Book 2 - Page 96

Book 2 - Page 96
Comic - Book 2 – Page 96
Recent posts... (See full thread)
junovalkyrie wrote:
Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, the update shamelessmerc mentioned appears to contradict that:

Quote:
In moments, they had assembled. There were five stacks of stabbers, led by lower-level warlords who could use the experience. Behind that stood three stacks of heavies with two warlords each. These included several formidable tchotchkes and some really fine cloth golems. There were battle bears, G-RAFs and LFNs. Tramennis chose to ride in the pocket of a tankeroo. He was tempted to bring in the Dollamancer just for healing and leadership bonus to the golems, but this much was already enough to overwhelm.
I stand corrected. It does seem odd to me that a 'monstrous' unit such as a tchotchke or a golem would also need the heavy special. But whatever... Perhaps that special keeps them from being able to be mounted on dwagons, or imposes other limitations which make logical sense for a large or massive unit.
Or maybe being a big tough monster is being a heavy.
Well, Just to stir this up AGAIN, because it's unnecessarily chaotic :D but, let's not forget when Parson attempted to ride the dwagon. Top of the wall, down into the garrison. A fall which was unintentional, AND crossed a zone barrier.
... and he could have been lucky. We haven't seen anything which places an upper bound on survival rates.
tgriff02 wrote:
Well, Just to stir this up AGAIN, because it's unnecessarily chaotic :D but, let's not forget when Parson attempted to ride the dwagon. Top of the wall, down into the garrison. A fall which was unintentional, AND crossed a zone barrier.

The results of a fall have several options. We cannot take Parson's one example of falling as proof that this will occur on EVERY fall, any more than we can take Cubbins' fall as proof that all falls lead to incapacitation. May as well take a four sided die gamble. Cubbins rolled a 2, Parson rolled a 1. That doesn't discredit fall mechanisms. Wanda and Jack both fell the same distance when they harvested their dragons. Jack was fine, Wanda was incapacitated and needed the Cure scroll. Both were intentional falls, since they knew that when they harvested their mounts that they'd have no means of support. Intent vs unintentional doesn't seem to make a difference, nor does the height of the fall. It's a simple mechanic, much like the combat system. Makes it easy to learn, but hard to find the exploits.

And does it even matter for these soldiers? They are on a suicidal mission charging at combo breath attacks and stacks of dwagons. There's a chance they will die jumping off the wall. Followed by a chance of dying from poison gas/fire. Followed by a chance of dying from teeth and claws and swords. If they survive, they earn xp and possibly gain level. If they die, they will have served their purpose and screened for their king.
tgriff02 wrote:
Well, Just to stir this up AGAIN, because it's unnecessarily chaotic :D but, let's not forget when Parson attempted to ride the dwagon. Top of the wall, down into the garrison. A fall which was unintentional, AND crossed a zone barrier.


No zone barrier for Parson as this is own city. Zone barriers in cities only penalize attackers/allies, not units of a side who control the city.
The zone barrier is still there - they can just cross it freely.
bladestorm wrote:
tgriff02 wrote:
Well, Just to stir this up AGAIN, because it's unnecessarily chaotic :D but, let's not forget when Parson attempted to ride the dwagon. Top of the wall, down into the garrison. A fall which was unintentional, AND crossed a zone barrier.

The results of a fall have several options. We cannot take Parson's one example of falling as proof that this will occur on EVERY fall, any more than we can take Cubbins' fall as proof that all falls lead to incapacitation. May as well take a four sided die gamble. Cubbins rolled a 2, Parson rolled a 1. That doesn't discredit fall mechanisms. Wanda and Jack both fell the same distance when they harvested their dragons. Jack was fine, Wanda was incapacitated and needed the Cure scroll. Both were intentional falls, since they knew that when they harvested their mounts that they'd have no means of support. Intent vs unintentional doesn't seem to make a difference, nor does the height of the fall. It's a simple mechanic, much like the combat system. Makes it easy to learn, but hard to find the exploits.

And does it even matter for these soldiers? They are on a suicidal mission charging at combo breath attacks and stacks of dwagons. There's a chance they will die jumping off the wall. Followed by a chance of dying from poison gas/fire. Followed by a chance of dying from teeth and claws and swords. If they survive, they earn xp and possibly gain level. If they die, they will have served their purpose and screened for their king.


Right. I remembered the multiple potential outcomes from the situation room notes, but there have been several theories debating to death about various potential variables and situational modifiers, such as intentional or not, and zone barrior crossing, determining what WAS and WASN'T a fall. It was just a neat little event that I hadn't seen anyone reference yet, which which displayed several of said variables to no real evident result. Both Parson and the Dwagon left the scene with nothing more than their ego's bruised. It's entirely possible that since Parson was a GK unit inside a GK city, nothing he does constitutes a "real" fall. Which would also apply to the JS units charging into the Atrium. I'm simply of the opinion that there are the stated possible outcomes of a fall, any fall; and that the needs of thep lot/jokes will dictate what is and isn't a fall. I don't stress about it, but it's fun to keep the arguement, *ahem* debate rolling.
tgriff02 wrote:
Well, Just to stir this up AGAIN, because it's unnecessarily chaotic :D but, let's not forget when Parson attempted to ride the dwagon. Top of the wall, down into the garrison. A fall which was unintentional, AND crossed a zone barrier.

We don't even know if that was a true fall. I think it stands that we don't know exactly what triggers falls, and that hopping down may or may not be tripping anything.
Oberon wrote:
<Sarcastic mis-quote of previous conversation>
This is a real world reference which has no validity on the story setting. We've had the mechanics of falling within this setting fairly carefully explained, so why fall back on some non-relevant example and give it credence which it does not deserve within the boundaries of the story?


Well, since you ask - because even if it WAS a silly question (which it wasn't) it's quicker and easier to politely answer it in terms that make sense to the questioner than it is to deride the question or declaim "This has been answered! Silence on this subject!".

Unless or course you misunderstand the question, misconstrue the question, or automatically assume bad faith on the part of the questioner, in which case it's much easier to blow hot air and add nothing to the discussion.


tgriff02 wrote:
Both Parson and the Dwagon left the scene with nothing more than their ego's bruised.


Not strictly true, although I don't know how you would render skin abrasions in terms of hitpoints :-) It probably wouldn't take anything off your combat abilities, which is all The Rules care about.