Talk:Cryptek

Just wrap it all back up ?

I can see why individual entries were written up for each of the new Cryptek classes back when they were drip fed to us, but considering each of them is a stub and there isn't that much to write for each of them, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to just put them all back together as subsections of this page, with their individual crunch like :

==On the Tabletop

===Technomancer

===Psychomancer

===Chronomancer

===Plasmancer

(Their individualized lore can fit in one paragraph for now)

THAT OR

The Technomancer needs his own page, but it needs to be all consistent. Westonbirt (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think we can just wrap everything back to the Cryptek page. I think the page is a little sparse on content anyway. If there's a major lore dump later on that makes this page too cluttered then we can just split it again letter. For now though, it's not worth having all those stubs.--TheJollyGrognard (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Will start working on porting everything back, page deletions can wait. Westonbirt (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Technowizardry

Just read "Infinite and Divine" and "Severed". Their techno-nerd stuff works exactly like wizardry. Not in a 3rd Clarke's Law way, literal wizardry, with old laws of sympathy and semiotics, with physics being tangential. Also, it is acknowledged as such from their own point of view. So, really shitty canon control or deeper lore implications, like sorcery and science eventually converging at some point in the 'verse? Because this would mesh interestingly with tidbits about Akashic records, STC/human archeotech, and Omnissiah.--Arisano (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)