Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 314 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:11 pm 
Here for the 10th Anniversary
Offline
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
Posts: 1481
Oberon wrote:
In those cases "who" isn't predicting things outside of the subject of the prediction itself.
So then Predictamancy can handle some who, but not other who. That is pretty vague. How can we know which people in a Prediction are allowed to be subjects and which are just whos who can't be Predicted? We need to clarify that or else the rule that says Predictamancy can't say who doesn't mean much.

Oberon wrote:
Instead, Marie was looking at each second and attempting to predict the chance that Olive will be hit. This is not a prediction of "when", since it was real time.
It's still a prediction of a when, even though it happens to be very soon. Marie was Predicting to herself, "If I tell her to shoot now, will she hit Olive now?" If Predictamancy couldn't handle when, then the question would have to be something like: "If I tell her to shoot now, will she hit Olive?" The difference is that a yes to the first question means Olive doesn't escape, while a yes to the second question could mean that Wanda misses her shot, Olive escapes, everyone glares at Marie, and then sometime in the future the unpredicted when comes around and Wanda shoots Olive in an entirely different situation. If Predictamancy were really vulnerable to that sort of failure, I think that Marie would have warned people at the time that she couldn't be trusted as much as they seemed to trust her. The reputation of Predictamancy must be a very fragile thing, so I expect Predictamancers take great care with it.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:42 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am
    Posts: 1191
    Lilwik wrote:
    Oberon wrote:
    In those cases "who" isn't predicting things outside of the subject of the prediction itself.
    So then Predictamancy can handle some who, but not other who. That is pretty vague. How can we know which people in a Prediction are allowed to be subjects and which are just whos who can't be Predicted? We need to clarify that or else the rule that says Predictamancy can't say who doesn't mean much.
    Come on now, this isn't hard, is it? The only "who" a prediction is about is for the subject, all other bets are off. Jillian will kill the ruler of Haffaton. Who will be the ruler of Haffaton when Jillian kills that person? Predictamancy does not know. Wanda will attune to a tool of the titans. Who is the current owner of that tool? Predictamancy does not know. It is not vague to say that predictamancy can not say "who" except for the subject of a prediction, it is how the magic appears to work. The subject and the result are the only things known, all other things such as who, what, when, where, and why, are unknowns.

    _________________
    How using capslock wins arguments:
    Zeroberon wrote:
    So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:50 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1481
    Oberon wrote:
    The subject and the result are the only things known, all other things such as who, what, when, where, and why, are unknowns.
    But how do we define subject? For example: Jillian will kill the ruler of Haffaton. Is Jillian the subject of that prediction because she is personally specified? Is the ruler of Haffaton not the subject because that person is left unspecified? That doesn't work, because it's the other way around. According to the rule, Predictamancy can only determine the subjects of the Prediction, not the other people, so Jillian is specified because she's the subject. It's not that she's the subject because she's specified, unless we want to get circular, so I don't know why she's the subject. If the rule is going to be that only the subject of a Prediction is known, then we need a rule to tell us who can be the subject of a Prediction. Why couldn't the ruler of Haffaton have been the subject? Otherwise the rule doesn't really say anything, except that the subjects of a Prediction are known, and the people who are known are the subjects of the Prediction.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:22 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: 3629
    Maybe predictamancy works like this. The future is a jigsaw puzzle, or several puzzles mixed together. A predictamancer can try looking at the picture on the box, but without looking at the pieces, they only know the shape of things to come, not how it goes together, not how things will come to pass. Alternatively, the predictamancer can try looking at the pieces, but they only focus on one piece at a time, so they are working off shape, not image.

    Marie looks at the piece that is Wanda, and sees she fits with an Arkentool. Marie tries looking at the box to see when she can shoot down Olive, but that isn't a part of the picture.

    Just a thought, and probably an incorrect one. But it would make sense that there would be multiple types of Predictamancy, with different types of focuses.

