Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby GaryThunder » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:33 pm

Perhaps they could make the best of it? Suppose she predicts that "a massive enemy force will attack and conquer the MK." The casters could all evacuate and go elsewhere, hence 1) allowing said conquest to occur while 2) preserving themselves (sort of).

I doubt her Predictions are super-detailed; they're probably more general statements. And those can be interpreted rather liberally - see the "Erfworld Matrix" game for examples.


Evacuating the MK might save their bacon temporarily, but A) that means GK gets any resources/items they couldn't manage to take with them or accidentally left behind, and B) they're now scattered throughout the world (or concentrated in one place, it's still a downgrade) and can now be conventionally assaulted much more easily. It would be a delaying action at best, unless they rallied a huge coalition of sides to protect them. Ideally this would happen after GK had already absorbed enough sides that they did not fear even a total alliance of the remaining sides, but Parson is never that lucky. He could probably think of a way to beat them, even then, especially if Decryption is still an option and indeed works properly on casters.

Prophecies in general tend not to be detailed, but "this area is about to be destroyed" is a legitimate Prediction - it's exactly the same as the one Maria made to Banhammer. That wouldn't even give them the luxury of knowing when, where, or even who would attack them. (Though the "who" would probably be obvious at that point.)

First about the "perfect warlord" spell. Its a name there is not one perfect warlord, otherwise they Wanda wouldn't have looked for a someone she simply would have found him. And don't forget those requirements of things like air and speaks Language; the best possible warlord in situation differs. A side with no pressing threat that solely relies on fliers might prefer warlord is great at maximizing production over one that is a master at tunnel battles, but in BfGK GK would have prefered a tunnel master.


It honestly depends on whether the "Perfect" part is objective or subjective. If it's objective, meaning the perfectest warlord evar without reference to any of the specific information in the casting, then Parson really is perfect and just happens to have fit those conditions anyway, he only did so to the letter for most of them (he does not eat "gwiffons" or "marbits" in the sense that Stanley meant) as it is. This means he cannot be trumped.

If it's subjective, meaning its definition is fluid and depends on the specific requirements Stanley imposed when it was cast (the perfect warlord for the situation GK was in), then a side being assaulted by Parson might cast SPW and receive a warlord who's perfect at beating Parson. Eep.
GaryThunder
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:10 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Althernai » Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:03 am

Lamech wrote:First about the "perfect warlord" spell. Its a name there is not one perfect warlord, otherwise they Wanda wouldn't have looked for a someone she simply would have found him.

It's not obvious from the text. The best description comes from this page:

Stanley: Still. One warlord. That's all we'd get.
Wanda: The perfect warlord.
Stanley: Undefeatable?
Wanda: I... don't think so. But, as good as they come.


So it could go either way. Maybe there was a variety of candidate warlords and given a different caster and different overlord giving instructions, somebody else would have been summoned. On the other hand, both "perfect" and "as good as they come" imply that there isn't anyone better so it's also possible that no matter what characteristics are demanded, the spell would always summon Parson and Stanley just happened to get most of what he wanted (note that he did not get "powerful, dashing, handsome, heroic").
Althernai
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:08 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Sylvan » Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:40 am

My personal tinfoil..... some of it is textually based, and I shall try to distinguish between what I believe is (suggested by) canon and what is my own wild speculation. Here goes....

Regarding a "self-sufficient side". Yes, it does seem that by default a side has to go to war to maintain its units. But why is this? I think that cities are always popping units, and even if a unit takes longer to pop it will still cost more upkeep than a unit that you can pop multiple groups of in a shorter amount of time. So, regardless of whether you spend the next 30 turns popping a "royal" or "common" warlord or 3-5 sets of stabbers/slashers, you gradually need more and more rations/money to keep your troops from disbanding. If you are always disbanding troops, maybe your sides loyalty gradually decreases. After all, who knows who will be next in this great downsizing? So, either you farm, harvest, manage your cities, use a moneymancer, conquer and raze other cities..... it has been stated that a large portion of a sides strategy is based upon what casters they have. I personally think this is because a large part of Erfworld "strategy" is a overlord thinking about what units they have, and what their cities will pop, how it will affect their upkeep, and what they need to do to have their units earn their upkeep.

Charlie had a sweet deal going, being an isolated "bubble kingdom", one or many things which has been considered "impossible" as far as everyone in Erfworld knows.... But certain types of units also seem to be born with different types of knowledges. For example, it takes a special type of units, I believe a warlord/overlord or a unit capable of leading a stack (like certain archons and all casters) to even be able to see another units stats. Also, Wrigley told us that unled units felt a certain kinship, so their loyalty may well be affected by wanton disbanding of those who have sat there and led pointless lives, draining their sides treasury for turn after turn. And Vurp has told us that not all natural allies trust their commanders. They, or at least Vurp, think it is usually best to remain loyal because that is their best chance for strength. Barbarian Jill had a barely larger than 1700 shmucker purse, so how much can a feral hobgobwin chieftan support? And how likely would he be to find a new tribe to support them? Would they be more likely to die as a neutral random encounter to some established sides scouting groups if they broke alliance and had nowhere to go? These are all useless speculations on my part, but maybe useful ones to consider.

So, basically no one has figured out how to survive without being at the mercy of the game mechanics yet and everyone is scared shitless of disbanding, pardon my french. I could go into more detail if necessary, but basically units without leadership fear being "downsized" or "harvested", having their city razed for upkeep, etc. if their king sucks. Nobles, casters, warlords, heirs etc. can double-deal, and a king must constantly fight a seemingly endless battle against ever increasing upkeep costs and city management.

My basic premise behind this city management is that the more cities you get, the fewer shmuckers each one produces, what Parson meant by the "diminishing shmuckers" point. Each additional city keeps producing troops at the same rate, which means that maybe you could overwhelm smaller sides my sheer production, but you get less and less shmuckers and maybe forage out the areas you can reach/effectively scout and have one Chief Warlord command effectively. This turns into a problem when you are facing 10-15 smaller sides at once (one reason Parsons gamer friends could challenge him... say Parson loses all four Arkentools in a colossal battle and each of his friends spins to a new side with one of the tools? Then they have the resources of four sides and four tools versus Parson, limited by the fairly simple, hard to exploit, turn based mechanics of Erfworld, where he has already showed the denizens many of his fancier moves? Seems like a scary situation for Parson to be in....)

Regarding high magic and caster links, we'll get back to self-sufficient sides in a second (I think there are two, Charlie and the MK)..... Erfworld doesn't seem like a very "scientifically minded" place to me. What I mean by this is that, outside of the magic kingdom, it doesn't seem like that many people take time to debate theory.... And even inside the MK Sizemore is considered unusual for wanting to know about many different disciplines, even though he is terrible at casting outside of his discipline (without a scroll). Even royals might mostly just study famous battles.... who says someone who isn't a Mathamancer of some sort can even have a sound grasp of probability? We know that there are at least three hidden stats, but I believe that klog from the first book indicated there are many more. Maybe one that lets Jillain survive so many mount-dives and dangerous deeds? Maybe one that influences a units perception of fate, or luck (natural predictamancy, natural luckamancy, stealth as natural foolamancy for scouting specials, natural mathamancy for smarter warlords, or hippiemancer for diplomatic ones?). Parson mentioned that a lot of the history books had things like "high scores" instead of deeds, or specials, or tactics. Maybe different regions produce units with different specials, or different sides do, everywhere has its own concentrations of natural "whatevermancy".

If I am correct in assuming that hidden stats are more common in Erfworld that, say "Hits, Attack, Defense, Move" and a special or two, and a lot of it is influenced by "magic", which Parson describes as sounding like a lot of the fake crap that people believed before anyone really understood that you have to poke into things vigorously and thoroughly to arrive at a any semblance of accuracy, it makes sense that a LOT of Erfworlders are very, very ignorant. They know their own specialty, and nothing else, and think of almost nothing else. Parson is not "THE PERFECT WARLORD", merely a tactical genius who can synergize a lot of different strategic elements to come up with a victory. Wanda referred to the spell as one that would summon a Perfect Warlord, both to Stanly (who she needed for the money )and to Sizemore (who isn't in on things). But, when she first mentioned it to Stanly all she said they needed was a tactical genius. To reiterate.... YES, Wanda did tell Stanly it would summon a PERFECT Warlord. But all WANDA really WANTED was A TACTICAL GENIUS WHO COULD THINK HER OUT OF THE HOPELESSLY SCREWED UP SITUATION STANLY HAD THEIR SIDE IN. (All she was looking for was a MIND).

So, I think two sides have some semblance of self-sufficiency. Charlie, who runs his Telecommunication business. He gets more money by a) spreading his archons out so he can spy on people in order to b) intervene when they are at their lowest point so he can c)make it seem like it is a good idea for them to pay him money so he can d) expand his fleet or archons to spy on even more sides which will allow him to e) play everyone against each other (creating problems for our clients creates business) in order to make them smaller which might f) create more and more small sides for Charlescomm to deal with as he encourages countries to kill each other off secretly which would eventually mean that g) Charlie could, at some point, have enough Acrhons spread out throughout the world and veiled to simultaneously or over the course of a few turns take over every last side in Erfworld, after he had played them against each other and whittled them down. Arkentools seem to be freakin awesome.

As for the MK, we have no idea what Tri-mancer links can do.... and just because one Erfworlder in one place used a Tri-mancer link it does not mean that any other Erfworlder will ever figure it out. Recall that Erfworld if not a scientifically inclined place. Why would opposing sides tell each other about what they could do with a tri-mancer link, in the rare occasion that a side has a thinkamancer, and two other casters that they want to put into a link, and a ruler who has given much thought to casting and what he could do with a tri-mancer link, or a warlord who has done the same. Extremely tinfoil hat theory ahead here, but this is as good as any other explanation for The MK, in my view..... The MK is an island, right? So, lets say that at the beginning of time this was a capital city that didn't have anywhere to war against or anywhere to expand to, and it is slowly becoming more and more crowded and having to disband its units. So, it comes up with the solution to try magic to fix its problems! One way or another it has to experiment around, disband some units, work its farms, or a dittomancer, or whatever, but the end result is they create a tri-mancer link that links this kingdom to every other kingdom that will be created, that accept alliance with the Magic Kingdom, but the only units that can enter the portal are casters. Maybe natural casters are included (and if you haven't read the "Parson as a natural Signamancer" section of the Erfwiki I highly recommend it (it is a type of hippimancer concerned with [maaaybe] seeing things as they really are)) but it just isn't tried because who knows if you have a natural 'mancy and you might disband!.

So, everyone allies with TMK because every caster can go there, for free, all the time, and trade for valuable scrolls, links, and services. There are debates..... but the primary purpose for the existence of TMK is commerce. Those casters are expensive! Again recall that even for Jillain's purse of almost 1700 it would have been ludicrous to afford a caster (and interestingly Parson's upkeep is over a thousand.... at level two). TMK "rents out" Casters, almost link Charlie and his archons, except that a caster can choose to permanently join a side, if that sides overlord is willing to pay their upkeep. Moneymancers take payments from whoever bought TMK's services, then they do their mojo and send it to the treasury, where it will pay for the upkeep of all the casters. Meanwhile, they convert it so a static currency based on how many Shmuckers were added to TMK's treasury. This allows all of the casters to trade with each other, and gives them incentive to do something with all that "juice" they get every day. Which leads me to believe they'll have tried many different ways to "store" or "channel" it, if the moneymancers want them all to pay their upkeep efficiently and business is slow for a few turns.

FInally..... I think we are going to see more "nukes" in this story, and you shouldn't be angry at them, like the spell that shall not be mentioned. Here's the thing.... we have no idea how most magic works, or hiw tri-mancer links work. We've been told 4 mancer links don't work, but that doesn't mean 5 mancer links don't work..... x-mancer - thinkamancer - x-mancer - thinkamancer - xmancer, for example. Furthermore, while we don't necessarily know that Charlie has an unmatched command of Thinkamancy (only that he has one Maggie cannot hope to match....as an Adept), I think it is fair to assume he does, due to the friggin artifact. Seeing as he frequently highers casters for his own purposes, and seemingly intuitively guessed how Parson pulled off the volcano trick, I think Charlie has tried to play around with every form of casting in the book. I think he has tri-mancer spells prepared for contingencies out the wazoo. I think he knows most of what there is to know about linking up some casters and using them to pull off some crazy shit. How much will we see of this? That has yet to be seen.

Also, ohmygodwhatamonster of a first post. Late at night, while slightly drunk.

Also also, Oberon, while you occasionally have an interesting point, I think you are largely a dick, and you fail logic forever. Feel free to not discuss.

(Sorry, but caps because I felt that portion might be nitpicked. Still probably will be)
User avatar
Sylvan
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Smoker » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:17 am

No, no. It hit him in the brain because it killed him. - Dante
User avatar
Smoker
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Sieggy » Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:54 am

I'm wondering if the Plot got kind of derailed when Stanley got cheap and had Wanda cast the SPW spell. Had the spell creators done the casting & support, they probably wouldn't have gotten Parson; after all, it was Stanley's last minute babbling that created the unique set of demands that brought him (eating peeps, discussing the quantum properties of marbits, being REALLY big, and having created a gaming scenario almost identical to GK . . .). Parson was as much a surprise to them as they were to Parson. They were expecting Patton and got Ender . . .

The question is then begged, did the Cabal have a specific warlord in mind when they created the spell, and with their casting of it gotten a pre-determined individual? And if so, perhaps the PW they had in mind is still out there waiting to be summoned. (Book 5)
The Truth Will Set You Free. But First It Will Piss You Off.
User avatar
Sieggy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:35 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Ditto » Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:14 am

Again, Predictamancy does not appear to be able to change events. Once something is Predicted, that's it, it's going to happen. If Marie Predicts an attacking force hitting and conquering the Magic Kingdom...it seems like there ain't boop any of them can do about it. I question its usefulness, actually, given this.

As has been stated, it's unclear how predictamancy works. Knowing how Jack was able to veil the Faq cities so well would answer that. Was it 'A Gobwin Knob unit will be in hex 17 tomorrow.'? Or was it 'The city of Otoh will be visited by a GK unit'? Or 'Otoh will be discovered by a GK unit'?
SteveMB wrote:The question is getting Wanda to honor the offer. They could keep going back and forth: offer, honor, offer, honor....
Sorry*.
*no I'm not
Ditto
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby effataigus » Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:17 am

EDIT: this is a rephrasing of what Ditto wrote 3 minutes ago, doh!

GaryThunder wrote:Again, Predictamancy does not appear to be able to change events. Once something is Predicted, that's it, it's going to happen. If Marie Predicts an attacking force hitting and conquering the Magic Kingdom...it seems like there ain't boop any of them can do about it. I question its usefulness, actually, given this.

I'm not too sure about this first part. Jillian's spiel about how Faq kept hidden implied that the predictamancer was able to inform Jack where to go to veil the cities. This suggests one of three possibilities to me:

1. The predictions can be altered.
2. Anything not specifically predicted can still be altered (predictamancer didn't say that the city would be spotted, just that units from Transylvito will do a fly-over... so veil the city).
3. The future is inherently better for sides with a friendly predictamancer ("I predict that I will tell Jack to veil this city on this turn, he will, and we'll declare it a huge success).

Regardless of the interpretation, I'd pay her upkeep!
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby wrecan » Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:45 pm

It may be that Fate is open until a Predictamancer asks the question, and then the Fate is sealed. So the Predictamancer must be careful what prediction she seeks. She needs to ask "What is the next FAQ city that could be spotted by outsiders if a Foolamancer doesn't veil it." She should not ask "When will FAQ be spotted" because then, Fate will intervene to make sure Jack doesn't veil the city.

because she can only ask the question and not predetermine the answer, it is a risky, but very valuable form of magic.
wrecan
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:41 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby multilis » Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:03 pm

Althernai wrote:
Lamech wrote:First about the "perfect warlord" spell. Its a name there is not one perfect warlord, otherwise they Wanda wouldn't have looked for a someone she simply would have found him.

It's not obvious from the text. The best description comes from this page:

Stanley: Still. One warlord. That's all we'd get.
Wanda: The perfect warlord.
Stanley: Undefeatable?
Wanda: I... don't think so. But, as good as they come.


So it could go either way. Maybe there was a variety of candidate warlords and given a different caster and different overlord giving instructions, somebody else would have been summoned. On the other hand, both "perfect" and "as good as they come" imply that there isn't anyone better so it's also possible that no matter what characteristics are demanded, the spell would always summon Parson and Stanley just happened to get most of what he wanted (note that he did not get "powerful, dashing, handsome, heroic").


The summoning spell "goofed" when it got Parson, according to the stupid meal so it needed to give him 3 artifacts to complete the spell.

Possible same is true of any other choice as perfect warlord, that artifacts might be created to improve whatever the guy lacks, and perfect is a measure of having each stat including unseen ones for intelligence, etc start at the highest level possible rather than a random roll.
...

In practical game meaning, parson does *not* seem to be perfect. He has to learn the game system which takes time, he destroyed the sword of ruthlessness which was needed to "complete" spell, make him perfect.

It is possible that Parson is really the Perfect warlord for the different needs of a predictomancer and/or a hippymancer and/or a crazy philosopher king and/or titans/erfworld, that someone or something is getting exactly what they wanted.

Wanda did not know how the prophesy was to be fullfilled, so she could end up being like Macbeth where in the end she may not be so happy with results of fate.

Same could
multilis
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby zilfallon » Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:22 pm

Sylvan wrote:Also also, Oberon, while you occasionally have an interesting point, I think you are largely a dick, and you fail logic forever. Feel free to not discuss.


So...you think it is logical to label someone as a "dick" just because he thought different from you? Yeah well, if that is your understanding of "logic", you'll meet other people who fail at that "logic" forever, indeed.

Sylvan wrote:We've been told 4 mancer links don't work, but that doesn't mean 5 mancer links don't work.....


2 carries some risk. 3 is damn dangerous. 4 is impossible. Does it mean anything to you? No it seems since you're saying "they didn't mention 5mancer links. sure, they told that 4 is impossible but why should we assume that the difficulty increases along with the number of casters?" Well, it seems unlikely.

Sieggy wrote:I'm wondering if the Plot got kind of derailed when Stanley got cheap and had Wanda cast the SPW spell. Had the spell creators done the casting & support, they probably wouldn't have gotten Parson; after all, it was Stanley's last minute babbling that created the unique set of demands that brought him (eating peeps, discussing the quantum properties of marbits, being REALLY big, and having created a gaming scenario almost identical to GK . . .). Parson was as much a surprise to them as they were to Parson. They were expecting Patton and got Ender . . .

The question is then begged, did the Cabal have a specific warlord in mind when they created the spell, and with their casting of it gotten a pre-determined individual? And if so, perhaps the PW they had in mind is still out there waiting to be summoned. (Book 5)


Interesting, but they intended to summon a warlord from a different universe. (precisely: they wanted to include the entire universe to their search) so it's unlikely they had someone else in mind. Also, judging from Janis' belief about Parson destroying war, they believe he is the perfect warlord. I mean, sure Wanda casted the spell, but Parson had done the impossible and saved GK, so maybe that's enough for them to assume that Wanda managed to cast the spell succesfuly.
rkyeun wrote:Roses are red.
Violets are blue.

Image
User avatar
zilfallon
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:47 am
Location: Magic Kingdom

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Sieggy » Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:33 pm

wrecan wrote:It may be that Fate is open until a Predictamancer asks the question, and then the Fate is sealed. So the Predictamancer must be careful what prediction she seeks. She needs to ask "What is the next FAQ city that could be spotted by outsiders if a Foolamancer doesn't veil it." She should not ask "When will FAQ be spotted" because then, Fate will intervene to make sure Jack doesn't veil the city.

because she can only ask the question and not predetermine the answer, it is a risky, but very valuable form of magic.

So . . . a Predictamancer simply peeks inside the box for a peek at Schrodingers Cat, and collapses the wavefunctions into a now-determinate future? Could be, but then you get the Cassandra Principle kicking in . . . and that's just no fun at all.
The Truth Will Set You Free. But First It Will Piss You Off.
User avatar
Sieggy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:35 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Lamech » Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:16 pm

Althernai wrote:So it could go either way. Maybe there was a variety of candidate warlords and given a different caster and different overlord giving instructions, somebody else would have been summoned. On the other hand, both "perfect" and "as good as they come" imply that there isn't anyone better so it's also possible that no matter what characteristics are demanded, the spell would always summon Parson and Stanley just happened to get most of what he wanted (note that he did not get "powerful, dashing, handsome, heroic").
Stanley jettisoned all the requirements except for big and genius. They had talked about what they were looking for ahead of time. It certainly seems to me like you can choose who you get, or at least that Wanda believed that she could influence what she got. See: http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F017.jpg
Lamech
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby wrecan » Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:53 pm

Sieggy wrote:So . . . a Predictamancer simply peeks inside the box for a peek at Schrodingers Cat, and collapses the wavefunctions into a now-determinate future?

Sure.

Could be, but then you get the Cassandra Principle kicking in . . . and that's just no fun at all.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by the "Cassandra Principle". My understanding is the Cassandra Principle is that if you know the future nobody will believe you. Why wouldn't Erfers believe predictamancers? All they do is accurately foretell the future.
wrecan
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:41 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby nth » Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:56 pm

Althernai wrote:...Stanley just happened to get most of what he wanted (note that he did not get "powerful, dashing, handsome, heroic").


And yet, Parson does seem to be growing into all of those traits as well, thanks to natural signamancy.
nth
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:43 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Althernai » Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:04 pm

Lamech wrote:Stanley jettisoned all the requirements except for big and genius. They had talked about what they were looking for ahead of time. It certainly seems to me like you can choose who you get, or at least that Wanda believed that she could influence what she got. See: http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F017.jpg

That part is fuzzy: he did drop the requirements, but he still got almost everything he asked for including the really obscure stuff like eating Marbits for breakfast. I think it's pretty clear that between Stanley's interference and Wanda not being a Findamancer, the spell didn't get cast properly, but it may still have gotten the right target.
Althernai
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:08 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Sylvan » Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:08 pm

I mentioned it in my big wall o'text, but I think it bears some repeating..... I do not believe Parson is THE Perfect Warlord. I believe Wanda was merely searching for a tactical genius. Wanda does DESCRIBE the spell as one that will summon the perfect Warlord, but only on pages 5 and 6 of the first book, when she is trying to convince Stanly to spend 500k (or at least 350k) shmuckers on a single scroll when Jillian's Barbarian purse was barely over 1700 and Parson's upkeep of over one-thousand was considered very high (especially since high level archons [knight class units who can have 4-5 specials, more so than any other unit we've expressly seen to far] might only reach 500-700 ish). She tells Stanly that all she was searching for was a MIND, one that would get them out of their numeric hopelessness. This is 100% pure theory, but I think the spell just summons whatever kind of tactical "mind" you need to win a "hopeless" scenario. It could summon an awesome diplomat, or battle commander, or whatever type of mind you needed.......but it got Parson. (ALso, it could probably summon things like a Warlord with an abnormally huge bonus, or a specific set of specials, whatever. Whatever it means to be "the perfect warlord" for whatever situation or plan. Like I said, they got Parson, but I think Wanda was just looking for a MIND, but ALSO that she could have been looking for MORE.)

zilfallon wrote:
Sylvan wrote:We've been told 4 mancer links don't work, but that doesn't mean 5 mancer links don't work.....


2 carries some risk. 3 is damn dangerous. 4 is impossible. Does it mean anything to you? No it seems since you're saying "they didn't mention 5mancer links. sure, they told that 4 is impossible but why should we assume that the difficulty increases along with the number of casters?" Well, it seems unlikely.



There was something implied in my example where 2 thinkamancers were acting in tandem as a go-between for 3 random casters. I'm sorry that I didn't word it accurately enough the first time around for you to actually see what I was saying, but here is a second attempt. Perhaps four caster links are only considered impossible (as Multi-hex dirtamancy traps and turn-ending spells are considered impossible) because of the way in which four caster links have been tried. It is established canon that a Thinkamancer acting as a go-between for only one other caster is relatively simple and involved little risk, especially if they have some rapport (the summer updates where Maggie/Sizemore redesigned GK), but a two casters linking with one Thinkamancer is much more dangerous (it may croak or drive insane one or more of the casters involved in the linkup, and 5 masterminds were called upon (notice not required) to break up the link with a good chance of safety).

So, I was not saying "5 Caster linkups may be less dangerous when we haven't been told anything in the story about them, as opposed to linkups with fewer casters because we already know those tend to be more dangerous as you add people!". I was saying "5 caster linkups may be less dangerous if there are multiple thinkamancers regulating the functions of the other casters and working in tandem. Maybe what is so dangerous about a 4-mancer linkup is ONE SINGLE THINKAMANCER regulating three other casters".



zilfallon wrote:
Sylvan wrote:Also also, Oberon, while you occasionally have an interesting point, I think you are largely a dick, and you fail logic forever. Feel free to not discuss.


So...you think it is logical to label someone as a "dick" just because he thought different from you? Yeah well, if that is your understanding of "logic", you'll meet other people who fail at that "logic" forever, indeed.


As for this bit, was I talking to you? Did I say I thought he was a dick because I disagreed with him about some points? Do I think he fails logic because I disagree with him?

The answer for all of these questions is no. I don't feel like blocking Oberon because occasionally he makes a good point, but I also have my reasons for thinking he is a dick and a troll. I'd rather he not sit there and claim the chewbacca defense if I want to avoid pointless arguments with him, but feel free to make up your own mind about my motives. If you *really* want me to I'll link the posts I am referring to, but once again, I was not talking TO, or ABOUT you. So..... why are you making a deal out of it?
User avatar
Sylvan
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Oberon » Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:03 pm

zilfallon wrote:
Oberon wrote:My own tin foil theory (expressed way back) is that a four caster link, thought to be impossible, will be combined with the fact that there are four Arkentools. We already have two 'tools owned by a single Side. And that Side has as its imperative the gathering of all 'tools, and it looks as though that imperative will be followed through. Once the fourth 'tool is found, some epic link of all four Arckentools will be formed, and the end of the story will be related.
That's possible and I like that theory, since one of the tools is thinkamancy related (thinkamancy required to link)
casters are not usually leaders

well, this sentence totally killed your theory :(
No part of my theory requires that any of the casters be leaders. The more easily raised ojection is that leaders are not casters, and Stanley might not be able to link for want of being a non-caster. We already know that Charlie can link, no matter if he is a caster or is just given the capability to form links as a thinkamancer by the 'Dish.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Althernai » Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:46 pm

nth wrote:And yet, Parson does seem to be growing into all of those traits as well, thanks to natural signamancy.

Yes, to some extent -- but he was practically the opposite of those when he was summoned (extremely overweight, level 1 and without any combat training).
Althernai
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:08 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby fjolnir » Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:19 pm

Re: "Casters are Not Usually Leaders"

Casters are not usually leaders in a fight, however they are usually making policy with the leaders of various sides, or at least predicta- and thinka- mancers are very close to the Overlords of their sides.

I use the term overlord because it applies to royals and nonroyals equally
User avatar
fjolnir
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:40 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 037

Postby Lamech » Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:51 pm

Sylvan wrote: I was saying "5 caster linkups may be less dangerous if there are multiple thinkamancers regulating the functions of the other casters and working in tandem. Maybe what is so dangerous about a 4-mancer linkup is ONE SINGLE THINKAMANCER regulating three other casters".
Links cast otherwise uncastable spells. Linking with three other casters is uncastable, according to Sizemore. A solution perhaps?
Lamech
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Knight13 and 5 guests