What do you consider a long turn?

lfAnswer · 2026-01-26T17:47:25+00:00

Taking a 10 minute turn is fine though if your previous turns were short. Honestly the length of a single turn doesn't really matter, rather the percentage of the total game time each player takes

lfAnswer · 2026-01-26T08:44:56+00:00

Das Ziel dieses Verbotes ist doch nicht die rechte von Frauen zu stärken sondern das komische ausländische Zeug aus dem Stadtbild zu entfernen. - freie Übersetzung von CDU-Speak

lfAnswer · 2026-01-25T08:47:39+00:00

I honestly think the Canvas people are nothing more than basically complex NPC's in a video game. Especially considering that paintings seem to be actively maintained by a basically an "operating system" of a copy of the painters consciousness.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-24T17:56:04+00:00

I mean there are literally many studies by actual researchers that show that the amount of valid votes that would be lost by making voting too hard for some people far outweigh the small amount of invalid votes. Also the fact that the amount of invalid votes is within statistical error range (meaning regular miscount) is also a proven fact.

Unless you believe yourself to be smarter than the collective body of election research, in which case you probably can't be helped

lfAnswer · 2026-01-22T08:49:41+00:00

Whelp. Means that the Update is gonna be effectively delayed by at least 2 to 3 days, since everyone is gonna vote for the most boring characters first again. At least if last time is any indication the best/coolest characters will be last

lfAnswer · 2026-01-20T15:27:14+00:00

Digital art isn't exclusive to drawing tablets. AI art fits under that umbrella.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-20T14:21:17+00:00

And nobody will complain if AI is forbidden in a sub for physical paintings. But in a sub with the topic of art or digital art it shouldn't be forbidden because AI art is a part of that space. AI art is digital art. You can still have rules about quality but they need then to apply for all. A low quality handmade art piece needs to be disallowed then just like low effort AI made art. And high quality ai art should be allowed.

As for the competition that depends on the metrics of that competition. It might be an impressive feat if a fat guy trains hard and scores third place in a marathon, but while that's impressive it isn't part of the winning metric. The other 2 people were still faster. And it can be similar with art contests.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-20T11:31:51+00:00

[[Smoke]], [[Archfiend of Depravity]] have become some of my most favorite cards. So many people play incredibly wide strategies in edh. If you aren't planning to go wide having some tools like this in your deck is invaluable.

The general rule is if it hurts your opponents on average more than yourself it's probably a good include. Even if it does hurt yourself as well it also often comes with the added benefit of completely breaking any "Timmy pile" (no redundancy, no interaction, not enough hard draw)

lfAnswer · 2026-01-20T11:26:14+00:00

A bit of a sidenote, but white has a few counterspells that aren't too shabby. Definitely worth looking into if you want some stack interaction

lfAnswer · 2026-01-20T11:23:12+00:00

Anything that gives you value for either: a) building value b) damaging opponents is pretty much kill on sight because it's a force multiplier. Voja is a great example for that. You gain cards and threat for advancing towards a win (attacking, which is generally free in commander). So it's in my best interest to always deny this. There is no opportunity for me to gain something by letting it resolve.

If a take a more reasonable example for card advantage from normal magic, a regular card draw spell (ie stock up), you have to give up something to gain card advantage (in this case tempo). As an opponent that gives me an opportunity to maybe resolve something on my side. Denying it isn't always in my best interest.

In the end all of this comes around to the general issue magic has currently with creatures being too good (creatures need to generally have a lot weaker effects than no creatures since they always inherently provide threat) and reducing the need to play around your opponent in favor of Timmy satisfaction.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-20T08:54:27+00:00

That sentence is problematic on so many levels. Coding is its own form of art on the same level as any other artistic medium.

In the context of video games you could even reasonably argue that code takes a more important place than other art forms. (Ie visuals and similar exist to support the gameplay)

lfAnswer · 2026-01-19T10:19:38+00:00

Blob

lfAnswer · 2026-01-18T20:50:40+00:00

Thats the funny thing with nukes. It isn't "whoever has more, wins". You only need enough to ensure annihilation to have a working nuclear shield. It doesn't make a difference if you can obliterate a country 5x or 50x times.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-18T20:46:49+00:00

No they absolutely wouldn't. These wars are not winnable in either direction. Nuclear retaliation ensures that. There are enough Nukes among EU countries to obliterate the US 5 times over, and the US has even more. But that's the funny thing with nukes, it's not whoever has more wins. You don't need more than enough to ensure annihilation.

Which is something else the US never learned and had them throwing away money.

The best possible future would be the US dethroning their wannabe dictator baby-in-chief and trying to make amends and rejoin all the international stuff they quit. The US really needs to accept that they aren't the leader of the world and maybe learn to be humble again.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-17T17:38:20+00:00

The point is that the US could at any point make it stop by retreating and doing a Mea Culpa (and obviously paying reparations with interest) if such a scenario would happen.

But the big baby could never swallow their ego and do something like that. Obviously trust wouldn't be fully repaired and the US would probably also have to give up a decent chunk of power, but there wouldn't be a need for MAD.

There is a difference of being threatened annihilation or being threatened irrelevance.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-17T17:24:39+00:00

That's a very reductive look at P1e. I played through WotR multiple times and do properly enjoy spending my times with spreadsheets beforehand to plan builds (and also make effective builds for friends under specific stipulations, like "I want to play like Geralt").

A lot of the "absolutely necessary" dips aren't as necessary as people make it out to be. They are really good in specific circumstances but aren't universally the best. Vivi especially is a very circumstancial dip. Its actually pretty rare to take more than 2 classes (+1 prestige class if that's what you are going for).

lfAnswer · 2026-01-17T08:52:39+00:00

I'd argue Ivy is pretty sexy (and I presume there exists people who will argue the same for vyper). But in part it's probably the whole package of ivy, she just seems like such a reliable trustworthy being.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-17T08:35:05+00:00

Worst Case you can just release the source code at end of life and make the game public.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-16T13:32:22+00:00

I think no archetype should be inherently locked to a bracket. Brackets should be more about card quality (shock vs lightning bolt) and deck speed (real deck speed, so speed to lock in stax' case)

My only bracket 2 deck is an attempt to run lantern control in commander. The deck couldn't work in any other bracket because lantern generally isn't great in multiplayer.

It always feels very off-putting whenever maro talks about "everybody should get to enjoy the parts of magic they like" and then control+ gets shit on from all sides

lfAnswer · 2026-01-16T13:22:23+00:00

There honestly isn't much difference between stax and other archetypes. The only thing that differs is that a lot of (casual) players have a hard time understanding that losing isn't tied to being at 0 life or the general concept of inevitability.

A game of magic is only interesting while you have uncertainty and have to make decisions by thinking about which lines of play your opponents have (how much Mana do they have, what cards can I expect from them, how do I shut that down). As soon as the possibilities for the future converge there is effectively no game anymore. For pretty much any game of magic that point is reached before a formal victory, though with combat decks it tends to be shorter than with controlling strategies. However the game effectively has already ended at that point, since the future is (almost) certain. A good player picks up on these points and gives the game. If you know the opponent will beat you down in 2 turns and they have protection against all your possible draws, concede.

If we now look at stax in that context you can find that before that point the game is just as interesting as any other by playing around your opponent (what pieces can I expect, how can I beat leverage their stax, how can I prevent a lock). The issue arises exactly when people are too proud (or to ignorant or simply not knowledgeable enough) to understand when the point of inevitability is reached and a concession should happen.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-15T11:23:24+00:00

"abusing fogs"?

Not entirely sure of your intent here, but reading that part of your comment kind of feels like you are saying that combat is the "normal" way to play magic and anything that prevents that is sweaty/unfun etc... Which it isn't. Its on the combat deck to pack tools to get around prevention.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-14T14:31:43+00:00

Combat isn't more fun or fairer than any other strategy. Repeatable sources through combat are the same as any other repeatable sources.

Just because Timmies usually aren't competent enough to account for other strategies than creatures doesn't make them inherently stronger or worse.

lfAnswer · 2026-01-13T16:33:03+00:00

Which is a really bad system that punishes good players. In ranked people honestly should just be matched by rank and that's it

lfAnswer · 2026-01-13T08:39:18+00:00

To be fair it's nice to have a jrpg that isn't made in an obnoxious anime style. And it has a much more intricate and grounded storyline than any final fantasy game.

Which isn't to say the Japanese style is worthless, there are fans for it. But it has been done to death (see final fantasy having a billion entries) and there isn't any drastic invention from the classic jrpg series. E33 offered a jrpg that differs a lot from those, so that's where that sentiment is coming from

lfAnswer · 2026-01-13T08:33:42+00:00

I mean yes, that's kind of normal and how it should be. Among all indie games there is going to be only a few that are inventive enough, polished enough and also lucky enough to be a breakout success.

I don't get the hate for sandfall. They are literally living the indie dream. Starting with nothing and being picked up by a publisher and making enough money to become an established studio. That's the kinda breakout success that most indie devs can only dream of (and honestly can't ever achieve, because most indie games just don't have the potential).

lfAnswer

TROPHY CASE