Linked Thinkamancers?

Speculation, discoveries, complaints, accusations, praise, and all other Erfworld discussion.

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:00 pm

MarbitChow wrote:Abilities (flight, regeneration, detect magic) so far have usually been shown to be able to be used without effort.


Dragons expend effort to fly. Leadership has some aspects that are innate, but giving orders takes effort.

Spells have been shown to have keyword triggers. Maggie says "Callahan's" to start the link, which seems to be evidence that the link is in fact a spell rather than an ability.


"Van der Graaf". Stanley's no casyter, but to activate the shock effect he used a trigger word. Jillian used a trigger word to activate the hat. Trigger words get used for more than just spells, but spell-like effects.

Personally, I'm leaning towards the possibility that you simply can't include more than one "mancer" type from each school.


Mental strain from too much similarity in the participants? Possible.

Of course, it's quite possible that it hasn't been done simply because no one is willing to risk experimenting with casters to see what is possible.


Lots of un-sided casters in the Magic Kingdom. Bet they would. They clearly knew exactly how to safely devolve a link, and that suggests lots of practice.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Maldeus » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:26 pm

The ring idea would require a lot of Thinkamancers, but it could theoretically work, because it's not actually exceeding the limit of "four is impossible," it's just creating multiple different combined entities which overlap with one another, which is similar to how the human mind works, except on a scale of millions/billions of synapses, if I recall correctly (I haven't actually studied this at all, it's just some trivia I think I remember hearing from a friend who has). It sounds like an exploitable game mechanic, to me.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Cmdr I. Heartly Noah » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:16 pm

Kreistor wrote:Lots of un-sided casters in the Magic Kingdom. Bet they would. They clearly knew exactly how to safely devolve a link, and that suggests lots of practice.


Yeah, but how many did they use? Five? And master-class too, right? For a 'simple' three-caster link. I imagine if you had a five or six caster link that they wouldn't be able to do it (especially since you'd be short some of the casters in the link)
I am a: Chaotic Neutral Human Bard/Sorcerer (2nd/1st Level)
Str- 12, Dex- 15, Con- 12, Int- 14, Wis- 11, Cha- 13
Cmdr I. Heartly Noah
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Unclever title » Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:39 am

An interesting thing I thought of actually... considering that these individual units each have personality and experience to add to each linkup each linkup is unique and a special case.

Take the Sizemore-Wanda-Maggie linkup, for now I'll ignore Maggie because we don't know anything about her that distinguishes her from other thinkamancers (other than having the skill for a three caster linkup), but Wanda has considerable talent outside of her concentration but little care for the knowledge of those fields and Sizemore has considerable curiosity and a fair bit of information for all of magic but only the skill to cast within his own casting class.

This might then imply that a linkup involving Sizemore and Wanda might enable them to masterfully cast ANY magic. This is not to say to a level comparable to Titans as when they uncroaked the volcano considering that lied within both their disciplines but an omni-caster can be exceedingly useful in a pinch.

But we hit another snag in the preparation for the linkup Maggie explained to the casters to seek that feeling familiar within their casting profession which might prevent the linked up version from realizing he/she/it can cast those unusual spells so a traditional linkup may not be possible. There may need to be some other method of subduing the casters' wills without losing their individualistic quirks. Perhaps the feeling they'd have to focus on is the feeling they have when Parson asks them impossible questions... :D
Unclever title
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Maldeus » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:07 pm

I wonder...Is it possible for a link-up between three casters to, instead of destroying the individuality of all three, simply absorb the individuality of them instead, resulting in a single independent, unique being? In the case of Sizemaganda, a caster who could theoretically specialize in anything? Would Sizemaganda be attuned to the Arkenpliers, still, or does it have to be just Wanda? Could the three of them retain this mixed personality even when not linked up, with bits and pieces of their own personality/knowledge having flowed permanently into the others and been replaced with bits and pieces of the other two, so that each one, instead of becoming Wanda, Maggie, and Sizemore again, instead becomes a fragment of Sizemaganda?
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby cche » Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:56 am

