Question about targeting a Hexproof creature I was at an official tournament held by Star City Games.  It was a draft.

My opponent had a Geist of Saint Traft. Having become a little frustrated with it, I had a momentary lapse in memory and I forgot that it had Hexproof. My opponent immediately called for a judge and told the judge to make me choose a new target.  And so the judge told me that I had to choose a new target.  This forced me to choose one of my own since he had no other creatures out.

I thought that I wouldn't be able to cast the spell at all since I never had valid targets chosen.

Can someone please explain what is supposed to happen at this point?  I still feel that ruling was wrong but want to get an unbiased second opinion.

Thanks for your help!

The guide for judges handling rules infractions is called the Infraction Procedure Guide. The situation in question looks like a "Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation". The remedy section for that item says that a judge should first consider a simple backup. The backup rules say

  To perform a backup, each individual action since the point of the error is reversed, starting with the most recent ones and working backwards. Every action must be reversed; no parts of the sequence should be omitted or reordered.

The GRV remedy section then further says that partial remedies can then be applied to only a specific set of situations, none of which match the situation in question. It is not inconceivable that a judge could interpret these instructions as allowing them to do a backup to after you announced the spell and before you chose targets, but that would be a stretch, and essentially inconsistent with rule 721.1:

  If a player takes an illegal action or starts to take an action but can’t legally complete it, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled. [...] If the action was casting a spell, the spell returns to the zone it came from. [...]

The fact that the judge took their cue from the opponent when determining the remedy makes this additionally questionable. From that description it seems likely that they simply assumed that the opponent was correct, or knew what they were talking about.

In general, if you disagree with a judge's ruling or remedy, you can appeal in accordance with section 2.9 of the Magic Tournament Rules:

  If a player disagrees with a judge’s ruling, they may appeal the ruling to the Head Judge. In larger, Premier-level tournaments (such as Grand Prix and Magic Tabletop Mythic Championships), with prior approval, the Head Judge may designate additional Appeals Judges who are also empowered to hear appeals. They will be wearing the same uniform as the Head Judge.


Anyone have these 7 cards from The Fortune Teller Board Game by Pressman 1989 I found this game (The Fortune Teller by Pressman from 1989) but it's missing 7 cards. I was wondering if someone would share insight of those missing 7 cards and I'll make the missing cards so I can play the game (?) the 1st card is a Titled Card for Change So I would need the other side which lists 6 words from top to bottom. The other 6 cards start with these words....Accomplishment, Affection, Illness, Interference, Materialist and Momentum, with then their other 5 words on that side of their cards. Maybe you could take a photo of the back of the cards with the words and email those or attach them to this message, whatever would be the easiest.

Becky, I have this game. I can send you pictures.


Glaring Spotlight anti-hexproof work on enchantments Does the  Glaring Spotlight's anti-hexproof work on enchantments? So if a creature is not hexproof but has an enchantment such as  Alpha Authority, does it still cancel the hexproof?

Glaring Spotlight affects hexproof from all sources, regardless of their type or the timestamp order of their effects.

In many cases in Magic, when two continuous effects do opposite things, we must look at their "timestamps" to figure out the final result.

Glaring Spotlight, however, doesn't remove hexproof from anything; what it does do is change the rules for hexproof. This modification applies to all instances of hexproof on creatures your opponents control, including hexproof granted by enchantments and artifacts.

From the Oracle rulings for Glaring Spotlight:

  Creatures your opponents control don’t actually lose hexproof, although you will ignore hexproof for purposes of choosing targets of spells and abilities you control.


How much replayability can I expect from a core set LCG I've been considering getting one of the various LCG that are available from FFG (GoT, Star Wars, Cthulhu) but was wondering what the replayability is like for just having the core set?

I do not want to have to keep buying the expansions every couple of months to keep the game fresh - at this stage, it will only be for two players. I am assuming any more than that will require each player to have their own core set.

As with any growing Card Game (LCG, CCG, TCG), unless you want to play competitively, it's never required to get more cards. Since you don't need to keep up with changing metagames, new strategic ideas and new available cards, you can play with just what you have with your friends.

The question remains how much fun you get out of it after having played for a while.
To answer that, I'll point you towards card games with a limited card pool. If you're playing with a fixed set of 32, 52, or just any number of cards, you can easily calculate the maximum number of combinations of cards each player can have. Combining those into tactical clusters (in Poker, for example, it doesn't matter which Aces you have, 2 of them always have a specific strength) reduces that number to something in the 6 figures (more or less). Each of these cluster distributions gives a unique gaming experience and additionally, the fact there is private information involved (you don't know which cards the other player(s) have) further increases the complexity and diversity across several games.

Imagine having more cards. Many more cards.

The more cards you have available, the more complex situations can become. Deckbuilding really only becomes a thing when you have a big pool of cards available, but usually, LCG core sets already offer some number of different options. There are always several decks belonging to different factions you can choose from, sometimes even tweak. What this means is you're not simply dealt a few cards, but you can invest the effort to carefully decide which cards you want to have available in the first place. Then, when you're actually playing, you have a similar situation to the one I described with the fixed deck games, where you have a giant number of possible card distributions, which are reduced by tactical clustering (or several copies of the same cards being played), but diversified by the existance of private information.

So, conclusion time.
In my personal opinion, LCG core sets offer a lot of replayability and long-term fun, but if you really like the game and play a lot, strategy becomes such a strong factor that you quickly learn how each deck works and what its strengths and weaknesses are. At that point, the limited card pool leaves you craving for more options to surprise an equally educated opponent.
My advice is this. Play with the core set. If you really like the game and play a lot, you will reach a point where you get the feeling you've mastered all of that game and it doesn't offer you any more surprise. At that point (or earlier if you just feel like it), get an expansion set. Basically, expansion sets for LCGs are like new, but similar games, except they actually have the size of the core and expansion sets combined.

How long it takes until you should probably get an expansion really depends on how much you play and how long it takes you to figure out a game. If you have any decently complex game which you liked playing but at some point grew sick of, you can take that as a reference. But with an LCG, you can buy an expansion set at that point and revive the fun (and possibly even discover an entirely new aspect of the game in complex deckbuilding).


Can Adventure creatures always be cast from exile? Throne of Eldraine will include 'Adventure' instant and sorcery subtypes, that are attached to a creature (or possibly just permanent) card. The reminder text says (Then exile this card. You may cast the creature later from exile.)

Can the creature always be cast from exile (obeying normal rules for casting creatures)? (For instance, if the card was in the graveyard, and then the graveyard was exiled) Or can it only be cast from exile if the card was put into exile by resolving the Adventure?

IE: Does the reminder text serve to remind that creatures attached to Adventure subtypes can be cast from exile, or does resolving an Adventure create an additional effect that allows you to cast the attached creature from exile?

Resolving an Adventure spell puts the card into exile and allows you to cast it from exile. If the card was not put into exile that way, it cannot be cast from exile. The Throne of Eldraine Mechanics Guide says this on the topic:

  Now the fun part of going on an adventure: returning safely! If an exiled card you own is on an adventure, you can cast the creature. This could be the same turn in which you cast the Adventure or on a future turn. This works only if the Adventure spell resolves and the card remains in exile. If you cast the Adventure and it's countered, you're out of luck. Of course, you don't have to cast the Adventure at all. You could just cast Beanstalk Giant if you have need of smashing now or you don't want to risk Fertile Footsteps getting countered.


What is the name of this solitaire game? I am looking for the name of a card game I played as a kid, but do not remember it's name.

I found it in a Donald Duck book about the scouts (that I remember)

It was played as a solitaire game with 1 deck.

You put out 6(or 8?) cards open on the table, hold the others closed in
your hand.

You keep adding cards till you can do the check and till you left with no cards in you hands. With a bad shuffle you end op with a lot of cards on the table.

you check if card 1 and card 3 are the same suit or the same number.
In this the case, put card 2 on top op card 1 and go back to step 1
Are the not the same, check card 2 and 4 and check if they have the
same suit or number.
In this case, put card 3 on top of car 2 and go back to step 2.
If you have no cards on table to match add 1 card from you hand.

The games finished when all cards are distributed on the table.
You win if there are only two piles left. On the left all cards, on the
right one card.
Can anyone tell me the name of the game?

This is a variant of the game Accordian. Here are the rules for Accordian


Can I voluntarily kill my own units? My question is about the second edition, if it makes a difference.

From the Supply section:

  A player is never allowed to take any action in the game that would
  cause him to exceed his actual supply limit as dictated by his
  position on the Supply track (such as mustering, marching or
  retreating, all explained later).

From the Mustering section:

  A player may never muster a unit that would create or  expand an army
  beyond his actual supply limit. In other words,  if mustering a new
  unit would cause a player to have more (or  larger) armies than
  allowed by his position on the Supply track,  that unit cannot be
  mustered.

From the Combat/Retreat section:

  A player may not retreat his defending units to an area containing
  friendly units if this would cause him to exceed his Supply limit. If
  a player’s only option is to retreat to such an area, he must first
  destroy as many retreating units as necessary to be compliant with his
  Supply limit after retreating to the area. After taking such losses,
  he may retreat the remaining units.

So, this all seems pretty cut and dry to me that I can't have more units in a region than would be allowed by supply unless I'm forced to by some situation, in which case I must immediately kill off units until I'm under the supply limit again.

But I'll ask my question anyway, which is: Since the game allows for scenarios in which you must kill units due to supply constraints, is there anything that suggests I can just simply sacrifice units?

For instance, if I wanted to turn an army of four (region A) into an army of three to allow an army of four to form elsewhere on the board (region B) I currently have to march one unit out of A to somewhere else and march a new unit into B; compare this to simply taking footman off the board from A and using a march to reinforce B.

No. Nowhere do the rules mention being able to voluntarily remove units from the board. You can do a text search to verify this yourself (destroy, remove, sacrifice, voluntary, etc. do not show any meaningful results). The default for board game rules is, anything not permitted is forbidden (since it is quite impossible to do the converse)


May opponent play fatal leaky pipe on my pipeline? In the Parker Brothers card game Waterworks, may an opponent play a leaky pipe that makes it impossible for me to win?  I don't just mean a play that stops me from winning this turn; I mean one that stops me from ever winning.

Typically this would be done by playing a leaky elbow pipe that directs my pipeline into an area already enclosed by earlier sections of my own pipeline, with some open space but not enough to construct a pipeline of sufficient length to win.

Is this allowed?  Or is it my own fault for building my pipeline in such a way?

From a scan of what looks like the official rules:

  If a leaky pipe is connected to the last pipe card it can be any shape as long as it continues the pipeline.

Reviewing the rules from this site, the relevant line is:

  "If the player adds a leaky pipe to the end of the player’s set of
  pipes the card can be any shape as long as it allows the player to
  have at least one path available to add pipes in future turns."

I could not find any rules that expressly forbids forcing a players pipeline towards a path that blocks the player's ability to win. So as long as the player can continue their pipeline path at least once more after a leaky pipe is placed, then it's a fair play (based on the rules).

Personally, for better games, I would bring up this situation with my opponents and decide if we want to allow this tactic and declare the blocked player lost, or disallow this tactic by assuming the rules mean:

  ...as long as it continues the pipeline with sufficient space for the player to meet the required number of pipes to win.

If you are the Rule Lawyer type, then the play you described is allowed. I just suggest you bring it up before play, so everyone can guard against it, instead of springing it on your opponents, causing this type of argument.

Good Question.


2-player Lord of the Rings game from the early 2000s I am looking for a LOTR 2-player (1v1) board game I received for Christmas as a kid in the early 2000s (after the last movie got released, so probably 2003 or 2004, but the game in itself may have been older).

Each player controlled 9 characters: the white player controlled the Fellowship, while the black player controlled Sauron's forces.

The game was played on a square map divided in several cells of irregular sizes and shapes, each representing a region of Middle-Earth, with the Shire and Mordor at opposite sides, which I think served at the starting points for each team.

Each character I believe possessed a special ability and a "strength" level between 1 and 9.
The character tiles were printed with an artwork and showed the name, a description of the special ability, and the "strength". The tiles were inserted in plastic stands and placed face to their owner so that the opponent could not see which character was in which position on the board.

When 2 opposing characters were in the same region, players had to reveal them and then a battle phase started. During battle the players had to use cards but I don't remember what purpose they served.

The game ended when Frodo managed to reach Mordor (White wins) or was killed by the Enemy (Black wins).

The art style resembled a lot that of John Howe.

Sounds like  Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation


Do players reveal their sort order for Forecast? The instructions are not really clear on some of the nuances of the game, particularly the bioterrorist scenario.

When playing the Forecast event card, do the players have to divulge the order they are sorting the cards to the bioterroist? Or can they do so secretly?

With the forecast event you can chose to discuss or not discuss the what the cards where that you drew and what order you put them back in. However if you do discuss any of that information you can't keep it from the bio-terrorist.

Rules

  The Bio-Terrorist may listen to the other players as they discuss their plans
  and cards, but should not interrupt them on their turns. The non-Terrorist
  players may not hold private discussions nor pass notes to each other.

I would note that it is possible to lie about the information you got from the card but I would question how useful it would be to lie to your teammates and it could end up hurting you more in the long run.


Dark Magical Circle vs Masked HERO Blast My friend and I were playing Dark Magician vs HERO. I had Masked HERO Blast on the field and he activated Dark Magical Circle (DMC). I chained Blast's effect to return the Dark Magical Circle to my opponent's hand. I thought that since DMC has to remain face up on the field for its effect to resolve, he wouldn't get to look the top 3 cards of his deck. Since DMC states that a player may only "USE" each of its effects once per turn, even if my friend had played the circle again, he wouldn't have been able to use the first effect to look up the top cards of the deck because he had already used it once (and it resolved without effect).

The question is, was this interaction ok? Or would he had been able to look up the top 3 cards anyway (by activating circle immediately after being returned to the hand). Thanks!

Since "Dark Magical Circle" stated:

  You can only use each effect of "Dark Magical Circle" once per turn.

No, he cannot use "Dark Magical Circle" to look at the top deck again at the same turn.

However, they are allowed to activate it again as a Continuous Spell, and use the effect to banish your card if "Dark Magician" is Summoned.


Can Alolan Pokémon evolve to non-Alolan or vice versa? If I have a regular Ninetales in my hand and an Alolan Vulpix on my bench, can I evolve the Alolan Vulpix into the regular Ninetales?

Alolan and non-Alolan forms are not interchangeable because they have different "names"

The 2017 Pokemon Trading Card Game Rules in the section What does and doesn't count for a Pokémon's name? makes it clear that the Alolan and non-Alolan versions are not the same Pokémon.

  An owner or form name in a Pokémon’s name is part of the Pokémon’s name:

  Meowth, Alolan Meowth, and Rocket’s Meowth have different names

There are other rules for what counts as the same or a different name, but for our purposes, "Alolan X" is not the same name as "X".

The "evolves from" name must exactly match the name of the pre-evolutionary Pokémon

From the same section:

  When evolving, the “evolves from” Pokémon name must match the Pokémon being evolved. So Graveler can evolve from Geodude, or
  Geodude LV. 12, but not Brock’s Geodude.

The "evolves from" Pokémon is referring to the Pokémon in the upper left corner of an evolutionary Pokémon.

Alolan Pokémon follow these same rules

Consider Alolan Persian:

Alolan Persian's card says in the upper left corner "Evolves from Alolan Meowth". Since "Meowth" is treated as a different name, you cannot evolve a Meowth into an Alolan Persian. This is reiterated in Appendix K of the rules:

  Note that “Alolan” is part of the Pokémon’s name—this means that Alolan Persian can only evolve from Alolan Meowth, not from Meowth. Also, you can have up to 4 Persian and up to 4 Alolan Persian in your deck if you wish.

There are some circumstances where a non-Alolan Pokémon can evolve into an Alolan Pokémon, such as Alolan Raichu.

In this case, the upper left corner of the card explicitly says "Evolves from Pikachu", thus a regular Pikachu will work (but not something like Surfing Pikachu, as fitting as that might be).

In your particular case, Ninetales' card says that it evolves from "Vulpix". Since "Alolan Vulpix" is considered to be a different name, it cannot evolve into Ninetales. Similarly, an Alolan Ninetales' card would say that it evolves from "Alolan Vulpix", so "Vulpix" cannot evolve into it.


Is this move permitted in Scrabble? My wife and I had a heated discussion on whether the move below was permissible under the official Scrabble rules. In this case, I added the letters O, I to form OE and OI. She claims it was a double movement, as OE was permissible because it was attached to the ending of MAZE, but OI was not permissible because I is attached to a word I just created hence the double movement. She claimed that if I wanted to add additional letters it can only be in the horizontal direction as it’s attached to the original word on the board being MAZE.
I claimed it was permissible as I went in one direction (vertical) whilst creating a word that was originally on the board being MAZE.
Can you please confirm whether my move was permissible?

Placing letters parallel to a word is a valid play in Scrabble, as long as every combination of letters formed by the play is a valid word.
From the official rules - Gameplay point #4:

New words may be formed by:
.....

Placing a complete word parallel to a word already played so that adjacent letters also form complete words.

So as long as "oe" is a valid word in whatever word source you are using, then it is a valid play.


Does Psychosis Crawler die in the middle of Days Undoing? Okay, so I have a commander deck that allows me to draw my entire library and I stumbled upon a strange situation.

This is the chain of events I want to happen:

Tap Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind with Curiosity attached to form an
infinite draw combo.
Cast Psychosis Crawler
Cast Day's Undoing to return my hand and graveyard to my library and draw 7, reactivating the combo with Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind and Curiosity

My question is, during the resolution of Day's Undoing, Psychosis Crawler's power and toughness will be reduced to 0 before I draw my 7 cards (as far as I'm aware?). Does this mean he will die before I activate the draw combo again to win?

Psychosis Crawler won't die during the resolution of Day's Undoing.  Toughness check is done as a state-based action.  State-based actions are checked after each spell/trigger is done resolving.

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. If any ...
704.4. Unlike triggered abilities, state-based actions pay no attention to what happens during the resolution of a spell or ability.


How do you prevent deliberately losing in Republic of Rome? In Republic of Rome, if Rome falls, everyone loses.  Some gaming groups I've been in grok this concept completely and players will make major sacrifices of their positions (donating lots of money from personal treasuries to the state to fight off the Punic Wars in the Early Republic, for example), while others regard Rome falling as a draw, and deliberately play to cause Rome to fall if they think they can't win.

If you have a mixture of both types of player, then the fall-of-Rome-is-a-draw players can exploit the fall-of-Rome-is-a-loss players by threatening to bring Rome down and demanding concessions for saving it.  This tends to provoke resentment on both sides.

Does anyone have any suggestions for (a) how to prevent this conflict and (b) how to resolve it before punches start being thrown?

If it's not part of any sort of larger tournament or ranking system, then there's pretty much no difference between everyone losing and a draw, so it's just going to wind up being an issue of perception.

The solution, then, would be to play it in the context of a ranking system or tournament. I don't know the game in question, so I don't know what the possible outcomes are, but you could assign different point values to different results; winning gets you 1 point, losing gets you 0, and Rome falling gets everyone -1. Then people will have an incentive not to let Rome fall; if they do, they will lose rank compared to other players not in that game.

By the way, this sort of brinksmanship between the fall-of-Rome-is-a-loss and fall-of-Rome-is-a-draw crowds may be an intentional feature of the game. After all, it's not all that uncommon for some politicians or political parties to focus so hard on winning their own particular issues that they're willing to put the whole country at risk (state, nation, empire, what have you) if they don't get their way. It sounds like a pretty realistic political situation, if you ask me.


Modernising a 90s Warhammer 40K Army I collected and gamed with a Blood Angel and Dark Angel army during the mid to late 90s.  I have (I think) the second edition that came in a box set of basic Space Marines and Orks, and also have the Dark Millenium expansion.  I've been wondering recently what I would need to get to bring myself up to date with the current (7th) edition/rules.  If I were to get the newer models/squads etc, I would need at least the codex.  However presumably that itself would mean I need the updated rule book.  What about the likes of the wargear cards, warp cards, vehicle data cards etc?  Would the wide range of templates (flamer, blast radius etc) still be applicable?

Also, whilst looking over some of my items I found a few old blister packs with a price on, so had a quick compare of prices.  However, one of the blister packs was Brother Bethor - he no longer seems to be available.  Presumably he'd be missing from a modern Codex and associated rules/points cost may no longer be valid.  I'm concerned this might also apply to other models in my army - how would this be resolved properly?

You would need the core rule book and codex to start.  Both the Dark Angels and Blood Angels codexes are separate books now.  There are scenario cards and psychic cards for the current edition, but they are optional.  The game currently uses the 3" and 5" templates along with the teardrop flamer.  Those, a measuring device, a scatter die, and copious d6s is all that is required for play outside of minis and terrain.

The special characters available have changed much since 2nd edition.  The big ones like Dante, Mephiston, Ezekiel, and such are still around.  Generally if a character has gone away, there is usually a generic HQ options that you can still use the model for, such as a Blood Angel Sanguinary Priest and in the case of Bethor Dark Angels chapter standard bearer.


Tsumego elementary problem 157 I tried to solve this tsumego, black is on the move:

it seems to me that white can kill black only if he wins the ko two times. Is that correct? After first ko win he will connect at 1-3 and after second win he will take at 3-2.


King of Tokyo: When can you buy a card and when can you start to use them? I have two questions related to purchasing cards:

When can you purchase a card? Is it only during your turn or you can just go ahead and buy cards as long as you have cubes even if it's another player's turn?
When does the card take effect? If you purchase a card during your turn, can you already use it on that turn or do you have to wait for your next turn?

Rules are here.

Purchasing Cards:

  Turn Overview

  Rolling and rerolling the dice
  Resolving the dice
  Buying cards (optional)
  End of your turn

So you can only buy cards during your turn, and only after rolling and resolving the dice. One exception to this is if you have the Opportunist card, in which case you can buy newly revealed cards even when it's not your turn.

Using Cards:

Cards marked Discard

  Monsters immediately resolve these then discard them.

Cards marked Keep

  Monsters keep these cards for the remainder of the game (sometimes the card will indicate it is discarded under certain circumstances.)

Keep cards generally indicate on them when they can be used (e.g. when attacking, when you are attacked, at the start of your turn). A Keep card that does something at the end of your turn can be used on the turn that you bought it (e.g. Solar Powered).


Drover of the Mighty + Raptor Hatchling + Fiery Canonnade Let's say I have a Drover of the Mighty and a Raptor Hatchling in play and then someone casts Fiery Cannonade, dealing 2 to each of them. Does the 3/3 dino arrive in time to save the Drover or does it briefly drop back to 1/1?

Unfortunately no.

After Fiery Cannonade deals 2 damage, you check State-based-actions (SBA).  SBAs happen right before a player would get priority.

It sees Drover as a 3/3 with 2 marked damage, and the Hatchling as 1/1 with 2 marked damage.  So, it puts the hatchling in the graveyard.

Then it checks SBAs again to see if anything should happen again.  It sees Drover as a 1/1 with 2 marked damage, so it puts it into the graveyard.

SBAs check again, see nothing, so then it goes ahead and puts the Hatchling's enrage trigger on the stack.

  704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated; otherwise all triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack are put on the stack, then the check is repeated. Once no more state-based actions have been performed as the result of a check and no triggered abilities are waiting to be put on the stack, the appropriate player gets priority.


What are the differences between combat damage, direct damage, and loss of life? From reading the rules it would appear there are two kinds of damage and then straight loss of life:

  118.3 If an effect causes a player to gain or lose life, that player's life total is adjusted accordingly.

From reading that I would guess that effects like Extort are not sources of damage. You simply lose the life.

  119.2a Damage may be dealt as a result of combat. Each attacking and blocking creature deals combat damage equal to its power during the combat damage step.

So damage from creatures during combat is combat damage.

  119.2b Damage may be dealt as an effect of a spell or ability. The spell or ability will specify which object deals that damage.

And that is direct damage from an object.

So the arguments are these:

Does loss of life as outlined by rule 118.3 (at top) count as being dealt damage? Do triggered abilities that redirect or reduce damage effect loss of life?

My second related question: You put Arcane teachings on a Blinding Angel and tap her to deal one damage to your opponent. Am I right in saying that because the damage was direct damage (not dealt during combat) then the triggered ability of preventing the combat phase of the damaged player is not triggered?

This is cleared up in rule 118.2:

  Damage dealt to a player normally causes that player to lose that much life. See rule 119.3.

So you actually have it backwards. Damage to a player is loss of life, not the other way around. When a player is "dealt damage," they lose that much life. (See below for more on "normally.") This is emphasized in rule 119.1a:

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

Spells that specifically say "lose life" cannot be reduced by spells that redirect damage. Damage is caused as "a result of combat" (119.2a) or "as an effect of a spell or ability" (119.2b). Spells that cause loss of life do not cause damage. Instead, they go around damage and just cause the loss of life. There are two ways to cause damage (quoted above as combat damage and damage from spells), and when these objects would inflict damage on a player, that player loses that much life.

If a player takes damage, they lose that much life; if a player loses life, they lose that much life. Additionally, if a creature takes damage, it takes that much damage; creatures do not lose life. Think of life as the currency of players, which damage can impact in a negative way.

This distinction between damage and loss of life is important. They are intentionally kept separate for cards like Griselbrand. The designers wouldn't want you to be able to prevent the loss of life caused by his ability by casting a simple damage reduction spell, like Reflect Damage, so loss of life is kept as a separate concept.

If a triggered ability says "whenever a player is dealt damage," it would not trigger when that player is affected by a spell that causes loss of life.

In regards to the Blinding Angel example, you are correct. Blinding Angel did not deal combat damage so its ability would not trigger.

The word "normally" in rule 118.2 refers to one way in which damage is modified, laid out specifically in 119.3b. This rules lays out an important exception to loss of life:

  Damage dealt to a player by a source with infect causes that player to get that many poison counters.

This is an exception; players lose life when they are dealt damage 99.9% of the time.


Identify a card game where players are asked questions about life situations Loved playing a board game back in early 90s. On your turn, you would pick a card which asked various questions on life situations. Then you had to pick someone playing who you thought the card would best apply to.

Examples:

Who's most likely to commit murder.
Who's most likely to have an affair.
Who's the kindest person here.

Everyone else playing had to make their guess and then you would read out your choice. Made for a lot of debate.

Loved it and would love to try and find it again but cannot remember what it's called. Can anyone please help? Thanks all.

I'm assuming this game an English-language party game printed in the United States, because that's what I know best, but variants of the "who would X" mechanic have been published for decades in many countries.  That said, searching BoardGameGeek for party games with social mechanics (particularly voting on other players) and limiting the list of games to those published in the USA from 1970 to 1999 gives four likely candidates:

True Colors (1990):  Cards show a question, and you vote on who best fits it - and try to bet how many players will choose you.  Questions are things like "WHO would still clip coupons after winning five million dollars in the lottery?" and "Flirting is an art, WHO is the undeniable expert?"  Has been published under other names and in several art styles, the link shows the box and components from the 1990 Pressman edition.  Closest match in mechanics and publication date.

The Ungame (1973):  This roll-and-move "board game" is more about explaining yourself to other players or discussing other players.  Questions include "Talk about a happy marriage." and "Share a childhood experience with death."  Not the closest match for mechanics or publication date, but it sold like hotcakes so worth mentioning.

Family: The Game (1990):  A board game about dealing dirty laundry about family members, questions include things like "When it comes to smelly feet, our family's champion would have to be _____!"  Not a very popular game and it doesn't use cards, but it's otherwise a very close match for mechanics.

Who Said That? (1998):  A card-based board game, everyone writes an answer to a question like "You're in a bar and find a wallet full of money, what do you do?" and you try to guess who gave what answer.  Close match in mechanics but published a few years after the "early 90s."

Speaking personally, this is also how most of my games of Nomic and 1000 Blank White Cards end up, but neither game has set cards.


Can I build a settlement at an intersection two roads away from one settlement and one road away from another? Say I have a settlement two roads away from an intersection, but have another settlement only one road away from the same intersection and no other settlements near me. Can I build a settlement at the intersection?

No, it is not possible

As best I can tell, this is the situation you are describing:

The 5th Edition rules say this about settlements:

  Take special note of the “Distance Rule”: you may only build a settlement at an intersection if all 3 of the adjacent intersections are vacant (i.e., none are occupied by any settlements or cities—even yours).

In this situation, the intersection to the left is not vacant because it contains one of your settlements. Therefore, it is not permitted to build a settlement at this intersection.

Some players rephrase this rule as "a settlement must be at least two roads away from every other settlement". If that makes more sense to you, feel free to think that way.


Differences between Clue/Cluedo and Clue: Discover the Secrets I noticed that Hasbro released a new version of Clue last year named Clue: Discover the Secrets.

Do you need to use a different strategy in this game, or is it similar to the earlier Clue games?

I've played both the original Clue and its Master Detective variation.

I want to know because I was thinking of getting it, but wanted to know if it was different enough from the original to warrant a purchase.

Character changes, mostly now its a teen approach: Kasandra Scarlet, Jack Mustard, Diane White, Jacob Green, Eleanor Peacock, Victor Plum. Starting spaces have changed.

The House is now complete with Spa and Observatory inhabited by the Hollywood elite such as the bat wielding ex-football player and software billionaire fond of dumbbells. Rooms are: Hall, Guest House, Dining Room, Kitchen, Patio, Spa, Theater, Living Room, Observatory.

Characters have special powers. I.e., Kasandra Scarlet can once a game look at a card that one player has just shown another player.

Intrigue cards offer new rules. And there are some slight other changes in rules.

Purists hate it. My kids think its fun.


What are the differences between Rise of the Runelords and Skull and Shackles? I am thinking of getting Rise of the Runelords or Skull and Shackles. From your experiences, which game would you consider better, and is there even any noticeable difference in between the two games? From what I have heard so far, the two games are pretty similar. Is that true, or are there differences in the two games that make one better than the other? What are the differences, if there are any, in between the two games? If I knew the differences maybe it would help me on deciding which game I would rather have. You can also give me your own opinion on the two games.

Skull and Shackles has two main changes from Rise of the Runelords.

The boat mechanic.  This mechanic is completely new to S&S, but I don't think it adds to the game overall.  The rules for it are not intuitive.  Your party will have a boat in most adventures and have opportunity to fight other boats.
General iterative rules development.  Despite what I said about the boat, S&S is a better game than RotR just due to them having another chance to write the rules and balance things.  Specific things I liked better

More skills are useful in challenges
Characters are better balanced
The rulebook is much better organized
As they went thru the RotR adventures they used certain templates on the cards. These are incorporated as basic rule terms in S&S. These leads to more clarity.

Overall, unless the pirate theme doesn't appeal to you I'd recommend skipping Rise of the Runelords and starting right in Skull and Shackles.

You didn't ask, but this advice holds even if you consider the newer release Wrath of the Righteous.  WotR is much harder and has a few more moving parts than either of the other two sets.  It's a fine second game to get, but if it is your first purchase in the Adventure game line it could lead to disappointment.


In Risk Classic, are territory cards drawn by players kept face-up or face-down? The Risk Classic rules do not seem to specify if territory cards drawn by players are kept face-up or face-down. I can't seem to find anything about this from my research and I was wondering if anyone could clarify on this?

Edit:
Thought I'd add some quotes from the official rules for reference.

"Earning Cards" doesn't seem to specify if the cards are drawn face-up/face-down and if they are then proceeded to be kept face-up/face-down.

  Earning Cards. At the end of any turn in which you have captured at
  least one territory, you will earn one (and only one) RISK card.

The only reference to face-down cards I can find are when the player has traded them in.

  For quick reference, keep traded-in cards face down under the bottom edge of the game board
  to mark the value (in armies) of the next trade

The only advantage I can see to having open-information card drawing is you know if they will be getting reinforcements on their next turn since the number of reinforcements you get scales according to the number of traded sets which is open-information.

If the rules don't specify it, I guess house rules are required! I've always played that they're drawn face down, so noone else knows whether you'll be handing in a set this go or not.


Can Willbender be used when Dark Salvation is cast? Can Willbender be used when Dark Salvation is cast?

I only ask as it mentions the word target twice.

Depends on how it was cast.

The spell asks you to select 1 target player and 0-1 target creatures:

  Target player creates X 2/2 black Zombie creature tokens, then up to one target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn for each Zombie that player controls.

If you cast it without targeting a creature, then it has only one target and may be retargeted by Willbender. If you decide to use the creature-removal part of the spell, then it has two targets and is not a valid target for Willbender's ability.

Willbender's abilities does not add or subtract targets, so you cannot target a token-generating Dark Salvation to use it as removal (you can, however, steal the tokens).

Here's a bit of relevant comp rules that Michael Politowski pointed out in the comments (emphasis added):

  114.8c An object that looks for a “[spell or ability] that targets only [something]” checks the number of different objects or players that became the target of that spell or ability when it was put on the stack (as modified by effects that changed those targets), not the number of those objects or players that are currently legal targets…

Thus, if you're playing EDH and your opponent has a morph in play, I very much suggest using Dark Salvation to its full effect so you don't get Willbender'd. Because the first rule of EDH is "It's Always a Willbender."


Interaction with printed stats and token/equipment with stat reduction I just debuted playing magic 2 weeks ago, and I have a question. Let's say a creature has 4 +1/+1 token on it and has base stats of 2/2. If I play Breya, Etherium Shaper's ability to inflict -4/-4 to that creature, does it affect the creature with all his power (6/6 bringing it down to 2/2) or does it affect the printed value of 2/2, killing it since it goes to 0 toughness?

It becomes 2/2.

The ability in question is

  Target creature gets -4/-4 until end of turn.

To determine a creature's power and toughness:

Start with the printed value (or the value with which a token was created).
Apply power- and toughness-setting effects (e.g Turn to Frog) in the order they were created.
Apply power- and toughness-modifying effects (e.g the ability and the counters mentioned above).

The result is the power and toughness of the creature.


Does Exalted still apply if additional creatures are later included? I want to confirm that my interpretation of the Exalted keyword is correct, specifically when creatures are added to the attack as an effect during the declare attackers phase.

As an example, supposed I had Alesha, Who Smiles At Death and Angelic Benediction in play. My Alesha now has Exalted:

  Whenever a creature you control attacks alone, that creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.

Alesha also has an attack trigger:

  Whenever Alesha, Who Smiles at Death attacks, you may pay [W/B][W/B]. If you do, return target creature card with power 2 or less from your graveyard to the battlefield tapped and attacking.

If I use Alesha's triggered ability, I have to do so during the Delcare Attackers step, at which point a second creature will now be attacking. So Alesha is not longer "attacking alone". However, as I understand the timing rules,  Exalted triggers at the same time as Alesha's ability, so I can choose to have it resolve first, and she will get the +1/+1, then the second creature will enter the battlefield attacking?

Is that correct?

That is correct. Exalted triggers, and the creature that's attacking alone gets +1/+1 until end of turn. It doesn't matter whether that creature continues attacking alone for the rest of the turn (of course, it can't once the combat phase is over).

There's a Gatherer ruling on Angelic Benediction to this effect:

  10/1/2008: Some effects put creatures onto the battlefield attacking. Since those creatures were never declared as attackers, they’re ignored by exalted abilities. They won’t cause exalted abilities to trigger. If any exalted abilities have already triggered (because exactly one creature was declared as an attacker), those abilities will resolve as normal even though there may now be multiple attackers.


If damage is redirected infinitely, does the game end in a draw? I have a creature enchanted with Pariah:

  All damage that would be dealt to you is dealt to enchanted creature
  instead.

I then play Blood of the Martyr:

  Until end of turn, if damage would be dealt to any creature, you may
  have that damage dealt to you instead.

The rules appear to say that this does not result in a draw, because according to Blood of the Martyr I "may" redirect the damage to me.

  104.4b If the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw.

Then, am I forced to give the damage to the creature? Do I have a choice to draw the game by choosing to give the damage to myself forever?

These are replacement effects, and you can't apply any single replacement effect to any single event more than once. So, once you apply both effects, you stop, the damage is dealt, and the game continues.
These are the relevant rules about Replacement Effects:

614.1. Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply continuously as events happen—they aren’t locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event. They act like “shields” around whatever they’re affecting.

614.1a Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events.

[...]

614.5. A replacement effect doesn’t invoke itself repeatedly; it gets only one opportunity to affect an event or any modified events that may replace it.

For example, say an effect would deal damage to you. Then you would resolve the effect as follows:

First, only Pariah's effect applies. It's not optional, so we apply it, and the damage would now be dealt to the creature instead of to you.

Now Blood of the Martyr's effect applies. This one is optional, so you can choose to have the damage dealt to you instead of the creature.

Now, no matter what choice you made, all applicable replacement effects have now been applied. The effect resolved, and the damage is dealt either to you or to the creature, depending on the choice you made.


Is this card game found in casinos? In the paper [1], the authors write

  "... the problem is equivalent to a card game played in Las Vegas:
   The cards of a shuffled deck are dealt one at a time and face up.
  At the same time the player calls the denominations in the order
  ace, two, three,..., queen, king; ace, two,...
  A match occurs when the player calls the same denomination as the
  card dealt; the suits need not match. The player wins if no match occurs."

Is this game actually played in Las Vegas casinos, and if so, what is it called?

[1] F. F. Knudsen and I. Skau,
On the Asymptotic Solution of a Card-Matching Problem,
 Mathematics Magazine 69 (1996), 190-197.

This question seems to be answered in the comments:
@AdamP I had trouble finding your reference but Faro or Pharaoh seems to be close.


A game for two. Should I make it playable by more? I am developing a strategy game for two players. It is something
somehow in the line of 1960: The Making of the
President
(but less complicated and with a quicker gaming rhythm…) Both the theme
and the mechanics I have thought are optimised for two players.

Adapting the theme should not be very difficult ; it would mostly be a
matter of choosing another contestant. Adapting the rules would
require substantially more work and I fear that it might lessen
playability.

Do you think that it is worth doing it that restricting
the number of players to exactly two is not too restrictive?

It depends, probably not at first.  Most truly enduring games (Chess, Go, Reversi, even Magic: The gathering, etc) were originally for two players.  But also most of them have variants that arose later that allow 4 players.

In short, if adapting for more than 2 players is non-obvious, then it is probably not worth the initial effort.  But if the game becomes popular and there is a demand for a multiplayer version, then it is likely worth doing at that point.  The changes could be fairly small, or they could be substantial (Magic required only small tweaks to produce multiple multiplayer variants, but most multiplayer versions of chess require a different board and rules tweaks.)


What happens when a creature with flying blocks my non-flying attacker? I’ve declared a non-flying attacker, and my opponent declared a flying blocker. When combat damage is dealt, I deal damage as normal, but can the damage dealt by the flying creature be absorbed by my non-flying creature, or do I have to absorb it with my life?

It's your turn and you are attacking your opponent; that means you won't lose life from combat damage. The flying creature will deal combat damage to your non-flying creature. The fact that it has flying has nothing to do with it; that just determines whether it can block or be blocked.

Everything you need to know about this is covered in the basic rules; look for the section 'ATTACKING AND BLOCKING'.

  An attacking creature that is blocked deals damage to the creature or creatures that are blocking it, and vice versa.


Strategies for playing the Traitor in Shadows Over Camelot? I've played SOC several times but I've never actually been the traitor myself, so when I was, it came as a bit of a shock. I tried to think about strategy in the first several rounds while pretending to be perfectly loyal to give myself time to think. Ultimately, it came down to the big question of if and when I wanted to be revealed. Whenever I was loyal, we usually tried not to reveal the traitor until the final few rounds of the game to minimize their power. But what does this mean for for the traitor?

If I played completely loyally, doing everything possible to help the loyal knights for the entire gameI could earn black swords from the other players false accusations and my bonus 2 white swords to black at the end for being undiscovered. But this doesn't seem very traitor like as I'd just be another loyal knight who happened to flip black swords at the end. This seems somewhat like what a traitor might actually do.

If I made it blatantly clear that I was the traitor, literally doing everything possible to stop the knights before I was revealed (just moving around and never playing white cards, always choosing the progression of evil that would hurt them the most, etc.), the other players would choose not to reveal me toward the end because I would be able to do more damage when revealed. This seems like a good strategy, but its definitely the most boring for everyone.

If I took a middle path and tried to halt the knights quietly until the end, it would seem like I would most be following what the traitor is 'supposed' to do. But it also seems like the weakest strategy. Its very difficult to secretly stop the knights as they will be able to see all of the face down cards I play eventually, and if I do anything obvious the whole jig is up, they will choose not to reveal me to the end, and I'll end up going with the second strategy. It just seems like the traitor has virtually no options to plot quietly against the knights without revealing himself.

Which of these strategies is best in terms of stopping the loyal knights? Which tends to be best in terms of making the game fun? Is there anything important I'm overlooking about the abilities, choices, and overall power of the traitor?

Typically, being the traitor at Shadows is sort of like playing games where bluffing is involved. Success depends on you managing the table's personalities. Here are the rules I set for myself as traitor and I try to stick to them as much as possible:

Don't lie. This is the number one rule. (Technically speaking the rule should be "don't get caught lying", but I find personally that if I think that's the rule, I spend a lot of time worrying about whether a lie is worth making, whether I can get caught out, etc, etc, which drains away my ability to spend effort on actually playing the game to win as the traitor, so "don't lie" is easier, oddly enough, to follow and win.) The only question you're allowed to lie to (unless it's an official accusation) is speculation that you are the traitor. And you don't want that accusation to ever be made, so...

Refuse to engage in speculation and try, quietly, to defuse it. Don't fall into the trap of parties of speculation, or trying to "defend yourself by accusing someone else". This is a fool's game, because it puts the issue of accusation on the table as legitimate and once that's done, you're as good a target (better, in fact) than anyone else. Do everything you can to get people not to speculate about the traitor's identity or make accusations, which can lead to table management principles...

Be jovial and pleasant, almost carefree. Chit-chat. Encourage others to chit-chat. Be friendly, be funny; ask for the snacks, pass the snacks, enquire after others' desire for snacks, ask if anyone would like more snacks. In other words, as much as possible, try to put the other players in a friendly mental space where they're not thinking too much about the game other than the mechanical "optimal choices" they have to make on their turn, which leads to...

Encourage others to make "the best choice". Get the other players to avoid the conclusion that finding and accusing the right traitor is a wonderfully good thing for them to do; you can do this by focussing on optimal moves whenever possible. Whenever the discussion turns to strategy for an individual player turns, always encourage discussion about evaluating options that don't have to do with the traitor issue. This helps lull your fellow players into a mind-set that the game can be beaten without exposing the traitor, and that exposing the traitor isn't a legitimate strategic option to discuss. While this discussion is going on, try as hard as you can to not offer advice yourself: try to exclusively ask questions, and not answer questions (i.e. "What do you think we should do here?", "Do you think it's better to play a bunch of high cards here?", and so on). This makes you look like you're contributing, but relieves you of the burden of actually contributing to good choice making (and prevents you from being caught lying). Don't overdo it, because this can lead to being suspicious.

Make the others play your hand. This goes hand in hand with the previous point: rather than getting caught out making sub-optimal plays, as much as possible get the others to direct your play. Don't lie, but continually ask the others what they think you should do, how you should play your cards, and so on. You can't break the rules about card-talk, but you can set the others up to spending extra effort to think about playing your hand as well as theirs. Be very careful not to look purposefully dumb (especially if people know you're good at games) and be very careful not to lie (or get caught lying). But spend your thought-effort on figuring out how to damage the group's chances, and not on what the best play is for your own resources: your best play is always to strategically make it harder for the group to beat the game.)

When you have an opportunity to knife invisibly, be merciless. When occasions come up in the game where you can damage the group's chances, with not chance of being caught, do that. Quite often this comes up when you're allowed to examine action cards, defer action cards, re-arrange action cards (as long as you're sure no-one can notice this). Offering bad tactical advice is generally a bad idea (see "don't lie"), but putting the group in the position where they have to choose between a sort of bad thing, and a really bad thing (by quietly taking the good choice off the table) is awesome.

The game presents lots of opportunity for the traitor to submit the group to death by a thousand cuts, so do that every time you can. This makes it far easier for you to...

Stab overtly right at the end only when you're sure it makes you win. If you can make a masterstroke at the end that comes from lying or overt betrayal, do it, if you know the others can't avoid losing the game. This will be a LOT easier if you've submitted the group to the death of a thousand cuts policy: you want, as much as possible, to keep the game tense and tight at the end, because this means that even small choices you make can have correspondingly great effects. You want your masterstroke to be as small, quiet, and deadly as possible because you want to maximize your chances of not getting caught.


Can a team member lose Karma? Can a team member lose Karma, either by failing the mission or only aborting when they are suffering a Karma penalty because of having greater than 10 Karma?  For instance, if my Karma 12 character loses the mission, does he actually get -1 Karma and end up with 11?  With no clarification, I house rule it to be yes, you can lose Karma for failing.  Makes sense thematically if Karma is something like reputation.

In the game there is no karma loss for losing only a karma reduction for aborting the mission or a reduction if you have to much karma of for the mission you are going on. Due to the random nature of the game it can be very harsh if you can actually lose karma for failing a mission as depending on the luck it can be very easy for a team to either easily crush a game or easily be crushed by the game depending on the obstacles, crossfire cards and black market cards that are drawn during the game. In this game karma is not like reputation but it is experience points which are gained for succeeding in missions and that is something that is not normally lost easily in most games.

Another thing to remember is that if you do lose karma for failing a mission that would put a lot more pressure on any new players who may be
playing with experienced players as a failure would risk the more experienced player losing valuable upgrades.

Below I have listed the karma rules for the basic mission

  Karma Awards: If the team wins, each runner gets 3 Karma.
  If the team aborts, and has a successful abort run round, each
  runner gets 1 Karma. The team can also choose the following
  bonus challenge options:

  › Bring It On!: Flip up one additional obstacle at the start
  of each Scene: +1 Karma for each runner

  › Danger Zone: Start the game with one card in the
  Crossfire discard: +2 Karma for each runner (In the same
  game, the team can choose this option up to once for
  each runner.)

  Karma Scaling: Each runner gains the following Karma award
  or penalty based on how much Karma they have.

  CROSSFIRE KARMA SCALING KARMA IN UPGRADES AWARD OR PENALTY
  0-10 FULL KARMA AWARD
  11-30 -1 KARMA PENALTY
  31-50 -2 KARMA PENALTY
  51-75 -3 KARMA PENALTY
  EACH ADDITIONAL +25 ADDITIONAL -1 KARMA PENALTY


Does deathtouch kill Phantom creatures? Does a Phantom creature, one with the ability "If damage would be dealt to Phantom {Creature}, prevent that damage. Remove a +1/+1 counter from Phantom {Creature}.",  that has taken damage from a creature with deathtouch get destroyed, or just lose a +1/+1 counter? (Example: Phantom Centaur)

Assuming you're talking about the Phantom {Creature} series of cards from Judgment and some other sets (e.g. Phantom Flock), a creature with the following ability would not be destroyed (and would only have a counter removed) if damage was assigned to it from a creature with deathtouch:

If damage would be dealt to {creature name}, prevent that damage. Remove a +1/+1 counter from {creature name}.

This is because while damage has been assigned, the ability prevents that damage from actually being dealt.
Relevant comp. rules:

702.2b Any nonzero amount of combat damage assigned to a creature by a source with deathtouch is considered to be lethal damage, regardless of that creature's toughness. See rules 510.1c - d.
615.6. If damage that would be dealt is prevented, it never happens. A modified event may occur instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can't be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.

A note - it is possible for there to be unpreventable damage (with something like Leyline of Punishment). In this case, the following rule applies (as well as a ruling on Phantom {Creatures}:

615.11. Some effects state that damage "can't be prevented." If unpreventable damage would be dealt, any applicable prevention effects are still applied to it. Those effects won't prevent any damage, but any additional effects they have will take place.
10/4/2004   If unpreventable damage is applied to this card, you still remove a counter even though the prevention fails.

What would happen under that circumstance is that the trigger for damage prevention would still fire, removing a counter. However, the deathtouch damage would not be prevented, and would be considered lethal, destroying your Phantom {Creature}.


When planeswalkers become creatures, are they no longer planeswalkers? Sarkhan the Masterless has the ability:

+1: Until end of turn, each planeswalker you control becomes a 4/4 red Dragon creature and gains flying.

There is a ruling associated with this Sarkhan that says:

Once Sarkhan’s first loyalty ability has resolved, each planeswalker you control (including Sarkhan) is no longer a planeswalker for the rest of the turn. They don’t lose any loyalty counters or abilities, and you can still activate their loyalty abilities if you haven’t done so yet this turn. They don’t lose loyalty if they’re dealt damage while they’re not planeswalkers.

Question:  I was under the impression that rulings are all derivable from the comprehensive rules, but I can find no rules reference to "back up" this ruling.
The ruling makes sense to me, if a planeswalker is a creature, you don't want it to start losing loyalty counters for being in combat, but the above ruling makes it seem that Sarkhan has removed the "planeswalker" type from the planeswalkers.  Which comprehensive rule supports that statement?  I was unable to find it.
Note: This question is similar to: What are the ramifications of turning a planeswalker into a creature?, but it is different.  In that question, it appears the creatures maintain their planeswalker status, where as Sarkhan removes it.  So, ideally, an answer could address why in that context planeswalkers remain planeswalkers, while Sarkhan removes planeswalker status.

It is rule 205.1a:

205.1a Some effects set an object’s card type. In such cases, the new card type(s) replaces any existing card types. Counters, effects, and damage marked on the object remain with it, even if they are meaningless to the new card type. Similarly, when an effect sets one or more of an object’s subtypes, the new subtype(s) replaces any existing subtypes from the appropriate set (creature types, land types, artifact types, enchantment types, planeswalker types, or spell types). If an object’s card type is removed, the subtypes correlated with that card type will remain if they are also the subtypes of a card type the object currently has; otherwise, they are also removed for the entire time the object’s card type is removed. Removing an object’s subtype doesn’t affect its card types at all.

This is why certain other cards like Blinkmoth Nexus, when they change type, have to include "it's still a land", for example, when the ability is made to retain the existing type. Or alternatively "in addition to its other types" in the case of something like Liquimetal Coating.
There is also an exception for when the type is set to "artifact creature":

205.1b [...] Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes. Some effects state that an object becomes a “[creature type or types] artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes other than creature types, but replace any existing creature types.

So if you use Karn, Silver Golem's ability on an artifact land, it would be an artifact land creature afterwards.
Final note about activating the Loyalty Ability of a planeswalker that is no longer a planeswalker; it's allowed normally because the rules for Loyalty Abilities don't restrict or limit them to planeswalkers in any way; nothing stops a creature or any other non-planeswalker from having Loyalty Abilities:

606.2. An activated ability with a loyalty symbol in its cost is a loyalty ability. Normally, only planeswalkers have loyalty abilities.


Is a player limited to four In-Town Deed cards? Doomtown: Reloaded comes with a very helpful player board that looks like this:

(Original image source)

Notably, there are four spots for In-Town Deed cards. Is this a hard limit? I didn't spot anything in the rules regarding the maximum number of deeds and since the board is optional, I'm not sure if it meant that this was a true limit or if it was just how many they decided to print on the board.

So is a player limited to four In-Town Deed cards? Or can they have as many as they want?

Nope - they just only had room on the board for four. You can play as many deeds as you can pay for.

See page 19 of the rulebook, where they show a deed potentially being played 3 to the right of the Home, where there is no printed spot on the board.


Can you block with a creature then return it to your hand before it takes damage? Someone said they can block with a Dryad Arbor then return it to their hand with a Quirion Ranger before the Arbor takes damage.  That sounds wrong to me.

Yes, you can return a blocking creature to your hand before it takes damage. What happens is:

You block with Dryad Arbor
You and your opponent both get a chance to cast instants and activate abilities
Damage is dealt

Note that if the blocked creature has tramble, it will still assign all of its damage directly to the player

Rules 509.1 through 509.7 cover what happens during the declare blockers step, which occurs before damage is dealt. The two rules that are relevant to your question:

  509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers.
  ...
  509.5. Fifth, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities

Here is a diagram that illustrates the turn structure. It shows all the opportunities that you get to cast or activate things.


Can Morbid be triggered after the Morbid creature is cast? I have a Deranged Outcast and no other creatures in play, and I have an Ulvenwald Bear in hand. I would like to:

Cast the Bear and put the Morbid trigger on the stack
Have the Deranged Outcast sacrifice himself while the Morbid trigger is on the stack
Put 4 +1/+1 counters on the Bear

Is this play possible/legal? Is there some other order of play that could achieve the same effect?

No, but not for the reason corsiKa states. The reason that you cannot do this is because the Ulvenwald Bear's triggered ability has an "intervening if clause." For triggered abilities with intervening if clauses, the condition is checked both when the triggered ability would be put on the stack and once again when it resolves.

  603.4. A triggered ability may read “When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect].” When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn’t true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the “intervening ‘if’ clause” rule. (The word “if” has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an “if” that immediately follows a trigger condition.)


Relative amounts of luck in MTG limited formats? While I haven't played very much, I've noticed there seems to be slightly more luck in sealed than in draft. In draft, skill can prevail by recognizing bombs/archetypes, observing what colors are available, stealing good cards from your opponents, etc, while in sealed you are just forced to work with what you have; if you are stuck with mediocre rares and no good uncommons that fit with your general color pool, you're probably going to do slightly worse against somebody without these initial disadvantages no matter how skilled you are at deckbuilding.

How much luck is present in the 3 popular limited formats? Which have the most and least luck involved in determining the winner of individual matches and tournaments? In which is it easiest and hardest to win when you are the superior player?

NOTE: by 3 limited formats, I mean booster draft, 6-pack 40-card sealed, and 4-pack 30 card sealed. Feel free to include information on other limited formats if you like but these were the ones I'm most interested in addressing.

You pretty much answered this question already. While I haven't heard of 4-pack 30 card sealed yet,I would say this is the format that is the most dependent on luck. A single bomb in a 30 card deck has a much larger impact than in a 40 card deck, for 2 reasons:

1) With 4 packs, opponents have a lower chance to equalize a single bomb of yours with at least 2 solid rares of their own, simply because they only get 4 rares instead of 6.

2) Assuming the average game runs for at most 15 turns, you get to see 22 cards of your deck, ignoring cantrips and library/graveyard manipulation: That is ~75% of a 30-card deck, and only ~55% of a 40-card deck. So you have a chance of up to 75% vs. 55% to draw your bomb in a game. Or stated differently, to get your bomb with a 50% chance in any given game, you need to draw only 15 vs. 20 cards, again ignoring library/graveyard shenanigans.

Obviously, this applies to every participant, so it all averages out in the long run, and it comes down to skill again. But in the 4-pack format, I would expect the standard deviation in deck strength to be significantly higher than for 6 packs, or, to answer your question, the luck factor is highest in the 4-pack, 30-card deck sealed format.


Can "quick tricks" be a guide to defense in bridge? Early on, before bidding systems were elaborated in bridge, "quick tricks" provided something of a guide to bidding. For instance, people might open hands with a configuration of AKxxx Axxx xx xx, which had 11 high card points using the Work Count, but pass a hand of Kxxxx Qxxx Qx Ax, which had the same 11 points. The thing in favor of the first hand was that it had three sure "quick tricks."

Suppose I am sitting East, defending a 3NT contract (neither vulnerable, South bid 1NT, North 3NT). West leads a 6 that looks like fourth best (and an examination of my hand and dummy suggests that West probably has a fifth card). I have Axx in the suit, and a side ace, that is two "quick tricks" with 8 high card points. So I win the trick, and lead back a low card, hoping that West has the king, or at least the queen. South plays the king, so I take my side ace at the first opportunity, and lead back my last card in West's suit to his presumed queen. That is what I would call "fast" play, based on my quick tricks.

Suppose, instead, I am sitting East (possibly with the same dummy as in the first example), but I have xxx in West's suit; no help for him. I have eight high card points, distributed in the three side suits as (xxx) Kxxx QJx Qxx.
In this latter case, I have no quick tricks, and I play "slowly," trying not to give anything away.

So can "quick tricks" be a useful guide to a defensive posture, as between say, active and passive, or fast and slow defense?

No - primarily because the spot cards are never irrelevant. (Assume standard leads here for simplicity, though similar inferences are available for all lead agreements.)

For instance if you hold Ace three times and partner has led a (presumed 4th best) 8 spot, partner holds the King as well. Partner also holds exactly one Quack (Queen or Jack).

Read that again.

Why you ask? Because partner isn't holding three honours with two contiguous (He would have led the higher of the two contiguous honours in that case), and that leaves only the following possible holdings

KQ98x
KJ98x

With any of the following holdings the best lead is another card:

KQJ8x => K should be lead
KQT8x => K should be lead
KJT8x => J should be lead
QJT8x => Q should be lead
QJ98x => Q should be lead
KT98x => T should be lead
QT98x => T should be lead
JT98x => J should be lead

If partner has lead the 7-spot and you can see the 8-spot in your hand or dummy (or played by declarer to the first trick) all the same inferences are available with appropriate substitution. Likewise if partner leads the 6-spot and the 7- and 8-spot are both visible. Or if partner leads the 5-spot and and the 6-through-8 show up by trick one.

You now know where 3 of partner's point are, guaranteed, on a hand where partner doesn't have many points apparently because you have 7 or 8 (your Ace in his suit and another possible early entry). You are almost ready, before trick one is over, to know Declarer's entire hand.

These situations are all identified by having a Rule-of-Eleven-Count (value of spot-card led plus count of visible higher spots) of eight with Ace seen in your own hand.

Count; count again; and again; until it becomes an obsession. Visualize the possible holdings around the table, and vet them against the information available from the bidding and play so far. Only when these inferences start to become second nature to you will you be a competent intermediate-level player.

Note that as third hand in these situations, you know more about the distribution around the table than Declarer does. That is the Defenders' Advantage, and typically only lasts a couple of tricks. Now is when you can lay a ruse for an unsuspecting Declarer.


Comparisons Betwen Deck-Building Games I never played Magic. I briefly tried the original Vampire: The Masquerade (V:TM) themed CCG (Jyhad?). I had some Illuminati: New World Order (INWO) cards. I bought and listlessly toyed with a deck of the A Game of Thrones CCG. I really, really tried to like HeroClix. But every single time, the collectible element drove me away. I just couldn't see the merits of the game outweigh the pressure that random buys would put on my completist nature.

Now, there are a number of games that seem to take the good parts of the collectible games and do away with the collectible part. Can anyone offer a compare / contrast thumbnail of what seem to be the big deck-building games out today?

Dominion
Thunderstone
Ascension
Nightfall

I'm an experienced RPG and boardgamer, so it's not like I'll be put off by some complicated rules or emergent complexity arising from multiple card interactions. And it's not like I can't hit BGG for some reviews. I just want to know what these games share and how they differ.

If there's another game like this, I'd be open to hearing about that, too. I'm not sure that the Fantasy Flight Games Living Card Games for A Game of Thrones  and Call of Cthulhu qualify - aren't they just repackages of the old CCGs?

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

First, what they have in common:

Static Cards: They are all static (meaning not CCG) card games.  Some (Dominion and Thunderstone) have expansions, but none of them require collecting or hunting down 'rare' cards to make the game better.
Victory Points: They all use a Victory Point system to determine the winner.  This is called "honor" in ascension (I think) but in essence, its still victory points.  The person with the most at the end wins.
Flexibility in numbers:They are all flexible on the number of players: Ascension is 2-4, Thunderstone is 2 - 5 (or 6) and I think Dominion is 2 - 6.  Not sure on the numbers exactly because Thunderstone has a nice single player variant, and both Thunderstone and Dominion can be expanded to include more players by playing with expansion cards.

Now the differences.

Deck Building:

Dominion is focused on building a deck to buy victory points.
While there are cards to interact and "attack" the other players, the game is centered around building a deck that will allow you to buy the most victory points.
Thunderstone focuses on building a deck from a general pool of cards, and then using your hand to "defeat monsters in the dungeon", thus gaining your Victory Points from the defeated monsters.  Some Victory Points can be purchased as well, but not usually enough to win the game, so defeating monsters is important to winning.
Ascension is much more like Thunderstone than Dominion.  In Ascension, you must also build a deck to defeat monsters to gain Honor (Victory Points) but unlike Thunderstone, the cards in the general pool are revealed one at a time.  So you have a line of 8 cards, and when one leaves play (your deck, or the discard pile) another fills that spot.

All are fairly easy to pick up, especially if you have played CCGs before or one of the above.

Dominion is probably the most well known and most played, as it's been around longer and there are several (many...) expansions.

I like them all and while I played Thunderstone first, then learned the others, I think that they all can be quite fun.  Most game shops will probably have Dominion on their "demo" shelf.  Several around here have Thunderstone and Ascension as well.


What happens when I target an indestructible card with an "if that would die this turn, exile it instead" effect? Annihilating Fire says:

  Annihilating Fire deals 3 damage to target creature or player. If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead.

If I deal lethal damage to an indestructible creature with Annihilating Fire or after Annihilating Fire has been played on it this turn will the the creature be exiled?

No.

Lethal damage will not cause an indestructible creature to die.

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

  702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the
  state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).

  704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that
  creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration
  can replace this event.

However, if another effect causes the indestructible creature to die (for example through sacrificing), Annihilating Fire's effect will cause the card to be exiled.

A ruling on gatherer:

  10/1/2012     A creature dealt damage by Annihilating Fire will be exiled
  no matter why the creature would die. It could be destroyed by another
  spell or ability.


Finesse or Drop at trick 5? This is a problem from the "Card Play 101" column from the Feb 2021 ACBL Bridge Bulletin (page 44)
South holds: (S) 6 3; (H) A K 9 8 5 2; (D) A K 4; (C) 7 6. (West deals, E-W vulnerable, matchpoints)
The bidding goes

West
North
East
South

1 S
Pass
Pass
3H

Pass
4 H
All Pass

West leads a low spade, and the dummy (North) comes down with:
(S) 7 5 4; (H) J 10; (D) Q J 10 9; (C) K Q 10 9
East wins trick 1 with the spade A, and returns the spade 2. West wins with the K. West leads the club A which wins. West leads a low club, won by dummy's K. The question is, how should the declarer (south) continue.
South cannot afford to lose a heart trick to the Q, so should south finesse against East, or play for the drop against west?
The column author argues that since west opened with 1S, and east has already shown the  spade Ace, if East had the QH as well, east would have had six HCP and would not have passed. Further, that the defenders only have 17 HCP between them, and if East had the spade A and the H Q, West would not have opened at the one level with only 11 HCP. Therefore the proper play, says the column author, is to cash the AK of H in an effort to drop the Q, as the finesse is hopeless.
However I disagree with this reasoning. If I were west and held the QH singleton or doubleton, I would discount it and pass.  If as West I held KQJxxx; xxx; x; AJx; I would open 1S, even without the HQ. Therefore, it is not exactly assured that W will hold the H Q in my view. Given this, should south finesse or play for the drop? why?

On further consideration, while E might hold the H Q, East cannot hold the H Qxx or better, because then East would have responded to 1S, probably with 1NT. Therefore the finesse is either hopeless or pointless, because if East has the QH singleton or doubleton it will drop. Playing for the drop is still the better play, although it will fail if west has the QH in a 3 or 4 card suit. So the author was right, although the reasoning was incomplete.


Can I combine different races as a single army? Can I mix soldiers from totally different armies?  I mean, can I have some, say, Necrons in among my Chaos Space Marines?  I have a couple different armies, and I'd like to combine them.

It is perfectly legal to use Necrons with Chaos Space maines so long as you obey all the necessary allies rules.

In standard games of 40K your can field allies with your army using the Allies Matrix.  When you do this your select one army to be your primary detachment and the other one as the allied detachment.  Your primary detachment works as normal and you select your warlord from it as usual.  For the allied detachment you use a modified force organization chart:

[1] HQ
[0-1] Elites
[1-2] Troops
[0-1] Fast Attack
[0-1] Heavy Support

Allied detachments work with your army with varying amounts of efficiency.  You can see the full allies matrix below.

From the matrix you can see that Necrons and Chaos Marines are classified as Allies of Convienence. In this instance, it means that troop units from both detachments are scoring, but characters cannot join units from the other detachments.  Also, army abilities will treat the units from the other detachments as enemy models


Can 'Eyes in the Dark' be played on an Investigator with a Torch? Torch Investigators may Ignore Darkness in your room.

Eyes in the Dark: Requirement Basement or any room in darkness.

We took the ruling that the mythos card could not target the investigator as he was ignoring the darkness token.

We felt that there was an argument that while the investigator was ignoring darkness, he was still in fact in a room that was dark.

The investigator cannot be targeted by Eyes in the Dark.

The ruling you are looking for is on page 15 of the rules:

  Some Exploration cards (such as the “Lantern”) allow
  investigators to ignore these effects. When ignoring these effects,
  an investigator also cannot be targeted by cards that require them
  to be in a room with a darkness token.


Conventional treatment of a particular negative double In the system I am playing with my partner, our 1 clubs opening frequently contains a(ny) balanced hand with 12-13 points. Because of this we have recently introduced the modern 'expert treatment' with a modified negative double by responder after a 1 hearts overcall. In particular, after 1C-(1Ha)-? we use

X - 4 or more spades
1S - 3 or fewer spades, requests partner bid 1NT with 12-13 balanced

The idea behind this (as far as I can tell) is that with a balanced hand with 10-11 points and at most 3 spades it is risky to jump to 2NT opposite 12-13, since the heart suit is a likely source of tricks for the opponents. However, we have encounted some problems bidding hands with 6+ spades with this approach. Does anybody have a reference explaining this modified double in more detail, along with subsequent bids?

As I understand things these methods originated in Italy. Many Italian experts play that the double shows 4 or 5 spades and hands with 6+ spades start with 2H. I've tried this in a few partnerships but don't yet have enough experience with it to say how well it works. The partnership does need to agree on followups over 2H since it has a wide range - most use 2N as an artificial ask.


Why Is Two Clubs the Preferred "Strong Two" In Bridge? I'd prefer to use two spades myself. And save two clubs for a "weak two." Moreover, I was taught that "higher bids mean higher points" (all other things being equal). Two spades is the highest suit bid short of "pre-empts," and follows this rule. Two clubs doesn't.

With a five card (or better) major suit and 22+ points, I'm really asking for HCP from partner more than anything else. Because I'm going to assume (on averages) that partner has xxx or Qx in my suit. The expected responses (and points) are:

2NT 0-2 points. (No help. You're on your own).
3 Clubs 3-5 points. (One trick. Game possible with a reasonable fit.)
3 Diamonds 6-8 points. (Two tricks. Probable game, except with a terrible fit. Limited slam interest).
3 Hearts 9-11 points. (Three tricks. Possible slam.)
3 Spades 10-12 points. (Small slam or grand?)

The only "problem" is if my suit is hearts, and partner bids 3 hearts with 9-11 points (about half of mine). But that is a nice problem to have!

Under this system, spades would actually be my "real" suit almost half the time. (Hearts, the other half, plus the occasional NT, and with a minor, I'd use a different system.) You can't say that about a two club bid.

So why would you use two clubs over a system such as I've described? Or could you possibly prefer mine?

2 Clubs is the most useful because it leaves the 2 level open for you to describe your hand.  Your side has the preponderance of strength, and thus your side would benefit the most from the extra bidding space.  Conversely, keeping 2 Spades preemptive prevents your opponents from starting to investigate their hands on the 2 level.  If your opponents have a heart fit, they can start to investigate it with a 2 heart bid over a preemptive 2 clubs, while they would have to start with 3 hearts over a preemptive 2 spades.

The system of responses you describe is one that exists in various formats, called Step Responses, where the weaker partner quantitatively reveals the strength of his hand to the 2 club bidder so that he may make a guess as to whether end up in game or slam.


Alien frontiers: how many fields in a single territory? While playing Alien frontiers, if a field is already placed on a territory, am I allowed to place another field on the same territory?

Yes, you can have multiple fields in the same territory.

The rules don't explicitly address this (Fields can be found on page 12). However, there is a thread on Board Game Geek where this question is asked, and multiple users answer that it is "perfectly legal," with no dissenting opinions.

Between the lack of explicit ruling in the rulebook, and the validation from other users, it appears that you are fine to place or move fields into the same territory.


If you knock, but actually have a gin hand, is it valid to change it after you've knocked? I was playing a game of gin rummy when I knocked for a non-zero amount. As I laid out my cards, I noticed that I could have rearranged to cards and gone gin.

Now this isn't a question about whether or not changing my declaration of knock to gin was in the spirit of fairness, just whether or not it is allowed by the rules.

We consulted the wikipedia page on gin rummy, read the section on knocking, and found:

  Once a player knocks or declares gin the round is over and scores are tallied, players cannot draw.

The purpose of this sentence could be interpreted as:

Saying that when either knocking or declaring gin, the had is over and a declaration cannot be changed
OR simply that the sentence is trying to point out that a draw is no longer possible at this point
OR both (the two are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive)

The knocking section does not seem to state clearly whether or not a knock hand can be changed to gin if the knocking player realizes their mistake.

And to add spice to this question, the interpretation of the rules is especially important, because the defending player, had I only knocked, would have been able to undercut me. So it wasn't just a question of whether I was going to receive X or Y points, it was a question of whether I would win the hand or be undercut.

Not looking for opinions, as we could create our own house rule out of this scenario going forward. Looking for any kind of official reference on the matter if one exists.

It is important to note that knocking and going gin are not mutually exclusive. From Pagat:

  Knocking with no unmatched cards at all is called going gin [...]

And Wikipedia:

  Knocking with 0 points of deadwood is known as going Gin or having a Gin hand [...]

If you announced a zero count, then you have gone gin.

If you announced a non-zero count, then you are stuck with the count that you announced and cannot take it back. Your opponent may proceed to lay off cards.

If you did not announce a count, but you have arranged your cards into matched and unmatched groups, then your count is the total of the unmatched cards, and it is too late to change your mind. If you are still in the process of arranging your cards, then your count is not finalized yet, and you can still change your mind.


Is it possible to go from a Backgammon opening position to a Nackgammon opening position in 6 moves? Is it possible to go from a Backgammon opening position to a Nackgammon opening position in 6 moves? And if not, how many turns would it take?

I don't have a lower bound on number of turns. However, 6 is not enough. (I'm assuming you meant 6 total turns, not 6 turns each.)

You can work backward just from the second player finishing their cleanup. Assuming WLOG that the second player is red.

Red's final move both have to be to 23 or 24 from Bar or 24, and can't take any white pieces.
White's final moves both have to be to 1 or 2 from Bar or 1.
So, in its first two moves, red has to take a minimum of two white pieces in the white home board while moving a piece from 13 to 2 and a piece from 6 into a takeable position. If done as part of the second move, that takeable position has to be 1 or 2.

Every combination I can find that allows red to do this in two moves leaves white unable to fulfill its similar conditions on turn 2.


Was a bridge column "resulting" when it criticized an opening lead? Both sides vulnerable, South dealt and bid one heart. West overcalled one spade, North three hearts, East three spades, South four hearts, East four spades, South five hearts.

West held (s) KQJT8 (h) 2 (d) K93 (c) JT32, and led the K of spades. The column characterized the lead as "natural," but called it an error, because leading the 3 of diamonds would have beaten the contract. (East had the A, West the K, and East a "side" trick.) In the actual hand, South captured the K of spades with the A, and then successfully "sluffed" two diamond losers).

Is there any widely accepted theory or statistical study (e.g. a Monte Carlo simulation) that would lead one to believe that the 3 of diamonds is the better lead a priori, based on the bidding? Or am I right to believe that the columnist was "resulting," based on this one hand?

If the lead of the 3 of diamonds was statistically inferior, but made by an expert, would it just be considered a mistake, on would it be grounds for potential discipline, based on the assumption that the expert had more knowledge of the hand that he was entitled to?

Yes, it would have been resulting had it criticized the opening lead. As @PieterGeerkens noted, the article neither terms the lead an error nor implies it.
Thanks, @Aryabhata, for posting a link to the actual column.


What happens if you have more than 7 cards in your hand at the end of a turn in Jaipur? The rules state that you cannot have more than 7 cards in your hand at the end of a turn. Does this mean you're not allowed to play in such a way that you have more than 7 cards, or do you have to discard cards down to 7 at the end of the turn?

For example if you have 6 cards in your hand and you trade 2 camels for 2 goods.

You may not take an action that causes you to have more than 7 cards in your hand.  If you have 7 cards in hand, then you cannot draw 1 card from the market or trade camels for cards from the market.  And you also can't trade more camels for cards from the market than you have hand space available.  So in your example, if you have 6 cards in hand, you cannot trade 2 camels for 2 goods.