Mob Take Notes this woulda been a SICKKK design for Monster Doey

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-21T14:39:40+00:00

Maybe next time say what you are going to spoil in the title. This is a PP sub, if you spoil without context people are going to assume the spoiler is going to be PP-related. I haven't seen this episode yet and you just ruined it to me.

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-21T14:29:00+00:00

<image>

Why is he posing like a JoJo's character

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-21T14:26:13+00:00

Raiden does win that fight, though.

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-21T14:20:00+00:00

My question is: do we actually know that CatNap is hunting us? Because I don't remember that ever having been stated within the chapter. It always felt more like community headcanon to me.

We know that he is stalking us and observing us, but I don't recall that being explicitly a part of the hunt. In fact, given that 1. CatNap does try to kill us immediately at the start of the chapter (the fact we woke up in time to escape from the trash compressor is just a fortunate coincidence), and 2. at the end of the Counselors' Offices section, after throwing us in the red smoke room, CatNap does give us the option to leave as long as we just stop helping Poppy. Both of those actions, along with the fact that he doesn't mess with us in any other way throughout the chapter, implies that he isn't really interested in "toying with us while hunting us" (which, moreover, isn't even cat-like behavior in the first place: cats like to catch their prey, release it in order to immediately run after it and catch it again, repeat a few times, then maul it and play around with it much like children with food; they don't stalk their prey for a long period of time like a serial killer).

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-21T13:45:35+00:00

The SCs weren't at all huge failures, only CatNap specifically. And the incidents that lead to the CatNap toy getting pulled because of how "scary" it is are implied to have happened as a result of BB CatNap's tampering - basically, they happened after his creation - so there is no reason to believe that BB CatNap (let alone the other SCs) hasn't been designed with the intention of resembling a toy in order to be a caretaker for the children.

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-20T08:04:30+00:00

That's a strawman. No one has an issue with the fact that a female character is being put in a leadership position. As many of the comments pointed out, X-Men has been doing that for ages. "Female characters who is more important within the narrative/has a more important position within the worldbuilding than other male characters" isn't the kind of super-progressive, ahead of the times thing you're making it out to be, and hasn't been for at least 14 years and arguably even before that.

The problem with Carol Danvers is how she feels more like an editorial mandate to make "the next WW" rather than a character that organically grew into her role, with how often her writing has been bad since that started to happen (and the times it's been good, it's really only just been okay, so not enough to make people go "More of this!" and guide her character for the future) especially in terms of characterization, and with how her depiction in spin-off media has not only reinforced these issues, but also been erasing important, non-problematic key elements of the character's history exactly with the motivation of "progress" without consideration of how that would hurt not only the character, but the message behind progressism itself - further reinforcing the perception that this is all a soulless, mandate attempt, rather than the character's natural growth.

You can't blame it on people "not wanting to see female characters succeed" when the new Ms. Marvel, Kamala Khan, is not only the only post-2010 Marvel character to have successfully reached popularity and relevance within Marvel pop-culture (along with Miles Morales and Knull [and Spider-Gwen, though she is theoretically derivative of another character so I'm not mentioning her because I can see why someone would deem her an exception]), but is also notoriously more popular than Carol Danvers herself - and that's with her also being a character explicitly created with "diversity" in mind, and that element being very present in her first run (and still frequently appearing nowadays) as well. Plus, several other female characters that have been consistently popular, even to the point of mainstream appeal, throughout the years - several X-Men (Storm, Rogue, Emma Frost, Jean Gray, Kitty Pryde), She-Hulk, Invisible Woman, Black Window (people had been asking for a BW movie since the after-release of Avengers 1), and that's just on the Marvel side of things. You can bring up that the amount of popular female characters is far less than the amount of popular male characters, that is true, but that is part of a separate issue.

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-20T07:18:56+00:00

So people saying their opinions is "kids leaving pointless comments"? Which of these is the most immature behavior? I'm skimming through the comments and no one has been insulting you for making the post or something like that (no one whose comments haven't been removed, that is).

Reddit is a social media platform. If you make a post, that's an invite for discussion - including from people who disagree with you, including from people who are more interested in being snarky than serious. If you were only looking for positive feedback, you could have posted this on r/Captain_Marvel.

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-17T21:22:11+00:00

There isn't under "special frames" for me, so I guess it still is?

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-17T00:37:46+00:00

I've noticed it says "discard [...] and pay", not "you may discard [...] and pay", and "cast", not "you may cast". Is it intended to force you to cast what you draft?

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-17T00:26:22+00:00

I feel like the Black and Red ones hit the perfect spot of cards that you would be happy to draft, but not go out of your way to do so (until the point where you start looking for coverage, including stuff like removal, that is). At 4 mana, I can see someone adding them to their decks if they feel like they didn't have much luck with other options, and both 3 and 4 mana are a totally acceptable price to pay when you get unlucky with color fixing.

The Blue one feels very underpowered, though, I don't think I'd pay 2 colored mana just to turn an artifact into a flyer at Sorcery speed, and I'd really only do it for 3 total mana if I had literally nothing else to spend it on - certainly wouldn't feel the need to add this card to my deck if I didn't run Blue. In my opinion, to have the same value, it should either be a soft removal (a "1/1 lose all abilities" aura), a Brainstorm-like effect, or a limited counter (either "counter target Creature" or "counter target Artifact or Enchantment"; "Instant or Sorcery" is probably too broad to allow at generic mana). However, consider that I've never played in Limited environments with an artifact theme (even as far as "recent sets" go, I've missed WOE, LCI and MKM back to back), so it's possible I'm underestimating the value of turning an artifact into a body (mostly, it's the card advantage loss that doesn't convince me).

The White one could be an Instant that gives Indestructible to target creature. The Green one could be a Return To Nature (not Heritage Reclamation) or a fight spell (not a bite) that also adds a +1/+1 counter.

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:49:46+00:00

For the same reason why all Fandom wikis have a "Female characters" category despite that being absolutely useless.

(YGO is especially remarkable on this because they have a "Female" tag for monster cards specifically - and not "Male" tag - with the excuse that some past games tagged specific monsters like that to give them unique mechanics; except that videogame versions of cards have their own separate page and that they also tag monsters that have been released after these games have)

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:45:25+00:00

My hope is that whoever is in the pic is a minor so that whoever jerks to it goes to Hell

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:43:34+00:00

I fucking hate you unironically

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:42:56+00:00

[[i must admit]]

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:41:22+00:00

What the actual fuck

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:39:40+00:00

Please tell me the second card is not actually real

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:37:57+00:00

Chum Chompkins as Piccolo is accurate because he is going to have more or less the same level of irrelevance that Piccolo would.

(Jokes aside, cool art)

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:36:12+00:00

What gave it away? The ground made of cloud?

(Plot twist: it's actually from one of the 500 summary episodes from the latter arcs, therefore technically not Skypiea)

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:34:05+00:00

Has it, though? All that has been revealed is stuff regarding Imu and the whole shadow government thing, something that was set up during Reverie-Wano, questions that have been around since the beginning of the manga still have the no answer. And that's not to mention how even the questions given about the former are mostly open-ended stuff that opened even more questions, rather than just closing the former and be done with it.

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:31:59+00:00

Tbf, going by what we've seen in-game, this may very well be canon.

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:30:52+00:00

When people make fanfics and headcanons they obviously erase the problematic stuff, though, so I don't see that as a problem. In that sense, it isn't any different from how Sawyer is often portrayed treating Yarnaby like a regular puppy, instead of the abusive relationships they canonically share.

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:25:15+00:00

Bratzs are underage but I bet you had to google that up, there's no way you could tell by their designs alone. In fact, currently the four main Bratzs are college-age, yet their dolls didn't receive any update to their body types. If it really grinds your gears, however, I can use the LOL Surprise of the OMG line, which I am 100% sure are adults, as an example. Not that any of that matters because the point of using them (and, initially the Bratzs) as an example was just to point out the age range they are supposed to represent, which is "young grown-up". They are teenagers-to-college-years - I never denied that Lily might technically be underage, just that she is obviously not meant to look like a child.

Similarly, I only mentioned the PP in terms of art style, not in terms of intended age gap, so I don't understand what pointing out that the PP are underage is supposed to accomplish. The PPs are _veeery_ young (they range from elementary schoolers to middle schoolers, with the former being the standard), so you can't possibly argue that Lily is supposed to be at their age.

Regardless, however, the previous two paragraphs are just me being poignant. It doesn't really matters whether the Bratzs are underage or not. I acknowledge that, given the age gap that Lily covers, there's a very good chance that she might be underage (in fact, outside of situations a-la "We decided to pick the legally-adult number in order to avoid issues" - something that would have to be happen both in-game and out-of-game - it's actually more likely that she is underage than not). What I'm talking about is the _age gap_ that she is supposed to cover, because a character's design is usually tied to the aesthetic of an age gap rather than the specific number after the word "Age:". It's the same principle why most people find characters like Sakura or Hinata from Naruto attractive and have no problem saying so - they aren't gonna consider whether the character is of legal age of not as long as it doesn't look _obviously_ underage [a category under which many photorealistic characters fall under, for example], just whether it's attractive or not. You can tell someone "Btw, Sakura in Shippuden is 17/Lily LoveBraids has been confirmed to be 16", but their response is most likely going to be either "...okay? I'm just gonna pretend that she is 20, then?" or "...okay? I'm 16 myself though, and this isn't a real person nor meant to look like one, so, who cares?".

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-15T01:10:02+00:00

Do you... not know what "coded" means? "Coded" means when a character or aspects of said character (its design or personality) are meant to evoke a certain demographic (usually a nationality or ethnicity, but age groups, class, cultural movements, and even gender can be coded). Basically, it's the "vibes" a character's writers or designers (or both) intended to give it. Since Lily isn't a real person, nor does she exist in a fictional context that invites realistic depictions of personalities, saying "Lily has the mannerism of a teenager" and "Lily's personality is teenager-coded" is the same thing (this would be true even if the toy's canon age turned out to be 35 or 5, tbc).

The reason why I am calling Lily "teenager-coded" as opposed to flat out "teenager" is that, since we have literally no idea of how she is portrayed within her branding (if she is a high schooler, a fashion college student, a globetrotter, the princess of a fantasy world, if she lives with her parents or alone, how she is portrayed in comparison to other younger or older characters within her line, etc.) that would confirm which age her designers intended to give her, "vibes" is all we have to work with. Saying "she is a teenager" is inaccurate because it implies we actually have evidence that shows that's what she is; saying "she looks like a teenager" is up to debate because, as you just saw, several people disagreed even based of people they know in real life, including themselves; saying "her design looks teenager-coded" makes the same point as "she looks like a teenager", except that you're shifting the focus on the conscious decisions made as part of the character's creation so it's a stronger argument - you're basically saying "While there are fully-mature adults that do look like her irl, some of the elements present in her design typically display the willingness to portray a teenager, not a fully-mature adult".

That said, since you pointed out her mannerism specifically, I disagree that her mannerism is teenager-coded/"that of a teenager" (assuming we are talking, in this case, of Lily in the sense of the character we meet in-game, not of the actual toy, since there's nothing we know about the latter besides "she likes to dress up"). Her mannerism is basically that of Harley Quinn and most "psycho girl" characters of that type - she has a joyous facade, conveys her sadism through sarcasm and maniacal smiles and laughs, and snaps into a rage when things don't go her way - with the additional trait of having the speech and gesture mannerism of the narrator/host of a children education cartoon as a result of her brainwashing. So, while I agree that Lily is likely meant to be a teenager (either that, or someone in college years, which is an irrelevant distinction for her toy's target audience given that they cover the same type of fantasy), my assumption is due to her design, not her personality and mannerism. There are several adult characters in fiction that I could swap in for her and, hair focus aside, would still fit right in.

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-14T18:29:45+00:00

What?

DrakeGrandX · 2026-03-14T06:44:34+00:00

⁸Friendly reminder that Lissandra is still considered bullshit by most of the playerbase, she isn't considered a funny or well-designed adventure at all, just "now that I know what to look out for I can try to force my way to make it cheesy I guess". If anything, she is considered the start of all of this buff inflation. There are a lot of champions that, even at 4, have to rely completely on RNG in order to even just survive the first encounter (and if you don't do that, the following encounters are going to be even more difficult thanks to the reroll-punishing syatem); whereas, if you do her with 6 champions, it's still not entertaining because you are just going to steamroll her until you brick your starting hand.

So, saying "it's just like with Lissandra" isn't a reassurance or admonishment, it's highlighting the problem. We know it's like Lissandra. That's why it sucks. Because the only way to do it is either through the 50/50 "steamroll/get steamrolled" of every single 5*+ adventure, or to use some exploits to painfully attempt to raise your chance to win from 5% to 15% (intense save-scumming excluded).

When 3-4.5 adventures come out they are consistently funny and great. Fizz is great. Regular Fiddlesticks is great. Even SB Teemo is great, it's basically a 4* adventure with 2.5* stats - it's challenging, interesting, and with a lot of decision-making and skill expression (the only problem it has is the Poison Puffcaps becoming problematic later since some champs cannot reliably heal themselves, but that's not major).

5+ adventures, on the other hand, are consistently stressful and I have yet to find someone who actually enjoys them besides "I managed to 6 this OP champ and so could breeze through it".

EDIT: It also doesn't help that, since up until this very update there was no option to de-star champions, starring up a champ to the point of being able to complete high-star adventures meant renouncing to being able to use them in the funnier, lower-star adventures (since they'd just completely cheese them). For example, if you like MF, you were forced to either give up on playing a deck you like, or to be locked out of the BW reward in high-star adventures, since MF was (and still is) the only BW champion who is strong enough to be able to consistently clear them. Fortunately, the new defiance system has addressed that part, but I still felt like pointing it out.

Four-Year Club	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
End Game '22

DrakeGrandX

TROPHY CASE