It seems to me that the power of the linked 'mancers comes from the combination of individual talents. When two elements of the linkage are the same type there would be little or no gain in power because of the overlap in skills.
cche
I am a Tool!
I am a Tool!
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:36 am

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby cloudbreaker » Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:11 pm

This thread got me thinking, would it be possible to link a thinkamancer to a caster and a non-caster unit. You know, like a warlord or even a spidew? This seems like something that they may not have thought of or even considered in Erfworld. I'm thinking it might be possible, at least with a humanoid non-caster. A spidew, on the other hand, would probably be too much of a stretch.

I realize there is absolutely no evidence that it would be possible, but I just wanted to throw this out there.
Bored? Read The Adventured of Melissa Ray. An Erfworld fanfic. comment here

Or A Tale From Traz. (Now complete!). comment here.
User avatar
cloudbreaker
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:09 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:28 pm

cloudbreaker wrote:This thread got me thinking, would it be possible to link a thinkamancer to a caster and a non-caster unit. You know, like a warlord or even a spidew? This seems like something that they may not have thought of or even considered in Erfworld. I'm thinking it might be possible, at least with a humanoid non-caster. A spidew, on the other hand, would probably be too much of a stretch.

I realize there is absolutely no evidence that it would be possible, but I just wanted to throw this out there.


Linkinbg requries the remembrance of your first spell cast... the joy of being a caster. No, it won't work on a Warlord.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby cloudbreaker » Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:47 pm

Kreistor wrote:
cloudbreaker wrote:This thread got me thinking, would it be possible to link a thinkamancer to a caster and a non-caster unit. You know, like a warlord or even a spidew? This seems like something that they may not have thought of or even considered in Erfworld. I'm thinking it might be possible, at least with a humanoid non-caster. A spidew, on the other hand, would probably be too much of a stretch.

I realize there is absolutely no evidence that it would be possible, but I just wanted to throw this out there.


Linkinbg requries the remembrance of your first spell cast... the joy of being a caster. No, it won't work on a Warlord.

Ah, that is a very good point. I didn't even think of that. However, I'm not sure that it is proof that it won't work on a warlord (but definitely points towards that as being the case). I will quote what Maggie says so that people don't have to look it up here. She says:
There is a feeling. You may no longer notice it. But think of the first spell you ever cast. When you cast within your dicipline, there is a sense of warmth, comfort, familiarity. I want you to relax, and recal that feeling. Find the feel of your dicipline, and step inside it. Lose yourself to it. Become your function.

Judging by what she says, you may only need to 'become your function' and thinking of your first spell is the best way for a caster to do that. Perhaps a warlord would need to think of the first time they went into battle, or commanded a stack, or attacked an enemy. Then they might be able to acieve a similar state of mind.

*shrugs*
Bored? Read The Adventured of Melissa Ray. An Erfworld fanfic. comment here

Or A Tale From Traz. (Now complete!). comment here.
User avatar
cloudbreaker
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:09 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:55 pm

Warlords aren't a function. They need experience and knowledge to decide the best course of action. Removal of individual memory is a real hindrance to using your experience. It also removes charisma, by removing personality, and that is a primary requirement for good Leadership. A plan is no good if you can't convince your men it's a good one.

[Edit]
Expansion...

Okay, let me expand ont hat. There are a limited, known number of spells for each Discipline. Beause of that, there is no actual invention in Magic in Erfworld. You can't create a spell that no one knows about, at least not outside of Linking. Casters are, then, merely a conduit for the known. The only thing that decides what they can and cannot do is how much Juice they have, and whether they are naturally inclined to learn something. (Wanda learns much if she wants to, Sizemore does not. But even Wanda is only learning the known, not inventing the unknown.)

A Warlord may have a set of pre-determined battle plans, but he must also be creative. if a situation arises that he didn't prepare for. At the circle trap, Vinnie does not come up with the final option Ansom chooses, for instance. Ansom used his knowledge of Jillian to devise an exit strategy that did damage. He has to think on his feet, using his experience to solve problems.

Casters are limited to a much smaller solution set. Wiht only so many spells, they have only so many solutions. They can revert to their "function" and lose no knowledge of their array of solutions, except maybe those outside their specialty. Either a spell solves the problem, or it doesn't.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Maldeus » Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:21 am

Kreistor wrote:Okay, let me expand ont hat. There are a limited, known number of spells for each Discipline. Beause of that, there is no actual invention in Magic in Erfworld. You can't create a spell that no one knows about, at least not outside of Linking. Casters are, then, merely a conduit for the known. The only thing that decides what they can and cannot do is how much Juice they have, and whether they are naturally inclined to learn something. (Wanda learns much if she wants to, Sizemore does not. But even Wanda is only learning the known, not inventing the unknown.)


Do we know this? Are we positive that no new spells can be made? And if so, why is Parson the first perfect Warlord ever summoned (or is he the first?)?
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Itzal » Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:10 am

Maldeus is right. The spell that summoned Parson would have had to be researched as no one had ever done that before.
Veni Vedi Volo En Domium Redare
I came, I saw, I wanna go home.
User avatar
Itzal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:26 am

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Darkside007 » Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:53 am

Kreistor wrote: Warlords aren't a function. They need experience and knowledge to decide the best course of action. Removal of individual memory is a real hindrance to using your experience. It also removes charisma, by removing personality, and that is a primary requirement for good Leadership. A plan is no good if you can't convince your men it's a good one.


Which is why uncroaked warlords retain their Leadership bonuses? Since, you know, all that applies to zombies too...

Kreistor wrote:[Edit]
Expansion...

Okay, let me expand ont hat. There are a limited, known number of spells for each Discipline.


Says who?

Kreistor wrote:Beause of that, there is no actual invention in Magic in Erfworld. You can't create a spell that no one knows about, at least not outside of Linking.


Wait. The "Summon Perfect Warlord" spell is new. At least, no one knows about it beforehand, which gives it a high probability it's new.

Kreistor wrote:Casters are, then, merely a conduit for the known. The only thing that decides what they can and cannot do is how much Juice they have, and whether they are naturally inclined to learn something. (Wanda learns much if she wants to, Sizemore does not. But even Wanda is only learning the known, not inventing the unknown.)


Your premises are either flawed, unsupported, or directly contradicted.

Kreistor wrote:A Warlord may have a set of pre-determined battle plans, but he must also be creative.


Well, no. Uncroaked Warlords are still warlords. They have 0 creativity.

Kreistor wrote:if a situation arises that he didn't prepare for. At the circle trap, Vinnie does not come up with the final option Ansom chooses, for instance. Ansom used his knowledge of Jillian to devise an exit strategy that did damage. He has to think on his feet, using his experience to solve problems.


Well, actually, it's success was an accident. If Jillian hadn't ignored his orders, she may not have found the dwagon stack.

Kreistor wrote:Casters are limited to a much smaller solution set. Wiht only so many spells, they have only so many solutions. They can revert to their "function" and lose no knowledge of their array of solutions, except maybe those outside their specialty. Either a spell solves the problem, or it doesn't.


Err, Sizemore led the tunnel battle and used a bit of lateral thinking to save himself and win that battle. Yeah, he used a spell to save himself, but he used a spell that revived a fallen unit behind the enemy to ambush them. Either the solution solves the problem, or it doesn't is kinda a 'duh' point, and true about everything. Casters have spells, which are extremely powerful tools that Warlords lack. Their use is a reflection of their power if Erfworld, not the limited thinking of the casters.
User avatar
Darkside007
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:52 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Bobby Archer » Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:03 am

In any case, tracing back to the point that Kreistor was arguing against, I'd say the presence of uncroaked warlords implies that linking casters with a warlord is not possible. At least, if such a thing exists, it operates in a different manner from the linking we have seen and would essentially be a new, heretofore unseen spell as opposed to an extension of the old one. My reasoning for this is that warlords maintain their leadership bonus and status as a warlord after uncroaking; casters become infantry, they lose all access to magic. This implies some essential difference in the skills.
Uncroaked for Hire

No, no, Misty is Uncle Ben; Bogroll is Gwen Stacy.
User avatar
Bobby Archer
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:09 pm
Location: Mass Hysteria, Chicago, IL, USA, Earth, Reality, Sanity

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:12 pm

Itzal wrote:Maldeus is right. The spell that summoned Parson would have had to be researched as no one had ever done that before.


And could it have been the result of a Linking? Do we know of any other way to combine multiple Disciplines into a single spell?
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:22 pm

Darkside007 wrote:
Kreistor wrote: Warlords aren't a function. They need experience and knowledge to decide the best course of action. Removal of individual memory is a real hindrance to using your experience. It also removes charisma, by removing personality, and that is a primary requirement for good Leadership. A plan is no good if you can't convince your men it's a good one.


Which is why uncroaked warlords retain their Leadership bonuses? Since, you know, all that applies to zombies too.


Well, Uncroaked are stated to be incapable of understanding complex instructions, but they did pull off the fighting retreat. But the question is: can a Zombie remember what it was when it was alive? You need to remember doing your function at least once.

Kreistor wrote:[Edit]
Okay, let me expand on that. There are a limited, known number of spells for each Discipline.


Says who?


Sizemore to Parson. Klog 2. "In each discipline there is a certain number of spells it is possible to cast."

The rest of your response is predicated on that missing information, so would you like to rewrite it?
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Darkside007 » Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:39 am

Kreistor wrote:
Itzal wrote:Maldeus is right. The spell that summoned Parson would have had to be researched as no one had ever done that before.


And could it have been the result of a Linking? Do we know of any other way to combine multiple Disciplines into a single spell?


Janis's response to the Volcano link, and the number of thinkamancers needed to break it, would suggest that linkups are exceptionally rare and not generally done in the Magic Kingdom.

Kreistor wrote:
Darkside007 wrote:
Kreistor wrote: Warlords aren't a function. They need experience and knowledge to decide the best course of action. Removal of individual memory is a real hindrance to using your experience. It also removes charisma, by removing personality, and that is a primary requirement for good Leadership. A plan is no good if you can't convince your men it's a good one.


Which is why uncroaked warlords retain their Leadership bonuses? Since, you know, all that applies to zombies too.


Well, Uncroaked are stated to be incapable of understanding complex instructions, but they did pull off the fighting retreat. But the question is: can a Zombie remember what it was when it was alive? You need to remember doing your function at least once.


My point was not that zombies could be in a linkup, but that your reasons for Warlords not linking up were unjustified, given the leadership bonuses Uncroaked Warlords keep.

Kreistor wrote:
Kreistor wrote:[Edit]
Okay, let me expand on that. There are a limited, known number of spells for each Discipline.


Says who?


Sizemore to Parson. Klog 2. "In each discipline there are a certain number of spells it is possible to cast."

The rest of your response is predicated on that missing information, so would you like to rewrite it?


That's hardly a cornerstone of my point. A demand of evidence rarely ever is.

Additionally, the phrase "it is possible to cast" would suggest either a spells/day mechanic, (this theory is supported when Parson asked Maggie "Do you need sleep to cast?". The most common form of restoring spells in a spells/day mechanic is some form of sleep/rest. As a gamer, this is where Parson would go.) or a limited numbers of spells available to each caster, which they either have assigned to them on popping or they select from their discipline. (This is circumstantially supplied by having caster levels. This may allow them to unlock more spells and have greater flexibility.)

The phrase that would most support your point, that a limited number of spells are all that there is, would be "there are a certain number of spells which exist." The longer, more convoluted phrasing suggests something different.

Your dismissal is predicated on this being a cornerstone and not being contested. Both are mistaken. Would you like to retract it, and come up with a genuine response?
User avatar
Darkside007
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:52 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:46 am

Darkside007 wrote:
K wrote:And could it have been the result of a Linking? Do we know of any other way to combine multiple Disciplines into a single spell?


Janis's response to the Volcano link, and the number of thinkamancers needed to break it, would suggest that linkups are exceptionally rare and not generally done in the Magic Kingdom.


And Summoning Spells that rip people out of other Universes are particularly common?

My point was not that zombies could be in a linkup, but that your reasons for Warlords not linking up were unjustified, given the leadership bonuses Uncroaked Warlords keep.


Oh, I'm glad you think so, but calling them unjustified isn't proving them unjustified. All you said was "Which is why uncroaked warlords retain their Leadership bonuses? Since, you know, all that applies to zombies too...", leaving everything else up to the reader. (Seriously, that's all he said folks, I didn't delete anything in this quote.). You don't get to go back and try to fill in blanks that you didn't fill in the first time, and come out unembarrassed, even if you can later prove yourself right, which you have yet to do. Leave something open to interpretation, and everyone interprets it differently. That we (me and Bobby) don't interpret in whatever way makes it "unjustified" to you means that you either couldn't prove it and this was purely rhetorical, or have a unique interpretation that you fail to recognize isn't obvious. So, come, demonstrate your method for coming to this conclusion for us. Personally, I like Bobby Archer's point that Warlords keep Leadership bonuses making them quite unlike Casters that do lose the capacity to cast.

Kreistor wrote:Sizemore to Parson. Klog 2. "In each discipline there are a certain number of spells it is possible to cast."

The rest of your response is predicated on that missing information, so would you like to rewrite it?


That's hardly a cornerstone of my point. A demand of evidence rarely ever is.


Ah, but it demonstrates the unreliability of your memory, and suggests that your conclusions are drawn on incomplete knowledge, suggesting the possibility of contradicting evidence for any statement you made )or may make) without supporting references, thereby invalidating your current argument and potentially future ones. It doesn't matter that it wasn't a cornerstone, since you demonstrated an over-confident belief that you knew more than me. Given your previous choice to leave things to the reader, it's not a particularly powerful debating strategy, since the incompleteness in your knowledge allows the reader to draw conclusions based on information you were unaware of.

Additionally, the phrase "it is possible to cast" would suggest either a spells/day mechanic,

Only if you completely ignore the context. Here, let's put that back...

"Here's what [Sizemore] said. Magic uses the three elements of Life, Motion, and Matter. The major classes of magic are defined by combinations of these three things: [Table of Elements and Classes]. That gives eight major magic classes. But magic is also "aligned" on three axes: Erf, Fate, and Number magic. So each major class is divided into three disciplines, based on what axis it is aligned to. [Table of Axis and Disciplines]. In each discipline there are a certain number of spells it is possible to cast." http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_38a

I'm thinking that you can prove anything if you ignore context, but that doesn't make it true. Does that apply here? Let's see... he mentions Casters specifically... zero times in that part of the Klog. That section is about Magic and how it is structured, not how Casters use magic. The Klog is merely breaking down magic in a top-down structure. First number and structure of classes in magic, then disciplines in classes, then spells in disciplines. Pretty much a natural progression. Kind of odd if a comment about "spells/day", unsupported by the later use of the term "Juice", were to pop in right at that particular juncture. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this claim of "spells/day" could only be made if you completely ignore the context surrounding the sentence.

BTW, we know that Casters have "Juice" to power spells. There is also a certain amount of conversation that strongly implies flexibility in casting, which suggests "Juice" is not spells/day, but a depleted quantity like one would find in Final Fantasy or Elder Scrolls. Particularly, Maggie drains Juice at a rate while Parson communicates with Charlie (Mork homage conversation), where a spells/day mechanic would leave her with a known remains spells/day at the end of the conversation, instead of having to reveal very little left when Parson expected to be able to talk to many.

Your dismissal is predicated on this being a cornerstone and not being contested. Both are mistaken. Would you like to retract it, and come up with a genuine response?


No, I was giving you a chance to do something about "Your premises are either flawed, unsupported, or directly contradicted." Or did you not notice that's where I stopped replying? One could note that making claims based on insufficient information can result in those claims being entirely contradicted by evidence you're unaware of, and taking evidence out of context makes the conclusions inherently flawed, since it crumbles in the face of the context. Now, if I could prove that you were guilty of those, well, I'd have turned 2/3rds of your statement characterizing me around and made you insult yourself, and in the course of only two messages. That would qualify as "ironic", wouldn't it? "Embarrassing", maybe? And, given that I gave the chance to rescind it... well, there would be a certain amount of lack of sympathy for you, too. Well, I'm not qualified to judge my success, of course. I'll leave that to the readers.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Itzal » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:04 am

Kreistor wrote:
Itzal wrote:Maldeus is right. The spell that summoned Parson would have had to be researched as no one had ever done that before.


And could it have been the result of a Linking? Do we know of any other way to combine multiple Disciplines into a single spell?



From the way Wanda talked about it it seemed more like a collaborative work. I like the idea that Erfworld itself created the spell and some mancers out there found it, deciphered what it's purpose was, and then decided to sell it for lucrative amounts of money BP.
Veni Vedi Volo En Domium Redare
I came, I saw, I wanna go home.
User avatar
Itzal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:26 am

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Darkside007 » Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:34 am

Kreistor wrote:
Darkside007 wrote:
K wrote:And could it have been the result of a Linking? Do we know of any other way to combine multiple Disciplines into a single spell?


Janis's response to the Volcano link, and the number of thinkamancers needed to break it, would suggest that linkups are exceptionally rare and not generally done in the Magic Kingdom.


And Summoning Spells that rip people out of other Universes are particularly common?


Because that's the only spell the MK every produced. =|

Linking seems to be very rare at all, and not done in the MK. Otherwise she wouldn't've simply asked for Thinkamancers, but for someone to break the link.

Kreistor wrote:
My point was not that zombies could be in a linkup, but that your reasons for Warlords not linking up were unjustified, given the leadership bonuses Uncroaked Warlords keep.


Oh, I'm glad you think so, but calling them unjustified isn't proving them unjustified. All you said was "Which is why uncroaked warlords retain their Leadership bonuses? Since, you know, all that applies to zombies too...", leaving everything else up to the reader. (Seriously, that's all he said folks, I didn't delete anything in this quote.). You don't get to go back and try to fill in blanks that you didn't fill in the first time, and come out unembarrassed, even if you can later prove yourself right, which you have yet to do. Leave something open to interpretation, and everyone interprets it differently. That we (me and Bobby) don't interpret in whatever way makes it "unjustified" to you means that you either couldn't prove it and this was purely rhetorical, or have a unique interpretation that you fail to recognize isn't obvious. So, come, demonstrate your method for coming to this conclusion for us. Personally, I like Bobby Archer's point that Warlords keep Leadership bonuses making them quite unlike Casters that do lose the capacity to cast.


You left out the context of the quote, which was you pontificating on all the necessities for real-world leadership. None of them apply to uncroaked, so there is no reason for them to apply to linkups.

That you couldn't work that out is your own problem. Though I suspect you could, and you just refused too.

Kreistor wrote:
Kreistor wrote:Sizemore to Parson. Klog 2. "In each discipline there are a certain number of spells it is possible to cast."

The rest of your response is predicated on that missing information, so would you like to rewrite it?


That's hardly a cornerstone of my point. A demand of evidence rarely ever is.


Ah, but it demonstrates the unreliability of your memory, and suggests that your conclusions are drawn on incomplete knowledge, suggesting the possibility of contradicting evidence for any statement you made )or may make) without supporting references, thereby invalidating your current argument and potentially future ones. It doesn't matter that it wasn't a cornerstone, since you demonstrated an over-confident belief that you knew more than me. Given your previous choice to leave things to the reader, it's not a particularly powerful debating strategy, since the incompleteness in your knowledge allows the reader to draw conclusions based on information you were unaware of.


Or perhaps it was irrelevant because it requires that you really really want your point to be true to read it the way you do?

Kreistor wrote:
Additionally, the phrase "it is possible to cast" would suggest either a spells/day mechanic,

Only if you completely ignore the context. Here, let's put that back...

"Here's what [Sizemore] said. Magic uses the three elements of Life, Motion, and Matter. The major classes of magic are defined by combinations of these three things: [Table of Elements and Classes]. That gives eight major magic classes. But magic is also "aligned" on three axes: Erf, Fate, and Number magic. So each major class is divided into three disciplines, based on what axis it is aligned to. [Table of Axis and Disciplines]. In each discipline there are a certain number of spells it is possible to cast." http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_38a

I'm thinking that you can prove anything if you ignore context, but that doesn't make it true. Does that apply here? Let's see... he mentions Casters specifically... zero times in that part of the Klog. That section is about Magic and how it is structured, not how Casters use magic. The Klog is merely breaking down magic in a top-down structure. First number and structure of classes in magic, then disciplines in classes, then spells in disciplines. Pretty much a natural progression. Kind of odd if a comment about "spells/day", unsupported by the later use of the term "Juice", were to pop in right at that particular juncture. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this claim of "spells/day" could only be made if you completely ignore the context surrounding the sentence.


It's going over the basic rules of magic. One of the basic rules is what variety of spells casters of various schools can have.

Kreistor wrote:BTW, we know that Casters have "Juice" to power spells. There is also a certain amount of conversation that strongly implies flexibility in casting, which suggests "Juice" is not spells/day, but a depleted quantity like one would find in Final Fantasy or Elder Scrolls. Particularly, Maggie drains Juice at a rate while Parson communicates with Charlie (Mork homage conversation), where a spells/day mechanic would leave her with a known remains spells/day at the end of the conversation, instead of having to reveal very little left when Parson expected to be able to talk to many.


Mana is sufficiently similar to the spells/day mechanic that I didn't think it necessary to include it. I thought about it, and then decided that only those trying to disprove points on technicalities and not merits would bother with it.

Kreistor wrote:
Your dismissal is predicated on this being a cornerstone and not being contested. Both are mistaken. Would you like to retract it, and come up with a genuine response?


No, I was giving you a chance to do something about "Your premises are either flawed, unsupported, or directly contradicted." Or did you not notice that's where I stopped replying? One could note that making claims based on insufficient information can result in those claims being entirely contradicted by evidence you're unaware of, and taking evidence out of context makes the conclusions inherently flawed, since it crumbles in the face of the context. Now, if I could prove that you were guilty of those, well, I'd have turned 2/3rds of your statement characterizing me around and made you insult yourself, and in the course of only two messages. That would qualify as "ironic", wouldn't it? "Embarrassing", maybe? And, given that I gave the chance to rescind it... well, there would be a certain amount of lack of sympathy for you, too. Well, I'm not qualified to judge my success, of course. I'll leave that to the readers.


How do clouds smell? I've never managed to get my nose quite that high in the air. Your response has been full of arrogance, nit-picking and ad hominem, and you took 3x as many words to do it as you needed too. It's almost like you simply try to bury any opposing argument with a character count and pre-emptively call it a win. That doesn't work. It hasn't worked in the other 3 threads you went Image in.

Also? You can't succeed at manipulating people like that if you annouce that's what you're doing.
User avatar
Darkside007
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Everything Else Erfworld

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest