The Battle for Gobwin Knob, page 6

[Fuzzypaws]

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F006.jpg

A very old page of course, but fuel for the fire of recent speculation about Wanda being FAQ's predictamancer.

What people say when they are caught off guard often reveals the truth of a situation far better than when you catch them at their best; their social defenses aren't up. And Wanda might be seen to slip in panel 8. This is a spell forged of Findamancy and Predictamancy. Logically, it should need both a findamancer and a predictamancer to cast it. And Wanda... only says they need a Findamancer.

Yeah yeah, I know, go ahead, accuse me of planting epileptic trees. :3

[Darkside007]

The other spellset needed was lookamancy, which they had, not predictamancy.

Otherwise a good theory, but ah well.

[Frogpop]

Page 5 panel 9 "The Findamancers and Predictamancers have forged a spell together."

Sounds good to me Fuzzpaw.

[Darkside007]

Yeah, they made the spell, but later it's described (To Jillian) as lookamancy/findamancy, which makes more sense. (Retcon? Or just mages being able to make a spell that actually uses different disciplines?)

[Frogpop]

Yeah, they made the spell, but later it's described (To Jillian) as lookamancy/findamancy, which makes more sense. (Retcon? Or just mages being able to make a spell that actually uses different disciplines?)

Oh yeah, look at that.

Why do you think Lookamancy makes more sence? It's not like they got to spy on candiate Parson in his Earth life as part of the spell. (We did, but they missed out.) If so they would have rejected him out of hand. To me the Predictamancy is important as that would be the part predicting how effective a warlord he would be in Erf.

[SteveMB]

The fact that Wanda described the components of the summoning spell one way to Stanley and another way to Jillian has led to all sorts of speculation, but we really don't have enough information to draw any real conclusions. Strictly speaking, the two might not actually be inconsistent (Wanda's description to Stanley referenced the types of casters who created the spell, and her description to Jillian referenced the types of magic that went into the spell).

[Joe Falco]

The fact that Wanda described the components of the summoning spell one way to Stanley and another way to Jillian has led to all sorts of speculation, but we really don't have enough information to draw any real conclusions. Strictly speaking, the two might not actually be inconsistent (Wanda's description to Stanley referenced the types of casters who created the spell, and her description to Jillian referenced the types of magic that went into the spell).

Agreed. Look at the spell itself which was used to summon Parson. It was created by both Findamancers and Predictamancers. Wanda saying that the spell needs a Findamancer is not so much because the spell can't be cast without a Findamancer but because a Findamancer has the expert ability to make sure the spell is cast effectively. If spells only worked if the caster's "class" matches the type of spell used then Sizemore wouldn't have been able to cast all those Shockamancy spells in Page 126. And Sizemore has stated in Page 13 that he's "good at nothing beyond [his] specialty."

[raphfrk]

and her description to Jillian referenced the types of magic that went into the spell).

This could be interpreted as evidence for the "Wanda was the Predictamancer" theory. If she was previous a Predicatamancer, then complaining that the spell was XXX/Predicatamancy wouldn't have been so bad a complaint. By saying Lookamancy, she prevents Jillian from replying (or thinking), "What's the big deal, sure you were a Predicatamancer in Faq".

[Welf von Ehrwald]

This could be interpreted as evidence for the "Wanda was the Predictamancer" theory. If she was previous a Predicatamancer, then complaining that the spell was XXX/Predicatamancy wouldn't have been so bad a complaint. By saying Lookamancy, she prevents Jillian from replying (or thinking), "What's the big deal, sure you were a Predicatamancer in Faq".

It can be also interpreted the other way. Jillian should know if Wanda dislikes to practice Predictamancy, so she would be the perfect person for Wanda to complain to that she had to use her disliked branch again.

On a general note, I don't think Wanda was the prdeictamancer. If she was, she would have used it. She would be compelled to it by Duty. And even if her loyalty is low, she at least would have used it to find out if the "Jillian the mole" trap would be successful. A trap that would have brought her the pliers.

[Frogpop]

But by failing, the trap still did bring her the pliers. Predicting the future can be tricky that way. Just because you know that some end result is likely happen, the path taken to get to that end result can still surprise the heck out of you. Stanley was quick to believe that the Perfect Warlord spell had failed, rather than trust that it was succeeding in a way he didn't expect.

[Welf von Ehrwald]

We don't know how predictamancy works, how it's used and what kind of questions it can answer. But it's unlikely that Wanda wouldn't even try to predict the outcome at least generally. One application of predicatamancy is to foresee if units cross a certain position. It's not a big step to assume that it's possible to predict if a certain known unit will enter a certain hex in near future.
On the other side, maybe predictamancy gives only likelihoods, and sometimes they fail. Even with 95% winning chance units can lose (especially when crucial - Civ IV anyone ), and Wanda did say "He has always been predictable in this matter". (I still don't buy the theory).

[Mikalyaran]

giving a likelihood sounds more like mathamancy. At least in terms of specific percentages it does.

[raphfrk]

Another option is that Predictamancers see lots of different futures and tell what is the one that they see the most often.

Alternatively, it could be based on "fate". If you are fated to do something, they can tell you about it, a lage number of turns in advance.

They wouldn't be able to tell you who is going to win a batte, but could say that the leader of the battle would rise to Chief Warlord.

Effectively, they give cryptic information that is 'locked-in' once they give it.

[The Old Hack]

What I would like to know, how did Wanda even know that spell existed? Gossip alone? And how curious that she would offer the chance to buy it to Stanley just when he needed it the most... and talked him into accepting the pitch. At least, it becomes so when you examine the hints from the Grand Abbie that suggest that the Perfect Warlord is meant to break things and talks Sizemore into becoming Parson's supporter and trying to become his friend. The web is beginning to seem quite tangled indeed. Wanda has almost certainly been plotting to acquire the Arkenpliers even if she did not know it would be specifically them she would get; did someone deliberately tell her about the Perfect Warlord spell to unite her with Parson?

A strange possible causality chain has popped into my mind. Grand Abbie decides to make a supreme effort to create peace. Grand Abbie allies with Predictamancer. Predictamancer plots course and hands Wanda the prophecy that sets her on her path. Masterclass 'mancers of the Magic Kingdom create the summoning spell. Existence of summoning spell is revealed to Wanda when her Side is backed into a corner...

I am beginning to believe that Parson is something much bigger than a mere Arkentool. And I am mildly amused by the idea that the Arkenpliers are somehow 'game breaking' when the Grand Abbie to me seems to want to break the game.

[Darkside007]

"Game breaking" is a phrase generally restricted to balance issues; in multiplayer games, such balance issues would make the game essentially unplayable: it would be a race to the gamebreaker and then autocast win.

Breaking the mechanics of the game is something fundamentally different, and fundamentally more awesome.