Book 2 - Page 4

Book 2 - Page 4
Comic - Book 2 - Page 4
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Oberon wrote:
You've missed the point entirely. The hex being referenced, according to those who support the "casters are in the same hex as the Jetstone Princes" theory, isn't "the one behind them", it's the one they are standing in.


Yes. It is the one they are standing in, and it's also behind them, because they're on the edge of it, with their backs to it.

Quote:
A poor analogy. A hex isn't the same thing as a town that you can be distant from. If you're in a hex, you're in a hex. There are no different areas in a hex with the sole (to date) exception of cities.


No, there aren't different areas in a hex. However, hexes are not points - it's possible to move around within a hex. For example, the princes were at the very edge of one, with most of the hex behind them.

Quote:

This isn't a city fight, yet. You don't refer to a homogeneous area by pointing off in the distance when it is right in front of you.


The area "right in front" of Ansom is actually still his own hex. The one behind his brothers is a different one.

If I'm standing outside of a town, and somebody else is standing at the edge of a town, when I point at them I'll say "your town" or "that town", not "this town" (since I'm not in it.)

Quote:
If I'm wrong, I'd have to conclude that this is a second instance of rather poor writing, as the context simply would not have matched the text.


Nah, the context matches the text quite well - you simply have trouble grasping it for some reason. Are you from somewhere other than the USA? That might explain it, because otherwise I'm quite at a loss as to why you would think referring to "that hex" would be a strange way for Ansom to refer to the hex that his brothers are standing in.

Quote:
When Wanda looked at the newly decrypted Ansom and declared him to be "level 10, as he was before" it was made clear that enemy unit stats were indeed visible.


No, it meant Wanda knew he was level 10 before. Such as from her long interrogation session recently, for example. Or through other means. (They did, until recently, also have a lookamancer.)

Quote:
A nice strawman. But, no. Let me try an example within the framework of the strip. The breaking of the spell on Jillian was one of the many reversals the GK forces endured. Was it stated categorically that the spell on Jillian could not and would not be broken? No, it was not. Instead, Wanda felt that it was unbreakable, even though she allowed that it had limitations on shaping the behavior of the victim. Sizemore thought otherwise, and said so. He had been positioned within the story as a caster with a curiosity about the other fields of magic, even if he wasn't terribly good at the practical applications. A theorist, if you will. And he theorized that Jillian could indeed break out of Wanda's spell. As it turned out, Wanda was wrong, Sizemore was right. But we the readers had a reason to believe that this was the right and proper resolution. Had Sizemore never spoken of his doubts, we'd be in the exact same position as the DDR: A fact explained (Wanda's expectation that Jillian could not break the spell), and then thrown away without notice.

This is poor writing. You don't have to agree with me. I could care less. But I calls them as I see them, and this was poor writing.


And in this case, I think you're seeing it wrong. There WASN'T anybody in Parson's army who would play Sizemore's role - someone who is knowledgeable about warfare but isn't the one putting forth the plan. So it went unfilled, and Parson didn't have anyone to suggest to him a way in which he might have been wrong. That just meant that how it went wrong was more of a surprise, not that it was any less plausible for him to be wrong about that case. Parson certainly wasn't that knowledgeable about Erfworld at the time - yeah, he looked up that most of the RCC's coalition can't dance-fight, but he didn't know that the right combination of archons could grant that ability from afar, which makes sense given how Charlie's been this big mystery, Parson is still new at this, and the trick is pretty clever anyway.
Quote:
A poor analogy. A hex isn't the same thing as a town that you can be distant from. If you're in a hex, you're in a hex. There are no different areas in a hex with the sole (to date) exception of cities.


Sure there are different areas within a hex. If there were not then there would be no battlespace.
Infidel wrote:
Quote:
A poor analogy. A hex isn't the same thing as a town that you can be distant from. If you're in a hex, you're in a hex. There are no different areas in a hex with the sole (to date) exception of cities.


Sure there are different areas within a hex. If there were not then there would be no battlespace.

As far as we've seen, "battlespace" applies to multi-hex areas. Or are we talking about different things?
The very fact that a unit moves within a hex means that a hex has numerous sub-points. If "your in a hex, then you're in a hex." there would be no sub-movement. All points would be the same, because there would be only one point within a hex. Thus, you'd always be occupying the same space as every other unit within the hex, and there would be no need or effect of maneuver, because there is no where to maneuver.

This is clearly not, and never has been the case. From page one we have seen the importance of maneuver to battle, that there is more to battle that two icons simply occupying the same space and a bunch of die rolls to determine the winner.

Spoiler: show
In the next comic, even though Tramenis is in the same hex--he can't cross hex boarders on another faction's turn--he and his brother are racing to rejoin the army. There would be no point of running if hexes were not further subdivided, because simply being in the same hex would be enough to be in mutual support range.
Infidel, "hex subdivisions" are probably not a helpful way of thinking about this. I'm not sure I even understand why that distinction/concept if of any use. Movement isn't, as far as we know, dictated, curtailed, or measured by grids or other demarcations within hexes. We know, for example, that units can move as much as they want inside a hex without getting tired.

We know that there's real-time combat (as "real" as it can get given time-relativity on Erf) possible in each hex. The warlords could be moving to their mounts, could be getting their weapons, etc.
DevilDan wrote:
Infidel, "hex subdivisions" are probably not a helpful way of thinking about this. I'm not sure I even understand why that distinction/concept if of any use. Movement isn't, as far as we know, dictated, curtailed, or measured by grids or other demarcations within hexes. We know, for example, that units can move as much as they want inside a hex without getting tired.

We know that there's real-time combat (as "real" as it can get given time-relativity on Erf) possible in each hex. The warlords could be moving to their mounts, could be getting their weapons, etc.


Standards of measurement are irrelevant. The point is, that it is measurable, ergo, there are sub-points within a hex. My point was not to subdivide a hex into sub-hexes, that is an incorrect interpretation of my comment, my point was merely to prove that every point within a hex is not the same as every other point. Movement requires multiple points in space.
oberon wrote:


Parson knew leader units could under some circumstances lead dance fights. If he's pinning his hopes on this strategy he'd be a fool to assume that the few RCC lead units who could dance fight could not lead a dance fight. And Parson is no fool. All it would take would be a few simple calculations on his gauntlet to confirm this, and this would not even require any of the prediction based calculations Charlie help him figure out how to do.



Thats the crux of it. He knew LEADER units could. Archons are not leaders. Not only that, but when he said the sentence, they had rejoined... but when he made the plans, which was the night before, charlescomm was NOT part of the coalition. Charlescomm rejoining booped up his other plans.


As far as the quote, your deliberatly ignoring the key sentence. "I was going to undermine everything they did". No this does not involve CHANGING rules. But this most certainly involves not INFORMING them of all the rules.

Lets get at this the other way. If he asked someone, just blank "can decrypted units dance fight" the answer would, in all likelihood, have been a straight "no" unless he asked Wanda. So when he asked "can Pikers dance fight" and "can Marbits dance fight" he got a no... because the people he has to rely on for information were not archons.

Parson got undermined, by a combination of Charlescomm rejoining after his plans were made, by not knowing all the rules, and by being outthought by Ansom. Maybe the reason he thought they couldn't is because the idea was a NEW ONE entirely that Ansom thought up... lets recall even his own side thought he was nuts. I don't call it a hackneyed plot device. I look at it as the EXACT opposite. Its what got Parson to realize that no one in erfworld REALLY knew all the rules, so it was up to him to find an obscure thing. I think the ddr routine lends credence to Parson's change from acting on the rules as he was told them, to telling THEM how to use the rules.
Code:
Ossomer:

"I got casters deployed to my command."        "I got casters deployed to my command."

Ansom:

"What? Really? To your command?"                "Really? To that hex?"

Ossomer:

"Yep."                                               "ggnormkthxbi"
npatchett wrote:
Early in this thread various people (notably Hermod on page 3) pointed out that If jack is dressed as Kain from FF4 then he is the archetype of a betrayer. However, I don't think anyone has drawn the same analogy with Wanda's costume as Magenta from Rocky Horror. Magenta only wears the "bride of Frankenstein from space" costume at the end when she and Riff are about to murder their superior Frank and abscond with his entire castle. I suppose the joker is real backstabber too?

It seems there's a unilateral theme of betrayers; maybe this references Ansom sacking his own side, or maybe Wanda will turn on GK during this story?


Glad to know I'm not the only one thinking Magenta
Ansom wrote:
a Royal chief warlord, leading a stack of Noble warlords, in a hex full of casters

Oh hey look at that. The princes, the warlords, and the casters are all in the same hex.