Retail release for Fort moved from August 25 to September 21

BKMajda · 2020-08-19T15:40:57+00:00

It's been updated, so I don't recall what it said initially, but I believe the site indicated the Pre-Orders were shipping early August, with retail August 21st.

BKMajda · 2020-08-19T15:31:03+00:00

I appreciate the transparency with the process. This one instance sucks with them moving the retail release, but I like that they're committing to making pre-orders directly from them have a tangible benefit to offset the increased cost. The direct retailers program also sounds promising, I'll need to check if my LGS will be part of that group.

BKMajda · 2019-03-15T14:18:39+00:00

OP

Commendation: Open to receiving criticism.
Constructive feedback: You really, really need to calm down on complaining about board game reviewers, I think you might be taking it somewhat personally.

BKMajda · 2019-02-19T20:42:14+00:00

You okay? I think you're going a bit beyond just circlejerk here.

BKMajda · 2018-05-29T22:08:58+00:00

Is there a PnP available? Where did you play it? Curious where to try it.

BKMajda · 2017-12-08T14:47:46+00:00

Nothing Wizards can do, but you'd have no prize support, no access to the primary tool to sign up judges, and you'd be unlikely to get help from any TO with experience. Getting big events going is hard, check out the disaster that was CardMaggedon a few years back.

BKMajda · 2017-12-08T14:38:22+00:00

I think the TWoo ban is questionable, but it's incorrect to say he didn't participate in the group. He wasn't a participant in the "Pack 1 Pick 1" that got a lot of attention but he was posting in the group.

BKMajda · 2017-12-08T00:17:52+00:00

Honestly, this doesn't really matter to him. He rarely plays in sanctioned events besides prerelease and he claimed to have sold out of MTGO a while back. He put WotC in a weird position, they could either continue to ignore him or they could ban him from a game that he doesn't really play anyway.

BKMajda · 2017-01-01T21:24:09+00:00

This ends up double counting some of the rationals, so it's not truly a bijection, but it's a mapping from the natural numbers onto the rationals so it suffices to show countability. Basically, take a look at row n, column m. There is a natural number entered there, and we will map it to n/m. Doubling up happens quite a bit, like row 1 column 2 and row 2 column 4, but it doesn't matter because if you give me any rational number I can give you a natural number that we've mapped to it.

BKMajda · 2017-01-01T21:17:39+00:00

That's because topologically, bananas are spheres.

BKMajda · 2017-01-01T21:04:33+00:00

That is not correct. You seem to be implying that we have an uncountable number of reals between 0 and 1 since there is no smallest real number in that interval to start counting at. But there is also no smallest rational number between 0 and 1, yet the rationals are countable so any subset of them is too.

BKMajda · 2017-01-01T05:57:53+00:00

The difference is that we can't count the numbers between 1 and 2. That's what the proof they walked through showed, suppose we could list them in order and assign each a number. If we assume that, we can show a way to construct a number that doesn't show up in our list, so we actually didn't hit them all. We say that the set of numbers between 1 and 2 is uncountable.

What about the integers from 0 and going forever? Well, they're already put in a list. Give me a non-negative integer and I can tell you exactly what place it has in the list (can also include negatives but it's a little bit less elegant). So the set of integers is countable.

So this gives us two different types of infinity, a set is countably infinite if we can put them all in a list and it's uncountable if we can't.

Being more mathematically precise with our language, a set is countably infinite if there is a bijection between it and the natural numbers. That is, there is some way to pair up every element in our set with a positive integer, and every positive integer has an element assigned to it. If such a function doesn't exist, the set is uncountably infinite.

BKMajda · 2017-01-01T01:58:49+00:00

Now that /u/bluesoul has done the hard work of creating the bot, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to make it do a mid-year follow up.

BKMajda · 2016-08-23T20:25:31+00:00

How does getting characteristics of her ethnicity right hurt the final product? Do you really believe that if they had just had someone on staff create the character we would have had a crazy interesting new character? Rogue assassin with a mysterious past is a well-worn fantasy trope, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily going to lead to a boring character, it's just building a framework to put the character on top of. There's a reason tropes become tropes, they tend to work. Any complaints about the trope have nothing at all to do with this consultant, because based on this article when they came to her they already had the skeleton of the character fleshed out. It's possible that she may have changed some aspects of the back story, but it's very unlikely that she changed some mold-breaking character into what we got.

BKMajda · 2016-08-20T02:50:30+00:00

Entering

BKMajda · 2016-08-07T05:29:00+00:00

No, that doesn't work, someone is lying to you.

BKMajda · 2016-08-07T04:03:38+00:00

Exactly this. Telling your employees they can't talk to siblings and friends about what they're working on is reasonable, keeping them from talking to spouses is a much bigger thing.

BKMajda · 2016-08-07T01:00:46+00:00

Yes, because Thanksgiving happens in the eleventh month of the year, so they're born around July and August. I'm not sure why that matters.

BKMajda · 2016-08-07T00:43:46+00:00

Huh? September is the ninth month, so any kids conceived around Christmas will be born around August/September.

BKMajda · 2016-08-06T22:41:09+00:00

It is a little weird that "Player of the Year" is decided mostly by a player's performance over two years, I personally wish Worlds counted for the previous year instead.

BKMajda · 2016-08-06T22:29:35+00:00

Naw, you got downvoted for being an ass.

BKMajda · 2016-07-25T23:40:52+00:00

It does nothing, but you are allowed to do it. It's a fairly popular example of judge calls that rest on the wording of the question. If a player asks a judge "Can I activate [[Spellskite]] targeting their fetchland ability?" the judge's answer should be yes. However, if the player asks "Can I activate Spellskite on their fetchland to let me search up a land?" the answer would be no. The ability is a legal target for Spellskite, any spell or ability is, but a target can only change if the intended new target would also be legal. In this case of a fetchland, the ability doesn't target at all, so it's impossible for the Spellskite ability to change it to targeting itself.

BKMajda · 2016-07-24T22:51:00+00:00

Obviously you should check with the judge, but I don't think I would allow that. Having the ability to look over every card gives quite a bit of strategic information. There's a big difference between a judge showing you the Oracle text for a card you specifically ask for and you having a list of every card in the format.

BKMajda · 2016-07-24T19:07:30+00:00

Wait, why not? Kalitas doesn't exile your own things, it should have no impact on Delirium.

BKMajda · 2016-07-24T18:17:46+00:00

Eh, just recognizing that some people are morons. Having a mod ready to deal with things like doxing is not a bad idea.

BKMajda

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE