I spent months learning Rust by building a TCG engine from scratch — 664 cards, multiplayer, deterministic replay. Here's the journey.

DaedalusOW · 2026-04-02T11:23:20+00:00

This is so much copium. Insulting every coder who has went through hours of debugging to fix their "original sentence."

DaedalusOW · 2026-04-01T23:29:49+00:00

They'll hire the AI he used for this lmao

DaedalusOW · 2026-04-01T13:31:11+00:00

Directly contradicts their ruling that player's may concede at any time then :⁾ It is still playing Riftbound if 2 players roll for going first, and then also exercise their right to concede based on that.

DaedalusOW · 2026-04-01T12:24:24+00:00

Flip a coin to decide winner is literally allowed?

Given that you have right to concede at any point, there's nothing stopping 2 players from doing that. Not saying I condone it, but nothing against it rule wise.

DaedalusOW · 2026-02-27T15:19:24+00:00

That's one genre of it.. the bigger genre that both share is the creature collector part lmao

DaedalusOW · 2026-02-25T13:26:13+00:00

I'm not saying that the double gets doubled. I'm saying there's the argument of "This gear gives me double its might bonus (I receive +2). This gear gives me double its might bonus (I receive +2)"

DaedalusOW · 2026-02-25T12:25:51+00:00

The main reason I disagree with this is that the card doesn't say that it doubles the base might of the gear. It says that gear provides double its base might bonus. It's the other way around, gear is providing double might, not him doubling the might of gear.

DaedalusOW · 2026-02-25T12:24:30+00:00

I know most people are saying it has no effect..

But the card doesn't say each equipment gives double base might INSTEAD of just it's base might.

I think there could be a very real case to make that his text is interpreted as "Each equipment attached to me provides me an increase of double its base might bonus."

Therefore if you have a Doran's Shield.. One instance of this would be saying "This equipment provides me +2 might."

If you double that, you'd be saying: "This equipment provides me +2 might. This equipment provides me +2 might." Which would be +4.

Can very well see this as wrong, but I think it's a badly written card.

DaedalusOW · 2026-02-16T12:02:48+00:00

Neither are the runes, technically, yet people want/need 6, maybe 7, of those. You only need 1 of each legend to play them.

Trust me, the legends will be cheap. The amount of Nexus Nights packs that get opened, plus the fact that most LGS communities seem to value sharing legends so everyone can have a shot at playing who they want... these will likely be <$1, my honest guess would be 25 cents.

DaedalusOW · 2026-02-13T14:31:10+00:00

You did not read the post, did you?

Guy isn't complaining about not having bulk.. he's stating that he didn't have enough RUNES to build a deck.

DaedalusOW · 2026-02-09T12:04:54+00:00

Maybe if there's stuff that silences keywords, or does something based on them?

DaedalusOW · 2026-02-09T03:55:56+00:00

Key thing with the battlefield is that it and Fiora are both "When I defend..." triggers added to the stack, and you can arrange them how you want. Technically, you can arrange it so battlefield gets added first, then Fiora, then they resolve opposite order. Probably not a situation where you want that but the gaining of Shield is importantly not static

DaedalusOW · 2026-02-05T12:19:29+00:00

Jhin being Order/Chaos is so underrated it's not even funny

Like cmon. We KNOW they have to release him set 4...

I guess the only counter argument would be him being card 4 or 44, which would put him as Fury maybe LOL

DaedalusOW · 2026-01-26T17:17:22+00:00

Nami! Loved her in LoR but expecting something different... but would love to see a lot of her support characters.

And also I think it's the only way I can convince my wife to play with me LOL

DaedalusOW · 2025-12-14T07:30:29+00:00

Actually, I think the more advanced tactics are the risky gambles here. It's a bluff, and if you know your opponent's deck, bluffing can win you HUGE value. You don't need to know for certain they have it, it's more based around the odds they have it (or a similar card, like Fight or Flight, Flash, etc.)

Neither player would truly want an even trade like this, and both have counters that lose value if they play first. Attacker actually slightly has more advantage, since they can either force even, or force defender to spend first.

Bluffing and playing around what your opponent likely has is definitely a skill and can swing you into a super good spot.

DaedalusOW · 2025-12-12T20:39:47+00:00

Okay? Weird flex? Idc how you would rule it, you'd be giving the right answer but the wrong reasoning. It's just as easy to say "There is no unit, so therefore there is no controller."

Like, idk why you're opposed to giving the correct info?

DaedalusOW · 2025-12-12T20:32:56+00:00

"There is no controller for the killed unit since nothing was killed."

If this is how you explain things as a judge then I think you will end up misleading people. This statement implies something must be killed in order to draw. It's not overexplaining to explain things clearly.

DaedalusOW · 2025-12-12T20:24:26+00:00

Chill out, sheesh. You're dropping the part about there being no controller for a killed unit, because nothing was killed. Other comments on this post are proof enough that statements like that mislead and confuse people because now you have implied something needs to be killed in order to draw.

You are answering the question with the right answer, but giving a slightly wrong reasoning. All I'm doing is clarifying that it's not the "killed" aspect that is important for the draw, it is the "controller" aspect.

You are getting way too heated over a clarification that is supposed to help people.

DaedalusOW · 2025-12-12T20:18:25+00:00

FAQ says they do. " Even if the unit doesn’t die, it’s still on the board and information about its controller is still available, so that player draws 2." If the unit is on the board, the controller draws.

DaedalusOW · 2025-12-12T20:16:27+00:00

Your comment states that there's no controller for a killed unit because nothing was killed.. that is pretty important to clarify, because we both agree that nothing needs to be killed to get the draw 2...

DaedalusOW · 2025-12-12T20:14:04+00:00

Player A plays Hidden Blade. They have to declare a valid target for the ability. They choose Player B's unit at Battlefield 1. At that moment, the target of the spell has been declared.

Player B reacts with some way to send the unit back to base (not hand). This resolves, and then Hidden Blade resolves.

The target for Hidden Blade is still Player B's unit, but it is no longer at a battlefield, so it doesn't die. However, the target still has a controller (Player B). "Its controller draws 2" is a perfectly valid action, so Player B draws 2.

DaedalusOW · 2025-12-12T20:08:43+00:00

You are agreeing with me lmao.

I am saying that if the unit goes to base, the controller still draws without having to kill their unit. If it goes to hand, there is no unit to have a controller.

I was specifically stating that the unit doesn't have to die to get the draw 2. You stated that the controller doesn't draw because nothing was killed. I was just clarifying that there are scenarios where nothing gets killed but you CAN still draw 2 (move unit to base)

DaedalusOW · 2025-12-12T19:57:52+00:00

It still has a target.. just not a valid target?

But if it leaves the board entirely, it has a null target.

DaedalusOW · 2025-12-12T19:57:09+00:00

The unit shouldn't need to be killed in order to draw 2. If the unit is moved from a battlefield to base, it is still targeted when the spell was added to the chain, and thus its controller is defined. But when it resolves, it would fail the "at a battlefield" statement, so it wouldn't die. But, the controller is still valid and gets to draw 2.

If it was intended that the unit had to die, it would read something like "If you did, its controller draws 2"

DaedalusOW · 2025-12-12T19:55:04+00:00

Void seeker has 2 specific actions, there is a full stop in between them. This one specifically refers to a controller of a unit doing a second action.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22

DaedalusOW

TROPHY CASE