taken from page: "The definition of Carnymancy used above has become so broad that it now can encompass every known magic effect or spell, including Uncroaked (freak shows, houses of horror), Thinkamancies (mind-reading shows and mesmerism), or even Predictamancies (crystal balls and fortune telling)."
I want this clarified before it goes back. Are you saying that the "definition" of Carnymancy (as pertaining to Carnivals and Carnies) is so all-encompassing (of all things... carnivally?) that it can be attributed to anything (ie Carnivals contain everything under the sun); or, are you saying that the cases made for the different powers stray beyond that definition? (ie shell games and lion taming don't pertain to Carnivals or Carnies exactly and thus don't count) Or are you saying something else?
Because frankly this statement seems to be overreaching hyperbole at best, and complete BS at worst. Zombies = freakshows? What? House of horror, okay, but that's not real zombies, is it? The other two are more reasonable, but given that we know they both have their own Disciplines, why can't you just accept those as exceptions? It's not like we have other established Disciplines for Flight and Transmogrification. Yeah there's a case that Dwagon Taming is Thinkamancy, but if you believe that, make that case.
That Carnymancy actually covers all those powers is a stretch, and you're welcome to make that argument - though when I made a similar statement it got deleted (by guess who). If you think Carnymancy could be applied to almost anything, fine, you can say that, and you'd be right. But don't give bogus examples and watch the tone - try making a point about the actual powers, like what other Disciplines might more likely fit. That you could fit other Disciplines' spells under the Carnymancy umbrella is not a good argument - that one of the spells currently being placed under that umbrella would more likely belong to another Discipline is.
Because we know nothing about the parameters of Carnymancy it's still in the realm of plausibility (so long as the explanations make sense) that a given power could be Carnymancy. The same is not true of Shockmancy, which has one established spell, and which no one has argued could be behind the other abilities.CIHN July 30
- I think the point of the line is that the way powers are being attributed to Carnymancy is so broad that you could weasel just about anything into it. So, for instance, while in carnival games walnuts are not really turned into pigeons, Carnymancy does it for real. This would then seem to continue along the lines of "while the zombies, ghosts, etc in houses of horror at carnivals aren't real, in Carnymancy they are. While 'mind-readers' at carnivals can't really read your mind, but seem to, Carnymancers really can". Of course the point is that we have no idea what Carnymancy really is, and the definition used to "explain" some of the 'hammer's powers is really kind of useless once taken to the end, as Carnymancy very likely does not overlap with either Thinkamancy or Croakamancy, or any other 'mancy for that matter. From what we've seen, magic is fairly limited. I don't think this needs to be removed, only clarified.User:Knight Mayor 30 July 9:13 am EST
- I have replaced this line in a very simplified form. In my opinion the debate doesn't belong on this page at all, since the very fact that it is so widely contested means it's not even close to wikiworthy, but I left it up out of consideration for the amount of work put into it. I strongly recommend editors put work into making this area short, as it's currently most of the article and not of any guaranteed value. The wiki, particularly the article itself rather than its talk pages, are not the place for these debates: the forum, which has a long thread about this, is. --> ERK!|eyeBook me 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll agree that this argument is best placed on a forum, but I'd also like to chime in that I think a summary of the current arguments in play is a perfectly reasonable write-up on this wiki (whether on the Arkenhammer page or in its own box somewhere). After all, "wikiworthy" here translates to "useful", and there's certainly use in being able to read a summary rather than a long thread's backlog. Menlo Marseilles 20:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The following does not belong on Arkenhammer; I think there is a similar comment on Arkentools, where it belongs; if not, I'll put it in.
- "Rockwell, like Stanley, Wanda, and Charlescomm, has a name which is associated in the Real World with corporations that make or use tools. This suggests that Sizemore may someday attune to an Arkentool. Given that Sizemore's first name is also associated with a form of shovel, it also seems plausible that Sizemore might eventually acquire the Arkenshovel. If every Arkentool is associated with a form of Fate magic, then which type of Fate magic might the hypothetical Arkenshovel possess? Since Sizemore is a Dirtamancer, and Dirtamancy and Changemancy are both forms of Stuffamancy, it seems possible it might be Changemancy."
Unless this is being used to indicate the Arkenhammer is unlikely a Changemancy Tool if the "shovel" is. However, I don't think a speculation on the powers of a speculative Tool should be used as evidence against another Tool. CIHN
New comic seems to indicate that Wanda believes as I do, and the whole Shock/Carny/Change argument is pointless. Can't take it down completely, but it gives me hope. CIHN
Stanley mentions that the hammer has only once missed a target, JillianErf-b3-p220. Initial thoughts were that the miss was due to fate (I still think this is likely), but could the other aspect (never missing) be a form of Luckamancy? With the vague idea of Arkentools each utilizing all three elements, they would all have to fall into two classes of magic, except for whichever one falls into Stagemancy. The hammer's random assortment of powers do fit Stagemancy reasonably well (Rhyme-o-mancy, Hat magic/Carnymancy with the pigeons/walnuts), perhaps it also has a subtler Clevermancy aspect to extend it to two classes of magic as well? Might also fit with Stanley having suddenly run into a boopload of money, and undergoing a kind of psychological healing with help from Jed. --Fridgemagnet (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2017 (EST)
- You've ignored the hammers main power to make it fit there; taming dwagons, which seems to fit pretty clearly into date-a-mancy. Also, I would have called walnut to Pigeons Changemancy not hat (because no hat) and certainly not carny. I can see argument for mixing the two, but it's unnecessarily complicating things. If you re-arrange that to be shock, rhyme, date and change, we get every Class of magic that's aligned with the Matter axis. That seems to fit better.Knavigator (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2017 (EST)
- Yeah, I can see your point - it was an idea that seemed to fit well with the other tools, but your reasoning does fit the hammer better. I feel like the hammer's main power at the moment is not fitting in - but hey, Retconjuration is also on the matter axis, maybe it'll fix itself someday. --Fridgemagnet (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2017 (EST)
I can't recall the page number right now (it's guerrilla tactics on siege during TBFGWK), but Parson mentions an Artifact bonus stacking on top of his warlord bonus, which suggests that it's a hex-wide bonus. While this was for the 'pliers, I imagine that an unattuned would get the same bonus regardless of which tool it is.
Given that it would be strange for an attuned wielder to lose a bonus, I would assume that the 'Hammer provides a general artifact bonus for being in the same Hex as Stanley, and a second bonus to dwagons, similar to what Wanda is said to give Decrypted in the Book 1 epilogue (again, the reference escapes me. Will look up when I have more time) Knavigator (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Jillian's Jester is attunement?
It's an interesting theory, but it implies that Wanda wasn't Fated to Attune at this point else he would have dealt with her at the same time. Thoughts?
- The Jester isn't necessarily attunement, but its possession of a hammer could well be Signamancy, and it was presumably Fate's tool to nudge Jillian into making the decisions it wanted. As for Charlie, Wanda was popped with a Fate, so it's most likely that Charlie didn't deal with her because he couldn't. The jester was Jillian's inner warlord, I presume a caster like Wanda would have different mechanisms in play and possibly better defenses too. Also, Charlie needed Betsy's help. It is possible he hadn't negotiated with her yet, and she wasn't as interested in tampering with Wanda's mind to begin with.--ManaCaster (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2017 (EST)