PDA

View Full Version : What happened to the Marbits?



Once-Over
2008-12-02, 11:06 AM
I see that the Marbits are dying... in both 121 and then but then no undead Marbits in 128 or those subsequent strips? Why does my thirst for undead Marbits go unquenched? Couldit be that I have just not been observent enough?

BRC
2008-12-02, 11:09 AM
Parson ate them, for breakfast.

DevilDan
2008-12-02, 01:33 PM
Maybe we can't see them because they're short? Or maybe they're being held in the dungeon as reserves. They could still have their assumed bonus for tunnel fighting.

headhoncho
2008-12-02, 01:43 PM
Or they are not capable of being uncroaked.

DevilDan
2008-12-02, 02:06 PM
Or they are not capable of being uncroaked.

Unipegataurs, another non-human race, can be uncroaked, at least.

Some of the units in the next-to-last panel here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0128.html) seem significantly shorter than the rest.

DigoDragon
2008-12-03, 11:24 AM
They're now Alpha Marbits cereal?
It could be they're uncroaked units on the wall, we just haven't gotten a good look at them yet.

quindraco
2008-12-22, 03:23 PM
Could be the Trioxin spell requires you to specify a target type - so you can mass uncroak human corpses, or marbit corpses, but not both with one cast.

Or marbits are already uncroaked, and ununcroaking a unit doesn't work - although a "double zombie" would be exactly the sort of hilarious unit I can see Erf supporting.

zillion ninjas
2008-12-22, 03:55 PM
Could be the Trioxin spell requires you to specify a target type - so you can mass uncroak human corpses, or marbit corpses, but not both with one cast.

Doubtful, or at least it shouldn't have been a problem for Wanda on that turn. According to the "Trioxin" page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0128.html): "So a good Croakamancer can mass-animate every fallen unit in a hex, or city zone."

Of course, Parson may have incomplete information again. But by the time he records this note, Wanda would surely have told him about a major restriction like that. He would have asked, since he knew that both humans and marbits were among the Jetstone tunnel forces.


Or marbits are already uncroaked, and ununcroaking a unit doesn't work - although a "double zombie" would be exactly the sort of hilarious unit I can see Erf supporting.

I don't think we can disprove that, but it also seems unlikely. Live marbits bear no resemblance at all to any uncroaked units we've seen thus far (note the healthy pink complexion, rather than grayish-green or skeletal).

Also, there's been no indication so far that Jetstone would associate/ally with uncroaked forces, or at any rate with uncroaked units without free-will (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0027.html). (As opposed to Vinnie and his brethren, who show every sign of possessing free will. Which goes back to the old question of whether Transylvitans are technically uncroaked, or just look like they are.)

Yes, I'm aware that the above two paragraphs contradict each other. And yet, they both make sense to me. I'm a doubleplus-good doublethinker. :smalltongue:

SeraphRainy
2008-12-22, 06:07 PM
Marbits arent uncroaked or it would list them as such. Vinnie isnt even uncroaked even if hes a classic vampire. A vampire is quite different from a zombie. And zombies are listed as such. so yeah thats pretty conclusive to me.

Another reason goes along the lines of base creatures. What would a marbit have come from if it was undead?

(BTW: I too long for undead marbits. It would be like, cute+dead.):smalltongue:

Lamech
2008-12-22, 09:45 PM
Maybe somethings can't be uncroaked, but others can? So maybe unipegataurs, orlies, humans ect. can be but, marbits, gwiffions, and golems can't?
(Those were semi-random, mearly examples...)

zillion ninjas
2008-12-23, 11:07 AM
Marbits arent uncroaked or it would list them as such. Vinnie isnt even uncroaked even if hes a classic vampire. A vampire is quite different from a zombie. And zombies are listed as such. so yeah thats pretty conclusive to me.

Not that I disagree with the main point, but what list are you referring to? The closest things we've seen so far to that are Parson's GK forces list (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0084.html) (which includes "uncroaked" units, but no "zombies") and the RCC makeup (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0096.html) (which includes marbits, but has no reference to "uncroaked" one way or the other).

Also, in most horror-related media outside of Erfworld, zombies and vampires are both usually considered "undead" - formerly living beings now animated by some kind of unnatural (and typically negative) force. I think they're generally considered different in terms of their mental capabilities:

zombie = mindless brain-eating machine that moves in herds and might follow simple orders
vampire = intelligent hunter that works alone or within some kind of authoritarian hierarchy

That's why there's been some confusion in the past about Vinny being "uncroaked" or not. Are Transylvitians popped in "vampire" form, or were they uncroaked from some formerly-living creature, like the uncroaked infantry? And what difference would that make to a group like Jetstone that places such a high value on "morals (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0101.html)"?

@lamech: Yes, that's possible. Maybe the rule is that only units with a very close resemblance to humans can be uncroaked - archons and the top halves of unipegataurs might fit this, while gobwins and marbits might not. Golems and chotchkes would clearly be right out. But yeah, this is pure speculation.

Wrecan
2008-12-23, 12:31 PM
Mu guess is the marbits are uncroaked, but that Parson ordered the uncroaked Jetstone to be right up front as that would be more likely to get under Ansom's skin. So the marbits are in the back, where they are less noticeable.

kpenguin
2008-12-23, 12:44 PM
Parson ate them, for breakfast.

Why are you guys still discussing this. Answer is here.

dr pepper
2008-12-23, 03:19 PM
As i've said before, Transylvitians are not really vampires, that's just their theme. They can fly on their own, but then so can archons. But they don't become bats, they don't drink blood, and they're not vulnerable to sunlight. They're also not really club kids, mafia, or even italian.

Kreistor
2008-12-23, 07:47 PM
The strength of an uncroaked unit is affected by the amount of time spent uncroaking the unit, and the amount of attention spent uncroaking the unit.

Wanda could have uncroaked every unit, but she would have spent less attention on each unit. The Jetstone infantry were probably sttronger than the marbits, so Parson probably decided that more time spent on the Jetstone infantry resulted in fewer units, but more overall power in those units.

Let's assign the marbits 7 total strength and Jetstone 8.

if (uncroaked power) = (starting power)*(time)*(attention)*K
Pu = Ps*t*a*K
and
attention = 1/(# of units)
Pu = Ps*Kt/u
and
K is a constant
then
we know Jetstone units = 1000
marbit units could = as many as 3800, but let's arbitrarily choose 1000.

So, if uncroaking all 2000 units...

for the Jetstone...
Pj = 8*Kt/2000
and Marbits
Pm = 7*Kt/2000

Ptotal = Pj+Pm = Kt*(15/2000)

If only doing 1000 Jetstone...

ptotal = Kt*8/1000 = Kt*(16/2000)

16/2000 > 15/2000

so

raising fewer powerful units results in more total power than raising lots of units.

okay, the math here is fairly arbitrary and we do not know the numerical mechanics of Erfworld. This was just to demonstrate that in some rule systems, fewer is more powerful.

Remember, Parson has the mathamancy artefact which can tell him exactly what the optimum selection of unts to uncroak would be.

Godskook
2008-12-24, 02:29 AM
Maybe somethings can't be uncroaked, but others can? So maybe unipegataurs, orlies, humans ect. can be but, marbits, gwiffions, and golems can't?
(Those were semi-random, mearly examples...)

Not wanting to nitpick to badly here, but golems are already 'constructs', in the same magical sense as zombies are, so I really doubt that croakamancy works on them. Marbits and gwiffons are a tossup, but I'd say they fall into the same category as dwagons, probability-wise, and dragons(spelling intentional) can be zombified, so it is possible that marbits, gwiffons and dwagons can be uncroaked by the same logic.


Also, in most horror-related media outside of Erfworld, zombies and vampires are both usually considered "undead" - formerly living beings now animated by some kind of unnatural (and typically negative) force.

Don't forget, though, zombies and vampires are quite distinct. Vampires aren't always considered 'undead' in the same sense that zombies are. Most vampire stories I know where a person is turned, the person stays alive through the process, in a sense. Also, vampires are almost always created by other vampires(through vampiric biology) while magical zombies* are almost never contagious, requiring a necromancer to summon them(through pure-magic).


*There are also disease zombies, but this type is almost never seen in magical settings.

SeraphRainy
2008-12-24, 06:19 AM
Not that I disagree with the main point, but what list are you referring to? The closest things we've seen so far to that are Parson's GK forces list (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0084.html) (which includes "uncroaked" units, but no "zombies") and the RCC makeup (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0096.html) (which includes marbits, but has no reference to "uncroaked" one way or the other).

Also, in most horror-related media outside of Erfworld, zombies and vampires are both usually considered "undead" - formerly living beings now animated by some kind of unnatural (and typically negative) force. I think they're generally considered different in terms of their mental capabilities:

zombie = mindless brain-eating machine that moves in herds and might follow simple orders
vampire = intelligent hunter that works alone or within some kind of authoritarian hierarchy

That's why there's been some confusion in the past about Vinny being "uncroaked" or not. Are Transylvitians popped in "vampire" form, or were they uncroaked from some formerly-living creature, like the uncroaked infantry? And what difference would that make to a group like Jetstone that places such a high value on "morals (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0101.html)"?

@lamech: Yes, that's possible. Maybe the rule is that only units with a very close resemblance to humans can be uncroaked - archons and the top halves of unipegataurs might fit this, while gobwins and marbits might not. Golems and chotchkes would clearly be right out. But yeah, this is pure speculation.

OK first zombies and uncroaked are synonomous with slight variations according to univers distinctions. Baring that little nitpick you had. It does mention ZOMBIES (IE: Uncroaked.) specificaly in GKs troop lists. No such mention in the RCC. Now that could mean that they were some kind of specialty undead such as vampires being of the undead but not "Undead."(Ill get to that distinction.)

Now uncroaked and zombies are souless and almost mindless creatures. Animaited only to do the will of their master and with very little inteligence other than possible weapon skills from their former life.

Vampire in opposition are very much their old selves. Personality looks and inteligence are all preserved at a premium. The only reason that they are undead is that they have classicaly lost their soul or spirit. Which is generaly why they drink the life force of others ect.

Because vampires have lost their life force or souls they are of the undead. But in the classic sense of undead-ness that title falls striktly to zombies because they bear nothing of their past lives they are only undead by the barest inch. In somaition vampires have part of themselves still zombies do not. Thus zombies win the uncroaked title wereas vamps. have their own special club of wierdness.

Yes it is true that marbits could be something un uncroakable possibly. But they are humanoid, more so than unipegitars, and the only reason it seems that golems would be disqualified would be that theyre magical constructs already.

Finaly in response to the marbits having not been uncroaked because of troops strength for the jetstone that were uncroaked. Parson says that they are the weakest kind of troop. Because Wanda did mass animate them. And the disparity between strengths is probably less because those were jetstones light infantry and the fact that 1000 more bodies (small though they are.) can be a lot more usefull than distributing a minor bonus throughout fast decaying units. (IE: that many marbits to use for say a zerg tactic is much more profitable than having a plus two or three more to 1000 that you dont plan to hold on to anyways.)

In addition the math for uncroaking could go like this: (Original unit value) - (Time spent)/(death negative) = (Uncroaked value)
Or any such variation. So it makes no sense to speculait as to unit disparity. The factors that we do know are that parson doesnt expect to keep the units for more than afew turns, they are the weakest kind with less than a turn spent animaiting them, and that zerg tactics especialy with say wandas huge uncroaked bonus is a good method for taking out heavy or massed troops.

Kreistor
2008-12-24, 10:26 AM
There is no reason to presume Transylvitians are vampires.

1) but they float!
So do Archons, and they retain that ability after death, meaning it is not a spell.

2) They have fangs!
So do orcs, in most worlds. Transylvitian fangs are bottom up like orcs, unlike vampire fangs which are classically top down.

3) But they drink blood!
Joking. Haven't seen it yet.

The real 3) But Vinnie summoned the archon chicks to him!
So did the Fonz, but he wasn't dead. Well, not until after the shark incident, anyway.

And counter...

a) They like bats, but haven't turned into them.

b) Vampires can't go out in daylight. Transylvitians do everything in the day.

c) Vampires can't die, except in certain extreme cases, and though we haven't seen it, one would think that if transylvitians were immortal, it wuold have come up by now.

d) No sleeping in coffins so far.

The resemblance is only superficial at this time. That could change, since nothing to the contrary has yet proven Transylvitians don't have more vampire powers. Right now, they're floating orcs to me. Very cool floating orcs, but living, breathing creatures nonetheless.

SteveMB
2008-12-24, 11:10 AM
d) No sleeping in coffins so far.

Well (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0049.html), actually (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0055.html)....

That said, I agree that it's a theme not to be taken literally.

Lamech
2008-12-24, 12:56 PM
b) Vampires can't go out in daylight. Transylvitians do everything in the day.
I was under the impression Dracula's powers were just weakened... not like that would ever come into play in Erfworld. Anyway some Vampire's can go out in the daylight, some can't it just depends on the vampire.



1) but they float!
And since when did vampire's float... over lakes...

P.S. I'm being an nit-picker, just wanted to point out something that shouldn't matter, and something in the wrong category...

DevilDan
2008-12-24, 01:01 PM
I still think that it's very possible that there are uncroaked marbits on those walls, unless Parson is keeping them in reserve for some reason or another.

Overall, some of the omissions are a bit annoying: we've seen at most two RCC casters, we don't see human GK troops, we're missing marbits. But, of course, absence is not proof of nonexistence.

I see no real reason to suspect that marbits/gobwins cannot be uncroaked. And I don't see any reason to believe that Transylvitonians are uncroaked; it's possible that they pop as normal humans and are then transformed into Erf-vampires, but that doesn't mean that a croakamancer or croakamancy is necessarily involved in such a transformation.

Lamech
2008-12-24, 01:14 PM
Two casters? There was the thinkamamncer and what else?

Kreistor
2008-12-24, 01:18 PM
Well (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0049.html), actually (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0055.html)....

That said, I agree that it's a theme not to be taken literally.

Wow, Steve, good eyes. Those are definitely coffins, but very miss-able. i hope you don't fault me too much for overlooking those.

So they do sleep in coffins. We very well could see some additional vampire-like abilities later on.

SteveMB
2008-12-24, 01:33 PM
Two casters? There was the thinkamamncer and what else?

DevilDan referred specifically to "RCC casters". This post from an earlier thread strikes me as a good explanation for why we haven't seen a lot of casters on the Coalition side:


I'd say it's more likely that no one in the coalition was inclined to risk their powerful, valuable casters in the field for this. And really, why should they? This was supposed to be easy. Ansom assured everyone that they'd show up, squish Stanley the Worm, split the booty, and be home for tea. No reason to send the casters out and possibly lose them to a sneak attack or random lucky shot when the battle is already a sure thing.

DevilDan
2008-12-24, 02:17 PM
I agree with what was quoted above.

And good eyes on seeing the second coffin; the first one had a very clear Transylvito logo on it (the same worn by Don King), but the second one was a lot harder to spot.

The only other casters we can "confirm" on the RCC side are the ones that presumably created the cloth golems. Parson mentioned that he there was a chance, though a very slim one, that he would be caught and brainwashed rather than being killed outright by the RCC, suggesting that he believes that they have some thinkamancers.

Kreistor
2008-12-24, 02:54 PM
Klog 10
"... Casters are commanders and can lead stacks, but they almost never do. casters are too rare and valuable to risk, and tehy give no leadership bonus to the stack anyway. Only Warlords have leadership."

Let's look at Stanley's casters. When Parson arrived, all of them were in the City. the Eyemancers, Wanda, and Sizemore all stayed in the city. We know other units were out in the field (Stanley recalls them in 72.12), so though his own casters could have been out and helping, they didn't either, even when Stanley faced imminrnt destruction.

Casters do provide leadership bonuses to specific types of units, like Wanda's uncroaked and Sizemore's golems, but those are units created by the magic of the caster. (What kind of unit is a hippiemancer going to give a combat bonus to, I wonder? Heheh... I doubt hippiemancers are all peace and love, man.) I don't see any units like that in the RCC, except for the giant teddy bears, and those are front line siege engines. You don't put a caster on the frontline of a siege: it's the most dangerous part of any battlefield. (Look up the "forlorn hope" some day. Reference War of 1812.)

But we do have some casters in the RCC. Charlie's Archons are casters (Page 69). He has 15 of them available to Ansom (at a price) initially, and at least 30 after Parson's mathamancy. Even if the archons are each individually weaker than the 5 initial GK casters, I can't imagine the whole 15 are less powerful than the whole 5, especially with 3 Eyemancers tied up in providing battlefield intelligence, and unable to do anything else.

So, what it comes down to is: no one sends out casters in their armies, it seems. Casters remain in cities and perform their magics from there, producing special units or performing special duties. They don't fight, because regular units can do that job.

Parson sees this as tradition, and not a rule. GK is desperate, and so desperate choices are acceptable. What use is Wanda to Stanley if GK falls and she is captured. She is more use killing Ansom and dying in the process. Same with Sizemore: he was used, but in the tunnels he was untouchable, since it was his home turf. RCC made the mistake of forgetting the rules an relying on tradition, and now Ansom pays the price. Could RCC casters have changed this? Yes, certainly, if someone in the rCC had a Dirtamancer, who might have spotted the traps. But how do you protect a Dirtamancer in the field? the dwagons picked siege engines to attack. What's to stop them from choosing the Dirtamancer instead? (Probably a softer target.) Casters in the field need protection, and in a major way, and their benefits are questionable.

Parson may have changed this part of the world. How many are going to underestimate casters on the frontline now?

Godskook
2008-12-24, 03:11 PM
But we do have some casters in the RCC. Charlie's Archons are casters (Page 69). He has 15 of them available to Ansom (at a price) initially, and at least 30 after Parson's mathamancy. Even if the archons are each individually weaker than the 5 initial GK casters, I can't imagine the whole 15 are less powerful than the whole 5, especially with 3 Eyemancers tied up in providing battlefield intelligence, and unable to do anything else.

We don't know that the Archons are casters. We don't even know for sure if an Archon is a commander-class unit, or if certain ones are promoted, or if Charlie can loophole the commander rule with the Arkendish.

Kreistor
2008-12-24, 03:27 PM
We don't know that the Archons are casters. We don't even know for sure if an Archon is a commander-class unit, or if certain ones are promoted, or if Charlie can loophole the commander rule with the Arkendish.

Okay, what exactly are the Archons in 68 and 69 doing, then? They clearly are not casting the spells. In 68, we don't see a communication spell transmitting Jillian's image to Ansom et al., and in 69 we don't see the spells Leverage, Synergy, and Paradigm cast. Sarcasm, of course. At least three Archons are casters, which suggests all 15 are. We do not see any Archons carrying weapons, so what exactly do they figt with? Godskook, that is not rhetorical. If you think they aren't casters, please explain and demonstrate their physical attack forms. By extension, since the three Archons we have seen fight are casters, all Archons are casters. Basically, I have evidence that they are casters: do you have any evidence to the contrary?

It's part of how Charlie appears weak. Remember from my previous posts that my opinion is that Charlie is trying to avoid appearing powerful to avoid a Royal gang up against Charlescomm. Tradition states that casters aren't used on the field because they are vulnerable. That means Charlie's Archons, thugh useful, do not appear as a threat to the RCC. We know from Parson's uses that casters are, in fact, very powerful in specific circumstances. Charlie may be building up the magical units they could lead in Charlescomm. Just one way Charlie can be becoming powerful, without providing evidence of his power.

Ironically, Parson's use of casters on the lines may cause a re-evaluation of Charlescomm by the Royals. Still, since we expect GK to come out of this, Parson and his forces will still be the primary threat, so Charlescomm will not be an immediate target.

Godskook
2008-12-24, 08:10 PM
Okay, what exactly are the Archons in 68 and 69 doing, then? They clearly are not casting the spells. In 68, we don't see a communication spell transmitting Jillian's image to Ansom et al., and in 69 we don't see the spells Leverage, Synergy, and Paradigm cast. Sarcasm, of course. At least three Archons are casters, which suggests all 15 are. We do not see any Archons carrying weapons, so what exactly do they figt with? Godskook, that is not rhetorical. If you think they aren't casters, please explain and demonstrate their physical attack forms. By extension, since the three Archons we have seen fight are casters, all Archons are casters. Basically, I have evidence that they are casters: do you have any evidence to the contrary?

1.The "some units of this type are casters so all of them are" argument is not valid in Erfworld. TV vampires and Humans are both examples of a type that can have both casters and non-casters in it.

2.Thinkamancy related abilities are possibly a direct extension of the Arkendish, or they could also be 'natural magic' inherent to Archons(becomes more likely if the Arkendish is related to why Charlie controls them).

3.The attack 'spells' you mention are of the variety that can also be 'natural magic' of Archons, much akin to Dwagon breath attacks.

4.Correction, you have evidence that suggests that Archons could be casters. My statement is that there is no evidence that says they are definately casters.

5.Despite a general standard that no one fields casters, no one finds it odd that Charlie fields a task force that, at your first glance, looks like all casters. To me, that alone says it is possible that Archons are casters in the standard sense.


'natural magic' ---- In several games I've played, there is a distinguishment between a true 'caster' and units that can cast a spell or two. Heroes of Might and Magic is one example. Final Fantasy games often have this too. Just because a unit can cast a spell does not bring it on par with all other spell-casters out there.

DevilDan
2008-12-24, 09:20 PM
At least three Archons are casters, which suggests all 15 are.

I swear, I need to put this in my sig. It is eminently quotable. In any other context, I wouldn't expect to see such an extrapolation: from a non-random sample of 20 percent to the entirety.

And I didn't even need to use sarcasm, oddly enough. I just had to restate your argument. Odd, that.

Godskook has succinctly listed some of the reasons why I personally don't believe that there is adequate proof that all archons are necessarily casters.

SeraphRainy
2008-12-24, 09:22 PM
It is entirly possible that all the archoons are casters but veeeery unlikely.

As you mentioned flight could be (and has been listed before) as a natrual magic and the ability to attack with energy seemed more like a natrual ability rather than a spell. Especialy because it doesnt fit into any particular type of magic.

It is clear that a thinkagram was cast for the RCC however we know that thinkamancers dont have to be in contact with (Perhaps within a proximity of) their target or sender. So the thinkagram could have been done remotly from charlescom. It is possible that one of the archons such was a thinkamancer. That is even likely but it is unlikely that charlie would field exclusivly casters as a field force, however powerful they are, when casters are so rare and valuable. That just screems CAPTURE MY CASTER PLZ to me.

And it is foolishness to assume that all of the archons are casters. No nation would let Charles especialy an unroyal gain control of so many powerful units that were all casters that is a huuuuuuge force to be reconed with if he keeps gaining even normal troops with that many thinkamancers. and even if they did, because say they couldnt stop him, then they would most assuradly pick off his archons by capture and convert. (On a relaited note thinkamancers of that power in those numbers could mass convert or convert powerfull units making for a much more suitable plan of battle than just blasting away. Imagine turning the loyalty of ten of the currently sieging battle bears or pulling the loyalty switch on Lord manpower, his mount, and the other warlords in the lake battle. This would suggest that they arent ALL thinkamancers.)

Kreistor
2008-12-25, 04:01 PM
Lots of people to respond to, on this christmas Day. Merry christmas, or Happy Holidays. choose the one most appropriate to you. At the very least, I hope you ae spedning today with family.


1.The "some units of this type are casters so all of them are" argument is not valid in Erfworld. TV vampires and Humans are both examples of a type that can have both casters and non-casters in it.

So you have no actual evidence that any Archon is not a caster. Thank you for playing, but the exit is over there on the right. If all you can do is state that you don't like normal methods of proof being applied against your position, well, there's not much point talking to youm since you're debating the validity of logic. Show me an Archon with a weapon, or doing something aggressive that does not involve casting, then I'll revisit this idea; otherwise, Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is the easiest one -- all Archons that have commited aggressive acts have cast spells, so all are casters.

You can choose to believe whatever you like with no evidence to support you, in the face of real evidence to the contrary. Just don't pretend that you have disproven anything, just because there is a slim thread of hope for your position.


2.Thinkamancy related abilities are possibly a direct extension of the Arkendish

The only other attuned Arkentool is the hammer, and no one is able to use any ability from it except Stanley.

92.5 Maggie casting a communication spell. Holding fingers like a tv screen. She is a known Eyemancer.

68.7 Archon holding fingers like a TV screen, same position as Maggie.

If one is casting a spell, Occam's Razor again states that both are casting the same spell.

Presuming one cast a spell but the other gained an ability from an Arkentool that she neither possesses or is attuned to is quite arbitrary.


3.The attack 'spells' you mention are of the variety that can also be 'natural magic' of Archons, much akin to Dwagon breath attacks.

Which would make Archns non-casters and not Commanders. We have no evidence any Archon is superior to the others in rank, but they do not attack Wanda like an unlead stack would be required to. Charlie must hace at least one Commander in Airspace, but no such Commander is yet identified. so far, they have all been interchangable, and so non-unique. That suggests they are all Commanders, and all Casters are Commanders, so...

