Originally Posted by
mclane
This theory is wrong. These are the correct stacking compatiblities:
-Sx/So: Sx/sp (dual) > Sx/So (activity) > So/sx (semi-dual) > So/sp (benefactor) > sp/sx (supervisor) > sp/so (conflict)
-Sx/Sp: Sx/so(dual) > Sx/sp (activity) > Sp/sx (semi-dual) > Sp/so (benefactor) > So/sx (supervisor) > So/sp (conflict)
-So/Sp: So/sz (dual) > So/Sp (activity) > Sp/so (semi-dual) > Sp/sx (benefactor) > sx/so (supervisor) > sx/sp (conflict)
-Sp/So: Sp/sx (dual) > Sp/So (activity) > So/sp (semi-dual) > So/sx (benefactor) > sx/sp (supervisor) > sx/so (conflict)
-So/Sx: So/sp (dual) > So/Sx (activity) > Sx/so(semi-dual) > Sx/sp (benefactor) > sp/so (supervisor) > sp/sx (conflict)
-Sp/Sx: Sp/so (dual) > Sp/Sx (activity) > Sx/Sp (semi-dual) > Sx/so (benefactor) > so/sp (supervisor) > so/sx (conflict)
And for Etype compatibility, it depends but I've noticed these patterns:
1. good - 4,6,2,5 bad 8
2. good - 4,8,1,7 bad 3
3. good - 6,1 bad 9
4. good - 2,4,5,8,9 bad 7
5. good - 5,7,8 bad 2,3
6. good - 3,8 bad - 4,5,7
7. good - 9,2 bad - rest
8. good - 4, 6,2,9 bad 3,5,7,1
9. good - all
Wings may influence the relation.