Anouleth

So you admit that taking guns away from criminals makes them less effective. Yes, they are also used for hunting and sport, occasionally. I'm not suggesting that everything dangerous be banned: but guns are very dangerous and don't have a lot of alternative uses. And I don't see the problem with permitting single or double gauge shotguns, which are permitted in the UK. Your reading comprehension is poor: the article is saying that knife attacks in general have killed almost twenty, presumably not all committed by one person. But they do mean that fewer people die in them. I'm saying that home-made firearms are much less effective than mass-produced firearms. Therefore, even if criminals use homemade firearms in the event of a prohibition, their effectiveness will still be reduced. Except that it doesn't harm law-abiding citizens. Taking away your guns is not "harm". People in Britain are not "hurting" because they can't own handguns. I'd struggle to even call it inconvenient, since what is convenient about an assault rifle or a handgun?

^^yeah I agree if anyone disagrees with you about what class someone should end up as then fuck their opinion, I'm glad to hear you like mage knight since i wouldn't have guessed it given that you removed every mage knight except selena he said he didn't know how to implement the suggestion now he does even if he doesn't do it, he has been educated

"Anyway, I don't know how I could do it, surely with event hacking and I no longer have time for this for now." forgive me for trying to EDUCATE him

You could probably set Tower enemies to give no experience in the Chapter Data Editor.

You haven't refuted my point. Brom's speed is likely going to be just as good, or higher, thanks to greater potential with the KW. By that point, Brom can have +2ATK from supports and is about to promote. Devdan is playing catch-up, in other words.

Ike/Elincia does make sense, it's just that it also makes sense for them to have a curiously awkward and platonic relationship

Well, some people claim that increasing the volume of guns in society and making them more socially acceptable will reduce gun crime because people will be able to defend themselves. I don't think this holds water, and I'm glad to see you agree with me. So if criminals don't actually need guns to commit crimes, why is there any gun crime at all? A criminal relies on having a weapon far more than an ordinary citizen (who will likely never use it) does, and the only reason a non-criminal might get one is to protect himself from crime anyway. I think people are better protected by reducing the prevalence of guns in society. It's possible to kill people with your bare hands. Obviously it would be nice if nobody ever killed anyone and we could all just get alooooong, but the reality is that people do kill other people, and since they do we should probably try to prevent dangerous weapons like assault rifles, automatic shotguns, tanks etc falling into their hands. I would like to see a story of someone going on a stabbing spree with a knife, because it seems like it would be a good deal harder to kill 12 people in 15 seconds with a knife. Outside of Call of Duty multiplayer, ofc. I don't see what this has to do with gun laws. Are you saying that it's okay to put guns into the hands of mentally unstable people because then they'll be more likely to go on shootings than blow up buildings? No, but I am experienced enough in the art of maths and economics to determine that people aren't going to spend large amounts of money on mass-produced weapons unless these weapons offer something above and beyond what could be made in your own home. And what exactly are you proposing by this statement?

Huh? Brom's speed is only barely behind Devdan's, even without KW usage, and his strength is far higher.

would they still go shirtless

What do you mean, "get the most"? Because to get the best performance over the course of the entire game, you'd promote earlier than level 20.

Sign me up. Anouleth

In terms of map design it doesn't look very difficult. Every single enemy can be taken on one by one, with no need to ever face more than one until you reach the top of the map.

Logan's not meant to be good.

Renault? Sophia? Wallace?

Perhaps I should qualify then: the prevalance of firearms is a partial cause of America's high rates of gun crime and shootings, and a partial cause of that is firearms being legal. If people in America did not insist on owning guns, there would be less of this crime. And if there was such a law and people followed it, then it would certainly reduce this crime. It's possible to home-craft rudimentary shotguns and the like, as a google search will show: but these weapons are far less effective than mass-produced shotguns or assault rifles. I highly doubt that Holmes or Breivik would have been able to kill nearly as many people with a home made shotgun (and even then, you have to buy the ammunition). Yes. It seems far easier to restrict people's access to firearms than make sure that nobody in society ever ever goes off the deep end. Barring police-state style monitoring of people, how could attacks like Breivik's be anticipated? Because the demand for alcohol and ease of production is much greater than that for firearms. It's easier to produce alcohol on your own than it is to make an effective firearm. And the incentives to do so are greater. Moreover, the law against alcohol was poorly enforced. The firearms made in people's basements would be far less effective than any mass-produced firearm, and I personally don't think that laws against firearms would be very effective against organised criminals, but I think they would be effective in preventing or mitigating shootings like that of James Holmes or Anders Breivik. People will sometimes not follow the law, that is true, but that does not mean the law has no effect. This argument is not about whose "fault" a crime is, I couldn't care less who is to blame. It's about what the most effective way to prevent such crimes is. And I think that restricting access to firearms, along with other forms of crime prevention, can be effective in reducing rates of gun crime, and this shooting in Colorado is further evidence of that. Could this shooting have been prevented, or at least mitigated if James Holmes had not been able to purchase his weapons legally? I believe so. I don't believe the black market is as easy to access or as cheap as you make out. And why is the supply so unbelievably massive? Because there is a thriving, legal gun industry in America. We all know how effective anti-drug education was, after all...

Yes. All forms of RNG abuse that are possible on an emulator are also possible on a cart, since they both use a pseudo-random RNG.

because they have really heavy shoes

If I could submit some suggestions: -Give Armour Knights Swords+Lances. This gives them WTC in the axe-heavy chapters where they are otherwise very weak. -Possibly take away Swords+Lances from Cavaliers and separate them into Sword and Lance Cavaliers, with Paladins also losing Axes. Paladins are already an amazing class without total WTC. -If you know how, buff the bonuses from WTA to give +/-15 hit, and buff hit rate on Lances and Axes (but cut the MT of Hand Axes and Javelins). -Make Treck good. Well, quite aside from the impossibility of hacking in Trainees and branched promotions (although branched promotions would be a great addition), if Wendy's base stats were unchanged, she might be better. Grows out of her pit faster and promotes fairly soon into Cavalier, a useful class.

I think removing promotion choices is a really poor idea.

People did die from shoddily made bootleg, and prohibition of alcohol was a resounding failure: my point is that it's a false analogy to use that to suggest that prohibition of guns would also be a resounding failure. Also, I don't think it's the responsibility of the government to stop people from doing incredibly stupid shit like making guns in their basement by making guns legally available. Mass production of guns requires stuff like an assembly line, multiple workers, including specialists, machinery, etcetera. Well out of the grasp of any one person. What's your argument? I'm arguing that the prevalence of legal firearms in America is a partial cause of it's high gun crime. You seem to be agreeing with me. It seems like it would be more effective to prevent them from getting guns in the first place, rather than banking on someone with a gun being nearby at all times. After all, there was a (presumably armed) security officer at the camp that Breivik targeted: he was the first to die, if I recall. Bryant killed a man and woman in a bed and breakfast (they would have had little opportunity to defend themselves even if they had a gun). When he attacked in public, he killed 12 people in 15 seconds, and ended up taking a hostage anyway. So yeah, maybe he wouldn't have killed as many people if there had been someone with a gun (which are legal in Australia). But he would still have killed a heck of a lot of people.

No, I was not born in 1905 like you seem to think. I really, really doubt that. Making alcohol is very easy and requires no specialist knowledge, equipment, or chemicals. It is impossible to mass-produce guns in someone's basement: hell, I would be surprised if anyone but a few specialists could make even one! Whereas I know numerous people who have made beer in their own houses, with no specialist knowledge. Shoddy firearms tend to kill fewer people. If you look at the earliest firearms, they were really quite poor weapons, being rather inaccurate and large. Imagine trying to conceal a musket: or for that matter, trying to kill someone with it! The only reason why it's even possible for you to equate the two in your mind is because America has an irrational culture built around guns. Do you really really REALLY think that the fact that guns are legal in the US doesn't make it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns? Are you saying that every gun that is manufactured in the US with the intent of being legally sold NEVER ends up being used for criminal purposes? If you do, then you are stupid. James Holmes bought his firearms legally. Anders Breivik bought his firearms legally. Martin Bryant bought his firearms legally. And from what I gather, they didn't exactly have amazing black market contacts.

That isn't a new thing.

Just because even if something is illegal, some people can do it is a terrible argument. Why not legalise everything then, because people will always be committing crimes? The law isn't perfect, and some people will find a way around it, but that doesn't mean that the law is useless or shouldn't exist. And of the other 80%, how many of them stole their guns from someone who legally bought it? How many of those guns were made to satisfy the legal demand for guns in America and ended up in the hands of criminals?

When Hammerne costs 900 gold, is there really any reason to buy any other weapon ever?

If names are so minor and unimportant, then why did the creators of this hack change them? Are you saying they were wasting their time? Anything important enough that AstraLunaSol sees the need to change in this hack is worthy of discussion in this thread.