But implicit that the Predictomancer could have NOT told to Saline IV of the Gobwin riot.
Printable View
Yeah, because it makes since to spend reasorces during a war to check out a theroughly explored uninhhabited dificult to access place that nobody is realy interested in. That makes perfect sense. I also block your electric attack by surounding myself with water. The area of FAQ was not ruins, but simply uninhabited and uninteresting wilderness, so why bother with it? Also, we know Jillian is under no loyalty spell right now, and that she thinks killing Stanly will free Wanda, avenge her Father and his Kingdom, and get a load of anger off her chest. I see no reason she should lie.
Panel 7 of 119 (at first I assumed the picture was of the foolamancer, but taking a second look at it, it does look a bit like Wanda, so it could be a pic of the predictamancer doing her thing...)
And don't forget the silver lips.
On a related note: who were the Croatoans? Wanda's complexion is much different from her fellow FAQers, and while there is a wide range of "races" visible in the RCC, FAQ was only three cities.
I wonder if Jillian did capture Wanda on one of her raids and brought her back to FAQ. Curiouser and curiouser...
Spoilerand that would explain how Wanda the Predictamancer could have betrayed Banhammer so easily. After all, captured units have notoriously low Loyalty.
Banhammer was not a pacifist. If he would not have sent troops on merc missions. He is an isolationist.
What kind of units would an isolationist pop?
1) Those that help maintain the isolation (predictamancer, foolamancer).
2) Units that reinforce the culture that the isolationist is trying to maintain.
Is #2 even possible? I am doubtful. If Banhammer could do that, then he would have gotten his 'philosopher prince' instead of Jillian. That leaves #1 alone.
Not really my point, I agree that by the time Faq fell there was probably already movement towards the RCC forming, distracting Stanley's neighbors from expansion to war.
What I meant is before the fall of Faq. If I were an overlord and my scouts reported an isolated, heavily defensible location, I would want to take advantage of it, either by setting up a new city (if that's possible), or by using it as a staging area/military base to hide my true forces from anyone checking out my known cities. Very useful to set up pincer maneuvers, strike unexpectedly while being observed, etc.
Funny you should say that... I just last week started studying Theory of Communication and Philosophy of Language (just a coincidence that I'm doing those simultaneously). One fundamental idea present in both is that there is no universal 'true' language. We all speak our own personal language at all times. Understanding comes from the overlaps of personal languages.
Even the standards of English spelling and grammar that we (native speakers) were all taught in school were reverse engineered from written texts (predominantly Shakespeare, from my understanding).
Precisely. IF the predictamancer served under Saline (which I highly doubt, but that's besides the point), not telling Saline about the riot would be a failure to do his/her Duty.
While not precisely an argument against your idea, I do want to point out that it is incompatible with the notion that Wanda was Faq's predictamancer, as the predictamancer was instrumental to Jillian being popped in the first place.
I wonder if they blur each other's vision. For example, your predicatamancer says that your enemy's left flank is weakest and your enemy's predicatamancer has just told him that you are about to hit his left flank, so he reinforced it.
The only stable result is that he splits his force equally between both flanks. Your predicatamancer would say that both flanks are equal and his will say that you will hit whichever side he sends the least reinforcements to and so he splits them equally.
Not sure if this applies to this situation, but maybe Stanley's decision to pass faq rather than somewhere else was caused by a predicatamancer elsewhere. For example, they wanted Stanley to not find their unit, so they sent him to whichever city was unveiled. No matter what Faq's predicatamancer said, one of the cities would be found.
There is a concept in theory of time travel called the Novikov self-consistency principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov...ency_principle).
It basically means that you can't create a paradox by predicting the future.
If there are 100 possible predictions and 2 of them will lead to no paradox, then one of those 2 is selected.
The predictamancer could sayQuote:
1. Predictamancer predicts dwagons would reach Faq and destroy it were it not for the prediction
2. Banhammer orders the veil based on the prediction, and with that action changes the future and no further predictions can be made on this turn
3. Banhammer crosses his fingers.
That is, you are only allowed to change your future once per turn, not twice or more.
1) "Dragons will capture city A this turn"
Banhammer orders it veiled, so it isn't captured
2) "You veil city A, so they capture Faq itself"
Banhammer orders the veil on Faq (or at least drops it on city A)
3) "It doesn't matter what you do, Faq will be captured within 3 turns"
This is true and doesn't cause a paradox.
This means that if those were the only 3 options, then the Predictamancer must say 3).
