I believe so yes. Although when you set stories can be a little bit more fluidly defined now that we have an actual timeline. I think that's when I stuck War of the Wheel on the timeline anyway.

Yeah, we can choose where along the timeline we choose to place things since there's a way to actually visualize it.

Wild Card, for example takes place over a year ago.

Good to know.

Do we have any idea how small a Segovian human would be? A foot? A couple inches? A couple milimeters?

I found this while search for the answer. This was posted 2nd hand from a forum, so I cannot promise it is real.

""Segovia is actually a miniature plane. Everything within it is only a 100th the size of its Dominarian counterpart. That's why only the Segovian leviathan has ever been summoned - your average army of Segovian humans could be crushed under a single goblin's foot and the biggest Segovian dragon isn't any bigger than a Dominarian dragonfly. Segovians are unlikely to be summoned to any battles by planeswalkers, which is just fine by them."

- Pete Venters, Duelist #25, Dominian FAQ"

So I believe that means humans would be less than an inch tall.

1% scale, eh? If that refers to 1 dimension (height) 5'8" is 173cm (roughly) so a tall-to-average segovian would be... 1.7cm tall, or about 2/3 of an inch. Sadly, I think that's too small for what I was hoping to do.

If it's volume? The volume of an average human is 70 liters, so a segovian (at 1% volume) would be .7 Liters, or about 43 cubic inches. An image of the Vitruvian Man (just the main body, with enough space to the left and right for arms at his sides) is 276 pixels tall and 94 broad, or about 275:100, or 11 units tall to 4 units broad. if we assume he's 2 units thick (half as thick as he is broad), which is a very ballpark estimate, he's got 11x4x2 or... 88 cubic units. This means, at Segovian scale, that his units contain about 1/2 a cubic inch of volume each. Cube root of .5 is .79, so that's the length of an edge for Segovian Vitruvian unit, suggesting an average Volume Segovian would be about 8.7 inches tall -- which would be decently noticeable, perhaps a bit larger than I was hoping. Certainly larger than an army crushed beneath a goblin's foot (at least if the crushing is to occur in one go)

...

A Superman with words I write,
But math remains my kryptonite.

In any case, the end result is that if I want to see what I can do with a 3-inch (or so) tall planeswalker, "segovian human" is probably not the right way to go about it.

How about a Segovian Giant? Maral is apparently about 18 feet tall or so, about three times the average American male. A Segovian Giant could potentially be right around 3-inches.

Yeah, that might be the answer. If anything, I suppose it makes the switch more pointed: On one world, a giant towering above ordinary folk. On all others, mouse-scale.

I like it.

Another possible option is to use Raiker Venn, if you want to. He's been known to do stuff like that to planeswalkers before.

It's a good approach in my opinion.

As an aside, and I'm sorry to say that I can't place exactly where this may have come from aside from the possibility of deriving from Taysir's Journal, but the Segovian Leviathan is, apparently, roughly the size of an adult elephant. (Indian Elephant, from what I gathered.)

Interesting. I suppose it is the same size in terms of gameplay as an Elephant.

Okay, this is an odd question, but I'm just curious on people's take on this.

How do you personally define "knowing" something?

What I mean is, can someone only "know" something if that thing is actually "true," or does "knowing" only imply a personal certainty of a thing?

I think of "knowing" as the belief that something is true. Which does not necessarily imply that it is, just that I think it is.

For example, I "know" that Mrs. OL and I went on our first date the week before Thanksgiving. Interestingly enough, Mrs. OL "knows" that we went on our first date the week after Thanksgiving. Obviously, one of us is wrong (and, on prior form, it's probably me), but we each "know" that we are correct whereas the other person is wrong.

yeah, knowing has a certainly personal measure that you accept something as truth.
It's one reason that I sort of wish grok were more widely used, because it has a sort of universal quality that transcends personal experience. That certainty just blasts through even the agreed consensus.

Knowing is the overlap of belief and fact. If you believe something is true and it actually is, then you know it. Of course, you never really know if you know something. When you say you "know" something, you really mean you believe it quite strongly.

Okay, so it seems most people are of the opinion that something does not necessarily have to be fact in order to be "known"? I guess that does make sense, just given the ultimate uncertainty of all (nearly) knowledge.

Well, there's an extra layer of uncertainty involved in the things we... can't exactly prove. We (mostly) accept that evolution, the big bang, and gravity are all things, but we have to refer to them as "theories" because we lack aspects to prove it definitively, though it seems obvious in retrospect.

Sure. So I guess it boils down to the question of whether you are comfortable saying that you "know" gravity exists despite being unable to "prove" it in the strictest sense.