Right. Thanks, Hark, that helps clear A TON of stuff.
... so it would actually be possible to explain Feylin's energy field with Gellar Fields of WH40K. Whelp, that's one thing that I may actually need to research and see if that makes sense.
Advertisement

by Oscalantine » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:32 am
by Ralnis » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:35 am
Harkback Union wrote:Ralnis wrote:I am guessing that the Myr Xan are in the ice sheets?
You'll be playing with special rules. You'll start with Cold blooded trait and your starting region will have +3 Food and +1 Raw materials. You cannot build gardens in ice sheet regions. Each piece of ice sheet south of a Coldlands or Treelands region counts as a separate region. You should choose one region to be south of.

by Prusslandia » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:36 am

by Harkback Union » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:37 am
Ralnis wrote:Harkback Union wrote:You'll be playing with special rules. You'll start with Cold blooded trait and your starting region will have +3 Food and +1 Raw materials. You cannot build gardens in ice sheet regions. Each piece of ice sheet south of a Coldlands or Treelands region counts as a separate region. You should choose one region to be south of.
Shoot, looks like I don't need to make my boats to start going over seas. I will be near the Coldlands since I have an establish ally in that region.

by G-Tech Corporation » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:37 am
Oscalantine wrote:G-Tech Corporation wrote:
Heh. Calling the Force scifi is like calling Tolkien historical fiction.
You and me both. That is not what I am saying. I was just making a reference so that it looks like a complete list instead of something offscope... plus, if George Lucas comes here, I don't want to be force-choked from comfort of my own home.
About your other post... yes, you do have a point. But does one REALLY have to explain that in science? I feel like that is where I would leave things there. Personally, I like approaching the RPCs with a grain of salt that they won't abuse the flexibility that is allowed. If they do, I will personally take responsibility as co-OP who actually allowed this to happen and annoy the said perpetrator to the ends of the Earth to fix this said wrongs. Unless that happens, though... I feel like asking why Ents walk is too much science... no offense.

by In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:38 am

by The Flame Dawn » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:40 am

by Harkback Union » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:41 am


by Jute » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:42 am
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science
and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
"A rejection of all philosophy is in itself philosophy."
by Ralnis » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:44 am

by The Orson Empire » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:45 am

by Jute » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:45 am
Oscalantine wrote:G-Tech Corporation wrote:
Heh. Calling the Force scifi is like calling Tolkien historical fiction.
You and me both. That is not what I am saying. I was just making a reference so that it looks like a complete list instead of something offscope... plus, if George Lucas comes here, I don't want to be force-choked from comfort of my own home.
About your other post... yes, you do have a point. But does one REALLY have to explain that in science? I feel like that is where I would leave things there. Personally, I like approaching the RPCs with a grain of salt that they won't abuse the flexibility that is allowed. If they do, I will personally take responsibility as co-OP who actually allowed this to happen and annoy the said perpetrator to the ends of the Earth to fix this said wrongs. Unless that happens, though... I feel like asking why Ents walk is too much science... no offense.
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science
and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
"A rejection of all philosophy is in itself philosophy."

by Oscalantine » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:47 am
Prusslandia wrote:Gellar field won't work. IIRC, a gellar field is merely a vanguard against the daemons of the warp. Like a mind barrier.
G-Tech Corporation wrote:Oscalantine wrote:
You and me both. That is not what I am saying. I was just making a reference so that it looks like a complete list instead of something offscope... plus, if George Lucas comes here, I don't want to be force-choked from comfort of my own home.
About your other post... yes, you do have a point. But does one REALLY have to explain that in science? I feel like that is where I would leave things there. Personally, I like approaching the RPCs with a grain of salt that they won't abuse the flexibility that is allowed. If they do, I will personally take responsibility as co-OP who actually allowed this to happen and annoy the said perpetrator to the ends of the Earth to fix this said wrongs. Unless that happens, though... I feel like asking why Ents walk is too much science... no offense.
Well, it seems like a legitimate question to establish the extent of their 'walking'.
Let me put it this way- if we didn't call them Ents, and they were bushes instead of trees, would we be so quick to accept them walking as a matter of course? Ents are an established trope in our collective cultural psyche- but one entrenched purely by fantastical universes, not ones aiming for believably like this one.
Plants simply don't walk- they have no muscles, and specimens that use turgor pressure to move even a part of their bodies are far and few between. A tree in motion is a tree breaking its rigid wood, and its bark- as such, it doesn't seem unreasonable for us to try and figure out how trees move without snapping in half every time they do so, and how they can create a motion impetus in the first place. I'm not asking for a scientific thesis on the topic- just something that makes sense, or if not, to modify the civ so it does make sense. Thinking trees? Fine, that's pretty cool, so I'll suspend a bit of my disbelief. But don't make thinking flying trees that shoot lightening from their branches- Rule of Cool only goes so far.

by G-Tech Corporation » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:48 am
Jute wrote:Oscalantine wrote:
You and me both. That is not what I am saying. I was just making a reference so that it looks like a complete list instead of something offscope... plus, if George Lucas comes here, I don't want to be force-choked from comfort of my own home.
About your other post... yes, you do have a point. But does one REALLY have to explain that in science? I feel like that is where I would leave things there. Personally, I like approaching the RPCs with a grain of salt that they won't abuse the flexibility that is allowed. If they do, I will personally take responsibility as co-OP who actually allowed this to happen and annoy the said perpetrator to the ends of the Earth to fix this said wrongs. Unless that happens, though... I feel like asking why Ents walk is too much science... no offense.
They walk by removing their and replanting their roots, maybe? This is why it takes them so long to move, but it would have been a beneficial evolutionary trait, since you can find a better place to live that way and aren't bound to it. Especially helpful in cases of dryness, darkness etc.

by Jute » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:49 am
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science
and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
"A rejection of all philosophy is in itself philosophy."
by Aidannadia » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:49 am

by G-Tech Corporation » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:50 am
Oscalantine wrote:I wonder if this will cull your thoughts: couldn't we meet at half-ground if we said that "Ents" can "move" by a unique system of aerial roots, where extending and retracting roots in peculiar fashion can facilitate... while not walking through snapping barks and fibers... movement around the forest that will make it seem like to other species that "Ents" are actually "walking"? In that sense, I guess same aerial roots can be used as a primary means of interaction, holding onto particular artifacts of need.

by Prusslandia » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:51 am
Oscalantine wrote:Prusslandia wrote:Gellar field won't work. IIRC, a gellar field is merely a vanguard against the daemons of the warp. Like a mind barrier.
Thanks for ruining my happy-time,
G-Tech Corporation wrote:
Well, it seems like a legitimate question to establish the extent of their 'walking'.
Let me put it this way- if we didn't call them Ents, and they were bushes instead of trees, would we be so quick to accept them walking as a matter of course? Ents are an established trope in our collective cultural psyche- but one entrenched purely by fantastical universes, not ones aiming for believably like this one.
Plants simply don't walk- they have no muscles, and specimens that use turgor pressure to move even a part of their bodies are far and few between. A tree in motion is a tree breaking its rigid wood, and its bark- as such, it doesn't seem unreasonable for us to try and figure out how trees move without snapping in half every time they do so, and how they can create a motion impetus in the first place. I'm not asking for a scientific thesis on the topic- just something that makes sense, or if not, to modify the civ so it does make sense. Thinking trees? Fine, that's pretty cool, so I'll suspend a bit of my disbelief. But don't make thinking flying trees that shoot lightening from their branches- Rule of Cool only goes so far.
I really feel like we are sincerely burning our braincells for all the wrong things.
I wonder if this will cull your thoughts: couldn't we meet at half-ground if we said that "Ents" can "move" by a unique system of aerial roots, where extending and retracting roots in peculiar fashion can facilitate... while not walking through snapping barks and fibers... movement around the forest that will make it seem like to other species that "Ents" are actually "walking"? In that sense, I guess same aerial roots can be used as a primary means of interaction, holding onto particular artifacts of need.

by The Flame Dawn » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:51 am
Harkback Union wrote:-snip-

by Denmark-Hanover and Skaneland » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:52 am
Oscalantine wrote:Prusslandia wrote:Gellar field won't work. IIRC, a gellar field is merely a vanguard against the daemons of the warp. Like a mind barrier.
Thanks for ruining my happy-time,
G-Tech Corporation wrote:
Well, it seems like a legitimate question to establish the extent of their 'walking'.
Let me put it this way- if we didn't call them Ents, and they were bushes instead of trees, would we be so quick to accept them walking as a matter of course? Ents are an established trope in our collective cultural psyche- but one entrenched purely by fantastical universes, not ones aiming for believably like this one.
Plants simply don't walk- they have no muscles, and specimens that use turgor pressure to move even a part of their bodies are far and few between. A tree in motion is a tree breaking its rigid wood, and its bark- as such, it doesn't seem unreasonable for us to try and figure out how trees move without snapping in half every time they do so, and how they can create a motion impetus in the first place. I'm not asking for a scientific thesis on the topic- just something that makes sense, or if not, to modify the civ so it does make sense. Thinking trees? Fine, that's pretty cool, so I'll suspend a bit of my disbelief. But don't make thinking flying trees that shoot lightening from their branches- Rule of Cool only goes so far.
I really feel like we are sincerely burning our braincells for all the wrong things.
I wonder if this will cull your thoughts: couldn't we meet at half-ground if we said that "Ents" can "move" by a unique system of aerial roots, where extending and retracting roots in peculiar fashion can facilitate... while not walking through snapping barks and fibers... movement around the forest that will make it seem like to other species that "Ents" are actually "walking"? In that sense, I guess same aerial roots can be used as a primary means of interaction, holding onto particular artifacts of need.

by Oscalantine » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:53 am
G-Tech Corporation wrote:Oscalantine wrote:I wonder if this will cull your thoughts: couldn't we meet at half-ground if we said that "Ents" can "move" by a unique system of aerial roots, where extending and retracting roots in peculiar fashion can facilitate... while not walking through snapping barks and fibers... movement around the forest that will make it seem like to other species that "Ents" are actually "walking"? In that sense, I guess same aerial roots can be used as a primary means of interaction, holding onto particular artifacts of need.
So the aerial roots attach to other objects and pull the entire tree along? That might work for younger trees, but the fluid pressure required to move a full-fledged tree will be quite impressive.

by Oscalantine » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:55 am
Prusslandia wrote:Just roll with sonic resonance.

by Denmark-Hanover and Skaneland » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:56 am
Oscalantine wrote:G-Tech Corporation wrote:
So the aerial roots attach to other objects and pull the entire tree along? That might work for younger trees, but the fluid pressure required to move a full-fledged tree will be quite impressive.
The point is: are you buying this or do I have to make another excuse? Please cut me some slack. It is 2am and I am in no place to crack my skull for biology which I haven't revisited since high school.
Anyhow, if enough can sprout from "Ents" fast and often enough, it could facilitate as movement. Now, that would be extremely slow... since you literally are growing a new set of roots to push the trees along. However, I feel like it would be fast enough to justify the movement notion while maintaining your logical reasoning that trees tend to be rigid and will break if you move the barks often enough.
Advertisement
Return to Portal to the Multiverse
Users browsing this forum: Britanania
Advertisement