Chase

I actually really like Beruka....in Fates. I don't ever pull her because my 3* green is always Bartre. Beruka has the best C support ever - with Saizo in Revelation. --- One way they could have handled this is to have had people compete in several ways for feathers Join an army - Doing so sticks you to that army until there is a winner for the entire gauntlet. You get your feathers for participating in battles -and- a multiplier or more feathers depending on how far the character you sided with goes in the tournament. Bracketology - Calling the winners of the entire tournament. An aggregate score is placed on your bracket for accuracy - with a multiplier or substantial amount of feathers if your champion goes go on to win the whole thing. Think March Madness Basketball. Weekly/Daily Pick'Em - Picking the winners of the current round of the tournament. When the round ends you are given a set amount of feathers based on your accuracy. Only the first option requires a player to JOIN an army, allowing the popularity contest to at least play out without defeated players switching to the winning team to make the margin of victory much worse. --- See, Combat? Camilla's character is a very decently executed one with two very large reasons nobody seems to see. It may not be necessarily agreeable, but the flawed parts of her writing save for Avatar lovefesting is incredibly hinting that Camilla has layers more than it is she's a terrible person or that it's bad writing. It's a shame her model already puts people off before she can even get a word in edgewise. I have my problems with her sexualization - all the way back to the time Fates teased you for picking Birthright by not only giving you a runway cutscene in Cheve, but almost allowing Camilla to join you after that fight. Or how the ending cutscene in conquest features the player's point of view running SMACK INTO her chest. People that appreciate Camilla as a character don't like that aspect of her too (unless that's the reason they LIKE Camilla to start with.)

But Tom, Cordelia wears a breastplate that overcompensates. If she were able to have Camilla's figure, she'd kill for it. Comparing great art to a picture of Gourgeist doesn't change that. Wyverns are better than Pegs though. Most Pegasus Knights are youthful typical anime characters in this game. At least you get four different characters on the Wyvern side of the banner. I don't consider Camilla a yandere character. She doesn't kill people to pursue Corrin's affections. She's Momma Bear with a tragic past that has some lingering character flaws. The real reason people don't like her is because she's an overtly sexualized character who asserts her personality on the player and that's the two things that come to mind. Best characters in this round are Cherche, Minerva, and Hinoka.

- oh yeah. I guess I technically did win because I bandwagoned with Lucina really late after Leo got destroyed. :C It wasn't any fun though. Being able to change your team after your team gets downed drains any hope for competition away. It's just a participation trophy at that point. If that's going to keep happening, I may as well pick Hinoka - until she loses, and then submit to our Nohrian slightly depressive, certainly attractive, and especially overattached overlordess. #FreeStuff. #Woo. I actually forgot how I didn't like that I could do that. Damn it. - Yeah, but I don't like the gamesmanship on IntSys' part even if there is a good reason. If It were really Princes vs. Princesses, you would have characters squaring up immediately and letting the dust settle more. Same with Wyverns and Pegasi. I understand it's going to be the most popular of each category, but it's an annoying misnomer and we miss out on some pretty cool matchups. The narrative would be much better -and- the match much closer if Subaki could take on a Beruka instead of a Cordelia. Yes, it will be Effie's second banner. When the gauntlet comes out, Camilla will have her THIRD banner counting Spring!Camilla.

