Does Lady Vix's Level Up force her to lose her current face-up Item? Last night, while trying out the expansions for Boss Monster, my opponent triggered Lady Vix's Level Up ability and stole my Cheat Code. However, she already had a face-up card that she wanted to keep face-up (she mainly wanted to take Cheat Code from me, not use it for herself). This is where a discrepancy came up.

According to Lady Vix's Level Up, she must take a face-up Item Card and place it face-up in her scorekeeping area, but there is nothing explicitly stating that she is able to have two Item Cards face-up as a result. In contrast, the additional Boss monster for the Alien Artifact treasure in this expansion has a Level Up that explicitly states he is able to have two face-up Item Cards for the remainder of the game, so this seems like an ability unique to him.

  Lady Vix
  Bandit Queen
  Level Up: Take a face-up Item from a Hero in town or another player. Place it face up in your scorekeeping area.

When Lady Vix's Level Up is triggered and the player is forced to take an Item Card, is the player also forced to turn their existing face-up Item Card face down to make room for the stolen Item Card? Or is the player able to use two Item Cards during that turn?

If a player has two Item cards face-up in their scoring area and no ability allowing more than one, the player chooses which one to turn face-down.

See the image of the Tools Of Hero Kind expansion rules here, which says in parenthetical

  You choose which item to keep face-up

when speaking of a player with more than one face-up Item card.


Has anyone heard of a rule called "19 back" for 0 point hands? My father in law plays a rule that I consider to be rubbish since I can find no reference to it in the rules.  I assume it's a house rule that he's tripped over somewhere, and adopted into his game.

The "19 back" rule states that if you score a 0 point hand, you move your peg 19 pips back.  In this case a 0 point hand sometimes means only the count of the cards, but usually will mean a 0 point end, that is no change in the position of the pegs whatsoever for any reason.

Has anyone else ever heard of this rule?

19-back is a not uncommon cribbage variant, but is often unpopular. I've seen it in some editions of Hoyle's Card Games; I've had 3 editions, read a fourth, and 2 of them had it. Unfortunately, my copies are not available to check exact wordings at the moment.

Typically:
If your hand scores no points in count phase, you lose 19 points. Note that this doesn't apply to the crib, only the hand, and only applies if you get to count.

Some people understand it to be:
If, during your turn, you score no points in play nor from hand during count, you lose 19 points. This applies at point of pegging the hand, before going to the crib. Again, if you don't get to count, it doesn't apply. Note that this means the dealer can't 19-back, as a dealer ALWAYS gets at least 1 point in play (either a 31, go, or last), and why this is not the usual version of 19-back.

discussion:

The naming is in part because 19 is impossible to achieve in the scoring phase. It is not uncommon for a 0-point hand to be called a "19"... since experienced cribbage players know that 19 is impossible.

Having played it, it reduces risk taking in card selection, due to the need to ensure points in scoring. Note that it also tends to reduce crib scores a bit as well, as the dealer has to make suboptimal decisions in order to keep points in hand. Also, it penalizes (pretty heavily) a "playing only hand" that fails to take one to 121+.

A playing hand being a low-point hand with strong potential to get points from by-mees or expected runs and doubles, such as AA22 (goes for the Go points) or 55AA (for getting 15's) or AAAF (F=any face; goes for the goes and pairs at high count). A Playing Only hand has no points itself, but expects to get them in play, such as A2TK or A389.


What's the point of putting five face-up train cards next to the deck in Ticket to Ride? What is the point of placing 5 train cards face up next to the deck? I can't see any purpose for this apart from taking 5 cards out of the deck!

When you are taking cards on your turn, you can choose to take any of the face-up cards rather than taking one from the deck. Taking a face-up card this way lets you choose what you are getting (as long as the color you want is available).

From the rules:

  Draw Train Car Cards – The player may draw 2 Train Car cards. He may take any one of the face-up cards or he may draw the top card from the deck (this is a blind draw). If he draws a face up card, he immediately turns a replacement card face-up from the deck. He then draws his second card, either from the face up cards or from the top of the deck. (See Train Car Cards for special rules for Locomotive cards).

This is a key part of the game, so I recommend reading through the rulebook again; if you missed that you likely missed other important things.

One rule that's related (though not all versions have this, Nordic Countries doesn't):

  If a Locomotive card is one of the five face-up cards, the player who draws it may only draw one card, instead of two. If, after having drawn one card the replacement card is a Locomotive, the player cannot take it. If at any time, three of the five face-up cards are Locomotives, all five cards are immediately discarded and five new ones are turned face-up to replace them.

To summarize; if you are choosing to draw 2 train cards on your turn; you choose one at a time to draw the top card of the deck, or one of the 5 face-up cards. If you chose a face-up card, you replace it with one from the top of the deck, and then you make the choice a second time. If you choose to take a locomotive card from the face-up cards, then you can only take 1 card that turn instead of 2.


Check for adjacency after or before using a moving tile? I'm white player and I draw a desert card.

I place my three settlements there:

Now I use my special ability to move any settlement to a desert field:

I choose the settlement on the right:

Now my question is: Can I place this settlement on a different desert terrain OR do I have to place it on the same place where I took it from?

I haven't built on (or next to) any other desert fields yet. So the only adjacent desert field would be that one.

The answer to your question, as asked, is "The settlement must go back to where you picked it up from."

But your question includes this phrase

I haven't built on any other desert fields yet. So the only neighbouring desert field would be that one.

This is not the correct rule.  Perhaps you meant to say that you haven't built on or next to any other desert fields.  If you've built next to other desert fields, then your settlement could be moved to a desert field next to those settlements.


Are the owner benefits from Impersonate Tax Collector part of an action? The Lords of Waterdeep expansion card Impersonate Tax Collector lets you take the main benefit and the owner benefit on your buildings. Are both of these rewards part of the action of assigning an agent to that space, or is the owner benefit separate? If it is part of the same action, it should trigger other plot quests, such as Bribe the Shipwrights.

If a player has completed Impersonate Tax Collector and Bribe the Shipwrights, and controls The Three Pearls, when they assign an agent to this building do they get the extra rogue from Bribe the Shipwrights?

Impersonate Tax Collector says

  Whenever you assign an agent to a
  Building you control, you also gain the owner benefit.

Bribe the Shipwrights says

  "Whenever you take an action that provides any
  coins, also take 1 Rogue from the supply and place it in your tavern."

The Three Pearls has an owner benefit of two coins.

Looking at the FAQ for Lords of Waterdeep, there is a question which seems to answer this question:

Q: If a plot quest gives me resources for having taken an action, did I gain those resources as a part of taking the action?
A: No. You gained the extra resources from the effect of the plot quest, not from the action itself.
Note 2: The benefits of plot quests, and the rewards for completing a quest, never count as being a part of an action.

Since your plot card(s) are what are giving you the benefit of the Owner's action, this would seem to indicate that you do not receive the extra resource.


How does countering spells work in stack? I have stumbled upon a situation where my opponent chooses to counter a spell when it is not the most recent spell placed on the stack. It goes like this:

Fog is cast
Opponent casts Counterspell targeting Fog
I cast my own Counterspell targeting their Counterspell
Opponent casts another Counterspell targeting Fog

Is it possible for the opponent to target any spell on the stack? Shouldn't it be targeting the last spell placed on the stack?

You can target any spell on the stack, there is no rule limiting it to only the top item on the stack. As you can see below the term counter doesn't have anything that effects how targets have to be chosen, and the spells don't say they have to target the top most object on the stack, so they are able to target any spell that is on the stack.

114.1. Some spells and abilities require their controller to choose one or more targets for them. The targets are object(s), player(s), and/or zone(s) the spell or ability will affect. These targets are declared as part of the process of putting the spell or ability on the stack. The targets can’t be changed except by another spell or ability that explicitly says it can do so.
701.5. Counter
701.5a To counter a spell or ability means to cancel it, removing it from the stack. It doesn’t resolve and none of its effects occur. A countered spell is put into its owner’s graveyard.
701.5b The player who cast a countered spell or activated a countered ability doesn’t get a “refund” of any costs that were paid.


How does the "Special Orders" special event card work? The "Special Orders" card states:

  During this turn, the current player may move one other player's pawn (with permission) as if it were his own.

I have read this and the rule book (which gives further clarifications), but I am still unclear on the interaction of this card and the abilities of the different roles.

I am looking for a concise description of how the card works, which covers cases such as the following:

Generalist moving the medic through a cured disease,
Medic moving the generalist through a cured disease,
Troubleshooter moving operations expert by direct flight,
Someone moving the dispatcher, attempting to move a third player using their power,
...

For bonus points I would be interested in any interactions with other special events that are relevant (i.e. confusion that I haven't had yet!)

It's the dispatcher ability minus bringing people together.  For example, you can use it to move the containment specialist or (with a cure) the medic through cities to remove cubes.  We've done this to get double duty out of the medic late in the game when we were racing the board.

You are using your own move actions (and any constraints or benefits they bring) to move the other player.  (You spend your own cards for flights, for example.)  The other player's abilities are relevant if they are effects of moving, but not if they involve actions.

To address your cases:

Generalist moving the medic through a cured disease: cubes are removed; gets to move five times.
Medic moving the generalist through a cured disease: no effect (the medic didn't enter the city), four moves.
Troubleshooter moving ops expert by direct flight: Troubleshooter reveals the correct card rather than discarding it (his ability); but doesn't get to use an arbitrary card if at a research station (the ops expert's ability).
Someone moving the dispatcher, attempting to move a third player: no, you don't get access yourself to the other player's special abilities.  (But you could just move that third player instead with this action.)

See this thread on Boardgame Geek, particularly the comments from Tom Lehmann, the co-designer of On the Brink.  (Thanks to @tremby for pointing this out in a comment.)


Does a player become immune to the Magician when getting murdered or robbed? We are wondering if a killed or robbed character is immune to the Magician or not.
Can the Magician force to swap district cards with a player who has been assassinated or robbed?

The Magician targets a player, not a role, so I don't see why the fact they were targeted by the Assassin/Witch would have any impact on this.


Borborygmos Enraged's ability around dying in combat I attack with Borborygmos Enraged. My opponent blocks with a 6/6 (which means Borborygmos will die). When Borborygmos Enraged deals damage to the player, I assume I still reveal the top 3 cards and put lands into my hand as part of the triggered ability. Am I able to use the "Discard a land card" ability with the new cards I draw with the triggered ability or is he dead and I can't use that ability?

The ability triggers, but you can't use these lands to activate Borborygmos Enraged's ability
The ability triggers when Borborygmos Enraged deals combat damage, even if at the same time it's dealt lethal damage itself. State-based actions see lethal damage marked on it and destroy it, causing it to go into your graveyard. The ability is then put on the stack and you get priority, but since Borborygmos Enraged isn't on the battlefield anymore, you can't activate it's ability.
If nothing else happens, the triggered ability will resolve and possibly reveal an amount of lands you may put into your hand.

Relevant Rules

510.2. Second, all combat damage that's been assigned is dealt simultaneously. (...)
510.3. Third, the active player gets priority. (...)
510.3a. Any abilities that triggered on damage being dealt or while state-based actions are performed afterward are put onto the stack before the active player gets priority (...)
704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (...), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. (...) Once no more state-based actions have been performed as the result of a check and no triggered abilities are waiting to be put on the stack, the appropriate player gets priority. (...)


When a monster is discarded, is it considered "defeated"? One of the Shub-Niggurath mysteries calls for action after a monster is defeated.  Does this include when you discard a monster from a Tokyo encounter or kill it from inducing a loss of health from Tokyo?  With no further clarification on the wording, I would think discarding an entire monster would be considered defeating it as it gets blasted from the Earth.

Page 8 of the Reference Guide

  Monster

  When a Monster has lost Health equal to or greater than its toughness, it is defeated.

  When a Monster is defeated or discarded, it is returned to the Monster cup and the cup is randomized.

If you have to encounter something (such as an ambush) on a temporary basis and are able to do enough damage to it in one go to kill it, then it is considered 'defeated'.  However, it does make a distinction here about both 'defeated' and 'discarded'.  This means that, as far as I can tell, there is a precedence about the difference between the two.  So, no, discarding does not equal defeated.


Is the person allowed to change his card if the stack is not collected by the opposition? What if a person throws a wrong suit in 29 card game? When does he open 2 black pips? Does it open after the stack is taken? Is the person allowed to change his card if the stack is not collected by the opposition?

Players must follow suit if they are able.
If unable, then before playing a card, the player must ask for trump to be revealed (or simply reveal trump if they are the declarer). If trump has already been revealed, then the player may play as normal (any suit).
From the rules at wikipedia:
In the case of a misplay, the hand ends and

the player forfeits the points he called in the start or the opposite player gains the points which they made at the start.

There is no provision for correcting/adjusting the misplay. The only remedy is the loss of the game points.


Can I save a creature from dying by exileing then returning it If I have a Dire Fleet Hoarder on the field that takes a point of damage can I cast Siren's Ruse to save it from dying?

Yes you can save your creature, if you cast your spell at the right time.

When you exile a creature and return it to the battlefield it becomes a new object (except in special cases) as per the comprehensive rules:

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

However in order to save your creature, you must cast exile and return the creature before damage has been done to it.
For example if your creature is targeted by a removal spell:

You have a Dire Fleet Hoarder and your opponent casts Shock targeting it.
If you respond to the Shock with Siren's Ruse, your opponent has no responses.
Once the stack starts to resolve, the Shock will lose track of your Dire Fleet Hoarder and fizzle (since it no longer has any legal targets).
Your pirate has survived and is free to pillage another day!

An example of your creature about to die in combat (see: Combat Phase for more info):

You have a Dire Fleet Hoarder that is attacking and your opponent has a
2/2 Forest Bear blocking it.
Before the Damage Step you cast Siren's Ruse targeting your Dire Fleet Hoarder, your opponent has no responses.
When Siren's Ruse resolves your Dire Fleet Hoarder is removed from combat. It will no longer be dealt any damage by the Bear, and it will no longer deal any damage to the Bear.

If however the damage has already been marked on the Dire Fleet Hoarder, for instance you let the the Shock spell resolve without responding or you let combat damage be dealt, it is too late to save it. This is because it will have already died due to state-based actions as per the comprehensive rules:

  704.1.: State-based actions are game actions that happen automatically whenever certain conditions (listed below) are met. State-based actions don’t use the stack.

and

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

Since the creature is killed as a result of a state based action, it doesn't use the stack. Since it doesn't use the stack, you can not respond to it and can not save your creature.


Does Skids O'Toole and the Composed talent provide for unlimited rerolls? Since Skids rerolls all 1s, and Composed lets you rerolls all dice if you don't roll any 1s, can he reroll endlessly until he succeeds as he needs?

Let's look at the exact wording on the cards:

"Skids" O'Toole

  Whenever you roll a 1 during a test, you may reroll that die.

Composed:

  When resolving a test, if you do not roll any 1's, you may reroll all of your dice.

You can trigger Skids' ability whenever you roll a 1 during a test, that is apparent.

Composed on the other hand is triggered while you are resolving the test. If you have no 1's at this point, you can choose to reroll all dice.

From the Rules Reference:

  If a Condition's effect does not list a limit, it may only be used once per instance of the triggered event.

As this is rolling dice during a single test, you can use Skids' ability to reroll any 1's again, but you are still in the resolving the same test, and you can not trigger composed again.

To summarise:

Skids' ability can be triggered during any roll during a test
Composed can be triggered once per test

Therefore you can not roll endlessly until you succeed, but it certainly is a good combination that would lead to greater chance of success.

There is also a discussion of this combination on BGG


How can I efficiently build a deck from a box of random cards? Recently I've become interested in playing Magic The Gathering. One of my friends, a long time player of the game, has offered me a large box with many random cards in it. He says I'm free to take whatever I like.

I know what colors I enjoy playing, so I've begun digging through hundreds of cards and keeping aside the cards that seem good to me. I'm a real beginner, and although I know how to play, it's hard for me to know which cards are good and which are bad. Some of the good cards hide their strength in subtle ways to use those cards; it's not always blatantly obvious how strong a card really is (to a beginner like me).

After taking something like 120 cards from the box in the colors I liked, I set out to make a deck from it. But it dawned on my I actually have no clue how to build a deck with completely random cards. I know a deck needs to be at least 60 cards, and you are not allowed to have more than half your deck in Land cards.

I know the very basics of deckbuilding, but usually you start with cards from the same series that are already having some kind of synergy. How can I efficiently build a deck from a box of completely random cards, spanning series from as old as 1994 to recent modern cards of 2015 and 2016?

This question is prone to receive a lot of subjective answers, so I'm looking for an answer that is complete, is written from experience rather than opinion and backs up opinion with facts or references.

What I have done so far, and I feel is inefficient:

Build a stack of 'cards that I like'

This part is the most time consuming, as I don't recognize any of the cards and I need to read what the card does, then understand if it fits my style of play. The only 'quick filter' I had was looking only at cards that matched my desired colors. How do I speed up the process of finding cards that fit my play style from a box of random cards?

Lay out the collected cards

Then I placed the cards in front of me on a table, grouped by mana curve and separated by creature cards and spells. This resulted in two rows per color, each column increasing the converted mana cost. To speed up this process, I first split my stack into new stacks per color. Then, one color at a time, I built up the rows and columns.

Apply deckbuilding basics

Now that I have a good idea of the cards I collected, I can pick the right mix of creatures and spells with a good mana cost distribution. This is the fun part of deckbuilding, and also the part I don't feel I need help with. It's also highly subjective.

I'm looking for answers that can make the first two steps more efficient and less time-consuming. In total I've spent a good 2 hours on the above and I feel I've only scraped the surface of the box 'o cards' potential...

If you're willing to spend a bit of time up front, you can probably "triage" the cards in a way that might make deck building easier.

Grab a large section of cards and sort out the colors you are interested in.
Sort the cards within the colors by the set symbol.  The idea here is that you're more likely to get interesting synergies from cards that are from the same set.
Choose the sets that have the most cards in them, and sort those into lands, creatures, and non-creatures.
If there are still too many cards, you might sort the creatures into ones that share a keyword or troop type.

Now you can start your deckbuilding.  Start with creatures and add ones that look interesting until you have about 25 creatures.  Then go to the non-creatures piles for the sets you used, and find 10-12 that go well with the set of creatures you chose, swapping as necessary.

This way you aren't having to read every card, and you're more likely to end up with a deck with at least some interesting interactions.  It isn't going to win a tournament, but it will let you get started, and then you can read more cards as you have time and continue tweaking your deck.


Do I loose æmber after plaing Full Moon, then Chota Harzi? I've got no æmber and play a Full Moon. Then I play Chota Harzi. What is my æmber count after that and why? Zero or one?
It is obvious that without Full Moon being played I do not lose any æmber: there is no any. But with the Full Moon it is not clear what happens earlier: losing via the Chota Hazri or gaining via the Full Moon.

The active player (presumably you) chooses the order. The result is likely that you choose to end up with 1 æmber.
The Full Moon effect trigger and Chota's play trigger both happen when you play the card, at the same time. As such, the active player chooses the order they resolve in. Unless you're somehow doing this on your opponent's turn, you'll get to choose which comes first, and thus whether or not you end up with the æmber.
From the rules, page 9:

ACTIVE PLAYER
The active player is the player taking the current turn. The active player makes all necessary decisions for all card abilities or timing conflicts that need to resolve during their turn.


Do I own a token that I create under somebody else's control? I was reading somewhere a few days ago that when a player creates a token using a spell like Rapid Hybridization they own the token, even though they never had control of it. I can't seem to find the discussion or the relevant rule.

When I create a token that comes into play under another players control, do I own the token?

No, that token is owned by the other player.  From the current Comprehensive Rules:

  110.5a A token is both owned and controlled by the player under whose control it entered the battlefield.

Tokens used to be owned by the controller of the effect that created them, but this was changed in the Magic 2010 rules revision to line up better with people's intuitions about ownership of permanents.


How does your opponent verify that you're able to cast a Companion card? Normally, in Magic the Gathering, your library is a hidden zone; neither you nor your opponent are allowed to look at the cards in it during a game of Magic: the Gathering unless an effect says that you can. However, with the release of Ikoria, there are now Companion cards that allow you to cast them if you've obeyed certain deck building restrictions.

When you go to cast one from outside the game, how does your opponent verify that you meet the deckbuilding requirement for doing so? They can't look at the contents of your library, so it's entirely possible that your deck has one or more cards that violate the Companion's deckbuilding restriction, and you just haven't played them to a public zone yet. I've look at the article on the WotC website explaining the set mechanics of Ikoria, and it doesn't mention this problem at all.

You can choose a Companion that you're incapable of casting (e.g. to trick the opponent into thinking your deck is something it isn't), right? Is the only way for your opponent to verify your ability to cast a Companion to call a Judge to look at your decklist?

Presenting a card as your companion requires you meet the companion condition. Like every keyword in magic, there is a section of the comprehensive rules that cover the ability, and those rules are what really matter. I think what you're doing is reading the reminder text as if it were the entirety of the rules for companion (reminding that you could originally cast a companion from outside the game once, now can add it to your hand for 3 mana) Here are the sections, with my emphasis:

103.1b If a player wishes to reveal a card with a companion ability that they own from outside the game, they may do so after setting aside their sideboard. A player may reveal no more than one card this way, and may do so only if their deck fulfills the condition of that card’s companion ability. (See rule 702.138, “Companion.”)
702.138a Companion is a keyword ability that functions outside the game. It’s written as “Companion—[Condition].” Before the game begins, you may reveal one card you own from outside the game with a companion ability whose condition is fulfilled by your starting deck. (See rule 103.1b.) If you do, once during that game, you may play that card from outside the game.  Once during the game, any time you have priority and the stack is empty, but only during a main phase of your turn, you may pay {3} and put that card into your hand. This is a special action that doesn’t use the stack (see rule 116.2g). This is a change from previous rules.

These two connected rules, with one being a restating of part of the other with a different focus (one from the start of game rules section, the other from the companion section) explain how companion really works - that the deck MUST meet the companion restriction for you to reveal this card. The text in brackets on the card (the reminder text) originally told you what you can do with your companion, before the rules change, but the rules themselves say how a card can become your companion. Revealing a companion that your deck does not meet the conditions for makes it an illegal deck.
As for how you verify if a deck is legal under companion rules, this works the same way as any other deck construction rule, that is you assume the deck is legally constructed until you prove otherwise. If you see a 5th copy of any of the cards (other than the 16 that can legally have more than 4 copies of) you see the deck is illegal and act on that. So if you see a 2 drop in a deck with Keruga, the Macrosage as the companion, you know the deck rules have been violated. This is actually pretty hard to hide - You can't play that card, it can't be in your hand when you get hit with something like Thoughtseize, it can't be milled from your deck, and your opponent can't play any card that lets them look at your deck like Surgical Extraction. An invalid companion would be just as hard to hide as a 5th copy of a card to an opponent paying attention.
Any potential psychological advantage fooling your opponent about what your deck is by announcing a companion that couldn't legally be your companion really doesn't exist - now you're playing with a deck that doesn't have 60 useful cards in it, it has say 50 cards that match the restriction and 10 dead ones that show you to be cheating so you could never let your opponent see them. It's also just poor sportsmanship to try and cheat.


Can I roll more than 5 dice in Combat? Suppose that my investigator currently has a fight of 4, and a Rifle (Combat +5).  Is the number of dice I get to roll during combat limited by the in-box equipment (5), or can I roll 9 dice (5 dice + 4 dice)?

Roll as many dice as you need to (nine, in your case). The relevant bit in the rules, I suppose, is:

  When making a skill check, a player always rolls a number of dice equal to his investigator’s value in the appropriate skill.

There's also an example, under Weapon and Skill Limits, saying:

  ... He then accounts for the Star Spawn’s combat rating (–3), leaving him with 13 dice with which to roll 3 successes (as the Star Spawn’s toughness is 3)

There are so many things that wouldn't make sense if you were limited to five dice. There are investigators with a skill that goes up to 6, items like the Tommy Gun that give +6 to something. And there's the bit where skill checks requiring 3 successes would be pretty much impossible, and even two would be hard. Combat should often involve more than five dice, and it's quite possible to get yourself up past ten dice - I think they just figured it wasn't really feasible to give you enough dice for any possible situation.


A good counter faction to Ninja-Zombies I just played Smash up with the second edition and the first as Bear Cavalry-tricksters against my Dad who played as          Ninja Zombies And he kicked my butt,

I'm aware that there are counter factions, like say Tricksters do awful against Ghosts since Ghosts are all about Discarding cards, and Tricksters keep making you discard.

Ninja Zombies seem to have good synergy with each other which makes it quite clever, since Zombies keep coming back from the dead when Ninjas kill everything.

Is there any counter factions towards them all?

I think that one of the best pairs to face ninja-zombies would actually be more unconventional. I have found that robot-wizards do extremely well against that match for a few reasons. The first is that they don't focus on killing your opponent's minions at all. This means that they focus entirely on their own thing and don't waste cards killing your opponent's zombies.
The second reason is that they build themselves up a lot. If your opponent manages to kill something (seeing stars), then you still have a base full of microbots and chronomages to score easily.The final reason is that ninja-zombies are very inconsistent. They cant draw as much and portions of their hand will always be useless. This makes cards like tech center and winds of change very useful because you can always have the cards you need.
I don't know what your preffered play-style is, but robot-wizards works very well against most factions. You just need to watch out for pirates and trickster because of base blocking and large removal cards.


which software to use to make the rules's game? I begin to write rules of my game on Word, but there is something better ? to manage images, backgrounds... etc ?

how are the rules of professional games created ?

As a fellow aspiring Game Designer, I stick with word or excel for initial content.  Use anything you are familiar with, as content is the only thing you should be worried about.  Unless you plan to self publish, publishers are going to scrap your design for something that they'll get professionally made.  If you do self publish, then I recommend sending it to a professional designer with experience in tabletop games.  Also, you can post to sites like Board Game Designer Forum for peer review by published game designers.  (https://www.bgdf.com/)  There are a ton of articles and advice out there on layout, content and form.  Here are a few:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/405444/rule-book-writing

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/3277179

http://www.leagueofgamemakers.com/?s=write+rules

Best of luck on your game design!


Rules for the game "Chainstore" There is an old box in our storeroom containing the game Chainstore.  My brother and I bought the game when we were kids (ages ago).  Now my children wants to play it, but the rules are missing.  I've tried to figure it out, but that's not the way to go.

Anybody have a copy of the rules of Chainstore?  It looks like Monopoly-based game.

Dave Elder has a copy of Chainstore for trade listed at boardgamegeek.

You could try contacting him via GeekMail there.


Does "Sacrifice a creature" trigger "sacrifice this creature" When choosing a creature to sacrifice (originated from a "sacrifice a creature" instruction), if the creature that is being sacrificed has "sacrifice this creature (for whatever result)", does it trigger?

Does it make any difference if the target creature is a forced sacrifice instead of a volunteered sacrifice?

Example scenario:
I play Altar's Reap to draw 2 cards and target Bile Urchin as the sacrifice. Does this trigger Bile Urchin's "Sacrifice Bile Urchin: Target player loses 1 life."?

I may have thought about this for too long and confused myself, so a little clarification would be great.

It will not. Sacrificing is a cost paid for the effect to go on stack. Just like you can not spend 1 mana on different costs, you can not spend 1 creature on different costs.

If you wanted it to work the way you described, the ability should be a triggered one, for example it could read: 'When this creature is sacrificed, ...'.

(Also, keep in mind that sacrificing is not targeting anything. Untargettable creatures can still be sacrificed)


Perplexing Chimera and control changing enchantments Perplexing Chimera can steal spells but gives control of itself to that player.  But if I enchanted with an enchantment that says "You control enchanted creature" (such as Hypnotic Siren) would that enchantment let me retain control of the Chimera after stealing spells and basically have infinite uses of the chimera's spell stealing?

No, this is not how it works.  This is perhaps unintuitive since Perplexing Chimera's ability appears to be a "one-shot" effect, but by rule all control-changing effects are continuous effects, and these effects use a timestamp system to determine the final outcome (with the most recent effect winning out).  The control-changing effect from the aura can be overridden by Perplexing Chimera's own ability that also changes control.

See also Djinn of Infinite Deceits interacting with other control-changing effects which describes some other other unintuitive corner cases with control-changing effects.

Relevant rules (emphasis mine):

  611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.

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

  613.1b Layer 2: Control-changing effects are applied.

  613.6. Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is usually done using a timestamp system. An effect with an earlier timestamp is applied before an effect with a later timestamp.

  613.8. One continuous effect can override another. Sometimes the results of one effect determine whether another effect applies or what another effect does.

  Example: Two effects are affecting the same creature: one from an Aura that says
  “Enchanted creature has flying” and one from an Aura that says “Enchanted creature loses
  flying.” Neither of these depends on the other, since nothing changes what they affect or
  what they’re doing to it. Applying them in timestamp order means the one that was
  generated last “wins.” The same process would be followed, and the same result reached, if either of the effects had a duration (such as “Target creature loses flying until end of turn”) or came from a non-Aura source (such as “All creatures lose flying”).

As an aside, using an aura (like Hypnotic Siren's Bestow) to regain control of perplexing chimera you gave away is probably a bad idea.  You'd likely regain control of the chimera, but only because your opponent would steal your aura spell along with another of your permanents.  And pre-enchanting a chimera you already control is a waste since of resources since the timestamp system will override the aura.


Dungeon Board Game rules scenario We're new to the game, and already ran across something that struck us as an issue. Here's the scenario:

Wizard stops just shy of a room, fires in a spell that fails to kill the monster. He stays outside the room.
On the next player's turn, he walks through the wizard and into the room to battle the monster (rules say heroes can pass through the same space, but not occupy it unless it's a chamber). Hero fights the monster, loses, but is not ejected from the room.
Wizard's next turn comes. What can the wizard do now? The way the rules read, if he fires a spell into the room and kills the monster, he enters the room to loot, but the room is already occupied by the other hero, so the wizard is forbidden entry. Even worse, the wizard is still just outside the room.

What happens if during the combat in the room, the hero who pushed past is forced out of the room? Technically, the wizard was already in the space just outside the door, and there is nowhere for the hero to retreat to.

The older TSR version of the rules make this process a bit clearer:

  Die roll: 4-5-6; Light Wound!  Drop any 1  treasure card. Retreat back to the nearest empty corridor space. Lose one turn.


Tsumego elementary problem 633 - seki? I'am trying to solve problem 633 of the elementary set (black's move):

It seems to me that after black takes the outside liberty, it's a seki. Or is there a better solution?

Actually, White is dead after you fill that liberty.  He can never attack the Black stones, but Black can capture the stone in the corner.  After that there is a ko that will kill White.  There's no way for White to win the ko - filling it in leaves the white stones in atari.  At the end of the game when White has no more ko threats, Black can take the ko, and then the white group.


Can colonists be relocated during the Mayor phase? I've been reading the rules, and while everything is very well explained, I can't seem to determine if the colonist is fixed to the building once placed. Say I put a colonist working on the small market, and it's now the mayor phase, and I got one new colonist from the ship.

I place him on a plantation (sugar, e.g.), but I also feel like the next player will pick the craftsmen card. Can I move the colonist from the hospice to the sugar mill (provided I, of course have room)?

Secondly, at the end of the mayor phase, the mayor should place the number of colonists on the ship equal to the number of free "work spaces", to a minimum of the number of players. Now, how exactly do you determine if the mayor "forgets" this. I mean, if you're a player who hopes he will forget it do you just wait out until the next role is drawn and then point out that the new colonists have been forgotten?

All your colonists can be moved each mayor phase, including ones acquired during earlier turns.

From the rules:

  A player may place his new colonist(s), together with all the colonists he acquired from earlier rounds, on any empty circles on the tiles on his player board. Thus, a player may move a colonist placed on a circle or San Juan in an earlier round.

Since it is the last thing a player does during their turn, the first opportunity to remind them is after a new role card is selected or the Governor placard is moved (since otherwise it would still be during their turn.). It seems silly to place only the minimum number of colonists in the ship if "forgotten" at this point, and I can see how this could be exploited by players to not end the game as soon as it normally would. (Note: This rules seems is probably for later turns after a Builder phase has been selected and people cannot remember which new buildings have been built, and therefore how many colonists are supposed to be on the ship.)

  As his last duty, the mayor puts new colonists on the colonist ship to be used in the next mayor phase. [...] - If a mayor forgets (players may remind him) to place new colonists on the colonist ship, players later place the minimum (number of players) on the colonist ship.


Do "enters the battlefield" abilities trigger when a creature is copied with Phyrexian Metamorph? The card Phyrexian Metamorph says:

You may have Phyrexian Metamorph enter the battlefield as a copy of any artifact or creature on the battlefield, except it's an artifact in addition to its other types.

If I understand the rules text correctly, abilities of copied creatures that will trigger when the creature enters the battle field will trigger for the copy as well. In my current case the target is a Geist Honored Monk:

When Geist-Honored Monk enters the battlefield, put two 1/1 white Spirit creature tokens with flying onto the battlefield.

If I copy this creature with Phyrexian Metamorph, do I get the tokens as well?

You certainly do.  Per the Gatherer rulings:

  Any enters-the-battlefield abilities of the copied permanent will
  trigger when Phyrexian Metamorph enters the battlefield. Any "as
  [this] enters the battlefield" or "[this] enters the battlefield with"
  abilities of the chosen permanent will also work.

The section in the Comp rules seems pretty clear on this, as well:

  706.5. An object that enters the battlefield “as a copy” or “that’s a copy” of another object becomes a  copy as it enters the battlefield.
  It doesn’t enter the battlefield, and then become a copy of that
  permanent. If the text that’s being copied includes any abilities that
  replace the enters-the-battlefield  event (such as “enters the
  battlefield with” or “as [this] enters the battlefield” abilities),
  those  abilities will take effect. Also, any enters-the-battlefield
  triggered abilities of the copy will have a  chance to trigger.


If Ink-Eyes brings a creature back and then her owner loses in a multiplayer game, does the rezzed creature go to graveyard? So say I have a creature in my graveyard in a 3-player game, and one of my opponents uses Ink-Eyes, Servant of Oni to bring it back from the dead. That player then goes on to lose. Does my creature come back under my control, or go back to my graveyard?

It will be exiled. The card would go back under your control if there was a temporary effect granting your opponent the control of your creature, e.g. Mind Control or Act of Treason. This is not the case, so the object under your opponent control would be exiled (since it is not the object he owns and it doesn't leave the game). The ruling in question has an example that covers it:

  800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player
  control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled
  any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease
  to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that
  player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It
  happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left
  the game had priority at the time he or she left, priority passes to
  the next player in turn order who’s still in the game.

  ...

  Example: Alex casts Bribery, which reads, “Search target opponent’s
  library for a creature card and put that card onto the battlefield
  under your control. Then that player shuffles his or her library,”
  targeting Bianca. Alex puts Serra Angel onto the battlefield from
  Bianca’s library. If Bianca leaves the game, Serra Angel also leaves
  the game. If, instead, Alex leaves the game, Serra Angel is exiled.


Maximum attainable points for a single player in a two player game of Carcassonne Let's start this question with the following assumptions about a game of Carcassonne:

It's a two player game.
The game is using the current basic set of rules/tiles. edit: just to be clear, I'm using 3rd edition rules that score all city tiles the same 2 points and count the same city for different farms as described here.
The player we want to maximize has perfect luck and perfect competence both drawing the tiles and placing them.
The opponent has minimum luck and competence.

This means we can choose what tiles are drawn by each player, how they are played and how to place each players' meeples.

Is there an optimal way of placing the tiles in order to maximize one player's score? If so, can that way be determined?

Note: This answer below is using 1st Edition scoring rules (Cities only scored once). Although parts of the analysis are valuable to calculating the highest score possible (36 Scoring opportunities, try to score with Meeples that have a high point value per the 36 turns, the highest score of 278 is not correct. I will have to do further analysis to determine if 7 farms can be created scoring the most cities multiple times, will result in a maximal score. (Edit: The maximum theoretical score is 338, as posted in my other 3rd Edition rules analysis)

Hackworth's analysis about optimal play exists is correct, although he is right about the difficulty in evaluating all possible moves, I believe that tengfred is closer in estimation of what we need to determine the maximum score possible. We only need to evaluate ending maps, not all possible moves from the beginning to the end. Once we have found the maximum scoring map, we only need to backtrack to find a legal set of moves that will lead to that end map. That is as tengfred points out, a much smaller problem.

The Rules show 72 tiles, and scoring as follows:

  Road (1 point per tile), Cities (2 points per tile, 2 Points per pennant), Cloister (1 point for each tile, cloister tile and surrounding tiles), Farm (3 points per completed city)

A similar question was asked on The Opinionated Gamer.

  My challenge to you is to see how many points you can score using only the 72 tiles in the base set – following all of the rules as printed in the box — EXCEPT that you can only use one meeple!

Wie Hwa (animation) solved that problem with 277 points.

He didn't always score on odd turns, so his solution isn't the correct answer to this question. But, someone with more desire than me might want to take his end map and modify the order of the turns so that player 1 is always the one to score.

This gets you a grand total of 278 points (the board actually will have an unmatched city tile that cannot score I think, and still place a farmer). It is amazing that Wei Hwa almost achieved this using only a single meeple in single player. Feel free to figure out if his end map is an optimal solution for 2-player.

The maximum number of scoring opportunities is 36 if you go first since you can only place meeples on your turn. The optimal solution will include:

one farmer, 45 points
15 completed cities, 116 points (10 pennants = 20 pts, 48 city edges = 96)
6 cloisters, 54 points.
The remaining points divided between the most points that can be scored on roads with the remaining 14 moves (1x Quad road = 4 pts,7x Tri Road = 21 points, 32 straight/elbow non terminals, 5x Dead End)


Can monsters with no speed cross barrier rooms? We encountered this in Haunt 23: Tentacled Horror. After the heroes discovered the location of the head (a monster), they placed it on one side of the chasm. The head has no speed. On the head's monster turn, can it move across the chasm? I see three reasons this is true:

"monsters can ignore any harmful text on a room tile" (Rulebook, p19)
"[m]onsters always ignore barriers" (ibid, p7)
"[c]rossing the barrier [of a barrier room] doesn't count as moving a space." (ibid, p7)

Yes.

From the rules, under Special Rooms, page 6:

  Crossing the barrier doesn’t count as moving a space.

and

  Monsters always ignore barriers.

The fact that a monster's movement is defined by speed is relevant to discussing how many rooms the monster can move between.

  At the start of the monster turn, roll a number of dice equal to each monster’s Speed. That’s the number of spaces that monster can move that turn

This means that a monster than doesn't have speed can move 0 spaces each turn. But your question is not related to how many space a monster can move. Your question is about which side of the barrier room the monster is considered to be on. And monsters can choose to be on whichever side of the barrier they want to be on. Going from one side of the barrier to the other isn't "moving" as the game generally describes moving.

It is worth noting that many rules in Betrayal are either unclear or lacking; and this is a case where the rules as written are not fully in line with the thematic answer. That is to say, it makes sense thematically that a monster that "cannot move" couldn't ever get from one side of the tower to the other. Because of this, it makes perfect sense for your playgroup to decide to play the game with the thematic answer rather than the strictly rules-based answer.


What is the sequence of actions when my Shocker removes cards and places cards in my opponents hand? I have a fun little shocker deck. From Gatherer

  Whenever Shocker deals damage to a player, that player discards all the cards in his or her hand, then draws that many cards.

Note that the errata does not specify combat damage. When the stars align I usually have the following auras on the Shocker.

Arcane Teachings: Enchanted creature gets +2/+2 and has "Tap: This creature deals 1 damage to target creature or player."
Sigil of Sleep: Whenever enchanted creature deals damage to a player, return target creature that player controls to its owner's hand.

My understanding is that when I damage a player (I even targeted myself to get a new hand in desperation) that his hand is discarded and new cards are drawn. Then at the same time a creature (assuming there is a legal target) returns to his hand. Netting the player 1 extra card in his hand once the action is completed.

Is this correct? Are there rules addressing this scenario?

When two or more trigger happen at the same time, the player controlling those triggers put them on the stack in an order of his/her choice, beginning with the active player.

So in your scenario, you can put the discard/draw trigger first and the bounce creature trigger second on the stack. This way, the bounce trigger will resolve first, so he/she will have to discard this creature, too, when the other trigger resolves.

Note, that he/she can respond to all triggers placed on the stack. If the bounced creature has Flash for example, he/she could replay it, before he/she has to discard


Who would get the longest road? Imagine the following setup. There are 3 (or more) players with an equally long road. What would happen if the longest road was broken? How is it decided who obtains the longest road from there on?

No. The rules are pretty clear about this:

Set the “Longest Road” card aside if—after a longest road is
broken—several players tie for the new longest road or no one has a 5+
segment road. The “Longest Road” card comes into play again when only
1 player has the longest road (of at least 5 road pieces)

Your example exactly meets the criteria, "after a longest road is broken" and "several players tie for the new longest road".


What exactly is "each combat"? The text for Juggernaut reads, in part:

Juggernaut attacks each combat if able.

I'm not sure what this means. The word "combat" isn't defined as a countable noun in the Comprehensive Rules. It usually occurs in expressions as an uncountable noun, e.g. "in combat", "during combat", "removed from combat", "result of combat", "beginning of combat", "end of combat", "rules for combat", and as a modifier, e.g. "combat phase", "combat damage". Here are the only occurrences of "combat" as a countable noun that I found in the Comprehensive Rules:

509.5a An ability that reads “Whenever [a creature] blocks, ...” generally triggers only once each combat for that creature, even if it blocks multiple creatures.
509.5c An ability that reads “Whenever [a creature] becomes blocked, ...” generally triggers only once each combat for that creature, even if it’s blocked by multiple creatures.
701.37a Certain spells and abilities can goad a creature. Until the next turn of the controller of that spell or ability, that creature attacks each combat if able and attacks a player other than that player if able.
702.22b The rampage bonus is calculated only once per combat, when the triggered ability resolves.
702.38a Provoke is a triggered ability. “Provoke” means “Whenever this creature attacks, you may choose to have target creature defending player controls block this creature this combat if able. If you do, untap that creature.”
702.120a Melee is a triggered ability. “Melee” means “Whenever this creature attacks, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn for each opponent you attacked with a creature this combat.”
802.1. Some multiplayer games allow the active player to attack multiple other players. If this option is used, a player can also choose to attack only one player during a particular combat.

Unfortunately, none of them explains what exactly "a combat" is. I see (at least) two possible interpretations. I suspect that the intended interpretation is for "a/each/per/this combat" to be short for "a/each/per/this combat phase". But another interpretation (which my nephew believes is the intended one) is for "a combat" to refer to a combat that actually occurs, as opposed to a combat phase, which is merely an opportunity for a combat to occur. In this latter interpretation, the Juggernaut would only have to attack if a combat is initiated by other creatures attacking.
Do you see any grounds for arriving at a definitive interpretation?

"Combat" is short-hand for "combat phase"

You are correct that the specific word "combat" without further qualifiers is not explicitely defined in the Comprehensive Rules. However, it is shorthand for "combat phase", as can be inferred from here:

  500.5. When a phase or step ends, any effects scheduled to last “until end of” that phase or step expire. When a phase or step begins, any effects scheduled to last “until” that phase or step expire. Effects that last “until end of combat” expire at the end of the combat phase, not at the beginning of the end of combat step. Effects that last “until end of turn” are subject to special rules; see rule 514.2.

Logically, "until end of combat" is equivalent to "until end of combat phase", therefore "combat" is equivalent to "combat phase".

Also, combat is not initiated in any way other than advancing the turn; it eventually happens every turn, whether or not any creatures are actually going to attack.

  500.1. A turn consists of five phases, in this order: beginning, precombat main, combat, postcombat main, and ending. Each of these phases takes place every turn, even if nothing happens during the phase. The beginning, combat, and ending phases are further broken down into steps, which proceed in order.

That means the Juggernaut has to attack if possible, whether or not other creatures also attack.


When rolling Mr Monopoly do I move to Auction to a property If I roll Mr. Monopoly on the speed die, and all the properties have been bought, according to the rules I have to move to the next place that I have to pay rent. I am not clear what is the rule if the next place is the Auction which according to the rules makes me move to the place with the highest rent. Do I have to move to Auction or do I move to the next property which has cheaper rent.

The latter (you move to the next property which has cheaper rent.). It's not the next "place" in the rule, it's the next property .

From The Rules

  If you roll a Mr. Monopoly after all of the properties are
  owned, make a normal move according to the white
  dice, then move ahead to the first property on which you
  need to pay rent

(emphasis added)


Sly Deal - Stealing a Wild Card The below is from the help section of the Monopoly Deal

Sly Deal
Steal a property card or a property wild card from any other player and add it to your property collection. You cannot steal a card from a full set of properties. Can also be banked as money. Bank value: 3M.

Question: Can I still take the property wild card using Sly Deal if none of my property cards are displayed on the table?

Yes, you can take. In fact, you can rotate the Wild Card before placing a new card on the table to change its color and add your new property. ;)


Is there a way for Braille-Cribbage players to find each other? It's already known that Cribbage can be played by blind people by using Braille-cards, but what I need to know is whether there is a database for Braille-players to get together in their local areas.

The Blind-Foundation here in Hawaii can not find any other blind-cribbage players, so I post here to hopefully find a blind-cribbage partner here in Honolulu.

I didn't have much luck because I couldn't take the time to sign out and getting recommendations not based on my preferences is apparently quite hard. But have you tried MeetUp? On the continent I know it's a very popular website for finding local gamers. You might be able to use MeetUp as Hao Ye suggests to find a blind meet up and see if anyone is interested in cribbage. The best I could find was this Singles Group but there might be others and you might be able to create one if you're interetsed. You could also scan your local subreddit.


Nature's Way ability clarification I don't understand the last line of Nature's Way:

  It deals damage equal to its power to target creature [...]

Does it mean when I cast this card, one of my creatures gains vigilance and trample and also deals damage (like an instant)? And after this, can I also attack with this creature?

Does Nature's Way deal damage like an instant?

Sort of. Your thinking is correct that Nature's Way is similar to an instant in that it causes damage. If you choose a creature with 3 power as the first target, it would behave similar to a Lightning Bolt.

On the other hand, there are many differences between Nature's Way and Lightning Bolt. Nature's Way is not the source of damage. Your creature is. This matters if, for example, your creature has deathtouch. Also, Nature's Way is a sorcery, which restricts when you are allowed to cast it.

Can my creature attack afterwards?

Sure. Your creatures don't give up and die (or tap) for no reason. Nature's Way makes your creature deal damage, but it doesn't make the other creature deal damage back. If the card said "fight" then it would become a two-way exchange.


Is it possible to set up a board state where neither player can ever win or lose except by conceding? A Platinum Angel and Laboratory Maniac for both players would take care of most game endings but either one could be removed from play in a variety of ways. Mycosynth Lattice and Darksteel Forge would negate combat damage and destroy effects but not exile or sacrifice effects.

Edit: Ideally, fo maximum troll the boardstate should be reachable with only one player working towards it.

Arcanist Lupis already provided a fine answer, which works in most circumstances, but you said that you wanted "maximum troll", so I'll provide an alternative solution, which doesn't require Platinum Angel or Abyssal Persecutor (Please note that this solution requires an arbitrary amount of mana):

Cast Temple Bell, Omen Machine, Auratog, and Hive Mind.
Cast Deadeye Navigator and Dualcaster Mage, and soulbond them.
Cast Oblivion Ring, and exile your Omen Machine.
Cast Enter the Infinite (which each player has to copy), then tap your Temple Bell. Each player now has every card in their library in their hand.
Sacrifice Hive Mind to Auratog (This prevents our opponents from messing up our combo in step 7).
Cast Worldfire.
With Worldfire on the stack, cast Pull from Eternity on any permanents in exile that have the potential to impact the board state after the Worldfire resolves, such as suspended cards or a creature exiled with Flickerform. Use the Deadeye Navigator to flicker the Dualcaster Mage, and copy the Pull from Eternity as needed. Note that in the case of Flickerform, you will always receive priority after its ability resolves, so you can still target cards that were exiled while Worldfire was on the stack.
Laugh maniacally (This step is very important!)

When Worldfire resolves, your Oblivion Ring will be exiled, returning Omen Machine to the battlefield. The result? No players will have any cards in their hands, libraries, or graveyards. The only permanent in play will be Omen Machine, preventing players from losing the game via decking themselves. Assuming no phasing shenanigans, no player will be able to do anything, effectively locking everybody out of winning or losing the game.


Order of triggered abilities - will the abilities on the stack resolve after the player who owns the ability loses? Let's say in a three-player game, Alice and Bob are playing Poison-Tip Archer. It's a 2/3 creature with:

  Whenever another creature dies, each opponent loses 1 life.

Carol has 10 1/1 Saproling tokens in play.

All of them are 10 life, and someone plays Tremor:

  Tremor deals 1 damage to each creature without flying.

So all 10 Saprolings would die, triggering both Poison-Tip Archer's abilities 10 times - enough for everyone on the table to die (20 lives lost for Carol, 10 for each Alice and Bob).

Will this be a tie? Is there an order in which the triggers are resolved that may make someone win? Does the result depend somehow on who is the active player?

Edit: Will it make a difference if the Poison-Tip Archer's would also die by the same effect (ie, play Wildfire - doing 4 damage to each creature instead of Tremor's 1)?

The Comprehensive Rules say:

  405.3. If an effect puts two or more objects on the stack at the same time, those controlled by the active player are put on lowest, followed by each other player’s objects in APNAP order (see rule 101.4). If a player controls more than one of these objects, that player chooses their relative order on the stack.

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

  800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time they left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game.

Without loss of generality, suppose the turn order is Alice->Bob->Carol->...

If it's Alice's turn, her triggers are put on the stack first, then Bob's. Bob's triggers will resolve first, making Alice and Carol lose the game simultaneously. By rule 800.4a, Alice's triggers will leave the stack, leaving Bob alive and kicking at 10 life (this is important if there's someone else still in the game).
If it's Bob's turn, the reverse happens: Alice's triggers will resolve first, killing Bob and Carol and leaving Alice alive.
If it's Carol's (or somebody else's turn), Alice is before Bob in turn order and situation 1. applies.


How could I augment my Tau army with Necrons? I'm planning on using the 6th edition Allies rules to add some Necrons to my tau army. As a novice player I'd like to know which units would best suit this mix?

I only barely know my Tau army, and I know nothing of Necrons. Where do I start filling the holes in my Tau army? Why those pieces?

While Tau finally got some flyers of their own, the Necron flyers are still cheaper and better.  I would suggest using two squads of warriors in Nightscythes.  You should also run an Overlord.  He won't do much for you, but he unlocks a Royal Court.  Take one of those with a few Storm Crypteks.  Give the crypteks Voltaic staffs to shred hull points off vehicles.  Round it all out with a Doomscythe or an Annihilation Barge.

Alternatively instead of an overlord take a Destroyer Lord with a warscythe and have him lead a unit of wraiths.  Very annoying to deal with.

This will give your Tau some mobile scoring units and a little more durability.


Clarification on "After You..." card text In Guillotine the "After You..." card states "Put the noble at the front of the line into another player's score pile." Is the card put into the other players score pile the executed noble for this turn and thus end the turn or does the player who played the card then get to collect the next noble at the front of the line ending his/her turn? So is this noble executed instead of or in addition to the noble the player would normally collect?

Each turn you may play an action, and then must collect a nobel.

Unless the action caused the Day to end then you must collect a nobel of your own after playing the card.

(Guillotine was designed and published by Wizards of the Coast and it comes as no surprise to me that the mechanic is so reliant on wording. It certainly makes settling arguments easy... if you're a lawyer!)


How do I play out a Vassal hitting a Throne Room? If I play a Vassal and it hits a Throne Room, do I get to choose an action from my hand?

Vassal - discard the top card of your deck.  If it's an action card
you may play it.
Throne Room -  You may play an action card from your hand twice.

Playing an action card via Vassal is exactly the same as if you had played it from your hand: you follow the text of that card, top to bottom, doing as much as possible.

In the case of Throne Room yes, you choose an action card from your hand to play twice because that's what Throne Room instructs you to do.


What components does "everybody" have? When designing a board game to publish on the web, what components are safe to assume that most people will already have in their collection?

chess
checkers
six-sided dice
playing cards
pen & paper
coins
simple play pieces (meeples or other incarnations)


Does tapping Swiftfoot Boots remove Hexproof from the creature it's equipped to? So if my buddy has Emrakul, the Promised End, and it's equipped with Swiftfoot Boots, and I use Pacification Array to "tap target artifact..." can I tap the boots, thus eliminating the hexproof for that turn?

Tapping an artifact, or any other permanent, does not change its abilities, or whether those abilities have an effect, unless the ability says so. Tapped vs untapped is simply part of the status of a permanent [CR 110.6].

Historically, artifact abilities did in fact "turn off" when that artifact was tapped. Many of those cards have since been reworded to explicitly only work when the permanent is untapped. Examples include Winter Orb, Static Orb and Howling Mine.


Can a Guildgate be tapped for colorless? Can Izzet Guildgate be tapped for colorless mana? For example, could I tap 7 Guildgates to cast Karn Liberated?

You can use a guildgate to help pay for Karn, but it doesn't involve colorless mana.

When you see a grey circle with a number mana symbol in a cost, like the {7} in Karn's casting cost, that's actually called a generic mana cost. You can spend any color of mana to pay for that cost. So you can, say, tap an Izzet Guildgate for red (or blue) mana and use that to pay for one of that seven mana.

Colorless mana, on the other hand, is what's produced when you see something like "add {1} to your mana pool", again with the grey circle with a number, for example on Tomb of the Spirit Dragon. You can use that to pay for generic mana costs too - so you could use colorless mana to cast Karn, but you don't have to. Any color will do.


Does Finn Edwards have to pay to upkeep his Bank Loan? Finn Edwards has a power called Holdout:

  Any Phase: Finn never has to discard items or lose money, even when he is knocked unconscious or driven insane. He must still pay costs as usual.

He also starts with a Bank Loan:

  Upkeep: Roll a die. On a 1-3, pay $1 or discard all of your items along with this card. You cannot get another Bank Loan this game.

The player controller Finn thought that he could opt not to pay the Bank Loan's upkeep instead choosing to discard all items and the Bank Loan.  With the Holdout power, all he lost was the Bank Loan.

Is this the correct interpretation?

That's absolutely correct (although there's also the additional penalty to the end-game scoring if you do that thing). You can always choose to default on a bank loan and lose all of your items. Since Finn doesn't have to discard items, he gets to keep everything. Basically, the Bank comes a-knockin' and all of his stuff is stashed away. It seems to me like this is just the situation a Holdout would be wanted for.

Now, you could choose to interpret the 'pay $1 or discard' as a cost rather than a loss, which would prevent Finn's ability from protecting him. Much like the 'discard' section of the dynamite or the holy water is a cost of using the item, I could see an argument for the 'cost' of a bank loan being either paying $1 and repeating the process next turn or losing everything. But I've always seen it played that Finn's ability protects him from the Bank Loan.

The same question was asked here in the Kevin Wilson answers thread on the FFG forum (although the question wasn't answered by Kevin)


What happens to my Athreos triggers when my opponent has an Aegis of the Gods? This is an important interaction between two Journey into Nyx cards. Really it's a question about how "unless" interacts with targeting.

Say I have an Athreos, God of Passage (spoiler link) in play:

  Whenever another creature you own dies, return it to your hand unless target opponent pays 3 life.

My opponent has an Aegis of the Gods (spoiler link):

  You have hexproof.

What happens when one of my creatures dies, but there are no valid targets for the trigger?

Do I get to return it to my hand from the graveyard because there is no other valid option?
Or does it stay dead because the whole trigger is a no-go?

The ability is removed from the stack, and you do not get your creature back. See:

603.3

  603.3 Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that's not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 116, "Timing and Priority." The ability becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on the stack until it's countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

and 603.3d

  603.3d The remainder of the process for putting a triggered ability on the stack is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2c–d. If a choice is required when the triggered ability goes on the stack but no legal choices can be made for it, or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal, the ability is simply removed from the stack.

You are required to choose a target, and since you cannot the ability is removed from the stack and does not resolve.


Carcassonne - The Tower and The Dragon While it has been a while since I last played Carcassonne using The Tower expansion, I seem to recall a level of confusion as to how the rules surrounding The Tower interacted with the rules of the Dragon.

For example, can the Dragon destroy towers...?

Dragons can't eat tower pieces or barns (only followers). Dragons can eat followers on the tops of towers. This is discussed in the huge annotated rules clarification on Board Game Geek, which has the following to say.
Page 45:

If a follower is deployed to the top of a tower, the construction of the tower is finished
and it may not be built any further. The follower remains on top of the tower until the
end of the game and is not removed or returned to the player unless eaten by the
dragon or captured by another tower. This action may be useful when a player
wishes to protect a more valuable follower from capture.

Page 54:

A barn cannot be removed by the dragon (from The Princess and the Dragon), nor taken prisoner by a tower (from The Tower).

Some relevant related rulings (footnotes in the document):

(105) Q: If there are 2 followers on 1
tile (tower and city) does the dragon
eat them both?
A: [It eats them ] all.
(116) Q: If the dragon can eat a
follower on a tower, can the follower
also be seduced by a princess?
A: The tower is not a part of the city: they are two separate areas.
(133) Q: If you place a dragon tile and add a piece to a tower, what happens
first: follower capture by the tower, or dragon movement?
A: Prisoners are taken first; placing a tower piece is an
alternative to deploying a follower, so occurs before dragon movement.

Dragon food clarifications can be found on p.68-70. To summarise:

Dragon food: Follower, Big Follower,
Mayor, Wagon, Builder Pig, [Follower on] Tower
Block
Not dragon food: Barn, Count,
Fairy


Who decides which metropolis to steal? Say the red player has two metropolises (having upgraded both politics and trade to level 4).  Now the blue player upgrades their politics to level 5 and steals a metropolis from red.

Who decides which of red's two metropolises will be given to blue?  The significance being that the city losing its metropolis is now susceptible to sacking by the barbarians.

I've avoided such ambiguity by throwing out the metropolis tokens and painting the metropolises yellow, green, and blue.  But that's just a house rule.

It is not explicitly stated in the rules.

A large Catan faq  (German only) argues that, because the rules don't distinguish between metropoles from different branches, the player who owns them may decide which one to revert.

What you describe is a common house rule (I use it as well). In the faq it is mentioned that some people paint the metropoles to make this house rule more visible.


Does Rot Wolf's ability work even if he dies? Scenario 1:
My Rot Wolf (2/2 with Infect) is attacking.  My opponent assigns his Defiant Elf (1/1 with Trample) to block.  He then plays Giant Growth on his 1/1 to become a 4/4 until end of turn.

Now, my Rot Wolf gets dealt 4 damage and dies, I understand that, and his Elf gets 2 -1/-1 counters on it.  However, once the turn is over, Giant Growth wears off, and his Defiant Elf becomes -1/-1 and dies.  The question is, do I get to draw a card because the Elf was put into a graveyard and was dealt damage by Rot Wolf this turn? Or is it that because Rot Wolf was put into the graveyard before the Elf was, does his ability not enable me to draw?

Scenario 2:
My Rot Wolf attacks, he blocks with his Grizzly Bears (2/2).  Both get dealt 2 damage and die.  In this case, however, both go into the graveyard at the same time, would I get to draw a card now? or does the Rot Wolf have to survive combat for me to draw?

Yes to your second scenario! Time to check the Comprehensive rules again. This is a long one. Emphasis mine:

  603.6d Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially because the object with the ability may no longer be on the battlefield, may have moved to a hand or library, or may no longer be controlled by the appropriate player. The game has to "look back in time" to determine if these abilities trigger. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward.
  Example: Two creatures are on the battlefield along with an artifact that has the ability "Whenever a creature is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, you gain 1 life." Someone plays a spell that destroys all artifacts, creatures, and enchantments. The artifact's ability triggers twice, even though the artifact goes to its owner's graveyard at the same time as the creatures.

Now we all agree that in your first example, the Rot Wolf is long dead and his ability means squat sitting in the graveyard when the Elf dies.

But in the second example, the Bear and the Rot Wolf die at the same time, so the Rot Wolf's ability triggers even though the wolf is on the way to the graveyard.


Pokemon Japanese Pocket monster cards? enter image description here

Does anyone know what kind of cards these are?

They are Topsun Pokemon cards from 1997 (There was also a 1995 set of Topsun cards, which is more common), they came from Bandai vending machines in a gum and card pack.

There is a video of someone opening a pack on youtube

There are also a number of listings on eBay


Can Voodoo dolls be moved? In one of the haunts (25/26?) the traitor has hidden several Voodoo dolls about the house. When we played I had the dog and found my fellow explorers doll. I tried to use the dog to move it (to take it to the other player) but we eventually reasoned that the rules don't say anything about moving the dolls (they aren't items that can be picked up, stolen etc), so even I couldn't have moved them.

Were we right, or could I have collected the dolls whilst the other explorer tied up the traitor?

From a strict reading of the rules, I would say no. Presumably, the dolls still do damage to you until they are destroyed. It wouldn't make much sense if you could remove them from their precarious positions and still take damage.

Then you must find the dolls in the room and destroy them.
Once you find a doll, you can automatically destroy it if it corresponds to you. You can find the location of any doll, but you can only safely destroy your own doll.


Does the investigator have to evade after combat? I've been through the rule book several times and we've only played the game twice so it could be I'm missing something. The scenario is this:

The keeper moves a monster into an investigator's space.  The keeper's turn ends after keeper actions and the investigator uses their action to fight the monster.  The investigator wins and the monster takes damage, but does not die.  The investigator then wants to use their 2 moves.

Does the investigator have to roll for evade?  Does the answer to that question make a difference if the investigator won or not?

Yes, you must Evade a monster to take any other action than Attack, it doesn't matter if you succeeded in your attack. From the rules (page 9, 14, and 15).

Attacking a monster is the only action that an investigator can perform while a monster is in his space (unless he evades the monster, see “Evade Tests” on page 14).
An investigator must make an evade test against every monster in his space before moving or performing non-attack actions. [...] Regardless of whether he passes or fails, the investigator may then move or perform the intended action. After having attempted to evade a monster, the investigator may freely move and take actions without having to try to evade the same monster that turn. [...] Attacking a monster does not require making an evade test. This attack may be unarmed, with a weapon, or with an “attack” Spell card. This attack does not need to target a monster in the investigator’s space.

Stunned monsters do not need to be evaded.

Q: Do stunned monsters cause evade checks? What about horror checks? Can they take samples?
A: Investigators can freely evade stunned monsters (because they cannot attack). Stunned monsters still cause Horror checks and can still take samples (although they are not moved after taking the sample).


Information about "Make Twenty One, no more, no less" wooden Tabletop Game We have searched and searched and cannot find any information about this game. It is wooden, has a slot for pennies that fall around pins with the points listed where the pennies fall.  We can't find a company name. Specifically we would love to know when it was made and who it was made by. A little history.

I am not sure if this group can help or could lead me to who can. Thanks so much!

Sounds to me like Plinko. I know it from the Price is Right, but commercial versions are likely out there.


Which effect triggers first in MTG: Mage Slayer or Mystifying Maze Yesterday I played a deck with the card Mage Slayer against a deck with Mystifying Maze. I equipped a creature with Mage Slayer and attacked. My opponent reacted by exiling the equipped creature with his Mystifying Maze.

The ability of Mage Slayer triggers and resolves in the declare attackers step. Can Mystifying Maze prevent this? It can only target attacking creatures, therefor it can only be used once the attackers are declared.

What's the correct ruling in this situation?

Mystifying Maze can't prevent the Mage Slayer ability from resolving.

It helps to visualise the stack.  As you declare your attack, the Mage Slayer ability triggers and is put on the stack.  In response, your opponent activates his Mystifying Maze and puts this ability on the stack.  Everyone passes, Mystifying Maze's ability at the top of the stack resolves, the creature is exiled.  Now we get to Mage Slayer's ability, still on the stack.  The creature may currently be exiled, but the ability still resolves (and uses last known information to determine the creature's power and toughness).

There is no window to use the Mystifying Maze's ability before Mage Slayer can trigger; at any point before the trigger the creature is not yet an attacker, and is therefore an invalid target.


Are items shared when hiding alone? If you hide alone in City of Horror, do items still get shared (to yourself) even though no vote takes place?

No. When hiding, you are not allowed to vote. Since there are no votes, the outcome is considered a tie, and in the case of a tie, no one gets anything. The items remain on the location.

In the FAQ (PDF):

  Q: Can a hidden character (Little Girl or Little Boy’s power, or Hiding action card) take part in sharing anything?
  A: The character can’t vote, but can receive an item.

And on page 6 of the Rules (PDF):

  Be careful: in case of a tie in the sharing vote, no players get anything. They remain on the location.


Hold 'em tie with 2 people Player 1 has A 8; Player 2 has A 9.

Community cards are A K 7 4 4.

Does player 2 win with a 9 kicker? Or is the K the kicker for both resulting in a tie?

It's a tie (split pot) since both players' best hands are: A A 4 4 K (Two pairs with a King kicker).

Texas hold 'em

  On the showdown, each player plays the best poker hand they can make from the seven cards comprising their two-hole cards and the five community cards.

List of poker hands


Tak - Do you still win, if in creating your road, you also created a road for the other player? Do you still win, if in creating your road, you also created a road for the other player?

From the rules for Tak on Cheapass Games' website (page 2):

  Double Road: If a player creates a winning road for both players in the same move, then the active  player is the winner.

If you create a road win for both players on your turn, you still win the game.


What is the probability that a player is dealt 3 kings in a single euchre hand? In the game of euchre, the deck consists of the nine, ten, jack, queen, king and ace of each suit. Players are dealt a five card hand.

What is the probability that a player is dealt 3 kings in that hand of five cards?

This is a hypergeometric distribution problem.  Luckily, calculators exist that let you just plug in the numbers and get an answer.  I used this one with

Population size = 24 (the size of the deck)

Number of successes in population = 4 (the total number of kings)

Sample size = 5 (the number of cards in your hand)

Number of successes in sample = 3 (the number of kings you are interested in)

The results show that the chances of getting exactly 3 kings is 1.79%.  If you also include hands with 4 kings, it goes up to 1.84%.


Is it correct to infer a second, third etc place in board games with a score? This may stray a bit into philosophy, but  I believe it has some real-world impacts.

Many games rank players during the game, and some leave players in some sort of order at the end (ie. a 'score').
An example of this is Settlers of Catan, or Pandemic: Contagion
Each player has a number of points an any time, and at the end of the game, the person with the most points is declared the winner.

A lot of rulebooks have wording like this:

  The person with the highest score overall wins.

Pandemic: Contagion

  If you have 10 or more victory points during your turn the game ends and you are the winner

Settlers of Catan

  At the end of the 10th game round, the House that controls the most areas containing either a Castle or a Stronghold is declared the winner. If, at any time during the game, a player controls seven such areas, that player immediately wins the game.

A Game of Thrones. The Board Game

These phrases seem to indicate that there is only a winner, and the remainder all lose.

In other games (semi coopoerative games) there is sometimes no winner
Semi cooperative games
In such games, it is strongly implied that when the group loses, there is no 'second place' etc.

Lots of people I have played with sometimes infer that there is an implicit second place due to the fact that at the end of the game players are still ranked by score.

So there are two aspect to this that I think are slightly related:
- Is it correct to infer positions beyond winner based on these scores?
- Does doing so affect gameplay?

Is it correct to infer positions beyond winner based on these scores?

There are probably two ways of looking at this

At the end of the game, you take all the markers off the scoreboard, and put them in two piles: The Winner, and everyone else.
The other way is to say that the person with the second most points did 'second best' at the game.

I would argue that the 1st interpretation is correct for the victory condition given in Settlers of Catan, given its wording. Other games are maybe less clear. Some rules books explicitly say whether there are positions beyond 'winner'.

Interpretation 2. makes some questionable assumptions about how the score reflects how well that player played. For example, if in A Game of Thrones I make a decision that gives another player their seventh castle, the fact I have the second-most castles should probably not be a consolation.

Similarly, some games allow 'long play' strategies in which case they may have won had some other circumstance not ended the game early. The fact that even though they might have one given more time still doesn't mean they win, also seems to imply they shouldn't receive some kind victory for second.

Does doing so affect gameplay?

It seems that it probably does.
From my experience, it definitely seems to effect gameplay in Settlers of Catan.
When two players are behind a leader, it benefits them embargo the leader and work for mutual benefit. With a second place, they have to weigh up how much second place means to them against the possibility of beating the first player, leading to less cooperation.

Another situation is where a player will cause the game to end voluntarily when they are not winning, perhaps to preserve a second place. If there is no second place, then there is definitely no incentive to do this from a gameplay perspective.

Another scenario may be that given a choice between a high probablility at moving from third to second highest score before game end, and a low probability of moving from third to first highest score, the player needs to make a choice if there is a second place, else it's not a decision at all. Players should always take the options that might give them 1st.

Semi-cooperative games seem to make the issue even more stark; in those games if the group loses, then a second place makes little sense.

Has anyone written any articles on this subject?

What do most gaming groups choose for resolving this?

Tl;dr: Players' meta-goals do affect gameplay. And unless all players have the same goals, the entire concept of "best player" isn't well defined, let alone "second best", etc.

First a bit of game-theory framework. Let's say each player has a "utility function" which takes as input the game end-state and gives as output how much "utility" they get - an abstract stand-in for happiness, bragging rights, etc. As an example, you might assign yourself 10/1/0 utils for getting 1st/2nd/3rd highest score in the game. A player's ultimate goal is solely to maximize their own expected utility, regardless of how much their opponents get. (Most utility functions in most games, however, are set up so that maximizing your own utility also minimizes your opponents' - e.g. if all players are using that example function, then to maximize yours you have to get more in-game points than everyone else, which minimizes theirs.)

Your choice of utility function absolutely affects gameplay. You give a bunch of accurate examples of this, so I won't go into it.

Now to the philosophy.

There isn't one "correct" utility function. Some games may have been made with one in mind - as you mention, some rules emphasize the winner while others tell you how to rank the players. But if one player is almost as happy with 2nd as 1st and another only really celebrates when they win outright, neither is likely to convince the other that they're wrong. Not only that but in most situations there's no need to - these two can happily play at the same table, each pursuing their slightly different goals. (Though as a sidenote, if these differences in goals remain hidden then some moves may appear irrational. This can lead to hard feelings, so it can be a good idea to discuss where you stand on this spectrum before you play.)

However, players who are playing with different functions are effectively playing (perhaps only slightly) different games. After all, since function affects gameplay, what is objectively a good move for one player might be a bad move for another! Thus if your goal in "inferring positions beyond the winner" is to determine how good the players are at the game relative to each other, well you can't even be certain about inferring that the winner is the best, let alone the other places!

As a concrete example, let's say you have a 3-player game in which Alice is average - say she can get 1st/2nd/3rd place 30%/40%/30% of the time. Bob starts out objectively better - he can get 1st/2nd/3rd place 35%/60%/5%. Then Alice decides she hates getting second and from now on makes a desperation push for 1st every single time, which fails more often than not, so her new values are 40%/0%/60%. I will now tell two stories. In the first story, Bob knows how to do the desperation move but he's happy with second place so he doesn't think it's worth it. Thus Alice wins more often than Bob (40% vs 35%), but Bob is still the better player. In the second story, there's a massive cash prize awarded to first place, and Bob can't figure out how to pull off that desperation move himself - he watches in frustration as Alice walks away with the prize 40% of the time. In this story, the percentages are exactly the same but this time Alice is clearly the better player.

Thus, unless you have a way of forcing everyone to use the same utility function, you might be unable to determine any rank - even best player - since the entire concept of best player isn't well defined. Luckily, this isn't usually a big problem since the people who really want to rank the players often do have a way of forcing everyone to use (roughly) the same utility function: those people are tournament hosts and that way is prizes. So when you're playing for fun you're welcome to your own concept of victory, and when you're in a tournament, well the prize for 1st in the second story above is not only the reward for being the best but also the reason we can define who's the best.


Can Oko's Elk ability stop nonbasics from being affected by Magus of the Moon? I have a Magus of the Moon, opponent turns it into an Elk that loses all abilities with Oko, Thief of Crowns. Are nonbasic lands still affected by the magus?

No, turning Magus of the Moon into an Elk will not stop it from affecting nonbasic lands.

Both of these effects in question are continuous effects, so their interaction is described by the Interaction of Continuous Effects rules section, commonly called the "layer system". The first part of that section is the most relevant here:

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

  613.1a Layer 1: Copy effects are applied. See rule 706, “Copying Objects.”
  613.1b Layer 2: Control-changing effects are applied.
  613.1c Layer 3: Text-changing effects are applied. See rule 612, “Text-Changing Effects.”
  613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.
  613.1e Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied.
  613.1f Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can’t have an ability are applied.
  613.1g Layer 7: Power- and/or toughness-changing effects are applied.

Magus of the Moon's effect applies at layer 4: it changes the type of nonbasic lands to Mountain. Oko's effect applies at layers 4, 5, 6, and 7: it turns the permanent into an Elk Creature, makes it green, removes its abilities, and makes it a 3/3. So, as 613.1 says, the continuous effects are applied in that order.

First, Magus of the Moon turns nonbasic lands into Mountains and Oko's effect turns the Magus into an Elk. Second, Oko's effect turns the Magus green. Third, Oko's effect removes the Magus's ability. And fourth, Oko's effect turns the Magus into a 3/3.

You may be wondering, then, how Magus of the Moon also ends up removing abilities from nonbasic lands, if its effect only applies in layer 4. The answer is rule 305.7:

  If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copy effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land’s subtype doesn’t add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.