What do leaves mean in Blood on the Clocktower? In the game Blood on the Clocktower, some of the role tokens have green leaves on the west/north/east side of the token. There are also some tokens who have a larger orange leaf.
1 west and 2 north:
1 east:
An icon with the orange leaf:

The different leaf icons (and number of leaves) are reminders for the storyteller.
Green leaves indicate tokens the storyteller needs to add to the game during setup for the character, while an orange leaf means the character alters the normal setup for the character or game.
From the Blood on the Clocktower wiki:

Leaf: The small green and orange symbols on many character tokens that help the Storyteller run the game. Green leaves on the top show the number of reminder tokens to add to the Grimoire. A green leaf on the left shows that the character needs a night token on the first night. A green leaf on the right shows that the character needs a night token on each night except the first. An orange leaf means that the character setup is different than normal for this game.


Can an immobile vehicle expend movement points? In a recent game, the following situation arose.

A stationary AFV attempted to use smoke dispensers and failed, thus not expending a movement point. It then expended a start MP, and was attacked by an anti-tank gun and was immobilized (D8).

The vehicle then wished to make a Bounding First Fire attack (D3.3), which appears to be permitted without the expenditure of movement points, but to attack the desired target needed to change its Turret Covered Arc. The change of Turret Covered Arc (D3.12) could be freely done but according to D3.12

  the TCA may also be changed freely with each movement point expended
  for movement, start, stop or delay purposes

which is the point at issue if the vehicle is immobile.

So, can an immobile vehicle expend movement points for the purpose of changing turret covered arc, bounding first fire, or (in a later turn) for attempting to use smoke dispensers (immobile vehicles appear to be granted a special exemption in D6.5 for the purposes of unloading passengers).

Your specific situation seems to be actually quite simple: D8.1 says

  An immobilized vehicle cannot expend a Start MP, leave its current Location nor change its VCA, but may otherwise change its TCA if otherwise able to do so.

What does otherwise able to do so mean, you ask? Well; if, your suspicions aroused by the word also in your own quotation, you check the rest of the paragraph, you will find that "...whenever a vehicle fires a turret-mounted weapon outside its VCA...a turret counter is placed." with no mention of Immobilization. So, despite what you might think, the tank does not change its TCA and then fire: it fires at whatever target it wishes, and then places or moves the turret counter.

More generally: though an immobile vehicle cannot do the things mentioned above (i.e. move), it is still covered by B2.1 " a vehicle may expend up to its full MP allotment during its own MPh". So there is no reason it cannot fire smoke dispensers. load/unload passengers, and spend Delay MPs if it wants to Bounding First Fire.

For reality check purposes, consider that even if the turret rotation works off the engine (some had batteries, and most had hand cranks for emergency), a combat Immobilization result is likely to reflect a broken track or wheel  rather than complete loss of power: the crew have already passed an Immobilization TC, so they think it possible to stay and use the weapons.

Later: Though this answer is correct, I forgot that in ASL it's not the actual rules you have to worry about, but the exceptions to the exceptions (and the ambiguous phrasing). C5.2 says "A Bounding First Firer must always fire within its current CA: it may change that CA only via MP expenditure."  So since the tank did not change its CA as part of the start procedure, it must now spend another Delay MP (or possibly three, to avoid the Limited Aim penalty (cue the argument about whether you had LOS to the gun at the start of the phase, when you saw the hex, but the gun was still Hidden; cf. C5.33, which clearly supports both possibilities)) which accomplishes nothing, but allows it, free as part of the MP expenditure, to change CA and thus fire.  As a limited consolation, the same paragraph says "[The penalty for changing CA] is never applicable to an Attacker firing during his own MPh."


If I simultaneously kill my opponent and deck myself at the same time, is the game drawn? Say my opponent has 2 life left and I have 0 cards left in my library. I cast Electrolyze doing two damage to opponent. It resolves.

Does he die before I deck myself, or do we simultaneously lose? That is, does the wording on Electrolyze mean "Electrolyze deals 2 damage divided as you choose among one or two targets and then you draw a card", or do both effects occur simultaneously?

It's a draw.
While the 'lethal' effects do not occur simultaneously, the state-based actions that check whether a player loses only happen after the spell resolves, not during its resolution:

608.2. If the object that's resolving is an instant spell, a sorcery spell, or an ability, its resolution may involve several steps.
116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.
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.

After Electrolyze resolve, state-based actions are checked:

104.3b If a player's life total is 0 or less, that player loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
104.3c If a player is required to draw more cards than are left in their library, they draw the remaining cards and then lose the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
104.4a If all the players remaining in a game lose simultaneously, the game is a draw.


Is there any way my opponent can prevent me from winning in this situation? I have Judith, the Scourge Diva and Footlight Fiend in play, and have 1 life; my opponent has Dreadhorde Butcher and 2 life. They swing with the Butcher, I block with the Fiend, and they both die.

At this point, my opponent's trigger goes on the stack first (since they're the active player), then mine (non-active player). My two triggers do two damage to my opponent, killing them before their own trigger can resolve and kill me.

But now we're wondering—is there anything that could have made me not win in this situation? For example, could I have activated an ability or played an instant, changing who was the active player at the crucial moment? Or was their fate sealed as soon as I blocked?

Considering only the cards mentioned, and assuming you chose the proper targets for the triggered abilities, your opponent is guaranteed to lose once you block with the Fiend.

The active player is the player taking the current turn [CR 102.1], not the player with priority or anything like that. So in that entire sequence, there is no way for your opponent's triggered abilities to go on the stack on top of yours. As mentioned in the question, both of your abilities go on top of the stack and each deals 1 damage to the opponent, so they lose before their own creature's triggered ability can resolve.


Phase 10 Go Out Rule The Go Out rule says if you discard your last card that can't be played ends the round. You can't discard to end the round if the card is playable and become a "floater" or in "limbo" till you're able to go out with the proper discard. Now, if you discard a "SKIP" card, does it end the round or put you as a"Floater" still?

Under the Floating variant, if you are floating and you draw a Skip, you must use it and the round is not over.

Source:

  If no-one else can lay down a hittable Phase in that turn, only another player playing a Skip or the floater drawing a Skip will keep the hand going.

If you are not using the Floating variant then no matter how you empty your hand, you Go Out and the round ends.


Breaking an unknown rule had major effect on our Monopoly game, how do we resolve it after we learn the rule? I owned Whitechapel and Old Kent Road, both with hotels. My friend owned Mayfair and Park Lane with no developments.

We traded and I gave a further two million dollars to him. Nothing was said about the fact this was an illegal trade because we didn't know there was a rule that you can't trade properties with houses on them.

Later in the game, another player asked if you could sell properties back to the bank. It was only during the search to that question we discovered that the above was an illegal trade which has affected everyone.

If the rule was unknown until later in the game, do you play on as no one had brought it up when it occured? Does the whole game become invalid? Do you play on or quit?

Is there an official rule about not being able to argue a rule once a turn has passed?

The rules don't specify how to handle this, but I would fall back on the second following player rolls the dice provision for collecting rent.

When learning a new game, there will always be occasions when a rule is initially missed, and then discovered later. There must be limits on how far back to attempt reconciliation, so adopting a limit already in the Rules is a sensible compromise.

First games should always be recognized as a learning exercise for all players; complete this game quickly, and offer a prompt rematch to assuage any ill feelings. Remember that making the mistake once, in a game situation, is likely the very best way to remember the rule going forward.


"Ticket to Ride: Europe": how to accommodate differences in players' strength? I play "Ticket to Ride: Europe" with my kids (age 8 and 12) and I win too often. They do not want me to let them win: there's no fun in winning if you know the opponent didn't play to their full ability. We would all love a fair way to account for the difference in skills, though.

So far we experimented with reducing the number of train cars you start with: the youngest got 45, as in the rules, older got 40 and I got 35. The youngest won, but the feeling was it was too easy for him.

Increasing the number of cards flipped on tunnel routes should be considered.

Likewise, one can readily balance things with a requirement for more cards per track segment. For the most experienced, increase the card requirement by 2 per chunk, but do not increase the score. 1 additional for the more experienced. It's brutal, but changes play very little, just the length of time it takes to be able to claim a route.


Does Claustrophobia prevent triggered abilities? If I have a Blightcaster and my opponent enchants it with Claustrophobia will my Blightcasters ability still work when I cast an enchantment?

Blightcaster's ability is a triggered ability that triggers whenever you (the controller) casts an enchantment.

Claustrophobia doesn't say anything about preventing active or triggered abilities, it just taps the creature.

If in doubt, expect no more than what the cards say.


Fluxx: Hand limit zero + trade hands A rule was in place that said the hand limit was zero. It states that if it isn't your turn you should have zero cards.

Other rules in play were draw three, play one.

While it was 'Person A's turn he played trade hands card. That means he gave the cards to 'Person B'. There were no modifiers at the time to the standard rule 'play one card'.

So my question is does the trade hands card need to fully resolve - meaning does person B have to discard the cards before the start of his turn. Or does the end of 'Person A's turn ended the moment he played the trade hands card, and person B gets to keep he cards at the start of his next turn.

Edit: I am hoping someone can cite an actual rule why Joe W is correct. My opponent isn't buying the logic and insists his turn is over the moment he traded the cards, so therefore I should keep the cards.