    _________________
    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: Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:57 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am
    Posts: 1191
    Lilwik wrote:
    But how do we define subject? For example: Jillian will kill the ruler of Haffaton. Is Jillian the subject of that prediction because she is personally specified?
    The same way that subject is defined anywhere else, of course. Yes, Jillian is the subject because she is the one who will do the killing. Yes, Wanda is the subject because she is the one who will attune to a tool of the titans. We don't need to make this any harder to understand.

    _________________
    How using capslock wins arguments:
    Zeroberon wrote:
    So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:07 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1481
    Oberon wrote:
    The same way that subject is defined anywhere else, of course.
    Subject is defined many ways and has several different uses depending on context. I see what you mean now, though. You mean the active one in a Prediction is known, the one who is doing things, while the others are unknown. Perhaps it would be clearer to call them actors rather than subjects. Unfortunately the actor theory doesn't seem to be correct since Delphie Predicted that Wanda would serve Olive. (Book 0, Episode 9). Wanda is certainly active in that Prediction, but how could Delphie know about Olive?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:29 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am
    Posts: 1191
    That is an interesting prediction. We don't hear the actual prediction itself, which obscures things a bit. All we hear is Delphie talking about what is fated to be. It does name two specifics, if Delphie can be considered to be a reliable narrator. But Delphie also says that Olive is fated to be Wanda's chief caster for a long time. Which is of course a very subjective statement. Olive wasn't Wanda's chief caster for very long at all, as I would measure it.

    _________________
    How using capslock wins arguments:
    Zeroberon wrote:
    So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:07 am 
    Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:50 am
    Posts: 61
    Oberon wrote:
    That is an interesting prediction. We don't hear the actual prediction itself, which obscures things a bit. All we hear is Delphie talking about what is fated to be. It does name two specifics, if Delphie can be considered to be a reliable narrator. But Delphie also says that Olive is fated to be Wanda's chief caster for a long time. Which is of course a very subjective statement. Olive wasn't Wanda's chief caster for very long at all, as I would measure it.


    Olive was Wanda's chief caster for Wanda's entire time as part of Haffaton...hundreds if not thousands of turns worth. That qualifies for a "long time" by most subjective measures. (Olive was only the ruler of Haffaton for a short time, but she was Chief Caster of Haffaton for a very long time - perhaps you are confusing the titles)

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:20 am 
    User avatar
    Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm
    Posts: 993
    Howdy,

    Curious if any of ya'll could point me to discussion of how:

    http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -12-24.jpg

    ... jives with the most recent page. Something seems a bit odd. Listing the predictions, we have: 98.4% to defeat JS without the spell, "99 something to take airspace, tower, and garrison" without Faq at all,"70s to 90s depending a lot on what that caster is" to defeat JS with Faq. Collectively, these seem to imply two things... 1. Faq's airforce (caster aside) could have tilted the odds in JS's favor by a maximum of ~1.5%, and 2. Kingworld aside, turnamancers are just about worthless in combat... also a maximum of 1.5%.

    _________________
    Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:28 am 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:23 am
    Posts: 265
    effataigus wrote:
    Howdy,

    Curious if any of ya'll could point me to discussion of how:

    http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -12-24.jpg

    ... jives with the most recent page. Something seems a bit odd. Listing the predictions, we have: 98.4% to defeat JS without the spell, "99 something to take airspace, tower, and garrison" without Faq at all,"70s to 90s depending a lot on what that caster is" to defeat JS with Faq. Collectively, these seem to imply two things... 1. Faq's airforce (caster aside) could have tilted the odds in JS's favor by a maximum of ~1.5%, and 2. Kingworld aside, turnamancers are just about worthless in combat... also a maximum of 1.5%.


    I imagine turnamancers can turn units, seeding chaos in battles.

    As long as their loyalty is low.

    And decrypted units...

    Turnamancers may be effective against less loyal troops.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:42 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: 3629
    Oberon wrote:
    That is an interesting prediction. We don't hear the actual prediction itself, which obscures things a bit. All we hear is Delphie talking about what is fated to be. It does name two specifics, if Delphie can be considered to be a reliable narrator. But Delphie also says that Olive is fated to be Wanda's chief caster for a long time. Which is of course a very subjective statement. Olive wasn't Wanda's chief caster for very long at all, as I would measure it.

    She was her chief caster long enough for Wanda to cultivate an impressive garden, and for her signamancy to change. Signs point to Wanda being with Haffaton quite a while before Jillian kills the manikin.

    _________________
    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: Mon Dec 16, 2013 1:34 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 3:26 am
    Posts: 124
    Lipkin wrote:
    Oberon wrote:
    That is an interesting prediction. We don't hear the actual prediction itself, which obscures things a bit. All we hear is Delphie talking about what is fated to be. It does name two specifics, if Delphie can be considered to be a reliable narrator. But Delphie also says that Olive is fated to be Wanda's chief caster for a long time. Which is of course a very subjective statement. Olive wasn't Wanda's chief caster for very long at all, as I would measure it.

    She was her chief caster long enough for Wanda to cultivate an impressive garden, and for her signamancy to change. Signs point to Wanda being with Haffaton quite a while before Jillian kills the manikin.


    How many cities was it that Haffaton had when Wanda was turned to their side? Fourteen or something? Before Jillian captures El-Efbaum, they're up to seventy. And as is mentioned, Haffaton is a very slow and patient side. They crept forward and built up their territory through either 'peaceful' means, or surprise ambushes, both of which take a bit of time.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:01 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1481
    effataigus wrote:
    Listing the predictions, we have: 98.4% to defeat JS without the spell, "99 something to take airspace, tower, and garrison" without Faq at all,"70s to 90s depending a lot on what that caster is" to defeat JS with Faq. Collectively, these seem to imply two things... 1. Faq's airforce (caster aside) could have tilted the odds in JS's favor by a maximum of ~1.5%, and 2. Kingworld aside, turnamancers are just about worthless in combat... also a maximum of 1.5%.
    That's very well spotted. Thank you! Of course, there's a tricky issue of just how the effectiveness of a Turnamancer is being measured because Charlie's question wasn't stated as precisely as it could have been. I'm sure that like any discipline Turnamancy has many subtle spells with fine distinctions. We've seen this especially with Thinkamancy in Book 2, Text 38. So then what if Kingworld was only one of a half dozen spells that would have had practically the same effect on the second Spacerock the Battle? I would presume that Charlie meant the odds if none of those were cast, and I expect so would Parson, which means that they are effectively forcing the Turnamancer to sit on all her most effective spells.

    There's yet another way in which Charlie's question was imprecise. Jillian and the Turnamancer both left the area before the fighting began. If we're assuming that the Kingworld spell didn't happen, are we also assuming that Jillian and the Turnamancer stayed to fight, or are we still imagining that they left? Parson might be excluding Faq entirely from his calculations instead of just excluding Kingworld.

    On the other hand, maybe Faq's fliers and Turnamancer really do make nothing more than a 1.5% difference. We're not talking about how many casualties they could cause, only their chance of actually changing the final outcome. They could put up an enormously ferocious fight, giving Gobwin Knob heavy casualties, and still have no chance of winning in the end.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:59 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: 1574
    Lilwik wrote:
    effataigus wrote:
    Listing the predictions, we have: 98.4% to defeat JS without the spell, "99 something to take airspace, tower, and garrison" without Faq at all,"70s to 90s depending a lot on what that caster is" to defeat JS with Faq. Collectively, these seem to imply two things... 1. Faq's airforce (caster aside) could have tilted the odds in JS's favor by a maximum of ~1.5%, and 2. Kingworld aside, turnamancers are just about worthless in combat... also a maximum of 1.5%.
    That's very well spotted. Thank you! Of course, there's a tricky issue of just how the effectiveness of a Turnamancer is being measured because Charlie's question wasn't stated as precisely as it could have been. I'm sure that like any discipline Turnamancy has many subtle spells with fine distinctions. We've seen this especially with Thinkamancy in Book 2, Text 38. So then what if Kingworld was only one of a half dozen spells that would have had practically the same effect on the second Spacerock the Battle? I would presume that Charlie meant the odds if none of those were cast, and I expect so would Parson, which means that they are effectively forcing the Turnamancer to sit on all her most effective spells.

    There's yet another way in which Charlie's question was imprecise. Jillian and the Turnamancer both left the area before the fighting began. If we're assuming that the Kingworld spell didn't happen, are we also assuming that Jillian and the Turnamancer stayed to fight, or are we still imagining that they left? Parson might be excluding Faq entirely from his calculations instead of just excluding Kingworld.

    On the other hand, maybe Faq's fliers and Turnamancer really do make nothing more than a 1.5% difference. We're not talking about how many casualties they could cause, only their chance of actually changing the final outcome. They could put up an enormously ferocious fight, giving Gobwin Knob heavy casualties, and still have no chance of winning in the end.

    Parson seems to be excluding the Turnamancer from his calculations completely. Parson was specifically asked to exclude the Kingworld spell. Arguably he could have assumed that without Kingworld other Tri-linked turnamancy would have been cast instead, but I do not think he did so. (Ironically that might have make the odds even worse. If Kingworld is not cast it must be because Charlie had a better spell.)

    I also note its possible that FAQ might have only given a slightly better chance for a lucky strike on Wanda, while in all actuality worsening the probable outcome. (Without Kingworld.) 95% chance that Jillian and co. die and are decrypted while inflicting significantly less than they added to GKs forces. 3% chance they inflict more than they give. 1% chance they make the decisive anti-Wanda blow.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:02 pm 
    User avatar
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm
    Posts: 922
    Or without Kingsworld to allow her to ditch and go chase after Ansom, Jillian would've turned, killed everyone, and then banged Wanda on top of a huge pile of corpses.

    _________________
    “I will tell you precisely what Royalty is,” said Intra, “It is a continuous cutting motion.”

    -The Song of Maybe

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:56 pm 
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:14 am
    Posts: 100
    Lilwik wrote:
    On the other hand, maybe Faq's fliers and Turnamancer really do make nothing more than a 1.5% difference. We're not talking about how many casualties they could cause, only their chance of actually changing the final outcome. They could put up an enormously ferocious fight, giving Gobwin Knob heavy casualties, and still have no chance of winning in the end.



    Actually, that would make some sense. That "1.5%" is essentially the chance of stopping the decryption snowball. That 1.5% could simply be the probability of Jillian's air-force making a successful decapitation strike against Wanda's stack.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:58 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
    On a different note, I think I just came up with a rather devestating tool Parson has at his disposal.

    Link Wanda, Maggie, and Marie. Predict when a unit will die, or more importantly, "kill" their future. Either croaking them on the spot, or freeing them from whatever Fate they had been bound to.

    _________________
    "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: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:37 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1481
    0beron wrote:
    Link Wanda, Maggie, and Marie. Predict when a unit will die, or more importantly, "kill" their future.
    Two problems with that: Croakamancy isn't in the business of croaking things; it's all about uncroaking, and Marie would be quick to say that what is fated cannot be changed. Those two working together aren't likely to accomplish what you are describing. Carnymancers are the ones who say that you can fight Fate, so one of the casters in the link should probably be a Carnymancer.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:43 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
    Marie is no Delphi, she is all about new approaches and being unconventional. And with Wanda wielding the 'Pliers, she's demonstrated she can easily expand the influence of Croakamancy. Think of it as Decrypting one's future, making it obey Wanda's will.

    _________________
    "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: Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:01 pm 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:17 pm
    Posts: 747
    Not exactly the same objective, but definitely easier.

    Link Predictamancer & Findamancer when striking high value targets: determine if a particular mission will result (among other effects) in the death of the target. Not perfect, and missions can still turn out to be pyrrhic victories, but at you probably wouldn't totally waste your resources?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 314 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: ARGlen, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], BMacG, MirEgal, Not Me and 18 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: