"Guilty!" is the name of this game I'm looking for? I wanted to know if any kind of SE user is able to identify a certain board game, and to indicate if it exists, at least in its Anglo-Saxon version.
It is an investigation board game, which according to the literal English translation of the title should be called -

"Guilty!" -

since I have been told that there is a German version of this game titled: „Schuldig!“.

Obviously, it is not necessary that the exact title is this, and therefore it is good to give other indications to be able to identify this game, which has existed at least since the 1990s.

(however, for clarity, from now on if I have to call this game again during the question, I will call it as said, that is: "Guilty!", exclamation mark included)

In this 4-7 player game, very different from the famous (?) Cluedo or Orient Express -
which they have in common with "Guilty!" just having to deal with an investigation into a crime to be solved -
it is about taking part in a private investigation, but with some peculiarities.
A crime was committed, apparently without explanation. This crime is announced with a specific title, and with specific characters that are part of the story to be released.
But here's the first important difference from the other 2 games above:
- investigators have known since the beginning of the game the identity of the guilty of the crime!
In other words, simulating the typical acumen of a Poirot, rather than  Miss Marple, or Sherlock Holmes, anyway you like, each of the players already knows from the beginning which of the characters in the story killed the unfortunate victim.
The investigations in this game focus then not so much on the classic "whodunnit?", but rather on the mechanics of the crime - or the way in which a character was killed - and above all on motive - the reasons why a character made himself guilty of the crime in question.
To play this game you need a "Master": in other words, one of the players personifies the guilty party. He opens the sealed card of one of the cases to be solved, which contains the plot of the case and all the indications for its resolution, including all the testimonies of the other important characters for the story to be solved: they are friends, family, or simple acquaintances who know something important about the crime.

The player who decides to impersonate the guilty must therefore carefully read the plot of the crime, manage all the cards containing the clues necessary to solve the investigation, and provide all the answers that the characters will have to give to the investigators when they are interrogated.
The answers of the various witnesses are provided ... but based on precise criteria. There are often reasons that prevent witnesses from always answering investigators' questions truthfully, and the case provides various "verbs" - before each testimony, such as "Declare that ...", "Know that ...", or "Admits that ..." - and with which to manage the various testimonies, based on the difficulty with which they can be revealed.
At the end of the game, when most of the clues were discovered, one of the investigators may believe that he has discovered the answers to the two basic questions:
1) what reasons led the guilty to kill, or what is the motive for the crime;
2) how the guilty materially managed to commit the crime, or his mechanics.
Then, the investigator begins to tell how things went, according to him.
For example, he may say that the guilty acted in revenge against someone, and used a knife to commit the crime.

If the solution is conceptually correct, the investigator who discovered the exact development of the events wins, and in that case the plot is read to legitimize his victory.
If the solution is conceptually wrong, however, the investigator is eliminated from the game.

If only one investigator remains in play besides the Guilty, the latter is the winner of the game.

Is there anyone who knows this game and knows how to name it in English?
Thanks for your attention

Colpevole! ( meaning Guilty! ) is an Italian-language boardgame, published in 1992. It is easy to find numerous copies of it for sale on eBay.it.
eBay Italy results for Colpevole!

The game's publisher was Editrice Giochi, literally Games Publisher. They published Parker Brothers games such as Monopoli, Cluedo, and Risiko!, a variant of Risk.

In 2016, Editrice Giochi was bought out by Spin Master Corp., «... a leading children's entertainment company.»
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/spin-master-expands-games-portfolio-with-editrice-giochi-purchase-566692661.html

I contacted SpinMaster Corp. by email and by phone, and spoke to a customer agent. This agent did some research and found that the game Colpevole! has not been translated to English.

So, the only alternative that I can see for you is to translate the game elements into English yourself.

Here are some screenshots of the games elements. Many more can be found of eBay-Italy.

Video of gameplay (in Italian)


What is the name of this solitaire style card game? place 4 cards faced-down in one column , repeat for three, on fourth  card all facing up. the next card  place up. The card place up  say is 5 heart, then the next card for the 4 facing- card or  from deck can be any heart(same suuit) .  Another row is formed when another 5 is found , then more cards be added provided they exist in first row and match the suit? repeat until all the rows form  all the cards that belong to same suit and value is in prior row.

This sounds like the solitaire game Osmosis (according to the article, it is also known as "Treasure Trove").


Can you attack in stages before blockers are declared? I have Answered Prayers, which reads:

  Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control, you gain 1 life. If Answered Prayers isn't a creature, it becomes a 3/3 angel with flying in addition to its other types until end if turn.

I declare an attacker, and in response to it attacking a creature enters the battlefield. (Say, Grave Titan creating its zombies.) Can I then attack with Answered Prayers as well before blockers are declared?

No. Basically, all attackers need to be declared at once:

Declare Attackers Step

508.1. First, the active player declares attackers. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. To declare attackers, the active player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of attackers, the active player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 723, “Handling Illegal Actions”).
508.1a The active player chooses which creatures that they control, if any, will attack. The chosen creatures must be untapped, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled by the active player continuously since the turn began.

and the final step is the triggering of abilities:

508.1m Any abilities that trigger on attackers being declared trigger.
508.2. Second, the active player gets priority. (See rule 117, “Timing and Priority.”)

When they resolve, and Answered Prayers triggers and resolves in turn, it's too late to declare additional attackers.
Note that if you somehow get a second combat phase in that turn (such as with Relentless Assault), your Answered Prayers might be eligible to attack during that combat phase since it already became a creature during the first one. The exception is if you cast Answered Prayers this same turn, in which case it can't attack because it has "summoning sickness"; it isn't under your control since the beginning of your most recent turn.


Activating abilities of creatures while it is in stack When I cast a creature with an ability that costs 2 mana to gain hexproof.Can I activate its ability as I'm casting it ?

No.

The only kind of abilities you can possibly activate during casting are mana abilities.

Even if you could activate arbitrary abilities, you couldn't activate its ability because that ability (like most) can only be activated when the object on which it resides is on the battlefield. From the time you start casting the creature until it resolves, it's on the stack.

Finally, hexproof (like most static abilities) only work when the object on which it resides is on the battlefield, so even if he spell had hexproof (e.g. Ascended Lawmage being cast), it wouldn't have any effect whatsoever.


How do I effectively use a big wall? This is from an OGS game I (white, 21k) played against a 20k, specifically my move 26. I'm not even sure about white 24, but I definitely think white 26 was a mistake (although it worked out, but only because my opponent made a mistake later):

$$m23
$$ +---------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . , . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 3 . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . 4 . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

Given my huge wall, my theoretical understanding is that I should use it to drive my opponent into it (which white 26 doesn't seem to do at all), but I'm not sure how I would do that in practice.

The best variation I could come up with when reviewing the game was this:

$$m23
$$ +---------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . 6 8 . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . 4 5 7 0 O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 3 . 9 O X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

(black 29 looks ugly to me, but I don't think black can hane at 30 because a white cut at 29 has all the ladders favoring white?).

But even this result seems pretty good for black to me in the face of the white wall.

Revising the earlier move 24, maybe this might have been a little better:

$$m23
$$ +---------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . , . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . , 4 . . 2 X , . . . |
$$ | . . . 6 5 1 . 3 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

but I'm not sure black even has to respond to this white 24 because if black grabs the bottom left corner (which my original 24 was trying to prevent), I think they wouldn't be too worried about the cut?

How should white respond to black 23?

The biggest strength of a wall is that it keeps your opponents stones from connecting to anything on the other side of it; this forces him to worry about living in general, either by making life independently or connecting somewhere else. This is the general idea behind driving your opponent into your wall: Keep harassing him to keep him worrying about living at all, while you strengthen your own position.

The problem with the situation in OP is that the white wall is poorly positioned to do anything about B23. You can roughly visualize the influence of a wall as extending directly in whatever direction the wall is facing:

$$m23
$$ +---------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . . x x x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . x x O x x x x O O X . . |
$$ | . x x x x x x O X X . . . |
$$ | . x x x x x x x O X X . . |
$$ | . x x x x x x x O O X . . |
$$ | . . x x x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

As you can see, the main problem with using your wall to attack B23 is that B23 is well outside of your wall's influence. Black can just as easily connect with his stones on the right as he can jump into the lower left corner; either way, he's really not all that worried about living. The wall really doesn't come into play yet.

Playing at W24 as you did isn't really a bad move since it's a big point and restricts black's options — I probably would've done the same myself: Wall or not, a free corner is still a free corner — but he's still not all that worried about living because he can easily connect. Black's jump at B25 was okay but I feel it's a bit of a wishy-washy response here; he can afford to be aggressive, so he probably could've tried to attack the corner directly with b or c:

$$m23
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X
$$ | . . c . . 3 . . O X
$$ | . . . b . . 4 . X ,
$$ | . . . 2 . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ +--------------------

On the other hand, W26 as original played is problematic because it's working at cross purposes: It's effectively forcing black to strengthen his position, and pushes him into your weak corner. It's also just outside of the influence of your own wall so not very effective at cutting black off from his strength; it's just as easy (if not easier) for black to cut it off from yours. Rather than using your wall to fight, you're basically helping him build his own wall and driving yourself into it instead.

Merits of jumping into the corner aside, if you really wanted to bring your wall into play, the corner isn't how you'd do it here. Letting black establish a base on the bottom means that when he does decide to extend into your walls influence, he's doing so from a position of strength instead of weakness. This severely limits your ability to harass him.

Your second variant, for example, does effectively use the wall to curtail black's invasion (although I believe the black hane at 30 can work by threatening the weak point a in white's wall, I don't have time to really explore that variation). However, this sort of close fighting ends up strengthening black more than it does white, and in the end it really doesn't do anything to secure the corner, which is now really looking rather vulnerable to a black attack around b or c:

$$m23
$$ | . . . . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . a O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . 6 8 . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . 4 5 7 0 O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 3 . 9 O X . . . |
$$ | . . c b . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

In other words, the original corner play at W24 looks wasted; if it doesn't really help your fight, and you're not really trying to defend it, it's just not doing much of anything at all. You'd probably have been better off playing W24 at B25 instead, which lets you bring the wall's influence into play before black has a chance to build up his strength. This would keep him effectively constrained, while also leaving white with a generally stronger position:

$$m23
$$ | . . . . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . , . . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . 6 . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . 5 4 . 2 . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . 8 X , . . . |
$$ | . . 7 . . 1 . 0 9 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

Your final variant where you extend your wall to cut black off from his strength on the right entirely is the right idea, although if I were black, I'd probably grab the big empty corner before worrying about the connection at a. This really isn't a problem since there's pretty much always going to be a tradeoff between "territory" and "influence"; the first two variants fell into disarray because white was effectively trying to go for both but couldn't really commit to either.

$$m23
$$ | . x x x x x x x O X X . . |
$$ | . x x x x x x x O O X . . |
$$ | . x x x x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . . x x x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 x x x 2 X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 1 . a . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

Whether black chooses to grab the corner or to connect, this lets white play pretty much anywhere within the wall's now larger area of influence to keep black low on the bottom while simultaneously building a huge framework in the top and left, which will make it way harder for black to extend anywhere beyond the corner you let him have (which was already outside of your influence anyway).

Unlike the previous variation, in which white can cap and constrain black while still keeping things relatively civilised, by extending the influence of white's wall before picking any fights white can afford to be a lot more aggressive here and attack the corner without mercy. Splitting black's forces by descending into a (assuming black lets you) will simultaneously threaten his large corner on the right as well increase your wall's left-facing influence, and if you can undercut black's eyespace in the corner (big if), then you can turn this into a straight-up "drive your opponent into your wall" situation. A word of caution though: This can get messy, you probably don't want to try this unless you're really confident in your fighting ability (and/or just thrive on chaos).

In conclusion, two points to keep in mind:

Faster is better: If you want to bring your wall's influence into play, you want to do it before black has an opportunity to build up his strength. Spending that one extra turn claiming a corner you don't want to keep while black builds a base can make all the difference here.
Choose your battles: Recognize the areas of influence and pick your attacks accordingly; white's influence in the above examples is absolutely terrible for a direct attack on B23, but excellent for capping and restraining it. Relatedly, black will have a far easier time attacking the corner where white has little-to-no influence than white will have defending it. If you are going to attack directly, do so from a position of strength.

But seriously, that all still seems like a lot of work for not so significant an advantage compared to "Hey, look! Free corner!"


How does selling buildings and bankruptcy work in Monopoly? Player A and Player B are both fairly well-off and developed players. A, however, does not have much cash on hand. A lands on B's developed property.

He has to sell some of his buildings to pay the debt. On one of his monopolies, he has hotels. Can he sell the hotel for the price of five houses immediately? Or can he only get the equivalent price of one house by selling "all the hotels...at once"? What does "one at a time" mean in the official rule book — that he would have to wait over five turns to sell the whole thing, and therefore cannot do this? Suppose he has several houses on each property of another of his monopolies — can he only sell one, or can he sell all of them?
After A mortgages his properties, can he then turn the properties over to his creditor to pay the debt? I have always been under the impression that property could be handed over to the creditor in order to pay debts, at the cash value of the purchase price — and since the rule book says trades are fair game, I suppose a debtor and creditor could agree to trade property for cash that is immediately returned to the creditor, but I'm not sure.

The rules:

House and hotels may be sold back to the Bank at any time for one-half the price paid for them.
All houses on one color-group must be sold one by one, evenly, in reverse of the manner in which they were erected.
All hotels on one color-group may be sold at once, or they may be sold one house at a time (one hotel equals five houses), evenly, in reverse of the manner in which they were erected.

What one by one here means is that you cannot sell a house from 1 property in a color group if another property in that color group already has more houses. You must sell evenly, just like you must build evenly. You can sell a hotel completely for the price of half of 5 houses, but you can't leave hotels on the other properties in the color group if you do that; they would need to be sold down to at most 1 house each.

A mortgaged property can be traded just like an unmortgaged property can, but that's up to the creditor to agree to that. The debtor cannot automatically use the mortgaged property instead of cash to pay rent.


Can I use the red 5 to move someone out of their safety zone? I'm playing Sorry! The Disney Edition. If I am the red player, and I get a red 5 card (lets people move opponents backwards 5). Can I move someone out of their safety?

Yes. According to the fifth page in the official rules for Sorry! The Disney Edition, you can move out of the Safety Zone with a backwards move card. The rules also state that you can use backward move cards on other players when the card says you can. Therefore, it is heavily implied, if not explicitly said, that a backwards move card can be used to move a player's piece from their Safety Zone back onto the board.

According to the fifth page of the rules:

  "Safety Zone: Only you may enter your SAFETY ZONE. You cannot enter the SAFETY ZONE by a backward move; however, you may move backward out of the SAFETY ZONE and, on later turns, move back in as cards allow."

A piece may not move out of its Home position for any reason, also according to the fifth page in the rules.


Are the Pokémon TCG "Team Rocket" sets balanced against XY cards? My daughter received Pokémon XY cards for Christmas, and I have been thinking about buying a deck to play with her.  She has the XY trainer set, and I was looking at the other XY cards to buy.  Then, though, I considered the old Team Rocket and Team Rocket Returns sets.  These would be fun, as I could clearly be the antagonist, thematically.

I understand that these cards would not be tournament legal.  That will not be an issue.

Are they relatively balanced, though?  Do later game changes like EX cards and Break cards fundamentally shift the balance toward XY series, or are they just changes in how one constructs a deck?  Can I play a Team Rocket (Returns?) deck against an XY deck and not consistently lose because of changes to cards over the years?

The newer cards will beat out the older cards very easily. If you want to play as an antagonist themed deck, then there have been Team Aqua, Magma, and Plasma sets recently. These sets will be able to keep up, plus you get the bonus of them being tournament legal (depending on the format).


What happens to Kajia's insect tokens on death? On a 2v1 game where Kajia is the boss.  Do the insect counters stay on the dead character permanently?

The situation is when I advance back and pull to add a few counters to the opponent before killing them so they still have the counters on their discard pile.

I was thinking since they're dead and the discard pile does not shift, it's like the insect tokens will just fester.

That way if I use her Burrowing ability which adds +1 Power and +1 Priority for every insect counters, I still count the ones on the dead player.

Also in addition, the dead player can also be resurrected.  I think they should still be inflicted by the insect counters when they come back to life.

It seems to me your interpretation is broadly correct.  I guess with a game like this its impossible to write a rules that account for every little situation.

If you read the 'first aid' section of rules they state :-

  When a player reaches zero life, he continues playing throughout the
  recycle step of the current beat.

So any Insect counters gained the turn a player took damage that took them to Zero or less would go into the discard pile and any that were due to be returned would be.  Obviously the 'life loss' effect wouldn't apply as life loss effects can never take remaining health below 1.

The card for Kajia states :-

  When an opponent would cycle a discard pile with Insect Counters on it
  back into his hand.....

and First aid states :-

  He does not play any future beats while at zero life.

As the player is not taking future beats the the discard pile is not cycled.  Similar to if a player use a 'finishing move' which also doesn't rotate the discard pile.  So if a player attacking Kajia in 2 v 1 mode if knocked out the tokens would still remain on the discard piles and count for the effect the 'Burrowing Style'   However what you said about that bonus being 'per insect counters' is wrong.  The card says :-

  This attack has +1 Power and +1 Priority for each discard pile with
  insect counters on it.

So if 3 insect are on one player all on one there discard piles but not the other they only gain +1 Power and +1 Priority for the pile.  Not the number of insect counters on it.


Reanimating a creature with X in its cost Say I reanimate an Apocalypse Hydra using Rise from the Grave. How strong is the hydra?

It would enter with 0 +1/+1 counters, then get put back into the graveyard for having 0 toughness as a state-based action.

  107.3f If a card in any zone other than the stack has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of {X} is treated as 0, even if the value of X is defined somewhere within its text.


Is Pandemic harder with fewer players? I've played a couple of Pandemic games with 2, 3 and 4 players.

From my point of view, the game should be harder with only 2 players since it will be more difficult to get a medic and both players will have to stay virtually close to each other most of the time in order to share knowledge, therefore cover less ground.

On the other hand, with more players, obviously the deck will run out faster.

From my experience our group WIN/LOSE ratio is very similar and does not depend that much on the player count.

Is it really harder with fewer players?

Actually, I've found that it's easier with fewer players.  My husband and I play two-player games with six epidemics and win about half our games, but when we play with two other (competent) players five epidemics gives us that win rate and six is hard.

While, with fewer players, you have fewer roles in the game, that's offset by not having so many other actions between your turns (that can completely change the board and thus your plans).  Some roles work better the more turns that role gets, e.g. dumpster-diving abilities and once-per-turn special actions.  You'll run through the deck at the same rate no matter how many players there are.

The medic is not necessary, and sometimes having that role in a two-player game is counter-productive.  Remember tha the goal is curing diseases; it's easy for the medic to get so pre-occupied with the board that he doesn't contribute enough to cures.  Medic as one of four roles is great; medic as one of two requires restraint.

In our games we deal two roles to each player and let the player choose one (consultation is allowed).  That hasn't hurt our two-player games even though the medic will only be an option about a third of the time.


Can I move the fairie on a bonus turn due to the builder? I was playing Carcassonne with both the Traders & Builders and the Princess & Dragon expansions. Traders & Builders adds the builder meeple, which gives a bonus turn if a tile is added to a city or road the builder is on. Princess & Dragon adds the fairie, which can be moved if you do not place or move a meeple on your turn.

Let's say I place a tile onto a city (or road) which has my builder in it, and place a meeple on this new tile. This gives me a bonus turn. I place a second tile (anywhere else, it doesn't matter), but don't place a meeple on it. Can I move the fairie, since I didn't place a meeple on the second tile? Or, does placing the meeple on the first tile count as moving a meeple for the purposes of the fairie. Alternatively, let's say I moved the fairie after placing the first tile; am I now prohibited from placing a meeple on the second tile?

One advantage of the fairie is that it gives you a point at the beginning of your turn if you control it. The rules for Princess & Dragon explicitly state that you don't get 2 points if you get a bonus turn from the builder, but don't say anything about the situation above, that I could see.

A player may move the fairy instead of placing a follower.

A player can move the fairy on the placement of the first tile, the second tile, or both.

A player can only score the one point when the turn begins.  The "double turn" is a continuation of the turn, not the beginning of a new turn.  Therefore a player cannot move the fairy on the first tile and then score the one point.


Who controls negative enchantments? If a player casts e.g. Waterknot on enemy creature, who is the controller of the Waterknot? And in case the enchantment on enemy creature has activated abilities, who can activate them? The enchantment owner, or creature controller?

I am asking because of River's Rebuke. What happens to enchantments on creatures the player controls when River's Rebuke is cast on them? Do they go to owner's graveyard or hand?

The player who played the enchantment controls it, no matter what it is attached to.

  303.4e An Aura’s controller is separate from the enchanted object’s controller or the enchanted player; the two need not be the same. If an Aura enchants an object, changing control of the object doesn’t change control of the Aura, and vice versa. Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities. However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with “gains” or “has”), the enchanted object’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability.

Which means that rule 110.2a applies to it

  110.2a If an effect instructs a player to put an object onto the battlefield, that object enters the battlefield under that player’s control unless the effect states otherwise.

So if you play a Waterknot on your opponent's creature and then play River's Rebuke, the Waterknot will go to your graveyard.

If you play a Waterknot on your opponent's creature and your opponent plays River's Rebuke, then the Waterknot will return to your hand.

If you play a Waterknot on your own creature, and your opponent plays River's Rebuke, then both the Waterknot and your creature will return to your hand.


In Matchpoints, is it worth risking a ruff to try for an overtrick in the following situation? You are in a four spade contract, (West and East passed throughout), and the two suits of interest are spades, and a side suit (call it hearts). These are the North and South hands, as given in a bridge column.

          S AQJ
            H A65
            D Q64
            C QJ74

            S T9876
            H K3
            D 32
            C AK32

The opening lead (7 of hearts,covered by East's 9) goes to your K of hearts. You lead a low spade to the Q in dummy for a finesse, and it holds (West and East play 3 and 2). If you now play A and J of spades, you will probably lose a spade to the king, but make your contract, because your natural losers are one spade and two diamonds. On the other hand, you can repeat the finesse by cashing the A of hearts and coming to your hand with a heart ruff. Your fear is that East will ruff with the K, and then go to West via a high diamond for a ruff. In rubber, the right thing to do is to draw opposing trumps as fast as possible by playing A, then "low" (J), in spades, conceding a trick to the opposing king.

But suppose this is Matchpoints (duplicate). Given East's and West's silence, is it reasonable to assume that hearts are split  4-4 or 5-3, and that you can return safely to your hand for a second finesse? If we can earn an overtrick half the time by finessing spades again, will that "make up" for the few times that East can ruff and defeat the contract?

(The column reported that the actual declarer went to his king of clubs, the second spade finesse lost to East's king, and East reached a high diamond honor in West for a club ruff, down one, since clubs were 4-1. This, to me, is a greater risk than the heart ruff.)

The bidding was North (opener) 1NT, South 2 clubs North 2 diamonds South 4 spades. Neither side vulnerable.

Was this hand posted on July 5, the thirtieth anniversary of Barry Crane's death. Fifth of his eleven commandments is

  Sevens are singletons.

I lead low to the Club Ace at trick three and repeat the Spade finesse at trick four. Assuming it wins I then cash the Spade Ace at trick 5 and if all have followed to the second round of Spades claim making 5, conceding two diamonds only.

The heart trick is a red herring, as even if the play wins it doesn't provide any additional tricks or any additional entries.

Many partnerships will be playing Jacoby transfers to make North declarer, so we may be facing an unusual defence. I must protect that by playing to take the eleventh trick. No-one will be missing game, so making is at best average.


Can Joe Diamond attempt to solve a puzzle twice with his magnifying glass? In our latest session of Mansions of Madness, we allowed Joe Diamond to use his magnifying glass to make two attempts at a rune puzzle. However, at the time and shortly after the completion of the game, we questioned whether this should be allowed.

I came across this answer on the Geek stating that "a single investigator may not attempt the same puzzle more than once in a turn," but since it doesn't reference any specific rule I just wanted to find out whether this is the general consensus.

The Magnifying Glass card reads:

  Once per turn, immediately after you spend an action to explore a room, you may take 1 additional action.

One puzzle attempt per turn per investigator is the rule.

From the rules, bottom of the first column on page 18 -

  Each investigator can only attempt the same puzzle once per turn
  (but multiple investigators may attempt the same puzzle on the
  same turn).


In Robinson Crusoe, Can I do single-pawn actions multiple times on the same card? For example, can every character use one of their pawns to do 3 'gathering' actions in a round? All three actions would require dice rolls.

From the official rulebook: (p.6)

Note!
Each Action can be taken multiple times in the same round,
except for the Threat Action, which is always a one time Action taken
on a specific card, after which the card is discarded.

Only restrictions regarding "Gathering resources" are (p.9)

This [Gathering] Action cannot be taken directly on the Island tile with the
players’ Camp since players get resources from that tile during the
Production phase.

and

You can gather only once per round from each source; i.e. if one
player assigns his pawn(s) to gather from one source, no other player
can gather from that same source this round.

Addtionally, from the FAQ 1.0 (made by Ignacy Trzewiczek himself) (p.10)

If I put one of my pawns on any Action, will the second pawn placed
there automatically support me? Or could we, for example, place 3
single pawns on the Weapons track, to build 3 Weapons (and roll the
dice three times)?
It's your choice if you want to treat each pawn
separately.


What happens when a military token is placed on a conquered location during a Competitive game? Conquest of Planet Earth is an homage to every bad science fiction movie: bug-eyed aliens are trying to take over Earth, ostensibly because their Overlords said so. (Personally, I think it's just that Mars Needs Women, or possibly Mars Needs After-Dinner Mints.) You play as the aliens, crushing the Hunam resistance and conquering various bits of the planet.

During the game, various events can place tokens belonging to the human military on top of locations. Because the Random Number God hates you, those tokens can appear on top of places that you've already conquered, but don't have any units in.

What happens when a Hunam military token lands on a location you've conquered? I couldn't find any rules stating that the location is un-conquered. There's rules about starting a combat immediately if you have a unit there (which might kill the alien), but nothing about changing the state of conquest if you lose the combat. The battle rules make the implicit assumption that the aliens are invading the human space.

(As a side note, there are rules for Resistance Counters un-conquering Locations, but only in the Cooperative game where the aliens work together and the Hunam Resistance is weak. In the Competitive game, where the aliens are competing to get to 8 victory points first, there aren't any rules for this. The Cooperative rules are explicitly not part of the Competitive rules.)

The Conquest Marker remains
You couldn't find any rules about unconquering the location, because you do not do so. This is supported by several rules in the rulebook. Page 16, under Resistance Counters

Occasionally a card will call for one or more Resistance Counters to be placed onto the board. [...]
Moving Into a Space with Resistance Counters
If you move Aliens onto a Space with one or more Resistance Counters, you will need to Fight those Resistance Counters during your Battle Phase in addition to the normal Resistance drawn for that Location. If the Location has already been conquered (and has a Conquest Marker on it), you must still fight the Resistance Counters.

So, nothing happens to your Conquest Marker, but if you or an opponent enter the Location they will have to fight the Resistance Token. This is further supported by the rules for stealing Terror Points from an opponent, replacing their Conquest Marker with your own, on page 17 under:

Stealing Conquests
If a player ever has one or more Aliens in a Location with an opponent’s Conquest Marker during their own Battle Phase (and there are no enemies present), that player may simply replace the opponent’s Conquest Marker with their own, stealing the glory and the Terror Points for themselves. Note that this swap of markers only happens during your Battle Phase and only if there are no enemies currently at that Location (Alien or Resistance). Also note that this only happens in the Battle Phase, so simply moving through a Location with another player’s Conquest Marker during your Action Phase will NOT swap it for your own.


"Enters the battlefield as a copy" and Thryx, the Sudden Storm I control Shark Typhoon and Thryx, the Sudden Storm. I decide to cast Clever Impersonator and want it to enter the battlefield as a copy of my Shark Typhoon. I'm trying to figure out answers to following questions:

What is the converted mana cost of Clever Impersonator? Can it be countered? What will be power and toughness of shark token created by Shark Typhoon?
Does Clever Impersonator cost one less to cast?

