How do Lazav, Dimir Mastermind and Vigor work together in Magic the Gathering? Say I have  Lazav, Dimir Mastermind and Vigor on the battlefield and Vigor dies. Lazav's ability triggers and I have him become a copy of Vigor. Does he now apply Vigor's ability to himself as well, since the ability says: "other than Vigor"?

Nope, when an ability on an object refers to itself by name it means "this object."

  201.4b If an ability of an object refers to that object by name, and an object with a different name gains that ability, each instance of
  the first name in the gained ability that refers to the first object
  by name should be treated as the second name.

  Example: Quicksilver
  Elemental says, in part, “{U}: Quicksilver Elemental gains all
  activated abilities of target creature until end of turn.” If it gains
  an ability that says “{G}: Regenerate Cudgel Troll,” activating that
  ability will regenerate Quicksilver Elemental, not the Cudgel Troll it
  gained the ability from.

  Example: Glacial Ray is an instant with
  “splice onto Arcane” that says “Glacial Ray deals 2 damage to target
  creature or player.” If it’s spliced onto a Kodama’s Reach, that
  Kodama’s Reach deals 2 damage to the target creature or player.

  Example: Dimir Doppelganger says “{1}{U}{B}: Exile target creature
  card from a graveyard. Dimir Doppelganger becomes a copy of that card
  and gains this ability.” Dimir Doppelganger’s ability is activated
  targeting a Runeclaw Bear card. The Doppelganger becomes a copy of
  Runeclaw Bear and gains an ability that should be treated as saying
  “{1}{U}{B}: Exile target creature card from a graveyard. Runeclaw Bear
  becomes a copy of that card and gains this ability.”

If the name were to be used literally, the text would read "a creature you control not named Vigor" instead of "a creature you control other than Vigor".


Should we take good cards out for better cards while sideboarding (magic 2014 rules update)? It has been announced, among other changes, that you are allowed to increase the number of cards in your deck beyond 60 while side boarding. Meaning you can bring 5 cards in and not have to take 5 cards out.

There are decks and match ups where some cards are just bad, and you want to take them out (e.g. removal against legacy storm combo). Some match ups you have plenty of sweet cards in your deck, you just have sweet cards in your sideboard too. In this situation, it can be very difficult to decide which cards are "least relevant" to the matchup, to cut in favour of the sideboard cards which have a much bigger impact.

With the rules change, are we better off trying to keep our deck count to 60 wherever possible? or should the conventional wisdom be "cut the bad cards, bring in the good cards" and resultant card count being an afterthought?

Short answer

Yes.  You should take cards out to keep a 60 card deck size.

Medium answer

Yes.  It's always legal to play more than 60 cards.  But when you design a deck, you don't - you keep it to 60 as much as possible.  When you sideboard, you're redesigning your deck on the fly - and the same reasons that you kept it to 60 cards in the first place still apply.

Long answer

In a typical game (some highly specialised graveyard decks aside), you will only ever hold in hand and play a fraction of your deck - even in a game that goes to 13 turns (possible in casual but pretty unlikely in constructed), you will typically only have drawn 20 of your 60 cards - around a third of your deck.

The other two thirds, no matter how awesome the cards are, did you no good whatsoever.

So Magic is won on the draw.  (After all, you win games not because you had great cards in your deck but because you had great cards on the battlefield.)  If you've designed the deck properly, it's based around a winning strategy and some key cards that support that.  You want to have as great a chance of drawing those winning cards as possible.

The mathematics of card draw and distribution for Magic have been extensively studied.  (There's a pretty good article on the mathematics of card draw available.)  And one of the reasons for the 60-card minimum is that it makes your deck unpredictable.  Even if you have 4 of a key card in the deck, your chance to see one in the opening hand is just under 40%, and even by turn ten your chance is only 71.5%.  (And if you haven't drawn it by turn ten, you're probably never going to play it.)

Increasing the deck size by only one card - to 61 cards - immediately takes about 1% off both those chances.  So why harm your odds like that?  If the new card is better for your strategy than the increased odds of drawing one that you have four of, your should remove one of those four.  And if not, then you shouldn't be adding it.

(A telling point is that all of the top players field exactly 60 card decks.  They don't have to; constructed rules permit more.  They choose to.)

Some of the top players will occasionally play a 61 card deck.  They do this to protect against decking and to subtly adjust their probabilities.  But you can believe they plan for ages while considering the benefits of that 61st card, and they don't hesitate to remove it.  If you're still at a level where you're asking this, you probably shouldn't try it.

So: Yes.  Keep to 60 cards.


Carcassonne: placing the fairy before or after the dragon hunts? When playing Carcassonne with the exapansion the Princess and The Dragon when you draw a dragon tile can you move the fairy before the dragon starts to hunt? In my rules (in Dutch) the Dragon starts to hunt after step 1 (placing a land tile) is completed while on the WikiCarpedia it is mentioned that the Dragon starts to hunt after step 2 (placing a meeple) and is by consequence possible to place the fairy before the dragon starts to hunt.

Thanks!

When you reveal a dragon tile, you place the tile, then place a meeple (or move the fairy), then the dragon moves.
Moving the fairy replaces a meeple placement, and you may place a meeple before the dragon moves. From the German rules

Der Drache (12 Karten)
Sobald eine Karte mit einem Drachen aufgedeckt wird, legt der Spieler sie wie gewohnt an und darf einen Gefolgsmann darauf setzen. Dann wird das Spiel kurz unterbrochen – der Drache zieht!
The Dragon (12 tiles)
As soon as a dragon tile is revealed, the player places it as usual and may place a meeple on it. Then the game is briefly interrupted - the dragon moves!

The rules for the fairy say:

Immer dann, wenn ein Spieler in seinem Zug keinen Gefolgsmann einsetzt, darf er die Fee auf eine beliebige Karte setzen, auf der ein eigener Gefolgsmann steht.
Whenever a player does not place a meeple during their turn, they may place the fairy on any tile which already has one of their own meeples placed.


Can Improvise pay for "twobrid" costs? A recent question had some confusion about what costs can be paid using Improvise, mainly stemming from the confusing differences in representation between "colorless" and "generic" mana. However, the Rulings of Inspiring Statuary only indicate that it cannot be used to pay for costs requiring specifically a single color of mana or specifically colorless mana.

It seems pretty clear to me that Improvise would not be applicable to other costs requiring a specific type of mana, such as Hybrid, Phyrexian, or Snow mana, even though those symbols are not listed as "things Improvise can't pay", so the list in its ruling isn't complete. However, the "twobrid" mana costs blur the line between colored and generic costs by requiring "two generic or one specific color" of mana. To my knowledge the most famous card with this type of mana is Reaper King, though it would not be affected by Inspiring Statuary so Beseech the Queen or Spectral Procession might be more relevant.

If I am casting Beseech the Queen while I control Inspiring Statuary, can I cast it for {2 black mana + tap 2 artifacts}? Can I cast it for {2 black mana + 1 colorless mana + tap 1 artifact} (i.e. can the twobrid be split between mana and improvise)? Or does Improvise not apply at all because the spell has no "generic" component even though some of its costs could be paid with any color of mana? The Gatherer rulings on the subject are... odd, and I'm not certain I understand them even in normal situations.

(Note: The official term for this type of mana appears to be "monocolor hybrid", but I've heard "twobrid" a lot more)

As part of casting a spell, you must announce the nonhybrid equivalent cost you intend to pay.[601.2b] For Beseech the Queen, this is any of the following:

{6}
{4}{B}
{2}{B}{B}
{B}{B}{B}

Each artifact you tap covers {1} of the cost, so yes, you can pay for Beseech the Queen by paying {1}{B}{B} and tapping an artifact if you first pick {2}{B}{B}.

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell includes proposal of the spell (rules 601.2a–d) and determination and payment of costs (rules 601.2f–h). To cast a spell, a player follows the steps listed below, in order. [...]
601.2b [...] If a cost that will be paid as the spell is being cast includes hybrid mana symbols, the player announces the nonhybrid equivalent cost they intend to pay. [...]
702.125a Improvise is a static ability that functions while the spell with improvise is on the stack. “Improvise” means “For each generic mana in this spell’s total cost, you may tap an untapped artifact you control rather than pay that mana.”
702.125b The improvise ability isn’t an additional or alternative cost and applies only after the total cost of the spell with improvise is determined.


Does building over rooms render the old room inactive? When you build a room over an existing room, is the existing room considered deactivated, or does it still effect game play?

For example if you build a Monster's Ballroom over Goblin Armory does the Ballroom count the Armory as a monster room, and does the Goblin Armory still have its ability, damage and /or treasure.

When you build over a room the old room is no longer in play and has no effect on the dungeon until all rooms that have been built over it have been destroyed and it is the top room again. When that happens ita normal rules are back in play.


How do you set up ports when you don't use the new "frames" I received a new Catan Board and we attempted to setup the 5-6 player game.  I realized that I had forgotten how to setup the ports, but since I had also got a new copy of the game, it didn't say how to set them up without the new "frames" that are included.

How do you set up the ports in Settlers of Catan if you don't use the frames?

In the 3-4 player game you start with placing a port on the hexside at the end of a long (5 piece) row.  You then place a port every other space around the map.  Each port is placed oriented towards the hexside of the longest row it is next to.

In the 5-6 player game it is more complicated.  Here is a snapshot of the rules so you can see how to place the ports correctly:


Why is Noble Hierarch so expensive? Noble Hierarch costs {G}, is a 0/1 Human Druid with exalted, and taps for {G}, {W}, or {U}.

Birds of Paradise costs {G}, is a 0/1 Bird with flying, and taps for one of any color.

