Remove ads

Marked for Death: A Rational Naruto Quest

Reader mode
@eaglejarl @Velorien @Paperclipped

My plan makes use of the Scenery Clone Seal Array to disguise our traps.

eaglejarl said:
Hazō and Kagome had 24 hours of prep time before Hazō went to meet the dogs, so they could have prepared things then. As far as resources, they would have had whatever seems fair in their seals, including but not limited to reasonable amounts of tools, leather, cloth, canine saddlebags, skywalker reload slots (human use only), a couple of CHAOS suits (human use only), planks, ropes, etc. Between the two of them and Hazō's shadow clones they had time to make a few dozens seals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We did have time for Kagome to make a few - 6(?) for Hazou to take with him. Can we say that's something that took place during the prep time?

Also we had time for Hazou to get Banshee Fuckers from Noburi and Kei, IMO it makes sense for him to have rebalanced the distribution to Noburi - 1 (not likely to see combat soon) Kei - 2 (likely to see combat soonish) Hazou - 3 (about to go into combat)
 
Last edited:
Lysbeth Succubus said:
Same thing as "it was I" versus "it was me" where there used to be a rule but it's just not how the language works any more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On which note, please reassure me, unofficial Marked for Death linguisticar: "X and I" is still wrong, as in "Kei will surely murder Hazō and I if we dare to enter a romantic relationship"? It has not somehow been warped into correctness by the irresponsible tides of language evolution?

RandomOTP said:
Turns out, Isan has a bunch of cool stuff we could learn from them. Seals, combat-speed archery, tapirs, and now a lower threshold jutsu scrolls...

We should trade with them!

Wait... oh yeah
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wait, you think ninja tapirs couldn't survive a mere EM nuke? Have you checked the forests of Tea lately?
 
Velorien said:
Wait, you think ninja tapirs couldn't survive a mere EM nuke? Have you checked the forests of Tea lately?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In that case, it's not too late to get Yuno a (very belated) wedding present! ^.^

As an aside, imagine Yuno's face when, over a year after her wedding, months after she finds her homeland and everyone she grew up with is gone, Hazou kicks open the door, holding a struggling Tapir in his arms.

"Hazou, as your Official Friend, it is my duty to inform you that you are odd, even by Leaf's heathen standards. As your Official Friend, I'm also allowed to platonically embrace you for 5.9 seconds after a time of great emotional upheaval. Satsuko says she'll chaperone, so don't feel any obligation to resist."
 
RoadWild said:
I think you might've tacked on an extra zero on this number
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We're at 37 IIRC, so to get to 40 we need (38+39+40)=117 XP, and Pangolin Conditioning Jutsu gives an additional 10% of our earned XP to Physique, so we have to earn 1170 XP to get to Physique 40 since we don't level it directly.
 
Physique 40 might be cheap, but it's actually pretty rough for our pyramid, especially long-term.

We can buy extra 10/20/30 to support it, but then it's expensive again.
 
Last edited:
Left-Hand Mutant said:
Physique 40 might be cheap, but it's actually pretty rough for our pyramid, especially long-term.

We can buy extra 10/20/30 to support it, but then it's expensive again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We will need a couple more 20s, 30s, and 40s in the near future anyway, I think. 10s are comparatively dirt cheap for us (something like 27 XP to get one of our many level 1 Earth jutsu to level 10) and we have a decent pile of 10s already, so that's not as big of a deal.
 
Last edited:
"By the same token, I'll see them from farther away too," Hazō said. "Speaking of which. I've got my skywalker seals with me. If you'd like, I can go up a few hundred feet and use a telescope to spot the kitties."

"Nope," Cancurunchu said. "They'd see you too and then we'd either never get close or we'd get jumped by a couple dozen curious kitties all at once. Let's keep it low and take a few at a time, yeah?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

@eaglejarl @Velorien @Paperclipped I don't know if this is intentional as a change for summon-path leopards, but RL leopards have slightly worse eyesight than humans; they primarily rely on scent and hearing when hunting. I am not certain that they would, if modeled after real-world leopards, actually be able to see someone at two hundred feet up as a person.

This is something that Hazou would have noticed from the cat(?) that he regularly spends time around; it's perfectly valid that he not think of that immediately, but I figured I'd let you know.
 
Cariyaga said:
@eaglejarl @Velorien @Paperclipped I don't know if this is intentional as a change for summon-path leopards, but RL leopards have slightly worse eyesight than humans; they primarily rely on scent and hearing when hunting. I am not certain that they would, if modeled after real-world leopards, actually be able to see someone at two hundred feet up as a person.

This is something that Hazou would have noticed from the cat(?) that he regularly spends time around; it's perfectly valid that he not think of that immediately, but I figured I'd let you know.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
PONWOG: Hazou may understand this but it's not clear that Cancurunchu, the squad leader, does. Hazou did seem to immediately defer to Cancurunchu immediately after his dismissal of Hazou's plan.
 
faflec said:
PONWOG: Hazou may understand this but it's not clear that Cancurunchu, the squad leader, does. Hazou did seem to immediately defer to Cancurunchu immediately after his dismissal of Hazou's plan.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Right, I'm just trying to clarify whether this is a matter of QM-knowledge limits and therefore something that's fair to bring up in-character or if it's like, an actual in-character thing.
 
Velorien said:
On which note, please reassure me, unofficial Marked for Death linguisticar: "X and I" is still wrong, as in "Kei will surely murder Hazō and I if we dare to enter a romantic relationship"? It has not somehow been warped into correctness by the irresponsible tides of language evolution?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
@DanZapman above has it right. Both "X and I" and "X and me" are correct in some situations and incorrect in others. Here's a Grammarly article on the topic. You use "X and I" if, in the counterfactual where X weren't involved, you would've used just "I", and the same with "me". For example:
  • "I committed this war crime." => "He and I committed this war crime."
    • Consider the alternative: "Me committed this war crime."
  • "They accused me of treason." => "They accused her and me of treason."
    • Anti-example: "They accused I of treason."
Similarly,
  • "We had to restock on aspirin." => "We QMs had to restock on aspirin."
    • Anti-example: "Us had to restock on aspirin."
  • "This slaughter pleases us." => "This slaughter pleases us QMs."
    • Anti-example: "This slaughter pleases we."
So in this case:
eaglejarl said:
You know how us QMs feel about willy-nilly. (Us QMs? We QMs? Your brilliant and much-admired QMs? Grammar is hard, let's eat Wildberry Skittles.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"We QMs" is correct.

... I think. I actually don't have a Grammarly article for the "us vs. we" thing on-hand, so maybe my logical extrapolation is wrong here.
 
Last edited:
Noumero said:
... I think. I actually don't have a Grammarly article for the "us vs. we" thing on-hand, so maybe my logical extrapolation is wrong here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In general, I think you're correct - 'we' is nominative, 'us' is accusative, so it should be "we QMs". However, the OED does include a usage of 'us' like the one EJ used (sorry about the formatting):
II.ii.
With reference to two or more persons.
  1. II.ii.9.
    In place of we (which is historically the original pronoun and is still generally preferred in formal usage).
    1. II.ii.9.a.
      1490–

      With noun or numeral in apposition. Now chiefly colloquial.
      In formal usage we is preferred.
      1. 1490
        None other shall knowe the same, but oonly we, vs thre.
        Click to expand...
        Click to shrink...
        W. Caxton, translation of Foure Sonnes of Aymon (1885) ix. 212
a1616
For this..we came, our Parents, and vs twaine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
W. Shakespeare, Cymbeline (1623) v. v. 164
1663
Mr. Coventry and us two did discourse with the Duke.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
S. Pepys, Diary 8 June (1971) vol. IV. 177
1779
I am determined us three will get this town again into our own hands.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
S. J. Pratt, Shenstone-Green vol. III. lxi. 182
1814
A thing us men ought..to bless God for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
T. Moore, Memoirs (1853) vol. II. 36
1840
What enjoyments us aristocracy used to have!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
W. M. Thackeray, Barber Cox in Comic Almanack 20
1852
Us London lawyers don't often get an out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
C. Dickens, Bleak House (1853) vii. 61
1889
Only us five were in possession of the secret.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
'R. Boldrewood', Robbery under Arms (new edition) xxxv
1962
Wis grown-up lasses were aye anxious ta ken what wir future was gyaan ta be.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
New Shetlander No. 63. 4
1992
Us kids used to shovel up manure for our tomatoes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Times 28 November (Sat. Review) 58/4
2006
Us Scots keep fighting back.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Inside Edge June 9
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So 'we QMs' is technically more correct ("preferred in formal usage") and therefore better (\s), but 'us QMs' has enough precedent that it isn't wrong.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top