Author 
Message 
Justyn

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:01 am 

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:22 pm Posts: 187

The Pink Warlord wrote: 3) There is merit in the idea Banhammer sacrifice warlords so he can pop more warlords who might be casters but it seems unlikely as it is risky, expensive (Think how few Warlord Stanley had despite have half a million schmuckers in the treasury) and violent. He may hold his own warriors in contempt but I doubt he would betray them to their deaths. His cities are going to pop units anyway, so he might as well pop warlords to try and get casters; cities don't require any cost to pop units, and warlords can be sent out for mercenary work to pay for their own upkeep plus profits; but yes, it is violent. The Pink Warlord wrote: 4.1) Again, to the question of casters: Remember Erfworld is a game and runs by the rules of a game. The sides are asymetrical, each having their own units, strengths and weaknesses. Maybe FAQ's strength is increased caster pop rate and lower upkeep but they have compensating weaknesses, like a dumb pacifist King?
4.2) Also, as to it being a game, consider the matter of balance: FAQ is surrounder by a super side of Haffton. Gobwin Knob and Jetstone are considered dangerous for having ten cities but fifty? Why haven't they conquered the world yet? Why isn't the world ruled by one side? Maybe this is the answer, that Luck and Fate provide for other sides the means to defeat them. Even a small army backed by all these Casters could defeat an army several times its size. Erfworld is not a game. It bares a resemblance to a game from our perspective, but it is not a game. Also, there are a myriad of reasons why Haffaton doesn't rule Erfworld: the biggest ones being the diminishing returns of gaining cities; and that uncroaked will naturally degrade so they can't be used as a permanent garrison; that Erfworld is simply enormous; that as your borders get larger you have more neighbors, and you'll eventually have so many neighbors who don't like you that you can't stop them all if they all declare war on you at the same time. It's also possible that, like in the real world, a side can have a penalty with no corresponding bonus of any kind to balance it out. The Pink Warlord wrote: 5) Wanda doesn't nesscessarily make 9 since if they took her off Haffton they likely lose a few casters in the process.
6) I don't think there is nesscessarily anything wrong with FAQ's philosphy. Sure they are wasting their military power but unlike other sides they're not wasting their lives or the lives of their soldiers like everyone else does. That's what so sickened Parson. If it wasn;t for the decrees of fate the side may well never have fallen. Firstly, Wanda may have willingly jumped ship from Haffaton the first chance she got, what with it being the side that killed her family and everyone she had known, conquered her Side, and destroyed her home after all. The better question is what reason besides mind control or loyalty spells would she not leap at the first chance to defect? And if by "fate" you mean "a traitor" than sure.
_________________ If I am acting as a mod, you will know it.







drachefly

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:24 am 

Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:36 pm Posts: 1909

chefsotero wrote: DevilDan wrote: drachefly wrote: As for capturing other casters, that seems unlikely to me given that casters are a valuable target and it is unlikely that Jill, leading a small mercenary force, would be likely to encounter many casters and would be unlikely to be allowed to keep any they did capture in the course of serving another side. Enfasis by me. I did not write that. I agree that a small mercenary force would encounter few casters, but they might encounter some. They will probably encounter Wanda that way, since she spends so long in the field. Oberon wrote: Given the huge number of casters we now see the old FAQ has...the absence of a Thinkamancer brings me to raise an eyebrow. What need has FAQ for a thinkamancer? The Pink Warlord wrote: 5) Wanda doesn't nesscessarily make 9 since if they took her off Haffton they likely lose a few casters in the process. Please go to The Amateur Predictamancy thread and name your odds. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2815





0beron

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:20 am 

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm Posts: 4412
Location: Morlock Wells

drachefly wrote: 0beron wrote: Given the huge number of casters we now see the old FAQ has...the absence of a Thinkamancer brings me to raise an eyebrow. What need has FAQ for a thinkamancer? I'm not saying they necessarily NEED one (although given the philosophical nature of their side, and the Thinkamancer inclination to behave like a Natural Philosopher, especially the Great Minds, it would make sense for FAQ to have one.) I'm just pointing out I find it odd that they don't have one. They certainly don't need a Shockamancer, but they have one. Because sides (presumably) have no control over which casters they pop, the fact that FAQ lacks a caster which appears more common in general than others, I wonder if there is a Fatelinked reason for this that is shifting the odds to "prevent" them from having a Thinkamancer.
_________________ "I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do." 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.





