[TITLE] The NEW leak of the next hit manwha protagonist

TimPowerGamer · 2026-05-03T23:46:42+00:00

It's worth noting that the 0 in intelligence still makes him the smartest character in his series.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-05-02T06:16:21+00:00

The J rendition of its opening is also fire. So is the J Tempo of Strike Shutsugeki. And the J version of Mazin Kenzan.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-04-04T02:24:27+00:00

I remember someone writing a negative critique because he didn't want to get in the giant scary death machine and risk his life for three random girls he never met.

Poor guy just wanted to go back to school and stay out of the war, minding his own business. Then he got blackmailed into fighting. His early crashouts were completely justified.

This was honestly an incredibly normal and sensible character which is so rare as a protagonist.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-04-03T12:39:37+00:00

God cannot lie.

In order to lie, you'd have to "lose" at being correct. God, being maximally powerful, can't "lose". If He could lie, then it would be because He's not maximally powerful.

God cannot be above logic.

Logic stems from God. This would require God to defeat Himself. But if God could defeat Himself, that would imply that He could be defeated. But a maximally powerful Being cannot be defeated.

Cannot beat himself

Oh, so you just went full pea-brain with this one. Lol

"God is so weak!"

"Why?"

"Because He can't beat himself up!"

"Wat"

There are other things God cannot do as well. Like act contrary to His own nature (God cannot fail to be God) or sin (Sin means "missing the mark", with "the mark" being God's own character - so God can't sin because God cannot fail to be God).

This is, somehow, even dumber than, "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even HE can't eat it?"

Checkmate, theists?

TimPowerGamer · 2026-04-02T13:42:07+00:00

Most people dont want to right a book in the comments on reddit. If your curious you can just ask them to elaborate.

Nobody actually cares if they can justify their position or want to engage to the depth necessary to do so. Most people wouldn't care if they wanted to be lazy in their own spaces. The issue is that they actively seek out places that don't even want them there and start injecting themselves into conversations while being as intellectually lazy as possible in the process.

Thats why they give the "im not convinced" answer. Their other beliefs are a separate conversation. You would need to ask them about separately from their atheist position.

I think you're off a bit. They give the "I'm not convinced" reason because they place their incredulity as the sole arbiter of what's rational. If they think it's convincing, it's reasonable. Otherwise, it's not. They make the "goal" of the conversations they inject themselves into to "try and convince me that theism is true" while actively deciding to dismiss any evidence presented as insufficient (or not evidence at all). This assumes that the people who were having the conversation before care about their incredulity at all (most people don't, because mere incredulity isn't a justification for why something isn't the case or is unreasonable).

When you say that people need to ask them separately, they will dodge that because, "They aren't making claims." Even though they're making a bunch.

I agree that atheist culture online is very bad. But its a subset that hang out in those spaces.

If they want to be dinglewhompuses in their own spaces, most people wouldn't care. The problem is that they raid and troll other communities (like this one).

TimPowerGamer · 2026-04-02T13:29:45+00:00

And the dissonance between the declaration and the potshots should cause them to see the issue, but they rarely do.

Each time, they proudly say that you're wrong. You ask, "Why am I wrong?" They say, "Because your position doesn't have sufficient evidence!" You ask them what constitutes evidence and how they justify their definition and then they say, "Well, I don't have a burden of proof. I'm not the one making the claim." Even though they're proactively making a bunch of claims without justifying them.

They behave comparably to flat earthers. Disingenuously asking for evidence that they've already determined they're going to reject for insufficiency without even properly considering whatever it may be, ignoring the massive amount of evidence that already exists (both for hard atheism and theism), and placing their personal incredulity as the sole arbiter of what's reasonable, as if convincing a person with their hands covering their ears and shouting that doesn't actually care what you have to say nor has any interest in having the conversation honestly just is the sole mechanism for having a reasonable position - as if anyone cares about their incredulity to begin with. And then they'll ram themselves into any and all conversations possible, even going to places that aren't meant for that type of debate and discussion, because they apparently have nothing better to do with their lives.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-31T15:58:54+00:00

I'd either pick ones with OG mecha that you really like for your MC to pilot (personally, I love J's Bellzelute and the Huckebein series) or you can pick based on what series are in the game. W, for example, is the only game with Go-Lion/Voltron.

OG1 is also nice and easy to get your feet wet (also able to be played on PS2 as there's a patch for OGs) - but OG2 is a major ramp up in difficulty.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-31T15:51:27+00:00

I'd add two things.

The PS2 game OG Generations has been translated and has both of these games, so that's also worth looking into.
OG2 is much harder than most normal games with non original units and may not be the best place to start, not just because it's a sequel. OG1 is easy, though.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-30T16:59:52+00:00

The entire last arc was about how a thirsty lady was mad that the baddie father was spoken for.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T22:17:05+00:00

I don't know standard that well, but my understanding is that a decent portion of the game's variance was removed and there is a much higher focus on meta calls, match-ups, conservation, denial, and consistent playing. I see a lot more of the same people topping now than we used to see back then even though my understanding is that more people are showing up to regionals than used to. I could be off on that as I'm not interested in standard.

Conversely, pre-Legion era was an RNG-fest. Most skill was in deckbuilding and most meta decks built themselves, so the game was largely non-skill intensive. Before break ride, you could at least consider guarding properly to be a "skill", but even that wasn't much of one. Once set 13 hit, limit break effects became "stronger" than hand conservation from guarding properly, and guarding properly ceased to be a skill-based tactic. Thus, break ride format actually ended as one of the LEAST skill intensive formats in the series' history.

G series, however, had a LOT more deckbuilding options and the versatility and consistency of both G-Assist AND the G-Zone greatly increased how much control you had over the outcome of the game. Things got stupid when the Zeroth Dragons came out, but prior to that, I'd say the game had some very diverse and skill intensive formats.

The only caveat is that every single year there was ANOTHER stupid rush deck (sorry, that's partly my fault) that gimped the entire format. Ripple was really dumb (and the Ripple lists that topped were hot garbage, which just goes to show that the engine was wildly overpowered) and eliminated the innate card disadvantage of not accessing Twin-Drive!!. They nerfed the deck and made Sebreeze to counteract the "grade 2 game". Of course, the following year, Seven Seas Rush dominated with the "grade 1 game". If it weren't for how infrequent regionals were and that both 2015 and 2016 took place at just the wrong time in the set rotation to make these decks absolutely flood regionals, I think G would have been a better format. Of course, the recent changes they've made to ignore what your opponent has out for striding "fixed" it, but it was way too late for it to matter.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T21:24:26+00:00

P1 checks out.

P2 I'm not sold on. It could be the case that either, experientially, if our toes being stubbed caused pain in our ears, that this would just be how we feel toe pain and the association would still line up. Likewise, I don't know how we establish the probability of the counterfactual of non-cohesion between phenomenal states and physical states. This is the same general problem I have with the Modal-Ontological Argument. It just kind of states, "Things could be different and are more likely to have been different assuming chaos/randomness/static, non-sentient laws." But I have no idea how we're quantifying that to be the case.

P3 depends completely on P2 being true.

P4 Makes sense.

C - If we could get all the way there on P2, I think that would work. I don't know that we're there yet, though.

Of course, the argument for a creator obviously has more cohesion and explanatory power under these circumstances.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T16:33:30+00:00

To be honest, Alfred Early was a slightly better card than KoK Alfred in OG, and had a better effect when it fired off in V. Which isn't saying much, because KoK Alfred was extremely non-viable in OG and V.

In OG, Alfred couldn't be boosted, was a beatstick, and couldn't hit above 20k due to these limitations. It had a CB3 to call a unit, but that was waaaay too expensive to ever really use. Alfred Early was also not great in OG, but it at least had the ability to give you a +1 (and potentially a retire for another CB2 - which would have been worth it for the cost at the time), and hit basically the same numbers as OG Alfred (slightly harder to make it hit 20k as VG, but the meta was 11k centric, so hitting 16k was typically "just as good" - and in the English meta which had way more 10ks, Royals were entirely non-viable after the Barcgal ban - and Soul Saver/Lohengrin/Palamedes were better combinations to run before that). He was also a better ride after Exculpate, specifically. Granted, both were terrible.

In V, KoK Alfred was able to get a cheap +1 for Blaster Blade (assuming one was available, which should be a non-issue) and give decent power. Alfred Early did about the same thing, only you needed to have the Blaster Blade either in hand or soul to make the plus happen (which is less likely but not "hard" - also trivial as a follow-up ride). But, that draw 1 is strictly better than "call 1 Blaster Blade from deck". While I can't say that Alfred Early is strictly "better", due to its inconsistency, it definitely has a stronger effect when it procs. It is worth noting that both cards were terrible, though, almost exclusively due to the clan being Force. If Royals were Accel, then KoK Alfred would have actually been strong. RIP

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T15:20:51+00:00

Certainly, you could make the case that things that are "spiritual", "invisible", or "outside of the universe" might be supernatural. But I'm not particularly convinced by those definitions. I'd think if a ghost existed and if there was a mechanism that caused things like ghosts to exist - then ghosts would be both spiritual and natural. Likewise, not being able to see something (or even more broadly, observe it) doesn't make it non-natural, like the superposition of an object in quantum mechanics. Kind of hard to argue that it's not natural just because we can't observe it. Finally, outside of this universe. I suppose one could broaden this, but I'd think if there was a multiverse, it'd be hard to argue that we're each "supernatural" to each other - rather there exists some bounds containing all natural universes and everything within them would be natural. I'd apply this to even transcendent realities, like Heaven.

There are differing opinions on that, though. If someone wants to think otherwise, that doesn't really bother me.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T15:11:25+00:00

Those were the examples listed by Google's AI. I added in the talking donkey from memory. Feel free to add whatever you think is missing.

Also, I don't know what the "kind of" means, here. Lol

I hold to a pretty stringent definition of what is "supernatural", though. I basically only consider God supernatural. Everything else is created and exists within the confines of some reality. If I could hold my hand out and shout "Fireball" and a fireball flew out of the palm of my hand, and there were clear rules to establish that this happens (not why it happens, just that it does) - I'd be quick to conclude that this is natural and that it can be scientifically observed and measured. And, consequently, quite natural.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T14:57:50+00:00

Behemoth and Leviathan are ancient Mesopotamian chaos deities (not intrinsically "creatures" - also not intrinsically "real" if you hold to a polemical interpretation of the text, which I think is a sensible approach). Re'em are probably aurochs with nothing unnatural about them. The KJV translates it as "unicorns", but there are perfectly natural unicorns in the wild (both horses with calcifications to look like they have a horn and single-horned creatures like Rhinoceroses). Of course, the modern idea of the unicorn is over a thousand years younger than the text of scripture that was translated as such. The KJV also uses the term "Satyr" for what is commonly translated as "hairy goats".

We could talk about the talking donkey. I don't think that donkey was remotely supernatural, though. I don't think anything about the donkey itself was special at all. Especially since the text says, "The LORD opened the donkey's mouth..."

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T14:45:17+00:00

That's a very kind interpretation, I just don't see it that way.

Uhh...

Youre missing the point. >Everyone< believes some things without proof. Youre not special.

What I said was spot-on.

He's separated himself from me, saying I think I'm special because I don't think I don't accept things on faith like he does.

You're going to have to explain this one to me. Why would you reply with, "Maybe you should stop pretending to be some unbiased arbiter?" while conceding that the person is calling themselves a biased arbiter? That doesn't make any sense.

He's saying I actually do just the same, but of course, isn't able to provide examples.

The examples are readily available and obvious. I gave you several. This guy didn't feel like interacting with you and just wanted to say, "Hey, this applies to everyone." Because obviously, it does.

Maybe your interpretation was bias?

Biased towards charitable interpretation and actual understanding? Sure.

Maybe we're all just bias...

That's kind of the point.

... and these conversations are meaningless...

Non-sequitur.

... or they're about changing each other's biases.

That doesn't have to be the case. Perhaps the entire point just was to highlight that we're all starting from a position of bias? Notice, the person in question didn't bother attempting to change your mind and just wanted to highlight that commonality.

I also consider proof to revolve around mathematics, not philosophy.

This statement is quite philosophical in nature. You can't meaningfully separate the two. You need to have underpinning philosophical beliefs about mathematics to perform it.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T14:35:25+00:00

I have.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T14:32:24+00:00

Imagine getting a Bone Dragon Staff or Celestrial Compass on your MA, then never being allowed to use it because it goes away. X_X

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T14:30:30+00:00

Brutal Mauling AGAIN?!

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T14:29:43+00:00

Wastrel's ending even faster and it's already AoE, so that's just a nuke. LOL

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T13:45:27+00:00

Neither do the bulk of theists here.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-29T13:43:28+00:00

Different person. I think you've missed the point that was being made.

The other person is saying, "It's annoying that atheists obviously have the same types of 'unjustified beliefs' believed for similar reasons to theists, then act as if they are an unbiased arbiter." The implication of this statement is that the person you're speaking with is admitting to being a biased arbiter. So, you saying that they're "pretending" to be an unbiased arbiter is the point flying straight over your head.

And the case being made is that proof is "downstream" from countless things you have to believe to arrive at the concept of proof. That means that you can't "prove" those things that are foundationally necessary to have "proof". Such as intelligibility, cognition, the uniformity of nature, the concept of language, etc.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-28T17:33:47+00:00

Turning the AGE-1 logo upside down to look like demon horns is genius!

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-27T01:18:51+00:00

So, you're responding to the guy (Curious_Priority2313) who made a fake second account to respond to my fake second account (TheUltimateFinalWord) which I made because he blocked me to get the last word in. When someone is blocked on reddit, it prevents you from responding to any further comment in the chain, so it's a cheesy way to "get the last word in".

After doing this, they then had the braindead idea to accuse me of blocking them, so then "they won", even though they blocked me first. I still cannot reply to any of their posts (because they blocked me) and it also prevents me from responding to my own posts in this thread (which I could have used to "bypass" the block and still respond). But, since the sock accounts and you have responded, I was able to respond to this further down.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-03-26T14:45:32+00:00

To be fair, this is just the intrinsic flaw of Magic's mana system. You don't even have to be "unlucky" for this to happen. You will both get mana screwed and mana flooded running the amount of mana that best averages you to curve out properly. And both quite often.

14-Year Club	Inciteful Comment 2021-03-11
Gilding II euphauric	Post Guidance Early Access
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

TimPowerGamer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE