Phase 10 Going Out - Do you keep picking up? I've just picked up a copy of Phase 10 to play with my kids. I'm a little confused about the 'Going Out' part. Once you get a phase and place it on the table, you can place any appropriate cards on your own and your opponents' phases, or the discard pile. The object is to get rid of your hand. Do you still just carry on picking cards up and discarding them until you happen to be able to get rid of them all (or your opponent does)? Or do you just discard one at a time?

EDIT: I think I've just realised that you can 'Hit' a phase at any point, so you could pick up a card, Hit it on to a phase, and discard a card into the discard pile. Is that right?

Before making your phase, your turn structure is like this:

You MUST draw a card from the deck or discard pile.
You MAY make your phase and put it on the table.
You MUST discard a card onto the discard pile.

When making your phase you MAY immediately add any number of your own cards to other phases on the table. Afterwards, you MUST discard a card to end your turn.
Then after making your phase, your turn structure is like this:

You MUST draw a card from the deck or discard pile.
You MAY add any number of cards from your hand to the phases on the table.
You MUST discard a card onto the discard pile.

The round ends immediately when a player gets rid of their last card.


In Texas Hold'em, who is awarded second and third place in this scenario? Consider the scenario where there are three players remaining:

Player A has 1,000 chips
Player B has 200 chips
Player C has 50 chips and is the dealer

The hand starts and Player C goes all in. Player A calls and Player B goes all in. Player A calls Player B's all in. At this point everyone is all in and turns their cards over.

In the end, Player A's hand beats both Player B and Player C. Clearly, Player A has won first place. And if Player B's hand beat Player C's hand then clearly Player B would have won second place, and Player C third.

But what if Player C's hand beats Player B's hand - who gets second place and who gets third place in that scenario? I wager one of the following three outcomes is what should happen, but I'm not familiar with the rules to know what the "official" outcome should be:

Player C wins second place because his hand beat Player B's hand, even though Player B had more chips at the start of the hand.
Player B wins second place since she had more chips at the start of the hand than Player C.
Player A wins first place and gets to go off and roll around in the piles of money he has won. Player C gets 50 of Player B's chips, since he went all in with his 50 and won the hand and the two stay at the table and play heads up to determine second and third place.

Thanks

Here, the important factor is that Player B and Player C both lost to, and were "busted" by Player A's hand. Not that Player C's hand beats Player B's.

If two players "bust out" on the same hand, then the prizes are awarded in DESCENDING chip order as of BEFORE the mutual bust. That is Player B comes in ahead of Player C.

If Player C had sat out with 50 chips, and only Player B was busted, Player C would continue. (And probably win second place unless he were able to stage a complete reversal.)


Can an ability be used after my opponent uses an instant? Can I use an ability after an opponent uses an instant?

Example: Opponent casts Victim of Night on my creature. It reads:

  Destroy target non-Vampire, non-Werewolf, non-Zombie creature.

Can I use Bubbling Cauldron's ability to sacrifice the creature he just attempted to kill?

  1, Tap, Sacrifice a creature: You gain 4 life.

Yes, you can do that. In Magic: the Gathering, most creature abilities are used like instants.

You should read the Basic Rules (PDF), page 10, if you're not familiar with the Stack and how spell casting works.

The situation you describe would work like this:

Opponent casts Victim of the Night, choosing your creature for the target. It goes on the stack and doesn't resolve yet.
Opponent chooses to cast nothing else yet and passes priority to you.
You use Bubbling Cauldron's ability. That too goes on the stack and doesn't resolve yet. You pay the cost immediately, including sacrificing the creature targeted by Victim of the Night.
You choose to pass priority so your opponent can respond. They choose to do nothing.

Now the top object on the stack resolves.

Bubbling Cauldron's ability resolves first. You gain 4 life.
Again there is an opportunity for your opponent or you to respond in turn, if neither of you do, the top object of the stack resolves.
Victim of the Night resolves. Its target is gone, so it can't do anything. A new target can't be chosen. Victim of the Night goes to the graveyard.


When you call a bluff and are wrong, how is the card that dies chosen? In Coup, if you don't believe someone has a card, you can call them out and they must reveal a card. If that card isn't the one they've said it is, it dies.

However, if it is, one of yours dies.

How is that card chosen?


In Puerto Rico, how do you tell whether it is better to trade or to ship a good? How do you choose between "trading" a good (locally) and shipping it (abroad) when the two actions have rather different reward structures?

How do the relevant roles you might play (craftsman, captain, trader) affect these choices?

Of course, if you have a warehouse, that gives you a wider choice of whether to trade or ship, and whether to do so this turn or in the future. More to the point, how do you decide, "I need to buy a warehouse THIS turn, for 1-2 turns down the road?"

It depends on several factors that ultimately boil down to What is the roles overall value?

Is it the early game? - In the early game, it is usually more important to gain coins than VP. The reason for this, is that you can exchange coins for buildings that will gain you more coins/VP over the course of the game than you would earn this turn by shipping and taking the VP. Until you have your coin generating buildings setup, usually consisting of a high value trade good/large market/factory, coins are usually of greater value. Some of the expansion building make this distinction moot (Black Market).
Do your opponents make more Coins/VP because of your choice? - Usually, in Puerto Rico, you want to make decisions that benefit you more than your opponents. If choosing Trader will benefit your opponents more, you might want to Captain instead (or select some other role). The few times you might select a role that doesn't seem to immediately help you relative to your opponents, is when you are denying them access to the cash necessary to buy some building (Guild Hall pops up a lot here), or denying them shipping on a large boat (they have lots of corn and you take a large boat and possibly tie up all the boats from emptying).
Does the role have a coin on it - I will many times take a role card that has a coin, because all I need is that extra coin to buy a building I want during the next building phase.


Pick up the not frozen discard pile having a Canasta meld My wife and I have gotten into a bit of an argument.
If the discard deck is not frozen, and I have already met the minimum meld whether that be 50, 90 or 120, can I pick up the discard deck with a natural card and a wild card?
We are trying to use Hoyle to play by.

Yes you can; this is one of the main differences between the discard pile being frozen or not.
Source:

When the discard pile is not frozen against their side, a player may take it: a) with a natural pair matching the top card as above; or b) by melding the top card with one matching natural card and one wild card from his hand; or c) by adding the top card to a meld they already have on the table.

Source 2:

But first let us consider the case where the discard pile is not frozen against you. In that case, if the top card of the pile is a natural card (from four up to ace), you can take the pile if either:

you play two cards from your hand that make a valid meld with the top discard: these could be either two natural cards of the same rank as the top discard, or one such natural card and one wild card,

or

the top discard matches the rank of one of your partnerships existing melds, and you add it to that meld.

If the pile is frozen; then you must have 2 naturals in hand.


Can the New Angeles Sol prevent a current from being trashed if an agenda was stolen? The corp's id is the New Angeles Sol: Your News and some current is on the table.

Say runner steals an agenda. What is the order of abilities triggered? The current is trashed and then corp's id can bring it back, or not?

New Angeles Sol: Your News allows you to play a current from HQ or Archives (paying its play cost), it does not prevent anything from happening.

After an agenda is scored or stolen, this ability triggers at which point you can play any current that is in Archives (or HQ). If a current was trashed as a part of scoring or stealing the agenda then the current will be in Archives and available to play.

This isn't quite the same as 'preventing' trashing, or making currents untrashable as they still need to be played and paid for.


Countering an uncounterable spell, triggers, and state-based actions So I just played a game in Arena where my opponent was at 4 life, I had 1 card left in my deck (after drawing my card for the turn), and they had two copies of Drowned Secrets on the battlefield. I played Inescapable Blaze targeting them, and they played Thought Collapse, targeting my Inescapable Blaze on the stack, in response. Arena noted two triggerings of Drowned Secrets.

I then won the game, according to Arena. I am not clear on exactly what happened. I think Arena showed me milling my last card, but I since I won the game apparently having to mill more cards than just the 1 I had remaining did not cause me to lose. I see three basic possibilities:

Thought Collapse fizzled, since it had nothing it could actually counter, and thus Drowned Secrets fizzled and/or didn’t trigger to begin with—I’m kind of surprised that Arena allowed this action and then showed Drowned Secrets triggering if this is the case. And like I said, I think Arena showed my last card getting milled.
Thought Collapse fizzled, but Drowned Secrets still triggered, so I did mill my last card. But then how did I win? State-based actions are determined mid-stack and Inescapable Blaze wouldn’t have resolved yet, right?
Thought Collapse didn’t fizzle, so I actually had to mill three cards for that in addition to four cards for the two instances of Drowned Secrets. The same questions above apply equally-well here.

So what happened?

You lose when you have to draw a card and can't, not when you have no cards left in your library

Your third bullet point is mostly correct.

All instances of Drowned Secret's triggered ability resolved, then Thought Collapse failed to counter Inescapable Blaze, but still did as many effects as it could, so you milled some cards. Then Inescapable Blaze resolved, and your opponent lost the next time State Based Actions were checked due to having 0 life.

In fact, even if you hadn't won the game at that point, you wouldn't have lost for having no cards in your library. A loss only occurs when a player attempts to draw a card and cannot because their library is empty.

  104.3c If a player is required to draw more cards than are left in their library, they draw the remaining cards and then lose the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

Emphasis mine.

Drowned Secrets simply 'puts' cards from a library into the graveyard. This isn't drawing cards, and if there are not enough cards in the library that the ability attempts to put into a graveyard, the ability simply does as many cards at it can. (It can do this to 0 cards) In this case, the first Drowned Secrets milled 1 card (as many as it could find), then the second Drowned Secrets milled 0 cards (because there were none remaining), then Thought Collapse tried to counter a spell (it failed) and milled 0 cards.

Also note that this sort of interaction is true for any kind of action that causes you to remove (but not draw) cards from your library. For instance, with Omen Machine in play, players will never lose because of rule 104.3c. They may lose through other means (damage, poison counters, etc) but they will not draw cards. Theoretically if an Omen Machine were on the field and players could not destroy it or meaningfully impact each other, play will continue until - and beyond - when players have no cards left in their libraries. (Though in that case, the game will probably end in a draw in a few turns, when the game's state hasn't changed and no player chooses to change the game's state.)


Targeting an exchanged creature with a hexproof equipment If I have placed a hexproof equipment (Swiftfoot Boots) on one of my creatures and I exchange control of it with an opponent (Puca's Mischief), can I still target the exchanged creature?

If I understand correctly, I lose control of the creature but still have control of the equipment. Since hexproof says, "It can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control...".

No, you will not be able to target the creature while your opponent controls it.

This is covered in the gather rulings on Swiftfoot boots:

  If an opponent gains control of a creature equipped by your Swiftfoot Boots, that creature can’t be the target of spells and abilities you control.

The reasoning behind this is that the equipment is granting the creature Hexproof, to the game this is treated pretty much the same as if the creature had Hexproof written in its own text box. As a reminder Hexproof's definition is:

  702.11b: “Hexproof” on a permanent means “This permanent can’t be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.”

So when your creature changes control from you (Player A) to your opponent (Player B), Player B is the controller of the permanent and Player A becomes the opponent that can't target it.


Using Copycat with one-shot abilities In the Science Fiction Double Feature expansion, the card Copycat allows you to copy the ability of another's player minion for a turn.

  Choose another player's minion in play. This card has the same ability as that minion until the end of the turn.

However, the timing of the copy is not clear. When I play Copycat it's ability activates. If I copy an ability that says "You may draw a card", does it activate again allowing me to draw a card? Or can I only effectively copy Ongoing abilities (and those that remain for the rest of the turn, like "you may play an extra minion")?

The whole point of Copycat is to allow you to use another minion's ability. Making it impossible to copy most minion's ability makes makes no sense to me, and it makes no sense to the others with whom I've played either.

Keep in mind that you're already limited to abilities of other player's minions in play (something you have no control over), and that ongoing abilities and talents only work for your turn. This offsets the ability to have some flexibility in the effect of the minions ability.

We have it come into play with the abilities of the minion it copies. Playing a Copycat masquerading as an Enchantress ("Draw a card.") would have you draw a card, because it is an Enchantress as far as any can tell (except in name and power).

It's not really an "again" type of situation. You get to use the Enchantress's ability once. Just like the Enchantress did.


Is it permissible to intentionally make an illegal move in order to bluff? Imagine this situation -

Alice's board: a tapped Steel Leaf Champion, Giant Growth in hand (which Bob knows about because of an earlier discard spell)
Bob's board: Charming Prince, 8 life

It's Bob's turn. If Alice gets to attack & pump, Bob is dead (Charming Prince can't block Steel Leaf Champion because of the Champion's ability). Bob is holding a Gideon's Reproach, so he's technically not going to die this turn - if Alice pumps, he wins the stack battle with the Reproach. However, Alice is skilled enough to play around Gideon's Reproach, so he's still going to die in two turns and his back is against the wall.
Bob comes up with this plan:

Although Alice has no blockers, I won't attack.
When Alice attacks, I'll cast Bladebrand, and then attempt to block with Charming Prince. This makes my decision not to attack "make sense".
Obviously Alice is now going to tell me that I can't block, and I'll say, "Oops". If she doesn't tell me I can't block, I'll still point it out myself before damage to not intentionally make an illegal play.
She'll think I must have made a mistake and am not holding Gideon's Reproach, because if I were holding Reproach why wouldn't I attack? I gain nothing and miss out on two damage in this case.
So she'll go for the win with Giant Growth and then I blow her out with my Gideon's Reproach.

Is this play permissible?
Aside: Alice wins anyway if she casts Giant Growth before attackers, but for the purpose of this question, ignore this potential line of play.

No, you are not allowed to do this because doing so would be a violation of tournament rules at every level.
At Competitive and Professional REL, the Infraction Procedure Guide determines how judges handle rules violations. The action described in the question is a Game Rule Violation, a sort of catch-all category that includes making invalid attack or block declarations. In addition, this action is dangerously close to Cheating as defined there:

A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a Tournament Official, or notices an offense committed in their (or a teammate’s) match and does not call attention to it.
Additionally, the offense must meet the following criteria for it to be considered Cheating:

The player must be attempting to gain advantage from their action.
The player must be aware that they are doing something illegal.

The action described involves knowingly breaking a game rule for the purpose of gaining an advantage.

At Regular REL, the Judging at Regular REL document reigns. In that document, the "Serious Problems" section lists the following:

Knowingly breaking or letting an opponent break game or tournament rules, or lying, in order to gain an advantage. “Bluffing” about cards opponents can’t normally see is permitted.

If Bob instead tries to declare the block and then takes it back all within a single action, it's no longer reasonable to interpret it as an illegal action. Instead, he's just thinking out loud through the applicable requirements and restrictions that determine blocking legality. So the rest of the wouldn't apply and it should be fine for Bob to do that.


Does card-counting work in online Blackjack? I realize that card counting is strongly discouraged.

Are there systems in-place to prevent card-counting in online blackjack?

Online casinos use an 'infinite shoe', which would preclude any card counting, as they effectively draw random cards with a fixed probability.  This means it's possible (though very very very unlikely) for all the players at the table to draw the same card (e.g. everyone gets an eight of hearts).

This is done both for ease of the game developer (fixed probabilities are easier to code than simulating multiple decks) and to prevent card counting (which is unenforceable on-line).

So, in short, card-counting is completely ineffective on-line.


What counts as an ability for the purposes of Muraganda Petroglyphs? Say I control both Muraganda Petroglyphs and Life and Limb - am I correct in assuming that my Forest Saprolings do not get +2/+2 from the Muraganda Petroglyphs, because they have a mana ability?

For reference, they are forests, and rule 305.6 states the following:

  305.6. The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words "basic land type," it's referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability "{T}: Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool," even if the text box doesn't actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is {W}; for Islands, {U}; for Swamps, {B}; for Mountains, {R}; and for Forests, {G}. See rule 107.4a. Also see rule 605, "Mana Abilities."

Gatherer has the following ruling:

  Animated basic lands have mana abilities, so they won't get the bonus.

So your assumption is correct: any land that has become a creature does not get the bonus from  Muraganda Petroglyphs (except in the rare case where the land has lost its mana ability -- and I'm not aware of any card that actually does this).


Game based on old phone 'Snake' Game I'm trying to remember the name of a board game based on the phone game 'snake'  This hasn't been easy to google as 'board game' and 'snake' return Snakes And Ladders.

I recall playing the game approximately 8 -10  years ago so would be at least as old as that.

Each player had a snake made up of wooden pieces.  Players gave snakes movement orders with cards to go forward, left or right.  I think you laid them face down in front of you for next three turns so all players would execute there first move and then lay a card for move in three turns time.

The objective I think was to collect 'apple tokens' which appeared on the board.  As you did this your snake grew by adding a wooden piece to the end of it.  I think each snake had a head piece which you moved and then just picked up the last part of the snake and moved to to the front to connect the head.

In terms of design I recall the board being a grid shape and decorated in forest/grassland green colours.

Hopefully this rings a bell with someone.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/21729/snake-lake

  The game is about a group of snakes wandering in the woods trying to eat the apples that fall down from the trees (and avoiding eating the poisonous mushrooms).

Search terms:

  snake board game apples -ladders

(The minus sign tells Google to return results without that term)


Is flip summon considered a normal summon? Goblindbergh:

  When this card is Normal Summoned: You can Special Summon 1 Level 4 or
  lower monster from your hand, also, after that, change this card to
  Defense Position.

So if Goblindbergh was flip summoned, its effect will activate?

A flip summon does not count as a normal summon. For this effect to activate you would have to summon it from your hand in face up attack position (a normal summon as stated).

It is not specifically stated in the rules as such but the implications are made by statements mentioning flip summoning as many times as you want and that a flip summon does not take up a normal summon.

Source: Flip Summon wiki


Are creatures destroyed if their destruction happens at the same instant they lose "indestructible"? Scenario:

  I play  Timber Protector which makes all other Treefolk indestructible (I only have Treefolk in play).
  My opponent plays a  Day of Judgment.

Does this only destroy the not-indestructible Timber Protector?

or

Does Timber Protector get destroyed, all my Treefolk lose their indestructibility,
and then they get killed at the same time?

The destruction only happens once, it's instantaneous, and there's only one creature vulnerable to it when it happens.

  610.1. A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn’t have a duration. Examples include dealing damage, destroying a permanent, putting a token onto the battlefield, and moving an object from one zone to another.

Think of it a state machine. There's only two game states in the scenario.

State 1:  Timber Protector and some indestructible Treefolks are on the battlefield.
Action: Destroy all creatures.
State 2:  Timber Protector is in the graveyard. Some Treefolks are on the battlefield.


Oblivion Ring targeting an Aura Suppose I cast Oblivion Ring and have it target the Pacifism which is encumbering one of my creatures. What happens if the Oblivion Ring is subsequently destroyed?

Pacifism re-enters play enchanting the same creature as before
Pacifism chooses a new target when it re-enters play
Nothing -- Auras can only exist while enchanting a creature, so Pacifism disappears in a poof of smoke when it's exiled, similar to what tokens do.

According to the rulings on this card's gatherer entry

  01/10/2008 If the exiled card is an Aura, that card's owner chooses what it will enchant as it comes back onto the battlefield. An Aura put onto the battlefield this way doesn't target anything, but the Aura's enchant ability restricts what it can be attached to. If the Aura can't legally be attached to anything, it remains exiled forever.

It would appear that option 2 in your question is the correct interpretation.


Where can I find a good Joseki database? I've been wondering about certain positions that arise often. To help me understand them, I would like to study the joseki moves. Since printed joseki dictionaries are out-dated very fast, I'd prefer an electronic database if possible.

Josekipedia

http://www.josekipedia.com/

This is a kind of wiki for joseki. This system has the big advantage of offering explanations, deviations from joseki and refutations,... But I don't know how complete or accurate it is.


Is the ability cost of the commander part of the color identity? Consider the card  Rhys the Exiled. Are you allowed to play black (and green) cards in your deck with this commander?

Or are you only allowed to play cards that are the same color as the commander's cost? If so, would this then make it impossible to use his ability?

The colour identity of  Rhys the Exiled is Green and Black.

As per the Commander colour identity rules:

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

The colour doesn't have to be just in the casting cost (which determines the card's colour), any mana symbol cost in the rules text counts towards the card's colour identity.

See also Comprehensive Rule 903.4:

  903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card's mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).
  Example: Bosh, Iron Golem is a legendary artifact creature with mana cost {8} and the ability "{3}{R}, Sacrifice an artifact: Bosh, Iron Golem deals damage equal to the sacrificed artifact's converted mana cost to target creature or player." Bosh's color identity is red.


What's the point of having ports as a territory? Clearly ports as a game concept are required as a way of mustering ships, but my question is what their value for being a territory in themselves is, as opposed to simply allowing the player to muster into the adjacent sea territory.

As I understand it, any territory that has port, can muster ships either in to the port, or into the adjacent sea territory.

However, if the ships are in the port:

They can't support, raid, or consolidate.
The port can't be attacked, only the land territory can be.
The can't help defend if the land territory is being used.

It seems that the only reason ports exist as a territory at all, is for the scenario where the adjacent sea territory is already occupied by another player. The port territory then allows a place for the port owner to muster into, and then on the following turn drive that other player out of the sea territory.

Am I right in understanding that this is the sole useful purpose for ports? Why else would you elect to put ships in ports?

As you deduced, the huge advantage is that it gives you a safe harbour to muster ships into, which is invaluable when all adjacent sea areas are occupied. Relatedly, they also give your ships a safe place to retreat to when your sea areas are attacked, so you don't risk losing routed ships that you would presumably prefer to keep in order to take them back.

I'm assuming you're playing AGoT 2nd Edition here, because in the 1st Edition (unexpansioned), there were no ports, and that became a very real problem in a number of the games that I played, and a huge strategic concern in the rest: Losing control of your sea territories could be devastating, especially for island nations such as Pyke or Dragonstone. Even for cities on the continent, the power of ships — from support to ship-transport (and obviously preventing your opponents from the same) — was a major consideration, and if you were by bad luck or worse strategy driven out of the sea entirely and then blocked, you were in very real trouble that could be very difficult if not impossible to recover from.

The introduction of ports with the Clash of Kings expansion (and its default inclusion in the second edition) was, in my opinion, the most important single upgrade to the base game.

As for what else you can and cannot do in a port, your list is somewhat misleading (see page 25 of the rules): Ships in port can support and raid, but only on the adjacent sea area. Even consolidating isn't off the table entirely, it's merely contingent on the adjacent sea area not being under enemy control. Not to mention that your ships can do all this from a territory that's safe from direct attack.

So even if they're not quite as useful as a ship that's actually, y'know, out to sea, they're not really all that useless either.


How much mana does Radiant Fountain provide when tapped? Radiant Fountain reads "{T}: Add {1} to your mana pool." Does this card alone produce a total of {1} or {2}?

Basic Land cards produce mana when tapped. So, either

All land cards produce mana when tapped, and Radiant Fountain adds another due to the {T} description, resulting in {2}.
The {T} description is the only result, there is no implicit mana from a land card, resulting in {1}.

{1}.

You will only get one colorless mana added to your mana pool when you tap Radiant Fountain. Lands do NOT have an automatic built-in ability, only lands with one of the basic land subtypes do. Radiant Fountain does not have one of these subtypes (Mountain, Forest, Plains, Island, or Swamp).

Even if it did have one of these subtypes, you would still not be able to tap it for 2 mana. Say you have a Radiant Fountain and a Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth in play. Radiant Fountain now has 2 abilities:

{T}: Add {1} to your mana pool
{T}: Add {B} to your mana pool

In this case, you have these 2 separate Tap abilities, but you can not tap once to get both mana. You would have to choose which ability you wanted to activate by tapping the card, and you would get just 1 mana whichever one you chose.


How does Pandamonium work with effects that destroy unicorns? If somebody plays the "Pandamonium" card on my stable, and then on their next turn they play a unicorn card in their stable that can destroy unicorns at the beginning of their next turn. Would that mean they can destroy the formerly unicorn cards in my stable even though they’re technically pandas?

You don't have any unicorns in your stable

Pandemonium turns all of your unicorns into pandas for all other effects.  This means that any effect that does something to the unicorns in your stable will see that you have zero unicorns and act accordingly.

This can be a pretty powerful protective shield at times.  The catch is that you can't win the game while it's there.


Distance between characters In Bang!, does the distance between characters decrease when a player is eliminated? Or, if a character is at a distance of 3 from you, will they always be a distance of 3 from you?

An eliminated player no longer contributes to distance.  If this were not the case, in a large game you could quite easily have situations where nobody could reach anybody else for many turns in a row.

From the rules:

  When a character is eliminated, he is no longer counted when evaluating the distance: some players will get "closer" when someone is eliminated.


Look Out Sir save clarifications I got in a heated argument over the following case, in which I created a scenario below to have clarifications on the Look Out Sir rule.

Let's say you've got a squad made up of:

1 Space Marine (Unit Type: Infantry)
1 Space Marine Sergeant (Unit Type: Infantry + Character)
1 Company Master (Unit Type: Infantry + Independent Character)
1 Librarian (Unit Type: Infantry + Independent Character)

On page 39 of the rulebook it says "Independent Characters pass look Out, Sir rolls on a 2+ (see page l6)."

My understanding of the rules, page 16 & 39, is that the 2+ roll is allowed only when an independent character is the one trying to save any other type character:

The SM takes the hit, no LOS save possible. (This is pretty clear in the rules, just stating the case in order to state all possibilities)

The Sergeant takes the hit, the SM can try to save him on 4+.
The Sergeant takes the hit, the Company Master can try to save him on 2+.
The Sergeant takes the hit, the Librarian can try to save him on 2+.
The Company Master takes the hit, the SM can try to save him on 4+.
The Company Master takes the hit, the Sergeant can try to save him on 4+.
The Company Master takes the hit, the Librarian can try to save him on 2+.

Am I right in all the cases above?

My friend states that the 2+ roll is made when any model tries to save the independent character, which would make his understanding of the rules as such:

The SM takes the hit, no LOS save possible. (no change)
The Sergeant takes the hit, anyone can try to save him on 4+.
The Company Master takes the hit, anyone can try to save him on 2+.

Who's right, who's wrong, are we both wrong somewhere?

Your friend is right. The model taking the wound makes the role, not the model 'saving' him.


What is this board game with black & white pieces and criss-crossing lines called? or how is it played? I found this image on Pinterest with description "Ancient board game".

There are more than 15 black and white pieces, some of them are placed on the intersection of 3 vertical lines and other criss-crossing lines.

What is it called and how to play?

This is a game called "Fighting Serpents" or "Kolowis Awithlaknannai",
and in particular this is a version of that game produced by a Greek company by the name of Elite Crafters.

The game originally comes from the Zuni people of New Mexico, but its most likely a modified version of Alquerque, which was introduced by the Spanish while they were exploring the Americas.


Interactions with Razaketh and Black Sun's Zenith I was wondering about the interactions between Razaketh, the Foulblooded and Black Sun's Zenith. If I cast Black Sun's Zenith, choosing at least 8 for X, can I use Razaketh's ability to tutor for Black Sun before he dies?

No.

The State-Based Action that would put Razaketh into the graveyard happens the next time a player would get priority after Razaketh gets the -1/-1 counters, so it happens before you get priority to activate Razaketh's activated ability.

The last chance you have to activate Razaketh's activated ability occurs before Black Sun's Zenith starts resolving, and Black Sun's Zenith isn't in your library at that point.

If Black Sun's Zenith was an instant (or gained flash), then you could make it work. You'd start by activating Razaketh's activated ability, then cast Black Sun's Zenith in response. Black Sun's Zenith would resolve first, then Razaketh would die, then Razaketh's activated ability would resolve.


How should I change my usual draft strategy in a Two-Headed-Giant draft? I have done several drafts with my drafting group, but we recently elected to try the next one as Two-Headed-Giant instead of a 'normal' matches. How should my drafting strategy change to reflect this? How should my team determine what decks to play? What strategies from 'normal' MTG-drafting apply and do not apply to a THG draft?

In short, in a THG draft there are 4 teams of 2 players each, at the beginning of each round, each team (not player) gets a booster, chooses 2 cards from it, and then passes it to the next team. There are 6 rounds instead of 3, so there still ends up being 3 boosters per player. Each player then builds a deck from the cards their team has chosen, and then the matches are played. Communication between players regarding strategy during the draft is acceptable at any time as long as it is public (no passing notes)

Many strategies get better or worse in Two Headed Giant. These are the same as what changes in regular sealed.

Much better:
Alternate win conditions are typically stronger as their thresholds don't change with the number of players. Making one player run out of cards in their library will cause the team to lose. Similarly having one player win the game, say with Felidar Sovereign, will cause the team to win.
Poison used to be a very strong strategy, see the Sliver Kids wining the PT, but that is no longer true. Previously just one player had to be dealt 10 poison for the team to lose, a rules update has changed it to the team receiving 15 poison.
Each Opponent effects are much stronger as well. Gray Merchant of Asphodel is the poster child for this type of card. Already strong in regular sealed and draft, the card is very overpowered in every format with more than two players.

Much worse:
Aggressive Creatures are not nearly as important in Two Headed Giant as in other formats. The increased options for an opponent to block back them much decreases value in attempting to overrun an opponent early. As does the 30 life that needs to be dealt with, it's very hard to build two decks to deal 15 damage each before the opponents can stabilise.

How things change completely:
Colour Choice. In Two Headed Giant it is likely that a team will play all 5 colours. At the minimum you'll be playing 4 colours, splashing the 5th in one of the decks is very easy. In original Ravnica block I won a 2HG draft where we played 7 colours. This means you don't want worry about what decks you are playing too early. Just take the best cards for the first 2 or 3 packs, then start to worry about filling out good curves and making decks in the second half of the draft.


Can fire spread to rooms that are connected via a ladder? In the Blood Ties scenario (1C), there are two map tiles that are connected via a ladder token.

Using the Pyromaniac keeper action, can I spread fire to the room that is connected via the ladder?

Thematically, I think it would make sense. However page 13 of the rulebook says:

  Investigators and humanoid (blue) monsters may move between spaces containing ladder markers as if they were adjacent. The spaces are considered adjacent for movement purposes only.

...which seems to suggest that doesn't apply to fire. As I commented on your question, I'd need to see the specific wording of the Pyromaniac card. Whilst I'd probably house rule it with my group to allow it, I suspect that you cannot if you're sticking strictly to the rules.


Can a creature be destroyed just before Shalai gives it hexproof? At the start of the turn (it is B’s turn):

Player A has a 2/2 Walking Ballista on the battlefield.
Player B has a 1/1 creature on the battlefield.

Player B casts Shalai, Voice of plenty, which gives hexproof to B’s creatures.
Can player A, in response to B’s casting Shalai, then activate ballista’s remove a counter ability to deal lethal damage to B’s 1/1 creature?

Yes, you can destroy the creature before it gains Hexproof.

Shalai's ability is a static ability which does not take effect until after casting Shalai resolves (i.e. the spell leaves the stack and Shalai enters the battlefield).604.2  While Shalai is still on the stack, the static ability is not "active" and has no effect.

Before Shalai resolves, Player A is given priority and can then use Walking Ballista's ability, which is also placed on the stack.  This ability will resolve before Shalai, killing the 1/1 creature before Shalai can give it Hexproof.


Does Gustcloak Savior's ability leave the door open for blockers to be reassigned? I'm using Gustcloak Savior in my token commander deck because I'm assuming after I remove my blocked creatures from combat that my opponents can't reassign their blockers. Am I incorrect? If so, it totally defeats my purpose of having it in there and I'd like to open up the spot for something more productive with my theme.

That's correct, your opponents can't just reassign their blockers. Combat works like this:

Beginning of combat step.

Triggered abilities go on the stack.
Then, the active player gets priority and can activate spells and abilities.

Declare attackers step.

The active player declares their attackers. (rule 508.1)
Triggered abilities go on the stack, again. (508.2)
The active player gets priority, again. (508.3)

Declare blockers step.

The defending player(s) declare their blockers. (509.1)
Damage assignment order is worked out by the attacker then the blocker. (509.2 and .3)
Triggered abilities go on the stack, again. (509.4)
The active player gets priority, again. (509.5)

Then combat damage happens, then so does end of combat.

Guess when they declare their blockers? Step 3.1. Guess when the Gustcloak ability triggers? Step 3.3, after all blockers were already declared and you know how damage will be dished out. They don't get to go back and revise. There is no "reassign blockers" or "declare more blockers" step after that.

Your opponent now has at least one blocker now blocking nothing, and you've saved your creature from attack, and that's that.


What does Counterbalance counter, when revealing a split card? Split cards have 2 Converted Mana Costs everywhere except the stack. I saw a similar question relating to Dark Confidant explaining that you lose life for each converted mana cost, however the way it was explained (you get 2 answers) made me unsure if you can counter a spell with either converted mana cost, or the sum of the converted mana costs.

If you reveal (for example) Life // Death with Counterbalance, what CMC spells can you counter?

New answer: While it's not on the stack, Life // Death has a CMC of 3.

Amonkhet introduced a rules change in 2017 to simplify split cards. When not on the stack, a split card's CMC is the sum of its halves. When on the stack, it has the CMC of whichever side is being cast, or both combined in the case of split cards cast using the Fuse ability (Both halves are treated as one single spell, with the characteristics of each half combined). From the Comprehensive Rules:

  708.3 A player chooses which half of a split card they are casting before putting it onto the stack.

  708.3b While on the stack, only the characteristics of the half being cast exist. The other half's characteristics are treated as though they didn't exist.

  708.4 In every zone except the stack, the characteristics of a split card are those of its two halves combined. This is a change from previous rules.

  708.4b The mana cost of a split card is the combined mana costs of its two halves. A split card's colors and converted mana cost are determined from its combined mana cost.
  Example: Assault/Battery's mana cost is {3}{R}{G}. It's a red and green card with a converted mana cost of 5. If you cast Assault, the resulting spell is a red spell with a converted mana cost of 1.
  708.4d The characteristics of a fused split spell on the stack are also those of its two halves combined (see rule 702.101, "Fuse").

Old answer:
If the spell has converted mana cost 1 or 2, it will be countered.

This answer may seem different to the Dark Confidant question. While rule 708.5 adequately answers that question, there are further split card rules relevant to Counterbalance.

  708.5 An effect that asks for a particular characteristic of a split card while it’s in a zone other than the stack gets two answers (one for each of the split card’s two halves).
  708.6 Some effects perform comparisons involving characteristics of one or more split cards in a zone other than the stack.

  708.6a An effect that performs a positive comparison (such as asking if a card is red) or a relative comparison (such as asking if a card’s converted mana cost is less than 2) involving characteristics of one or more split cards in any zone other than the stack gets only one answer. This answer is “yes” if either side of each split card in the comparison would return a “yes” answer if compared individually.

With Dark Confidant and Life // Death, you lose 3 life. This is not because Life // Death has a converted mana cost of 3, but because Dark Confidant receives both answers (1 and 2) and reacts to each of them.

Counterbalance is a positive comparison: does the revealed card have the same converted mana cost as the cast spell? The converted mana cost of Life // Death is both 1 and 2, so if the revealed card has that a mana cost of either 1 or 2 then the answer to the question is yes, and the spell is countered.

So, results that receive more than one answer apply to each of those answers. Positive comparisons that receive more than one answer use the or comparison (one or more "yes" = "yes"). Negative comparisons (rule 708.6b) use the nor comparison (one or more "yes" = "no).


Building supply depots - mission From the beginning of the game there is a mandatory task which says: Build 3 new supply depots. I must say that it is very hard to complete for my team. My question: Do supply depots that we have from the begin of our game counts for this mission? Because we bought improvement and from start we have 2 supply depots.

The objective card says

  Build 3 new supply centers

So we have been playing where the upgrades have not counted towards our objective


Clarification on how the emblem gained by Tibalt, Cosmic Impostor works I have two questions regarding the exact rulings of the emblem gained by Tibalt, Cosmic Impostor.
Question 1 The emblem gained by Tibalt mentions the card (Tibalt) by name. Looking at rule 201.4a stated below, am I correct in assuming that the emblem only grants you the ability to cast cards exiled with the specific Tibalt which created the emblem? Meaning that if, for example, Tibalt got bounced and was then replayed, and the new Tibalt's ETB got countered (resulting in no emblem being created), then any cards exiled with this new Tibalt would not be playable from exile (even though you still have the old emblem)?

201.4a If an ability’s effect grants another ability to an object, and that second ability refers to that first ability’s source by name, the name refers only to the specific object which is that first ability’s source. The second ability does not refer to any other object with the same name as the first ability’s source. However, if the second ability also moved the first ability’s source to a different public zone, the name refers to the object the source became in its new zone. This is also true if the second ability is copied onto a new object.

Question 2 What is the ruling for if some ability changed the name of Tibalt, for example if Tibalt was made into a copy of another permanent? Looking at rule 706.11, I assume that the emblem would track whatever permanent Tibalt became? And if this permanent has some ability which allows it to exile cards, am I correct in assuming that these cards would be playable from exile?

706.11 If an effect refers to a permanent by name, the effect still tracks that permanent even if it changes names or becomes a copy of something else.

Thanks for your time.

No and yes respectively to your questions.
For your first question, your analysis of rule 201.4a is correct, however you have an incorrect assumption in your question.  You assume that Tibalt's effect that creates the emblem can be countered separate of Tibalt, but it cannot.  Tibalt's effect is worded thus (emphasis mine):

As Tibalt enters the battlefield, you get an emblem with "You may play
cards exiled with Tibalt, Cosmic Impostor, and you may spend mana as
though it were mana of any color to cast those spells."

Since it is worded "As ..." it is a replacement effect, not a triggered ability.

614.1c Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” or
“[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . “ are replacement
effects.

A triggered ability would be worded as "When Tibalt enters the battlefield ..."

603.6a Enters-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent enters the battlefield. These are written, “When [this object] enters
the battlefield, . . . “ or “Whenever a [type] enters the battlefield,
. . .” Each time an event puts one or more permanents onto the
battlefield, all permanents on the battlefield (including the
newcomers) are checked for any enters-the-battlefield triggers that
match the event.

Since it is written as a replacement effect, there is no ability that ever goes on the stack that can be countered to stop creating Tibalt's emblem separate from countering Tibalt himself!  So you could never get into a situation where 201.4a could apply (under normal casting circumstances, copying Tibalt or some other jankiness can cause it to happen).  If Tibalt hits the battlefield, so does his emblem.
For the second situation, your analysis of rule 706.11 is correct.  The game will track Tibalt and any cards exiled by it, no matter if it's name changes or not.


Double strike blocked by a double strike? I was recently playing magic the gathering with my brother and it so happened that at a point in a game we each controlled a 4/4 creature with double strike. We were wondering what would happen if one said creature were to block the other. Would they simply both die? I mean, they both, by definition, deal damage first.

Normally, when one creature blocks another, each one simultaneously deals damage equal to its power to the other. Then, after that is done, the game checks each one to see whether it has taken enough damage to be destroyed. The abilities First Strike and Double Strike each add an additional step to combat where damage dealt by creatures with First Strike or Double Strike is dealt simultaneously, but before regular combat damage is dealt.

In other words, it plays out like this (for illustrative purposes, I'm going to say that the creatures are 4/5 instead of 4/4):

Declare Attackers Step:

The active player declares their 4/5 creature with Double Strike as an attacker.

Declare Blockers Step:

The defending player declares their 4/5 creature with Double Strike as a blocker blocking the first creature.

First Strike Combat Damage Step:

Each creature deals 4 damage to the other.
Creatures that have lethal damage die at this point and are moved to the graveyard, and wouldn't participate in the next combat step. In the original scenario, this means both creatures would die at this point because they have taken damage greater than or equal to their toughness. In this modified scenario, they each survive with 4 damage marked.

Regular Combat Damage Step:

Each creature deals 4 damage to the other again.
Now both creatures have taken 8 damage with only 5 toughness, so they both die.


Do Status Effects End In Mansions of Madness? We played Mansions of Madness for the first time this weekend and I was surprised that fire was so devastating.

When a status effect is placed in a room, like fire, does it ever end without an 'action'?

No. The keyword in the rules (found here) is "ongoing." Status effects do not end until an action is taken to end them.


MTG question about stack/effect resolving Lets say my opponent have Zada, Hedron Grinder in play. Then proceeds to use instant spell that target Zada to trigger its effect. Then i play Stasis Snare in response to his instant spell. Does Zada, Hedron Grinder still resolves even if my Stasis Snare resolves first by exiling Zada? If its effect still resolves, how do you prevent Zada from using its ability if i have the instant removal (stasis snare, lightning axe, grasp of darkness etc...) in my hand that can be played in response ?

What happens:

Your opponent casts The Instant targetting Zada. The Instant goes to the stack.
Zada's ability triggers and goes to the stack.
You cast Stasis Snare. Stasis Snare goes to the stack.
(I assume at this point you're both passing priorities until the whole stack resolves)
Stasis Snare resolves and enters the battlefield. It's ability triggers and goes to the stack.
Stasis Snare's ability resolves and exiles Zada.
Zada's ability resolves and creates copies of The Instant on the stack.
The copies of The Instant resolve, one by one.
The (original) Instant looks around to see if it's targets are still legal. They're not as Zada is not on the battlefield. The (original) Instant is countered by the game rules (and is put into the graveyard without resolving, as usual with countered spells).

As for the second question:
Once Zada's on the battlefield, removal won't allow you to counter it's ability.
Some other effects might, like "counter all spells" which will also counter the created copies.


How was "komi" re-set in the past 50 years? "komi" represents a number of points added to White's score at the end of a game of Go to compensate White for the fact that Black moves first. It is usually X.5 points (e.g. 7.5) to prevent a tie (points on the board are always integer values).

When i started learning the game forty years ago, komi had been "recently" raised from 4.5 to 5.5 points. The latter was probably too little, based on the fact that White won less than 50% of the games, and 4.5 was clearly too few.

Today, komi is set at 7.5 points, at least in games monitored by artificial intelligence, and all the computers reckon Black's chances at about 43%, at the start of the game, given an adjustment of that size.

The intermediate number which probably gives the most balanced game, appears to be 6.5, but that is a number that hasn't seen much use. Why is that, and how does the governing body (e.g. in Japan) set komi?

Achieving the statistically perfect komi is interesting, but generally the difference between winning by 1/2 a point or winning by 1/3 a point does not change a game result.  We play in units of one stone (i.e., one point in area scoring), not 1/3 stone.
I don't have my copy of Go Players Almanac so I can't readily check dates -- I'll try to update later -- but my memory is that before komi was introduced, jigo (a draw) was possible; but in the Japanese pro tournaments at least, a jigo counted in White's favor (though not as strongly as a win), since it was known that Black had a significant advantage.
The Japanese introduced komi in the early 1900s, at a value of 2.  (Komi wasn't standardized for a time, so there are arguments for "introduced" at earlier dates -- see John Fairbairn's discussion at https://senseis.xmp.net/?HistoryOfKomi for examples -- but I think "early 1900s" is good enough for our purpose here.)  2 was pretty quickly seen as insufficient, and by 1934, komi had been raised to 4.5, where it stayed until the late 1950s / mid 1960s, when it was raised to 5.5.
When I began playing in the late 1980s, players indeed talked about how komi had "recently" been increased to 5.5.  (Well, when the game is 2000 years old, I guess 20 or 25 years seems "recent".)  When I began playing in amateur tournaments in the late 1990s, the komi could vary, depending on the rules in use.  AGA tournaments tended to follow the lead of the Nihon Ki-in, and used komi of 5.5; but there was strong material support from the Ing Foundation for tournaments, with the caveat that the tournament had to be played using Ing's idiosyncratic rules (intended to make the game more accessible to children and beginners) -- one of which was komi set at effectively 7.5.
Sometime in the early 2000s, Chinese rules switched komi from 5.5 to 7.5.  About the same time, the Nihon Ki-in switched from 5.5 to 6.5.  The AGA switched from 5.5 to 7.5 effective 2005.
There was discussion about whether the AGA should make it 6.5 instead, but changing from 5.5 to 6.5 would affect only the margin of victory in the vast majority of AGA games, not the game result.  (It's theoretically possible to have a game with weird seki formations where that may not be true, but it's very rare in actual play.)  So for example, if Black with 5.5 komi wins by 1.5 points, then with 6.5 komi Black still wins, but by 0.5 points.  If the reason for komi is to give both players an even chance, and 5.5 isn't enough, then 6.5 also isn't enough.  So the AGA changed to 7.5 not 6.5.
You may be thinking, "what about the games that Black with 5.5 komi would win by 0.5 points?  Doesn't shifting to 6.5 komi mean that instead White would win by 0.5?"  The answer is that, with 5.5 komi, Black would not win by 0.5 (except in the unusual seki situations that rarely happen).  This AGA article describes why:
https://www.usgo.org/news/2013/09/only-a-passing-matter/
(I read a better explanation, but I'm not finding it now.  Will update if I find it.)
A reasonable question is, why did the Japanese go with 6.5?  I don't have a definite answer, but I believe it's mostly because they have a slightly different ruleset.  In AGA rules, White must play last, which would penalize White under the Japanese rules.  In Chinese rules, you get a point for each intersection you surround, and you get a point for each stone you have alive at the end of the game -- there is no penalty for filling in a point of your own territory, as there is with Japanese "territory" scoring.  (There are also differences in how prisoners are handled -- they matter in Japanese "territory" scoring, but not so much in Chinese "area" scoring.)
The mathematician Elwyn Berlekamp proposed a system of bidding for komi.  For example, on the first move, Black could play and pay 20 points komi, or pass.  Next, White could play and pay 19 points, or pass.  Eventually, one of the players moves, and pays the komi to the other player.  Berlekamp arranged a short series of games between two pros living in America.  IIRC, the komi paid tended be surprisingly high -- 9 or 10 points.  (Thanks for reminding me of this -- I'll have to dig up the details.)


Lord of the Ring LCG: Lindon Navigator While using Lindon Navigator to quest, does the forced effects trigger if and only if the quest card is discarded, or after every quest phase?
Lindon Navigator (Ally)

Lindon Navigator does not exhaust to commit to a quest, and can commit to quests while exhausted.
Forced: After resolving a quest to which Lindon Navigator was committed, either discard it from play or discard 1 card from your hand.

The key word being "resolving", I'm not sure which interpretation is the right one.

A quest is 'resolved' during the quest resolution step of the Quest Phase. This happens every quest phase. So Lindon Navigator's forced effect triggers after the quest resolution step of each Quest Phase regardless of the outcome. Note that this does not technically happen at the end of the Quest Phase as there is still an action window and the quest phase end step.

The quest card is discarded when the quest 'advances' (usually when the quest has progress tokens equal the current quest's quest points; this may happen outside of the quest resolution step by the way). This is different from 'resolution' which happens every Quest Phase during the quest resolution step (unless of course that step is skipped by a card effect).

Source: The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game Online Rules Reference available on the FFG website https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-card-game/.


Can one show that a majority of bridge hands could have been successfully defended? In noting the importance of defense in overall bridge scores, a bridge teacher opined that half or more contracts were either defeated or could have been.

I was wondering if available records of the results in pairs or duplicate tournaments could prove or disprove this statement. Specifically, I was wondering about the proportion of "contested contracts" that some declarers made, and some defenders defeated.

For our purposes, a "contested contract" in a pairs tournament will be one where the declarer made it in one room, and the defense defeated in the other room. A declarer's contract will be one that both declarers made, and a defender's contract will be one that both defenders defeated.

A "contested contract" in a duplicate tournament will be one that declarers and defenders made and defeated in non- lopsided proportions. A declarer's contract will be one that most declarers made, and a defender's contract will be one that most defenders defeated.

Are there percentage breakdowns of contested, versus declarers' and defenders' contracts from tournaments? And do they show that the percentages of defeated plus contested (and presumably defeatable) contracts is greater than 50 per cent? Or are declarers supposed to make more than 50 per cent of their contracts because bidding systems are constructed that way?

What level of play are we talking - world class or novice or somewhere in between.

Any player who is making or defeating an inappropriately large, or small, percentage of contracts weighted by point value is inefficient by definition, and thus is a poor player.

Good players make and defeat the right number of contracts, weighted by point value (for the scoring type - match-points, rubber, IMPS or board-a-match), because that is the definition of competent play. Given the close competition of most world championship finals, those players are all efficient, and thus actually good players.

Update:
It's widely accepted that defense in Bridge is more challenging than offense. Is that not semantically equivalent to stating that, double-dummy, most contracts could be defeated (by perfect defense). Only a naïve or extremely weak declarer is not going to bid aggressively, on the premise of taking proper advantage of the greater difficulty of defending.


How do bonus tiles and booty tokens work? In Pantheon, you represent... the collective interests of a pantheon that's trying to get worshiped. (You score points for getting deities worshiped, but the scoring system isn't picky about which deity gets the praise or which culture does the praising.)
At the beginning of the game, you get Bonus Tiles, which have varying effects: extra movement during the spread-civilization phase, a free random god, a free upgrade to an offering tile, etc. During the game, you can pick up Booty Tokens that have similar effects to the Bonus Tiles. The rules, unfortunately, are quite sparse on what to do with the tiles and tokens. (The rules are also poorly copy-edited.) When can you use the tiles: are they only usable immediately, or can you keep them until some useful moment later and use them then? Does the "Bonus Movement" tile grant you bonus moves every time you do the Movement step, or is it usable only once and then it's gone?
Some of the bonus tiles are much better than others; here's a quick overview.

Bonus Movement: if usable once, has the effect of half a card. If usable repeatedly, is equivalent to one of the less powerful gods. (But there's a booty token that has two bonus movement, which could well be over-powered if it's usable repeatedly.)
Random God: In perfect circumstances, worth 13 victory points. On average, worth one victory point plus some continuing bonus that will last throughout the game.
Upgrade a Sacrifice Tile: If you're required to use this immediately after the game starts, it's worth 1 gold coin plus part of one buy action. If you can hold it for later (upgrading a sacrifice tile from 3 to 4), then it can be worth up to 4 gold coins plus the part of a buy action to do the upgrade.
Place a Column anywhere: Depends on whether you're trying to win via placing columns or not; worth between 2 and 8 victory points.

Since the effect of the bonus tiles varies greatly depending on when and how you can use them, I really do want to know exactly how they're supposed to be used.
(Side note: I'm talking about the Pantheon game published in 2011 by Hans im Gluck and Rio Grande, not any of the other games that happen to be called Pantheon.)

Having now looked over two different English translations, I'm better able to figure out some of the ambiguous wording.

Bonus Tiles have the same coloring system as gods: gold backgrounds mean "play immediately, then discard," and blue backgrounds mean "keep."

All bonus tiles are revealed immediately after the first Prepare-Civilization phase, and all gold tiles are immediately executed and discarded. (If you got the God bonus tile, and it's one of those gods that give you a bonus every turn, you don't get that bonus this turn; using that tile happens after the phase in civilization-preparation where you'd get the bonus in the first turn.)

The "Movement" Bonus Tile is kept permanently, and gives +1 Move on every movement action. (You're not required to use it each Movement action, though.) This can add up to a quite decent bonus over the course of the game.

This means that the single-most-useless tile is the one that upgrades a sacrifice tile, because you're required to use it immediately, and you can only use it to buy a Level 1 tile. This makes it worth one-gold-plus-the-buy-action-to-acquire-it, which isn't particularly useful because you're allowed to do many things during a normal buy action.


Can multiple Thorncaster Slivers grant multiple copies of the same ability? If I have two Thorncaster Slivers, does their effect stack? That is, do the other slivers I have get the "1 damage" ability twice?

If not, why? What rule makes it so they can't have the ability twice?  If I had a different card with same ability would they get it twice? What if the different card had a slightly different wording? Or caused 2 damage instead of 1?

In what situations would a creature be allowed to have two copies of the same ability (if ever)?

Yes, they will have two copies of the ability:

  112.2c An object may have multiple abilities. If the object is represented by a card, then aside from certain defined abilities that
  may be strung together on a single line (see rule 702, “Keyword
  Abilities”), each paragraph break in a card’s text marks a separate
  ability. If the object is not represented by a card, the effect that
  created it may have given it multiple abilities. An object may also be
  granted additional abilities by a spell or ability. If an object has
  multiple instances of the same ability, each instance functions
  independently. This may or may not produce more effects than a single
  instance; refer to the specific ability for more information.

Two copies of the triggered ability will mean two damage whenever a sliver attacks.


In Pandemic, do certain setup and card order combinations make it impossible to win? My family has won most of the Pandemic (2 or 3 player games) we've played, but we ran into one recently that I thought impossible to win due to the 2 and 3 cube infections being far from Atlanta, far from each other, and not accessible with any of the cards we were dealt or received in the first few turns. We lost very early before we obtained even a single cure.

It would have been great if I could have recorded the exact initial setup and card sequence to see if a win was possible - but I didn't.

Has anyone done the work necessary to answer the question: Do certain setup and card order combinations make it impossible to win?

Yes - it's possible not to be able to win.  In fact it's possible to not be able to survive until the second turn.

Here's an example of someone playing a game which they lost on the first turn: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/373797/it-takes-talent-to-lose-on-the-first-turn

Maybe they could have done better, but if they had cards such that they couldn't treat anything in the black area then that would be the end of the game.  Here's a full example:

Initial placement of cubes are three in Baghdad, Riyadh and Karachi, two in Cairo, Tehran and Delhi and one in Algiers, Istanbul and Moscow (i.e. 18 of the 24 black cubes are already on the board).

Position after initial infection

Four players, player 1 is Medic with Santiago and Beijing. The other players (Operations Expert, Scientist and Dispatcher) have no special events, and don't have Atlanta.  The first player can't treat any cities in four actions, and picks up one city and one epidemic at the end of their go.

The epidemic city is Mumbai, the marker is moved up one space, and after shuffling the city cards Baghdad and Riyadh are drawn.  These cause two large chain reactions with 18 outbreaks and requiring 45 cubes on the board - a loss by two methods.

Position after epidemic in Mumbai, and infection in Baghdad (outbreaks highlighted in green)

Position after infection in Riyadh

Pandemic can be a frustrating game at times.  I think the author of the session review sums this up pretty well:

  All that set-up, for less than a minute of game play!


Would a Necromantic Selection and Angel of Glory’s Rise combo work? I’m trying to kill all of my opponents creatures but still have most of mine stay alive. To that end, most of the creatures in my deck are human.

I have a Angel of Glory's Rise on the battlefield, and cast Necromantic Selection to destroy all creatures. I use the second part of Necromantic Selection's effect to return the Angel to the battlefield. Would the Angel enter and then exile itself? Would the rest of its ability still resolve?

If your intention is to:
 - Play a large assortment of Humans
 - Play Necromantic Selection to destroy all creatures
 - Choose to return Angel of Glory's Rise to play, getting all your humans Back.

Resulting in having significant board presence, the answer is yes-ish.

Since the ability of Angel's of Glory's Rise is one sentence with multiple clauses, the entire effect will resolve. You would exile the angel, and then return all humans from your graveyard to the battlefield. Inefficient, but it would work.


Can a player redirect his attack if the defending player concedes? The situation: Player A has 1 life and several lifelink creatures adding up to 100 power. He swings at player B who has no defenders, planning to gain 100 life. Player B concedes. Without a valid defending player, player A can gain no life and has tapped all his creatures, and so player C can swing with a 2/2 and kill him.

Player A claims he can redirect his attack to player C after player B concedes.

Question: as per the official rules, can player A redirect his attack in response to player B conceding?

I already know the real answer is to play with sportsmanship in mind. In the specific example we were all having fun winding up player A, all done in good humour and would not be tolerated in a deliberately spiteful manner.

I was simply curious how the official rules would deal with it.

No, they cannot change who they are attacking. Once a creature has been declared as an attacker you cannot change who (or what) it is attacking.

Say instead of attacking Player B directly you attack their Planeswalker, but before damage gets dealt they Boomerang the Planeswalker back to their hand. You would not be able to redirect your creatures attack to that player, they would just end up ineffectually attacking the air. It is the same thing when a player concedes, your attackers are still going attacking the one player even if they leave the game before the creatures deal damage.

There is also this rule that implies you can still have creatures attacking a player that is no longer in the game.

  800.4e If combat damage would be assigned to a player who has left the game, that damage isn’t assigned.


Is Apocalypse still a rule set in 7th edition and are the books still useful I haven't played 40k since 5th edition and I am looking to play my Necron army again and I am trying to figure out which of my books if any are still useful. It looks like none of my codexs are still useful for anything other than art (which makes since given I am 2 editions away from when I got them) but are the Apocalypse books still used? I don't see any Apocalypse books on the GAW website.

The most recent Apocalypse book came out in 2013, making it a 6th edition release. Since then, the 7th edition rulebook has already included many rules that were previously only mentioned in the Apoc book, such as Super Heavy Vehicles and Destroyers.

However, the Apocalypse book includes so many scenarios and Apocalypse-specific rules, formations and missions, the book is a must for you to run an Apoc game.

With that said, 40k: Apocalypse is still is in the GAW store.


Why do some artifacts require tapping and sacrificing as an activation cost? With the new Food token mechanic being introduced in Throne of Eldraine, you have to both tap and sacrifice a food token to activate its ability. I noticed that the same is true for Treasure tokens, as well as Etherium Cell tokens created by Tezzeret the Schemer. Even Black Lotus and Lotus Petal require tapping.

In contrast, Clue tokens do not require tapping.

Under normal circumstances, these tokens would never be tapped except when activating their ability to sacrifice them, which means that requiring them to be tapped as part of the cost doesn't make any difference.

Obviously requiring them to be tapped weakens them when combined with certain other mechanics. There are a handful of cards that have a cost such as "tap an untapped artifact you control", but not many. And then there's the Improvise keyword which allows you to tap artifacts to pay for spells; but that keyword is only used on one older set and one newer Commander set. Or March of the Machines.

So, are there particular interactions that Wizards was wanting to avoid by requiring Food and other similar tokens to be tapped as part of activating?

Is it possibly a holdover from the early days of Magic, when cards like Black Lotus were "Mono Artifacts"; which was updated to include "tap" in the cost later? This explains why Black Lotus has tap in the cost at least, although a similar question could arise as to why Black Lotus was made a Mono Artifact instead of Poly Artifact in the first place; when either one would have acted mechanically the same in that case?

Both forms of these kinds of abilites, with and without the tap requirement, have appeared on a significant number of cards, both recent and old. For example, compare Fountain of Renewal from M19 with Explosive Apparatus, also from M19. This implies that this is not a standard template, but rather a choice they make on a case-by-case basis.

The primary other interactions that make it relevant whether or not the artifact taps are other abilities that tap artifacts as a cost (such as Ghirapur Aether Grid), spells with Improvise, effects that make the artifact also a creature (making summoning sickness apply and allowing the artifact to attack), and effects that tap permanents. The design team probably considers these interactions when making that choice.

Cards that have been revealed so far in Thrones of Eldraine that have these kinds of interactions include Animating Faerie, Shimmer Dragon, and Workshop Elders. Of particular note, the same animation effect appears on both Animating Faerie and Workshop Elders, and may be a minor theme in the set. These cards probably affected the design of Food tokens, and of the card Witching Well, which sacrifices but does not tap in the cost of its activated ability.


Is there another good 3 player variant of Canasta? The only 3 player variant of Canasta that I know is Cutthroat Canasta.  Are there any other good 3 player variations?

Hand and Foot

While I'm not a huge fan of this variant, everyone else in my family is and it is now the only version of canasta played regularly for us.  There are a lot of slightly different rules set out there, I've linked to the one that seems to resemble the rules my family uses.

The main difference for Hand and Foot is that each player is dealt 2 Hands (called a Hand and a Foot).  The player only uses the "Hand" to start.  When they drain the Hand of cards, they may immediately pick up the "Foot" and continue the turn they are on.  Timing the pickup of your Foot is the key to the game.

Any number of players is well supported, we play with three often.  Four decks will give you a nice game of Hand and Foot for three players.

My objection to this variant is that you are really dependent on what is in your "Foot" each round.  For me, it introduces a larger luck factor than I prefer to play with.  This leads to more games with large differences in score which I don't find enjoyable.  It's definitely worth a try to see if it is your cup of tea.


How to use get out of jail free card Scenario, at the start of my turn I roll the dice and land on “Go to jail”.

If I have a “get out of jail free” card, can I play that immediately so my piece does not move, or do I go to jail and must wait for the start of my next turn to play the card.

You move your piece to Jail and must wait until the next turn to play the card.

The official rules only talk about using "Get Out of Jail Free" in one place:

  You get out of Jail by... (1) throwing doubles on any of your next
  three turns; if you succeed in doing this you immediately move
  forward the number of spaces shown by your doubles throw; even
  though you had thrown doubles, you do not take another turn;
  (2) using the “Get Out of Jail Free” card if you have it; (3) purchasing
  the “Get Out of Jail Free” card from another player and playing it;
  (4) paying a fine of $50 before you roll the dice on either of your next
  two turns.

There is nothing in the rules that suggests you can use this card to avoid going to Jail.


Mindslaver and Conspiracy's vote cards I have a Mindslaver and my opponent has a Coercive Portal on the board. I use the Mindslaver's ability to take control of my opponent's next turn. Do I get to choose what his vote is for the Portal's ability?

Yes. You make all decisions for that player, and what to vote for is a decision.

  712.5. While controlling another player, a player makes all choices and decisions the controlled player is allowed to make or is told to make by the rules or by any objects. This includes choices and decisions about what to play, and choices and decisions called for by spells and abilities.


Damage dealt by creatures and the order of damage So I had an interesting one recently at our local win a box tournament.

Scene - I have 12 life remaining, my opponent has 9. I have an un-monstrous Arbor Colossus and a Polukranos, World Eater(monstrous 4), my opponent has no board at all apart from lands.

It's my turn, I attack with both my creatures. My opponent casts
Titan Strength on my Polukranos and then casts
Deflecting Palm on Polukranos so I am now dead to my own Polukranos (12/12).

The game ended here because my opponent started shouting so loud about how he had won with such a play that I missed a vital part of the board.

I could have used the monstrous ability on my Arbor Collosus and made that a 9/9. So I have this question:-

If I had used my monstrous on the Arbor Collosus - would that make the game a draw (we both die at the same time) or could I have had my creatures deal their damage in an order of my choosing, and thus win the game before being killed by my own Polukranos??

All combat damage is dealt at the same time, so yes, it would have been a draw.

Deflecting Palm is a replacement effect (instead of your opponent, you take damage the moment combat damage is dealt). This happens at the same time for all combat damage. So, the Polukranos damage hits you the same time the Arbor Colossus damage would have hit your opponent.

/edit: last paragraph was incorrect


In Axis and Allies, is the Axis "economic victory" condition a valid one? In Axis and Allies, the Axis, unlike the Allies, do not have to play for the total destruction of the other side. If at any time, they control territories representing 84 industrial production certificates (IPCs), they win. This compares with a total of 147 IPCs.

As a practical matter, the Axis will have overcome their initial disadvantage if they even have as many as 74 IPCs (barely more than half), unless the Allies have compensation in more technology advances (e.g. heavy bombers). This correlates with my own sense that the Axis would have won World War II if at any time they had gained half or more of the world's industrial capacity (they actually got one quarter), barring an Allied tech breakthrough (like the atomic bomb).

I am asking the following questions because I have never experienced the situations myself. Has anyone either played or watched a game in which the Axis got the preponderance of IPCs (74-83) and the Allies came back to win? (This would tend to negate the EV scenario.) If so, was it for "tech" or other reasons? Conversely, has anyone ever seen the Axis fall (for a whole turn) below their initial 57 IPCs and come back to win with such an economic disadvantage?

The game becomes very interesting when the Axis achieves its goal of 84, only to lose France, or possibly some African territory.  They then take it back the next round, but only at the cost of expansion to other territories, and perhaps lose a couple of IPC's in the process.  I have witnessed this on a few occasions!  It mainly occurred because the Allies (usually U.S.) had just built up a large invasion force, and it would land on the same turn that the Axis got to 84.  Then Germany would have to fight backwards, and the next turn another invasion (U.K. this time) would hit France.  After that, it was typical for the German player to give up.

I have never seen the Axis fall below pre-war economic levels and then comeback to win the game.  Every time that has happened, we would play one more round, but it goes from bad to worse for the Axis, and mostly Germany.

If they had to take London or Washington, the Allies can simply stockpile in those locations, and Germany and Japan will be frustrated ad infinitum.  With the economic option, the Allies must get aggressive at some point and attack the Axis holdings.

This mimics the war in a fairly realistic sense, and I think that, for an early WWII game, A&A did well at capturing the urgency for the Allied powers.


What game is this die from? I have found a die. The faces depict Fire, a Sheep, a Lock, a Footprint, an "L", and a Magnet.

What game is it from?

Could it be one of
Rory's Story Cubes
?

After looking closely at those photos, I'm going to say definitively, why yes. Yes it could:

In the top photo, the front right die has an [L] and a fire facing the camera.
In the bottom photo, the die in the top right of the box art depicts a single die with a magnet, sheep, and footprint on three sides.

SQB points out in comments these are in fact the same die, with a lock on the side these photos don't show, so it matches the description of the die you found precisely.


How do you select wonders at the beginning of a 7 Wonders game? At the start of your 7 Wonders game how do you decide which wonder each player gets?

What is the intended default rule?
Something I'm unsure about is if you are supposed to mix sides A and B. Is it fair and balanced if some players are playing side B?
Are there other ways that your group decides how to pick wonders, which work and are fair?

Default rule is that playing cards are provided within the box and players pick from them in the usual random way. Also when they turn the card face up, they play the the side of the letter which is up (i.e. if A letter on the card is upwards they play A)

From my personal experience and based on opinions of people I play it with - It doesn't matter if you mix A and B together. B side is intended for advanced players, A is intended for beginners (with A side Giza and Rhodos as ideal starting wonders for novices).
Sure, we may argue that B side is stronger and, in the hands of experienced player, it probably is - but the main game "magic" happens through card deal and player's actions within their chosen strategy.
Also it is a matter of personal preference - e.g. I love playing for B side of Babylon, which most of the people I play it with do not like.

As for the third question - no, not really, as it makes only minimal difference for the base game without expansions, which I believe that you refer to. What we do sometimes is that before we choose wonders to play, we randomize an order in which we sit around the table, as we believe, that particular people as your neighbors in the game can make difference.


Is it allowed to play a jetpack when buried? The rules state that if you are buried, you can take no other action until you dig yourself out. The jetpack card says "play at any time". Does playing a jetpack count as an action for the purposes of following the rules (albeit a free one), or do "play at any time" cards circumvent all action restrictions?

A rules faq on boardgamegeek here says you can.

  Yes. While a buried player cannot take any action other than removing sand, using equipment doesn't take an action.


Can you cast Squee, the Immortal when it is exiled with a bomat courier? Can you cast Squee when it is exiled faced down with Bomat Courier or can you NOT cast a face-down exiled card?

No, you cannot cast a Squee the Immortal while it is exiled with Bomat Courier. Cards that are exiled face down have no characteristics, so the card does not have Squee's ability that allows you to cast it (see rule 406.3).


Do the rules in the "Open the first time a faction is eliminated" packet apply retroactively? Contains spoilers for the packet in question:

   In Risk Legacy, a faction was eliminated and I opened the appropriate envelope, inside which were blue comeback power stickers. My question is: does that very first eliminated faction get one of the stickers, or will it have to wait until next time since these new rules only came into existence after it was eliminated?

The card included in the packet covers what to do:

   The card in question reads
 "The player controlling the eliminated faction chooses a comeback power and places it on to the blue slot on his faction card. From now on, whenever a faction with an empty blue slot is knocked out or eliminated, the controlling player chooses a comeback power and places it on to the blue slot on his faction card." These two statements are independent of each other, so the first faction to be eliminated does add a comeback power to their card.


Special summoning two Interplanetarypurplythorny Dragons consecutively If one of my monsters is destroyed and I have two Interplanetarypurplythorny Dragons in my hand, can I summon both of them from that one monster destruction (assuming I have space for both monsters)

Yes you can

The other answer is not correct (although a comment under the answer points to the correct solution).

The reason is that Interplanetarypurplythorny Dragon's effect reads "If a monster", and it does not read "When a monster". Cards that read "if" do not miss timing and can be activated at the first opportunity after the effect occurs.

From the missing timing Wiki Page, emphasis mine:

  Some Trap Cards, Quick-Play Spell Cards, and optional effects must be activated in response to a particular event (such as the Trigger Effect of "Peten the Dark Clown"). These optional effects are marked by the usage of the word "when" in their activation timing. Trap Cards, Quick-Play Spell Cards, and optional effects that use other words instead of "when" (such as "if" or "each time") do not need to be activated in response to the event, but simply at the first opportunity after the event occurs. Likewise, mandatory effects do not need to be activated in response to a particular event, always being activated at the first opportunity after the event occurs (regardless of whether they use "when" or not).


Can I sacrifice the same creature twice with Blood Host? So for example I am using Blood Host and I sacrifice Reassembling Skeleton, then revive him using his ability. The description says "Sacrifice another creature" to activate the ability. Because I have already sacrificed reassembling skeleton that turn, can I still sacrifice it again after it has been revived.

Yes you can, in this case 'another creature' means a creature other than Blood Host, not a creature that you haven't sacrificed before.

Even if that weren't the case once it move from the battlefield to the graveyard the first time the game no longer sees it as the same creature.

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

So you are free to keep sacrificing the skeletons and reassembling them as long as you have the mana to do it.


At what point does a spell 'target' its target? If I have a counterspell in my hand, and my opponent chooses to cast an instant or sorcery, can I wait to see what his spell 'targets' before I choose to counter it or not?

Yes, you will know all targets of a spell as soon as it is cast.
From the Comprehensive Rules:

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell follows the steps listed below, in order. If, at any point during the casting of a spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before that spell started to be cast (see rule 717, “Handling Illegal Actions”). Announcements and payments can’t be altered after they’ve been made.
[...]
601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. [...]
[...]
601.2h Once the steps described in 601.2a–g are completed, the spell becomes cast. Any abilities that trigger when a spell is cast or put onto the stack trigger at this time. If the spell’s controller had priority before casting it, he or she gets priority.

Note that depending on the card-specific wording, there are some spells and abilities that have choices that are made when they resolve, not when they are cast. Once a spell or ability starts resolving, there is no way of countering it, so in those rare cases, you have no way of knowing for sure what it will do.
For example, Hex Parasite's ability lets you choose the number and kind of counters to remove when it resolves, which matters when the target has more than 1 kind of counter on it.
Another side effect of this rule is that there is usually no way of preventing abilities that trigger on its permanent being targeted from triggering, aside from hexproof or shroud. Once you target such a permanent (usually a creature), the ability will trigger, even if you counter the spell that triggered the ability.


When I search the discard pile, which direction do I search The reference guide says, under Gaining Posessions and Condition, that when gaining a card with a specific trait:

  The investigator searches that card type's deck then discard pile for the first card matching the specified trait and gains that card.

If I cannot find the card in the deck, do I search the discard pile from the most recently discarded card first, or the least recently discarded card?
Usually discard piles are face-up so that the most recently discarded is on top of the pile.

Now, searching is specified as looking through the deck from the bottom up.
Is the bottom of the discard deck the most recently discarded card then or the first one that was discarded?

My inclination is to think that the bottom of the deck is the side that displays the contents of the card, as searching through the details of the cards tends to be easier parsing through the cards from that direction, and this search was likely described to be bottom-up to make it easier to execute.

An official answer from Nikki Valens (head designer of Eldritch Horror):

  The investigator will search the discard pile bottom to top. That is, starting with cards that were discarded earliest and ending with the cards discarded most recently.


What game does this die belong to? Have a game die and I am trying to figure out which game it belongs to.
Has the numbers 1, 2,3, 2 and " All HOP Over" and "Turn Log"

Ideas?

Looks like it's Frogger, a board game based on the video game. A picture of the die from there:

And the game:

(I found this by searching on Google for ["all hop over" "turn log"] - the single result is of all things a patent for the game.)


How many Empire Cards can I play on my turn? I drew one Empire card and played it. Then I wanted to play the other 2 I had in my hand.

Is that allowed?

According to the rules, you get two empire cards at the start. You can get additional empire cards if you land on a empire square, but these must be played immediately:

  Take the top Empire card and do what it says. Once you’ve played it,
  return the card to the bottom of the pile.

There is no mention on when to use them. But on the wikihow page, there is a more expanded section on empire cards:

  8 Give everyone two empire cards and one tower. Everyone starts the
  game with two Empire cards. Look at them, but don’t share them you’re
  your fellow players. Wait until your turn to use them.

This implies you can use them both onto your turn, not specifying when, so yes, you can play them right after you played the one you got from the empire square.


Does Yig's awakened reckoning effect spawn a cultist on each space fulfilling the requirement, or just 1 on a space of your choice? The reckoning effect is

  Spawn 1 Cultist Monster on a space containing a Mystery token, Eldritch token, or Epic Monster.

Does this mean 1 cultist on each space with any of those items, or 1 cultist on a space of our choice that fulfills the requirement? The literal reading seems to imply the latter.

"Spawn 1 monster on a space" - you only spawn one cultist, and you, as a group, chose which space will that be if more than 1 option is available.


Leyline of the Void and exiling stolen permanents What I love about M:tG is the fact that even after 10+ years of playing you always come up against new situations. This one stumped me earlier tonight though.

I've gone up against Leyline of the Void a few times over the years, but earlier I had mind controlled the Leyline's owners creature, then sacrificed it for an ability, pretty standard fare.

He immediately swiped back the card putting it into his graveyard and stated that I don't actually get any benefit for the sacrifice and definitely don't get to exile his creature from the Leyline's ability?

I said he was wrong based on my understanding of graveyard triggers. I thought that, even though I don't own the permanent, it still triggers graveyard entry, even if it essentially can't exist in my graveyard and goes to the owners. For example sacrificing a token still counts as a creature dying and entering a graveyard, even though they cease to exist after triggering entering the graveyard. So I thought his creature would exile even though he was the owner, I was the controller and anything that goes to my graveyard exiles?

It was late and we agreed that he was right to move game on, but ironically the 2 judges in our group had gone by then and I think he just wanted to keep the card in his graveyard so he could recur it. So was I wrong to challenge him? Just having and playing a card doesn't mean you know how it plays.

He's right. It goes directly to his graveyard.

Just to be clear, he controls Leyline of the Void, which has the following ability:

  If a card would be put into an opponent's graveyard from anywhere, exile it instead.

You control one of his creature, which you somehow sacrifice.

  701.14a To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. [...]

  108.3. The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in his or her deck. [...]

As part of sacrificing the creature, you place it in his graveyard. The Leyline's replacement effect does not apply since the creature enters his graveyard (being the creature's owner), not the graveyard of one of his opponents.

As for whether you benefit from the sacrifice, the answer isn't clear, since it's not clear what you mean by that.

If sacrifice is part of the cost of activating an ability: The ability resolves as normal, no matter where the creature ends up. As the person who activated the ability, you control it.
If the creature has an ability that triggers on leaving the battlefield, it would trigger with you as the controller of the ability. (LTB abilities look at the state of the game before the event happen.)
If another one of your permanents has an ability that triggers whenever you sacrifice a creature, it triggers no matter where the creature ends up. The sacrifice action still take places even if the effect of sacrifice is modified by a replacement effect.
If another one of your permanents has an ability that triggers whenever a creature enters your graveyard, it will not trigger since the creature moved from the battlefield to his graveyard.
If the creature has an ability that triggers when it enters a graveyard, it will trigger with your opponent as the controller since it went to his graveyard.


Non-team variants for four or more players in Mille Bornes? Has anyone come across variant rules for Mille Bornes where the players don't play on teams?  I've seen rules for 2 player, 3 player, 2 vs 2 and 3 vs 3, but nothing for four or more solo players.

For whatever reason, sometimes we'll have a group of four or more who feels like playing, but all playing solo.  The problem is, someone always ends up running out of fuel or getting a flat tire, and then never seeing a Petrol or Repair card for the rest of the game.  They end up just sitting there, which is pretty non-entertaining.

It is quite possible that the deck just isn't suitable for more than three players, and playing with two decks is the only way to have more than three solo players, but I'm open to suggestions.

This happened in my gaming group as well, we fixed it simply by having a remedy 'timer' which is once you've been stuck for 3 turns, any GO card would suffice to move again.  Likewise, if stopped for three turns, you could simply play mileage cards.

The other variant we tried, which you might like is that remedy cards (and go cards) were played into a face-up draw stack, and instead of drawing normally, you could draw from any used card in the stack, so once someone had fixed their flat tire, anyone could spend the turn to draw the remedy the second time.


Does the first piece in a standard blokus game have to have a square on a corner cell? When a player plays his first piece, does it have to cover the corner square? For example, can one play his X piece as first piece?

According to the rues, "The first piece played by each player must cover a corner square." They show an example of an illegal first move, as a piece that "surrounds" the corner without touching it, like an X would. This does mean that the X cannot ever be the first piece.

http://www.mindware.com/Blobs/22021_inst_blokus.pdf