• 3 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • Sure, but I was responding to someone who was defining wasp (the common word) based on clade (using scientific words).

    I’m fine with common parlance words for things. What I had issue with was arbitrarily restricting the definition of wasp to a specific clade, which would exclude ants and bees, and also a whole host of at the very least wasp-adjacent animals which would now be stuck with no real way to describe them.

    (Also, yes, fish is a rubbish scientific word. We’re far closer cousins of salmon than sharks are. By any reasonable definition of fish, at least biologically, we are fish. You could redefine “fish” in the same way we define “tree”, i.e. based on structure and not on ancestry, but by that definition whales should still be fish. The word “fish” shouldn’t be allowed within 50 metres of cladistics.)


  • Just to confirm, you don’t think of jewel wasps, spider wasps, sand wasps, and flower wasps as wasps, since they’re not part of the Vespidae, correct?

    I’ve mostly seen wasps defined as basically “Apocrita but not the ones we don’t think count as wasps because there’s too many of them, specifically bees and ants.” Which leads to the same weird reasoning that would somehow make legless lizards lizards, but not snakes. I’ve seen velvet ants referred to as wasps, but not ants, even though true ants are far closer cousins to Vespidae. That just isn’t a viable scientific definition. I’m glad we’ve mostly moved on to grouping avian dinosaurs among the dinosaurs, but it feels like a lot of similar groupings are still lagging.

    I’m willing to accept Vespidae as a synonym of wasps, but that excludes a ton of wasps. It also erases the very wasp-like nature of ant ancestors, which is what makes cladistics so fascinating. So why not just open it up to include all Apocrita and be done with it?

    I’m also fine with a morphological definition of wasps, like how “tree” isn’t based on ancestry but on structure, but you were the one pulling in the scientific names.





  • It’s a small part on the German border which we got as compensation for WWI. It has a population of roughly 80.000 people, less than 1% of the Belgian population. The two main languages are Dutch (60ish %) and French (40ish %), but German is technically a national language.

    I suspect that people in Flanders encounter way more Germans than German-speaking Belgians.


  • Can’t speak for the Netherlands, but here in Belgium the first thing anyone thinks of when you speak German is the war. I know I’m not supposed to mention it…

    That being said, German usually sounds like angry Dutch to us, so I guess we both agree on where we are on the funny-angry spectrum.

    Also, most of your examples are more common in the Netherlands, which are definitely further along the funny axis.







  • Eh, vintage has had control and hatebear-style decks as its most prominent decks for years, with combo often being around 1/3 or less of the metagame. Legacy often has a tempo or control deck as the de facto best deck. Combo being this dominant is really only a modern thing. And while some of these decks aren’t A+B combo decks, I wouldn’t immediately consider them interactive in the way tempo or control would be.

    Most of these decks are racing for their win-con, which makes them strategically similar in a way a metagame with strategies like death&taxes, hard control, tempo, and midrange wouldn’t be. I wouldn’t consider a hypothetical metagame with 50 different T3 combo decks more diverse than, say, current vintage.





  • Version 1.2 is up! It should include fixes for everything you pointed out. There’s a short overview in the Version History.

    Some design clarifications:

    • Amnesia doesn’t work out of battle, I’ve added a clarification to the move.
    • I hadn’t actually considered Transform out of battle, that one’s on me. It now gives you that entire Pokémon’s moveset, but every move uses a d4 Move die to balance out the lack of PP.
    • It’s deliberate that some Pokémon have more than one Basic Move. It felt kind of arbitrary for Poison Sting to be one for Weedle but not for Nidoran. I have removed Transform’s Basic status for Mew, though.
    • There’s no benefit to catching higher-stage Pokémon, the catching rules mostly just make it a bit harder to get higher-stage Pokémon early. By making excursions into higher-difficulty areas more costly, it should hopefully keep trainers within their intended zones without explicitly forcing them to. But yeah, if you want a Machamp, you should probably try to find a Machop instead.
    • MissingNo.'s size difference wasn’t intentional, but I’m definitely keeping it.

    Thanks for the thorough read-through, I really appreciate it!

    And lovely to hear that you’ve got a group together! I’d love to hear how it goes!