Who do you think will kill Ludd/Gryff in season 2?
It could be Rodrik/Asher, but Telltale could pull a "WALKING DEAD episode 3 Carley/ Doug both die" on us. If they do, Beskha will probably train Ryon with a sword, and he'll kill Ludd/Gryff.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
There's still the possibility that Telltale will pull a stunt similar to the near destruction of the Starks all over again and leave the last Whitehill lord alive, haha. Which I hope doesn't happen.
If we get a relatively happy ending, i'd be hoping either Asher/Rod or Ryon kills the remaining Whitehill scumbag.
"happy ending"!? Haven't you been paying attention? :P
I did say 'relatively' because too many forresters have died already
White Walker
You didn't get the reference? Do yourself a favor and watch this:
I did get the reference, bruh. I thought you'd only say that if you truly misinterpreted what I said.
Fucking Ramsay. Probably.
Asher killing season 2 Ludd : "For my family". Slash Ludd head. The end.
Ryon is like 8 years old, what the hell are you talking about?
Well Olly is not much older than Ryon and he stabbed John Snow all the same.
Not exactly "all the same". OP is implying that Ryon single-handily defeats Ludd or Gryff (two presumably far superior fighters than an 8 year old Ryon, regardless whatever training he can receive in a few months). Olly stabbed Jon Snow only after about four other people already did, and Jon was too weak to stop him.
WIGHT
I'm saying Beskha will train Ryon for years and when he's like 23 or some shit he'll take back Ironrath and be the new lord of house forrester. In other words Rodrik/asher will die no matter what in season 2
Well, that sounds ridiculous to be honest, and I don't think it'll happen because the game is parallel with the show. They can't just jump to the future, there would have to be too much information omitted (e.g who the current king is, what happens with Gared, etc.).
Do you even understand what "all the same" means? It does not mean "the same way". It means "in spite of that".
I did not claim that Olly killed Jon Snow "the same way" as RoboPotato5240 implied Ryon would kill Ludd/Gryff. I claimed that Olly regardless of his young age stabbed John Snow. Perhaps Beskha will defeat Ludd/Gryff and have Ryon deliver the final blow.
Hmm, if Rodrick survives and Ludd dies, shouldn't the Foresters win by Ramsey's terms?
No, beacuse everybody will assume that Rodrik Is dead.
I hardly speak in idioms, but yes, I do understand what "all the same" means. Please refrain from asking me stupid ass questions, if you can help it. I never said you claimed Olly killed Jon "the same way". However, by your response to that particular post of mine, it can be perceived as you implying it. You are only just now clarifying what you meant in your second response.
Please refrain from answering rhetorical questions, if you can help it. Do you even know what a rhetorical question is?
In my first response to you, I was addressing the general case of Ryon killing Ludd/Gryff, after being trained with a sword by Beskha. Up to that point, there had frankly been no mention of Ryon single-handily defeating Ludd/Gryff. A person being trained with a sword and then killing someone, does not imply that the person did the fighting all alone. RoboPotato5240 actually implied no such thing, and it is wrong to assume that I did so to.
It's almost as if you like to use words you don't fully comprehend. That's fine.
I understand what you meant on your first post now that you've clarified twice. You don't need to explain again. I just told you how I perceived it, wrong or not. You don't seem to get the ambiguity in your post. That's fine too. My implication based on what was posted isn't for you to decide.
Says who? Sounds like an implication to me. How it was written, I'd say so for sure.
Learn to be more precise when you reply to a person who is responding to someone else, and this won't be an issue.
Furthermore after RoboPotatos reply to me, it sounds like I was right to assume. So speak only on your own behalf.
Rodrik. Or so I hope... he has to fulfil his vow.
Yes, I do get the ambiguity in my post, that was actually the point! I said that I addressed the general case, for crying out loud! You don't seem to get the logical flaws in your post. That's not so fine.
The way Ryon would kill Ludd/Gryff, had not been specified, so you had no reason to assume I was talking about single combat. You did not have enough information to deduce a precise scenario, and I obviously did not mean for anyone to do so either, but you did it anyway and thus you completely misinterpreted my comment.
Learn to stop assuming things you have no reason to assume and this won't be an issue.
"A person being trained with a sword and then killing someone, implies that the person did the fighting all alone." is obviously not a valid implication. If you don't understand that by yourself, here is a counter example:
Jon Snow (a person) trained at Winterfell and at Castle Black (with a sword) and then he killed Carl (someone) at Craster's Keep. Did Jon Snow do the fighting all alone against Carl? No. One of Craster's wives saves Jon Snow by stabbing Carl (in the shoulder if I remember correctly). This tautology contradicts the implication. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Hopefully Talia, that'd be cool.
I had every reason to assume what I did given your reply to my specific response, no matter what you believe, so yeah.
Sounds subjective to me. At the end of the day OP already confirmed my assumption regarding his post as valid. So. Yeah.
Gared fucking Tuttle.
Gared comes back with the Forrester Bastards, sees ruined Ironwrath and becomes a bandit lord with them in revenge.
OP did not confirm your assumption. You claimed he implied that Ryon single-handily defeats Ludd/Gryff, and he replies to you that he is talking about a scenario where Ryon will take back Ironrath and be the new lord of house forrester, many years later. He never mentions anything about Ryon single-handily defeating Ludd/Gryff, so yeah.
Strictly speaking, implications are objective and can be disproved by a counter example. It's hints that are somewhat open to interpretation. Which is why, when you suspect that someone is giving you a hint, it is important to clarify things before you assume that your interpretation is correct and blindly act accordingly. So. Yeah.
OP didn't object therefore OP practically confirmed that he theorized Ryon defeating Gryff/Ludd single-handed (albeit at 23 or some shit - which is very unlikely since that would cause a huge story/time gap).
It's funny, I just looked over how this all started 5 days ago because I'm having a hard time keeping up with what the hell you're arguing and wow.
Your constant spouting has turned this into far more than it should be. I'm done here. Go have an ice water to cool off your rage, "for crying out loud".
This all originated from the use of an idiom in your vague post. Then it turned into you trying to tell me what I "have no reason to assume"? Now you're trying to argue a case for the OP when it's already settled? You're literally all over the place. After I told you how I perceived your post it probably should've ended there, but you insist that I had no reason to because xyz. I'm a human, not a robot. I'll assume whenever I feel appropriate not when every single semantic is hashed out.
You are right about one thing; this turned into far more than it should be. You should never have replied (or replied differently) to my first post. Even if your unreasonable conviction is true, that OP really did hint about single combat, your interpretation of my first comment requires the phrase "all the same" to mean something different from what it actually does and is hence obviously invalid. As stated before, "all the same" means exactly the same thing as "in spite of that". Let me demonstrate how absurd your comment is, by substituting "all the same" with "in spite of that".
My first comment:
Your first reply to me:
Your comment is obviously wrong since Olly actually did stab Jon Snow in spite of Olly not being much older than Ryon.
By the way, I am not "literally all over the place", I am not omnipresent and I am certainly not on this thread anymore. Have a nice Christmas.
Aye to that! I hope Gared does, and then Elsera can have her blood magic with Gryff's blood.
If Asher is dead I hope it is Beskha. No one defiles little brothers body and lives.
The Brotherhood without Bacon?
I honestly hope that if Asher can't kill Ludd, then traitor Duncan will
Seems unlikely that Rodrik/Asher will manage it given their injuries (and if they do, they'll probably die in the process, which may be a choice you can make). And if you choose not to sacrifice Rodrik/Asher to do it, then maybe Duncan/Royland does it instead, but dies in the process. Alternatively, I'm wondering whether it might actually be determinate, depending on your pre-existing situation. So for instance, if Gwyn and Asher are still on good terms, and their marriage is still on the table, Gwyn might be forced to finally bite the bullet and kill Gryff to prove whose side she's on. Or if Elaena has been kidnapped by Gryff (and possibly sexually assaulted), she might kill him after escaping, so that she and Rodrik are safe. Or if Ludd is still alive maybe Talia does it somehow. Best way to handle this, without having to create multiple death scenes and a lot of extra work, is for the Whitehills to be out searching for Rodrik/Asher (perhaps at the clearing in the grove, where Rodrik met with Gwyn) and just have an anonymous arrow come out of nowhere and catch Ludd/Gryff in the eye. Then cut to a brief shot of Elaena/Talia/Gwyn etc. holding the bow.