Is there any reason to use basic lands instead of basic snow-covered lands? Ever since cards like Arcum's Astrolabe and Ice-Fang Coatl were printed, there've been payoffs for having snow covered lands instead of basics, with an entirely new archetype being spawned (Snowko).
Hence there are reasons to run snow-covered lands instead of "normal" basic lands. Are there any reasons to run the regular basic lands instead of snow-covered lands? If not, then one might as well use snow-covered lands since it can conceivably bluff the opponent into thinking they're playing against a different deck, at least for the first turn.

There are plenty of cards that hose snow lands, in addition to the cards that @tehfurbolg posted.

Avalanche is MLD that only targets snow lands.
Cold Snap deals damage to each player during their upkeep equal to the number of snow lands they control.
Freyalise's Radiance prevents snow permanents from untapping.
Icequake and Thermokarst are land destruction that has an additional effect if the targeted land is a snow land.
Legions of Lim-Dûl and Rime Dryad have Snow Landwalk.
Rimefeather Owl has it's power and toughness equal to the number of snow permanents on the battlefield.
Ronom Hulk has protection from Snow, which probably doesn't do much with snow basics but if the land gets animated then they can't block Ronom Hulk.
The recntly spoiled "Reidane, God of Justice" // "Reidane's Shield" from Kaldheim has a static effect that causes snow lands your opponents control to enter the battlefield tapped


How does copying a creature with +1/+1 counters on it work? If I have a 0/0 with 13 +1/+1 counters on it and I or my opponent copies that creature, would it copy the 0/0 and die from its base power and toughness, would it be a 0/0 with 13 +1/+1 counters, or would it be a base 13/13 from copies the original creature's current power and toughness?

Copy effects copy the printed values[1] —not the current values— of the object being copied, so the copy will be a 0/0.

  706.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The “copiable values” are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.

(Emphasis mine.)

If an object is being created as a copy (e.g. Clone), some pre-existing unmentioned effect (such as the one created by Bad Moon's ability) would be needed to keep the copy alive.

If an existing object is becoming a copy (e.g. Lazav, Dimir Mastermind), pre-existing counters of its own or some pre-existing unmentioned effect (such as the one created by Arcane Flight's ability) would be needed to keep the copy alive.

If copying a token, the token's initial values are copied.


Identify old boardgame I found this game at my friend's parents. They said they custom made this from an old PC game (90's). But they forgot the name. Here is a picture of it.  The goal is to get your pieces across the board.
Its name has been lost for more than 2 decades. Thank you.

This is a wooden version of Shuttles (named for the rows that can be moved sideways) aka Impasse, Labymaster, Labyrinth, or Traject. The PC game was an implementation of this older board game from 1973.

The PC game was also called Shuttles.


what constitutes a card draw? Dragons of Tarkir has a new Planeswalker - Narset Transcendent - that, among other things, let's you "look at the top card of your library; if it's a noncreature, nonland card, you may reveal it and put it into your hand".

How does that interact with cards like Maralen of the Mornsong, which says, among other things, "Players can't draw cards"?

It only counts as a draw if the effect or rule specifically says "draw." Otherwise, it's just an action that resembles drawing a card. Specifically, Maralen of the Mornsong will not prevent you from putting cards in your hand with Narset.

This is specified by rule 120.5:

  If an effect moves cards from a player's library to that player's hand without using the word "draw," the player has not drawn those cards. This makes a difference for abilities that trigger on drawing cards and effects that replace card draws, as well as if the player's library is empty.


Why is it called "Chinese Checkers"? It is not a Checkers variant, nor did it originate in China, how could this name possibly make sense?

There seems to be surprisingly little information about the origin of the name "Chinese Checkers". The game itself was first released in 1892 in Germany as "Stern-Halma" (literally "Star-Halma"), indicating that it was a variation of Halma that was played on a star-shaped board. But there doesn't seem to be any solid information about why the name "Chinese Checkers" became associated with the game.

The only thing that I could find was a history of the game on PlayChineseCheckers.com, which despite sounding authoritative is written by an anonymous author who doesn't back its claims (not to mention has a website that looks like a GeoCities page from the 90s) and so the following passage should be taken worth a grain of salt:

  The first Chinese Checkers game to be published in the United States was 'Hop Ching Checkers' in 1928 by J. Pressman & Co. This was exact the same game as the 1892 Star-Halma. The brothers Bill and Jack Pressman made up the name 'Chinese Checkers' during or shortly after 1928. The game was given a Chinese name and theme in keeping with the current interest in all things oriental (among them the discovery of King Tut's tomb in 1922 and the 'mah jongg' game that was introduced in 1923)

I'd like to stress again that despite this being a really solid-sounding explanation, the author is anonymous and there are no sources to back up this claim, so it's not clear whether or not this is true.

After a great deal of searching, I did not manage to find a more authoritative source on the subject, so the true origins of why the game is called "Chinese Checkers" may remain a mystery.


Where do I get the mana from for cards that give me mana? If I have a card like Heart Warden or Llanowar Elves that says if I tap this card, I add one green mana to your mana pool, from where I can get this card green mana?

You get the mana from the card itself, and you just remember that you have it for now.

I suspect you may be confusing lands with mana and thinking that this card gives you a forest card. They're different concepts completely. This is a common way for new players to get confused.

Mana is a currency that goes up and down during your turn. Lands, and creatures like Heart Warden, are ways to get this currency. Forests, for example, implicitly have exactly the same ability, and in fact that ability used to be written on the card:

Nowadays forests just have the symbol for green mana instead, but it means the same thing:

Forests give you green mana. Llanowar Elves will also give you green mana. To cast a spell that requires 3 mana, you can tap 2 forests and 1 Llanowar Elves to get 3 mana, then spend that 3 mana to cast the spell.

For more information on this, I suggest you read the Magic 2015 Quickstart Rules, page 4 on Lands.


When might a Standard American bidder "bend" the five card major rule? "Five card majors" is the foundation of the Standard American system. Yet rules are made to be broken under special circumstances.

My understanding is that some bidders will adhere to "five card majors" in first and second position, but bid good four card majors (say, KQxx or better) in third and fourth position. The rationale appears to be that if your partner has already passed, you are the "captain" of the team, and the cost of misleading partner is less than if partner hadn't spoken. In this case, partner may use the Drury convention to find out if you are bidding a four or five card major.

Another variation I've heard is that "five card majors" must apply to hearts, but need not apply to spades (with or without the third and fourth seat variation referred to above). The reason is that a bid of x spades beats out a bid of x hearts, but you need to go to x+1 hearts to beat out an x spades bid. So there is a greater need of the fifth card in hearts.

Which experts or variations basically follow Standard American but allow deviations from "five card majors" under particular circumstances?

First, note that playing 4-card majors an opening of 1 Heart or 1 Spade is about 80% likely to be on a five card or longer suit. Thus players of a 4-card major system are already almost playing five-card majors. Bridge theorists and players for the past century have determined that even this slight difference in probability (80% vs 100% for a f+ card bid suit) is significant enough to require a significantly different tool kit for accurate bidding.

That said, there is then one simple pre-requisite for bending the always shows five or more cards rule:

You have no desire to ever play with this partner again, or with any opponent or kibitzer present.

The only exception to the above is when all of the above conditions are met:

You are in 3rd seat.
You do not have a no-trumpish hand.
You have thoroughly discussed with partner the circumstances and hand types which make this bid, and even more importantly those which do not make this bid, and properly summarized those on your convention card.
You are playing a Drury variant which allows responder to inquire on suit length and hand strength.


How does copying work with Storm? I control Pyromancer Ascension that has enough quest counters on it:

  Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell (...), you may copy that spell. You may choose new targets for the copy.

I play Grapeshot. Suppose I've cast 3 spells this turn, so I will Storm 3 times if Grapeshot resolves normally. Pyromancer Ascension is going to copy it. Now what happens?

Grapeshot goes on the stack Stormed thrice, then the copy goes on the stack Stormed 4 times.
Both Grapeshot and the copy goes on the stack Stormed thrice.

I'm not very familiar with the Storm mechanic or the copy mechanic. Please correct me if I'm totally wrong.

Neither of those events happen. Discounting the illegal interaction between Cloven Casting and Grapeshot, instead reference Twincast or Howl of the Horde.

Simplest path: you've cast 3 spells this turn, then cast Grapeshot. When you cast Grapeshot, you create copies of it for each spell you cast before it.

There are 4 objects named Grapeshot on the Stack, 3 copies and 1 represented by the card.

You then cast Twincast, targeting a copy of Grapeshot on the stack. You create an additional copy, but since you didn't cast this Grapeshot, the Storm effect doesn't Trigger.

5 objects named Grapeshot are on the stack, 4 copies and 1 represented by a card.


"At the beginning of the end step" meaning and comparison to "your end step" and "each end step" So, the difference between "At the beginning of your end step" and "At the beginning of each end step" is pretty obvious, but what is the meaning of "At the beginning of the end step" and how does it compare to other two?

All three wordings are present on cards and seem to be used on new cards, here are examples from recent standard sets:

Thassa, Deep-Dwelling: "At the beginning of your end step"

Underworld Breach: "At the beginning of the end step"

Resplendent Angel: "At the beginning of each end step"

"At the beginning of the end step" refers to any player's end step.

That wording is equivalent to "At the beginning of each end step", but it is used for abilities that are expected to trigger only once, often because the ability instructs you to sacrifice the permanent it is on.


Bonus continent troops in Risk So I have taken over all of Australia and I get 2 extra troops.

My friend then attacks Indonesia from Southeast Asia. When it's my turn I retake control of Indonesia.  Now, do I get 2 more bonus troops since I retook control over the continent?

You gain bonus troops at the start of your turn for controlling an entire continent so as long as you still control Eastern Australia, Indonesia, New Guinea and Western Australia at the start of your next turn you will get the two bonus troops. It doesn't matter if you lose and regain control of all area's in a continent but if you have that control at the start of your turn.


Does an Ebonblade Reaper holding a Quietus Spike kill players? Ebonblade Reaper:

  Whenever Ebonblade Reaper attacks, you lose half your life, rounded up.
  Whenever Ebonblade Reaper deals combat damage to a player, that player loses half his or her life, rounded up.

Quietus Spike:

  Whenever equipped creature deals combat damage to a player, that
  player loses half his or her life, rounded up.

An Ebonblade Reaper hits a player while equipped with a Quietus Spike. Assuming no other effects, does the player lose the game?

My interpretation:

Ebonblade Reaper deals 1 combat damage to a player.
The Reaper and Quietus Spike triggered abilities are put onto the stack.
Each effect causes that player to lose half their life.
That player loses.

No, it doesn't work like that. The triggers decide how much damage to do when they resolve, not when they're put onto the stack.

So if your opponent were at 21 (to make things simple) it'd go like this:

Ebonblade Reaper deals 1 damage, putting them at 20. Both triggers go on the stack.
The first of the triggers resolves, making them lose 10 life, putting them at 10.
The second of the triggers resolves, making them lose 5 life, putting them at 5.

You do get to pick what order the triggers go on the stack, but it doesn't really matter, since they're doing the same thing.


Why might a leader propose a team they don't plan to approve? In a previous question a commenter mentioned that team leader might propose a team, that they don't intend to approve.

Presumably this has something to do with either seeing how other people vote to ascertain if they are spys or not, or sowing discord if the leader is a spy themself.

Can you provide some specific examples where a leader might do this?

Scenario 1:

It is round 2 of a 6-player game, so 3 players are needed for the mission. Alice (loyal) is the leader and strongly (but silently) suspects Bob of being a traitor, perhaps due to a "tell". Carol also suspects Bob and is strongly saying so, and Bob is playing offended.

Alice nominates all three of herself, Bob, and Carol for the mission. She knows that Carol will vote no and will vote no herself, so if even one other member is skeptical the vote will fail. Meanwhile, Alice carefully watches the votes from Donald, Elaine, and Frank. A yes vote, especially a single yes vote, is a suggestion that one of those players is a co-spy; not an ironclad proof, but a possibly-important hint.

Scenario 2:

Same situation, but in this game Alice is a spy. Carol's suspicions about Bob are baseless. Alice still goes through the motions of this charade even though Bob and Carol are both loyal, to throw off suspicion that would arise because she is not going through her typical plan.


Forbidden Island Engineer's power? In Forbidden Island, must the Engineer be either on or adjacent to a tile to shore it up?

From the manual:

Any character can shore up a tile that is either adjacent or underneath them. The engineer is listed as an exception because he can shore up 2 tiles per action. It doesn't indicate any other requirements or exceptions for the Engineer. It does distinctly say they must be for one action so you can't spread it around.

Some think that you can shore up two tiles away:

  The group I played with argued that he could shore up two tiles in a straight "line". That is, one adjacent tile plus the one next in line, adjacent to that adjacent tile. So, shoring up a tile that has a tile between it and the tile he/she is standing on.

but the general consensus is this is incorrect. Nothing in the rules indicate that. The ability doesn't say he can shore up two adjacent tiles but 2 tiles which inherit the previous property of adjacent to the player.


If someone casts an aura on my creature, do I still control the creature? Some spells and abilities let you gain control of a permanent. Most of the time, this means the card will move from your opponent's side to yours. But for Auras or Equipment attached to other cards, the controller changes but it doesn't move.

I'm very new to MTG, and read official rules (above) - it says that if someone adds an aura on my creature, this means that I'm no longer controller of that creature.
So, for example, someone casts Sleep Paralysis on one of my creatures. After, I want to use Fling. Can I sacrifice my creature tapped by Sleep Paralysis?
Or, for example, I want to cast Certain Death on my creature tapped by Sleep Paralysis. Will I get 2 damage, or my opponent? I'm very confused about creature controlling.

Some spells and abilities let you gain control of a permanent

Sleep Paralysis does not change control of permanents. Lay Claim is an example of an Aura that changes control of a permanent. It has

  You control enchanted permanent.

This ability transfers control of the enchanted permanent.

  Most of the time, this means the card will move from your opponent's side to yours.

Say you have a creature to which you have a Bone Saw attached, and your opponent attaches Lay Claim to your creature.

Your opponent controls the creature, so it moves to their side, and they can attack with it and use its abilities (but you can't). You can't sacrifice it to Fling (but they can), and they would lose life if it's targeted by Certain Death (and you wouldn't). It even gets the +1/+0 from Bone Saw.

However, you still control Bone Saw. As an Aura or Equipment, it physically stays with the creature to which is attached. Only you can use its activated ability (say to equip Bone Saw to a creature you still control).

  But for Auras or Equipment attached to other cards, the controller changes but it doesn't move.

Say you have a creature to which you have a Bone Saw attached, and your opponent attaches Lay Claim to Bone Saw (not the creature).

You control the creature, so it stays on your side, and you can attack with it and use its abilities. You can sacrifice it to Fling, and you would lose life if it's targeted by Certain Death. It even gets the +1/+0 from Bone Saw.

However, your opponent controls Bone Saw. As an Aura or Equipment, it physically stays with the creature to which is attached. Only they can use its activated ability (say to equip Bone Saw on one of their own creatures).


What happens when more than one creature dies causing a trigger Overseer of the Damned is a creature with the ability "Whenever a nontoken creature an opponent controls dies, put a 2/2 black Zombie creature token onto the battlefield tapped"

Now, lets say 3 of my opponent's creatures die either through combat, spells, or sacrificing. Could I put the triggered ability on the "stack" so to say in order to get 3 2/2 black zombies for each non token creature that died that my opponent controlled, or am I forced to put one and only one despite 3 creatures dying?

If an ability triggers each time a creature dies, then it triggers once for each creature that died, not just for each event where one or more creatures died.

Rule 700.1 says

  Anything that happens in a game is an event. Multiple events may take place during the resolution of a spell or ability. The text of triggered abilities and replacement effects defines the event they’re looking for. One "happening" may be treated as a single event by one ability and as multiple events by another.

in addition, rule 603.2c says

  An ability triggers only once each time its trigger event occurs. However, it can trigger repeatedly if one event contains multiple occurrences.

In this particular case, that means that even though the creatures died at the same time, they count as different events for the purpose of triggers that look for individual deaths.


Which cards count as having been banned or restricted for Spike, Tournament Grinder's tutor ability? In the new unset, Unstable, Spike, Tournament Grinder can tutor for any current or previously banned or restricted card from outside the game.

Specifically this ability:

  ϕϕϕϕ: Choose a card you own from outside the game that has been banned or restricted in a Constructed format, reveal that card, and put it into your hand.

Which cards are on that list, as of the last B&R announcement ( October 17, 2017 )?

First of all, keep in mind that all Un-set questions are always up to interpretation, and may be played different by different playgroups. Although I try to be as precise as possible, due to the lack of official rulings, no definitive answer can be given.
Currently Banned/Restricted Cards
A list of currently banned cards can be found at the official Wizards pages. This is the most readable of all the online sources I'm aware of, and should also be the one that's kept up to date most reliably.
Previously Banned/Restricted Cards in Common Formats
I'm not aware of any official list specifically composed for this purpose, but there are other sources that more or less specific for this purpose will help with the search:

Scryfall (a third-party card search engine) added a custom search tag for Spike-tutorable cards.
The Timeline of Banned/Restricted Cards on the GamePedia MtG Wiki.
A Reddit thread, trying to gather all cards by community effort (Malco's answer provides a copy of that list)

Basically, you would be able to tutor for any card from these lists, provided that the list is accurate.
Previously Banned Cards in Commander and Other Formats
As the previously linked pages don't cover the Commander format, you may resort to the official changelog, which keeps track of bans, but doesn't provide any info prior to September 2009. Whichever logic you apply, going by that list will likely be the most sensible thing to do, simply because of its official origin. That said, there should be other threads you'll find, pointing you towards history further back in time, such as this one that has been suggested in the comments.
Furthermore, there are many more widely played formats (such as Tiny Leaders) I could provide a link to, but the reality is that if you include all those formats in your definition of previously banned, some person will eventually just invent a format that bans every card but basic lands, and therefore will be able to tutor all cards.
A Note on Ante Cards
Ante cards are tutorable, but due to the way they function, they won't reap you any benefits, as confirmed by Mark Rosewater:

Q: Can Spike, Tournament Grinder get ante cards?
A: Ante no longer exists, so they aren’t usable.

In other words, while you can tutor banned or restricted cards, you won't necessarily be able to use them due to the magnitude of changes to the rules over time. Then again, this would also be subject to different interpretations of Un-sets, as stated in the beginning, so your mileage may vary.


Where can I find price-lists for Star Trek CCG cards? I have some Star Trek CCG cards from the Decipher game in the 1990s. I'm looking to discover if any of these cards have economic value.

I've tried looking at starcitygames.com and tcgplayer.com, but neither seems to cover older CCG games. I checked ebay but people's asking prices are varied and I suspect unrealistic. I know Scrye magazine used to list prices but that's out of print.

Are there any online or paper sources for Star Trek CCG card pricelists?

Ebay is a good way to offload cards, although the "value" you get is sometimes questionable. For example, the Future Enterprise can sell for anything from £20 to £40 depending who is watching/buying, but then you might buy 1,000 cards for £12 and get 2 of them (i've recently won a bid for 1,000+ cards for £22, and the only reason I went this high is because I could see a small stack of cards which i have hardly any from that set!).

Bulk sales will sell the cards quicker, and will get more people at least watching, but you will get less in return. I have tried to sell stacks of 200 randoms starting at £2, but had no interest at all - yet a friend sold half-a-dozen 3/4 card lots for £1-2 each, simply because the buyers could see the cards.

If you know your cards, it might be worth splitting them into lots of 3/4 Rares, and start these listed at £1 or some similar value. You again will be unlikely to get their full "value" but will get more from a sizable collection than either blind-bulk sales, or holding on to them for a "rainy day" - because as people have said, they are unlikely to increase in price.

Depending what you have... I might even be interested!! :¬D


Dice with an average roll of zero? Are there dice that have both positive and negative numbers, where the average result is zero?  I'm imagining a die labeled something like: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2.  I feel like I've seen dice like this, but I'm not sure what they'd be called or how to find them.

Probably the most commonly available ones are called Fudge dice, as used in the Fudge/FATE roleplaying games.

A Fudge die is a six-sided die with the following sides: minus, minus, blank, blank, plus, plus.

Games generally have players rolling a couple of Fudge dice together and adding them up, which creates a curved probability distribution centered around zero. 3dF, for example, gives you a range from -3 to +3, with 0 as the mean, median, and mode.

This Wikipedia article has more information.


How Unethical Is A Purely "Blocking" Move In Ticket To Ride? Here's a scenario to illustrate my question.  My wife and I were playing Ticket To Ride: Nordic Countries earlier this evening - apologies if you don't own this particular edition, but hopefully the basic situation will be obvious to anyone who's played any TTR, even if you're unfamiliar with the map.

We'd both drawn a poor selection of Destination cards and kept only two each.  My first play was Orebro - Stockholm.  The next two routes were played by my wife: Kobenhavn - Karlskrona, and Karlskrona - Norrkoping.  At this point, with a spare red ticket in my hand, I opportunistically played Stockholm - Norrkoping!

With both the southern entries to Stockholm blocked, my poor wife now had no choice, if she wanted to link Kobenhavn to the top right segment of the board, to undertake a cruelly circuitous route, involving three turns and ten tickets, instead of one single ticket and a single turn.  I patiently endured the two minutes of dire recriminations and imprecations that followed my dastardly move, and ended up winning the game by in the region of 20 points - hardly a landslide.

I'm just wondering whether this kind of thing would be considered poor sportsmanship in other groups.  I ask because there was a question on this very site about whether it was poor form, in Settlers of Catan, to pretend to want to trade for a good, to sneakily fish for information before playing a Monopoly card.  To me that seems like a perfectly sensible procedure, but a lot of people seemed horrified at such unsportsmanlike practice!

There's an argument that one should play Ticket to Ride only "by the book" - making only plays that actively help to score Destination cards in one's hands.  I would counter that, in an exclusively 2/3 player game like Nordic Countries, blocking one or both of the other players can be just as beneficial as straightforwardly aiming to score routes, if not more so.  If another player has drawn and kept 5 amazingly compatible routes and I am going to struggle with my 2, why is it unfair for me to "even the odds" a little by throwing a spanner into my opponent's works?  Essentially, I don't understand why it's okay for me to try to crush an opponent by "above board" means, and not okay to do that by "devious" play.

In a game with many players I think a purely blocking move could be slightly more dubious, on the ground that it will probably only mess with some players, allowing others to pull ahead: it's kingmaking, basically, and that can be really annoying.  But is there anything wrong with such tactics in a 2-3 player game, where it can obviously be an effective route to victory?  Would a player who regularly tries to spoil your plans rather than concentrate on his own be persona non grata before too long?

Certainly it really gets my wife's goat - I'm lucky I'm not sleeping on the couch tonight!

There seems nothing unethical about such a move - opposite to your example of pretending to want to trade (which in my book is clearly unethical because it involves active lying), this move is just one of two main winning strategies:

Get more points for yourself
Limit points of the opponents

There is no lying or obfuscation - you are making it harder to win for the opponent by legal game means without any metagaming (like looking at an opponent's cards or hustling opponents into telling you some information which you shouldn't know while playing by the rules, like in your Settlers example).

Basically this move could be similar to a situation in Settlers when you put a robber on someone and also yourself - you are losing something (a turn in TTR) but in certain situations limiting the opponent more.


When you change the skill used, do any modifiers for the original skill still count? There are several cards and powers that can change what skill is being used to pass a task: Incredible Ninja Leap uses Climbing for any skill, among others. ("I don't need to disguise myself to get past the Vatican tourists, I just leap over them from a nearby building!")

What does changing the skill you roll do to modifiers to the original skill roll? If your mission has a Combat test, and one of your opponents plays "Slipped!" on you to give -3 to your next Combat roll (i.e., this roll), but you change the skill to Climbing, does that -3 still apply to your roll? If there's a whole-mission penalty to Combat (such as "-2 to all Combat rolls on this mission"), does it still apply?

Modifiers related to the old skill are discarded and don't count, unless they are Mission bonuses/penalties. rules

  Skill Substitution: Some special abilities and cards allow the ninja to substitute one skill for another. In this case, the roll is against the new skill. If the Mission card specified bonuses or penalties to the roll, they still apply to the new skill. However, cards relating to the old skill can no longer be used (and if they had already been used, they are discarded without effect). For instance, “Little Kids Watching” affects Disguise skill. If you sub- stitute another skill for Disguise, then “Little Kids Watching” can no longer affect that roll.

In your first example, the new skill is Climbing not combat, so your opponents -3 Combat modifier doesn't apply and is discarded. In your second example, the mission is specifying a -2 Combat modifier, its -2 Mission penalty continues to apply to the new skill.


Are cut cards reshuffled in blackjack? In blackjack, card deck is reshuffled once there are less than 60 to 75 undrawn cards left in the deck. Are these cards included in next shuffle session and then cut again, or are these particular cards thrown away for all deals in the session?

When a shoe is shuffled (or reshuffled), all cards are shuffled, then the cut card is placed near the back of the shoe.  This card is only an indicator that the shoe needs to be reshuffled at the end of the current hand.  Thus, cards behind the cut card can and will be played into the hand.  The purpose of the cut card's placement is two-fold: first, it's to ensure that enough cards exist so the hand can be played out even under the worst conditions (e.g. 6 players splitting and drawing 5 could, theoretically require 60 cards).  Second, it's to discourage card counting as any form of keeping track of the cards seen increases one's odds as the shoe runs down.  Not using the last part of the shoe, thus, eliminates the worst of the counting problem, though it doesn't eliminate it entirely.


Can Ronan of the Wild use Pico himself? In the Descent 2nd Edition expansion pack Call of the Wild there is a new hero named Ronan of the Wild. His hero ability gives him the familiar named Pico.

Pico's card states:

  During another hero's turn, if that hero is adjacent to Pico, he may search a search token in the space containing Pico (this does not require an action).

Does this mean that Ronan himself cannot use Pico's ability, or is Pico being considered the hero in this sentence?

If Ronan cannot use this ability himself, what was possibly the balance decision behind that? Would it hurt the game much to allow Ronan to use Pico's ability himself? I understand that the #1 reason heroes get too strong is from gear, which is obtained by getting search tokens, and that getting them basically for free is fairly powerful, but I do not understand why Ronan himself can't do it, when it is his own ability.

Yes, this does mean that Ronan cannot use Pico's ability himself.

How is this balanced? Pico's ability grants something that, while it sounds minor, is actually very significant: several free actions.

In a typical Descent map, there will be around 6-10 search tokens, meaning that to collect all of the tokens the heroes will collectively need to spend 6-10 actions during the course of the game. These actions are not used for other purposes, such as Attacking to remove enemies, Moving to progress through the map, or even Resting to recover temporary resources like Fatigue. The cost of gaining the gold and effects associated with those search cards is the opportunity of doing something else.

By giving any other hero the ability to complete Search action for free this is recovering those 6-10 actions for the players, allowing them to be used for clearing monsters faster or recovering Fatigue or Wounds. Combine that with the fact that Ronan himself is a Scout archetype who can take the Treasure Hunter class, and you now have a single character that nearly eliminates the opportunity cost of searching for the entire party.

So to balance out that powerful ability, FFG decided to limit Pico's power to only apply to other party members, making Ronan a Party Support character that compliments other characters rather than standing out exclusively on his own.


Is False Lead's effect activated when it is forfeited by another card's effect? Is the text interpreted as
"When this agenda is forfeited: if the runner has 2 or more clicks remaining, they lose 2 clicks." or
"Forfeit this agenda to activate this ability: if the runner has 2 or more clicks remaining, they lose 2 clicks."?
For example, would the runner lose 2 clicks if False Lead was forfeited as an additional cost to Archer?

False Lead is not activated when forfeited by another card.  That's because the ability on False Lead is a Paid Ability, not a Conditional Ability.

A card’s trigger cost is always listed in its text box before the
effect, following the format “cost: effect.” A paid ability can be
triggered an unlimited number of times as long as the cost is
paid and any restrictions specified by the effect are observed.

By being a Paid Ability, forfeiting False Lead is an explicit cost of the ability, and must be paid in service of activating the ability.
As a result, you can't both forfeit False Lead to pay for Archer (which requires forfeiting an agenda as part of it's rez cost) and to pay for False Lead's ability.  False Lead can only be forfeited once.  Since, both cards require False Lead to be forfeited as a cost, you have to chose one.
In order for False Lead to work as you imagine, it would need to say something like: "When you forfeit False Lead, the runner loses [click] [click]."


What is the name of this game? I used to play this card game a lot but I haven't in many years and have forgotten nearly everything about the game. All I can remember is that it's a single player card game, you arrange the cards into a triangle with -I may be wrong about this part- the first layer of the triangle with cards face down and the other -or at least next layer- face up. Also, it was played with a standard 52 card deck i think.
      It may be a japanese game because I lived in japan for a large portion of my life and may have learned it there, and I don't remember where I leaned it.

If anyone has any ideas at to what the name of the game is, please tell me even if it's a guess. Thank you

From Wikipedia's List of patience (i.e. solitaire) games, there are three that I could find with a triangular layout, plus one with three triangles, that might be the one you're thinking of:

Pyramid
Bowling
Tree Solitaire
Tri Peaks

I'm going to guess Pyramid, since I believe it's more well-known than Bowling or Tree.


Helping without being asked, is this legal? My brother and his friend were playing Munchkin Legends, and my brother helped him when it wasn't asked of or needed. He then stated that he was in the battle, and he tried to run away, even though he wasn't the one fighting or needed. He then played the Lemming Parade card so his friend had to run away. His friend and I thought that that was against the rules because my brother wasn't the one who had to run away. Is it against the rules?

No, a player may not foist help upon you.
The rules state "you may ask any other player to help you" at which point the player may accept or deny the request. There is no "involuntary" help.

In addition, in your specific case, since help was not needed, even requesting help is not allowed, according to the official Munchkin FAQ:

Q. Am I allowed to ask for help if I am currently winning the fight? The rules say I can ask for help if I'm losing, but nothing about if I'm winning.
A. That's because if you're winning, you don't need help, and a true munchkin would never ask for help he doesn't need. Unless a card says otherwise (and a couple do, for their own weird reasons), you may not ask for help if you are winning a combat.

Source: Official FAQ


Mermaids: city spanning over many river branches Is it possibile to have a mermaids' city split into three small pieces all just one river hex far each another?

No. The Mermaids' ability only lets you use one river hex to connect a city together. From the rules:

You may skip one River space when founding a Town. (You decide if and when you want to use this ability. When founding a Town in this fashion, put the Town tile on the skipped River space. Of course, you may build Bridges as usual.)

The reminder text also supports this fact since it emphasizes that you place the "Town tile on the skipped River space" which would be ambiguous if you were not limited to using only one river hex. Without this clarification, it would be hard to determine where one directly-adjacent city ends and the next begins on the river.


Making a family card game playable online My family has a version of "Muggins" that has been handed down from generation to generation (at least 3 generations, maybe more).   The rules that we play by are different than other versions that I've been able to find online or in rule books.

I'd really like to be able to make this game playable online so that our family can log in and play it together over the internet.  What is the best way to define the rules of a card game into a multi-player internet website?

VASSAL was made for precisely this: it's a game engine/website where you can build games, and then play the games you built online. There are a wide variety of existing games already built for VASSAL, but Muggins is not one of them.

This will not be simple: you're going to need to learn how to program the game using VASSAL's editor. It'll take time and effort, but you will be able to re-create your family game of Muggins, house rules and all. Once you've built the game (the site calls it a "module"), VASSAL will host the game, so your family can join; you don't need to worry about the details of building a website yourself. VASSAL is free, though the site appreciates donations to keep it running.


In Puerto Rico, what is the significance of coins being put each round on people that are not chosen? Does this pretty much ensure that every role will be chosen after two or three rounds? (Unless there is a huge surplus of roles to players.) Coins are valuable (in most aspects of the game) after all.

Put another way, is there ever a role so lacking in value that an inducement of two to three coins would not be enough to entice players to take it?

It has two purposes:

As you say, it ensures that every role gets taken, and that no role goes entirely unloved for too long. There are multiple paths to victory in Puerto Rico, and most of them require some combination of roles to be taken: a shipping strategy requires Settler/Mayor to set up and Craftsman/Captain to execute, a building strategy requires Builder plus Craftsman/Trader (or some other income methods), etc. Putting coins on unloved roles means that if 3 players go for one strategy and one player goes for a different one, that one player's favorite roles (or unloved-but-required supporting roles) will still be chosen, even by people not following that player's strategy. It pushes all of the players at the table to make the game friendly to all strategies.
Some roles are weaker than others, and putting money on the roles makes them more tempting. Craftsman is a classic "weak" role, because the person who takes it will usually have last choice in the next shipping/trading phase. (Unless they're clever with the end of the round and the movement of the Governor role.) This is mostly just fine-tuning the power of the various role cards: if some cards are weaker than others, then add a little cash so they're not quite so weak.


Does Mogg Sentry gain +2/+2 for each spell? I was playing with a friend who has Mogg Sentry on the field I then play Champion of the Parish and Vexing Devil.  Does Mogg Sentry become a 5/5 creature until end of turn or is it just a 3/3?

Mogg Sentry becomes a 5/5 until end of turn. Mogg Sentry's ability triggers once for each occurrence of "opponent casts a spell."

  603.2c An ability triggers only once each time its trigger event occurs. However, it can trigger repeatedly if one event contains multiple occurrences. See also rule 509.4.


Strategy for Ultimate Tic Tac Toe Ultimate Tic Tac Toe is played on 3x3 setup of regular Tic Tac Toe boards.
Playing on a spot inside a board, determines the next board in which the opponent must play their next move. The goal is to win a three in a row boards. You can play your next move at any board if you are directed to play in a full board or a board that has been won.

If the last sentence (rule) is excluded, then the game has been solved and has a winning strategy for the first player. But otherwise, the game is unsolved it seems. This was mentioned on the site some years ago.
I known of computer implementations of the game that use Monte Carlo or similar methods.
But are there known strategies that a human can apply and use?
Something like favorable or recommended openings for 1st player, and responses for 2nd player?

I am not an expert but here is my 2 cents:

Recommended opening for 1st player: the middle of the the middle board.
Try not to let your opponent play in the middle board.  Do it by completing 3-in-a-row without the middle in the non-middle boards.
focus on the boards that matter: I have seen games where one player had won 5 boards but lost.


What's the optimal setup for Cluedo: The Great Museum Caper? Has the math been done on an optimal setup of security cameras and painting locations in Cluedo: The Great Museum Caper...?

I am not sure if anyone has actually used math to calculate the optimal strategy. That would of course require the correct play strategy for the camera strategy to really be the "optimal". This person has a thorough explanation of a strategy including the why.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/598248/pretty-hard-to-beat-4-player-setup


Too few resource cards to distribute, but only one player receiving that resource type. Do they get the cards? Let's set up a simple example to illustrate what I'm getting at:

A player has a city bordering an ore tile, and they are the only player with a settlement bordering an ore tile.
There is only 1 ore resource card left in the "bank".
Someone rolls for resource production and it causes the ore tile to produce 2 ore for the city owned by the player in question.

Do they get the 1 remaining ore resource card?

Personally, I would assume no. The rules do state that if there are not enough resources of a given type to distribute, nobody gets anything. But this situation is a little different just because there is only one player receiving resources.

I'll note that I've never actually had this happen, but am working on a computer based simulation and am trying to be precise.

Yes, the lone player gets the cards.
The Official FAQ at catan.com answers this directly.

Resource Cards - In case not enough Resource Cards of a certain type are available, does a player get nothing even if he is the only one to receive this resource?
No. In this case, he receives all available Resource Cards of this type.


Diplomacy rule application The Diplomacy rules state that

  In some rare cases, orders are written so that an Army could arrive at its destination either by land or convoy. When this happens, the following qualifiers apply:
  If at least one of the convoying Fleets belongs to the player
     who controls the Army, then the convoy is used. The land
     route is disregarded.
  If none of the convoying Fleets belongs to the player who
     controls the Army, then the land route is used. However, the
     player controlling the Army can use the convoy route if he
     or she indicated “via convoy” on the Army move order
     in question.
  This prevents foreign powers from kidnapping an Army and convoying it against its will.

How would moving by convoy (regardless of whose Fleet is convoying) ever effect gameplay? How would it be any different from moving by land?

Here is an example.

A BEL-HOL
F NTH C BEL-HOL
F HOL-BEL

Two pieces can trade places if and only if one of them is convoyed. So in the above examples, BEL and HOL trade places because BEL is convoyed. Without the fleet to convoy, the two pieces in HOL and BEL would bounce and stay in their respective palces.


Is there a reason effects that introduce another combat phase also create another main phase? In Magic, there are a number of effects that create an additional combat phase. In any example I've seen, they either also create an additional main phase, or else they can only be cast/activated during combat (meaning the additional combat phase will happen, followed by the next main phase). Is there a reason for this? (Besides the reason of: the game designers designed it that way)

A different way of phrasing my question could be: would something hinder the game from continuing if an effect caused combat to not be followed by a main phase? (For example, Precombat Main Phase -> Combat -> Postcombat Main Phase -> Additional Combat -> End Step)

If not, has any justification been given for the apparent design rule that a main phase should always happen before the End Step?

No, there is nothing preventing this from a rules perspective.  Maintaining the flow of the turn (as murgatroid99 mentioned) is probably why this template has been preserved over time, but the origin of this template comes from the fact that the early rules of the game did not support such a turn structure.

Up through 5th Edition, combat did not have its own phase.  "Attacking" was an optional action that you could enter during your Main Phase.  Entering combat was essentially a special action a player could choose to take like playing a land.  As such, combat was wholly contained within a singular Main Phase, and combat was not standalone.  The very first card to do this kind of effect was Relentless Assault from Visions.  The relevant part of the original text was this:

  You may declare an additional attack during your main phase this turn.

So this automatically functioned the way it does today since every combat happened within a Main Phase and would kick you back out to the Main Phase when they were complete.  When combat was promoted to its own phase in the Sixth Edition rules update and split up the Main Phase to pre- and postcombat, the card received a new printing with wording that would allow it to function the same under the new rules:

  You get an additional combat phase followed by an additional main phase this turn.

After that, this kind of wording became the standard for effects that create additional combats in the turn.  Wizards tends to normalize templates for effects that are used on multiple cards so that players don't have to remember the slight differences between the different implementations, and this has been the basis for templating this particular effect from that point onward.


How does multikicker work? I don't understand Strength of the Tajuru. What does multikicker mean, and how would I use it in a game?

First, in order to understand how Multikicker works you have to understand how Kicker works. What Kicker {cost} means is that when you cast the spell (before you do anything like choose targets or determine cost) you decide if you are going to 'kick' the spell, if you do you pay {cost} in addition to any other costs of the spell, and it will have a different effect if it was kicked. For example Ardent Soldier has Kicker {2} and If Ardent Soldier was kicked, it enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it. So when you cast the Soldier if you pay an additional {2} it will enter the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter. Normally you can only kick a spell once, but what Multikicker allows you to do is kick the spell as many times as you can pay for.

Strength of the Tajuru can be a little confusing since it has an {X} in its cost in addition to the Multikicker. How it will work is you decide how many counters you want to place on each creature, this value will be the {X} in the cost, then you decide how many creatures you want to target, the first one is free every additional one cost {1} from the Multikicker. So your final cost would come out to {X}{# of targets - 1}{G}{G}.

From the Gatherer Rulings:

  For example, if you want to put four +1/+1 counters on each of three different targets, that means X is 4 and you're kicking the spell twice. You'll pay a mana cost of {4}{G}{G}, plus a kicker cost of {1}, plus another kicker cost of {1}, for a total of {6}{G}{G}.

Strength of the Tajuru is probably the most complicated of the multikicker cards, most of them are much simpler, take for example Apex Hawks. The Hawks have Multikicker {1}{W} and Apex Hawks enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it for each time it was kicked., what this means is as you cast the Hawks you can pay {1}{W} as many times as you want in addition to the regular cost of the spell, and for every time you do that it gets a +1/+1 counter. So if you payed {3}{W}{W}{W} for the Multikicker it would enter the battlefield with 3 +1/+1 counters.


Who draws a card if my opponent has stolen control of Pelakka Wurm when it dies? If an opponent casts Act of Treason to gain control of Pelakka Wurm then sacrifices it who will draw the card?

Your opponent would draw the card. When an ability triggers, what matters is who controlled the object with the ability (in this case the Pelakka Wurm) when it triggered. With "dies" triggers, what matters is who controlled it just before it died.

112.8. The controller of an activated ability on the stack is the player who activated it. The controller of a triggered ability on the stack (other than a delayed triggered ability) is the player who controlled the ability's source when it triggered, or, if it had no controller, the player who owned the ability's source when it triggered. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.
603.6d Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. The game has to “look back in time” to determine if these abilities trigger.


Does Storm count opponents' spells? The definition of storm (such as in Grapeshot) is:

  Storm (When you play this spell, put a copy of it onto the stack for each other spell that was played before it this turn. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for any number of the copies.)

Does Storm count the spells played by the opponent?

This definition does not specify if the spell are played by the controller of the "Storm-card" or by the opponent. I read this article and it does not clarify my doubt.

I ask this because the owner of my local shop told me that Storm does not count enemy spells and he is a kind of judge.

You get a copy for every previous spell, not just the ones you cast. The Storm rules (that you linked to) define Storm in rule 702.39a:

  Storm is a triggered ability that functions on the stack. “Storm” means “When you cast this spell, put a copy of it onto the stack for each other spell that was cast before it this turn. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for any of the copies.”

As you can see, it uses the same wording as the reminder text you quote. It does not mention who cast the previous spells, so it counts all previous spells.

Cards that care about which player did something always say so. If any trigger event, or description, or bit of text that cares about information does not mention a player, then it does not distinguish between players.


Why are "Egyptian God" cards so significant? Recently, I was browsing through the questions on B&CG SE  (particularly in the [yu-gi-oh] tag) and I see quite a bit of Egyptian God. I was duelling someone from my school, and he said

  "Egyptian God Cards cannot be targeted by any card effect or be destroyed by battle"!

Obviously we dismissed this as another pathetic blurt of words from him, because he makes up so many rules, and cheats,so we told him unless it's on the rule book or the card, it's false, but he dismissed it, so I forfeited in order to maintain my sanity, but this in particular made me wonder:

What's so special about the Egyptian God Cards? Why are these cards more significant than other cards?

I understand that in Yugi's (?) season of the anime l, the Egyptian Gods were established (?). They were a group of really powerful monsters, that could destroy the world if control were lost over them in a duel.

So, does what this person from my school said have any origins from the anime?

They were represented in the anime as being incredibly powerful, and you never saw them defeated by traditional means. In the card game they act as normal cards and have no special "you can't destroy me or target me" abilities I'm aware of (I'll admit it's been a while since I played Yu-Gi-Oh as I moved over to Magic, but I played quite a bit)

Your friend sounds like he's putting a more flavourful edge to things as it makes sense when you look at the anime, but it's not how the game actually works.

Also, if your friend continues to make up rules and cheat, I'd look to find a way to "punish" him in order to correct his behaviour. Stop playing games with him when he does it for example. If he really wants to play the game he'll learn to play correctly if you just show him that cheating doesn't pay off.


Space version of a monopoly like game? Trying to find a boardgame from my childhood.  it was basically Monopoly in space.

all the pieces were little rockets
the board was a map of our solar system
each moon around the planets had deed cards
there were these little metal objects that were fuel depots
you could put the fuel depots on the moons you bought
there was also a fuel tracker and if you ran out of fuel you lost the game

anyone remember the name of this game? would have come out probably mid-1980's.

Googling "space monopoly" brings up Solarquest.


How do I determine my monster's hit points? I'm the traitor and I'm in control of a monster. The guide says this monster has a Speed, Might, and Sanity values of 3 each. How do I determine the monster's hit points, I.E. how much damage it can take until it's "defeated"? (This monster has a special property where it can be "defeated" instead of just getting stunned - see spoiler text.)

   This is scenario 48, Stacked Like Cordwood. Actually, the monster comes back stronger if "killed".

Monsters (like explorers) don't have hit points. If a scenario says that a monster can be killed instead of just being stunned, then that scenario should also say how it can be killed. It may just say that if it's defeated, then it is killed instead of stunned, or if it's defeated with a specific item, etc. You may have to be more specific in your question about which scenario you are playing, but just double check that scenario's rules; there are no general game rules to cover this.


If I am going to start playing Magic The Gathering, what set should I start with? I know how this site works so I'm going to try my hardest to ask questions that have answers and aren't too open to interpretation.

I'm considering getting (back) into Magic. My son is 12 now and he loves tabletop games.  I remember playing Magic in my college years and while my grades suffered, I had a blast.  I'm not looking to get into competition play.  Just fun with the family and friends.  I basically have 3, hopefully, simple questions:

Does it matter what block you start with when starting from scratch?
If the answer to the above question is yes, then which blocks should I pick up a couple of starter decks for?
Do all blocks work together or do you have to build block based decks?

Unlesss you're playing in some sort of tournament, It doesn't matter what cards you use.

The most popular tournament format is Standard, and the legal cards for that are all the cards from the past 5 to 7 sets.(4 sets rotate out every October)

Standard legal sets include:  Innistrad, Dark Ascention, Avacyn Restored, M13, Return to Ravnica, and Gatecrash.

Generally your local store will be selling these standard-legal sets.

Other notable tournament formats include

Modern: which is cards printed in a major set since 8th edition.

Legacy: which has no time limit on cards, but there is a list of banned cards

Vintage: which has no time limit, and has a restricted list(you can only use 1 of the card).  the only cards banned in Vintage are cards that deal with Ante and Shaharazad.

You can learn about other sanctioned formats here.

If you're just looking to play around with each-other casually, than it would be fine, to buy whatever starter decks your store happens to be selling and play them against each-other.

If you're looking to play a little more competitively, the Event decks are designed to be fairly powerful, and able to win a few games at low-level tournaments such as FNM(Friday Night Magic) events.  (your local store might have such events.  you should ask)

your store might also have duel decks.  These are 2 decks designed to be played against each-other.  Not all the cards in these decks are Standard Legal


Should I shuffle the Zombicide zombie "deck" The rules for Zombicide just state:

  Make a deck with the Zombie cards and another one with the Equipment cards, then place them face down, close to the gameboard.

Clearly the equipment cards needed to be shuffled as when supplied, they are sorted so all the cards are grouped together.

The Zombie cards are all numbered in the upper right corner, and do in general get harder as the numbers increase.

In a recent game with a shuffled deck the first spawn resulted in the Abomination appearing, which completely outclassed our party and resulted in a very quick finish.

The flip side of that would obviously be the fact that with the harder cards spawned earlier, if we had survived, we'd be playing against less zombies in the later stages of the game.

Should I be shuffling the deck or playing it in order? The order of the rooms and which spawn point we start from should provide a reasonable amount of variation even with an ordered deck.

I would say that any games that include decks of cards and do not specifically tell you to arrange the cards in a particular order assume that the cards are shuffled prior to playing.  Getting them in order is time consuming and unusual, so it would need to be specifically mentioned if that was the intent.


Is this double ko played reasonably by AlphaGo Zero and AlphaGo Lee? In the 8th game of the series1 between AlphaGo Zero and AlphaGo Lee the following position with a double ko at {A,C}×{13,14} arises:

On the next move AlphaGo Lee (Black) plays the double ko exchange A14-C13 before its next effective move at T15 and subsequent three effective moves; then AlphaGo Zero joins in the fun and also makes double ko exchanges before its effective moves. This continues until move 272; after 276 Black resigns.

I do not see the benefit in these exchanges as against immediately playing at T15 etc. Are these exchanges useful or merely something that their respective training never taught them how to do? If they are useful, what purpose do they serve?

1 See the article in Nature at https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24270#t1; the full text is not free but selected game records are, in the download at https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v550/n7676/extref/nature24270-s2.zip

There is a difference between the two semi-stable double ko positions, although a rather small one. C14 reduces the immediate number of liberties of the G13 leg. This means that black will have a free tempo when G13 runs out of liberties, if we assume that black can find a big enough ko threat to answer the C13 capture with C14 in order to force the B15 gote.

Assuming black still has a big enough ko threat when G13 runs out of liberties, the value of keeping the one liberty at C14 filled is most likely 1 point (turning a one point sente for white to a reverse-sente, as we can infer from what happens later in the game), so the two-move sequence of capturing the double ko at C13/C14 followed by an answer as A13/A14 has a (ko-related) miai value of 1 for both players. That explains why both players take the opportunity to capture this double ko whenever they can.

An other way to put it is to attribute an average of 4.5 liberties to the G13 group (alternating between 4 and 5), with white being able to force it up when they need it if black can't find a big enough ko threat.


Willbreaker vs. Silverfur Partisan who gets a wolf? With Willbreaker (mine) and Silverfur Partisan (opponents) in play if I cast an instant on their Silverfur Partisan who gets the wolf? Do I get to choose the order they go on the stack to decide this or is it another process?

The wording of the rules confused me as there seemed to be some additional rules around things going on the stack if there are multiple players effected.

Your opponent will get the wolf token.
The active player's trigger will go on the stack first, but the order of triggers on the stack does not matter in this case. Silverfur Partisan's ability refers to "you", which is the Partisan's controller at the time when the ability triggers, i.e. your opponent. Since your opponent controlled the Partisan when its ability triggered, he is also the controller of that ability on the stack. Even if your opponent loses control of the partisan before the Partisan's ability resolves, he will not lose control of that ability on the stack.

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she chooses. [..]
109.5. The words “you” and “your” on an object refer to the object’s controller, its would-be controller (if a player is attempting to play, cast, or activate it), or its owner (if it has no controller). For a static ability, this is the current controller of the object it’s on. For an activated ability, this is the player who activated the ability. For a triggered ability, this is the controller of the object when the ability triggered, unless it’s a delayed triggered ability. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.


Who actually created "Waste Not"? While perusing gatherer today I came across the 15 special guest designed magic cards that came out in the M15 set. One card kind of stood out to me, Waste Not. Whereas the other cards are attributed to each designer (eg. Aggressive Mining has Markus Persson, Avarice Amulet has Penny Arcade etc.) in the flavour text, Waste Not has the following flavour text:

  Designed by the Magic community

I am wondering how was Waste Not created, and why was it attributed to the Magic community instead of a specific person?
If it was contest type thing where many  people submitted different card designs it seems odd that the winning design wouldn't have its designers name put onto the card.

My name is CJ Mlsna, and I submitted the rules text for the card that became Waste Not. Jennifer Clarke Wilkes had a different entry in YMTC 4.

When the card was released alongside the other guest-designed cards, I asked Ethan Fleischer why my name had been omitted. His answer was that since it had been voted on by the community, it should have the credit it did. I was able to submit some short answers to a survey they emailed me, which was posted here.


How can we avoid big money in casual games? My girlfriend and I have recently discovered the Big Money strategy in Dominion, and it's killing the game for us. We're not very competitive, so we don't want to spend a lot of time and effort trying to play even better than Big Money (as the answers to this question propose). But Big Money is so easy that it's hard to not just play it, and then we lose all the fun of the kingdom cards.

Are there any house rules we could add to simply keep us from being able to play Big Money, so that we can go back to casual games with plenty of kingdom card excitement? I know that if we really wanted to we could learn to play better than Big Money, but the games wouldn't be as fun and easygoing.

We also have almost all the Dominion expansions so we can use them.

For my suggestion of a house rule to use, please see the section of this answer titled "Embargo Counters".

If I understand correctly, you were learning the game naturally by playing it - it's just that at the current stage of learning it you have got to, it isn't very interesting, which makes it harder than it has been to carry on learning it simply by playing it.

So, it may be that all you need is to see, or be shown the strategies that are more powerful than Big Money in a natural way, so that you can have fun exploring them, rather than feeling forced into big money all the time.

As part of that I would draw your attention to this list; http://councilroom.com/openings. This is a compiled list comparing how good the first two opening moves are. Silver / Silver (so buying silver with your first and second purchase) is only rated as a +1 - there are 962 better opening moves. The best move involving silver at all is rated as a +4, with 86 possible openings rated as being better.

Similarly the Thief isn't especially powerful, and wont show up highly on the list above, but does actively and obviously combat BM. With no moat or other defence cards in play BM could look a lot less attractive with a Thief available, particularly if there are some action cards that give money, like festival and market out as an alternative.

My suggestions

You could intentionally play a few games with cards specifically from the top of this list (same as linked above), and set a house rule like those suggested in Jefromi's answer, my suggestion involving embargo counters at the end of this answer,  or those in other answers, to force you to experiment with these strategies, while still enjoying the game. You should find yourself exploring ways that beat BM anyway. I suggest you employ the lightest touch home rule you can find that does the job in pushing you both away from BM.

You shouldn't need to always play with any particular cards, or with house rules, but seeing and playing a deck built around the cards at the top of this list should help show most obviously and quickly that BM isn't the best strategy. And hopefully do so in an enjoyable way.

Play with others

Having a few games playing with other people - who know the game better than you do. You will hopefully quickly see a wider variety of strategies, without having to put effort into learning them. It might help to see a strategy like Chapel being played for example - it is one of the most powerful cards in the game, as you can see from it's presence in a fair number of the best openings in the list linked above, though you never want more than one, and it's power is not immediately obvious.

Prosperity

Lastly, the top answer here: How can I beat "Big Money" in Dominion? suggests counter intuitively that including cards from Prosperity advantages Kingdom Card strategies, because it slows the game down. - I realise that question isn't the question you are asking, but thought it'd be worth pointing out as a potentially subtle way to further disadvantage big money. That said, it probably wouldn't be enough on its own.

Embargo Counters

It might work to put a small number of embargo counters on each coin denomination at the beginning of the game, so that whenever a player buys one, they gain that many curses. This house rule has the advantages that it should make BM less attractive while not preventing certain other kingdom cards from working, it uses a game mechanic and it doesn't require constantly remembering that you aren't using the cards as printed.

The disadvantage of this home rule is that it could be too heavy handed, particularly at the start of the game (especially with certain setups; for example one that manages to combine no ability to trash curses with no alternative, low cost sources of purchasing power).


Can I imprint my commander and move it to the command zone? I would like to know if it is possible, if the following Criteria are met, for me to imprint my commander and return it to the Command Zone:

Commander is in my hand
Soul Foundry has entered the battlefield
I choose my commander to be imprinted

When I remove my commander from the game this way, am I then able to move it to the Command Zone instead and keep it imprinted with Soul Foundry?

No.

Soul Foundry refers attempts to copy the exiled card. However, if you used the Commander replacement effect to put your Commander in the Command Zone instead of exile, that card doesn't exist in exile. Thus Soul Foundry doesn't see the commander card and can't copy it.

As an extra note, even if you did this, the copies don't count as your commander (e.g. to deal commander damage or count for Bastion Protector, etc.); only the physical card has the property of being your commander, and this isn't copied.

  Commander rule 10: Being a Commander is not a characteristic [MTG CR109.3], it is a property of the card and tied directly to the physical card. As such, "Commander-ness" cannot be copied or overwritten by continuous effects. The card retains it's commanderness through any status changes, and is still a commander even when controlled by another player.


What game is this meeple from? This meeple was found at a bar where board games are often played, but nobody could identify what game it was from. It appears similar to a standard meeple, but with a flat bottom (rather than two separated legs) and a diagonal "hat". Any idea what game it could have come from?

EDIT: Except for the solid base (no leg split), as The Chaz 2.0 noted in the comments, it looks like a farmer child from the Wooden Farmer Set for Agricola.

See image at https://boardgamegeek.com/image/1841766/agricola-wooden-farmer-set


Calculating reserves, and the 50% rule According to the rules, 50% of units, rounded up may be in reserves. Also, some units (flyers, drop pods) don't count towards the units counted in reserves.

But do we count the latter including or excluding the units that don't count in reserves?

eg:

A - 2 HQ (independent character)
B - 1 unit in a drop pod (with space for the HQ)
C - 2 units that can deep strike
D - 2 units that can't start in reserves

Do we count 50% of 7 units (=4), and we can thus put both A with the unit B (counts for 2), and also put both C in reserves (count for 2), only fielding both units D at the start. This also means that we only actually fielded 28% of the army.
Do we count 50% of 6 units (B excluded), and thus can basically field like above except for either one HQ or one C. In this case we actually only field actually 43% of the army.

We played our last game according to case n°1. Were we wrong?

According to the rulebook pages on Deep Strike (p.36), I think the relevant rule-- for the sake of calculating 50%--is:

  When working out how many units can be placed in reserve, units that
  must be deployed by Deep Strike (along with any models embarked upon
  them) are ignored.

To apply to your situation, take your entire army and subtract (put aside mentally or physically) all the units that must be Deep Striking.  Whatever remains is the value that helps you determine 50%, so in this case corresponds to Case #2, 3 units (50 percent of 6 units) is your maximum reserve capacity.

EDIT: According to the General Rulebook FAQ v1.5, this is clarified further:

Q: Do units that are transported in a vehicle that MUST start in
reserve count towards the number of units that can be placed in
Reserves? For example, must I count the units in a Drop Pod or
Valkyrie towards the 50% of units I can place in Reserves?
(p124)
A: No.


Is the pandemic + on the brink expansion easier than the standard game? (no challenges) The On the Brink expansion adds the following to the base game:

More event cards.
More roles.

It also adds the possibility of playing with 5 players and some extra challenges with their own set of rules.

If you are playing with 4 players, and no extra challenges, is the game strictly easier than the base game with no expansion?

The rules say that you pick 2 x #players event cards, so there's 8 event cards instead of 5.

Event cards increase the size of the players deck, and are usually very useful. A larger players deck means more cards between Epidemic cards and more rounds to finish the game.

I'm not sure if the new roles make the game easier of harder.

With a game like pandemic it is hard to say in this case if it is easier or harder by just adding in the basic parts of the On the Brink expansion. A lot of the games difficulty depends on the randomness in the game itself. Since player roles are random and with this expansion events are random the difficulty becomes even more random.

In general I would say that the game does become easier as there are some powerful  roles and events in the expansion. However it is possible to get a set of roles and events that do not work well together that can make the game harder. It all will come down to luck of the draw in the end.


Can Flute of the Outer Gods be used for monsters "not on the board" like in The Terrible Experiment? The Flute of the Outer Gods says the following (emphasis mine):

  Any Phase: Lose 3 Sanity and 3 Stamina and discard Flute of the Outer Gods before making a Combat check to defeat all monsters in your current area. This does not affect Ancient Ones.

Another answer on this site about the Flute states that it can be used at either a location or a street. However, there are other locations that monsters can be, such as the Outskirts and The Sky, but you can't attack those so it's moot about whether you can be used there.

But what about monsters that are in a location where you can attack them, but are not "on the board"? For instance, there is The Terrible Experiment rumor that says the following (emphasis mine):

  When this card enters play, place 5 monsters from the cup on it. Any player may choose to fight one or more of these monsters while in the Miskatonic U. streets during the Arkham Encounter Phase. If defeated, they are claimed as monster trophies. These monsters do not move, are not considered on the board, and do not count against the monster limit.

Are they in "your current area" despite not being on the board? Can you attack one of these monsters, pass a Horror check, then instead of a Combat check use the Flute of the Outer Gods to destroy all of the monsters? This came up in our last game and we weren't sure how to resolve it.

No,

While I'd be tempted to allow this as it would be a very cool thing to do and it is hard to find a good use for the Flute of the Outer Gods, this question is addressed directly in the FAQ, pg 10.

  Q: Do cards that affect monsters at Miskatonic University
  (such as the “Campus Security Increased” Mythos card or
  the “Flute of the Outer Gods” Unique Item) affect monsters
  spawned by “The Terrible Experiment”?

  A: No. Those monsters are not actually on the board; they
  can only be fought as if they were.


How many creatures should be in a draft deck? How many creatures should the average, typical draft deck contain?

Obviously this depends on a multitude of factors, including the kinds of creatures in your deck, the kinds of non-creatures you have available, and the overall composition of the block you're drafting. Nonetheless, what's a good baseline for the number of creatures in a draft deck? And how should I decide if I need to run more or fewer creatures than the baseline?

Usually, my draft decks tend to aim for 16-17, 6-7 other spells, and 17 lands.  Generally, if you end up with 19-20+ creatures your deck is going to be aggressive but insufficiently versatile.  If you end up with 11 or fewer creatures your deck may have lots of "answers" but a shortage of ways to actually win the game.  As ever, striking a balance is key.

There's nothing wrong with having 12 creatures or something if your deck is packed with sweet removal: take a red/black deck for instance; the creature quality in these colours tends to be low, but you make up for it in the strength of the removal cards.  Obviously it'd be daft to be adding bad creatures to a deck to "make up the numbers" when you have excellent removal at your disposal: being able to take out one of the opponent's best creatures is almost as good as playing a creature of your own.

Also, make a note of cards in your pool which aren't creatures but basically count as creature cards.  Mind Control is one of the very best cards in the latest Core Set because not only does it remove an opponent's creature, it gives you one as well!  And most sets have an instant or sorcery that generates token creatures these days.  If you draft a lot on Magic Online where it keeps a running total of creatures for you, you'll be familiar with having to take that figure with a pinch of salt - because often it lies!

Anyway, 16-17 creatures or equivalent is definitely "average and typical".  If you're often drastically over- or undershooting that baseline, then (unless you've created some kind of insanely broken rogue decks that crush all comers 3-0) I'd definitely try to steer closer to the 40% creatures mark and see if that works out better for you.


Putting a reclusiarch terminator in a drop pod? I'm thinking of putting a Death Company in a drop pod for my next game. The HQ would be either a librarian or a reclusiarch in terminator armor.

Can I put my HQ in the drop pod with the DC?

Can terminators be put in a drop pod? If yes, could I also decide to put the DC and HQ in a stormraven instead?

According to the rules cited in my other answer to your question regarding Dedicated Transports, you are permitted to attach either a Librarian or Reclusiarch (either in Terminator Armour) along with your Death Company and deploy them in a drop pod because these models are also independent characters.

There is an additional stipulation, however, which is that Terminator Armour, by virtue of being enormous, counts as two models, reducing your Death Company capacity to 8 + your HQ.

In the codex, p. 61:

Terminators count as two models for the purposes of transport capacity

There is an unfortunate ambiguity of the Rule-as-Written interpretation by writing "terminators" rather than "a model wearing Terminator Armour", as the rest of the paragraph uses.  But for Rule-as-Intended, I believe it is clear that by virtue of being placed under ARMOUR (rather than the Terminator entry)--and by the fact that Terminator Armor is still huge (whether worn by a normal squad or by a Librarian)--that the intended rule is "any model wearing terminator armor counts as two models for the purposes of transport capacity".


Risk Legacy "Riots" event card is ambigious The "Riots" card has three ambiguities:

Do the troops that get removed have to die in the "major city" territory or just from anywhere controlled by that player? Can the last troop in a territory get removed in this way?
If a player owns two major cities, do the troops on both major cities count towards the total, or just one of them, or each of them independently?
If a player owns two major cities and has an HQ on one of them, does the HQ get destroyed, or is it possible to consider the other major city as the "territory" in question?

The rules as written aren't completely unambiguous, but their meaning can be determined.

  Riots - Every player who controls a major city must roll a die, adding 1 to their roll for each troop and HQ in that territory. If your modified roll is lower than 6, remove troops equal to your natural die roll and DEMOLISH any HQs in that territory. DISCARD this card.

1) Yes, the Riots event only kills troops in Major Cities. Yes, it is possible to lose the last troop in a territory this way. (I.e. You have 2 troops + an HQ and roll a natural '2'.)

2) This is ambiguous. I would roll for each Major City independently, counting troops and HQs in each territory independently, but the rules as written state that players only roll once, and calculate their modified roll independently for each territory.

3) This is a good reason to only roll one die regardless of how many Major City territories you control and calculate individual modified rolls based upon the number of troops and HQs in independent territories. (I.e. You roll a natural '1' and have one Major City with 4 troops and an HQ in it and one Major City with 2 troops. Riots would remove the HQ and one troop from one territory and one troop from the other territory.)


How many times can you cast a card exiled by Release to the Wind? Release to the Wind has the following Text.

  Exile target nonland permanent. For as long as that card remains exiled, its owner may cast it without paying its mana cost.

Is there a limit to the number of times you can cast it?

Yes, that limit is one time.
When a spell is cast, it moves to the stack and by then it fails to meet the "remains exiled" criterion mentioned by Release to the Wind. The Stack and Exile are different zones.

Stack

405.1. When a spell is cast, the physical card is put on the stack (see rule 601.2a). When an ability is activated or triggers, it goes on top of the stack without any card associated with it (see rules 602.2a and 603.3).

Exile

406.1. The exile zone is essentially a holding area for objects. Some spells and abilities exile an object without any way to return that object to another zone. Other spells and abilities exile an object only temporarily.
406.2. To exile an object is to put it into the exile zone from whatever zone it’s currently in. An exiled card is a card that’s been put into the exile zone.

Of course, if you'd cast another Release to the Winds on the same card, its owner will be able to cast it again.


Can you attack again after I decide not to block? We are both new to MTG. He will attack me, and when I decide to take the hit and roll back my life, he then likes to attack me a second time. This doesn't feel right to me, is this allowed? Can he hit me twice after I've blocked or taken the hits?

No, you can only attack once per turn

There are certain cards that give you a second attack, but normally, one attack per turn.

If you are new to Magic, you should have a look at the Basic Rulebook (pdf) on the Magic rules website. It contains all the essential info to get you started.

If you encounter situations not quite covered there, you can always check back here, or try to figure it out yourself in the Comprehensive Rulebook (don't use that one to start out).


Narset, Parter of Veils interaction with Aria of Flame If I have Narset, Parter of Veils on the battlefield on one loyalty counter and my opponent has an Aria of Flame on the battlefield, what happens if the opponent plays Faithless Looting? I know the opponent can destroy the Narset but can they draw cards with the Faithless Looting I understand it depends on if the trigger from Aria goes on the stack first or second. My guess is that they can draw cards as the trigger from Aria goes on the stack second and thus would resolve first, destroying Narset, then Faithless L resolves, allowing them to draw cards. Is this correct? Thanks in advance.

You have it correct, they will be allowed to draw cards.

The specific order is:

Opponent casts Faithless Looting... that casting process looks completely normal and doesn't interact with Narset at all.
Aria of Flame's ability triggers, going on the stack on top of Faithless Looting
Aria of Flame's ability resolves, dealing damage to Narset
Narset goes to the graveyard due to having 0 loyalty counters
Faithless Looting resolves
Faithless Looting acts completely normally, because Narset is not around.


Does "each creature" include all creatures on the battlefield? I'm referring to Pyroclasm. I want to make sure it deals damage to all creatures on the battlefield.

Barring multiplayer range of influence rules (see comprehensive rule section 801), each creature means that each (therefore, every) creature on the battlefield will be dealt damage.

If you're interested in the nitty-gritty comprehensive rules which spell this out, this is a consequence of comprehensive rule:

  609.2. Effects apply only to permanents unless the instruction's text states otherwise or they clearly can apply only to objects in one or more other zones.
  Example: An effect that changes all lands into creatures won't alter land cards in players' graveyards. But an effect that says spells cost more to cast will apply only to spells on the stack, since a spell is always on the stack while a player is casting it.

Knowing:

  110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. A permanent remains on the battlefield indefinitely. A card or token becomes a permanent as it enters the battlefield and it stops being a permanent as it's moved to another zone by an effect or rule.

Also remember:

  119.1a Damage can't be dealt to an object that's neither a creature nor a planeswalker.

A particularly tricky opponent could Ghostly Flicker their Blinkmoth Nexus in response to your Pyroclasm and save it. When the 'Flicker resolves, the Nexus would return to the battlefield having no memory of being a creature a moment before.


Star Wars: Rebellion - How many mission cards can have leaders assigned to? The rule book says regarding the ASSIGNMENT PHASE:

"During this phase, players assign their leaders to missions."

Is there a maximum number of missions that can be played during this phase? If I have 5 leaders, por example, can I assign them to 5 different missions on a single turn?

Thank you!

Yes you can. The only limits for the number of mission you can run in a single turn are your number of available leaders, and the number of cards in your hand.


What happens if multiple triggers on the stack would cause both players to drop to 0 life if fully resolved? In Magic: The Gathering, if when the stack has been fully resolved both players will have dropped to 0 life, is the game considered a draw? Or alternatively, does the player who reaches 0 life first lose and the other player wins?

Here's the situation that caused me to ask this question:

I was playing a match where both my opponent and I were using Poison-Tip Archer. I had two of them on the field, my opponent had one.
I was on 4 life, my opponent was on 7.
I attacked with three 3/3 saproling tokens (I had a Tendershoot Dryad in play).
All three were blocked, killing them all and one blocker.
As the active player I ordered the stack so that the triggered abilities of my Archers resolved first. My opponent took 8 damage, but then if the stack was fully resolved I would take 4 damage, reducing us both to 0 life.

As you might imagine, I think I won but my opponent thinks it was a draw. Which one of us is correct?

In the situation you describe, both you and your opponent were incorrect. You would have died first because your opponent's triggered abilities would have resolved first. You do not get to arrange all triggered abilities, only the ones you control. Nobody has control over which player's abilities as a whole go on the stack first, because that is defined by the rules.

You misunderstood the rules for multiple ability triggers at the same time:

  603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities they control on the stack in any order they choose. (See rule 101.4.) Then the game once again checks for and resolves state-based actions until none are performed, then abilities that triggered during this process go on the stack. This process repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no abilities trigger. Then the appropriate player gets priority.

In other words, triggered abilities that trigger at the same time go on the stack in blocks, where each block consists of all triggered abilities a certain player controls. These blocks go on the stack in APNAP order, and only the order of abilities within each block can be determined by its respective controller.

It was your turn, so you were the active player. Your and your opponent's Poison Tip Archer triggered at the same time. According to 603.3b, you are the first to put your 8 triggers on the stack in any order you choose, followed by the opponent's 4 in the order the opponent chooses. Therefore, your opponent's triggers resolve first. You lose 1 life for each trigger, and when you are at zero life, before the next ability can resolve, you would lose the game.


Planeswalker Infinite Ultimate Combo Infinite combos in Magic are awesome (if you're a Johnny).  Planeswalker ultimate abilities are awesome (if you're a Timmy).  Combining the two would be even more awesome.  Then you could have a billion emblems from Chandra, Torch of Defiance, Teferi, Hero of Dominaria, or Kiora, the Crashing Wave.  Because dealing a billion damage isn't as cool as doing it every time you cast a spell.  And getting a billion krakens isn't as cool as getting them every turn.

What's the fewest number of cards (besides the planeswalker) that allows you to activate a planeswalker's ultimate ability an arbitrary number of times?

3 cards, in addition to the walker(s) you want to be hitting the ultimate of:

Tezzeret the Seeker
The Chain Veil
Everflowing Chalice

Chalice needs at least 4 counters, to pay for the veil, tezzeret +1 untaps both chalice and veil allowing infinite uses of veil which resets both tezzeret and the other walker(s), letting you rebuild the + abilities on those walkers until they ultimate again and again.


In Warhammer 40K does taking a Chaos Icon replace other weapons? The Codex for Chaos Space Marines says on the data sheet for Chaos Space Marines

One model may take a Chaos Icon (pg 153).

Does taking a Chaos Icon replace the model's boltgun?  Can the model with the Chaos Icon replace his boltgun with a chainsword and still have that with an Icon of Chaos?

Does taking a Chaos Icon replace the model's boltgun?

No.

  Can the model with the Chaos Icon replace his boltgun with a chainsword and still have that with an Icon of Chaos?

Yes. If a piece of wargear has to be swapped it will specifically say as much in the war gear entry. If it just says X models can take Y then you simply pay the points and they have the additional equipment.


I need some good mechanics for how the player's character can enhance their tool kit So I am blanking on the word for this, but the goal is for the character to get stronger over time (power curve), where the character gains levels/items. What I am looking for is different ways a player can add new spells to their kit (imagine every one is a wizard, and they need to create a spell book and add to it through the game). I don't want to have a level up system. for example, things like every few turns, they draw a new spell card and add it to their inventory, killing an enemy and it drops loot. What other way can the player add to their kit to handle more difficult enemies?

I'm commenting your examples first and then adding a couple more:

Drawing from a deck:

It's a way of randomizing how the character evolves, but it needs to be balanced as players expect to learn more powerful spells when they advance in their adventure. So it could be done this way if you arranged the deck previously or separated the cards in more decks. In addition, forcing players to learn the spell they draw could make them feel they're not free when choosing their way to play, so you could make them draw two or more cards and choose between them.

Looting

Being another random system of learning spells, can be felt odd as a monster could carry equipment, gold and other treasures with it but not a spell which is not something physical. It could be solved by making all enemies wizards who carry spellbooks with them, but I'm not sure that's the game your looking for. So I'm not sure about how this system would work. Anyway, it would be too random again, and needs some kind of arrangement like the previous one.

Buying

Essentially a experience system, where instead of earning experience you earn gold (or other sort of money) and you spend it on spells. The main difference with the experience system is that you can save the money to buy spellbooks more powerful than other, or choosing to split it between less powerful spells which give you a more dynami way of playing.

"Copying" or learning from the enemy

Make spells only available for a player after they've seen it used by another character or enemy. Not every spell they see, of course, but make them remember the spells they've seen and after a few turns making them stop and meditate/concentrate/etc to replicate one of the spells they've seen.

Some kind of "enlightment"

The wizard performs a very difficult move and they are successfull, then he discovers new ways of magic. Players would need to accomplish an achievement in order to unlock a more powerful or different spell. Achievements could be hidden or shown, and in case of being hidden even keep hidding them after someone gets the spell, so other players need to figure out how the player did it. But again, I'm not sure which kind of game you are trying to create, so maybe the achievements won't fit in it.


Does an exiled Aetherling come back into play untapped? Let's say I attack with Aetherling. After it deals damage I blink it out. When it returns at my end step, does it come back untapped and ready to block?

Yes, when Aetherling returns to the battlefield, it's considered a new permanent, so it enters the battlefield without remembering that it was tapped.

  400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.
  There are seven exceptions to this rule:

(none of the exceptions apply here).


Combat Damage Steps (Double Strike) and Sacrificing a Creature I am attacking with my only creature, Dragon-Style Twins, a creature with 3 power and Double Strike.

My opponent is blocking with two Griffin Sentinel, which have 3 toughness.

After he declares both Sentinels as blockers, he flashes in Dictate of Erebos, which says

  Whenever a creature you control dies, each opponent sacrifices a creature.

How does Dragon-Style Twins's double strike work against the Sentinels?  Is Dictate of Erebos triggered after the first combat damage phase, which would require me to sacrifice my Twins before I can deal damage to the second one?

Yes, you are correct. Double Strike, like First Strike, causes 2 separate combat damage steps. In each of these, players get priority, which means that state based actions happen and triggered abilities go on the stack.

  702.7b If at least one attacking or blocking creature has first strike or double strike (see rule 702.4) as the combat damage step begins, the only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are those with first strike or double strike. After that step, instead of proceeding to the end of combat step, the phase gets a second combat damage step.

And:

  510 Combat Damage Step

    510.3a Any abilities that triggered on damage being dealt or while state-based actions are performed afterward are put onto the stack before the active player gets priority; the order in which they triggered doesn’t matter. (See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”)