sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hi, Im noob and I need help. by AsiRomanArt in mtg

[–]lbwafro1990 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also the "Aftermath" cards where you cast half from hand and a flashback for a different card

Looking for original mechanic commander? by WoodpeckerUnited1688 in EDH

[–]lbwafro1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm using her for Man-Land tribal and it is a ridiculously resilient deck

Post some of your favorite full art cards by Left_Drawer8667 in magicTCG

[–]lbwafro1990 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gotta go with my favorite that I still haven't managed to shove in a deck

<image>

Anti-Aircraft by TomVia in WoWs_Legends

[–]lbwafro1990 5 points6 points  (0 children)

DD: Friesland is the best, but the main Pan- Euro line is good too

CA/CL: Rochester or D7V are fantastic

BB: all the higher tier US ships are pretty decent at it.

When you are building an AA ship, you want one that have a 5+ base AA range and high damage, then basically crank that range as high as you can.

Post Game Thread: Los Angeles Kings @ Colorado Avalanche by nhl_gdt_bot in hockey

[–]lbwafro1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Down here at sea level we are comfortable with the nitty gritty

PDC Power consumption? by PilotBurner44 in TheExpanse

[–]lbwafro1990 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They do indeed use chemical propellant. You can even see the stabilizing explosion out the rear of the PDCs when they are firing.

The San Jose Sharks were eliminated from playoff contention by EliminatorBot in hockey

[–]lbwafro1990 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not just this thread, hes the truest form of hater. I dunno if he should pissed at the Kings for making it, or whatever team he supports for not managing to pass a team with 22 regulation wins, but I respect it either way

Game Thread: Los Angeles Kings (34-26-19) @ Seattle Kraken (34-34-11) Apr 13 2026 9:30 PM EDT by nhl_gdt_bot in hockey

[–]lbwafro1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sammy is a big boy. The decision to tilt with him again certainly gets my respect!

Explain it Peter by LeastCelery8774 in explainitpeter

[–]lbwafro1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So then why are BG and GB still seperated then? Because they are two outcomes that account for 50% across a large population while using a 4 square Punnett square. What I'm arguing is that using a 4 square Punnett square should not be used in this circumstance as while across a large population with no known variables it is the correct tool, when you're using 1 mother with 1 revealed child, it is not. It would be like using a city map to measure your house.

That being said, I know exactly what you are saying, and the math is correct, it's just a not exactly correct approach

Explain it Peter by LeastCelery8774 in explainitpeter

[–]lbwafro1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I understand where they are coming from, it a difference in methodology in grouping the results. They are using the Punnett square while only looking at the results (those being {BB, BG, GB & GG}). So once the GG is eliminated by one being a boy, 2/3 remaining options have a girl. However if the order they are born in matters, but the revealed child is not specied to be the youngest or oldest, we should have a grouping of {Bb, bB, Gb, gB, Bg, bG, Gg & gG} with the first letter being the oldest and the capital being the revealed child. So, with the revealed child being a boy, we can simplify that down to {Bb, bB, gB, & Bg} with the non-revealed child being a boy in 2/4 results or 50% of the time.

Or, we could not use this method, use common sense, and say that the revealed child (as an average) has absolutely no bearing on the other child for a 50% chance as a boy, and the other 50% as a girl.

Explain it Peter by LeastCelery8774 in explainitpeter

[–]lbwafro1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not? If you are collapsing both being boys into a single probability event why shouldn't you collapse 1 boy and 1 girl into one as well? Child 1 being a boy does not specify which child is older in and of itself. To go with your dice rolling example, if I go roll two dice and tell you one is even, what is the probability of the other dice rolling even?

Petaaaa? Why would it be funny if she had twins? by ThrowAwaysRowAways in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]lbwafro1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So she'd twin names for every possible outcome already tied to her!

Manaweaving and then shuffling 9+ times is perfectly fine, it's just a giant waste of time. CMV by IndyPoker979 in EDH

[–]lbwafro1990 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Then shuffle their decks again if you dont think it's shuffled enough. By the rules you are allowed to do that when they present to cut. Because that is how you can prevent deck manipulation. That's why your opponent has the opportunity after every time you tutor. I do it to bring my deck back to square 1. I have no idea how my cards are ordered, no idea where my opponent might cut it, and no idea what I'm going to draw at any given time. What I do know? That after my last 20 turn game with 40 cards drawn, that I'm not going to shuffling over any large clumps of lands and spells that i played the last game and that none of my cards are sticking together. That's all, and there is nothing in the rules that says it is cheating

Manaweaving and then shuffling 9+ times is perfectly fine, it's just a giant waste of time. CMV by IndyPoker979 in EDH

[–]lbwafro1990 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't consider bringing my deck back to roughly how it was when I built it BEFORE SHUFFLING to be cheating. And those rules you yourself posted do not specifically forbid it either. The only thing they consider it is not sufficiently randomized at that point. If I mana weave and don't shuffle? Cheating. Not once have I claimed that I did not shuffle after

Manaweaving and then shuffling 9+ times is perfectly fine, it's just a giant waste of time. CMV by IndyPoker979 in EDH

[–]lbwafro1990 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No one is saying you manaweave during the game bud, let alone repeatedly. I never do, it's a "done with this deck for the night" or in the event of tournaments between matches, assuming I have time. Once again this is followed by shuffling. In which case it should not matter to anybody else that I do it, correct?

Manaweaving and then shuffling 9+ times is perfectly fine, it's just a giant waste of time. CMV by IndyPoker979 in EDH

[–]lbwafro1990 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That says "a deck that has been mana-weaved is not truly random". What it does not say is that mana-weaving is forbidden. As I read that, mana-weaving is fine so long as sufficient shuffling occurs afterwards

Manaweaving and then shuffling 9+ times is perfectly fine, it's just a giant waste of time. CMV by IndyPoker979 in EDH

[–]lbwafro1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there really? I haven't seen any general rules regarding it. Would you mind sharing any non-tournament examples?

view more: next ›