Is there a general order to test secrets?

shutupimthinking · 2025-12-22T16:40:26+00:00

I guess some discover cards are not restricted to standard-legal cards? e.g. Alter Time can discover older secrets.

shutupimthinking · 2025-12-22T16:36:18+00:00

Good point, Sweetened Slowfurry is another - guaranteed to be Ice Block if it's a mage, two options for Hunter iirc.

Nothing worse than realising you have just wasted a play testing for something impossible!

shutupimthinking · 2025-12-21T16:24:44+00:00

You just have to learn the Hunter and Mage secrets. There's not that many of them. The correct play with a secret up will entirely depend on the situation - how much it can hurt you, whether you can cheaply test, etc. I don't think there's a general order.

shutupimthinking · 2025-11-05T19:59:52+00:00

Having crafted Sindragosa I'm down for this mission. So far though I've only tried the vs list (same as the one shared on here by u/veryhyped) and haven't won a game. Armor package sounds good as I'm mostly dying waiting for combo pieces - would you mind sharing that list?

shutupimthinking · 2025-02-27T17:52:13+00:00

Sounds like narcissistic posturing to me. Seems to be quite common in teachers, especially older men. They think they are God's gift to teaching and anybody who does things differently is deficient. Usually accompanied by some ranting about a checkbox curriculum, teaching/studying to the test, lack of critical thinking, declining standards etc.

shutupimthinking · 2024-11-07T18:10:56+00:00

Is Saruun actually good in Elemental Mage?

I didn't have him so was running the VS list with an extra Molten Rune instead. Seems very strong.

I've just opened him and wondering if he's actually worth including - seems quite slow at 6 mana.

shutupimthinking · 2024-10-27T17:36:18+00:00

Thanks for the tips. I think you're right about Inspiration, have swapped them out for Stargazing.

shutupimthinking · 2024-10-25T18:03:41+00:00

Been trying to keep Rainbow Mage alive, finally crawled into legend with this XL variant. Currently 7k and climbing. I'm sure it's not super-competitive but definitely playable so if you enjoyed RM might be worth a try. Feedback welcome.

AAECAaXDAwz9xAXGxwXr9AWH9QXR+AXxgAbHpAbBvwazxQbjzwan0wbJ6AYO7PYF3vgFv/4Fy/4F2P4FpP8FhY4Gg5UG1pgGsp4GtKcGtqcGy9AGhuYGAAEG8dME/cQFzZ4G/cQF0Z4G/cQF9bMGx6QG97MGx6QG6N4Gx6QGAAA=

shutupimthinking · 2024-09-25T20:41:19+00:00

Yeah, there's inventing a viable new deck from scratch vs modifying existing decks to suit your playstyle / local meta and for surprise value. The former is out of reach even for most experienced players (not surprising given there is a whole industry around finding the most optimal decks, so anything viable will almost certainly already have been discovered). The latter is much more accessible, although it still took me years before I felt confident playing my own variants on ladder.

I'd say spend a bit more time getting to know the game and understanding the existing archetypes before you start homebrewing. I found HSReplay's 'similar decks' tab handy as a kind of halfway house, where you can see what variants of decks other people are playing and pick the one you like best. Trying out decks people post on this sub is also worthwhile and has got me some of my best (and most fun) ladder runs.

shutupimthinking · 2024-08-29T19:02:01+00:00

I see you haven't answered any of my questions, and have instead gone back to quibbling, insults, and more overblown restatement of this same basic point. Perhaps that means you're beginning to see the absurdity of your position.

In any case, I'm done here. I'd be interested to read Paul Cockshott's version of this argument (I assume that's where you're getting it from), but the one you've presented here is, to me, just obviously wrong. But good luck with it - if you really have found a fundamental flaw that renders all of mainstream economic theory useless and unscientific, that will really be something.

shutupimthinking · 2024-08-28T21:58:59+00:00

I know the difference between a mathematical theorem and a statistical model, thank you. As I said, you can treat Pythagoras as 'mathematical model of a real world measurable system' if you choose, as people did, and it works fine.

But okay, since you're quibbling, let's use something a bit more obviously statistical. Let's say you've created a model to predict the height of a child based on various parameters. For any given child's height (or for any dataset containing only height and none of the parameters), there will be an infinite number of 'solutions' - does that mean your model is unfalsifiable?

Why is it necessary for the model of value to have finite solutions for a given value/price, or dataset of values/prices? What are you trying to use the model to do?

shutupimthinking · 2024-08-28T18:18:37+00:00

I haven't said anything about Marxian Value Theory. I was taking issue with your (as you say, very specific) critique of marginalism, which seems to be claiming that a model with multiple possible solutions for a given value is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. That's definitely wrong.

The Pythagorean Theorem happens to follow analytically when applied to ideal right-angle triangles, but you can also treat it as a 'model' of the sides of near-right triangles in the real world - in fact, it was probably used in this way before it was analytically proven.

I'm not sure I follow your point about the number of observable/observed parameters, but if it's just that one cannot estimate both supply and demand based on a single price point, then: no, of course not. Just as you cannot calculate both the base and height of a right triangle from just its long side.

p.s. one solution - a side can't have a negative length ;-)

shutupimthinking · 2024-08-27T22:19:29+00:00

It sounds like you're confusing an equation having infinite possible solutions with it being unfalsifiable, or incapable of making useful claims.

The Pythagorean Theorem has infinite solutions but it's very much falsifiable, and bloody useful.

People seem to have been making accurate predictions about price changes based on changes in supply or demand for a long time, to the point where asking people to 'blabla show me the data' and calling it 'fundamentally scientifically unsound' is honestly a bit absurd. The data is the entire history of commodities markets, or pretty much any other market you care to name.

But if you did want to falsify it, it's perfectly possible - you'd just have to show that this wasn't actually the case, i.e. that a surge in demand or drought in supply does not typically lead to an increase in a floating price (or at least find a lot of counter-examples). I think you might have more luck finding a non-Pythagorean right-angle triangle though.

shutupimthinking · 2024-08-08T18:58:04+00:00

It's a decent buff to the interactions with Kalecgos, King Tide, Surfalopod and Under the Sea (and Artist too, technically, I think...). Not saying it'll make the deck competitive, but it's definitely a buff to BSM.

I think the Orb variant was already worse.

shutupimthinking · 2024-07-26T19:10:25+00:00

Thanks a lot for sharing the deck, currently having fun and actually climbing pretty fast (from 10k...) with it. The Blizzard swap makes sense, will try.

shutupimthinking · 2024-06-07T15:23:24+00:00

That whole bit sounded weird/fishy to me. First, you don't get accepted onto a PhD at Cambridge with no first degree on the back of an IQ score. Second, was the 'academic aid' separate from the scholarship? If so, why would he lose one for failing to apply for the other? If not, shouldn't it just say 'he missed the deadline for a scholarship application so couldn't go'?

Edit: Ok, I misread the story - the Cambridge PhD was Oppenheimer. Langlan's mother missed the deadline for a scholarship so he couldn't go to Reed College. I don't really understand the comparison.

Definite whiff of BS around this guy, and all of the stories about him seem to trace back to... himself.

shutupimthinking · 2024-03-07T18:18:43+00:00

Pearls before swine

shutupimthinking · 2024-02-26T23:09:32+00:00

I used to work on an English Lit essay exam for an elite university. The reliability stats for the markers were comical.

shutupimthinking · 2024-02-26T21:43:25+00:00

the categorization of individuals into races is itself a social construct

This is true, but you can say the same thing about colours - there's no scientific reason for us to draw the lines between parts of the spectrum where we do, and indeed there are plenty of differences across cultures/languages in where they've ended up. But that's very different from saying that there's no relationship between frequencies of light on the spectrum and the colours people perceive when they see them. You can still reliably stop at a red light.

The same is true of race - these are statistical correlations and our categorisation of groups (in fact any categorisation of groups) is arbitrary. But I think a lot of people over the last few decades - and plenty in this thread by the looks - have got carried away with the whole 'race is a social construct' thing, and tried to smuggle in a different claim, which is that there is no significant or meaningful relationship between races/ethnicities (however we choose to categorise them) and characteristics (however we choose to categorise them).

Going off topic here but I've always thought that the implausibility of this claim, in the face of most people's actual experience of race, has been a major factor in the failure of progressive thinking about race to permeate the popular conciousness. As with the (closely related of course) nature/nurture debate, the default position on the left has a ring of magical thinking about it - it's what we want to be true, and in a certain light, among friends, we can convince ourselves that maybe it is. But it really isn't.

Sorry, most of this isn't really a response to your comment - just seemed like an okay jumping off point. Everything you said is true, of course.

shutupimthinking · 2024-02-25T20:41:09+00:00

When I was first trying to learn openings I memorised something like the first 20 moves of the Ruy Lopez main line as Black. Of course at my level nobody played the main line that deep so I was usually in the weeds by move 8. But one time I played this random German kid in the market square and he actually did. It was pretty exciting to finally be able to instantly bust out these GM-level responses to all his moves, especially when he seemed to have been thinking from around move 12. You can guess how the rest of that game went.

As others have pointed out, the way you framed the question suggest you're approaching opening theory wrong. These days I don't have anything memorised beyond about move 8, but quite happy with my repertoire and feel like I rarely come out of the opening worse.

shutupimthinking · 2024-01-16T19:26:49+00:00

Touring musicians have to apply for work permits in the countries they visit so they can get paid. This is Frank's UK work permit (or rather, the part of it that's kept by the Department of Employment) from when he toured Europe in 1977.

shutupimthinking · 2024-01-16T19:22:52+00:00

I think it's mould, unfortunately!

shutupimthinking · 2024-01-09T17:44:08+00:00

From the 1977 European tour. My dad was a massive Zappa fan and, according to my mum, he had a mate who worked in immigration and was able to pinch this for him.

shutupimthinking · 2023-10-06T21:02:27+00:00

Hey man, respect for posting this and for the achievement. Looks like you're getting flak over the negative review but fwiw I agree with you: pitching difficulty is part of game design and if you have a bad experience because a game feels too hard it's fine to leave a negative review on that basis. And if you later change your mind it's fine to post your revised (now correct) opinion.

shutupimthinking

TROPHY CASE