Book 2 - Page 108

Book 2 - Page 108
Comic - Book 2  Page 108
Recent posts... (See full thread)
youngstormlord wrote:
WaterMonkey314 wrote:


Do we know what happens if a multi-capital side loses its current capital? I think the examples we've seen of sides going barbarian have been with single-capital sides (Goodminton, GK threatened, old FAQ), and of course Jetstone managed to move theirs before Spacerock fell.

There are no multiple Capitals. There are towns with the potential to be Capitals, but that's it.
If your Overlord/King is not in one of those towns when your current capital falls to claim it as a capital, the whole side turns Barbarian (everyone inside other towns and in Overlord's personal stack. Everyone else just croaks, except possibly heir and his/her stack). You can see Stanley trying to do it by flying to reach Faq to claim it, the moment GK(town, not side) fell and he turned barbarian. (Faq site, not town. But even if he owned the town, he'd still have to be inside and say "I proclaim this town a new capital of the Side." if the original capital fell. Or he could've just gone Jetstone route and transfered capitals directly, without going barbarian first) Probably.

What that means is that you can't send anyone else to relieve the siege of your capital. You have to send either Ruler or (probably) Heir. That was the whole point of Book 2; Gobwin Knob tried to do a decapitation strike on Jetstone.


Do we have a reference for this particular reading though? As opposed to, say, the capital getting teleported to a secondary capital site upon the fall of the original capital? And I thought the point of Book 2 was that the sole heir (Ossomer) was positioned in the field; following his Arkenturning, Jetstone was heirless, and so the death of Slately would wipe out the side irrespective of the fate of Spacerock and the existence of another capital site.

It's not really clear what the original plan prior to encountering the column on the bridge was, but the point that JS didn't seem to be panicking too much even after it was clear that Spacerock would likely fall suggests that field units don't get wiped (or else what's the point of evacuating?)
WaterMonkey314 wrote:

Do we have a reference for this particular reading though? As opposed to, say, the capital getting teleported to a secondary capital site upon the fall of the original capital? And I thought the point of Book 2 was that the sole heir (Ossomer) was positioned in the field; following his Arkenturning, Jetstone was heirless, and so the death of Slately would wipe out the side irrespective of the fate of Spacerock and the existence of another capital site.

It's not really clear what the original plan prior to encountering the column on the bridge was, but the point that JS didn't seem to be panicking too much even after it was clear that Spacerock would likely fall suggests that field units don't get wiped (or else what's the point of evacuating?)

It wasn't an evacuation. The point was to commit their forces en masse to hold the bridge. Note Ossomer's confidence about holding the hex.

If capitals switched automatically, Slately wouldn't have needed to change it to trap Parson.
Doctor Foreman wrote:
WaterMonkey314 wrote:

Do we have a reference for this particular reading though? As opposed to, say, the capital getting teleported to a secondary capital site upon the fall of the original capital? And I thought the point of Book 2 was that the sole heir (Ossomer) was positioned in the field; following his Arkenturning, Jetstone was heirless, and so the death of Slately would wipe out the side irrespective of the fate of Spacerock and the existence of another capital site.

It's not really clear what the original plan prior to encountering the column on the bridge was, but the point that JS didn't seem to be panicking too much even after it was clear that Spacerock would likely fall suggests that field units don't get wiped (or else what's the point of evacuating?)

It wasn't an evacuation. The point was to commit their forces en masse to hold the bridge. Note Ossomer's confidence about holding the hex.

If capitals switched automatically, Slately wouldn't have needed to change it to trap Parson.

Unless the point of it wasn't to trap parson by the act of changing portals. Slately's clone could have just been bait for Parson to chase after while Charlie is setting up the next stage of his plan. Classic carny trick with getting the attention elsewhere. Kinda like setting a fire to gather a crowd to cover some other activity... oh wait, there is already a fire....
bladestorm wrote:
Unless the point of it wasn't to trap parson by the act of changing portals. Slately's clone could have just been bait for Parson to chase after while Charlie is setting up the next stage of his plan. Classic carny trick with getting the attention elsewhere. Kinda like setting a fire to gather a crowd to cover some other activity... oh wait, there is already a fire....


No, the Parson trap was opportunistic. Charlie never planned on Parson being in Jetstone: that was a result of Jillian going off-script. Jillian was supposed to waste Wanda in Jetstone airspace, and the RCC2 get Ansom on the ground. Inferno in Jetstone may have been a back-up, in case Jillian failed, since the only way to ensure Wanda can't decrypt her way out is to just annihilate every last unit in the hex.

(Remember the Wanda-decrypt cycle. Kill, decrypt, kill decrypt, until every unit is Wanda's. there is no certian plan to fight that, except total annihilation (which was a fun Strat game, BTW).)

Charlie saw the thinkagram that Parson was coming to Jetstone, and re-organized his plan. Instead of focusing on Wanda, he saw the opportunity to convert to taking out parson with inferno.
Well. Well well well.

"If the summoning spell will let you. Maybe." (Panel 5).

As I suspected ( viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6511&start=140#p95542 ), there is very likely a lot more to the summoning spell than "oh hai, ur an Erftoon now, haz fun!"
Kreistor wrote:


(Remember the Wanda-decrypt cycle. Kill, decrypt, kill decrypt, until every unit is Wanda's. there is no certian plan to fight that, except total annihilation (which was a fun Strat game, BTW).)


Actually...
Spoiler: show
there may be one. It relies on the complete abuse of the disobedience = disbanding rule by a ruler though. Assuming that death isn't instantaneous upon a lethal blow, a ruler could theoretically phrase an order to his troops to cause them to disband when they're on the point of death, thus stealing the kill exps from Wanda's troops and the decrypts away from Wanda. Even if death is instantaneous, the order could cause all troops wounded and on the point of being finished off to disband, leaving only units killed instantly by overwhelming damage or crits for Wanda to claim.


Edit: reworded slightly for clarity
LordAcme wrote:
Kreistor wrote:


(Remember the Wanda-decrypt cycle. Kill, decrypt, kill decrypt, until every unit is Wanda's. there is no certian plan to fight that, except total annihilation (which was a fun Strat game, BTW).)


Actually...
Spoiler: show
there may be one. It relies on the complete abuse of the disobedience = disbanding rule by a ruler though. Assuming that death isn't instantaneous upon a lethal blow, a ruler could theoretically phrase an order to his troops to cause them to disband when they're on the point of death, thus stealing the kill exps from Wanda's troops and the decrypts away from Wanda. Even if death is instantaneous, the order could cause all troops wounded and on the point of being finished off to disband, leaving only units killed instantly by overwhelming damage or crits for Wanda to claim.


Edit: reworded slightly for clarity


I'm not sure if this would work culturally -
Spoiler: show
"disband" is used in a manner analogous to that of "damned" - it seems to be a rather bad thing with inherent moral issues. (Arguing against this is the response to the mass-disbanding of Unaroyal though).
Spoiler: show
"Disbanding" then carries a double-meaning. "Disband" as an action seems to be a specific type of croak that's performed by a commander, much like how "harvest" is a specific type of croak that's performed by a rider. "Disband" as Wanda used it towards Jack in the Spacerock portal room is more in line with the familiar-to-us suggestion of doing something biologically impossible. A commander commanding his troops to disband themselves may inadvertently cause them all to turn in anger at the suggestion.
Pokota wrote:
Spoiler: show
"Disbanding" then carries a double-meaning. "Disband" as an action seems to be a specific type of croak that's performed by a commander, much like how "harvest" is a specific type of croak that's performed by a rider. "Disband" as Wanda used it towards Jack in the Spacerock portal room is more in line with the familiar-to-us suggestion of doing something biologically impossible. A commander commanding his troops to disband themselves may inadvertently cause them all to turn in anger at the suggestion.


Spoiler: show
Well, rulers can disband any of their units "with a thought" (Book 1). That strongly implies it's done via a ruler's natural thinkamancy. This means each unit would receive the order independently, meaning no other unit would know that another unit had the same order. Especially if there's a complementary order to keep quiet about it.

Also, the natural thinkamancy slant means the order may not need to be "worded" so much as "intented and concentrated on by the ruler", so there's no chance of interpretation or disloyalty by the receiving unit.

Lastly, I think the whole disloyalty thing isn't as much of a thing as some seem to think. A commanding unit has the option to weigh Duty against Loyalty, but a wrong choice = disbanding. Other units, not so much choice there - they seem to have to be captured or in a complete no-win situation, AND have reason to turn, in order to be disloyal and survive.

And the disband order we're talking about might be seen as actually serving Loyalty - the option is to win and survive (obeying the order), die and become an enemy unit (disloyal), or disband in the name of the ruler to serve their side (loyal).
WaterMonkey314 wrote:
Do we have a reference for this particular reading though? As opposed to, say, the capital getting teleported to a secondary capital site upon the fall of the original capital?


Far as I know, the only example we have in detail of a going barbarian is when Wanda briefly became a ruler. And that involved the loss of not only their one and only capital, but also their one and only capital site and their one and only city. So we can't know which loss is connected to which effect.

And the only example we have in detail of a side lacking a capital gaining one is Faq under Banhammer, and then the ruler is in tha conquered capital so we don't know what would have happened had he not been there.

I am leaning towards it not being a huge deal to loose your capital if you have other capital sites, or Charlie would not have had to twist Slatley's arm to get him to charge the throne room. I think Wanda mentions to Stanley that you loose your treasury, but I would guess that is likely to be empty anyway by the time your capital falls.