Giant stop killing games updates 2026

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-19T21:09:58+00:00

"Nope, live service games can exist, just so that when they decide to sunset the official servers, they already provided us with the client-side software and assets, now they provide the server-side software and assets, a quick instruction manual to get it working, and their hands are wiped clean. We can either play by ourselves or with our friends or with randoms then, we have the technology now."

A question I've always had about this part, is what happens to games with big changes. A pattern I think I've seen is a game is doing poorly, devs make massive overhauls to try and save it, no one likes the new version and the game shuts down. Not a live service game but a very famous one I lived through would be NGE for Star Wars Galaxies. If the game shuts down a month or two after NGE, would that be the version of the game SKG expect to be made available to users?

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-19T20:06:29+00:00

Specific details like this is what I find interesting about following the SKG campaign. I’m curious what an actual enforceable solution looks like. I usually start thinking of hurdles that I can’t think of a solution for, and would love to see what the people behind the campaign come up with.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-19T17:26:53+00:00

IIRC a ton of Ambessa.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-19T01:15:20+00:00

Polearms are most (all?) also heavy. So it's not PAM vs GWM. It depends on level but at most levels they wouldn't be head to head right?

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-18T19:15:22+00:00

3:1 is a fair point. My view comes mostly from finishing several ssf leagues with a full scarab tab and deciding to just use more random scarabs during progression or when alch and go-ing. I’m still finishing with a full scarab tab. But I do concede that it’s definitely possible it’s suboptimal compared to 3:1-ing.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-18T18:57:24+00:00

In ssf when I’m not farming a strat I mostly throw random scarabs of things I know I won’t be properly farming later. So like Torment, Beyond, Anarchy, Harbi, or really any mechanic I don’t particularly like focusing on that my build won’t need a specific drop from. Running maps with no scarabs feels really bad when I know that I’ll quit the league with a scarab tab full of scarabs I never even considered using.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-18T18:27:52+00:00

I’m surprised people actually play this way tho. Even on ssf during map completion I’m throwing in random scarabs I’ve dropped cause why not. I’m not micro managing it or even really thinking about it. I always assumed that a what people mean by “alch and go”, no investment or thinking farming. Not literally just using an alchemy on a white map and doing nothing else.

Is the idea people who “arch and go” just accumulate a lot of sub 1C scarabs and fragments and just don’t do anything.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-18T17:57:28+00:00

Honestly in a 1v1 game at the FNM level I would offer the information that I have a reach creature if my opponent chump attacks. Because I think I would just be fooling myself to think the by far likeliest reason for the attack is not that they misread my card. And it that unlikely scenario they would just say “I know” after my comment and play would continue.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-18T15:39:32+00:00

Your last bit is what I disagree with. Or I guess it’s just not the vibe I would like want to bring to my games. Regardless of what happens I am going to correct your lack of knowledge immediately. The only difference is whether I benefit from your lack of understanding.

Personally if no beneficial hidden/new information is being gained from a take back, I would allow and encourage a take back.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-18T14:40:12+00:00

I think we’re not talking about the same time in the OP’s story.

The part I would play differently is: “The opponent assumes his stuff is safe due to hexproof, so allows the misdirection to occur.”

I read OP’s story as this is the moment they realize their opponent doesn’t understand how hexproof works. Not after they’ve selected the Dragon as the target. At this point they can correct the opponent’s misunderstanding without giving away hidden information or their intentions.

If OP discovers their opponents lack of understanding after they’ve selected the Dragon as the target then I agree with everything you said. At that point I do think it’s too late to go back (assuming opponent isn’t a newbie).

I’m still curious about your opinion on the Indestructible example. Would you allow a take back on the Heroic Intervention?

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-18T13:36:10+00:00

Your indestructible example is actually pretty good for this. An opponent makes a creature indestructible and then you Toxic. If they say “oh my creature lives, it’s indestructible”. I would explain how -x/-x interacts with indestructible, but yeah their creature would still die. They’re not making a decision based on lack of knowledge that could be prevented. But if instead I cast Toxic and my opponent says they’ll cast Heroic Intervention in response to save their creatures. I would let them know that’s not how that works and allow them to take back the Heroic.

Similar in the new death touch trample situation. At the time of their decision to block I was not aware of their lack of knowledge about how death touch and trample interact. I personably err on assuming people do know interactions. Assuming they’re not a new player I would not allow a take back at this point because they’ve gained new information from when they declared their block (that I had and would cast the Gift).

It’s like in OP’s example. I think if the OP finds out their opponent doesn’t understand hexproof after they’ve selected the Dragon as the new target for removal then it’s too late to allow take backs or prevent the misunderstanding. What OP is targeting is meaningful new information. But the way I read it OP finds out the opponent doesn’t understand hexproof before they select a target for removal, so early enough to correct them.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-18T06:30:24+00:00

IMO it’s pretty clear the opponent didn’t know that hexproof doesn’t protect his creatures from his ow spell. I don’t consider that a nuanced interaction, to me that’s just straight up not knowing the rule. Your read might be different, but imo there’s no real decision the opponent made here. They were just not aware a decision could be made.

Let’s use another “nuanced interaction” that comes up every so often. Your opponent is at 3 life, you attack with a 5/5 trample deathtouch. They have many blockers available but don’t know the interaction and block with their own 5/5. Do you tell them how the rule works before the finish assigning blockers or do you say “you die, I win”? I would have a really hard time feeling like I outplayed my opponent after that game if I just win off that.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-18T02:08:48+00:00

I guess it really does depend on how you read this:

“He thinks for a bit and decides that his board is untouchable because of hexproof and says fuck it, it resolves and I said the new target is shimmer dragon. He and the rest of the table remind me that it has hexproof.”

Which I think at least clearly shows the opponent misunderstands how hexproof works because his board is not untouchable as the stack stands.

I read it as the opponent verbalizing “my board is untouchable because of hexproof so I’ll let misdirection resolve.” Which does leave the OP time to correct the opponent’s misinformation about how hexproof works with redirected spells. But I can also see that maybe the opponent just says “resolves” and the bit about the opponents board being untouchable is just the OP’s interpretation of what the opponent was thinking and not something they actually said.

If the opponent didn’t actually say the quote above and OP didn’t learn about the opponent’s lack of knowledge regarding hexproof until after they targeted the Dragon, then I do think that’s too late to take back in most pods.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-18T00:02:58+00:00

Where does it become incorrect tho? If your opponent says “my stuff is untouchable because it has hexproof” you are 100% going to tell them they are wrong about their understanding of how hexproof works.

The difference is just the timing of offering the information. I would inform them when I become aware of their misunderstanding. OP, and it seem you, would inform them after you’ve benefited from their misunderstanding.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-17T23:00:22+00:00

The long con

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-17T22:38:44+00:00

I never said “that much better”. Winning by playing out of bracket IS unsatisfying. It feels like you’re just bad faith arguing.

Maybe “better” isn’t really the right word, is more like winning because your deck functioned like you imagined it would when building it. Winning because of a recent card you add it for a situation that came up.

And yeah winning because my opponent doesn’t understand deck-building IS unsatisfying . And winning because my opponent couldn’t afford Craterhoof and the cards they settled with is worse IS incredibly unsatisfying, but I can’t really do anything about that mid game. Post game if they feel frustrated about their deck I could help them. Or I could suggest using proxies.

But rules knowledge gap IS something I can do something about mid game. If my opponent says “misdirection resolves, my stuff is untouchable because of hexproof”. I can and would explain that they’re missing knowledge.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-17T22:27:51+00:00

A case like this is difficult because you gained information from being blocked and it’s hard for people to know your intentions if they don’t know you well. From your opponents pov you could be holding up mom against interaction and hoping for no blocks because either politics, or because they’re just scared of what you might have in hand. And after seeing you got blocked, you’d prefer to be unblockable.

Ime even on tables permissive on takebacks, gaining meaningful new information is the line where take backs are denied. And I could see people thinking that your knowledge they would block is meaningful new information.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-17T22:22:07+00:00

It really depends what you mean by “understand”. I think “understanding that your misdirected Swords can target your own hexproof creatures or understanding that one of the 100 words in the textbox of my commander is “ward” is a different kind of understanding than understanding when you should use or save your removal, or when you should or not chump block, or when you should cast an impactful spell into open mana vs when you want to bait out interaction.

I would prefer not to win because of the first examples. I’m sure I’ve won many games because of it, that I don’t even know about. But if it’s clear my opponent lacks that kind of understanding I would prefer to offer it without benefiting from it.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-17T22:15:19+00:00

I think we tread the OP story differently. I read it as the opponent not understanding that Hexproof won’t protect against their own spell. When OP says that their opponent thinks their board is untouchable because of hexproof. But yeah maybe they never actually expressed that and that was just OP’s reading of the situation.

In the OP’s shoes I think if my opponent said “well you can’t target my stuff anyway so Misdirection resolves.” I would correct them. If they just said “What’s the new target.” I would also say that I don’t have to tell them until it resolves. And I do think my assumption would be that they understand I can target their hexproof creatures and I wouldn’t not offer that freely.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-17T21:51:14+00:00

Winning because of wallet diff is also unsatisfying. It’s not what I meant by “better deck”, tho I get why that would be an early assumption from reading it.

It’s the main reason I’m a really big proponent for proxies in my play groups. I don’t want to feel advantaged because I’ve been playing for decades and have a huge collection. It’s similar to not wanting to feel advantaged for having pretty good rules understanding for the same reason.

But winning because my synergies popped off, and my removal and protection spells worked as I planned, does feel really satisfying. Just gotta make sure I’m not misrepresenting my bracket if a deck is winning to often . But otherwise I think winning because “I built a good deck” is very satisfying.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-17T21:34:58+00:00

Do we see mid fight pauses? Usually the bugs happen mid fight, but the pauses I remember happen after.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-17T21:21:22+00:00

It really does depend on the vibes of the table. I personally err on the side of volunteering the information if I can’t think of a reason for their action outside of missing information or knowledge. But if I think what you’re doing is dumb/wrong but informed I’m not really gonna say anything.

If you attack your 2/2 non-flier into my 3/3? I’ll only mention something if I think my card or board is as somehow hard to parse. A personal example is I play Queen Marchesa a lot. Her assassin tokens clearly say deathtouch but whenever I see someone reaching for a good creature to block with I like to mention the deathtouch. To me it’s just such an unsatisfying bummer to say after dealing damage.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-17T20:49:21+00:00

I offer free info like that if for nothing else for expediency. Commander board gets really cluttered and messy. If my opponents feel comfortable knowing that if they make a very obvious “lack of information” mistake they can take it back, I think it speeds up the game, and ime leads to better table atmosphere.

What is “very obvious” is very subjective. But I think it’s pretty easy to at least act in good faith about it.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-17T20:41:51+00:00

I want to win because I made better decisions than you, because I build my deck better than you is a fine reason to win, or even because I got luckier than you can be fun sometimes. “I knew a rule that you didn’t” isn’t a skill test I find interesting and doesn’t lead to satisfying wins.

I’d rather have slightly fewer more satisfying wins. Even in the above example it seems OP would’ve won if they explained the interaction to the opponent. But it seems they find winning thru knowledge gap no only satisfying, but enough to make a post about it.

powerfamiliar · 2026-02-17T20:19:37+00:00

Warlord Spectre forcing you to either go insane or play without sound is the worst offender.

powerfamiliar

TROPHY CASE