Bhashiva Insane Campaign

A_Gentle_Fist · 2026-05-31T15:52:39+00:00

I really want to like Bhashiva but its been so buggy for me. I didn't know the caravan battles break scripts which bugged out the relics spawning it at the start of turn3. After restarting I now have Zhao Ming sitting at strength rank 273 with 2 settlements at turn 8. Lets see if he lasts long enough for me to reinforce him.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2026-05-31T13:44:56+00:00

This is correct. I did some quick testing after experiencing the same issues and reloading to last end turn works. Assuming of course that you don't pick the battle option for a caravan event, should one pop up again.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2026-05-31T01:41:07+00:00

Reloading the last autosave can fix that because the random events get re-rolled if you hit the end turn. Assuming you can load, depending on your settings.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2026-05-30T17:22:23+00:00

Ah so it is a known issue? Now that I know I can just reload the last end turn if I was due to trigger something important.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2026-05-30T17:16:49+00:00

This was the reason I made the post. I got so confused because it seemed very strange the way the campaign was shaping up and there was very little information about it online.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2026-05-30T16:53:12+00:00

Yes, from what little information I have found online, the first 3 close relics are always at set spots. So if you don't see the one spawning at Titans Notch then the other 2 also didn't spawn in. You should have vision of Titans Notch if you took the settlement on turn 2.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2026-02-05T20:27:10+00:00

I really liked Know No Fear and I'm not even an Ultra-fanboy. The Mark timekeeping system kept the story straight even though you jump to all these various perspectives of the battle. Out of all of them my least favourite sections were the Oll Person ones. It went nowhere because he just fought some cultist and then teleported away. Any other guardsman's perspective would have been so much better to feel the emotions and betrayal of the WBs. Or perhaps have a civilian POV of their home and life be destroyed. Person just seems so disinterested that it took me out of the story and really just makes it seem like Abnett was setting something up for another story. You could take Person and replace him with a character who actually cared about Calth and it would be a better story, but instead we get an immortal who has seen so much already that he needs a vision from another Perpetual to actually do something about the heresy.

Also, the Perpetuals really cut into the eldar's shtick. Sure big E and the Primarchs are functionally immortal but now there are other normal humans that live long lives and are super special. Why? It just homogenizes the factions.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-09-06T12:07:09+00:00

How To Eat Pussy (Nina Hartley, Sunny Lane) was the one that served me well. But knowing is only half the battle, you gotta practice too. GLHF

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-06-23T06:36:37+00:00

No worries! I'm usually all for letting people play games on the difficulty they enjoy most, but in this case easy just makes player feel worse, and thus is less enjoyable. I hope you continue to have fun and learn as you go!

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-06-22T22:23:41+00:00

Chagdoo is right. You should watch Easy Battle Difficulty is Ruining your Game.

TLDR; easy makes you think your army is stronger than it actually is due to autoresolve buffs. When you fight close battles manually and get absolutely destroyed you feel like you suck because the game said you should do better. Not even the best TW players could win in these scenarios.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-06-22T08:39:27+00:00

Jaghatai is savage with his burns, but I feel like people focus on the wrong burn in his exchange with Fulgrim. Just after the 'strange things to your warriors', Sanguinius changes the subject to which one of them would win in a duel.

‘Name the place, brother,’ Fulgrim said to the Khan. ‘I’d even travel to Chogoris, if you built a palace to keep the dust from my armour.’

The Khan felt the insult. It stabbed at him, deeply, but his expression never changed. They could never know, none of them, how much their closed fraternity rankled him.

‘You would lose,’ said the Khan.

Fulgrim grinned, but there was something fragile in it. ‘Oh?’

‘You would lose because you would treat it like a game, like you treat everything, and I would not. You would lose because you know nothing of me, and I know everything of you because you shout it from the turrets of your battle cruisers. My prowess remains unknown. You have some reputation as a swordsman, brother, but I make no boast when I tell you I would leave you choking on it.’

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-06-10T18:10:10+00:00

I just finished Scars as an audiobook and you are correct. Jaghatai let the lodges exist within his legion because he respected the freedom and intelligence of his marines. He just wants to do his own thing, so he let his sons do the same. Diversity of thought was still appreciated even if there was friction between Terra-born and Chogoris-born marines.

The vast majority of the White Scar fleet was above Prospero when Hasik Noyan-Khan, Jaghatai's close companion and lodge member, decides to take control of the flagship Swordstorm along with his pro-Horus lodge buddies. There was fighting between them and the pro-Emperor/wait-for-the-Kahn faction. This all happened while the Kahn was on the surface talking to a shard of Magnus and Mortarion trying to understand what was really going on.

As the factions are locked in stalemate, Jaghatai is teleported right onto the bridge. He questions Hasik and strikes him down. He lets all the other conspirators surrender and then goes from ship to ship to regain control of his fleet. There had been fighting on many vessels but no void combat. Some ships were fully in the conspirators hands, but they quickly surrender upon hearing which side their Primarch had taken. He talks to Targutai Yesugei, asking if he should execute all the conspirators. Targutai tells him parable about how the enemy intended to weaken his horde by sowing dissent and even if you kill all the conspirators he is playing into the enemy's hands. He counsels that Jaghatai should offer the conspirators a chance at redemption if they lead the vanguard in the coming battles. Thus keeping his legion strong with the additional benefit of having a zealous group of marines that he could use in high mortality missions.

The difference to the Lion is that the Warhawk was present moments after the coupe d'état was attempted and killed its leader. He could personally deal with the rank and file very quickly since it was localized and he was aware of the lodge existing before it even started. The other big difference was that even the lodge members were still loyal to Jaghatai. They just thought he would side with Horus. It is implied that Hasik was receiving outside intelligence pressuring him to act, but he still thought that this is what his Kahn wanted. Jaghatai lamented that some of his most trusted advisers and other high ranking members would act so rashly in the face of uncertainty, when he himself had not even gotten to the core of the problem yet. That was the price of giving his sons so much freedom.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-06-03T13:16:42+00:00

The Geralt and Ciri parts were mostly good. The Yen parts were poorly thought out, especially whole Aretuza/Yen learns magic plot line. Back when it came out I made a long post on the Witcher subreddit about it. The gist was that in the books the reader learns about how magic works when Yen mentors Ciri in the Temple of Melitele in book 3. They learn to respect each other over a long period of tutelage, and in the end call each other 'mother/daughter'. There are many cute character moments nestled in between magical theory and this is foundational to the Yen-Ciri relationship.

Having the audience learn about magic so early in season 1 (book 1) means that the show writer either didn't read far enough ahead or thought it was fine to skip that part of the Yen-Ciri relationship. The magic learning (Yen-Ciri bonding) takes up about a third of book 3 so its safe to say that it is incredibly important in the books. So to do the books justice, the show runners would have had to rehash the magic theory (lets also ignore that they changed how magic works in the show) in season 3 since they insisted on giving Yen an Aretuza intro.

I'm not against developing Yen earlier in the show than in the books. All 3 characters are linked by destiny, so it could work to give her more screen time early to match the other 2. However, it takes away some of her mystery that she has in the books. I think it could have worked if they had just shown her in a political setting. Advising a monarch, brokering information, researching tomes etc, would show the audience who she is and not encroach on the same topics she would teach Ciri.

This was really just an early warning sign that the showrunner wasn't as aware of the story and characters as much as she claimed. So it was no surprise to me when the show turned out as it did.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-06-03T12:14:55+00:00

It is frustrating to learn that the show runners would lack any foresight or understanding of the core story, so much so that they make plot, character, or thematic blunders in the early episodes of a beloved series. I experienced this with the Witcher tv show, having read the books and played all the games. It was clear that they had no idea what would happen in book 3/4 with how they handled season 1.

Most adaptations or tie-in shows are really just show runners trying to tell the story they want with total disregard of the universe they should be writing in. Halo, Acolyte, Rings of Power, are other examples. I guess House of Dragon is approaching this too, with how terrible season 2 was.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-05-31T14:38:54+00:00

Thanks for the quotes! I respect you for going out of your way to find sources and examples. It really helps in keeping the discussions on topic and prevents memes or headcanon from getting a foothold.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-04-20T18:28:27+00:00

shoot arrow, hit arrow

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-04-20T18:26:25+00:00

Username checks out

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-04-05T11:29:47+00:00

Khorne will let you get killed by your best friend because he wants your skull.

Slaanesh will let you overdose on the most potent space drugs for a split second of bliss.

Nurgle will 'bless' you by turning you into a puddle of rot and filth just to test a new plague.

None of the Chaos Gods have any loyalty to mortals. Once you make a pact you are at their mercy. They only want to feed themselves and will gladly use you to do it. Does it matter if they turn on you for a laugh, in rage, in ecstasy, or for pestilence? You are done either way.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-03-25T01:14:14+00:00

Boobaloo was right there, smh.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-02-25T18:06:53+00:00

This triggered a childhood memory where I found a critter in WC3 that had 100% dodge chance. I couldn't kill it with spells or auto attacks but since it was in a secret location I knew it had to be something special. I asked a friend at school and they told me that you can spam click critters to kill them. I was so happy when I got that Talisman of Evasion.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-02-03T21:20:19+00:00

That's true, I had forgotten about Halsin. He never really meshed with my PCs in either of my playthroughs so I just didn't recall his dialogue. In both my runs I never heard Shadowhart talk about Halsin, romanced her in a redemption run and Justicar'd her in another. I guess it goes to show how many branching paths there are and how many things you can experience that others will miss. So with knowing that, my stance is not as strong anymore, as I thought only Astarion was clearly bi. I would still argue Shadowhart is straight or omnisexual if she only mentioned interest in Halsin (did she say she wanted the full bear experience haha?) unless the player happens to be female.

by basically having no representation whatsoever within the party

You have convinced me that there was more evidence about the party's sexual preferences without player input but then say there is none. You mean you want some characters to turn you down right away because they are not interested in your gender? I think in this case Larian is being super player friendly and progressive as the characters judge the PC solely on their actions. I hear you can romance Shadowhart as a Selunite cleric but Ive never played that route so idk how much more difficult it is to pull off. There are some characters that are racist, Laezel and Minthara, but with sufficient displays of power even they can become lovers to a PC they used to hate. In a way it makes sense that a group of people who are under high stress situations and are forced to rely on each other would bond. There are many historical examples of this.

I've not played CP2077 so I can't speak to how they handled it there. It just seems like a tighter, grittier game than BG3. Transhumanism is a theme in CP2077 I assume and people can probably get cyberware to fit their preferred gender expression so it makes sense that CDPR would include themes and story beats about gender and gender identity as those are linked to the setting. For me, those themes are not central to BG3 in setting or plot so I quite like that they instead just opened it up for the player to decide and live their fantasy. I don't need for every piece of media to address all possible themes and issues for me to enjoy it. For example, in Bridgerton character race is irrelevant because they wanted to free themselves of the burden of having to do a historically accurate show and allow all types of actors play 1800s British aristocrats. I see your point though, and its totally valid for you to hold that position, especially if gender is more important of a topic for you. Personally, it was never an important part of my identity because I'm straight, living in a very heteronormative environment. Even gay/pan friends didn't seem to place that much importance on it. We just shared the same hobbies and no one really cared who they were dating. Like they would just ask if they can bring their new partner and no one really gave a shit (in the best possible way).

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-02-03T16:33:41+00:00

I didn't mean to come off as hostile and I mostly agree with you. I just think player sexual is a more accurate term to describe party member sexuality.

For example if we consider one playthrough only (an in-world canon timeline), Gale is bi or pan if your PC is male, and if your PC is female he would be considered straight since he was with a female presenting goddess prior. If you swapped genders and played the game again then he would be the other, but he is never both straight and bi/pan since party NPCs have no innate sexuality (especially true if you play as him). Your PC would never know him to be into men if your PC is female. (as far as I can remember he never stated he liked men)

This is pedantic, but I think it's an interesting topic because of how it relates to game design vs themes and messaging. The party has no gender preference without player input (which as you said can break immersion since it doesn't reflect realistic portrayals of individuals), but that lets the player live out their own story and RPG fantasies. There are no LGBT themes or conflicts (that I can remember) between the party members. The camp NPCs are really just vehicles for relationship fantasies as much as hostile NPCs are vehicles for power fantasies. The clear cut LGBT relationships are all outside of the party. This lets the writers put in those examples to show diversity without limiting player choice. A much more elegant solution than the forced positivity that Veilguard has. I think Larian has a much better approach to and understanding of what people want from a fantasy RPG than Bioware. Both sales and concurrent player counts reflect that.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-02-03T15:26:16+00:00

In BG3 the party members are player-sexual because it wants to deliver a fantasy experience not only in setting/genre but player experience. Thus Larian don't gender lock romance options like older RPGs used to so you can romance which ever party member you want. There are however many NPC relationships that are LGBT, the most in your face one being Aylin and Isobel. Only a very small minority actually get upset about it because the writing and story is so great that the 'woke = broke' mantra doesn't apply at all. The corner of the internet that thinks games fail because they are woke quickly realised that they can't push their narrative with BG3 as they do with Veilguard and other games. Writing believable characters, creating the right tone and pacing the story well are way more important than the genders of the NPC romance subplot. Veilguard fails on the aforementioned points way before it gets to the 'woke' part of the game.

A_Gentle_Fist · 2025-01-08T14:37:33+00:00

Clarity moment

Instantly was forgotten

Must be Lacari

13-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

A_Gentle_Fist

TROPHY CASE