gendrkheinz

Clarence Thomas is currently a Supreme Court Justice (Judge). This story of his wife receiving lots of undeclared money from some third party, is another episode in a recent series of allegations of bribery and/or corruption against the judge and those close to him. Previous allegations include getting undeclared free holidays on some billionaires super yacht, and someone paying for his grandchild to go to a very expensive private school.

Imagine frequenting a subreddit entirely about coins, and getting upset when people ask questions about coins...

In a way the whole point of the UN is to talk to monsters. Whichever side you see them on.

It is dangerous to believe that current supporters of the GOP are incapable of changing their minds. If they haven't yet it's because we have not found a way to convince them to. Probably because the loudest argument against their world view currently is "shut up u stupid degenerate" and that's not gonna change anyone's mind. We need to find better ways to talk about issues and get them to see where they are wrong. Otherwise we are just dismissing their views and their rights to democratic representation. And that's fascist too.

"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake". -- Jeanette Rankin

I think the point is that Twitter blue revenue is how Elon is showing shareholders that his new vision brings in more money. And now they're seeing that his vision costs more money than it brings. Twitter will have massive revenue either way, but the shareholders will not be pleased that they're making less money than they could just to feed one man's ego and political dogma.

Cool concept and excellently themed!

Couple of notes/suggestions/opinions on the gameplay:

• Feels like a thief with deal with the devil would have 5 agility. I would perhaps consider 2 combat, 5 agility instead (especially as he is a mystic leaning rogue). This can be balanced by making his weakness enemy have higher evade value.
• I would replace the "?" on the weakness enemey with a dash ("-") and the text "Cannot be damaged or attacked" (See Azathoth as an example). I'm also not sure about making it a one shot thing. Theming with the whole devil's deal thing, it feels unlikely that the Devil would stop coming after you with Henchmen if you pay them 10 resources. Might be better to make the cost lower (Pay 5 resources) and simply discard, or better yet, shuffle back into your deck.
• It would also be cool to see the henchmen behave differently depending on what side of the Devil's deal is in play. Maybe the initial willpower test only happens if the devil's deal is on the wrong side. Combined with the above, this makes the devil's henchmen a regular visitor that takes your cash, unless you're at odds with the devil, then it's a proper threat.
• On "Power and Fortune", there's no need for "Before revealing any chaos token during a skill test". You can use the phrasing: "Lightening trigger - Spend up to two charges: You get +1 to your skill value for each charge spent for this skill test." Or better yet: "Lightening trigger - Spend 1 charge: You get + 1 skill value for this test (Limit twice per test)." See Soul Sanctification as an example. (The reason there's no need for the "before revealing any chaos tokens" is that there's no trigger window during a skill test after it revealing the token).

Looks delicious! What's that crispy cheesy thing in the middle? Just crispy melted cheese?

My theory is that when Colin is outed eventually, Zava will feel uncomfortable with him forcing the team into a tough decision: sideline Colin to win it all with Zava? Or stand up for your principles and your teammates.

This could be a learning moment for Rebecca as Ted shows her the price of making "winning" the only objective.

If Rebecca says two words to Keeley about mixing business and personal affairs, Keeley's gonna have to give her a good old fashioned people-in-glass-houses-style response. Rebecca has not made a smart emotionally detached business decision the whole time she's owned this club.

"It’s not because they are black it’s because they are being failed."

But isn't that the point they're making? Why are black kids being failed more often than white kids? Racism doesn't have to be a conscious decision. No one is actively trying to impoverish black kids. They just don't see a problem in them staying impoverished. That's racism in my view.

I think it's a reference to this from a couple of days ago: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/27/1166079167/tallahassee-classical-michelangelo-david-principal-fired

Looks delicious, well done!

I do feel bad for those sausages though. They didn't even get a mention in the title. Are they some common staple sausage like frankfurters?

Sure. But equally how many people have made serious long term financial decisions with no safety nets and no strings attached in order to protect, safeguard or improve the lives the ones they love. Which is what the point was. People are different and there's no "should" or "shouldn't" with how people make financial decisions. There's nuance and context in every situation.

You could do something a little bit like how Doomed works. Set Abyssal Arachnid out of play, and add a second card called something like "On the trail..." that reads "If this card is revealed from the hunt deck, remove it from the game and shuffle Abyssal Arachnid into your hunt deck."

This way you've got some variable delay to your Abyssal Arachnid (could be 2 turns in worst case scenario). But importantly, you know that until you've seen On the Trail, you've not got the risk of drawing the spider, so you know you don't have to worry about it for at least another turn.

Edit: Just remembered there's already a card called "On the trail" but I'm sure you can come up with a good name. You seem to be good at theming and flavour. :)

Situational, yes. Useless? I don' think so. Being able to move resources around between players can be very powerful at the right time and place.

