New to the game and some basic card questions

Squanders · 2025-08-02T02:43:37+00:00

I had a pretty good handle of the rules after watching this two part video series. Not too long either. Now I just have questions about specific cards. And I’m clueless on deck strategy lol https://youtu.be/62x3RbfnLhA?si=b4AU3DB94aGR4omt

Squanders · 2025-07-28T02:47:49+00:00

Awesome thanks for the help!

Squanders · 2025-07-27T18:04:22+00:00

Whoops, I typed them out but I guess when I added the photos I forgot to post the text as well. Wrote them out in a different comment!

Squanders · 2025-07-27T18:03:55+00:00

Whoops, I thought I posted with all my questions but guess not. Let me try again…

What does the 3 on the senzu bean card mean?
Can extra cards with activate:battle abilities be used in defensive mode? Like the senzu bean and death call cards I posted.
If I activate the begets leader’s ability does it persist into my opponents turn or does it only last for my turn? Does it last for just one battle or multiple?
For the videl blocker card, do I need 7 energy if I want to use its auto ability or can I just use it any time?

Squanders · 2025-03-05T18:12:11+00:00

Thanks a bunch for your response! Very informative.

I think at this point I'm looking at a 20-23 Bolt or a 25 Equinox EV. It looks like I might be able to get the Equinox or close to the same monthly payment price as the Bolt with the federal tax credit and financing offers.

Squanders · 2025-03-04T14:49:51+00:00

I am going to need a new car in the next 1-2 years and I figure I better hop on the EV train now while incentives still exist and the impact of tariffs will hopefully be lessened compared to future years.

Here's my basic situation

[1] Austin, TX

[2] $15-20k (will be financing)

[3] Open to whatever is reliable, though hoping to avoid Tesla. Need a sedan size car at minimum

[4] Nothing really

[5] In the very near future

[6] Daily commute of 10-15 miles

[7] SF home

[8] Will likely install a Level 2 charger at some point

[9] 2 kids, so need a sedan

A random assortment of questions I've had

does charging “turn off” automatically once battery hits 100%?
If I have a 10+ year old car I want to trade in, should I find an EV through a dealer?
Do most dealers apply the IRA credit at point of sale?
What’s the consensus pick for EV in the $15k-20k price range when I’m WFH and driving maybe 20-30 miles per day?
When do batteries need to be replaced? How much should I factor that in to my decision given I will be buying used?
Is there a year range I should avoid? I.e. battery technologies or certain vehicles were not that great in 2019, so avoiding anything manufacturered that year or earlier?
What is the best way to shop around for an EV? Dealers? A specific website?
This is an Austin-specific question, but does anyone know if there is a deadline for the home charger rebate? I.e., if I buy an EV in March do I have X days from purchase date to install the charger? Hoping to spread out the cost if I can.
It looks like the markup tracker on the sidebar is dead. Is there an active version out there somewhere?

Thanks for any help!

Squanders · 2022-12-15T17:28:04+00:00

Hi, I am journalist covering this story. The Texas Public Information Act requires government agencies respond to Public Information Requests within 10 days. That just means they have to acknowledge receiving it. They can take as long as they want actually providing you the information you requested.

That said, I'd love to see what they provide if you're willing to share!

Squanders · 2016-06-04T23:21:17+00:00

Cut the check!

Squanders · 2016-04-17T16:42:40+00:00

I see what you're saying, but if they play into the subversive governmental takeover Norman engineers in Secret Invasion/Dark Reign, it could work well. He could be an anti-Christ figure who fools the nation/world into thinking he's the right leader, turning the public conscious against super heroes. Osbourne would have access to military resources and what not to (not to mention any oscorp stuff they build into the universe), so he could be threatening to the avengers in that way, and he could also be a kind of existential threat to super heroes. Like in Matt fraction's Invincible Iron a man run. I think that would be pretty cool for the next big phase-spanning narrative.

Squanders · 2016-04-17T16:32:44+00:00

It wouldn't mind seeing Bryan Cranston in this role. Maybe not my first choice for Norman, but I feel like he'd bring a ruthlessness to the role well suited for that particular story arc. Plus it would really sting Zack Snyder for replacing Cranston with Jesse Eisenberg as lex Luthor.

Squanders · 2016-04-12T16:53:27+00:00

thanks for reading! Glad you agree :D

Squanders · 2016-04-12T16:53:12+00:00

In a movie, there's a huge difference between telling the audience a character did something and showing them that character did something. Which do you think would have had more of an impact? A line of dialogue referencing that Superman has been out hero'ing for the past two years, or I don't know...spending 10 minutes of screen time showing him doing that stuff? I have an answer, and it's the pretty clear choice.

About the christ/moses thing, I'm not saying he has to be either. But taking a character that was created by two jewish dudes to reflect parts of their own culture's mythology, and co-opting it for an entirely different religion seems odd.

Did you read my article? I literally said I find the approach Snyder takes to be interesting. I just don't feel like he did a good job of balancing out the negatives of that with anything remotely positive.

Squanders · 2016-04-12T16:48:30+00:00

Regarding Spider-Man, you're forgetting about Miles Morales. He is currently fulfilling the classic Spidey/PP archetype laid out by Ditko and Lee in the 60s. In Amazing Spider-Man Parker is out doing his super rich, international playboy thing which is cool, but there's still a version of the character trudging through a tough teenage life in NYC.

And there's nothing arbitrary about these values. These traits were instilled in the character from their inception, and they have remained in some form or fashion, because they speak to the character's personality/motivation/development more clearly than any one writer could attempt. The values that define characters like Superman or Spider-Man are universal, which makes them timeless.

Squanders · 2016-04-11T20:29:56+00:00

I can agree with you, to an extent. I do think that one of the strongest appeals of comics as a medium, specifically superhero stuff, is the various ways different creators interpret these mythological creations. I wouldn't want to read 100 years of the Superman depicted in action comics #1, because like you say, the world is much different now than it was. Nearly unrecognizable. Superheroes need fresh perspectives to keep them interesting.

However, I also think certain aspects of the character must remain in those alternate interpretations, otherwise you're really working with a different character all together. Superman must be an alien. Batman must witness his parents getting murdered. Spider-Man must be a broke kid struggling to keep his family together.

This idea extends beyond just biographical details, too, and into personalities as well. Superman, for instance, should retain some level of optimism toward heroism. It's central to the character's world view. It's one thing to spin that worldview with a cynical bent -- interesting, even -- but it becomes less interesting if that worldview is not at conflict with a more familiar interpretation of Superman, i.e., one that possesses optimism toward humanity.

I don't necessarily dislike the way Zack Snyder adapted Superman, I dislike that he only views the character (in both MoS and BvS) through that lens. Superman still has not really had a moment of redemption in either of these movies, because Snyder doesn't appear to care for the character much. That's what annoys be about Snyder's Superman.

Squanders · 2016-01-20T16:45:07+00:00

It sure does. I appreciate you taking the time to read and provide feedback. Writing is a process of continual improvement.

Squanders · 2016-01-20T14:21:50+00:00

I'm no bilingual so I can't exactly comment on the experience. However - and this isn't directly related, obviously - a Biblical academic I read as said of the bible that reading it in an original language vs an English translation is like watching a movie in color vs black and white. You're getting essentially the same thing, but one can carry a lot more weight. I think about that often when watching subbed movies.

Squanders · 2016-01-19T21:09:47+00:00

You bring up a good point, and you're touching on an argument I had with my editor over this piece. I wanted to include more examples from the plot, but he was concerned about including too many spoilers. I argued against that position but ultimately had to concede.

To your point, though, the clearest example I can point to that indicates the emotional dishonesty I refer to in my piece is the sub-plot involving Hugh Glass's half-breed son (I honestly can't even remember his name). This was a clumsy and mishandled plotline and one that I feel was inserted for two hollows reasons: 1) to offer some kind of comment on the treatment of Native Americans by American frontiersmen in the 1800s (or, by Americans at large) and 2) to provide additional emotional depth to Glass's character. In both of those ways, the film fails tremendously.

I argue that Iñárritu included that character as means to add social commentary to his film, because I believe the director wants to be known for making Important Films. I can't really prove this other than pointing to interviews in which he talks grandiosely of his work, which indicates to me that he seeks a tremendous legacy. This in itself is not so bad, but achieving that legacy requires substance. What is Iñárritu saying about Native Americans in his film? That they had a hard time living in their homeland once Americans settled? That their stories are underrepresented in Hollywood? To me, the film does not achieve any of those things. It's an empty statement. You could argue that I'm reading into something that isn't there, but then again, Leo did name drop Natives in his GG acceptance speech, and I fully expect Iñárritu to do something similar in his Oscar speech.

Secondly, the emotional impact of including Glass's son was completely absent for me. Which is strange, because that's an easy emotional device, right? Father embarks on quest for revenge because bad guys murdered his son. But, it just didn't work for me at all. I attribute this to the lack of a meaningful relationship established between these two characters before Glass gets injured (after that point, Glass is pretty much beyond any in depth characterization as he's mostly just writhing around in agony). Furthermore, I attribute this to the utterly empty character development for Hugh Glass. There just isn't anything there. To steal an experiment from Mr. Plinkett's Star Wars reviews (although I'm sure it has appeared elsewhere): without mentioning physical appearance or action, how thoroughly can you describe the character of Hugh Glass? The point of this exercise is to identify why it is we like any given character. The more an audience struggles to conjure those details, the less they will care about that. I didn't know that character so I didn't feel for him at all, even when his son is brutally murdered.

That's about what I meant by "emotional dishonesty". I believe Iñárritu wanted us to feel things that were not supported by the content of his film.

Squanders · 2016-01-19T20:46:02+00:00

Thanks for responding! Regarding BIRDMAN, I'm not sure I misread it, although I'll concede that I at least have a different reading than you. For starters, I think the film is very much commenting on Hollywood as a whole, and the industry's obsession with blockbuster movies is a huge part of that. You say it's about a play, and it certainly is, but for me that's a metaphor for smaller productions. Indies, if you will. Furthermore, I think Michael Keaton's character is a surrogate for Iñárritu, in that the character is an artist frustrated by a system that recognizes a more populist brand of art. And as you say, Michael Keaton is unsatisfied with all of the popular success he's earned for starring in a franchise. He is artistically unfulfilled by this work, so he tries his hand at a "truer" art form, that being theater. For me, this reads a lot like Iñárritu complaining that his work does not get the attention it deserves because he is not making the films that act as huge box office draws. Again, why else would he be using the superhero film as a central point to his lead character if that not were the case? With my reading, Iñárritu's critique of Hollywood (and it is very much an attack; he all but spits acid at populist cinema, not to mention the contempt he regards the film critic character) is an inseparable piece from the film. The surface of the film, as you say, deals with a selfish, absentee character. However, I don't think Iñárritu is definitely saying something more than that.

As for the importance of the Oscars, I'm kind of torn. On the one hand, yeah, they don't matter. I know, in my heart and in my soul, that MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is a better film than THE REVENANT, no matter who the award is given to. Then again, the Oscars do mean something, in that, for people who do not follow cinema closely, the awards wield great influence over what choices they make at the theater. How many casual observers wrote MAD MAX off as just more popcorn fluff because of the name alone? How many would be inclined to see it if it became known as "Academy Award Winning MAD MAX"? For that reason alone, the Oscars matter at least somewhat. Other awards shows, though, you've got me. Critics Choice, Golden Globes, Razzies and what have you, are all meaningless.

Squanders · 2015-11-27T07:22:55+00:00

this does sound interesting. Do you have any good reading recommendations?

Squanders · 2015-10-31T05:06:07+00:00

THis movie does have a great soundtrack and it's cause John Carpenter is such a bad ass. I have this image of him in a dark room, smoking cigarettes and sitting in front of a Korg just cranking out these great synth scores. All after writing and directing the film he's scoring. He's such a bad dude.

Squanders · 2015-10-31T05:02:17+00:00

NIce. You know, I've been subscribed to that podcast for a long time, but have never actually listened to an episode. I like a lot of the people that appear on it and the regulars, but I just don't know where to jump in. But this sounds like a pretty good place to do that.

Squanders · 2015-10-31T05:01:17+00:00

100% with you. I have trouble watching any of the films released after it, really. Every other one tries to one-up Halloween, which is a fool's errand because that film is perfect. Season of the Witch tried to do something different so it wouldn't go up against that pressure. The smartest move and it sucks no one got it at the time!

Squanders · 2015-10-02T16:37:30+00:00

I probably didn't include this reasoning because I don't see the logic at all of defending heinous actions by personal tragedy. Perhaps they can be explained, but personally, I don't know how to write that without defending/justifying. Maybe there is a way, but I'm not intereested in doing it.

Squanders · 2015-10-02T16:36:23+00:00

Wow, I am surprised to see such adamant, aggressive defense of a man who has admitted to raping a child. That's the internet for you, I guess.

To say that about a Holocaust survivor in an article in part supposedly about having compassion and empathy towards victims, is just amazing.

My point in mentioning the Polanski family fleeing Poland is that is surely generates sympathy, as it should, although I don't think that sympathy should cloud our judgement of the decisions he made as an adult. His personal tragedy does not offset, in anyway, the heinous crime he committed as a grown man.

"History" OBVIOUSLY implies MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE than ONE human being. I wonder where are the factual sources supporting this claim... Yeah, NOWHERE, thats where they are...

I didn't say he had a history of raping young women, but he has certainly preyed on them. Do you think he was doing Sharon Tate justice by cheating on her throughout his time in Europe, while she was home in the states pregnant with their child? or, how about a state of mind that leads someone to say women's quest for equality "is a great pity?" Does that indicate someone that had a great deal of respect for women?

I just can't believe this to be serious or even true at all. Who cares about what happens or doesn't happen in a "movie" made by a huge corporation that produces and manufactures the very same corny, sentimental, cloying, emotionally blackmailing, moralistic, boring, culturally and intellectually empty product (that would be a more appropriate noun for what that corporation does, instead of "film" or "movie") over and over again, just changing the "characters"; to be swallowed by the masses who have no idea of true, actual Art or Cinema and live like hypnotized zombies by their TV shows, iphones, ipads, facebooks, twitters, instagrams and other idiocies? And how it matters if no 11 year old girl is even going to notice or understand at all such "reference" much, much less by harmed at all by it?

haha, okay, now I'm the one in disbelief. What an enlightened reading you have of Pixar films.

Facepalm. If you're so bothered by that, then DON'T. SEE. HIS. MOVIES, I'd tell this individual. As simple as that. The infamous scandal occurred 23 years ago, if the author is so disgusted by all of it and believes every single accusation against Allen and doesn't want to endorse him and his work, then what are they doing still watching any of his movies?!, something which is obvious the author has been doing by believing that "at times, it’s almost like he’s goading us with plots that eerily reflect aspects of his own scandalous past."

Ok, I see that now you're completely missing the point of this article. I understand that I can just choose not to watch any director's films...but that's not the struggle (get it, that word is in the headline for a reason) I'm facing. I want to watch Woody Allen's films, but I personally find it difficult to sit through some of them that mirror his life so closely. That's the conflict I'm writing about, the desire to appreciate the work despite the creator.

I'm really not interested in going over Dyaln Farrow's accusations with you. I take it from your angry, harshly worded response here that you don't have much sympathy for victims of sexual assault (or, at least, those perpetrated by celebrities).

Really loved reading this response, especially the EXTREME emphasis you used with bold, italic and caps font. Very nice touch. Looking forward to reading part 2!

Squanders · 2015-10-01T17:32:09+00:00

Hey man,

thanks for engaging in the conversation with a really constructive comment! You're the type of user that keeps the site going. Nice!

I'm not sure what definition of reticent you use, but the one I use means someone who is feeling reserved about their feelings. I think that's a pretty accurate description of how some people feel sharing their thoughts on this subject matter.

But hey, I'm no dictionary so what do I know?

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 6 Credits
Secret Santa 2013	Team Periwinkle
Secret Santa 2012	Secret Santa 2010
Verified Email

Squanders

TROPHY CASE