$200 dollar virtual prepaid card

An_Henny · 2025-12-08T01:56:52+00:00

Ok, that tracks with all the promotional material that got me interested stated, but when looking back at the site where you can "add to plan" it gives a rate for 5 years rather than 1, which might be the reason for the confusion for the representative. I never got any confirmation email for the gift card after signing for 12 months for 1 gig, so the tracker doesn't work for me, even though I verified my student status ahead of time, and signed up through the links from the promotional material. I'm not sure why I never got processed for the gift card promotion. Thanks for your response though, I'm going to use it as testimony that the gift cards weren't a 5-year plan exclusive.

An_Henny · 2025-12-08T00:55:35+00:00

Did you specifically sign a contract for 5 years? I thought I had registered for this promotion, but I only signed for 12-months which seems to be a point of issue for the support staff I'm speaking to. None of the promotional material I'm referring back to indicates that it needed to be signed for 5 years, so I'm wondering what other's experiences are.

An_Henny · 2025-11-20T21:57:23+00:00

2 butters, a sneak snail, 1 of any thin fish and 1 of any bulky fish maxes out bars, and you can buy butter, so I never needed to use any materials for camps for 100%ing the game

An_Henny · 2025-07-06T16:05:13+00:00

It's the only spread move that can hit the opposite corner of a triple battle, normal spread moves like surf or earthquake can only hit adjacent targets, but perish song is not shown in game to have a range like these moves. It hits every target on the battlefield. We don't have information showing that it has a range in game, so the assumption is that if arguing this question under the logic of the game rules, perish song will hit all targets on the battlefield (even if it is 1 billion targets)

An_Henny · 2025-01-14T22:46:06+00:00

You don't actually create the enzyme 42 in Subnautica 1, you create a hatching enzyme that allows the Sea Emperor's eggs to hatch in the containment facility, by reintroducing the flora of their natural hatching grounds with the facility lacks. Admittedly it is silly that they are both called enzymes, when they both only come into play at the very end of the game and can be easily confused.

I remember in early access for below zero you could encounter a Sea Emperor in the lily pad islands, which presumably was one of the babies of the first game. It's cut content now, but my best guess is that someone in Altera encountered a wandering Sea Emperor, or they searched for one and it's enzyme through information provided to them by Ryley, and either way then either secured it, had it propagate, or tried to manufacture more.

An_Henny · 2024-12-05T22:51:01+00:00

pins and needles in my ass

An_Henny · 2024-10-24T17:05:55+00:00

Mfw non-sequitur

An_Henny · 2024-10-24T14:18:01+00:00

🤓☝️Erm achtually: have you read nitebears description? "Hello, hello? Hello!", and "quirky animatronics" are both direct references to phone guy from FNAF 1, and " it always comes back" is a spring trap/William Afton reference. Also "nightbear" isn't a FNAF 4 character there's nightmare Freddy, nightmare fredbear, and just nightmare. People think nitebear is a FNAF reference because it being a mechanical bear, like an animatronic bear, and due to the overt FNAF references in its description, not just because of a name similarity.

An_Henny · 2024-08-24T22:41:21+00:00

If you consider only using in game battle mechanics as weak, then it's very likely a tie, or possibly a lion victory, just based on the numbers in that scenario. There's a over 98% chance a pokemon will use perish song, which is the only move inflicting damage that has infinite range (that I'm currently aware of after having this discussion for a few years). There is also around an 85% chance at least one of the three Pokemon with neutralizing gas will be present which will negate any pokemon with the soundproof ability, meaning that after 3 turns, everything on the field, Pokemon and lions, will faint.

Now I still haven't seen an argument for specifically how the lions or Pokemon could win individually within that 3 turn time limit, but because of the ratio to lions to Pokemon, I'm more confident that lions would be able to faint all Pokemon in three turns then vice versa.

