Monday Dec 9 2019

[mlooney 3,594]

Here is

Grace to the rescue.  And the new limit on shrink magic has been established.  Must be one of those Not Changed changes.

[ijuin 594]

If this is a general change on the limit for shrinking/growing, then that implies that Elliot and Ellen also can go this small via their own spells.

[hkmaly 490]

2 hours ago, mlooney said:

Grace to the rescue.  And the new limit on shrink magic has been established.  Must be one of those Not Changed changes.

This is still only hypothesis. Could still be somehow caused by the mirror, not speaking about other options ... But Grace suddenly also capable to shrink so much makes it more likely. She didn't used to be able to take form which is not combination of forms she learned, and unless this somehow counts as being partly combined with squirrel ...

1 hour ago, ijuin said:

If this is a general change on the limit for shrinking/growing, then that implies that Elliot and Ellen also can go this small via their own spells.

Yes. And unlike TF gun, this can be tested without giving away yet another secret.

BTW, it's almost certain that they can just grow Ashley back. Tedd obviously wouldn't think about it because she would like to find out what happened first ... but someone else should ...

[Darth Fluffy 338]

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

This is still only hypothesis. Could still be somehow caused by the mirror, not speaking about other options ... But Grace suddenly also capable to shrink so much makes it more likely. She didn't used to be able to take form which is not combination of forms she learned, and unless this somehow counts as being partly combined with squirrel ...

Yes. And unlike TF gun, this can be tested without giving away yet another secret.

BTW, it's almost certain that they can just grow Ashley back. Tedd obviously wouldn't think about it because she would like to find out what happened first ... but someone else should ...

It is possible that they have, but don't know how. Perhaps the same words while envisioning the person larger would work, but perhaps not. Tedd has not revealed an additional command.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,619]

So why not use telekinesis to pick her up?

[ijuin 594]

2 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

So why not use telekinesis to pick her up?

Because being picked up telekinetically would alarm Ashley further, whereas a second person her size would tend to be more comforting.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,619]

1 hour ago, ijuin said:

being picked up telekinetically would alarm Ashley

But that would be the prefered method of picking up Susan

[hkmaly 490]

On 12/9/2019 at 1:00 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

On 12/9/2019 at 7:59 AM, hkmaly said:

BTW, it's almost certain that they can just grow Ashley back. Tedd obviously wouldn't think about it because she would like to find out what happened first ... but someone else should ...

It is possible that they have, but don't know how. Perhaps the same words while envisioning the person larger would work, but perhaps not. Tedd has not revealed an additional command.

First, yes it totally would. Second, they have the "undo" spell there.

On 12/9/2019 at 6:23 PM, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

On 12/9/2019 at 4:42 PM, ijuin said:

being picked up telekinetically would alarm Ashley

But that would be the prefered method of picking up Susan

That's good point, but not picking her up at all will likely be still better.

[Darth Fluffy 338]

13 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

First, yes it totally would.

Since you made the claim, I checked, and yes, Tedd says so in panel 1 of Friday Nov 29, 2019.

 

13 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Second, they have the "undo" spell there.

Ah, found it, Friday, Nov 15, 2019 , 2nd panel.

Weird, though, Tedd says, "Oh, right, you and Ashley aren't used to this." - actually none of them are, it is a new technique; Sarah even highlights this though Tedd disputes that it is new. The watch spells were rather specific, the want spells are very flexible, but that may reflect growth in Tedd's understanding of spells rather than a difference in the items. Also the duration is much shorter, but that seems more like a design choice on Tedd's part.

A more germane question, does Sarah (and others) get ticks on the awakening meter by casting using a wand of any type?

Ooo, Tedd, make an awakening meter.

 

 

 

 

[Darth Fluffy 338]

3 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Weird, though, Tedd says, "Oh, right, you and Ashley aren't used to this." - actually none of them are, it is a new technique; Sarah even highlights this though Tedd disputes that it is new. The watch spells were rather specific, the want spells are very flexible, but that may reflect growth in Tedd's understanding of spells rather than a difference in the items. Also the duration is much shorter, but that seems more like a design choice on Tedd's part.

Tedd 'splains it, next comic, which is already out.

[hkmaly 490]

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Weird, though, Tedd says, "Oh, right, you and Ashley aren't used to this." - actually none of them are, it is a new technique; Sarah even highlights this though Tedd disputes that it is new. The watch spells were rather specific, the want spells are very flexible, but that may reflect growth in Tedd's understanding of spells rather than a difference in the items. Also the duration is much shorter, but that seems more like a design choice on Tedd's part.

The exchange between Tedd and Sarah actually explains it well: Tedd doesn't consider it new, Sarah does. Diane and Ashley are at this point probably only ones who lack experience with watches, but there ARE differences between watches and the wand. First, the wand has bigger capacity both in number of spells and regarding actually storing some magic. There MIGHT be something about the flexibility of spells but I think it's more due to Tedd's upgrading the spells and that you would be able to put the size change spell as flexible as on the wand even into watches, though possibly nothing else would fit.

And, yes, second is the method of programming, as explained on next page and already mentioned by oh wait that's you. Presumably, wand can be programmed with the glove and watches can be programmed without, but it's still difference between any watches they tried before and this wand.

And, well, third, casting the spell with wand is totally cooler.

[Darth Fluffy 338]

9 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The exchange between Tedd and Sarah actually explains it well: Tedd doesn't consider it new, Sarah does. Diane and Ashley are at this point probably only ones who lack experience with watches, but there ARE differences between watches and the wand. First, the wand has bigger capacity both in number of spells and regarding actually storing some magic. There MIGHT be something about the flexibility of spells but I think it's more due to Tedd's upgrading the spells and that you would be able to put the size change spell as flexible as on the wand even into watches, though possibly nothing else would fit.

And, yes, second is the method of programming, as explained on next page and already mentioned by oh wait that's you. Presumably, wand can be programmed with the glove and watches can be programmed without, but it's still difference between any watches they tried before and this wand.

Sure, sure, restate the blatantly obvious, perhaps leap to conclusions; recognize though that mostly what we "know" is based on Word of Tedd, and Tedd has been shown to be an unreliable narrator; also Word of Dan, more relevant, but Dan seems to change his mind; fair enough, because days in the comic take years of Dan and our time. People change, and over the life of the webcomic, I've changed quite a bit, as has Dan's art and storytelling; I think it's at least implied that the facts are not immutable. Plus magic changed.

"First, the wand has bigger capacity both in number of spells and regarding actually storing some magic." Also, we've seen a Q&A showing a large staff being more powerful than a wand. It's never spelled out why, although visually it's evident that as the gals might say, size matters. Mass? Dimension? One primary axial dimension? Therefore longest dimension? Would you measure through the watch, the watch diameter, circumference, or the length of the band; or if mass, does the band count? The wands so far are wood, the watches were plastic toys, does a "wand" (inclusive of all the forms) have to be an organic material? Does it have to be a solid form? Would a bag of marbles or a bag of sand work? Would a cat or a glass of water work?

Potterverse uses "There is a core of material with magic affinity". RPGs tend toward incorporating specific materials, often gems to justify a cost, but crystals of some sort are common. I recall "Wood of <plantname> is magically conductive", I don't recall where. EGS seems to disregard this kind of trope and use the item as a material focus for what is largely a mental activity; how a wand or staff store magic is left hanging (so far). You know though, in a general sense, that storage is a change in state of something.

I think the raw answer is both TBD, if it becomes relevant and "It's fantasy, don't think to hard about it."

 

9 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And, well, third, casting the spell with wand is totally cooler.

YMMV. Being able to cast surreptitiously is actually pretty cool; point for watches.

