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.