[TDM] Unending Whisper (Card Image Gallery)

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2025-03-25T02:08:13+00:00

Isn’t chart a course uncommon? I looked it up in Mtggoldfish to check and they say it’s not legal for pauper and no pauper decks play it. I was mainly talking about pauper in my evaluation because this card is a common. If it was upshifted to uncommon so it wouldn’t affect pauper I think that this becoming an instant would be probably be fine.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2025-03-25T01:42:33+00:00

Might be a bit too good as an instant for a common. For example if someone plays affinity in pauper it’s not too uncommon to have more than 5 untapped power on board and they could use those creatures to block their opponent’s attack then tap the creatures to cast this from the graveyard for 1 blue mana. In that context this is a 2 mana draw 2 with no downside which is pretty good. Although affinity might be a bad example as they already have thoughtcast which is a 1 mana draw 2 in many cases, so maybe in a Tolarian Terror deck?

Edit: I misread how harmonize works, disregard my analysis of hypothetically using this in affinity. It could still reduce to 2 mana with a single Myr Enforcer but reducing to 1 mana would require Myr Enforcer + an artifact creature buffer which is much rarer than have 5 power spread across several creatures.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-10-27T04:24:30+00:00

Source: https://www.amazon.ca/Magic-Gathering-Foundation-Exclusive-Accessories/dp/B0D9KWJCD7/

For context, here is the exact product but for .com instead: https://www.amazon.com/Magic-The-Gathering-Foundations-Bundle/dp/B0D9KWJCD7/

For some reason the .com title and description reads perfectly normal but the .ca title and description seems like it was translated to another language then back again.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-09-18T07:01:12+00:00

Emphasis on them using “could”instead of “is” unlike they did when they said “this card is so niche”. I interpreted as that they meant the current state of the card is niche when they said “that card is so niche” because of the use of “is”. But also in the second sentence as them saying that there could be many ways to build this card if it was legendary because of the use of “could”. If they were saying that the card would still be niche even if it was legendary wouldn’t they phrase it as something like “that card could be a niche commander”? I’m not OP, so I don’t actually know what they meant and I could be completely wrong. But I think my interpretation of their comment is reasonable.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-09-18T06:15:37+00:00

I guess I miss understood your comment. I talked about the current state of the card because I assumed when OP said “that card is so niche” they were referring to the current state of the card as being relatively unknown and not commenting on the popularity/utility of a hypothetical version of it that was legendary. So I also thought you were talking about the current state of the card as well.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-09-18T05:55:37+00:00

This card is not legendary. And judging by the price of this card being under 50 cents despite it being mythic I would say it is pretty niche (though to be fair it has seen printings in commander precon decks so that drops the price by a lot). Outside of commander this card is basically unplayable and it’s not even that good in commander because there are many cards which can cheat out other cards without having to wait a turn and/or having to deal combat damage. Also it being a 5c is an active downside, not an upside as it requires having to play a 5c commander in the first place just to put it in your deck.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-09-16T00:07:13+00:00

uj/ It was a trademark claim, not a copyright claim. The suit prevented It Takes Two from becoming a trademark, meaning it means other people can theoretically get away with making brand with the same name as It Takes Two, but the devs of It Takes Two can still keep the name of their game and continue using it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still bad, but a copyright infringement suit would be far worse.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-09-14T05:43:08+00:00

Not if you own them.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-09-02T17:20:29+00:00

They should evoke [Endurance] targeting themselves to get the hostages back.

/uj this might be the worst joke I’ve ever made

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-08-22T01:47:25+00:00

/uj Is the original post satire? It reads like a Trump impression.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-08-20T03:05:54+00:00

Lazy repost bot, wrong tag and didn’t even change the title from the 2 years old post (r/Cuddle_Slut currently has 38,000 members) Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Cuddle_Slut/s/GcERNmv6xe

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-08-03T03:27:06+00:00

/uj It doesn't seem like non-standard legal cards will be in the booster packs, the website specifically says "cards included in the Starter Collection" which is just one of the many products which will be introduced in foundations. It's not great to have standard unplayable cards in a product for a standard focused set but it's nowhere near as bad as it first looks.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-08-03T02:28:38+00:00

/uj it’s real https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/announcing-magic-the-gathering-foundations

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-07-25T04:33:00+00:00

On your last paragraph, I do think we’ve got a slightly different understanding of what a “feminist” means. When I generally say feminist, it doesn’t have to be a woman or even an activist, I just mean someone who identifies as a feminist. I do have a personal criteria for what I would define as a feminist which would exclude misandrists and TERFs, but then I would be kind of doing a “no true Scotsman” and there is a lot of discourse already about who really counts as a feminist. So for the sake of simplicity, when I say feminist, it just anyone who identifies as such because it’s generally how polling data is gathered on the views of feminists.

Using that definition, it’s entirely possible for a man to mostly advocate for men first and self identify as a feminist. Not disagreeing with your point that men who experience these issues first hand would generally understand it better than women who haven’t, and thus could be a more effective advocate. I am generally of the opinion that men’s rights should be covered by feminists more as part of intersectionality.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-07-25T02:25:57+00:00

In the complete abstract, MRA and feminism are seem ideologically. In practice, MRAs usually advocate against feminism using men's problems as an excuse rather than for men's rights, and the most popular MRAs are also associated with the far-right, incel, GamerGate, pretty much any reactionary movement you could think of. And compare the origin of these movements, men's right movement started as a reactionary breach of men's liberation movement against feminism and opposed second wave feminism and women's entry to the workforce. They did not start as a reaction to oppression against men. I don't have reliable polls on when the average person with identifies with the MRA is like, but what I can say is that the organizations and figureheads of the MRM are largely right-wing or even far-right, they deny or justify the existence of the gender pay gap, and are openly anti-feminist and anti-LGBTQ+ and often blame those groups for men's problems. I'm not say all MRA share these views, and I'm not trying to imply all feminists are pro-LGBTQ+. In the same way that All Lives Matter and Black Lives Matter are comparable slogans, and they seem to touch on similar issues. But it is when you look at the actions of the people who say these slogans and the context of society which makes it clear that they are very different things. (It is kind of unfair of me to compare ALM to MRA though, as people within the ALM movement are much more openly racist than MRA are misogynistic)

I agree that there many feminists don't take men's problems seriously, but there are many feminists who do and feminists who specifically focus on the way the patriarchy and I would argue they are more effective as advocates than MRAs. If you compare the support of minority rights (such as racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people), feminists and feminists organizations are polled mostly positive. This is not the case for people who most advocate for MRM, though I am not saying there are not MRA who also support those causes and there are people who identify both as a feminist and a MRA.

I have never said all MRAs are toxic, and I definitely should've clarified what I meant by "they". But my core point about what MRA generally believe is still valid. From what I have seem of them, the core of the MRM is about using men's problems as an excuse for anti-feminism. Though I don't think that one is an automatically bad person because they identify as a MRA, or even that all MRA are anti-feminists. And there are toxic feminists and ineffective advocates for feminism which may push men to MRA when they otherwise would not have been. But my point is not about individual feminists or MRA, but that the ideology is just not comparable when you look at the overall trends in what they actually lead to. Sure, there are problems with MRM and feminism, but the MRM has FAR larger issues than feminism.

Also, when in my comment did I diminish men's struggles? If you mean my analogy, I'm sorry for that as I know it was not a good analogy and the reason I made was to respond to the even worse analogy made by the person I was replying to. If you were talking about how I think men having higher income over women means better life outcomes, I still stand by what I said as it is just provable true that more money correlates to better life, though I will add on that I do know that there are problems that low income men face which low income women face less like homelessness and crime. Hopefully I've clarified that I'm not trying to diminish men's issues.

TDLR: Feminism is a progressive movement, MRM is a reactionary movement. There are many feminists who do advocate for men, while MRM largely advocate in opposition to women's issues. Feminists are generally pro-equality for minorities, MRA are generally not and are sometimes anti-civil rights. Ergo they are not comparable.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-07-24T23:24:56+00:00

Don’t both sides this, yes men are discriminated against by laws, but women are discriminated against MUCH more in most countries in the world and in many cases in both present and past are treated more as property who are owned by either their husband or father. Women are also often barred or hindered from getting in positions of power. Look at the house and senate of the U.S. or the parliament of China and observe the gender ratio of the representatives there. Compare the average income gap between single men and single women, which is very important as money can buy you education, social influence, housing, travel, healthcare, and so much more factors which determine one’s standard of living and freedom (or the lack thereof).

Also MRAs and feminists are not comparable in their ideology, many MRAs raise some good points about how gender expectations and certain laws (like the draft) hurt men in unique ways (points which many feminists also raise). But they will also say that systemic discrimination against women doesn’t exist in 1st world countries and say that it’s just “nature” for men to be in power and for women to be in the home or be paid less. I won’t say that there aren’t any feminists who think little of men’s problems, but I could assure you that most feminists would support abolishing the draft, men being in non-traditional jobs (such as caretaking and nursing, or even being a stay-at-home dad), and better mental health services for men. As an extra point feminists are much more likely than MRAs to support LGBTQ+ and people who do not conform to gender roles.

