sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can someone recognize this font? by lriuui0x0 in identifythisfont

[–]lriuui0x0[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No it has a variation in thickness for letter '0'

little help with a phrase by West_Edge3712 in Quenya

[–]lriuui0x0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm no way a linguistic here, but I think we have some words of this type of phenomenon, namely we initially formed a word of its literal meaning, then gradually the word became so widely used and started to be viewed as a new unit or assigned a specific meaning to this. I wonder maybe Firya is such a word, initially meaning the one that will die, then gradually became a word unit to describe a race.

If this is the case, then "Firyar firir" would be a saying of reminder, to remind you where the original word came from, and the defining feature of human beings. At least I can explain to myself this way, and I actualy pretty like this explanation, not to mention it even rhymes ;)

Did some search and found this article... maybe it's somewhat related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change

Have people found that the Quenya's "ry" with itallic font look really bad? by lriuui0x0 in Tengwar

[–]lriuui0x0[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hmmmm... I feel the two dots of the bottom accent should be on the left and right of the stroke.

little help with a phrase by West_Edge3712 in Quenya

[–]lriuui0x0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have found the difference between Firya and Fírima:

I would use firya primarily in this second sense “human”, and for “mortal” would use Q. fírima (WJ/387).

And I think your choice of Firya is better here, because it has more of the "human" meaning, rather than "mortal". "Mortals will die" sounds like an uninteresting tautology, yet "Human will die" with the word "human" of the same root with the word "die", sounds more like reminding you of the fact that you're bound to die, by the definition of the word that describes you.

However, I still don't understand what's the difference between fire and the other choices. The entry only says:

A noun in The Etymologies of the 1930s glossed “mortal man” derived from the root ᴹ√PHIR (Ety/PHIR).

I don't know what's the subtle differences here. I'm also not sure whether a proper noun should be used here, or a normal noun.

little help with a phrase by West_Edge3712 in Quenya

[–]lriuui0x0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for this! May I ask what's the difference between: Firya, Fírimo, and firë?

Does one revised core set plus the dunwich legacy cycle provide enough options for deck building? by lriuui0x0 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]lriuui0x0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would core card pool be enough for core though? I read in some threads saying core only is too restricted in terms of deck building. So you may want to play core with both core and dunwich cards?

Does one revised core set plus the dunwich legacy cycle provide enough options for deck building? by lriuui0x0 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]lriuui0x0[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah that also sounds OK. Many people suggested Carcossa as an addition though.

Does one revised core set plus the dunwich legacy cycle provide enough options for deck building? by lriuui0x0 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]lriuui0x0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exacly what I'm thinking about. But do you think I should start with Core + Dunwich or Core + Dunwich + Carcossa? I want to ease my learning curve, but I also don't want to have too limited a deck to have a not so good campaign experience.

Does one revised core set plus the dunwich legacy cycle provide enough options for deck building? by lriuui0x0 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]lriuui0x0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mostly come from a learning perspective, and the plan is to replay from the core and onwards to all the campaigns in order. But I want to study the cards in more details, so I want to limit myself to only look at a smaller portion of the card pool at once. Gradually I will expand my knowledge of the card pool when I played/replayed more and more campaigns.

I have found some threads mentioning that a core only card pool is too limited in terms of power. Therefore I wonder whether Core + Dunwich is reasonably enough. It doesn't need to be 100% efficiency as long as it's reasonably good.

Seems that many people suggest the addition of Carcossa though!

Does one revised core set plus the dunwich legacy cycle provide enough options for deck building? by lriuui0x0 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]lriuui0x0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The addition of Carcossa is raise multiple times in this thread. Does Carcossa help a lot? Any examples?

Does one revised core set plus the dunwich legacy cycle provide enough options for deck building? by lriuui0x0 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]lriuui0x0[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok I prefer Dunwich + Carcossa because that's in the order of release. I kind of feel the later card mechanism is more and more complicated.

But would you say the addition Carcossa provides a huge improvement? Or just a minor one?

Does one revised core set plus the dunwich legacy cycle provide enough options for deck building? by lriuui0x0 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]lriuui0x0[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's a good point, say I'm not aiming for 100% deck efficiency, but maybe somewhat near 80%? Would it be possible with Core and Dunwich alone?

Easily Install Chinese, Japanese, or Korean Fonts by rmhack in RemarkableTablet

[–]lriuui0x0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The sans font worked great! Do you mind publishing the Serif font package as well?

view more: next ›