I really think it depends. I think IntSys will for sure be gunning for a matchup it assumes is going to feature the two most popular teams, especially after Lucina wiped the floor with virtually everyone last time in terms of competition. However, I also feel like there was some understanding of theme in the last gauntlet - but maybe I don't remember the characters too well. This VG is called "Wyverns vs. Pegasi" - so the final two might be concerned - more than or equally to getting the two most popular in the bracket - with getting one wyvern facing off against a pegasus. If we're assuming the final two would be Cordelia and Camilla, that fits the theme criterion, so it is probably fair to assume those two will be on opposite sides of the bracket. The easiest way to ensure a Wyvern -and- a Pegasus make it to the final round - would be to have the brackets split where it's Pegasus Knights on one side and Wyverns on the others - lending a bracket that would look something like this. --- Camilla vs. Beruka - a friendly sparring match in which Beruka doesn't even dream about finishing the mission for the sake of the populaces wishes. Not an entertaining first round fight. Cherche vs. Minerva - the better first round match in the Wyvern pool because veteran players will be rallying behind a popular wyvern of their own, while Awakening joiners not going to Cordelia will highly regard Cherche. I believe Cherche has a real chance at pulling an upset in this scenario, but it would still be one if it were to happen. --- Hinoka vs Palla - Battle of the Elder Sisters does provide some intrigue background wise, but because people seem to think Cordelia here at Reborn is the ideal horse to back, you guys might not think it is very fitting of Hinoka to be given a cakewalk round like Subaki. Ultimately, I feel people think Hinoka is one of the better bets to take on Camilla than Palla, leaving veteran Emblemers behind on the Pegasi side. This is the better first round match up for the winged horsies. Cordelia - Subaki - Cordelia and Genderbent Discount Cordelia that also is Cordelia's Dad. This wouldn't even be close. --- This does provide some pretty interesting second round match-ups, particularly on the Pegasi side. It's essentially a judgement call on which obsessive character they like more in Hinoka v. Cordelia, while the other match is essentially the older fans' best chance to rally against a polarizing figure in New Money Emblem in Minerva/Camilla. You could assume Cordy/Cammy, but you never know. The Minerva in this round reminds me of the Ephriam Lucina clash - but in an earlier round, which may benefit the Pegasi representative in this case. Again, I think Hinoka draws too many votes from Cordelia even if she does land in the finals to beat Camilla, and if Hinoka gets there, vise versa. --- The Navarre banner will be Kagero, Effie, Ceada, and Julia. As a Fates joiner, I still don't have Kagero, and having her be a 5* focus character is good for those that need her, but also those that have her.

I wish more Heroes players had their own opinion. Late joiners will always bandwagon the leader :c Matchup wise, if Camilla draws Hinoka or Cordelia in the first round she may have a closer fight than expected - especially if IntSys is not secretly hoping for Cordelia and Camilla to be the final two. I think you will see a bracket that follows like this Camilla Vs. Hinoka - The Fates rivalry that ends with Camilla -not- sparing Hinoka this time. (GOING DOWN WITH THE SHIP. I AINT NO SELLOUT. NOHRIAN SCUM-) Cherche Vs. Cordelia - A variable match up that I think Cherche surges early only for the Cordelia and Severa fans to claw back. The Ylissean holds the slight edge over her fellow Shepherd. Minerva Vs. Palla - Minerva wins and as much as Palla is attractive. It ain't nearly as competitive as it would have been if her sister Catria were in this gauntlet instead. Subaki Vs. Beruka - The matchup with the least amount of intrigue, making the winner unclear. I'd be going for Beruka, but Subaki may be more popular than she is. --- Camilla takes on Subaki and wins handily. Cordelia puts down any hope for "the good ole Fire Emblem" veteran fanbase by anihilating Minerva. --- On the left we have one of the bustiest ladies in the franchise with the confidence to match, and on the right we have no bust whatsoever. Chalk another Gauntlet up for feminine attributes.

The two banner images for the V. Gauntlet showed Hinoka, Camilla, Cordelia, Cherche, Palla, Minerva, Subaki, and Beruka. That makes eight - and four perfect first round match-ups. It seems Palla was the Whitewing IntSys wanted to go with - and Ceada will be on the GHB banner for Navarre.

So - the next gauntlet (Pegasi vs. Wyverns) roster is as follows: Wyvern 1. Camilla - odds on favorite due to being pretty gratuitously sexualized lately. 2. Cherche - Awakening fans who like Wyverns over Pegs will likely jump on the Cherche train. 3. Minerva - Old-timer Wyverns and people who like Michalis too may back her. 4. Beruka - Likely getting ousted in the first round by a popular Peg Knight. Pegasi 1. Hinoka - the Camilla protest-vote will flock here and it won't be enough because- 2. Cordelia - ...,because Awakening fans are not going to be team players. 3. Palla - an underdog who is a better unit than- 4. Subaki - probably Camilla's first casualty. I'm backing the Hinokopter. Legs McGee is my first five star unit out of anything in the two banners and Birthright was my first game.

If I were you, Eviora, I would want to bite the bullet and take Gorsuch without killing the filibuster. It was a 5-4 conservative court that decided Obergefell, meaning liberal rulings are still very much possible, especially with Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts being wildcards on the bench as opposed to reliably conservative votes. The only thing Gorsuch does is replace Scalia with - at worst - Scalia. I would save a filibuster for the END of a Trump presidency where it could become critical to ensure President Trump does his homework on any potential replacement for a Kennedy, Breyer, or Ginsburg. Picking a silly Justice would directly hurt his re-election bid with moderate voters and years of melodrama may nullify his advantage as the incumbent president. As it stands right now, Gorsuch doesn't automatically ensure that Republicans are going to implement marshal law and do it without opposition. It's a safe bet to assume that the older justices have drifted leftward with age and that it's not as big of a deal as it sounds. --- I can't blame the liberal congressfolk for wanting to fight now though. Lying down hurts their re-election chances and the Democrats are playing from 15 seats behind in the upcoming midterms. If being as obstructionist as possible is what your base wants and you happen to like being in D.C. then you gotta do what you gotta do. I just think the special interests and the liberal grassroots don't really understand the ramifications of successfully causing the nuclear option to be employed long-term.

You know. I don't think I've ever cared to hear the word "precedent" so often in my life. Welcome to the Supreme Court Foodfight-athlon, brought to you against your will by the United States Senate. In the last episode we brought you a bunch of red-state rebels giving President Obama and his nominee Judge Merrick Garland the bird and keeping the doors to the Capitol building locked tight, leaving Garland out in the cold. Since then, the Republican senators were REWARDED for their blockade by the American .....well, i'd say people but I'll just say American map because Hillary won the popular vote (this is going to be a running joke in all of these threads.) -... by giving them a Republican president that would go on to eventually put on a much better judge for consideration (in their opinion) who goes by the name Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch breezed through a rather uneventful hearing - one that the aforementioned Garland wasn't even allowed - ...and because of a number of factors, many Democratic votes (some of which President Trump and the Republicans need to confirm Gorsuch under the current Senate rules) are being voraciously denied in favor of filibustering the nominee. Why is a filibuster necessary? Well, supposedly it would provide cause for the Republicans to go back and draw another nominee. Unfortunately what makes the Democrats' job a little harder than last years' Republicans is that they are the minority party and Republicans can just change those Senate rules with a simple majority vote. This vote would allow Gorsuch - and whoever else Trump or future presidents nominate - to vote down party lines and exclude the minority in deciding SCOTUS members' fates. The current 60-vote threshold is what truly makes the Senate the higher legislative body on the Hill. Because of the high amount of votes needed, bipartisan effort is almost always needed to clear the threshold. This encourages centrism and dealmaking and keeps America from falling off the table for one ideology or the other. This makes the so-called "nuclear option" a devastating long term effect on the Senate, because it would make the votes-needed count 50, an easily reached number of seats by one party. Then the Senate would boil down to the level the House of Representatives is in - where majority -clearly- rules. The Scene: Republicans are in desperate need to kickstart something in order to get their agenda rolling in D.C. After last weeks healthcare flop, and the ever stormy gales that surrounding the Trump administration, the optics for the new majority party in Washington are rather bleak. Gorsuch would assauge many of the voters that pushed Trump over Clinton and would return the Supreme Court, a body that has been ineffective at times in overturning cases due to holding only an even amount of Justices, to a 5-4 conservative tilt. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell - the same man that denied Garland before he was even nominated confirmation - has been rather bold in proclaiming Gorsuch's fate - that he will be confirmed before the Easter recess in early April. He has told his Senate colleagues to not be afraid of voting for a rules change in order to push Garland through. GOP senators are aware of a time when they were filibustering virtually every lower court nominee of Obama's in 2013, when then-Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid would invoke the "nuclear option" to silence them - for the first time. This would make the Democratic party the "precedent" setter with regards to simple majority voting on judiciary nominees. Revenge has become rather sweet in Washington lately. The GOP, should it come down to it, would only need 51 votes to re-write the rules - a feat they can manage without Democratic support. Democrats don't have a clear option as to what they should do from here. Pretty much all of them are not exactly thrilled about Judge Gorsuch, but there are a few that are leery of a rules change. Particularly if it's made and then sometime sooner rather than later a more liberal justice -such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg- needs to be replaced. A nuclear option rules change would enable Trump to be very skimpy on vetting and place pretty much whoever he wanted in that spot, providing a dangerously hard-right nominee a free seat and putting cases such as Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges in considerable risk under a 6-3 conservative court. However, following the collapse of the American Health Care Act and the surge in grassroots activism on the left following the November elections, Democratic congressmen and women are being put under intense directive to fight, fight, fight over provide a working order with Republicans. The liberal grassroots believe they have the momentum, and seem to want to see Democrats throwing punches rather than compromising, which would be seen as lying down. The Risk: If the GOP were to decide NOT to invoke the nuclear option, it is looking like Gorsuch would NOT have enough votes to clear the 60 vote threshold, and it would be a major upset - the second in the span of two weeks - for the Democrats. If the GOP does invoke the nuclear option, the Senate will lose a bit of it's bipartisan motivation could place potential nominees and legislature in a precarious spot. Gorsuch would undoubtedly be confirmed, and Trump may get to freely pick a second nominee depending on the fortitude of a couple justices currently serving on the bench. Gorsuch has a very high chance of getting the nomination, either via the nuclear option -or- by Democrats abandoning ship in order to live to fight another nominee.

Bunny!Lucina definitely is the appeal to the smol asset folks. She looks like Chrom's daughter more than she ever has before.

That feel when Bunny!Xander counters Original!Xander and is the funniest thing in this game.

My favorite Zelda is Majora's Mask, followed by Twilight Princess. I have always associated it as a better open world game than a puzzle solver. So in my opinion, you should play Ocarina of Time. Screw Sequelitis. (L2TP is still a great game though.)

So you guys have any goals with this game? How do you all prefer your experience to go? my goals: -Promote M-Robin to 5* -Pull Azura -Pull any Spring!Hero (Axe!Chrom or Tome!Camilla, if I have a choice) -Get Hinoka her Killer Lance+ Hopes for new Heroes: -Ike (Vangaurd) -Michiah -Nephenee -Alvis -Wahlhart -Aversa -Gregor -Charlotte -Silas -Kaze -Flora -Fates!Anna -Awakening!Anna -Alm -Celica -Clive -Silke -Saber -Echoes!Catria -Genealogy/Awakening/Fates kiddos --Shigure --Sophie --Noire --Brady

Yes - Spring!Camilla would be a first in flying tomes. I actually -need- a green tome user too. ...

Who ordered the fan-service? "Spring" versions of at least four Heroes will be offered in completely different attire weilding different weapons. Exalt of Spring Chrom is an Axe Lord. Exalt of Spring Lucina is a bunny girl and is a Blue Mage (Easter egg). Prince of Spring Xander (not the regular one) is a Lance cavalier (Carrot). Imagine Xander if he was a flaming metrosexual. Princess of Spring Camilla (NATURALLY$$$) is -also- a bunny girl. She's also truly a Malig Knight - able to wield green tomes. In the first trailer for the game - these for characters were featured. Xander and Lucina brandished Seigfried and Falchion at "Kiran", who summoned Camilla and Chrom to take them on. Both Xander and Lucina are blue units in this promotion. Both Camilla and Chrom are green units.

The real sad thing I can't really say either of your waifus are shit. I like Charlotte. I like Severa. I even appreciate Catria, but Palla does it with modesty and age. Of course. You two probably have experience with her outside of Heroes and I may not know what I am talking about. you know who the worst peg knight is? Subaki. (So not Azura. :((( )

Also. Palla is the best whitewing, Tom what the-

Alright. I sacrificed a 4* Peri for Hinoka to have access to the Killer Lance. Sorry Amethyst. As Hinoka will say in her support with Camilla. "She's feeling stabby." Also, because destroying good units for the cause can't just tick off one person - I have to vote a 5* Catria off the island to enhance said Killer Lance. I know guys. She's pretty. But Hinoka and I go back. There was that time I picked Azura over her in my BR run. Then the time I had Camilla talk crap to her and WTA her in my CQ run. Then I benched her in Rev. Way back.

