BarGamer wrote:You know what? Post your theory on the wiki, and see how fast it takes to be tagged Canon or Epileptic Tree. I'm done.
... really? holy boop, guys. i say we dial down the passions here. i mean.. it's just an argument, no?
Unclever title wrote:I think I may have used the word hardcoded incorrectly or something, I only meant to say that like the other Arkentools the Arkendish is likely limited by the way in which it works (granted I was assuming it works in ways related to thinkamancy). Of course Dwagons can be popped, but if you don't have one at the moment it can't be tamed because it's not there, that's all that I meant by the "needs Dwagons to tame" same as with the walnuts and that you can't decrypt what's not dead. All of these limitations can be surpassed by strategy but they can also be exploited by strategy (granted it might be very difficult). So they are still limitations. This is how I think the Arkentools are balanced with respect to each other, and how they do not guarantee victory.
yep. i'm with you on that one. i just went from there to money for the Arkendish because, apart from juice (which, remember, Arkenpliers use none of in Wanda's case), there are no known restrictions on Thinkamancy. So: Wanda's restriction for the 'decrypt' function of Arkenpliers = number of croaked units present. stanley's restriction for the 'tame dwagon' function of the arkenhammer = number of dwagons present (importantly.. i'm not talking about the 'pop dwagon' function ).. charlie's restriction on the 'bonus to Thinkamancy' function of the arkendish = ? Might be distance, it's true, but thinkagrams don't depend on distance. stuff like suggestion spells may.. so i dunno. it's all a wash, of course. i just liked the way the 'arkendish uses money' theory hung together. i seem to be alone in that, which is cool. but at the very least there seems to be some insight to be gained from the way in which the arkentools are similar yet different.
i dunno. maybe i'm treating this too much like literary analysis.. where when we don't know something, we're never going to know it, because the book doesn't continue to write itself as it's being analyzed. i like these kinds of theories because they're fun to construct (and deconstruct), not because they're 'true'. *shrug*..