Noble Hierarch is $40-$50, Birds of Paradise is $5.

Why? The birds have flying, and can tap for {R} or {B}.

The exalted doesn't seem like it would be applicable here.

Look at how much each has been printed. Noble Hierarch was printed in Conflux and Modern Masters. Birds of Paradise was printed in Alpha/Beta/Unlimited/Revised, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th edition, Magic 2010, 2011, 2012, and Ravnica. There are just way, way more copies out there.

And by the way, Exalted can be quite relevant. The most obvious example is Infect (quite popular and can win tournaments), which is likely to play only Noble Hierarch and not Birds of Paradise. It doesn't need the other colors of mana, flying isn't that important, but an extra poison counter here or there is a huge deal. But this is true even for decks that aren't as all-in on single creatures. For example, this Zoo list plays Noble Hierarch and not Birds of Paradise. It has plenty of other ways to get the red mana, and even if sometimes it attacks with multiple creatures (missing out on exalted), the extra damage on the turns when it only has one creature to attack with can make a huge difference.


Fixing warped board pieces The pieces are usually kept in the box and not even used that much. However, I took them out the other day to play and all the hex pieces were warped. How can I fix this?

You might want to contact Mayfair Games -- doing a Google search turned up quite a few people with warped hex tiles as well, and the consensus was to contact Mayfair.

If that's a dead end, you can try flattening them with a heavy object, or glue them to some thicker cardstock.


Enervating Mist vs Silent Wobby, which one is active? I recently asked myself a random question, what would happen if Enervating Mist (handsize down to 5) and Silent Wobby (limit handsize to 3) were active at the same time. Would it just be last or first one (based on activation order)?

From the ruling on Enervating Mist I see the following, emphasis mine:

If "Enervating Mist" and "Infinite Cards" are both active, whichever effect resolved last is dominant.

So yes, it will depend on the order of activation (and thus, order of resolution) which effect takes place.
A related fact is the "negative precedence over positive" rule (as in MTG IIRC). This means that if an effect says that someone can do X, and another effect says that someone cannot do X (they contradict each other), the cannot takes precedence over the can.
This is not the case for the specific cards you mentioned, but is worth mentioning nonetheless.


What's a good item card to get water energy out of a deck in pokemon? I'm trying to make a deck for my Blastoise but I can't find/figure out what good item /pokemon card to draw water energy from my deck. This is my main card.

From your deck, there's nothing I can think of specific to water.  You have Energy Spinner and similar cards that get any energy, though, but not enough to make that card all that powerful.

Blastoise though, if you're going to play him, you might as well play Team Up Blastoise:

  Once during your turn (before your attack), you may look at the top 6 cards of your deck and attach any number of Water Energy cards you find there to your Pokémon in any way you like. Shuffle the other cards back into your deck.

That's realistically a better version of the above card, and is standard-legal.


Can Simulacrum save me from dying? My opponent casts an Instant that does enough damage to kill me. (Hurricane, in this case, but any Instant would do.)

Priority passes to me.

I cast Simulacrum, to have the damage dealt to one of my creatures instead, giving me back the life lost...

But wait. If I cast Simulacrum before my opponents spell resolves, it lands on top of the stack... and resolves first, doesn't it?

If I wait for my opponent's spell to resolve, I am at 0 life... and have lost the game before I can cast Simulacrum?

Or have I gotten the stack / priority rules wrong?

(Please excuse me if the question is stupid, but it has been a loong time since I played, it seems much has changed, and anyway all the rules I had available back then was that miniature leaflet that was sold with Revised starter packs...)

Your instinct is correct, you can not use Simulacrum to save yourself.

If you cast Simulacrum as a response to Hurricane, while Hurricane is on the stack, then when Simulacrum resolves (before Hurricane does), it will give you 0 life, because you have taken 0 damage this turn. Assuming of course that you had not been dealt other damage previously this same turn.

If you wait until after Hurricane resolves, then you will lose the game the next time a player would receive priority, when state-based actions are checked.

  116.5. Each time a player would get priority, the game first performs all applicable state-based actions as a single event (see rule 704, “State-Based Actions”), then repeats this process until no state-based actions are performed.

For Simulacrum to save you, it would have to instead be a spell that creates a replacement effect for damage that will be dealt later, such as Captain's Maneuver or Withstand

It is worth noting that the Oracle wording of Simulacrum is all that matters; not the wording printed on the card. So the correct wording is:

  You gain life equal to the damage dealt to you this turn. Simulacrum deals damage to target creature you control equal to the damage dealt to you this turn.

This removes the confusing bit about damage being "instead retroactively applied to one of your creatures in play", which would incorrectly imply that you never actually receive that damage. The card as printed wouldn't work within the MTG rules, because the damage was already done; the game can't look to the future to know if that card will be cast later this turn before moving on.


Why do mana abilities not go on the stack? Why this special treatment for mana-abilities? What are the design implications if they didn't go on the stack?

I can think of three reasons:

It would force arbitrary actions to be reversed.
It would allow spells that haven't been fully cast to be countered.
There are already plenty of opportunities to react.

It would force arbitrary actions to be reversed

Consider this rule:

  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.

Players can obtain mana in the middle of casting a spell[1][2]. If mana abilities used the stack, that means players would be able to cast spells in response. If the spell were to become unable to be cast, one would have to rewind all direct and indirect effects of those spells. Someone could have revealed private information, shuffled their library or lost the game as a result. How do you undo those?

Not only that, it would also make it far more likely for a spell to become unable to be cast, something that should never happen.

For example, consider this scenario where responding to mana abilities would be allowed.

Alice only has a single creature on the 'field.
Starts casting Altar's Reap.
She activates a Swamp's ability.
In response, Nancy casts Beacon of Destruction
Nancy kills Alice's creature and shuffles her Beacon of Destruction into her library.
Alice can no longer complete the casting of her spell (because she can't pay the additional cost), so the game rewinds to the start of the casting of the spell. Nancy needs to unshuffle her library to match the game state.

It would allow spells that haven't been fully cast to be countered

Players can obtain mana in the middle of casting a spell[1]. This happens after placing the spell on the stack[2]. A spell is a card on the stack (or a copy of spell), so it could be the legitimate target of a Cancel cast in response to activating mana abilities. That means one could counter a spell that han't been (fully) cast yet. That's just too complicated and messy to allow.

There are already plenty of opportunities to react

Activating mana abilities is not something someone one normally does for its own sake. It's done as part of something else, such as casting a spell. Allowing this to be interrupted would be detrimental to the game flow and would add confusion. There are plenty of other points at which players can respond.

The earlier problems only surface when activating mana abilities when one would not have priority under the current rules. Could the game allow players to respond to the activation of mana abilities performed when a player has priority? Yes, but it would often be hard to distinguish whether an activation occurred before or during casting. It's far simpler to have mana abilities never use the stack rather that having the player try to figure out whether one can respond to a particular activation or not.

Notes

Or activating an ability. I'm only mentioning spells to keep it simple.
The steps to casting a spell[1] are:

601.2a) Place card on stack.
601.2b-d) Make choices, including targets.
601.2e) Determine total cost.
601.2f) Activate mana abilities.
601.2g) Pay the previously determined cost.


If a creature enters as a copy, does it have summoning sickness? If I play the Phantasmal Image as a copy of any other creature (that has no summoning sickness), will it have the summoning sickness or not?

Phantasmal Image

  You may have Phantasmal Image enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield, except it's an Illusion in addition to its other types and it gains "When this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it."

I know that copies does not copy the "summoning sickness" status, but what if it enters the battlefield and is not being copies inside it?

Summoning sickness is not a copiable value. In fact it's not even a value at all, it's just an informal way to refer to the following rule:

  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.

So, “summoning sickness” is a game rule process. (We informally say summoning sickness is something a creature has, but that's informal.)

When any new non-Hasty creature enters the battlefield during your turn, since you haven't controlled it since the beginning of your turn, you can't attack with it or tap it for {T} costs. This applies for any creatures, including those that happen to be copying another.


Texas Holdem All-In Question This is regarding a texas holdem no limit home game. After the flop, player 1 and player 2 are the only remaining who bet. After the turn of the river card, player 1 goes all in. Player 2 decides to call but does not use the word "call" but says "full house" and flips his cards over. Player 2 has the highest hand. What happens in this situation?

Because Player 1 made the final raise, he should be the first to show his cards when players reach the showdown. However, according to the World Series Of Poker rules,

  When a player holds a hand that is likely the winner, they should show that hand immediately to speed play.

In this case, it appears Player 2, in an effort to speed up play, short-cutted the word "call" and went straight into the showdown. Showing your hand in response to a shove (an all-in raise) is definitely considered a call by poker pros.


Is it impossible to get the gold medal in Duke Landwalker scenario? The solo rules say you must play with the 4-player action wheel and this means that I'm limited to 3 explorations per turn.

Consider now the Duke Landwalker scenario that ends when you explore all the 24 regions available in the game. In it you only get the gold medal if you have less than 8 evolution and character cards. Remember that you must buy one of those cards per turn.

Now observe that if I can explore up to 3 times per turn, it'll take me at least 8 turns to end the game, rendering the gold medal unachievable.

This seem very weird to me. Am I right? Did I miss something?

The scout card is key to this.  It allows you to do an extra exploration which makes it doable in under 8 turns.


What happens to 'Crackdown' when it targets 'Traptrix Sera'? Apparently, some gullible players forgot 'Traptrix Sera' effect:

  This Link Summoned card is unaffected by Trap effects.

If they decided to target 'Sera' with 'Crackdown' what happens to 'Crackdown', if in some case I decided to Link Summon other monster with 'Sera' as Link Material?