Been pulling for Azura for a while now. 5*Hinoka 19 HP 14 Attack 4 Speed (Great. It's Rev Hinoka.) 6 Defense 7 Resistance Is she any good? Hone Fliers is nice. Brace Lance helps the poor speed..... --best Birthright girl man. Kagero's an overrated damsel in distress.--

For the time being anyway. The Trump administration and the Republican Congress can always play the dangerous game of neglecting the Affordable Care Act and allowing it to harm Americans without getting it's check-up (ah. Punny.) If the ACA does implode - everyone is at fault. The Democrats gave birth to the thing, and the Republicans let it run wild without supervision. It's almost an equalizer in 2020 if the GOP can make people forget they are now the incumbents.

By virtue of being in America, many of the health care situations regarding life and death are already averted or at least possibly averted by the inability of hospitals to turn you away (unless you go to a private hospital for a non-emergency situation. - which is probably not life and death as it is.) Then you have over the counter medicine that is increasing in effectiveness. This cuts out the need to visit the doctor as often when certain symptoms are showing up, which is good for poorer Americans. OTCs are not always cheap, but there's a chance your neighbor or a friend you have can let you borrow some with the sheer proliferation of them out there. If someone were to say - pass Senator Sanders' measure of opening up the global medicine market for Americans, perhaps even prescription and higher cost OTC drugs go down in price. While Bernie caucuses with the opposition party, the measure has received a vote of confidence from Senator Ted Cruz in a debate CNN held on healthcare a few weeks ago - a completely opposite ideologue. If that's not bipartisan appeal in exhibition I don't know what is. The biggest threat to that would be Donald Trump and his rather leftist inspired populist adopted protectionism of American pharmacy. --- I am for a basic tier of government provisions such as expanded Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health. I also am ok with most women's health provisions, and can begrudgingly take limited abortion services (I know. Not a popular opinion.) I also dig protecting pre-existing condition sufferers from insurers turning them down. I'd rather do it with legislature than subsidizing insurance companies for good behavior however. Discrimination is in fact not ideal. I also very much like being insured under my parents' plan until I am 26. The individual mandate is a matter of collective willingness. Not of individual concern. I'm also insured anyway. I don't think I can vote to force others to pay for health insurance they don't have with a good conscience. The ACA doesn't have the attractive statistics in place to justify it. I am not a fan of telling people how to run their businesses outside of providing a safe workplace and sensible pay to it's employees. Time off and health insurance should be between the employee's union and the employer. Not all of us.

Are you assuming that cancer is a pre-existing condition? I actually support the ACA's protection of citizens that have pre-existing conditions and initially supported the AHCA because it upheld those protections while trying to solve some of Obamacare's issues. I'm not "for" causing people to become uninsured either. The reality however - is that anytime systems are changed when it comes to healthcare people will suddenly lose it. There are people who were insured before the Affordable Care Act that are not now. And this is an act that was supposed to aim for universal scope! I don't "advocate" knocking off people with dire health consequences from their insurance, so it's not a double standard personally to begin with. However, those people are in the minority when it comes to what people want insurance for. There's injury. There's common illness. There's mental health. There dental and eye care. There's transitional therapy. There's physical therapy. There's medical equipment costs. Co-pays. Doctor's salaries. There's cosmetic surgery. There's women's health. There's sports health like Tommy John surgery. Most of those matters are not "Life and Death" instances. Are you telling me that I am not pro-life because I am not for forcing my uninsured friends to pay for a stranger's nose job? This can be certainly trimmed down no? I think it's a bit of a stretch to categorize all Pro-Lifers as ones who don't want there to be access for healthcare at all.

On the topic of "unalienable" rights, Life, Liberty, -and- the pursuit of Happiness are all things that have been robbed in this country. The DOI was a document that marked the American Revolution. It wasn't intended to state the obvious more so than it was to let Britain know we were making a change. I used quotations over italics because I am aware of what -is- in reality. On the argument that all people are pro-life, that would be relatively true. If a fetus is an organism, than it is life - until it is killed. Robbing the fetus of it's existence denies the fetus it's so-called "unalienable" right to live - especially if that's the definition of life. I believe that they refer to "relatively" pro-life people by a different moniker. On the topic of kindness - I'm willing to bet that I have willingly donated money and gone out of my way to care for others personally just as much as you all have if not more. As I said with Mael, kindness and compliance are not one in the same. I understand that here my character isn't displayed for you all to judge as clearly as it would have if we are all in the same place. And I've certainly made mistakes and regret a few of them. The situation that was posed to me above was that I couldn't justify my position to a hypothetically very ill person. I can - based on what I have documentation-wise. That doesn't make it my will over taking care of that person however. As a Republican I am obviously for closing loopholes in welfare and improving the job market (the latter of which a bipartisan effort), but I am not one that is anti-caring. Chittister may have been speaking of political attitudes toward welfare sure, but she may also have been addressing Christian life instead. Christians should -want- to care for the hungry, the homeless, and the uneducated. There are various ways to go about acting on those. One thing that notably is missing in that quote is children being cured. Do you believe a nun would be apathetic of children's health? Do you think the first thing she would do if not is direct people to the government website to apply for healthcare? I've been on mission. I know what actual "care" looks like. I've seen children first-hand that lacked homes and food and, yes, medicine. Those people need to see more than insurance to believe people actually care about them. Chittister is right either way, but I'm not sure she was speaking in a manner of governance here. Bringing it all back home - I am not a Freedom Caucus House Republican. I like many of the provisions of the ACA. I just don't like the notions behind the legislature, the mandate to ALL people to pay for healthcare even if they don't want it, Obama's "Lie of the Year" regarding keeping your preferred doctor (Politifact), and rising premiums. As an individual - yes. I would LOVE to provide as much care as possible. I'm not going to speak for all Americans on that issue. It isn't my place.

The justification you speak of is in what I said later in the post. Health isn't a right and is not explicitly stated as one in the DOI. The document states that the individual has an "unalienable" right - meaning one that can't be taken away - to Life. Life is merely existence of organisms. Jefferson didn't add any qualifier. Long story short. The DOI merely grants the right to exist as an organism. I would prefer personally to do what -I- can as a human to help make that life better to that individual. I would not want the government to force my hand in doing so. Especially when they didn't do so before. You said it yourself. Sometimes - we're dealing with just an "extra year." If we are supposed not quantify life, why are we paying for health if it's going to end for naught? I never met one of my grandmothers because of cancer. The assertion that she was to have health as a right is a position that troubles me. Where's the cure for late stage cancer when she was alive? She had a right to be healthy. Right? No. Sickness doesn't consider a list of protections. It's a fickle entity humanity has yet to overtake. Therefore, it's a considerable blessing if you are able to live long and prosper to your hearts content.

Reuters, NPR are good places to look @Winter Angel . @Neo Another unpopular opinion. I do NOT believe that health and life are the same thing - and thus, I don't believe health insurance is a human right. You're dealing with a textualist here. If you're going to cite the Declaration of Independence the healthcare scene in Colonial America is the setting in which those pursuits were affirmed in the document. Health insurance would come onto the scene a CENTURY later and wasn't really fleshed out until Medicaid was a thing. Before 1850 Americans - who still had the right to live in the DOI - could not be insured. Healthcare is not nessecary to live. It's encouraged for sure - however you don't need to have a child in a hospital, vaccinations (for some reason) are being debated, household remedies for illnesses are still employed, and so on and so forth. Health, for a majority of history, wasn't a right. It was a luxury and a considerable blessing. People in this country - with the ACA - are PRAYING for health regularly. If it's a right most of us are being denied it regardless of being insured or not. Yes, being unhealthy leads to death. That much is crystal. That doesn't make health and life the same thing. EDIT: Why isn't it the nation's goal. People decide the direction of the nation and free to believe otherwise.