• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
Scotty

NP, Wednesday October 19, 2016

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Wikipedia lists more entries but I don't see anything about the intergal (or integral) part of a whole there. Except that military bit.

You may have noticed I'm ex military.  "Organic assets" vs "Attached assets" are very freaking important.  Unless the crap1 has hit the fan hard Organic assets tend to stay with you.  Attached assets will go away just as you need them.  Voice of personal experience. 

1Not the word normally used in that context.  Often modified by the not work place friendly of fracking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mlooney said:

You may have noticed I'm ex military.  "Organic assets" vs "Attached assets" are very freaking important.  Unless the crap1 has hit the fan hard Organic assets tend to stay with you.  Attached assets will go away just as you need them.  Voice of personal experience.

Indeed. Hence the terms SNAFU (Situation Normal, All Fouled Up) and FUBAR (Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition), only the verb in question isn't actually 'fouled.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2016 at 5:39 AM, malloyd said:
On 10/22/2016 at 4:42 AM, mlooney said:

Organic has 3 meanings. Only one has to do with carbon

  1. has carbon
  2. An intergal part of a whole
  3. The hippy one.

Actually chemists are a bit vague on "has carbon" - there are things that have carbon but aren't organic (carbonates for example) and a few things that lack it that are sometimes allowed in the club (siloxanes, sulfur chains and the like). 

I suspect diamond is not considered organic, but carbon nanotubes likely are ...

On 10/22/2016 at 5:39 AM, malloyd said:

Of course the *original* meaning of the term in chemistry actually has nothing to do with carbon at all, it's "stuff made by (or found in) organisms" - dating back to the time when it was legitimate science to think life could be made of something different than the rest of creation.

It also used to be legitimate science to debate how many angels can dance on head of a pin. Nowadays, such question would be rejected as unscientific, although you can get pretty far with question if two intelligences can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously or if, similarly to fermions, they can't, before they catch up.

On 10/22/2016 at 5:39 AM, malloyd said:

Given the way magic is usually portrayed, if the term matters at all to it, it is likely to use that definition - magic cares about life a lot more than about atomic nuclei

Does it? IMHO magic cares about souls, auras and stuff like that, not about biology.

(Although until someone in EGS will get turned to stone and then get better, we wouldn't know for sure.)

On 10/22/2016 at 7:19 AM, mlooney said:

You may have noticed I'm ex military.

No, I never noticed you are EX military. I though military have Internet access nowadays.

23 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Indeed. Hence the terms SNAFU (Situation Normal, All Fouled Up) and FUBAR (Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition), only the verb in question isn't actually 'fouled.'

"... but these fokkers were flying Messerschmidts."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(Although until someone in EGS will get turned to stone and then get better, we wouldn't know for sure.)

I think Abraham is a good example of a petrification spell with a release condition added to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scotty said:
17 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(Although until someone in EGS will get turned to stone and then get better, we wouldn't know for sure.)

I think Abraham is a good example of a petrification spell with a release condition added to it.

Oh. Right. Forgot about this. So, as long as Abraham was chemically convincing stone, then we KNOW magic doesn't really care about organic molecules or chemical base of life. The stone statue still counted as transformed Abraham despite not being alive in physical/chemical sense. Explanation? Aura, soul or something similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Oh. Right. Forgot about this. So, as long as Abraham was chemically convincing stone, then we KNOW magic doesn't really care about organic molecules or chemical base of life. The stone statue still counted as transformed Abraham despite not being alive in physical/chemical sense. Explanation? Aura, soul or something similar.

My guess is Abraham used some means of preserving his spirit or whatever, maybe it wasn't true stone, but still it was enough to look and feel like it while putting him in a form of stasis for years, decades and centuries if needed.

I would understand Dan being against the idea of petrification killing a person and coming up with the stasis mechanic for it. So I can see someone who was cursed with a petrification enchantment being freed from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Scotty said:
38 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Oh. Right. Forgot about this. So, as long as Abraham was chemically convincing stone, then we KNOW magic doesn't really care about organic molecules or chemical base of life. The stone statue still counted as transformed Abraham despite not being alive in physical/chemical sense. Explanation? Aura, soul or something similar.

My guess is Abraham used some means of preserving his spirit or whatever, maybe it wasn't true stone, but still it was enough to look and feel like it while putting him in a form of stasis for years, decades and centuries if needed.

Spirit, yes. That's the third word I wanted to add after the aura and soul and wasn't able to remember.

20 minutes ago, Scotty said:

I would understand Dan being against the idea of petrification killing a person and coming up with the stasis mechanic for it. So I can see someone who was cursed with a petrification enchantment being freed from it.

Wouldn't be only one. Wotch have temporary petrification, Dragon Doctors, even Modest Medusa ... and in Harry Potter, they also cured people petrified by basilisk. And petrification is temporary in any game I played (although that doesn't mean so much, in many cases so is death.)

Of course, in EGS it makes sense, as ALL enchantments are temporary by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty said:

I would understand Dan being against the idea of petrification killing a person and coming up with the stasis mechanic for it. So I can see someone who was cursed with a petrification enchantment being freed from it.

And then if someone tosses the petrified person against the Dewitchery Diamond, you get:

One person who can turn to stone, and back again, at will. (How does the "at will" part work for turning back? Does a stone statue even HAVE any will?)

One statue of a person, which can turn other people to stone. (Sounds dangerous. If it only happens when the statue wills it, see previous paragraph. If it happens automatically on contact, transporting, storage, or disposal of the statue will be problematic.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

And then if someone tosses the petrified person against the Dewitchery Diamond

... is Dewitchery Diamond really able to separate ANY enchantment?

1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

How does the "at will" part work for turning back? Does a stone statue even HAVE any will?

Maybe it can be timed. Like, "I want to turn to statue for one week". Or "I want to turn to statue until the Dewitchery Diamond is activated".

1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

If it happens automatically on contact, transporting, storage, or disposal of the statue will be problematic

Hmmmm ... depends what counts as contact. Gloves might be enough to protect against that - or not. You can definitely toss grenade to the statue from safe distance, but is it good idea if the parts of statue might retain this effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ijuin said:

You can always do the Terminator 2 solution and encase the whole thing in a big mass of concrete or whatever.

They MELT Terminator 2. Encasing in big mass of concrete is usually done in case of radiation problems like broken reactor.

(Of course that makes even more likely it will work.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ijuin said:

Well yes, but it is a good way of dealing with something that you can neither touch nor break into small pieces safely . . .

Yes. Therefore,

2 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

(Of course that makes even more likely it will work.)

I agree it's good method, I just mentioned that it wasn't the method used in Terminator 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2016 at 0:34 AM, hkmaly said:

and in Harry Potter, they also cured people petrified by basilisk.

Although it was mentioned that this was because none had caught the direct glare, only reflections or (in one case) where it had already been partly absorbed by a ghost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it looks like Operation Tiny Kitty is about to commence.  I wonder how/if spells interact in the EGS-verse.  Will one cancel the other (tiny normal Catalina), will they combine cleanly (tiny Catalina with kitty ears and tail) or will they combine in some odd way (fully feline Catalina, only tiny? something more random?)?  

I know, I know, most likely the only real question is whether the clothes will shrink or not.  Given that this comic is PG-13 at its most extreme, I'm guessing the clothes will either all shrink or at the very least her underwear will.  Although, furry Catalina would solve the clothing problem....just sayin'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Rhoda has said that she will try to shrink Catalina's clothes too, I think that something size-change-y is going to happen with her clothes, but given hijinks, they probably still won't fit Catalina very well, and may even be falling off anyway.

As for spells cancelling each other, we know that transformations usually overwrite each other, but is sizechange enough of a transformation that it overrules the catgirl transformation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Circe said:

So it looks like Operation Tiny Kitty is about to commence.  I wonder how/if spells interact in the EGS-verse.  Will one cancel the other (tiny normal Catalina), will they combine cleanly (tiny Catalina with kitty ears and tail) or will they combine in some odd way (fully feline Catalina, only tiny? something more random?)? 

2 minutes ago, ijuin said:

As for spells cancelling each other, we know that transformations usually overwrite each other, but is sizechange enough of a transformation that it overrules the catgirl transformation?

I know Tedd was mainly talking about the watches, but I think this would be situation where there's a cumulative effect, Rhoda's size changing and Catalina's cat morph are technically two different types of morphs so they wouldn't cancel each other out. If Catalina was hit by another enchant that changed her into another animal person, then of course it would cancel out the cat form. I would imagine Ellen zapping Catalina would also result in a busty catgirl...and would definitely result in attracting Otaku...and probably anyone else.

5 hours ago, Circe said:

I know, I know, most likely the only real question is whether the clothes will shrink or not.  Given that this comic is PG-13 at its most extreme, I'm guessing the clothes will either all shrink or at the very least her underwear will.  Although, furry Catalina would solve the clothing problem....just sayin'.

Dan could still do it, but he would likely stage it so we don't see much, like Catalina from her back, maybe she's covered by the pile of clothes. The however Rhoda ends up carrying Catalina, we'll just see her head poking out of a pocket or...well...maybe this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ijuin said:

As for spells cancelling each other, we know that transformations usually overwrite each other, but is sizechange enough of a transformation that it overrules the catgirl transformation?

No. It's specifically TF gun transformations (or Uryuom transformations) which overwrite each other. The definitive answer about spells is "it varies".

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

If Catalina was hit by another enchant that changed her into another animal person, then of course it would cancel out the cat form.

Even if it would be another-animal-person enchantment, it STILL might stack (combine). Meanwhile, we can't rule out two unrelated enchantments replacing each other, because we were not told any rules. So far, however, it looks like most enchantments stacking.

1 hour ago, Scotty said:
7 hours ago, Circe said:

I know, I know, most likely the only real question is whether the clothes will shrink or not.  Given that this comic is PG-13 at its most extreme, I'm guessing the clothes will either all shrink or at the very least her underwear will.  Although, furry Catalina would solve the clothing problem....just sayin'.

Dan could still do it, but he would likely stage it so we don't see much, like Catalina from her back, maybe she's covered by the pile of clothes. The however Rhoda ends up carrying Catalina, we'll just see her head poking out of a pocket or...well...maybe this.

The shrinking itself is EASY to do in way she will still be covered by clothes. And Rhoda carrying naked Catalina will be much easier to stage than naked Grace in MV5 NP story, so I actually expect that is EXACTLY what will happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Even if it would be another-animal-person enchantment, it STILL might stack (combine). Meanwhile, we can't rule out two unrelated enchantments replacing each other, because we were not told any rules. So far, however, it looks like most enchantments stacking.


It might make a difference with the principle behind a particular morph spell. I can see at least three ways a morph spell might work.

 

First option would be that it just applies a cosmetic change. Ear's, fur, tails and whatever changes the spell grants is modified from the targets own biology. Zap Susan and get a tissue sample to a genetics lab and it will still be identified as her DNA.

The other would be to create an animal / human hybrid creature. Zap Susan and rush that tissue sample to that lab and watch confusion set in as they can't tell just what kind of creature the sample came from.

The third way would be to have the spell magically graft any animal attributes to the target creating a chimera. Zap Susan (again) and get a few samples to the lab and the results would be that depending on where the sample was taken the DNA is either Susan's or it comes from whatever animal was used for the morph.

It could also be done using only illusions, but where's the fun in that?

It's entirely possible that all of these kinds of morph spells exists. Some may be harder than others, and some more flexible than others, but it's also possible that the way they interact depends on the principle behind them. Perhaps zapping Susan with two hybrid spells after each other the last one will overwrite the first. But if the second spell was cosmetic it might just apply the cosmetic changes to the already hybridized Susan.

Not saying it works that way, just that the possibility exists that not all morph spells works the same way.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Cpt. Obvious said:

First option would be that it just applies a cosmetic change. Ear's, fur, tails and whatever changes the spell grants is modified from the targets own biology. Zap Susan and get a tissue sample to a genetics lab and it will still be identified as her DNA.

The other would be to create an animal / human hybrid creature. Zap Susan and rush that tissue sample to that lab and watch confusion set in as they can't tell just what kind of creature the sample came from.

The third way would be to have the spell magically graft any animal attributes to the target creating a chimera. Zap Susan (again) and get a few samples to the lab and the results would be that depending on where the sample was taken the DNA is either Susan's or it comes from whatever animal was used for the morph.

It could also be done using only illusions, but where's the fun in that?

Illusion would be different kind of magic, so I think your three cases cover everything. Well, there may be also option 2.5 - that depending on where the sample was taken the DNA is Susan, the animal or chimera.

18 minutes ago, Cpt. Obvious said:

It's entirely possible that all of these kinds of morph spells exists. Some may be harder than others, and some more flexible than others, but it's also possible that the way they interact depends on the principle behind them. Perhaps zapping Susan with two hybrid spells after each other the last one will overwrite the first. But if the second spell was cosmetic it might just apply the cosmetic changes to the already hybridized Susan.

While examining the types can be interesting, it doesn't change the possibilities. There is always option the second spell will overwrite the first one. There is always option that the second spell will take result of first spell as starting point (although when combining two type 3 spells, the result might then be dangerously unstable ; but hey, even in Dragon Doctors, where transformations are nowhere as safe as in EGS, some people survived that). And there is always third option, that the combination of spells will produce some unexpected effects like when Susan combined her summoning with Nanase's fairy doll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this