Eyemancer table

[mutecebu]

Why was a Foolamancer necessary for the Eyemancer table? The only reason I can think is to project the holographic image. Couldn't the casters write the map each time themselves, or narrate what they see? It seems like a waste of a Foolamancer.

[raphfrk]

Why was a Foolamancer necessary for the Eyemancer table? The only reason I can think is to project the holographic image. Couldn't the casters write the map each time themselves, or narrate what they see? It seems like a waste of a Foolamancer.

That is the consensus. However, I think you underestimate the benefit of real time information.

[Frogpop]

A holographic table is worth a bazillion words.

[EdgarVerona]

Agreed... there's, potentially, an aweful lot of information that would have to be drawn, and if a lot is happening it could change fairly quickly. Also, would they have been able to break concentration long enough to actually do it? While they're receiving messages from people out in the field? (If I'm not mistaken, they were also serving as communication between disparate units) That seems like a lot to put on someone on top of drawing a map over and over as a battlefield situation changed. Just my two cents. =)

[Fuzzypaws]

Another thing to bear in mind is the pan / scan / zoom capabilities of the setup they had. Not gonna get that without a foolmancer.

[mutecebu]

A holographic table is worth a bazillion words.

That's a good way to put it!

[blackcitadel9]

I thought the Foolamancer was necessary simply because the three sub-types of Eyemancy are Foolamancy(Numbers axis), Thinkamancy (Fate axis) and Lookamancy (Erf axis). Makes sense that powerful Eyemancy effects such as long range comms, strategic displays and such forth could be performed using such a combination.

[raphfrk]

I thought the Foolamancer was necessary simply because the three sub-types of Eyemancy are Foolamancy(Numbers axis), Thinkamancy (Fate axis) and Lookamancy (Erf axis). Makes sense that powerful Eyemancy effects such as long range comms, strategic displays and such forth could be performed using such a combination.

There is no requirement that the 3 be from the same magic type, croakamancy/thinkamancy and dirtamancy aren't connected. The only constraint is that one must be a thinkamancer.

[Welf von Ehrwald]

I guess two reasons: the already mentioned graphic presentation, and because a link with three mancers is more powerful than one with only two. And the dirtamacner and croakamancer where needed elsewhere.

[blackcitadel9]

I thought the Foolamancer was necessary simply because the three sub-types of Eyemancy are Foolamancy(Numbers axis), Thinkamancy (Fate axis) and Lookamancy (Erf axis). Makes sense that powerful Eyemancy effects such as long range comms, strategic displays and such forth could be performed using such a combination.

There is no requirement that the 3 be from the same magic type, croakamancy/thinkamancy and dirtamancy aren't connected. The only constraint is that one must be a thinkamancer.

Sorry, my meaning wasn't clear there. I didn't mean to suggest that they had to be from the same type (obviously, it's been disproven already), I was pointing out that having all 3 of the same type might increase the effects and "shift the axis" completely towards Eyemancy. The point was to align the link utterly with Eyemancy and to have no "pollution" It could've been quite possible to have a Lookamancer/Dirtamancer combo, but perhaps it would only be possible to see everything connected to the ground, or would bring in other limitations, due to having an element of Stuffamancy there. Maybe it would've been the ultimate gem finding combo?
Obviously, unless there are other ways to create a link a full Eyemancy combo is the only one possible, because a Thinkamancer must be part of the group.
So for example a Shockamancer/Croakamancer combo might be aligned closely to Naughtymancy, but will never be able to flex it's full Naughtymancy muscle, because of the Thinkamancer.

But I go further off topic, so I'll stop here. Also I'm not sure what I've said makes sense anymore...

[Kreistor]

Note Sizemore's expanded sense of the mountain during the link. He could see much further and more accurately than before.

It may not have mattered what kind of caster filled the third slot. A third caster extended the Lookamancer's sight, and that's all that was needed. Now, maybe you all think a Foolamancer was more important than other casters, but I have to beg to differ. A Foolamancer was vital for Faq, but what use was a Foolamancer to Stanley? Like all traditional generals, he didn't use casters on the front line, keeping them back at City. They're too valuable to risk, after all. SO outside the link, Jack was not goig to be going to the front and helping wiht the war. So at a City, what exactly could he do to help GK? GK was no secret. It didn't need to hide. So, the Foolamancer was less use to Stanley than Sizemore, because at least Sizemore could build golems to send off to war in his stead.

[Bobby Archer]

The Eyebooks use all three flavors of Eyemancy (http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F035.jpg), which includes Foolamancy. If the Eyebooks require Foolamancy (for their displays or encryption or what-have-you), it stands to reason that the Eyetable does as well. Thinkamancy and Lookamancy don't provide visuals in any way. We don't know whether Maggie or Misty had any Foolamancy at all (I doubt Maggie does anything outside her specialty, for one), or if a caster can cast outside their specialty while linked (as they essentially become their specialty).

Whether having a link of three allows more power than two (likely) or not, having something he could look at to command his battles probably seemed like a good use of a Foolamancer to Stanley. Stanley seems like a "visual learner" to me.

[raphfrk]

The point was to align the link utterly with Eyemancy and to have no "pollution" It could've been quite possible to have a Lookamancer/Dirtamancer combo,

I think the theory

Thinkamancy -> maintains link + allows communication with units
Lookamancy -> sees what's in far away hexes
Foolamancy -> holographic display

seems pretty reasonable. Each caster is performing functions based on known abilities of the caster type.

Without the foolamancer, the display wouldn't be possible.

With a lookamancer/XXX/thinkamancer linkup, you wouldn't have the display.

I think a findamancer would be better for a gem finding linkup than a lookamancer, i.e. thinkamancy/findamancy/dirtamancy. However, it somewhat wastes the thinkamancer's command and control ability.

There was a suggestion that findamancy is actually a summoning caster type (find and summon), thus maybe the above linkup would be the ultimate mining machine. The gems could be summoned to the link-up without the need for mining. OTOH, maybe the link could just walk through the rock to the next gem etc.

It is unclear if adding another caster makes the link more powerful, other than adding their own powers to the link. Ofc, casters aren't actually limited to their own speciality. However, in a link, they probably are as they are supposed to concentrate on their speciality.

Obviously, unless there are other ways to create a link a full Eyemancy combo is the only one possible

True. However, maybe later, the thinkamancers will learn how to form the link without being part of it. The would probably still have to be nearby to maintain it, but saying their name wouldn't kill them.