A dwagon doesn't shout "dwagon bweath" before breathing, but the Archons said words before their effects were used. each word was unique, and each spell had a unique effect. Very suggestive of the somatic component of spell casting. (Natural spells usually don't require somatic components.)

Additionally, if she has Natural Magic, Jaclyn is not a caster. Uncroaked Casters are just infantry. We can see Jaclyn uncroaked in 98.13, 100.2, and 100.5. She should be in 120, but was missed. She will be in 121. She has not used "natural magic" as an uncroaked, so if she is just infantry, she was a caster, not a natural magic user. If she was to be shown casting, she wouldn't have been overlooked. I'm placing my rep on her not using natural magic in 121.


4.Correction, you have evidence that suggests that Archons could be casters. My statement is that there is no evidence that says they are definately casters.

Placing the burden of proof on me, when you are incapable of providing contrary evidence is, frankly, self-aggrandizing. I've done my job -- given proof and evidence. You're only saying, "It's not enough to convince me." Welcome to the Internet. You're allowed to say, "No, the sky is green." Doesn't make you right. And it doesn't make me wrong. It only means you're clinging to false beliefs. In this case, denying Occam's Razor and logic. It isn't possible to prove either one, so joy to you on this Merry day.


5.Despite a general standard that no one fields casters, no one finds it odd that Charlie fields a task force that, at your first glance, looks like all casters. To me, that alone says it is possible that Archons are casters in the standard sense.

Ansom had a 10:1 advantage in regular units when this started, excluding dwagons. The only thing he might want to hire are special forces. What's more special than casters? And what defeats dwagons better than casters?


It is entirly possible that all the archoons are casters but veeeery unlikely.

I entirely disagree. We see one castig the same spell as Maggie, and then turning around and frying a dwagon. We see two others use different attack spells. We do not see uncroaked Jaclyn using "natural magic" in the assault on Ansom.


As you mentioned flight could be (and has been listed before) as a natrual magic and the ability to attack with energy seemed more like a natrual ability rather than a spell. Especialy because it doesnt fit into any particular type of magic.

Yeah, I know. But Archons are never seen casting "Fly". They just fly, all the time.


It is clear that a thinkagram was cast for the RCC however we know that thinkamancers dont have to be in contact with (Perhaps within a proximity of) their target or sender. So the thinkagram could have been done remotly from charlescom.

See the Archons fingers. Same as Maggie. Occam's Razor.


And it is foolishness to assume that all of the archons are casters.

Yeah, you go with that.


No nation would let Charles especialy an unroyal gain control of so many powerful units that were all casters that is a huuuuuuge force to be reconed with if he keeps gaining even normal troops with that many thinkamancers

Remember, the current tradition is that casters in the field are weak. If charlescomm has nominal infantry units, he would not be viewed as a threat, since he could be dealt with at any time.


I swear, I need to put this in my sig. It is eminently quotable. In any other context, I wouldn't expect to see such an extrapolation: from a non-random sample of 20 percent to the entirety.

All of Charlie's units are called "Archons". Wouldn't you think the ones that can't cast would not be called by the same name? You don't find that odd at all?

-----------

BTW, here's another one for you all. Jaclyn is able to detect that Wanda is not under a loyalty spell in 95. Wow, these "natural magics" are getting pretty specifically useful. Funny how that happens, hunh? Natural magics that detect real spells. This one comes from the Arkendish, too, I imagine.

Lamech
2008-12-25, 05:48 PM
BTW, here's another one for you all. Jaclyn is able to detect that Wanda is not under a loyalty spell in 95. Wow, these "natural magics" are getting pretty specifically useful. Funny how that happens, hunh? Natural magics that detect real spells. This one comes from the Arkendish, too, I imagine.
We've never seen a caster detecting magic before. Nor was it mentioned that a viel, could be defeated caster...


The only other attuned Arkentool is the hammer, and no one is able to use any ability from it except Stanley. So now your arguing the tools all have similar ablities? Two are weapons, one is not. One can imitate a whole school of magic, and go even farther, something the hammer can't. Maybe two can summon monsters? We can't extrapolate too what each Arkentool can do...


All of Charlie's units are called "Archons". Wouldn't you think the ones that can't cast would not be called by the same name? You don't find that odd at all?
Its a name for his mercenaries. They are all mercenaries, all would have the same name. More importantly it could very well be the name of their race. Like, twoll, gobwin, or man.


Finally, Keistor a sample of three is not enough to generalize to all the of a population. Let alone a non-random sample.

Godskook
2008-12-25, 06:53 PM
So you have no actual evidence that any Archon is not a caster. Thank you for playing, but the exit is over there on the right. If all you can do is state that you don't like normal methods of proof being applied against your position, well, there's not much point talking to youm since you're debating the validity of logic.

I have no problem accepting and applying normal methods of proof. I've argued rather persuasively to the fact that we don't know if Archons are casters. I think you're confusing my position with "Archons are not casters" which is not the position I hold.


Show me an Archon with a weapon, or doing something aggressive that does not involve casting, then I'll revisit this idea; otherwise, Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is the easiest one -- all Archons that have commited aggressive acts have cast spells, so all are casters.

Occam's Razor doesn't apply when there are multiple and equally simple solutions. Also, by using Occam's Razor, you prove internally inconsistent. Using it admits that even you recognize alternative explanations to the data, and that you feel that yours is the most reasonable. By so doing, you subtely acknowledge that I have proved that other alternative explanations exist.

Also, my arguments don't require that Archons be physical fighters. They can still 'use' magic without being casters.


You can choose to believe whatever you like with no evidence to support you, in the face of real evidence to the contrary. Just don't pretend that you have disproven anything, just because there is a slim thread of hope for your position.

I have not proven that Archons are not casters. I wasn't trying to. I have argued persuasively that we don't know for sure, and you've failed to supply ample evidence to the contrary.


The only other attuned Arkentool is the hammer, and no one is able to use any ability from it except Stanley.

We have seen Dwagons interact with the Arkenhammer, and that is part of the argument of how Archons could be conduits for Charlie's thinkamancy. The possibility that Archons are tamed/spawned from the dish is there, and if so, it would make sense that they have some basic thinkamancy powers as a result, without being actual casters.


92.5 Maggie casting a communication spell. Holding fingers like a tv screen. She is a known Eyemancer.

68.7 Archon holding fingers like a TV screen, same position as Maggie.


Again, nothing in that evidence excludes alternative explanations.


If one is casting a spell, Occam's Razor again states that both are casting the same spell.
Presuming one cast a spell but the other gained an ability from an Arkentool that she neither possesses or is attuned to is quite arbitrary.

If both were of the same unit species, I'd agree. However, Archons are definatively not human. Therefore, that Archons have different characteristics is a given(otherwise, they'd be human). Now, what differences Archons have, we don't know, but it is possible that they include some level of natural thinkamancy.


Which would make Archns non-casters and not Commanders.

Actually, if that's right, it would make them non-casters, but it wouldn't neccesarily make them non-commanders.


We have no evidence any Archon is superior to the others in rank, but they do not attack Wanda like an unlead stack would be required to. Charlie must hace at least one Commander in Airspace, but no such Commander is yet identified. so far, they have all been interchangable, and so non-unique. That suggests they are all Commanders, and all Casters are Commanders, so...

Appearance of interchangeability does not prove actual interchangeability. Also, even if Charlie needs a commander(he might be able to command from a distance with the dish), Archons might be promotable to commander status, just like humans actually are.


A dwagon doesn't shout "dwagon bweath" before breathing, but the Archons said words before their effects were used. each word was unique, and each spell had a unique effect. Very suggestive of the somatic component of spell casting. (Natural spells usually don't require somatic components.)

Actually, the 'spells' really didn't have unique 'effects'. Each Dwagon died equally. Each 'spell' merely had a different look to it, which is suggestive of natural spells. Admittedly, the somatic(?) component part is a good piece of evidence that they might be casters, but it doesn't prove it, in itself.


Additionally, if she has Natural Magic, Jaclyn is not a caster. Uncroaked Casters are just infantry. We can see Jaclyn uncroaked in 98.13, 100.2, and 100.5. She should be in 120, but was missed. She will be in 121. She has not used "natural magic" as an uncroaked, so if she is just infantry, she was a caster, not a natural magic user. If she was to be shown casting, she wouldn't have been overlooked. I'm placing my rep on her not using natural magic in 121.

My position doesn't say anything about Jaclyn having natural magic anymore. Also, the fact that Jaclyn can fly lends itself to argument that they aren't casters because infantry can't fly, and Jaclyn clearly does still. It also proves that they had natural magic(flight) that wasn't gained from being casters(theoretically, a caster could also fly, by casting a spell, but would lose the ability after death).


Placing the burden of proof on me, when you are incapable of providing contrary evidence is, frankly, self-aggrandizing. I've done my job -- given proof and evidence. You're only saying, "It's not enough to convince me." Welcome to the Internet. You're allowed to say, "No, the sky is green." Doesn't make you right. And it doesn't make me wrong. It only means you're clinging to false beliefs. In this case, denying Occam's Razor and logic.

The burden of proof is on the one who is arguing a concrete position. Since I'm arguing non-concrete position(we don't know for sure), I literally can't 'prove' my position. My position is only possible because we lack evidence of what exactly we're dealing with. Your position, however, requires proof, because you're arguing a concrete position, and thus need to prove your position absolutely. And besides, you've said it best:


It isn't possible to prove either one,

Which means, despite all your insults, and jabs, you admit in the end that my position(that we don't know) is the correct one.


Ansom had a 10:1 advantage in regular units when this started, excluding dwagons. The only thing he might want to hire are special forces. What's more special than casters? And what defeats dwagons better than casters?

Considering that the only unit we've ever seen take on a full-health Dwagon and kill it is warlords with escorts, I'd have gone for those instead.


Remember, the current tradition is that casters in the field are weak. If charlescomm has nominal infantry units, he would not be viewed as a threat, since he could be dealt with at any time.

No, current tradition is that casters are too valuable for the field. Considering siege engines and warlords in the field are not immune to surgical strikes, I sure as hell wouldn't risk a caster out there if no one else was either.


All of Charlie's units are called "Archons". Wouldn't you think the ones that can't cast would not be called by the same name? You don't find that odd at all?

Stanley, Ansom, and Wanda are all 'human', isn't odd that only one can cast magic?


BTW, here's another one for you all. Jaclyn is able to detect that Wanda is not under a loyalty spell in 95. Wow, these "natural magics" are getting pretty specifically useful. Funny how that happens, hunh? Natural magics that detect real spells. This one comes from the Arkendish, too, I imagine.

One theory goes that Archons are created out of the Arkendish, and thus have a level of 'natural' thinkamancy, and as beings born out of pure thinkamancy, they can see thinkamancy elsewhere. Had Jillian been under a spell not under Eyemancy, it would have been odd.

Kreistor
2008-12-25, 10:51 PM
I've argued rather persuasively to the fact that we don't know if Archons are casters.

In order to be persuasive, you must persuade someone. Since no one has yet stated that you persuaded them, it is only your own self-opinion that you are persuasive. You are not an unbiased judge of your own capacity to persuade, so no, you can't claim to be persuasive.


Occam's Razor doesn't apply when there are multiple and equally simple solutions.

Correct, but there is no evidence for any other case than Archons are casters. There is opinion that they are not casters, but no evidence. Without actual evidence, Occam's Razor applies to the only solution with evidence.

Your opinion is not evidence. Another possible explanation is not evidence. Occam's Razor can only be used when there is not conclusive proof, true, but it exists to dispel personally held, yet unsubstantiated, opinion.


Also, by using Occam's Razor, you prove internally inconsistent.

Nope. Never said that there is no other possibility. By using Occam's, and demanding that you provide as much evidence as I have provided, you have the opportunity to counter my use by demonstrating yours is more valid. You lack evidence, and so Occam's works for me, not you. Hey, next strip, this could all change, when someone actually says, "Archons aren't casters." But if no one does, you still lack any evidence.


Also, my arguments don't require that Archons be physical fighters. They can still 'use' magic without being casters.

It also requires that someone mentions Archons are "Natural Casters", a term Parson has not yet deigned to use. You are inventing an ability for Erfworld for which no evidence exists, and then finding a unit that might have it.

Now, I want "retreat" movement to exist (I've argued that elsewhere), because I foresee major abuses without it. But the author may not realize that he's creating an abusable mechanic, and so it may not exist.


I have not proven that Archons are not casters. I wasn't trying to. I have argued persuasively that we don't know for sure, and you've failed to supply ample evidence to the contrary.

No, you are not able to judge if you are persuasive. You've provided an alternate theory, but lack evidence. It fits, but it relies on negative evidence -- ie. no one has stated natural magics don't exist, so they might. Might is not evidence. Since we know that casters exist, and that archons can cast, Archons are casters. That's simple and uses rules already known to exist, with no invention. You're inventing a type of casting that has not been mentioned in comic. That is not persuasive, it is opinion.


We have seen Dwagons interact with the Arkenhammer, and that is part of the argument of how Archons could be conduits for Charlie's thinkamancy.

Evidence please, since I don't remember any such thing. We know Stanley controls the dwagons through the Hammer, but I don't ever remember a dwagon doing anything un-dragonlike that might be explained by the Hammer.


The possibility that Archons are tamed/spawned from the dish is there, and if so, it would make sense that they have some basic thinkamancy powers as a result, without being actual casters.

I fully admit that Charlie can probably master/summon Archons through his attunement to the Arkendish, but that is not an indicator the Arkendish confers power to the Archons they otherwise would not have had. The Hammer, so far, has not done this for Dwagons... at least until you pull a reference from the strip out to support your claim.


If both were of the same unit species, I'd agree. However, Archons are definatively not human. Therefore, that Archons have different characteristics is a given(otherwise, they'd be human). Now, what differences Archons have, we don't know, but it is possible that they include some level of natural thinkamancy.

Human? Who said any unit on Erfworld was human?


Again, nothing in that evidence excludes alternative explanations.

Okay, let's restore my original. You snipped part of the quote. The conclusion, specifically.


92.5 Maggie casting a communication spell. Holding fingers like a tv screen. She is a known Eyemancer.

68.7 Archon holding fingers like a TV screen, same position as Maggie.

If one is casting a spell, Occam's Razor again states that both are casting the same spell.

I used Occam's Razor, which does not preclude other explanations. You're stating something I implicitly already stated, and trying to look big doing so. I accepted that there were other possible explanations, so your statement is completely redundant. I merely stated the simplest is that both are casting the same spell in the same way.

But the simplest is that they are both casting.

1) Alternate explanations require theories for which there are no defined rules.
2) Identical hand gestures mean the same thing to two different people.

That's as simple as it gets. No other explanation can use rules already defined in the game, and they require two different abilities (casting and something else) to use the same hand gestures. Either one is more complex, consequently, Occam's Razor appplies. They are both casters, until evidence proves otherwise.


Actually, if that's right, it would make them non-casters, but it wouldn't neccesarily make them non-commanders.

So, Charlie sent 30 Battlefield Commanders with no stacks of units to merc to Ansom. Yeah, that's going to fly better than 30 Casters.


Appearance of interchangeability does not prove actual interchangeability. Also, even if Charlie needs a commander(he might be able to command from a distance with the dish), Archons might be promotable to commander status, just like humans actually are.

Again, you're inventing abilities that there is no evidence for, just to find a way to fit your own opinion into the situation. The simplest explanation is that they are all casters, making them all Commanders, which relies on nothing new from the system or items in the system.


Actually, the 'spells' really didn't have unique 'effects'. Each Dwagon died equally. Each 'spell' merely had a different look to it, which is suggestive of natural spells.

I take my definition of "effect" from champions. damage is damage, I agree, but when I say "effect", I mean the method used to deal the damage. They cast different spells, because they did damage in different ways. In this case, the method is irrelevant, but in another case, one of these spells may not deal damage, The light spell may not be useful against light based elementals, the green beam may not harm yellow targets, and the slicer may be completely ineffective against oozes. These spells were cast because the targets were known to be vulnerable, but that doesn't make them the same spell.


Admittedly, the somatic(?) component part is a good piece of evidence that they might be casters, but it doesn't prove it, in itself.

Again, it is the simplest explanation, with no new rules or undefined abilities introduced to the system.


My position doesn't say anything about Jaclyn having natural magic anymore. Also, the fact that Jaclyn can fly lends itself to argument that they aren't casters because infantry can't fly, and Jaclyn clearly does still. It also proves that they had natural magic(flight) that wasn't gained from being casters(theoretically, a caster could also fly, by casting a spell, but would lose the ability after death).

But it does matter, and it's your best hope. If Jaclyn cuts loose with a spell in 121, we know her magic is inherent. if she doesn't, there is no proof to counter you so you can continue to believe what you will. Only if Wanda says at some point, "It's too bad the archon lost her casting when she was uncroaked," that you get scuppered.


The burden of proof is on the one who is arguing a concrete position.

Not when you deny Occam's Razor. either I am right and it is the simplest explanation, or I am wrong in which case it is up to you to prove something else is simpler, or my own position is complex.


Which means, despite all your insults, and jabs, you admit in the end that my position(that we don't know) is the correct one.

Insults? Who called whose thoughts "foolishness"? You opened that can of worms.


Considering that the only unit we've ever seen take on a full-health Dwagon and kill it is warlords with escorts, I'd have gone for those instead.

Actually, we don't know if that stack Jillian engaged in 12 was untouched. All others she has faced were either already damaged, or illusionary.

Casters tend to beat dwagons because of superior range.


No, current tradition is that casters are too valuable for the field. Considering siege engines and warlords in the field are not immune to surgical strikes, I sure as hell wouldn't risk a caster out there if no one else was either.

But Charlie's archons are safe. If Stanley attacks them, he risks pushing Charlie into fighting against him without being paid. And Stanley risks not being able to hire Charlie later. Casters, in Charlies case, are safe on tis battlefield.


Stanley, Ansom, and Wanda are all 'human', isn't odd that only one can cast magic?

Stanley is 1/2 the height of anyone else. He's human? Given the fantasy world he's in, I'd bet halfling or hobbit. Superficial resemblance to vampires don't make Transylvitians vulnerable to sunlight. Superficial resemblance to humans doesn't make Ansom human. He probably has no supernatural abilities, though. Occam's Razor applies.

Maggie, Jack, Misty, Sizemore are all human-form, too. As was Manpower. We see casters frequently because we're in a city, the traditional place for casters. That's why we see few casters in Ansom's army.


One theory goes that Archons are created out of the Arkendish, and thus have a level of 'natural' thinkamancy, and as beings born out of pure thinkamancy, they can see thinkamancy elsewhere. Had Jillian been under a spell not under Eyemancy, it would have been odd.

Nice theory. But still just a theory, requiring abilities attributed to an Arkentool inconsistent with the other better defined Arkentool, and not described by in a Klog or by Charlie. Which makes it based on negative evidence (no evidence to the contrary so it is possible).

Explaining it by making Archons casters requires no speculation of rules, relies on predefined terms and abilities, and fits with all positive evidence so far gathered (evidence exists that demonsrtates abilities identical to casting, and are consistent with the standard definitions of casting). i am not introducing any new elements into the strip to exlpain my position, which places Occam's Razor firmly on my side. you require the addition of a new set of abilities to provide any other explanation, and so cannot claim equivalence under Occam's Razor.

Kreistor
2008-12-25, 11:07 PM
We've never seen a caster detecting magic before. Nor was it mentioned that a viel, could be defeated caster...

Veils can be defeated by observation. Jack's just that good... but in this case we know that Jack was elsewhere, so Wanda wasn't veiled.


So now your arguing the tools all have similar ablities? Two are weapons, one is not. One can imitate a whole school of magic, and go even farther, something the hammer can't. Maybe two can summon monsters? We can't extrapolate too what each Arkentool can do...

No, I'm arguing that attributing random powers to the Arkendish just to fit your own theory about how something is what you want it to be is just self-serving rhetoric. Possible? Sure. Probable? No. The most probable abilities for the Arkendish are the hacking of communication, since it gives te appearance of a satellite dish. Attributing a "detect magic" power to something that remote and which gives the appearance of a communications device, not a radar device, is no better than saying the Arkenrouter turned the sky blue... it used to be pink before kenyy attuned to it.

Oh, BTW, Hammers hit things. Pliers, not so much. They've been used as a melee weapon, but I'm expecting them to turn out to manipulate better than smash. That's raw speculation, BTW, and unsupported. Just a prediction...


Its a name for his mercenaries. They are all mercenaries, all would have the same name. More importantly it could very well be the name of their race. Like, twoll, gobwin, or man.

But if I hire a troll and get something that fights like a man, then I've been conned. If Charlie is hiring out Archons as if they are interchangable, then they better be interchangable, or Charlie won't be hiring them out to anyone, when they can't cast like the ones sent with Jillian.


Finally, Keistor a sample of three is not enough to generalize to all the of a population. Let alone a non-random sample.

3/15 is 20%. 20% is enough of a sample to accurately predict. I woud love to crank out the stats for that, but I'm a long ways from my Probability text. Measured in days, actually, not km. Anyway, I'll give you a freebie. Univ stats. The problem isn't the sample space, but the overall size of the population. With only 15, the standard deviation is pretty high, which makes the chance of getting 3 from the minority population pretty high. If it was 20% of 1000, then our sample would be considered extremely indicative of the overall population, since getting 200 out of a minority and 0 out of the majority is infinitesimally unlikely.

DevilDan
2008-12-26, 01:39 AM
Kreistor, sorry but when something can neither be proved nor disproved then I'm not going to keep arguing about it ad infinitum. And I'm afraid that I won't be swayed into accepting that something that is "possible" or even something that is "probable" as undisputed fact. We feel compelled to point this out in your arguments because you, for some reason, choose to take your arguments and assume that they are true simply because they may be true.

It's not unreasonable to believe that some archons are casters. I agree. That's a whole slew of hexes away from establishing that all archons are casters.

In fact, consider this: We saw one of the three archons taking part in the casting of thinkagrams when Jill spoke to Ansom before the battle over the lake. And then we see all three archons each using a peculiar attack against a wounded A-level dwagon.

Possibly one of the archons is a thinkamancer and one of those attacks ("Synergy") is also a thinkamancy spell. Or perhaps the long-haired brunette archon is a multidisciplinary caster, like Wanda.

Or, bear with me a minute: all archons have natural energy-type attacks and one of them is a thinkamancer. If you can accept that archons can have attacks just as dwagons have several different breath attacks, then you can consider the possibility that Charlie is using the arkendish to both use an archon as a remote thinkamancy receiver and that he can use the arkendish to command his archons as an in-hex warlord or caster with leadership could. Given that some thinkamancy spells work across long distances, then it's not particularly unreasonable to suggest that a thinkamancy arkentool can work on or with units at great distances. Also, as has been mentioned, just because an archon is not a caster does not mean that she (it?) can't be a warlord.

Given what we'd seen, I'd put money on that one archon having been a thinkamancer. But I don't therefore assume that all archons are casters. Sorry, I just don't like potentially problematic shortcuts in logic. We have, I think, compelling evidence that one is a caster and some evidence that all three of the original wing are some sort of caster. But they are, as others and I have mentioned, a nonrandom sample.

Jaclyn has used one natural magic, flight. Come to think of it, if Jaclyn's abilities were mainly those of a caster, why would Wanda bother raising her in the first place; was it just cause she's the only other flier she could raise at the time? If that's true and now she's just like any other uncroaked infantry unit except for her ability to fly, then why not at least give her a weapon and possibly armor? You must grant that that is peculiar.

Kreistor, you mentioned that only Stanley is attuned to an arkentool. May I ask how you know that Charlie isn't attuned to his tool?

I've repeated some of Godskook's earlier arguments, and that is because I find them compelling. I could state, for the record, that they are persuasive (something which should surprise no one since they are the result of measured discussion with others including myself), but that would somehow play into your belief that this is some sort of contest or that nitpicking adjectives is reasonable behavior. Just so we're clear, all I am suggesting is that we do not know for certain that all archons are casters. No more, no less.

I guess we have different standards of proof, Kreistor. For example, I consider that the Cast Page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erfcast.html) provides adequate proof that Stanley is of the race of Men.

Yes, a term like "natural caster" has not been used. But "natural thinkamancy" has been used, suggesting that there could be other "natural" magics. And we do know that the arkenhammer has affected the behavior of dwagons.

Simply put, Kreistor, I don't feel that I have to pick a solution simply because it is plausible. I employ my judgment in withholding judgment. Occam's razor is a rule of thumb, nothing more. We are dealing with hypotheses, and we don't have enough proof to falsify any of them.

Kreistor
2008-12-26, 10:42 AM
Kreistor, sorry but when something can neither be proved nor disproved then I'm not going to keep arguing about it ad infinitum.

That is at your discretion. But don't expect me to stop when you do, or in response to a demand on your part that I stop to let you have the last word. If you choose to stop, then stop and leave me to my discussions with others.


And I'm afraid that I won't be swayed into accepting that something that is "possible" or even something that is "probable" as undisputed fact.

In my life, I don't have the luxury of waiting until all possible choices are proven true or false. I have to act on incomplete information. In this case, we turn to Occam's razor, or our gut instincts. we all know how accurate our gut is. Only in TV shows are gut instincts accurate.


We feel compelled to point this out in your arguments because you, for some reason, choose to take your arguments and assume that they are true simply because they may be true.

I'm trying to look into the possible futures of the strip. That relies on knowledge of the rules, which the author is loathe to make written. So I speculate, but in the end to make a prediction, I must choose one possibility. That means I must choose one of the possible definitions of Archon. You fault me for using Occam's Razor for that?


It's not unreasonable to believe that some archons are casters. I agree. That's a whole slew of hexes away from establishing that all archons are casters.

Not really. Identical name, no identifiable means of distinguishing one Archon from another, no identifiable alternate means of combatting opponents than spellcraft... it's hardly a leap of logic to see that all of them must be able to cast.


In fact, consider this: We saw one of the three archons taking part in the casting of thinkagrams when Jill spoke to Ansom before the battle over the lake. And then we see all three archons each using a peculiar attack against a wounded A-level dwagon.

Making them identical in style but unique in technique. Sounds like a casters that chose different schools of specialization to me.


Or, bear with me a minute: all archons have natural energy-type attacks and one of them is a thinkamancer.

Which adds undefined elements to the game system, blowing away a claim to Occam's Razor. If everything can be defined by using currently known rules, then it should be. Anything else is speculation.


Given what we'd seen, I'd put money on that one archon having been a thinkamancer.

Good choice. But then you get into splitting hairs. Charlie defines his casters and natural magic users as Archons. That isn't a good plan when you're hiriing out to people with expectations.


Sorry, I just don't like potentially problematic shortcuts in logic. We have, I think, compelling evidence that one is a caster and some evidence that all three of the original wing are some sort of caster. But they are, as others and I have mentioned, a nonrandom sample.

Consider that Charlie asked Parson how many Archons it would take to take GK Garrison. He didn't ask "How many casting Archons" or "How many natural caster Archons". Charlie treated his archons as an identifiable unit type with non-random abilities. Further evidence the Archons are interchangable, and so if one is a caster, all are.


Jaclyn has used one natural magic, flight. Come to think of it, if Jaclyn's abilities were mainly those of a caster, why would Wanda bother raising her in the first place; was it just cause she's the only other flier she could raise at the time?

I'm the one that pointed out flight had to be natural to Archons, and not just Jaclyn. It's part of the unit type, in the same way Vinnie and Caesar can fly. But so far, Vinnie and Caesar don't show signs of spell use, so just being able to fly is not an indicator that you automatically have other natural magics.


If that's true and now she's just like any other uncroaked infantry unit except for her ability to fly, then why not at least give her a weapon and possibly armor? You must grant that that is peculiar.

We don't know about weapon and armour proficiencies, for one thing. Can any unit pick up any weapon and use it with skill? We know that Wanda easily could have done as you suggest, but we don't know why not. Weight limit? We haven't seen Archons carrying more than a net, so far, though they thought three could carry Parson, so it probably isn't weight. I don't recall any Klog carrying an explanation for this, so any solution you choose is equally valid to one I choose. I think 121 might explain this, since we've been promised Jaclyn will be present.


Kreistor, you mentioned that only Stanley is attuned to an arkentool. May I ask how you know that Charlie isn't attuned to his tool?

That's not what I said. I said that the only other Arkentool that we know has been attuned (besides Charlie's) is Stanley's Hammer, and its abilities are better defined than the Dish. To determine what the Dish might do, we should look to the Hammer. It subdues dwagons -- consistent with a melee weapon. It casts Van Der Graff in the hand of its attuned wielder. It cracks nuts. Dwagons don't call on it for fire breath. Knights don't call on it for spells. It is consistent with its motife of being a Hammer.

The dish should then be consistent with its motife as a Satellite Dish. It should be useful to its user for communications. We know it confers an uncommon affinity for Thinkamancy to Charlie, which is consistent with the communications theme. But giving it the ability for Archons to communicate with anyone other than Charlie is inconsistent with the Hammer. Allowing it to break into Thinkamancy communications, like Parson's book, is consistent with communications. Charlie can hack into others private conversations. But this probably comes with a penalty of no melee capacity since it's hard to hit someone with a Satellite Dish. Anyway, the point is that any ability blamed on the Arkendish should be consistent with its motife as a Satellite Dish.


I've repeated some of Godskook's earlier arguments, and that is because I find them compelling. I could state, for the record, that they are persuasive (something which should surprise no one since they are the result of measured discussion with others including myself), but that would somehow play into your belief that this is some sort of contest or that nitpicking adjectives is reasonable behavior. Just so we're clear, all I am suggesting is that we do not know for certain that all archons are casters. No more, no less.

Well, I am going to nitpick you a little. Were you in favour of his position in the first place? If yes, he didn't persuade you at all. Persuading requires switching someone's belief to your own.


I guess we have different standards of proof, Kreistor. For example, I consider that the Cast Page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erfcast.html) provides adequate proof that Stanley is of the race of Men.

Okay, accepted. Never seen that page before.


Yes, a term like "natural caster" has not been used. But "natural thinkamancy" has been used, suggesting that there could be other "natural" magics. And we do know that the arkenhammer has affected the behavior of dwagons.

Conferring Natural Thinkamancy to leaders is not anywhere near parallel to units having the ability to cast without casting. The NT effects are natural because they don't get activated by the leader. (Note Parson is compelled to obey not from Natural Thinkamancy, but by the summoning spell that brought him here. 19.7) Natural thinkamancy is a general effect on all units, and so cannot be extended to other magics in order to explain whatever is inconvenient with your own definition of what you see in Erfworld.


Simply put, Kreistor, I don't feel that I have to pick a solution simply because it is plausible. I employ my judgment in withholding judgment. Occam's razor is a rule of thumb, nothing more. We are dealing with hypotheses, and we don't have enough proof to falsify any of them.

We don't have any evidence to support any, actually, except the "Archons are Casters" theory. Believe what you want without substantive evidence, but don't expect me to agree with the creation of rules just to satisfy your own explanations. A solution that uses already defined rules is the only possible choice.

DevilDan
2008-12-26, 12:56 PM
I'm trying to look into the possible futures of the strip. That relies on knowledge of the rules, which the author is loathe to make written. So I speculate, but in the end to make a prediction, I must choose one possibility. That means I must choose one of the possible definitions of Archon. You fault me for using Occam's Razor for that?

We all do that. We just simply say: "If we assume X, then maybe Y will happen." And then we all happily move on. I find speculation entertaining, so I hope you don't fault me for considering as many options and possibilities as I do without feeling compelled to pick one.


Not really. Identical name, no identifiable means of distinguishing one Archon from another, no identifiable alternate means of combatting opponents than spellcraft... it's hardly a leap of logic to see that all of them must be able to cast.

Even if I were to ignore the fact that at least some of them have names and that they do not all look the identical, I don't see the point of harping on the fact that they share the name of "archon," which could be a rank, a team name, or a race.


Making them identical in style but unique in technique. Sounds like a casters that chose different schools of specialization to me.

Again, I like to consider multiple possibilities. I don't think that you need posit different schools, just different spells. (See what I did there? I accept the possibility that some of your assumptions are right and just have a little fun providing another spin on your conclusion.)


Which adds undefined elements to the game system, blowing away a claim to Occam's Razor. If everything can be defined by using currently known rules, then it should be. Anything else is speculation.

Everything we say without a full knowledge of the rules is speculation. That includes conclusions of which I'm very certain.


Good choice. But then you get into splitting hairs. Charlie defines his casters and natural magic users as Archons. That isn't a good plan when you're hiriing out to people with expectations.

I'm afraid that I can't quite tease out your meaning. Are you speculating on the text of Charlie's earlier contracts? Or perhaps you're afraid that he'd somehow be guilty of false advertising--assuming that he even gives details on his troops to anyone, even to prospective or actual clients.


Consider that Charlie asked Parson how many Archons it would take to take GK Garrison. He didn't ask "How many casting Archons" or "How many natural caster Archons". Charlie treated his archons as an identifiable unit type with non-random abilities. Further evidence the Archons are interchangable, and so if one is a caster, all are.

We don't know what the actual question was. If we assume that Charlie just asked "how many archons/casters" point blank, wouldn't he at least have to specify what kind of caster they are?

Come to think of it, it would actually be easier to treat them as a general unit of type "archon" for the purposes of planning and calculation if their powers are not magics but just features of their unit type or class.


I'm the one that pointed out flight had to be natural to Archons, and not just Jaclyn.

If you say so.


But so far, Vinnie and Caesar don't show signs of spell use, so just being able to fly is not an indicator that you automatically have other natural magics.

I don't think any of my arguments hinge on that. I'd just add, on the other hand, that we know that Vinny has at least a warlord's ability to do something like a "spot veiled unit" check (I don't need to call that a natural magic per se, just a special ability) and that he has some sort of "thinkamancy" (possibly) that allows him to see what his bats see (which I'm as happy to call a natural ability as to call natural magic).


I don't recall any Klog carrying an explanation for this, so any solution you choose is equally valid to one I choose.

Gee, it's almost as if you can accept the idea that sometimes there isn't enough evidence to choose among multiple explanations available.


That's not what I said. I said that the only other Arkentool that we know has been attuned (besides Charlie's) is Stanley's Hammer, and its abilities are better defined than the Dish.

Actually, what you wrote is this:

The only other attuned Arkentool is the hammer, and no one is able to use any ability from it except Stanley.


To determine what the Dish might do, we should look to the Hammer. It subdues dwagons -- consistent with a melee weapon. It casts Van Der Graff in the hand of its attuned wielder. It cracks nuts. Dwagons don't call on it for fire breath. Knights don't call on it for spells. It is consistent with its motife of being a Hammer.

"Consistent" is a strong term. I'd say that it's very hard to say that there is any consistency to what the hammer can do. It creates birds out of walnuts and vice versa, has at least one apparently electrical attack, gives Stanley the ability to fly, can be used to tame dwagons (who don't seem to have ties to electricity; neither is a hammer traditionally a tool used to tame creatures), and may be used to create a rock-n-roll inspired dance bonus. If you can draw a straight line through all these saying "these are obviously all logically related," then you're a far more insightful lateral thinker than I am.

IŽll just add that arguing for "consistency" would lead me to suggest that if the arkenhammer can have a special tie with dwagons then the arkendish could have a special connection to the archons.


Natural thinkamancy is a general effect on all units, and so cannot be extended to other magics in order to explain whatever is inconvenient with your own definition of what you see in Erfworld.

I don't think that "natural thinkamancy" is the only example we can consider. We have examples of other "powers" or special abilities, specifically twoll regeneration, dwagon breath attacks (which I'm sure you're tired of hearing by now), and flight. After all your arguments, the single fact that I find compelling is the "spells" called out by the archons before attacking the dwagons over the lake.


We don't have any evidence to support any, actually, except the "Archons are Casters" theory. Believe what you want without substantive evidence, but don't expect me to agree with the creation of rules just to satisfy your own explanations. A solution that uses already defined rules is the only possible choice.

"Substantive evidence" is not the same as "conclusive evidence."

And I will say again that I don't feel that I need to believe any of our theories. I just consider whether they match the available evidence. I'd say we have evidence that suggests that some archons are casters.

Trust me, I don't expect you to agree with anything I say at this point.

Kreistor
2008-12-26, 05:16 PM
We all do that. We just simply say: "If we assume X, then maybe Y will happen." And then we all happily move on. I find speculation entertaining, so I hope you don't fault me for considering as many options and possibilities as I do without feeling compelled to pick one.

Course I don't. Just don't fault me for choosing.


Even if I were to ignore the fact that at least some of them have names

I think the only name so far is "Jaclyn" and she died in the very striup after we learned her name. They have different hair, features, and skin tone, but clothing and lack of weaponry is idenitcal. Jaclyn may have been with Jillian over the lake, but given this would require a hairstyle change, which Jillian did undergo for the dance fighting, we can't for certain she was there.


Again, I like to consider multiple possibilities. I don't think that you need posit different schools, just different spells. (See what I did there? I accept the possibility that some of your assumptions are right and just have a little fun providing another spin on your conclusion.)

List of schools can be found in Klog 2. Not positing anything. We know different schools exist. There are eight classes and three disciplines, but no defined name for the 24 separately. I used school to identify the 24. Sorry, I should have mentioned that.


Everything we say without a full knowledge of the rules is speculation. That includes conclusions of which I'm very certain.

by attempting to figure things out we are by the definition speculating. That doesn't mean all conclusions are speculative. Speculative conclusions rely on unprovable facts.

My own conclusion does not rely on any facts not already in evidence, so its not actually speculative. You are suggesting that there are facts not in evidence, but that doesn't mean I am speculating. I am deriving from known facts... a different process.


I'm afraid that I can't quite tease out your meaning. Are you speculating on the text of Charlie's earlier contracts? Or perhaps you're afraid that he'd somehow be guilty of false advertising--assuming that he even gives details on his troops to anyone, even to prospective or actual clients.

Charlie provides a service: he hires out his Archons. We know that he himself does not differentiate between different types of Archons 9since he didn't when asking Parson for Mathamancy answers).

If a client expects casters, but they get flying infantry, they are going to be very angry. Charlie would differentiate, if all Archons were not interchangable.


We don't know what the actual question was. If we assume that Charlie just asked "how many archons/casters" point blank, wouldn't he at least have to specify what kind of caster they are?

He'd have to use more than two questions, if he had to differentiate hs Archons.


Come to think of it, it would actually be easier to treat them as a general unit of type "archon" for the purposes of planning and calculation if their powers are not magics but just features of their unit type or class.

No, it would not matter either way, assuming all are casters or all have natural magics. It's the six of one, half a dozen of the other argument. The mechanical differences of the two different types of units would potentially be important or unimportant. You'd be speculating on the mechanics of something that you've invented for the game, so you can't really say one way or the other.


I don't think any of my arguments hinge on that. I'd just add, on the other hand, that we know that Vinny has at least a warlord's ability to do something like a "spot veiled unit" check (I don't need to call that a natural magic per se, just a special ability) and that he has some sort of "thinkamancy" (possibly) that allows him to see what his bats see (which I'm as happy to call a natural ability as to call natural magic).

That would have the explanation of being in flavour with the Vampire motife. I can accept "bat sight" being a natural ability instead of casting.

We've got no such motife to fall back on for the Archons.


Gee, it's almost as if you can accept the idea that sometimes there isn't enough evidence to choose among multiple explanations available.

When all options are equal, sure. My point is that in the case of the Archons, any additional rules that are needed to define them as anything but casters makes those alternatives unequal and less likely.


Actually, what you wrote is this:

Don't think I misrepresented my own words, did I? I used the words "only other" in each case, meaning there must be more than one attuned Arkentool.


"Consistent" is a strong term. I'd say that it's very hard to say that there is any consistency to what the hammer can do. It creates birds out of walnuts and vice versa, has at least one apparently electrical attack, gives Stanley the ability to fly, can be used to tame dwagons (who don't seem to have ties to electricity; neither is a hammer traditionally a tool used to tame creatures), and may be used to create a rock-n-roll inspired dance bonus. If you can draw a straight line through all these saying "these are obviously all logically related," then you're a far more insightful lateral thinker than I am.

There's no evidence the hammer is responsible for the Dance Bonus. The KISS knights were expected to have dance fighting. 90.5 and 90.6. The Knights provide teh Dance Bonus, not the Hammer.


IŽll just add that arguing for "consistency" would lead me to suggest that if the arkenhammer can have a special tie with dwagons then the arkendish could have a special connection to the archons.

I don't doubt that the Arkendish somehow allows Charlie to either buy Archons, or "tame" them. that's consistent with the Hammer's powers over dwagons.

Conferring additional abilities to the Archons due to some link to the dish, however, is not consistent with the hammer's powers over dwagons. That's where you're getting into rules invention.


I don't think that "natural thinkamancy" is the only example we can consider. We have examples of other "powers" or special abilities, specifically twoll regeneration, dwagon breath attacks (which I'm sure you're tired of hearing by now), and flight. After all your arguments, the single fact that I find compelling is the "spells" called out by the archons before attacking the dwagons over the lake.

These are consistent with earth fantasy abilities. Archons are defined as "an authoritative figure". No myth to fall back on for motife, there. That does not imply any inherent magical powers.


"Substantive evidence" is not the same as "conclusive evidence."

But when all of the alternatives require "invented evidence", then there is only one choice remaining.


And I will say again that I don't feel that I need to believe any of our theories. I just consider whether they match the available evidence. I'd say we have evidence that suggests that some archons are casters.

Trust me, I don't expect you to agree with anything I say at this point.

Oh, I agree with just about everything: I just don't lkend it the weight you do. It is possible that I am wrong. But we have absolutely no evidence for the Archons being anything except casters. I am not going to sit back and hamstring myself when the weight of evidence strongly suggests a conclusion is possible. We're never going to get most rules defined. Does that mean we should not even try to figure them out, because we may have to use educated guesses? Heck, you think physics is real in our universe, but you can't prove the Law of Conservation of Energy, the fundamental Law used in all Physics. It's a belief. If science waited for proof, we'd all die without advancing physics at all. So, no, I'm not waiting for proof. I'm going to try to figure it out, because sitting back and denying a reasonable conclusion that allows us to further devlop the system is better than hedging bets and doing nothing.

Sieggy
2008-12-26, 06:02 PM
. . . so, the question is then begged 'How many Archons can dance on the head of a Warlord?' . . . This is starting to resemble a medieval theological debate on the afterlife. Much speculation, based on inferential and highly subjective evidence. And, like the question of the afterlife, it will be resolved by what develops.

I very strongly suspect the authors are deriving much big chuckles from these debates, I certainly am . . .

Kreistor
2008-12-26, 06:14 PM
. . . so, the question is then begged 'How many Archons can dance on the head of a Warlord?' . . . This is starting to resemble a medieval theological debate on the afterlife. Much speculation, based on inferential and highly subjective evidence. And, like the question of the afterlife, it will be resolved by what develops.

Occam's Razor is attributed to a 14rh century Fransciscan Friar...

tribble
2008-12-26, 06:59 PM
Fact: when Wanda casts spells her eyes glow. look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0030.html).

Fact: archons glow all the time. I defy you to find a panel where an archon is not glowing.

Fact: the archons glow does not change when they use synergy, leverage, and paradigm.

Fact: Wanda doesn't always glow.

Fact: uncroaked casters lose casting abilities. check the klog here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0084.html)

Fact: uncroaked archons glow. lookie here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0132.html)

so, a few syllogisms.
Wanda does not always glow. Wanda does glow when casting spells. therefore spells cause the user to exhibit additional glow.

Spells cause the user to exhibit additional glow. the archons do not exhibit additional glow when using synergy, leverage, and paradigm. therefore Synergy Leverage and Paradigm are not spells.

Uncroaking causes casting abilities to be lost. uncroaking does not cause the target to continously glow like a radioactive cartoon character. Jaclyn the archon continues to exhibit glowing after uncroaking. therefore the continous glow of an archon is not caused by spellcasting.

make of my logic what you will.

Lamech
2008-12-26, 11:30 PM
I think I might be able to persuade some people's of something! Okay not really, but I do have an idea that hasn't been considered...


Jaclyn has used one natural magic, flight. Come to think of it, if Jaclyn's abilities were mainly those of a caster, why would Wanda bother raising her in the first place; was it just cause she's the only other flier she could raise at the time? If that's true and now she's just like any other uncroaked infantry unit except for her ability to fly, then why not at least give her a weapon and possibly armor? You must grant that that is peculiar.


Not really. Identical name, no identifiable means of distinguishing one Archon from another, no identifiable alternate means of combatting opponents than spellcraft... it's hardly a leap of logic to see that all of them must be able to cast.
Have you considered that even though the Archons lack weapons they might be able to fight the same way TV does by kicking people; it seems to work really well except when you run into a uber-AoE blast...

Kreistor
2008-12-26, 11:33 PM
Fact: when Wanda casts spells her eyes glow. look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0030.html).

Fact: archons glow all the time. I defy you to find a panel where an archon is not glowing.

Fact: the archons glow does not change when they use synergy, leverage, and paradigm.

Fact: Wanda doesn't always glow.

Fact: uncroaked casters lose casting abilities. check the klog here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0084.html)

Fact: uncroaked archons glow. lookie here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0132.html)

so, a few syllogisms.
Wanda does not always glow. Wanda does glow when casting spells. therefore spells cause the user to exhibit additional glow.

Spells cause the user to exhibit additional glow. the archons do not exhibit additional glow when using synergy, leverage, and paradigm. therefore Synergy Leverage and Paradigm are not spells.

Uncroaking causes casting abilities to be lost. uncroaking does not cause the target to continously glow like a radioactive cartoon character. Jaclyn the archon continues to exhibit glowing after uncroaking. therefore the continous glow of an archon is not caused by spellcasting.

make of my logic what you will.

Well, that does make sense except for one thing. While saying the word, they do not have a different aura, but when the effect is taking place, their auras do change. Page 69. Frame 2 has a blue aura, but 3 has a pink aura. 4 has blue, but 5 has green. 6 has blue, but 7 has orange.

Wanda in 98.13 is casting on Jaclyn's corpse, but an aura only appears on her hand, not her body. 119 She casts on the flying carpet, but no aura at all. Maggie in 88.10, casts a communication spell, but no aura on her hand. Earlier in 88, she casts a protection on Parson, which may have a green aura (or it may be background... though I think it is an aura), but note the lack of somatic components. Maggie casts without words, so the somatic theory above is just as meaningless as suggesting natural magics don't need somatics... castiers don't need somatics either... but note this was in Maggie's primary school. Wanda doesn't need somatics with Croakamancy, but she did with 119. 112.2 Sizemore glows and uses somatics.

The greater the familiarity with the spell or school, the fewer crutches one needs? That's raw spec, but has been present in some novels (Wheel of Time for one). Glowing and somatics appear to be randomly drawn and written.

Anyway, I don't think your conclusion is valid because the comic does not consistently draw auras for known casters, so any conclusion based on auras for Archons is not possible. It really, really should be possible, though. It was a great thought to approach from that perspective. The author and artist just haven't seen fit to remain consistent for you.

Kreistor
2008-12-26, 11:42 PM
Have you considered that even though the Archons lack weapons they might be able to fight the same way TV does by kicking people; it seems to work really well except when you run into a uber-AoE blast...

I considered a monk-archon, but they aren't dressed for that motife. They dress like airline stewardesses. We haven't seen a true monk at all yet -- just Caesar (a Chief Warlord like Parson) trying to flying kick Stanley.

Of course, they may be ninja-Archons, and therefore uber-meleers that can only be killed by other ninja-Archons. They might dress like stewardesses, because ninjas disguise themselves as other people so you don't suspect they're ninja. But why someone that can only be killed by others like him cares that a normal guy like me can identify him as a ninja escapes me.

Ninjas are everywhere, dontcha know... not like pirate-Archons. Pirate-Archons can be spotted leagues away, because they want to strike fear into ya.

Okay, I'll stop. I'm in a silly mood.

DevilDan
2008-12-27, 01:05 AM
I think the only name so far is "Jaclyn" and she died in the very striup after we learned her name. They have different hair, features, and skin tone, but clothing and lack of weaponry is idenitcal. Jaclyn may have been with Jillian over the lake, but given this would require a hairstyle change, which Jillian did undergo for the dance fighting, we can't for certain she was there.

So you do agree that they aren't just essentially clones. Not that that's central to this discussion. It's just that I feel sometimes that even challenging unimportant but unwarranted assumptions can be worthwhile.


List of schools can be found in Klog 2. Not positing anything. We know different schools exist. There are eight classes and three disciplines, but no defined name for the 24 separately. I used school to identify the 24. Sorry, I should have mentioned that.

Wow, it's even hard to agree with you. I was suggesting that they could be casters of the same school but using different spells. Is even a variation in a small detail a problem?

Now, I can deal with your various comments simply by saying that I don't think we have enough information available to refute the arguments provided by others as well as those you've presented or professed.


Charlie provides a service: he hires out his Archons. We know that he himself does not differentiate between different types of Archons 9since he didn't when asking Parson for Mathamancy answers).

I'm sorry, I must have missed the strip in which we saw Charlie asking Parson for that calculation or the strip in which Parson repeated Charlie's question verbatim.


If a client expects casters, but they get flying infantry, they are going to be very angry. Charlie would differentiate, if all Archons were not interchangable.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the strip in which Charlie's contract is quoted.


He'd have to use more than two questions, if he had to differentiate hs Archons.

Or he asked a detailed question. He would need to ask a detailed question, providing data on what school of magic each archon can cast if your hypothesis is correct. On the other hand, it could be as brief a question as you have assumed it to be if the archons all use the same magic (see, my speculation, however distasteful or objectionable it is to use, could actually be used to defend your theory) or if their powers are part of their race/type/class.

On the other hand, you think that saying "six casters and eight others" is more complicated somehow than listing the school of magic of each archon.


We've got no such motife to fall back on for the Archons.

It's "motif." I don't object to reasoning by analogy or trying to spot patterns in fiction, but it's a poor sort of "evidence" at best.


There's no evidence the hammer is responsible for the Dance Bonus. The KISS knights were expected to have dance fighting. 90.5 and 90.6. The Knights provide teh Dance Bonus, not the Hammer.

Yes, I should have said that the hammer seemed to play a part in it, not that it was the sole source or mechanism.


That's where you're getting into rules invention

Funny, I could say that stating baldly that all archons must be casters is something of an invented rule. But I don't mind that because it is consistent with the facts at hand, as are other theories.


These are consistent with earth fantasy abilities. Archons are defined as "an authoritative figure". No myth to fall back on for motife, there. That does not imply any inherent magical powers.

I don't see that the author is ever slavishly bound to our myths anyway. Look at his take on vampires.


But when all of the alternatives require "invented evidence", then there is only one choice remaining.

So my idea of considering the various possible theories is just plain wrong, huh? Bummer.


Heck, you think physics is real in our universe, but you can't prove the Law of Conservation of Energy, the fundamental Law used in all Physics. It's a belief. If science waited for proof, we'd all die without advancing physics at all. So, no, I'm not waiting for proof. I'm going to try to figure it out, because sitting back and denying a reasonable conclusion that allows us to further devlop the system is better than hedging bets and doing nothing.

Actually, no scientist says "this theory seems likeliest so I'm going to ignore all others and assume they're wrong because they seem less probable." The point of science it to test hypotheses. Since we can't do that, I'm afraid that I'm going to avoid reasoning by analogy (from science to comics) and simply enjoy discussing the various possibilities so long as they DON'T CONTRADICT the facts.

Just for the hell of it, let me add another wild theory into the mix: Charlie can use the arkendish to channel the spells of casters he keeps at home through the archons. So even if he loses an archon, he doesn't lose a valuable caster, just a medium. I apologize for my boldness. I don't think it can be proved or disproved at this point, so I don't think that it merits any discussion at this point--or even any serious consideration at all. I don't normally speculate in this vein; maybe it's a rebellious reaction on my part to having someone suggest that I have no choice but to pick, forsaking all others (if I may be dramatic).

dr pepper
2008-12-27, 02:45 AM
Ah come on folks-- it's Arkenalia! So let the Hippiemancy fill your hearts and be of good cheer and soon St. Elvis will come bringing glad tidings of new episodes. Otherwise they'll be nothing in your stockings but a lump of crapgolem.

Erk
2008-12-27, 02:56 AM
Wow, heated debate.

So, the doombats must be thinkamancers. Vinnie can see through their eyes; he seems to have a telepathic link. We've never seen that happen with other units; Kreistor's odd version of Occam's Razor later ==> doombats are thinkamancers.

Alternatively, Archons are a powerful unit with some innate abilities, like many other powerful units that can do things like: fly, encase things in pink bubbles, and rock out. The fact that their attacks have keywords hardly means they are spells. I had assumed and still believe (but like everyone here have no hard evidence) that they all used the same "attack mode", ie. an Archon Attack is "Business Catchphrase", and saw different results just as a Heavy Metal Golem could choose to smash a marbit's head or crush its kneecaps.

Anyway. Bottom line as I'd like to put it:
"Occam's Razor". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

We haven't seen Archons referred to as or treated as casters. Casters are stated to be very rare and very powerful. We have seen over a dozen archons. Occam's Razor states that, rather than Charlie fielding an unbelievably expensive force of units knowing several will probably die, his units instead have some innate abilities that are common to their type. Just like the Doombats, but more powerful as Archons are a far higher level unit.



---

As for the undead marbits: we probably just haven't seen them on screen yet. Units could be clustered by type.

Aquillion
2008-12-27, 02:15 PM
I don't think this is worth that much argument. There are several options, most of which aren't any more likely than each other, and none of which seem to have any real impact on the plot...

1. Archons have no casting or innate magical abilities beyond flying and the giant lasers. They're not casters. The magical effects we've seen from them are provided by the Arkendish. This is the only one that seems unlikely to me, since they make the exact same magical gestures as Maggie when providing a Thinkamancy link.

2. Archons (either all, or just some at random, or just high-level ones) have a few innate magical abilities, including their beams, the ability to detect certain magical effects, and the ability to provide some thinkamancy effects.

3. Archons (again, either all, or just some at random, or just high-level ones) have some innate casting, the same way D&D dragons have innate Sorcerer casting. This does not qualify them as 'casters' in the traditional sense for most people in the Erfworld universe -- being a caster is like being a wizard or whatever, a unit that exists just to cast. Also, casters seem to have to study magic to be good at it -- we saw Sizemore doing this in the magic city. Archons are special units with some casting ability.

4. Archons (some or all) are casters, who learn how to cast spells the same way we saw Sizemore studying in the magic kingdom.

I would say, personally, that 2 or 3 seems most likely. Another reason for this is because they're likely related to the Arkendish themselves -- given that the Arkendish is plainly related to Thinkamancy, having it control creatures with innate Thinkamancy abilities would make a certain amount of sense.

We don't have enough information to know whether or not all Archons or only some have these abilities, but the logical assumption is that it's just simpler if it's something innate and not random -- very few games randomly have units get new powers, or allow you to train arbitrary individual units. Having every single unit of type XYZ possess a power, or gain it as they increase in experience, is much more common. It could be that only high-level ones get the useful abilities, though.

A related question: How many powers does an undead Archon retain? We've seen they retain their flying and their magical glow (although it's orange now.) It'll be interesting to see if they still have lasers. If they have some Thinkamancy, that could settle some parts of this argument (we know a 'normal' caster would not retain spellcasting when raised, and obviously at that point it's not being provided by Charlie, so that would eliminate options 1 and 4.) But the reverse is not true, because there could just be a list of what abilities are retained on undead, including movement and possibly attack types, but excluding whatever natural casting ability or whatever an Archon may have.

Kreistor
2008-12-29, 12:05 AM
So you do agree that they aren't just essentially clones. Not that that's central to this discussion. It's just that I feel sometimes that even challenging unimportant but unwarranted assumptions can be worthwhile.

Charlie knew Jaclyn by name, so he probably can name all the Archons. If they are Casters and therefore Commanders, then they have defined personalities.


Wow, it's even hard to agree with you. I was suggesting that they could be casters of the same school but using different spells. Is even a variation in a small detail a problem?

Sure. Could be. No problem with that. I was just clarifying what I was trying to say, not arguing against your position. I had left something vital out of my statement and felt it needed clarification, that's all.


Now, I can deal with your various comments simply by saying that I don't think we have enough information available to refute the arguments provided by others as well as those you've presented or professed.

That's the problem with arguments that rely on unwritten rules. Until the author deigns to provide definitive answers, there will always be the possibility of alternate interpretations. The author may not read the conversations and therefore may not realize we are confused about something, and so we may never have definitive evidence, not because the author didn't answer the question, but because he felt the comics stood on their own and needed no further explanation. That's why I go for the "don't write new rules to explain things" route: we may have all the relevant rules already, and so there is no other definition for those that can cast (naturally or through learning) than casters. You might be right that the Archons cast using natural ability rather than learned magic, but you may be wrong in them using a different mechanc than those that learn casting like Sizemore and Wanda.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the strip in which we saw Charlie asking Parson for that calculation or the strip in which Parson repeated Charlie's question verbatim.

Ah, so now Parson has to lie to Wanda to support your position, when he is desperately trying to convince her to stay by revealing his mistakes?


I'm sorry, I must have missed the strip in which Charlie's contract is quoted.

Okay, if that's the only thing you can come up with to counter that argument, then you've got nothing. Misrepresentation in a contract is lethal for a business.


Or he asked a detailed question. He would need to ask a detailed question, providing data on what school of magic each archon can cast if your hypothesis is correct.

Not if they are interchangable. If they all have the same basic magical affinities, then such differentiation is not necessary.

I did point out that the Archons may be using different schools, but I did not preclude them all having basic abilities in each field.

I think they are called Archons, not Casters, because they aren't like other casters (Wanda, Sizemore, Maggie, Jack). Archons don't specialize, they generalize, learning basics from many schools. Tat's why they are interchangable and good for combat... they can't do the powerful advanced magics, like raising an army of uncroaked. Basic blasting. Basic comms. That sort of thing.


On the other hand, you think that saying "six casters and eight others" is more complicated somehow than listing the school of magic of each archon.

Since visual identification of caster vs. non-caster Archons is impossible (at least none of you have identified them to me), then Parson would have revealed that absolutely vital piece of info to Wanda at that very moment -- they would now know exactly how many caster Archons tehre were, and GK leadership would love to know that little tidbit. Of course, if all Archons are casters, there is no tidbit to reveal...


It's "motif." I don't object to reasoning by analogy or trying to spot patterns in fiction, but it's a poor sort of "evidence" at best.

No, it's not evidence, until Transylvitians and their abilities were brought into play as evidence of natural abilities.


Yes, I should have said that the hammer seemed to play a part in it, not that it was the sole source or mechanism.

You might interpret it this way. I don't. The Hammer provides a bonus to other units. I think all you're seeing in 111.12 is a special effect of how it provides a bonus during a Dance Fight. A different weapon might be used as a sax, bass, piano, etc. But if it's te Hammer providing the bonus, it is definitely Stanley using the Hammer to provide the bonus, in the same way Ansom provides a combat bonus with the Arkenpliers to units with him, not the KISS knights and dragons accessing the Hammer to provide teh bonus. If Stanley doesn't Air Guitar the Hammer, the knights don't get that bonus.


Funny, I could say that stating baldly that all archons must be casters is something of an invented rule. But I don't mind that because it is consistent with the facts at hand, as are other theories.

No, it's a conclusion, not a rule. Rules define the way the game works. A rule might say "All twolls have regeneration, unless otherwise specified." "Bogroll is a twoll" is not a rule, it is a unit description.

Those defining Archons as havng "Natural Magics" are inventing a unit ability that is not described in the text of the comic. That is invention. There is no rule defining "natural magics", while we do have rules defining casters. "Casters are Commanders, and can lead stacks." This denotes that no basic units are casters, and since it goes on to say that Commanders don't have a leadership bonus, we know that casters don't have a leadership bonus. Those are rules. "Wanda is a caster" is not a rule, it is a unit definition.


I don't see that the author is ever slavishly bound to our myths anyway. Look at his take on vampires.

Never said he did, but people do compare Transylvitians to vampires, regardless. Hey, I missed that they sleep in coffins...


So my idea of considering the various possible theories is just plain wrong, huh? Bummer.

Can't reject a theory without considering it. And, hey, feel free to back whatever horse you feel like. Just don't fault me for backing the one that doesn't require new rules to explain.


Actually, no scientist says "this theory seems likeliest so I'm going to ignore all others and assume they're wrong because they seem less probable." The point of science it to test hypotheses. Since we can't do that, I'm afraid that I'm going to avoid reasoning by analogy (from science to comics) and simply enjoy discussing the various possibilities so long as they DON'T CONTRADICT the facts.

The problem is that some theories cannot be proven, and the Law of Conservation of energy is one. It is only accepted because it is felt tat it is obvious, otherwise the universe might no be able to exist, and no reaction so far has ever been recorded that demonstrated it was a false belief. it can only be disproven by counter evidence, and never proven through positive evidence. So, it is a Law that has not been proven, and must be taken on, well, faith. There are such Laws in Mathematics, too,

But science proceeds regardless, because it is accepted that it will never be proven without a doubt, so we assume it is true and develop theories that can be proven... all based on a Law that can never be proven, only disproven.


Just for the hell of it, let me add another wild theory into the mix: Charlie can use the arkendish to channel the spells of casters he keeps at home through the archons. So even if he loses an archon, he doesn't lose a valuable caster, just a medium. I apologize for my boldness. I don't think it can be proved or disproved at this point, so I don't think that it merits any discussion at this point--or even any serious consideration at all. I don't normally speculate in this vein; maybe it's a rebellious reaction on my part to having someone suggest that I have no choice but to pick, forsaking all others (if I may be dramatic).

Good for you. Don't pick then. I did, because I don't think like you. Why are you arguing with me, then? For you to convince me, you would have to first argue that I shouldn't be choosing, in which case you're wasting your time on details, and need to attack the core of my decision to choose. Piddling around trying to find new explanations that are just as inventive as previous ones and thinking I'm going to lend them any more credence as just wasting both our time. Go after the underlying framework: that's where your problem with me lies, not in my definition of Archons as Casters.

Kreistor
2008-12-29, 12:09 AM
A related question: How many powers does an undead Archon retain? We've seen they retain their flying and their magical glow (although it's orange now.)

Check 100. The orange glow is around all four fliers, not just Jaclyn, as well as Wanda's staff. Interpret that as you see fit.

Aquillion
2008-12-29, 12:25 AM
Check 100. The orange glow is around all four fliers, not just Jaclyn, as well as Wanda's staff. Interpret that as you see fit.
Oh. Well, she's flying under what appears to be her own power, at least, which implies... something, although I'm not sure what. In D&D terms, her flying might just be a movement speed and not an Su ability, or whatever... something the game mechanics don't consider to be part of her abilities, but a basic feature of her form.

Kreistor
2008-12-29, 10:39 AM
Oh. Well, she's flying under what appears to be her own power, at least, which implies... something, although I'm not sure what. In D&D terms, her flying might just be a movement speed and not an Su ability, or whatever... something the game mechanics don't consider to be part of her abilities, but a basic feature of her form.

There are lots of possibilities, including Wanda casting Fly on the lot of them, but only needing it on the one that doesn't fly -- Jaclyn -- so she doesn't maintain it on the ones with wings. I do note that 100 is inside, where winged fliers might not do so well, and there's no glow on the winged fliers outside where they have more room to flap.

I'm currently going with "I think someone goofed on the art, somewhere." since I don't think it was intended to be very complex.

DevilDan
2008-12-31, 01:56 PM
Charlie knew Jaclyn by name, so he probably can name all the Archons. If they are Casters and therefore Commanders, then they have defined personalities.

I trust that you're not forgetting that regular (non-commander, presumably, and non-caster) units like Bogroll can have names and defined personalities.


That's why I go for the "don't write new rules to explain things" route: we may have all the relevant rules already, and so there is no other definition for those that can cast (naturally or through learning) than casters.

I don't think that me stating that some archons may not be casters is qualitatively different than you stating that all archons must be casters.


Ah, so now Parson has to lie to Wanda to support your position, when he is desperately trying to convince her to stay by revealing his mistakes?

You, not I, used assumptions about Charlie's questions for Parson as an argument for cookie-cutter archons. I merely suggested that we don't know what Parson knows about archons and what Charlie may have told him about his forces initially. Just because he summarized the situation when talking to Wanda doesn't mean that he was lying, in any case.


Okay, if that's the only thing you can come up with to counter that argument, then you've got nothing. Misrepresentation in a contract is lethal for a business.

You, not I, are making assumptions about the nature of the contract, which may not necessarily have specified the number or nature of Charlescomm forces to be utilized. When you hire a contractor, do you specify how many carpenters or masons or plumbers will be working, or do you ask the contractor to determine what is needed to get the job done based on a given set of parameters?


Not if they are interchangable. If they all have the same basic magical affinities, then such differentiation is not necessary.

I did point out that the Archons may be using different schools, but I did not preclude them all having basic abilities in each field.

I think they are called Archons, not Casters, because they aren't like other casters (Wanda, Sizemore, Maggie, Jack). Archons don't specialize, they generalize, learning basics from many schools. Tat's why they are interchangable and good for combat... they can't do the powerful advanced magics, like raising an army of uncroaked. Basic blasting. Basic comms. That sort of thing.

"Magical affinities" is a new one to me. The idea that they could have specializations would still suggest that Parson would need more rather than less information to carry out a reliable mathamancy calculation.


No, it's not evidence, until Transylvitians and their abilities were brought into play as evidence of natural abilities.

Oh, for... I was saying that we can't rely on Earth fiction blindly as a guide for what goes on in Erf, suggesting that we keep in mind the differences between Earth vampires and the Transylvitonians.


You might interpret it this way. I don't. The Hammer provides a bonus to other units. I think all you're seeing in 111.12 is a special effect of how it provides a bonus during a Dance Fight. A different weapon might be used as a sax, bass, piano, etc.

Which is why I wrote "seemed to play a part in it."



Those defining Archons as havng "Natural Magics" are inventing a unit ability that is not described in the text of the comic. That is invention. There is no rule defining "natural magics", while we do have rules defining casters. "Casters are Commanders, and can lead stacks." This denotes that no basic units are casters, and since it goes on to say that Commanders don't have a leadership bonus, we know that casters don't have a leadership bonus.

We know that natural magical abilities exist. We do not know that there is such a thing as a "caster race." We don't really know that there is such a category as "basic units." We have some rules about casters, but we really know very little about them all things considered.

I resorted to making up a completely unfounded explanation behind caster magic simply because it was entertaining and because, wildly enough, it was irrefutable.

Finally, you keep telling me why I'm discussing this, you keep resorting to the assumption that whatever works in science must be followed in this discussion, and you keep assuming that I particularly care whether I can convince you of something or another.

Enough. Consummatum est.

tribble
2008-12-31, 02:35 PM
while i admit to equal guilt in this case, I still want to say it.

Holy thread derailment Batman!

OnDroid
2008-12-31, 02:48 PM
And back to the topic : Is that an uncroaked Marbit on the last panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0134.html) Ansom is holding out of reach with his left hand? :smallwink:

DevilDan
2008-12-31, 03:00 PM
And back to the topic : Is that an uncroaked Marbit on the last panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0134.html) Ansom is holding out of reach with his left hand? :smallwink:

That does look a lot like a marbit, particularly if you notice the ears and if you consider the whole "big guy holding smaller guy at bay by pushing on his head" image. Guess those of us who suggested that they were on the walls may have been right.

Kreistor
2008-12-31, 07:56 PM
Enough. Consummatum est.

"It is finished"? That's your choice. It was always there. But, it's finished only for you.


I trust that you're not forgetting that regular (non-commander, presumably, and non-caster) units like Bogroll can have names and defined personalities.

Ah, true. You can have that one. It's not a fundamental underpining of my argument.


I don't think that me stating that some archons may not be casters is qualitatively different than you stating that all archons must be casters.

Have you any positive evidence at all to support that? Any Archons in melee? With weapons? Anything? The difference is that I have some positive evidence, where you rely on the lack of disproof of alternatives. It is, fundamentally, different.


You, not I, used assumptions about Charlie's questions for Parson as an argument for cookie-cutter archons. I merely suggested that we don't know what Parson knows about archons and what Charlie may have told him about his forces initially. Just because he summarized the situation when talking to Wanda doesn't mean that he was lying, in any case.

You are choosing not to decide. You are making one fundamental assumption: that the author has more information to reveal on this subject. (Actually, that's a fundamental assumption on every position you take that relies on unrevealed rules.)

That assumption allows you then make the conclusion that Parson may not have directly quoted Charlie's question, leaving information out when speaking to Wanda.

Don't try to hide behind "I'm not making assumptions, only you are". Every conclusion made by everyone on everything draws on some assumptions. That's why I dragged out the Law of Conservation of Energy for you. It is an assumption that all physics is based on. Physics is used in the building of any vehicle you drive in, and so, just by getting in your car or bus or airplane, you are assuming that the Law of Conservation of Energy is true.

Now, I am going to reject every argument from this point in your discussion that suggests that you aren't making assumptions. I have no interest in anything that begins with "You, not I, are making assumptions," because you're fundamentally wrong: you've made assumptions, too. And I don't want to spend the time repeating ad nauseum what I have demonstrated I can do, pointing out your assumptions in your arguments.


"Magical affinities" is a new one to me. The idea that they could have specializations would still suggest that Parson would need more rather than less information to carry out a reliable mathamancy calculation.

Dude, don't confuse my counter-arguments with my own position. I don't believe they specialized. I merely presented that different effects with similar results can be the result of different schools. I have only ever stated they are casters, not that they are casters of a single school, even. (I have my own beliefs on that subject, but there's no evidence, so I'm not going to present them.)

pquote]Oh, for... I was saying that we can't rely on Earth fiction blindly as a guide for what goes on in Erf, suggesting that we keep in mind the differences between Earth vampires and the Transylvitonians.[/quote]

If the author were not a human whose only experience is Earth fiction, you might have an argument there. But he's human, reads our books, and so any similaritires to classic mythological creatures may be intentional.


Which is why I wrote "seemed to play a part in it."

Which lacks evidence, and comes down to only personal opinion of the interpretation of a single drawing that shows Stanley actively using the Hammer to provide a bonus to the knights. You can't show a definite connection, so the KISS knights are not actively drawing on the Hammer, so the Hammer does not have any abilities another creature besides Stanley has drawn upon, so there is no evidence that the Dish might provide power to the Archons to make them casting as non-casters.

And you thought I didn't remember why we were discussing the Hammer and Dance Fighting...


We know that natural magical abilities exist. We do not know that there is such a thing as a "caster race." We don't really know that there is such a category as "basic units." We have some rules about casters, but we really know very little about them all things considered.

Yeah, you go with that.


I resorted to making up a completely unfounded explanation behind caster magic simply because it was entertaining and because, wildly enough, it was irrefutable.

"Irrefutable" can still also be defined as "absurd", and "nonsensical". And "irrefutable" is only so if everyone fails to refute it. The author of the idea doesn't get to decide if something is irrefutable, since the author isn't actually impartial.


Finally, you keep telling me why I'm discussing this, you keep resorting to the assumption that whatever works in science must be followed in this discussion, and you keep assuming that I particularly care whether I can convince you of something or another.

If you aren't trying to convince me, then why are you debating? You've made your decision, and I've made mine.

Brewdude
2009-01-01, 03:48 AM
(What kind of unit is a hippiemancer going to give a combat bonus to, I wonder? Heheh... I doubt hippiemancers are all peace and love, man.)

Do not mess with the hippiemancers. It would be consistent with hippie magic to:

a)convert units to war protesters with zero attack but who defend all who are attacked in a square. Quite annoying when they do it to YOUR attacking troops.

b)Summon rabble rousers: Leaders for war protester units that give them attack.

c)Give attack values to units in their own stack or in their own hex that have zero attack value normally. or reduce attack values of other units in their hex.

d)Natural defenses vs thinkomancy...clearly herb related.

e)hex bonuses for dance fighting....

Spell line up, of course, can be quite awesome, but we're talking about unit and unit bonuses.

DevilDan
2009-01-01, 04:24 AM
I wonder whether uncroaked marbits retain their tunnel fighting bonuses. There are other bonuses I'm curious about.

Certainly, I strongly believe that twoll regeneration is a serious ability to have to face in someone opposing you.

Capt'n Ironbrow
2009-01-04, 10:06 AM
wasn't an Archon some sort of leader in ancient Greece?
In fact, most games featuring Archons have them in a leadership position (warhammer 40k Dark Eldar) or as powerfull beings of supernatural power (Satrcraft Prothoss, D&D?).

Of course, that's our own world and the worlds of other writers... but to me it implies that Archons are not just elite units like the KISS... well they could be, but the Arkendish might have a certain effect on them, giving them some basic thinkamancy powers. their laserattacks might be their natural ability (which like dwagonbreath, might be influenced by aesthetics/colours of skin and/or hair), the thinkamancy is an effect of the Arkendish.

hmmm.. and Archon/Arken-, sounds oddly similar.

as to answer the original question of this thread: the marbits died :smalltongue:

Moechi_Vill
2009-01-04, 10:47 AM
...
he was punched six times by a gobwin on the charge
and they couldn't find a way to get through...

Probably in the tunnels.

dr pepper
2009-01-04, 04:13 PM
"Archon" is ancient greek for "first", "leader" or "ruler". As in "archbishop", "monarch", "anarchy", ect. It was a title given to generals and governors, and was later applied to high ranking supernatural beings.

As for "arch-" and "ark-", they sound the same in english, but in greek, what we spell with a "ch" was the letter chi, which was pronounced hard as in "loch", or "achtung".

Kreistor
2009-01-05, 03:14 AM
And here I go handing everyone info. So stupid of me.

When DnD eliminated the word "Angel" from its beastiary, it replaced it with the words "Archon" and "Deva".

Teh Archons do not yet have a DnD Archon motif, so I don't think it's terribly important. But someday, those Archons could sprout wings (and maybe violate trademark, since Archon would be trademark-able and DnD probably trademarked it).

DevilDan
2009-01-05, 02:15 PM
Teh Archons do not yet have a DnD Archon motif, so I don't think it's terribly important. But someday, those Archons could sprout wings (and maybe violate trademark, since Archon would be trademark-able and DnD probably trademarked it).

In that case, I hope none of the Archons in Starcraft ever start flying around either.