Book 3 - Page 239

Then we take Berlin

Book 3 - Page 239
Comic - Book 3 - Page 239
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Well, Stanley could shift the capital again, as has been suggested. Or Marie could pull out with the rifles and available bodies while there were still some troops in the garrison, and have Georgia solo them after that. That seems more feasible, since Stanley isn't going to be super-eager to shift his capital yet again, he really likes Jed, even if it doesn't 'trust' him.
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
Well, Stanley could shift the capital again, as has been suggested. Or Marie could pull out with the rifles and available bodies while there were still some troops in the garrison, and have Georgia solo them after that. That seems more feasible, since Stanley isn't going to be super-eager to shift his capital yet again, he really likes Jed, even if it doesn't 'trust' him.


Not only that, if he changes the capital, doesn't the big treasure also switch back along with it? its not a good idea to move the treasury to a poorly defended city on the other part which just a warlord and a decrypt caster. especially if you don't have ANY other units. imagine you do that and then somewho the decrypt in there decide to change sides? (which is not impossible since they would be alone in a uncontested city + that huge treasure.

No, I'm sure as Hell that Stanley wouldn't change the capital again unless forced to do so.
Anomynous 167 wrote:

Chiu ChunLing wrote:
What Jillian apparently did was more like using the "emote/taunt/express" feature in a game to do something that looked like an attack but wasn't. She does this habitually (one of her utterly endearing traits).

P.S.S. Boop me with a spoon! Ivan can dig and back fill bedrock with the Wonky Wrench for only a third of his juice. I was thinking it would take him a third to dig up, then another third to close, but it's only one. So he can dig up to the tunnel Sizemore dug for one sixth his juice, get the pliers (and maybe Bunny), take them under the Dirtamansion, and dig up to Wanda, hand over the pliers (and maybe Bunny), and have enough to exfiltrate with plenty of juice to spare.

Now that you mention it, Jillian didn't.

Ah this is embarassing. What I meant to write at the time was:
"Now that you mention it, Jillian end up attacking Webinar. The Taunt feature seems like a pretty valid explanation for Jillian not attacking him."

The boop that happens when you submit a post too early...
This time you left out "didn't". Hehehe
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
This time you left out "didn't". Hehehe

Dough!


Here's your dough for the correction.
You double-tipped. Or so I thought.

Meanwhile, trying to sync all the different actions we're seeing play out has me worried about just how Parson is going to even be relevant to the upcoming exciting conclusion. Ivan and Claud seem to have a plan for getting the Wonky Wrench, and I presume Ivan knows that linking up with Sizemore's tunnel is the safest way to get into Spacerock. That creates half a very good path to get the 'pliers to Wanda, but I've my doubts they can get there before she's taken up to the execution site...unless the Dirtamansion is really deep and that minecart is quite fast.
DVL wrote:
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
That would be nice. The more people hear my name, the more people read my posts, the more people can consider my ideas, the higher chance someone will have an intelligent response.


It must be lonely up there by yourself.

You were arguing with the guy who said fire is banned in MK because dirtamancers are expensive. Think about it.

...or was that someone else? Boop, my memory is a huge failure.
Yes, but this argument (such as it was) was about something completely different. If you want to read it, it started on page 24 over my (apparently failed) commiseration with DVL's life difficulties. Did I know the subject was going to be that painful? No I did not, existential pain based in various theoretical ideas about the nature of life is usually less raw than that. But of course I knew it would be a somewhat painful subject, hence my attempt to apologize for touching on it.

For the major argument in this thread as a whole, it was a Jillian thing for almost everyone else but for me it was a "not everything is about Jillian" point. Jillian isn't even a protagonist, she's a macguffin character. I think the fire in the MK debate, particularly the tactical value for any rescue plan, is mostly in other threads.
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
Look, I get that there are cultural differences. The "stabbing as a form of communication" thing is probably not widespread, my sister used to do this (she had a trick she'd worked out with a butterfly knife)...and come to think of it, I would grab her hand and not let her.

Chiu ChunLing wrote:
Like I've said, in my family going after each other with knives (guns, dropped buildings, etc.) is something you learn not to take too seriously.
This goes beyond what could reasonably be brushed aside as "cultural differences." Frankly, that whole environment sounds bizarre and horrific, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks so. Shakespeare, specifically the Merchant of Venice, Shylock's rant in act 3 scene 1: a tendency to seek revenge when wronged (including, from context, pursuit of a legal remedy through legitimate channels), is given as part of a short list of essential human attributes, intended to transcend a massive and bitterly hostile cultural divide which the entire play revolves around. It's a classic bit of literature, still commonly referenced almost word-for-word centuries later. http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3000/fc02945.htm You talk about belief in free will as a survival trait, comparing it to the obvious value of a major sense, and yet you brag about having abandoned this urge to revenge, along with the adaptive advantage of strategic deterrence which it provides?
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
But if anyone has an actual reason that there is no rule against engaging an allied unit normally for damage, I'm still interested in hearing it.
Setting aside all the specific examples of characters who would be expected to be aware of, and motivated to actively exercise, such an option (if it existed) failing to do so? On a conceptual level, the lack of a "can't attack allies without thereby breaking alliance" rule would undermine some very basic assumptions about what an alliance means. It wouldn't be a major strategic and political issue at all, in that case, simply a weird mechanic for messing around with turn order. Parson's discussion of the dubious possibility of ending war by joining all the Sides of Erfworld into a single mega-alliance would make no sense because all that alliance would mean is "it's everybody's turn, all day long," without any reduction in violence. If anything, fights might drag on longer, more chances to withdraw when reduced to a single hit or incapacitated, 'til crits or traps or something picked up the slack.
The point is learning to tell the difference between actual attacks and things that a hypersensitive person might mistake for an attack. That is the crux of this entire discussion, whether Jillian was actually attacking Caesar or just communicating in a less than polite manner.