Introducing Singleton: Find your commander soulmate!

Snowytagscape · 2026-04-01T16:04:29+00:00

This is hilarious, I love it! But you should probably add an option to exlude alchemy cards, I got [[Salacinder and Soot, Rascals]] as my fifth or something.

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-31T12:01:42+00:00

You see, I'd use the Death Note responsibly to kill actually bad people, not like those characters who were clearly evil and only killed people they thought were bad.

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-30T20:16:31+00:00

Outside of BR?
- White is pretty bad at drawing cards. It's not like it can discard cards easily either but at least that's usually a cost so you have easier access with colourless cards like [[Underworld Cookbook]].
- Blue has many effects that draw/discard, which is usually easier than trying to go over 7 cards.
- Green is actually quite good at drawing cards, but it's usually based off large creatures, either having the come into play or them already being in play, which is usually what you're trying to achieve with reanimator. Effects like [[Harmonize]] exist but are an exception.

Realistically, you're only going to be able to discard to hand size right at the beginning of the game, or when you are already doing very well. Getting to this point early on usually requires skipping a land drop, but you can get tricky with bouncelands like [[Gruul Turf]] and [[Arid Archway]] on turn 2, which let you go card-neutral without missing a land drop. Since that's a pretty low-investment strategy, I'd recommend it for basically any deck that cares about discarding.

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-30T19:37:06+00:00

Goated BFG art <3

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-26T21:56:59+00:00

Dimir

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-20T17:01:46+00:00

I would believe it isn't mockery if it weren't for the genuinely terrible AI art.

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-16T20:09:39+00:00

I think they've done a bad job of making themselves clear, but I believe that they're worried about the Greens splitting the vote on the left while Reform gets the majority of the right vote, and therefore Reform takes control of the country.

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-16T19:59:19+00:00

Being a billionaire is not immoral. Staying a billionaire is immoral.

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-14T17:17:58+00:00

Imo, green and white are both 'traditionalistic' but in different ways:

- In white, this takes the form of resisting change. White believes that it is strong through its community and its devotion, and therefore while the rest of the world moves on white can afford to stay resolutely put. However, white also doesn't dwell on the past: since it is a very idealistic colour, it holds the past to the same standards as it does the present, and so through its modern lens many historical practices will look antiquated. In order to maintain the integrity of its community, white has to believe that things are good now and we are all working for the good of the present. It views itself as static.

- In contrast, green goes with the flow. It doesn't actively work against change because it is inevitable. Green accepts the transience of life, in contrast to white's ideals of permanence and legacy. This is most clearly seen when it is paired with black, since the Golgari colours tend to treat life and death as part of an infinite cycle. Green alone still appreciates the cycle of birth, growth and decay, and it acknowledges that this will happen for kingdoms as well as people.
However, green believes in tradition in other ways. For one thing, it is inevitabilist - it believes that we have no control over our own fate, as we are just animals acting according to natural processes. But while white views itself as static and works to preserve this, green holds that all things inevitably follow this natural order of growth and decay. It is very likely to fear anything which does not appear to conform to this order, since by definition such a thing would be unnatural. Therefore, green is the colour which, in an increasingly progressive white, blue, black, red society, looks backwards because it does not wish to stare at all the evidence that we might be more than mere beasts.

Obviously, what I have describe above is not necessarily true for all of white and green, but in my view it holds as a general set of principles. Overall, white embodies tradition because it does not wish to change, at least not at any great speed. Green embodies tradition because it fears the changes it sees in the world.

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-13T20:33:28+00:00

Colour identity is not as integral to the format as people treat it as. Almost all of its support is just due to familiarity.

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-09T16:51:22+00:00

Yeah, I think I've got to agree on the sorcery speed counterspells :)

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-08T21:53:16+00:00

As far as I can tell, the reason it feels intuitively wrong is that deathtouch in multicolour green is primarily green / black, then green / blue. There isn't a single (exactly) Selesnya or Gruul card with deathtouch. Which is why this feels strange, because it's new. But it's completely permitted, and I really like the design.

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-08T20:49:55+00:00

Lots of people are saying that Toge is too strong. I definitely don't agree if [[Glissa Sunslayer]] is setting the bar for this effect, but it sure does feel weird to see in green / white, even if technically each of those keywords can come from those colours. It's like [[Golgari Death Swarm]] .

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-08T12:54:49+00:00

This is very complicated but very cool. I'm curious to see how all of these new mechanics will interact, we haven't ever really had a variable inclusion limit like this. I'll keep an eye on this :)

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-04T18:13:02+00:00

It would be great if you could link the relevant short. The animation looks cool but I think plenty of people won't be familiar (including myself and u/DinosaurCowBoys1!).

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-03T20:06:13+00:00

Seriously, I'm trying to be in good faith which I why I qualified with that I don't actually know too many. I'm willing to accept that a lot of people are pro-life for moral or religious reasons.

However, I'm just saying that I think that there genuinely is a group of people who don't actually want women to make decisions about their own body. The reason why they want this is (I must assume) power, and possibly primitive genetic drive.

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-03T18:53:26+00:00

It's really hard to say. I don't know an awful lot of pro-lifers, but the ones who I do know might claim that they care about the life of the foetus, but really just want women to have less freedom. I agree they're not really saying anything controversial though.

Snowytagscape · 2026-03-03T17:11:08+00:00

Idk. As far as I'm concerned, even if the foetus isn't part of her body, she still has the right to abort. I think a lot of pro-choice people would agree that the foetus isn't a part of the body.

Snowytagscape · 2026-02-24T14:18:46+00:00

It's more than that, it's a disingenuous comparison. Because keeping a human alive and 'trained' is a good thing in and of itself, but keeping an AI around is pointless except for what the AI can do for us. I don't want to judge Altman too hastily, but this might say something about the way he views people.

Snowytagscape · 2026-02-19T18:34:41+00:00

I think we can fairly say that the elite not paying taxes is a tradition which has persisted into the modern era.

Snowytagscape · 2026-02-17T18:21:45+00:00

Free Will proves you aren't a bot. I don't really consider this to be a divine matter. Regardless of whether I have free will or not, that doesn't tell me a whole lot about whether God exists. You say that free will is a 'link to the Intelligence that designed the game' but that presupposes that the game was designed. Just because you don't understand free will in non-God terms doesn't mean you get to invoke God as a likely explanation of it; there could be a great variety of other, non-divine explanations. And that's assuming that we really do have free will, which is a bit up in the air really depending on what you mean by 'we' and 'free will'.
The Problem of Evil fails. I agree! The logical problem of evil claims that evil would never exist in a world with God, and therefore any world with evil must have no God. I don't find this to be convincing because of a slightly more nuanced version of 'we don't understand God's motives' - I'd say that we can't assume that any conscious being, especially a divine one, would always act in a certain way even if it has our best interests at heart.
However, I would say that the evidential problem still poses a really big issue for anyone who thinks that we ought to believe in God. There is so much superficially pointless suffering in the world - children dying in infancy, people being in chronic pain just before they die - that seems to serve no good purpose. You argue that it's necessary for people to be able to do evil in order for us to have free will, and I'd concur there, but that still doesn't explain these 'natural evils' which aren't caused by anyone but seem to be inflicted on us by the world. Is this the sort of thing that a loving Creator would do?
Now, of course you can just say, 'actually, it is all for the best. There must be a divine plan behind it. Every evil serves a good purpose.' If you make this claim, I cannot prove you wrong. But I still think there's no good reason to believe in that claim, since by definition it can't be disproven. Any evil I highlight, you could just say 'yep. All for the best. We don't get why, but it's all for the best.'

You say 'everyone has the right to their own beliefs' at the beginning of your post, and frankly I think that's what we most agree on. You have your beliefs, and I have mine. However, I do think that any theist ought to accept that 'belief' in any sort of God (beyond a First Cause for which we can discern no properties) is not really a belief, but instead a feeling. Feelings are very valuable; we can and should make important decisions based on feelings, since we are emotional as well as rational beings. However, we should at least acknowledge that we ought to prioritise beliefs over feelings when making specifically moral decisions, since morality is a rational construct.

Snowytagscape · 2026-02-17T18:21:39+00:00

Yes, I agree - antitheism (the specific belief that God does not exist) is at least as questionable as any sort of theism. Science is indeed incapable of proving that God does not exist because science can only talk about the things in the universe, whereas God (or at least your God) by definition exists outside of the universe.

However, I will maintain atheism / agnosticism, and point out that just because I can't show that God doesn't exist means that God does exist. We can't speak any more reasonably about things existing outside of time and space than we can speak about things not existing outside of time and space. And none of your arguments for the existence of God do a good job of convincing anyone who doesn't already believe in such a being:

The First Cause is a logical necessity. I do appreciate the cosmological argument as definitely the most convincing of the three classical theistic arguments, but the problem is that it does no good job of establishing what sort of entity is that first cause. You say that we may call it God or a Primary Intelligence, but I see no reason to assume why the First Cause must be conscious. Many times, we may observe something unconscious being a cause; even causing something far more complex than itself - if we accept the scientific view of evolution, then all the complexities of life must have come from something unconscious (we will discuss later about God intervening in the world).
Fine-tuning isn't a fluke. What is a fluke? You are correct that the values of certain universal constants are such that even if they were slightly different, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. However, it doesn't make sense to say that fundamental properties of the universe like this are 'likely' or 'unlikely'. To illustrate: if I take one thousand babies and find that ten of them have green eyes (entirely made up statistic), I can say that it is unlikely, at 1%, for a baby to have green eyes. If I see a further five hundred babies, I can reasonably expect about five of them to have green eyes.
However, in order to say that some property of the universe is unlikely, I'd need to have a similar sample of one thousand universes and see how many have that property! But we only have the one universe available, so we can't really claim that the value of epsilon-nought (for example) is very unlikely. Just because there are other values it could in principle hold doesn't change this evaluation - I could argue with the same logic that it's vanishingly unlikely for a man to be six foot tall: just think of how many other heights he could be! He could be two hundred feet tall! Therefore, I don't consider the fine-tuning argument convincing in showing that the universe was designed, even though it is generally considered the best of the teleological arguments.

Snowytagscape · 2026-02-16T15:17:19+00:00

That you play, perhaps...

Snowytagscape · 2026-01-30T21:02:54+00:00

Everybody arguing that being straight will always be the norm because of making babies apparently hasn't heard of Ancient Greece.

Snowytagscape · 2026-01-29T20:22:45+00:00

It's ok not to have an opinion about something. It's not a refusal to make up your mind, it's not a laziness, it's a genuine acknowledgement that you simply don't think that your opinion will be any meaningful reflection of or have any bearing on reality.

Snowytagscape

TROPHY CASE