Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Everything Else Erfworld




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 2:22 pm 
Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
Offline
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:51 pm
Posts: 674
Ashendant wrote:
Godzfirefly wrote:
(like Heavy)


Heavy is not a special

Since when is Heavy not a special? It has certainly been described as a special in the comic. After all, it is certainly a trait that some units have while others do not. Which is effectively the definition of a Special...

What makes you say otherwise?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 2:35 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 pm
    Posts: 572
    Godzfirefly wrote:
    Ashendant wrote:
    Godzfirefly wrote:
    (like Heavy)


    Heavy is not a special

    Since when is Heavy not a special? It has certainly been described as a special in the comic. After all, it is certainly a trait that some units have while others do not. Which is effectively the definition of a Special...

    What makes you say otherwise?


    http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F040a.jpg

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 2:57 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:10 pm
    Posts: 222
    0beron wrote:
    You're going to very quickly learn that the wiki is a very bad thing. It is largely neglected, except by people who are wrong. So a lot of "forum myths" get added as fact there, and never corrected. So someone could very well have said on the wiki that they're something, but the story itself has never told us. I'm merely speculating.


    I know that.Hence why it is proposed canon rather than canon.

    Quote:
    Since when is Heavy not a special? It has certainly been described as a special in the comic. After all, it is certainly a trait that some units have while others do not. Which is effectively the definition of a Special...

    What makes you say otherwise?


    Someone already posted an example here. But essentially Heavy was never a Special, all times it was mentioned it was "Heavy unit" or "Heavies". There was also a mention of Light units and they never been referenced as a special.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:06 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:51 pm
    Posts: 674
    Again, I say "based on what?" Simply calling them heavies seems no different than calling a unit a seafarer or a flier, which is done, yet Seafaring and Flying are clearly specials. So, simply calling a unit a Heavy or a Heavy unit doesn't mean that Heavy isn't a Special. And, it seems pretty clear that Heavy acts as a special. And, it seems just as clear that Heavy isn't a class or type of unit like Stabber is a class of the infantry type of unit.

    I am forced to conclude that the earlier suggestion (Which you're referencing from another thread, I think) of artificially separating Heavy from the rest of the Specials is fallacious without actual evidence.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:24 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 pm
    Posts: 572
    Godzfirefly wrote:
    Again, I say "based on what?" Simply calling them heavies seems no different than calling a unit a seafarer or a flier, which is done, yet Seafaring and Flying are clearly specials. So, simply calling a unit a Heavy or a Heavy unit doesn't mean that Heavy isn't a Special. And, it seems pretty clear that Heavy acts as a special. And, it seems just as clear that Heavy isn't a class or type of unit like Stabber is a class of the infantry type of unit.

    I am forced to conclude that the earlier suggestion (Which you're referencing from another thread, I think) of artificially separating Heavy from the rest of the Specials is fallacious without actual evidence.


    Parson can see specials. Bogroll is heavy. Bogroll has no special called heavy. Ergo, heavy isnt a special

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:54 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:10 pm
    Posts: 222
    Godzfirefly wrote:
    Again, I say "based on what?" Simply calling them heavies seems no different than calling a unit a seafarer or a flier, which is done, yet Seafaring and Flying are clearly specials. So, simply calling a unit a Heavy or a Heavy unit doesn't mean that Heavy isn't a Special. And, it seems pretty clear that Heavy acts as a special. And, it seems just as clear that Heavy isn't a class or type of unit like Stabber is a class of the infantry type of unit.

    I am forced to conclude that the earlier suggestion (Which you're referencing from another thread, I think) of artificially separating Heavy from the rest of the Specials is fallacious without actual evidence.


    Did you even read the link that was posted, or am i'm going to repeat the argument stated above? Neither Heavy or Light is a Special, they are more of trait or characteristics, being heavy is not an natural ability.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:09 pm 
    User avatar
    Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Year of the Dwagon Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Shiny Red Star Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter This user posted the comment of the month This user is a part of Erfworld canon! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
    Posts: 4412
    Location: Morlock Wells
    Ashendant wrote:
    0beron wrote:
    You're going to very quickly learn that the wiki is a very bad thing. It is largely neglected, except by people who are wrong. So a lot of "forum myths" get added as fact there, and never corrected. So someone could very well have said on the wiki that they're something, but the story itself has never told us. I'm merely speculating.
    I know that. Hence why it is proposed canon rather than canon.
    First, you never said anything about proposed canon, you simply said "the wiki says this", hence my word of caution to you. Second, in order to become even Proposed Canon, we have to see it in the comic. That has not happened here, thus it still falls under the "Speculation" category instead. Instances of people misunderstanding the Speculation/Proposed Canon/Canon hierarchy exactly like this is part of why the wiki has become so bad/unreliable.

    _________________
    "I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
    GJC wrote:
    Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
    There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:36 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:51 pm
    Posts: 674
    GWvsJohn wrote:
    Parson can see specials. Bogroll is heavy. Bogroll has no special called heavy. Ergo, heavy isnt a special


    Thank you for explaining your reasoning, GW. I can definitely understand where that's coming from at least, now. I know that glasses artwork isn't all-inclusive, since we've seen Parson use them to see things that wasn't on that art. But, I see no reason to argue Heavy should have been on the art.

    Ashendant wrote:
    Did you even read the link that was posted, or am i'm going to repeat the argument stated above? Neither Heavy or Light is a Special, they are more of trait or characteristics, being heavy is not an natural ability.