Saladman

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:58 am 


Offline 
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:46 pm Posts: 183

0beron wrote: I'm just pointing out I find it odd that they don't have one. They certainly don't need a Shockamancer, but they have one. Because sides (presumably) have no control over which casters they pop, the fact that FAQ lacks a caster which appears more common in general than others, I wonder if there is a Fatelinked reason for this that is shifting the odds to "prevent" them from having a Thinkamancer. They've got 9 casters out of 23 available caster types. Even if thinkamancers are more common, that's still well within the bounds of a random distribution without inventing a specific nothinkamancy Fate. Too, whether they're using him for it or not, a shockamancer is broadly useful for a mountainlocked side only assailable by flyers or mountaincapable units. Despite the veiling cities gambit, they still see flying units. As Stanley will eventually prove, it only takes one failure before you need another defense.





Werebiscuit

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:22 am 

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:45 am Posts: 1332

0beron wrote: drachefly wrote: 0beron wrote: Given the huge number of casters we now see the old FAQ has...the absence of a Thinkamancer brings me to raise an eyebrow. What need has FAQ for a thinkamancer? I'm not saying they necessarily NEED one (although given the philosophical nature of their side, and the Thinkamancer inclination to behave like a Natural Philosopher, especially the Great Minds, it would make sense for FAQ to have one.) I'm just pointing out I find it odd that they don't have one. They certainly don't need a Shockamancer, but they have one. Because sides (presumably) have no control over which casters they pop, the fact that FAQ lacks a caster which appears more common in general than others, I wonder if there is a Fatelinked reason for this that is shifting the odds to "prevent" them from having a Thinkamancer. Are thinkamancers not an anathema to a side like Faq which survives by hiding information ? Thinkamancers are all about the spread of information  sharing thoughts. . Could this be why they haven't a thinkamancer ? Because once the thinkamancers have the info it SHOULD be shared by all thinkamancers and thus their hidden nature cannot be restored. ?





0beron

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:17 pm 

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm Posts: 4412
Location: Morlock Wells

Saladman wrote: They've got 9 casters out of 23 available caster types. Even if thinkamancers are more common, that's still well within the bounds of a random distribution without inventing a specific nothinkamancy Fate. Yes very good point, I hadn't looked at it that way. Saladman wrote: Too, whether they're using him for it or not, a shockamancer is broadly useful for a mountainlocked side only assailable by flyers or mountaincapable units. Despite the veiling cities gambit, they still see flying units. As Stanley will eventually prove, it only takes one failure before you need another defense. We as readers see that, but that is totally unlike Banhammer. If Banhammer actually appreciated the value of a Shockamancer as the backup defense, then the tower would be at least somewhat taller, and he'd be spending time juicing it up with spells, not getting totally shunned.
_________________ "I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do." 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.





