From Erfwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wanda Firebaugh

Did Wanda really believe that Ansom had "Stolen" the Arkenpliers prior to her acquiring them? I know she wanted them badly, I know she thought she deserved them more than Ansom, but when she mentioned something "stolen" by Ansom, she may have been talking about Jillian.

Chief Warlord

I don't think he's quite CW yet. Wanda and Maggie will have a say on this matter. Stanley wasn't comitted to it, and progbably was waiting for Parson's protest to change his mind. I'll leave it for now, but I think this was jumping the gun a little bit. --Kreistor 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a Prince anymore

Ansom is no longer a prince, according to the Balder. We should move him to Ansom to suit. --> ERK!|eyeBook me 16:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you link what rob said? But I think we should wait with this. --Welf von Ehrwald 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Er, only sort of.

(12:03:01 PM) (me): Technically, decrypted Ansom is no longer a Prince, yes?
(12:03:52 PM) (rob): The Warlord Formerly Known as Prince, yes.

--> ERK!|eyeBook me 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that IRC chat? If so that is not technically canon. It needs to in one of the summer updates or on the forum. --Raphfrk 14:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, enjoy your Vorsprung durch Information :) . But it's not yet introduced in the story and we should wait for this. He also may become a new title. Parson also was promoted to "Lord". --Welf von Ehrwald 20:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed he was, but the article for Parson is not Lord Parson. I may be biased by thinking we should keep titles and pseudonyms out of article names, I admit, but it seems pretty clear to me that as a member of a different faction, Ansom is no longer a Prince whether it's explicit in the comic or not.
It's hardly a big deal, though. --> ERK!|eyeBook me 21:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we hold our horses and wait just a bit more? It works now and we can always move an article. It's not like tomorrow will be too late. -- Muzzafar 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that fans will always call him Prince Ansom (at least, until book three hits, I should think) Because he was such a major Character that was called Prince Ansom, if you know what I mean.
It's officially "The Warlord Formerly Known as Prince" now. Commander I. Heartly Noah June 18, 2009, 8:31


Looks like strawberries to me. 21:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless Jillian mistakes strawberries for radishes, it's radishes.Erf-b1-p030Same-site.PNG -- Muzzafar 16:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Attack Power

Do Commanders gain bonuses from being part of a stack? If so, Ansom's Attack Strength in Summer Update 33 includes a +6 stack bonus. That would make his base Attack either 9 or 19. -- Igfig 23:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you figure the stack bonus is +6?
It's stated that no unit in the column had a base attack of less than 6. The decrypted heavies in Ansom's stack get +10 from Ansom and +8 from Wanda; that's 24 without the stack bonus. The worst unit in the stack has an attack of 30; therefore the stack bonus must be +6. I guess only rank-and-file troops count toward the stack bonus. --Igfig 00:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You left out the artifact bonus
The worst unit in the column is 6(+3+1=10 (plus unkown stack bonus to raise to 11-18). The worst in Ansom's stack is 30(-10-8=12 (minus stack bonus of 1-8). 12-6 is 6, true, but that's assuming the Heavies in Ansom's stack have the worst base attack in the column, which makes no sense. That 6 represents not just the stack bonus but base attack in excess of 6. The weakest unit in Ansom's stack would have to be significantly stronger than the weakest unit in the column, so I'd say a minimum of 8, probably at least 10. The stack bonus might be anything between 1 and 6, probably just 1 or 2. CIHN
Ohhhhh... I think I was confused by the phrase "maxes at 8". Took it to mean that stack bonuses went up to +8 (+1 per unit), which looks wrong now. That said, in update 34, the column is described as "twelve stacks of heavies, knights, dwagons and Archons". If that's a complete description, I wouldn't be surprised if the heavies were the weakest units in the column--dwagons and archons are crazy strong.
Also, I dunno how much choice Ansom and Wanda would have had when it came to picking a stack. Dwagons are alive, so Wanda wouldn't want to go with them. If no flying mounts were decrypted, Wanda couldn't go with the Archons either. That leaves heavies and knights--the "weakest units"--for her to stack with, and Ansom certainly wants to be in Wanda's stack.
Then again, you may be correct about Ansom's stack having 8-10 attack. Looking at strip 113, it sounds to me like Doombats probably have an attack of 1 or less. Caesar's leader bonus makes them "like heavy infantry". He's what, level 8 or 9? That implies that heavies have an attack of 8-10. That makes stack bonus + artifact bonus = +2 to 4. --Igfig 22:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I always assumed that "maxes at 8" means 8 units; either that only 8 could contribute to the bonus, or only 8 could benefit from it. Either way, I don't think the bonus can reach +8 with the info we have now. +4 perhaps, at 1/2 per unit up to 8, maybe +2 or even +1, flat-rate with minimum of 2 units making a stack.
Fair point on the relative strengths of units, although I still doubt Ansom would be in anything but the strongest possible stack. Also, 1) remember varying levels of the same unit type - the pink, purple, and yellow dwagons were "weak types but strong examples," and 2) I think in general Knights (or Elites) are weaker than Heavies. Recalling the "Transylvito Style" attack, the various bonuses made "Pretty Weak" Doombats into something like "regular" units, "elite" units, and (finally) "Heavies."
My guess is 1 Attack is "weak" like Doombats, 2 is standard for low-level regular infantry and casters (like Jack Snipe), 3-5 is for mid-to-high level regulars, low-to-mid knights/elite and low for Heavies (Bogroll was a 5 to start with; he was a heavy, but also maligned by all; possibly due to low level (my guess is 1) and/or lower-than-average stats, including attack). I expect 6-8 is for Knights and low-to-mid Heavies, and 9-12 is for high level Heavies and mid-to-high Warlords, with more stacked on top for those of level 9+, nobles, and Royals.
For Ansom's attack on Warchalking he is 33-8 for Wanda = 25. I doubt his own Leadership benefits him. This leaves his base attack, stack bonus, and artifact bonus for his sword (assuming the carpet adds nothing and he has nothing else we know about). The stack bonus is a minimum of 1, maximum of 6, and I'm guessing (for now) a 4 = 21. I'm also guessing the sword is the best thing GK had (unless he took it with him from Jetstone, in which case it's as close in power to the pliers as possible, maybe even better in pure non-uncroaked warfare), and that could be anything from +4 or so to +10. So I'm ballparking Ansom's base attack value at 11-17 plus or minus 2 or 3 on stack bonus or extra artifact bonus. Probably 15 or so.CIHN


Since I'm new to the community and all the strengths/weaknesses seem to be set in three, I didn't want to just change it, but...

The weakness humility doesn't seem to fit, unless it's a lack of humility. As I added, fanatic seems to be more appropriate. He's not necessarily prideful in everything, but as Parson pointed out, the royalty is one big button. IMHO 03:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The strengths and weaknesses are drawn directly from the official cast page - as a result, we'd rather not change this particular part of the character article from its original form. Also note that, in general, the page lists weaknesses in the format "areas in which the character is weak" rather than "things about the character which make the character weak" (explaining why "humility" is there rather than "lack of humility"). ;) Menlo Marseilles 08:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Ansom is also an anagram of Mason, much like Slately is rock(geological, not music). Haven't found anything for the brothers