Johann

Miracle's actually a choice worth considering for units who mostly don't need specials to get kills. Think of it this way: a damage special like Moonbow will fire off whether you need it or not, but if it's not ready when you do, then it's a problem. Meanwhile, Miracle acts as a security against a unit who is tough enough to survive the first hit but can't follow up on the 1 HP. Vantage Jeorge handles it well in AR since mages and fliers are so common that he should be ok to take a hit and survive, and Vantage proc most others. As @Vicious Sal said, knowing the AI is important; it's worth noting that the AI doesn't factor Vantage, Parthia's magic damage reduction, or Miracle into the damage calculations, which works in Jeorge's favor. That he mentioned Firesweep/Dazzling effects is another great point.

In the sense that it shows that Biden will probably do fine in November? Nah, it's fine. I voted Warren but after Super Tuesday, there really wasn't much of a question about who'd win the nomination. I do agree with the idea that Biden isn't especially inspiring and has a laundry list of serious flaws, but I don't think that's going to matter in November. Trump has burnt up all the good will that independent voters gave him and everything from the economy, the Corona Virus, and foreign affairs has been more fuel on the fire, with no sign of letting up. I may have said this before, but I anticipate a Biden presidency basically being like a Dem version of Bush 2-- disappointing/underwhelming, but barring a major fuck up like Iraq, he'll mostly be remembered for being a gaffe machine.

Yeah, no question about that. Lucina, Roy, and other CYL winners will probably see them sooner than later. I kinda like the idea of him getting an Order of Heroes outfit since one of his castle quotes has him admire the cloaks. Also then he'd match Cordelia, which would be neat. What matters most though is that they could finally add "Pick a god and pray!"

If transitioning were that convenient, it'd definitely help, but the social stigmas in play are more tied to associating trans-ness to deviancy and an affront to God/natural order/whatever. Ultimately it's about controlling other people's lives, whether through gender norms, or restraint and violence. I'd have to do some googling to pull up sources, but there is plenty of statistical evidence showing that violent crimes against trans people occur in magnitudes far higher than cis people.

I was expecting a green or colorless male, if only to keep them diverse. I suppose the marketing strategy is that they lead with a popular 5* to start the month, and then follow up with whoever. Lyn and Cordelia are really popular, and putting them first was probably more about setting up expectations instead of establishing a trend. Frederick would rule, though I kinda feel like they're gonna spread the love out across the games so it'd be a while. My gut tells me Takumi will follow Sophia, which people would like if just for CC.

The real big overlap between queerness and being transgender is that both have dealt with social stigmas and misconceptions. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness by medical professionals for a very long time, for instance, and that's the sort of discrimination transgender people face today. Keep in mind that not all transgender people will take hormones or get surgery, etc, and as such, being trans does not necessarily involve anything medical. Part of their struggle stems from gender norms telling them what they're "supposed" to be. This ties into how some trans people feel they need to do whatever they can to "pass" as the gender they identify as, while others do not. Societal pressure of what a man or woman is "supposed" to look like adds an extra dimension to what is often already a complex and sometimes ambiguous personal journey.

Just future ones. Existing battles would have changed in the update, but they still have the same stats.

Are Kronya and Halloween Hector on all of your teams, or do you have more setups?

Have you been doing most weeks without a bonus unit?

Checking a score predictor and determining if your play schedule can line up with possible multipliers, and then skewing flag use for later hours if possible If your schedule doesn't line up with those hours, spend those flags when you can. It's also wise to not put too much stock in the predictors since they're often wrong, and early spending of flags helps avoid missing out on Same scoring rounds (particularly in evenly matched teams or the final round where that happens the most) Since the last round has more, some people save some extra flags til then, especially since the first round teams are smaller, making it easier to get a higher rank Alternatively, you might find it all more relaxing to just dump your flags whenever multipliers come and be rid of having to worry about any of it. Might be worth more than whatever joy you get from earning a few more feathers, I guess! As far as your team winning goes, the odds of a result hinging on a single person is so crazy small that there's not much point in stressing over it, I'd say. Still, if you're worried, you can save flags and ballots for the final hours, as to be one of the many that can help push your team when they need it most Barring all that, try hacking the servers or getting a genie, preferably the one from Aladdin since he's the least likely to screw you over

Randomly decided to make Sophia despite not even having her at 5*. I remembered she was the very first unit I pulled in the game though, and I used her for a while at launch before I pulled more 5*s, so it's kinda nice to come full circle like that

Haha well, her build isn't final! For now I'm content with Aether just for scoring purposes Thanks!

boop

The sheer volume of it is nowhere close to equal. While I have not read or seen Twilight, but that doesn't sound particularly sexualized, and might instead be sexual. I guess some context would help clarify that. Meanwhile, compare that to something like Game of Thrones where female characters are routinely raped (often with no other purpose or characterization), and the disparity among major media series is a bit more highlighted. Keep in mind that Twilight and romance novels are largely seen as a sort of "female-only" niche and widely mocked for their audience demographics. I wouldn't call that particularly mainstream, and instead supports the idea that media is largely male dominated.

Totally misconstruing what I've been saying. Who's talking about what's allowed or not? Where are you getting this? And to the last point, are video game/anime characters your standard for human behavior or something? I don't claim to know about your personal experiences but you sure as shit don't know a thing about mine. Stop trying to start shit and consider how ridiculous and childish your posts are. If you read it that way, then you haven't understood anything. Read it again. You have a terrible habit of shifting conversations into being about what you want them to be about instead of what anyone is actually discussing, and you'd do better to just hit the Ignore User button if you can't keep up. Your questions are disingenuous and leading. I've been imploring you to think about why you're asking them in the first place. You argued a case for possible secret magic horse saddles in this thread, but my arguments are the ones with holes in them? He referred to a specific genre of books. The issues we've been talking about are present in all forms of media, including books, and the sexual objectification of women in various media and art has been around for millennia. We know war and murder are bad, but shifting the conversation to say what is worse or more impactful doesn't address the issues people are talking about here.

Agreed. Getting more people interested in playing the game is better for them than trying to squeeze an extra $10 out of a few more folks.

I'd dig Heavy Blade 4, so yeah I'll do it. I stopped voting after I saw those midterm results though.

Camilla and Loki's attire and behavior is not normal in the majority of real-life settings and you know it. Stop being disingenuous. Grow up. I expect better behavior from you. I understand completely. Unless it's non-fiction, it's a character. Characters don't make their own choices. Real people do. It's that simple. What's with these "gotcha" responses? Come on dude, you know it's much more than something standing out or not. It's about asking why those design choices exist instead of turning off your brain because you're used to them. This is a whole lot of nothing to excuse these design choices, which simply amount to "the creator chose to do that". The romance section of a bookstore, compared to most movies, TV shows, video games, music videos, magazines, commercials, and so on. Yeah, totally equal. None of what you said matters in regards to the restrictions a creator has. They can create literally any kind of character with any name. Whatever case you make for a source of inspiration doesn't change that, nor is it a defense against criticism. The bottom line, which I think you'd agree with, is that both individually and as a society, there's a lot we can all learn and explore about design choices, sex, the human body, relationships, and so on. There are major media platforms that have an opportunity to spearhead some of that learning and exploration, but I think the ball is too often dropped in favor of whatever may seem the most profitable. Things like body type diversity is an example of that, for sure.

You misunderstand if you think this is as binary as "right or wrong". Ultimately what matters are things like whether people like it or not, and what kinds of impacts it may have on how we think. This is the case for all art forms. For instance, you say Camilla and Loki's behavior and attire is realistic, but is it? Do you see people do that in normal everyday life? Of course it happens in some situations and settings, but in most, that's not normal. You should consider taking a moment to reflect on why you are used to these design choices. No character has agency, including a creator's avatar. They are eternally at the whim of their creator. Agency would require them having independence from their creator, which is impossible. You're missing a key point of the Hawkeye Initiative, which is to highlight how normalized certain sexualized design choices are. You bring up how some design choices are "appealing" based on gender and whether or not it's socially acceptable, but but again these are only because these ideas have been normalized for you. Some of these design choices will stand out to someone who is not conditioned to seeing them. More to the point, you should be asking why so many women would have exposed thighs while engaging in combat, riding mounts, etc (especially if they're supposed to be from a cold mountainous region like Ilia). It's pretty disingenuous to act like there's no disparity between how many creators treat women, and that sexually objective art isn't one of the most blatant examples of this. If you're not going to talk about this in good faith, I suggest you abstain from the conversation. Referencing the mythological Loki to excuse FEH's Loki's design is still a Thermian argument. Influence is not a binding constraint. Skimpy clothes on women in video games are already normalized. It's certainly possible to make female characters with exposed skin and not sexualize or objectify them, but it's not something designers are particularly good at doing. Nudity isn't inherently sexual, as you know, so if an artist doesn't want to be criticized for sexualizing their female characters, then it's on them to learn how to avoid doing it. Side point, but pointing the financial success of the industry (which is largely exploitative in many ways) does nothing to deflect the criticism. Rather, it gives cause to criticize the industry further. It's not even remotely comparable how widespread the sexual objectification of women is compared to men. And further, you're continuing to make the mistake that the criticism is a sort of "no fun allowed" take. Understand that there is a significant difference between sexual and sexualized characters. Sexual characters demonstrate sexuality for themselves (like a normal person does). Sexualized characters demonstrate sexuality for the audience's sake (and not themselves). Geralt is sexual because he is a character who, within the story, has sexual relationships. Magic Mike is a clearer example, further emphasized since he is also a sex worker-- sexuality is central to his story. In FE, a character like Nina could be considered sexual since her behavior is for herself (I haven't played Fates however, so I dunno how much depth she's given). Meanwhile, a character like Aversa is sexualized because nearly everything about her sexuality is for the player's sake. Being sexual and creating sexual characters is great. Sexually objectifying characters is where things get murky at best, and often straight up bad. Here's the thing: most visual media industries are run by men, for men. The straight male viewpoint is considered the default, to the point where "for girls" is often relegated to its own genre (eg: "chick flicks"). It's not that rare to have major lauded works feature few to no female characters at all, and often with minimal characterization. Ultimately this is because the female perspective is often considered niche or irrelevant by many male creators and audiences alike. Saying "change the channel" is easy for you when, as a man, you are being catered to on nearly all the channels. Take a moment to think about how most female characters are portrayed, and not just in FE-- idealized (like being made sexualized), victimized (like being kidnapped solely to spur the plot), or whatever else it takes to highlight either how attractive they and/or how much they need the hero/player. This doesn't happen for no reason, and it's no coincidence that the odd time it's applied to men, it's usually considered subversive or comedic. The experience of life as a woman is not something you or I truly understand, and many women have to deal with sexism on a daily basis at work, home, at the store, on the street, wherever. Most women probably have stories about how they've been harassed in some way based solely on their appearance and availability, and it's because there are an overwhelming number of men who reduce a woman's value to simply those two qualities. And that's what it comes down to: treating women based on how attractive men find them. This is a global issue, and for it to permeate into video games (which many people would like to have as an escape from real life bullshit) shows how unavoidable it is. Sexualizing men does nothing to address the problem for women and female characters, and if anything, makes it worse by further normalizing it. Clarifying what is and isn't sexism isn't a matter of opinion. It's not simply about whether it offends, but looking at why it offends people, which is the lack of respect, the disparity, the unwillingness to listen. Saying a person can't point out sexism means they can't discuss why something is sexist, which shuts down the conversation. Hold up, did you just describe Peony's design to be conservative? Have you seen her? Like holy shit, they even gave her a big ol' tattoo across her chest in case you weren't looking. If I hadn't made things clear with things I've said above, let me highlight something about revealing clothing: In normal everyday life, real women, who by every right should be able to dress however they like, are harassed, judged, insulted, shamed, and so on. A woman gets shit for dressing a certain way despite it being her own choice. In media, female characters, who don't make choices, are given revealing clothes and highlighted, promoted, clamored for, and so on. Why is there that double standard? At it's core, it's about respect, and both the real woman and fictional woman are treated based on their appearance. A real woman puts on a revealing outfit to express herself, Loki wears what she does to get people to play FEH, disregarding any impacts she (or the game itself) has. Real women in revealing clothing are not normalized, but in the world of video games, a character like Loki is. This doesn't make Loki a champion of big boobed or scantily clad women in real life, and normalized doesn't mean "good". Part of the problem with describing the industry as successful is that profits do not paint the whole picture. Profitable doesn't necessarily mean a healthy industry or widely accepted content. Saying there are only occasional articles of complaints suggests you're not listening (this thread exists and grows because people are complaining). People are pushing back on this stuff, but there are also many people who don't want things to change (the ol' "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"), or aren't even aware (or willing to be aware) that there are issues. You know goddamn well why it's always about women, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous (and if you've missed it, reread everything I've written until it sinks in). It's getting harder to take you seriously with some of these responses, especially when you're throwing the "aha! playing a game that features something you think is bad!" angle in there. I'll repeat myself: It's fine to enjoy something while also criticizing aspects of it. The reason I brought it up was because when women complain about these things, either nothing happens, or it does and suddenly the outcry is "censorship!". Gaming as a whole is largely a boy's club, where women are regularly harassed, told to shut up, etc. There are a lot of things creators can do to make it a more inclusive space, which even from a strictly business standpoint is wise since it's always better to expand your market. I did summarize it, but you didn't get it, hence the link. It's only 4 minutes, just watch it. Her motives and story relevance are not the point. The point is that those aspects of her do not make the design choices for her immune to criticism. Ah, the violence comparison is here at last. To put it simply, violence in games does not make a person more violent-- you don't pick up a gun and start shooting people because you played Goldeneye. But it can have an influence on how you think about the subject matter. Maybe a shooting game makes you develop an interest in guns, which could be perfectly safe and healthy. Maybe you begin to think about whether or not violence is more of an acceptable solution to solve complex political problems. How it affects you can depend on how these things are framed, and what your worldviews and experiences are like going into it. Media is not just entertainment, and many of the people who create it are very much aware of the influence is has on the way people think. Media is advertising. Media is religion. Wars have been fought and millions killed because of media. It changes how we think in subtle, sometimes subconscious ways. This is why, for instance, the Pentagon provides equipment and spends millions for movies that paint the military in a good light. We like to think we're smarter than the media we see, that we can (or ought to) separate fact from fiction, but it's not always easy, and the impacts can be pretty serious (like say, the results of an election). Criticism is not censorship. That word is tossed around so freely that I struggle to take people seriously when they talk about video game boobs getting covered they're resisting the police in Hong Kong. Ironically, shutting down criticism is censorship, and it's extremely important that people understand that. The industry is changing. Parts of it, anyway. There are people who are listening. Having found one person who agrees with your point is an awfully convenient way to dismiss the opinions of everyone else, who, not sure if you were paying attention, includes other people with big boobs. There's nothing sexual about Hawkeye's presentation in either FE7 or Heroes. He doesn't talk about anything remotely sexual, he doesn't behave remotely sexually. If the artist intended him to be a sexual object, they completely missed the mark. Meanwhile, Camilla and Loki's behavior is entirely designed around sex appeal directed towards the player (particularly through the avatar characters). I would hope you get a chance to read what I've said above to the others, since most of my criticisms and points about these character designs and their impacts are expressed there. Typing these long responses gets tiring, so please forgive me if this request may sound lazy or even rude. I'm glad you genuinely enjoy the character and that the design means something to you. I do think your post might be the first instance I've seen of someone identifying with Camilla though. I hope in the future that female character designs, including body types, are further diversified to give more players a sense of representation.

Haha, let me have my moment! It's actually 3 mythics but the foe forgot their bonus structure. The stat boosts are just the +3 from Peony. Interesting to see the new increases in structure levels, and I'm really glad that the Offense ones use Dew. Tactics Room Lv6 might mess with my usual Anima map build though. Oh well.

I'd say Bridal Fjorm is a massive game changer for AR. Shutting down dancers unravels so many maps.

Are we going all in? I'll try to behave. Forgive me, @eclipse Sexual objectification is very in-depth discussion that merits its own thread, though I think I would check with the mods before creating such a thread to ensure that it meets the site's guidelines, since there's a lot of content to be discussed that could potentially cross lines, and it's a subject that some people get pretty heated about. Hawkeye, and many buff male characters like him, are not sexually objectified. He is not rendered a sexual object by the artist. A man without a shirt is not inherently sexual. His large muscles are more in line with the male power fantasy of strength than anything sexual. Furthermore, worldwide, men have more social power than women in practically all fields, so there's not the same impact in showing a half naked man compared to a half naked woman. There is a lot more to this than I can express here, and if you genuinely are interested in learning about sexual objectification and why skin exposure is not a 1:1 comparison between men and women, you should seek out people who have written much more and brilliantly than I can on the matter, due to their research and understanding. Going from the second half of your post, you misunderstand me if you think this is a judgment towards women in any kind of revealing clothing. On the contrary, I support all women in their right to express themselves however they want. I'm not here to police how you feel about content, but to help stand up for people who are argued at or belittled to the point where they aren't comfortable joining the conversation. To be honest, I'm surprised that you'd look at Camilla and say "finally, a woman with big boobs" when there are countless examples in all media forms (let alone FE) of women having above average boobs that predate her, even by decades. If those are your feelings, that's fine, and if I've upset or offended you, I apologize. Please understand that there are a lot of people who argue in bad faith over these subjects simply as a means to harass women, so I'm accustomed to dealing with those kinds of people by being very direct, sometimes to the point where I may seem condescending. A person's identity can shape who they are. How is that trivial, especially in a subject that is heavily influenced by gender? If you think it's trivial, then don't bother giving such an empty response. On the contrary, our statements are completely at odds. Expression exists only from the creator. Character actions and designs can do virtually anything, but none of it exists in a vacuum-- it depends on the creator to make those choices. It's really as simple as "it's what the creator wanted", whether those design choices have depth or are shallow. Characters do not make their own choices. Camilla or Loki or whoever doesn't "decide" to dress or behave as they do because they aren't real. Someone chose to make them dress and behave as they do. And to be clear, there are plenty of reasons people can enjoy these characters, even for those qualities, but that doesn't disqualify the criticisms against those design choices and their impacts. To sexually objectify Hawkeye would require a person to do so on their own, but understand that there's a difference between the creators of a game that has a major global platform vs a fan drawing art of him or even just viewing him as some sort of piece of man meat. Here's the thing about shirtless men; culturally, it is something we are used to. When it comes to shirtless women, it depends where you go. Some countries/places allow women to be topless in public, whereas others do not. I personally think that women shouldn't be denied the ability to be topless, or in another way to view it, punished for exposure. Now, despite your hyperbole about rallies and pitchforks, you should keep in mind that there are different reasons why people would be uncomfortable with sexualized way. Some are in the puritan "think of the children!" camp, while others do not want to see female characters degraded to objects of sexual desire, which is something present in all forms of media worldwide. In most instances of sexualized fanservice, that objectification is present and it upsets a lot of people to see their characters treated that way. The issue is that the objectification is widespread for female characters. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but the people who are vocal about it in this thread are criticizing the objectification, not any puritanical viewpoint. I mentioned the Hawkeye Project (upon checking it again, it's actually called the Hawkeye Initiative) because it showcases how stark the contrast is between designs of male and female characters. The idea is to get you to notice the trends in design choices and the disparity between genders. As a much more mild example, go through your Catalog of Heroes and observe how many female characters have exposed thighs, and then how many men. I'm not trying to stoke outrage here, but to get you to think hard about why it's such a recurring design choice. I explain these concepts because it seemed like you didn't understand them. But judging from the next sentence, it seems more like you don't like the idea of people even talking about it. If nobody is allowed to conclude that something is sexist, then all discussion about sexism is therefore dismissed. People have to be able argue for why something is sexist, or else everything is beyond reproach, and therefore sexism perpetuates. The problem with stuff like Loki art isn't so much a "ahh, I looked! My eyes! Bring the holy water!" situation, but a constant reminder that this is what's the norm. If you were, say, a woman who deals with sexist shit all day and wants to escape from it all by playing a little Fire Emblem, then you're out of luck if you find that kind of design condescending to your entire gender. Part of the issue is that there isn't an alternative per se, whether you want to play Fire Emblem specifically, or just a strategy game on your phone, as these kinds of designs are everywhere. Incidentally, I dunno if you've heard of it, but Final Fantasy had an issue where a male character was designed with revealing clothing, but was changed because of the extreme outcry. Go figure. I'm going to defer you to The Thermian Argument, because that's what using in-universe details to defend design choices is. The point is that Loki's design and personality exist as they do because the creators chose to make her that way, and not due to a consequence of the story or or constraint of FEH's in-universe rules. As for it not harming anyone, here's the thing-- sexist portrayals in media help reinforce sexist notions and worldviews. This is, like the subject of sexual objectification itself, a thread worthy subject, but the bottom line is that the media we are exposed to has influences on how we perceive things and think. There are global problems with how women are treated, including socially, professionally, and so on. Media of all forms have been and continue to be shaped by these problems, and in turn play a key role in maintaining the norms that perpetuate those issues. Through criticism, we can become aware of the influence media has upon us, to mitigate the negative and reinforce the positive. It's not to say people are bad for enjoying that stuff or anything that features it, but if you're paying attention to it and able to criticize it (or listen to criticism), then you'll be more self-aware of how it's affecting you and others. I brought it up because I have read a wide range of opinions on the internet, and it's overwhelmingly critical. As for the popcorn remark, well, that's what I get for trying to be cheeky on the internet, but I stand by the notion that you will see a lot of opinions in support of what I've said.

Feels really good to unleash a unit like this into the wacky world of AR

Added the partial results to the first post so it'll be easier to track them down

Obligatory: Say, remember being a kid and thinking the government worked?