Linked Thinkamancers?

Speculation, discoveries, complaints, accusations, praise, and all other Erfworld discussion.

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby MarbitChow » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:52 pm

You know, now I'm starting to wonder if it's just impossible to link more than one thinkamancer together. Perhaps, since they're far more familiar with how thinkamancy works, it's much harder for them to 'surrender' themselves to it.

Thinkamancers have well-trained defences against Thinkamancy. They may be able to lower these defenses if ordered, but maybe they can't voluntarily lose their ego into the mix as easily as other casters w/out such training can.

Maybe the limitation is simply that, given multiple thinkamancers, none of them are able to act in the 'submissive' role required, due to their training.
Equilateratoria is now underway. New players are welcome to join at any time! (Rules)
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby shneekeythelost » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:22 am

cloudbreaker wrote:I have also wondered about this topic. I'm wondering if it might be impossible, or at least really difficult, to link up even two thinkamancers. Perhaps they would have trouble allowing one to be the controller of the spell and one being the controlled. Or maybe it is like putting a microphone next to a speaker, where all you get is a lot of unuseful feedback.


This could actually have potential uses. Link up two Thinkamancers. You get a huge feedback loop, wiping the minds of every unit in the hex. Thinkamancers might even be able to protect themselves from the harmful effects of said feedback, allowing for a re-usable mind-nuke.
shneekeythelost
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:03 am

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:53 am

Sorry, I doubt it could be done. While linked, the casters lose access to their basic spells. Linking is basic for Thinkamancers, so they'd lose access to it.
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".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby shneekeythelost » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:30 pm

Kreistor wrote:Sorry, I doubt it could be done. While linked, the casters lose access to their basic spells. Linking is basic for Thinkamancers, so they'd lose access to it.

It's not accessing their basic spells. They establish a link, feedback loop starts. Both being Thinkamancers, they can each protect themselves from the effects. Feedback builds up until critical mass.

If casters lose access to basic spells, and linking is basic for thinkamancers, then you'd NEVER have any gestalt links, because it requires a Thinkamancer to make one, which they could then not maintain due to losing that ability.
shneekeythelost
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:03 am

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:02 am

That's circular logic. They can because they are? No, that's not evidence that they can take it any further than the original basic ability.

And please note, Linking was described as an ability of Thinkamancers, not a Thinkamancy spell. Linking provides the ability to cast abnormally powerful spells, not increase abilities.
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".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby shneekeythelost » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:11 pm

Kreistor wrote:That's circular logic. They can because they are? No, that's not evidence that they can take it any further than the original basic ability.

And please note, Linking was described as an ability of Thinkamancers, not a Thinkamancy spell. Linking provides the ability to cast abnormally powerful spells, not increase abilities.

Ummm... what? Everything you just said was grammatically correct, and absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You said a pair of thinkamancers couldn't link up because linking is a basic spell, which is then lost in the gestalt. Then I said that if that was the case, then there would be no gestalts, because it requires a thinkamancer to create. Now you are saying it isn't a basic spell, but rather an ability. So not only are you changing your mind, but you are also trying to say you cannot increase abilities, which is completely irrelevant to the exploit I'm attempting to use.

Also, keep in mind, I'm not trying to increase any ability. I was merely mentioning that a previously mentioned possible disadvantage of having more than one thinkamancer in a gestalt (the feedback) could have beneficial uses as well (mind-nuke). If we take his sound feedback example, putting a mike in front of a speaker, we note that it can do quite a bit of damage to the area, possibly deafening people nearby. Taking this as a probable example of what would happen when you try to link up multiple thinkamancers, one can use that feedback to inflict massive damage on enemy troops.

Also, where did you get this whole idea about abilities vs spells and exactly what a gestalt can and cannot do? Because really? I don't see anything that supports your position.
shneekeythelost
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:03 am

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Secret » Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:27 pm

Kreistor wrote:Sorry, I doubt it could be done. While linked, the casters lose access to their basic spells. Linking is basic for Thinkamancers, so they'd lose access to it.

Wait...what?
It has never been said that a caster loses access to their basic spells in the linking.....
Maybe what you are thinking of is that they lose their individuality but it has never been said that they lose any spells.
Also where are you getting this 'basic spells' and 'abilities' from in the first place?
Links or it didn't happen!
Image
"I only exist inside those people aware of my existence." -Lain
User avatar
Secret
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 9:49 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:45 am

Secret wrote:
Kreistor wrote:Sorry, I doubt it could be done. While linked, the casters lose access to their basic spells. Linking is basic for Thinkamancers, so they'd lose access to it.

Wait...what?
It has never been said that a caster loses access to their basic spells in the linking.....


Page 64. Frame 3. In reference to casting a Veil, a basic spell... "And we can't do it with the Eyemancers linked up." If that doesn't mean that the Foolamancer can't cast a veil while in a link, then what does it mean? Not rhetorical, Explain it, please. My explanation is simple. While in a link, you can do powerful things, but can't do simple things.
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".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:02 am

shneekeythelost wrote:Ummm... what? Everything you just said was grammatically correct, and absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


Or you merely misunderstood. I'll be more verbose if you like.

You said a pair of thinkamancers couldn't link up because linking is a basic spell, which is then lost in the gestalt. Then I said that if that was the case, then there would be no gestalts, because it requires a thinkamancer to create.


Very incorrect. If you view a Link as a spell, then once cast, it is cast, and there is no reason to cast it again. You seem to think that the spell needs to be recast over and over, when it really only needs to be cast once, when the link is initially formed. That the ability to cast it is lost is irrelevant, because it was already cast.

And on the matter of linking multiple Thinkamancers, I never said you couldn't. I merely said you wouldn't get a more powerful link by orming a Thinkamancer only link to start with.

Now you are saying it isn't a basic spell, but rather an ability. So not only are you changing your mind, but you are also trying to say you cannot increase abilities, which is completely irrelevant to the exploit I'm attempting to use.


It is called, "Covering your bases." Rob doesnt tell us everything. Get used to that concept. He also gives us things from teh wrong people, so we rely too much on the unknowledgable then we draw incorrect conclusions. For example, Rations pop at Dawn, according to Bogroll. But on a later Turn, Rations pop after Charlescomm invades GK airspace, long after dawn. The answer? Rations pop at beginning of Turn, which was at Dawn for GK on those first days, so Bogroll merely said they popped at dawn because it was easy for his simple mind. On that later Turn, Bogroll himself is confused why rations hadn't popped yet. As a Garrison unit, he may never had faced Turn not starting at Dawn, since the wars may never have entered GK battlespace, and so for his entire existence, Rations popped at dawn, until that day. We must be careful whom we rely on for factual information in this comic, and constantly review the old knowledge in relation to the new.

In this case, we have a link. It is described as an ability, but Sizemore may merely have been referring to the ability to cast it. He may also have been referring to it as a natural ability. Both options must be considered without further information. So, I'm covering my bases. I personally believe that it is a natural ability, but that's based solely on opinion.

So, in the case of it being a natural ability, it doesn't get enhanced by the Link, since it's nto a spell. Thus it cannot be used to increase the number of participants by linking.

Also, keep in mind, I'm not trying to increase any ability. I was merely mentioning that a previously mentioned possible disadvantage of having more than one thinkamancer in a gestalt (the feedback) could have beneficial uses as well (mind-nuke). If we take his sound feedback example, putting a mike in front of a speaker, we note that it can do quite a bit of damage to the area, possibly deafening people nearby. Taking this as a probable example of what would happen when you try to link up multiple thinkamancers, one can use that feedback to inflict massive damage on enemy troops.


Really? I may have to re-read what was being said. I may have misinterpreted your post.

Also, where did you get this whole idea about abilities vs spells and exactly what a gestalt can and cannot do? Because really? I don't see anything that supports your position.


Natural and Special Abilities are synonymous right now. Rob uses Natural Abilities in some places, Special in others. There may be a mechanical difference, but right now, in the Wiki, we're treating them as synonymous. Go to the Wiki, find page "Word of the Titans", section 5931853. Natural magics can be used off-Turn. And elsewhere. We have rather large list of natural abilities on the wiki page for Unit, including references for the source.
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".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Secret » Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:15 am

Kreistor wrote:
Secret wrote:
Kreistor wrote:Sorry, I doubt it could be done. While linked, the casters lose access to their basic spells. Linking is basic for Thinkamancers, so they'd lose access to it.

Wait...what?
It has never been said that a caster loses access to their basic spells in the linking.....


Page 64. Frame 3. In reference to casting a Veil, a basic spell... "And we can't do it with the Eyemancers linked up." If that doesn't mean that the Foolamancer can't cast a veil while in a link, then what does it mean? Not rhetorical, Explain it, please. My explanation is simple. While in a link, you can do powerful things, but can't do simple things.

Well she could have meant it couldn't be cast because the foolmancer in the link was already being used to make the holographic display and wasn't able to cast a veil and still maintain the display.
Image
"I only exist inside those people aware of my existence." -Lain
User avatar
Secret
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 9:49 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Keldaria » Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:37 am

On another interesting side note to this discussion, I keep thinking to myself, why not add parson himself into the link. I mean he seems to be some sort of caster, or at the very least completely outta place in this relm and much of this world doesn't seem to know exzactly how to classify him.

Take page 153 for example, he crosses the portal into the magic relm, something only casters are siad to be able to do without disbanding. The main Hippiemancer herself claims him to be a hippiemancer... and come to think of it he actually might be, after all he hates being controled or having to kill others and we have yet to see what, if anything, they can do. but we do know that hippiemancers are casters and would be valid targets for a link, so why not parson? he'd gain better control over troops via thinkamancy link and a better understanding of the combat system here.
User avatar
Keldaria
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Bobby Archer » Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:34 pm

While it might be possible to include Parson in a link (assuming the Grand Abbie wasn't lying or stretching the truth, but that's another debate), Parson wouldn't agree to sublimate his personality into the link unless it was the only way out of a bad spot. Like resorting to Volcano Uncroaking bad.
Uncroaked for Hire

No, no, Misty is Uncle Ben; Bogroll is Gwen Stacy.
User avatar
Bobby Archer
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:09 pm
Location: Mass Hysteria, Chicago, IL, USA, Earth, Reality, Sanity

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Mysteryman64 » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:47 pm

If I am remembering correctly (which it is entirely possible I am not) every time we've seen a link-up, the thinkamancer is in the middle with the two other spell casters either holding hands with them or bound to them at the hands. It may be that the thinkamancer has to be physically touching another caster to initiate the link. If this is the case, you could have as many thinkamancers as you would like, but your still only going to be able to bind 2 non-thinkamancers together. One at either end of the chain.
Mysteryman64
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 3:36 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:45 am

Secret wrote:Well she could have meant it couldn't be cast because the foolmancer in the link was already being used to make the holographic display and wasn't able to cast a veil and still maintain the display.


Which would have been stated as "Can't be done while the Foolamancer helps run the table." Parson says it's "while linked up", not "while assigned other tasks". Other tasks can be aborted for vital tasks. It's not a roadblock, like the other things that block the Veil.
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".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Itzal » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:02 am

actually from what I can tell the link looks more like this

T
/\
*-*
Or
**
Y
T

The three minds become one single entity. The thinkamancer has to connect not only to the two other mancers but also the two other mancers to each other.

Also what I'm getting is that it doesn't matter where the link originates only that it's there So therefore
T
/\
*T
/\
**
wouldn't work as one of the thinkamancers would be linking to 3 different beings. Once again it doesn't matter where the link originates, only that it's there.

It's three minds working as one being, any more and the mind becomes cluttered with too many thoughts.
Veni Vedi Volo En Domium Redare
I came, I saw, I wanna go home.
User avatar
Itzal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:26 am

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Itzal » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:20 am

sorry bout how that last post seems a bit off. I was still trying to think about how to put my ideas into words and I think I screwed up a little on that. I do believe that I got out enough that you can extrapolate what I was trying to say however.
Veni Vedi Volo En Domium Redare
I came, I saw, I wanna go home.
User avatar
Itzal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:26 am

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Unclever title » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:15 am

Considering Itzal's theory might offer some kind of explanation to how four linked casters might seem impossible.

T = Thinkamancer, O = Other Caster

Consider the two possible cases:
Code: Select all
   T-0
Simple enough no explanation needed.

Code: Select all
    T 
   / \
  O - O
Itzal's theory of a link needed between every caster involved.

And the Impossible:
Code: Select all
     T   
   / | \ 
  O -|- O
   \ | / 
     O   
The logical conclusion

In order to mesh them all into a single "psychological alloy" the thinkamancer would have to establish communication between all parties invovled until the point that in the mind of the casters linked up they are a single entity even though they appear as multiple bodies, effectively they become a supercaster or rather the only known case of a true cross caster, not just skilled in magic in general like Wanda but with a combined heart and soul for each discipline and a casting strength equal for each discipline.

Thus under this theory there would need to be six links which would require a crazy awesome thinkamancer (like Charlie and the Arkendish) or maybe just the right combination of bonuses. This is of course mostly to give a sense of the difficulty and part of why even only three caster's linked requires one of them to be a powerful thinkamancer like Maggie.

Now I'm no doubt extrapolating this thought a bit too far but looking at these structures in my post here they look strong, not weak but considering that people in general (I have no reason to doubt that the people of Erf are included here) like having free will, even in limited capacity. So it would make sense that one's mind would resist the loss of its will, even under orders (I imagine it as a sort of reflexive impulse) though perhaps not quite as much as an enemy would resist such a thing. The process must be guided and controlled by a thinkamancer in order to subsume one's will. In this sense minds repel each other when attempting to be fused and the links are not only transfers of information but something like high tension wires holding everything together. So if the fusion of minds involves this much interior stress it's easy to see how a broken link can damage or croak a caster formerly in the link.

Also in the case of 2 or 3 casters one broken link or one croaked caster means the entire spell is lost (at least) however with four casters a lost caster is a powerful hit but also a reduction in strain of the system so the remaining could keep going, unless it was the thinkamancer.

A broken link in the system might not spell the end but some of the effectiveness would be lost an (imperfect fusion one or more casting disciplines unavailable) and the thinkamancer would have his work cut out of him trying to reestablish the link to reign in one or more suddenly more willful minds.

Consider cattle wrangling... Ah...

Cows are stubborn animals and it takes a strong rope and an expert toss of the lasso to bring a lost cow back into the herd. Now consider doing this with two cows simultaneously, now three... Of course that's just roping and herding the cattle. Getting them to communicate and act as a single cow and then fire a super milk laser is another matter entirely.

Tentative conclusions of this post
2 part job for the thinkamancer:
To subdue and subsume the casters' wills (Cattle Wrangling). More minds makes this more difficult assumedly not on a linear scale.
To connect and cooperate the minds of the casters (Super milk laser). More minds makes it so more specialized (maybe more powerful?) and amazing spells can be cast.

EDIT: TBFGK Page 84 Support for those conclusions and evidence that more of thinkamancy might be metaphorically related to cattle wrangling.
Last edited by Unclever title on Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Unclever title
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby Kreistor » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:44 am

Itzal, I suspect the other casters do not assist in maintaining the Link. Their minds are stripped of all thoughts extraneous to their magic. The primary Thinkamancer's mind is devoted to controlling the others, removing their individuality and distractions so the mind can devote to thinking only of magic.

And that's why, if Linking is a spell, a trio of Thinkamancers could not add more to the link. While theoretically two minds are free to add more to the link, they lack individuality... they lack the capacity to conceive of distraction and so cannot remove it from the minds of others. The primary Thinkamancer in the trio provides control and power, but nothing more. The other two are incapable of thought beyond magic, and so although they can affect the minds of othes, they can do it only to the purpose provided by a third party. They lack will. They lack desire. They can no longer conceive of these things. How can somone in that situation control the thoughts of a mind capable of irrationality?

Oh, of course. INsight blossoms. I just realized why Linking can not be a spell. Spells are "fire and forget" in Erfworld. Once cast, the caster is free to move on. Linking does not free up the Thinkamancer. The Thinkamancer must maintain the Link. Spells can't dominate people in Erfworld, only influence them. Linking is not subtle... it is domination. And that's why it's an ability, and not a spell.
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".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby MarbitChow » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:06 pm

Kreistor wrote:And that's why it's an ability, and not a spell.

Abilities (flight, regeneration, detect magic) so far have usually been shown to be able to be used without effort. Spells have been shown to have keyword triggers. Maggie says "Callahan's" to start the link, which seems to be evidence that the link is in fact a spell rather than an ability.

Personally, I'm leaning towards the possibility that you simply can't include more than one "mancer" type from each school.
The gestalt appears to gain its power from the interplay of different schools, rather than, for example, the levels of the casters involved, so there would not be a need to include 2 dirtamancers to achieve a dirtamancy effect.

Of course, it's quite possible that it hasn't been done simply because no one is willing to risk experimenting with casters to see what is possible.
Equilateratoria is now underway. New players are welcome to join at any time! (Rules)
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Linked Thinkamancers?

Postby raphfrk » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:42 pm

Unclever title wrote:In order to mesh them all into a single "psychological alloy" the thinkamancer would have to establish communication between all parties invovled until the point that in the mind of the casters linked up they are a single entity even though they appear as multiple bodies, effectively they become a supercaster or rather the only known case of a true cross caster, not just skilled in magic in general like Wanda but with a combined heart and soul for each discipline and a casting strength equal for each discipline.


I wonder if that would allow a Thinkamancer to form a two person link while standing outside it.

Code: Select all
        T
       
      O - O


This would yield a link while operating at lower risk.

Ofc, if the suggestion that they don't really take part in the link anyway is true, then this is all they ever do. That doesn't explain the benefit of Thinkamancer + 1 other caster links.

Thus under this theory there would need to be six links


It would show the difficulty of higher order links. With 5 casters, there would be a need for 20 different links.

However, the ring suggestion would still allow all the minds to be linked. It would just require that thoughts would be routed.

Each Thinkamancer would read the contents of the 2 casters he was linked to and pass the thoughts onto the other one. The effect is that all thoughts would eventually run around the ring. The effect would be slower thoughts than normal, but perhaps "deeper".
raphfrk
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 10:38 am

PreviousNext

Return to Everything Else Erfworld

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests