#unified era

[laracroftdaily]

Tomb Raider: The Legend of Lara Croft | New Official 'Danger' Teaser

Release date October 10th, 2024

[jorrated]

idk why sonic fans care so much about canon timelines. classic sonic is past sonic or an alternate version sonic? who gives a shit sonic canon is the definition of fuck it we ball have fun with your blue rat

[niteshade925]

🙂

[sameteeth]

the gide/oda and fukuchi/fukuzawa storyline parallels are crazy. war vet convinced of his conviction drags morally upright (generous) guy to his level to achieve his goal, which was formed by the trauma of warfare on the human mind

[kingofprosperity]

“You are interesting,” says a voice. “Zonai aside, you’ve made it your purpose to unify Hyrule under your banner and become its very first sovereign. You’ve brought knowledge, technology, and even magical bobbles to the people. Well, those bobbles aren’t for everyone, just those you deem worthy.” A small giggle echoes between shadows. “So, why? Why go to all the trouble to establish a kingdom?”

" Stranger, I am less of a sovereign and more of a protector. I do not command villages and towns to follow laws that are unnecessarily strict. They can practice their beliefs, while the Zonai had specific gods.. Hyruleans have their own, it is I that has adapted. They can decide to trade goods and services with their neighbors or they can withhold that, although I have overridden this a few times when it put unnecessary strain on those in the desert. My military presence is low, only when it is deemed necessary to keep a settlement safe. "

" Some settlements do want more involvement, I find it difficult to indulge them. I usually seek Sonia's guidance on matters such as these. "

" The stones are some of the last relics of a time that I didn't even get to see, you expect me to give them away to anyone that fancies them? Not every being has magic nor the fortitude required to bear them. They can very easily kill their host, so it is very important to select those who can handle themselves. I was not presented with my stone until I was of age and its mastery was difficult. "

" I will indulge you if you truly wish to know. By the time Mineru began raising me, our people were on the decline for one reason or another. I was too young to understand, but our parents had passed and our home was barren. Mineru, being as she is, knew that if we stayed that there would be little chance of survival.

This very long ago, some Kings came and went. Each time they brought ruin and death upon their own people, the pattern never changed. Greedy, purist. They took everything from the people and punished them greatly over meaningless infractions.

We descended to the surface world.

I will not say it was destiny, as it took a few decades of work to establish myself with the Hylians. I began small, protecting a village from the then-King's forces. They cherished a peaceful way of life, it felt unbelievably good to give them that peace. I expanded my influence, the King's foot soldiers would eventually surrender without violence and many switched their allegiance.

My heritage likely played a role in my acceptance, but once the King abandoned and fled the castle on the Plateau I immediately sought to replace him. I wanted to establish trade routes with the Rito, Zora, and Gerudo as their societies had suffered greatly at the hands of prior Kings. I believed that would be best. I wanted to relieve the world of the monsters that plagued some villages, to make the world as perfect as it could be, so I sought my goals and people followed. "

[wifelinkmtg]

TUMBLR POST EDITOR WON'T LET ME TITLE THIS POST ANYMORE SO I GUESS THIS IS THE TITLE NOW. WEBBED SITE INNIT

So let's say you grew up in the nineties and that The Lion King was an important movie to you. Let's say that the character of Scar - snarling, ambitious, condescending, effeminate Scar - stirred feelings in you which you had no words for as a child. And then let's say, many years later, you're talking about it with a college friend, and you say something like, "oh man, I think Scar was some sort of gay awakening for me," and she fixes you with this level stare and says, "Scar was a fascist. What's the matter with you?"

The immediate feeling is not unlike missing a step: hang on, what's happening, what did I miss? You knew there were goose-stepping hyenas in "Be Prepared," but you didn't think it mattered that much. He's the bad guy, after all, and the movie's just pointing it out. Your friend says it's more than that: the visuals of the song are directly referencing the Nuremberg rallies. They're practically an homage to Riefenstahl. This was your sexual awakening? Is this why you're so into peaked caps and leather, then? Subliminal nazi kink, perhaps?

And then one of your other friends cuts in. "Hold up," he says, "let's think about what Scar actually did in the movie. He organized a group of racialized outcasts and led them against a predatory monarchy. Why are you so keen to defend their hereditary rule? Scar's the good guy here." The conversation immediately descends into a verbal slap fight about who the real bad guy is, whether Scar's regime was actually responsible for the ecological devastation of the Pride Lands, whether the hyenas actually count as "racialized" because James Earl Jones voiced Mufasa after all. Your Catholic friend starts saying some strange and frankly concerning shit about Natural Law. Someone brings The Lion King 2 into it. You leave the conversation feeling a little bit lost and a little bit anxious. What were we even talking about?

INTRODUCING: THE DITCH

There is a way of reading texts which I'm afraid is pervasive, which has as its most classical expression the smug obsession with trivia and minutiae you find in a certain vein of comic book fan. "Who was the first Green Lantern? What was his weakness? Do you even know the Green Lantern Oath?" It eschews the subjective in favor of definitively knowable fact. You can't argue with this guy that, say, Alan Scott shouldn't really count as the first Green Lantern because his whole deal is so radically different from the Hal Jordan/John Stewart/Guy Gardner Corps-era Lanterns, because this guy will simply say "but he's called Green Lantern. Says so right on the cover. Checkmate." This approach to reading a text is fundamentally 1) emotionally detached (there's a reason the joke goes, oh you like X band? name three of their songs - and not, which of their songs means the most to you? which of them came into your life at exactly the right moment to tell you exactly what you needed to hear just then?) and 2) defensive. It's a stance that is designed not to lose arguments. It says so right on the cover. Checkmate.

And then you get the guys who are like "well obviously Bruce Wayne could do far more as a billionaire to solve societal problems by using his tremendous wealth to address systemic issues instead of dressing up as a bat and punching mental patients in the head," and these guys have half a point but they're basically in the same ditch butting heads with the "well, actually" guys, and can we not simply extricate ourselves from the ditch entirely?

So, okay, let's return to our initial example. Scar is portrayed using Nazi iconography - the goose-stepping, the monumentality, the Nuremberg Lichtdom. He is also flamboyant and effete. He unifies and leads a group of downtrodden exiles to overthrow an absolute monarch. He's also a self-serving despot on whose rule Heaven Itself turns its back. You can't reconcile these things from within the ditch - or if you can, the attempt is likely to be ad-hoc supposition and duct tape.

Instead, let's ask ourselves what perspective The Lion King is coming from. What does it say is true about the world? What are its precepts, its axioms?

There is a natural hierarchical order to the world. This is just and righteous and the way of things, and attempts to overthrow this order will be punished severely by the world itself.

Fascism is what happens when evil men attempt to usurp this natural order with the aid of a group or groups of people who refuse to accept their place in the order.

There exists an alternative to defending and adhering to one's place in the natural order - it consists only of selfish spineless apathy.

Manliness is an essential quality of a just ruler. Unmanliness renders a person unfit for rule, and often resentful and dangerous as well.

And isn't that interesting, laid out like that? It renders the entire argument about the movie irrelevant (except for whatever your Catholic friend was on about, since his understanding of the world seems to line up with the above precepts weirdly well.) It's meaningless to argue about whether Scar was a secret hero or a fascist, when the movie doesn't understand fascism and has a damn-near alien view of what good and evil are.

There's always gonna be someone who, having read this far, wants to reply, "so, what? The Lion King is a bad movie and the people who made it were homophobes and also American monarchists, somehow? And anyone who likes it is also some sort of gay-bashing crypto-authoritarian?" To which I have to reply, man, c'mon, get out of the ditch. You're no good to anyone in there. Take my hand. I'm going to pull on three. One... two...

SO PHYREXIA [PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE, GROANS]

We're talking about everyone's favorite ichor-drooling surgery monsters again because there was a bit in my ~*~seminal~*~ essay Transformation, Horror, Eros, Phyrexia which seemed to give a number of readers quite a bit of trouble: namely, the idea that while Phyrexia is textually fascist, their aesthetic is incompatible with real-world fascism, and further, that this aesthetic incompatibility in some way outweighs the ways in which they act like a fascist nation in terms of how we think of them. I'll take responsibility here: I don't think that point is at all clear or well-argued in that essay. What I was trying to articulate was that the text of Magic: the Gathering very much wants Phyrexia to be supremely evil and dangerous fascists, because that makes for effective antagonists, but in the process of constructing that, it's accidentally encoded a whole bunch of fascinating presuppositions that end up working at cross-purposes with its apparent aim. That's... not that much clearer, is it? Hmm. Why don't I just show you what I mean?

Atraxa, Grand Unifier (art by Marta Nael)

In "Beneath Eyes Unblinking," one of the March of the Machine stories by K. Arsenault Rivera, there's a fascinating and I think revealing passage in which Atraxa (big-deal Phyrexianized angel and Elesh Norn's lieutenant) has a run-in with an art museum in New Capenna. The first thing I want to talk about is that, in this passage, Atraxa has no understanding of the concept of "beauty". A great deal of space in such a rushed storyline is devoted to her trying to puzzle out what beauty means and interrogating the minds of her recently-compleated Capennan aesthetes to try and understand it. In the end, she is unable to conceive of beauty except as "wrongness," as anathema.

So my first question is, why doesn't Atraxa have any idea of beauty? This is nonsense, right? We could point to a previous story, "A Garden of Flesh," by Lora Gray, in which Elesh Norn explicitly thinks in terms of beauty, but that's a little bit ditchbound, isn't it? The better argument is to simply look at Phyrexian bodies, at the Phyrexian landscape, all of which looks the way it does on purpose, all of which has been shaped in accordance with the very real aesthetic preferences of Phyrexians. How you could look at the Fair Basilica and not understand that Phyrexians most definitely have an idea of beauty, even if you personally disagree with it, is baffling. This is a lot like the canonical assertion that Phyrexians lack souls, which is both contradicted elsewhere in canon and essentially meaningless, given Magic's unwillingness or inability to articulate what a soul is in its setting, and as with this, it seems the goal is simply to dehumanize Phyrexians, to render them alien, even at the cost of incoherence or internal contradiction.

Atraxa's progress through the museum is fascinating. It evokes the 1937 Nazi exhibit on "degenerate art" in Munich, but not at all cleanly. The first exhibit, which is of representational art, she angrily destroys for being too individualistic (a point of dissonance with the European fascist movements of the 20th century, which formed in direct antagonism to communism.) The second exhibit, filled with abstract paintings and sculptures, she destroys even more angrily for having no conceivable use (this is much more in line with the Nazi idea of "degenerate art", so well done there.) The third exhibit is filled with war trophies and reconstructions from a failed Phyrexian invasion of Capenna many years prior, which she is angriest of all with (and fair enough, I suppose.) But then, after she's done completely trashing the place, she spots a number of angel statues on the cathedral across the plaza, and she goes apeshit. In a fugue of white-hot rage, she pulverizes the angel heads, and here is where I have to ask my second question:

Why angels? If you are trying to invoke fascist attitudes toward art, big statues of angels are precisely the wrong thing for your fascist analogues to hate. Fascists love monumental, heroic representations of superhuman perfection. It's practically their whole aesthetic deal. I understand that we're foreshadowing the imminent defeat of Phyrexia at the hands of legions of angels and a multiversal proliferation of angel juice, but that just leads to the exact same question: why angels? To the best of my knowledge, the Phyrexian weakness to New Capennan angel juice is something invented for this storyline. They have, after all, been happily compleating angels since 1997. We could talk about the in-universe justification for why Halo specifically is so potent, but I don't remember what that justification is, and also don't care. Let's not jump back in the ditch, please. The point is, someone decided that this time, Phyrexia would be defeated by an angelic host, and what does that mean? What is the text trying to say? What are its precepts and axioms?

Let me ask you a question: how many physically disabled angels are there in Magic: the Gathering? How about transsexual angels? How many angels are there, on all of the cards that have ever been printed for Magic: the Gathering, that are even just a bit ugly? Do you get it yet? Or do you need me to spell it out for you?

SPELLING IT OUT FOR YOU

There is a kind of body which is bad. It is bad because it has been significantly altered from its natural state, and it is bad because it is repellent to our aesthetic sensibilities.

The bad kind of body is contagious. It spreads through contact. Sometimes people we love are infected, and then they become the bad kind of body too.

There is a kind of body which is good. It is good because it is pleasing to our aesthetic sensibilities, and it is good because it is unaltered from its (super)natural state.

A happy ending is when all the good bodies destroy or drive into hiding all of the bad bodies. A happy ending is when the bad bodies of the people we love are forcibly returned to being the good kind of body.

Do you get it now?

ENDNOTES

It's worth noting that the ditch is very similar to the white American Evangelical hermeneutics of "the Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it," the defensive chapter-and-verse-or-it-didn't-happen approach to reading a text, what Fred Clark of slacktivist calls "concordance-ism". I don't think that's accidental. We stand underneath centuries of people reading the Bible very poorly - how could that not affect how we read things today? We are participants in history whether we like it or not.

I sincerely hope I haven't come across as condescending in this essay. Close reading is legitimately difficult! They teach college courses on this stuff! And while it is frustrating to have my close readings interrogated by people who... aren't doing that, like. I do get it. I find myself back in the ditch all the time. This stuff is hard. It is also, sorry, crucial if you intend to say something about a text that's worth saying.

I also hope I've communicated clearly here. Magic story is sufficiently incoherent that trying to develop a thesis about it often feels like trying to nail jello to the wall. If anyone has questions, please ask them! And thank you for reading. Next time, we'll probably do the new Eldraine set.

[bill-the-dog-for-the-check]

I don't think goyim properly understand the fear and change that the wave of antisemitism currently taking place in the wake of the October 7th massacre has induced in the Jewish community.

In a wide-lens view, Jews have become a 1000% more wary and introspective. This isn't limited to diaspora Jews--the headlines pouring out of Israel until October 7th have been of division, polarization, and conflict. Conflict over the 2018 Nation-State Law. Over Bibi's premiership. Over the judicial reform laws. Over the Orthodox Rabbinate. Over this. Over that.

But Israeli society is more unified than ever right now. The judicial reform laws were shelved shortly after the war began and the protests ended on October 8th. Some of it is the rally around the flag effect, yes, and will probably fade as time passes--politics never stops--but the era of Israelis being at one another's throats? Of forgetting that we are all one people and we are all under attack? Gone. It died on October 7th.

In the Diaspora, Jews are once again asking themselves the question--will I need to flee? Guys, a fifth of Gen Z--my generation, that I attend university with--believes the Holocaust was a myth. Two thirds of them think Jews are oppressors. That's terrifying. And the reason we don't take comfort in people saying, 'They're kids with no political power.' is that that won't be true forever. Today's slacktivists who casually say that Israel has no right to exist are tomorrows lawmakers. They will grow up and set policy.

We don't know if they'll grow out of it. I pray to HaShem that they will, but how do I know if they will?

And that's tomorrow's world. Today's world is already bad enough. I don't wear my Star of David necklace to the self-defense classes I've started taking because being surrounded by burly dudes learning how to fight people better isn't a great place to potentially learn that I'm surrounded by antisemites.

Jews--in the year 2024--are being doxxed, seen their homes and synagogues vandalized and threatened, walk past Palestine protests screaming for the death of Zionists, and antisemitism has increased in the United States alone by more than 400%. It's worse elsewhere--Turkish shop owners have been barring Jews from their stores and France has seen antisemitic incidents increase by 1000%. Jews have been leaving social media sites like Tumblr, Reddit, Tik Tok, and Twitter in droves, chased away by the constant, unceasing stream of anti-Jewish hate.

Gentiles need to understand that their words and actions have very real consequences. Jews are not dumb. We're not imagining things. We aren't 'getting our just desserts'. Our fears are grounded not only by historical context but by our current, everyday, lived realities. To gentiles, reading 'antisemitism has gone up by x percent' is a factoid. To us, it is a serious threat and a deep concern.

EDIT: I'm tired of pro-Palestine people sharing this post and using it to back their agenda. You are not welcome to use my experiences to suit your agenda. I am a Zionist! This post is Zionist! Stop taking my words from me and using it against my people.

[probablyasocialecologist]

There is a growing body of physiological, anatomical, ethnographic, and archaeological evidence to suggest that not only did women hunt in our evolutionary past, but they may well have been better suited for such an endurance-dependent activity. We are both biological anthropologists. I (co-author Cara) specialize in the physiology of humans who live in extreme conditions, using my research to reconstruct how our ancestors may have adapted to different climates. And I (co-author Sarah) study Neanderthal and early modern human health. I also excavate at their archaeological sites. It’s not uncommon for scientists like us—who attempt to include the contributions of all individuals, regardless of sex and gender, in reconstructions of our evolutionary past—to be accused of rewriting the past to fulfill a politically correct, woke agenda. The actual evidence speaks for itself, though: Gendered labor roles did not exist in the Paleolithic era, which lasted from 3.3 million years ago until 12,000 years ago. The story is written in human bodies, now and in the past.

[...]

Our Neanderthal cousins, a group of humans who lived across Western and Central Eurasia approximately 250,000 to 40,000 years ago, formed small, highly nomadic bands. Fossil evidence shows females and males experienced the same bony traumas across their bodies—a signature of a hard life hunting deer, aurochs, and woolly mammoths. Tooth wear that results from using the front teeth as a third hand, likely in tasks like tanning hides, is equally evident across females and males. This nongendered picture should not be surprising when you imagine small-group living. Everyone needs to contribute to the tasks necessary for group survival—chiefly, producing food and shelter, and raising children. Individual mothers are not solely responsible for their children; in forager communities, the whole group contributes to child care. You might imagine this unified labor strategy then changed in early modern humans, but archaeological and anatomical evidence shows it did not. Upper Paleolithic modern humans leaving Africa and entering Europe and Asia show very few sexed differences in trauma and repetitive motion wear. One difference is more evidence of “thrower’s elbow” in males than females, though some females shared these pathologies. And this was also the time when people were innovating with hunting technologies like atlatls (spear throwers), fishing hooks and nets, and bow and arrows—alleviating some of the wear and tear hunting would take on their bodies. A recent archaeological experiment found that using atlatls decreased sex differences in the speed of spears thrown by contemporary men and women. Even in death, there are no sexed differences in how Neanderthals or modern humans buried their dead or the goods affiliated with their graves. These indicators of differential gendered social status do not arrive until agriculture, with its stratified economic system and monopolizable resources. All this evidence suggests Paleolithic women and men did not occupy differing roles or social realms.

[laracroftdaily]

First teaser of TOMB RAIDER: THE LEGEND OF LARA CROFT animated series. Produced by Legendary with CrystalDynamics.

(Coming on Netflix in 2024)

[thefiresofpompeii]

another really well-designed visual storytelling element of dot and bubble is the decision to have the fifteenth doctor star in it wearing his “doctoriest” costume yet. doctor outfits vary, of course, but a unifying trait is some kind of suit/smart-casual style and long jacket — subverted in many cases, obviously, but even thirteen wears the long hoodie and suspenders, and twelve’s punk fits still follow roughly the same template, nine has his leather jacket doing the job — whereas fifteen has most noticeably stepped outside that mold for the past few episodes, starting with the kilt and open-shouldered vest (!) in TCORR, then the t-shirts and, in general, far less rigidity.

but in Dot and Bubble, you take one look at this man and know: he’s the Doctor. which is why it creates such a powerful feeling of juxtaposition — all this ‘Doctor-aura’ posturing that usually works on side characters straight away completely fails to have any kind of effect in the face of unabashed, impenetrable bigotry. the clothing is a kind of uniform, it provides reassurance that this man *is* the doctor, that he’s come to rescue you, that he’s the same person he’s always been. but not to the residents of finetime.

since time immemorial (the second doctor’s era, but maybe even earlier, i haven’t seen much hartnell so correct me if i’m wrong) the doctor’s been asked — “why am i talking to you, why am i telling you my secrets?” and he’s always replied that he has a “face you can trust”. it’s time lord magnetism. people are naturally drawn to him. he commands a room. people begin to follow his orders because they know on some primal, innate, subconscious level that this entity is going to help them survive and make their existence better.

which is why it’s so jarring when they don’t. the racism, privilege and prejudice that clouds their eyes is genuinely so strong that it almost works like a perception filter, blocking out the doctor’s natural charisma, his bottomless kindness, all of the superhuman qualities that make him irresistible. they don’t see the charming 2000-year-old Time Lord from the planet Gallifrey that is going to “save their lives and everyone else’s”, long jacket fluttering out behind him as he runs, holding his hand outstretched like a beacon of hope. they see a Black man and nothing else, and that puts him beneath them no matter what he says, no matter what he does, how he proves that *he’s the Doctor*. to fascists, race stands above everything. you can be accomplished, talented, wise, clever, brilliant, but to them, the simple fact of the colour of your skin renders you unworthy. and that’s why they’re beyond saving.

[threetrenchcoatsinatrenchcoat]

Why Dev Patel failing to jump out of a window is so cool

This era of movies tends to skirt the line of satirizing so much as to stand for nothing. The tradeoff of sincerity for meta humor is not in a ratio I recall voting for. I get wary every time a story possibly maybe makes fun of me for caring about it, and I've come to accept that I think of sincerity as a fragile thing. But fragile is not the same as meaningless.

Let's talk Monkey Man. Bobby/The Kid/Dev Patel is trying to get out of a building and leaps sideways into a window, ready to smash through it and land on the street. He clunks against it, he falls to the floor out of frame, the window remains fully unscathed, and the action music cuts out. A beat. Then he gets up, the chase keeps going, and the music kicks back in. In a lesser movie, this choice is saying, "Aren't action movies stupid? Anyways I guess here's an action movie." On the other side if nothing is ever changed, it's saying, "Aren't action movies perfect already? Anyways I guess here's more of the same." It's great when you can subvert expectations in a way that doesn't undermine everything else, so here's why this isn't undermining its premise and even enforces it.

First off, after coming back in, the music keeps playing and being a legitimately exciting beat underscoring the rest of the scene. The joke knows when it's over and gets out of the way. Second, this trope is a great target for this bit; windows are so much more reinforced than this genre ever credits. But then the magic is that the entire rest of the movie is consistently brutal. The window bit comes from a unified authorial voice that also earnestly digs into the action before and after it. A deliberate drawing attention to the difficult realities of action only works if the rest of your action does hit harder than the fare of movie you're invoking.

And Monkey Man delivers. Every henchman takes so many hits before going down, and the hits are bloodier, closer, and quieter than Hollywood action. And the last thing that makes it work is that it only happens the once. It brings up John Wick and rather explicitly claims this movie will be smarter, and it does the joke with the window to ask you to take the violence seriously. Every time a movie distances itself from its genre, it's making sincerity take so much more work every other minute. Lots of movies give up on it entirely. This movie chooses the work.

[digi-lov]

Digimon Card Template->

Hey guys, I finally finished the templates! A few words to read before using, and more words under the cut if you will. I'd love to see any and all cards you create, so feel free to leave me an ask or DM! Also if you feel like supporting me a little, feel free to stop by my ko-fi->

First off, all fonts you need for the template are in the "Card Template Fonts" rar file. Remember to install them first before opening the files. Second, I recommend working with the PSD file in Photoshop, if you can. It has more and easier customization. If you use CSP, do use the CSP files. The PSD Text layers don't work in CSP, as well as certain other settings. I did my best to adapt the file to CSP, and it should work fine!

The Files have "HELP" layers in certain folders, I recommend reading them! Some of the Information I will repeat under the cut.

HAVE FUN! I wanna see lotta cards!

Okay, below the cut I'll leave some notes on how the Digimon cards are designed, as of the num <03> era at least.

Digimon cards have seven different colors. Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, Black, Purple, and White. White cards are rare and reserved for special Digimon/Tamers, and usually don't interact with other colors. For easier reading, Yellow and White cards have black text in their colors, instead of the usual white text. On multicolored cards, card including Yellow (or white in theory) have white text with a black outline. (before <03> if Yellow was the first color, the text was black with white outline instead, but they unified it with the update) The color on the left is considered the first color. Since the design update, the Card color is displayed in a color wheel around the Play cost. The digivolution cost bubble also recieved a color wheel, as well as the buble being split into the differen colors. Imagining it like a clock, the top color is the first, and then circling clockwise. Digi-Egg, or Lv.2 Digimon are always single color.

[tricolored cards have been introduced just recently and super rare. use sparingly]

Now to the Effects. The main effect is in white color with a black outline (also outlines on the keywords), while the Inherited Effect doesn't have outlines (unless it's a Yellow double color). If the Digimon has no Inherited Effect, there will be a small dash in the box.

Only white cards have black text in their main effect.

The effect text will start in the lower bottom of the image, not all the way at the bottom, and go down from there. If the Effect is too long it will move up.

Besides the regular evolution requirements, Digimon may have special "Digivolve" rules in their effect. This can make an evolution from a specific digimon cheaper, allow X Antibody Digimon to evolve from their normal counterparts, serve to overlook color requirements, or to allow evolution from certain traits, etc.

Some Digimon may also have an extra "Rule" in the bottom corner.

Ace Digimon will always have [Hand][Counter]<Blast Digivolve> effects. So far, they all had no inherited effects. They also have a significantly cheaper play cost than comparable Digimon, but in turn have the Overflow mechanic. EX6 introduced Blast DNA Digivolution, which specifies the required Digimon by name, and not just Level and color.

Lv.6 Digimon usually don't have inherited Effects, some might though, if they were made with Lv.7 evolution in mind. Furthermore Lv.6 Digimon pop out of their frame, even on the normal arts.

Now Tamers originally had neither traits, nor inheritence effects. But certain Tamers now do! Tamers with Mind Link effects, or the kids from Frontier for example, will have Inherited Effects.

Option cards have a grey backdrop for their effects, and the effect text is black. This black effect text carries over to full/alt arts, regardless of color. The have a (use) cost instead of a play cost. They can also have traits or rules, but it is rare.

[eventide-owls]

Sanders Sides in my style (including FANMADE Orange Side and Character!Thomas), where I mashed up Thomas's appearance in golden-age SS, modern-day SS and my personal artistic liberties!

Rambling commentary on design choices under the cut...

Love it when people take design inspo from his dyed hair era and make it color-coded to the other sides through the power of artistic magic

Gave stubble and ear piercings so he looks closer to his current appearance

Decided to give Character!Thomas that one jacket he really seems to like rather than the popular Steven Universe shirt bc it reflects his current style more

LOVE it when people give Roman scars- also gave Remus one across his eye to make him similar to Roman

Speaking of Remus... I removed the silver streak bc it's kinda a hassle to draw and doesn't really unify him with the others (also clutters his design) + just gave him heavier facial hair rather than a full-mustache

Janus's snake-side is usually a washed-out green when Thomas has his make-up so I made it more vibrant! I usually hate drawing Janus bc bowler hat + snake scales is a STRUGGLE but I like how he turned out

ORANGE SIDE ORANGE SIDE

His hair is spiked and swooped back to make him 'disheveled', 100% believe Thomas will wear orange contacts so he has those, and gave him short-sleeved leather jacket to relate him to Logan's short-sleeves

[dalekofchaos]

Didn't have enough room for it, but the Paternoster Gang, so if you want that, just reply or reblog with that option

Context

U.NI.IT.

the Unified Intelligence Taskforce. The Power of the Doctor set up a new UNIT that recruited some of the Doctor's former companions so it feels like there's fertile ground for a show about who protects modern-day Earth when the Doctor's not available. An episodic structure would fit a UNIT show well, allowing it to shift from espionage thriller, to alien invasion, to weird science, like The X-Files.

An alternative UNIT show could follow in the footsteps of Star Trek: Lower Decks by focusing on a group of lowly officers who are left to pick up the pieces after one of the big exciting Doctor Who alien invasions. The Doctor always leaves a lot of destruction in their wake, so it would provide a lot of opportunities for an affectionate parody of Doctor Who. They could be led by a former UNIT operative like Sergeant Benton (John Levene) who would be an ideal character for an irreverent Doctor Who comedy. There's a lot of potential for UNIT in the new RTD era and hopefully, the Disney+ deal can help to realize it.

For obvious reasons, Jack and Mickey would be recast

Companions united.

Showing everyone who traveled with the Doctor saving the world in their own way. Each episode showing individual companions. From all the alive Classic Companions to all the New Who Companions.

Master Who? Basically The Master's show and showing what happens when The Doctor isn't there to stop The Master's universal conquest. And The Master taking on the worst people imaginable as companions. Could have Michelle Gomez, John Simm, Sascha Dhawan, Derek Jacobi, Geoffrey Beevers, Eric Roberts and Gordon Tipple return as their respective Masters/Missy

Time Lord Academy. The childhood of The Doctor, Master, and Rani during their years at the academy

Eighth Doctor adventures.

Finally giving Eight the run he deserves. Could bring in Charley or Lucie as his companions and lead into Eight in the Time War

Showing Romana and Leela on Gallifrey. During Romana's reign as Time Lady President. Leading to the Time War and how Romana was removed from power and Leela's last stand

[cryptotheism]

hi CT, unsure if this has been asked before (likely) but im gonna shoot. what is the actual historical origin of witches/witchcraft? especially in the sense of the term itself, but also whatever folk practice it may have come to refer to. it's so hard to get a straight answer about this because, well, you know.

Witchcraft isn't really a historical thing at all. What people consider witchcraft is the result of a big ball of things that the Catholic church declared to be Not Allowed.

In the late 1700s there was a renewed interest in pre-christian European folklore, and it kinda snowballed into coinciding with the rise of Spiritualism. Around the 1850s, you had this romanticization of an imagined pre-christian past. You can see a lot of this st that shows up in stuff like the poetry of W.B. Yeats.

In the 1920s you get Margaret Murray and her (entirely debunked) theory that "Witchcraft" was a actually a unified secret religion that survived the witch burnings of the late medieval era.

Then in 1954 a retired Rosicrucian named Gerald Gardener basically said "we should treat that as real and make a religion around it." And then he did that.

[godbirdart]

「 IT DOESN'T HAVE TO STAY THIS WAY 」

we are at the zenith of the digital era. never before have we been able to connect with people across the world so instantaneously, but also, watch the heartbreak of injustice unfold in real time. one may feel paralyzed by it all, feel like they cannot do anything to help, but you are not ill-equipped. whether it's writing letters or protesting in the street or posting to social media, you have a voice. any one person can speak up. any one person can cause a ripple that unifies a community. our future relies on our interconnectedness and a refusal to yield to demoralization. we have inherited a world covered in flames but it doesn't have to stay this way. it isn't too late to change it.