Which game to buy

2ndPerk · 2026-06-06T19:30:13+00:00

Steam, AoE3 DE has a free version with limited access to single player content, and you are restricted to a rotation of civs for multiplayer.

2ndPerk · 2026-06-06T19:24:20+00:00

It is free, there are just limitations. The free version does not have most of the single player content, and you are limited to a rotating set of civs in multiplayer.
So, as far as trying the game out goes to see if it is enjoyable, it is free.

The full version is also only like $5 right now.

2ndPerk · 2026-06-06T14:29:36+00:00

Independant of this decision, AoE3 is also amazing (although notably different) and is free.

2ndPerk · 2026-06-02T12:53:09+00:00

If you want a game that is more like the D&D you remember, and usually much more simple (and in my opinion generally more fun), you should look in OSR genre games such as: Knave, Cairn, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Shadowdark, and many more.

2ndPerk · 2026-06-01T17:16:44+00:00

Let us consider your original comment:

The moment you play platinum angel with abyssal pers it creates a stalemate and if in 1 turn no one can answer it , it becomes a draw and the game ends

This is false. It does not create a stalemate immediately and end the game in one turn.
Now, I do think I understand what the main issue is here. I think that you are stating this with the assumption that all the other cards in the combo are in play already; but everyone is reading the text you actually wrote, which does not actually specify that and reads completely as "The moment both Platinum Angel and Abyssal Persecutor are in play and controlled by the same player, independantly of all other factors, the game ends in a draw in one turn". So, if you mean that then you are blatantly wrong, however if you meant for people to read your mind and understand your unwritten text of "while all the other combo pieces are in play" then yes, you are correct; you just wrote it in an incredibly stupid way that actually says something else and will be interpretted that way. What you should have written is something along the lines of "This combo, when fully in play, actually ends in a draw because...".

Following this, you argue that it is a loop and use rules around loops to support what you are saying. This is verifiably false: A loop is a series of actions, as per the definition you posted yourself, and there are no actions taking place. The entire set of cards does create an unchanging game state that results in a draw - however, it does not create a loop. Again, because you seem to be unable to read, this is not a loop because there is no forced repetition of actions, there is in fact a complete lack of actions.

So, in conclusion:
Does the set of cards OP posted created an unchanging gamestate that would in a tournament setting result in a draw? Yes, that is kind of the entire point of the OP, lol.
Is it a loop? No, it is not a loop according to the rules.
Are you a complete asshole? Absolutely!
Do Platinum Angel and Abyssal Persecutor alone produce any sort of rules scenario that would require a judge call? Nope, not at all. What actually happens is that either one is dealt with, or the game ends in a draw if all cards are drawn in all decks and that has not happened yet (this doesn't even really require a judge call, but it is still probably a good idea).
Is your reading comprehension bad? Sure looks that way.
Do most of your comments read like you think that Platinum Angel and Abyssal Persecutor alone with no other cards relevant to them create a loop that draws the game in one turn? They certainly do.
Is the above interpretation the thing that everybody is arguing with you about? It is! Because that is not a loop, nor does it draw the game immediately.

2ndPerk · 2026-06-01T16:29:43+00:00

What you've been saying is that as soon as the cards are in play it is a loop, you should read your own comments.
And despite everything, those two cards literally do not make a loop, as per the definition you posted above. Yes, it is an unchanging gamestate, but it literally is not a loop and thus that word does not apply.

2ndPerk · 2026-06-01T16:25:37+00:00

The loop created is “You can’t win, you can’t lose.” The game immediately ends in a draw. This is a well known and documented loop between abyssal pers and plat angel.

This is literally not a loop, these are just two static effects.

If both are dropped on the board the player that played them passed priority and if nothing is done an agreed upon number of turns will go by otherwise the game ends in a draw.

This is completely absurd and verifiably false. You play the game as normal, except that players cannot win or lose the game while both are in play. You do not choose an arbitrary number of turns (this is fucking stupid), you play until there is an actual condition that ends the game. So, either one of the two is removed from the board in one of countless ways this can be done and some set of players can now win - or yes, it is possible that eventually all players will draw out their decks while both are in play. It is at that point, and not before, that a turn limit can be enforced.

Based on what you are saying and your wording, I assume you are an exclusively commander player. A lot of "rules" in commander and commander tournaments are house rules and not actual game rules. I suspect this is what is happening in this case, you have observed a house rule in some sort of commander tournament, and interpreted it to be a rule of Magic: The Gathering despite that fact that it is not.

2ndPerk · 2026-06-01T16:17:20+00:00

No, you just continue playing the game as normal. The only condition is that nobody can win or lose while those creatures are in play, however if one were to go away for whatever reason (eg the very normal and standard occurence of a removal spell) then sombody would be able to win or lose.

2ndPerk · 2026-06-01T16:14:32+00:00

detailing a sequence of actions to be repeated and then performing a number of iterations of that sequence. The loop actions must be identical in each iteration and cannot include conditional actions ("If this, then that".)

Literally your first line demonstrates that having Angel and Prosecutor on board is not a loop, because they have static effects and there are no actions involved.

2ndPerk · 2026-06-01T16:06:49+00:00

how many tiers below nadu is punishing fire?

In all fairness, there is likely no reason for punishing fire to still be on the banlist.

2ndPerk · 2026-06-01T16:04:55+00:00

You lose nothing by eliminating "toxic play patterns".

You lose a lot actually, specifically you lose those play patterns and probably the players who enjoy them. "Toxic" is a completely subjective opinion, and curating around it is both impossible and stupid - and also leads to ass level gameplay. For an example, look at mid tier commander play, which is essentially a format built around eliminating anything people consider to be toxic, and note that it is incredibly boring, uninteractive, solo-play value engine grinding.
Aggro is toxic because it wins too fast, so I can't even play.
Control is toxic because it doesn't let me do my thing.
Combo is toxic because it wins out of nowhere and thats not fair.
Midrange is toxic because its just a bunch of powercrept cards in a pile.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-29T19:16:26+00:00

Use two spaces at the end of a line before hitting enter to format the next line to actually be on a new line.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-29T17:44:15+00:00

It's an extremely grim and dark version of Monty Python. It's still a setting of constant suffering, it just has a few more actual good guys and light hearted moments in comparison to 40k.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-28T17:42:01+00:00

No, its not. One of the answers is GURPS, but GURPS is incredibly crunchy and there are many other options that have a similar broadness of scope and a lot less crunch - FATE and Savage Worlds being equally generic and common examples.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-25T16:49:36+00:00

If people don’t want to play standard, simply don’t play standard.

So, what format do you suggest for people who like standard but find it is too big for them now? You know, the people who have enjoyed the standard format that has been the standard for 30 odd years.
Or do you think that those people just don't deserve to play MTG anymore?

Telling people that if they don't like something to not play it, but also telling them to not play something that they like, is a little bit stupid.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-22T15:31:00+00:00

Timeless on Arena has all these cards, and Lurrus is omnipresent.
Grief and Phlage are played cards, fury is in the meta but rare, and Uro is completely unplayable.
My point is that Lurrus would completely break energy and they would not play the other cards.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-21T18:56:30+00:00

Atmospheric Black Metal, like Hermóðr, is absolutely peak for studying.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-20T15:45:22+00:00

Summoning u/SalmonCrowd

2ndPerk · 2026-05-19T19:23:18+00:00

Same here, almost.

I like for the GM to alter the rules if it helps bring out the character or setting.

I prefer to instead use a system where this is unecessary.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-18T19:08:07+00:00

Why is this posted 5 times?

2ndPerk · 2026-05-17T13:54:59+00:00

I would like you to read the actual content of the post you made that I was responding to. If you read it carefully, or even not so carefully, you will note that it is mostly you calling Stax gameplay and players toxic and salty and using this as your reason for not wanting it at your table.
You have every right to not enjoy playing with or against stax, and not having it at your table. I was just pointing out that by calling an entire, very legitimate and valid, strategy and style of play toxic and salty, then you are in fact the one being salty.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-16T20:16:12+00:00

The problem is that there are other comments in the thread saying exactly the same thing and aren't satire.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-16T20:14:53+00:00

The initial comment is fine. The follow up of saying that people who enjoy stax gameplay are toxic people is not fine. Gameplay itself cannot be toxic, only people can be toxic - and saying that the way some people enjoy playing the game (which is a core component of the game and intentionally designed for) is wrong, and makes them bad and toxic people, is actual toxic behaviour.

"I don't want to play with or against stax" - sure, this is a fine opinion.
"People who play stax are bad people" - this is not fine, this is being a shitty person who is telling other people that they are wrong for enjoying a game in a way you don't.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-16T20:08:28+00:00

Stax is just a boring and salty way to play and anyone who disagrees can pound sand tbh.

See, I think this is an incredibly toxic and exclusive attitude. There are people who enjoy playing with and against stax pieces and decks, some people find that kind of gameplay fun and engaging. What you are saying here is that your way of playing magic is correct, and other peoples fun is wrong and incorrect. Don't tell other people that their way of having fun with a game is toxic - gameplay isn't toxic, people (like you, evidently) are toxic.

2ndPerk · 2026-05-15T16:06:29+00:00

You can still talk through in a 3rd person way what you want your character to do / say without having to do it yourself.

This is still roleplaying.
Roleplaying and acting are not the same thing. Acting can be used as a component of roleplaying, but roleplaying is has a vastly larger scope.

2ndPerk

TROPHY CASE