BLANDCorporatio

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:12 pm 



Offline 
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am Posts: 3447

Saladman wrote: 0beron wrote: I'm just pointing out I find it odd that they don't have one. They certainly don't need a Shockamancer, but they have one. Because sides (presumably) have no control over which casters they pop, the fact that FAQ lacks a caster which appears more common in general than others, I wonder if there is a Fatelinked reason for this that is shifting the odds to "prevent" them from having a Thinkamancer. They've got 9 casters out of 23 available caster types. Even if thinkamancers are more common, that's still well within the bounds of a random distribution without inventing a specific nothinkamancy Fate. To the Mathmobile! Under some assumptions that are plausible enough/workable enough for a napkin calculation, +23 caster types: 22 of them have the same chance of being popped provided the event that a caster popped has occurred, while thinkamancers are x times as likely as another caster type to pop provided the event that a caster popped has occurred
+the event that a caster pops may grow more unlikely as it is repeated, but the probability P(caster type  caster has popped) (aka, probability to pop a certain caster type conditional on the event that a caster has popped) remains unchanged regardless of any caster pop history then one can assume a Bernoulli distribution for the event of popping a thinkamancer conditional on caster being popped having occurred (aka, pop thinkamancercaster has popped). Let "p" be the probability of any caster typecaster has popped, as long as caster type is not thinkamancer. Since probabilities must normalize to one, and popping a particular caster type is mutually exclusive with popping another, x*p + 22*p = 1 => p = 1/(x+22) => probability to pop thinkamancercaster was popped is x/(x+22) => so anyway, probability to pop any other caster type except thinkamancercaster was popped is 22/(x+22). Plugging this into the formula for Bernoulli trials is straightforward B(9 trials; 0 successes) = (22/(x+22))^9 which leads to: if thinkamancers are twice as likely to popcaster was popped, about 0.457 probability of no Thinkamancers within the first 9 caster pops. three times as likely, the probability of no thinkamancers among the first 9 casters is about 0.317. four times as likely, it becomes about 0.222 All of the above valid only for caster pops. Other cases, like caster capture/hiring, not covered. As has been mentioned, a side may decide it doesn't need a particular kind of caster, and as such, be less likely to capture/hire such a type.
_________________ The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.





0beron

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:08 pm 

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm Posts: 4412
Location: Morlock Wells

Awesome, thanks for that Bland! So assuming all FAQ's casters are popped from the side (which I find a safe assumption given their secrecy making hiring risky, and the lack of a Turnamancer to safely convert units if captured) it's still plausible that they could lack a Thinkamancer without Fate intervening.
_________________ "I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do." 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.





vintermann

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:10 pm 

Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:01 am Posts: 193

Jinren wrote: Department of Public Works. Seriously, Banhammer probably assigns as high a priority/budget to the city's appearance as he does to defence. It could well be his primary job to make it look pretty for the sake of looking pretty. In Erfwold, signamancy matters. Think broken windows theory, magically amplified.





LTD

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:59 pm 



Offline 
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm Posts: 3154

RE: the defences seem a bit sketchy...
Banhammer knows his side is going to fall. That's why he popped an heir... which in itself doesn't make a lot of sense. WIth a predictamancer, maybe he knows that the fall of FAQ is still a few hundred turns away. Maybe it costs a lot to maintain a bigger tower, fitted out with all the spells. Maybe he figures he'll store up the smuckers and rands for a future battle, still a long way off. Or maybe it's a kind of nihilism, where the King knows they are going to fall, so let's fall as gently as we can, and in the mean time 'eat, drink, and be merry!'. Maybe.





Kreistor

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:03 pm 


Offline 
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm Posts: 1075
Location: KW, Ontario, Canada

MarbitChow wrote: Stanley, we now know, was popping dwagons (his favorite unit) instead of popping warlords. GK is the only city where he could pop dwagons, since it's rare on the city production list. He could pop Warlords anywhere. We don't know when he lost his other cities (ie. Warchalking was a city or just a place?) so he may have been building warlords elsewhere until recently. "He didn't cancel the dwagon to pop a warlord" is the only conclusion we can really draw. We can only decide he was stupid in that choice if we know exactly how long it took to pop a dwagon vs. warlord.
_________________ http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting. http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".





