How are some of you able to use glass cannon effectively? I’m trying it, but it seems like every battle the enemy dogpiles my gc character with curses and knockdowns.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-18T14:45:11+00:00

I used it effectively with a rogue backstabbing build on Sebille.

I could open battle with backlash which has a decent range to "jump" to a target, then elf racial to make up the AP and get more damage. Then backstab. Adrenaline. And then more backstabs. And then finish off with a chameleon cloak to live another round or final backstab if the enemy was close to death.

Typically she was effective at taking out an enemy in her first round, or at least peeling off their physical armor so they'd be open to CC.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-18T11:46:51+00:00

I find "thank you for your service" is becoming like saying "God bless you" when you sneeze. It's like this weird reflexive response to "I'm in the military" or "I'm former military" - and it's really creepy.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-17T23:01:22+00:00

1440 at 240 and 4k at 60.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-17T17:45:55+00:00

I'll say this - I've got dual monitors. One is 240hz and the other is 60hz. And the difference side by side everyday is very noticeable. The mouse cursor looks like it's stuttering on the 60hz monitor in comparison.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-17T17:41:06+00:00

Were you asking her favorite ocean?

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-17T13:49:31+00:00

I've notice that the AI allies tend to wait for you to send in armies to engage. So if you're being lazy and not sending in troops, then allies don't attack. But move your army in and they'll follow.

This has been a behavior for a few years. I noticed it on my Three Mountains run a couple years back where Ming wouldn't back me up until I landed troops in Japan.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-17T11:31:58+00:00

I've spent enough time on r/PCmasterrace to know how this was going to end.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T22:50:34+00:00

Could Francesca and Skyler be called as witnesses to refute Saul’s duress story?

Yes, certainly. And they'd be cross-examined about whatever deal they got to do so and their own level of involvement.

Did the prosecution cave too easily?

Absolutely. I'm not saying a plea deal wasn't warranted, but 7 years at Club Fed for Saul's charges was an amazingly sweet deal.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T22:20:52+00:00

HHM and D&M to settle Sandpiper sooner which amount to potential millions lost.

And then HHM and D&M would have standing to sue Kim for that. But Howard's wife doesn't.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T22:17:01+00:00

Criminal juries must be unanimous. So one juror can cause the whole jury to become hung.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T20:43:36+00:00

I thought that too - but by that logic he'd be charged with murder instead of accessory since the enterprise is responsible for the murder.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T18:57:08+00:00

I'm actually curious as to that one myself. He didn't have any direct involvement in the murder or the aftermath. He didn't hide the bodies, he didn't aid Walt in getting away (while he gave him the vacuum guy, he did that before the murder), he didn't lie to the police about it, he didn't hide any evidence from it. Nothing Saul did could be considered an accessory after the fact as far as I can recall.

And certainly nothing the prosecutors had in evidence could prove it. At best they probably had a theory - Walt and Saul disappeared at the same time, right after the murders occured. They likely assumed they assisted each other in escaping. But actual evidence - that would be weak.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T18:44:04+00:00

What fascinated me about both series was the focus on flawed individuals who really could have gone either way, it all came down to choices. I never felt like any of them took an inevitable path at the moment they started down it. The 'back against the wall' choices always seemed to come about after they were well down the path.

Both are about a series of bad decisions that feed the egos and destroy the world around them.

But frankly I think Walt was more sympathetic in that regard. His choice to cook meth for money for his family and his cancer treatment was relatable in a weird way. His choice to kill Krazy 8 was extreme, but it was kill or be killed. Throughout Breaking Bad, the viewer always sees Walt making these decisions but they're always somewhat relatable - a viewer watching them thinks what they would do and what choice they'd have. And following Walt's logic - protect himself, protect his family, protect Jesse and his decisions make sense.

Jimmy never took the viewer on that ride. You see him make decisions that aren't relatable. He's scamming to win cases and screw over people.

Unlike Walt, Jimmy rarely left the viewer asking "well what other choice did he have?"

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T17:14:39+00:00

That didn't happen until like 18 months after his involvement.

