Book 2 – Text Updates 037

[Smoker]

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?

Nothing is impossible, but I'd be very surprised if this was the case. I mean, since Linking is so powerful and seems to be a function of ONLY the thinkamancers, you'd think they would have experimented with it the most. So link-ups of solely thinkamancers (in all sorts of numbers) should have been attempted.

I know we accept the Erfworlders as people who generally do not test the limits of their universe, but the MK is an environment where they spend turns and turns dicussing the theory of magic. They must have tried.

But again, nothing is impossible.

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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you said that in your first post, clearly the target of your comment could not possibly have said anything TO or ABOUT you... so by your own standards you're free game, sweetheart.

Also I'm glad to see Oberon didn't find you worthy of a reply.

[Sieggy]

Hmmmm . . . but then, consider the possibility of a pair of tri-caster links and a central coordinator. Someone with serious mojo . . . like an Arkendish . . . After all, Charlie is no dummy, and seems to be capable of some lateral thinking of his own.

[Dr Pepper]

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.

Yeah, but Stanley still came with a wave of dwagons when they were expecting particles.

[Dr Pepper]

Possibilities

1. All casters are able to link with only one other caster-- except Thinkamancers, wh can link with two. Hence the arrangement of a trimancer link is not a triangle, but a line segment, with the Thinkamancer in the center, passing thoughts through, but not actually letting the minds of the other two touch. C-M-C That suggests that the only viable 4mancer link is C-M-M-C, where each Thinkamancer has only two links and each of the others has only one. This could be extended indefinately C-(M)*-C, but it wouldn't do anything.

2. All casters can do multiple links, but it takes a Thinkamancer to initiate them. And a Thinkamancer can only juggle three at a time. In that case, it might be possible to build hydrocarbons, links whose backbones are just lines of Thinkamancers, with other casters branching off at intervals. These could even be formed into rings.

3. Three is the limit for actual casters, but a single caster using a scroll imbued with the power generated by a 3link effectively creates a 4 link.

[Sylvan]

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?

Nothing is impossible, but I'd be very surprised if this was the case. I mean, since Linking is so powerful and seems to be a function of ONLY the thinkamancers, you'd think they would have experimented with it the most. So link-ups of solely thinkamancers (in all sorts of numbers) should have been attempted.

I know we accept the Erfworlders as people who generally do not test the limits of their universe, but the MK is an environment where they spend turns and turns dicussing the theory of magic. They must have tried.

But again, nothing is impossible.

Very interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with you, since Thinkamancers are incredibly useful, scary casters, (possibly able to affect the loyalty, duty, love etc. of your units, since those are natural thinkamancy, or able to create scrolls which do that) and since Thinkamancers may be required to given Warlords real-time instructions (3rd bullet point[though yes, Archons can probably do it too, or perhaps any unit who can send a Thinkagram, which is why Charlie needs no Warlords], also recall that Charlie PROBABLY gets most of his revenue through Thinkagrams which limit the juice of a Thinkamancer). (The Thinkagrams, which are incredibly useful, limit the juice of Thinkamancers in general, that is)

Of course, none of this means they never play around with link-ups, but apparently Sizemore is one of the few people in Erfworld who studies magic outside of his specialty, so I'm not sure how much playing around they do with the rules. I mentioned in my first post that TMK probably still sells their services to most outside units for scrolls, communications, temporary loan of casters, etc to meet their upkeep (so even the Thinkamancers gotta use up that juice every turn on something, and the debates which happen there seem to be a luxury not found in most of the rest of Erfworld.

So, while you have an excellent point, and if they were to have tried a 3x whatevermancer/ 2x Thinkamancer linkup it would have been in TMK (so Sizemore would have probably heard of it at some point), I do disagree that they must have tried it because I think they could have found some other useful or scary way to spend their juice on any other given turn than playing around with linkups. And it won't surprise me in the slightest if Parson shows many Erfworlds that the way they think magic works if slightly off.

(Finally, and this is truly an ass-pull, since linking is basically a spell that one thinkamancer casts in order to meld their mind into an "alloy" with another caster maybe they have only tried to create "ever more powerful" alloys with more powerful thinkamancers, when you have to do something more along the lines of....... have 2x whatevermancers form 2 separate links with 2 separate thinkamancers, then have a mastermind or dual-thinkamancer linkup [yes, SIX casters >.<] try to cast the "mind-alloy" spell on the separately linked groups. Once again, none of this is textually based, I think I only originally brought up the five-caster link idea because of how often we've seen Erfworlders have a limited view of their reality based opon the preconceptions they were popped with. It makes sense to me that they haven't tried everything out yet.)

Also

Hmmmm . . . but then, consider the possibility of a pair of tri-caster links and a central coordinator. Someone with serious mojo . . . like an Arkendish . . . After all, Charlie is no dummy, and seems to be capable of some lateral thinking of his own.

That sounds a lot like a 3x thinkamancer / 4x whatevermancer linkup, and in fact I had originally thought of two linkups being coordinated by an outside group, but ditched it in favor of a 2x Thinkamancer / 3x Whatevermancer idea. But the addition of the Arkendish into any linkup is bound to cause interesting things to happen. And I do believe you are absoluty right in thinking that if anyone is bound to have tried it out, it is Charlie. As I mentioned in my first post, while everyone else was baffled by the volcano Charlie intuitively guessed how Parson did it. I expect him to know every which way to execute a caster linkup, and I think we'll see more "gamebreaking" spells coming from Charlscomm or its allies.

Possibilities
1. All casters are able to link with only one other caster-- except Thinkamancers, wh can link with two. Hence the arrangement of a trimancer link is not a triangle, but a line segment, with the Thinkamancer in the center, passing thoughts through, but not actually letting the minds of the other two touch. C-M-C That suggests that the only viable 4mancer link is C-M-M-C, where each Thinkamancer has only two links and each of the others has only one. This could be extended indefinately C-(M)*-C, but it wouldn't do anything.

Unfortunately not true (according to Sizemore). See my above link at "linking is basically a spell that one...." in this post. Linking is a trick that ONLY Thinkamancers can do.

[zilfallon]

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.

Sorry for the fail quote. I wasn't referring to your theory when I quoted someone who said "casters are not usually leaders". I was quoting someone who speculated lots of things, assuming casters can't lead stacks.

[ryanroyce]

Is it just me, or does all this talk of a "hippiemancer warlord" put anyone else in mind of someone in particular? Foreshadowing, perhaps?

i hope this attachment works the way i expect it to...

Tramennis-HippieWarlord.jpg (89.01 KiB) Viewed 2098 times

[wrecan]

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.

Yeah, but Stanley still came with a wave of dwagons when they were expecting particles.

Thus, the "risky" part of my statement that predictamancy "is a risky, but very valuable form of magic."

[effataigus]

Dr. Pepper. Regarding:

This could be extended indefinately C-(M)*-C, but it wouldn't do anything.

We've seen that C-M is > C for the purposes of rebuilding a city. Perhaps C-M-M-M-M-C would be > C-M-C for whatever spell they're casting?

Also, another tantalizing possible limitation is that thinkamancers can bridge two minds. This would indicate a limitation on larger links, but one that could be circumvented by linking up (linearly, as you describe) as C-(M-C)^n

I would definitely believe that this particular linkup scheme hasn't been tried... if only for lack of an application worth the risk of trying it. That said, I hope this doesn't solve any great future problems for the story since the 3 biggest plot developments so far (SPW, Zombcano, and Kingworld) have all been linked-caster mischief.

3. Three is the limit for actual casters, but a single caster using a scroll imbued with the power generated by a 3link effectively creates a 4 link.

Yeah... rereading old updates seems to suggest that the spell was forged by a lookamancer-thinkamancer-predictamancer, but was intended to be cast by a findamancer (as per her conversation with Stanley). Wanda's later conversation with Jillian probably just refers to the fact that she stood in for the findamancer. Maybe nobody else was confused by the mention of 4 disciplines, but I was!

[nth]

Yeah... rereading old updates seems to suggest that the spell was forged by a lookamancer-thinkamancer-predictamancer, but was intended to be cast by a findamancer (as per her conversation with Stanley). Wanda's later conversation with Jillian probably just refers to the fact that she stood in for the findamancer. Maybe nobody else was confused by the mention of 4 disciplines, but I was!

I didn't think much of it at the time, but looka-thinka-predicta-finda has a much different flavor than looka-thinka-predicta-croaka with a strong allegiance to fate.

It reminds me of speculations that Parson is going to turn out to be the bad guy, after all...

[Sylvan]

Dr. Pepper. Regarding:

3. Three is the limit for actual casters, but a single caster using a scroll imbued with the power generated by a 3link effectively creates a 4 link.

Yeah... rereading old updates seems to suggest that the spell was forged by a lookamancer-thinkamancer-predictamancer, but was intended to be cast by a findamancer (as per her conversation with Stanley). Wanda's later conversation with Jillian probably just refers to the fact that she stood in for the findamancer. Maybe nobody else was confused by the mention of 4 disciplines, but I was!

Ooooh, right, I missed this part of your post, Dr. Pepper, and an awesome point from you Effataigus. But you've really made me curious as to how scrolls work. If this one was meant to be cast by a Findamancer, that would imply that a more powerful scroll requires someone with at least basic knowledge of a discipline to cast it. Maybe best results are achieved by someone who is in the same class of magic (notice that Predictamancy and Findamancy are both in the class Hocus Pocus).

It does make a lot of sense that SPW would combine the abilities of someone who could look anywhere in all of existence (Hubble) with someone who could predict a warlord to end war (Marie). It also makes sense that while yeah, you can look anywhere, you still have to be able to sift through all the Warlord candidates in existence to actually find the right guy for the job. Wanda only did as well as she did because she can manage magics outside of her own specialty.

So, maybe this is a good way to simulate a 4-caster linkup, but I would think that the casters would also have to have a specific aim in mind. They couldn't just give SPW to say, a rhyme-o-mancer and expect it to work as well (probably).

(And I just want to say I understand the "more powerful scroll requires some sort of appropriate caster" thing is just a theory, and we have seen Sizemore [and Jack!, and probably Maggie!] with out-of-discipline scrolls. But we haven't seen them with the equivalent of one that would say, mass animate every croaked unit in a given hex, whereas we have seen Wanda with an especially powerful scroll, and we know that she hated it.)

[Vorteks]

Can anyone point me to where the SPW Scroll was said, definitively, to be a tri-mancer link? Hippiemancers, Predictamancers, Lookamancers, Findamancers, and Thinkamancers are all supposed to be involved, in ways that haven't been delineated. That's five kinds of -mancy, so who is to say that the link was not of four or even five casters? If a hippiemancer must be linked to the others to create the scroll, for example, it's highly likely they would only consent to making one of them.

Book 1, page 54: "Four can't even be done". So a 3-caster link would normally be the limit.

[SteveMB]

(And I just want to say I understand the "more powerful scroll requires some sort of appropriate caster" thing is just a theory, and we have seen Sizemore [and Jack!, and probably Maggie!] with out-of-discipline scrolls. But we haven't seen them with the equivalent of one that would say, mass animate every croaked unit in a given hex, whereas we have seen Wanda with an especially powerful scroll, and we know that she hated it.)

The summoning is the one example we have of of an out-of-specialty caster using a powerful spell from a scroll. Wanda tried to convince Stanley not to make her do it -- admittedly, we don't know how much of that was genuine concern that it wouldn't work right and how much was annoyance at being pushed out of her preferred field. Also, given that we only have hints about a hidden agenda behind the creation of the summoning spell, we don't really know whether it did go somewhat off the tracks or whether it worked exactly as planned.

[FrostFirus]

Mostly a lurker but this conversation is captivating.

From all the statements above I am tempted to believe that the idea of the linkup is that a Thinkamancer subsumes the power and individuality of the other two casters into their own and effectively dominates the link in order to use the juice of the other two casters simultaneously creating effects otherwise impossible. I think of it like this: Thinkamancers are extremely strong willed and use that will to create the Tri-link. Effectively forcing their own will upon the other casters, they may be willing participants; but, they are giving into the will of a Thinkamancer. This is how they participate in the link more than any other. I could not see many links in which you would need a Thinkamancer, save for the eye books where you would want the books to read the minds of those with the books.

Now, a link could be based on one of two limitations: 1) A strict limitation of 2 based strictly on how magic works. or 2) Based on the number of personalities a Thinkamancer is willing to subsume into his own. If the limitation is based on the willpower of the Thinkamancer and the personalities of those participating, then it would not be unthinkable for a Master Class Thinkamancer to absorb more than 2 others as long as they were adepts in their field. This could allow for very complex spells, but would be limiting in that the power from any other caster would be minimal. Further, these types of links could be very dangerous to all participants when they are dissolved. In which it would likely kill everyone but the Thinkamancer as it would be too complex for the adepts to come back from that amount of power being wielded and the Thinkamancer would need all of their own power to keep themselves sane and not bother with putting the other minds back together. However, this would also beg the question what would happen if a Thinkamancer would try to connect those of greater power then themselves? Is there where the danger of linking resides?

If there is a strict limit of 2, it would seem that there is one distinct possibility to get around this limit: A Tri-link of three Thinkamancers. Would not this link be able to link two other links? Create 3 Tri-links, Dirt + Think + Doll, Think + Think + Think, Ditto + Think + Turn. Then allow the triple Thinkamancers to create a link between the two links. Now you have a 9 Caster link (requiring 5 to be Thinkamancers) that could theoretically produce an almost limitless number of golums. Never actually breaking the strict limit of two. However, could 3 Thinkamancers link? Would they then be one all-powerful Thinkamancer that could link two other links?

[Infidel]

Nothing is impossible, but I'd be very surprised if this was the case. I mean, since Linking is so powerful and seems to be a function of ONLY the thinkamancers, you'd think they would have experimented with it the most. So link-ups of solely thinkamancers (in all sorts of numbers) should have been attempted.

I know we accept the Erfworlders as people who generally do not test the limits of their universe, but the MK is an environment where they spend turns and turns dicussing the theory of magic. They must have tried.

Ok, first of all Linking is dangerous. So thinkamancers aren't just going to link up without some worthwhile goal commensurate with the potential loss of life. And second of all, there is a summer update somewhere where Sizemore noticed how alien the concept of testing a concept is. The point of that update is ALL the casters do is sit around discussing, they never test. They certainly aren't going to link three thinkamancers in order to "see what happens." Parson is the only person in the history of Erf that has a "do it and see what happens" attitude.

[Smoker]

Nothing is impossible, but I'd be very surprised if this was the case. I mean, since Linking is so powerful and seems to be a function of ONLY the thinkamancers, you'd think they would have experimented with it the most. So link-ups of solely thinkamancers (in all sorts of numbers) should have been attempted.

I know we accept the Erfworlders as people who generally do not test the limits of their universe, but the MK is an environment where they spend turns and turns dicussing the theory of magic. They must have tried.

Ok, first of all Linking is dangerous. So thinkamancers aren't just going to link up without some worthwhile goal commensurate with the potential loss of life. And second of all, there is a summer update somewhere where Sizemore noticed how alien the concept of testing a concept is. The point of that update is ALL the casters do is sit around discussing, they never test. They certainly aren't going to link three thinkamancers in order to "see what happens." Parson is the only person in the history of Erf that has a "do it and see what happens" attitude.

The SPW Spell was a new creation, (which, by the way, involved a link). This is hard evidence that the MK does more than just talk. They are perfectly willing and able to put their theories to the.. ahem.. Test.

[GaryThunder]

SPW was more than just testing a theory, it was a concrete attempt to change the Fate of the entire world. It wasn't done just to see if it could be done.

[ftl]

It reminds me of speculations that Parson is going to turn out to be the bad guy, after all...

*turn out* to be the bad guy?

For now, he IS the bad guy. He's leading the undead armies of an egomaniacal lord bent on world conquest.

[MarbitChow]

The SPW Spell was a new creation, (which, by the way, involved a link). This is hard evidence that the MK does more than just talk. They are perfectly willing and able to put their theories to the.. ahem.. Test.

It's not a test if you're just following what a Predictamancer told you to do. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Lor]

How many rules must a warlord break
Before he can finally break war?
How many units must croak in his wake
Until no one croaks anymore?

How many quests must a Tool undertake
To gain some legitimacy?
Of how many tests must two lovers partake
Before they can let themselves be?

The answers, dear fans
Are in the Titans' hands
The answers are in the Titans' hands

*standing ovation* That makes me want to add my own verses, but I think I wouldn't do it justice.

On another, why do I get the impression that Wanda used that powder (the stuff she used on the hobgobwin) on Marie to get her out of Faq? It seems to fit, in that Marie doesn't remember anything about how she got out. If that was indeed true, one might wonder why.

Okay, maybe just _I_ would wonder why

Did they select Parson in advance, specifically? The update talks about something the casters don't know or are willing to keep hidden, but it's not clear to me how exactly the 'real aim' deviates from the spell's stated purpose in execution.

My guess is that Parson wasn't specifically selected from the beginning. If he was, then it's an incredible coincidence that he met the Tool's requirements so well. "Someone who plans and kills his foes for fun" "snacks on Gwiffons and eats Marbits for breakfast" "everything should seem familiar and safe to him" "make him BIG" (book 1, page 17).

My take on this would be to hypothesize that the spell added requirements as well.

Stanley: "Who plans and kills for fun", "Snacks on marbits, ..."
Janis: "Who knows the stats and what they mean, but doesn't see us as just units"
Stanley: "Everything should seem familiar and safe to him"
Janis: "And yet horribly wrong."

Parson was the one who most closely fit both sets of requirements.