|
Didn't King Jetstone say once back in book two that his signamancy shifted to him being so short after he stopped fighting directly on the field for so many turns? It could be something similar for Charlie, like you say, yeah.
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
Yeah, this honestly doesn't seem any more out of nowhere to me than uncroaking the volcano was back in book 1. The Great Minds were established ages ago, we know that linked casters are a thing, we know that they want to keep Parson under control and weaken Charlie. Just because it wasn't set up immediately before the battle doesn't mean this wasn't set up at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
I'm wondering if this sort of deal making counts as some kind of natural contract magic and they actually are bound to it now, it isn't a matter of choice?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Plus the Arkentools are all 3D-rendered objects, and the bracer is just drawn, same as everything else.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
As far as I understand things, where "S" is just suspicion:code:I can't remember if we ever saw if Charlie was explicit about there being prisoners there, that one I'm least sure about, but turning Parson again has to at least be one of Charlie's goals I'd think. Either way though, Vanna'd be stupid to not at least suspect her cover might be blown if she thinks Don might be lying to her.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:I think it's less certain that Vanna and Charlie know that Don is lying. I can't remember if Charlie has independent confirmation about the prisoners beyond Vanna's intel, but the giant MK-covering thinkablast thing (along with the technical difficulties Lilith caused him) might have screwed up both his magical and human intelligence about where Parson et al scuttled off to after the fight. Don't forget about Charlie and Jojo's plot, though, the whole thing with Benjamin; that wouldn't make any sense if Charlie didn't know that Transylvito had Parson.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Yeah, if the bracer works like that, I definitely agree with your analysis. Not the bearer's outlook, though; the bearer's knowledge. Ben wasn't certain, but apparently the totality of information that Ben potentially had available to him were he to remember it meant that the likelihood was so high. He just hadn't properly put it together.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
nimby posted:The bracer might or might not consider the calculation itself for its calculating. If it knows that knowing the result will influence the result, it could adjust for that. I'm not sure if that's actually possible, though. There's no guarantee of that converging to a single value, is there? 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 00:42
|
|