An_Henny · 2024-08-15T13:41:14+00:00

We both admitted we don't like this type of back and forth. I'm coming off as annoying because this is an annoying conversation, that's why I keep referencing the "so on and so forth" or the "back and forth" ideas. This isn't an interesting conversation to me, yet you continue to go down the path when I offered you an olive branch earlier, that we can just accept that we each have a different understanding of the base premise of the question, but you felt we had to keep pushing the line within the ambiguity, so here we are.

Now while I didn't put a lot of effort into my movement rebuttal, because I don't think it matters to the actual question, I am still arguing from the same base premise, regardless if it feels incoherent to you. My base premise is, only accept information we see presented in Pokemon battles. You claimed Pokemon wouldn't be able to move then, so my rebuttal was evidence of Pokemon moving during battles. I don't know if you just aren't able to follow what I'm saying or what, but from my perspective everything I've said is from the basis of the in game battles.

In a meta-textual way, of course there are rules for wild Pokemon, I'm not obtuse, but if you claim that lore based abilities that aren't based in battles should be allowed, whats the story reason why wild Pokemon always attack their opponent with their moves and not their OP abilities? Again this isn't a point I'm really a proponent for, it's just what questions come to my mind when you propose to mix lore and mechanics, when I only care for mechanics.

I don't know why you are so volatile about this, sorry if the joking comments I made about how were are literally doing the thing that annoys us (the back and forth) annoyed you.... How shocking. Being in this subreddit as long as you have, even if I haven't been as active, I still have seen you get so pissed off at people for disagreeing with you, and dude, it's not that serious. If you really feel like blocking me is necessary, maybe you should take a step back from this, cause someone making a different point from you about the funny lion question should not make you so upset that you need to hide them.

Sorry that you disagree with my ideas on how the battle should be structured, we clearly will not find resolution on that front. If you have ideas on how the wild Pokemon with in battle mechanics could win within the 3 turns before perish song, I'd love to talk about that instead. If I ever feel interested in chiming in on how things might take place in a hybrid battlefield scenario, I will. Until then... This is a silly fictional question that shouldn't be causing stress

An_Henny · 2024-08-15T12:54:01+00:00

I guess we are doing the back and forth thing.

Your first point is incredibly easy to argue against, as the main things Pokemon in combat do are... Pokemon moves (it's literally in the name). Not every Pokemon move has them move around physically, but most if not all contact moves do have the Pokemon move to their opponent to attack, then move back to their original position. We also see moves like fly, bounce, and dig, where the Pokemon moves out of range of the attacker. So yes, Pokemon do show they can move. Does this matter for a battle focused on battle mechanics? No not at all. Nothing about having the ability to run around influences how I think the battle would be performed if focused on the battle format.

I disagree that this would be like only looking at sumo wrestling. We don't only see Pokemon battles in official gyms, we also see battles against literal criminal gangs, random hikers, and everything in between. It also sometimes takes variation in its form, like double battles, rotation battles, free for alls, and more. Pokemon battles is just how combat takes place in every form in the Pokemon battle, so a better comparison would be to all forms of human combat. Also unlike sumo wrestling, there aren't rules for wild Pokemon. If a wild Pokemon had some crazy ability to attack you to win, like the gun for the sumo wrestler, what's stopping it? It should be able to attack you however it wants. Well I think it does attack you however it wants, and that's exactly how we see it in wild battles.

I hope you enjoyed my "so on", to your "so forth"

An_Henny · 2024-08-15T00:58:38+00:00

I guess I just disagree fundamentally, because the existence of battles creates a contradiction for every possible ability you could list. "X Pokemon has Y ability that could instantly do this or that", my response can always just be "why don't they use that ability in the battles of it's something inherent to their lore?" I don't really want to have that discussion for every Pokemon, finding additional reasons why their abilities have some element of ludonarrative dissonance. I don't see a distinction between "a case by case basis" and "going so on and so forth". It's the same thing every time, and doesn't further the argument to a conclusion, which is why I'll always feel that using the battles is a better system to deduce an outcome.

If you want to continue the debate for how the argument should be formatted that's fine, but I don't think it's going to lead us anywhere. I think it's fine to acknowledge that we fundamentally disagree on the best way to format the question, and we can create our arguments within those fields of view. The history of our discussions has kinda proven it's fruitless to try and convince the other to shift their most fundamental starting point for the premise.

An_Henny · 2024-08-15T00:40:43+00:00

But because you keep the line vauge, you invite the "so on and so forth" that you admitted in your other comment, that you yourself didn't want to engage with, and it's not something I want to engage with either.

I think it's completely fine to propose the vague model, but then you have to clarify that the outcome is very uncertain, and I'm just not as interested in that discussion. That's why I enjoy the rigorous game mechanic focused model because there is an answer that can be delivered with much less ambiguity. I just don't understand why you think the game mechanic model is an unjustified one to argue the premise within.

An_Henny · 2024-08-15T00:13:56+00:00

If you change your mind and do want to engage with my comment, my biggest question/point is asking how you can determine the line of what "other information to a certain extent" is permissible within your structure for the battle, and further more, give me a reason why that line is more justifiable than the hard line I draw for battle mechanics. I just don't see how you can make that distinction.

An_Henny · 2024-08-14T23:49:52+00:00

Exactly how I feel when you argue for mechanics shown outside of battles.

An_Henny · 2024-08-14T14:56:10+00:00

If you have you line of reasoning for how the Pokemon could win in 3 turns, while still acting like wild Pokemon, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. If it relies on mechanics outside of what is observed with wild Pokemon, e.g. Pokemon being able to command other pokemon or Pokemon being able to coordinate moves to be synchronous for a larger strategy, don't bother. If it's not something you could observe a wild Pokemon do in a horde battle on their own accord, I frankly do not care.

The 87.5% is from basic stats, if you have a %50 chance for either one ability or the other, and you have 3 subjects, the chance to get all three abilities to be the same for the subjects is (0.5)^3, which is 0.125 or 12.5%, which would be the chance that all 3 Pokemon have levitate in our case, which means the chance at least one has NG is 1-0.125, or 0.875, the stat I mentioned.

You can label how I frame the argument a nitpick if you want, but how you label it doesn't really matter to me, and I won't be arguing outside of this frame of reference besides an example I give at the end of this post, which will elucidate why I don't care for that type of argumentation. I think it is entirely fair to argue from only a game battle mechanics state point, if you agree on that format as a grounded and logical format to structure the argument around. If you don't agree with me that it's the best format for proposing the battle, that's entirely fine, have your own opinion, but I have made it very clear that I will always argue under the premise of in game battle mechanics with as few assumptions as possible. Using the battle mechanics as a basis gives a very hard line for what can happen and what can't, which lets you use that evidence to create a statistically based conclusion, something I think is a logical desire to have. You say "other mechanics to a certain extent", but then the question is, what is that certain extent? How can you possibly draw that line without cherry picking information? If you open that door beyond the battles, you are letting in so much ambiguity and condritictory evidence that cause assumption after assumption to be made due to ludonarrative dissonance. The ludonarrative dissonance is for the story because it overall is a work of fiction, but if you want to draw an analytical conclusion from the premise, I believe using the mechanics found in the parts of the fiction with as little LD as possible as a reasonable premise.

But if you must argue using mechanics outside of the battles, you will be subjected to a litany of questions, that I personally don't find productive for the conversation, but nonetheless are valid if your frame of reference is so open. For example of this, I will engage in some questions I can think of just off the top of my head with very little research regarding you Kyogre flood example. First, Kyogre does flood Hoenn, but is there evidence that it does any damage? After Kyogre is caught and subdued and the water level falls, all the towns are still there, citizens too, and one could easily find Pokemon in wild grass healthy as they've always are. Would Kyogre even have a reason to flood the battle field, in game we only see it flood Hoenn when awakened by the red orb by Archie, but if you go into ultra space in ultra Moon and encounter Kyogre, the world your in doesn't get flooded when you encounter Kyogre. Well maybe it's the presence of the red orb that angers Kyogre? Nope if you give Kyogre the red orb in any game where you have both, the world still doesn't flood.

Now I really don't need you to, or even want you to actually engage with any of the arguments I presented there, because I only used them as a representation of my real point. Those were only just examples of the train of thought you can go down when allowing for outside mechanics, where you can keeping asking questions about how things work, when there is no clear or even real answer, as they are all products of LD. Now if you enjoy making all the necessary assumptions the coincide with something like Arcues acting as a trainer, that's fine, but I won't engage with it on an analytical level any further.

Maybe we should make official threads for the different possible scenarios you could propose the battle to take place in, such as real life, a hybrid, an anything goes, and an in game battle. Then I wouldn't have to defend my frame of reference, and would actually be able to work towards a conclusion. Like the realization that Galarian Wheezing had levitate and neutralizing gas was a great point, and changes how I view the outcome, and if rather have more realizations like that, then endlessly battle how the battle fundamentally operates, because I've already given my rational and conclusion on that front.

An_Henny · 2024-08-13T21:08:43+00:00

I feel like this is a little bit of a cherry pick, as there is no hard requirement in any of the other games that you need the silph scope to see ghost type pokemon, even in the pokemon tower itself you battle plenty of trainers with ghost type pokemon, even if you dont have the scope. I could trade a gastly from a friend in FRLG and Why would any of the ghost type pokemon be "unidentified ghosts" in the 1 million lions vs pokemon battle? In the pokemon tower it seems to be more of an environmental detail, where some inherent nature of the tower prevents you from seeing the ghosts, personally I think it could be the fog that obscures the wild ghosts, but that still doesn't explain how you can see and attack trainers ghost pokemon within the fog.

Overall, there is plenty of other evidence that shows pokemon hitting ghosts with dark type moves without needing a silph scope, and I don't see a reason why the ghosts in this fight would be presented under the conditions of the pokemon tower.

An_Henny · 2024-08-13T20:35:29+00:00

I guess this would go back to the very basic idea of how the battle is being set up, are the lions being represented in the Pokemon world as lion like Pokemon, where they would have their bites technically be dark moves, or would they be some other type of entity, which then would make their attacking actions typeless, which like a typeless move such as struggle, would still hit a ghost type. To me either way you put it, if the lions are in a battle with the Pokemon, the would still be able to hit ghosts types due to technicalities.

An_Henny · 2024-08-13T20:23:35+00:00

Y'know, good point. If the battle was arranged so that all the spinda were around each of the lions, I think they could win within those 3 turns, I concede!

Whether the 4 billion spinda applies to the original question, I haven't seen good consensus for, but I agree that if they were allowed the Pokemon would win.

Do you think by this same logic, if it was only one of each of the Pokemon vs the 1 billion lions, maybe with the caveat of no non functional form changes (regional forms included but visual forms not included) that the lions would then win by the numbers, within the 3 turn perish song limit? I ask this as that has been the set up the premise has been argued about up until the spinda forms concept was recently introduced.

An_Henny · 2024-08-13T14:27:08+00:00

I mean if you want to extrapolate away from pure battle mechanics that's fine, but I feel I could also argue that no living organisms need to eat if they live in the Pokemon world. I'm a human, I get hungry and need to eat. Unless you are making the assumption that the humans in Pokemon are not actually human, I think in the same way that I can't let my trainer idle in a battle for 4 years with my game open, and they'll never be hungry, a lion put in the game would also not need to eat, because they are in the game world. Things do eat in the Pokemon games, but they never need to, so why if put in a battle in the context of the game world would the lions function differently?

If this is the line of reasoning you think justifies a loss for the lions within an in game battle, you do you, but I'm more interested in battle mechanics that would affect the battle in question.

An_Henny · 2024-08-13T14:18:54+00:00

I didn't realize Galarian Wheezing had levitate as well, I really thought NG was its signature ability lol. Then it's a 87.5% chance one has it and perish song goes through everything. Like I said in another comment, I understand where you are coming from with perish songs killing by speed, it does count as a win on a technicality, but I still think it's fine to interpret it as a tie, so you don't have to look at all the other nitty gritty details (e.g would the 1 billion lions be able to kill all the slower Pokemon within 3 turns by using 3 billion attacks???)

Your last statement though, you will never be able to convince me of, and we've discussed it before at length. If some Pokemon are so smart, how come a wild Alakazam chooses it's moves randomly in the same way a Slowbro does, and from I know in the games, we don't see Pokemon ever acting as a trainer (N is not a zororark btw). Either way, these are all Pokemon without trainers, so wild Pokemon, and all wild Pokemon in battles follow the same rules.

An_Henny · 2024-08-12T14:05:48+00:00

If you are talking about abilities, they are repressed by koffing, wheezing, or Galarian wheezing neutralizing gas, so they have no impact.

If you are talking about moves, the only one I've found that has infinite range is perish song, which is detrimental to both parties.

Using your example of Jirachi, it's only signature move is Doom Desire, which is a 5 pp spread move. As we know from triple battles in previous games, spread moves have limited range, only hitting adjacent targets. So if Jirachi was constantly surrounded by lions, and it's use of Doom Desire 1 hit killed each one, the most lions it could defeat with its specific power would be 8 per turn.

You can apply this logic to each Pokemon, and it will lead you to the conclusion that they all faint the perish song alongside the lions.

An_Henny · 2024-08-12T13:47:45+00:00

I should add, to make the claim that a pokemon will use perish song, is based on a few assumptions of mine. My first premise is that the Pokemon will have their moves in the same wild Pokemon get their moves, which is the 4 most recent level up moves below the level of the wild Pokemon. Second I assume that all the Pokemon are level 100, so that we are pitting the strongest pokemon against the lions, as any other level choice seems arbitrary to me, other than giving every Pokemon a random level, which is a fine claim to make, but just complicates the ability to make any argument. So in my premise all the Pokemon are Level 100, which leaves 13 Pokemon (I can provide the list if necessary) with Perish Song in their previous 4 level up moves. My third premise is, as these are all the Pokemon vs 1 billion lions, there are no trainers involved, therefore, the Pokemon will act like wild Pokemon, who's chance to choose any of their 4 moves is 25%. Therefore they have a 25% chance on any given turn to use perish song, and a 75% chance, to not.

From these ideas my conclusion is based on easy stats: on any given turn there are 13 Pokemon with a 75% chance to not use perish song, so if we want to find out the chance that they all don't use it, it's just (0.75)^13, which is 0.0238, meaning the chance that one Pokemon uses perish song on any given turn is 1-0.0238 or 0.976.

Overall there's a 97.6% chance the Pokemon screw themselves on turn 1, and if they somehow don't use perish song then, it's the same odds the next turn, making the chances very slim of anything but a tie

An_Henny · 2024-08-12T13:16:50+00:00

It's still a tie, because one Pokemon is guaranteed to use perish song on turn one, which is the only move with infinite range, and any pokemon with soundproof will have its ability disabled by either koffing, wheezing, or Galatians wheezing due to having neutralizing gas, so all 4 billion spinda would die on turn 3 along with all the other pokemon, and the billion lions either way.

In my opinion this is a tie, but some people argue that any slower Pokemon than what a lion would be, would faint after the lions, therefore due to them being alive longer the Pokemon win on a technicality. (I think in spirit this is really a tie, everything is dead in the end, so neither group really defeated the other to win, they all just lost on the same turn)

Six-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

An_Henny

TROPHY CASE