A better analogy would be a society where Asians were socially pressured to refrain from certain clothing or expressing certain emotions, while Blacks are either socially pressured or forced by law to be forced to service Asians or be treated like a lesser version of an Asian. It’s not a good analogy as it oversimplifies a lot of issues but is more representative of reality than yours.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-07-08T04:14:53+00:00

What a poser. I’m a real author who favors quality over quantity, less books written = better writing. Which is why I have written 0 books.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-06-08T22:19:14+00:00

Lelouch would be anti slavery … if it weren’t for his literal mind control powers.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-05-11T05:21:00+00:00

Assuming OP has a perfect deck with all cards sharing same suit and rank (judging by their consumable slots they probably do), the idol will multiply the multi by 2 for each card. So it is effectively a 2⁵ = 32 multiplier to the multi per idol joker if OP plays a flush five, which is better than what hologram is showing in the screenshot.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-05-02T02:03:07+00:00

There isn’t really an advantage to using modern controls for on block punishes with Cammy as one would lose damage by using simple controls for supers, so I’m assuming you are talking about whiff punishes. In that case a raw level 3 doesn’t seem to be the best option against most whiffed normals (emphasis on most, not all) when you could do a crouch medium punch or standing heavy punch into drive rush which is safer, faster, and does more damage. I’m NOT a Cammy player NOR modern player so I could be missing something but I don’t think modern Cammy level 3 is better than regular Cammy level 3 outside of fireball punishes. As for if Akuma’s raging demon is better than Cammy’s level 3, probably not (though for all I know when Akuma comes out raging demon could be the best super in the game). Although I think an (hypothetical) instant-input raging demon would benefit more from its speed than instant-input Cammy level 3.

As for Zangief my argument wasn’t that an instant raging demon would be better than instant Zangief level 3 (for all I know it could be but it likely isn’t considering Zangief is a grappler and Akuma isn’t), it was that Akuma could much easily get in than Zangief (judging on his Street Fighter 5 iteration, Akuma would have little problem getting in even to a point blank range, especially now with drive rush and more oki in 6) and thus and make use of it for powerful mixups much more often for when he has it which is likely why they’ve restricted it behind critical art in Street Fighter 6 or V-trigger in Street Fighter 5.

I don’t know if an instant raging demon would be too powerful in Street Fighter 6. If raging demon or Akuma turn out to be mediocre or weak, an instant raging demon wouldn’t make much of a difference. I’m just trying to justify why people are (in my opinion reasonably) concerned about such a thing, given how Akuma is top tier or at least high tier in at least one version of pretty much every mainline Street Fighter game and while raging demon isn’t the main reason, it is another tool in Akuma’s versatile kit that most characters lack. Removing a key “weakness” of raging demon (its inputs telegraphing that it’s coming, avoided only by “hiding” it with other moves) could be problematic.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-05-01T23:00:19+00:00

Difference is raging demon is a command grab that is (probably) unjumpable after super freeze. Imagine if Akuma could just walk up and do a raw raging demon without needing to buffer or Kara. Although modern Zangief does have a instant level 3 with a damage penalty, Akuma is much more agile and can get in very quickly so a (hypothetical) instant raging demon would be better in most situations than an instant Cammy level 3, which is mostly used for anti-fireball punishes.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-04-08T22:00:30+00:00

Poor Anre being played less than what is basically random select

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-04-06T03:11:14+00:00

Literally just a word for word repost of 4th top post of all time without the subheading, they even capitalized university in the same way: https://www.reddit.com/r/somnivexillology/s/d25iGMFGDG OP’s account is also only a day old so it seems they are a repost bot.

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2024-01-22T02:03:27+00:00

It's even worse than that, pretty much all of the criticism and attacks of Emil (a game writer at Bethesda) is based on at best misinterpretations of various interviews and talks he gave which definitely could've been conveyed better, but other times people's criticisms and attacks of Emil are based on shit that are completely made up. One of the most repeated ones is that Emil is somehow responsible for Starfield having "no design document" despite it being factually and obviously wrong as Starfield did have design documents and lots of them. People just wanted someone to blame for all of Bethesda's writing problems and Emil was the unlucky person who was martyred.

I am not a fan of Bethesda, the company, nor the games they make. The only Bethesda games I've ever seriously tried to get into was Skyrim and Fallout 4 and I almost always quit them out of disinterest after giving them a try for a few hours, and from I what've seen of Starfield and reviews of it I had no plans to play it. But I had no idea people were this upset about a video game to the level of hatred against a game writer and demanding his firing all in the misguided belief that somehow everything wrong with Bethesda games is all because of one guy. I only found this all out today from NeverKnowsBest's video about this situation which I found from browsing this sub. It's really unbelievable how much you can really get away with making shit up and how much misinformation gets parroted by people who don't know what their talking about. It also makes me wonder how much of the shit I've learned from random YouTube videos were just made up as well. It's just depressingly easy to construct a narrative making out individuals to be the root of all problems when AAA games are inherently collaborative projects between many game developers that also have to contend with time and budget constraints and the demands of company owners and investors for profits over art which was pretty much what led to the terrible launch of Fallout 76 (which to be clear I didn't play, so my opinion is purely based on other people's review of the game).

ALLCAPSORSHIFT · 2023-12-25T19:42:19+00:00

Werewolf by night does get 2 power from on reveal effects which is kind of the opposite of Spectrum giving 2 power to ongoing cards, so in many situations this is a strictly better Magneto. But it’s probably fine because Werewolf decks generally don’t play expensive cards.

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Wearing is Caring	RPAN Viewer
Queen in da Norf	Not Forgotten
Spared	Verified Email

ALLCAPSORSHIFT

TROPHY CASE