My Op-Op-Hum stupidity comment was clearly a joke. Obviously this is an exercise for the sake of exercise (i later then even did examine "doing it"). And no one said anything against a person having multiple liches in play.
The replacement will see it as N different events (see the definition of "event" that MadWarper posted), and replace any one of them.
no, it will replace the first one of them, regardless of whether it is a "next" replacement or general (although a general will probably replace the following one as well after the first resolves). And I think you may have even made point of this elsewhere in your post (or at least some of what you said may be interpreted as meaning this, which was also already stated in my second long post)
And if you read the edit on my first "long conclusion" it said that it was accurate (and it is as far as what actually printed cards can do) should interleave gain 5 at various places before going on. It also doesn't "seem" to have 1 lich, it states that there is only 1 lich.
Since you do seem to have read all the posts before replaying, why are you commenting on things which were both noted as not thorough in the post itself and then corrected more clearly in a later post?
I see you took my suggestion, and swapped what X and Y mean to match what they did in that other thread. But this one had "X" meaning the number of Liches.
No he didn't take your suggestion... it was an earlier post so you hadn't made it yet. Don't take credit for other's ideas (i'm not saying you didn't also have the idea, but just that clearly he had it first and was using his own ideas, not yours).
OK, i'm not trying to start an argument, so I will not comment on this line of thought again. It's just that you seem to have take a lot of trouble to comment to each and every post while much of what you said was unneeded or already handled earlier.
I was just going to ask why they didn't use something like Merseinne Twister. It's very quick, very random, and it shouldn't be hard to make a good shuffler off of that.
no, it will replace the first one of them, regardless of whether it is a "next" replacement or general (although a general will probably replace the following one as well after the first resolves). And I think you may have even made point of this elsewhere in your post (or at least some of what you said may be interpreted as meaning this, which was also already stated in my second long post)
And if you read the edit on my first "long conclusion" it said that it was accurate (and it is as far as what actually printed cards can do) should interleave gain 5 at various places before going on. It also doesn't "seem" to have 1 lich, it states that there is only 1 lich.
Since you do seem to have read all the posts before replaying, why are you commenting on things which were both noted as not thorough in the post itself and then corrected more clearly in a later post?
No he didn't take your suggestion... it was an earlier post so you hadn't made it yet. Don't take credit for other's ideas (i'm not saying you didn't also have the idea, but just that clearly he had it first and was using his own ideas, not yours).
OK, i'm not trying to start an argument, so I will not comment on this line of thought again. It's just that you seem to have take a lot of trouble to comment to each and every post while much of what you said was unneeded or already handled earlier.
Seems wizards is constantly pushing creature-echants, but i don't see why this will be better than any of the others.
[edit: didn't see i was also two posts higher, sorry about that, but wow, still growing... cool]
Welcome.
Welcome
but what if there's a Krark’s Thumb out and a Look at Me, I’m R&D with 2 set to be 3, and the two flips that aren't ignored are of opposite sides.
or maybe i'll also use Chance Encounter and this as a method to get that last counter.
(this is just a big joke, don't post on the legitimacy of these statements)
::throws tomato and scampers away:: :-p