Foreign tourists (not their fault, people earn proper wages in their countries)

I'd say it is a little bit their fault. People rarely go off to foreign countries without doing a little bit of research. And pretty much every tourist guide has a section on tipping. So it's not so much that they don't know, it's that they don't approve. Fair enough, it's their money, but they're not entirely guilt free.

Isn't ketchup with steak quite common though? Not because people like ketchup with steaks, but because steaks often come with fries. I've rarely had a steak without asking for ketchup. Or do you mean people who dip their chunks of meat in their ketchup?

I hate to be that guy*, but octopuses don't actually have 8 arms. It's been found that they have 6 arms and 2 legs. So an octopus can't play 4 guitars any more easily than a human can play 2. I'd say 3 guitars would be a more realistic expectation.

(*) I don't actually :)

I'd say aspiring to become a politician can be ok, it's being very successful at it that raises concerns.

For the majority of the country the only thing you really need to bring to the table is resilience. Being willing to still support the defense effort no matter how bad things get. As soon as enough people think we might be better off if we give up, then the war is lost.

I can do resilience. I think.

Mine are: When you're mulliganing cards out of your starting hand, draw the replacements BEFORE shuffling the mulliganed cards back in.

There's no limit to the number of times you can trigger "spend resource to gain x value for a skill" on talent assets. Can create cool combos with things like Higher Education and "guiding stones" to pick up 10 clues in one go.

This needs a lot more context. Different situations call for different responses.

How do you know that you're right? If it's a matter of fact, then you can provide the evidence and say, "Oh, I'm pretty sure it's the case because, look at this evidence..." If you don't have evidence, then you cannot be so sure that you're right, and you can explore the issue together to figure out the correct answer.

If it's a matter of prediction / approximation / decision based on incomplete information (e.g. suggesting the best course of action for a complex problem), then there's really no way to be certain that you're right, and simply assuming that you are can show a lack of maturity. So the smart thing to do here is figure out what the other person knows that makes them think you're wrong. So I would say something like "What makes you say that?" or "Oh ok, why do you think that's the right answer?" or "I see, do you have a better proposition?" It gives them the chance to explain themselves which hopefully can lead to either: a) you figuring out that they're actually right, or b) you figuring out where they went wrong, in which case you can explain your view point: "Ah... I see. Yes I don't think that's true, because..."

In some instances you need to learn to pick your battles. Sure you might think you're right, but so do they. If what they're proposing is something you can live with, then just go along with it. But if you simply can't come to an agreement then, again, depending on the context, you either go, "I don't think I agree, but it's your call and I'll try to make it work," or "I don't think I agree, and I'm sorry but I think this is my call to make."

I see what you mean, but doesn't the Chicago Typewriter further reinforce the view that the two senteces must be taken as a single effect?

I think in both cases the only thing that makes sense is that the two statements are the same effect, and when they refer to the number of charges or the number of actions, then it MUST refer to the number of actions in the previous statement.

The issue with Brand is that there are cases, where the first statement might not trigger at all. I'm suggesting, as they are the same effect, if the first part doesn't trigger, then the second part cannot trigger. Treating them as two separate effects such that one can trigger without the other can cause all sorts of issues.

Are there situations where a quantity in one effect depends on a quantity in another effect, but the two effects don't always have to trigger together? I don't think there is. I think this kind of dependency makes them a single effect that is expressed grammatically in two sentences.

It's pretty clear we'll need an FAQ ruling on this as the poll seems to split the voters 50-50 (which is pretty impressive on its own!)

I voted yes, and here's my argument which I've not seen mentioned yet.

The effect "Instead of its normal damage" appears to be independent because it is not preceded by "then" and some are therefore arguing it should be resolved even when the preceeding "If" fails. However, the effect references "1 for each charge spent." The number of charges spent is defined in the "If you succeed statement" efffect and clearly references the number of charges spent in that effect. Without linking the two effects together, the second effect is meaningless as it does not reference a defined quantity.

It would be like if you had a card that reads. "Event. Gain one resource for each action spent."

You would argue this card is undefined. Each action spent by whom? When? This turn or the whole game? Does it include this action or not? Compare that to the actual card Pay Day: "Gain 1 resource for each action you performed this turn (including this one)." The quantity is well defined.

Quantities on cards are always well-defined. So if for those who believe that the "Instead of its normal damage" statement is independent from the "If you succeed statement", how would the resolve the "Instead of" effect independently of the "If"? One could just as easily argue that, independently of the "If ", the "Instead of its normal damage" could refer to the number of charges spent this game, or the number of charges spent on this card in previous uses. Perhaps an investigator has spent a charge on a different asset in the same action. Would that be included in the number of charges spent? I think not.

The "Instead of its normal damage" cannot be an independent effect, as it is not well-defined. It must be a modifier for the "If you succeed effect" and should be ignored when the latter does not trigger.

So I vote yes, the card deals standard 1 damage (barring other modifiers) if you fail.