The principle says that there are so many possible things you can say, that there must be at least 1 that doesn't cause a paradox. In fact, it does it with a ball going back in time and colliding with itself, but it is the same concept :smallsmile:
Much better term than mine, and I agree. I was tired when I wrote that and felt it was a bad choice but could think of nothing better.
It depends. Possibly engineer units are good at mining, or you could have a sort of 'peon' unit a la Warcraft to clear land and erect structures. If nothing else, any resource-harvesting or generating unit would qualify.Quote:
What kind of units would an isolationist pop?
1) Those that help maintain the isolation (predictamancer, foolamancer).
2) Units that reinforce the culture that the isolationist is trying to maintain.
Is #2 even possible? I am doubtful. If Banhammer could do that, then he would have gotten his 'philosopher prince' instead of Jillian. That leaves #1 alone.
Indeed. Grammar is a theoretical construct, a model of how language works; the reality of language dictates grammar, not the other way around.Quote:
Even the standards of English spelling and grammar that we (native speakers) were all taught in school were reverse engineered from written texts (predominantly Shakespeare, from my understanding).
A very good point, and so noted. Mind you, it does make the assumption that there was only one Predictamancer, but that may be mere nitpicking on my behalf. :smallsmile:Quote:
While not precisely an argument against your idea, I do want to point out that it is incompatible with the notion that Wanda was Faq's predictamancer, as the predictamancer was instrumental to Jillian being popped in the first place.
Well, yes. The point I was trying to make is that Banhammer, as an isolationist, would have no reason to pop a croakamancer.
Consider this: there are two types of 'philosophers'.
- Those who like to have their ideas challenged so that they can refine their philosophy
- Those who like to be perceived as wise without putting the hard effort in.
Isolationist philosophers historically are (as far as I am aware) exclusively of the latter type.
Thus one of three possibilities:
- Wanda was not popped as a croakamancer.
- Banhammer could not (or did not) control the specialty when Wanda was popped.
- Banhammer did not pop Wanda. This has two variations.
- Wanda was captured from elsewhere.
- Wanda was popped by a previous ruler of Faq.
Of those three, I find both variations of the last one to be unnecessarily complex. Thus Occam's Razor compels us to discard them. Similarly, the idea that Banhammer simply chose not to control Wanda's specialty seems arbitrary and out of place for one who (presumably) took such pains to create a bubble kingdom.
That leaves the options of caster specialization being as uncontrollable as personality, or Wanda having been popped as something other than a croakamancer.
I can accept that as a postulate, and Banhammer certainly shows many personality traits that would indicate that he belongs to the latter category.
Hmm. I cannot say I agree with that. Occam's Razor is not an absolute but is meant to be a guideline; at its strongest, it warns us against chasing after unnecessarily complex possibilities when there is no evidence available for them. That being said, for the moment all we have to indicate that Wanda may not be from Faq is speculation and lack of evidence to the contrary, so I do agree that this particular notion should remain a mere hypothesis for now.Quote:
Of those three, I find both variations of the last one to be unnecessarily complex. Thus Occam's Razor compels us to discard them.
I am personally open to both of these with no reservations at all. *nods*Quote:
Similarly, the idea that Banhammer simply chose not to control Wanda's specialty seems arbitrary and out of place for one who (presumably) took such pains to create a bubble kingdom.
That leaves the options of caster specialization being as uncontrollable as personality, or Wanda having been popped as something other than a croakamancer.
Edited: For clarity.
so they get the foolmancer going and he does his magic and kicks some butt.
Can you really take Jillian's story of FAQ at face value?
No one in the Alliance except Prince Ansom believes her and he is blinded by the whole "royal" thing.
It did not come out until after Jillian's latest capture.
It might be part of Wanda's "complex" control.
I absolutely agree 100%, Occam's Razor (a.k.a. the Rule of Parsimony) is often applied much too early and much too liberally.
However, in an artificial construct (such as any work of fiction), I feel that Occam's Razor has double weight, as we humans like our constructions to be neat and tidy, with as few loose ends as possible.
The fact that we are near the end of a section also adds additional weight, as it becomes less and less likely that a currently unfounded hypothesis will suddenly start to have evidence introduced on it's behalf.
Overall, this is why I used the word 'compels' as opposed to 'forces' or the phrase 'means we must'.
Some people say I think to much. I am inclined to concur... :smallredface:
A little bit of logical assistance for the predictamancer arguments:
The true origin of human ideas about: time being a 4th dimension, and it being fixed, branching, rejecting paradoxes, etc. is 'prophecy.' And the hilarious thing about that, is that if prophecy occurs, it has a very simple explanation that doesn't require any of the complexity mentioned above. Prophecy is nothing more than a promise. It's simply a group of words spoken by a being who is powerful enough to make that promise occur.
This excludes the necessity of the existence of time, (even though it is used as a variable in relativity equations, and relativity is quite real) and also excludes any necessity for time travel, grandfather paradoxes, etc.
The predictamancer is calling him/herself that, but it's really just a trick of the trade. They don't predict at all, they CREATE. And therein is the magic. Predictamancy is the culmination of both understanding existing trends, small and large, the ability to change those trends, AND the influence of the prediction itself, which is without question, one of the most critical portions of the entire process. There's no escaping that both the predicted fact and the prediction exist simultaneously, and the more well-known that prediction is, the more the prediction must accommodate the effects of that prediction.
Is it possible for a predictamancer to do their job so well, that they lose sight of the big picture? Ie, they predict something perfectly, but then as they realize that it's actually going to happen much further into the future than they originally believed, they are stunned by their own failure?
So, based on what I just said, I don't think Wanda is upset that her supposed predictamancy failed. Until we learn more, I think that's thinking too far ahead.
Aha! A new TFHA theory!
Spoiler
We know banhammer treated his warlords like crap, yes? Well, what if they were the ones that betrayed FAQ? Predictamancer sees dragons invading the capital, foolamancer does his thing. But little do they know, the warlords are the ones who told Stanley about the whole thing, and they turn and lead Stanley right to the city. He finds it, either by sitting there until the foolamancer is out of juice, or maybe the warlords can reveal it to him since they know where it is already.
But then, you might think, where are these warlords now? Well, maybe they are the now un-croaked warlords. We know they were incompetent, and warlords in FAQ would definitely have little to no real experience, and wouldn't know much about leading troops, either. Thus, they are incompetent, and get themselves killed one after another, loosing Stanley battle after battle.
This is true.
Agreed and agreed. Of course, the section may end with the issue unresolved, in which case the hypothesis should at least be allowed to linger if not to carry especial weight. :smallamused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fendrin
Ah, that's where I misunderstood you. I tend to treat 'compel' and 'force' as synonymous; with that clarified, I agree without reservation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fendrin
Surely better than not to think at all. :smallamused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fendrin
Interesting idea. Do you have a source to back that up, or is it conjecture?
That does seem to be the only logical way to have 100% accurate predictions 100% of the time, but it does fall prey to the problem of conflicting or interdependent prophecies that was discussed earlier in this thread.
The existence fo time is known in the same way we know anything else (other than our own existence, which is all we can truly ever know), observation and deduction. In a more scientific vein, there are a great many things we observe happening that are impossible to explain without a time dimension (note that 'dimension' is being used here in a mathematical sense).
Of course, we already know that time functions as a result of the actions of it's occupants, rather than the other way around (in our world, time flows as it will and we respond to the changes that occur because of the flow of time). Still, time does exist in Erfworld, regardless of it's variable rate of flow.
A simpler explanation is that predictamancy is closely related to mathamancy, and merely 'calculates' the actions of the various units. After all, predictamancy is right next to mathamancy as part of Hocus Pocus (fate axis vs. numbers axis). If erf were a computer game I would say that predictamancy runs through the AI routines to determine what each side would do when.
I would say no, or at least not if erf units relate to their world the way we relate to ours. That is, a predictamancer would interpret their prediction through the lens of their own experiences and biases, subconsciously shaping it to fit their worldview.
I don't think that her supposed predictamancy has failed.
One weakness of Wanda's is 'Capacity for Hope'. Who can have less hope than someone who knows the future with 100% accuracy? Even if it's only parts of the future...
Compel is in fact a synonym for force. Each is actually used in the other's definition:
Force:
to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something: to force a suspect to confess.
Compel:
to force or drive, esp. to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
Sorry if this seems unnecessary, just one of my pet peeves is people using words in the wrong situation. (At least I don't grammar police, heh)
Then your future would be shaped by the questions you ask, or all answers need to be very vague.
Imagine that Banhammer asks "will I die next turn?" If the answer can be a simple yes or no, it's a problem.
The answer with no paradox involved would be "no you die this turn" and then Banhammer is croaked instantly before he can in any way react to the answer (I'm using Banhammer because he can end his turn). Any outcome that lets Banhammer alive, or someone else listening to that answer responsive, then that person can change the predicted future, either by killing Banhammer in this or next turn, or asking someone else to do it. Having Banhammer die on the spot is the only way that makes sure no one can mess with the predicted future, so whatever algorithm takes care of this in Erfworld would have to do that.
If predictamancy factors in the reaction to the prediction, then you'd better leave your questions pretty vague. But then even something as simple as guessing the path of the warlord from Transylvito can have dramatic consequences.
You guys also should keep in mind, as I said before, that Pclips has stated that he doesn't want an overly complex story and there are no huge twisted surprises awaiting us. Some authors like to trick their readers but that is not a goal for this one. Making Wanda the Predicamancer would be one of those "pulling a fast one" tricks that he said he did not want to pull.
FAQ was discovered because Stanly had a Lookmancer who could see all the cities. No betrayal nessicary.
The Predicamancer is almost certainly dead now. So whatever she can do, Stanly somehow prevented it from affecting his plans and her ability to disrupt those plans is the only knowable reason that she is the only caster that died during the coup. When I look at the flashback scene on Stanly's return it certainly looks like Wanda is on the right side green dwagon. Plus, he only had 3 casters before FAQ. Hardly "a number" of casters.
Wanda is probably capable of different magics simply because Croakamancy was not a favored casting type but that doesn't change her primary function. Instead of all this talk about how Wanda is trying to rule Gobwin Knob, the simpler reason is that Stanly lets her indulge in Croakamancy, whereas FAQ never did.
There are shades of meaning (see: connotation vs. denotation).
Consider to the inflected forms, compelling and forcing. They are inflections of synonyms, yet have completely different meanings.
compel's etymological roots are from the latin prefix com- (with) and the verb pellere (to drive).
force on the other hand derives from the latin word 'forcis', meaning 'strong'.
So really, they don't mean the exact same thing, just very similar things.
Source?
Not really, there is enough supporting (though no absolute) evidence that a significant of people in this thread are convinced. That makes it a believable reveal, not a huge twist out of left field with no precedent.
Pure conjecture. We do not know when Misty joined the GK team or where she originated from (as far as we know she was captured from Faq, but it is equally likely that she was popped in GK, or captured from some other city whether before or after the fall of Faq).
Actually, we don't know how many casters died in the Battle for Faq, could have been 0, could have been 100, could have been anywhere in between or beyond. Presuming Wanda is not the Predictamancer, we have no evidence whether the predictamancer was croaked or not.
Irrelevant. We know that Wanda was brought back from Faq, and that the Faq mission was likely the mission that Stanley took Sizemore (to dig some tunnels, or just to increase the odds of seeing through the veil?) and 'a number of other casters'
The 'a number of casters' were Sizemore's words, a the link I provided above. Where are you getting the 3 from? I think you have made a few faulty conclusions.
Actually, it might. We don't know. Maybe caster specialization is purely a matter of skill and choice, much the way that a musician will often specialize in one particular instrument, but could later choose to switch to another instrument.
Yes, this has been discussed quite a bit in this thread. However, it is sketchy at best to think that the fall of Saline IV and the fall of banhammer are completely unrelated, and really, between Stanley and Wanda, which one seems more like a devious master planner?
You know the best way to trick someone? Convince them you won't. That aside, seeing how many people have guessed that Wanda is in fact the predictomancer, it doesn't seem as much of a really big twist as just somewhat unexpected. And hey, just because he set out to make a more simple story doesn't mean he can't chance his mind if he thinks it's a good idea.
Edit: @fendrin
That's pretty much what I meant. I didn't meant they were the exact same word, but very similar. You could swap one for the other and it would mean just about the same thing. They're so close to each other, in fact, that they can be used in defining each other, and saying which is more powerful in it's use that the other is impossible, due to slight variations in how people use it, and context. In some cases, maybe compel is more powerful, and in others, force is, but it's rarely significant.
Ah, but I wasn't picking my words carefully to make my statement more powerful, I was carefully picking them to be more accurate.
Perhaps I should have said 'leads me to' instead of 'compels me to', but I felt that 'compels' was a more forceful phrasing. :smalltongue:
That is a great explaination (which may or may not be right) as to how Stanley found FAQ. It does not explain why the predictamancer couldn't tell banhammer "dwagons will encounter all three cities on turn X". They shouldn't have been surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaO2
The former was established during Jillian's account by the flashback panel of Wanda... mmmm.... where was I... oh, yeah, the theory about the Faq raid being the same as the mission Stanley was on when Saline got croaked. That's pure guesswork, as far as I can tell -- if anything, the scene in the flashback panel of that mission suggests that the target was not Faq -- the "Smurf Village" doesn't look anything like the "oriental" Faq city we saw.