Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:32 pm 
Offline
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 6:17 pm
Posts: 65
I don't think Charlie could croak Jillian at El-efbaum anyways, seeing as she has a Fate to fulfill. Who wants to bet Charlie knows that little tidbit?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:21 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am
    Posts: 1191
    drachefly wrote:
    Oberon wrote:
    Quote:
    “Heh,” said Jillian, catching Jack’s eyes. “That’s just what—” Jack gave her a tiny shake of his head. “...I’ve heard said about you, Marie.”
    What's up with this exchange? What subject is Jack warning Jillian to stay away from?

    I think it's just that it would involve talking about what they'd just seen, which would hurt Jack.
    I don't think so. Marie and Jillian are the last two who, at this point, haven't signed the DoaL. They can speak freely, as they have no contract binding them. Jack should be able to simply not participate in the conversation and not be in pain or whatever from the DoaL. Jack seems to be warning Jillian away from an ending to the sentence which began "That’s just what—", but I'm at a loss as to why. Did he think it would be impolite? Impolitic? Jillian has nothing to hide from Marie, as far as I am aware.

    GWvsJohn wrote:
    The three archons are Wilson Phillips. I think the name "Carnie" is totally incidental.
    Perhaps you've missed the part where the author likes to layer his references 2-3 deep if at all possible.

    0beron wrote:
    WarFAN wrote:
    I never get tired to repeat this:
    King Banhammer is a galactic-level idiot. I will be very pleased when (if) Rob shows his croaking/uncroaking.
    Eh.....I'm not too hopeful. We were so excited to see Olive die...and her death scene was profoundly underwhelming in terms of intrigue. So while I'm hoping for some poetic scene for Banhammer's death in which he has some ironic epiphany or something similarly epic and befitting his idiocy....I know better than to expect it.
    More to the point, Banhammers' death has already been described by Stanley, in his recounting of the (second) fall of FAQ. There's just about zero reason for the story to cover those events in more detail.

    Lilwik wrote:
    We don't know that heirs can survive in the field. We know that most units can't and we've never seen an heir do it, so it's shaky that heirs are an exception to the rule. On top of that I don't see why there's any reason to be surprised that Jillian remained loyal to Faq.
    This has been said already, but Jillian is (was) an heir and did survive the (second) fall of FAQ, and Stanley is (was) an heir and did survive the (first?) fall of GK, so are precedents that aren't shaky at all.

    Lipkin wrote:
    It's unlikely that Jack would have been unable to escape if he had wanted to, even in the midst of battle.
    Jack was, without any other evidence suggested, a captured FAQ unit who was turned to GK after the battle which saw FAQ fall.

    Turning a unit does not require a turnamancer, people!

    _________________
    How using capslock wins arguments:
    Zeroberon wrote:
    So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:30 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1463
    Oberon wrote:
    Jillian is (was) an heir and did survive the (second) fall of FAQ, and Stanley is (was) an heir and did survive the (first?) fall of GK, so are precedents that aren't shaky at all.
    The problem with that is that Jillian wasn't an heir at the time. Just because Jillian has a history of being an heir for a large portion of her life doesn't make her surviving the second fall of Faq relevant since she was actually a ruler when it happened. The fall of GK that you are talking about also included the death of Saline IV, which means that Stanley was a ruler when it happened, so neither of those two examples says anything about heirs surviving in the field.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:57 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am
    Posts: 1191
    Lilwik wrote:
    The problem with that is that Jillian wasn't an heir at the time[of the fall of FAQ].
    Granted that Jillian wasn't the heir at the fall of FAQ.

    But I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that Stanley, the GK heir and made Overlord by the death of Saline IV by the unprecedented (and one turn) revolt of the gobwin natural allies whilst Stanley was in the field, is not an example of how leadership of a side passes during duress?

    _________________
    How using capslock wins arguments:
    Zeroberon wrote:
    So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:27 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1463
    Oberon wrote:
    Are you saying that Stanley, the GK heir and made Overlord by the death of Saline IV by the unprecedented (and one turn) revolt of the gobwin natural allies whilst Stanley was in the field, is not an example of how leadership of a side passes during duress?
    I don't think I'd ever say that. On the contrary, I was just pointing out that the leadership of Gobwin Knob had passed to Stanley when Gobwin Knob fell, since Saline IV died in that battle. Therefore Stanley surviving that fall is an example of the leadership of a side passing from ruler to heir, not an example of an heir surviving in the field.

    For all we know, if the gobwins had captured Saline IV instead of killing him, Stanley might have disbanded. Of course, that rule would have the odd consequence of causing people to try to incapacitate and capture rulers just long enough to officially capture the capital and cause the disbanding of all field units, then kill the ruler. If heir is in the field somewhere, then doing that trick would completely decapitate the side by disbanding the heir before the ruler is croaked. Assuming this is how it really works, then it makes perfect sense for Wanda to have croaked Banhammer in the second fall of Faq because I'm sure Wanda didn't want Jillian to disband. On the other hand, it seems like killing Saline IV would have been nothing but a baffling blunder for the gobwins that caused them to immediately lose the city they'd just taken. We even see the gobwins with a still-living Saline IV at their mercy in Book 1, Page 79. The fact that the gobwins croaked Saline IV instead of capturing him may be the best evidence we have that heirs won't disband in the field like regular units.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:42 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:49 pm
    Posts: 127
    Lilwik wrote:
    Looking at it that way, it seems like it was an awfully shameful thing that Jillian did. She was popped as an heir because Faq knew that it was going to be destroyed so that Faq might continue, and then by luck Jillian survived the destruction


    She was popped to preserve his teachings and way of life. Its an awfully shameful thing to try and make your child live your life.

    Also, she's probably doing Erfworld a favor by letting his *hem* wisdom be forgotten. If she had for some inexplicable reason took up proselytizing for his teachings, there very well could have been an extinction level event of sheer idiocy.

    Besides, it'd be hard for her to continue the philosophies he espoused considering she was the one who paid the bills by doing exactly what those teachings shunned.


    Anyhoo, as for Charlie and the deal he's cutting with FAQ, I expect he's attempting to rig the game in his favor. We know FAQ has units involved in big, capital F, face full of burning log, Fate. A Carnymancer probably has some knack at Predictamancy and Charlie has the resources and personality to try and twist things around so he benefits from them.

    Fun Speculation: Fate killed Jack precisely so he'd be free of the bargain and could share the intel. So, indirectly, Charlie killed Jack! That boophole! Charlie really is responsible for everything!

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 4:29 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:06 am
    Posts: 1916
    Jabberwocky wrote:
    Also, she's probably doing Erfworld a favor by letting his *hem* wisdom be forgotten. If she had for some inexplicable reason took up proselytizing for his teachings, there very well could have been an extinction level event of sheer idiocy.

    While I agree with the general notion that King Banhammer is a fool, this is surely a gross exaggeration.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 6:35 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:49 pm
    Posts: 127
    ManaCaster wrote:
    While I agree with the general notion that King Banhammer is a fool, this is surely a gross exaggeration.


    Its Jillian. A mathamancer seeking to calculate their combined destructive potential would need the assistance of a Thinkamancer link and a really big abacus. We're talking really big here, man, like 'has been mistaken for a capital city' big.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 6:42 am 
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:04 am
    Posts: 460
    Oberon wrote:
    0beron wrote:
    WarFAN wrote:
    I never get tired to repeat this:
    King Banhammer is a galactic-level idiot. I will be very pleased when (if) Rob shows his croaking/uncroaking.
    Eh.....I'm not too hopeful. We were so excited to see Olive die...and her death scene was profoundly underwhelming in terms of intrigue. So while I'm hoping for some poetic scene for Banhammer's death in which he has some ironic epiphany or something similarly epic and befitting his idiocy....I know better than to expect it.
    More to the point, Banhammers' death has already been described by Stanley, in his recounting of the (second) fall of FAQ. There's just about zero reason for the story to cover those events in more detail.


    Well, the battle as seen from FAQ could be used to tie up ends from the next IP(TSF) part, assuming it will center around the Jill/Jack/Wanda relationship and intrigues of the FAQ court. Did Marie fail to predict Stanley's arrival or was Jack away and could not veil the city? How does Rusty meet his end?

    It could also be hilarious.

    Imagine Stanley arriving and Banhammer trying to parley.

    - Bla bla, said Banhammer. Bla bla bla Bla, refrain from shortsighted war and the stupidity of violence...

    - Are you calling me short and stupid?! yelled Stanley. Hammertime!

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 6:57 am 
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:07 am
    Posts: 675
    Jack was in another city - Wanda arranged for him to be so. This way he was frozen in time when the side fell and so could be captured, and didn't interact in the battle itself.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 10:07 am 
    User avatar
    Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Year of the Dwagon Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Shiny Red Star Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter This user posted the comment of the month This user is a part of Erfworld canon! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
    Posts: 4397
    Location: Morlock Wells
    Oberon wrote:
    More to the point, Banhammers' death has already been described by Stanley, in his recounting of the (second) fall of FAQ. There's just about zero reason for the story to cover those events in more detail.
    There I have to disagree, there is a reason. Yes, the occasion of his death was described (in a very vague cursory fashion)...but Stanley did not witness the actual event itself. There is a narrative opportunity there for Rob to show us what transpired between Wanda and Banhammer, and what Wanda's thought process was. Whether or not Rob will take that opportunity, and give it the poetic irony some of us would hope for is debatable, but there is definitely a reason for him to.

    _________________
    "I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
    GJC wrote:
    Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
    There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:19 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am
    Posts: 1191
    0beron wrote:
    There is a narrative opportunity there for Rob to show us what transpired between Wanda and Banhammer, and what Wanda's thought process was.
    Wanda's thought process has already been described: She thought Stanley would lose and she would get the 'hammer. When it was clear he would win, she turned. I'm not sure I see any value in spending a strip to describe "Hoboken", "Uncroak", "Go kill FAQ units."

    _________________
    How using capslock wins arguments:
    Zeroberon wrote:
    So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:46 pm 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! This user was a Tool before it was cool
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:35 pm
    Posts: 100
    Oberon wrote:
    0beron wrote:
    There is a narrative opportunity there for Rob to show us what transpired between Wanda and Banhammer, and what Wanda's thought process was.
    Wanda's thought process has already been described: She thought Stanley would lose and she would get the 'hammer. When it was clear he would win, she turned. I'm not sure I see any value in spending a strip to describe "Hoboken", "Uncroak", "Go kill FAQ units."


    But what if Wanda lied? Specifically in retelling that story.
    Wanda has an established history of evading the truth and telling selective bits of the truth, but she is also capable of lying.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:51 pm 
    User avatar
    Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Year of the Dwagon Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Shiny Red Star Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter This user posted the comment of the month This user is a part of Erfworld canon! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
    Posts: 4397
    Location: Morlock Wells
    It doesn't even have to be that she lied. My original point about her thought process was misunderstood by Ohberon, and I didn't bother to correct him because (presumably) another comic came out to distract me.
    What I mean is that we could see some insight into what Wanda is thinking in the moment as the Fall of FAQ transpires. Sure we know her stated goals/aims, but we don't know the play by play of what happened inside that Tower out of Stanley's sight, what she was thinking/feeling during it, and what was said between them (and perhaps other members of the Court).

    _________________
    "I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
    GJC wrote:
    Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
    There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Alberios, Ardaglash, cbenny, Dandere, drachefly, Dwarf Ulf, Google [Bot], Goshen, Grumpy Cat, kjhoffma, machton, Mazrin, SomeGuy411 and 13 guests

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: