sappidus

Members
  • Content count

    433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sappidus

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

376 profile views
  1. I'll eat my hat if anyone (NOT IN THE KNOW) has been playing the correct Hama…
  2. A minor note on this. FAQ 1.54: (Emphasis added.) Given that, I think you can hand-wave Quick Ears' "additional" into making sense. Sort of. Friggin' Quick Ears.
  3. I agree with monkeyrama's assessment, but just to play a devil's advocate: in Netrunner, there was an extremely controversial ruling wherein, basically… * One player's card said, "The first time a card is trashed this turn, such-and-such effect." * The other player's card said, essentially, "Once a turn, remove a card from a game instead of trashing it." And it was ruled that when the other player's card did its thing—a replacement effect akin to a cancellation effect—it turned off the first player's card ability for the rest of turn. Even though the first card "trashed" wasn't, in fact, trashed, the game framework added it to the ledger for the purpose of "first" references anyway. It was byzantine, and eventually one of the cards in the interaction was straight-up errata'ed to clarify the issue. Still, the point is that it's not always clear what "first" means in LCGs, which is kind of what Seastan is getting at.
  4. GrandSpleen is totally right, but here's a primary source…
  5. These numbers are somewhat overkill, I think. The classic mathematical result is that 7 riffle shuffles of a traditional deck of cards is "good enough", but even that is overkill for LotR, since not only are our player/encounter decks usually fewer than 52 cards, but also there are many duplicates. Persi Diaconis helped update his original heuristic for this problem here: https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.4698 In particular, the # of shuffles required to lose the position of a single card in a deck, if you are already ignorant of all the other cards' positions (a common situation in all card games), is usually quite low. Personally, I tend to riffle shuffle things 4-5 times in LotR.
  6. I believe it was ruled that you cannot, in fact, cheat Bofur onto the board this way: the "if you quest successfully this phase" of his effect is considered to read "if you quest/quested successfully this phase".
  7. This does raise the possibility of a house-rules mini-Nightmare mode: just include Nalir in every quest!
  8. Mayday is a common choice for LotR—my own player card collection is sleeved up in Mayday Premiums. AFAIK they're actually most known for their clear, glossy sleeves, which are not currently discounted. (Until now I wasn't even aware they made those opaque-backed ones that are on sale. Now I'm tempted to try some…) FWIW I'm quite happy with the Premiums, especially for sale price—Mayday has big sales every so often on their site. I had started with Mayday Standards but found them too flimsy for heavy play; I now use those for less-frequently played board games instead. I disagree with Rouxxor in that I feel that the Ultra-Pros are a little too big, and the Mayday Premiums are the perfect size, but it all depends in how you handle your cards, I suppose. (e.g., My Netrunner cards are in these cheapo LaTCG inner sleeves, ostensibly to be slipped into bigger ones for double-sleeving during tournaments, but I find that for the kitchen table, the inner sleeves alone work just fine for me.)
  9. Seastan recently got a ruling in the context of the Dire keyword and A Elbereth, etc., which disallowed the planned shenanigan. I'll see if I can get the precise ruling from him.
  10. None, which seems to confuse many people, but it is borne out by a careful reading of the Core rules.
  11. I don't have any specific thoughts on which might be better for you, but remember that sleeved cards "age", and both the airspace and the feel of sleeve-on-sleeve will change over a relatively short period.
  12. This typo made me laugh and laugh, in a good-natured way.
  13. Ah, fair enough.
  14. While the refresh rate may or may not be instantaneous, I note that the boldfaced is not strictly true. ::puts on math hat:: The formula used is (n+1)/[(a+1)^2], with n denoting the # of likes/votes, and a the "age". I didn't drill into the code enough to learn the time units used, but it essentially doesn't matter for the current purpose; let's just assume it's measured in days (and fractions of days). So let's say Seastan put out his latest & greatest yesterday, and it's already earned 50 upvotes. Now I publish my newest Free Peoples deck, and I'm so eager to see whether it made the front page that I click reload instantly. What does the formula yield? Well, for trigger-happy me and my deck, it sees 0 votes for a 0-day-old list, so it spits out a value of (0+1)/[(0+1)^2] = 1. For Seastan's deck, it checks the age and gets back, say, 0.7321 days. So the score for the deck is (50+1)/[(0.7321+1)^2] = 51/3 = 17. Thus, even in the instant-update case, Seastan's beats mine despite mine being as new as possible. No one is surprised. (The actual numbers used on RingsDB may be different—I do not know whether the "n" from above is a straight count of hearts or whether it mixes in weighted stars or comments somehow—but the general principle remains.) Nonetheless, you are certainly correct that getting some early recognition helps immensely in getting onto, and sticking to, the front page: among other things, there's the exposure bias, that front-page decks are generally seen more and thus more likely to get further upvotes. But in the end, I'm mostly with @dalestephenson that the vast majority of decklists I check out are from some other kind of search, not just what's on the cover. (Some more info on ranking algorithms here… Y Combinator's is very similar to RingsDB's: https://moz.com/blog/reddit-stumbleupon-delicious-and-hacker-news-algorithms-exposed)