New info about Organize Play, Winter Court and Kotei Serise

By BlindSamurai13, in Legend of the Five Rings: The Card Game

I really could care less about the chant. I like the idea of pregame chants because they are fun and build excitement, but it's not essential by any stretch of the imagination. This debate about the chant though was all blown well out of proportion (as is many things on the internet). Honestly if a person has a problem with the chant they probably have problems with much more about the game's setting than just that. I guess the chant was a highly visible component of the fandom though so that is a difference. You can't not hear it coincidentally if you are anywhere near the event.

Edited by phillos
13 hours ago, BD Flory said:

Correct, and anyone else who cares to gets to say, "No, you're being ignorant and racist."

And, well, you're being ignorant and racist. But do be sure not to take any contrived offense!

I don't take contrived offense. I don't even take non-contrived offense. If I did, that wouldn't change your opinion because YOU don't care how I feel. You don't have to because being offended at being called a racist bigot by an SJW online is as meaningless as a room full of gamers chanting Banzai before a game.

Just as chanting Banzai is meaningless to these "Chinese people" (in quotes because as yet NONE have shown themselves here, or indeed anywhere beyond that blog post). Honestly - there is a point where it is just petty to try and convince people you're offended.

There is also a point where I have to simple say - no, stop it. YOU aren't the offended party, so why do YOU get to say they are offended anyway? If they are offended, THEY can come and air their grievances about it.

If these people are so offended by 1 word with complete lack of context then they are likely to be offended simply that there is a card game featuring Asian themes - at which point I again say stop being petty.

I don't care, I don't have to care, and you caring is both horribly ironic because you have no right to speak for them, and also meaningless because you have no point to make. You aren't offended, and have no offended party with you, so there really is no basis for you to say people are offended.

Stop it BD, you're being petty. No one cares that you will ignorantly back them with your woke-ness. If "they" have any self respect they should be offended by you, that you feel they can't bear to hear a single word without it breaking them - or more likely the case, offended by a word uttered when they aren't even there, and don't even know about it because someone offended by a single, common Japanese word isn't likely to be interested in playing a game about fantasy Japan.

Edited by shosuko

It's fairly safe to say that the "no banzai"-rule is probably going to be ignored several times in Europe at least.

On 07/10/2017 at 6:40 PM, Yoritomo Reiu said:

Another point that I guess should be mentioned is that there's no reason for Asians to have negative associations with the term banzai because banzai charges weren't used against them. They were a late-war suicidal measure used against the Allies, which is why they're present in our movies and books. No one was shouting "Banzai!" and charging civilians in Nanjing.

K..... Late war suicide measure is 'Kamikaze' (or 'Divine Wind') with the Japanese Navy and air force launching suicide attacks against (usually) ships.

Banzai is a war cry used when Japanese infantry troops attacked in much the same way as GOT chars might yell 'Stark' or British Redcoats 'Huzzah'. The Japanese were fighting the Chinese well before the second world war officially started so the chances are high that it was used against Chinese soldiers though I agree that it would not be used when using civilians for bayonet practice.

I can see why you made the mistake though as both words are attached to the Japanese military in western minds. I might blog about the actual meanings as there is a lot of people making mountains out of molehills concerning facts they appear unsure off (not you on the mountians stuff I broady agree with you on your other points)

Quote

I joined the US military and after taking the ASVAB and being asked "what do you want to do with us" by the recruiter, I elected to be in armor. However, since I'm color blind (green and red), I was offered an anti-armor position (TOW gunner, 24-Hotel I believe was the MOS, but I could be wrong as it was over 20 years ago now) and I passed my gunnery qualifiers and accepted/remained in the platoon (HQ Comp, AT Platoon).....

Lord Blunt

unverifyable statement of military service...check followed by further unverifyable anecdote related to said military service to reinforce a shaky argument...... check

internet gods satisfied. Just to be clear I don't care if you made that up or if it was true. This is the internet and you see enough 'in my SAS/marine/ranger' days comments that no one will beleive you even if true..

Edited by Matrim
put quotes correctly on seond quote

Matrim, I think Yoritomo Reiu was referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge

... which, in the context of suicide infantry human wave attack is NOT the same as Kamikaze (which was only used for Aircraft suicidal attacks as far as I know) and was used (almost only?) against the US troops in the Pacific theatre.

Don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia. My problem with the comment is with what suicide means. A banzai charge was a charge where the troops were expected to win or die trying. Against heavily armed marines in the pacific this may look much like 'suicide'. If the Japanese won they did not kill themselves so therefore it was not a suicide charge.

The Banzai charge is therefore not a suicide attack it is an attack that may result in the death/injury of all concerned IF IT FAILS. Not all Banzais' failed. The later Japanese General who blocked them was blocking the use of a tactic that was ineffective against well armed, prepared troops.

Kamikaze was a 'no going back' attempt at suicide. Succeed and the pilot died, fail and the pilot died.

There is a difference.

Edited by Matrim
More nuanced argument

I suppose I should add that I can see how the issue is confused. I was going to go 'full ars**ole' on the response but it is never wise to follow that path on the internet so brakes on and turn around.....

Edited by Matrim
explanation