oslecamo2 temp

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:40 pm 

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:08 am Posts: 539

Justyn wrote: Erfworld is not a game. It bares a resemblance to a game from our perspective, but it is not a game. Also, there are a myriad of reasons why Haffaton doesn't rule Erfworld: the biggest ones being the diminishing returns of gaining cities; and that uncroaked will naturally degrade so they can't be used as a permanent garrison; that Erfworld is simply enormous; that as your borders get larger you have more neighbors, and you'll eventually have so many neighbors who don't like you that you can't stop them all if they all declare war on you at the same time.
A resemblance? Everything being neatly streamlined so sides can butcher each other at leisure seems like a lot more than a simple resemblance to me. You don't need to worry about rising childrens or keeping up blacksmiths or preventing disease spreads, everybody pops up clothed and equiped, ready for battle, and whatever survives gets cleaned and ready for next day's battle whitout need of anyone moving a finger. Heck, it even has fanservice conveniently thrown in here and there! Justyn wrote: It's also possible that, like in the real world, a side can have a penalty with no corresponding bonus of any kind to balance it out.
If such a thing had ever hapened in Erfworld, I'm pretty sure Hamster would've commented it by now. But he didn't. We never hear "wood clubs are obsolete, we should equip our twolls with metal weaponry". It just happens that twolls can only wield clubs because it's their game stats. Just like only some warlords can shoot bows. And said warlord is unable to teach other warlords how to shoot a bow. Because he's a game unit with fixed stats that were randomly generated from some chart. The Pink Warlord wrote: Firstly, Wanda may have willingly jumped ship from Haffaton the first chance she got, what with it being the side that killed her family and everyone she had known, conquered her Side, and destroyed her home after all. The better question is what reason besides mind control or loyalty spells would she not leap at the first chance to defect? And if by "fate" you mean "a traitor" than sure. Agreed there tough. Spiteful revenge is common in both games and real life after all.
_________________ Formerly oslecamo2, unable to acess old acount.





Balerion

Post Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:04 pm 


Offline 
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:12 am Posts: 173

BLANDCorporatio wrote: +23 caster types: 22 of them have the same chance of being popped provided the event that a caster popped has occurred, while thinkamancers are x times as likely as another caster type to pop provided the event that a caster popped has occurred
+the event that a caster pops may grow more unlikely as it is repeated, but the probability P(caster type  caster has popped) (aka, probability to pop a certain caster type conditional on the event that a caster has popped) remains unchanged regardless of any caster pop history I am unsure on that second assumption; given the number of sides we have seen and the number of casters per side, the fact we have yet to see a duplicate on a side starts to seem unlikely. Admittedly, it is within the realm of believably still (i think), but i think we could have expected to see one by now oslecamo2_temp wrote: A resemblance? Everything being neatly streamlined so sides can butcher each other at leisure seems like a lot more than a simple resemblance to me. You don't need to worry about rising childrens or keeping up blacksmiths or preventing disease spreads, everybody pops up clothed and equiped, ready for battle, and whatever survives gets cleaned and ready for next day's battle whitout need of anyone moving a finger.
Heck, it even has fanservice conveniently thrown in here and there! All good points, were it not for word of the titans on the matter. The question of why a world like this was created is an open one still, and we had a big argument a while back about if the nature of Erfworld inherently made the Titans malicious.





mortissimus

Post Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:40 am 

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:04 am Posts: 472

MarbitChow wrote: The Pink Warlord wrote: 3) There is merit in the idea Banhammer sacrifice warlords so he can pop more warlords who might be casters but it seems unlikely as it is risky, expensive (Think how few Warlord Stanley had despite have half a million shmuckers in the treasury) and violent. He may hold his own warriors in contempt but I doubt he would betray them to their deaths. Stanley, we now know, was popping dwagons (his favorite unit) instead of popping warlords. He was also getting his butt handed to him by overwhelming forces, so he was probably burning through them quickly. We also know that Stanley himself was promoted from piker to warlord, which might be why he choose to promote warlords instead of popping them.





BLANDCorporatio

Post Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:18 am 



Offline 
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am Posts: 3447

Balerion wrote: I am unsure on that second assumption; given the number of sides we have seen and the number of casters per side, the fact we have yet to see a duplicate on a side starts to seem unlikely. Admittedly, it is within the realm of believably still (i think), but i think we could have expected to see one by now Holy probability of repeating digits Mathman! To answer that properly, someone (and it ain't gonna be me) needs to tally exactly all we know of which side popped which caster (as opposed to acquired one by other means). If that field survey were done, the method to interpret the data would be  There's two problems here. First one is, suppose a side popped n casters. What's the probability that at least one caster type appears at least twice (or just as well, that there is no caster type repetition)? +23 caster types: 22 of them have the same chance of being popped provided the event that a caster popped has occurred, while thinkamancers are x times as likely as another caster type to pop provided the event that a caster popped has occurred
+the event that a caster pops may grow more unlikely as it is repeated, but the probability P(caster type  caster has popped) (aka, probability to pop a certain caster type conditional on the event that a caster has popped) remains unchanged regardless of any caster pop history The fact that the Thinkamancers are of a different probabilitycaster pop is throwing an apparent spanner in the works of an otherwise simple assignment ... Were all casters equally likelycaster pop, then the reasoning would go, it doesn't matter which type of caster was first popped, the probability that the second caster popped is different from the first is 22/23; the probability that the third is different from the first two is 21/23 etc. Since we assume caster probabilitiescaster pop are independent of history, for 0<n<23, the probability that no repetition of caster type occurs at all is 23!/((23n)!*(23^n)); for n=0 or n=1, the formula correctly produces a probability of no repetition of one; for n>=23, the probability of no repetition is, trivially, zero. Then, the probability that repetition occurs is one minus the probability of no repetition, as the two are mutually exclusive events.
However, not all casters are equally likelycaster pop ...
Assume the first caster is a thinkamancer. Then the probability that the second caster is different from the first is 22/(x+22); the third is different from the first two with a chance of 21/(x+22); the fourth is different with a chance of 20/(x+22) etc. In general, the formula for the probability of "if the first caster was a thinkamancer, no repetition of caster types occurs" is 23!/(23*(23n)!*(x+22)^(n1)). Combining into one event, "the probability that first caster is thinkamancer, and after that no caster repetition occurs" is x*23!/(23*(23n)!*(x+22)^n).
Now assume the kth caster popped is a Thinkamancer, and that no Thinkamancer popped before that. This particular event has probability x*(22^(k1))/((x+22)^k). What I'm essentially doing is counting possible sequences, in this case, from the set of sequences with the first thinkamancer popped at the kth caster pop. How many of those sequences have the property I seek (no repetitions) is not affected by me rearranging all of them in exactly the same fashion, say, so as to consider the Thinkamancer as having popped first. Therefore the probability of "if the kth caster was a Thinkamancer and there was no Thinkamancer before that, no repetition of caster types occurs" is again 23!/(23*(23n)!*(x+22)^(n1)), while the combined event "the probability that the kth caster was a Thinkamancer, and that there was no thinkamancer before that, and that there are no caster type repetitions" is x*(22^(k1))*23!/(23*(23n)!*(x+22)^(n1+k)).
Finally, assume that no thinkamancer popped, ever, in all the n trials, which is the familiar (22/(x+22))^n. Combining again into one event, as above, "the probability that there was no thinkamancer, and no caster type repetition", is (22^n)*23!/(23*(23n)!*(x+22)^(n1+n)).
Now, either a thinkamancer pops on the first caster pop, or the second, or the third etc, or not at all. These are mutually exclusive events and likewise all events of the form considered above. So we can add the probabilities of the combined events above to get the probability of no repetition
sum{k from 1 to n} {x*(22^(k1))*23!/(23*(23n)!*(x+22)^(n1+k))} + (22^n)*23!/(23*(23n)!*(x+22)^(n1+n)) ... which leads to the somewhat compact probability that, in n caster pops, there is not even one repetition of caster types to be 23!/(23*(23n)!*(x+22)^(n1)) for 1<n<23 For n >= 23, no repetition probability is trivially zero. For n=0, the probability of no repetition is 1. For n=1, the formula correctly produces a no repetition probability of 1. (remember, x is the amount of times a thinkamancercaster pop is more likely than any other one particular type of caster). Notice that in the end, the formula looks just like the one obtained for "if thinka first, no repetition"; it doesn't really matter where, or whether, a thinkamancer appears in a sequence when counting the probability of no repetition, but this isn't obvious, not to me anyway. The second problem is, given m sides, how to combine the above in the event "there is no repetition in the caster roster of each side" (we allow the same caster type to appear to various sides). We assume caster pops are independent of history, including that of other sides, so we can treat "side X has no caster repetition" as a completely independent event to "side Y has no caster repetition", for any sides X and Y (and Z etc). So, by multiplying the probabilies of no caster repetition for each side, we get the probability that no side has caster repetition. Now all that's left is to tally this with actual Erfworld data. For some flavour of the results though  if Thinkamancers are twice as likely than any other one caster type, and the side in consideration has popped 5 casters, it has about 0.53 chance of no caster repetition. Increase that to six casters popped, and the chance drops to about 0.4. Supposing we know of two sides, one having popped 5 and the other six casters, the probability of no repetition in either of them is then about 0.21.
_________________ The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.





BLANDCorporatio

Post Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:43 am 



Offline 
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am Posts: 3447

Apropos of the recent Erfworld post, isn't Jetstone one side where at least one caster type repetition occurred? They have popped two Dollamancers, I think.
_________________ The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.





0beron

Post Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:15 am 

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm Posts: 4412
Location: Morlock Wells

BLANDCorporatio wrote: Apropos of the recent Erfworld post, isn't Jetstone one side where at least one caster type repetition occurred? They have popped two Dollamancers, I think. Correct, but they popped Ace after Holly Shortcake had croaked, so they never had 2 at once.
_________________ "I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do." 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.





WaterMonkey314

Post Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:18 am 


Offline 
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:40 pm Posts: 808

BLANDCorporatio wrote: Apropos of the recent Erfworld post, isn't Jetstone one side where at least one caster type repetition occurred? They have popped two Dollamancers, I think. They had Holly and now have Ace; I don't remember if Holly was explicitly said to have popped as a Jetstone unit, but based on her influence on the side I think it's likely. We do have to note that the two never existed simultaneously though.





drachefly

Post Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:07 am 

Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:36 pm Posts: 1909

The sheer fact that they popped a dollamancer anything like soon after losing the previous greatly favors models that skew the probabilities in a sidedefined way.
Also, we possibly know the sides with thinkamancers more because they have an easier time communicating, thus becoming involved. Or they may be so useful to survival that we see more sides with thinkamancers than not due to survival effects.
Who actually has a thinkamancer? GK  Maggie Transylvito  Bunny Unaroyal  unnamed
Who does not have a thinkamancer (number of casters) FAQ (either instance) Goodminton Jetstone If Frenemy or Quisling had thinkamancers, that would have been a major consideration in the surprise attack against their air forces ('thinka' does not occur in episode 20)
Who may or may not have a thinkamancer? Everyone else.
I don't see much solid evidence that they're all that common.





0beron

Post Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:19 am 

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm Posts: 4412
Location: Morlock Wells

drachefly wrote: The sheer fact that they popped a dollamancer anything like soon after losing the previous greatly favors models that skew the probabilities in a sidedefined way. Definitely true, however it's also important to note that there is an implication that Slately had feelings for Holly, so that infamous "Love screws with the Numbers" concept could be to blame for Ace popping. Could be a combination of both. drachefly wrote: I don't see much solid evidence that [Thinkamancers are] all that common. If you look at it purely from "who has them and who doesn't" then no, it won't seem that they're common. But given that they are the only Caster we see multiple times at all in the Western Conflict Sides (with the exception of Jetstone having 2 Dollamancers at separate times), I'd say that's pretty decent evidence. Over Wanda's entire life, very few caster types have been seen more than once, and NONE of them show up THREE times.
_________________ "I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do." 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.





