Do deathless champs not have willpower?
Frumpy_geezer
Member Posts: 52 ★
The first and only one I've been able to get is Vision. I tried him in AOA and realized he isn't healing. I then ran in a practice mode and nothing while armor broken. Is this something with all of them that I missed or a bug?
3
Comments
Do Robots have a Soul, which now they don’t as a Deathless ?
Aka, the book (which inspired some movies like, I believe, Blade Runner ?) “Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep ?”
No, this is not a joke or an attempt at sarcasm.
[from the champion profiles on the playcontestofchampions website]
The Deathless were then imprinted with "malicious will." Specifically in the case of Deathless Vision the lore says:
Whatever Vision had/has, Deathless Vision was given an evil or amoral version of that by Thanos when he elevated it to Deathless.
Have you seen those “Dressage” (or however you spell it) Equestrian events ? (watched some during the Olympics).
Like the Rockefeller Rockett's high stepping routines, but for horses. Or making them move to the left or right in these competitions.
3.6 The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal.
By illustration:
Source: FIDE Handbook, Section E
The colloquial description "move two squares then turn" is often used because the notions of rank and file that are common words of art in Chess aren't familiar concepts to players learning the rules of Chess.
Precisely why knights move the way they do has been mostly lost to history, as the ancestors of Chess are very old and the original designers did not make themselves available on discussion forums. However, putting my game design hat on, I subscribe to the notion that the knight moves the way it does because its motion fills in a fundamental gap in how minor pieces moved in Chaturanga, a predecessor of Chess. In Chaturanga the King moves one square in any direction, the Minister (bishop) moves in diagonals and the rook in orthogonals, just like in modern chess. The elephant, a piece Chess lacks, moved two squares in diagonal directions but could jump a neighboring piece. The Horse (Knight) then moves to the only spaces none of those pieces could have moved directly to from the same starting square. Between the King, Bishop, Rook, and Elephant, their respective movement patterns can cover every square within two squares of a location, except for the squares the Knight can move to. With the Knight, every square can be reached by one of the standard movement options. So the Knight's moves are, in effect, just filling in a set of holes that piece movement doesn't otherwise cover. It is a weird looking set of holes, requiring a weird set of legal moves to cover.
In other words, the Knight moves the way it does because it makes sense for the rules of Chess to allow such movement, and a piece was given that movement. Retroactively, the piece's movement was explained by how such a piece might be thought of as moving. Its a horse, so it jumps over other pieces. Its a horse, so it moves in bursts. Its a horse, so it can make maneuvers during a single move. But that's not why it moves that way. That's just a nice story we tell children. It moves that way because Chess needed a piece to move that way.
Why are robots affected by infuriate? Because the rules of MCOC need them to be.
And, I'll correct myself from earlier.
Philip K D…'s novel is, of course, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep ?”
(but discussion here was about Robots at the time).
(didn’t think his last name was gonna get by the automatic censor, lol)
Incidentally, the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is not really about the Androids, and whether they have souls. It is really about the people, and whether *they* have souls. It is about replicants that act more human than you'd expect, and humans acting less human than you'd expect, and wondering what does it mean if they now overlap.
The central theme of most of PKD's stories is: do you really know what you think you know, and are you who you think you are.