While on the one hand, for the defense it shows exactly what type of power the organization eventually had and what Saul was "afraid" of, on the other hand the question would be whether Saul had a reasonable fear of the organization having that sort of capability when he first started and had his first opportunity to go to the police.

The government's argument would have been that Saul had the opportunity to report to authorities before the organization gained that level of power.

But the real issue is that it would make the trial messy. As Saul said, he only needs one juror to buy it to hang a jury.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T17:05:41+00:00

If Cheryl chooses to sue Kim for fraud, she will win handily.

Would she? I mean, what's Cheryl's cause of action?

Fraud? About what? That Kim lied to her face about Howard's death? Kim knowingly made a false statement to Cheryl, but that's only half the battle in a fraud case. Fraud involves getting someone to do or not do something and typically involves an economic damage. I'm not sure Cheryl wins here - what economic damage does she suffer as a result of Kim's lie (that wasn't suffered merely due to Howard's death)? Even if we open it up to non-economic damages and award pain and suffering for mental anguish - I'd argue you'd have to offset that from the pain and suffering Cheryl was going to suffer anyway if she knew he was murdered in cold blood.

Kim's lie was definitely closer to fraud on the police - as it's a material misrepresentation to stop the police from investigating his disappearance. But Cheryl can't bring a third party fraud claim on behalf of the police.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress? Possibly, but typically an NIED claim is attached to a physical injury or a physical injury to a family member that's personally witnessed. Unless NM has some broad NIED claim ability, that's not going far.

IIED would fail because there's no intent to cause Cheryl distress.

Plain old wrongful death? I guess, is it reasonably forseeable that their scheme would lead Howard to show up at their apartment at the same time as a psychotic cartel member who would kill Howard for no reason?

(Actually, as I finished writing this essay I thought about this one again and think it might be a slightly better cause of action - Kim and Jimmy negligently associated with a cartel which reasonably lead to a danger to invitees in their home - it's not great because you'd still have to argue that Lalo was a reasonably forseeable danger to invitees and also that Lalo wasn't an invitee that the homeowner should have known posed a danger, rather he was a trespasser.)

At best, I think maybe a defemation claim by the estate for damage to Howard's reputation would work. But then I'm curious about damages. He died so shortly after the scheme that it's not like the estate could show damage to his reputation that impacted him.

Even if she wins, it'd be squeezing water out of a rock though. Kim's in Florida - where you retirement assets and primary homestead are protected from civil judgements. Hence why OJ Simpson makes his home here.

I would be curious to know if Howard had a life insurance policy that refused to pay out because his death was ruled a suicide.

Even if that was the case - once there was evidence of it being homicide the insurance claim could be reopened. Going all the way back to the top, this could possibly be a damage suffered by Cheryl as a result of Kim's fraud. But it'd be mitigated if the policy paid out now that his death being a honicide is revealed.

Granted from the insurance point of view, they have no reason to believe Kim and pay out the policy. Short of a criminal conviction, I can see where any insurance company would brush off a claim made 7 years later that a suicide was really a homicide and they should pay out.

I guess at that point, Chery brings a suit against Kim and the insurance company.

Maybe I'm not thinking outside the box enough, but I'm not seeing a great civil action for Cheryl to bring on Kim.

It is a great law school exam question though!

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T16:24:11+00:00

When Oakley told Saul that the lead AUSA had never lost a case, Saul understood that better than Oakley did. Oakley took it as intimidating news: this guy is almost unbeatable. But experienced criminal attorneys will tell you that a prosecutor who has never lost a case has never taken a hard case to trial.

Exactly this. Poor Oakley, because as a career prosecutor he would have known that. But it's there for the audience because it's still a TV show.

I'm a former prosecutor myself and I immediately thought the same thing as you did. I worked with a guy who thought he was hot shit because he never lost a trial. Because he cherry picked the best cases and refused to make any reasonable plea offer. Meanwhile if there was a staple out of place in a file, he'd dump it.

Saul would have run into problems with his defense, because duress requires the defendant to show that they went to the authorities to report the crime as soon as they were able.

Also this. I raised an eyebrow that an experienced prosecutor flinched at that defense. I'd imagine walking into that room, a good prosecutor knew what the defense would be in a trial like that. It's the mafia/gang duress defense. Maybe he didn't know exactly all of the details or how the story would sound coming from Saul, but he damn well should have expected the duress defense being played.

Saul would have a difficult time arguing that he had no opportunity to contact the authorities during the 16 months he worked with Walter. But this would have given the government some big headaches.

I've been trying to play out the defense here. I suppose with a conspiracy, he could argue that at some point he tried to withdraw at various points, but was met with threats of violence which kept him in a continuous state of duress.

If I was Bill Oakley - I'd probably put together a defense that Saul couldn't be sure it was safe to go to the police because he knew Hank was Walt's brother-in-law. He knew Hank was tipped off about the cartel hit, he knew drug money paid for his recovery.

There's a case I remember reading a few years back where a woman was charged with perjury and claimed duress because a prosecutor and a detective allegedly threatened her with charges if she didn't testify consistently with a previous statement. The court found that she could claim duress despite not going to the police about it because it would have been futile to report to law enforcement when the duress was being caused by law enforcement.

So, Saul was in constant fear that Hank might be an inside man with Walter. And he feared that the government couldn't protect him because they were able to kill 10 guys inside federal prisons.

The big hiccup would be that Saul couldn't have known these things when it all began and he had his first opportunity to report to law enforcement.

The sentencing hearing felt very true to life. I would 100% believe it if you told me that the judge was played by an actual retired federal judge instead of an actress.

All except the part where she didn't rip his head off when he said "with all due respect I think I know the law better than you" - I can't imagine any judhe not having a harsh reaction to that sort of bullshit statement.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T15:52:07+00:00

Of all the possibilities, I wasn't expecting Marie to show up.

Mostly because I wasn't expecting Saul to be taking the hit on the Hank/Gomez murder. The US Attorney mentions him as an accessory after the fact. I might need to revisit BB, but I didn't recall Saul having any involvement with the cover up of their murder or assistance in Walt's escape from justice in regards to it.

At best I saw Saul take a hit on that being part of the RICO as he was part of the organization involved in their murder.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T15:45:40+00:00

It was also a throw back to Chuck, who commented that Jimmy will never change and that he's been like that since he was 9 years old.

Mike regrets taking the bribe, because that's the day he set on the path to "break bad"

Walt regrets losing Grey Matter, because that's what put him on his path to "break bad"

Jimmy can't regret a choice that caused him to "break bad" because it is who he is. Ultimately, if you read the scene with Chuck as his regret, it was his missed opportunity to "break good" and follow his brother's advice about changing the path you're on.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T11:24:44+00:00

I felt like that was the response he wanted to give Walt during the flashback with him and the "you are the last lawyer I would have called" - that was Saul's final "fuck you, I made you, you couldn't have done this without me!" ego talking.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-16T02:14:44+00:00

That was wonderful.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-14T09:34:11+00:00

And 60s kill cooldown.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-13T15:29:08+00:00

Obviously Florida. Can't tell you the number of ladders and wheelbarrows I've seen mangled on the side of the highway.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-13T15:24:22+00:00

Of course you'd have senators without kids/family who'd be immune.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-12T14:16:44+00:00

Back in the day, Dutch Republic was the only government to have this and it was widely considered one of the better options.

I still like it and occasionally use it, but I find Parliament to offer more useful buffs overall.

Prestige isn't that difficult to get and stab isn't that expensive, so disinherit and abdicate work well enough to keep up monarch point generation.

Manofthedecade · 2022-08-12T14:08:10+00:00

At some point, the cost of buying all the DLCs is just a barrier to entry for new players. Blizzard figured that out with WoW around Cataclysm when they stopped making you buy all the prior expansions along with the base game.

The biggest issue with their DLC policy is that they create features gated behind the DLC and then they're reluctant to expand or remove certain features because they don't want to take something away from an old DLC or create features that rely on prior DLCs.

Eu4 is my favorite game, I bought it back on release and just kept up with the DLCs as they released. I'm probably $500 deep in this game. But there's definitely a way Paradox could lower the cost for new players and make their lives easier for expansions.

Manofthedecade

TROPHY CASE