Book 2 - Page 19

Book 2 - Page 19
Comic - Book 2 – Page 19
Recent posts... (See full thread)
MonteCristo wrote:
49*10=490... if what vinnie was saying was an actually calculation to the chances of seeing a veil, that would have meant that there was 490 chances for the displacement to fail.
And again, a chance is a chance. You can cry about how unlikely it is that this happened, but we saw it happen, so then clearly the odds might have been low, but low odds is still a chance, right?
MonteCristo wrote:
that's MUCH higher than what we saw at faq, and if the author explains this as "it just did" then that is a CLEAR case of a plot hole at work.
You can interpret it this way if you like. It's up to the authors to work to achieve a willing suspension of disbelief. It either worked for you, or it did not. But plot tends to trump odds in a great many stories.
MonteCristo wrote:
When it comes down to it, we have never been told that was an actual calculation as opposed to a turn of phase [...]
Oh, please. How hard is it to accept that 30 x 11 is about 300? It's elementary school math, and this isn't "MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION", rather your personal interpretation is what has zero basis. For you to be right, Vinny would have had to have made stuff up out of whole cloth and passed it off to 10 other Warlords as their odds of spotting Stanley if he was veiled. That's your personal interpretation, but there is nothing in the story which supports you, and all I'm relying on for support are Vinny's words, read without a tin hat on or while standing in an epileptic forest.
MonteCristo wrote:
What the hell kind of calculation is 300 chances? That sounds kind of subjective.
That word you used. I do not think it means what you think it means. Stating that 11 x 30 is "about 300" is not a subjective statement. It is an objective statement of fact, despite his rough rounding of 330 to 300.
MonteCristo wrote:
If vinnie was giving us a calculation on their chances to see the veil, would he not give us a percentage?
Why don't you argue with the authors? This is how they chose to have Vinny state their chances. I just read it and accepted it at face value. Why can't you?
MonteCristo wrote:
hell if that really was a calculation, based on what vinnie was saying you could say that there is a 10% chance of a warlord seeing a veil.
Now you're just making more stuff up. Vinny never said that each Warlord had a 10% chance. He said that they had 300 chances, but left the probability of each chance unstated. When you decide to read into things like this, that's how you manage to become so confused.
Oberon wrote:
We can hopefully rely upon the authors to feed the readers correct information, and Vinny has been shown to be an insightful character. You can try to add a lot of fluff that comes from your own imagination, invent details such as how "clever" the Warlords are impacting their odds to spot a veil, or cite things which have never been shown such as "the less clever he veil the easier it is to notice it", or even refuse to agree that 11 x "30 or so" = "like 300", which was a very clear case of X * Y = Z. But for me Vinny summed it up very clearly: Warlords X Veiled Units = Chance to "blow the veil." This is the one clear statement of fact from within the story that we have to go on, and I prefer story fact over your fictions every day.


First, a necessary caveat: Jack has been established as one of the best Foolamancers there is. So he's going to skew the odds somewhat.

That said, there are a couple of tips in the story itself that establish that Transylvito's (not just Vinny's) estimation of Foolamancy is naive.

1) Caesar's outright disbelief that Jack could have hidden Faq from Translyvito warlords flying overhead, and;

2) In the same scene as Vinny's calculation, Jack pulls off a bit of Foolamancy that completely stumps every warlord in the hex until someone actually looks explicitly at the "cloud of bats" to see whose "they" are; on a meta level, the artwork explained the success of the veil by fooling the entire forum into following the dramatic escape narrative instead of noticing the bats tacking off to the side, even though they were visible in the panels. Jillian, a high level warlord by any measure, stabbed an illusory dragon without noticing that she had! That the dwagon was fake was only discovered once Jack no longer had any need to make it seem real up close.

Jillian clarifies that Jack had the aid of a Predictamancer in deciding when and where and how to veil Faq, but if was simply a matter of odds, would Faq have still been so successful for so long (longer than the ~200 turns Jillian has been alive) that Transylvito didn't even believe the kingdom existed at all? That nobody believed it existed?

Based on those observations, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Vinny's (and Caesar's unspoken) calculations assume that the warlords are actually looking at the effects of the Foolamancy, and that the mechanics apply once a warlord is specifically looking at an illusion. (This would be similar to the way that D&D handled illusions for decades.) Jack's genius, then, lies precisely where he said it did: In seeing things as they are, and as they are seen, and exploiting the difference. That strategy wouldn't work if people couldn't be misled by seeing what they expected to, and the canon is quite clear on the point that Jack is wildly successful.

See also the high level Ansom failing to see the veil on Bogroll because he expected to see Parson and he didn't expect to be attacked at a parley. The more dispassionate Archon nearby did notice, because she didn't expect anything. Charlie's major forte is intelligence gathering, and the Archons are clearly disciplined to always try to see things as they are. Charlie's strategy is not that dissimilar to Jack's, actually, except that Charlie uses the difference to make money and gain influence.
Guys, What Jack cast to capture Ossomer wasn't a Veil, it was a Displacement. Veils change the appearance things, Displacements make you appear to be somewhere else. So this fight is comparing apples to oranges.

When a warlord 'blows' a veil they don't see what's really there, they notice what they are seeing isn't right. So blowing a veil isn't about a chance of seeing the spell, its about noticing something is odd.

I think all Warlords are smart (by Erfworld standards), and that is why they are such powerful units. However not all Warlords are equally smart.

(P.S. Oberon your arguements are starting to read as personal attacks to me, I agree with you but your not presenting your position well.)
Oberon wrote:
MonteCristo wrote:
49*10=490... if what vinnie was saying was an actually calculation to the chances of seeing a veil, that would have meant that there was 490 chances for the displacement to fail.
And again, a chance is a chance. You can cry about how unlikely it is that this happened, but we saw it happen, so then clearly the odds might have been low, but low odds is still a chance, right?

how about a new question to add to the question you have not bothered to answer...
Why would wanda and Jack try it?
If the chances of success were so abysmal, there is no way Wanda, Jack or Ansom would be stupid enough to even consider trying it.
Ansom knows roughly how many warlord's jetstone has, and Jack knows all there is about foolamancy... there is no way they would allow the plan to go without questioning wanda... and Wanda would not fight their logic... it's completely out of character and another plot hole in your argument

If we see it happen, but can not explain how it LOGICALLY could happen within the realm of erfworld physics, then that is a plot hole

Quote:
You can interpret it this way if you like. It's up to the authors to work to achieve a willing suspension of disbelief. It either worked for you, or it did not. But plot tends to trump odds in a great many stories.

Funny how you seem to rely so much on "logic" when trying to explain Vinnie's 300 comment, and yet willing to throw it out the window the moment it no longer works in you're favor

Quote:

Oh, please. How hard is it to accept that 30 x 11 is about 300? It's elementary school math, and this isn't "MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION", rather your personal interpretation is what has zero basis. For you to be right, Vinny would have had to have made stuff up out of whole cloth and passed it off to 10 other Warlords as their odds of spotting Stanley if he was veiled. That's your personal interpretation, but there is nothing in the story which supports you, and all I'm relying on for support are Vinny's words, read without a tin hat on or while standing in an epileptic forest.

30*11=330... but anyway
And what i am saying is that vinnie's number had no real meaning to it... it was not an actual calculation but just a way of saying "the chances are really low"... kinda like saying the chances are "million to 1"; no one did the math to get that number, they just chose a high number... and no, not everyone uses numbers like "million" or a "thousand" when making such statements... it is a logical and valid argument

Let me ask you another thing though... since when has erfworld mechanics been as simple as X*Y=N?
Two of the biggest factors that come up when during most any confrontation we have seen have been "levels" and "multipliers"
Even if warlord's could magically just see through veils, don't you think levels and multipliers would be a factor? do you really think the the levels of the warlords and the foolamancer mean nothing? do you really think Overlord bonus's, artficats bonus's, and cheief warlord bonus's would mean nothing? Are you really telling me that, hypothetically, a masterclass foolamancer of the highest level while being supported by his ruler, chiefwarlord, and 5 artifact bonus's can be out done by a 20 level 1 warlords, just as easily as 20 lv 10 warlords among which include a ruler and chiefwarlord and numerous other bonus's?

Quote:

Why don't you argue with the authors? This is how they chose to have Vinny state their chances. I just read it and accepted it at face value. Why can't you?

Because you are the one who THINKS he knows what they know... if you have everything so well figured out, then you should be able to tell... though thus far you have left many of my questions unaddressed... and i see it less like you are taking things as "face value" and more like you are reading to much into that number; adding more meaning than there is...

and i do wonder when you will try to answer all the questions i asked before...

wender wrote:
1) Caesar's outright disbelief that Jack could have hidden Faq from Translyvito warlords flying overhead, and;

yes a nice valid question for our friend oberon...
How did FAQ managed to remain hidden. If there was even a slim chance for the warlord's to see through a veil, then TV's warlord's would have noticed FAQ eventually... rule of percentage says the warlor'ds would get lucky and just heppen to notice it...
but ofcourse, if you have to be smart enough to notice that something is amiss, then it would be easily overlooked... no one expects for a city to be thee, and would never question a mountain being out there

opal wrote:
(P.S. Oberon your arguements are starting to read as personal attacks to me, I agree with you but your not presenting your position well.)

Actually
Quote:
When a warlord 'blows' a veil they don't see what's really there, they notice what they are seeing isn't right. So blowing a veil isn't about a chance of seeing the spell, its about noticing something is odd.

Is exactly my stance...
I imagine it's a little bit of both - but I'm personally of the opinion that Jetstone's warlords are going to have FAQ's forces under some scrutiny. Slately, at least, doesn't seem too terribly comfortable with them.

Maybe they have their eyes to the horizon...but I personally don't expect us to have an 'in ur base, killin' ur mans' moment here.
MonteCristo wrote:
how about a new question to add to the question you have not bothered to answer...
Why would wanda and Jack try it?
I can't say that, and so all I could do to satisfy you is to speculate. And that wouldn't get us anywhere. This is, by the way, the reason I don't address your every point even though you ask me to. You either want me to speculate about things I can not know, or, as in this case:
MonteCristo wrote:
30*11=330... but anyway
You bring up over and over some niggling little objection which has been addressed more than once by the simple explanation that Vinny was estimating the number of enemy units, and rounding 330 down to 300 is well within character for a 50s greaser/gangster. But that won't stop you from tossing it out multiple times as if you've found some kind of inherent flaw in my reasoning, and so this is why I have avoided addressing a great many of your points: As I see them, they do not bear addressing. They are irrelevant. They do not concern me. Ask the authors why they showed what would appear to be a low odds chance succeed, I can not speak authoritatively to this question. But I'll repeat myself: If you look for only high odds results as being realistic, you're going to be greatly disappointed with a great deal of fiction. The next time you see Bruce Willis take down a helicopter with a car and a makeshift ramp, remember this discussion, please. Citing "plot trumps odds" does not suddenly change the rules. As long as the slightest chance exists, the main characters in most fiction can be expected to succeed, especially while under the greatest of duress or at the most inopportune time for the other characters. This has happened many times previously within this story, do not be surprised nor dismayed when it happens again.
MonteCristo wrote:
And what i am saying is that vinnie's number had no real meaning to it... it was not an actual calculation but just a way of saying "the chances are really low"... kinda like saying the chances are "million to 1"; no one did the math to get that number, they just chose a high number... and no, not everyone uses numbers like "million" or a "thousand" when making such statements... it is a logical and valid argument
It is not a logical and valid argument to watch Vinny take X, multiply by an estimated Y, come up with the nearest round number which represents X * Y, and then hand wave it all away with a claim that "it was not an actual calculation." I mean, really...
MonteCristo wrote:
Oberon wrote:
Why don't you argue with the authors? This is how they chose to have Vinny state their chances. I just read it and accepted it at face value. Why can't you?
Because you are the one who THINKS he knows what they know.
Quite the opposite. I'm the one who accepted what the authors told us within the story, and didn't make up a hugely convoluted chain of supposition and guesswork to try to guess what they really meant, since accepting what they told us is apparently somehow objectionable to you.

Occam's razor doesn't really apply here, but just for fun let's compare how much more work you had to do to come to your conclusion than I: All I had to do was see Vinny multiply 11 * 30 and state that it was "about 300", and then accept that he meant what he said. You had to, I don't know. I really don't know, but it wasn't as easy as what I did by a long shot.
Oberon wrote:
MonteCristo wrote:
how about a new question to add to the question you have not bothered to answer...
Why would wanda and Jack try it?
I can't say that, and so all I could do to satisfy you is to speculate. And that wouldn't get us anywhere. This is, by the way, the reason I don't address your every point even though you ask me to. You either want me to speculate about things I can not know, or, as in this case:

The very fact that you can not answer those question is one of the biggest problems with your stance
THAT is why i can not except your theory that it is simple X*Y=N math; because your theory is full of holes
Your stance is riddled with huge holes... the more holes your stance has, the weaker your stance becomes
you can not provide an answer when no answers exist and when no answer exist that's damn good evidence that there are serious problems with your theory
your stance raises many questions, creates plot holes, and out right contradictions... and you have no answers to back it all up... that's a good way of telling me you're wrong
that is part of how logic and theories work...

when you come up with a theory you got to be able to answer ever question that comes up... the more unanswered questions, the weaker the theory...
it's only when all questions are gone, does a theory become fact (or as close as it can possibly get anyway)...
what i know for sure is that my theory hasn't raised any questions i haven't been able to answer, while your theory has A LOT of unanswered questions


frankly, i give enough respect to Rob's writing to expect him to not leave such huge gaping plot holes in his story, as your theory leads to
MonteCristo wrote:
The very fact that you can not answer those question is one of the biggest problems with your stance
THAT is why i can not except your theory that it is simple X*Y=N math;
So now I understand you much better. You can not accept what is shown to us directly and unambiguously, within the strip, because it doesn't answer all of your questions. Good luck with that.
Oberon wrote:
MonteCristo wrote:
The very fact that you can not answer those question is one of the biggest problems with your stance
THAT is why i can not except your theory that it is simple X*Y=N math;
So now I understand you much better. You can not accept what I have personally interpreted as the meaning behind the authors words, within the strip, because it doesn't answer all of your perfectly valid and logical questions that illustrate how illogical and utterly wrong my interpretation is. I'm sorry that i do not understand the basics of holding arguments and theory and stand by my unsupportable interpretation that a refuse to accept might actually be wrong.

Fixed that for you
You are hilarious. You claim that I am "interpreting" the authors, when all I'm doing is quoting the exact words used in the strip.
Vinny wrote:
"We got 11 pairs of warlord eyes here, and he's got 30 or so units. So there's like 300 chances to blow the veil, if he's got one."

Would you care to quote anything from the strip which supports your position? I doubt you could even pull single words from the entire run of Book 1, Summer Updates, and Book 2 and make something that sounded coherent. But please go for it, it might be as amusing as your other attempts.

But your editing of my words is rather like your editing of the authors words. You don't like it, you can't accept it, and so you change it. Bravo.