    First, you didn't post that link. Second, that link wasn't self-explanatory to me. I read the link and saw no reference to Heavy at all, so I was confused how it was relevant. Third, if you'd repeated your above argument, I'd have to repeat that it doesn't hold water on its own. Indeed, your argument suggested that Heavy should be considered a special since it's referred to in the same way as specials. Fourth, your assertions are so often unsupported (including in this quoted post) that your authority just isn't particularly strong in my mind. Fifth, (in response to your so frequent reference to the wiki) adding information to the wiki then quoting it is really not a strong way to support your argument. (Yes, I've seen you do exactly that, specifically in this thread.)

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:33 pm 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am
    Posts: 1576
    Godzfirefly wrote:
    First, you didn't post that link. Second, that link wasn't self-explanatory to me. I read the link and saw no reference to Heavy at all, so I was confused how it was relevant.

    Bogroll is a heavy unit. He does not have a heavy special.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:55 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:51 pm
    Posts: 674
    Lamech wrote:
    Godzfirefly wrote:
    First, you didn't post that link. Second, that link wasn't self-explanatory to me. I read the link and saw no reference to Heavy at all, so I was confused how it was relevant.

    Bogroll is a heavy unit. He does not have a heavy special.

    Right, GW did explain that. I get it now.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:07 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:10 pm
    Posts: 222
    Godzfirefly wrote:
    First, you didn't post that link. Second, that link wasn't self-explanatory to me. I read the link and saw no reference to Heavy at all, so I was confused how it was relevant. Third, if you'd repeated your above argument, I'd have to repeat that it doesn't hold water on its own. Indeed, your argument suggested that Heavy should be considered a special since it's referred to in the same way as specials. Fourth, your assertions are so often unsupported (including in this quoted post) that your authority just isn't particularly strong in my mind. Fifth, (in response to your so frequent reference to the wiki) adding information to the wiki then quoting it is really not a strong way to support your argument. (Yes, I've seen you do exactly that, specifically in this thread.)


    1. I didn't post the link because i hate to repeat that way what other people said.

    2. Fair enough.

    3. I specified what I meant because someone already linked it and had already explained. Adding proof would be just repeating word for word what somebody else had already said before me.

    4. Just because I was insistent on the Chief Warlord can't set unit popping you're claiming that I'am that.

    5. I think I removed the heavy special thing way before than this thread. I asked in another thread if there was any evidence of heavy being a special. There wasn't anybody that could provide a argument for such so I moved it to speculation.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:40 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:51 pm
    Posts: 674
    Ashendant wrote:
    4. Just because I was insistent on the Chief Warlord can't set unit popping you're claiming that I'am that.

    No, that would not at all be what I'm referring to. I promised I'd drop that, and I did. Though, since you brought it up (in spite of saying you'd stop randomly doing so), that would end up applying too.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:14 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 12:06 am
    Posts: 488
    seeing as how you can be promoted to heavy i would say it is a rank or something that functions like a rank. other than that you people are supposed to be talking about golems

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:13 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:51 pm
    Posts: 674
    conmor wrote:
    seeing as how you can be promoted to heavy i would say it is a rank or something that functions like a rank.


    I wonder if just anyone can be promoted to Heavy or if that's a Hobgobwin thing. Perhaps Hobgobwins just become heavy upon that Knight rank in the same way normal units gain a Leadership bonus when promoted to Warlord...

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:17 pm 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:36 pm
    Posts: 1915
    The Knights in Stanley's Service weren't heavy...

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 4:10 am 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:41 am
    Posts: 330
    Location: Victoria, Australia
    No, but they could be upgraded into heavies. Vurp was the sole survivor of the Knights In Stanley's Service, and he became Chief of his tribe when he was the sole survivor following the Battle for Gobwin Knob. Every Hobgobwin that has since popped, it's reasonable to assume, is going to be reasonably similar to him, and those are the type of Hobgobwin Knights that Parson promoted to Heavies at Spacerock.

    _________________
    But of course that's just my opinion.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:50 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:46 pm
    Posts: 1
    Coming back to golems, and hoping for some wild speculation...

    What happens if you make a crap golem out of yellow dwagon crap?

    _________________
    "The lesson is this. The only real crime for those of superlative intellect and great prowess is to allow one's self to become shackled by mediocrity. The crime is to let your grasp be less than your reach. To aim low." -Fabius Bile

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:09 pm 
    E is for Erfworld Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:15 pm
    Posts: 1446
    Acid golem?

    _________________
    For those in the USA: Have you wondered what you would do during in the civil rights movement, or in the 1930s?

    Well, what did you do yesterday? Now you know.

    Let's all be the kind of people we wish everyone had been then. Show up. Call. Resist.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:57 am 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user has been published! This user posted the comment of the month Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am
    Posts: 3735
    Possible component of the Acid Rock golem.

    _________________
    I'm writing a fan fiction. It's called Murder in the Magic Kingdom. Check it out, if you'd like. Completed May 5th, 2015

    I'm writing a sequel! It's called Finding Sanctuary. Please do give it a look. Last updated December 1st, 2016.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:40 am 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:00 pm
    Posts: 421
    Is acid rock that crappy?

    _________________
    If a post in a reaction thread irks you, consider PMs, or the use of a thread in another subforum and invite the poster there. This isn't reddit, but I want to hit the [-] button to skip past all the feels to find crunchy or baseless speculation.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Everything Else Erfworld


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: