I'm sure victory will work as it does in Arkham Horror (the peril keyword works the same as it does in Arkham Horror, for instance), which is that at the end of a scenario the heroes tally their victory (in this case the card would contribute 2 victory) and then spend it on upgraded cards (a number of these upgrades are spoiled in the article).

Well, it doesn't say limit once per round or turn or anything (nor do you exhaust the cards to use them), so I think barring some sort of dev comment you are correct. It would be easier to start in tiny form or alter-ego though- flip once to giant for free (+1 atk for the turn- +2 if both copies are out), use resize to go tiny, use swarm tactics to flip back to giant (another +1/2 atk for the turn, depending on how many copies of Giant Strength you have out), etc.

Marvel is and always has been about two things: making as much money as they can while telling the stories they want to tell. Sometimes there's a push and pull there, but if you think any of the recent decisions have been about anything other than those two things you will have a really, really difficult time understanding the decision making process at Marvel.
 
There's still no need to invent bizarre conspiracy theories that rely on creative companies doing anything for any other purpose than making as much money as possible while telling the stories they want to tell. And hey, sometimes a company is telling stories I don't want to read. That's fine. I don't have to read them. What I don't do is invent some bizarre theories about why that company is telling those stories- they are always doing it because they are trying to make money while telling the stories they want to tell.
 
And sometimes that means that stories change over time. It's a lot harder to make money by selling racist stories now than it was in the 50's, for instance. That doesn't mean that people writing newer stories are pandering. That simply means that societies change over time and what was once acceptable may not be as acceptable now. You can call that pandering if you want, but it's sort of bound up in the fundamental underpinnings of reality: times change, people change, societies change.
 
And by the way, if you are actually wondering why Marvel started writing more stories with awesome girls and women in them. That's easy. There are a lot of girls and women in the world. They read. In fact, they read more (on average) than boys and men. Marvel likes making money. It would be sheer idiocy not to write stories with awesome girls and women in them- at least if Marvel wants to make money (and they do) it would be. It's not rocket science.
 
But perhaps you do have some sort of point here (though so far it has been incredibly difficult to discern unless it really is that Marvel should stop writing stories with awesome women and minorities in them). Why should Marvel refrain from growing its audience? Why should Marvel not attempt to capitalize on the successes of the MCU (which is very popular across a wide range of demographics)? Why should Marvel not innovate? Not change with the times? Why should Marvel decide to be hidebound and regressive and only appeal to a shrinking audience of people who are uncomfortable with stories featuring awesome women and minorities? How is that a successful formula for a current company?

I've met people who were really turned off by Bakshi before. Some people really didn't care for Wizards or his LotR. There's no accounting for taste. Of course, it is useful to be able to evaluate things dispassionately and at least recognize skill and expertise in art even when it isn't to one's personal tastes. A lot of people have great deal of difficulty with this, however. It can help to have been exposed to art criticism before. But not everyone takes that sort of class in school.
So you often get people reacting to art that they dislike as though it is poor art- confusing personal taste with quality. It happens all over, not just when people see new boardgame art.

It does look like Bakshi! I knew there was some influence for this art kicking around in my brain somewhere but I couldn't place it. I actually really love the character design and character art. I understand people's disappointment in the tiles, but the character art is so evocative. People who aren't as familiar with that style of fantasy art from the 70's and early 80's are probably missing the antecedents of this newer art. But I'll be damned if it doesn't bring me right back to those fantasy roots.

I've met people who were really turned off by Bakshi before. Some people really didn't care for Wizards or his LotR. There's no accounting for taste. Of course, it is useful to be able to evaluate things dispassionately and at least recognize skill and expertise in art even when it isn't to one's personal tastes. A lot of people have great deal of difficulty with this, however. It can help to have been exposed to art criticism before. But not everyone takes that sort of class in school.
So you often get people reacting to art that they dislike as though it is poor art- confusing personal taste with quality. It happens all over, not just when people see new boardgame art.

I've met people who were really turned off by Bakshi before. Some people really didn't care for Wizards or his LotR. There's no accounting for taste. Of course, it is useful to be able to evaluate things dispassionately and at least recognize skill and expertise in art even when it isn't to one's personal tastes. A lot of people have great deal of difficulty with this, however. It can help to have been exposed to art criticism before. But not everyone takes that sort of class in school.
So you often get people reacting to art that they dislike as though it is poor art- confusing personal taste with quality. It happens all over, not just when people see new boardgame art.

I've met people who were really turned off by Bakshi before. Some people really didn't care for Wizards or his LotR. There's no accounting for taste. Of course, it is useful to be able to evaluate things dispassionately and at least recognize skill and expertise in art even when it isn't to one's personal tastes. A lot of people have great deal of difficulty with this, however. It can help to have been exposed to art criticism before. But not everyone takes that sort of class in school.
So you often get people reacting to art that they dislike as though it is poor art- confusing personal taste with quality. It happens all over, not just when people see new boardgame art.

It does look like Bakshi! I knew there was some influence for this art kicking around in my brain somewhere but I couldn't place it. I actually really love the character design and character art. I understand people's disappointment in the tiles, but the character art is so evocative. People who aren't as familiar with that style of fantasy art from the 70's and early 80's are probably missing the antecedents of this newer art. But I'll be damned if it doesn't bring me right back to those fantasy roots.

I've met people who were really turned off by Bakshi before. Some people really didn't care for Wizards or his LotR. There's no accounting for taste. Of course, it is useful to be able to evaluate things dispassionately and at least recognize skill and expertise in art even when it isn't to one's personal tastes. A lot of people have great deal of difficulty with this, however. It can help to have been exposed to art criticism before. But not everyone takes that sort of class in school.
So you often get people reacting to art that they dislike as though it is poor art- confusing personal taste with quality. It happens all over, not just when people see new boardgame art.

I've met people who were really turned off by Bakshi before. Some people really didn't care for Wizards or his LotR. There's no accounting for taste. Of course, it is useful to be able to evaluate things dispassionately and at least recognize skill and expertise in art even when it isn't to one's personal tastes. A lot of people have great deal of difficulty with this, however. It can help to have been exposed to art criticism before. But not everyone takes that sort of class in school.
So you often get people reacting to art that they dislike as though it is poor art- confusing personal taste with quality. It happens all over, not just when people see new boardgame art.

It does look like Bakshi! I knew there was some influence for this art kicking around in my brain somewhere but I couldn't place it. I actually really love the character design and character art. I understand people's disappointment in the tiles, but the character art is so evocative. People who aren't as familiar with that style of fantasy art from the 70's and early 80's are probably missing the antecedents of this newer art. But I'll be damned if it doesn't bring me right back to those fantasy roots.

I got my shipping notice today. Scheduled arrival is this Friday (assuming transit doesn't go smoother or rougher than the norm).

Marvel is and always has been about two things: making as much money as they can while telling the stories they want to tell. Sometimes there's a push and pull there, but if you think any of the recent decisions have been about anything other than those two things you will have a really, really difficult time understanding the decision making process at Marvel.
 
There's still no need to invent bizarre conspiracy theories that rely on creative companies doing anything for any other purpose than making as much money as possible while telling the stories they want to tell. And hey, sometimes a company is telling stories I don't want to read. That's fine. I don't have to read them. What I don't do is invent some bizarre theories about why that company is telling those stories- they are always doing it because they are trying to make money while telling the stories they want to tell.
 
And sometimes that means that stories change over time. It's a lot harder to make money by selling racist stories now than it was in the 50's, for instance. That doesn't mean that people writing newer stories are pandering. That simply means that societies change over time and what was once acceptable may not be as acceptable now. You can call that pandering if you want, but it's sort of bound up in the fundamental underpinnings of reality: times change, people change, societies change.
 
And by the way, if you are actually wondering why Marvel started writing more stories with awesome girls and women in them. That's easy. There are a lot of girls and women in the world. They read. In fact, they read more (on average) than boys and men. Marvel likes making money. It would be sheer idiocy not to write stories with awesome girls and women in them- at least if Marvel wants to make money (and they do) it would be. It's not rocket science.
 
But perhaps you do have some sort of point here (though so far it has been incredibly difficult to discern unless it really is that Marvel should stop writing stories with awesome women and minorities in them). Why should Marvel refrain from growing its audience? Why should Marvel not attempt to capitalize on the successes of the MCU (which is very popular across a wide range of demographics)? Why should Marvel not innovate? Not change with the times? Why should Marvel decide to be hidebound and regressive and only appeal to a shrinking audience of people who are uncomfortable with stories featuring awesome women and minorities? How is that a successful formula for a current company?

Marvel is and always has been about two things: making as much money as they can while telling the stories they want to tell. Sometimes there's a push and pull there, but if you think any of the recent decisions have been about anything other than those two things you will have a really, really difficult time understanding the decision making process at Marvel.
 
There's still no need to invent bizarre conspiracy theories that rely on creative companies doing anything for any other purpose than making as much money as possible while telling the stories they want to tell. And hey, sometimes a company is telling stories I don't want to read. That's fine. I don't have to read them. What I don't do is invent some bizarre theories about why that company is telling those stories- they are always doing it because they are trying to make money while telling the stories they want to tell.
 
And sometimes that means that stories change over time. It's a lot harder to make money by selling racist stories now than it was in the 50's, for instance. That doesn't mean that people writing newer stories are pandering. That simply means that societies change over time and what was once acceptable may not be as acceptable now. You can call that pandering if you want, but it's sort of bound up in the fundamental underpinnings of reality: times change, people change, societies change.
 
And by the way, if you are actually wondering why Marvel started writing more stories with awesome girls and women in them. That's easy. There are a lot of girls and women in the world. They read. In fact, they read more (on average) than boys and men. Marvel likes making money. It would be sheer idiocy not to write stories with awesome girls and women in them- at least if Marvel wants to make money (and they do) it would be. It's not rocket science.
 
But perhaps you do have some sort of point here (though so far it has been incredibly difficult to discern unless it really is that Marvel should stop writing stories with awesome women and minorities in them). Why should Marvel refrain from growing its audience? Why should Marvel not attempt to capitalize on the successes of the MCU (which is very popular across a wide range of demographics)? Why should Marvel not innovate? Not change with the times? Why should Marvel decide to be hidebound and regressive and only appeal to a shrinking audience of people who are uncomfortable with stories featuring awesome women and minorities? How is that a successful formula for a current company?

Marvel is and always has been about two things: making as much money as they can while telling the stories they want to tell. Sometimes there's a push and pull there, but if you think any of the recent decisions have been about anything other than those two things you will have a really, really difficult time understanding the decision making process at Marvel.
 
There's still no need to invent bizarre conspiracy theories that rely on creative companies doing anything for any other purpose than making as much money as possible while telling the stories they want to tell. And hey, sometimes a company is telling stories I don't want to read. That's fine. I don't have to read them. What I don't do is invent some bizarre theories about why that company is telling those stories- they are always doing it because they are trying to make money while telling the stories they want to tell.
 
And sometimes that means that stories change over time. It's a lot harder to make money by selling racist stories now than it was in the 50's, for instance. That doesn't mean that people writing newer stories are pandering. That simply means that societies change over time and what was once acceptable may not be as acceptable now. You can call that pandering if you want, but it's sort of bound up in the fundamental underpinnings of reality: times change, people change, societies change.
 
And by the way, if you are actually wondering why Marvel started writing more stories with awesome girls and women in them. That's easy. There are a lot of girls and women in the world. They read. In fact, they read more (on average) than boys and men. Marvel likes making money. It would be sheer idiocy not to write stories with awesome girls and women in them- at least if Marvel wants to make money (and they do) it would be. It's not rocket science.
 
But perhaps you do have some sort of point here (though so far it has been incredibly difficult to discern unless it really is that Marvel should stop writing stories with awesome women and minorities in them). Why should Marvel refrain from growing its audience? Why should Marvel not attempt to capitalize on the successes of the MCU (which is very popular across a wide range of demographics)? Why should Marvel not innovate? Not change with the times? Why should Marvel decide to be hidebound and regressive and only appeal to a shrinking audience of people who are uncomfortable with stories featuring awesome women and minorities? How is that a successful formula for a current company?

Marvel is and always has been about two things: making as much money as they can while telling the stories they want to tell. Sometimes there's a push and pull there, but if you think any of the recent decisions have been about anything other than those two things you will have a really, really difficult time understanding the decision making process at Marvel.
 
There's still no need to invent bizarre conspiracy theories that rely on creative companies doing anything for any other purpose than making as much money as possible while telling the stories they want to tell. And hey, sometimes a company is telling stories I don't want to read. That's fine. I don't have to read them. What I don't do is invent some bizarre theories about why that company is telling those stories- they are always doing it because they are trying to make money while telling the stories they want to tell.
 
And sometimes that means that stories change over time. It's a lot harder to make money by selling racist stories now than it was in the 50's, for instance. That doesn't mean that people writing newer stories are pandering. That simply means that societies change over time and what was once acceptable may not be as acceptable now. You can call that pandering if you want, but it's sort of bound up in the fundamental underpinnings of reality: times change, people change, societies change.
 
And by the way, if you are actually wondering why Marvel started writing more stories with awesome girls and women in them. That's easy. There are a lot of girls and women in the world. They read. In fact, they read more (on average) than boys and men. Marvel likes making money. It would be sheer idiocy not to write stories with awesome girls and women in them- at least if Marvel wants to make money (and they do) it would be. It's not rocket science.
 
But perhaps you do have some sort of point here (though so far it has been incredibly difficult to discern unless it really is that Marvel should stop writing stories with awesome women and minorities in them). Why should Marvel refrain from growing its audience? Why should Marvel not attempt to capitalize on the successes of the MCU (which is very popular across a wide range of demographics)? Why should Marvel not innovate? Not change with the times? Why should Marvel decide to be hidebound and regressive and only appeal to a shrinking audience of people who are uncomfortable with stories featuring awesome women and minorities? How is that a successful formula for a current company?

Marvel is and always has been about two things: making as much money as they can while telling the stories they want to tell. Sometimes there's a push and pull there, but if you think any of the recent decisions have been about anything other than those two things you will have a really, really difficult time understanding the decision making process at Marvel.
 
There's still no need to invent bizarre conspiracy theories that rely on creative companies doing anything for any other purpose than making as much money as possible while telling the stories they want to tell. And hey, sometimes a company is telling stories I don't want to read. That's fine. I don't have to read them. What I don't do is invent some bizarre theories about why that company is telling those stories- they are always doing it because they are trying to make money while telling the stories they want to tell.
 
And sometimes that means that stories change over time. It's a lot harder to make money by selling racist stories now than it was in the 50's, for instance. That doesn't mean that people writing newer stories are pandering. That simply means that societies change over time and what was once acceptable may not be as acceptable now. You can call that pandering if you want, but it's sort of bound up in the fundamental underpinnings of reality: times change, people change, societies change.
 
And by the way, if you are actually wondering why Marvel started writing more stories with awesome girls and women in them. That's easy. There are a lot of girls and women in the world. They read. In fact, they read more (on average) than boys and men. Marvel likes making money. It would be sheer idiocy not to write stories with awesome girls and women in them- at least if Marvel wants to make money (and they do) it would be. It's not rocket science.
 
But perhaps you do have some sort of point here (though so far it has been incredibly difficult to discern unless it really is that Marvel should stop writing stories with awesome women and minorities in them). Why should Marvel refrain from growing its audience? Why should Marvel not attempt to capitalize on the successes of the MCU (which is very popular across a wide range of demographics)? Why should Marvel not innovate? Not change with the times? Why should Marvel decide to be hidebound and regressive and only appeal to a shrinking audience of people who are uncomfortable with stories featuring awesome women and minorities? How is that a successful formula for a current company?

Marvel is and always has been about two things: making as much money as they can while telling the stories they want to tell. Sometimes there's a push and pull there, but if you think any of the recent decisions have been about anything other than those two things you will have a really, really difficult time understanding the decision making process at Marvel.
 
There's still no need to invent bizarre conspiracy theories that rely on creative companies doing anything for any other purpose than making as much money as possible while telling the stories they want to tell. And hey, sometimes a company is telling stories I don't want to read. That's fine. I don't have to read them. What I don't do is invent some bizarre theories about why that company is telling those stories- they are always doing it because they are trying to make money while telling the stories they want to tell.
 
And sometimes that means that stories change over time. It's a lot harder to make money by selling racist stories now than it was in the 50's, for instance. That doesn't mean that people writing newer stories are pandering. That simply means that societies change over time and what was once acceptable may not be as acceptable now. You can call that pandering if you want, but it's sort of bound up in the fundamental underpinnings of reality: times change, people change, societies change.
 
And by the way, if you are actually wondering why Marvel started writing more stories with awesome girls and women in them. That's easy. There are a lot of girls and women in the world. They read. In fact, they read more (on average) than boys and men. Marvel likes making money. It would be sheer idiocy not to write stories with awesome girls and women in them- at least if Marvel wants to make money (and they do) it would be. It's not rocket science.
 
But perhaps you do have some sort of point here (though so far it has been incredibly difficult to discern unless it really is that Marvel should stop writing stories with awesome women and minorities in them). Why should Marvel refrain from growing its audience? Why should Marvel not attempt to capitalize on the successes of the MCU (which is very popular across a wide range of demographics)? Why should Marvel not innovate? Not change with the times? Why should Marvel decide to be hidebound and regressive and only appeal to a shrinking audience of people who are uncomfortable with stories featuring awesome women and minorities? How is that a successful formula for a current company?

Of course more people have heard of Miles than Kamala. Miles had a major motion picture. Kamala hasn't had her series yet and the AAA video game with her as main protagonist isn't quite out yet. That doesn't change the fact that Kamala is a popular character with an excellent comic that is in the narrative space of the old Spider-Man comics.
 
As for the regional nature of my teaching experience. I suppose that's a hypothesis. I've taught in Texas, Arizona, and New York. So the region I'm limiting my experience to is the South/Southwest/New England.
 
It's just so weird that people feel the need to invent conspiracy theories whenever a newer character gets used. 

I'm not talking about the 70's. I'm talking about the 40's and the 50's. The transition from the golden age to the silver age was rife with new heroes taking up the legacies of existing heroes. Before that, you had the pulp legacies such as The Phantom who by some reckonings was the first superhero. New heroes taking up the mantles of existing heroes is part of the DNA of superhero comics.
 
The current waves of legacies are part of the longest of traditions in superhero comics. It's essentially going back to the roots of the genre. And not everyone has to like every genre. That's perfectly fine. It's just weird to complain about it as though it were somehow a new thing rather than a core part of what superhero comics have always been.

In terms of her book being so high selling, I was just going by the NYT bestsellers lists. She's perennially a top 3 on the best sellers list. She debuted at number 1. In terms of no one on the dev team knowing who she was- their comics knowledge wasn't particularly expansive. They each had their favorites, but it's not like they kept up with all of Marvel. Having taught at middle and high schools, however, I can assure you that Ms. Marvel is incredibly popular among teenage comics fans. 
 
As Boggs pointed out, her narrative space is pretty much the classic Peter Parker narrative space from those 60's and 70's comics. It's no wonder that today's teens are just as enamored of Kamala as we were of Petey.

Of course more people have heard of Miles than Kamala. Miles had a major motion picture. Kamala hasn't had her series yet and the AAA video game with her as main protagonist isn't quite out yet. That doesn't change the fact that Kamala is a popular character with an excellent comic that is in the narrative space of the old Spider-Man comics.
 
As for the regional nature of my teaching experience. I suppose that's a hypothesis. I've taught in Texas, Arizona, and New York. So the region I'm limiting my experience to is the South/Southwest/New England.
 
It's just so weird that people feel the need to invent conspiracy theories whenever a newer character gets used. 

In terms of her book being so high selling, I was just going by the NYT bestsellers lists. She's perennially a top 3 on the best sellers list. She debuted at number 1. In terms of no one on the dev team knowing who she was- their comics knowledge wasn't particularly expansive. They each had their favorites, but it's not like they kept up with all of Marvel. Having taught at middle and high schools, however, I can assure you that Ms. Marvel is incredibly popular among teenage comics fans. 
 
As Boggs pointed out, her narrative space is pretty much the classic Peter Parker narrative space from those 60's and 70's comics. It's no wonder that today's teens are just as enamored of Kamala as we were of Petey.

September is someone sitting on a couch with a television remote in one hand and a beverage in the other. Which theoretically could be a martial artist, but there's no particular reason to suspect it is a martial artist.