I think the crap golems were detonated by a spell Sizemore cast.
I rearranged and re-captioned the pictures into what I'm 99% sure is the correct names & locations. This leaves us short a picture for cloth golems. Also made some changes to some descriptions. - Commander I. Heartly Noah May 22, 12:39
Just wondering if I am right...Is the second golem from the right in the crap golem's picture sergeant schlock from schlock mercenary? (btw i suck at wikis so no fancy user name)
 Cloth Golems and Battle Bears
Battle bears are a type of cloth golem chaps - reference added.
I see no reference there. Nothing about Battle Bears at all. And I note it's written by SteveMB, not Rob Balder. I'm going to strip that out, unless someone can provide a reliable source for Battle Bears = Cloth Golems. (Note: Gwiffons are Marshmallow Peeps in the Real World: that doesn't make them Candy Golems.) --Kreistor 04:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Page 9, Ansom gives orders for Webinar to get some heavies together. "Heavy cav, sourmanders, tchotchkes, cloth golems..." Page 10, Webinar has a sourmander, 2 crystal animals (tchotchkes?), two "battle bears," and a stuffed giraffe and elephant. The battle bears, giraffe, and elephant are all stuffed animals, stitched together - likely "cloth golems," especially given the choices on page 9. Note "Battle Bears" weren't mentioned as a choice. From this, I submit that Battle Bears are a sub-class of Cloth Golem. And I only give that much because they can throw rocks, which other cloth golems can't do. Commander I. Heartly Noah July 2, 2009
- That is really weak, Noah. It's okay for Spec, but not Prop C. With so many incidents, someone would have directly called them by both names if they were the same. Oh, and Rob would have put them on the "Golem" Klog, instead of the never before seen Acid Rock Golem. After all, Parson says he wants the, "Battle Bears first", not "Cloth Golems". --Kreistor 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speculation on my part, but could it be that Battle Bears are a type of Cloth Golem and that there would be other factors that would cause individuals to keep them distinct from other types? Battle Bears do seem to be more common than G-RAFs or LFNs and may have different capabilities and battlefield applications. When Parson says he wants the "Battle Bears first," could it be that, instead of operating from the standpoint that Battle Bears are not Cloth Golems, but rather prioritizing them because of a specific threat that they pose that the LFNs and G-RAFs don't? Jszellmer 20:57, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
The reference to cloth golems with battle bears as a subtype is the second entry under 'Unit Types', just below the big, random blank section ... it may not be official canon, but it would seem to have 'notability'.
OK, so while Battle Bears seems to be in dispute as to their Cloth Golem-ness, the giraffe and elephant do not seem to be nearly as controversial. Going to add a pic and reference to that effect. (personally, I'm still out on whether Battle Bears are really a sub-type of Cloth Golems, or something else entirely... we probably need to wait until some definitive proof comes along). --MisterB777 23:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 Four Golems Attacking Marbits
As the page currently exists, the subsection on Metal Golems states that the four golems that attacked a small stack of marbits Erf-b1-p087 were metal golems. But at the same time, there is a statement in Speculation that names them as hard rock golems. Only one statement is correct, obviously. Since the number of golems shown in that panel is the exact number that Parson's Stupid Meal claimed GK had... four Erf-b1-p126 (and the SM also claims that GK had only *one* metal golem), then I have to say that the statement in Speculation makes a whole lot more sense. Even though the four golems are gray/silver in color rather than the brown shown in the canonized image of a hard rock golem, the numbers add up perfectly for those four to be hard rock and not metal.
I am going to make a change to the page to reflect this train of thought, and if my logic is refuted we can revert. --Yehonatan 08:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)