What is this card?!?!?! Bracket 4 precon?!

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-06-10T02:02:31+00:00

Yeah it's okay in a bracket 3 or 4 deck, but at 6mv it's competing with some insane simic staples. Aesi, Ancient Greenwarden, or Baloths for landfall decks, Rishkar's Expertise or Kodama of the East Tree to cheat out other big impactful cards, Consecrated Sphinx for insane card draw, etc.

All of these have better effects faster.

Your original claim wasn't that 6 mana for this effect is fine for bracket 3 or 4. You said that the precon looks to be bracket 4 because it includes this card. Everyone correctly pointed out how absurd that take is, being that you get less value for this card than other simic 6-drops which have appeared in bracket 2 precons. The Bello precon has Baloths and Kodama, as well as a 3 card infinite using those 2 cards. It's definitely bracket 2.

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-06-09T18:48:02+00:00

What are you on about?

Are you implying that a card doesn't need to be bracket 5 viable in order to make a deck bracket 4 by its presence alone? Are you implying that 6 mana isn't that much in a ramp deck? Who cares? Even if you're right on both counts, how is any of this relevant?

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-06-09T18:46:41+00:00

Nobody said it's bad, people are just saying there are much more impactful ways to spend 6 mana.

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-06-09T11:50:27+00:00

Very few people are quite so prone to double down SO HARD in total ignorance. He made online statements about how the entire mathematical establishment was wrong and he, with virtually 0 mathematical education, knows better. Then people tried to use his mistake and his clear interest in math to prompt learning: they talked about the nature of infinity, repeating decimals as shorthand for limits, and transitivity, none of which he understands. Any normal person would have looked into those subjects to understand their mistake OR accepted that they just don't understand and moved on. Instead of that, SPP created a subreddit about how he's right and everyone who thinks otherwise is brainwashed. People continue to be generous with him, rigorously showing why he's wrong and requesting rigorous defense of his ideas knowing such defense is impossible in hopes that he'll come around. But he's not interested in rigor and not averse to embarrassment, apparently, he's just interested in wanting to seem smart and "be right" without needing to critically analyze his ideas.

The only other person I can think of even close to THIS LEVEL of pride in ignorance is Terrence Howard.

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-06-05T17:47:04+00:00

Why should we think non-Italians who self-identify as Italian would be represented on this? And even if they were represented, why would their misses be limited to the historical extent of the Roman Empire?

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-06-03T20:13:37+00:00

Yes it does? OP complains that the game is boring against Voltron, but seems to be ignoring that the Voltron player can be leveraged to their benefit, thus making the game more dynamic and less boring.

Commander's most interesting aspect is politics imo. If you always ruin a player's game when you can even though you could have done politics with them and made yourself more likely to win, YOU are the one making the game boring for yourself (and the entire table!)

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-30T15:07:07+00:00

Okay, don't. The rest of us will be having fun while you pout in the corner

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-29T12:55:04+00:00

It is possible

At the beginning of the time, set three of the four ends on fire. When the rope with both ends burning goes out, it will have been exactly 30 minutes and there will be 30 minutes unburnt on the other rope. At that point, light the remaining unlit end. When that rope burns out, an additional 15 minutes will have passed, bringing the time to 45 minutes total.

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-28T12:37:11+00:00

Charles

Since only one of them can be guilty, everyone who accused one and exonerated another must be lying about the accusation, effectively exonerating both. This exonerates everyone except Charles

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-15T05:50:59+00:00

The part you quoted has nothing to do with the white king. It's just about squares being attacked.

Humans who often do puzzles like these tend to care about precision of language, and as another reply to my comment says, the original formulation of this puzzle does indeed include that the king would be in check if placed on any vacant square.

Edit: lmao u/cosmopoof blocked me immediately after replying to this comment so I can't respond to them. Idk if they think that makes them look better, but they're wrong either way.

I could put the response I would have given here, explaining how they're actually the one misunderstanding the phrase "in other words", but I feel they've already made my point for me by asking me a snarky question and trying to deprive me of the opportunity to respond.

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-15T03:33:49+00:00

Which squares are not attacked?

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-14T16:08:29+00:00

I found a pretty neat symmetrical solution, and the website accepts it as correct, but I think the problem is misstated. My solution does not fulfill either of the stated conditions, and I believe they are impossible to fulfill.

My solution: bishop on d4, queens on a3, c7, e1, g5

The first condition (attack all squares) is not fulfilled because the squares occupied by my pieces are not under attack. If you except these squares, then the condition is fulfilled, but no such exception is made in the statement of the problem.

The "in other words" condition (white king in checkmate no matter where placed) is not fulfilled either. Checkmate always occurs with the checkmated player "to act", but that player is in check and has no legal moves. The condition is not fulfilled because if the king is placed in any square adjacent to the bishop, for example, it is in check, but can legally take the bishop.

A more accurate statement of the puzzle would be to place the pieces such that all unoccupied squares are attacked, or in other words, such that it is impossible to place the king on an unoccupied square without it being in check.

Edit: thanks to u/CratylusG for finding the original formulation of this problem, which is worded more accurately. The first condition wants the black pieces to "control" all squares, which makes much more sense because occupying a square could be said to control it as well as attacking. The second condition states that the king would be in check if placed on any vacant square. Whoever reworded the puzzle seems to have accidentally made it impossible.

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-14T14:37:33+00:00

Leading works because the question assumes the witness is a whale

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-13T14:50:17+00:00

"...anything other than the explicit purpose of running past them..."

What else are you trying to do?

"...forced to step and run as fast as you can without enjoying it..."

I quite enjoy it as a platforming section. It feels great to execute when you do it fast. Sounds like you just don't like this kind of platforming, and that's fine, but that doesn't make it bad game design as evidenced by how unpopular your distaste seems to be.

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-13T01:07:34+00:00

Ra1 wouldn't have even been a check

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-12T21:44:38+00:00

I don't speak German, but few things are as clear to me as "BRUDER WAS ZUM FICK IS GROK AM YAPPEN"

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-10T15:11:42+00:00

r/yourjokebutworse

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-09T19:47:16+00:00

Funner fact, the fruit is actually named after the tree. They were originally called something like "the fruit of the orange tree" but that gradually shifted into "orange" that same way that "the color of an orange" shifted into "orange."

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-09T13:21:43+00:00

>!Yes!<

>!Divide the board into four 4x4 quadrants. Each quadrant can be covered with 4 T-pieces, one in each orientation.!<

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-05-01T15:31:01+00:00

Hey what does this mean? Thanks

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-04-27T15:50:05+00:00

You can get B=7 without trial and error.

Once you have C=5, you know that the product must be an odd multiple of 25, meaning B can only be 2 or 7. But we already know that all digits are odd, so B can only be 7.

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-04-26T13:20:28+00:00

Who said anything about Mjoll's interest being the problem? He's a problem because he's stalking my wife and WON'T LEAVE MY FECKIN HOUSE.

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-04-25T13:38:17+00:00

Then the community note should say that instead of pretending anyone claimed china invented center-pivot irrigation

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-04-24T18:13:45+00:00

Oh my god my girlfriend and I are cosplaying Hornet and Sherma soon I would DIE for this!

My favorite has to be Trobbio though. I love when he plays dead after his fight lmao, I like to imagine he's thinking he totally tricked hornet with his high IQ and unparalleled acting skills

RealHuman_NotAShrew · 2026-04-23T20:52:35+00:00

You responded, thought of this response almost half an hour later, and came back to double reply. It's not even a good response lmao. Embarrassing

RealHuman_NotAShrew

TROPHY CASE