When you cast Clever Impersonator, it is still Clever Impersonator and has all the properties of Clever Impersonator, most notably here having CMC 4. It is only when the spell resolves and it enters the battlefield that you choose which nonland permanent it is going to copy and it takes on the characteristics of Shark Typhoon.
Therefore:

Yes, it can be countered (because it has CMC 4)
No shark token will be created because it's a creature spell.
No, it still costs 2UU to cast.


Why doesn't Djinn of Wishes let me play a land on my opponent's turn? Djinn of Wishes has an activated ability with the effect:

  Reveal the top card of your library. You may play that card without paying its mana cost. If you don't, exile it.

The rulings state that if you reveal a land, it can only be played if it is your turn and you haven't yet played a land this turn.

I know that rule 305.3 states

  305.3. A player can’t play a land, for any reason, if it isn’t their turn. Ignore any part of an effect that instructs a player to do so.

However, why doesn't the first Golden Rule override this?

  101.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation.

This sounds like an example of a card text directly contradicting the rules... the card text says "you may play the card", while the rules says "you cannot play the land".

One might argue that 101.2 would apply here, but I don't think it does:

  101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.

First off, it's specific that it's only discussing an "effect" that states it can't happen, not a "rule or effect". Because "rule or effect" is used in the first part, and only "effect" is used in the second part, it seems that rules are purposefully excluded. Which makes sense to me because 101.1 already says that "effects" (which are written on cards) will override rules.

And second, even if it did mean "rule or effect", then you just have a case of 101.1 clashing with 101.2 and it isn't clear which one would take priority.

So...

Why is 305.3 able to prevent Djinn of Wishes from playing a land out of turn? I would expect it to work if it said something like "this is an exception to 101.1", as sometimes the comprehensive rules do for other rules that contradict rules.

Interesting to note that Djinn of Wishes does allow you to play a land during Combat, or your Upkeep; other times when you cannot normally play a land. In fact any time you play a land with its ability it is "special" timing, because whether it is your main phase or not, you don't have priority, and the stack isn't empty. Presumably the difference is that while the rules for lands only allows them to be played during your main phase, there is not a rule similar to 305.3 that says lands can only be played during your main phase.

There are two parts to 305.3.

The first part ("A player can’t play a land, for any reason, if it isn’t their turn.") is directly contradicted by Djinn of Wishes's activated ability's effect, so it's ignored.

The second part ("Ignore any part of an effect that instructs a player to do so.") isn't contradicted by the effect.

Since a player must ignore the effect's instruction to play a land when it's not their turn, they are never instructed to play a land when it's not their turn, so the rules aren't contradicted.

Of note, the rules were different before Jul 13th, 2013. See the "Playing Additional Lands" section of Magic 2014 Core Set Rules Preview. Djinn of Wishes is specifically mentioned in the examples. This only shows that the ruling is in line with the intent of the game designers.


How can I handicap Ticket To Ride: USA, without seeming patronizing? I'm struggling to find a good handicap for Ticket To Ride.

When I'm playing with newer, or less strategic players, I'm beating them by 50 points or so.

I don't like a simple points handicap, as that can seem patronizing. Instead, I prefer to have a personal handicap, that I don't tell the others about.

I've tried a 'Keep all three tickets to start, and then for first turn immediately draw another three' system, but that often backfires if I get a good bonanza get a massive score achieving them all.

Some actions you can take, in increasing order of difficulty it will impose:

Don't aim for the Longest Route.
Don't draw from the visible options. This will reduce the 'skill' you can exercise, making your plays more dependent on luck.
Don't use wild Cards to fill out a color set. Makes it harder to get the longer routes. Knowing that they may gather in your hand, you can still use them as a full set to claim a route.
Don't use wild cards at all.
Increase the number of trains you have to collect to claim the smaller routes. Instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, use 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 6. This will drastically slow your ability to claim routes. Don't actually play the extra card, just collect them.


Is Zap A Card considered stealing if a keeper was taken from another player? In Batman Fluxx, if Zap A Card was used to take another player's keeper, is this considered stealing a keeper?

Zap A Card is an Action card with the following text:

  Choose any card in play anywhere on the table (except for the Basic Rules and any Meta Rules) and add it to your hand, unless the card you Zapped is a Creeper, in which case it goes in front of you.

Considering that "Steal a Keeper" is an Action card, and it tells you to put another player's Keeper in front of you, I'd say no. This card tells you to take any card and put it in your hand, which is also not considered in play.


Prosperity - Cornucopia card set Normally the game rule book provides balanced setup to play with different extensions. We just bought Cornucopia, but the French rule book did not provided a setup to play with Prosperity.

We would like to know if there is any idea on an interesting setup to use with these two extensions.

We use the Dominion Intrigue as our base.

There are no "official" kingdom sets for Prosperity and Cornucopia. Personally, I like it when both Tournament (from Cornucopia) and Colonies (from Prosperity) are out, because it tempts people to try to buy some Provinces and end the game on piles. Even more interesting if Bishop is out, so you could potentially trash the Provinces for decent points.

I'd recommend just playing random sets until you find interactions you like. For generating random sets, I like http://www.hiwiller.com/dominion/, but there's lots of other tools out there.


Mystery of the Abbey - How to track clues over time? If I have Novice Gerard in my hand early in the game, and quickly learn that player A has one Templar Novice crossed off and player B has one Templor Novice crossed off, I know I can eliminate all three Templar Novices.

...However, if I learn early in the game that player A has one Templar Novice crossed off, and then learn 15 minutes later that player B also has one crossed off, I need to somehow deduce whether they have the same Novice eliminated, or two different ones.  It would be helpful if I could look at my sheet and determine how old my previous clue was, and whether or not these players have had the chance to share this information with each other or not.  (Obviously, this is a simplified example, but hopefully you get the point.)

With a sheet covered in markings, it's easy to lose track of where and when I learned each piece of information, and this sometimes affects how I can interpret a new clue.  How do you go about tracking whether a clue on your sheet is "stale" or "fresh"?

What I do in games such as these is to make use of the directions my opponents face.  So, on the box for each monk, the player across from me will get the top-center of the box, while the player to my left gets the lower left of the box.  My notes will go in the appropriate location of the box for each player.  As for tracking the card movements, it's best to assume that knowledge is always shared, even if it wasn't, so the elimination note will pass from player A to player B anytime they exchange information.  This allows you to ask questions that you're SURE will leas to new information (if the question is answered as you hope), instead of possibly redundant information.


How do I find out a fair price for my Magic the Gathering cards? Back in the day, I would check Scrye magazine to figure out how much my Magic cards should sell for, but they folded two years ago. Where's a good place to price my collection these days?

If you want to know what you can actually sell individual cards for, I think you can't do better than ebay. If you look at price indices like Scrye used to have, you run into the problem that what a shop can sell a card for is typically much higher than what you, a private individual, can achieve.

Bear in mind as well that prices for individual cards are much higher than buying in bulk. In other words, you might work out that your collection is worth thousands of dollars, if you were to sell each rare individually. But if you tried to sell the same thing to a shop, or in a single lot on ebay, it would sell for only a small fraction of this.

The only other caveat is if you have many extremely rare old cards from the first days of Magic. In this case, the wear and tear of the card has a very large impact on the potential price. Again, ebay will give you an excellent guide to how much these can vary (try doing a search for "Black Lotus" for example).


Do riders have to move at least the amount of their base movement? Do riders (that aren't part of the peloton obviously) have to move at least the amount of their base movement, or can they opt not to move, or to move less than their base movement?  This is an edge case but might be useful if one is so far ahead that choosing not to move forms a blockade against a successive rider.  The english rules say:

  Every racer will enjoy the benefits of a free base movement which varies according to his specialty

This, literally read, implies each racer will and must enjoy that benefit, but I don't know if something may have been lost in the translation if it is more clearly stated in its original language.

Note further down it says

  Every rider moves straight ahead or diagonally. It is forbidden to stay still or move to the side

So this is probably more a question of whether riders can choose to move less than their free base movements.

A rider cannot move less than its base movement, and a "blockade" isn't all that effective anyway.
Your intuition about the wording in the rules is correct (Board Game Geek account needed for access). A player has to move, at minimum, their base movement every turn (assuming they have broken away from the peloton). Additionally, the rules note that riders can pass through spaces occupied by other riders if the road is completely blocked:

A rider may pass through spaces occupied by other riders ONLY when the track before him is completely blocked (fig.6b). However, the following rules must be observed:

He must choose the longest path.
He must pay 1 additional energy point for each occupied space he moves through.

So by creating a blockade, you're only causing other riders to expend more energy, when you could be using your riders to move as far as possible (it is a race, after all). You should still place your rider strategically so that other riders need to go around and waste movement.

On Board Game Geek, user Daniel Kazaniecki has uploaded a different set of rules that fix some annoying aspects of the game. He posts: "After lots of brainstorming and then testing, we finally arrived to this set of rules, which seems to play out nicely for all kinds of routes, while not being too complex." After finding this, we tried out these rules and the game seemed to run more smoothly.
One of the changes they made was allowing riders to move a minimum of one space, regardless of rider type and terrain. However, they also add a rule that allows riders to pay energy to pass through any other riders, so it still washes out your idea for creating a blockade.


Clarification about Tools in Stone Age I just got Stone Age as a gift and I've played it one time so far. But I have a question about how the tools work.

They way we played from how I understood the rules:

  A player places two people and decides to use 1 value-1 tool to gather
  wood in the forest. Thus the player rolls 3 dice (2 for people, one
  for tool). He rolls 3+4+5 = 12. Divides that by 3 and takes 4 wood.

This quickly resulted in not having enough dice to handle a single job. Considering you could place 5 people and use 8-value tools which means you'd need 13 dice.

I read online that other people play this way:

  A player places two people on wood. Rolls two dice, gets 2+3=5. Then
  decides to use 1 value-1 tool to up his sum to 6 which lets him get 2
  wood instead of 1.

Which way is correct?

The last one is correct: you decide how many guys you send to the forest. You roll the dice and then decide to add one or more tools to this.

Tools can't be "broken" (a tool with value of 3 can't be used for 2 in the woods and 1 in the mountain), but you can choose any of your tools for a given place.


Is it feasible to do a Yu-Gi-Oh! booster draft? Magic: The Gathering has a Booster Draft format in which each player opens a booster pack, picks a card to keep, then passes the rest to the next player. After this is repeated a number of times, players add basic lands so that they have a deck they can use in a tournament. The designers of new Magic sets make sure that the cards and their distributions will be fun to play in a Booster Draft.

Is it feasible to do a booster draft with similar rules in the Yu-Gi-Oh! card game? If I have players open booster packs and pass them around following the same rules as the Magic Booster Draft format, would it create playable decks and a satisfying experience?

I'd prefer an answer based on experience from someone who has attempted this. If nobody has tried it, I will accept a detailed analysis of why it would or would not work.

Yes it is feasible. It is not so different from other Card Game Drafts, and it is briefly described here.

However, from experience, it is not fully feasible to do with any booster pack, and is especially difficult with the "main" Card Expansion Sets that follow the Anime, which usually are 100-card sets or less. In fact, I have never seen a Draft tournament made on such "main" expansion sets in the community I play.

If you plan to do a Draft tournament I suggest you consider doing it with card expansions like Battle Pack 3: Monster League, its previous versions, or similar boosters. That link also describes on detail how to carry out such tournaments.

These Battle Pack sets are specifically made for draft or sealed pack tournaments, as they include a wide and balanced variety of cards. These are also bigger card set expansions (BP3 has 237 cards) which enable for a better gameplay. They also tend to be cheaper by the booster, something that makes it easily to afford and convince prospect duelists to join the tournament.


What caused this world-class player' to respond inappropriately to her partner's transfer bids? Zia Mahmood's Bridge column today relates an amusing tale of disaster at the World Championships.  A player on the apparently very talented Netherlands ladies team, holding the following 6-3-2-2 hand:

♠ 7 5
♥ Q J 5
♦ J 4
♣ A K Q J 8 2

First of all managed to open a strong 1NT; and then, more astonishingly, refused to transfer to spades despite no less than 6 consecutive calls to transfer from her poor partner!  (Follow the link for the full story.)

With partner holding 4 points, 7 spades and a singleton heart, the contract went 6 down in 4 hearts redoubled for a penalty of 3400, the largest ever recorded in world championship play.

My question is, this a world-class player we're talking about.  Is there any logical reason why she should have so doggedly refused to transfer to spades? Did she take the heart bids literally? Did she think her hearts are that much better than her spades, even though partner is rightly rather insistent that hearts are a terrible suit to be in.  So what could have been going on in South's mind?  Or had she just been paid money to throw the World Championships? ;)

This looks like one of those tantrums that happen when both partners want to control the hand.  The argument gets out of hand. Both partners think they know what is best and fail to yield until it is way to late.  I wonder if south thought "take that then" when she placed the last pass on the table.

I hate to admit it but I've been there done that.  Please never again.

I suppose it is possible that south thought the the redoubles showed hearts but i strongly doubt it.


What is the "shuck-shuck" strategy? I've seen lots of Axis & Allies discussion refer to "shuck-shuck" in passing. I understand it has something to do with the US and UK supporting Russia in northern Europe using fighters and transports. Due to my inexperience with the game, I can't really figure out what's going on beyond that.

What is "shuck-shuck"? How did it get its name?

How exactly does it work?

Why is it such a fixture in A&A discussions?

According to 'Axis & Allies: Countdown to Invasion' article on the Wizards of the Coast website:

"2. The North Atlantic

The United States starts with a pair of fully loadable transports on turn 1. Where can they offload? Just two territories in the Eastern hemisphere, really. They can make it to the United Kingdom and Africa in one move, either preparing for D-Day or launching Operation Torch. Because they can't motor back and forth from Washington to Normandy (what many longtime players call the "shuck-shuck"), they must coordinate with their allies."

There was also an interesting 'How to prevent Shuck Shuck?' forum discussion about combating the 'shuck-shuck' strategy.

Hope that helps!

Dave (dmw71)


Pyxis of Pandemonium and 'enters the battlefield' abilities My question about Pyxis of Pandemonium is:

When all of the cards are finally turned face up, what determines the order in which their "when X enters the battlefield..." effects resolve?

First the active player (the player whose turn it is, regardless of who activated the Pyxis) puts all of the triggered abilities they control on the stack, then each other person in priority order does the same. When all players are done putting their triggered abilities on the stack, the active player gets priority. When each player has multiple "enters the battlefield" triggers, they get to choose the order as their set of triggers goes 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. (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

Information about APNAP (emphasis mine):

  101.4. If multiple players would make choice s and/or take actions at the same time, the active player (the player whose turn it is) makes
  any choices required, then the next player in turn order (usually the
  player seated to the active player’s left) makes any choices required,
  followed by the remaining nonactive players in turn order. Then the
  actions happen simultaneously. This rule is often referred to as the
  “Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order” rule.


When a creature dies and later returns to the battlefield, does it keep +1/+1 counters? If I have a Bloodcrazed Hoplite that's been given +1/+1 counters from its heroic ability, and then it's killed by an enemy creature, and then I cast a spell that returns it to the battlefield, does it still have the +1/+1 counters on it?

No, it does not keep the +1/+1 counters. Specifically, rule 121.2 says

  Counters on an object are not retained if that object moves from one zone to another. The counters are not "removed"; they simply cease to exist. See rule 400.7.

and rule 400.1 says

  A zone is a place where objects can be during a game. There are normally seven zones: library, hand, battlefield, graveyard, stack, exile, and command. Some older cards also use the ante zone. Each player has his or her own library, hand, and graveyard. The other zones are shared by all players.

So, when the Hoplite dies, it moves from the battlefield to the graveyard, and its counters disappear.

More generally, rule 400.7 says

  An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.

It has exceptions, but none apply here. The Hoplite that you return to the battlefield counts as a completely new creature with no memory of its previous existence on the battlefield.


in Spades, playing King over Queen In a game of Spades I played recently, on the first trick of the round, South was first to play and I was second (West).

South lead Q♥ and I had K,3♥.

I Played the 3♥, since I was afraid to play the K♥ and let North to take it with the A♥.  What happened is that South won the first trick with the Q♥, then lead his A♥ and won the second trick.  Bids were 3,2,4,2 (S,W,N,E).

In what situations I should play the King over the queen when the Ace is still out there?

You got had! Nice play by your opponent (South).

Terminology:

A finesse is the play of a lower card than the highest held - in an attempt to create an extra trick - by the third hand playing to the trick.
South on this hand employed a ruse to create the extra trick by leading the lower card (Queen from holding topped by just Ace-Queen).

There are Game Theoretic issues with a second-hand holding such as your holding here of Kx - where it is important to not be predictable. I suspect that you, and possibly North as well, have become predictable in your play with short Spade holdings.

Comments being ephemeral, and all that, two comments of mine from below are saved here:

I cannot imagine any strong, or better, Contract Bridge player not regularly leading top of an interior sequence, or second lowest, to see how many errors can be induced by the opponents. I do it regularly. South in this case seems to have a similar low regard for the card skill of his opponents. (Bridge players are snobs about the card skill of Spades, Hearts, and Euchre players - for very good reason.) If you are serious about improving your card play at Spades, and other trick-taking games, learn and study Contract Bridge and its associated play.
A good starting resource is the web site run by multiple National ACBL Championship winner Richard Pavlicek and his son: rpbridge.net/rppt.htm


Turn Count Inconsistency when using Attack in Exploding Kittens When playing Attack, the turns of the current player are transferred to the next player, and a fixed number of turns are added. However, this seems to be inconsistent with the official text:

ATTACK 2X 4 CARDS
Do not draw any cards. Instead, immediately force the next player to take 2 turns in a row. Play then continues from that player. The victim of this card takes a turn as normal (pass-or-play then draw). Then, when their first turn is over, it's their turn again.
If the victim of an Attack Card plays an Attack Card on any of their turns, the new target must take any remaining turns plus the number of attacks on the Attack Card just played (e.g. 4 turns, then 6, and so on).

The text suggests that this would be the effect:

P1 plays Attack, so P2 has 2 turns.
P2 plays Attack, so P3 has 4 turns.
P3 plays Attack, so P4 has 6 turns. (Pn refers to P(n mod p) for p players.)
P4 plays Attack, so P5 has 8 turns.
P5 plays Five Different Cards (to get Attack) and draws Shuffle, with 7 turns left.
P5 plays Attack, so P6 has 9 turns.

The inconsistency is that P1 already has 1 turn when playing Attack, which would imply adding 1 turn per Attack card:

P1 plays Attack, so P2 has 1+1=2 turns.
P2 plays Attack, so P3 has 2+1=3 turns.
P3 plays Attack, so P4 has 3+1=4 turns.
P4 plays Attack, so P5 has 4+1=5 turns.
P5 plays Five Different Cards (to get Attack) and draws Shuffle, with 4 turns left.
P5 plays Attack, so P6 has 4+1=5 turns.

This is clearly not what the text suggests, which is that 2 turns should be added. But even with that change, it seems like 1 extra turn should be added to everything:

P1 plays Attack, so P2 has 1+2=3 turns.
P2 plays Attack, so P3 has 3+2=5 turns.
P3 plays Attack, so P4 has 5+2=7 turns.
P4 plays Attack, so P5 has 7+2=9 turns.
P5 plays Five Different Cards (to get Attack) and draws Shuffle, with 8 turns left.
P5 plays Attack, so P6 has 8+2=10 turns.

Is the inconsistency a result of misinterpreting the description, or is it just that the Attack card has a special extra effect of subtracting 1 turn when the turn count is 1 before adding (3 after adding)?
Transfer turns to the next player, add 2 turns, and subtract 1 turn if the turn count is 3.
I say that it seems inconsistent because in this example, P3 can have 2 extra turns from a 1 turn count difference:

P1 plays Attack, so P2 has 2+2-1=2 turns.
P2 plays Shuffle and draws Shuffle, with 1 turn left.
P2 plays Attack, so P3 has 1+2-1=2 turns. (P3 has 2+2=4 turns if the previous line is deleted.)

Or would P3 get 3 turns (4 if the second line is deleted) in this case, corresponding to the following effect?
Transfer turns to the next player and add 2 turns. The turn count is normally 0, and players still take 1 turn if the turn count is 0.
This last rule avoids removing 2 turns from using 1, but it means 1 original turn and 1 Attack turn left are different states (but only when using Attack).

I have a very interesting answer to this question that might or might not be correct...
For all of this to make sense, I believe the first step should be to differentiate between a normal turn and an attack turn.
If you do that, all different scenarios and rules start slowly making more sense and matching up:
1) Official Rules:

ATTACK 2X 4 CARDS
Do not draw any cards. Instead, immediately force the next player to take 2 turns in a row. Play then continues from that player. The victim of this card takes a turn as normal (pass-or-play then draw). Then, when their first turn is over, it's their turn again.
If the victim of an Attack Card plays an Attack Card on any of their turns, the new target must take any remaining <attack> turns plus the number of attacks on the Attack Card just played (e.g. 4 turns, then 6, and so on).

See how I edited in a word there? Would it remove the contradiction from your examples?
1.1)

P1 plays Attack, so P2 has 2 turns. (0 normal and 2 attack)
P2 plays Attack, so P3 has 4 turns. (0 normal and 4 attack)
P3 plays Attack, so P4 has 6 turns. (0 normal and 6 attack)
P4 plays Attack, so P5 has 8 turns. (0 normal and 8 attack)
P5 plays Five Different Cards (to get Attack) and draws Shuffle, with 7 turns left. (0 normal and 7 attack)
P5 plays Attack, so P6 has 9 turns. (0 normal and 9 attack)

So far so good!
1.2 & 1.3)

The inconsistency is that P1 already has 1 turn when playing Attack, which would imply adding 1 turn per Attack card

Now this inconsistency is gone! Normal turns don't get carried over, only attack turns!
2) Mobile Game
Another source for rules that gave me this idea is the mobile Exploding Kittens game.
The game has interesting type of cards called "Slap" (as a replacement for attack cards, functionality seems to be identical):

There are double slaps, triple slaps as well as single slaps and their behavior does seem to fit in with my answer:
Imagine you start the game by single slapping someone:

P1 (1 normal turn, 0 attack) -> Slap
P2 (0 normal turns, 1 attack)

This is the behavior that you would expect according to my explanation but what if P2 slaps back?

P1 (1 normal turn, 0 attack) -> Slap
P2 (0 normal turns, 1 attack) -> Slap
P3 (0 normal turns, 2 attack)!

That's precisely what happens in the game! It seems like for the rules to make sense you really need to differentiate between normal turns that happen when someone finishes their turn, and the forced "attack" turns that happen once someone gets attacked/slapped.
2.1) Official Rules (again)
The game behavior and my explanation both match up with the "Double Slap" description as well:

Double Slap
3 Cards with  4 Cards without
End your turn without drawing a card and force any other player to take 2 turns in a row.
This is not the same as drawing 2 cards in a row! The target of this card should take their first turn (play cards and/or draw). When their turn is over, it’s their turn again.
If the targeted player plays a Slap Card in return, they pick a player to take ALL remaining turns (4 turns, then 6, and so on). Play always continues from the targeted player.
Triple Slap works the same way as Double Slap, but adds 3 turns instead of 2.

This description matches my explanation as well!

Whether this is the correct interpretation of the rules or not is up for debate, but this was the one and only way I have managed avoid any logical inconsistencies while playing the game both in real life and virtually and reading different rules (old rules are even more different!).


Isareth the Awakener and championing Scenario:
Isareth the Awakener returns Llanowar Elves to play.
I play Changeling Hero and exile Llanowar elves.
Changeling Hero is destroyed.

Does Llanowar elves get returned by the champion trigger?

It would be returned; Isareth’s last sentence doesn’t do anything.

The replacement effect doesn’t actually apply, beause “instead of putting it anywhere else” means “instead of going to Exile”. Because it is going to Exile anyway; it doesn’t matter.


Can I assign only some creatures to block Gorm the Great? I played Battlebond with my friends yesterday. I attacked with Gorm the Great and his partner Virtus the Veiled. The opponents had three untapped creatures. They blocked Gorm using two creatures and blocked Virtus with another creature.  Can they block this way?

Yes, you can do that.
Gorm the Great needs to be blocked by at least 2 creatures:

Gorm the Great must be blocked if able, and Gorm must be blocked by two or more creatures if able.

If the opponent has any more creatures they can choose to block any creature with them (unless there are any other restrictions).


Destroying opponent's creatures with hexproof If my opponent has an abundance of other creatures including Archetype of Endurance out, can I play cards like Wakening Sun's Avatar, Cosmotronic Wave, or the new Rakdos, the Showstopper to get around my opponents creatures? Since they each target all of certain types of creatures and not the individual creature itself?

Or would Hexproof prevent this since the cards don't target ALL creatures?

All of these cards would work since they do not specifically target any card. A creature with hexproof cannot be the target of an effect an opponent uses, however, it can still be affected by opponent's effects, so long as it is not targeted. A boardwipe will still wipe the  board, including the hexproof creatures, so long as it does not read the specific word "target." Since Wakening Sun's Avatar states "destroy all non-Dinosaur creatures," it will destroy all non-Dinosaur creatures, unless they have indestructible (permanent cannot be destroyed by rules or effects).


When I have two cards with cohort would there tap ability works at the same time? My opponent has two Ondu war cleric. He taps them both and said he gains 4 life. But I believe he couldn't use the second one with only two of those cards, because cohort said you need another untapped ally

He can only gain 2 life

When you activate an ability, the first thing you do, is pay it's cost.

  602.1a The activation cost is everything before the colon (:). An ability’s activation cost must be paid by the player who is activating it.
  602.2. To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs...

In this case that means that you need to tap the Ondu war cleric and an other untapped ally. They will be tapped before the ability is put on the stack so you won't be able to then activate the second war cleric as he is already tapped.


Interaction between Torment of Hailfire and Persist If I choose a creature with persist for one repetition of Torment of Hailfire, will it return to play before the next repetition to choose it again?

No, it will not.

Persist in a triggered ability:

  702.78a Persist is a triggered ability. “Persist” means “When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, if it had no -1/-1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner’s control with a -1/-1 counter on it.”

Triggered abilities trigger while other spells and abilities resolve, bit they aren't put on the stack until afterwards, and they don't resolve until a little while after that.

The only (common) thing that can really intervene in a case like this is a so-called replacement effect (those usually contain the word "instead"). And while there may be replacement effects that can let you get out of the Torment predicament cheaper, I can't think of one right now.


How to successfully store games on edge? Last night it took me nearly 10 minutes to get a game from the bottom of my current stack of games and put everything back.

I'm convinced that stacking my board games on top of each other is no longer a reasonable solution, and is actually one thing preventing me from playing games as often as I'd like.  Ideally it should be as easy to get a game out and set up as it is to turn on the TV, and while I can't realize that situation yet, I would at least like to  get a little closer.

I'm planning on storing my boxed games on edge, with the internals separated in baggies, but this leads me to a few questions, which you will hopefully have a solution for:

Games in long thin boxes, such as monopoly and clue, tend to open if there's not enough pressure on the top and bottom, making removal difficult and/or tricky (incompatible with children) and causing them to spill their contents.  Rubber bands slip off, break, and interfere with removing boxes from the shelf.  Do I have any options here, or do I need to give up on storing games like I store books?
Limited space means I can't have a shelf for each size of game box. What are some good organization strategies or techniques so games are easy to find, and fit well next to each other despite widely varying dimensions?
What other organization strategies should I consider, or is there a way to use the stacking method while allowing games to be easy to remove and put away?

I've also been trying to fit more board games in less space recently.  Some notes so far:

The modern medium-square-box style of game works fine on the side in a bookcase; e.g. pretty much anything by Fantasy Flight or Days of Wonder.  Catan and similar smaller boxes will work OK even on their end.
Old-style flat/thin boxes (Monopoly etc.) really don't side-stack well.  (But frankly, they're also often inferior to modern game designs, so I don't mind leaving them at the bottom of a pile.)   Other games pile really well sideways on top of a Monopoly box.  If you're strong: Monopoly and Clue can go at the bottom, be pulled out sideways, and then the one you didn't play be lifted up along with all games on top of it to slide your chosen game back in underneath.
A lot of older games have bigger boxes than they need.  If you don't care about resale value, your Monopoly and Clue sets will fit just fine in the Monopoly box.  (If you're not bothered at all by losing the boxes, consider just getting a bunch of clear plastic boxes which do stack and repacking all your games in them.  Add some sticky labels on the sides and you're done.)
In limited space, start by packing the biggest games in a corner first, then work outward.  This makes the larger games less accessible - but they're often also the longest, least-often-played.
If rubber bands aren't working for you, try a long strip of velcro fastener... usually comes in the form of a long fuzzy strip with velcro on the end.  It'll wrap around the box and seal to itself.
If you play any small pub card games (e.g. anything by Cheapass or Looney Labs), get a single case you can carry easily to fit them all in.

(I've got all my small card games and Icehouse pieces packed in a single old vanity case.  Not only compact, but easy to take to the pub.)

My hints on internal organisation of the games:

Plastic baggies are OK for games with few counters, but clumsy for many.  Any craft shop will carry subdivided plastic trays in various sizes, intended for storing beads and the like.  They work very well for storing counters.

(For example, my Galactica set has the boards underneath with a plastic box on top with all counters and pieces divided by type, and the decks of cards lying rubber-banded alongside.  All expansions fit neatly in the original box and we don't have to sort out the pieces before play, just take out the storage box and leave it by the board.)

Card decks rubber-band just fine.  (Leave a couple of spare rubber bands in the game box for those moments when they snap.)
Consider preferring games with good storage trays built in!  (Small World and Dominion spring to mind.)


Action selection in a hidden movement game that may require more information to be complete I want to have simultaneous action selection, but the action selected may need some additional information, like the space on the board that it is of relevance to, additional equipment that you choose to use or have to use, etc. How can I have all players select their cards without giving away that they selected a certain type that would require additional cards or information, or even how many additional cards are needed? I want to prevent the players from being able to alter their selected action in any way by/after getting additional information.
Feel free to replace "card" with any other token.

Most games that let you select a variable number of something in secret, will either give you small tokens that you hold in your hand, or by giving you a screen to hide items behind. Some also give you duds that you can place instead of something useful, to bluff about what you're doing.

For example, Shogun lets each player pick an action for each province they have. Each action can only be picked once. What they do is give the player a card for each province they own, and they put their province face-down below the icon for the desired action.

When you want to expand this mechanic so that you can select additional options, you could for example slide additional cards under that action, then give each player a few blank cards that they can use to bluff about where they are taking serious actions.

Alternatively, if the players take one action at a time, it's easy enough to just give them a screen. They put all the stuff that is used in the action on one side, and everything else on the other. That lets them completely hide what they are doing from everyone.

Some games also do the same thing, except they use a bag. This works really well with tokens; you put all the tokens you want to use in the bag and the rest you keep behind your screen. Or you can use a dial for selecting amounts (used by many games).


Do artifacts count as creatures when they are put into a graveyard while March of the Machines is in play? Say I have March of the Machines in play, along with Sunbeam Spellbomb and Salvaging Station. I pay {W} and sac the Spellbomb to gain 5 life. Does the Spellbomb trigger the untap-ability on Station?

I tried to find if this was already answered and found a lot of threads dealing with entering the battlefield, but nothing about leaving it.

TL;DR: Yes, it triggers. Sunbeam Spellbomb stops being a creature once it's in the graveyard, but for the 'leaves the battlefield' it's important how it looks like on the battlefield, not the graveyard.

Salvaging Station's last ability is a so-called 'leaves the battlefield' ability, even though it's printed more like an 'enter the graveyard' ability. However, the current Oracle text of that ability reads:

  Whenever a creature dies, you may untap Salvaging Station.

'Dies' is short for something else:

  700.4. The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”

Therefore, it's a 'leaves the battlefield' ability:

  603.6c Leaves-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent moves from the battlefield to another zone, or when a phased-in permanent leaves the game because its owner leaves the game. These are written as, but aren’t limited to, “When [this object] leaves the battlefield, . . .” or “Whenever [something] is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, . . . .” (See also rule 603.10.)

Let's have a look at 603.10:

  603.10. Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions, and 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 are exceptions to this rule; the game “looks back in time” to determine if those abilities trigger, using the existence of those abilities and the appearance of objects immediately prior to the event. The list of exceptions is as follows:

(emphasis mine)

  603.10a Some zone-change triggers look back in time. These are leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a card leaves a graveyard, and abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library.

The appearance of the Sunbeam Spellbomb on the battlefield was an artifact creature, so Salvaging Station's ability will trigger.


Can I sacrifice a treasure for mana not in my commanders colours? Commander or edh is a format that, amongst other things places restrictions on the colours of the cards you play in the deck. See this faq.

  A card's color identity is its colour plus the color of any mana symbols in the card's rules text. A card's color identity is established before the game begins, and cannot be changed by game effects.
  Cards in a deck may not have any colors in their color identity which are not shared with the Commander of the deck. (The identity of each card in the deck must be a subset of the Commander's)

But if I have a card like flash conscription which has a rider on which colour of mana was used, can I put that into a deck that doesn't have that colour identity, and can I pay for it with something like a treasure token or some other effect that can make any colour mana?

As the rule states:

  A card's color identity is its colour plus the color of any mana
  symbols in the card's rules text.

Flash Conscription's rules text contains a white mana symbol, therefore it it's colour identity is Red/White.

The only time this does not apply is when that symbol is included in reminder text e.g. Extort like on Crypt Ghast

it should also be noted:

  903.4c The back face of a double-faced card (see rule 711) is included when determining a card's color identity.

so Elbrus, the Binding Blade / Withengar Unbound from is classed as a black card because the back face has the black colour identifier on it's type line.

Also split cards like those with fuse mechanic or aftermath also take the colour identity from both halves combined.

As for generating mana outside of your commanders colour identity, this is fine and allowed in commander rules, as of January 2016


Hexproof in response? If I have a card out like Animar, Soul of Elements and my opponent cast a Murder and targets Animar, would I be able to morph my Mistfire Weaver and give Animar hexproof in response so that he doesn't die, or does he still die?

So this is really a question about how the stack works.  First, to ansewer your question, Animar, Soul of Elements has protection from Black, so Murder can't be cast targeting Animar, unless Animar somehow lost protection from black.
Ruling:

  702.16. Protection

  702.16a Protection is a static ability, written “Protection from [quality].” This quality is usually a color (as in “protection from black”) but can be any characteristic value or information. If the quality happens to be a card name, it is treated as such only if the protection ability specifies that the quality is a name. If the quality is a card type, subtype, or supertype, the ability applies to sources that are permanents with that card type, subtype, or supertype and to any sources not
  on the battlefield that are of that card type, subtype, or supertype. This is an exception to rule 109.2.

  702.16b A permanent or player with protection can’t be targeted by spells with the stated quality and can’t be targeted by abilities from a source with the stated quality.

But let's assume the person who cast Murder picked a valid target and then you turned Mistfire Weaver face up.  Stack is first in, last out.  So Murder goes on the stack targeting a valid creature.  Mistfire Weaver gets turned face up triggering it's ability and goes on the stack targeting the same creature (if the creature has protection from blue, then Mistfire's ability can't target the same creature).  Mistfire's ability resolves first (top of the stack, first out) giving the creature hexproof.  Then Murder tries to resolve, but sees it no longer has any legal targets and leaves the stack without doing anything.


Thaumatic Compass / Spires of Orazca VS creatures with vigilance Am I still able to target attacking creatures with Spires of Orazca's ability if they are not tapped (if they have Vigilance for example)?

Yes, since the description of the target is only "target attacking creature an opponent controls", with no mention of it being tapped.

Then when the ability resolves it simply does not untap the creature if it is not tapped, as specified in the rules for effects:

  609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.


Some cards in my deck are heads down, can opponent force me to fix that? Let's say I have deck without sleeves, and some cards in my deck are heads down(not upside-down, you don't see the images, but can recognize that some card backs are head down, while others not).

Can my opponent force me to look through my whole deck to fix that?

It happened in my club at least twice. I did not cheat, neither of us who were forced to do that make heads down cards on purpose(we shuffle like that, he insists that those cards may be lands or winconditions), but it eats lots of time to sort them back and is just annoying.

Can I at least force a player that don't like heads down cards(or judge?) to fix that instead of me, if it is in the rules?

Nobody but judges are allowed to look at your deck during the game. You will need a judge to fix your deck.
During a game, you would obviously not be allowed to look through your deck unless an effect would allow you to.

401.2. Each library must be kept in a single face-down pile. Players can’t look at or change the order of cards in a library.

In a tournament setting, your deck would count as marked, and you would get at least a Warning for it, possibly a game loss:

Tournament Error — Marked Cards
A player’s cards are marked or oriented in a way that could potentially give an advantage to that player.
Penalty - Warning
The Head Judge has the option to upgrade this penalty to a Game Loss if he or she believes that a player noticing the pattern of markings would clearly compromise the integrity of the game.

Only a judge would be allowed to fix your deck as a remedy to the infraction.
If the error was not reported, and the Head Judge is convinced that you knew it was illegal, and that you intended to gain an advantage from the cards' orientation, the infraction would probably be upgraded to Cheating, and you would have to get a disqualification.


Splendor: can I use gem coins instead of development cards? In Splendor, when I buy a development card, can I choose to pay the full price using coins, rather than exploiting the bonus price reduction given by the development cards I already own?

Example: I have 3 emerald resources, and 3 emerald coins. On the board, there are no development cards with a price of more than 3 emeralds. Can I buy one of those using my coins rather than exploiting the three cards I already own?

This happened during a game in which I miscounted my opponent's resources and she took a card worth 6 emeralds which I was after. In a later game phase, I was in the situation of having to get rid of the excess emeralds to free room for other gem coins I needed.

It's not explicit in the rules whether you're allowed to do that, but they say:

  if  a  player  has  2  blue  bonuses  and  wants  to  purchase  a
  card which costs 2 blue tokens and 1 green token, the player
  must only spend 1 green token.

Use of the word must would suggest that the discount from the cards is mandatory.

Also, I can see no reason why you would want to use up coins when you don't need to. You can always take 3 coins (or 2 of the same colour if 4 or more are left). You only have to discard coins if you have more than 10 at the end of your turn:

  A  player  can  never  have  more  than  10  tokens  at  the  end  of
  their turn (including jokers). If this happens, they must return
  tokens until they only have 10 left.

So in the example in your question you could carry on taking new coins and discard the unwanted emeralds at the end of your turn if you had more than 10 coins.


Ignition Effect Priority in Old Yu-Gi-Oh! I am trying to remember the details of the old mechanic in Yu-Gi-Oh! which was referred to borderline-erroneously as priority, but was actually an ability to use ignition effects in response to Summons.  According to my recollection:

Only the turn player could use it
It could only be used if the monster Summoned was the turn player's
It could only be used during Main Phase 1 or Main Phase 2, the game phases when ignition effect can normally be used
It could be used to activate the ignition effect of one monster anywhere in the turn player's possession (hand, field, Graveyard, etc.)
It could be used in response to any type of Summon (Normal, Flip, or Special)
It could only be used if the Summon was the last event to occur, in exactly the same sense as "When...you can" trigger effects.

Are there any mistakes so far?  Also, to further expand on the meaning of #2:

Could the turn player activate an ignition effect in response to Special Summoning Lava Golem to the non-turn player's field?
Could the turn player activate an ignition effect in response to the non-turn player resolving Ojama Trio as Chain link 1 during the Main Phase (Ojama Trio uses a "you Special Summon to your opponent's field" wording)?
Could the turn player activate an ignition effect in response to the non-turn player resolving Inferno Reckless Summon as Chain link 1 during the Main Phase (Inferno Reckless Summon uses a "your opponent Special Summons to their own field" wording)?
If Remove Brainwashing was active, could the turn player activate an ignition effect in response to their Summoning a monster to their own field that was owned by the non-turn player (after control of the Summoned monster immediately shifted to the non-turn player)?
If Remove Brainwashing was active, could the turn player activate an ignition effect in response to the non-turn player Summoning a monster to the non-turn player's field that was owned by the turn player (after control of the Summoned monster immediately shifted to the turn player)?

Correct.

Going further, only the monster that was summoned would be allowed to activate its ignition effect (which answers 7 and 8).

Also correct due to ignition effects being treated as having spell speed 1.

Incorrect, only the summoned monster would be allowed to activate its ignition effect with ignition effect priority.

Correct.

Correct, however I also believe that it cannot be a summon during the resolution of a chain (by card effect such as polymerization), for a special summon it would have to be by summoning condition.

Answered in 2.

Answered in 2.

No, answered in 6.

No, answered in 2 as the summoned monster would be in the opponents control.

No, as you cannot summon monsters via summoning condition on your opponents turn.


Why was Reinforcement of the Army limited? Reinforcement of the Army:

  Add 1 Level 4 or lower Warrior monster from your Deck to your hand.

Why is this card limited? There are many cards out there that allow you to add a monster from your deck to your hand, or even better special summon it. So why would they choose this card?

You are correct in saying that "there are many other cards that search from the deck other monsters", but not every card allows you to do such for no cost at all and also for any lvl 4 or lower Warrior-type monster.

As you can see, the target cards for ROTA are many; at least 488 targets to be specific (according to my queries on the YuGiOh Pro database). This makes this card an extremely powerful option for many decks, and also a card with high abuse potential.

Longer answer:

Now, speaking of abuse potential, doing some research I found that according to this official list ROTA card was brought down to the Limited status on November 2015, more than 2 years ago, and remains Limited since.

If we recall, the booster set Secrets of Eternity was released previously that year (on January), where the Nekroz Archetype made their debut appearance on the TCG. They were at that time perhaps the strongest Archetype out there, evidence of that is the Limiting of Shurit, Strategist of the Nekroz a few months later after their debut (on July 2015 to be specific).

Needles to say that Shurit is a Level 3 Warrior-type monster which basically allowed Nekroz players two things:

Use Shurit as the entire requirement to Ritual Summon any Nekroz Ritual Monster, and...
add any Warrior-type Nekroz Ritual Monster when doing so, or when tributing him in any other ways.

By having 3 Copies of ROTA in your deck you basically had 6 copies of Shurit, greatly increasing the chances of playing it.

Now, Limiting Shurit was not enough, as there was still abuse from Nekroz players. Specifically, regarding Nekroz of Clausolas which (guess what?) is also a lvl 3 Warrior-type monster that can do two things:

Search for any Nekroz Ritual Spell/Trap card, or
negate the effects, and make the Atk 0 of an opponent monster that was Special Summoned from the Extra Deck.

Not only is this card search-able by ROTA, but it also has the ability to do further searching ("thinning" your deck in the process, thus higher odds to pick the cards you want) and also negate effects like our good fellow Effect Veiler (hey they even look similar lol).

Bonus Fact: Other "searcher" spell cards have been Limited before, being Fire Formation - Tenki the most notable one, during the times of the Fire Fist and Bujin Archetypes. Again, had no cost at all, and even increased the Atk of Beast-warriors.

tl;dr:

Given all these facts, we can say that ROTA was brought down with the advent of the Nekroz Archetype, which heavily benefited from its searching effect.

Instead of banning or limiting many cards from the Nekroz Archetype (thus killing it) they decided to restrict Reinforcement of the Army, the real source of abuse from this and other decks back then.


Is a white/black deck viable? Hi I just started playing mtg a week ago and bought a white/green intro deck. However, I would want to create a deck combining one of these colors (if possible) with one that focuses on a more aggressive play style. I understand red and black are the most aggressive ones (please correct me if I'm wrong), and this has made me think on building a white (defensive) / black (aggressive) deck in the following weeks. Is such a combination of colors viable? If it is not, what other combination would allow me to have a more aggressive play style without giving up all my defense?

Thank you very much.

Is this viable? Yes.
Will this always be the best choice? No.

An example of an old deck which I played in the past:
Black and white knights (pro black on the WK), pestilence, circle of protection black (old rules: pump pestilence once with 2-3 mana. Power CoP black once. A castle or two, sengir vampires and serra's if you can find them. Pegasi, (with castle they survive 2 damage), ... hypnotic specters, unholy streght, terror, ...

That deck would not survice and serious competion, but against similar decks of starters it did quite well. So yes, depending on your environment you can build quite viable decks.

If you move up en anvironment where people are actually buying current generation cards to build a tournament deck, then the answer if different and it will vary between releases of new expansions.

But as I read it you are just starting with MTG and a agressive black deck with some help from white can do just fine.


Can an interrupting settlement allow opponents to move previously unmovable ships? Take a look at the following setup:

Given this board state, can blue move any of his ships? He was previously unable to, then white built the circled settlement, breaking blue's trade route.

The rules in seafarers say that a ship can be moved only if it doesn't connect two cities and it is not in the middle of a line of ships. Since a settlement interrupts a longest road, does it also count as breaking the above sea route into two disjoint lines of ships?

(NB Blue's settlement on the right was an original, the blue settlement on the left was placed after being reached with the shown sea route.)

No, you may not move it, your ship is not open. From the official site.

  A ship is “open” when it is located at the end of a ship route. As soon as a ship route connects two settlements, the ship route is considered as closed. A ship in a closed ship route can not be moved. This rule also applies if another player builds a settlement on the intersection of your closed ship route. In this case, the continuous road is considered as interrupted in terms of being counted towards the Longest Road; however, the two settlements of the ship route are still connected, meaning that the ship route remains closed.


Does Silver Lining negate a creeper requirement? If, for example, You Also Need a Baked Potato is in play or the goal is War=Death, what is the effect of the Silver Lining card, which states that creepers cannot prevent you from winning?

Normally, if a player has a creeper in play that player cannot win even if they meet the requirements for winning.

If the requirements for winning also require 1 or more creepers (such as in the War=Death goal) the player can win if they have those creepers, and must have those creepers in order to win, however if the player also has any other creepers (such as taxes) in play they cannot win. In this case, a player must have Death and War, but must not have any other creepers in play, in order to win.

The Silver Lining card only removes the requirement that creepers prevent the player from winning. It does nothing else to the creepers or to the requirements. So if you have a goal: War = Death, you can still win if you have War, Death, Taxes, and the Silver Lining card is in play.

"You also need the potato" places the requirement that the baked potato must be one of your cards in addition to the rest of the requirements in order to win. When that card is in play you cannot win without the potato, and you must have the potato in order to win, regardless of whether or not the silver lining is in play.

Ultimately, when a creeper is part of the requirements for a goal or a win condition that creeper in that case does not prevent the player from winning by achieving that goal regardless of whether or not there is a silver lining.