[006]
FearOfTheUnknown
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
This therefore provides some justification for the trope, as it could be taken as seeing through the strands partially to the eyebrows beneath, even if there are not actually separate strands detailed in the animation.
to:
This therefore provides some justification for the trope, as it could be taken as seeing between the strands partially to the eyebrows beneath, even if there are not actually separate strands detailed in the animation.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"Again, stop abusing the Laguz Royals and using them as standard. They\\\'re beyond broken.\\\"
Which is exactly why they are the standard. If y is more broken than x, then y is gamebreaking and x is not. Have you even looked at the GameBreaker page? It says:
\\\"A Game Breaker is a controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all others. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker is a legit element of the game used in an unintended way, resulting in Gameplay Derailment. \\\"
Abusing the laguz royals + Rafiel trumps everything else in 4-E-3. It is not cheating and it is perfectly legitimate. It requires no previous input at all on the part of the player. Elincia has already been covered under the clause that accounts for all forms of time-consuming abuse; therefore, listing her on this page is superfluous.
\\\"Yes, there\\\'s a lot of strategy involved in a game where something that has blatant abuse potential is allowed. Oh wait, no there isn\\\'t.\\\"
Aha. Yeah, right. These things took time to figure out. If these abuse strategies were so easy, then there wouldn\\\'t be comments on YouTube videos expressing awe at their swiftness.
\\\"By the way, if you\\\'re interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it\\\'s incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I\\\'m sure all the users here who would do it won\\\'t revolt. \\\"
I mentioned boss abuse, arena abuse, reinforcement abuse, RNG abuse, etc. -specifically- to include all of the units that thrive on a standard of high turncounts. There are way too many of them to list. The units that are broken on a standard of low turncounts, on the other hand, are far more limited and would be broken regardless of the player\\\'s playstyle. That is why it is a standard for listing specific examples of this trope.
Which is exactly why they are the standard. If y is more broken than x, then y is gamebreaking and x is not. Have you even looked at the GameBreaker page? It says:
\\\"A Game Breaker is a controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all others. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker is a legit element of the game used in an unintended way, resulting in Gameplay Derailment. \\\"
Abusing the laguz royals + Rafiel trumps everything else in 4-E-3. It is not cheating and it is perfectly legitimate. It requires no previous input at all on the part of the player. Elincia has already been covered under the clause that accounts for all forms of time-consuming abuse; therefore, listing her on this page is superfluous.
\\\"Yes, there\\\'s a lot of strategy involved in a game where something that has blatant abuse potential is allowed. Oh wait, no there isn\\\'t.\\\"
Aha. Yeah, right. These things took time to figure out. If these abuse strategies were so easy, then there wouldn\\\'t be comments on YouTube videos expressing awe at their swiftness.
\\\"By the way, if you\\\'re interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it\\\'s incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I\\\'m sure all the users here who would do it won\\\'t revolt. \\\"
I mentioned boss abuse, arena abuse, reinforcement abuse, RNG abuse, etc. -specifically- to include all of the units that thrive on a standard of high turncounts. There are way too many of them to list. The units that are broken on a standard of low turncounts, on the other hand, are far more limited and would be broken regardless of the player\\\'s playstyle. That is why it is a standard for listing specific examples of this trope.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"Again, stop abusing the Laguz Royals and using them as standard. They\\\'re beyond broken.\\\"
Which is exactly why they are the standard. If y is more broken than x, then y is gamebreaking and x is not. Have you even looked at the GameBreaker page?
\\\"A Game Breaker is a controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all others. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker is a legit element of the game used in an unintended way, resulting in Gameplay Derailment. \\\"
Abusing the laguz royals + Rafiel trumps everything else in 4-E-3. It is not cheating and it is perfectly legitimate. It requires no previous input at all on the part of the player. Elincia has already been covered under the clause that accounts for all forms of time-consuming abuse; therefore, listing her on this page is superfluous.
\\\"Yes, there\\\'s a lot of strategy involved in a game where something that has blatant abuse potential is allowed. Oh wait, no there isn\\\'t.\\\"
Aha. Yeah, right. These things took time to figure out. If these abuse strategies were so easy, then there wouldn\\\'t be comments on YouTube videos expressing awe at their swiftness.
\\\"By the way, if you\\\'re interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it\\\'s incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I\\\'m sure all the users here who would do it won\\\'t revolt. \\\"
I mentioned boss abuse, arena abuse, reinforcement abuse, RNG abuse, etc. -specifically- to include all of the units that thrive on a standard of high turncounts. There are way too many of them to list. The units that are broken on a standard of low turncounts, on the other hand, are far more limited and would be broken regardless of the player\\\'s playstyle. That is why it is a standard for listing specific examples of this trope.
Which is exactly why they are the standard. If y is more broken than x, then y is gamebreaking and x is not. Have you even looked at the GameBreaker page?
\\\"A Game Breaker is a controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all others. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker is a legit element of the game used in an unintended way, resulting in Gameplay Derailment. \\\"
Abusing the laguz royals + Rafiel trumps everything else in 4-E-3. It is not cheating and it is perfectly legitimate. It requires no previous input at all on the part of the player. Elincia has already been covered under the clause that accounts for all forms of time-consuming abuse; therefore, listing her on this page is superfluous.
\\\"Yes, there\\\'s a lot of strategy involved in a game where something that has blatant abuse potential is allowed. Oh wait, no there isn\\\'t.\\\"
Aha. Yeah, right. These things took time to figure out. If these abuse strategies were so easy, then there wouldn\\\'t be comments on YouTube videos expressing awe at their swiftness.
\\\"By the way, if you\\\'re interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it\\\'s incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I\\\'m sure all the users here who would do it won\\\'t revolt. \\\"
I mentioned boss abuse, arena abuse, reinforcement abuse, RNG abuse, etc. -specifically- to include all of the units that thrive on a standard of high turncounts. There are way too many of them to list. The units that are broken on a standard of low turncounts, on the other hand, are far more limited and would be broken regardless of the player\\\'s playstyle. That is why it is a standard for listing specific examples of this trope.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"Again, stop abusing the Laguz Royals and using them as standard. They\\\'re beyond broken.\\\"
Which is exactly why they are the standard. If y is more broken than x, then y is gamebreaking and x is not. Have you even looked at the GameBreaker page?
\\\"A Game Breaker is a controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all others. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker is a legit element of the game used in an unintended way, resulting in Gameplay Derailment. \\\"
Abusing the laguz royals + Rafiel trumps everything else in 4-E-3. It is not cheating and it is perfectly legitimate. It requires no previous input at all on the part of the player. Elincia has already been covered under the clause that accounts for all forms of time-consuming abuse; therefore, listing her on this page is superfluous.
\\\"By the way, if you\\\'re interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it\\\'s incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I\\\'m sure all the users here who would do it won\\\'t revolt. \\\"
I mentioned boss abuse, arena abuse, reinforcement abuse, RNG abuse, etc. -specifically- to include all of the units that thrive on a standard of high turncounts. There are way too many of them to list. The units that are broken on a standard of low turncounts, on the other hand, are far more limited and would be broken regardless of the player\\\'s playstyle. That is why it is a standard for listing specific examples of this trope.
Which is exactly why they are the standard. If y is more broken than x, then y is gamebreaking and x is not. Have you even looked at the GameBreaker page?
\\\"A Game Breaker is a controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all others. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker is a legit element of the game used in an unintended way, resulting in Gameplay Derailment. \\\"
Abusing the laguz royals + Rafiel trumps everything else in 4-E-3. It is not cheating and it is perfectly legitimate. It requires no previous input at all on the part of the player. Elincia has already been covered under the clause that accounts for all forms of time-consuming abuse; therefore, listing her on this page is superfluous.
\\\"By the way, if you\\\'re interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it\\\'s incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I\\\'m sure all the users here who would do it won\\\'t revolt. \\\"
I mentioned boss abuse, arena abuse, reinforcement abuse, RNG abuse, etc. -specifically- to include all of the units that thrive on a standard of high turncounts. There are way too many of them to list. The units that are broken on a standard of low turncounts, on the other hand, are far more limited and would be broken regardless of the player\\\'s playstyle. That is why it is a standard for listing specific examples of this trope.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"Again, stop abusing the Laguz Royals and using them as standard. They\\\'re beyond broken.\\\"
Which is exactly why they are the standard. If y is more broken than x, then y is gamebreaking and x is not. Have you even looked at the GameBreaker page?
\\\"A Game Breaker is a controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all others. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker is a legit element of the game used in an unintended way, resulting in Gameplay Derailment. \\\"
Abusing the laguz royals + Rafiel trumps everything else in 4-E-3. It is not cheating and it is perfectly legitimate. It requires no previous input at all on the part of the player. Elincia has already been covered under the clause that accounts for all forms of time-consuming abuse; therefore, listing her on this page is superfluous.
\\\"By the way, if you\\\'re interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it\\\'s incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I\\\'m sure all the users here who would do it won\\\'t revolt. \\\"
I mentioned boss abuse, arena abuse, EXP abuse, RNG abuse, etc. -specifically- to include all of the units that thrive on a standard of high turncounts. There are way too many of them to list. The units that are broken on a standard of low turncounts, on the other hand, are far more limited and would be broken regardless of the player\\\'s playstyle. That is why it is a standard for listing specific examples of this trope.
Which is exactly why they are the standard. If y is more broken than x, then y is gamebreaking and x is not. Have you even looked at the GameBreaker page?
\\\"A Game Breaker is a controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all others. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker is a legit element of the game used in an unintended way, resulting in Gameplay Derailment. \\\"
Abusing the laguz royals + Rafiel trumps everything else in 4-E-3. It is not cheating and it is perfectly legitimate. It requires no previous input at all on the part of the player. Elincia has already been covered under the clause that accounts for all forms of time-consuming abuse; therefore, listing her on this page is superfluous.
\\\"By the way, if you\\\'re interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it\\\'s incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I\\\'m sure all the users here who would do it won\\\'t revolt. \\\"
I mentioned boss abuse, arena abuse, EXP abuse, RNG abuse, etc. -specifically- to include all of the units that thrive on a standard of high turncounts. There are way too many of them to list. The units that are broken on a standard of low turncounts, on the other hand, are far more limited and would be broken regardless of the player\\\'s playstyle. That is why it is a standard for listing specific examples of this trope.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"Again, stop abusing the Laguz Royals and using them as standard. They\\\'re beyond broken.\\\"
Which is exactly why they are the standard. If y is more broken than x, then y is gamebreaking and x is not. Have you even looked at the GameBreaker page?
\\\"A Game Breaker is a controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all others. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker is a legit element of the game used in an unintended way, resulting in Gameplay Derailment. \\\"
Abusing the laguz royals + Rafiel trumps everything else in 4-E-3. It is not cheating and it is perfectly legitimate. It requires no previous input at all on the part of the player. Elincia has already been covered under the clause that accounts for all forms of time-consuming abuse; therefore, listing her on this page is superfluous.
\\\"By the way, if you\\\'re interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it\\\'s incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I\\\'m sure all the users here who would do it won\\\'t revolt. \\\"
I mentioned boss abuse, arena abuse, EXP abuse, RNG abuse, etc. -specifically- to include all of the units that thrive on a standard of high turncounts. There are way too many of them to list.
Which is exactly why they are the standard. If y is more broken than x, then y is gamebreaking and x is not. Have you even looked at the GameBreaker page?
\\\"A Game Breaker is a controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all others. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker is a legit element of the game used in an unintended way, resulting in Gameplay Derailment. \\\"
Abusing the laguz royals + Rafiel trumps everything else in 4-E-3. It is not cheating and it is perfectly legitimate. It requires no previous input at all on the part of the player. Elincia has already been covered under the clause that accounts for all forms of time-consuming abuse; therefore, listing her on this page is superfluous.
\\\"By the way, if you\\\'re interested in making low turn counts the standard, never mind that it\\\'s incredibly stupid to begin with, remove boss abuse, which appears early on in the page. I\\\'m sure all the users here who would do it won\\\'t revolt. \\\"
I mentioned boss abuse, arena abuse, EXP abuse, RNG abuse, etc. -specifically- to include all of the units that thrive on a standard of high turncounts. There are way too many of them to list.
