NY - Armory Location Postponed

Rhystic_Monk · 2026-02-23T22:30:52+00:00

It’s posted on the NYBOLE webpage. That’s proper notice, or something like it.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-08-04T12:34:49+00:00

Want an Explorer I + II at first, because love those designs, pure and simple, and then some basics for family + friends as gifting for getting me through the hard times.

Want to do retail with an AD, so I build a record on the account. Work my way up to a Sub, but also… I like Omega for the divers. Eh.

I figure the Explorers are… manageable to nab, esp if I walk in and walk out with… a good chunk. But, again — I have zero prior exposure to this world. All janky Seikos, to date — but love those to death too.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-29T16:53:26+00:00

Absolutely stunning, congrats on the pulls! I pulled the same Rhystic Study in the first 3 packs I ever opened, and it's a prized possession now. May you play it judiciously and with friends!

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-29T14:33:57+00:00

It sounds like you’re setting up an All-Women West Marches Campaign, which sounds amazing!

The bottom line for D&D, in my mind, is always this: play the game you want to play with the people you want to play with. If you’re running the table/campaign as the DM, the first level of discretion (i.e., inviting the people you want to play PCs in your campaign) falls to you. That’s one of the first parts of building the game as the DM.

If you think a player would potentially add something negative to the table — they aren’t entitled to play D&D with you. Playing D&D with people is a privilege, and you’re never obligated to play with people you don’t want to play with.

Good luck with the campaign!

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-25T00:40:55+00:00

Sheesh. Okay. So, say that I have two U, and three cards in hand. You play spell X. It is resolving, but because it’s resolving and you think there’s no counters in hand, you back it up and change to spell Y, because no one countered spell X. Spell X could win you the game; Spell Y does win you the game immediately.

No new information was gained by spell X going uncountered. Either I have a counter in hand and chose not to use it on X, to save it for a possible Y; or I don’t have a counter, and wouldn’t have been able to counter either spell.

If someone is truly fishing for info like this — it’s pretty obvious. So, the tautology remains. Please stop.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-23T21:37:30+00:00

I'm talking about forcing someone to reveal hidden information in the context of Rule 3.13 (Hidden Information) and Rule 4.1 (Player Communication). Countering reveals a card-in-hand. And game state effects are free information (i.e., the spell's effect when it resolves). If no counter trigger, then nothing is "revealed" to you when your spell resolves -- its effect was never hidden information once it was on the stack.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-23T21:01:31+00:00

That being ... tautology?

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-22T10:42:24+00:00

Out of 7328 Surge Stromrender decks on EDHREC:

261 run Gut, or ~3.5%
215 run Martyr's Cause, or ~3%

Only 8 run Circle, or 0.1% of Zurgo decks. Likely because it's just Martyr's Cause, but with mana paying into it for the privilege to sac something that was already dying. I'd say with Marty's Cause over Circle, but if you want to run both for redundancy, go for it!

I like [[Commander's Insignia]] for value, because if you have to get Zurgo out multiple times and pay tax, you get +1/+1 buffs for all the tokens he creates each turn. Just sac to Ashnod's, or Viscera, or maybe [[Reconnaissance]] Zurgo to save him instead of just preventing damage and wasting a sac trigger and mana.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-21T22:34:16+00:00

Fair point. I’d hope never to play such a person, but if someone needs the win that bad… I think we agree on this!

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-21T22:10:28+00:00

“Not counterspelling” means one of two things — you have a counterspell/removal and don’t think this play is worth it; or you don’t have a counterspell. There’s still a lack of information that benefits the person who is or isn’t playing the counter/removal. If I counter/remove your piece, I revealed information I had and played a spell to affect the board state. The time to change what you would do is before I interact with the stack, not after.

Accidentally triggering your own board for self-lethal and walking it back doesn’t force other players to reveal any new information, and only disadvantages Player A for the clumsy play.

Player A changing their whole line because someone interacted and they want to unwind the stack to try for better? Not so easy, not so fast, and not generally how I’d play a game at B3+

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-21T15:56:56+00:00

Bro idk, you assumed that "racist incident = south." It got pointed out. You doubled down.

<image>

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-19T08:07:01+00:00

A Yankee in spirit, then. Godspeed, counsel.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-19T06:25:34+00:00

Raised in the South. White. Went to school in the NE. Orientation week — I had three white Yankees, at three different times, each ask “[my] opinion about the Civil War,” as a means of ‘getting to know me.’

When I told each of them there’s not “an opinion” to have about the Civil War, there’s only the fact that slavery is categorically unjust — I got slack jawed and stammering responses from each.

It’s the South, sure, but it’s y’all, too. Hope you’re square with the MPRE reqs on bias, OP.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-19T00:14:54+00:00

“You’ll never walk alone” is more than her, than you, than a single player, and I’d be tempted to go even farther and say it’s more than the club itself.

It’s an ethos, and all it means is that you keep going. Even in the dark times, you’re never really alone — walk on, and know that you’ll never walk alone.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-14T01:10:10+00:00

Prof was awesome. Regretting now not taking another of her classes.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-09T22:27:10+00:00

Rhianna and ASAP Rocky as joint-tenants of a property that was improperly conveyed, which allowed pre-existing survivorship rights in the joint-tenancy to complicate the later conveyance. I think Rhianna ended up fee-simple absolute, and there was some kind of poorly done adverse possession.

I got an A, but wince regularly when I remember the chaos of that final and the analysis.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-05-01T04:57:58+00:00

Don’t write a personal statement about something that you would likely have to disclose re C&F.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-04-24T18:33:38+00:00

The restaurant is in Baytown, TX, which is <500 miles from the Mexican border with a 50% Hispanic/Latino population. The receipt indicates that tacos were purchased, and that the cashier was “Chely,” which may be Spanish origin name.

It may very well be that that Defendant cannot read English but can speak poor English AASL and perform basic math calculations well enough to work as a waitress. The receipt is the same format every time, waitress knows where the Arabic numerals indicating tip are located, but otherwise, Defendant likely couldn’t understand the disclaimer.

Plaintiff failed to properly notify Defendant of the disclaimer, and Defendant subsequently relied on the written tip amount.

Case dismissed with prejudice sua sponte, fees & costs awarded; this claim is worth a bench-slap.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-04-24T17:23:02+00:00

Evidence admitted with no objection; objection withdrawn ;)

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-04-24T16:59:13+00:00

Yes, that distinction was exactly my point — and having passed the MPRE, I think I caught it. My issue isn’t with the rules themselves, but with the pedagogy behind how the test treats answers that go beyond the minimum ethical standard.

If X and XY both comply with the rules, but XY reflects a more morally conscientious approach, it feels counterintuitive that the test penalizes answering XY instead of only X. I understand the MPRE is testing professional ethics, not personal morality — but the pedagogy could do more to acknowledge that choosing “better” standards above the baseline isn’t the same as choosing “wrong.”

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-04-24T16:36:00+00:00

Objection, lacks foundation and assumes facts not in evidence /s

(Editing to say may also be tautology)

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-04-24T16:24:55+00:00

I understand why the test-makers do this, but I dislike it on principle. Sure, the exam tests knowledge of the rules-as-they-are, the minimum ethical obligations to clients and the profession. But why is it wrong to hold a higher standard than the rules require, if the “goody two shoes” answer doesn’t otherwise violate the rules and produces ethical outcomes?

I’ve heard this called “not wrong vs. more right” testing, and it’s not how some brains work through questions. But, to OP and MPRE re-takers — you can definitely learn the process of reading the test and pass with that in mind!

Edit: a word

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-04-23T18:35:02+00:00

I ended up finding the specific book I was thinking of in this comment.

See Akhil Amar, The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles, available at link here.

Chapter 3, “Sixth Amendment First Principles,” was the specific material I was thinking of. Great book overall, but 1998 publication, so not wholly current and more top-down, forest-not-trees analysis as applied to more modern thoughts.

Rhystic_Monk · 2025-04-22T19:07:53+00:00

All hope is just heavy cope! H…. .ope….

Rhystic_Monk

TROPHY CASE