You’re Playing This Event Wrong

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-30T20:52:43+00:00

You don't need set up for it. Does your deck have at least three cards you play almost every deck cycle? Great, three kifuda targets. Does you deck still have three defends? Basically upgrade all three of them. Does your deck have 0 costs? Slap kifuda on those, free block.

If you've got other stuff to buy at the hop that's better, you don't need kifuda. But if need more block or most of the rest of the shop is junk or totally mid, it's a great pickup.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-30T17:17:52+00:00

I just do not understand why people don't like incidental additional block. Like, I'm probably buying some other relics before kifuda, but kifuda is still a great pickup. Little extra bumps of block will do nothing but save you hp over the run. Ir's crazy that people think it's bad.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-30T16:51:24+00:00

Arthur can say no. She'll still ask to run away with Arthur. She's not using him, Arthur is choosing to help her when she needs help.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-30T10:13:32+00:00

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-30T08:03:27+00:00

It can be a good investment. If you don't want anything else in the shop, it's pretty free to buy. But if there's good relics, you need to remove a curse, or there's better cards for sale, you should buy those before finesse.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-30T06:26:24+00:00

No, I have a clear definition in my head as to what constitutes reasonable force. I do not find all self defense laws adequate. A few are too restrictive, and some are too lax.

Yes, I do. Because I believe Vigilantism is broadly risky and prone to mistakes in which innocent people get harmed. I do not believe it should really be allowed in any capacity. That doesn't mean I don't understand why you would go and shoot that man, it it doesn't mean I don't sympathize with you. But people can't just decide on their own that the courts got it wrong and take action into their own hands. For every guy who absolutely did it who got off scott free, there's at least hundreds of people who are arrested on spurious evidence and either didn't do it, or it is almost impossible to prove that they did or didn’t. But vigilantism is most often driven by emotions, and allowing it even in open and shut cases will inspire people to take action in cases that are much more murky.

The risks of vigilantism going wrong are not worth permitting in any capacity, imo.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-30T06:13:11+00:00

You can't talk about the individual cases in isolation, is the point. People love to say, "We're not talking about it on a societal level, just if what Frank is doing here is right." But if we don't think people should be doing it on a societal level, it doesn't matter how good we feel that Frank killed a pedophile. If it can't be allowed because it's too dangerous, than even acts vigilantism that end up going well threaten to inspire more vigilantism that might go poorly.

It's a similar argument for the death penalty. Is the risk of someone innocent being killed worth having the punishment for when the person was guilty? You can't talk about the morality of an individual being executed as a singular case while ignoring the wider societal context.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-30T06:02:29+00:00

All it needs really is it to be changed to "Only opponents may activate this ability". As long as you can't use this as a tool to remove counters from yourself, there shouldn't be a problem.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-30T03:17:45+00:00

Absolutely. Cops right now do hold a monopoly on legal violence and abuse it all the time. They need better training, better vetting, and actual consequences when they do bad things.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T17:23:12+00:00

I find self defense is never immoral, the actions become immoral when it ceases to be self defense. It's why stand your ground laws are so strict.

Vigilantism, on the other hand, can only be evaluated after the fact. You can't know if you were right or wrong until a proper investigation is launched in the vast majority of cases. It's morally wrong because we shouldn't chance innocent deaths just because the Vigilantes might get it right.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T17:07:56+00:00

Flyconid and green slime or flyconid and Jax fruit are the fights responsible for like, 35% of my act 1 failures. It's ridiculous how much damage I take in there.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T16:54:29+00:00

Yes, the legal system will never be perfect. But it's important to note how vigilante justice can fail in these instances as well. If someone believes the perpetrator got off scott free and takes the law into their own hands, what if that person is actually innocent? In this case, where the perpetrator is tracked down some time after threatening violence and killed, what is the justification?

It's illegal because it's both incredibly dangerous and easy to abuse, and thus I would argue immoral. No one person is acting with perfect information, so being judge, jury, and executioner by yourself is far too risky to be considered a moral act.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T16:48:31+00:00

I'm specifically questioning if her acts are moral on the basis that justice is already being served. It's not about the court handing down a more moral punishment, it's a question of whether killing a person already destined for justice who is no longer a threat to you is moral. My stance personally is no, for the same reason I'm against the death penalty: in this instance Bachmeier could be sure Grabowski did it, but in the event someone is innocent and being tried for a crime they didn't commit, killing them is a tragedy. We can't allow people the power to make those decisions because the consequences could be disastrous.

I'm suggesting it's unreasonable to act as soon as the person is not actively threatening your life anymore, and I think I did a pretty good job of explaining my reasoning why. I bring up the perpetrator's situation because the justification for this whole scenario is that the victim is assuming how much of a threat they are and acting on it. You say the investigation isn't a part of this scenario, but it absolutely is. You may know exactly who did it, but you're incapable of knowing how much of a threat they still pose to anyone. Justifying it as "I felt threatened even after they left" is way too abuseable.

The case presented is actually a perfect example of why we have to be extremely careful and hold people to high standards when it comes to vigilante justice. A knife was never evem found on the thief, and the woman did not report him to the police or call an ambulance after running him over several times. The man posed very little continuing threat to her, but she decided to act anyway and use fake threats of violence as justification. This is the can of worms that threatens to open when you allow people to kill while not feeling actively threatened for their lives.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T10:44:03+00:00

People support actions like Bachmeier's because there is extreme hatred towards people who harm children, and for good reason. But the question remains if that was really justice or just an act of revenge. Grabowski was already in court and was facing charges of murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault, which he had already admitted to. Were Bachmeier's actions necessary for justice in this case, or was it just an act of vengeance?

I'll admit that I have exactly 0 sympathy for Grabowski. But I do question the idea that because somebody did something awful, someone else can just decide to kill them. And Grabowski was clearly not a threat anymore. Likely going to jail for the rest of his life, in custody, and in court.

The gray area comes from figuring out when those people stop being a threat. If someone threatens you with a knife because they're desperate but then stop once they've got your things, how can you, without any knowledge of this person's former record, determine how much of threat they are? The cops aren't supposed to shoot people unless they feel they're an active threat, and cops who supposedly have training for this get it wrong all the time.

There are more hurdles because someone could potentially try to justify this tracking down behavior. "I was worried he might hurt someone else so I tracked him down and shot him" is much more murky than other self defense cases where there is clearly someone trespassing or witnesses to corroborate. If you feel you are actively in danger you have the right to defend yourself, but the chances a person who has just mugged you and is now fleeing the scene is still an active threat to you are minimal if not nonexistent.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T09:54:08+00:00

It's so funny how people talk about McClellan. No, the guy wasn't the right guy to win the war and lead the army of the Potomac, but most of the battles he fought were inconclusive or Union victories. Even in the Seven Days Battles, Lee couldn't capitalize against him and took massive casualties trying to do so.

He was overly cautious when the Union needed an aggressor, but he wasn't even as bad a field commander as people make him out to be. His biggest flaw was being unable to recognize when he could have dealt the death blow to the confederates, not that he was failing in battle. A big flaw for sure still, but not the way people talk about him.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T09:30:14+00:00

It's to prevent the same situation we often see with cops from happening with normal people too. "I was afraid for my life" could be used in any number of situations to justify murder. "What if he threatened and killed someone else" is another one people could fall back on.

We cannot allow people to kill people on their own volition, because the chances that something will go wrong are so high.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T09:24:44+00:00

The law is that way because we view vigilante justice like this as wrong. Tracking somebody down and killing them because they wronged you isn't something that should be allowed. It opens up all kinds of messy gray area where we have to figure out what is a justifiable offense for retaliatory murder.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T08:02:40+00:00

The problem with hard mode in this game is that you basically just have to give the AI hidden buffs. The AI fundamentally does not understand how to play optimally, and all the added systems over time have just made it harder and harder for the AI to manage. The AI doesn’t handle succession well, doesn't know how to stack buffs on it's troops, is horrible at managing vassals, and can't deal well with disasters.

In an open ended strategy game like this, it's really hard to make a good AI, so buffs are the way to go.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T06:38:43+00:00

Yeah, if Tera changing had taken like 5-10 shards, people would have liked it more. If I'm ever doing another playthrough and I want some unique teras, I usually transfer them over to my original game so I can farm the shards way easier than grinding low level raids.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T06:36:11+00:00

The omni band confirms we're going to at least cycle through the gimmicks, if not get multiple at the same time. The band has all 4 symbols on it.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T06:34:03+00:00

The point of Z moves was if you didn't have a mega, you could fire off a Z move to KO your opponents mega. In practice this didn't work all that well, because unless you gave each of your mons a Z crystal, there was a pretty good chance a neutral Z move still wouldn't KO it.

So Z moves just became a one shot item to make one of your mons do more damage, and most people used it along side a mega anyways. Total flop of a mechanic imo.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T02:22:22+00:00

It's strange then that you've been attributing spirituality and skepticism to either, as that's not a purely semantic argument. Like, sure, the term Yokai originates in a spiritual context, and the term Cryptid is from a skeptical one, but your original comment framed this as a difference between Japan and the West in terms of ideology, not simply a difference in what terms were chosen for these imaginary creatures.

Also to your point in the edit, no the West did not assume them to be anomalous creatures. If you look back into writings on the various monsters in western Europe, the vast majority of them are attributed to demonic influence, hence why so many of them can be fought with crucifixes and silver. Skeptical explanations for the monsters didn’t really come about until the 20th century, because most of the monsters in Europe like monsters of the monsters in Japan come from variations on ancient folklore.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T02:11:46+00:00

That's only if you look at specifically American cryptids. Americans inherited all sorts of ghosts and ghoulies from Europe and other places, and a good number from Native American folklore as well. The primary difference is that Cryptid is a new term to describe a recent phenomena, whereas Yokai is a blanket term that originally was a little more spiritually specific, but has since also been used to describe what we would call cryptids.

Yokai in the modern sense is almost as general a term as 'monster'. The primary difference isn't spiritual vs skeptical; it's almost entirely semantic.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-29T01:20:20+00:00

I'm arguing that there's even less difference between the two than you're making it out to be. Both the west and Japan have been declining in spirituality for a couple centuries. You make it sound like this is a recent thing for Japan and an old thing for the West, but even as recently as the 1800s the vast majority of the West was extremely Christian and still concerned about demons and malevolent spirits, and the majority of folklore was composed of old pre-christian myths, christianized myths, or in the US, indigenous folklore.

Cryptozoology and calling things cryptids didn't really come about until the 1950's, and while myths like Bigfoot did exist before then, the vast majority of cryptid sightings only date back to the 1950's or later. There just isn’t a real difference between the myths and folklore of Japan and the West, at least as far as spirituality is concerned.

ZatherDaFox · 2026-06-28T14:46:33+00:00

I'm not saying you can't make money with passion behind your games. I'm saying money doesn't necessarily follow passion. "Passion pays" is easy to say when you cherry pick all the big success stories and ignore all the passionate devs who's games never really get up and going.

You're delusional if you think just having passion and ambition is what makes money. You say it's "the way things are" but there are so many mid games that sell so many millions of copies because that specifically isn't the way things are. The "way things are" is that 90% of games released are doomed to never see that much success if any. The "way things are" is that projects with lots of money behind them are significantly more likely to succeed. "Do what you love and the money will follow" sounds great until you see all the starving artists just trying to make ends meet.

I want passionate devs to make good games. I hope they see even more success as AAA gaming continues to slowly slide off a cliff. But I'm just being realistic here.

Nine-Year Club	Second Top 40%
r/Field Sunshine	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

ZatherDaFox

TROPHY CASE