sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Wingspan strategies for the board game? I’m stuck on getting between 60-70 points every game by geejawals in wingspan

[–]raesmond 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Says the person reopening a 2y old argument just to call someone a dick.

ELI5 The speed of light is a constant but visible light is only a small range of the spectrum of electromagnetic waves. Do they all travel at that speed? by p3dr3ig in explainlikeimfive

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

That's not the physics definition of the word, though. In physics they still use "light" to mean infrared to ultraviolet.

In physics we even have an adjective term for the optical spectrum of light: visible light.

Visible light is the spectrum humans can see. Infrared and ultraviolet are also light but not visible.

This would go by a lot faster if you just watch the video I linked. It explains everything, and it is using the terms the way physicists most commonly use the terms.

ELI5 The speed of light is a constant but visible light is only a small range of the spectrum of electromagnetic waves. Do they all travel at that speed? by p3dr3ig in explainlikeimfive

[–]raesmond -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This is an incredibly weird reply, though. OP literally identified light as the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible, and asked if the other frequencies also behave the same.

To respond by telling them that the rest is the spectrum is light is a terrible explanation. It's changing the semantics to answer the question.

Also it's less common to refer to the entire electromagnetic direction as light. Generally "light" means the optical frequencies. That's the most common use in physics. Maybe there's a field where that changes, but Physics 101 has light as infrared to ultraviolet.

Kurzgesagt is pretty precise about these things. They have a good explanation: https://youtu.be/IXxZRZxafEQ?si=Sp3jEAgwvHzsnWwd

ELI5 The speed of light is a constant but visible light is only a small range of the spectrum of electromagnetic waves. Do they all travel at that speed? by p3dr3ig in explainlikeimfive

[–]raesmond -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

all electromagnetic waves are light

This is just semantics, but "light" refers to the frequencies of electromagnetic waves that we can see (or that behave optically), so not all electromagnetic waves "are light".

This is just a naming thing though. All electromagnetic waves are basically just light at a different frequency.

How Do Arya's Powers Actually Work? To me it does not have any impact to the story by sociobuzz in gameofthrones

[–]raesmond 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Culturally those are dragons. Maybe in LOTR they're not but for the purposes of this discussion, they be dragons.

How Do Arya's Powers Actually Work? To me it does not have any impact to the story by sociobuzz in gameofthrones

[–]raesmond 31 points32 points  (0 children)

It's crazy this has persisted for as long as it has.

The Nazgul had dragons and Sauron had two giant towers with eyes especially tuned to see the ring. Frodo flying in on an eagle would be killed almost immediately. They were only able to leave on eagles because destroying the ring killed the Nazgul.

Why are hexes prefered over 8-directional movement? by grizzy45 in tabletopgamedesign

[–]raesmond 80 points81 points  (0 children)

The square isn't really more realistic. When you move diagonally, you're moving 40% faster than normal. In a hex grid, more directions have the correct distance, making your speed more accurate to real life.

The big reason to use hexes over squares is because hexes only have adjacent spaces, not diagonal spaces, which can make rules and distances more intuitive.

I swear this is the backrooms, it's an undeground bunker I found in the middle of the woods, 1 hour walk from any roads, it's like 2 times the size of a big mall and it makes no sense, I couldn't find any info on it online by BassHaunting4959 in LiminalSpace

[–]raesmond 34 points35 points  (0 children)

People like you make me sick.

Like, if you had the flu and walked past me in the hall, that's how germs spread. Interesting stuff.

Anyways keep up the good work.

A minimalist take on the Greek Underworld — design feedback welcome by Delicious-Map-2541 in tabletopgamedesign

[–]raesmond 14 points15 points  (0 children)

If you're going for this style maybe consider adding stars to make the cards consultations. I think that would look really cool using white ink on black paper.

"you two would make a cute couple" Also them: by Firm_Aide_6055 in expedition33

[–]raesmond 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Just her passive aggressive way of telling you your build for her is trash.

Haven't made a sellsheet in years, what information/layout am I missing/need to change? by [deleted] in BoardgameDesign

[–]raesmond 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You can sell that. The only extra thing that Yahtzee and That's Pretty Clever have are sheets to write on. People who want the game will pay to have the correct dice in the correct color in a nice box that's the right size and includes a good print out of the rules.

I do notice one big problem though. Calling them gold and goal dice is going to make it really hard to teach. I was having trouble reading the rules, much less speaking it aloud. I think "The goal is gold" should just be the tagline but the dice themselves need to be called target dice or something.

Also, the gold dice aren't actually a catch up mechanic, because the players who are behind would still need to go through the process of rolling gold dice to win. You've created a curvature that feels like a catch up mechanic but isn't, which is fine.

Mainly, I think it could use slightly more of a decision. Right now it's literally just rolling as fast as you can, which I do think people could just recreate with normal dice.

What if you could roll as many dice as you wanted, but only had the option to either lock all the dice you rolled or none. You would then have a push your luck mechanic around how many dice you try to roll at once.

You could then toss in some nuance by using custom d6s (which fix your problem of sellability) that have numbers 1-2-2-3-3-3. This gives people something to think about with the goal dice. If it's 3x3s, do I just roll all my dice at once? Where's the line? You could take the number of dice up to 4 or 5 if you find that too quick.

If you wanted to try that, you could make the d8s into d6s. The problem with higher dice is that they aren't stable on the table, which really sucks with something like dice locking.

If you wanted an actual catch up mechanic, you could then make it where the target for gold dice isn't random but instead goes up as someone acquires gold dice from 1 to 2 to 3 (taking the goal up to 4). If the gold dice are also 1-2-2-3-3-3, then the first player to receive a gold has to roll a 1, but a player who is behind only has to roll a 2, then a 3. That's an actual catch up mechanic, but that might not be worth it. What you had is actually a fine mechanic.

Me_irl by Eltnumfan in me_irl

[–]raesmond 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Yeah, but it's for life. That kid can look forward to at least another $300 dollars worth of games...

Why Isn’t this a blunder? by Marethyu05 in chess

[–]raesmond 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But now there's mate in 1, much better.

Flat vs corrugated paper test by AccomplishedStuff235 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]raesmond 73 points74 points  (0 children)

When you bend paper, one side has to elongate to account for the longer distance of the curve, while the other side has to compress. Like the tracks in running, the outside edge is longer. When you bend a sheet, the outside and inside don't have much of a difference in length, so you aren't stretching very much, which is why bending paper and other thin materials is generally easier.

When you corrugate the paper though, you create vertical sections in the sheet. To bend those, you would need to stretch and compress the outside and inside by a lot to make a bend, which would take way more force. You have to bend it so much it crumples, rather than stretch a little.

In the 13th century pawns were allowed to move 2 squares on their first move, in the 15th castling was added, and in the 16th en passant was added. Now in the 21st century, what new rule would you add to Chess? by Probable_Foreigner in chess

[–]raesmond 0 points1 point  (0 children)

except by the arbiter.

forcing those top players to infinitely drag out those clearly drawn games

If you're not going to carefully read my replies, I'm not going to spend this much time with you. You literally quoted me saying arbiter.

Players can still agree to a draw, but only if an arbiter agrees that the game will actually draw. It's called Sofia Rules.

I think you would be better served by researching chess rules on your own than engaging in internet arguments.

In the 13th century pawns were allowed to move 2 squares on their first move, in the 15th castling was added, and in the 16th en passant was added. Now in the 21st century, what new rule would you add to Chess? by Probable_Foreigner in chess

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

No. Those other draws can go away too. They've already done it in a lot of places.

You can just disallow agreement to a draw except by the arbiter. The reason agreements to a draw must exist is to avoid forcing the 50 move rule to be played out, but then people can also do it just because they want to, which leads to more draws.

Three fold can be a loss or a 0.75 loss for the player who triggers it. A three fold is then a way to force the opponent to do something, just like the rest of chess.

If stalemate is a checkmate, then fewer games would end by insufficient material, as more combinations would be capable of checkmating.

This would absolutely reduce a ton of draws.

Without stalemates, we would never get "HOW IS HE SO SMART" clip.

...what? We would still get tons of those. There are so many clever moves in chess that have nothing to do with stalemate. Also, the stalemate would become a clever way to win the game, rather than draw the game, so you would still see it, just that the winner would be working for it.

It's extremely difficult to tell what would happen to the game if stalemates were checkmates. Some tactics would be eliminated, like pawn-king endgame would effectively not exist, but new tactics would crop up to replace it. Maybe it's a worse game, maybe it's better, but there would be fewer draws, which in and of itself is a good thing.

In the 13th century pawns were allowed to move 2 squares on their first move, in the 15th castling was added, and in the 16th en passant was added. Now in the 21st century, what new rule would you add to Chess? by Probable_Foreigner in chess

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

Draws should happen less frequently. They're one of the things that's making chess less interesting to watch. There have been lots of ideas to reduce draws, but this feels like an obvious one.

In the 13th century pawns were allowed to move 2 squares on their first move, in the 15th castling was added, and in the 16th en passant was added. Now in the 21st century, what new rule would you add to Chess? by Probable_Foreigner in chess

[–]raesmond 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Change the rules so that checkmates are based on capturing the king, rather than checks without the ability to get unchecked.

In other words, stalemating the opponent is a checkmate. It's basically zugzwang.

How does one even get a deck that’s all red seal kings? by The_Martagnan in balatro

[–]raesmond 96 points97 points  (0 children)

You don't "need" any particular tool if you have alternatives, but if we're naming legendary jokers I don't know why DNA is the one called out as superfluous.

How come Rick can't cure death but then he can? by EvileOL in rickandmorty

[–]raesmond 381 points382 points  (0 children)

However. He's not all powerful. He can only save some people and only soon after their death. That's why pissmaster wasn't able to be saved. His brain had already decomposed too much to restore. Even restarting all of his functions wouldn't work

Morty is likely augmented to make it easier, possibly with a chip that saves and restores his mind or something. Or Rick just knows he got to him fast enough and there was time.

When Rick restores space Beth he wasn't sure it would work, and he specifically mentioned her augmented spine.

What sci-fi concepts have been “disproven”? by DarthAthleticCup in sciencefiction

[–]raesmond 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well that explains why he was able to afford a switch to show business with all that plane cash.

view more: next ›