What will happen is Player A will pass his hand to Player B (should be 2 cards since Player A would have had 0 cards to start the turn, drew 3 and played 1) and since no other player can have cards due to the hand limit Player A gets no cards in return. Once the cards reach Player B's hand the hand limit will kick into action and force him to discard both cards and  return to 0 cards in his hand. At this point the trade action will be fully completed and  Player B will be able to start his turn by drawing 3 cards and playing one of the 3 cards now in hand.

There is also a rule that lets you take a free action of taking the top card of the deck and playing it. This action does not have to happen before you take your last action and is allowed to happen after you have taken your last action and before the next players turn ends. This should make it more clear that the player in this case has to discard the 2 cards.


Monopoly Deal: My Bank Pile - Private or Public Information? When we play with more than two people on Monopoly Deal, we have devised a rule:

Your only exposed card in your bank pile is the top card. All other cards
may remain hidden, as to add an element of strategy during action card play.

This does introduce a possible element of cheating, as a player who wishes to deposit two or more bank cards in a single play would have little trouble concealing their effort by stacking their cards directly on top of each other, and then burying those cards in a nice, straight pile that no other player can gauge value on. Of course, we're all friends at the Monopoly Deal table, so cheating would just be a silly waste. In order to pay a fine, a player may pick up their entire bank, and select without revealing its contents to the others.

As you can imagine, this creates a new element of strategy to the game. At one point, I was about to win, and was charged money by everyone on the table. The person before me had no idea I was holding the $10M bill, and I survived the ordeal and won out. Had they known sooner, they may have pinched my bank previously, and I would have had a harder time winning.

Does anyone have any suggestions? Official responses? Does anyone else do this besides me?

The "What The Game Looks Like" info graphic in the Monopoly Deal rulebook strongly implies that the bank pile is public information - the bank piles in the picture are quite carefully arranged so that each card is partially visible (in much the same way as Magic the Gathering players conventionally arrange their graveyards).

With that said, "strongly implied" is not the same as "explicitly stated".  If everyone in your playgroup enjoys the new element of strategy that playing in this way adds, then I say definitely go for it.  As you say, you trust your group not to cheat, so the potential major cheating problem you envisage is not a problem at all.  If there is such a thing as high-stakes Monopoly Deal tournaments, I imagine those would have to enforce the keeping of bank piles as public information.

In the end you just have to decide which of two different play styles your group wishes to subscribe to.  With hidden information, some very exciting play scenarios are created, where with a good poker face you may be able to trick people into believing you're not doing as well as you are.  With public information, you create a much more calculated game, where players have to find an objectively best strategy in the face of all dangers.  Do you consider yourself more of a poker player, or a chess player, that's the question?

Personally I'm not generally a big fan of concealed information for its own sake.  Having to count cards, watch other players' movements and demeanour carefully, and keep track of information in my head - that can turn into a lot of work for the player who wants to do well!  But of course your mileage may and probably does vary.  If the game seems boring to you when all the cards are on the table then you aren't wrong to want to spice things up with a house rule, and you almost certainly should do so!


The Witches: A Discworld Board Game - Removing crisis counters When you solve a problem (easy or hard), and it has a crisis counter.... what happens with those chips? Are  simply removed from the game or they return to the initial stack?

For example, when there are only 2 players you play less crisis counters (8 or 10, I don't remember now). If these are just removed from the game, it will ran out soon (causing both players lose the game), but if they return to the stack there are more opportunities that does not happen.

The crisis counter is returned to general stock (initial pool) and reused later on.

Rules under Success! (p.7):

  If there is a Crisis counter on the Problem tile then it is returned to the general stock.


Which computer board game designer works best for card games? I've heard of a few computer board game designers, such as Vassal, Cyberboard, and Zun Tzu. Which would work best for building a custom card game? Note, I am willing to use one I haven't heard of, so long as it meets my needs. Things of note include:

I need 2 decks of cards
Each player has their own private hand, but will have some cards in play in front of them that can be seen by all users.
Each card will have several characteristics, basically several integers tied to the value of the card.
I want this to work with Windows 7 and XP.
It would be nice to play over a LAN or the internet, but this is not required.
I would prefer to not have to have any graphics at this time, I want to just have some text labels on each card for the time being.

A few other things about me.

I'm am intermediate Java programmer, with some knowledge of C and C++ as well. I know scripting languages like Python at an intermediate level as well.
I would prefer to have something relatively easy, but this is not required.

Battlegrounds Gaming Engine is one that you don't seem to have considered, but perhaps you should. It sounds like it fits all your criteria except for #6 - you need to supply images of each card; however, I believe there are free card-creation apps that can create such graphics for you, pulling the info for each card from a database or Excel spreadsheet.

One nice thing about BGE is that you won't have to do any programming, scripting, or XML-editing.


Counter Emerge Spell I have recently started playing MTG after a few years of inactivity. Decided to jump into Standard as I always loved the format because it was in my perspective a lot fairer for the newcomer.

I used to play Esper control and today I faced a Temur Emerge deck. Now I was completely lost with the emerge mechanic. My opponent casted an Elder Deep-Fiend and when I prepared myself to counter it he said that I couldn't counter. He tried to explain to me everything but I was left with the same thought: "WTF". From everything I find I know that I cannot do anything about the casting cost, but why can't I counter the creature itself?

Like I said, it's a new mechanic to me and for some reason the explanation I got didn't truly make sense to me.

Can you guys shine some light into this matter?

Your opponent was incorrect, you can counter creatures with Emerge. All Emerge does is gave the spell an alternative way of casting the spell, but you are still casting it.
Your opponent may have gotten confused because even if you counter their emerged spell the cast trigger will still occur, and their creature is still sacrificed. In order to stop that you need a card like Summary Dismissal that specifically counters abilities.

702.118. Emerge
702.118a Emerge represents two static abilities that function while the spell with emerge is on the stack. “Emerge [cost]” means “You may cast this spell by paying [cost] and sacrificing a creature rather than paying its mana cost” and “If you chose to pay this spell’s emerge cost, its total cost is reduced by an amount of generic mana equal to the sacrificed creature’s converted mana cost.” Paying a card’s emerge cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
702.118b You choose which creature to sacrifice as you choose to pay a spell’s emerge cost (see rule 601.2b), and you sacrifice that creature as you pay the total cost (see rule 601.2h).


How does Rite of the Raging Storm work in Two-Headed Giant? A while back, some friends and I played a Two-Headed Giant game. During that game I played a Rite of the Raging Storm, and I want to check if how we played it was accurate:

During each team's upkeep, both team members would each get a 5/1 Lightning Rager token, so each team had two 5/1's available each turn.
The Lightning Ragers of the enemy team could not attack our team, as the "you" in the first ability applied to our team as a whole.

Safe to say we were able to deliver 10 damage every turn with our Lightning Ragers and theirs sat there uselessly... hence me wanting to check we played it out correctly.

Did we handle that right?

You played that partially correctly. Each player does get their own trigger to get a Lightning Rager token. However, your opponents' Lightning Ragers can attack your teammate.
Rule 810.7 says

The Two-Headed Giant variant uses the combat rules for the shared team turns option (see rule 805.10). This is a change from previous rules.

Then rule 805.10b says

As the declare attackers step begins, the active team declares attackers. For each attacking creature, the attacking team announces which defending player or planeswalker that creature is attacking. The active team has one combined attack, and that set of attacking creatures must be legal as a whole. See rule 508.1.

So, the Rite of the Raging Storm only prevents those Lightning Ragers from attacking you, but it doesn't apply if your opponents declare that they are attacking your teammate.
The change mentioned in rule 810.7 happened in the Dominaria Comprehensive Rules change, and that article has this to say about the change:

Here's the big Two-Headed Giant change—we're no longer dealing with "attack the team, use some mental gymnastics to figure out the defending player." Now you simply attack players or planeswalkers, not the team.
This results in a handful of changes: Propaganda effects are worse, but prevention effects can be used sensibly. Plainswalkers and planeswalkers both behave pretty much the same, except you can't attack one player and call the other your defending player. Saboteur triggers ("when this deals combat damage . . . can be anticipated more meaningfully.

Note: Regarding the upkeep triggers: the rules for Two-Headed Giant do not directly address "at the beginning of..." triggers, but a ruling on Ghirapur Orrery confirms that "at the beginning of each player's upkeep" triggers for each player, not each team:

In a Two-Headed Giant game, Ghirapur Orrery’s second ability triggers for each player on a team separately. If one player has cards in hand, it can still trigger for the other player.

This is notably different from a trigger condition that says "at the beginning of each upkeep"; Sun Droplet, for example, has this ruling:

In Two-Headed Giant, triggers only once per upkeep, not once for each player.


Coins Gained on Moving - Scythe When using the move action, do I gain coins in an equal number of the number of units I decide to move (up to 2)?

The / means "or".  You may move up to two units or you may take the amount of coins on your play mat.


What is the Fling interaction with Removal? I'm trying to make a Sarkhan's Unsealing deck using G/R. How does the interaction work with Fling if say;

I play a creature
The creature is targeted by removal when entering (Murder, Ixalan's Binding, Essence Scatter)
I play Fling sacrificing my creature

Does the damage from Fling get priority and complete the action?

It sounds like you're confused or have misconceptions about how spells are cast and resolved. That's fundamental to this issue so I suggest you read this answer about how casting and the stack works. Go check it out now, then come back here. The following will make more sense once you've done that.

Let's first go through how this scenario plays out before we add Fling or removal:

You cast your creature. In doing so, you put it on the stack. It's now a spell in the stack zone.
One of the triggered abilities of Sarkhan's Unsealing triggers. We put that triggered ability on the stack. If it's the first ability you choose its target whilst doing this. The stack now looks like this:

Sarkhan's Unsealing triggered ability (top)
Your creature (bottom)

Sarkhan's Unsealing's triggered ability resolves, dealing its damage.
Your creature resolves, and then enters the battlefield.

OK, so, let's add to this:

Effects that reference a "creature" (not "creature card" or "creature spell") exclusively reference a creature permanent (card or token) on the battlefield.
Effects that reference a "creature spell" exclusively reference a creature card on the stack.

This means Fling, Murder, and Ixalan's Binding can only target your creature after step 4, once it's on the battlefield. Essence Scatter can only target your creature whilst it's a creature spell on the stack, i.e. after step 1 and before step 4.
So what happens when we add those in?

Essence Scatter: Your opponent can cast this spell after you finish casting your creature. They cannot cast it before step 2, because they do not receive priority yet. They can counter your creature, but they cannot counter Sarkhan's Unsealing nor stop it resolving. You'll deal your damage. You cannot Fling your creature in this scenario because it is not on the battlefield, it's on the stack.
Murder: They can cast this only after step 4. You will already have your creature on the battlefield and the damage will have been dealt. You can cast Fling in response, and sacrifice it to deal damage.
Ixalan's Binding is similar to Murder: they cast the spell, it enters the battlefield, its ability triggers targeting your creature, and  then you can Fling your creature in response. Note they can't do this in response while it's your turn: Ixalan's Binding isn't an instant and doesn't have flash.


Paying a Cost and Communicating I have four Burning-Tree Emissary and one Firefist Striker on the field. My opponent is in his Precombat Main Phase. We are under Competitive Rules Enforcement Level (REL). The following actions occur in order.

My opponent taps three Swamp.
My opponent announces that he is casting Bile Blight targeting a Burning-Tree Emissary, which he points at.
Silence for three seconds.
My opponent taps two Swamp.
My opponents announces that he is casting Devour Flesh targeting me.
I immediately offer to let Devour Flesh resolve (because I am super excited that I now get the opportunity to sacrifice the target of Bile Blight).

Here is where the problem begins. My opponent tried to back out of his play by declaring that he had not yet paid the costs for Devour Flesh. I had assumed that the mana he produced from his swamps was going to pay for his spell, but he didn't explicitly say that.

What verbal and nonverbal actions must one take to pay the costs for a spell? Are there any weird exceptions like "I didn't take my hand off the card" or other? How can I confirm that a cost has been paid without being ridiculously annoying and tedious?

My opponent tried to back out of his play by declaring that he had not yet paid the costs for Devour Flesh.

The rules don't allow him to back out in the scenario you described.

The following are the steps to casting a spell:

(601.2a) Place the card on the stack.
(601.2b-d) Make some choices including targets.
(601.2e) Determine the total cost to cast the spell.
(601.2f) Activate mana abilities if desired if the cost has a mana component.
(601.2g) Pay the total cost to cast the spell.

Not only did he announce what he is casting (part of step 601.2a), he announced targets (part of 601.2c). There's no question that he started casting the spell. There's is only one condition under which the casting of the spell can be undone: The player becomes unable to comply with the instructions[CR 601.2]. For example, the casting of the spell can be undone if the caster becomes unable to pay the spell's costs.

Let's pretend for a moment that his mana pool was empty. He cannot be forced to tap lands to produce the mana required to pay the spell[CR 117.3c]. If he chose not to tap any lands in step 601.2f, he won't be able to pay the cost when it comes time to do so in step 601.2g, which undoes the casting of the spell[CR 601.2][1].

However, his mana pool isn't empty. He can comply with the instruction to pay the cost, so he must[2]. At no point is he unable to comply with any of the steps required to cast a spell, so nothing allows him to undo the casting of the spell.

  601.2. [...] If, at any point during the casting of a spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before that spell started to be cast [...]

  117.3c Activating mana abilities is not mandatory, even if paying a cost is[3].

  601.2f If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid.

  601.2g The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid.

I don't know how tolerant judges are of this practice, but that's a separate issue.
If the game instructs you to do something, you must do it if you can.
In fact, you are never compelled to create a situation where you could pay a cost. 117.3c is just a specific case of a general rule, though the general rule appears to be unwritten. For example, see the last sentence of the first ruling on Avatar of Slaughter.


Can you play the Crisis Expansion's Crisis Mode with the core game and Heroes Unite combined? The description for the DC Comics Deck Building Game: Crisis Expansion 1 says the following:

  This is not a standalone product. DC Comics Deck-building Game or Heroes Unite is required to play.

Is it possible to play with both at once in Crisis mode, maybe with house rules? Since the deck size in Crisis is the time limit, my first thought is that it could maybe be done if you mixed them all up, then reduced the size, but I'd be interested to know if this works well in practice (bonus points if there is something official that says whether or not they work out together).

To be clear, I know that I can just add the decks together and play without further modifications, but that makes the difficulty far, far easier because you have about 75% more cards (meaning you'll probably never end the game by reaching the end of the deck). I'd like to know if there is a way to play it that keeps the difficulty about the same.

As per BGG
James Cheng:

One of the option rules for combining and playing with both set mix up is to alternate your game with two separate decks. So you can play two game with each half of the combined deck. The second game will have a little more knowledge about what you might expect.

Richard Brady of Cryptozoic chimes in

At Cryptozoic, if we want to play with mixed sets... we generally mix all the cards up from the first two (and future!) sets and then count out about 115 or so cards to be our main deck. Sometimes you get some scary games with a lot of Villain cards but for the most part it's worked out pretty cool.
Otherwise, I'd suggest making a deck list of your favorite cards but make sure it's somewhere between 110-140. If you go above 140 it actually gets fairly easy, though we've made our own weird variants that use over that amount. We have never gone over 150 as far as I can remember.

John Galietta III:

If I recall my rulebook perusal correctly, it recommends that if you wish to customize the decks, use 25 cards per player. With 1-3 player games this is a little small, so I'd say no smaller than 100 cards. But just a random 100+ cards seems a little random for my tastes. You don't get as much of the synergy you normally would.
I usually keep my main decks separate. If I want to play using both sets, we use both decks separately, using 2 line ups. With the rules that A) you can only buy/gain/affect one line-up per turn, and B) when you buy/gain a card from the line-up, destroy the card in the second line-up in the same spot. There was a file about this variant in one of the forums.
I'd say for that, if you wanted to use the new main deck cards as well just mix 16 into each of the main decks. this variant wouldn't work very well in Crisis mode, though.

There's also this article on a supposed balance of combining the two decks. That might work as well.
In short while there are workarounds some of which are semi-official. There's no official method of combining. There are however many player suggested varients that should resolve the complexities.


What happens to spells on the stack when a player leaves the game? Let's say, in a multiplayer late-game (3+ players) I want to cast/activate anything during another players turn. Everyone is rather low on life, and in response to my spells/abilities on the stack another player reduces the life of the player whose turn it currently is to 0 or below, because of which he loses the game.

It is obvious, that anything that player controls/owns is taken from the stack and the battlefield and his turn ends immediately. But what happens to my stuff on the stack? Does it fizzle or still resolve?

No, the turn continues as normal, without that player.

  800.4i If a player leaves the game during their turn, that turn continues to its completion without an active player. If the active player would receive priority, instead the next player in turn order receives priority, or the top object on the stack resolves, or the phase or step ends, whichever is appropriate.


How do the Monopoly odds change when the board is played in reverse? One semi-popular house rule is to play Monopoly as usual, but move the pieces counter-clockwise instead of the usual clockwise - that is, hit the higher-end properties first and move down toward the lower-end ones. Another related house rule is to play in the normal fashion, but when someone lands on Free Parking, either that player or all players reverse direction. (Yes, that means different players could be moving in different directions. I didn't make up the rule.)

In the above versions, how does this affect the winning strategies? As discussed there, the properties landed on most often are the oranges and reds. Does reversing the board play for some or all of the game affect those odds to enough of a degree to make a difference in which monopoly rakes in the most revenue?

The key change in reversing the direction of movement is the fact that players now leave Jail in the opposite direction. The oranges and reds are particularly profitable because they are within 1-2 rolls of Jail, among other reasons. When moving counterclockwise, the dark purples and dark blues are now in a more often visited area, so I would expect their value to increase significantly, while the value of the orange and reds would decrease commensurately. Even the light blues, which are already among the best property groups, would get a boost from being in front of, rather than behind, Jail.


Can you activate the abilities of a creature once its been destroyed? My question is about Zacama, Primal Calamity or any creatures with abilities that are activated using mana. If such a creature is destroyed, can you activate its abilities as an instant after it's been destroyed.

No, you cannot activate an ability once a creature has been destroyed; when a creature is destroyed, it is moved to the graveyard immediately without players getting priority, so there is no chance to activate any abilities, and Comprehensive Rule 113.6 makes it clear that abilities function only on the battlefield (unless some specific exceptions apply):

Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield.

What is possible (and common) is to activate the ability in response to the spell or trigger which would destroy the creature going onto the stack, but before it resolves.


Android Versions of Designer Board Games Is there a good place to find out about designer board games that have been converted to the Android platform?  I know about the standard popular ones like Catan and Carcassonne, but it seems like you have to perform the leg work of looking through BGG lists/internet searches way more for Android than iOS to find anything.

Boardgamegeek.com has several geeklists with android versions listed.

Android Games with Asynchronous Multiplayer

Android versions of actual boardgames

These are not the only ones, just the ones that stood out in the search results.


What is a strategy rating? My Tau Codex features a strategy rating. I've not seen this before. What is this used for?

According to several forums I checked, strategy rating is an obsolete mechanism used in certain published scenarios that would typically give some kind of advantage (initiative, timing of reinforcements, etc.) to the side with the higher strategy rating:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/282685.page

http://forums.tauonline.org/tau/5898-strategy-rating.html


In The Resistance, how does In the Spotlight work? The card says "You can choose another player to submit their Mission card face up."

If 4 people are on the mission, and 1 player has this card played on them, do the other 3 players get to see what card he played before choosing the cards they will submit?

The player using In the Spotlight must announce their intent to use it immediately after a successful Mission Team Vote, and they must select the target player before any team member selects their Mission card. After the target has been chosen, each team member selects a Mission card and puts it on the table in front of them. The player who is the target of In the Spotlight then reveals their card to everyone. The leader then collects the other Mission cards as normal.

The other team members must select their Mission card before seeing the revealed card.

It's important to select the target of In the Spotlight before any team members have selected their Mission card, because it could affect the choice they make. For example, if a Spy selects a Fail card before In the Spotlight is played, they would have to pick up their card to change it. That would certainly be very revealing. The intent of In the Spotlight is that the target player knows they will have to reveal their card before making their choice.


Matsu-Tribe Decoy vs. Trap Runner If I activate Matsu-Tribe Decoy's ability targeting opponent's Trap Runner, can he activate Trap Runner's ability, blocking my creature, and making Trap Runner an illegal target for Matsu-Tribe Decoy's ability?

https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=75247
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=22288

No. For this particular combination of cards, there is no time during which the Matsu-Tribe Decoy is a legal target for Trap Runner's ability.

The Oracle text for Trap Runner's ability says:

  Target unblocked attacking creature becomes blocked. Activate this ability only during combat after blockers are declared.

Since this ability can only be activated after blockers are declared, Trap Runner would first have to block the Decoy... but then the Decoy is no longer an unblocked attacking creature.

Note also that your question asks about making the Trap Runner an "illegal target" for the Decoy's ability. Nothing about the Decoy's target being tapped (or otherwise unable to block) would make it an illegal target... just not one worth spending the mana on.


Do Aftermath cards count as two or one card for Enigma Drake? Enigma Drake's power is equal to the number of instant and sorcery cards in your graveyard.

If one has Spring//Mind (or some other Aftermath card) in their graveyard, does that grant 1 or 2 power? Does it matter if both halves have the same or different types, e.g. two Instants vs an Instant + a Sorcery)?

It becomes a 1/4.

Spring // Mind is both a sorcery card and an instant card, but it's still only one card, and Enigma Drake counts cards.

You're actually asking about split cards —the fact that they also have Aftermath is irrelevant— and the following ruling is found attached to Enigma Drake:

  A split card only counts once for Enigma Drake’s ability, even if it’s both an instant and a sorcery.


Dominion - Can you trash horses? In the game dominion are you allowed to trash horses with say a card like improve?
On the card it states it is not part of the supply.
Is there any place in the rules that states that you can or can not?

Yes, you can.
There is nothing about being part of the supply that affects trashing; they are still "cards" and thus are affected by things that talk about cards.
The rules for trashing from the base game rulebook don't say anything that would restrict it to supply cards:

"Trash a card" - Put a card into the Trash pile.

This is a way of getting rid of a card; a trashed card is no longer one of your cards.

"Gaining" is different because of the rules for gaining itself; the rules for "gain a card" include that the card must be from the supply unless specifically said otherwise.

"Gain a card" - Take a card from the Supply and put it into your discard pile.

Sometimes a card will let you gain a card from a place other than the Supply, but by default
gained cards come from the Supply.

Now, your specific example of Improve and Horses is tricky because normally you wouldn't have a Horse in play at the start of cleanup; since it returns itself to its pile when you play it. But with things like Ways from Menagerie, there are ways to do it.


When is there no going back on a trade? In Settlers of Catan, what are the precise rules for when a trade is completed and there is no going back? For example, if player 1 asks if anyone is looking to trade a resource for another resource and player 2 agrees, is player 1 bound to that trade or do both parties have to then agree on an exact trade before continuing?

In other words, is offering a trade to all players an implicit agreement to a specific trade with a particular player? If not, is there any way to agree on trades that does not result in showing what's in your hand?

Trading

The type of rule you are asking for is similar to the Chess rule that says...

  Once the hand is taken off a piece after moving it, the move cannot be retracted (unless the move is illegal)."

Catan rules aren't that specific, unfortunately. There is no rule in Catan that covers when a trade is complete with this level of detail. Therefore, it is up to you and your play group. If I were in your play group, I would argue that a trade is complete when the cards have physically changed hands. That is how goods exchanges work in real life - I give you money, you give me goods.

If you allow trades to be taken back after cards have exchanged hands, then you have to remember what cards you traded. More importantly, you have to still have the cards, and not have spent them.

If you don't allow trades to be taken back before cards have exchanged hands, then what happens if I don't have the cards I said I would trade? Maybe I wanted to bluff that I had a card for trade just so the other guy would get a worse deal.

Bluffing

Bluffing is generally an acceptable practice in any game that involves hidden information. But, the difference between lying and bluffing is not always clear. In Catan, you just have to know it when you see it. For example, saying "I have wheat." when I really don't is a bluff by any reasonable definition of the word, but saying "I have seven cards." when I really have eight is just a lie. If your group is not okay with bluffing, then your play group may need to create a house rule that prohibits it. Otherwise, it's fair game.


Prirority and triggered abilities When my opponent has a creature with triggered ability "At the beggining of each end step, this creature...." and it's my turn, what happens after this ability goes on the stack? Normally, I get priority at the beggining of each step, and here is the same?
Does it simply go on the stack independently on my opponent and I get priority?

Triggers do go on stack the first time a player would get priority after their condition has been met, before that player gets priority. In this case that means the triggers will be on the stack before you get priority in the end step, but you will have a chance to act before they resolve.

This timing is explicitly covered in the comprehensive rules:

  603.3 Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 117, “Timing and Priority.” The ability becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

If you wanted to do something before the ability was on stack, you would need to do it in your second main phase - by moving from that phase to the end step (by all players passing priority with the stack empty) you let these triggers go on the stack. As for it going on the stack independent of your opponent, it's your opponent who puts it on the stack, as far as the game is concerned, and makes any modal choices or targeting choices related to that triggered ability.


The game is incomplete.

Literally nothing is "surrounded" here, and if the game ended in such a state nobody would get any points at all until you can mutually agree on which groups are "dead" and which ones are "alive", since right now, none of the groups are unconditionally alive.

Your first example presumes the inside black group is dead, the second example presumes the outside black group is dead. One could also make the case that both black groups are dead, meaning all the territory on the board is "surrounded" by white. Alternatively, one could argue that the white group is dead, meaning all the territory on the board is "surrounded" by black.

However, if everyone agrees that all the groups are alive (or, at least, can't agree that any of them are dead), then all territory is still disputed and nobody is actually surrounding anything.

If you can't tell which groups are alive and which ones are dead, keep playing until you can. Otherwise, any attempts at calculating the score would be guesswork at best.


Game where you draw a path on an overlay Some time ago I saw a video of a board game designed for children.

This game features cards with "levels" depicted on those, similar visually to levels from a platform video game.
Those "levels" would have a starting point, finish point, obstacles (e.g. enemies) and goodies (e.g. coins) drawn on them.
A player would look at the "level" card and draw a solid line leading from start to finish on a transparent overlay.
Then the overlay would be put on top of the "level" card. The more goodies the line is crossing, and more obstacles the line is avoiding, the better the player's score is.

Maybe do you talk about the game "Loony Quest" ?
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/136991/loony-quest

I hope I helped you!


Penalties involved in withholding knowledge of a rule violation Player 1 won Game 1, Player 2 won Game 2, and it is at some point during Game 3 now. In Game 2, P2's Venser, Sojourner exiled a number of P1's cards and P1 doesn't remember the exiled cards when presenting his deck to P2 for Game 3, but P2 did notice but did not notify P1.

As the game progresses, P2 realizes he is losing and then calls a judge, telling him or her that P1's deck is illegal as it is under 60 cards. It should be mentioned that P2 knew the deck was illegal and withheld this information until it was opportune for him or her.

What are the specific rule violations on both players, specifically P2? Does it change if P2 did not know the deck was illegal and only just noticed it? Just curious if P2's failure to notify P1 of their illegal deck changes the penalty for P1.

Player 1 would be committing a Tournament Error (Deck/Decklist Problem) under item 1 of section 3.9 of the IPG:

  The deck and/or decklist contain an illegal number
   of cards for the format.

If decklists are registered, it's also a violation of item 4:

  The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered.

The penalty for this is a game loss.

Player 2 would be Cheating under section 4.8, which a player commits if he or she "notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it", if these two conditions are met:

  The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
  The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

The penalty for this is disqualification.

Player 2 might also be committing a Game Play Error under section 2.6, which is defined like this:

  A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error involving an effect or action that he or she does not control, and has not pointed it out immediately.

Player 1 would have to be committing a Game Play Error for this to apply. Section 2.5, which defines Game Rule Violation, "handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play Errors". A Tournament Error is not a violation of the comprehensive rules, but the comprehensive rules do say this:

  100.2a In constructed play (a way of playing in which each player creates his or her own deck ahead of time), each deck must contain at least sixty cards
  Even if this means sections 2.5 and 2.6 apply, the penalties for both are less than the penalties for violations under sections 3.9 and 4.8. Also, the IPG suggests using the latter two in this case:

  If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out
  other players’ illegal actions, either for his or her own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more
  strategically advantageous time, they should consider an Unsporting Conduct — Cheating infraction.


What are the differences between the Fluxx games? I currently have Fluxx and Zombie Fluxx, and I've noticed there are some differences:

obviously, Zombie Fluxx is more centered around creepers.
Zombie Fluxx is considerably less random. Less crazy things like X=X+1 and less weird rule cards.
Since it's less random, Zombie Fluxx tends to have slighty more strategy.
Zombie Fluxx can seem to have more of a 'point' to new players. With regular Fluxx I often find new players getting bored because the goals are so random, and there's little to no choices they can make that will affect the game. In Zombie Fluxx you can at least focus on getting rid of your zombies and improve your chances of winning most of the time.
For some reason, Zombie Fluxx works a little better with large numbers of players.

Fluxx also seems to be one of the few games where all the sequels are 'better' than the original, at least with BGG rankings and my personal preference. As I said above, the expansions seems to have just a little more strategy and just a little less randomness.

Have you noticed any other general differences between the other Fluxx games that would be good to know before buying?

Ecofluxx has a much bigger emphasis on "X eats Y" goals; where if you have X and anyone has Y, you win.  It theoretically makes it a little easier to win the game.  It also has a card named Extinction (I think?), to permanently remove any one keeper from the game.

Monty Python Fluxx has a lot of cards that say "Do this on your turn to earn extra rewards", e.g. Speak in a funny accent to pick up another card.  It makes the game more...  Interactive.  It also has a number of the 'knight of the round table' keepers - they are often interchangable for goals.  In the same way as "Food", sometimes it is one specific knight, but often it is "X plus any knight".

Stoner Fluxx has a number of cards that are meaningless unless you have marijuana available (e.g. "Everybody Toke!"); I suppose you could either remove them from the deck or have a house rule you can play them as cards when you really don't want to do anything else.

The upcoming Pirate Fluxx sounds like it will be awesome and different, with an emphasis on an incredibly strong keeper "The Captain's Hat", that provides the player with a number of bonuses, along with everyone else receiving +1 Draw / +1 Play.


Learning to count cards In many games, it can be extremely helpful to know what cards have already been played and/or the number left in any given suit.

What are good ways to learn to count the cards played (especially in a game such as pinochle where you cannot inspect your taken-trick pile to see at least what you've claimed out of the hand)?

When I used to play Bridge regularly, I started out simply by keeping track of suit counts.  How many have been played from each suit.  I then added counts for Aces and Kings, keeping track of those on top of the suit counts.  I then expanded into tracking all of the trump suit, and followed by tracking the remaining suits.  If you play regularly and take a gradual approach, it will eventually become second nature, but it does require regular play.


How to describe the strengths and weaknesses of white to a new mtg player? When I'm teaching Magic: The Gathering to a new player, one of the things I usually give them early on is a run down of each of the different colors and its pros and cons. I usually try to come up with 2 sentences and no more than 3 example cards to describe the color. Normally, I use descriptions that are something like this:

  Red: Uses the power of fire to damage life totals, creatures, and
  destroy lands/artifacts. Has trouble dealing with enchantments,
  flying, and tricky spells. Examples: Shock, Shatter, Demolish.

  Black: Uses the power of death and evil to profit from other misery
  with powerful removal, creatures, discard spells, and detrimental
  enchantments. Has trouble dealing with enchantments, vulnerable to
  removal, and has slightly weaker creatures. Examples: Doom Blade, Mind Rot, Sorin's Thirst

  Blue: Uses the power of the mind to manipulate the field of battle by
  drawing cards, countering spells, messing with opponents' plans in
  general, and playing flying creatures. Has the weakest creatures in
  the game, even though it has many of the best flying creatures.
  Examples: Divination, Cancel, Darkslick Drake (or any other good
  flying creature)

  Green: Uses the power of nature to grow and expand until its massive
  creatures are too much for opponents to handle. Good at dealing with
  artifacts/enchantments, and has strongest creatures in the game, but
  also has worst flying creatures and very little removal. Examples:
  Llanowar Elves, Leatherback Baloth, Naturalize

  White: Uses the power of life and justice to play powerful creatures,
  life-gain spells, sweeper spells, small creatures, and good defenses.
  Second best in flying and creatures overall, but weak against ??????
  Examples: ?????

While these are rough examples that could all use a bit of polishing, I definitely feel like my understanding and explanation of white looks the weakest. Currently, I look at white as the 'all-around color' with fewer strengths and weaknesses than the others, but I'm having trouble characterizing it in more specific ways.

How would you explain the pros and cons of the color white to newcomers to MTG? What example cards and general characteristics of white decks would you include? What might you add to my other explanations to make them more helpful and accurate, but still keep them clean and concise?

You might not be aware but Wizards already has a page describing to a new player what the core concepts of each colour of magic are. Here's what they have to say, even more concisely than how you explain the colours:

White: The color of Justice

White spellcasters use superior tactics, efficient creatures, and the power of righteousness against their foes.

Blue: The color of Wisdom

Blue mages focus on using superior knowledge to gain control of a battle, and slowly gain the upper hand.

Black: The color of Ambition

Black sorcerers are willing to do whatever it takes to win a battle, even if it means sacrificing everything to do so.

Red: The color of Chaos

Red conjurers try to win as quickly and dramatically as possible, smashing and burning their way to a quick victory.

Green: The color of Nature

Green shamans win duels through the brute force of mother nature, summoning giant creatures to squash their enemies.

I think some of your explanations need a bit of work. For example, black isn't (always) explicitly evil, just selfish and ambitious; and red isn't just "the power of fire" (although the element of fire is associated with it) just like blue isn't "the power of water".

  White: Uses the power justice to play efficient creatures and deal with combat threats. Best at manipulating enchantments, artifact equipment, and life gain, and second best in flying. Worst at direct damage: white relies on superior tactics in combat to deal the lethal blow. Examples: Elite Vanguard, Pacifism, Lifelink.


Why the insistence on who has the most dice after removals? In Ninja All-Stars, combat is resolved by each player throwing the amount of dice specified by the combatants' stats and any bonuses coming from the conditions, then matched dice are removed, then the one who has the most dice remaining chooses which of their dice to be the result.

Except... the rulebook is insistent that the decision of who gets to decide is made after the dice pairs are removed, but since those only ever remove one dice from each player, that shouldn't ever change anything - what am I missing?

Because the dice that are eliminated could eliminate possible results of the since every matching pair must be removed not just one dice from every player.

When they say all possible eliminations must be made, they mean that for each attacker/defender die elimination you can make, you must make that elimination. It is not trying to say that an attacker's own dice can eliminate each other, otherwise we wouldn't have this second sentence saying they can't do that

Beta Rules

  Fire and Water eliminate each other.
  Earth and Air eliminate each other.
  Spirit and Void eliminate each other.

  When two dice eliminate each other, remove them from the pool of rolled dice. Dice that the attacker rolled can only eliminate dice that the defender rolled and vice versa. All possible eliminations must be made.

  Spirit: The attacker is Injured.
  Fire:All ninjas in the attacker’s influence zone, including the attacker, are stunned. (See Stun, page !X!)
  Air:The attacker may move the defender up to 3 spaces in any direction.
  Water:The player who picked Water as the result may move the attacker up to 3 spaces in any direction. The defending player then places the defender in the attacker’s front influence zone.
  Earth: The defender is stunned. (See Stun, page !X!)
  Void: The defender is Injured.

Some examples:

Attacker rolls 2 Spirit and Defender rolls 2 Void

Check for matches
Find a match of 1 Spirit and 1 Void and remove
Check for more matches
Find a match of 1 Spirit and 1 Void and remove
No more dice so attack results in nothing happening

Attacker rolls 3 Spirit and Defender rolls 2 Void

Check for matches
Find a match of 1 Spirit and 1 Void and remove
Check for more matches
Find a match of 1 Spirit and 1 Void and remove
Check for matches
Only 1 dice left and is Spirit so attacker is damaged

Attacker rolls 3 spirit, 1 Void and defender rolls 2 void

Check for matches
Find a match of 1 Spirit and 1 Void and remove 1 Spirit from attacker and 1
Void from defender
Check for more matches
Find a match of 1 Spirit and 1 Void and remove remove 1 Spirit from attacker and 1 Void from defender
Check for matches
The 1 Spirit and 1 Void that are left are in the attackers pool so not a match and the attacker can now chose which effect to use


How much would the cards from Dominion: Alchemy cost if you wanted to use them while not playing with potions? I've been looking at the cards from Dominion: Alchemy and want to use some of them in my own games through proxying of the blank cards. However, I don't feel like delving into the whole potion thing, especially since it would be annoying to have to proxy at least 4 different cards (the potion and 3 kingdom cards to get the recommended amount of 3-5). So I figured I'd just give them costs in $ only and not potions. Another application of this might be playing with the alchemy cards if for some reason you didn't want to use potion as well.

However, I'm not exactly sure what costs to use. A potion is roughly equivalent to a silver, but that seems like an oversimplification. One of the interesting things about alchemy is that you have to buy the potions in order to access these cards and balance them with your other currency. This scarcity makes me lean more toward counting a potion to add +3$ to the cost.

Does this seem about right? If not, could someone perhaps provide a case by case basis for the 9 cards this would pertain to (since Alchemist in a potion-less game would be rather odd I'm not planning on including it)?

One of the defining characteristics of Potions in Alchemy is that they force a reshuffle-delay.  That is, you have to first invest in the potion, then reshuffle and draw it before you're able to spend it on a card.

This is never going to be true of a cost that is just boosted to cost more coins, unfortunately.

I don't have any particular evidence to back this up but +$3 seems high, at least for some cards. Possession might warrant a $9 cost, I'm not sure, but some of the other weaker cards really don't feel like they'd work at +$3 to me.  I'll try to come up with my per-card opinions at some point.

Bummer about Alchemist, too - it's one of my favorite cards from Alchemy. Then again, I'm a fan of big honkin' action chains.


When does Depala's ability happen? When Depala, Pilot Exemplar becomes tapped you can reveal cards from your library and get some out of there:

  Whenever Depala, Pilot Exemplar becomes tapped, you may pay {X}. If you do, reveal the top X cards of your library, put all Dwarf and Vehicle cards from among them into your hand, then put the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order.

Does this mean that as you tap Depala to attack you search right then, even before you tap other attackers, or can you wait until say the second main phase, after combat, to pay X and then search?

The ability triggers and is resolved after you have declared all of your attackers, and before blockers are declared, during combat. (It won't trigger in the middle of declaring attackers.) Breaking down the Declare Attackers Step (itself the second step of the combat phase) we get:

508.1. First, the active player declares attackers. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.
(skipped: most of the steps on how this plays out)
508.1f The active player taps the chosen creatures. Tapping a creature when it’s declared as an attacker isn’t a cost; attacking simply causes creatures to become tapped.

So, first, you choose all of your attackers, and they all get tapped as part of that process.

508.2. Second, the active player gets priority. (See rule 116, “Timing and Priority.”)
508.2b Any abilities that triggered on attackers being declared or that triggered during the process described in rules 508.1 are put onto the stack before the active player gets priority; the order in which they triggered doesn’t matter. (See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”)

Now that you've chosen your attackers, all of the abilities that triggered during that process are put on the stack.
So, at this point, just after all attackers are declared, Depala's ability is to be put on the stack. As it resolves, you can pay {X}, reveal the top X cards of your library, and then take the dwarves and vehicles from it and put them in your hand.
Then you still have priority, and can still cast instants and so on — then once you've got nothing else to do, we move on to declaring blockers, then combat damage, then end of combat.
This also means, to your specific questions:

You don't tap Depala as an attacker, use her ability, then declare more attackers. All attackers are already declared.
You do not and cannot wait until after combat. The ability is triggered and resolves right there in the middle of combat, after declaring attackers, and before moving on to declaring blockers.


Why didn't Crawling Barrens grow larger when mutated with my Gemrazer? My turn on M:tG Arena. I've got my Crawling Barrens as a 12/12 creature due to twelve 1/1 counters. Then I mutated a Gemrazer over it (aka "above"). The Crawling Barrens stayed 12/12. After my turn end, the Crawling Barrens+Gemrazer stayed on the table as a creature but became 16/16.
Why this happened? Why mutated Crawling Barrens did not become 16/16 immediately after mutation?
Text of relevant cards:

Gemrazer: Mutate 1GG (If you cast this spell for its mutate cost, put
it over or under target non-Human creature you own. They mutate into
the creature on top plus all abilities from under it.). Reach.
Trample. Whenever this creature mutates, destroy target artifact or
enchantment an opponent controls.

Crawling Barrens: 4: Put two +1/+1 counters on Crawling Barrens. Then
you may have it become a 0/0 Elemental creature until end of turn.
It's still a land.

Mutation isn't a power/toughness setting effect
A creature's power and toughness are governed by the layer system, which is fairly complicated but usually fairly intuitive. This happens to be one of the few times when it isn't.
Crawling Barrens has a power/toughness setting effect.  That comes in at layer 7b.  When multiple power/toughness setting effects apply to the same creature then they are applied in timestamp order.  That means that the last one played will set the power.
But Gemrazer does not have a power/toughness setting effect.  Mutate comes in at Layer 1, effects that modify copiable values.  And that's at the bottom of the layers system, and is overwritten by the Barren's p/t setting effect, even though it was played later.  So Barrens/Gemrazer stays as a 12/12 until the p/t setting effect wears off at end of turn.
(Incidentally, the +1/+1 counters are applied in layer 7c)
Relevant Rules:

613. Interaction of Continuous Effects
613.1. The values of an object’s characteristics are determined by starting with the actual object. For a card, that means the values of the characteristics printed on that card. For a token or a copy of a spell or card, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order:

613.1a Layer 1: Rules and effects that modify copiable values are applied.
613.1b Layer 2: Control-changing effects are applied.
613.1c Layer 3: Text-changing effects are applied. See rule 612, “Text-Changing Effects.”
613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.
613.1e Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied.
613.1f Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, keyword counters, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can’t have an ability are applied.
613.1g Layer 7: Power- and/or toughness-changing effects are applied.

613.2. Within layer 1, apply effects in a series of sublayers in the order described below. Within each sublayer, apply effects in timestamp order (see rule 613.7). Note that dependency may alter the order in which effects are applied within a sublayer. (See rule 613.8.)
613.2a Layer 1a: Copiable effects are applied. This includes copy effects (see rule 706, “Copying Objects”) and changes to an object’s base characteristics determined by merging an object with a permanent (see rule 721, “Merging with Permanents”). “As . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities generate copiable effects if they set power and toughness, even if they also define other characteristics.
...
613.4. Within layer 7, apply effects in a series of sublayers in the order described below. Within each sublayer, apply effects in timestamp order. (See rule 613.7.) Note that dependency may alter the order in which effects are applied within a sublayer. (See rule 613.8.)

613.4a Layer 7a: Effects from characteristic-defining abilities that define power and/or toughness are applied. See rule 604.3.
613.4b Layer 7b: Effects that set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value are applied. Effects that refer to the base power and/or toughness of a creature apply in this layer.
613.4c Layer 7c: Effects and counters that modify power and/or toughness (but don’t set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value) are applied.
613.4d Layer 7d: Effects that switch a creature’s power and toughness are applied. Such effects take the value of power and apply it to the creature’s toughness, and take the value of toughness and apply it to the creature’s power.


Can abilities with no "tap/untap" cost be activated while a creature has summoning sickness? From the MTG rules:

  302.6. A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can't be activated unless the creature
  has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her
  most recent turn began. A creature can't attack unless it has been
  under its controller's control continuously since his or her most
  recent turn began. This rule is informally called the "summoning
  sickness" rule.

Do I correctly understand then that other abilities, such as the Gnawing Zombie's ability can be used immediately after being placed onto the battlefield?

  {1}{B}, Sacrifice a creature: Target player loses 1 life and you gain
  1 life.

Correct. Activated abilities may be used whenever you have priority as long as you can pay the cost and aren't forbidden to. The tap/untap symbol as part of the cost can prevent you (from summoning sickness). Having to use an ability restricted to sorcery speed can prevent you. Other than that (less any other restrictions), it's fair game.


Is a card that was played and immediately trashed "in play"? For the purposes of Walled Village, is a card that was played and immediately trashed considered "in play"?

For example, if I play Mining Village, trashing it for the +2 coin, then play Walled Village, does the Mining village count towards the "no more than one other Action card in play"?

It is not considered in play if it has moved from your play zone to the trash.

The 'no more than one action card in play' trigger will not count mining villages that were played and then immediately trashed.

Sources: forum post by Donald X. (games creator)

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/682203/description-sheet

  Walled Village: When you play this, you draw a card and can play two
  more Actions this turn. At the start of your Clean-up phase, before
  discarding anything and before drawing for next turn, if you have a
  Walled Village in play and no more than two Action cards in play
  (counting the Walled Village), you may put the Walled Village on top
  of your deck. If the only cards you have in play are two Walled
  Villages, you may put either or both of them on top of your deck.
  Walled Village has to be in play to be put on top of your deck. Walled
  Village only checks how many Action cards are in play when its ability
  resolves; Action cards you played earlier this turn but which are no
  longer in play (such as Feast from Dominion) are not counted, while
  Action cards still in play from previous turns (duration cards from
  Dominion: Seaside) are counted, as are Action cards that are in play
  now but may leave play after resolving Walled Village (such as
  Treasury from Dominion: Seaside).

The example 'Feast' in the quote is an action with a self trashing ability similar to mining village.


Do cards with abilities that target trigger heroic? Would something like Satyr Grovedancer or something that has "When ~ enters the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature" trigger Heroic?

It has the keyword target, but does it count as an ability or as part of the spell that targets? I guess this goes likewise for any ability that occurs when a card enters the battlefield.

No, Heroic cards specifically state "whenever you cast a spell that targets [this card]". Abilities are not spells. Here is the definition of a spell:

111.1. A spell is a card on the stack. As the first step of being cast (see rule 601, “Casting Spells”), the card becomes a spell and is moved to the top of the stack from the zone it was in, which is usually its owner’s hand. (See rule 405, “Stack.”) A spell remains on the stack as a spell until it resolves (see rule 608, “Resolving Spells and Abilities”), is countered (see rule 701.5), or otherwise leaves the stack. For more information, see section 6, “Spells, Abilities, and Effects.”
111.1a A copy of a spell is also a spell, even if it has no card associated with it.

The Satyr Grovedancer's ability goes into the stack when it enters the battlefield which  doesn't happen until after it was cast (and subsequently resolved). The effect is on the stack, but is not spell because it is not a card being cast (or a copy of a spell).
Instants and sorceries that say "target" will trigger heroic. Enchantment auras will as well even though they do not say "target" because of rule regarding auras:

113.1b Aura spells are always targeted. These are
the only permanent spells with targets. An Aura’s
target is specified by its enchant keyword ability (see rule 702.5, “Enchant”). The target(s) are
chosen as the spell is cast; see rule 601.2c. An Aura permanent doesn’t target anything; only the
spell is targeted.

Anything else will be an ability and thus do nothing.


Enchantment Auras and returning to hand If my opponent uses a spell with the effect "return all nonland permanents to their owner's hand", does that include enchantments - auras?

Yes. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. An Aura attached to a permanent is therefore also a permanent, and will be returned to its owner's hand by that effect.


Does removing a creature from the battlefield during the blockers declaration phase affect the damage the player will take? First example: When a creature is going to attack me alone and I use Vapor Snag to return it to the other player's hand, is the combat damage prevented?

Second example: If three 1/1 Soldier creatures are going to attack me while Veteran Swordsmith (which gives other Soldier Creatures +1/+0) is on the board and I use Doom Blade to kill the Veteran Swordsmith, do I take 3 damage or 6?

Third example: I control a creature, but couldn't use it to block a sliver my opponent controls because he just put a Shifting Sliver into play. If I use Path to Exile to exile his Shifting Sliver during the blockers declaration phase, does this make me able to block the other sliver?

Also, would this kind of play work in response to triggered/activated abilities? (for example, trying to prevent a triggered/activated ability from resolving by removing the permanent from the battlefield in response to the opponent trying to trigger/activate it)

Here's a breakdown of the five stages in the relevant part of the turn:

Declare attackers step

(1) attackers are declared
(2) players get priority (to cast instants and activate abilities)

Declare blockers step

(3) blockers are declared
(4) players get priority

Combat damage step

(5) damage is assigned and dealt
...

For the most part, you only check what something does and if it's legal right when it happens. So damage (dealt in stage 5) is only dealt by creatures that are still in combat at stage 5, and is based on their power at the moment stage 5 happens. Blocking (done in stage 3) is legal if it is legal at the moment stage 3 happens. So to answer your questions:

1) yes, since the creature is not still in combat at stage 5.

2) 3, since their power is 1 each by the time stage 5 happens.

3) As long as you use Path to Exile in stage 2 (or earlier in the turn), blocking the sliver will be legal since nothing will be preventing that when stage 3 happens. If you cast it during the declare blockers step (i.e. during stage 4) then it will be irrelevant because all blockers are declared in stage 3.


Does 'counter a spell' mean 'put a creature into its owner's graveyard'? For example, when I use the card Double Negative, I counter two spells. Does it mean I can put two of my opponents spells (which may be enchantments or creatures) into its owner's graveyard?

I am new to MtG so I might ask stupid questions.

If a spell is on an actual card (e.g. creature, enchantment, instant, etc., usually played from your opponent's hand), then countering that spell means the spell never happens, and the card is moved to its owner's graveyard. (If the spell is not on a card, for instance it's a copy of another spell, then it just disappears.)

Yes, if there are two spells on the stack, Double Negative will allow you to counter both of them, which in a best case scenario means two of your opponents cards are moved to the graveyard, having no effect other than the mana they cost to cast. Note, however, that this will almost certainly require that at least one of them is an instant, as very few non-instant cards may be played while another spell is on the stack (those that do carry the keyword "Flash").

Also note that if your opponent (and you) lets one spell resolve before playing the second spell, then there never were two spells on the stack simultaneously for Double Negative to counter. So if your opponent played a creature, you both let that creature come into play, and he then plays, say, a Shock to deal to damage to you, you can't counter both the Shock and the creature. You lost the opportunity to counter the creature before the Shock was ever a spell.


Siren of the Fanged Coast vs. Devotion Two of my friends and I were playing MTG and someone (we'll call her player 1) had played Siren of the Fanged Coast (SFC) and she was going to use its 'control creature' ability against one of player 2's god, which player 1 couldn't pay it's devotion cost to keep it as a creature.

My question is this: After player 1 ends her turn (while controlling the god) and it then became an enchantment would she still be in control of it? My reasoning is since SFC's ability isn't like Mind Control, where as that's a passive ability of the card, SFC's ability is a one-off thing. You officially have control of the god, it just so happens to become an enchantment shortly after you take it.

The fact that the ability says "gain control of target creature" only means that the chosen target must be a creature at the time it is chosen and at the time the ability resolves. This is just like any other targeted spell or ability: targets have to meet the specified conditions when you choose them, and also when the spell or ability resolves.

After the ability resolves, it doesn't matter what happens to the targeted god's characteristics - whether it stops being a creature, changes color, starts being a creature again, changes power and toughness, gains or loses abilities, or so on. Nothing causes the control-changing effect to end, unless it has its own built-in time limit (for things like Act of Treason). Of course it can be overridden by another control-changing effect, i.e. player 2 could steal the god back. Here's the relevant rule:

  611.2c. If a continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability modifies the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects, the set of objects it affects is determined when that continuous effect begins. After that point, the set won't change. (Note that this works differently than a continuous effect from a static ability.) A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability that doesn't modify the characteristics or change the controller of any objects modifies the rules of the game, so it can affect objects that weren't affected when that continuous effect began. If a single continuous effect has parts that modify the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects and other parts that don't, the set of objects each part applies to is determined independently.

You're basically right about the difference between this and Mind Control, by the way. With Mind Control, the control-changing effect comes from a static ability of a permanent, as opposed to the Siren's effect which comes from the resolution of an ability. The relevant rule for Mind Control is this one:

  611.3b. The effect applies at all times that the permanent generating it is on the battlefield or the object generating it is in the appropriate zone.

So in that case, the control-changing effect only lasts as long as the Mind Control is actually enchanting the thing.


What game? Matching dice with two each of d4, d6, d8, and d10 I bought this game at gen con in 2015. It is not dissimilar to Yahtzee or Farkle. I'd given it to my grandmother as a gift, but she has misplaced it.

You have two four-sided dice, two six-sided dice, two eight-sided dice, and two ten-sided dice.

During your turn, you get 3 rolls. You can set aside dice to match or (re)roll them, with your goal being to get matching pairs or better.

For example, I think that two 8s would be eight points, but three 8s would be sixteen points.

I can't remember the name or the other rules.

Ah-ha. I searched for the 2015 gen con convention map, looked up the booth number and found the associated store.

Lumps, by Continuum Games There are a couple of printings, with various packaging and dice colorings (I'm a bit partial to the coal-colored ones).

https://continuumgames.com/shop/lumps-non-seasonal-edition/

As mentioned in the question, a matched pair gives the face-value of those dice, with additional matching dice increasing the total by the face-value again (two 2s are two points, three 2s are four points, etc). First player to 100 points wins.

Later printings include additional rules, such as a solitaire mode, which is just a race to 100 points; a hard mode where you have to set aside dice every roll  instead of banking on the last roll to save you, and some other quirky optional rules, such as all even numbers granting a bonus (or odd numbers).


Do the 'Charizard EX' sets automatically come with a Mega Charizard EX card? My nine-year-old has asked for a 'Mega Charizard EX set' of Pokémon cards. I googled that. I found the individual Mega Charizard EX card for $20-$25 and I found the Charizard EX set of Pokémon cards. He battles other kids with the cards, of course.

Do the Charizard EX sets automatically come with a Mega Charizard EX? Or do I have to buy the individual card to be sure he'll get THAT particular card?

I want to get it for him for Christmas. It would be a bummer to get the set and not find that card in it on Christmas morning, right? Or am I wrong? Of course, I'd rather not pay so much for a single card...

I'll attempt to give you the best help I can with the information you've provided.
This might be a bit confusing to someone who knows nothing about the card game. If you can in the comments or your question, define what you mean when you say "set" and what your child means when they say "set". I suspect you are using "set" to mean a product that includes a "set of cards", and your child is using "set" to either mean a set of one card (2-4 of the same card for use in a deck) or a "set" as in "a set of both".
"Set" can mean one of several things. "Set" could mean he wants a set of both; it could mean he wants a "playset" - a term used in competitive Pokemon indicating having several of one card to use in a deck (generally 2 - 4).
First off, there are two types of "Mega Charizard". One is "Mega Charizard X", which is black and blue. The other is "Mega Charizard Y", which is orange.

Mega Charizard X
(There are two printings of this card. One is from the booster pack series Flashfire; the other is from the booster pack series Generations).

Mega Charizard Y
(This one is from the booster pack series XY Evolutions).

It would be useful, if you can, to provide links to the "sets" of product you've found for M Charizard EX. Are these boxes with a single card and packs? Tins? Single cards? The Pokemon TCG includes a lot of product including sealed packs of cards, boxes with certain cards, tins, etc.
When you use "the Charizard EX set of Pokémon cards" I'm assuming you mean a product that includes Charizard EX, which is probably this box:

If that is the case: No, this does not come with either M Charizard EX card. This sealed product comes with four booster packs as shown (which contain random cards, of which M Charizard or any other EX card is fairly rare), a single Charizard EX card, and an oversized version of the card.
Alternatively, you could have found these products on Amazon:

If that is the case: No, this ALSO does not come with either M Charizard EX card! This sealed product comes with four booster packs as shown (which contain random cards, of which M Charizard or any other EX card is fairly rare), a single Charizard card (much less valuable than an EX) and a small statue. Also looks like your selection is random!
This also shows up on Amazon!

Unsurprisingly... this also will not give you either M Charizard EX card. Similar to the first box, you'll get four packs, a single Charizard EX, and a jumbo card.
Regardless of what version your child wants, the only reliable, 100% way to obtain either M Charizard EX card is to buy the single card.
It doesn't look like these were available in any promotional boxes. Buying packs to try and get one is a terrible idea - the odds of getting even a single EX rarity card, of which there are very many, is about 1/6 of these booster packs which retail for around $3-4 each.


Does protection from a specific color help against an ability that cost a different color to activate? Player A has a Zacama, Primal Calamity, and player B has a creature with protection from green, such as Vodalian Zombie.

Player A uses Zacama's red ability deal 3 to that creature, is he able to do that? Its a red ability, but Zacama has green in it?.

Player A cannot target the creature with Zacama's ability.

It doesn't matter what the ability costs; abilities themselves do not have colors.

What matters for protection is what the source of the ability is, and the source of the ability here is Zacama, Primal Calamity. Because Zacama, Primal Calamity costs Red, Green, and White to cast, it is a Red creature, a Green creature, and a White creature. So Player B's creature has protection from Zacama, which includes all of Zacama's abilities.


How do SBAs interact with the sacrifice of a creature enchanted with Gift of Immortality? I am not very au fait of how state based actions work, so I'd like to understand an interaction. Say I have Brindle Boar enchanted with Gift of Immortality. There are basically no simple ways (barring graveyard hate or Stifle-like effects) to prevent both permanents from returning?

I mean, if they target Gift or Boar with removal, I sacrifice the boar, but (this is the part I'm not sure) SBAs will send the Gift to the graveyard before the removal can hit it, right (and same if they target in response to my sacrificing the boar)?

Yes, SBAs will result in GoI going to the graveyard. Yes, there are simple ways to prevent both from returning.

State-Based Actions

If you sacrifice the boar before your opponent targets it (or the Aura enchanting it), then Gift of Immortality is attached to an object that no longer exists. Before any play receives priority, Gift of Immortality is placed in its owner's graveyard. Your opponent can no longer target Gift of Immortality on the battlefield, because it is no longer there.

If you sacrifice the boar in response to your opponent targeting it (or the Aura enchanting it), then Gift of Immortality will still be placed in the graveyard, because the object it was enchanting no longer exists. The spell that originally targeted it (or the boar) will be countered on resolution, because the boar and the aura will be new objects when they return to the battlefield.

  116.2d State-based actions happen automatically when certain conditions are met. See rule 704. They’re dealt with before a player would receive priority. See rule 116.5.

  303.4c If an Aura is enchanting an illegal object or player as defined by its enchant ability and other applicable effects, the object it was attached to no longer exists, or the player it was attached to has left the game, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

Playing Around Gift of Immortality

There are at least a few other ways besides graveyard removal and Stifle effects:

Use two removal spells: Gift of Immortality returns the Brindle boar to the battlefield after it is sent to the graveyard, but GoI doesn't return to the battlefield until the beginning of the next end step. You can use the first removal to force the sacrifice, and before the GoI returns, you can use the second removal to send it to the graveyard permanently.

  400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are seven exceptions to this rule: [...] 400.7e Abilities of Auras that trigger when the enchanted permanent leaves the battlefield can find the new object that Aura became in its owner’s graveyard if it was put into that graveyard at the same time the enchanted permanent left the battlefield. It can also find the new object that Aura became in its owner’s graveyard as a result of being put there as a state-based action for not being attached to a permanent. (See rule 704.5n.)

Sudden Shock/Krosan Grip: Split Second prevents your opponent from activating Brindle Boar's activated ability while it is on the stack.
End the Turn: Sundial of the Infinite or Time Stop prevent the "at the beginning of the end step" from returning either.


How can I create that sharp, intense sound when placing a stone? No matter the material (board, stones) being used, pros are able to create a very sharp, loud, intense and beautiful sound when placing a stone (which immediately sits perfectly placed on its intersection). I've been playing for a few years and taught myself how to place stones, but I've never been able to constantly reproduce that sound.

Do you know the secret behind it? Or is it really just experience by placing millions and millions of stones?

When the stone is held properly it rests on your index finger being held by your middle finger.

You place the stone on the board hitting it with your index finger and the stone. It has been suggested this first sound is the "bah" sound in the Korean name for the game (Baduk/Paduk).

At the same time, you push the stone with your middle finger so it slides off your index finger. This causes it to snap onto the board producing a distinctive click (the "dook" sound).


What are these pieces from? My parents found these while unpacking. I'm fairly certain they're from a board game of some sort, they're vaguely familiar but I can't place them! 44m diameter. If I had to guess, I'd suspect they're from a game that's aimed at children, but on the interesting end of the spectrum of such games, but I wouldn't count on that. Does anyone recognise them?

It definitely seems a flame token launched by Fire Mario, from McDonald's Happy Meal games.

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhNh-Ircvg0


Scenario 20 - when is the end of my turn? The haunt is #20, Ghost Bride. I am playing as Vivian Lopez, and I am the traitor.

It is my turn. As Vivian, I do nothing particularly important. As the Ghost Bride, I attack the chosen groom, killing him.

The rules say that, after the groom has been killed,

  At the end of each of your turns, advance the Turn/Damage Track to the next number, beginning with 1. The wedding will be complete on Turn 3.

What counts as "each of my turns"? I can think of three possible interpretations:

The end of my turn occurs after I have completed taking actions as the monster, and the player to my left starts taking actions.
The end of my turn occurs after I complete taking actions as Vivian, and start taking actions as the monster.
Both of the above. This means I get two "end of turns" per round.

Each of these interpretations affects when I advance the turn track:

After the Ghost Bride kills the groom, I immediately advance the turn track to 1. In subsequent rounds, I advance the track by one at the end of the Ghost Bride's turn.
After the Ghost Bride kills the groom, the track remains at zero. Nearly a full round later, at the end of my turn as Vivian, I advance the turn track to 1. In subsequent rounds, I advance the track by one at the end of Vivian's turn.
After the Ghost Bride kills the groom, I immediately advance the turn track to 1. In the next round, at the end of my turn as Vivian, I advance the turn track to 2. Then at the end of my turn as the Ghost Bride, I advance the turn track to 3, winning the game.

What is the correct interpretation?

In the rules under "The Traitor's New Powers", it says "After you finish your turn, you move and attack with all of the monsters, if any". This suggests to me that "my turn" ends before the monster moves, ruling out interpretation #1.

Under "Haunt turn order", it says "One player gets two turns: one for the traitor and one for the monsters". This seems to support #3 as the correct interpretation, but it seems unbalanced that the explorers only get one round to defeat me after I kill the groom. Furthermore, if that was the intent, the scenario could simply say "you win the game at the beginning of the traitor's next turn". You wouldn't need a turn track to track that.

During the actual game, I chose #2 since it gave the explorers the fairest chance at winning (IMO). But I'm interested in a ruling that has more evidence than "this seems like the most fun way".

Ah, the joys of trying to thrash reasonable and consistent rules out of Betrayal at House on the Hill.  Let me give it a shot.

The answer is probably either 2 or 3.  I'd lean towards 2.

The basic rulebook has this to say about turns during the Haunt:

  Haunt Turn Order
  The first turn always starts with the player to the traitor’s
  left and goes clockwise (further away from the traitor). Each
  of the heroes gets a hero turn. After each hero has had a
  turn, the traitor gets his or her traitor turn. After the traitor’s
  turn, any monsters controlled by the traitor get a monster
  turn. (One player gets two turns: one for the traitor and one
  for the monsters.)

(I've found two versions of the rulebook so far.  The wording differed slightly between the two, but not materially in this section)

This clarifies two things: The traitor's turn and the monster's turn are considered separate turns, and both of those turns are considered to belong to the traitor player.

So, the big question then becomes, did the Traitor's Tome mean "you" the traitor, or "you" the player?  The rules are (of course) rather vague, but I'm pretty sure they mean "you" the traitor.

For evidence, I turn to Haunt 30, Tomb of Dracula

   In Tomb of Dracula the traitor controls monsters (vampires), and uses the turn tracker.  Specifically, the turn tracker related rules are thus:

 [Setup]
 Set up the Turn/Damage track with a plastic clip at 0.  You'll use it to keep track of time

 You Must Do This...
 ... at the start of your turn.  Advance the Turn/Damage track to the next number, beginning with 1.

 Vampires
 Dracula needs time to awaken.  He doesn't move or attack normally until Turn 2 (he can still defend against attacks.)

 Now, if the Turn marker is advanced at the beginning of both the Traitor and Monster turns, then Turn 2 is reached on the first Monster turn, which means that Dracula wouldn't actually have any downtime.  Clearly, this is not what is intended, so clearly "At the start of your turn" means "At the start of the traitor's turn" for this Haunt.

Given that "At the start of your turn" almost certainly means "At the start of the traitor's turn" for Haunt 30, I think that it's reasonable that "At the end of each of your turns" means "At the end of each of the traitor's turns" for Haunt 20.

On a more philosophical level, having the turn tracker advance once per round is more logical to me than having it advance once for the traitor and once for the monsters.  Since my philosophical intuition, and my rules-based inferences match up, I'm going to go with that.