Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 9:00 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 19
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F006.jpg

A very old page of course, but fuel for the fire of recent speculation about Wanda being FAQ's predictamancer.

What people say when they are caught off guard often reveals the truth of a situation far better than when you catch them at their best; their social defenses aren't up. And Wanda might be seen to slip in panel 8. This is a spell forged of Findamancy and Predictamancy. Logically, it should need both a findamancer and a predictamancer to cast it. And Wanda... only says they need a Findamancer. :)

Yeah yeah, I know, go ahead, accuse me of planting epileptic trees. :3

_________________
This has been a test of the emergency broadcast system. If this were an actual emergency, you would already be dead.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 9:14 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:52 pm
    Posts: 197
    The other spellset needed was lookamancy, which they had, not predictamancy.

    Otherwise a good theory, but ah well.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 9:18 pm 
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Year of the Dwagon Supporter This user is a Tool! 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: Mon May 04, 2009 10:37 am
    Posts: 107
    Page 5 panel 9 "The Findamancers and Predictamancers have forged a spell together."

    Sounds good to me Fuzzpaw.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 9:32 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:52 pm
    Posts: 197
    Yeah, they made the spell, but later it's described (To Jillian) as lookamancy/findamancy, which makes more sense. (Retcon? Or just mages being able to make a spell that actually uses different disciplines?)

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 9:50 pm 
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Year of the Dwagon Supporter This user is a Tool! 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: Mon May 04, 2009 10:37 am
    Posts: 107
    Darkside007 wrote:
    Yeah, they made the spell, but later it's described (To Jillian) as lookamancy/findamancy, which makes more sense. (Retcon? Or just mages being able to make a spell that actually uses different disciplines?)

    Oh yeah, look at that.

    Why do you think Lookamancy makes more sence? It's not like they got to spy on candiate Parson in his Earth life as part of the spell. (We did, but they missed out.) If so they would have rejected him out of hand. To me the Predictamancy is important as that would be the part predicting how effective a warlord he would be in Erf.


    Last edited by Frogpop on Wed May 06, 2009 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 9:52 pm 
    User avatar
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:12 pm
    Posts: 565
    Location: Northern Virginia
    The fact that Wanda described the components of the summoning spell one way to Stanley and another way to Jillian has led to all sorts of speculation, but we really don't have enough information to draw any real conclusions. Strictly speaking, the two might not actually be inconsistent (Wanda's description to Stanley referenced the types of casters who created the spell, and her description to Jillian referenced the types of magic that went into the spell).

    _________________
    Is this a real holy war, or just a bunch of deluded boopholes croaking each other?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 2:12 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:03 pm
    Posts: 60
    SteveMB wrote:
    The fact that Wanda described the components of the summoning spell one way to Stanley and another way to Jillian has led to all sorts of speculation, but we really don't have enough information to draw any real conclusions. Strictly speaking, the two might not actually be inconsistent (Wanda's description to Stanley referenced the types of casters who created the spell, and her description to Jillian referenced the types of magic that went into the spell).


    Agreed. Look at the spell itself which was used to summon Parson. It was created by both Findamancers and Predictamancers. Wanda saying that the spell needs a Findamancer is not so much because the spell can't be cast without a Findamancer but because a Findamancer has the expert ability to make sure the spell is cast effectively. If spells only worked if the caster's "class" matches the type of spell used then Sizemore wouldn't have been able to cast all those Shockamancy spells in Page 126. And Sizemore has stated in Page 13 that he's "good at nothing beyond [his] specialty."

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:54 am 
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 10:38 am
    Posts: 830
    SteveMB wrote:
    and her description to Jillian referenced the types of magic that went into the spell).


    This could be interpreted as evidence for the "Wanda was the Predictamancer" theory. If she was previous a Predicatamancer, then complaining that the spell was XXX/Predicatamancy wouldn't have been so bad a complaint. By saying Lookamancy, she prevents Jillian from replying (or thinking), "What's the big deal, sure you were a Predicatamancer in Faq".

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 12:53 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:57 pm
    Posts: 467
    raphfrk wrote:
    This could be interpreted as evidence for the "Wanda was the Predictamancer" theory. If she was previous a Predicatamancer, then complaining that the spell was XXX/Predicatamancy wouldn't have been so bad a complaint. By saying Lookamancy, she prevents Jillian from replying (or thinking), "What's the big deal, sure you were a Predicatamancer in Faq".


    It can be also interpreted the other way. Jillian should know if Wanda dislikes to practice Predictamancy, so she would be the perfect person for Wanda to complain to that she had to use her disliked branch again.

    On a general note, I don't think Wanda was the prdeictamancer. If she was, she would have used it. She would be compelled to it by Duty. And even if her loyalty is low, she at least would have used it to find out if the "Jillian the mole" trap would be successful. A trap that would have brought her the pliers.

    _________________
    I love uncroaked Dora. I love an anonymous friend even more.

    Only one man has understood me, and even he has not!

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 1:28 pm 
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Year of the Dwagon Supporter This user is a Tool! 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: Mon May 04, 2009 10:37 am
    Posts: 107
    But by failing, the trap still did bring her the pliers. Predicting the future can be tricky that way. Just because you know that some end result is likely happen, the path taken to get to that end result can still surprise the heck out of you. Stanley was quick to believe that the Perfect Warlord spell had failed, rather than trust that it was succeeding in a way he didn't expect.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 2:41 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:57 pm
    Posts: 467
    We don't know how predictamancy works, how it's used and what kind of questions it can answer. But it's unlikely that Wanda wouldn't even try to predict the outcome at least generally. One application of predicatamancy is to foresee if units cross a certain position. It's not a big step to assume that it's possible to predict if a certain known unit will enter a certain hex in near future.
    On the other side, maybe predictamancy gives only likelihoods, and sometimes they fail. Even with 95% winning chance units can lose (especially when crucial - Civ IV anyone ;) ), and Wanda did say "He has always been predictable in this matter". (I still don't buy the theory).

    _________________
    I love uncroaked Dora. I love an anonymous friend even more.

    Only one man has understood me, and even he has not!

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 9:38 pm 
    User avatar
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! IRC Quote of the Moment Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:03 am
    Posts: 295
    giving a likelihood sounds more like mathamancy. At least in terms of specific percentages it does.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 6:54 am 
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 10:38 am
    Posts: 830
    Another option is that Predictamancers see lots of different futures and tell what is the one that they see the most often.

    Alternatively, it could be based on "fate". If you are fated to do something, they can tell you about it, a lage number of turns in advance.

    They wouldn't be able to tell you who is going to win a batte, but could say that the leader of the battle would rise to Chief Warlord.

    Effectively, they give cryptic information that is 'locked-in' once they give it.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 12:49 pm 
    User avatar
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! This user was a Tool before it was cool 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 May 03, 2009 11:32 am
    Posts: 67
    What I would like to know, how did Wanda even know that spell existed? Gossip alone? And how curious that she would offer the chance to buy it to Stanley just when he needed it the most... and talked him into accepting the pitch. At least, it becomes so when you examine the hints from the Grand Abbie that suggest that the Perfect Warlord is meant to break things and talks Sizemore into becoming Parson's supporter and trying to become his friend. The web is beginning to seem quite tangled indeed. Wanda has almost certainly been plotting to acquire the Arkenpliers even if she did not know it would be specifically them she would get; did someone deliberately tell her about the Perfect Warlord spell to unite her with Parson?

    A strange possible causality chain has popped into my mind. Grand Abbie decides to make a supreme effort to create peace. Grand Abbie allies with Predictamancer. Predictamancer plots course and hands Wanda the prophecy that sets her on her path. Masterclass 'mancers of the Magic Kingdom create the summoning spell. Existence of summoning spell is revealed to Wanda when her Side is backed into a corner...

    I am beginning to believe that Parson is something much bigger than a mere Arkentool. And I am mildly amused by the idea that the Arkenpliers are somehow 'game breaking' when the Grand Abbie to me seems to want to break the game. :)

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 11:06 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:52 pm
    Posts: 197
    "Game breaking" is a phrase generally restricted to balance issues; in multiplayer games, such balance issues would make the game essentially unplayable: it would be a race to the gamebreaker and then autocast win.

    Breaking the mechanics of the game is something fundamentally different, and fundamentally more awesome.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:32 am 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:35 am
    Posts: 1727
    Location: Wales... New South Wales
    Adolf Alexander wrote:
    Link destination changed by Anomynous 167
    However, by coming up short, the trap still brought her the pincers. Foreseeing the future can be dubious that way. Because you realize that some final product is likely happen, the way taken to get to that final product would still be able to astonish the hell out of you. Stanley rushed to trust that the Perfect Warlord spell had bombed, as opposed to assume that it was prevailing in a way he didn't anticipate. [url=bing.com]Click on the Link Below[/url]

    This is it: Two years from now there won't be any need for humans to make forum accounts. The bots are already starting to make constructive comments relevant to the thread at hand. Although now is still not the time.
    https://xkcd.com/810/

    Silly Alexander: You forgot to provide the link for us to click below! I am not going anywhere unless you specifically instruct me to click on a specific link. The only link I can see is the one in blue text where you wrote "Click on the Link Below", but you clearly didn't want me to click on that link.

    Unless... unless.. *ehem*, unless the link you want me to click on is the "Quote" button, or maybe it is your profile page (for a private message)?
    Or maybe you want me to report you? I don't see why'd you want me, but I am the sort of person to be highly impressionable from advertisements...

    edit: reverse psychology doesn't tend to work for me. Or maybe it does? I dunno.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:44 pm 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:49 pm
    Posts: 227
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    Adolf Alexander wrote:
    Link destination changed by Anomynous 167
    However, by coming up short, the trap still brought her the pincers. Foreseeing the future can be dubious that way. Because you realize that some final product is likely happen, the way taken to get to that final product would still be able to astonish the hell out of you. Stanley rushed to trust that the Perfect Warlord spell had bombed, as opposed to assume that it was prevailing in a way he didn't anticipate. [url=bing.com]Click on the Link Below[/url]

    This is it: Two years from now there won't be any need for humans to make forum accounts. The bots are already starting to make constructive comments relevant to the thread at hand. Although now is still not the time.
    https://xkcd.com/810/

    Silly Alexander: You forgot to provide the link for us to click below! I am not going anywhere unless you specifically instruct me to click on a specific link. The only link I can see is the one in blue text where you wrote "Click on the Link Below", but you clearly didn't want me to click on that link.

    Unless... unless.. *ehem*, unless the link you want me to click on is the "Quote" button, or maybe it is your profile page (for a private message)?
    Or maybe you want me to report you? I don't see why'd you want me, but I am the sort of person to be highly impressionable from advertisements...

    edit: reverse psychology doesn't tend to work for me. Or maybe it does? I dunno.


    Ten years from now, human accounts will be banned on sight, because they're interrupting the constructive discussions the bots are having with their immature remarks.
    And clearly the bot wants you to click on the link to your profile, because that's what is below its post. I already followed its instruction and are amazed at your beautiful and informative profile page. Thank you, bot.

    _________________
    I did a thing: http://www.erfworld.com/blog/view/55086 ... redth-king

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:51 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:25 pm
    Posts: 104
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    Adolf Alexander wrote:
    Link destination changed by Anomynous 167
    However, by coming up short, the trap still brought her the pincers. Foreseeing the future can be dubious that way. Because you realize that some final product is likely happen, the way taken to get to that final product would still be able to astonish the hell out of you. Stanley rushed to trust that the Perfect Warlord spell had bombed, as opposed to assume that it was prevailing in a way he didn't anticipate. [url=bing.com]Click on the Link Below[/url]

    This is it: Two years from now there won't be any need for humans to make forum accounts. The bots are already starting to make constructive comments relevant to the thread at hand. Although now is still not the time.
    https://xkcd.com/810/

    This "adolph alexander" bot seems to be constructing camouflage out of a patchwork of other people's statements from the same thread, randomized with a thesaurus.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:04 pm 
    Has collected at least one unit Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:55 pm
    Posts: 562
    strange7person wrote:
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    Adolf Alexander wrote:
    Link destination changed by Anomynous 167
    However, by coming up short, the trap still brought her the pincers. Foreseeing the future can be dubious that way. Because you realize that some final product is likely happen, the way taken to get to that final product would still be able to astonish the hell out of you. Stanley rushed to trust that the Perfect Warlord spell had bombed, as opposed to assume that it was prevailing in a way he didn't anticipate. [url=bing.com]Click on the Link Below[/url]

    This is it: Two years from now there won't be any need for humans to make forum accounts. The bots are already starting to make constructive comments relevant to the thread at hand. Although now is still not the time.
    https://xkcd.com/810/

    This "adolph alexander" bot seems to be constructing camouflage out of a patchwork of other people's statements from the same thread, randomized with a thesaurus.

    Ah, what a time to be alive. Bots can almost appear coherent by generating discussion from other people's thoughts. The future is now, people! Now we just need it to start actually responding based on context, rather than simply regurgitating others' thoughts put through a blender.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:05 pm 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:35 am
    Posts: 1727
    Location: Wales... New South Wales
    Crisco wrote:
    strange7person wrote:
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    This is it: Two years from now there won't be any need for humans to make forum accounts. The bots are already starting to make constructive comments relevant to the thread at hand. Although now is still not the time.
    https://xkcd.com/810/

    This "adolph alexander" bot seems to be constructing camouflage out of a patchwork of other people's statements from the same thread, randomized with a thesaurus.

    Ah, what a time to be alive. Bots can almost appear coherent by generating discussion from other people's thoughts. The future is now, people! Now we just need it to start actually responding based on context, rather than simply regurgitating others' thoughts put through a blender.

    I mean I thought that the bot was quite good at responding based on context :? (which was the whole point of me making my original comment). None of the bot's remarks made any reference to events that transpired in the second or third book, making his comment entirely on topic. Furthermore I found his regurgative words quite relevant to the preceeding comment,,, in the sense of someone not bothering to read the entire thread before posting, while replying to someone specific without bothering to quote anyone.

    The only thing that tipped me off that this was a bot was his reference to the Arken Pincers.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 11 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: