Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 039

[Housellama]

Current Wanda is scary and obsessive and ruthless and divinely convinced of her destiny but I don't think that's the same as being completely crazy. Haffaton Wanda appears to have completely lost her marbles. The rest of "Inner Peace", logically, is going to be about how and why Wanda regained her focus, youthened up, caused the downfall of Haffaton and fled to FAQ with Jillian and got her head filled up with destiny by Marie (not necessarily in that order).

I can accept your point of view. I understand how you reached it. I think you're wrong, but I can respect your conclusion.

Wanda didn't get sane. Haffaton Era Wanda (HEW) is like a shotgun with her crazy. It sprays all over the place. She's not chewing the scenery, but she's definitely splattering it with nuts. Current Era Wanda (CEW) has crazy that's like a laser. Pinpoint, precise and powerful as boop. Sometime between Goodminton Era Wanda (GEW) and HEW, she lost it. HEW has given into the creepy, crazy Morticia Addams meets Hannibal Lecter thing. I would guess that she feels that she has lost control of her life, and is controlling what she can. She's also grown in power (Immensely!) and power corrupts. I would also wager that she doesn't have to be socially acceptable now. That's Olive's job. So HEW can be the dark, creepy Croakamancer and enjoy the boop out of it.

CEW, on the other hand, is more or less a Side of her own. She betrayed FAQ because that was what she wanted to do. She stays with Stanley because that is what she wants to do. She supports Parson because that is what she wants to do. She can't afford to be the crazy bone lady anymore. She has to be functional. So she tightened up the crazy. She pulled it back inside and focused it toward achieving her goals. On the surface, CEW is functional and smart and sane. But she's not. She's just as booped up as HEW, she has simply learned to harness her insanity to make her even more powerful.

[BCCroaker]

I think Wanda's garden and current appearance is aimed at Haffaton as much as anything. They say the are the side of life and peace and will bring all of that to as much of Erf as they can reach - but they need Wanda to do it. She denies them this comforting lie and shows a face of horror and madness to the world, destroying what they think they are even as they win on the battlefield.
Or maybe not.

[Raza]

I like this version of Wanda. She's morbid and artistically self-indulgent, apparently engaging in grand undertakings for sheer aesthetic symmetry.

'Seems to have a bit of an identity crisis, though. She doesn't seem to differentiate between herself and the florist.

[Lamech]

I like this version of Wanda. She's morbid and artistically self-indulgent, apparently engaging in grand undertakings for sheer aesthetic symmetry.

'Seems to have a bit of an identity crisis, though. She doesn't seem to differentiate between herself and the florist.

I think she believes she croaked him by not turning to Haffaton. Either that or that's a creepy combo thinkspace (or combo body!) body of a linked Wanda/Olive.

[Oberon]

And it's still deeply disturbing to think that Wanda & Jillian will become 'involved' after this initial encounter (and that BOTH will come to ENJOY their torture and interrogation routine)!

Then the author has done a good job.

Welcome back to Reactions, Oberon! Good to see you, again. I was starting to feel like the forum bully without ya!

Happy to oblige.

Not to be confused with zeroberon (with the Jack avatar), [...]

Thank you so much for bringing up such a painful subject. While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it? We're closed.

[Frosted]

I love this update because Wanda is a monster.

Remember when Wanda was terrifying? Book 1 style? Good times.

This Wanda is dope.

[wrecan]

I'm not saying that there is a trimancer link, because I think that to be really unsubstantiated. However, it's not entirely irrational. I can imagine that Haffaton has enlarged so much that the only way to manage the Empire is with a trimancer lank. A Florist/Croakamancer/Thinkamancer link may be what allows Haffaton to monitor all of its holdings and to allow its Cities to remain essentially undefended.

Again, I'm not saying it is a trimancer link, but I would not be surprised either.

[0beron]

Heck, given their size I could see them have TWO tri-links to manage the Empire. We know that Stanley isn't a genius...what if the Eyemancer link wasn't actually his idea, but was rather given to him by Wanda based on her past experience? What if Haffaton manages itself using an Eyemancer Table that is manned by two links? (Fool/Think/Look to make and operate the table, plus Croak/Think/Flower to feed extra info to the table and manage their "non-standard" units through it.)

[SteveMB]

Ok, I just have to ask: why do so many folks say there is a tri-mancer link up in play?

Because they are idiots. Really, it's just that simple.

The capacity of the forumites to conjecture that almost anything which has been shown, or not shown, in the comic as being the root cause of just about anything else, well, it defies reason. And no matter how often their conjectures are dispelled, they will continue with their baseless theories. There is no stopping them.

"Idiots" is a bit harsh. It's a bit out there, but out-there wild mass guessing is part of the entertainment.

[Oberon]

[...] out-there wild mass guessing is part of the entertainment.

I must have been absent the day that assignment was handed out.

[Nnelg]

Spoiler'd because it's so huge:

Spoiler: show

Ok, I just have to ask: why do so many folks say there is a tri-mancer link up in play?
According to the lore, a tri-mancer link is about impossible to break; if broken, it just about always leads to destructive feedback to 1 or more of the casters in the link.
It has been implied that it takes a skilled thinkamancer (though I suppose perhaps other Masterclass 'mancers might have a way to help break the link) to separate the linked three.

I don't see how the risk involved with breaking a link is relevant to the possibility of one being formed.

I can't imagine Olive putting herself into a tri-mancer link, or letting Wanda get stuck in one.

She would if she was ordered to by her ruler.

Also, I don't see where the text says there is a tri-mancer link in play, so this idea that there is one is puzzling.

Well, I can't speak for the others, but the way I conceived the possibility was through some confusion of the text. At first, the description of Wanda's interrogator sounded a lot more like Maggie to me. Then later the "Mistress's" description of herself and her deeds appeared to mangle those of Olive Branch and Wanda.

One individual, which seems to be a mash of three others. The avatar of a Wanda-(Maggie?)-Olive link seemed a plausible explanation.

Ok, I just have to ask: why do so many folks say there is a tri-mancer link up in play?

Because they are idiots. Really, it's just that simple.

The capacity of the forumites to conjecture that almost anything which has been shown, or not shown, in the comic as being the root cause of just about anything else, well, it defies reason. And no matter how often their conjectures are dispelled, they will continue with their baseless theories. There is no stopping them.

It defies reason even more to reject these possibilities out of hand.

That being said, if anyone held an unassailable belief in one of these theories I'd agree with you -but then they'd be wrong no matter how likely it seemed.

It doesn't matter though, because nobody holds such certainty in this case.

Perhaps a [Florist-Croakamancer] linkup can accomplish true resurrection.

I doubt it, because that would be as powerful if not more so than Decryption. Adding a Florist to the creation of an uncroaked would probably make it last much longer by replacing some of the bodily systems with plant anatomy, but it wouldn't be the same as truly resurrecting a unit.

Only if it was unlimited. If it were restricted to a few units (or just one) a day, it wouldn't be nearly as powerful even if it can be redone unlimited times. And there's nothing to say that enemies you rez will join your side. And you try moving three casters to the middle of the battlefield where your warlord died in the one day before he rots.

A trimancer can summon a warlord from anywhere in existence and make him or her work for you. That badly outclasses the hammer at the very least if only for the reason that you could summon and enslave Stanley. Oh, and want to guess what anywhere in existence includes? The enemy overlord if she or he isn't a caster. Unless you just happen to have a unit to resurrect that is better than an entire sides set of casters, resurrection pales compared too, uber-summoning.

Actually, the "Summon Perfect Warlord" isn't (necessarily) that powerful. For instance, if you tried to summon "The ruler of Gobwin Knob", what's to say you'll get this Stanley and not the one from the Erf Next Door? Or maybe King Saline IV, pulled forward from the turn he (supposedly) croaked? Or perhaps a future version of Parson...

Besides, not all power is equal; don't rule out the possibility of any single (specific) spell falling off the far end of the power curve. After all, we've had H-Bombs for sixty years, but it may very well be three score more before we have fusion power.

Tri-links can do anything. Like, if you can imagine it, a tri-link can do it. There's no limitations sans imagination and a little bit of thematic tie-in to the schools of the casters.

In other words, a linkup can have as much (or as little) power as the plot demands.

1. This "Wanda" says that she croaked her brother. Wanda did not croak her brother; Olive did.

Except that Tommy wasn't fated to die, Olive croaked him because Wanda refused to turn to Haffaton.

Some might say that's a load of boop; I prefer to interpret it as part of Wanda's Haffaton brainwashing.

4. "Wanda's" signamancy. It is a plausible change, given how old Wanda is relative to Jillian, but the transformation BACK to youthful-looking Wanda and the development of a sensual/sexual relationship with Jillian at ANY point is highly IMPLAUSIBLE if any of what's happening is real.

Why? So far as we know, people's Signamancy changes to reflect who they are. When Jillian became a Queen, her Signamancy changed to become more Queenly. We've never been given any indication that anyone in Erfworld ages or can die from old age. I see no reason why someone's Signamancy couldn't change from old-looking back to young-looking if needed.

Indeed, this "youthification" process seems to be actively happening to Maggie in the main comic.

"Suns rose and set."

Is there one sun per hex? Taking this literally is one way I can think of for how Erfworld can be sentient with time the way that it is. What else is there? The units move at varying speeds and sees its own sun?

I think it's just a poetic way to describe the passage of days (new day -> new sun).

]I think you meant to say "It'll be very interesting indeed to see how Wanda turns the tables on Haffaton in the end." After all, it's pretty much a known unknown that Wanda will be responsible for the downfall of Haffaton, just as she was for FAQ. Jillian may be a bit player, but Wanda will be the key to Haffaton's demise.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's due to Wanda's 'pop debt' as much as anything. But yeah, I can't see Jillian and her complete lack of an army being Haffaton's death at this point. And she does have a habit of flying directly away from the most brutal and decisive battles.

Actually, to me it seems the other way around. I can see only two times where one might consider her to be "running away" from a battle, but on both she's just moving to another one.

I don't think signmancy is something you choose, it something that is the result of your choices and attributes.

I think when Wanda came over to Haffaton, it was a rough transition. At first Wanda rebelled, but Olive worked on her. Slowly Olive supressed all that was Wanda's core personality. Under Haffaton she withered as person. Eventually this was reflected in her signmancy. But at the same time we see Olive's work all over Wanda's new personality. Olive dislikes Croakamancy. New Wanda feels guilt over her actions and builds cemetary. Olive was just doing her job when she croaked Tommy. New Wanda takes the blame for killing Tommy because of her resistance.

But I don't think Wanda consciously chose this shape.

I agree. I think this shape (if it's actually Wanda) reflects how much of a toll whatever brainwashing (read: turnamancy) Haffaton used took on her.

[Oberon]

[on baseless speculation]

The capacity of the forumites to conjecture that almost anything which has been shown, or not shown, in the comic as being the root cause of just about anything else, well, it defies reason. And no matter how often their conjectures are dispelled, they will continue with their baseless theories. There is no stopping them.

It defies reason even more to reject these possibilities out of hand.

No, it does not. What reason does is expect something within the boundaries of things seen before. Speculations which involve so much more 'energy' that, if eventually proven correct, would do irreparable harm to the plot are not to be taken seriously ever.

It doesn't matter though, because nobody holds such certainty in this case.

I don't recall many cases where people who proposed preposterous things bothered to caveat them with anything like "This is just so out there, but I'm just thinking out loud." Take Maggie being Charlie, for example. In this thread this has been speculated on by one person, and accepted by another. If it's true, so much of what we've seen in the story unravels that it'll just suck. And I don't believe the author is going to write a story which ends up in the toilet. So I reject that out of hand. As should any other person.

[change of subject]

In other words, a linkup can have as much (or as little) power as the plot demands.

You are correct. Tri-mancer links, archons, and Charlie have been major plot drivers in this story, with whatever ability was needed at the time for the story.

[Nnelg]

It defies reason even more to reject these possibilities out of hand.

No, it does not. What reason does is expect something within the boundaries of things seen before.

Reason says we do not know everything. Therefore, reason dictates that there's always a chance to see something new. Therefore it is Unreasonable to reject a thought merely because it is an "out-of-the-box" idea.

That being said, this merely proves the possibility of any idea. The probability is another matter. And this being a story written for entertainment, it's probable that the author will throw new things at us regularly.

Anyways, tri-caster links are within the boundaries of what has been seen before.

Speculations which involve so much more 'energy' that, if eventually proven correct, would do irreparable harm to the plot are not to be taken seriously ever.

Define "energy" and "irreparable harm".

I don't recall many cases where people who proposed preposterous things bothered to caveat them with anything like "This is just so out there, but I'm just thinking out loud."

That's because usually people don't care enough to take the time to specify properly. When someone says "I think X", that could mean "I think definitely X" or "I think maybe X". It's just a flaw of language in general, so there's no need to assume the worst.

Take Maggie being Charlie, for example. In this thread this has been speculated on by one person, and accepted by another. If it's true, so much of what we've seen in the story unravels that it'll just suck. And I don't believe the author is going to write a story which ends up in the toilet. So I reject that out of hand. As should any other person.

Ah; so close, but so far... Yes, I (mostly) agree with your line of logic of why the author will probably not do such a thing. But the correct conclusion is not to reject the possibility, let alone without first logically refuting it. The correct response is to reject the probability: no more, no less.

If and only if you logically prove that such a thing is not possible, at the very least within a common set of axioms such as the laws of physics, can you discredit its possibility. But it's always the logical process that's important.

Which is why no one should be called 'stupid' for bringing up an idea, no matter how far-fetched. If far-fetched ideas are never brought up, they can never be logically disproven and -more importantly- those few far-fetched ideas which do turn out to be more correct than the leading theories would never be discovered. (Need I give an example? All right: Quantum Physics.)


Oh, and even if they persist in their beliefs after your logically disprove them make sure your axioms match up before calling them an idiot. For instance, in the example you gave someone might disagree with you that Maggie being Charlie would make the story suck. In the absence of that axiom, your entire argument falls apart -in a completely logical and intelligent manner. If you wanted to continue the discussion at that point, you should instead persuade him that the plot holes that would erupt in the presence of such a development would ruin all enjoyment of the story. But even if they still disagree, "someone of poor taste" would be a better descriptor than "idiot".

[Oberon]

Reason says we do not know everything. Therefore, reason dictates that there's always a chance to see something new. Therefore it is Unreasonable to reject a thought merely because it is an "out-of-the-box" idea.

Please. Just stop. It's ridiculous. Here's your argument in a practical application, hopefully this will illustrate to you how silly it is:

The sun has never risen before and been blue. So my wild-ass theory is that it'll rise blue tomorrow. After all, "reason" says that we don't know everything, therefore it must be possible.

It is completely reasonable to reject what you're calling an "out-of-the-box." They aren't "out-of-the-box", they are way past Pluto.

And this being a story written for entertainment, it's probable that the author will throw new things at us regularly.

New things, sure. Just not stupid things, like Maggie being Charlie in disguise.

Anyways, tri-caster links are within the boundaries of what has been seen before.

Not in the context with which we've seen an entire two tri-mancer links to date. Not even close.

Define "energy" and "irreparable harm".

Look up Occam's Razor and deus ex machina. For Occam, specifically pay attention to "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." Then look up the word sufficient, and think about how that word applies to a tri-mancer link vs. say, a simple interrogation. Especially one with a very many similarities to an interrogation we've already seen which had absolutely nothing to do with a tri-mancer link. And then ponder the impact on the plot and story line if the author decided to introduce tri-mancer links as the force behind a simple interrogation and many other rather mundane activities of the characters. Suckage ensues.

That's because usually people don't care enough to take the time to specify properly. When someone says "I think X", that could mean "I think definitely X" or "I think maybe X". It's just a flaw of language in general, so there's no need to assume the worst.

No, when someone says "I believe that Maggie is Charlie" or "Seems I am buying in to the theory of Maggie either being Charlie or aligned with Charlie somehow", there isn't any ambiguity or poor choice of language to hide behind. Those are very clear statements.

Ah; so close, but so far... Yes, I (mostly) agree with your line of logic of why the author will probably not do such a thing. But the correct conclusion is not to reject the possibility, let alone without first logically refuting it.

Ah; so close, but so very, very far... No one can prove a negative, so by your standard no "possibility" can ever be rejected.
You are again saying:

The sun will rise blue tomorrow. Maggie is Charlie. Prove these cannot be/happen, or accept that they can be/happen.

Logic escapes you.

For instance, in the example you gave someone might disagree with you that Maggie being Charlie would make the story suck. In the absence of that axiom, your entire argument falls apart -in a completely logical and intelligent manner.

My apologies for not over explaining my point. I assumed that you had some knowledge of the story so far. Here we go: The story would suck, because we have on several occasions seen Maggie either incapacitated or otherwise engaged at the same time Charlie was speaking to someone. And we have also seen that Maggie is a member of a group actively opposing Charlie. Thus, if Maggie turns out to be Charlie the logical consistency of the story falls apart. And if the logical consistency of the story falls apart, the story would then suck. Clear enough now?

"someone of poor taste" would be a better descriptor than "idiot".

Granted. How about a compromise? "Someone of limited knowledge of the story to date and with an impaired capacity for logical and critical thought." Seemed a bit wordy, so I summarized. My apologies to anyone I offended.

[Nnelg]

Reason says we do not know everything. Therefore, reason dictates that there's always a chance to see something new. Therefore it is Unreasonable to reject a thought merely because it is an "out-of-the-box" idea.

Please. Just stop. It's ridiculous. Here's your argument in a practical application, hopefully this will illustrate to you how silly it is:

The sun has never risen before and been blue. So my wild-ass theory is that it'll rise blue tomorrow. After all, "reason" says that we don't know everything, therefore it must be possible.

It is completely reasonable to reject what you're calling an "out-of-the-box." They aren't "out-of-the-box", they are way past Pluto.

Oh yes, it is technically possible that the sun will rise blue tomorrow. What's more, it's actually possible within the known laws of physics! Of course, seeing as it's remained the same color for thousands of years of human history, I'd give better odds of myself spontaneously vaporizing at exactly 3:00 on a Sunday.

EDIT:
But of course, the actual theories I was talking about are nowhere near as unlikely. They may be highly unlikely, but so too is winning the lottery, or being struck by lightning. You wouldn't call either of those too improbable to be called possible, would you?

And this being a story written for entertainment, it's probable that the author will throw new things at us regularly.

New things, sure. Just not stupid things, like Maggie being Charlie in disguise.

To the contrary: I've seen plenty of things in this comic that I think are somewhat 'stupid', but which (presumably) the author didn't.

Anyways, tri-caster links are within the boundaries of what has been seen before.

Not in the context with which we've seen an entire two tri-mancer links to date. Not even close.

So we've seen not one, but two.

Define "energy" and "irreparable harm".

Look up Occam's Razor and deus ex machina. For Occam, specifically pay attention to "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." Then look up the word sufficient, and think about how that word applies to a tri-mancer link vs. say, a simple interrogation. Especially one with a very many similarities to an interrogation we've already seen which had absolutely nothing to do with a tri-mancer link. And then ponder the impact on the plot and story line if the author decided to introduce tri-mancer links as the force behind a simple interrogation and many other rather mundane activities of the characters. Suckage ensues.

But for Erfworld, mental interregation by a tri-caster link is a perfectly natural explanation. And while I agree using a tri-caster link again would be cliche, I've seen far too many decent works fall into similar traps.

And it wouldn't be Dues ex Mechanica, not by a long shot. It isn't even close. For one, this is the middle of the story where plot twists are in fact necessary for story development, for the second the mere fact that this discussion exists precludes its unforseeability.

That's because usually people don't care enough to take the time to specify properly. When someone says "I think X", that could mean "I think definitely X" or "I think maybe X". It's just a flaw of language in general, so there's no need to assume the worst.

No, when someone says "I believe that Maggie is Charlie" or "Seems I am buying in to the theory of Maggie either being Charlie or aligned with Charlie somehow", there isn't any ambiguity or poor choice of language to hide behind. Those are very clear statements.

In your mind. But another flaw of language is that nobody's ever on exactly the same page. For instance, I can't imagine how you could interpret "buying in to" to mean the same thing as "completely convinced".

Ah; so close, but so far... Yes, I (mostly) agree with your line of logic of why the author will probably not do such a thing. But the correct conclusion is not to reject the possibility, let alone without first logically refuting it.

Ah; so close, but so very, very far... No one can prove a negative, so by your standard no "possibility" can ever be rejected.

Correct: no "possibility" can ever be completely rejected, unless it conflicts with things known to be true (the axioms, and logical conclusions formed thereof).

(For example: in a scientific setting, the known laws of physics have to be accepted as axioms for practicality's sake. In a mathematical one, the rules are well-defined and immutable: 2+2 does not equal 5 because "every arithmetic operation has exactly one result" and "2+2=4" were taken as axioms.)

You are again saying:

The sun will rise blue tomorrow. Maggie is Charlie. Prove these cannot be/happen, or accept that they can be/happen.

Logic escapes you.

Replace "will" and "is" with "might" and "may be", and that "illogic" becomes completely logical and self-consistent.

For instance, in the example you gave someone might disagree with you that Maggie being Charlie would make the story suck. In the absence of that axiom, your entire argument falls apart -in a completely logical and intelligent manner.

My apologies for not over explaining my point. I assumed that you had some knowledge of the story so far. Here we go: The story would suck, because we have on several occasions seen Maggie either incapacitated or otherwise engaged at the same time Charlie was speaking to someone. And we have also seen that Maggie is a member of a group actively opposing Charlie. Thus, if Maggie turns out to be Charlie the logical consistency of the story falls apart. And if the logical consistency of the story falls apart, the story would then suck. Clear enough now?

Ah, I see you've started to take my advice...

Well, frankly I'm of the opinion that it is highly unlikely that Maggie is Charlie, but I think I'll play devil's advocate on this one.

To answer your points: what better way to take out one's rivals than from the inside? As for Maggie and Charlie being active at the same time... The Arkendish could very well be able to use the subjective time of Erfworld to allow its attuned to literally be in two places at once. Or, one of the powers of the Arkendish could be super multitasking, another might be the ability to keep acting mentally while physically incapacitated. These all may be considered to be Dues ex Mechanicae -but so too with the uncroaked volcano. And precedence in the comic gives credence to the possibility.

Not that any of it is exactly likely; but still, it's out there.



Anyways, you seem to be responding to the less important parts of my post. To clarify, this is the point I was trying to get across:

...no one should be called 'stupid' for bringing up an idea, no matter how far-fetched. If far-fetched ideas are never brought up, they can never be logically disproven and -more importantly- those few far-fetched ideas which do turn out to be more correct than the leading theories would never be discovered.

EDIT:
A further clarification/extension of this is "Belief that any given far-fetched theory is correct does not imply stupidity. There are a number of other possible reasons why one would hold such an opinion."

[drachefly]

Oh yes, it is technically possible that the sun will rise blue tomorrow. What's more, it's actually possible within the known laws of physics!

Only in the sense that anything that conserves the fundamental conservation laws is possible within the known laws of physics.

Of course, seeing as it's remained the same color for thousands of years of human history, I'd give better odds of myself spontaneously vaporizing at exactly 3:00 on a Sunday.

... and, for a hundred years in a row,
every lottery in the world draws the lowest possible number in every case,
every American football game ends with a final score of 4 to 2,
every soccer (everyone else's football) game ends with a score of 31 to 41, and the game is called because every ball on hand was destroyed,
every cricket match ends with a final score of 1 to 0,
and, without external intervention, people don't notice that any of this is the least bit odd, and don't change their behavior to account for it, yet in all other respects are perfectly sane.


Things this improbable can fairly be called 'impossible'. You don't need to be that technically correct.

[Nnelg]

Oh yes, it is technically possible that the sun will rise blue tomorrow. What's more, it's actually possible within the known laws of physics!

Only in the sense that anything that conserves the fundamental conservation laws is possible within the known laws of physics.

Well, as each photon passes through the atmosphere it has a random chance of scattering. Normally this happens most with the blue wavelengths (which is why the sky is blue), but there is an infinitesimally small chance it could happen to all (visible) wavelengths other than blue.

Things this improbable can fairly be called 'impossible'. You don't need to be that technically correct.

Of course not. But by showing the extreme case that Oberon compared to my much less extreme one is technically possible, I also give credit to the more reasonable example.


Things with 10^-A(g64,g64)% probability can safely be called impossible, but what about 0.01%?

Safely improbable, yes; but that's not quite small enough to be called impossible.

[effataigus]

But for Erfworld, mental interregation by a tri-caster link is a perfectly natural explanation. And while I agree using a tri-caster link again would be cliche, I've seen far too many decent works fall into similar traps.

On the contrary, I think a caster-link here could arguably make for a more self-consistent world. We've twice been blindsided with them (knew something had to happen, but didn't know how it would happen until linked casters made it happen). It would be bad story-telling if linked casters weren't also used to solve other problems besides plot critical ones. You can't let God out of the machine and expect It to get back inside of it. Jillian's interrogation is an example of something that could be solved by a caster link or it could be solved by other means or it could not be solved at all... not exactly plot critical.

Hmm, that didn't make as much sense as I wanted. I guess I'm saying it would provide one answer the question of "if linked casters are so awesome, why aren't they used more often?"

A1 (This answer). They are... we just need to wait to hear about other examples.
A2. They are so wildly dangerous that nobody would risk it... (this has been pretty well refuted for me by other posters on this forum).
A3. Erfworlders are too stupid to know to use 'em. (This leads to other story complaints along the lines of "wow, Parson sure is good at picking on the mentally handicapped... -.-")
A4? I feel like I'm forgetting some.

[Nnelg]

It would be bad story-telling if linked casters weren't also used to solve other problems besides plot critical ones.

See? Even within this forum (where we all share a common interest) there's plenty of variance.


So, I could make the argument that tri-caster links will not be seen again because reusing them would make them cliche. This is a completely sound and logical argument -for me, at least. For effatigus my conclusion would be unfounded, because he doesn't think reusing tri-caster links would make them cliche.

If I wanted to persuade him that it is likely a tri-caster link is not being used in this case, there are two ways I could do it. First, I could try proving the same conclusion in other terms: for instance I could argue that Wanda needs to be on the battlefield to uncroak units, and a link would be far too fragile for that kind of work. Or, I could argue the point of contention instead: possibly claiming that reusing 3-links would make the current examples less unique, and contradict other parts of the story, where three-caster links are said to be rare.


And to answer that question:

"if linked casters are so awesome, why aren't they used more often?"

A multitude of reasons exist to limit the creation of tri-caster link-ups. First off, the side needs a thinkamancer and two other casters. Second, the two other casters must be able to do something more useful to the current situation linked than they could do separately. Third, they need to make sure it'll stay useful for a while, since they'll need help to get separated again (safely, at least). Fourth, their ruler must not have significant emotional ties to the casters, since they'll loose their individuality. I could go on.

The thing is, just because three-mancer links are awesome doesn't mean they're the answer to everything, or even multiple things. They certainly aren't things you do as soon as you have enough casters (especially if you consider the experience factor). Take, for instance, the Dirt-Croak link. Sure, they can blow a volcano, and probably raise an army of mud zombies, but can they lead said army in a dance fight? Or take a strike team behind enemy lines to croak a couple warlords? And in the Look-Fool link, you've lost all of the things Jack could have done on his own.

In short, tri-links pay for their power with flexibility. And so, a wise commander will keep his casters separate by default.

[Lamech]

Hmm, that didn't make as much sense as I wanted. I guess I'm saying it would provide one answer the question of "if linked casters are so awesome, why aren't they used more often?"

I can give a bunch of reasons
1) It will cost you a caster or three if you try to dismantle it. Unless you can hire a team of master class thinkamancers from the MK. So if its only temporary its costly. If its permanent its even more costly. So its very expensive.
2) Its risky. Not just because the casters might explode if the link fails, but because you do not know what a trilink will do exactly. Maybe your dirt-croak link can make mud zombies, maybe that only works in a peat swamp. Maybe you can uncroak destroyed uncroaked into uber-dust golems. Its not predicable what the results will be. And if it turns out to not be what you need... you are out a caster or two.
3) It takes a thinkamancer. Of the sides we have seen the caster roaster of GK, Jetstone, FAQ, TV, Unaroyal and Goodmitton, we have only seen two sides with thinkamancers. So most sides cannot call up links. On top of that you need desirable casters to link.

So two sides can make link ups. And what exactly would TV do with a dollamancer/moneymancer link? It might end wonderfully, but it might be less useful than what they have now. Also Ben is Don's friend, so that might make it unfeasible as well. So I think TV is out as viable. That leaves GK. A dirtamancy-foolamancy link? What will that do? Veil terrain? Jack already does that.

In summary: We have had thinkamancers that were available for link up. One started linked. TV doesn't have a feasible link. GK doesn't have a feasible link.