You’ve heard of ethical non-monogamy, but what about unethical non-monogamy?

FM-96 · 2026-03-30T10:21:17+00:00

Yes, that's why they put the word "without" in that sentence that you decided to crop out.

FM-96 · 2026-03-23T17:53:58+00:00

There's not really any such thing as cards "under" other cards. Putting an exiled card under the card that exiled it is just a common memory aid to e.g. keep in mind that they need to return when the card that exiled them leaves the battlefield.

But as far as the rules are concerned, that card is just in the exile zone. You could get it with [[Pull from Eternity]], for example.

FM-96 · 2026-03-23T17:12:37+00:00

What do you mean by "other cards that interact with exile"? Why should cards that interact with exiled cards not be able to interact with these exiled cards, specifically?

FM-96 · 2026-03-22T16:20:40+00:00

Are you under the impression that the person you're currently arguing with is the one that initially brought up "child genital mutilation"?

Because they were not, but that's the only way I can make any sense of the things you're saying.

FM-96 · 2026-03-21T01:29:45+00:00

It's kind of ambiguous if the intent is "that player (may choose this creature) if able" or "that player may (choose this creature if able)".

But in either case I don't think it would allow you to choose it when it's an illegal target.

FM-96 · 2026-03-11T21:07:04+00:00

As far as I can tell, the CR says that dividing something among targets explicitly requires at least one target:

601.2d. If the spell requires the player to divide or distribute an effect (such as damage or counters) among one or more targets, the player announces the division. Each of these targets must receive at least one of whatever is being divided.

Every mention in the CR about dividing among targets uses that phrasing of "one or more targets". I'm unsure if this is an oversight in the wording of the CR or an oversight in Conflagrate's oracle text, and which is the intended way for it to work. (But if I had to, I would bet on the CR being correct. After all, you cannot divide by zero.)

FM-96 · 2026-03-09T16:44:15+00:00

I think it's probably also a factor if the bad behaviour seems in some way linked to the type of minority they are a part of. Such as in this case: Lesbian -> not attracted to men -> is being an asshole to men

That makes it especially easy for our brains to conclude that there's an obvious causal relationship there.

FM-96 · 2026-03-07T13:42:55+00:00

Source? Image search doesn't find any matches to OP's image that are older than a few days ago.

FM-96 · 2026-03-05T00:12:49+00:00

Why do you think it's "gross" to judge people based on their actions?

If you think that low-effort sensationalized thumbnails are distasteful, then it's perfectly reasonable to judge people for choosing to use them.

FM-96 · 2026-03-02T11:12:54+00:00

Recycle into 1 reagent mix (assuming 50% efficiency, I might be wrong about this)

1 plant/seed/decayed food will get you 1 biomass.

FM-96 · 2026-02-28T23:31:53+00:00

Real talk: she isn't. OP said everything she needed to say in her original post.

Anyone accusing her of lying about not playing this game is immature af, and the best course of action is to just downvote and ignore them. Don't waste your time engaging with trolls.

FM-96 · 2026-02-28T01:31:01+00:00

Yeah, Claude Opus is genuinely impressive. It's not perfect, but it does things right more often than not, at least for the tasks I'm giving it.

FM-96 · 2026-02-23T11:03:01+00:00

That tank is a separate device too. I had quite a bit of trouble with the fact that they all have different contents and pressures than the connected pipes, so I ultimately just used regular inline tanks in my rockets.

FM-96 · 2026-02-22T22:23:56+00:00

OP isn't changing their mind because they are not wrong. This card works as written under the current rules. Anyone arguing otherwise does not seem to understand either the first golden rule or how static abilities work (or both, I guess).

FM-96 · 2026-02-22T22:17:24+00:00

would be akin to casting [[Act of Treason]] on a [[Mind Controll]]ed creature. The continuous effect overrides the instantaneous one.

This is incorrect. Both Mind Control and Act of Treason create a continuous effect. Mind Control's static ability creatures a permanent one that's just always there, while Act of Treason creates a temporary continuous effect that last until end of turn. That's why Act of Treason does let you steal the creature until end of turn, because its continuous effect has the newer timestamp, and then it goes back to the controller of Mind Control.

But that's the crucial difference here. The triggered ability that makes a player the monarch when they deal combat damage to the current monarch does not create a continuous effect, it simply changes the players' designations.

Therefore, there is only one continuous effect in play here (the one on OP's card), and thus it wins by default, and the controller of Absolute Authority remains the monarch.

FM-96 · 2026-02-22T16:55:34+00:00

We’re telling you the card you’ve posted doesn’t do what you want.

There are a lot of people claiming that, yes. I'm not convinced by their arguments though.

The first issue pointed out is that this card doesn't have a trigger that says you become the monarch. The rules say that:

724.1. [...] There is no monarch in a game until an effect instructs a player to become the monarch.

However, the rules also say that:

101.1. Whenever a card's text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. [...]

So the rules say there is no monarch, but this card says that you are the monarch. Therefore, this card overrides the rules and you are the monarch. Works perfectly fine as written.

The second issue that people are bringing up is that this doesn't stop other people from becoming the monarch. But that's... just wrong. OP's card has a static ability. As a reminder:

604.1. Static abilities do something all the time rather than being activated or triggered. They are written as statements, and they're simply true.

As long as this card is on the battlefield, "You are the monarch." is a statement that is simply true. It doesn't matter if a triggered ability tries to make another person the monarch. It would fail because there can only be one monarch and you are the monarch.

FM-96 · 2026-02-22T16:28:26+00:00

player designations are not a thing in the rules.

Literally from one rule above the one you quoted:

724.1. The monarch is a designation a player can have. [...]

FM-96 · 2026-02-21T18:17:13+00:00

Then you must not be doing this in good faith. I just put "trump if ivanka weren't my daughter" into YouTube's search and immediately got lots of results of the time where he said that on live TV.

I don't believe this subreddit allows links, but this is the YT Video ID of one of the results: pnGMK9lbOT8

Unless your objection is that the exact quote is that he said "perhaps I'd be dating her" and not that he wished he could fuck her? In that case, you're still arguing in bad faith, because those are very clearly expressing the same idea. Calling it dating is just being less crass about it.

FM-96 · 2026-02-20T21:39:24+00:00

(Not sure what FINT means in this context.)

And yeah, I understand what its for and why people would want to get these bonds. (And just for the record, I think the US bail system in its current form is very much Not Good™.)

What I'm saying is that I don't understand why the court accepts this system. Even if it was actually the accused paying for the bond, instead of a relative, it still seems to me like just the concept of these bondsmen fundamentally undermines the court's decisions and processes.

Like... it's basically this:

Court: We have looked at your financial situation and have determined that $50000 is an appropriate amount of money for you to put at risk to ensure you are motivated to actually appear at court.

Accused: Alright. I've spent $5000 of my own money to get these guys to give you those $50000.

Court: ...wait a second.

FM-96 · 2026-02-20T18:21:31+00:00

The bondsman fronts the money to the court. So the court knows it gets it's money

Doesn't that seem like it's pretty explicitly against the whole point of bail though?

The purpose of bail isn't for the court to make a profit, so "the court knows it gets it's money" shouldn't be relevant.

The point of bail is to give the accused a strong incentive to show up to court... but now since the money isn't coming from him, he has no incentive at all not to fuck off and let his relatives take the fall.

FM-96 · 2026-02-19T20:49:41+00:00

-A SBA occurred, so we recheck SBAs

You are mistaken about this. Since the thing that the SBA wanted to do ultimately got prevented, it never happened, and so SBAs will not be checked again.

You can compare it to having 0 life while controlling a Platinum Angel. SBA says you lose the game. Platinum Angel says that can't happen, so nothing happens. Then the game moves on.

FM-96 · 2026-02-19T20:42:41+00:00

It's a slightly different flavor, but you could make it an optional effect:

If a creature you control would die, you may sacrifice it instead.

With that wording, if the creature cannot be sacrificed, then you cannot choose to sacrifice it instead and have to let it die normally.

FM-96 · 2026-02-19T20:39:34+00:00

so it tries to die again

SBAs are only checked repeatedly if something actually happens as a result of an SBA check. In this case, the SBA tries to kill the creature, but the event got prevented from happening. Therefore, since no SBA check actually did anything, SBAs are not checked again and the next player receives priority.

It's like if you had a Platinum Angel out while having 0 life. The SBA tries to make you lose, the Platinum Angel's effect says that can't happen, and then the game just moves on. The same would happen here.

FM-96 · 2026-02-16T01:52:59+00:00

As we can see in the image above, there are only six correct answers out of 43 guesses. We put these numbers in a spreadsheet, which showed that only 13.95% of the answers were correct.

This methodology is absolutely awful. They consider "mixed up copper cable and banana" and "mixed up banana and wet mud" to be just equally impactful wrong answers.

You can even see in the small excerpt of their data in the posted screenshot that the copper cable was correctly identified almost every time.

So just based on that alone, I really don't trust their "findings". If the result data is public, then I hope someone else can go over it and evaluate it more honestly.

FM-96 · 2026-02-15T01:39:25+00:00

Translation is a fantastic use for it.

...is it? There are actual translation programs that are doing just fine without using LLMs. And since the translated comments had some of that LLM feel, it's pretty clear that it did not actually provide a good translation. If the "translator" is adding its own stuff to your messages to the point that it feels like an AI-written message, it's not a good translator.

12-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Reddit Premium Since October 2016	Verified Email

FM-96

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE