El Goonish ShiVe: Look! Squirrel!

[Rater202]

Why do you insist that characters speak like lawyers and always mean precisely what they are logically saying? Why can't characters speak poetically?

And why must what characters say take precedent over what the author says about the setting?

1: Becuase this is fiction, not real life, the story needs to be clear and make sense. Characters making realistic mistakes is one thing but what the characters say needs to be clear, unless a misunderstanding in-universe is part of the intended narrative.

It's also why you never see someone stumbling or saying "um" on TV or in movies unless the character is intended to be stupid or confused even though in real life just about everyone does that, especially when emotional.

2: BEcuase what Dan said in the linked Twitter post doesn't actually say anything. "The only way Seers can cast spells is with wands or marks" b y itself would have been one thing, but the immediate qualifier of "no other loophole has been established" changes the context and turns it from definitive statement to repeating facts already established. Further "loopholes" could be established later, or whatever means of Pandora is referring to when Tedd casts spells could not be a Loophole.

Maybe a Seer who gains the ability to cast spells isn't called a Seer anymore? We don't know.

The only thing that the Twitter thread confirms is that the Ring Arthur was wearing is related to casting the sleep spell, but Dan doesn't say it's a wand, it could be a loophole that hasn't been established yet.

This is an old Author trick, if a fan asks you something and you don't want to not answer but don't want to spoil something you say something phrased as an answer that can be interpreted in more than one way.

Beyond that, Pandora's statement is direct, clear, and explicit: Tedd will cast spells.

This is, of course, assuming that other than raw power and talent that Tedd is a typical Seer and not special even by the metric of Seers. Tedd's circumstances are somewhat unique, we've been getting build-up that Tedd is something special for a while, but the story is far from over.

We still don't have an answer for why Tedd glows, for one.

The ability to cast spells Pandora is referring too could be a Tedd thing rather than a Seer thing.

[Gez]

Why do you insist that characters speak like lawyers and always mean precisely what they are logically saying? Why can't characters speak poetically?

Because if the same character says in the same scene "you can't do this, but you will be able to do it", it's logical to conclude that the character being talked to is going to be able to do the stuff they can't do at the moment.

Of course that doesn't tell us when. Maybe Tedd will only be able to cast spells in the epilogue. Who knows?

And why must what characters say take precedent over what the author says about the setting?

Because Dan didn't say "Pandora's wrong, Tedd will never cast spells, only use wands and marks, pinky-swear!"

[Celestia]

Well, if you contrast link 1 with link 3, you have Pandora saying "you cannot cast spells on your own, but you can learn spells and use them" and then "take any spell you witnessed, make it your own, improve it, share it, and know that you will be able to cast it".

So she clearly says 1. that Tedd cannot cast spells and 2. that Tedd will be able to cast spells.

Man, I really dislike trying to debate someone with no concept of literary analysis. It's like talking to a wall.

No, that is not what Pandora is saying at all. Tedd says "That...And I never get spells, either, do I?" Pandora confirms this by saying "A Seer is a type of Wizard. You cannot cast spells on your own, ..." The important part is what I've bolded. Pandora is speaking about Seers in general, not about Tedd specifically.

And that oft-repeated quote in link three? That comes at the end of a rant that starts with "And these abilities...They're perfect for you!" Pandora is talking about what Tedd can do right now. These abilities, they are, all present tense. Pandora is not talking about anything new or anything ability Tedd will gain later.

You can't just skip over the parts you don't like and only read the lines that agree with you. You need to read the entire thing and use context to understand it. This is literally elementary school stuff.

[Kish]

If Pandora meant that Tedd could do something other than what she clearly describes as how seers function, she would say "you'll be able to cast spells without an item later." Not just say things that can be tortured into meaning that if someone hates and wants to reject what she does say. "A seer is a type of wizard. You cannot cast spells on your own, but you can learn spells, and you can use them. You already have been.[...]That is the type of wizard a seer is. The type of wizard you are. A Wand Maker." Then, when revving up into evil mode with her desire to sell Tedd on how powerful he is, she says "...to take any spell you've witnessed and make it your own, improve it, share it...and know that you, you will be able to cast it, for you are a well of power!"

But, I suppose, the words "you will be able to cast it" are in the middle of there somewhere and that clearly means that everything she actually says is chaff and Tedd's going to be casting spells without an item or mark at some point. (As for why she emphasizes "share it" right before saying that phrase, well, why would that have a reason? It's chaff, we already established that.)

[Yuki Akuma]

Because Dan didn't say "Pandora's wrong, Tedd will never cast spells, only use wands and marks, pinky-swear!"

Why would Dan say Pandora's wrong? She never said Tedd could cast spells without a wand or a mark. Dan did, however, say that Seers can't cast spells without a wand or a mark.

[Rater202]

Why would Dan say Pandora's wrong? She never said Tedd could cast spells without a wand or a mark. Dan did, however, say that Seers can't cast spells without a wand or a mark.

She did, however, say that Tedd will cast spells(not use them, cast them) while putting emphasis on Tedd three times(saying "you" three times, twice being boiled and italicized) after she transitions from "what Tedd can do now because he is a Seer" and "What Tedd is capable of because she's such a magical badass."

She isn't talking about Tedd's powers being perfect for Tedd anymore. She's talking about how Tedd has the potential to take over the world and bend it to her will.

That's gonna take more than just some wands, darling.

"Where you are now is perfect for you and you can only go uphill from here."

[Celestia]

She did, however, say that Tedd will cast spells(not use them, cast them)

Spells are also cast from marks and cast from wands. The word choice here is irrelevant.

while putting emphasis on Tedd three times(saying "you" three times, twice being boiled and italicized)

Because she is talking to and about Tedd. You're reaching.

after she transitions from "what Tedd can do now because he is a Seer" and "What Tedd is capable of because she's such a magical badass."

Which indicates that what Tedd is capable of is derived from what Tedd can do now. {Scrubbed}

She isn't talking about Tedd's powers being perfect for Tedd anymore. She's talking about how Tedd has the potential to take over the world and bend it to her will.

{Scrubbed} The point is that, to Pandora, they are one and the same. {Scrubbed}

That's gonna take more than just some wands, darling.

Baseless assumption. You don't know that. In fact, given how often we've seen government spellcasters use wands, if an assumption is to be made, the most logical one is the exact opposite: that wands are very powerful and useful.

"Where you are now is perfect for you and you can only go uphill from here."

Exactly, go uphill from here, not transition to a different hill entirely.

[Rater202]

Spells are also cast from marks and cast from wands. The word choice here is irrelevant.

Word choice is never irrelevant when it comes to discussing a work of literature.

Beyond that, Pandora referred to Tedd's current sell casting ability as "use" spells, not cast them.

"You can't cast spells, but you can use them" on one page, present tense, indicating that what Tedd can do now is not casting a spell.

"You will cast it" is future tense, and the previous use of "use" instead of cast indicates a difference.

Just because I'm interpreting it differently from you does not mean that I fail at reading comprehension and I do no appreciate the insinuation.

[Kish]

Spells are also cast from marks and cast from wands. The word choice here is irrelevant.

Indeed. Find me a quote from Dan saying "when one of my characters says cast a spell, they will never ever be referring to using a magic item to cast a spell," and I'll concede that you aren't just making assumptions and refusing to acknowledge when they get refuted, Rater. But you can't, because of course he never has said anything like that.

[Rater202]

Indeed. Find me a quote from Dan saying "when one of my characters says cast a spell, they will never ever be referring to using a magic item to cast a spell," and I'll concede that you aren't just making assumptions and refusing to acknowledge when they get refuted, Rater. But you can't, because of course he never has said anything like that.

I don't have to.

I have Tedd saying that using a Magic Mark is not casting a spell, and I have PAndora saying, in the present tense,that Tedd can't cast spells but he can use them, which indicates that there's a difference.

[Lord Raziere]

I dunno it seems pretty logical that Tedd can only cast from Wands. he is explicitly called a Wand-Maker, there is no reason to establish a difference between a normal magic user and a Seer if the Seer could cast spells normally.

the entire point of the scene was Tedd being frustrated that he couldn't use magic-then finding out that he wasn't actually inventing anything that be used by anyone but just making things that only he can use and getting sad because it means he isn't some scientist managing to turn magic from a rarely used force into something that can be done by anyone with technology, but an artificer finding a workaround to being able to use magic themselves.

thus Tedd already has his method of casting spells. there is no need for him to "improve" to casting without them, especially given his goals. his goal is to give magic to everyone and one of the more efficient ways life gets improved is not by self-enhancement but by creating devices that make things more convenient for anyone that uses them. even if it were possible for Tedd to learn how to cast things without wands, there'd be no point other than self-sufficiency he doesn't need. the ability to cast spells without wands is something primarily useful in case wands break like in a dangerous profession like adventuring, being a superhero or other thing where you constantly face danger.

Tedd's lifestyle is pretty sedentary and this comic is one of the safest fictional universes to live in for a reason. there is no reason for Tedd to learn how to cast magic without wands.

[Celestia]

Word choice is never irrelevant when it comes to discussing a work of literature.

I couldn't disagree more, especially with English. Only sometimes does exact word choice matter. In almost every other case, the difference between one word and a synonym is meaningless. The author only picked one over the other because they like that word more or they thought of it first or because it flows better with the rest of the sentence. That's it.

Beyond that, Pandora referred to Tedd's current sell casting ability as "use" spells, not cast them.

"You can't cast spells, but you can use them" on one page, present tense, indicating that what Tedd can do now is not casting a spell.

"You will cast it" is future tense, and the previous use of "use" instead of cast indicates a difference.

{Scrubbed}

Just because I'm interpreting it differently from you does not mean that I fail at reading comprehension and I do no appreciate the insinuation.

{Scrubbed}

[Rater202]

I couldn't disagree more, especially with English. Only sometimes does exact word choice matter. In almost every other case, the difference between one word and a synonym is meaningless. The author only picked one over the other because they like that word more or they thought of it first or because it flows better with the rest of the sentence. That's it.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I'm not missing your points, I'm just disagreeing with them.

Beyond that, I'm not ignoring context. O the contrary, I'm taking all of the context into account. Choice of wording is vital context in a written medium.

Pandora's exact words when Tedd says he never gets to do magic is, and I quote, "you cannot cast spells on your own, but you can learn them, and you can use them. You already have been."

Per Pandora, there's a difference between casting spells and using spells, she puts emphasis on the fact that Tedd can Learn spells and use them despite not being able to cast them and Wands and things like Tedd's enchanting glove are using spells.

Otherwise, she would have said, "no, you can cast spells, you just have to put them in a wand first," if using a wand counted as casting a spell.

This is, of course, in the present tense, which is important.

Becuase two pages later, Pandora says that Tedd will cast spells.

Taking both pages together, the closest thing to "Tedd can never cast spells" would be "Seers can't normally cast spells on their own but Pandora knows of a way to let Tedd cast spells."

[Lord Raziere]

I dunno Rater, I'm not buying it.

Pandora was working herself up into a "ALL SHALL LOVE ME YOU AND DESPAIR!" kind of rant at that point which reached its apex not one panel later.

at that point it would be pretty safe to assume she is speaking poetically and dramatically about Tedd's capabilities given that she is talking about bending worlds to their will. not exactly the right frame of mind to speak about the someone's power in exact rational terms.

[Rater202]

I dunno Rater, I'm not buying it.

Pandora was working herself up into a "ALL SHALL LOVE ME YOU AND DESPAIR!" kind of rant at that point which reached its apex not one panel later.

at that point it would be pretty safe to assume she is speaking poetically and dramatically about Tedd's capabilities given that she is talking about bending worlds to their will. not exactly the right frame of mind to speak about the someone's power in exact rational terms.

I would point out that there is in fact a version of Tedd that has, in fact, bent at least one world to his will. Possibly two, since it's a multiverse and we have conflicting information about Lord Tedd.

Pandora got carried away, but we have no reason to suspect that her dramatic speech wasn't completely literal.

[Lord Raziere]

I would point out that there is in fact a version of Tedd that has, in fact, bent at least one world to his will. Possibly two, since it's a multiverse and we have conflicting information about Lord Tedd.

Pandora got carried away, but we have no reason to suspect that her dramatic speech wasn't completely literal.

The fact that she got carried away is the exact reason we have to suspect wasn't completely literal.

when you get excited you skip over little details like "you'll do all this by making powerful wands and there might be a bunch of maintenance you'll have to do" or something.

while we don't know HOW Lord Tedd came to be. the multiverse is home to many changes from the main timeline from far before Tedd was even born. Lord Tedd could've been born with a bunch of politicial and economic advantages like already being the son of royalty because his father already conquered half the world before he came to be, and his power might need a bunch support for it to work, or he could come from a world where magic is DBZ-level powerful and this timeline isn't. EGSverse magic is variable enough that Lord Tedd could be operating on completely rules that main Tedd doesn't have.

[Celestia]

I'm not missing your points, I'm just disagreeing with them.

"Miss" as in you didn't address them, not that you missed the point. {scrubbed}

[Fyraltari]

Did Tensaided lose weight? Good for him.

[Radar]

Did Tensaided lose weight? Good for him.

Surely looks like it. Indeed good for him.

My first thought was concerning this page was actually, if Luke is overconfident in his ability to win against Tensaided. On one hand Tensaided is clearly very invested in the game and knows it well. On the other he might be a bit too keen on quirky combos (as his deck showed in the duel against Justin) and he did lose against Sarah. True, she had a few crazy good cards in her deck and really good advice from George, but as Tensaided said himself: In the end, though, it all boils down to skill.

[Vinyadan]

Wait -- are we really entering another year-long* Magic tournament?

*actual and perceived durations may not match.

[Yuki Akuma]

Surely looks like it. Indeed good for him.

My first thought was concerning this page was actually, if Luke is overconfident in his ability to win against Tensaided. On one hand Tensaided is clearly very invested in the game and knows it well. On the other he might be a bit too keen on quirky combos (as his deck showed in the duel against Justin) and he did lose against Sarah. True, she had a few crazy good cards in her deck and really good advice from George, but as Tensaided said himself: In the end, though, it all boils down to skill.

For all his bluster, Tensaided lost every match he was in in that storyline. I think he's not that good at Sealed.

[Fyraltari]

And if I remember correctly, Luke obliterated the one opponent he got serious with and didn't do half bad the rest of the time (especially considering what else he had going on).

Also, Luke keep mentionning his friends in the plural, and the only one we've seen so far is bendy-smoke-guy whose name I forgot. Frustrating.

[Celestia]

I genuinely don't know any children who play Magic. Or Yu-Gi-Oh. Plenty of them play Pokémon, though.

[Radar]

I genuinely don't know any children who play Magic. Or Yu-Gi-Oh. Plenty of them play Pokémon, though.

(bolding mine) An elegant card game for a more... civilized age.

That being said, Magic does not have tie-in media that target children, so it is obviously less popular. I never played Pokémon or Yu-Gi-Oh (I do not have the hairstyle for that one), so I cannot say, if Magic is more complicated or not, which might be a factor as well. At any rate, I think Pokémon franchise simply has the largest reach as with all the cartoons and video games it is easier to sell a card game as well. Yu-Gi-Oh also has cartoons, but they are not nearly as popular.

[Maat Mons]

I've only played Magic with decks I've borrowed from friends. And I've only played Pokemon with either of the two theme decks I gave my nephew for Christmas one year. But in that very limited experience, I've found Pokemon to be much simpler.

[Celestia]

(bolding mine) An elegant card game for a more... civilized age.

That being said, Magic does not have tie-in media that target children, so it is obviously less popular. I never played Pokémon or Yu-Gi-Oh (I do not have the hairstyle for that one), so I cannot say, if Magic is more complicated or not, which might be a factor as well. At any rate, I think Pokémon franchise simply has the largest reach as with all the cartoons and video games it is easier to sell a card game as well. Yu-Gi-Oh also has cartoons, but they are not nearly as popular.

Actually, Magic is the biggest trading card game. Pokémon is only number 2.

As for your question of complexity, I have played Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh but not Magic, so I'm not really in a better position to comment.

That said, Yu-Gi-Oh is absolutely the most complicated trading card game ever. I mean, there are nine different ways to summon a monster, all with different mechanics. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Lord Raziere]

That said, Yu-Gi-Oh is absolutely the most complicated trading card game ever. I mean, there are nine different ways to summon a monster, all with different mechanics. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

this reminds of the TTS kitten vs. Tzeentch episode and now I rewatched it.

Magnus claims that the only intricate thing about Yu-Gi-Oh is its banlist, guess thats just him being snarky. though the creators of TTS remarked that Yu-Gi-Oh is a banlist simulator. I haven't played since I was a child and got rid of all my cards for it long ago, so I wouldn't know.

though interesting thing: one of the people who recorded that episode of TTS? was told that it was how the game actually plays and still doesn't believe it, and in response to some of the cards used being banned just make him feel like the game isn't really real.

[Vinyadan]

In general, I've heard of Magic as a terrifying money sink. Maybe that's one of the reasons why children don't play it, although they probably just aren't the target audience.

[Radar]

Actually, Magic is the biggest trading card game. Pokémon is only number 2.

Absolutely! But not among the children and this is what was talked about. Both the graphics, themes and the lore are aimed at older players with great success.

That said, Yu-Gi-Oh is absolutely the most complicated trading card game ever. I mean, there are nine different ways to summon a monster, all with different mechanics. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Bwuh?! That sounds way crazier than Magic to be honest. Cards in Magic can have completely unique abilities, but their interactions and overall mechanics are pretty well organized. Sure, monsters can enter the battlefield in different ways, but it will always use the common mechanics for the basic types of actions.

[Rater202]

Bwuh?! That sounds way crazier than Magic to be honest. Cards in Magic can have completely unique abilities, but their interactions and overall mechanics are pretty well organized. Sure, monsters can enter the battlefield in different ways, but it will always use the common mechanics for the basic types of actions.

There's a reason why I stopped following the game in the 5Ds era.

With the base game it's relatively simple: There's normal summoning, which is, you just play a monster. It can only be done with normal monsters(basic beat sticks) or effect monsters(monsters with a special ability, such as being able to attack the other player directly even if they have monsters on the field or getting extra attack and defense under certain conditions) who are under level four and who do not have the effect that prevents them from being normal summoned.

Then there's Tribute summoning: Tribute summoning is when you sacrifice one or more Monsters that you've already summoned in order to summon another: Monsters level five and six need one sacrifice, while monsters level seven or higher need two. Some particularly powerful effect monsters will require three tributes to offset their power, but this is noted in the individual card.

Monsters who are normal summoned or tribute summoned can be set, which is when they are placed face down(so the opponent doesn't know what they are) in the defensive position. Monsters who are summoned face up are in attack poison by default.

Under normal circumstances, you can only make one summon per round using Normal or Tribute summoning.

Then there's flip summon, which is taking a monster you've previously set and flipping them face up in the attack position.

Then we have special Summoning: Special Summoning is a catch-all category for any means of summoning a monster that is not normal summoning, tribute summoning, or setting a card. Back when I was playing, there was no limit on how many special summonses you can make in a round, as long as you have cards tha tlet you do so.

For example, Red-Eyes Darkness Dragon can only be summoned by sacrificing Red-Eyes Black Dragon. Inversely, the monster Red-Eyes Black Chick has the special ability where you can sacrifice it to summon a Red-Eyes Black Dragon.

If you have all three cards in your hand, you can Normal Summon Red-Eyes Black Chick and then immediately tribute it to special summon Red-Eyes Black Dragon for one less monster than you would normally have, then immediately tribute Red Eyes Blck Dragon to special summon Red-Eyes Darkness Dragon.

Then we have Fusion Summon.

Fusion summon is a type of special summon that can only summon a fusion monster, which are kept in the Extra Deck. Prior to the introduction of Synchro Summoning, the Extra Deck was called the Fusion Deck because only fusion monsters were kept there.

Once you have the appropriate fusion material monsters, which will be noted on the card, you can perform a Fusion summon: Usually, this requires a Spell Card such as Polymerization, which lets you use cards in your hand on your side of the field as fusion materials, to fusion summon, but some fusion monsters can be summoned via "Contact Fusion" which does not require a spell card.

Fusion mateirla monsters are discarded when used, unless you are using a card that lets you use discarded cards as fusion material monsters inwhich case they're removed from play.

Some fusion monsters, like Elemental HERO Flame Wingman, require specific fusion materials. Others, like Five-Headed Dragon, only specify the type of mosnter to be used(in this case, any five Dragon Type monsters.)

There are also cases of meta Fusion where one or more fusion material monsters are required as a material to summon another fusion monser: If you have Black Luster Soldier on the field and three Blues-Eyes White Dragons and two Polymerizations in your hand, you could use One Polymerization to summon Blue-Eyes Ultimate Dragon using the three dragons n your hand as materials, then the other to summon Dragon Master Knight using Black Luster Soldier and Blue-Eyes Ultimate Dragon as materials.

Finally, we come to the Red-Headed Step-Child of summoning, Ritual Summons: Ritual monsters are kept in the normal deck and can only be summoned by using a specific spell card(or a spell card that can be used for any Ritual mosnter of a certain effect) which require you to perform Tributes to activate them.

How this works depends don't the card in question: Magician of Black Chaos you have to tribute monsters from your hand or field whose total level equals eight to activate the Black Magic Ritual spell card, while the Gishiki series of monsters can all be summoned with the same spell, forbidden Arts of the Gishisi, which lets you tribute monsters from anywhere don't he field... Including your opponents monsters.

ritual spell cards, unless noted otherwise, can only be activated if you have their corresponding monster(s) in your hand, which drastically limits their utility.

Last I checked, ritual monsters are kind of a niche though that might have changed.

And that's the base game. Relatively straightforward, just time-consuming to explain.

Then, 5ds happened and introduced Syncro Summoning. You have a tuner Monster and you tribute summon it and a few other monsters that it "Syncromnized with" to summon a "Synchro monster" from the extra deck. I forget the exact rules, and Synchro Monsters weren't too big of an edition...

But they went out of their way to make Synchro Monsters better than another monster, which resulted in the people in charge of the rule fixes putting restrictions on how many cards you have in the Extra Deck which meant that dedicated Red-Eyes or HERO deck was kinda screwed because those archetypes are built around fusion summoning.

and now, every time they do a new Anime, they introduce a completely new kind of summoning that's better than anything that came before it while marginalizing previous kinds of summoning and the game just got really bloated. I kind of lost interest with XYZ Summoning that I don't think I can explain and the last thing I was aware of was Pendulum summoning, which from what I can tell is using specific effect monsters to summon other monsters en mass.