Crackdown has two effects, the first of which reads:

Activate this card by targeting 1 face-up monster your opponent controls; take control of it, but while you control that monster, it cannot attack or activate its effects.

Sera is unaffected, but only when she's Link Summoned. She can still be targeted. but if she was Link Summoned, Crackdown remains in its activator's field, but it simply does nothing and is destroyed when Sera leaves the field. If she was SPECIAL summoned, however, (like, by card effects), then it's resolved normally.


Most important buildings in 3 player version In Machi Koro (base game), finding an optimal strategy depends on the number of players involved, since you take turns rolling the dice. Green and purple buildings are only activated when you roll the dice, red buildings only by your opponents and blue by every player.

In a two player game, most of the strategies I've come up with hinge on using green buildings. In a four player game, blue and red are dominant. But what about 3 players? Is there an optimal strategy, or are all options considered equal?

I guess I'm looking for a list of buildings with the highest expected return rate in a 3 player game (unless you think expected return is not the primary metric for choosing your buildings).

This is an interesting question in part because I think it will depend on what your opponents have. Blue buildings trigger on every roll, but don't tend to generate as much income as the green buildings. If your opponents have a lot of red buildings, I'd guess it would be more helpful to have green buildings so that you can earn a lot in one go (and red buildings trigger first). Blue buildings can have income trickle in more regularly, but the income will trickle out for your rolls that trigger red buildings and for their rolls that trigger purple buildings.

Red buildings will probably still be useful, though not as useful as in 4 player games.

I have not played a lot of three player games of Machi Koro, but I would guess that it provides the best balance between the power of the differently colored buildings.


In Settlers of Catan, how do you overcome bad initial settlement placement? In Settlers of Catan, how do you overcome bad initial settlement placement?  In a lot of games of Catan I've played, initial settlement placement seems to really make or break the game for a player.  Are there any good strategies for overcoming a weak starting placement?

I think the main thing you need to do is correctly identify your strengths and weaknesses, and don't try to force a strategy you're not set up for.  If you don't have abundant brick and wood, don't even bother going for Longest Road.

Even the worst placement will have some resources they are rich in.  Try to get a port that capitalizes on your resources, and make the necessary trades with other players to get the resources you're poor in.

If you're rich in...

Brick or Wood -- try for longest road and build plenty of settlements
Grain or Ore -- upgrade your starting settlements to cities and buy development cards
Sheep -- go for Largest Army via development cards, or depending on your next best resource, you'll probably follow one of the other two basic strategies

Of course even with all of this, sometimes the dice just won't drop your way :)


How to use an existing game legally for inspiration? Thinking about using an existing game as inspiration for a new version of the game, and wonder how to go about doing this in a way that if for some odd, unlikely reason that my version takes off that it's unlikely that I'll have legal liabilities that at best would have been avoidable.  How to use an existing game legally for inspiration?

Welcome to the awful world of copyright, intellectual property, license and patent.

First of all, a game is not an invention: you can't patent it. Taking inspiration from another game would be a problem of intellectual property.

Intellectual property is a very fragile notion. In fact, in most countries, taking the character of Pikachu, making it blue with green stripes and calling it Mikichu is legal, because it's not the same character. I'm not sure you want to do that anyway: that would be taunting Pokémon and they would probably take legal measure against you anyway. (I'm sure their lawyers already know how).

Then, if it is for some sort of mechanics, don't worry. There are plenty of games that share the same mechanics:

Rolling 2 dice and using the mathematical property that 7 comes out more often is used in Catan and Can't Stop.
Being forced to draw a negative card at the end of the turn is used in both in Pandemic and Shadow over Camelot.
Building the board as you play is used in both Carcassonne and Takenoko.

And if you still have a doubt about what I'm saying, I only have two words for you: "Mafia" and "Werewolves". These games are literally the same with a slight difference.

To be sure you are not accused of stealing anything, it's exactly like when you write a book or an essay: cite your sources. Add at the end of your rulebook: "Thanks to Monopoly for the inspiration", or even better "If you liked this game, make sure to try Monopoly, from which I took my inspiration". The creator of the other game will be thrilled to have free publicity. Most game creators don't do that (because it's not at all something required), but if you feel it that way, please yourself!


Are there names for checkers openings? I have never heard of one; but I don't know where to look to make sure.  This is something I've been wondering for a long time!

Yes, here's a link that talks about an example, The Switcher.

And here's a great link that lists them all.


How do you decide which way to finesse for an ace? This is from the New York Post, which is to say that it is a "problem."

You are declarer (South) in a 3 no trump contract. You get a "friendly" lead in a suit where you have three winners (two in hand, one in dummy). You have A-K in each of two other suits for seven top tricks. You have no issues (transportation or weaknesses) in these three suits, but no chances for extra tricks. So focus only on the fact that you need two tricks from the fourth suit, in which you hold K854.

Dummy holds QT32.

If the suit splits 3-2, there's no problem. If it splits 5-0, you might be out of luck. Your "nightmare" scenario is a 4-1 split with the singleton being either the 7 or the 6.

Apparently, the correct procedure is to lead low to one of your face cards for a finesse.

How do you decide whether to lead from dummy toward your king, or from hand toward the queen?

Which trivializes the second question: should you win in hand or in dummy?

Playing low to Q, and then towards the K, covering RHO's card if RHO follows seems the right play.

If RHO shows out when you play towards the K, you can rise with the K and play towards the T the second trick.

This is basically 100% (caters to 3-2, 4-1 and 5-0 splits!)

The other option of playing to the K loses to the singleton A over the K, losing two more tricks to the J9x over the QTx.

This is intuitively similar to the combination

A9xx

opposite

KJxx

where you need 3 tricks.

The correct play is to play the K, and then play towards the A9x, covering whatever LHO plays. If LHO fails to follow suit, you go up with the A, and play towards the J.

The usual way to attack suit combination problems is to try and count the number of combinations where a line of play works. This can be time consuming at first, but in most cases, you can work out a reasonable line (not necessarily the best line) at the table.


Exert, untap with spell, tap and attack. Does it untap? Say I have a Pride Sovereign, and I pay one plains, tap it and exert it.  I then cast Prepare and untap it, so I can attack.

I tap my cat, and attack.

It is now my next turn.  Does Pride Sovereign untap?  Although it has untapped since being exerted, exert says:

  an exerted creature won't untap during your next untap step.

It does not untap.
To exert a permanent, you choose to have it not untap during your next untap step.[CR 701.37a] Period. Its status when it was exerted is irrelevant.[1] Changes to its status after it was exerted are irrelevant. Unless the creature ceases to exist at some point before your next untap step, it won't untap during your next untap step.
Blinking the creature (e.g. using Cloudshift) shakes off the exertion, but only because the creature with which you are left is a brand new object that's never been exerted.[CR 400.7]

The complete rules regarding Exert:

701.37. Exert
701.37a To exert a permanent, you choose to have it not untap during your next untap step.
701.37b A permanent can be exerted even if it’s not tapped or has already been exerted in a turn. If you exert a permanent more than once before your next untap step, each effect causing it not to untap expires during the same untap step.
701.37c An object that isn’t on the battlefield can’t be exerted.
701.37d “You may exert [this creature] as it attacks” is an optional cost to attack (see rule 508.1g). Some objects with this static ability have a triggered ability that triggers “when you do” printed in the same paragraph. These abilities are linked. (See rule 607.2g.)

You can exert a creature will it's untapped. For example, this happens when attacking with a Battlefield Scavenger that's been given Vigilance.


Should I buy 2 core sets of Star Wars: the card game LCG right from the start? I've read some posts on BGG stating that you can only make decent decks to play Star Wars: the card game if you purchase at least 2 core sets.

Also it seems that if you want decent decks for all 6 factions two copies of the Edge of Darkness expansion are also needed.

My question is how much buying only 1 copy of the core will affect my overall impression of the game comparing to a initial big purchase of 2 cores + 2 edge of darkness?

Will I like the game better with the big package or is it possible to play for a couple of weeks to feel the game and after that purchase more cards?

When I bought into the game, I only purchased one of the Core Set (and the first Force Pack The Desolation of Hoth, but that is an aside...). I just wanted to try a new game. A few of the guys behind the counter at the hobby store mentioned more than one Core Set, but I just wanted a new game. I wasn't going to enter any major tournaments to start with.

The great thing about the Core Set is you get a lot of cards right away, and you get playable decks. Four of them to be exact (Rebel, Jedi, Sith, and Imperial). You get a taste of the other two factions (Smugglers and Spies, and Scum and Villainy), but those are really fleshed out with decks in the Edge of Darkness set (and yes, I eventually bought that too).

I generally have recommended to anyone getting into the game to start with those. Try it. See how you like it. Learn how it plays and how to build decks.

I have also bought the Force Packs as they have come out. Unlike the Core Set and the Deluxe Expansions, the Force Packs come with two of every objective set (except for the ones labeled "only one in a deck"). I have thought about purchasing an additional Core Set and an additional Edge of Darkness set to have doubles of certain cards. But I still haven't yet. Part of it is my budget. The other part is I purely play for fun with my wife and with my friends. I dont' play in cut throat tournaments. Now in my personal opinion, I think as more cards are released, the less likely it is that you have to have two of every big set. More releases, means more cards to choose from, which means more variation in player deck constructions. So though it may once have been more important to have two of sets (especially when that was all there was), I think that is now lessened.

Again, a lot of that is my opinion and personal experience, but that is what I would pitch to any new player.


Does being targeted with Moonlight Hunt allow my creature to return damage? Opponent targeted me with Moonlight Hunt; would my creature It That Rides as One return damage or do any fighting to any of the wolves or werewolves that were chosen to fight me ?

No.

The only thing that Moonlight Hunt does is specifically what it says: each wolf or werewolf that your opponent controls will deal damage to your It That Rides as One. Your creature will not deal damage in return because the spell doesn't say it does.

Note that Moonlight Hunt does not cause creatures to fight each other. "Fight" is a keyword that causes creatures to deal damage to each other; which may be what you are thinking of. But Moonlight Hunt doesn't use the word "fight"; so it doesn't have anything to do with "fighting".


How to define "to the best of your ability"? The rules of Harbour state that when you move to a card you must carry out its action to the best of your ability. This raised some questions in our group during a recent game.

Take for example the card where you:

Exchange N of one good for N of another good, and
Buy a building.

In the situation where you have no goods, you can do neither. That makes sense.

In the situation where you have enough goods to fulfill enough orders to afford at least one building on the board, you must do both. That, too, makes sense.

The situation that's tricky to us is where I have some goods, but not enough to fulfill enough orders to afford any of the buildings.

Does the player moving to that card:

Do nothing?
Exchange N of one good for N of another good only?
Exchange N of one good for N of another good and fulfill as many orders as they can, even though they will lose their money since they can't afford any of the houses?

Which of these is considered "to the best of their ability"?

In the rules for Harbor, under "How Buildings Work":

  Some actions have two separate parts which are not dependent on each
  other, and in those cases you may perform the parts in any order, or
  perform one part and not the other.  However, you must perform both if
  you can.  The actions with two separate parts are the Library, Bank,
  Traders Guild, Architectural Society, Privateer Ship, and Seaside
  Crane, and they all have the '&' symbol.

So in your case you would exchange goods and then end your turn.


Battlestar Galactica: why Pegasus sympathiser is better I've heard the sympathiser in Pegasus Expansion is far more interesting to play than the one in the basic game. What makes it so different?

For context: In basic BSG, as you know, in 5-player, the ratio between humans to Cylons is 3-2. This usually results in interesting, difficult-but-not-impossible skill challenges and a tense game.

By contrast, in 4- or 6-player, the sympathizer can be on either the human or Cylon team, depending on whether or not the humans have any resource in the "red zone." during the Sleeper phase. While being low on a resource might seem bad, it's not as bad for the humans as being in a 2-2 or 3-3 situation. After the Sleeper phase, the game tends to be a blowout--especially if the Cylons get the sympathizer, where the humans will have enormous difficulty making enough skill challenges. The faction of the sympathizer becomes so important that savvy players will engage in a weird metagame where Galactica's resources must deliberately be sabotaged for the good of the humans!

Some people also feel that having a known player whose loyalty is unquestioned takes away from the drama of the game.

By contrast, the Pegasus rules: The sympathizer is definitely a Cylon, but receives a card from the Sympathetic Agenda deck. This card determines which side the sympathizer is actually on, and furthermore gives the sympathizer a secret agenda that must be achieved for the sympathizer to win. These agendas are (mostly) tuned to create a close game where both the humans and Cylons will distrust the Sympathizer. For instance, the Grant Mercy agenda requires the Humans to win, but requires Food, Population, or Morale to be at 2 or lower--if the "friendly" Cylon tries to advance this agenda, the humans may treat him as an enemy!

Not only does this create closer games, but instead of the sympathizer's loyalty being unquestioned, it is instead a complete mystery up until the very end (or unless a set of very experienced players who are familiar with all the agendas suss which one the sympathizer has, I suppose.)

If you're not familiar with Pegasus, it's important to mention that the expansion also contains rules for a Cylon character infiltrating Galactica and playing more as a normal human character than a base-game Cylon just wandering around the Cylon fleet, so the question of the characters' trust or mistrust towards the Cylon becomes important. If you are interested in the details, the rulebook is here. (Sympathetic Cylon rules on p. 18, rules for infiltrating on p. 11)


Can I summon a lvl. 1-4 monster from my hand on my first turn? Yu-Gi-Oh! cards are my favorite, but I never been in a tournament. I was wondering can anyone tell me if I can summon a lvl. 1-4 monster from my hand when it’s my first turn?

Yes you can, however in yugioh you will refer to the stars as levels which go from the right hand side of the card, and with XYZ monsters the stars are known as ranks which go from the left of the card.

Further description on summoning:

In yugioh there are what is known as normal summons and special summons. Special summons usually (special summoning from the extra deck doesn't always come from a card effect) occur via card effects and usually state what kind of monster that effect can special summon for example the card ancient rules

  Special Summon 1 Level 5 or higher Normal Monster from your hand.

This effect states the type of monster it can summon (being a level 5 or higher normal monster)

You can special summon monsters as many times as you want per turn

For normal summons this is a bit trickier, you can only conduct one normal summon per turn unless you have a card that allows you to make more normal summons like double summon

  You can conduct 2 Normal Summons/Sets this turn, not just 1.

With a normal summon you can summon a level 1-4 monster straight away however you to summon a level 5 or higher monster you must first tribute (send to the graveyard) monster(s) already on your field. Level 5 and 6 monsters require you to tribute one preexisting monster on the field and level 7 or higher monsters require 2 preexisting monsters on the field unless the monster states in its card text otherwise like Obelisk the Tormentor emphasis mine

  Requires 3 Tributes to Normal Summon (cannot be Normal Set). This card's Normal Summon cannot be negated. When Normal Summoned, cards and effects cannot be activated. Cannot be targeted by Spells, Traps, or card effects. Once per turn, during the End Phase, if this card was Special Summoned: Send it to the Graveyard. You can Tribute 2 monsters; destroy all monsters your opponent controls. This card cannot declare an attack the turn this effect is activated.

These are what is known as a tribute summon. Tribute summons are a type of normal summon so they do count as your one normal summon for the turn.

You can find more information about summoning in the rule book on page 18.


Star Wars Rebellion Resolve Space Combat before Ground Combat I'm considering the following variant for Star Wars Rebellion (inspired by Twilight Imperium):

  Resolve space combat entirely and reconcile transport capacity before resolving a ground combat in a system.  Note that this rule does not apply to ground units that are moved to the system by abilities that ignore transport restrictions (such as "Lead the Strike Team").

The effect of this is that the attacker must win the space battle and not lose their transports in order to attack a system.  So, for example, the Empire can't destroy the rebel base by running in with a single Assault Carrier loaded with two AT-AT's (I have seen at least one game won this way), but instead must actually beat all of their forces (space and then ground) in the system.  It also makes destroying capital ships more valuable in space combat as this gives the extra opportunity to destroy troops before they land.

What in the game breaks with this variant?

Here are the major consequences:

As noted in the question, the Empire must now defeat all Rebel forces on the Rebel Base (as opposed to just all Rebel ground forces) to win the game.
The "Bombardment" tactics card becomes useless for one side in ground combat.
The "Crippling Blow" and "Liberation" objective cards become harder for the Rebels to accomplish, although these are often achieved through "Incite Revolt", "Public Uprising", or "Lead the Strike Team", which are unaffected.
A system with a Death Star is now unassailable on the ground until you get the "Death Star Plans" objective (although making such an attack would be an odd move as the rebels).
In the "Rise of an Empire" expansion, an Imperial system with a Death Star and Shield Bunker becomes completely unassailable to direct attack, and can only be taken via a mission card (such as "Lead the Strike Team").
A Rebel system with ion cannons is harder for the empire to take


What is the optimal method to shuffle an organised deck of cards In a number of games I play there are a play deck and a discard deck (for example Ticket to Ride and Pandemic).  The discard deck, by the way the games are constructed, becomes organised as cards are discarded in groups.  However, the play deck needs to be as close to random as possible for the games to work well.  I would like to know if there is an optimal way to shuffle a deck to overcome the self organisation of the discard decks in these circumstances.  I can riffle shuffle well but have read some research that it would take 7 full riffle shuffles to effectivley remove the affects of an organised deck.  Are there any other methods of cuttings of the deck or shuffle types that create a random deck in a more efficient manner?

That's very, very simple in fact: shuffle the discard pile constantly. Take a player that, while not playing his turn, shuffles the discard pile of cards. When discarding, simply give the cards to this player (who can change when he's tired), he will put them in the deck and go on shuffling.


Casting Fling on a Creature Token Can I deal damage to opponent if I cast Fling on a Creature token?

I was playing on MTGO, and when I cast Fling the creature was sacrificed but no damage was dealt to the opponent. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a miss click, or that sacrificing tokens doesn't work with Fling.

Yes, you can sacrifice a creature token to cast Fling, and it will work as you would expect. Fling just cares that you sacrifice a creature; it doesn't matter whether it's a card or a token. And Fling's effect just checks the creature's power, which works exactly the same way with a card or a token.


Does the Professor know who's dead? In Blood on the Clocktower, the Professor can only target dead players with their ability:

Once per game, at night, choose a dead player: if they are a Townsfolk, they are resurrected.

The rules for Bad Moon Rising go so far as to say that the Storyteller will indicate when someone is not dead:

Unbeknownst to the Professor, that player was regurgitated by the Shabaloth and is now alive. The Storyteller shakes their head no, because the Professor must choose a dead player.

Does this imply that the Professor can know who just died, earlier in the same night?
We ran into a case where in the first day, nobody was executed, then that night the Grandmother died to the Demon. The Professor woke to potentially resurrect someone, but because nobody had been executed the first day and the night's deaths had not been announced, the Professor wasn't aware the Grandmother had died.
Should the Professor have been informed about the fresh corpse, to potentially resurrect them?

The Professor does not have any secret knowledge. Looking at The Professors rules in the linked PDF there's no indication that the Storyteller would ever tell The Professor when they wake up in the night if someone has died that same night.
The Professor only knows who is dead when Dawn arrives and the Storyteller lets the group know who, if anyone, has died. That's how The Professor gets their knowledge in the game. One of the last lines of The Professor examples has:

At dawn, after declaring which players died, declare which player is alive again.

Let's work with the example in the question:

Unbeknownst to the Professor, that player was regurgitated by the Shabaloth and is now alive. The Storyteller shakes their head no, because the Professor must choose a dead player.

The Shabaloth eats 2 players every night and may, the following night, regurgitate one of the two players. In the given example The Shabaloth eats 2 players and the following Dawn The Storyteller shares with the group that 2 players are dead.
This gives The Professor information on who the 2 dead players are, one of which they (The Professor) may resurrect the following night. Unfortunately, in the given example The Shabaloth goes before The Professor, regurgitating one of the players which changes their status to "alive". When it is The Professors turn they coincidentally choose the regurgitated player and the Storyteller must inform The Professor that the chosen player is not dead by giving them a head shake:

The Storyteller shakes their head no, because the Professor must choose a dead player.

In this instance, The Professor does get the knowledge of a player coming back to life specifically because:

The Professor can only choose dead players.
The player was dead the previous night and would be up for consideration.

The rules state in multiple places that The Professor must choose a dead player specifically. This means they have prior knowledge of who is considered dead players, even if that knowledge changes in the same night they resurrect.
I would consider the above example an edge case. Otherwise, The Professor could have a lucky guess one night and resurrect a dead player the same night they died which the rules do not touch on at all.

The above is my interpretation of the linked rules. The rules will not cover every edge case. When in doubt, The Storyteller will always have the final say.


Building a live group on a quarter board where two sides are already black This exercise is kind of go club folklore: Given a quarter go board where two sides are already occupied by black (and unconditionally alive), white starts playing. White wins when she is able to create a living group in the quarter board.

$$ | X X X X X X X X X X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ ---------------------

It is also part of go club folklore that with correct play this task is impossible for white and black kills any white group.

What is known (or published) about this special fun exercise? Is the best solution already known?

For clarification: Here is an example of white trying to live (and fail):

$$ | X X X X X X X X X X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . 1 3 . . . . . . X
$$ | . 2 4 W . . . . . X
$$ | . . . 6 5 . . . . X
$$ | . 7 . . . . . . . X
$$ ---------------------

White starts on the (3,4) point but black counters at (4,2). After the enclosure, the corner has only one eye, and Black's outer stones cannot be captured because of the outer walls helping them. Note that in this setup all ladders are favouring Black.

This has been discussed a lot in Sensei's Library (http://senseis.xmp.net/?BiggestCorner and http://senseis.xmp.net/?10x10CornerGame1). The consensus seems to be that white dies with 8 free spaces, but can live with 9 free spaces using 3-3 point and some clever tesujis. I copied some variations from Sensei's to EidoGo for easier studying: http://eidogo.com/#1ZUwMVRaH


Can players respond before vehicles are declared as blockers? My question concerns players receiving priority.

My opponent has a Void Stalker, and attacks with a flying creature. I have a creature with protection from blue and a flying vehicle. During the declare blockers step, I crew my vehicle.

Is there a time between me crewing my vehicle and declaring it as a blocker where my opponent could void stalker's ability to shuffle my vehicle back into my deck?

Yes, your opponent can respond.

When you activate your vehicle's ability, the ability will go on the stack.

  117.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends.

Once all players pass, the ability will resolve.  Then players recieve priority again, and you won't move to the Declare Blockers step until all players have passed priority.

As a side note, if you are crewing your vehicle in the Declare Blockers step, you're doing it too late.  The action of declaring attackers or declaring blockers is the first thing that happens in that step, and you recieve priority afterwards.


What are the standards for algorithmically forecasting metagame evolution under certain conditions of TCG design? Company X operates a trading card game, periodically designing and releasing new card sets, which seed evolutionary shifts in its competitive metagame.  For the purpose of achieving balanced card design, it would be ideal if X could forecast in advance what shifts a candidate new card set would induce, and what new equilibrium metagame state would result.  Computer simulations surely play a role here, but I'm not sure how close to solvable this problem is, even under ideal conditions.

Assuming their game's mechanics roughly reflect that of an actual trading card game (30 - 60 card deck size, normal gameplay actions such as playing creatures and spells attacking and so forth, modest design power creep over time, etc.), to what extent can X attempt to accurately forecast the impact of a new set as they design it, given...

1)  Set rotation (like Hearthstone's standard format; the number of total cards in the card pool remains relatively constant over time)

2)  No set rotation (like the Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG; the number of total cards in the card pool grows large over time)?

It is likely that making this kind of prediction to any useful degree of accuracy is beyond the current state of the art in computing.

First, consider that forecasting the future metagame that uses unreleased cards is essentially equivalent to "forecasting" the current metagame using the current card pool. This actually helps, because that means that you can validate your methodology against every current and past metagame.

So, the task is now to create a simulation that takes the existing card pool, and produces the current metagame. In order to do that, you need to understand and reproduce the reasons that the metagame exists as it currently does. There may be a variety of reasons that a deck may be stronger or weaker in a metagame, including raw deck strength, how easy the deck is to pilot, and how flexibly it can handle different matchups. There are also additional reasons that a deck may appear more or less in a metagame, including card availability, card prices, people's existing decks and collections, and how well it matches popular deck-building heuristics.

In order to understand the strength of any single deck, you would need to be able to pilot it at a pro level to evaluate how it would perform in real top-level tournaments. To my knowledge, there are currently no programs that can play trading card games that well. The cutting edge of research into making computers play games better than humans is probably AlphaGo, and that task is probably simpler because it plays deterministic games on a single pre-defined board.

If you do somehow manage to produce a program that can accurately simulate how any particular matchup would play out, you would need to figure out what matchups are worth testing and evolve that into a stable metagame. This may require independently reconstructing modern deckbuilding strategy, while also allowing for potential rogue decks that exist outside of that strategy. This is the point where you may need to account for the factors like card availability and price. Price is also heavily dependent on metagame popularity, so that would also need to be simulated and fed back into the main simulation. This is also where you would need to evaluate whether a human could and would actually pilot that deck effectively.

Let's say you do manage to put all of that together into a working prediction machine. There are still some potential pitfalls to be aware of. You may miss a rogue deck that is outside of your search space that completely breaks things. Your players may fail to think of a specific deck that features heavily in your simulated metagame, unbalancing the rest of the metagame. You may mispredict whether players would actually be willing or able to use a deck in tournaments, again potentially unbalancing the metagame.


In 2 player, 10 card Gin, figuring out opponents cards What tactics can you use to help determine what your opponent is looking for in two player 10 card Gin?

In Gin, you don't get any hard information on what is in your opponent's hand until the hand is over.

This means you have to make use of whatever information you can get.  The primary source of information is the discards.  To be successful you need to keep track of both

What your opponent discarded
What you discarded

Pay attention to both suits and the number of each card.  For example, if your opponent discarded the 5 of clubs, he is most likely not interested in 5's or mid range clubs.

Observe your opponent, if he usually plays fast but pauses even briefly to consider the jack of diamonds you just tossed then he most likely has several cards around that.  A couple examples of what he might have.

10-K of diamonds
sets of 9's and 10's but he has diamonds of both and could make another run (like 7-8-9-10 of clubs)

Perhaps from previous discards and pickups you could narrow down the options as to what he might have.


Is it possible to lose Catan to a player with fewer points than you? So let's say you are playing a 6-person game. You have 9 points. During Special Building Phase, you reach 11 points. However, you have not won yet because it is not your turn yet.

In the meantime, another player reaches 10 points on her turn. She has beaten you, even though you have more points that her.

From the official Catan FAQ:

  Victory Conditions: Can I win during the special building phase?

  Answer: No. You can only win during your own turn.

Based on this FAQ, I'd have to believe the answer is yes, but it's the first time I realized it's possible.

I suppose it could also happen during a 4 player game: Let's say you have 9 points. During someone else's turn, the Longest Road is broken up and is transferred to you, putting you at 11 points. However, you have not yet won yet, because it's not your turn. In the meantime, another player reaches 10 points on his turn.

Yes, as it says in the rules you quoted you can only win on your turn

Victory Conditions: Can I win during the special building phase?
Answer: No. You can only win during your own turn.

So yes if you reach 11 points and it is not your turn it doesn't matter and someone else will still win if they reach 10 points on their turn and it is before your next turn. In Catan it isn't just about reaching 10 points to win but to do it on your turn as there is a chance you could lose some points before your next turn.


In what ways does a Commander in their Command zone influence the game? Oloro, Ageless Ascetic has an ability that functions whilst in the command zone. As a newbie to the Commander format, that leaves me unclear about something:

Whilst a Commander is in their Command zone and remains there, what effect do they have on the game?

Are all of a Commander's abilities active? (e.g. Gahiji, Honored One)
Can they use their activated or mana abilities? (e.g. Sydri, Galvanic Genius)
Can they do anything else (apart from being able to be cast)?

I suspect all their abilities are active and can be used, but I've been told only the ones that specifically mention being in the command zone (e.g. Oloro's ability) are active.

Only Oloro's third ability functions in the Command Zone, and none of Gahiji or Sydri's.

Abilities of permanent cards usually only work on the battlefield, not in the Command Zone.

  112.6. 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. The exceptions are as follows:

It is notable that characteristic-defining abilities (e.g. Ghostfire's first ability) function in all zones, and even outside of the game.[112.6a] The rest of the exceptions are quite intuitive. For example, if an ability can only be activated in a particular zone, it can be activated in that zone.[112.6i] And if an ability can only be triggered in a particular zone, it can trigger in that zone.[112.6j] This exception is what permits Oloro's third ability to function in the Command Zone.

But none of the other abilities of the three cards you mentioned meet one of the exceptions that would allow them to work in the Command Zone.


Does a player win Catan if they forget to count their points? If player A reaches 10 victory points on his turn but forgets to count, and immediately after his turn, the following player, player B, also reaches 10 victory points and claims victory, does player A have any grounds to be considered a winner?

It recently happened when a player reached 10 victory points but forgot to count and claim victory. The player whose turn is immediately after also reached 10 victory on her turn and claimed victory. Only after player B counted her victory points it was also determined that player A had already reached 10 victory points.

Who is the rightful winner in that situation? Can the true winner be objectively determined based on anything in the rules?

The True Winner is player A.  The first player to obtain 10 points on his or her turn is the winner.

From the online FAQ about this situation at catan.com

  The game ends as soon as a player has reached the required number of victory points on his turn. If he’s unaware of it, you should tell him, because you can’t take an already gained victory away from him.

This means my earlier comments to the contrary are WRONG, please ignore them as the rantings of a madman. :)


Checkers (Draughts) Capture all pieces in 1 move What moves would have to be played leading up to this, obviously both players would have to chip in, but how would this work? Is it even possible to get this board playing with actual rules?


What penalty should the Dummy receive for telegraphing to his partner after play has started? What penalty should the Dummy receive for touching cards or moving cards forward?
After play started, when his partner led to the diamonds, Dummy arranged them again in my mind to make sure she knew there were 7 cards. I have also had the Dummy push forward a winning card in a ebu competition. I welcome your answer.

According to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (2008), the specific Rights and Limitations of Dummy are listed as Laws 42 and 43. Notable limitations in this context are:

  Law 43
  DUMMY'S LIMITATIONS
  Except as Law 42 allows:
  A. Limitations on Dummy     ...
     1. (c) Dummy may not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.
  ...
   2. (c) Dummy may  not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in either defender's hand.

  B. If a Violation Occurs
  1. Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitation listed in A 1 and A2 above.
  ...
  LAW 90
  PROCEDURAL PENALTIES
  A. Director's Authority
  The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table.

Additionally Law 45 F states:

  F. Dummy Indicates Card
  After dummy's hand is faced, dummy may not
  touch or indicate any card except for purposes of arrangement, without
  instruction from declarer. If he does so, the Director should be
  summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the
  end of play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers
  the dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged
  by the play suggested.

In a duplicate game, if a dummy at my table touched any ,in any manner other than to play a card indicated by declarer by name or to mark tricks in the prescribed fashion, I would immediately call Director for protection. I want the action to stop and to not be resumed, and the appropriate way to do that is to call Director.

As described by you, both instances of dummy's behaviour are in my opinion clearly in violation of Law 43 A 2 (c). As A Director, I would award an adjusted score (under Law 45 F) if there was the reasonable possibility that damage occurred by any play that might have been suggested by dummy's action. I would then give a stern warning to both members of the offending partnership, and (except for novices), assess an additional half board penalty (under Law 90 A) to the offending player. A repeat occurrence by either member of that partnership in that game would get the offending player an additional full board penalty (again under Law 90 A).


Dealing Age 3 - what to do with the two extra cards? How do you deal Age 3 of 7 Wonders?

Once you get the deck ready for the adequate number of players and add the guilds, there ends up being 2 extra cards due to the 2+ guild logic. Thus some players would get more than 7 cards.

How is this handled? Are the extra cards simply not dealt? Can you provide an example for 5 players please?

There are no extra cards in a correctly prepared deck.

The base game contains:

49 Age I cards
49 Age II cards
50 Age III cards

(There is one additional Age III card so that there are never all Guild cards in play.)

For a game with 5 players, you have 35 cards per Age:

Age I: 35 non-Guild cards
Age II: 35 non-Guild cards
Age III: 28 non-Guild cards, 7 Guild cards


In Pandemic: on the brink, can I remove multiple bioterrorist cubes at once for a cured strain? In Pandemic On the brink we ran into a situation where both the black strain and bioterrorist purple strain were cured. At one point one of the players moved into a territory that had multiple black and purple cubes.

My question, is it one action to remove all black and purple cubes because they are both cured or does it require one action each?

You need 2 actions, 1 per color. The ability to treat a cured disease is described in the original rules, under the list of actions you can perform:

  Remove 1 disease cube from the city you are in, placing it in the cube
  supply next to the board. If this disease color has been cured (see
  Discover a Cure below), remove all cubes of that color from the city you
  are in.

So it is 1 action to remove all cubes "of that color" if that color is cured. Unless On the Brink rules describe a special exception for bio-terrorist cubes, then this still applies.


If I am building a road and I use the same tile twice, do I count that tile twice in order to determine the length of the road? It normally doesn't make a huge difference, but I just got the King expansion, which gives major bonuses for those people who build the largest city and the longest road, and this slight difference in scoring may change the outcome of the game.

The situation is similar when it comes to cities that use the same tile twice. In that case though, it seems to me that you wouldn't count the tile twice; the size of the city can be measured as the number of tiles it spans.

However, when it comes to the road, it's not about size, but about length. If you score a point for every tile that you go through, and your road is long enough to circle back to a tile you already scored, do you score it again?

What are the "official" rules about this?

No, just count them once.

From the rules at the bottom of page 2:

  The player who has a thief on a completed road scores one
  point for each tile in the completed road (count the
  number of tiles; separate segments on a tile count just
  once).

Also the Carcassonne Annotated Rules confirms that the King expansion uses the same definition for "longest"; IE, count the tiles.


Why do asymmetric ko fights exist? When I play teaching games with much stronger go players, situations often come up where one side must win a ko fight in order to survive.

In these situations, my opponent will explain to me that winning this ko is worth more or is more important to the side which must win to survive.

However, this never made sense to me. At the end of the game, points are compared, so it seems that a loss by one side should be equivalent to a gain by the other. With this understanding, it seems that the side trying to kill should care just as much about the ko as the side trying to survive.

Why is it not the case that both sides should always care equally about the outcome of a ko fight?

I think the easiest way to think of this is in terms of options, and the freedom to take whatever options benefit me.

In your example, you have no options: You need to win this ko, or you will lose.

However, in my case, killing you might not be my only option. I could kill you and swing things thirty points in my favor, or if I felt like it I could grab that empty corner over there worth twenty points and strengthen my position on the right, or I could go back and reinforce my moyo on the bottom to help me with the late game fighting that hasn't started yet, or I can pick a fight with those weak stones in the centre that you forgot to connect five turns ago. I have options. You don't.

As for why the ko is asymmetric in the first place, I would be weighing not only the relative value of winning the ko, but also the actual chances I have of winning it. In most "asymmetric ko" situations, you're probably the one with the first opportunity to win the ko, and I probably won't have any threats on the board big enough for me to significantly threaten you with: Nothing I do is likely to stop you from winning it, because you need to win this ko, or you will lose. If it was just a question of "I can definitely kill you and get a hundred points, or I can definitely take two hundred points over here instead while you win the ko" that's not really an asymmetric ko.

Even if there are big enough ko threats, or somehow I had the first opportunity to win the ko, depending on how close the score is and how strong our respective positions are there might still be no real need for me to be greedy; I can forego the risk and cost of the ko (maybe those high-value ko threats will be more useful later when there's a more important fight going on) and take a lesser but safer advantage elsewhere and still maintain a comfortable lead. Why should I use up valuable aji and give you the opportunity to carve out a chunk of my territory when I don't need to?

Let's take, for the sake of example, the following situation with a 70-point life-or-death ko on the board:

I play a 70-point ko threat.
You respond.
I take the ko.
You play a 60-point ko threat.
I win the ko.
You follow through on your threat.

Now, this whole exchange, I'm ahead by ten points, and I've used up a 70-point ko threat to get there. This…isn't terrible, but not really an incredible outcome; if I had just played a ten-point ko threat in the first place and let you ignore it, I'd be in the same place score-wise, but with less wasted aji. Or I could've played any number of other ko threats that may have given me less points but otherwise strengthened my position. Options.

You, on the other hand, don't really have the opportunity to play a ten-point ko threat since, well, I'll just take the ko: That's now a 60-point advantage for me. You're the one who needs the big threats here, not me. Whether you live or die, I'm still coming out ahead while you still have to go back and secure your tenuous life situation. I'm totally okay with this.

In other words, you're painting yourself into a corner where you give your opponent every chance to dictate which battlefield he wants to fight on. This is generally a bad idea.


Can you combine the Orbital Teleporter's ability with other Alien Tech cards? Consider the following:

I have an Orbital Teleporter and a Stasis Beam
I roll 5,5,6
I have 3 ore

I place the 6 at the Solar Array to claim 3 energy, then use the Orbital Teleporter to move the 6 to the Colony Constructor. I use the Stasis Beam to reduce it from a 6 to a 5, then place the other two fives and pay three ore to use the Colony Constructor to place a colony.

Is this legal, or am I not allowed to alter a ship I'm moving with the Orbital Teleporter?

No, while there is no restriction on using different alien tech on the same ship, the rules for Orbital Teleporter specifically prevent a ship already placed from having its value changed when moved to another facility. Stasis Beam also doesn't work on placed ships. Rules, page 14

Orbital Teleporter - Each turn you may pay two fuel to move one of your docked ships from one orbital facility to a different orbital facility. You may only move one of your ships with the Orbital Teleporter but the moved ship may be used at the new facility in conjunction with other as yet unplaced ships from your fleet. You may not reuse the ship at the same facility from which it was removed. You may not change the value of the ship as it moves from one facility to the other.
Stasis Beam - Each turn you may pay one fuel to decrease the value of one of your unplaced ships by one point. You may discard a Stasis Beam to place the Isolation Field on a territory or, if the Isolation Field is already on a territory, move it to another territory. (Page 15)

Card Reference (scans), and card reference 2.

Orbital Teleporter - Pay (E E) to reuse one of your ships at a different facility.
Stasis Beam - Pay (E) to subtract one point from one of your unplaced ship.

Technically, you could achieve what it is you want by using one of your '5's on the Solar Collector, since it also gets you 3 energy. Then use the Stasis Beam to change the '6' to a '5', then use the remaining 2 energy to move the '5' from the Solar Collector with your remaining '5' and newly Stasis Beamed '5' onto the Colony Constructor.


Can books be counted as books even if some points were used to cover points left in the hand and foot? Say that partners meld and made one clean book (A's-140 points and one dirty book of 8's-80 points=220). The other team went out.  The partners had cards remaining from their hand plus those in their foot=300 points.   The points left in their hand and foot equaled more than the points left on the board.

Can they count the books as books (one clean and one dirty=800 points) even though they had to use some of the points from the books to cover the points left in their hand and foot?

Yes. Your score at the end of a round is always

+ points made in books

+ points from cards played (including cards in completed books)

- points left in hand

You can count all 3 separately and then add them together if you want. You don't actually need to remove cards for the negatives, but most people find it easier to pair up cards for the second and third and cancel them out.


Does the Valkyrie have to win to earn extra glory? The Valkyrie monster upgrade card states, "Gain 2 glory per enemy figure destroyed in battle with this monster."

It does not say "per enemy figure destroyed in a battle with this monster."

It does not say "per enemy figure destroyed in battle by this monster."

I believed it to mean "destroyed with this monster", meaning that the Valkyrie has to be on the winning side of the battle to claim the glory.

It was argued that it meant in any battle involving the Valkyrie, all casualties gave the player 2 glory, even if the Valkyrie lost and was sent to Valhalla. In combination with Frigga's Domain, the Valkyrie can become incredibly powerful. Returning from the dead (for 1 rage!), your Valkyrie could lose in another battle, claiming 2 glory per destroyed figure.

How does the Valkyrie monster upgrade for Blood Rage work?

The player controlling Valkyrie will gain points for all destroyed figures in that battle, even if it is destroyed.
From the official FAQ on CMON's site:

Q. Does the Valkyrie (gain 2 Glory per enemy figure destroyed) get glory for destroyed enemy units if she is destroyed in the course of a battle?
A. Yes, with the Valkyrie you get Glory for all figures destroyed from the Call to Battle to the battle’s Resolution, even if she is destroyed at any point during the battle.


7 Wonders: Why do resources on the board have colored background? I'm wondering why the resources on the City boards have colored backgrounds? It is quite confusing when you play cards such as Vineyard, Bazaar or Chamber of Commerce since the starting resources do not count in those cases. Is there any reason for it besides it can be considered more aesthetic this way?

From the rulebook:

The resources a player can buy from their neighboring cities are:
• the resources initially produced by the city (as indicated on the board)
• the resources from its brown cards (raw materials)
• the resources from its gray cards (manufactured goods)
However, it is impossible to buy the resources produced by some commercial
structures (yellow cards) or by some Wonders: these resources are
reserved to their owner.

Since resources initially produced by cities behave identically to resources produced by brown/gray cards, it is good enough reason to color them same way, to distinquish them from non-buyable resources.


Would Averna, the Chaos Bloom allow you to get out all of your lands if you cascade and don't have a lower CMC spell in your deck? If you fail to find a lower CMC spell in your deck while cascading, would Averna, the Chaos Bloom drop all of the land in your deck into play on one turn?
The wording on the card is:

As you cascade, you may put a land card from among the exiled cards onto the battlefield tapped. (Do this after the last card is exiled but before deciding whether to cast a nonland card.)

No.
Cascade is defined as:

702.84a Cascade is a triggered ability that functions only while the spell with cascade is on the stack. “Cascade” means “When you cast
this spell, exile cards from the top of your library until you exile a
nonland card whose converted mana cost is less than this spell’s
converted mana cost. You may cast that card without paying its mana
cost. Then put all cards exiled this way that weren’t cast on the
bottom of your library in a random order.”

So if you don't have a lower CMC spell in your deck, you will exile your entire library one card at a time.  Once all cards are exiled, you get to put a land card onto the battlefield tapped.  Then you are done.


Looking for the "magic'al" formula Im a big fan of the Magic the Gathering trading card game.

And with all these new cards coming in, I was wondering how the cards were balanced, and manacost calculated.

Im thinking there must be a list of abilities, with matching mana modifiers, and some formula in which to calculate them. I hardly feel that they just guess or take it on the feels when coming up with the cards cost and ability limitations.

But is such a formula public ? I have been looking around but with not much luck.

The reason im asking is that I would like to know the correct mana cost, if I were to make some custom cards myself.

I hardly feel that they just guess or take it on the feels when coming up with the cards cost and ability limitations.

Actually, they kinda do.

Mana cost depends on several factors:

How common the card's ability is in the color. Flight for example, is generally least expensive in Blue, White is slightly more expensive, and red/black slightly more, and green even more and quite rare.
The rarity of the card. What makes Mythic Rare cards better isn't just how uncommon the abilities are, but how undercosted the abilities are. See Huntmaster of the Fell and Geist of Saint Traft. An uncommon flyer might be slightly undercosted compared to a common flyer.
The current metagame. Back in the day, Counterspell was a mere two blue mana. Lightning Bolt did 3 damage for 1 red mana. Control decks ran rampant, creatures like Hill Giant were expensive for what you got. Over time, Wizards wanted the Combat Phase to matter more often, so hard counters began to get more expensive, and creature costing got cheaper.
The set balance. If Wizards want to deemphasize removal in limited in a set, they might make it more expensive.

and most of all

Playtesting. Wizards does a lot of playtesting to determine which costs are appropriate in the environment.

I don't think there's any way to come up with a strict formula and the parameters change over time. Used to be you could only get a 2/2 vanilla creature with a converted mana cost of 2 (with one mana being generic) in green. (Hello Grizzly Bears) Then white got a Glory Seeker. Recently Black has joined the club with Walking Corpse and Gutter Skulk. Red and Blue still require two colored mana in the cost or drawbacks to get 2/2 for CMC 2.

So yeah they do just cost what "feels right" then adjust after playtesting. Sometimes they get it wrong, in my opinion, compare Snapcaster Mage with Archaeomancer — absurd extra value at half the cost, even at rare. How Merfolk of the Depths ended up with a CMC of 6 for 4/2 Flash is equally baffling. Twice as big as a Shambleshark at three times the price??


Monopoly Deal Just Say No Can multiple players play Just Say No on the same card?  For example:

Player A: Rent.

Player B: Just Say No on the Rent.

Player A: Just Say No on Player B's Just Say No.

Resolves.

Player C: Just Say No on the Rent.

Assuming Player B could play Just Say No in that situation, it will be legal for Player C.  However, this is a big assumption.
The problem is that you have waded into the extreme grey area of Monopoly Deal rules.  Monopoly deal has a woefully incomplete rules framework and is missing the all-important official Errata and FAQ document.  monopolydealrules.com has many opinions on the game and how it should be played, but has the double downside of being nether official nor definitive.
So let's dig into how Just Say No works in general, with what precious little we have to go on.  The text of the card is:

Just Say No!  Use any time when an action card is played against you.  Play into the center to use.

There is also the "Cards in more detail" section of the rulebook, which says

Just Say No:
Use this card at any time to cancel the effect when another player plays any action card against you.  If that player has another Just Say No card, they can use it to cancel yours... sorry!

The rules clarification is helpful, because it means that Just Say No cancels the whole card and not just the aspect of the card that harms you.  The remaining question is what types of cards can be affected by Just Say No.
There are two possible readings:

"Played against you" is read strictly as cards that affect one player in particular.  To put that in Magic the Gathering terms, a card must target one player or a card belonging to that player in order to be eligible for Just Say No (i.e. Just Say No is the equivalent of Rebuff the Wicked).  This means Just Say No only works on any-color Rent cards (because they target one player), Deal Breaker, Sly Deal, Debt Collector, Deal Breaker, and Just Say No itself.

We take the looser definition of "played against you" to mean Just Say No can be used on any card that directly affects you negatively, thus adding the following to the list of valid targets: It's My Birthday and 2-color Rent cards.

In the case of interpretation 1, your question is moot because Just Say No can't be played on a 2-color Rent card.
In the case of interpretation 2, there is nothing preventing multiple people from playing Just Say No on the same card.  If the first Just Say No was negated by one from the original player, than anyone (including player B in your example) could play another one to try to negate the original card.
My play group uses interpretation 1.  monopolydealrules.com suggests interpretation 2.


Why is capturing mandatory in checkers/draughts? What if capturing was optional like any normal move? Would the game become completely unplayable? I am totally new to checkers/draughts. I have just learned the rules today, and I have a question about a specific rule: why is capturing mandatory?

What would happen if we changed the rules so that capturing is optional like any normal move? Would the game become completely unplayable?

No, the game does not become unplayable.

Years ago, I regularly played without mandatory capture rules, and found the experience enjoyable.

There is also something called the Huffing Rule variant, where the capture is not forced, but by not taking the capture you lose that piece after your turn.


Can you peek at your cards from future years in Seasons? In Seasons, after you have selected cards for all 3 years, can you take a look at cards from future years to plan which energy to take?

From the rulebook section II - Constructing your deck:

From the nine power cards chosen, each player should assemble three
sets  of three cards each. The first set immediately forms the
player’s hand, as it  corresponds to the cards with which the players
will begin their tournament.
The second set is placed under the
Library II token and will be added to  the player’s hand during the
second year of  the tournament. As for the third set of power  cards,
it is placed under the Library III token  and will be added to the
player’s hand during  the third and final year of the tournament. At
any point during the game, players can look  at the power cards
they’ve selected.

Emphasis mine.  Assuming I've understood your question correctly, there is no bar to looking at your cards for year two and year three to remind yourself what they are.


Can you activate a system where you have no units and not move any units? In Twilight Imperium, when you activate a system, you don't have to move units.  The rules for Movement say:

  The player may choose to not move any ships.

This rule appears to be for the purpose of letting you use production abilities in a system without needing to move units there.  But can you still activate a sector, moving no units, if you don't have any units there?

This would let you do two things.  First, you could spend a tactics token to delay acting (similar to the race ability of The Yssaril Tribes).  Second, if done on a system adjacent to one or more of your PDS II's, this would let you fire a volley of space cannons at the ships without committing any units.

You can (barring an rules reference update by FFG).

The rules on Tactical Actions have the following restrictions:

  The active player must activate a
  system that does not contain one of his command tokens.

  • To activate a system, the active player places a command
  token from his tactic pool on that system. That system is the
  active system.

  • Other players’ command tokens do not prevent a player
  from activating a system.

As noted in the question, moving ships is not a requirement of the movement step of tactical action.  Nowhere in this are you prevented from activating such a system.

Three things to note if you are doing this to get a space cannon volley:

You will not be able to subsequently move units into that system this round (unless you use the Warfare strategy ability) as it already has one of your command tokens.
You cannot do this if you have already activated that system this round (unless you use the Warfare strategy ability).
The only space cannons that work with this are your own (see this question for details).


Lich + Laboratory maniac, replacement effects order You have Lich and Laboratory Maniac in play, 3 cards in your deck, and you play Solemn Offering or Serene Offering on Lich (either one will heal 4 in this case). Do you win or lose?

You will lose.

As the Offering is resolving you follow the instructions in order, thus first you destroy the Lich, then you gain life. Since Lich is no longer on the battlefield its replacement effect doesn't apply so you will not draw cards instead of gaining life. Then once the Offering is done resolving the Lich's leaves the battlefield trigger will go on the stack and you will lose the game when it resolves.

  608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions.


Can Bear Hug force a player to destroy an Incorporeal minion? The wording on Bear Hug states:

  Each other player destroys his or her minion with the least power
  (owner chooses in case of ties).

The wording on Incorporeal states:

  Play on one of your minions.  Ongoing: This minion is not affected by
  other players' cards.

Can Bear Hug force a player to destroy a minion that has Incorporeal played on it if it is the lowest power minion?

I ask because my game group came up with two separate interpretations of the rule.  The first interpretation was that Bear Hug doesn't affect the minion because Bear Hug is a card and has no effect against the Incorporeal minion due to the wording of "other players' cards."  The other interpretation is that Bear Hug does force the player to destroy the Incorporeal minion since Bear Hug is played on the player and not the minion directly.

Is there something in the rules that can clarify this or at least a general consensus from some official forums?

Bear Hug cannot destroy an Incorporeal Minion.
First to correct some termiology. Bear Hug is not played "on a player," it is simply played. Cards that are played on something will use the word Attach, and to my knowledge no cards Attach to players. Secondly, the Bear Hug card is destroying the Minion, the instructions on the card informing you which Minions need to be destroyed (Each other player's, with the least Power). Players do not affect cards, because nothing in the rules says they do. Cards do affect other cards if they move, return, destroy, or attach to another card.
The rules state the following:

Affect: A card is affected if it is moved, returned, destroyed, or has an action attached. (pg 8)
If cards conflict, the one that says you can't do something beats the one that says you can. (pg 9)

Incorporeal prevents the attached Minion from being affected, so Bear Hug cannot affect (destroy) the Incorporeal Minion if it is played by an opponent.
This hasn't showed up in an official FAQ, but one of the designers, Mark Wootton, noted that Incorporeal protects a Minion from Poison.


MTG: An Emblem that would remove itself I recently stumbled upon another post of data on Reddit which states the unfairness of play vs. draw (Link).
I saw a suggestion on "countering tempo with tempo" giving the idea similar to the "Coin" from Hearthstone. My idea to realise this would be an emblem.
Now to the actual Question:
Could an emblem remove itself from the game? What would the text for that be.
My version of the rules change would be:

[CR 103.7a Original]: In a two-player game, the player who plays first skips the draw step (see rule 504, “Draw Step”) of their first turn.

[CR 103.7a Modified]: In a two-player game, the player who plays first skips the draw step (see rule 504, “Draw Step”) of their first turn and the other player creates an emblem with "Remove this emblem from the game: Add one mana of any color or one colorless mana".

Would this suffice and if not how should the text change. Another idea I have read in a similar thread was: "0: Add one mana... . Use this ability only once per game." I don't particular like that, because now if an effect makes the mana cost of activated abilities cost 2 more, this would be effected aswell, although this could be intended if this version were to be implemented?

Do you think this would work; if not what would need to change?

One issue with the wording is that "remove from game" is text that MTG used to use prior to the 2010 rules update, and all cards that said to remove something from the game were given errata to say that they exile it instead.
Because of this, "remove this emblem from the game" could easily be confused with "exile this emblem", as people have learned that things that say "remove from the game" actually now say "exile".
There is no wording on any existing abilities or effects that actually remove something from the game (AWOL excluded). Things are only removed from the game through rules that use the wording "ceases to exist", such as a token not on the battlefield; or "leaves the game", such as objects owned by a player leaves the game. Neither of these translate well into an effect that could be written on an ability.
That being said, I don't see any issue with the emblem saying "Exile this: Add one mana of any color or one colorless mana". Sure it's a bit weird to have an emblem hanging around in the exile zone; but it will have no effect on the game. Its ability cannot do anything while in exile:

114.4. Abilities of emblems function in the command zone.

And there wouldn't be any way to ever remove it from exile; anything in the game that gets things back from exile specifies what type of thing it can bring back.
But if you were modifying rules anyway, you could always go ahead and alter 704.5 to make it so that the emblem doesn't hang around:

704.5d If a token is in a zone other than the battlefield, it ceases to exist.
704.5e If a copy of a spell is in a zone other than the stack, it ceases to exist. If a copy of a card is in any zone other than the stack or the battlefield, it ceases to exist.

Append a new state-based action similar to those two:

704.5f If an emblem is in any zone other than the command zone, it ceases to exist.

In terms of your second idea of making it a one-per-game activated ability that costs {0}, I don't see any issues related to possible cost-increasers, because 99% of the time, the right move is going to be to use that ability on turn 1, maybe turn 2; making it very unlikely your opponent will have gotten an increaser out. And also cards like Suppression Field do not work on mana abilities, which this is.


Is pretending to want to trade before playing a monopoly card objectionable? In Settlers of Catan, I sometimes try to ask people if they want to trade a certain resource, tricking them into revealing the approximate amount of that resource in everyone's hand. After this I play the monopoly card. This has on some occasions not been received very well.

Is this fair play?

That's not as bad as actually trading all of one of your resources away for other things, and then using "Monopoly" to get it all back. I've seen people play that way before.

Underhanded, yes. Illegal, no. The problem with playing this way is that it can really poison the friendly feel of the game. I had a player who used this tactic, as well as other aggressive ones like extorting good trades from people by threatening them with the robber. When someone plays like that regularly, the best way to deal with it is for others to gang up on them, which then leads to arguments about people being out to get them, and grudges held between games. It wound up being so bad that I stopped playing Settlers if this other player was going to be there.

As far as just using trade offers to find out what people have, that's not nearly so bad. Heck, you don't even need to do that; you can keep track of what resources everyone has. The only way someone might get resources that you don't know about are with the robber, but that leaves the same set of resources on the table, just in a different person's hand. So, you shouldn't even have to do this; just keep better track of what resources people earn and what they spend. If you can't remember, just try and think back for what the last few numbers rolled were, and what the last few things they built; you should be able to work out pretty well what they have a lot of.

If you offer trades to people, and then just grab the resources with "Monopoly" instead, they'll think that's cheap and feel burned; you've gotten their hopes up for a trade, and then dashed them by stealing resources. If you just keep track of what resources they have, and then seem to "magically" guess the right ones, they'll be disappointed that they lost the resources, but impressed that you managed to get so lucky with your "guess." How would you rather people feel about you?


Does Olivia Voldaren's second ability still work if I steal her in response? Olivia Voldaren has the following for her second ability:

  {3}{B}{B}: Gain control of target Vampire for as long as you control Olivia Voldaren.

Meanwhile, Merieke Ri Berit has this for her second ability:

  {T}: Gain control of target creature for as long as you control Merieke Ri Berit. When Merieke Ri Berit leaves the battlefield or becomes untapped, destroy that creature. It can't be regenerated.

My opponent activates Olivia Voldaren's second ability, targeting a vampire. In response, I activate Merieke Ri Berit's second ability to steal Olivia Voldaren. Will my opponent still gain control of the vampire?

This one is an edge case, so it's interesting. Yes, the second ability resolves, but as the player activating the ability no longer controls Olivia, the end result is similar to if it hadn't, as she is no longer under that player's control.

There's a ruling on the gatherer page confirming this:

  If you activate Olivia Voldaren's last ability, and before that ability resolves you lose control of Olivia Voldaren, the ability will resolve with no effect. You won't gain control of the targeted Vampire.