Healomancy is in the fate section and I am certain its erf.
I swore I saw someone post about this this along time ago but dont see it in the bloopers.
Is there any canon basis for that?
__________________
I seem to have the ability to misinterpret the most obvious of meanings and to completely miss the points of statements for no obvious reason. Just a warning.
Healomancy is in the fate section and I am certain its erf.
I swore I saw someone post about this this along time ago but dont see it in the bloopers.
Hmmm... I can see why that arrangement would make more intuitive sense, but there's no in-canon evidence I recall that indicates that the arrangement as written is wrong. It'll just have to come down to a Titanic revelation stating either 1)"it's supposed to be that way, even if it seems odd" or 2)"oops".
The reason is that the spell is highly luckmancy based and should pulse with erf magic if the klog was correct. But since it did pulse with fate and it makes more sense as fate anyways it most likely is fate.
The reason is that the spell is highly Luckmancy based, it should pulse with Erf magic if the klog was correct; but since it did pulse with Fate, and because it makes more sense as Fate anyway, it is most likely Fate.
There, I made a few quick corrections (which are noted in red): just because you are online does not mean that you should neglect your language skills. ~Justyn
I can see your point there about how Healomancy and Luckmancy could be switched, but you should really try to have a little more tact than "I think my version is better than canon, so I think the canon is wrong".
__________________
I seem to have the ability to misinterpret the most obvious of meanings and to completely miss the points of statements for no obvious reason. Just a warning.
Wanda said that it was Fate magic; but you forget that Predictamancy is Fate, and the spell was made by a combination of Findamancy and Predictamancy. No Luckmancy involved. And I was worryed about my last post coming off as condisending, jeez.
ah yes... nothing from the comic then.
I still look at it and it seems wrong where they are at. Numbers seems to deal with intellectual stuff. Erf has a physical theme. While Fate cant quite be seen like the other two so spiritual is how I d describe those magics.
Note to self. P110/122 fix massive confusion caused by me. (p106 panel 11 "thirteen pairs of warlord eyes" and art fix to p110 panel 9 so it doesn't look like the one is on a gwiffon).
__________________
Rob Balder, Erfworld author/co-creator, and creator of PartiallyClips
Note to self. P110/122 fix massive confusion caused by me. (p106 panel 11 "thirteen pairs of warlord eyes" and art fix to p110 panel 9 so it doesn't look like the one is on a gwiffon).
On page 113/125 it says they have 11 warlords instead of thirteen. If Ceaser counts as a Chief warlord, who else isn't counted as a warlord? Seems inconsistant from "13 pairs of warlord eyes" anyway
On page 113/125 it says they have 11 warlords instead of thirteen. If Ceaser counts as a Chief warlord, who else isn't counted as a warlord? Seems inconsistant from "13 pairs of warlord eyes" anyway
Yeah this will end up getting corrected for the book form, thanks for noting it.
__________________
Rob Balder, Erfworld author/co-creator, and creator of PartiallyClips
Yeah this will end up getting corrected for the book form, thanks for noting it.
I'm still not getting where the "thirteen" figure comes from -- Vinny and Jillian were part of the original expeditionary force, and Don King sent ten additional warlords -- the best way I can make sense of it is if Don King sent ten regular warlords and Caesar (apparently Chief Warlord, since Vinny addresses him as "chief").
24. Continuity again: In Erfworld 71, panel 5, Jillian pulls out a tiny dagger; in panel 7 she's holding what looks like the hilt of a huge sword.
The way I see that comic, there isn't a continuity problem.
How Jillian handles her weapons, panel by panel:
Panels 1-4: Jillian ignores weapons and struggles with freeing hands.
Panel 5: Gives up and grabs knife for defense.
Panels 6,7: Takes opportunity while dwagon is distracted to get huge sword instead. As a true warrior, bringing her primary weapon to 'ready' would be instinctual the moment someone else took her enemy's attention away.
The way I see that comic, there isn't a continuity problem...
Panel 5: Gives up and grabs knife for defense.
Panels 6,7: Takes opportunity while dwagon is distracted to get huge sword instead...
That is highly unlikely; she is in a precarious position; in panel 5 she is shown holding a dagger as Ansom begins his attack; in panel 6 Ansom finishes his attack; in panel 7 Jillian is holding something in the exact same position as the dagger in panel 5. Also, it violates the law of conservation of detail: why would she be shown drawing Chekhov's dagger in panel 5, if not to use it?
Last edited by Freederick : 10-13-2008 at 08:52 AM.
Note to self. P110/122 fix massive confusion caused by me. (p106 panel 11 "thirteen pairs of warlord eyes" and art fix to p110 panel 9 so it doesn't look like the one is on a gwiffon).
Duly noted, blooper #33.
BTW, it's p107, not 106--this is the sort of confusion that follows from not giving descriptive titles to TOC entries.
That is highly unlikely; she is in a precarious position; in panel 5 she is shown holding a dagger as Ansom begins his attack; in panel 6 Ansom finishes his attack; in panel 7 Jillian is holding something in the exact same position as the dagger in panel 5. Also, it violates the law of conservation of detail: why would she be shown drawing Chekhov's dagger in panel 5, if not to use it?
I'll grant the 'precarious position' part. I'm not too familiar with "Chekhov's dagger" or "The law of conservation of detail", but sometimes, an author includes non-plot details for the shear fact that such details are completely what 'happened'. I see this as a case of that. Jillian grabs a reserve dagger because a warrior of her caliber always has a reserve dagger, not because it furthers the plot, and by the same token, when given the opportunity, she grabs her main weapon again because a warrior that good is trained to do just that. I know I've read stories before where there were details that kinda just were, and I enjoyed them more for it.
Besides, from the narrative, it seems as if Ansom/Vinny were able to mop up everything without Jillian, so if conservation of detail is important, why show what is happening to her at all?
Continuity issue, with thread made to discuss it here. Basically, too many TV warlords in the hex, and no one being able to count them properly, even if there were a more proper amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freederick
30. Continuity: There are four metal golems shown in Erfworld 87, panel 7, but the unit roster list in Parson's Klog #7 lists four hard rock golems, one metal golem. Presumably the list is incorrect, and these entries should be reversed.
Except Parson has a day's worth of unit production, and while he doesn't control the city's production, he does control Sizemore's, whom I assume is the popping golems anyway.
#34 - Page 52 - Klog #06
Minor Grammar Nitpick for Critical Fact 1:
"Stupid, Stupid Meal"
should either be "Stupid Stupid Meal" (no comma, if the 'Stupid Meal' is 'stupid')
or "Stupid, stupid meal" (if the 'meal' is really stupid)
Not really; the serial comma controversy you linked to refers to a comma used before a conjunction, that is, before and, or, or nor (or, alternatively, before and, or or nor ). There is no conjunction here, and hence no dispute.
Well, the sentence as written is correct if Parson is mentally addressing the Stupid Meal and calling it "stupid".
Not really; the serial comma controversy you linked to refers to a comma used before a conjunction, that is, before and, or, or nor (or, alternatively, before and, or or nor ). There is no conjunction here, and hence no dispute.
Note: p120, Jamie did not draw the uncroaked Jaclyn in Wanda's stack and should have. It will be fixed for the book. She'll be in there in p121 and was in in p119. Just an oversight.
__________________
Rob Balder, Erfworld author/co-creator, and creator of PartiallyClips
When you have a complicated story element that ends up confusing a significant number of people, from a story perspective, is it typically preferable to explain things more clearly, or to just assume your readers ought to wise up?
Fair enough; tweaking the wording of Klog #11 and/or #13 to make it clearer that the "courtyard" is the area inside the square inner walls (assuming that I'm not one of the significant number of people who got confused) for the book might be a good idea.
That's a good idea. Confusion does seem to be rampant. Courtyard refers to the portion of the Garrison that is above ground, within the walls, and not in or on the Tower. Wanda is not in the Garrison zone at all in page 122. She's in the Outer Walls zone.
We've been attempting to avoid confusion by keeping it simple and avoiding unnecessary detail (like, for example, the fact that the Outer Walls zone also has parts to it, or that Parson's klog was referring specifically to attacks on the Garrison and that there are other sets of rules regarding movement by friendlies within the city).
Maybe erring on the side of simplicity creates its own confusion. Maybe we're running up against the limits of the graphic novel in terms of complexity of world creation and conveying expository information within an action story. I don't know, we're doing the best we can. There are good reasons for everything that has happened in the last few pages, whether it appears that way at this point in the story or not.
__________________
Rob Balder, Erfworld author/co-creator, and creator of PartiallyClips
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Erfworld Bloopers
(p106 panel 11 "thirteen pairs of warlord eyes" and art fix to p110 panel 9 so it doesn't look like the one is on a gwiffon).
