Book 3 - Page 105

Pretend I'm not here, guys.

Book 3 - Page 105
Comic - Book 3 - Page 105
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Lipkin wrote:
Infidel wrote:

Well, I disagree here. A barbarian is technically a side, albiet a weak one due to the max gold limitation and no reliable income, so only a very small number of units is normally possible because of upkeep. Wanda as barbarian is an exception because her units have zero upkeep. So Wanda could be a barbarian with a large army and no city.

Also, I believe once an Heir always an heir. Even if she turned to another side, she retains her heir status.

I'd say barbarian commanders are functionally a side onto themselves. But if a barbarian warlord has a stack of infantry with them, and the warlord dies, those remaining units are not sides.

As for heir status, Wanda is not an heir. For a number of reasons. First, she ceased being an heir when she became ruler, and then ceased being a ruler when she joined another side. Second, Stanley has no heir. It's a point of contention between him and Parson. Stanley is clueless, but one would think a ruler would be able to sense if they have an heir or not.

I'm erring on the side that ruler's can't sense heirs specifically, given that in normal circumstances there'd be no need for such a function. Most heirs are known to their ruler because it is the ruler whom popped them as an heir or promoted them. Unless your ruler is terrible with names and faces (e.g Stanley), or has taken posession of an heir through abnormal circumstances; the ruler would not need to see that as a stat.

Maybe that's why Stanley won't make an heir to Gobwin Knob, he is afraid he'll just waste the turns or schmuckers on a unit he'd randomly send to his death.

EDIT: Back to the Once an Heir always an heir thing.
Say for example, a ruler who was popped as an heir only to abdicate the throne once a suitable candidate comes along. Do you propose that if something were to happen to the new ruler that the old ruler shouldn't be able to get back in power?
Thinking back on Jojo's talk about Lady Sylvia and what it means to be popped a Stabber, it makes sense that Stanley's imagination about any given topic might be limited. At the very start of Book 1, we see Stanley playing around with the Arkenhammer's transmutation power, creating pigeons, a power he discovered by accident while trying to use his Holy Hand Grenade as a nut cracker. He never follows up to learn what other transmutation powers it might have, even in all that time he was cooped up in Gobwin Knob bored out of his noggin.

So Stanley asserted that his decaying warlords wouldn't level because they had withdrawn. Okay, probably true, because it's an area he knows. That does not mean that there are no other ways to level, only that this is the extent of his knowledge. The only type of leadership connection he understands is directly leading a stack into battle. He did, after all, come up through the ranks by promotion.

Janis is the Grand Abbie of the Hippiemancers. She spoke with Parson for several days running, about twenty pages back. To remind those who might have forgotten, she popped as a Date-a-mancer and eventually worked he way up to mastery of all three disciplines in her field. She's done her homework, and then some.

On the subject of XP and levelling, Janis told Parson that leadership is a form of Date-a-mancy, that he is "very attractive" (he attracts connections), and this:
Janis wrote:
"[...] For a warlord, levelling has at least as much to do with learning to connect with the units under your command as it does with learning to fight. I think you'll continue to level easily, because you make connections with people. You attract."
Anomynous 167 wrote:
I'm erring on the side that ruler's can't sense heirs specifically, given that in normal circumstances there'd be no need for such a function. Most heirs are known to their ruler because it is the ruler whom popped them as an heir or promoted them. Unless your ruler is terrible with names and faces (e.g Stanley), or has taken posession of an heir through abnormal circumstances; the ruler would not need to see that as a stat.

Even if Stanley couldn't sense her being an heir - Parson knows about her history by now, and if there were the slightest chance that Wanda might be an heir in case something unfortunate happened to Stanley, it would definitely have come up by now.

Say, what exactly are the prerequisites for founding a side again?
Forcastle was a noble but neither royal nor heir iIrc. Do you even have to be a noble or could any unit do it?
Mirage GSM wrote:
Say, what exactly are the prerequisites for founding a side again?
Forcastle was a noble but neither royal nor heir iIrc. Do you even have to be a noble or could any unit do it?

We have reason to believe that any command unit could do it. Meaning a warlord/lady or a caster. Nobles fall into that category.

Non-command units? Unlikely. They don't have purses, can't go barbarian on their own, can't even decide not to attack a non-allied unit... pretty sure they couldn't claim a capital.
Mirage GSM wrote:
One thing about fate is... We only know its plans through the spells of Predictamancers...
So the important question is: "Are predictamancers the only casters who are infallible, or do their spells sometimes go wrong like with other casters?"

So maybe fate always gets its way, but maybe sometimes we don't know what fate really wants...

For a lot of predictions discussed in this thread I'm not really sure when in the comic they were made or by whom. I'll give Shmuckers to whoever makes a page in the wiki :-)


i would say that yes they can be fallible, but not about their predictions. mostly i think it is a bloop up as to what they make predictions about. getting answers from a predictamancer is like putting 400 quarters in a gypsy and you know the rest. it will probably be that they just spend their entire juice supply on making random predictions and out of 30 made 1 is useful and the rest are "you will trip twice tomorrow on the same tile".
Beeskee wrote:
Not sure exactly - like a lot of the rules it's left ambiguous - but the Tool said the warlords would not level up. He may be wrong but he was a warlord once.


i veiwed it as you get xp depending on your success vs what you set out to do. when 2 stacks fight the assumed end goal by erfworld is croak the other stack. if one just retreats then they failed and the other won.
Xarx wrote:
Mirage GSM wrote:
Say, what exactly are the prerequisites for founding a side again?
Forcastle was a noble but neither royal nor heir iIrc. Do you even have to be a noble or could any unit do it?

We have reason to believe that any command unit could do it. Meaning a warlord/lady or a caster. Nobles fall into that category.

Non-command units? Unlikely. They don't have purses, can't go barbarian on their own, can't even decide not to attack a non-allied unit... pretty sure they couldn't claim a capital.

Non-coms can go barbarian on their own, it's just their lack of ambitions combined with their own inability to pay their own upkeep means that they don't go Barbarian.

I'm pretty sure non-coms can claim capitals, it's just highly improbable. If Gary Stabber were to betray his side just to get a shot at ruling his own side, he'd have kill or capture all the other units in the garrison. And if this isn't a mere betrayal then that'd mean that Barbara Stabson (not to be confused with the late stabber from the garrison gone rogue) would have to get past the city's defences, and before that he has to find a way to pay for his upkeep (despite not having a purse) so that he can live long enough for him to scale the walls.

So yeah, while it is possible for a mere infantryman found his own side, it is so improbable that there may not even be a precedent for this... Although a likely case might be a barbarian spearman spawning near one of Haffaton's ghost towns of a capitol.
Anomynous 167 wrote:

Non-coms can go barbarian on their own, it's just their lack of ambitions combined with their own inability to pay their own upkeep means that they don't go Barbarian.
....
So yeah, while it is possible for a mere infantryman found his own side, it is so improbable that there may not even be a precedent for this... Although a likely case might be a barbarian spearman spawning near one of Haffaton's ghost towns of a capitol.


I love how you state these things as if they are facts.
Lipkin wrote:

I'd say barbarian commanders are functionally a side onto themselves. But if a barbarian warlord has a stack of infantry with them, and the warlord dies, those remaining units are not sides.

As for heir status, Wanda is not an heir. For a number of reasons. First, she ceased being an heir when she became ruler, and then ceased being a ruler when she joined another side. Second, Stanley has no heir. It's a point of contention between him and Parson. Stanley is clueless, but one would think a ruler would be able to sense if they have an heir or not.


Xarx wrote:
Stanley would also be able to sense whether he's paying Wanda's upkeep or not. If he is, then she's a unit of his, or a contracted hire. If Wanda were a barbarian living off her own purse, we would have heard about it by now.

Unless Infidel is proposing that Stanley and Wanda are conspiring together to hide Wanda's status? For some reason?


Ok, to clear up any confusion. I am not saying in any way that being an heir to one faction translates to becoming an heir to another faction on turning. So I am not suggesting that Wanda is a GK heir now that she turned.

What I am saying is that promoting Wanda to Heir made her a full commander unit. It's a little blurry since she didn't have any living units stacked with her when GM fell. But Casters are normally disbanded like any other unit if in the field, unless they are in MK. Also, Overlord Firebaugh wouldn't have promoted Wanda if there were no benefit to doing so. This is what I believe the immediate effects of the promotion were:
1. Survive the fall of GM.
2. Increased purse size.
3. Ability to lead any unit type. An heir should have the ability to lead any unit, so any previous leadership limitations (such as undead only) would be removed.

I don't have a lot of support, EXCEPT, that I don't know of any strategy games where a unit gets demoted. Once you promote a unit, they stay promoted. Which is why I say once an heir always an heir.

Everyone has been assuming that Wanda has typical Croakamancer limitations. And since Wanda is unambitious and uninterested in anything not directly related to croakamancy, she probably never considers the possibility.

Mirage GSM wrote:

Even if Stanley couldn't sense her being an heir - Parson knows about her history by now, and if there were the slightest chance that Wanda might be an heir in case something unfortunate happened to Stanley, it would definitely have come up by now.


Actually, this is so far back that Jack wouldn't know it, and Wanda is reticent about her history and wouldn't volunteer it unless directly ordered. Parson complained that Wanda doesn't volunteer anything unless he asks his questions very broadly.

Without a prompt from Marie or Wanda volunteering the information, the only way Parson would find this out is if He and Wanda were stacked and survive when Stanley falls.
Infidel wrote:

What I am saying is that promoting Wanda to Heir made her a full commander unit. It's a little blurry since she didn't have any living units stacked with her when GM fell. But Casters are normally disbanded like any other unit if in the field, unless they are in MK. Also, Overlord Firebaugh wouldn't have promoted Wanda if there were no benefit to doing so. This is what I believe the immediate effects of the promotion were:
1. Survive the fall of GM.
2. Increased purse size.
3. Ability to lead any unit type. An heir should have the ability to lead any unit, so any previous leadership limitations (such as undead only) would be removed.

I don't have a lot of support, EXCEPT, that I don't know of any strategy games where a unit gets demoted. Once you promote a unit, they stay promoted. Which is why I say once an heir always an heir.

Everyone has been assuming that Wanda has typical Croakamancer limitations. And since Wanda is unambitious and uninterested in anything not directly related to croakamancy, she probably never considers the possibility.

Mirage GSM wrote:

Even if Stanley couldn't sense her being an heir - Parson knows about her history by now, and if there were the slightest chance that Wanda might be an heir in case something unfortunate happened to Stanley, it would definitely have come up by now.


Actually, this is so far back that Jack wouldn't know it, and Wanda is reticent about her history and wouldn't volunteer it unless directly ordered. Parson complained that Wanda doesn't volunteer anything unless he asks his questions very broadly.

Without a prompt from Marie or Wanda volunteering the information, the only way Parson would find this out is if He and Wanda were stacked and survive when Stanley falls.

1. Wanda was stacked with a Sawhorse when GM fell.
2. Casters are already full commanders who can lead stacks of any type. They just don't provide unilateral leadership bonuses.
3. Heirs don't provide any additional leadership bonuses. The only benefit to a unit when they are made heir is that they will become ruler when the current ruler croaks.

Overlord Firebaugh promoted Wanda to save her life, and to deny the treasury to Haffaton.