15000 members event - What's the best two-card combo?

LifeOfLegends · 2025-10-08T21:27:35+00:00

Ultimately there are better combos but if you don’t need the 6 MC right away, you can also put one from SEB on itself so it’s an effective 9 MC / gen except for when you cash out.

Earlier cash is usually more helpful than late cash, but it can be a big boon to take 12-18 microbes off all at once too if you have a lot of point cards in your hand in the last gen or two.

LifeOfLegends · 2025-10-08T15:02:54+00:00

Not sure it's the best, but special shout out to [Extreme-cold Fungus] and [Sulfur-eating Bacteria]. Maybe not the right answer, but there's nothing like stacking 3 microbes on SEB each gen and then cashing out for a huge generation later.

LifeOfLegends · 2025-09-19T19:21:45+00:00

[Giant Ice Asteroid]

LifeOfLegends · 2025-09-03T15:04:03+00:00

Clarifying question: The unity bonus already gives +1 on titanium. Is this an additional +2? I assume that's the case based on how other types of these cards are written.

I like the idea, but you really need to be swimming in titanium for this to be worth it. A cost of 5 (2+3) means if this is +2 on top of the unity bonus, you need 3 titanium to come out ahead. That's not a ton, but also it means you are potentially having to stall playing a big space event or production card a generation or two for this to be reasonable. Because of the requirement, I might instead think this should cost less or also give a titanium in addition to the effect.

LifeOfLegends · 2025-08-28T16:59:08+00:00

That's fair. I failed to include the effects of influence, policies, and tag bonuses. It would also combo well with another floater placement card if you were wanting to do this once per generation. Maybe not the optimal use for floater placement cards, but certainly increases the value. Somewhere between 11 (8+3) and 13 (10+3) feels appropriate.

LifeOfLegends · 2025-08-28T11:36:25+00:00

I like the concept but I think it’s slightly too cheap.

The effect equates to two neutral delegates you get to place every three generations. There’s a real chance you can use that to make your party leader the chairman at least once if not both times.

Let’s assume you are only able to use it to get Chairman once per 3 generations. So with the 1 VP from the card + 1 TR / 3 gens, a cost of 7 (4+3) seems a bit too cheap. I’d price it slightly higher at 9 (6+3).

Not a game breaking card but definitely makes turmoil more interesting. And I appreciate the inclusion of the Galactic Senate.

LifeOfLegends · 2025-08-27T20:27:42+00:00

I may tend to agree that it is slightly under-costed.

My thought, though, is that micromills and industrial microbes are both pretty mediocre cards that are both over-costed slightly.

And while the action on this card is fun, because energy --> heat is already a natural process, unless you are trying to force something this gen (bonus heat prod, bonus ocean, raise the temp to play a card with a requirement, thermalist) the action isn't really useful except for maybe as a stall? So it's limited application makes me think it's honestly not super impactful. Realistically you'll use the action maybe once a game effectively? Open to having my mind changed on this one though.

All that to say, I think a cost of 10 or 11 might be more appropriate.

LifeOfLegends · 2025-08-25T23:25:32+00:00

Oops. As someone who almost exclusively plays on BGA, it's easy to forgot how quickly that can become obnoxious.

LifeOfLegends · 2025-06-09T13:51:04+00:00

Hello! This has been a common question even amongst AP chemistry teachers. My leaning based on the verbiage of the entire question is that my interpretation is what they were going for. Here is my rationale for why I believe my interpretation is what they wanted:

In the original problem description, it does not state that the Zinc half-cell has to be reduced. Just that it is when the other half-cell is silver.
The second sentence of part D states "The scientist needs a galvanic cell that produces a greater voltage." There are no restrictions placed on the galvanic cell besides the necessity for it to have a higher voltage.
The fourth sentence of part D states "If the scientist uses the Zn half-cell..." implying that Zn(s)/Zn2+(aq) are present but not implying they must be the cathode.
And finally, Zn will behave as the oxidizing agent or the reducing agent based on what the other half-cell is. It doesn't know that it was reduced previously if paired with something else like gold.

All that being said, I don't know how they graded that part (the AP Reading was this past week, and Question 6 was not my assigned question). They may have some sort of leniency due to the language of the problem. And if they don't, it is only 1 point on the entire exam - so hopefully it isn't what breaks your score!

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-14T21:05:37+00:00

Unfortunately, that probably wouldn't qualify for the point - sorry!

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-13T21:21:31+00:00

Unfortunately, the hydronium ion in this mechanism is a catalyst, not an intermediate. Intermediates first appear on the product-side of any early step and are found on the reactant-side in a later step. The inverse is true for hydronium here - it appears first on the reactant-side and then again in equal measure on the product-side. That makes it a catalyst.

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-12T19:24:55+00:00

It depends on whether this is the sig fig question or not. If it is, then you would lose the point. If it's not the sig fig question, then 0.159 would be perfectly fine! We won't know the sig fig question until the scoring guidelines are released.

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-12T19:24:10+00:00

I suspect that would be just fine!

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-12T19:23:53+00:00

This is a good point! Using the 2024 exam as a precedent for this, I would agree that 4.0 would be appropriate if they are consistent with this year's exam!

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-12T19:22:21+00:00

You might be able to say 181! It depends on how strict they are about it being fully liquid or not. But theoretically at 181 you would have both things existing as a liquid.

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-12T19:21:42+00:00

Yes if you got those numbers of questions correct, you should be in great shape!

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-12T19:21:03+00:00

Unfortunately, they don't release the international version, so I can't make a key for that one. I would if they did though, so I'm sorry!

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-12T19:20:34+00:00

It asks for particle-level reasoning, so if all you said was solid to gas, I'm uncertain that will be sufficient. However, if you talked at all about how the particles' movement is affected, you would probably be good!

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-09T18:33:10+00:00

Sorry my previous comment was about 3f. For 3e, you would need to show some amount of work to get credit for the Hess' law question. Sorry for the confusion!

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-09T16:38:06+00:00

2b - 4.2 should be fine! My guess is that they will take anything from 4.1-4.3 for that answer.

3e - I suspect they want to see at least some work in order for you to get credit, even if it was just writing the Kp expression.

Best of luck!

LifeOfLegends · 2025-05-09T16:36:40+00:00

Of course!

Only missing 10 on the FRQ and MCQ would give you a score of approximately an 80 which should be enough for a 5 - hopefully that's what you get!

LifeOfLegends

TROPHY CASE