying to win, which means you're still in it to feed your ego.


Am I trying to win? Oh, I won long ago. You lose with every post, now. You just don't realize what you lose, because you're thinking of the wrong paradigm. This ceased being about the game rules long ago. I'm playing the meta-debate game now, and you're still thinking on the debate level. And, no, I am not winning anything anymore. Just watching you lose.


So I'm losing a game I'm not trying to win? Okay. I don't care.[/quote]

I know, more's the pity. Someday you will. I hope it doesn't hurt to much when it happens.

Arrogance is the other side of confidence. It's both a strength and a flaw and we both have it in the extreme, the difference being that I don't flaunt it.


Don't you? If you're arrogant, then you're not capable of accurately judging yourself. "making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud". Confidence stems from competence. Arrogance stems from belief in competence in areas where there is none. Most arrogant people are competent, but only inside their field: they treat that as evidence that they are superior in more than just that specialty, and embarrass themselves when they step outside their field into the specialty of an opponent. Arrogance does not mean stupid, but confidence does not mean competence either.

But what about a man that only appears to be arrogant, either by an accident of genetics or by being a superior actor? What happens if that man really is superior, either by stumbling into an area of expertise, or meeting a man that is simply better in general? What defenses need to be in place to prevent potential wretched results of such an accidental interaction?

You started this. I'm just in it for the lulz.


I was arguing with other people. I started nothing with you. Your opening volley included accusations of illogic and idiocy against me. How exactly did I start this?

It's true, I overlooked the fact that Saline (presumably) had other cities (it is possible, of course, that he didn't, and Stanley captured all ten of his other cities using his dwagons and the Arkenhammer, but I doubt it).


I doubt Saline would have loved Stanley so much if he'd never expanded GK past it's Capital, especially when he smashed Faq during Saline's reign. Saline would have been furious that Stanley didn't capture Faq's cities to provide him with his second.

You're now contending that Sizemore is an inaccurate source with no evidence.


How so? If he didn't go barbarian, all he knew before arriving at GK was that Stanley was now Ruler, so Saline had died. Everything else he learend after the fact and I treated as accurate. Is tere some statement he specifically makes that I'm claiming he lied about, or misrepresented?

You're contending that Stanley did not become a barbarian when, in fact, he might not have been a barbarian (I honestly have no idea whether or not the Side ended, because either could be expected of a war game).


Sizmore stated that Stanley as Heir prevented his Side from ending. Isn't that enough for you?

Parson: When the city fell, shouldn't you have disbanded?
Sizemore: Normally, yes. But the King was very fond of Stanley, so he did something that rarely happens. He promoted Stanley to Heir Designate, at great expense. That way, when the city fell it wasn't the end of our side.

This tells us a couple of things. First, the fall of the city is the end of the Side unless there is an Heir, even though Stanley has won lots of battles since finding the Arkenhammer (which is why Saline liked him so much), so they almost certainly have at least one other city. It is most likely, therefore, that fall of city=end of Side, unless the Ruler or Heir is out and about (or they become barbarians, possibly?).


In the case of no other city to make Capital, we know for certain a Ruler becomes a Barbarian.

I personally like the case of a Ruler visiting a non-Capital City when his Capital falls. A Barbarian capturing any city becomes a Side, but if the Ruler can't declare his city a Capital, then it goes Neutral with a Ruler-level unit inside. That's not going to fly with me without evidence. It gives a Barbarian Warlord a power that a Ruler would not have.

Now then, on to that second one. The phrasing of it suggests that the Plaid Tribe never ceased to exist at all, and thus they were never barbarians, however as the Ruler can leave the city at will (as Stanley does at the Battle for Gobwin Knob), then it begs the question as to why the Side ends if the city is taken and the Ruler lives on, but not if the Ruler is killed, the city taken, and the Heir survives. One of these two statements must have been a simplification. Either Sizemore meant that Saline promoted Stanley to Heir so that his Side would possibly continue after he died, if Stanley managed to take a city from whatever forces had captured it, or that Saline would never leave the city, thus the city being taken and the death of Saline would be more or less the same. I'm leaning towards the latter.


Saline can die without the city being taken. Assassination. A stray arrow on the practice range. A brick dropped by a unit onto Bogroll's umbrella bounces off onto his head. Accidents kill in Erfworld as much as they do on Earth. And units are not provably immortal. In fact, Transylvito's battle chant in the chokepoint trap suggests it's called "decay". Saline was white-haired and old. If he was set to decay, his side would end without an heir.

Ultimately the evidence is not as thoroughly conclusive as I might have hoped, but the way Parson says "shouldn't you have disbanded" is yet another instance where it's implied to be a death threat even outside of the threat of being hacked to pieces by Plaid units in Gobwin Knob. If disband=/=de-pop, it's probably because Rob is intentionally misleading us.


You're reading into it what you want. Disband might also be more along the lines of Neutral, instead of Barbarian. Sizemore, if desbanded, may have been restricted from leaving his hex like neutral units, in which case he would either starve to death when his purse ran out, or be captured by the first army to find him. Disbanding in that case would result in Sizemore not being in GK, except by a circuitous route with hopefully a good story behind it.

All this being said, Kreistor has bounced around from one failed argument to another in support of his pre-determined conclusion until he stumbled across one that actually made sense. I'm no longer amused by this, so I'm leaving this alone until I'm sufficiently bored to come back to it. Good-bye, all.


Ah, then I better go back and snip a couple things... done. I can save those tricks for another thread, where you again grossly underestimate me.

We try things. Sometimes they work.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:44 am

I missed it - where's the quote from the book that supports that?


For Sizemore to become a Barbarian, his Capital must have fallen. Sizemore says in 79, "When we had returned, the city had fallen to a sneak attack from below." The timing in his statement tells us that Sizemore didn't know the city had fallen until after he returned. If he was a barbarian, he would already know that it had fallen. Stanley was Ruler by this time, and he would know Saline was dead. If he was a Barbarian Side, not a Capital side, he would time the knowledge of the city's fall with the change over to Barbarian status, that is at night, not when they arrived at GK during turn the next day. But if he remained a Capital Side, Sizemore would not know that GK had fallen but Saline had, and so that knowledge times accurately to his statement: he learns GK had fallen when he gets back, because he's still on a Capital side.

You demanded rigorous evidence that invented nothing and was fully supported by canon.
I have provided that.


Yes, you did. But no one person can ever expect their analysis to be 100% complete. Look at me? I have to incorporate all of your ideas into my claims, don't I? Other people examine from other perspectives using other examples and details, and bring alternative solutions and insights to the table that must be considered. Anyone that thinks they'll anayze something entirely solo and get it right out of the gate is just fooling themselves.

If you are going to say "Sizemore didn't know he was a barbarian", you need to support that.
If you are going to say "Another capital city prevented him from disbanding", you need to support that.


Sizemore's Side did not end: that much he clearly states. Conversion to Barbarian status changes natural turn order, and so changes the Side (Barbarians are always first in the Turn Order). And, actually, a Barbarian Side has not been demonstrated by the comic. They're Barbarians, not Barbarian Sides. All Barbarians may count as a single Side allied or not, but groups of barbarians are not different sides. Check the RCC make-up in Page 86. Barbarians are listed as a single group under Natural Allies like Elves, not as a Side with a name like the Capital Sides. If Stanley became Barbarian, he wouldn't have a Side but Sizemore says their Side did not end, so he must have remained a Capital Side. Capital Sides have a Capital, but it wasn't GK for Stanley when he became Ruler: that had already fallen.

The proof I provided says nothing about cities. Simply croaking the leader is sufficient.


But without a Capital, you're not a Capital SIde. The Capital part is sort of essential. Once Barbarian, you're not the same Side anymore: all Barbarians are one Side, if a Side at all.

Please either rigorously disprove the break-down I've provided, citing pages as I have done,


I'm no hypocrite that can't live up to his own demands of others. Done.

I am not attempting to prove that disbanding = de-popping. I simply prove that it cannot mean the same as becoming a barbarian.


Well, you didn't succeed, but hey, that's cool. You tried to do it the right way, but only missed the detail about barbarians being a single side, so an Heir preventing a Side from ending must mean there's a Capital, to remain a Capital Side.

If you wish to continue to claim that it does without explicit proof to the same level that I have provided, then I will assume that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing (rather than attempting to find the 'truth' for purposes of the Wiki), and that you are not in fact open to any argument at all.