 

[hkmaly 490]

6 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Sure, sure, restate the blatantly obvious, perhaps leap to conclusions; recognize though that mostly what we "know" is based on Word of Tedd, and Tedd has been shown to be an unreliable narrator; also Word of Dan, more relevant, but Dan seems to change his mind; fair enough, because days in the comic take years of Dan and our time. People change, and over the life of the webcomic, I've changed quite a bit, as has Dan's art and storytelling; I think it's at least implied that the facts are not immutable. Plus magic changed.

Maybe I am restating the obvious but I don't see how Tedd's unreliability and Dan's changes are relevant to what we are discussing now.

6 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

"First, the wand has bigger capacity both in number of spells and regarding actually storing some magic." Also, we've seen a Q&A showing a large staff being more powerful than a wand. It's never spelled out why, although visually it's evident that as the gals might say, size matters. Mass? Dimension? One primary axial dimension? Therefore longest dimension? Would you measure through the watch, the watch diameter, circumference, or the length of the band; or if mass, does the band count? The wands so far are wood, the watches were plastic toys, does a "wand" (inclusive of all the forms) have to be an organic material? Does it have to be a solid form? Would a bag of marbles or a bag of sand work? Would a cat or a glass of water work?

While the FAQ didn't stated exactly what makes the staff better - it just said bigger is better BUT it's not JUST about size - it specifically said HOW it makes the staff better: That it can store more energy. Nothing about making the spells itself different.

Now, pure speculation, but marbles are likely to work, but I would be skeptical about using whole bag together, or bag of sand. And I would expect some sort of interference from using something living as a spell catalyst. Glass, well, why not, but the water in it likely not.

6 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Potterverse uses "There is a core of material with magic affinity". RPGs tend toward incorporating specific materials, often gems to justify a cost, but crystals of some sort are common. I recall "Wood of <plantname> is magically conductive", I don't recall where. EGS seems to disregard this kind of trope and use the item as a material focus for what is largely a mental activity; how a wand or staff store magic is left hanging (so far). You know though, in a general sense, that storage is a change in state of something.

In potterverse it's also mostly the wizard doing the spellcasting.

Note that change of state may not be visible or even detectable by scientific means. To use electricity as example, batteries generally involve chemical change when storing electricity, but capacitors don't.

7 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I think the raw answer is both TBD, if it becomes relevant and "It's fantasy, don't think to hard about it."

Note that Dan himself often prefers to not think hard about something - or at least not giving out more information than necessary for case he would later find he needs something working differently. I believe that's the case of spell catalysts: not only we were not told any details about what influences the storage capacity, Dan himself wouldn't know: so, for example, how good marbles are at storing energy is not decided yet.

7 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

16 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And, well, third, casting the spell with wand is totally cooler.

YMMV. Being able to cast surreptitiously is actually pretty cool; point for watches.

That's totally different kind of cool ... like, both point of views are valid, but my point was that people will look cooler when casting with wands. Casting with watches is less obvious, but will look stupid for anyone who WILL notice.

And note that Tedd went out of way to make HARDER to use the wand surreptitiously. I suspect that technically you can totally make wand which would work not only without saying anything and with range over ten meters, but also while inside your pocket.

Which suggests that DGB agents are POINTING the wands at their targets mainly because they want to scare the target into surrendering.

 

 

[Darth Fluffy 338]

5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Maybe I am restating the obvious but I don't see how Tedd's unreliability and Dan's changes are relevant to what we are discussing now.

While the FAQ didn't stated exactly what makes the staff better - it just said bigger is better BUT it's not JUST about size - it specifically said HOW it makes the staff better: That it can store more energy. Nothing about making the spells itself different.

Note that change of state may not be visible or even detectable by scientific means. To use electricity as example, batteries generally involve chemical change when storing electricity, but capacitors don't.

Note that Dan himself often prefers to not think hard about something - or at least not giving out more information than necessary for case he would later find he needs something working differently. I believe that's the case of spell catalysts: not only we were not told any details about what influences the storage capacity, Dan himself wouldn't know: so, for example, how good marbles are at storing energy is not decided yet.

Tedd's unreliability and Dan's changes are relevant because those are our primary sources of information about how magic works in the EGS universe.

Yeah, I caught that size had to do with storage; that really does not address the "how". 

To use your example, you can at least observe what kind of materials and construction lead to a better capacitor, even if you don't understand the mechanics. But capacitors do have observable and predictable physical effects; you can measure dielectric constants of materials, then predict how that will affect the capacitance when the capacitor is constructed, if it is a primarily solid state capacitor. For large capacitance per unit volume, capacitors involve chemical dissociation, bleeding over into battery-like behavior.

I would think Tedd would at least be experimenting with this, "Does an elm wand perform as well as an ash wand".

I'll buy the "not decided yet" argument, but also point out that you are answering your own question about how Dan's changes are relevant.

 

5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Now, pure speculation, but marbles are likely to work, but I would be skeptical about using whole bag together, or bag of sand. And I would expect some sort of interference from using something living as a spell catalyst. Glass, well, why not, but the water in it likely not.

The referenced comic is about scrying, using a marble as a crystal ball. Water and basins have been used for this in some mythos, Galadriel used a basin in LotR.

Ted can buy or make hollow wooden tubes. He could fill one with sand. Then incorporate the result in a wand. Does that add or detract from the performance? Would embedding a marble or two in the handle be a useful augmentation? He could conceivably have access to dragon heart string and make a Potterverse wand. Does that have enhanced function?

I wave my cat and cast furball.

 

5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

That's totally different kind of cool ... like, both point of views are valid, but my point was that people will look cooler when casting with wands. Casting with watches is less obvious, but will look stupid for anyone who WILL notice.

And note that Tedd went out of way to make HARDER to use the wand surreptitiously. I suspect that technically you can totally make wand which would work not only without saying anything and with range over ten meters, but also while inside your pocket.

It will be more obvious you are casting with a wand, so more showy. Point of fact, stage magicians use wands because they are showy and can be used to misdirect attention. Wearing a watch does not look magical, I do quite often, and no one has accused me of being magical.

I'm not getting why you think casting from Tedd's watches would look stupid to the few that would notice. I think they'd be impressed that you are casting at all.

If you recall, the watches had multiple functions (not many) which appeared to be activated by touch. While the verbal command is less surreptitious, I believe its function is as a replacement for function selection.

The wand in your pocket you are proposing, I could see that going two ways, either as a very simple device, one specific spell, always on, you think it, you cast it, or as a multi-function tool requiring far more practice and skill because you not only have to think about specific results of one spell, but also select between spells. In terms of the complexity of use, both are on a hair trigger, the first on a hair trigger to cast, the second on a hair trigger to cast and what you are casting. The current wands and the watches are more controllable.

 

5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Which suggests that DGB agents are POINTING the wands at their targets mainly because they want to scare the target into surrendering.

In potterverse it's also mostly the wizard doing the spellcasting.

It does suggest that the wands may be an intimidation factor, but I'm going to suggest that while the DGB agents have spells, actual offensive weapon spells (thinking D&D Magic Missile or Fireball kinds of things) may be rare. The wands may be literally carrying your side arm for lack of a better offense.

Most of the magical offensive technique we've seen have been enhanced physical attacks. Nanase can project blows, at least from her fairy. Raven had some tricks; he still relied on a sword. Even among the aberrations, there was some offensive magic, but heavy reliance on physical attack and near the end mundane technology.

Also, one of the main functions of the DGB agents' wands is to point out that they can cast magic. Dan is substituting a small graphic object for exposition.

The Potterverse is less consistent. If it's mostly the wizard doing the spellcasting, what is the function of the wand? Why does it need a dragon heart string, or a unicorn hair? Is it sentient? How then does it "Choose the wizard", and why are there exceptions, like Ron's hand me down wand? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the books and the movies, but there are things Rowling is good at, color, and feel, and some of the relationships, building a consistent magic system is not one of them; it seems slapdash. It is, to be fair, children's literature, at least as initially conceived.

 

 

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,619]

6 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I wave my cat and cast furball.

This would be a devastating magical effect, if only the range of a single cat wasn't so limited
You really need large scale cat herding for this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE

[hkmaly 490]

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

On 12/12/2019 at 0:25 AM, hkmaly said:

Maybe I am restating the obvious but I don't see how Tedd's unreliability and Dan's changes are relevant to what we are discussing now.

While the FAQ didn't stated exactly what makes the staff better - it just said bigger is better BUT it's not JUST about size - it specifically said HOW it makes the staff better: That it can store more energy. Nothing about making the spells itself different.

Note that change of state may not be visible or even detectable by scientific means. To use electricity as example, batteries generally involve chemical change when storing electricity, but capacitors don't.

Note that Dan himself often prefers to not think hard about something - or at least not giving out more information than necessary for case he would later find he needs something working differently. I believe that's the case of spell catalysts: not only we were not told any details about what influences the storage capacity, Dan himself wouldn't know: so, for example, how good marbles are at storing energy is not decided yet.

Tedd's unreliability and Dan's changes are relevant because those are our primary sources of information about how magic works in the EGS universe.

Yeah, I caught that size had to do with storage; that really does not address the "how". 

To use your example, you can at least observe what kind of materials and construction lead to a better capacitor, even if you don't understand the mechanics. But capacitors do have observable and predictable physical effects; you can measure dielectric constants of materials, then predict how that will affect the capacitance when the capacitor is constructed, if it is a primarily solid state capacitor. For large capacitance per unit volume, capacitors involve chemical dissociation, bleeding over into battery-like behavior.

I would think Tedd would at least be experimenting with this, "Does an elm wand perform as well as an ash wand".

Yes, I would totally expects that even with limited resources Tedd would do at least SOME experimentation about the capacity. It's just that we didn't saw the results. And it's probably far from only experiments we didn't saw the results of ...

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I'll buy the "not decided yet" argument, but also point out that you are answering your own question about how Dan's changes are relevant.

Well, yes you successfully moved the discussion there.

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

On 12/12/2019 at 0:25 AM, hkmaly said:

Now, pure speculation, but marbles are likely to work, but I would be skeptical about using whole bag together, or bag of sand. And I would expect some sort of interference from using something living as a spell catalyst. Glass, well, why not, but the water in it likely not.

The referenced comic is about scrying, using a marble as a crystal ball. Water and basins have been used for this in some mythos, Galadriel used a basin in LotR.

Hence "pure speculation".

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Ted can buy or make hollow wooden tubes. He could fill one with sand. Then incorporate the result in a wand. Does that add or detract from the performance? Would embedding a marble or two in the handle be a useful augmentation?

Yes he can.

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

He could conceivably have access to dragon heart string and make a Potterverse wand. Does that have enhanced function?

Wait what? Where would he get dragon heart string?

Also, I would totally say that he's not good enough in working with wood to do Potterverse wand. I'm not that good either. Also he likely lack proper tools.

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It will be more obvious you are casting with a wand, so more showy. Point of fact, stage magicians use wands because they are showy and can be used to misdirect attention. Wearing a watch does not look magical, I do quite often, and no one has accused me of being magical.

Exactly.

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I'm not getting why you think casting from Tedd's watches would look stupid to the few that would notice. I think they'd be impressed that you are casting at all.

YMMV.

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

If you recall, the watches had multiple functions (not many) which appeared to be activated by touch. While the verbal command is less surreptitious, I believe its function is as a replacement for function selection.

Actually, the touch was just like "work now". The function were SELECTED by thinking. Which is now replaced with verbal command to make harder to cast surreptitiously and surprise the target.

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The wand in your pocket you are proposing, I could see that going two ways, either as a very simple device, one specific spell, always on, you think it, you cast it, or as a multi-function tool requiring far more practice and skill because you not only have to think about specific results of one spell, but also select between spells. In terms of the complexity of use, both are on a hair trigger, the first on a hair trigger to cast, the second on a hair trigger to cast and what you are casting. The current wands and the watches are more controllable.

Well, yes, but think again about how magic users cast their own spells. Not big difference. Really. Might need some training but not so much.

On the other hand yes the current wand is deliberately made as controllable as possible.

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

On 12/12/2019 at 0:25 AM, hkmaly said:

Which suggests that DGB agents are POINTING the wands at their targets mainly because they want to scare the target into surrendering.

In potterverse it's also mostly the wizard doing the spellcasting.

It does suggest that the wands may be an intimidation factor, but I'm going to suggest that while the DGB agents have spells, actual offensive weapon spells (thinking D&D Magic Missile or Fireball kinds of things) may be rare. The wands may be literally carrying your side arm for lack of a better offense.

I was specifically talking about POINTING them, the reason why to HAVE those wands is obvious.

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Most of the magical offensive technique we've seen have been enhanced physical attacks. Nanase can project blows, at least from her fairy. Raven had some tricks; he still relied on a sword. Even among the aberrations, there was some offensive magic, but heavy reliance on physical attack and near the end mundane technology.

Raven "relied" on the sword because the sword was "super-effective" on aberrations.

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Also, one of the main functions of the DGB agents' wands is to point out that they can cast magic. Dan is substituting a small graphic object for exposition.

Out-of-universe explanation, yes. I'm usually trying to find in-universe one.

18 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The Potterverse is less consistent. If it's mostly the wizard doing the spellcasting, what is the function of the wand? Why does it need a dragon heart string, or a unicorn hair? Is it sentient? How then does it "Choose the wizard", and why are there exceptions, like Ron's hand me down wand? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the books and the movies, but there are things Rowling is good at, color, and feel, and some of the relationships, building a consistent magic system is not one of them; it seems slapdash. It is, to be fair, children's literature, at least as initially conceived.

The "choosing the wizard" is something about optimization. It's quite obvious that wizard can use ANY wand - but not as effectively, and specially for learning it makes sense to choose the best match. Note that Ron's wand was not only wand which changed hands, didn't you notice whose wand Voldemort was using? ... aaaand he was actually less effective with it than he hoped due to some technicality.

And regarding the wand core ... it seems that the wood of the wand is mostly there to physically protect the core, which is the actually magical part.

And, well ... the wands are DESCRIBED almost as sentient, but so are computer programs ... might be just because people generally don't understand them.

(And BTW yes, casting without wand is possible in potterverse)

Not just consistent magic system. Rowling is generally not good in world-building, on the other hand the basic premise of wizards hiding in mundane world is extremely hard challenge. ( ... and Dan's solution is not so super either, but at least he's not pretending it's possible to hide major conflict, and it SEEMS there are less magic users to hide in Dan's world.)

[Darth Fluffy 338]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Well, yes you successfully moved the discussion there.

Do I get points?

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Wait what? Where would he get dragon heart string?

Apparently not in their own world, so that's a difficulty, but they have contact with other universes, some of which are know to have dragons. If they contact Magus/Ellen again, he would likely be amenable to supplying some. Could he though? Either that or he's likely stuck on their world. The griffins' side might be a source, no talk of dragons, but direct evidence of some fantasy creatures, and possible mention of another. (Hippos? Hippos.) The warehouse had the large "Dragon" scale; they got it from somewhere.

They also have reborn Pandora as a pending resource to guide them.

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Also, I would totally say that he's not good enough in working with wood to do Potterverse wand. I'm not that good either. Also he likely lack proper tools.

A plastic wand would be easier to work with. More to test, Tedd.

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

YMMV.

You wouldn't be impressed?

I suppose my first response would be looking for the trick, so OK, I could see that.

 

[hkmaly 490]

9 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Wait what? Where would he get dragon heart string?

Apparently not in their own world, so that's a difficulty, but they have contact with other universes, some of which are know to have dragons. If they contact Magus/Ellen again, he would likely be amenable to supplying some. Could he though? Either that or he's likely stuck on their world. The griffins' side might be a source, no talk of dragons, but direct evidence of some fantasy creatures, and possible mention of another. (Hippos? Hippos.) The warehouse had the large "Dragon" scale; they got it from somewhere.

They also have reborn Pandora as a pending resource to guide them.

That's sounds like something between "theoretical" and "long-term". Note that hippos are usually not considered fantasy and the scale was quite old, heartstring might not last so long ...

Of course, speaking about Pandora, using her hair sounds like safer and possible-to-be-done-sooner experiment. Sure, fairy and veela are not entirely same creature, but similar enough to be worth the try.

That is, assuming that Pandora's hair is corporeal enough.

9 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

YMMV.

You wouldn't be impressed?

I suppose my first response would be looking for the trick, so OK, I could see that.

With the spell itself, sure (well, presumably, we didn't specified what spell would it be). But with it being casted by cheap plastic toy, no.

[Darth Fluffy 338]

9 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

That's sounds like something between "theoretical" and "long-term". Note that hippos are usually not considered fantasy and the scale was quite old, heartstring might not last so long ...

Of course, speaking about Pandora, using her hair sounds like safer and possible-to-be-done-sooner experiment. Sure, fairy and veela are not entirely same creature, but similar enough to be worth the try.

That is, assuming that Pandora's hair is corporeal enough.

With the spell itself, sure (well, presumably, we didn't specified what spell would it be). But with it being casted by cheap plastic toy, no.

I took the confusion over hippos to mean that the Griffin meant hippogriff.

I agree, it would mean long term.

[hkmaly 490]

16 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I took the confusion over hippos to mean that the Griffin meant hippogriff.

It's possible, but hippopotami are quite dangerous animals responsible for more deaths than lions so the alternative of Tara meaning actually hippopotami would be also possible and IMHO more funny.

(Hippopotami IS the correct plural, right? My greek is little rusty.)

[Darth Fluffy 338]

3 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

It's possible, but hippopotami are quite dangerous animals responsible for more deaths than lions so the alternative of Tara meaning actually hippopotami would be also possible and IMHO more funny.

(Hippopotami IS the correct plural, right? My greek is little rusty.)

Quick Google search says either hippopotamuses or hippopotami. The caveat would be, if you are using the word in English.

Deer are responsible for a surprising number of deaths, generally for odd reasons, like accidentally hitting them at high speed.

[hkmaly 490]

41 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

50 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

(Hippopotami IS the correct plural, right? My greek is little rusty.)

Quick Google search says either hippopotamuses or hippopotami. The caveat would be, if you are using the word in English.

That was a joke, the wikipedia article does explains that.

42 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Deer are responsible for a surprising number of deaths, generally for odd reasons, like accidentally hitting them at high speed.

Hippopotami are capable of surprisingly high speed themselves. Also, they have big teeth and the fact they will split you out after chewing because they don't eat meat won't make you less dead.

Of course, hippopotami are responsible for many deaths in Africa, but considerably less in Europe and none in Antarctic. In Europe, deer is probably responsible for more deaths simply because it's more common.

 

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,619]

9 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Hippopotami IS the correct plural, right?

One Hippopotami
Can not get on a bus
Because One Hippopotami
Is Two Hippopotamus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVekfpXJGBc

[Scotty 1,061]

30 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

One Hippopotami
Can not get on a bus
Because One Hippopotami
Is Two Hippopotamus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVekfpXJGBc

And of course, because it's that time of year:

 

[Darth Fluffy 338]

Notice that the video is black and white. That's why, many years later, Mariah Carey sang, "All I want for Christmas is Hue."