Book 3 - Page 44

Book 3 - Page 44
Comic - Book 3 - Page 44
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Mrtyuh wrote:
wih wrote:
Remember the only disbanding we've actively seen has been in person, looking at the thing you're disbanding. Stanley did mention early in TBfGK that night time is when you disband - my reading of these things makes me speculate that rulers can deprive units of their upkeep overnight; since upkeep is paid for by the capturing side, this option is removed. If the only other option is in person, then this would explain why disbanding captured units isn't an option for the original side.

I don't remember Stanley making that comment in the first book. The closest thing I can recall was when he hold Parson, "There's no point in disbanding you. Your upkeep'll be paid as long as the city stands. Even you, Hamster." Do you remember when Stanley made that comment?


https://wiki.erfworld.com/TBFGK_29:6
I think I personally assumed that line to be referencing a natural disbanding that happens when you can't pay your upkeep for the next turn rather than ruler ordered disbanding. That doesn't have to be the case though.
Prodigial Knight wrote:
I think Ossomer's Superman sygnamancy was important enough that Erfworld decided to make a exception in his case.

He could have been blonde and had Thor Signamancy. On the other hand, if he had a Shockamancy-enhanced hammer instead of a bracer, it would have been too much like the Arkenhammer. Maybe then he could have turned back to Jetstone not because his found their tactics dishonorable but because he want Mjolnir for himself. Okay, I suck at humor. Moving on....

AFormerLurker wrote:
Y'know, Trammenis' signamancy changes actually make a good deal of sense to me- even their seemingly rapid onset, as compared to Jillian's subdued changes. Prior to this, Trammenis appeared distinctly young, in spite of being I believe older than his brothers. I attribute this to Trammenis being used by Jetstone as a diplomat. He was strikingly blonde, clean-faced, and young because this was the best way for him to represent Jetstone. And now, he's growing visible scruff and turning darker-haired because he's changing what Jetstone fundamentally is.

In a lot of ways, a Side's Ruler reflects what that Side is and where they aim to go. The former King of Jetstone was well-fed, complacent, and old- showcasing Jetstone's venerable age, and their lack of real challenge or hardship. Granted, sometimes that's just nice coincidence.(Stanley being small and unassuming, but extremely quick-tempered, cunning when needs be, and actually a very powerful unit, as aligned with his Side's originally small size but aggressive expansion.)

As for the rapidity of his changes, consider that Jillian actively fights what her signamancy is showing. She doesn't want to be a Ruler, and she hates the changes it's making. Whereas Trammenis, while he may have his self doubt, doesn't shirk or deny his new role. He dives headlong and enthusiastically into it.

Really good points. I don't really have anything to add, but thank you for sharing them.

kalil wrote:
Actually, it might be /Egyptian/.
The throne he's sitting on is similar to the throne of King Tut, and the way he's holding his sceptre is very reminiscent of how pharoahs were frequently drawn. I can't find any references, but the crown also looks more egyptian than roman to me.

It does resemblance King Tut's Ceremonial Throne, because it's a curule chair which is quintessentially Roman. While the earliest known examples of them are indeed from New Kingdom Egypt, they are much more strongly associated with Rome. Also, while I'm not an expert on Egyptian artistic conventions, the crown is not Egyptian at all, unless we're talking about Ptolemaic Egypt, where it derived from Greek influence. Headdresses of Pharaohs often had the uraeus and vulture. Neither is the crown Roman. For most of their history, the Romans didn't do crowns. While an Emperor might wear a laurel wreath after a successful campaign to mark their victory or, later, something like a corona radiata while performing state cult functions, they weren't symbols of office. They were paraphernalia of a specific activity. Constantine the Great was the first to adopt the diadem as imperial regalia, which was late in their history, although some Greek kings wore diadems earlier as well, which ultimately came from the Persians. Even when they did have them, they were much simpler than what Tramennis has. It looks more like something a Holy Roman Emperor would wear, not a Roman Emperor or Greek King or Ptolemaic Pharaoh. It has a medieval feel to it. Of course, maybe that's the point, since he's on a holy mission. Also, while it's not really Roman, it is much more basal than his father's crown, so it's certainly closer to a late Roman diadem than what his father wore. That could also be an indication of going back to their roots.

wih wrote:
https://wiki.erfworld.com/TBFGK_29:6

Thank you. Sadly, I remembered the cleansing reference, but I completely forgot about the disbanding one.

TurtlesAWD wrote:
I think I personally assumed that line to be referencing a natural disbanding that happens when you can't pay your upkeep for the next turn rather than ruler ordered disbanding. That doesn't have to be the case though.

That's sort of the center of the speculation. We know a ruler can just point at a unit in front of them and disband them anytime they want from Scrofula and Banhammer. We know a side that can't afford upkeep on units has units disband. We know that a ruler can disband units in hexes they do not occupy. On the other hand, there is a lot we don't know. If a side can't afford the upkeep for all its units, is the unit that is disbanded completely random, or is the ruler forced to pick which units are disbanded? Does a ruler have to disband a unit in the manner Scrofula did Duncan or Banhammer did the gwiffon, causing them to depop, or can a ruler simply choose to not pay their upkeep and let them disband that way? If a ruler can simply deprive a unit of upkeep, is that the only way to disband a unit not directly in front of the ruler, or can a ruler pull a Scrofula on any unit anywhere? Personally, I don't think a ruler can choose not to pay upkeep, as long as they have the schmuckers necessary to pay it. I also am inclined to believe that which units disbands is random, so a ruler better disband units preemptively so that they don't loose a unit they really don't want to lose. So, all disbanding done by a ruler are the type used on Duncan. So, in my long-winded way, I completely agree with you, but we just don't really know.
I'm pretty sure we've seen text that talks about having to make the tough decision on who to let disband given lack of funds. Possibly related to Jillian and Barbarianism. I'll try to track it down tomorrow, given time.
I can think of two off the top of my head. The first is here, where Jillian thinks, "It was strange having a treasury again. The upkeep for herself, three Warlords, and all of these heavies (and for Titans' sake, a Caster) would have been a lot more than her purse could have supported as a Barbarian, even if she'd had the mercenary income to fill it up every turn. With a capital treasury again, she didn't have to do the brutal addition and subtraction. She didn't need to make a disbanding order in case she started going broke." The second one is here, where she thinks, "The treasury was dwindling; they weren‘t taking jobs. If upkeep reached a crisis, as it would in another dozen turns or so, then the Court would start disbanding units." Both of these indicate an active choosing to disband units, one even using the term disbanding order, instead of a more passive denying of upkeep. The implication to me is actively disbanding a unit before a dwindling purse or treasury forces the issue for you. I'm not sure if either is conclusive, though.
I'm surprised no one mentioned this before, but regarding the Book of Fats, the first thing I thought of was this.

I think it's pretty obvious as well, since the book seems to be a register of some kind.
Isn't Woods Hole the asylum in The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul?
drachefly wrote:
Isn't Woods Hole the asylum in The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul?

Some quick googling leads me to believe it was Woodshead in Long Dark Teatime of the Soul.
Good for you - my moderately-long googling was unable to determine that. What search did you use?
drachefly wrote:
Good for you - my moderately-long googling was unable to determine that. What search did you use?

It was either "Long Dark Teatime of the Soul Woods" or "Dark Teatime of the Soul hospital", I forget which. Both have a hit 3 or 4 down with the name Woodshead.