You assumed you'd succeeded, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but do be careful of Straw Men. They only stnad up if you consider all possible responses, and on this issue, there's far too much to predict me. Look, had I succeeded, I would have put it in the Wiki already. But obviously you all have forced me to look at facts I hadn't considered, even as late as today. It's not appropriate to end debate until all facts have been considered, and you guys are still being very creative and uncovering details I hadn't noticed, so this isn't over for me by a long shot. When the arguments stop coming, and the dust has settled, I'll decide if there's anything worth putting in the Wiki. (Yeah, I overreacted last night. I didn't act on it, so no harm done, 'cept to my rep.) Right now, it's adequate for Speculation, but not Prop C. Don't worry: I recognize there are alternatives supported by the comic (even if you don't realize that there's more than just two), and so I'm not going to limit to just my one.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Malanthyus » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:09 am

MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

My insidious plot to destroy the forums via petty bickering over pointless details that will eventuall be revealed by the authors anyway was a complete and unbridled success! Thank you all my loyal tools who made this apocalypse possible!
Malanthyus
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 2:25 am

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby MarbitChow » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:16 am

Kreistor, I'll take you at your word that you're genuinely interested in finding the "right answer". I think that you and I have both decided what we believe that "right answer" to be, and that no amount of discussion is going to change either of our positions at this point, so I'll simply wait for the definitive answer from the authors. Cheers.
Equilateratoria is now underway. New players are welcome to join at any time! (Rules)
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:00 pm

MarbitChow wrote:Kreistor, I'll take you at your word that you're genuinely interested in finding the "right answer". I think that you and I have both decided what we believe that "right answer" to be, and that no amount of discussion is going to change either of our positions at this point, so I'll simply wait for the definitive answer from the authors. Cheers.


Be seeing you!

After all, we want information.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Erk » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:16 pm

Okay, folks. I think I'm a few posts late to the game here, but seriously. There's no need to go calling people arrogant, or narcissistic, or accusing them of being spies from the Lemming Nation, here to steal our senses of humour (we all know that was coming next). If you feel the need to use such strong and personal language over an argument about a comic, either take it to PMs or leave the topic. Don't waste everyone else's time. Note that I am not refering to any specific person here, as it appears there are attacks flying between all parties, so don't go chuckling to yourself about how the mods stopped that "one guy" before taking a good look at yourself.

Further attacks on posters will lead to a closing on this topic. Cheers.
Rumours of my croaking have been greatly exaggerated.

Race: Men
Class: Caster (Healomancer)
Level: 3
Special: Exhausted
User avatar
Erk
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:30 pm

Malanthyus wrote:MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

My insidious plot to destroy the forums via petty bickering over pointless details that will eventuall be revealed by the authors anyway was a complete and unbridled success! Thank you all my loyal tools who made this apocalypse possible!


What?! No! Why didn't I see it coming? Curse you, Malanthyuuuuuuus!
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Cmdr I. Heartly Noah » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:55 pm

It's the Mod Squad! Cheeze it!
I am a: Chaotic Neutral Human Bard/Sorcerer (2nd/1st Level)
Str- 12, Dex- 15, Con- 12, Int- 14, Wis- 11, Cha- 13
Cmdr I. Heartly Noah
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby DentedHead » Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:49 am

I fail to see why there was all this debate in the first place. I thought it was all pretty cut and dry. Here's what I thought.

1. The following things cause a side to end: Death of the Ruler with no Heir, or Loss of all cities. In Jillians case it was the latter.
2. If your side ends, when your next turn starts, the following occurs: Commander class units become barbarians (as one might expect them to in a tabletop turn based wargame). Non-commander units accompianied by a commander remain with that commander, as do any lower leveled commander units. (The following bit is speculation only, but it's how I would have written it) Unled, non-commander units dissapate (or de-pop, or more likely IMO, fade away), just as we (players) would remove said unneeded pieces from the gameboard. They would re-appear (with or without memory, it's pretty irrelavent) whenever that unit type was next "popped", just as we'd use the same little plastic model to represent a new unit on the game board.

That covers disbanding as a result of a units side ending. As GK as a side suffered only the loss of the Ruler, and a city, Rulership transfered to Stanley, and (I assume) "capitalship" transfered to another city(at least untill Stanley recaptured the city of GK), and GK as a side never ended. Therefore, neither Stanley nor Sizemore ever "went Barbarian".

We also know that disbanding has been used by rulers as a threat to their units. We can roughly equate it to death, as that's the sort of context it's used in. We know unled units must auto-attack any unfriendly units, so Erfworld may take the intentional disbanding of a unit in a friendly city as an auto-kill, and de-pop that unit immediatly (as the player would simply remove the unwanted gamepiece from the gameboard).I see know reason it has to happen at the beginning of next turn, as when caused by a side ending. Arbitary events in games often occur "at the start of turn" or "end of turn", where as actions taken by players (which the Rulers seem to equate to) happen whenever the player declares that action. Therefore Sizemores comment "He'll disband you before you can speak" could be taken as a legitimant concern that Parson would be unable to speak once disbanded (which is the impression I got). If Stanley disbanded Sizemore while he was in GK, it't count as an auto-kill by Erfworld, but not if he was in the field or in the MK, as he wouldn't be surrounded by unfriendly units. If the whole city "disbanded" due to the ending of the side, Sizemore would (presumably) remain there with the remaining Neutral units.

What I don't understand (and this could possibly cause the crumpling of my assumptions) is why Jillian never sought out Faq once she realised that Stanly hadn't claimed it for GK. As the Heir, she could easily start a new side, yet the thought never seems to occur to her. I doubt the idea never occured to Rob (but I s'pose that is possible).


Dent.
User avatar
DentedHead
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:07 am

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby SteveMB » Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:20 am

DentedHead wrote:What I don't understand (and this could possibly cause the crumpling of my assumptions) is why Jillian never sought out Faq once she realised that Stanly hadn't claimed it for GK. As the Heir, she could easily start a new side, yet the thought never seems to occur to her. I doubt the idea never occurred to Rob (but I s'pose that is possible).

That's easy -- she didn't like her life as a royal heir, much preferred life as a free-ranging mercenary while on missions, and therefore has no interest in restarting and ruling Faq.
Is this a real holy war, or just a bunch of deluded boopholes croaking each other?
User avatar
SteveMB
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby DentedHead » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:45 am

Good point. I'd forgotten she wasn't real keen about being heir apparent. What about Wanda? She must've also known Faq's where-abouts, having served under Banhammer. Would she be able to claim it and start a new side? (I realise that while manipulating Stanley, she probably wouldn't want to, and was probably aware it was Stanley's ace in the hole, but would she be capable of starting a new side, or is this option limited to heirs who've become rulers (as she would've when Banhammer was offed) and naturally popped barbarian warlords?)

Dent.
User avatar
DentedHead
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:07 am

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:39 pm

That begs the question, "Can Casters become Rulers? Or is it limited to Warlords only?"

We do know Stanley knows the whereabouts of Faq... Jillian was right about what he was trying to do. We know he was going to start a new Side, not resurrect the old. (This may have been to prevent the RCC from knowing he had a Side at all. With no known Capital city for Stanley to begin in, they would have assumed he was Barbarian and looked for a Barbarian. If the Side continued, the RCC may have known it continued, and looked for a new Capital.)

We know Ansom says Jillian could have restored her Kingdom, but would this Necessarily have been synonymous with "restoring her Side"? Or having been a Barbarian, is she automatically creating a new Side, like Stanley would have from the same position?

There are a lot of questions and a lot of possibilities at this point, and insufficient solid evidence. You can read a lot of things between the lines, but none of the ideas eliminate possiblities, just present more possibilities.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Darkside007 » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:27 am

Kreistor wrote:We know Ansom says Jillian could have restored her Kingdom, but would this Necessarily have been synonymous with "restoring her Side"? Or having been a Barbarian, is she automatically creating a new Side, like Stanley would have from the same position?


What's the point in naming an heir to recover the cities if they fall if the side isn't restored?
User avatar
Darkside007
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:52 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:42 am

Because a Side is still restored, so your legacy lives on.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby DentedHead » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:22 am

Kreistor and I have been debating the timing of disbanding effects via PM, and during that debate a thought occured to me regarding timing of disbanding. I thought I'd share the idea.

I was arguing that not all disbanding effects happened between turns. I now think I was wrong. Here's why...
Lets assume the Parson and Sizemores conversation here occures between turns. The whole crux of my argument for instant disbanding effects was Sizemores comment "he'll disband you before you can speak"(panel 8). I now think it seemed that way precisley because it WAS between turns. Stanley, Jack and the top 3 KISS leaving GK would've signalled the start of GK's turn. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am. As far as I can tell, this theory is supported by all known references to disbanding, and disproved by none.

Thoughts?

Dent.
User avatar
DentedHead
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:07 am

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:52 am

Uhm... I make no claims to involvement in this idea. I had no idea where Dented was going. This is all him.

That said, I'll pay attention. He might be right.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby DentedHead » Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:25 am

Yeah, I should've clarified that. This is my current theory, nothing more. Like I said, I believe it's supported by all known referances to disbanding, but I could also be wrong...


Dent.
User avatar
DentedHead
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:07 am

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:59 pm

This seems plausible. According to Stanley when talking to Parson early in the comic, disbanding occurs between turns ("When do your troops heal and disband?"). Thus, the effects of disband would be instant if it wasn't your turn, but would have to wait until the end of turn otherwise.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Previous

Return to Everything Else Erfworld

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest