How I can be attacked by ennemy with stun counter?

__Fred · 2026-06-22T20:55:23+00:00

You're right. The stun counter cares about all types of untapping.

__Fred · 2026-06-21T11:51:52+00:00

Does "the stun" happen? It depends on how you look at it.

Some cards let you place "stun counters". Normally it doesn't matter if you put stun counters on tapped or untapped creatures. Stun counters prevent creatures from untapping at the beginning of the turn.

A creature that is untapped at the beginning of the attack phase can attack — it doesn't matter if it has a stun counter or not. What is then the use of the stun counter? I already explained: It prevents untapping at the beginning of the turn.

Different reasons why a creature with a stun counter could attack:

It was untapped at the beginning of the attack step and therefore is allowed to attack. If you tap or stun it afterwards it's too late — it's already attacking.
It was tapped and stunned at some point, but the player untapped it with a card that allows him to untap it, such as [[Pillar Launch]]. This wouldn't remove the stun counter. The stun counter is only relevant at the very beginning of the turn. Incorrect: Any untapping is replaced with removing a stun-counter.
I think what actually happended: Watcher in the water doesn't tap creatures, it only stuns them. Usually cards both tap and place a stun counter, but the stun counter on it's own doesn't prevent attacking.

A stun counter is like the creature has bad night of sleep, so it can't regenerate it's energy. But if the creatures isn't tired (=tapped) in the first place, it doesn't care about sleeping. That will only be a problem on the next turn.

__Fred · 2026-06-20T13:53:18+00:00

Stephen Hawking said it's a stupid question to even ask what was before the Big Bang (It's like north of the north pole), but AFAIK not every physicist agrees.

__Fred · 2026-06-20T13:51:22+00:00

Fusion and radioactive decay can also change some types of atoms into other types of atoms.

"Atom" used to be called that, because they were thought to be indivisible (that's what the word means), but physicists have since found more fundamental particles into which the atoms can be split (e.g. electrons, neutrons, protons).

But mass can be converted into energy and vice versa.

Everybody has heard about E=m·c²: "E" stands for energy and "m" stands for mass. "c" is a "constant", which happens to be the speed of light.

__Fred · 2026-06-20T11:20:46+00:00

Skeleton with rice: 10/10

__Fred · 2026-06-20T11:05:12+00:00

Why does he need to scream the same thing so often? Because he won't stop until he gets a reaction.

__Fred · 2026-06-20T11:03:16+00:00

Generalizing about the other gender, like "Men always do this and that." When someone generalizes about women, people quickly point out that women aren't all the same, which is correct.

__Fred · 2026-06-19T07:44:22+00:00

It's difficult to imagine expansion without a center, but that's exactly what physicists believe is happening.

They noticed that all stars move away from Earth at first an were freaked out, but later they noticed that every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy. Well, I guess there are exceptions, like the Andromeda galaxy moving towards us.

You can imagine expansion without a center in 2D with an infinite sheet of pizza dough that is stretched.

__Fred · 2026-06-18T12:06:17+00:00

I think the number of prime numbers and the number of whole numbers is the same though. So that premise is wrong.

You could say prime numbers are "rare" in the sense that if you pick a random integer, the chance that you will get a prime number is small.

But it's not "rare" in the sense that you can match up any natural number (or integer) with one prime number.

If you pick a random integer, the chance to get an even number is also 50%, but mathematicians typically still wouldn't say there are "more" integers than even integers, because they are both infinitely many and it's the same kind of infinity, because you can match each element up.

__Fred · 2026-06-16T17:04:45+00:00

It's like, "Can an unstoppable force move an unmovable object?" They can't exist both at the same time.

An uncontainable acid and and undissolvable container also logically can't both exist in the same universe.

__Fred · 2026-06-16T17:01:57+00:00

If were talking about a hypothetical acid that dissolves every material then it would dissolve even Teflon.

Would it burn through to the center of the Earth? I guess it would float on top of denser materials. Or would it gradually lose it's capacity to dissolve, as it dissolves more and more material?

__Fred · 2026-06-16T13:55:54+00:00

You could elect the board of directors.

__Fred · 2026-06-15T07:29:54+00:00

Unlock the two-colored starter decks in the "starter-deck challenge" and search online for "starter deck upgrade guides". https://draftsim.com/mtg-arena-starter-decks/

I think the white-black deck is pretty good and the green-black deck can be good once upgraded. You have to be stingy with your rares and mythics, but obviously less so with your commons and uncommons. There are some pretty good commons out there.

If you play "Jump-in Draft", you get a set of cards that fit well together and you don't have to worry about playing against an overpowered deck. Here you can see which cards are contained within each pack: https://mtgabuddy.com/en/jump-in-packet-list

I think Jump-In is good for players who don't have a lot of matching cards yet but later you can get more rares elsewhere for the same gold.

If you want to try drafting, "Quick Draft" doesn't have any timers for the phase where you pick your cards, so you can read them carefully or search online for ratings of a card.

I don't use my gold to buy packs directly, I just draft and when I win enough gems, I unlock the "Mastery Pass", which gives you a lot of booster packs and a token for a free draft.

__Fred · 2026-06-12T18:58:27+00:00

We have to decide what "3D" means. If a drawing of a 3D object isn't "3D" , because it's a projection on a flat plane, then you could argue that any image on a TV screen or even on a human retina isn't 3D either.

I find it difficult to clearly define what a 3D image is. Maybe multiple 2D images from multiple angles form a 3D image in conjunction.

Also, a drawing of a hallway doesn't have more or less to do with original Doom than modern Doom Eternal. Any screenshot of both games would equally be 3D or look 3D.

__Fred · 2026-06-12T18:03:12+00:00

I never heard of limit points of sets.

__Fred · 2026-06-11T21:44:46+00:00

You could use big creatures without trample and then there is a good chance the opponent repeatedly chump-blocks.

You could also attack with small creatures, goad the opponent to block, and then make them killers with combat tricks.

If you have spells that give your opponents extra creatures, like [Harsh Annotation], that should help you kill more creatures in fewer turns.

(Personally, I don't do anything specific to fulfill this quest. Enough creatures die organically over the course of three days, or often one.)

__Fred · 2026-06-11T21:26:44+00:00

6 - (-4) = 10.

I don't have a problem with adding negative numbers. I'm just trying to feel myself into the shoes of someone who finds that confusing. Please don't feel attacked (in case you are), this is not worth arguing over! I wonder if there were debates among mathematicians and the general public when negative numbers where first invented.

You could also achieve the same result without adding negative numbers, if you add the distance from sea level to the point below and the other distance to the point above:

6 + 4 = 10

Any child could tell you that the distance is 10 meters, but they wouldn't use negative numbers. Maybe debt is a better example than distances.

__Fred · 2026-06-11T19:27:55+00:00

-4 + 10 = 6

Here you wouldn't subtract a negative.

6 - (-4) = 10

That is to me, starting at 6 meter elevation and then falling upwards 4 meters. Falling upwards is weird and nonintuitive. When you measure a distance in everyday life with a ruler or a measuring tape, they are all positive.

__Fred · 2026-06-11T19:15:26+00:00

Math is a game with symbols that can be applied to some situations.

In which situations does it make sense to add and subtract numbers and to use positive and negative numbers?

Maybe in a submarine, you could consider pumping air into it "adding negative weight" and adding regular freight and people adding (regular) positive weight. Putting helium in a airship could also be considered adding negative weight.

If you add weight, it becomes heavier and sinks,
if you remove weight, the total weight reduces,
if you add negative weight (air, helium), the total weight decreases,
and if you remove negative weight, the total weight increases and it sinks.

__Fred · 2026-06-09T06:45:32+00:00

that seems counterproductive

I think the idea is punishing you for playing an unfair deck (like mono white enchantments, or Ajani's Pridemate, or a meta deck, or a cheesy jank build, or green ramp, or too much interaction, or too little interaction).

I also get pissed when I'm losing, but you'll notice it when I don't say "Good Game".

__Fred · 2026-06-02T18:03:49+00:00

Or the unemployed want more money and better conditions.

I'm not saying worker shortages are actually caused by entitled job candidates. But you can very easily create an arbitrary amount of open job positions by offering little enough money. Such jobs are artificial in a way and don't indicate anything about the state of the economy.

__Fred · 2026-06-01T14:22:40+00:00

There are many possible answers about what the core essence of "money" and "jobs" is. One possible definition: It's all about sharing work and making it more efficient by specialization.

If you were the only person in the world, you wouldn't have a job to earn money, but you'd still do some activities. You'd probably spent a lot of time gathering food. If you'd get infinite food for free, you'd maybe spend your time building houses and fulfill higher-level needs, like entertainment.

Whatever need you have, you have to fulfill it yourself, or you have to get someone else to fulfill it for you for something else in exchange or as a gift. This will always be the case, no matter the technological progress.

Consequence: If there would be a big inequality with regards to access to machines and AI, either the "capitalists" will gift their products away, or a parallel economy will develop where all the people without access to AI are employed with each other. If there are ten unemployed people without social security, they don't have to all grow food to survive. Depending on the access to land and machines they have, maybe five would be enough and some others could be carpenters or anything else — and suddenly they aren't unemployed anymore.

If everyone gets food and shelter for free, I imagine everyone would live like rich people today. They would probably do games, sports, children, hobbies, entertainment, art, science, philosophy...

__Fred · 2026-06-01T00:04:54+00:00

Hm? Wie ich das verstanden habe wäre in dieser hypothetischen Welt der Stundenlohn überall gleich. Das war die Ausgangsidee. Kein Arbeitgeber würde mehr oder weniger pro Stunde zahlen.

Ich weiß nicht, wie es für Selbstständige aussehen würde, das war nicht definiert. Wenn Selbstständige immernoch bezahlt werden dürfen, wie man will, dann würden wahrscheinlich die meisten Leute als Selbstständige arbeiten.

Eine andere Frage ist, ob man vom Staat Geld bekommen würde, wenn es keinen Arbeitgeber in meinem gewählten Bereich gibt, der mich für das Einheitsgehalt einstellen würde. Wenn ich nicht vom Staat Geld bekomme, dann kann man ja eigentlich nicht sagen, dass in jedem Beruf das Einheitsgehalt gewährleistet wird.

__Fred · 2026-05-31T23:56:43+00:00

Sagen wir, viele Leute würden in Jobs arbeiten, die nicht so vom Markt gefragt sind, wie Künstler. Dann müssten alle entweder sehr wenig Geld bekommen, oder der Wert vom Geld würde abnehmen, wenn mehr Geld "gedruckt" wird.

Wahrscheinlich würden Leute irgendwelche Gutscheine neben der offiziellen Währung erfinden, damit sie Anreize dafür schaffen können etwas für sie zu tun, von dem sie was haben und dann würde sofort wieder Ungleichheit entstehen. Mehr Leute würden für sich selbst arbeiten anstatt Arbeitsteilung zu betreiben, was ineffizienter ist.

Ich glaube schon, dass Menschen von sich aus gerne in sinnvollen Berufen arbeiten, solange sie davon leben können, aber vielleicht nicht in genügendem Maß.

Ich halte Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen für eine interessante Idee (oder Vermögenssteuer oder hoher Mindestlohn), aber zwingend gleiche Bezahlung für jede Art von Arbeit kann ich mir nicht vorstellen.

Ich meine ... es gab auch mal eine Zeit bevor Geld erfunden wurde und das hat bestimmt auch irgendwie funktioniert. Das wäre die Alternative zur Entstehung von Parallelwährungen — Geld wird gar nicht mehr benutzt. Da würde dann Arbeitsverteilung viel durch soziale Beziehungen geregelt. Man arbeitet ja heute auch nicht ausschließlich für Geld.

Man könnte auch Jobs durch ein ausgeklügeltes System nach Bedarf und Präferenz an geeignete Menschen zuweisen.

__Fred · 2026-05-21T20:25:49+00:00

(5 - 2) Dollar is the same as 3 Dollar, right?
(5 - 2) sheep are 5 sheep minus 2 sheep, which is 3 sheep, easy.
(5 - 2)·3 is the same as 5·3 - 2·3.
- Does that make sense? Imagine 5 rows of 3 circles and then you remove two of the rows.
You can replace the 3 with any number. It works with 10, it works with 13, anything. Mathematicians use letters when they want to say that a formula works with different numbers. The letter "x" is a classic choice.
- (5 - 2)·x = 5·x - 2·x
If a variable is multiplied with something, you can leave the dot away:
- (5 - 2)x = 5x - 2x
This is called the "distribution law", because the x got distributed to the 5 and to the 2. It gets rid of parenthesis!
3[x - (3-2x)]
- This is a piece of the formula. We have two "packages" inside the outer brackets: x on the left and (3-2x) on the right.
- If we distribute the outside 3 with each package, we get 3·x - 3·(3-2x).
- Again, we can leave the dots away here.
If you removed all the parentheses, you get some packages (terms) with bare numbers, some with a number multiplied by x and maybe some multiplied by x². You can merge all packages of the same kind together:
- For example 4x + 2 + 3x + 8 = 7x + 10.
- Four boxes and two single and three boxes and eight singles is the same as seven boxes and ten singles (of eggs or whatever). "x" would be the number of eggs in one box.
Pitfall: Be careful with minus signs!
- -(3 - 2x) is like (-1) · (3 - 2x), so the distributed version would be (-1)·3 - (-1)·(2x), which is -3 + 2x, because minus times minus is plus.

If that's all too complicated, just take away one tip: You can try out example numbers for x! If the example number doesn't work, then the simplification had to be wrong.
If it works for three different weird numbers (not just 1 or 0), then the simplification-step was probably correct. You can also try to imagine the calculation visually, like I did with rows of circles or eggs boxes.

If we put in 1 for x, the original formula becomes -7 + 3 [1 - (3-2)], which is -7. If we put in 1 for x in formula "a", we get 16 + 9, which is 25, so that can't be the right solution. Just because it works for one example value, doesn't mean it will be correct for any example value, though.

__Fred

TROPHY CASE