Is "Player" interchangeable with "Planeswalker"? Cards the say target player, but say nothing about Planeswalkers such as those printed before Planeswalkers were a thing. Can i target a planeswalker in place of a player?

No, a planeswalker cannot be targeted by a card unless explicitly stated; however, they can be damaged by cards that target players.

This is called the Planeswalker redirection rule:

  306.7. If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead. This is a redirection effect (see rule 614.9) and is subject to the normal rules for ordering replacement effects (see rule 616). The opponent chooses whether to redirect the damage as the redirection effect is applied.

So, anything that can damage a player has been pseudo-errata'd to be able to damage a planeswalker.


Probability of drawing duplicates of a card in magic Was trying to figure this out, and realized I don't know the exact math:

In the card game magic you have a deck of 60 cards. You can have 4 copies of any individual card, and you are dealt a starting hand of 7. Each turn, one additional card is drawn.

What are the odds of drawing more than one of a card (2, 3, or 4 of the same card) on turns 1, 2, 3 etc...

If anyone knows how to break this down, I'd love to see the math behind it.

Cheers

This is not math.stackexchange, so I don't have access to any formula formatting. I'll try to make it readable regardless. The basic mathematical construct used here are the so-called binomial coefficients:

  (a choose b) means a!/(b!*(a-b)!), it says how many different possible hands of b cards there are when you have a unique cards to choose from. I will pretend that you can see the difference between the duplicates, say they are reprints from different sets or something. It's just easier that way.

Say you have seen k cards of your deck (the seven you start with, plus any you have drawn). And you have one particular card you're looking for duplicates of (if you're asking about having any duplicate at all, then this becomes messy). I am going to pretend that you just keep drawing cards, never playing any and never discarding, so that all the cards you've seen are in your hand. It's easier to phrase this way.

The probability of having drawn none of your cards is (56 choose k)/(60 choose k). The numerator is the number of hands of size k that do not contain your card, and the denominator is the total number of hands with k cards. The probability of having drawn exactly one is 4*(56 choose k-1)/(60 choose k). The probability of not having duplicates is the sum of these two. The probability of having duplicates is 1 minus that:

  Probability of duplicates: 1-(56 choose k)/(60 choose k) - 4*(56 choose k-1)/(60 choose k)

Here is a table of the first few values.


Why to declare the city a scout is sending goods at the "Start of the Turn Phase"? In the rulebook of Civilization (p.26) it says, that

  The player declares which of their cities the scout is "sending" the square to during the Start of Turn Phase, and all the icons in that square (including trade, production, culture, coins and resources) are then considered to in that city's outskirts for the rest of the turn.

In many cases in our play groups we forget to declare the cities at each 'Start of Turn Phase'. Then, we declare the cities at the 'City management Phase'. This is sometimes even an agreed rule, because it makes the 'Start of Turn Phase' a much faster. That is because then you will not have to plan the whole round beforehand at the 'Start of Turn Phase'.

Is there any reason that the decision for the "home city" of the scout should be decided at the 'Start of Turn Phase' and not at the 'City Management Phase'? Would it harm the game somehow, if the decisions are made at the 'City Management Phase'?

If could affect the game in the way, that you do not know if some player will trade with you. If he does not accept a trade you might be interested in, you could lack the ressources to do what you intended to do and have misplaced your pioneer (or vice versa, could have done some better move due to a surprisingly good deal).

However, we always decide where to use the pioneer during city management, since the game rule causes unneeded memory issues that are only relevant in niche cases (the game is already complex enough by itself).


Can cards that say "deal damage to any target" deal damage to a planeswalker? I have a card that says "whenever Karplusan Hound attacks, attacks, if you control a Chandra planeswalker, this creature deals 2 damage to any target."

Does this mean I can target a planeswalker?

Yes, any target includes planewalkers

The wording was a relatively recent change. Previously, very few damage-dealing spells and abilities could target planeswalkers directly. Instead, you redirected damage from targeted players to one of their planeswalkers at resolution.

  114.4. Some spells and abilities that refer to damage require “any target,” “another target,” “two targets,” or similar rather than “target [something].” These targets may be creatures, players, or planeswalkers. Other game objects, such as noncreature artifacts or spells, can’t be chosen.


Can Supply-Line Cranes supply themselves? When Supply-Line Cranes enter the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.

Can the cranes target themselves?

Yes. It is a valid target because it is on the battlefield when the trigger happens. What happens, in order:

Supply-Line Cranes enters the battlefield.
The game checks for any triggers that happen as a result of this event.
Supply-Line Cranes' trigger is found, and it triggers.
You put the trigger on the stack, and must choose a target at that time.
Supply-Line Cranes is a creature (and it's on the battlefield) at this time, so it is a valid target for you to choose.
When the trigger resolves, Supply-Line Cranes is still a valid target, so it resolves, putting the counter on Supply-Line Cranes.

The other answers are correct, but fail to mention that you must choose the target when the triggered ability goes on the stack, so it matters that it's a valid target when it triggers, not so much that it's a valid target when it resolves. (If it stopped being a valid target before it resolved, because it were destroyed with an instant or something, then the ability would be countered and go away. But it would still have been a valid/legal target in the first place).


When playing canasta, why would I ever want to discard a wild card rather than adding it to a meld? New at canasta. Can’t figure out why one would ever want to discard a wild card instead of adding it to one of their melds.

The main reason is to freeze the discard pile so that you have more safe choices to discard after that.
Often in Canasta, winning vs losing comes down to who gets to pick up the discard pile. When the discard pile gets big enough, the person who eventually gets to pick it up can score huge amounts of points by melding everything in it.
Discarding a wild card helps prevent this in 2 ways:

It is a guaranteed "safe" discard that cannot be picked up, the same as a black "3".

It freezes the discard pile, which means that cards you discard after that cannot allow your opponent to pick up the discard pile unless they have two matching naturals in their hand. This means that you can generally safely discard cards that they already have melded. Of course your opponent could have 3 of a kind melded and still have two more in their hand, but your odds are better. It can also give you several guaranteed safe discards; for example if your opponent has melded four "6"s, and you are holding three "6"s in your hand, then discarding a wild card allows you to discard those "6"s over the next three turns without any risk of your opponent picking up the discard pile.

Note that this does have the same effect against you as well; so it is better for you if you have more cards in hand than your opponent, or fewer things melded.


Is it worth it to buy booster boxes or singles to collect 4 regular and 4 foil Cards Suppose I wanted to buy 4 of each card in both foil and regular quality near the time when a set comes out. Which would be more cost efficient? Buying booster boxes or pre-ordering singles? Or maybe a combination or the two?

How would you go about collecting playsets of foil and regular cards?

The answer to this will vary depending on the size of the set. I will use Khans of Tarkir as an example, which has 101/80/53/15 commons/uncommons/rares/mythics.

According to this answer,

1 in 6 packs contains a foil
foil mythics are several times more rare than foil rares. I interpret this to mean that distribution is equal to the total number of unique cards of each rarity, e.g. for Khans you'd expect 101 out of every 249 foils to be common, and 15 out of every 249 foils to be mythic.

The question of "how long does it take to randomly collect one of each item in a collection, with replacement?" is called the Coupon collector's problem.

On average,

You need to get 524 commons before you have one of each. There are 10 commons per pack, so you will need to open 52.4 packs.
You need to get 397 uncommons before you have one of each. There are 3 uncommons per pack, so you will need to open 132.3 packs.
You need to get 241 rares before you have one of each. There is one rare per pack, except in the 1/8 chance of getting a mythic, so you will need to open 275 packs.
You need to get 49 mythics before you have one of each. There is one mythic per eight packs, so you will need to open 392 packs.

You need to open an average of 14.7 packs to get one foil common, so you need to open 7702 packs to get one of each.
You need to open an average of 18.7 packs to get one foil uncommon, so you need to open 7423.7 packs to get one of each.
You need to open an average of 28.2 packs to get one foil rare, so you need to open 6796.2 packs to get one of each.
You need to open an average of 99.6 packs to get one foil mythic, so you need to open 4980 packs to get one of each.

The question of "how long does it take to randomly collect N of each item in a collection, with replacement?" is called the Double Dixie Cup Problem. User PM 2Ring located and implemented the formula for me; in general, collecting four sets of something takes about twice as many trials as collecting one set of something.

+--------+---+----------+----------+--------+--------+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|rarity  |qty|trials    |trials    |regulars|foils   |packs needed for|packs needed for|packs needed for|packs needed for|
|        |   |(copies=1)|(copies=4)|per pack|per pack|a set of        |a set of        |a set of        |a set of        |
|        |   |          |          |        |        |1 regular       |4 regular       |1 foil          |4 foil          |
+--------+---+----------+----------+--------+--------+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|common  |101|525       |1091      |10      |101/1494|52              |109             |7765            |16138           |
+--------+---+----------+----------+--------+--------+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|uncommon|80 |397       |839       |3       |40/747  |132             |279             |7413            |15668           |
+--------+---+----------+----------+--------+--------+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|rare    |53 |241       |527       |7/8     |53/1494 |275             |602             |6793            |14855           |
+--------+---+----------+----------+--------+--------+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|mythic  |15 |50        |122       |1/8     |5/498   |400             |976             |4980            |12151           |
+--------+---+----------+----------+--------+--------+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

to get four of every regular and foil card in Khans, you would need to buy 16,138 packs, with an MSRP of $64,390.62 plus tax.

For comparison, you can currently get a full set of Khans of Tarkir (non-foil) for $200 from SCG. SCG doesn't have the foil set, but you can find it for around $490. 4 x $200 + 4 x $490 = $2760.

$64,390.62 is a lot more expensive than just buying singles for $2760, so singles are the way to go.


Can an untapped creature "become untapped?" If an untapped creature is targeted with an "untap target creature" spell or ability, will it be considered becoming untapped?

No. There must be a transition. As per the English definition, "to become untapped" is "to begin to be untapped".

In fact, the ability you mentioned won't even try to untap it. It's impossible untap a permanent that's already untapped. That's why you can't activate an ability with the untap symbol ({Q}) in its cost if the source of the ability is already untapped.

Similarly, it's impossible to tap a permanent that's already tapped. That's why you can't activate an ability with the tap symbol ({T}) in its cost if the source of the ability is already tapped.

This wouldn't stop you from casting a spell that would try to do these impossible actions. The spell will simply do as much as possible, and skip over the impossible instruction. e.g. Gerrad's Command on an untapped creature would effectively become "Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn.", and Crippling Chill on tapped creature would effectively become "Target creature doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step."


Angel of Condemnation - Exile creature with second ability I was looking at Angel of Condemnation's second ability and couldn't figure out what would happen if you exiled a creature an opponent controls but is owned by you?

The first ability explicitly states that the exiled creature returns under its owner's control, but there's no such thing in the second ability.

The Rulings don't address this specific situation, so I would assume the exiled card returns under the same player's control after the angel leaves battlefield, regardless of who owns it. Is that correct?

Since it's not specified by the effect, the creature enters the battlefield under its owner's control.
Generally, if the effect that does the zone-changing does not specify it, an object that changes zone has no memory or relation to its previous existence. It doesn't "remember" its previous controller when it returns to the battlefield, so it takes its owner instead.

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.

In your specific case of an object that is "exiled until some condition is true", the rule is explicit in the Comprehensive Rules:

610.3. Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones "until" a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.
610.3b An object returned to the battlefield this way returns under its owner's control unless otherwise specified.


Will combat damage trigger fight abilities? I've seen questions about if fighting damage is combat damage, but I don't think this is the same thing. The other questions I saw were asking if fight damage will trigger combat abilities. They say they're separate from each other, and nothing in the official rules say anything about my dilemma.

My question involves a Foe-Razer Regent. When it's played, it will fight target creature, like Savage Punch. Because it's fighting, it triggers its second ability to give it two +1/+1 counters at the next end step.

So my question is, will creatures attacking during the combat step trigger the Foe-Razer Regent's second ability? Or will it only be things like Savage Punch, where it says fight.

No, combat damage does not count as fighting, and will not trigger an ability that says "whenever a creature you control fights."

"Fight" is defined in the official rules. The text of it doesn't matter; all that matters is that it's a defined thing, and that it doesn't tie itself to combat in any way, so only something that actually says "fight" is a "fight".

Similarly, the entire combat procedure is spelled out in the rules. Nowhere in it does it mention "fight", so it definitely does not have any interaction with fight. (In fact, the only section of the rules that mentions fight is the section defining it, plus the summary of that definition in the glossary.)


In Scrabble, can a normal play be scoreless? Scrabble rules say thay after at least six consecutive scoreless turns the game ends.

  Under North American tournament rules, the game ends when... at
  least six successive scoreless turns have occurred...

It is also pretty clear for me that in absolute majority of cases a scoreless turn arises from either: 1) passing; 2) exchanging tiles; 3) losing a challenge.

But can a normal turn be scoreless? Imagine that a player laid something on the board, so he/she definitely played but scored nothing. Maybe it's extremely rare, but it is a possible event, isn't it?

There are two blank tiles which score zero. So if you played a two letter word using a second blank tile connecting to a blank tile, then your turn would score zero even though you played a word.

Also,  as Nathan has pointed out in the comments, you could play a two letter word with two blank tiles on the first turn.


Mansions of Madness - Loss of Vision With the "Loss of Vision" mythos card, can the keeper play additional mythos cards that require the investigator to be in a room with darkness for any room that investigator is in?

I interpreted as yes, but only effecting that specific investigator though it's caused some debate amongst our group.

We'd appreciate any insight.

The wording of the card is:

  Whenever you explore, treat the room as if it were in darkness.

(Empahsis mine)

Normally, darkness forces you to spend a movement step in addition to the regular action step to explore and to also receive -2 to attribute tests in combat. This card just makes it so that whenever you explore, you apply the penalty of spending an additional movement step.

This trauma doesn't affect combat. If the player with the trauma is not exploring, penalty doesnt apply.

Either way, the room is technically not in darkness.

Based on this, I would rule it as invalid as playing a card that required a room to be in darkness.


Do good bridge players memorize all cards played? Certainly, they track the quantity of each suit and the high value cards, but I'm curious if good bridge players also remember, say, whether someone ducked the ace using a 7 of spades vs a 6 of spades.

Obviously, this answer depends on your meaning of the word 'good'.  However, I consider myself a good bridge player, and find myself not often needing to track the nuanced difference between 6 and 7.  Most hands are not decided in table play, but in the bidding, and most are determined by leading, the high cards and the trump suit.   There are situations where I would need to track a spade 6 or 7, but often that's when I've got a hole that I need my partner to fill, or attempt a finesse.  In such situations, I'm looking specifically for those problem cards, so I don't need to track every card.

There are unforeseen situations where tracking every card could give a slight edge, but those happen so infrequently that it won't make much of a difference in one's overall 'goodness'.

Incidentally, there are mnemonic tricks that allow one to easily track all cards, I just find it not worth the effort in standard bridge.


How to solve problems with the Invisibility power This question is about the board game "Strange Synergy" by Steve Jackson Games - it's a rather complex game so if you are not familiar with it, please ask for clarifications before attempting to answer.

There are many questions that rise as the result of using the power "Invisibility", and as I don't like the "popular" house rule of "remove from the game any power that raises tough questions", I would like opinions about how to solve the questions that were raised. The "Invisibility" power has these properties:

The miniature is removed from the board and instead the player has to privately record the location of the character.
The invisible character "is not an obstacle"
If another warrior guesses where the character is and fires at its location, the character may be hit. The invisible character is also susceptible to any area or "line" effects.

The problems are:

If a warrior shoots another warrior (not line effect - just standard targeting), and an invisible character is in the line of sight - are they hit? My guess is that not because an invisible character "is not an obstacle" while obstacles prevent warriors from targeting each other.
If a warrior moves through a location where an invisible character is located, do they have to stop, resolve "bumping" or in any other way become aware of the invisible character? My guess would be that the answer is no because an invisible character "is not an obstacle".
If a warrior moves and stops on a location where an invisible character is, does any effect happen as a result?
If a warrior shoots another warrior that is on the same location as an invisible character (using a power with no area or line of effect, such as the "Pistol"), is the invisible character hit?
Can an invisible character, in its move, move through a location where another character is standing?
Can an invisible character, in its move, move to a location where another character is standing?
If an invisible character becomes visible in the same location that another character holds, what happens? I would expect at least normal "bumping" to happen but - the character that was invisible can't immediately move off (as "bumping" resolution requires) because it just used its entire turn to become visible. Also the rules for the "Intangible" power which behaves similar to "Invisible" in regard to not being an obstacle, say that if the character becomes tangible in the same location as another character, both characters die immediately.

I would appreciate any opinions, even from people who haven't played Strange Synergy (though do ask for clarifications for things you are not sure about, in that case).

Obstacles block line of sight and movement and Invisible characters are not considered obstacles, thus people can attempt to move and shoot through spaces containing invisible characters, as they don't "know" the invisible character is there. But that doesn't mean that characters won't affect the results of that action. I believe the "not an obstacle" is there to resolve any situations like "Well you're aiming at Garbonzo, but Invisible Sinistra is in the way so you can't".

Invisibility isn't Intangibility (as you're aware). Characters cannot occupy the same locations normally, and just because one of them is Invisible doesn't change anything. I don't remember if there's anything in the rules that say you can't choose to run into someone (thus forcing a "bump"), but I play like that can happen. So as soon as the Invisible character's square is entered, the "bump" gets resolved as normal, and then the active player's turn continues.

Similarly, as Invisible people are subject to burst attacks and line of effects, I say they suffer the brunt of any targeted effects that were going to pass through the square they occupy to get to the intended target.

But honestly, we just take out Invisibility and Intangibility because we feel it unnecessarily prolongs the game...

EDIT:

At the end of the obstacles section there is a clarification for thrown gadgets which says "Nothing may be thrown through a warrior's square". While this is in the obstacle section (which an invisible character is not) the phrasing of the paragraph leads me to believe it doesn't matter. Rather than saying "Nothing can be thrown through a square with an obstacle and Nothing can be thrown into a square with a permanent obstacle." they specified warrior. However, this doesn't cover ranged attacks from non-gadgets that attempt to pass through an invisible character, such as Zorch Ball. I would say that these other attacks don't "need" to travel in a straight line, so the invisible character gets bypassed.

Ranged attacks are aimed at specific squares rather than warriors. In the ranged strike section, it specifically says that two warriors occupying the same square do not block each other from ranged attacks. So if all involved warriors could be subject to the attack, all of them get attacked.

The rules say that permanent obstacles and living warriors are obstacles. Warriors cannot move into or through a space occupied by an obstacle. Invisibility says that this warrior is not an obstacle. Therefore other warriors can move into and through the invisible warriors space. But the other warriors are still obstacles, so the invisible warrior cannot move into or through their space, at least not without causing a bump. While this doesn't make much sense, that's how it's written.

Then there's the problem of reappearing. Since Intangibility specifically mentions the case where an intangible warrior appears in a space that another warrior occupies and Invisibility doesn't, this means either they forgot about this possibility for Invisibility or they didn't intend for it to happen in the first place. First, occupying the same space as another warrior shouldn't prevent an invisible warrior from appearing; there's no basis for that.

So there's a couple ways to resolve this

Use the same thing that intangbility does and kill both characters.
Make both characters resolve a bump and make one/both of them resolve random movement
Don't allow this situation to happen in the first place and make bumps occur when any two non-intangible warriors attempt to move into the same space.


Does Sheltering Word remove an existing enchantment? If a creature has an enchantment, like Defang, and I cast Sheltering Word on that creature, would the other enchantment be removed? Or does it need to be cast in response to the enchantment being played?

No, Auras do not target the creature they are attached to once they are in play.  Auras only target a creature while they are a spell on the stack. Yes casting Sheltering Word in response to Defang would make your creature untargetable, and therefore Defang would be countered on resolution.

114.1b Aura spells are always targeted. These are the only permanent spells with targets. An Aura’s target is specified by its enchant keyword ability (see rule 702.5, “Enchant”). The target(s) are chosen as the spell is cast; see rule 601.2c. An Aura permanent doesn’t target anything; only the spell is targeted. (An activated or triggered ability of an Aura permanent can also be targeted.)
702.11b “Hexproof” on a permanent means “This permanent can’t be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.”


Does Master of the Wild Hunt deal damage multiple times? The text on the Master of the Wild Hunt card:

  At the beginning of your upkeep, put a 2/2 green Wolf creature token onto the battlefield.

  Tap: Tap all untapped Wolf creatures you control. Each Wolf tapped this way deals damage equal to its power to target creature. That creature deals damage equal to its power divided as its controller chooses among any number of those Wolves.

The text states that each wolf deals damage.  This implies that there are multiple damage sources.  Can all of this damage be prevented at once, or need it be prevented from each source individually?

For example, look at Unbreathing Horde:

  Unbreathing Horde enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it for each other Zombie you control and each Zombie card in your graveyard.

  If Unbreathing Horde would be dealt damage, prevent that damage and remove a +1/+1 counter from it.

If multiple wolves deal damage to Unbreathing Horde simultaneously per Master of the Wild Hunt's activated ability, does it remove one +1/+1 counter per wolf, or just one +1/+1 counter?

The text states that each wolf deals damage. This implies that there are multiple damage sources.

This is correct, but it's not relevant.

If you used Master of the Wild Hunt's second ability targeting an Unbreathing Horde, at most one counter would end up being removed no matter how many wolves you have.  All the wolves deal their damage simultaneously, so the Horde is only dealt damage once, even if the damage comes from multiple sources. Unbreathing Horde's replaces the receiving of damage, not the receiving of damage by a source.

Compare

"If Unbreathing Horde would be dealt damage,"

with

"If Unbreathing Horde would be dealt damage by a source,"

Phantom Nishoba has a ruling confirming this.


Is there a good method for choosing which cards to use in Deluxe Illuminati? I have played Deluxe Illuminati from the beginning, and have all the original expansions and the Y2K expansion.  The problem is that when playing with Y2K, you end up with too many cards in the deck.

Does anyone have a good way of deciding which cards to use?  Is there an official method?

Sometimes I use a very targeted set of cards, for example, having lots of power zero cards, in a game where the player who loves playing Cthulu gets on everybody's nerves.

You can build sets of cards geared for more income, remove all the non-group cards, and anything that comes to mind.

But I cannot be bothered. Sometimes I'll remove some cards that just seem to water down the deck, but other than that, I really do use a mechanical shuffler like LittleBobbyTables says, and then I just take the top 50-100 cards off the top, and we use those. The games end up being random enough.


In King of Tokyo when playing with 5-6 players, what happens when monsters die? When you get down to 4 or less monsters do you go back to only occupying Tokyo City and not both Tokyo City and Tokyo Bay?  I played my first game with 5 players and after few of us died we continued occupying both until it came down to 2 players and we realized it would not work with 2 players in Tokyo at the same time.  I could not find anything in the rules, but I suspect once you get down to less than 5 players, you only occupy Tokyo City.  However, I would like to know the actual rules around when you go from 5 to 4 monsters.

Page 2 of the rules, under the Advanced Rules section, answers this question:

  If a monster is eliminated and that brings the number of Monsters below 5, Tokyo Bay can't be occupied anymore. The monster in it must leave Tokyo.

So your guess was correct. You can only occupy Tokyo City once you drop down to 4 Monsters.


Does Wind Demon card 648 cause it to attack twice if it can spend wind? Wind Demon card #648 shows a template attack and then says "[spend wind] +1 Attack [different template]". If wind is available to spend, does it make two attacks (one with the first template, the second with the larger template)? Or is the "spend wind" effect meant to modify the first attack (so it gets +1 attack and uses the larger template instead of the smaller)? It is not clear from the card and we cannot find clarification in the rule book.

The rules say

Elemental infusions can be used to augment the effects of certain abilities.

So if wind is consumed the wind demon will perform move + 0 and Attack +1 with the greater AOE.
If it was to perform at attack again it would say Attack +X, If you look at this Cave Bear card for comparison which has two attacks.


Maxxing out the trader track in Stone Age: Style is the Goal While playing a game of Stone Age with the Style is the Goal expansion, we had a player achieve ten traders on the trader track. Later in the game, she purchased a card which gave a +1 on the trader track. It wasn't clear to us whether she should receive the usual two decoration even though she couldn't move her counter on the track itself.

We settled on a house rule that yes, you could indeed take two decorations even if you can't advance any further on the trader track. This seemed to me like a reasonable decision as you are purchasing more traders, which would bring in decorations, even though the track itself maxes out at ten.

Has anyone else run up against this question and come to a resolution? I'd love to hear it if so, as I really enjoy playing Stone Age! Thanks everybody.

There is actually a difference between the wording of the English and German rules, that I think is significant.  The English rules say:

  (Each time the player moves his marker forward  on the trader track,
  regardless of how far, he takes 2 decorations.)

In the German, by contrast:

  (Jedes Mal, wenn der Spieler auf der Händlerleiste vorrückt, unabhängig
  ob 1 oder 2 Felder, erhält er 2 Schmuck.)

To roughly translate that, and highlight the difference: "Each time that the player on the trader track advances, regardless of whether it is 1 or 2 spaces, he takes 2 decorations."

I think it's a lot clearer from that wording that getting the decorations is specifically linked to advancing along the track, and that "advancing 0 spaces" was not meant to count as advancing.  As such, I'd come to the opposite conclusion to user1873's answer, and assume that the designer only meant you to be able to get decorations while making real progress along the trader track, and not to be able to milk it for more decorations after having maxed it out.


In a single-avatar game, what do the other main characters do? Before I try a group play of Legendary: Encounters (the Firefly version), I've started the first three missions as a solo, single-avatar run. I just completed episode 1-A solo, and it was challenging but not terribly so. I'm worried that I'm not playing the game right, though.

It's not explicitly stated, but as a single-avatar player, I just use my Avatar's character deck every turn, plus the Bridge cards, and thats it. My other main characters don't seem to have a function other than determining which other characters fill the Supporting Characters (and thus the big crew deck that rotates into the Bridge).

I used Mal as my avatar in the last episode, and every turn was just the introduction of an episode card into the 'Verse, then my hand of six Mal cards (attack/scan/recruit), then cleanup. A few cards moved a square or two in the 'Verse, but no cards ever entered the combat zone, and I completed the goals just as an Inevitable card showed up.

Does that sound right for single-avatar play? Should I be doing something with my Main Characters (besides my Avatar) each turn, or are they just there to have passive effects on episode cards and soak up crew strikes?

From your description, you used the Avatars correctly.

At the outset of your solo game, the Avatars really only determining what crew member you are playing and what crew members will be available on the bridge. Those four crew members will define what strategies you'll use throughout the game.

As far as the other four main character Avatars that aren't you, their purpose is really only to take crew member specific strikes (defined on page 14 of the rulebook). Other than that, once you've set up the game, their impact on gameplay is very minimal.


Simplest form of RKCB - asking for kings after asking for queen According to wikipedia on RKCB, after an 03 or 14 response

  ...the 4NT bidder may ask about [the queen] using the cheapest bid other than five of the trump suit. The code for replies to that "queen ask" vary; a common rule is that the cheapest bid in the trump suit denies the queen or extra length and any other call shows it.

Sometimes though, a call of 5NT is only available to show the queen
(Example: 1S - 4NT - 4D - 4H --> 5NT - shows the queen).

Now assume I find out we together have all 5 keycards and the queen, then how do I ask for the kings? Is there a standard simple non-nonsense way that most casual/random partnerships use?
(5NT that I'd use to ask for kings is wasted ...).

I'd assume that would be now bidding 6C (and responses to it 6D - 0 kings, 6H - 1 king, 6S - 2 kings, 6NT - 3 kings). Right?
(P.S. I'm looking for most simple straight-forward non-nonsense common way here...)

In other words, how do I ask for kings in RKCB (as opposed to regular Blackwood)?
(Since 5NT is now occupied by queen ask)

You should use specific king asks instead of count asks. In this auction, opener's 5NT denies any side suit kings; Eddie Kantar in Roman Keycard Blackwood suggests that it show a side queen, singleton, or doubleton, with a jump to 6S denying even that much. Kantar then suggests that a cue bid by responder is a grand slam try, looking for a third-round control in the suit bid.

1S-4NT-5D-5H-6C would then show the spade queen and the club King.

1S-4NT-5D-5NT asks for a specific King, promising all key cards; opener bids their cheapest K.

Obviously, this requires some discussion with partner, but not much more than "Q ask with specific Kings, 5NT specific K ask"; third-round asks and distinguishing 5NT/6S responses to the Q ask should not be used outside an established partnership.


If the only target of a spell is cloudshifted, is the spell countered? If a spell or ability is cast targeting a specific creature, would casting Cloudshift on the creature counter the spell or ability?

Yes. (Assuming that the spell is targeting only the 1 creature in question.)

When an object changes zones, as it does when you cast Cloudshift on it, it becomes an entirely new object. The object that the original spell was targeting no longer exists, and so the spell is countered for having an invalid target upon resolution.

  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 eight exceptions to this rule:

(None of the eight exceptions apply here.)

And the rules for what happens when a spell resolves:

  608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal.


Does the longest road need to have settlements/cities at endpoints? The questions is, in the following setup:

--S--S---C-

where - represents roads, S settlements, C cities, is the 'longest road' at 5, or 8?

I had originally thought 8, but as I read the FAQ:

  The Longest Road is a continuous road connecting two intersections, which consists of at least 5 individual road pieces and is not interrupted by game pieces belonging to other players. It has more individual road pieces than any other connecting road of this type.

I'm a bit unsure what is meant by connecting road.

I'm probably a bit hopeful that my original thought is incorrect, as I find it annoying when extra road segments are built, sometimes without even a possibility of a future settlement, for the hope of two points.

It is 8, the relevant rules are exactly what you quoted.

  The Longest Road is a continuous road connecting two intersections, which consists of at least 5 individual road pieces and is not interrupted by game pieces belonging to other players. It has more individual road pieces than any other connecting road of this type.

The bolded part tells you what "connecting road" refers to, in this case 2 intersections. It doesn't matter if they have settlements/cities or not.


Stone age expansion How trading works question Just played our first game of Stone Age with the expansion and we have a question.

All the examples show a single use of the trading ability.  Does that mean that you are limited to a single trade per turn or can you do multiples but only towards a single card/hut?

So, can you trade 14 wood for 7 gold on a 1-7 hut using the lowest level of trade?  You would then be able to score 7*6 (42) points off of 14 wood.

Please help me understand the limits of trading in the Stone Age Expansion.

Lee

According to the rules: http://www.zmangames.com/uploads/4/7/1/7/47170931/en-stone-age-ext_rules.pdf

  A player may:

  Trade only once his marker has moved off of space 0 of the    merchant track.
  Only trade in order to acquire a Civilization card or Building    tile.
  Trade the resources and jewelry of their choice.
  Improve his trading ability by advancing on the merchant track,    allowing for  2 to 1 ,  1 to 1 , and even  1 to 2  trades.
  Trade    even if he did not place two figures at the merchant this round.
  Important: A player may only trade once per round.

So you can only make one trade per round


What are the results of combining Minion Reflector, Doubling Season, and Kalonian Hydra? Minion Reflector and Doubling Season are out, and then you play Kalonian Hydra.

What happens when the token hydra(s) with haste attack? How many counters do the Hydras wind up with?

If you would be so kind as to walk me through it step by step, I'd appreciate it. There's a few guys in the office and they want to prove their rightness by talking loudly and faster, so I can't quite follow what they're trying to say.

I'm thinking that there will be 2x token hydras created, and the final total will be ?? (56? 40?) +1/+1 counters on each of the 3 Hydras. They think there will be 72 +1/+1 counters.  Am I right? Are they right? Is there a different number?

Here's how I think it plays out:

Kalonian Hydra hits the battlefield with 8x counters because of Doubling Season (see the page, it's a ruling).
Minion Reflector kicks in and creates the token copy.
Doubling Season kicks in, replacing the 1 token copy with 2 token copies.
Doubling Season plays out the same for the token as the original because the hydra is a 0/0 coming into play with 4 counters because it says so on the card, so now there are 2x tokens with 8 counters.

So far me and the guys in the office are all in agreement here, but then it starts to change.

The 2x Hydras with haste attack another player.
Their doubling abilities trigger (keyword trigger, right?) to double the counters on all of the other hydras.  Each Hydra has 8 counters at this point of time, so would get 8 more if this is where it stopped, and would wind up at 16 counters.

I think the important difference in calculations is if the doubling abilities all trigger at the exact same time, or if they somehow go on the stack.

The Doubling Season replacement effect doubles the number of counters placed on the hydras.  They all have 8, and would get 8 more.  Doubling Season says they have 8 and will get 16 more, for a total of 24.
Step 7 happens for each hydra, in this case 2, because only 2 hydras are attacking.  Each Hydra gets 16 counters from each other hydra, for a total of 8 + 16 + 16 = 40

I'm not clear on their math, otherwise I'd explain it.  The guys at the office say that the Hydras wind up with 72 counters.  I think the biggest crux is 6.5 and when the triggers occur and what values they operate on.

I'm new to Magic, been playing less than a year, and I mostly play casual play, so break it down Barney-style if you could :D

Each instance of the ability would go on the stack one at a time.

So the first 8/8 hydra attacks and puts his ability on the stack,

The second hydra's ability goes on the stack,

The Doubling season's replacement effect modifies them each time the hydra's ability triggers.

Since you are the active player and they both trigger at once, then you get to decide what order they go onto the stack, even though in this case it does not much matter because they both do the same thing.

The first hydra doubles the counters, since it is going to put counters on something and the Doubling season says to put twice that many on, they end up with 8 + 16 =24 counters instead.

The second hydra doubles the counters, since it is going to put counters on something and the Doubling season says to put twice that many on, they end up with 24 + 48 = 72 counters instead.

so they are 8 +16 = 24
then they are 24 + 48 = 72.

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

The comprehensive rules show that each ability would count the number of counters at the time it resolves, not when it is put on the stack. (Emphasis mine)

  608.2g If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only
  once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information
  from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself or
  a target that's become illegal, the effect uses the current
  information of that object if it's in the public zone it was expected
  to be in; if it's no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved
  it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object's
  last known information. See rule 112.7a. If an ability states that an
  object does something, it's the object as it exists -- or as it most
  recently existed -- that does it, not the ability.

In this case the information from the game the Hydra's ability needs, is the number of counters on each creature who's counters are being doubled.


Are There Any Good Tools For Developing CCG Or Other Card Games? I've been brainstorming a new card game idea for a while, something that could be described as "Cards Against Humanity" meets "Munchkin" but while I mostly have the rules and everything together I have been at a loss to find something to rapidly prototype, print, change, and make the cards?

I would like something that could read from a database, Excel spreadsheet, or something similar and then be able to produce Word document files or PDFs that I could then easily print to be able to beta-test the game with friends.  Ideally you would be able to define the basic components/formats of each card and then just fill in the fields for each.

Anyone know of tools to assist in rapid prototyping and printing of CCG style cards?

NanDeck will do this: http://www.nand.it/nandeck/

Lets you script out card sets, fairly simple to change card sizes, etc.

The website Oil And Rope has a very slick prototyping tool called Paperize: http://paperize.io/beta which lets you upload graphics, use spreadsheet linking, etc. - super cool. Still in beta, but tons of folks love it.


Timing Rules in Seven Wonders There may or may not be a clear definitive ruling on this in the rulebook, but it's something that keeps confusing me in the actual play, so I'll ask anyway.  Here are several questions that, when put together, should illustrate the points I'm having difficulty.

I play a card that gives me one coin for each brown card in front of me or either of my two neighbours.  I personally keep forgetting whether this counts cards that came into play this turn, but a quick check of the rules summary clarifies that yes, these cards are counted.
I mistakenly play a card that I (and my neighbours) have insufficient resources to build, when I look closely.  Obviously I cannot play the card - but I take it I can still discard it for 3 coins, or to build a section of my Wonder?
I mistakenly play a card that I (and my neighbours) are short of resources to build: let's say short by one stone.  However, it fortuitously happens that one of my neighbours has built a one- or two-stone quarry this turn.  Can I pay him the appropriate fee and build the card?  Or can I still only discard it for coins or to build a section of Wonder?  My first suspicion was that all building happens simultaneously, so I can't use materials that aren't available at this point - but if the card mentioned in my first example derives benefits from cards played this turn, why can't this?

We could get all MtG on this and break it down into discrete phases: the buy-resources-from-neighbours-phase, the build-with-resources phase, the reap-benefits-from-just-built-cards phase.  But that all seems a bit anal for Seven Wonders.  Is there an easy solution to the problem of looking left and right to see if your neighbours have the resources you need, and having to ask "errrrrr... so did you play that quarry this turn, or not"?  (Apart from not being so scatterbrained, obviously!)

1) Nothing to say for me here ;-)

2) I'm not sure about the actual rules, but I think the penalty of disallowing everything else would be too harsh, as the player loses a complete turn. One could argue if only the three coins should be allowed or building a part of the wonder as well. Personally, I would allow both.

3) Again, not 100% sure: as you cannot use coins that you got this turn, you shouldn't be able to use any resources that have become available in the same turn. My thinking is, everybody builds at the same time and hence completes their building at the same time, so you can't get anything out of another building to complete your own.


Is there a Standard card similar to Debt to the Deathless? With M15 around the corner I need a standard card that has a similar effect as Debt to the Deathless. Does anyone know a white, black, or green standard set card that works like this?

The cards from Theros, Born of the Gods, Journey into Nyx, and Magic 2015 (the sets that will be standard when Khans of Tarkir releases in September and whose contents are currently known) with abilities of the form "Each opponent loses n life.  You gain life equal to the life lost this way." are as follows:

Gray Merchant of Asphodel — life loss equal to your devotion to black when it enters the battlefield
Scholar of Athreos — life loss of 1 via a 2B activated ability
Servant of Tymaret — life loss of 1 whenever it becomes untapped
Tormented Hero — life loss of 1 whenever you cast a spell that targets it

There are no cards with this mechanic in Magic 2015, unless you count Covenant of Blood.


Is adding a parallel word that only intersects the end letter of an existing word allowed in Scrabble? I won a game by getting lots of points doing it ;)
but was contested and I could see their point.

Here are two examples:

PLACES
     OTHER

or

    BRILLIANT
SCORE

I can see from the official rules something similar is allowed:

 PASTE
BIT

The difference here is that BIT, PI and AT are created. So there is more than one parallel word created.

But are the examples I give only one parallel word is created, is this ok?

The play you describe is both legal and generally easier to do than the multi-cross play you cite as a rules example.

The general rules relevant here are that, first, all the letters for a single play must be in a single line, either vertical or horizontal, and second, that all tiles adjacent to another tile (vertically or horizontally) must be part of a permissible words in each direction of adjacency.  Finally, at least one tile of any new play must be adjacent to a tile already played (except the first play of a new game, for which one tile must be on the pink star center square).


Layers: Lose abilities vs creatures have ability My opponent had a Archetype of Finality and a Borderland Minotaur.

I attacked with my Ancient Crab and casted Turn to Frog on her Borderland Minotaur once she blocked.

Am I correct that both the

  Creatures you control have deathtouch.

and the

  ...target creature loses all abilities...

happen on layer 6 (Ability Adding or Removing Effects) and with the timestamps in mind, the Borderland Minotaur first gained deathtouch and then lost it?

Thanks and "Ribbit"!

Yes, these both happen on layer 6: ability-adding and ability-removing effects. When one effect is adding one or more abilities, and a second effect is trying to remove them, then the one that "wins" is the one generated last in timestamp order. The Borderland Minotaur won't have deathtouch in that scenario: it gains it, then loses it.
Rule 613.8 actually provides a direct example about this, using Flying rather than Deathtouch:

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 gains 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”).

The example uses auras, but the very last sentence in this example says you'd also do the exact same thing if the effects came from "a non-Aura source", such as your Archetype of Finality or Turn to Frog.


Is there a card that lets you put a card from outside of the game into play? I played a commander game a while ago where one of my 5 opponents cast a card that let him grab a card that was outside of the game (not even in exile) and put it either in his hand or on the battlefield.

It was a while back so I am slightly fuzzy in terms of the context in which this was played.

I would like to know whether, firstly this card exists that allows you to acquire a card not in your deck and/or in any other zone in the game and place it either in your hand or on the battlefield?

I was in disbelief at this play but everyone around me in the game had more experience than me so I assumed it was legit.

The second thing I'd like to know is that if this card does exist (or something similar) what is its name(s)?

I figured it may be in one of the "unsets" like Unglued or Unhinged or any of the other funky experimental sets Wizards decided to curve-ball into existence...

This is the "Wish" card series that were released in the Judgment extension.
For example: Burning Wish. It allows one for example in a tournament to get a card from the sideboard on the first game.

The 5 original wishes are:

Cunning Wish
Burning Wish
Death Wish
Living Wish
Golden Wish

Since then, other similar cards where released. This query should give most of them: o:"own from outside the game". You'll notice Ring of Ma'rûf in the results as well; the wishes are way more common.

So this is nothing "funky" like the fun cards in Unglued or Unhinged, and has been tournament-legal (and still is in some formats).

However these cards don't work by default in Commander/EDH except with prior agreement, so it sounds like your scenario wasn't how things should happen. See Commander rule 13:

  Abilities which refer to other cards owned outside the game (Wishes, Spawnsire, Research, Ring of Ma'ruf) do not function in Commander without prior agreement on their scope from the playgroup.

This means these cards shouldn't come out as a surprise, because beforehand you have to discuss and agree how they even work.


What does BREAD stand for while drafting? I was just reading What are good strategies for booster drafts?, but as a new player I'm not familiar with a lot of jargon. The accepted answer mentions that BREAD is important when drafting:

  "BREAD" is key, but there is another technique that helps a lot in most Limited formats:

Could someone explain what is meant by BREAD in this context?

It's an acronym telling you which cards you should pick. Cards fall in one of five categories, and you should (usually) pick the card from topmost category (B > R > E > A > D) which is still left in the pack.

In a nutshell:

Bombs, powerful cards that win a game if unanswered. These can be something that generate an advantage every turn (e.g. The Immortal Sun), planeswalkers, or simply overly-large creatures for the mana cost (e.g. Lyra Dawnbringer).
Removal, cards which destroy/exile/damage creatures (said bombs, but of course they can be used earlier in the game as well).
Evasion, creatures with special abilities (e.g. flying) which make them harder to block.
Aggro, smaller creatures which give you early presence on the board and make sure you can play a card almost every turn.
Duds, cards you don't want in your main deck but might be useful in the sideboard.

Googling for magic draft bread gives some articles which explain everything in detail, including examples for each category in the current expansions.


Targeting the same spell on stack If I play Grapeshot and my oponnent plays Negate, can I play a Remand on Grapeshot to send it back to my hand?

Yes, this is fine.

Remand will counter Grapshot and move it to its owner's hand. Then, when it comes time for Negate to resolve, it will be countered by the rules instead (for not having any legal targets).

It's worth noting that Negate is particularly ineffective against Grapeshot as it will not stop the copies from being made even if it counters the original spell.


How can I play against enchantments while playing an all black deck? I just need to know any and all black Magic cards that destroy enchantments. I already searched Gatherer and didn't find anything.

It's casual play with family, so any card is fair game.

Strategies for mono-black against enchantments
Targeted discard
The best black cards against enchantments are targeted discard spells.

Targeted discard lets you deal with practically any card before it hits the battlefield. Getting the most out of them may require some finesse (here is THE guide on that subject.), but these cards are powerful tools that you can use to deny your opponent access to their most critical cards.
Targeted discard shines in a traditional duel environment (one-on-one, best-of-three play), where you can focus on taking apart a single deck's gameplan. It's much harder — though not impossible — to wield effectively in casual multiplayer.
The "just deal with it" strategy
Another common solution is to just play through. Pacifism on your guy? Just write him off as dead (until you need a sacrificial creature or something). Moat preventing you from attacking? Stall until you can dig out your direct damage or your big flying Demon. Nevermore preventing you from playing your commander? Rely on your other cards to kill your opponent. Did your opponent put a Furnace of Rath on the field? Start racing for damage.
It's tough and you're often at a disadvantage, but often if you focus on what you can do instead of what you can't, you can find some tactical way to "play around" the problematic enchantment. Often the best insurance against "prison" strategies, besides raw speed, is to build in a variety of win conditions.
Specific hosers for specific cards
Another thing you can do if a specific card is causing you problems is find cards that don't remove it, but negate its effect. For example, Everlasting Torment can make Circle of Protection: Black sit there uselessly in play, while Spirit of the Labyrinth effectively blanks a number of "draw a lot of cards" decks. Generally these work best as sideboard cards, unless they're cards that fit into your deck's general gameplan anyway (e.g. you really want to use Everlasting Torment's -1/-1 counters as part of your own strategy).
Cards that actually remove enchantments
A true "all-black" deck has very few options
Enchantment removal isn't in black's part of the "color pie." Meaning it's not something black is supposed to do.
Which doesn't mean it's impossible to find cards that do, because cards to sometimes break the color pie — especially older cards. Let's try some Gatherer searches.

Black only + "destroy" + "enchantment": Hmm... all that really gives you is Quagmire Druid, which requires green mana. Might as well play a better green card.

Well, okay, but there are other ways to remove enchantments. "Exile," for instance...

Black only + "exile" + "enchantment": Nope. (You get Parallax Nexus, just because of its reminder text.)

Let's also try "permanent" instead of "enchantment."

Black only + "destroy" + "permanent": Only the Unglued card Zzzyxas's Abyss.

Black only + "exile" + "permanent": Well, Descent into Madness can exile enchantments. Eventually. But it's a build-around-me card and won't remove anything quickly.

False positives from reminder text give us a few cards with phrases like "target player sacrifices a permanent." So let's chase that down...

Black only + "player" + "sacrifice" + "permanent", black only + "opponent" + "sacrifice" + "permanent": Several options emerge:

Curse of the Cabal, Undercity Plague, and Greater Harvester all have the potential to grind through an opponent's permanents, but the ability to sacrifice lands to protect your other stuff makes them rather ineffective solutions.
Dystopia is a classic card that actually saw some serious play once, a long time ago. It's a reasonable answer to controlling white decks hiding behind cards like Ghostly Prison and Circle of Protection.
Liliana of the Veil's -6 ability can take care of any permanent, including enchantments. Your opponent gets a choice, but that's where skillful play comes in — if your opponent is willing to sacrifice everything to keep some enchantment in play, then, well, maybe you should just let them.

In this case, we've basically struck out. You have a few cards that you might be able to use to remove enchantments — almost as an afterthought, — but nothing nearly as direct as a simple Oblivion Ring or Naturalize. I wouldn't include any of these cards in a deck just to deal with enchantments (I'd play Liliana for, well, general awesomeness, though).
Colorless cards for your mono-black deck
Generally, whenever you need a mono-color deck to do something that its color can't really do, try this: use artifacts and other colorless cards to do stuff your color can't (try searches like colorless + "destroy" + "permanent").

Targeted destruction: Spine of Ish Sah, Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre, Chaos Orb (weird and fun), Eye of Doom (symmetrical effect for multiplayer).
Repeatable destruction: Karn Liberated, Steel Hellkite, Argentum Armor, Lux Cannon (slow), various Eldrazi cards with annihilator (might take a while to hit the right card). (Also Spine of Ish Sah if you have a sac outlet.)
Wipes: Nevinyrral's Disk, Oblivion Stone, All Is Dust.
Precise wipes: Ratchet Bomb (can be slow).

Some of these are pretty mana-intensive, making them better fits for multiplayer decks than dueling decks.
Splashing colors
If you want more cost-effective removal, add more colors instead. Most of the gold standards for multi-faceted removal are multi-color cards featuring black as one of their colors: cards like Abrupt Decay, Vindicate, and Pernicious Deed.


Clarification of creature's subtype for card effects The wife and I are new players to this particular card game, though not card games in general. We have only dueled twice with MtG so far. We had something come up we were curious about. She used the card Sharpened Pitchfork which has in its effect:

  As long as equipped creature is a Human, it gets +1/+1.

Which she used on her Moorland Inquisitor whose creature subtype is Human Soldier.

Now common sense and reality say, yes this effect should work since he is a human. However, in many card games the writing has to match perfectly, and technically this does not. He is a 'Human Soldier', and it calls for a 'Human'. So in this example, do you use the common sense, he is a human, or does it not count?

I had the same thing happen in our first duel, but with the card Ghoulraiser who has the ability:

  When Ghoulraiser enters the battlefield, return a Zombie card at random from your graveyard to your hand.

And the creature in question for this one was Makeshift Mauler whose creature subtype is 'Zombie Horror'

Not considering the random part, would this work or not with the same thought based on common sense, or technical writing?

We're using the Blessed vs Cursed duel decks if anybody wants/needs to see the cards in question. Thank you for your help on what I am sure is an obvious question, but I tend to overthink things so I have to check small stuff like this.

In Magic each subtype is its own separate thing. So when the Inquisitor says "Human Soldier" it means "this creature is a Human and this creature is a Soldier". Similarly Avacynian Priest couldn't tap the Inquisitor even though it has the Soldier subtype because it is still a Human.

Ghoulraiser would work the same way, the Mauler is a Zombie (regardless of any other subtypes it may have) so it is an option to be returned to your hand.

  205.3b Subtypes of each card type except plane are always single words and are listed after a long dash. Each word after the dash is a separate subtype; such objects may have multiple types. Subtypes of planes are also listed after a long dash, but may be multiple words; all words after the dash are, collectively, a single subtype.
  Example: [...] “Creature — Goblin Wizard” means the card is a creature with the subtypes Goblin and Wizard.


Are you required to buy items when you choose the Legendary Object options at the village? The wording of the rules states that you must either peruse/buy the souvenirs or buy a legendary object, but what if you cannot afford the remaining legendary objects? To the letter of the rules, it would imply that you must only choose this option if you can buy a legendary object, so players should determine what's in the pile of unbought items (easily done) before making that an option. More hand-wavey, we could argue if someone mistakenly doesn't realize he can't afford any of the remaining items, then chooses to buy a legendary object and picks up the remaining cards, he simply is barred from buying anything or resorting to the souvenir option.

I tend to lean toward the more forgiving option which is if a player can't afford anything, he just goes to the souvenir shop especially since the list of cards is public info obtained simply by looking at the players' holdings which are exposed.

According to the rules for Tokaido: Crossroads on the Fun Forge site (emphasis mine)

Now, when a Traveler stops at a Shop space, he must choose between:

Buying Souvenirs (basic game rules).

Acquiring a Legendary Object.

While the base game rules (Souvenirs Only) say

The player draws the first 3 Souvenir cards from the pile and places them face up in front of him. He can then purchase one or more of these cards by paying the price indicated on each card.
Note: A traveler must have at least 1 coin to stop in a Village, but
he is not required to purchase any souvenirs

In the base game it is clearly possible for the player to end up with only Souvenirs they cannot afford, in which case they can purchase nothing, as well as simply choosing to purchase nothing.
It seems fairly clear that the player must first decide which of the two purchase options they will pursue, and having made that decision the other option is no longer available. Having made that choice the same rules would seem to apply in both cases: if there is nothing they can purchase, they are out of luck; even if they can purchase something, they don't have to.
Further, unless you're playing with the 2-3 player variant for Crossroads, all players have perfect knowledge of what Legendary Objects are available to purchase. There are 6, 2 each costing 1, 2, or 3 coins, and any purchased objects are visible in front of the player(s) that purchased them. In the variant where 2 cards are discarded, they will have perfect knowledge after looking at the Legendary Objects once, and the goal of that variation seems to be to slightly increase the risk/reward given the large number of stop opportunities with so few players.


How many accessories can a mouse equip in Mice and Mystics The accessory cards do not show a usage slot (head, body, paws).  Does that mean there is no limit to how many a single mouse can equip?  Or are they limited to one?

This BGG thread contains confirmation from the game's designer that you can equip as many accessories at once as you want.


Does Phytotitan return to the battlefield when it first died and then was exiled? I have a question regarding Phytotitan, it's a 7/2 creature wich states:

  When Phytotitan dies, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control tapped at the beginning of his or her next upkeep.

If Phytotitan dies and afterwards is exiled from the graveyard, does it still return to the battlefield?

No, it won't return. When Phytotitan dies, its ability triggers, and then when that ability resolves, it sets up a separate, delayed triggered ability that will automatically go off at the beginning of the owner's next upkeep. That delayed triggered ability is "watching" the Phytotitan card in the graveyard. If the card changes zones (such as by getting exiled), then the delayed triggered ability loses track of it, so when the delayed ability resolves, it won't find the Phytotitan and thus won't return it.

This applies even if Phytotitan is removed from the graveyard and then put back, by the way. The delayed triggered ability only tracks the card as long as it stays put in the graveyard, and if the card is moved elsewhere, the ability stops tracking.

  603.7c. A delayed triggered ability that refers to a particular object still affects it even if the object changes characteristics. However, if that object is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at the time the delayed triggered ability resolves, the ability won’t affect it. (Note that if that object left that zone and then returned, it’s a new object and thus won’t be affected. See rule 400.7.)


Is there a paid ability window before the runner can jack out after the last subroutine executes on a piece of ice? Basically the title. A situation where this would matter. If I have a House of Knives scored and my opponent runs into Kominu with no breaker can I use the House of Knives ability after he loses all his cards but before he has a chance to jack out?

Short answer, yes there is a window at 4.1 (before the runner decides to jack out after passing the last piece of ICE), or at 4.3 if the runner decides to continue.  If Komainu has another piece of ICE behind it, 2.1 also provides an opportunity for House of Knives to strike before the runner jacks out.

The run timing chart:

Runner starts, names server.
If there's ICE, goto 2.
If no ice, goto 4.
Approach outermost ICE.

2.1. Paid ability can be used (can be used if there is another ICE behind Komainu, and also kicks in before runner has a chance to jack out)
2.2. Jack out (Goto 6, cannot jack out if first piece of ICE encountered this run) or continue to 2.3.
2.3. Approached ICE can be rezzed, Paid ability can be used cards can be rezzed.
2.4. Check if ICE is rezzed.
If rezzed, goto 3.
If unrezzed, and there's another piece of ICE, goto 2.
If unrezzed, and there's no more ICE, go to 4.

Runner Encounters Ice if rezzed.

3.1. Icebreakers can interact, Paid abilities can be used
3.2. Resolve all unbroken subroutines
...Either the run ends, goto 6
Or it continues, and there's another piece of ICE, goto 2.
Or it continues, and there's no more ICE, go to 4.

Runner approaches attacked server

4.1. Paid abilities can be used.
4.2. Runner decides:
To jack out, go to 6 or to continue, go to 4.3
4.3. Paid abilities may be used, cards may be rezzed.
4.4. Run is successful. Trigger abilities if any.
4.5. Access cards. Trigger abilities if any.
Agenda : Stolen (Unless additional cost)
Trash cost present : may be paid to trash
Everything not trashed or stolen is returned to server.

Run ends. Trigger abilities if any.
Run is unsuccessful. Trigger abilities if any.


What is the difference between state-based effects and effects on the stack? Being new to MTG, I've learned that abilities from spells go to the stack and resolve in reversed order of their placement on the stack. But I haven't heard of the term state-based effects until reading Do things on the stack or state-based effects resolve between first strike and normal combat damage?

  My creature deals his first strike damage, immediately killing the opponent's creature before he is able to deal combat damage as a state-based effect.

Do state-based effects refer to combat damage and creature stats, such as the amount of remaining health of the creature? And do stack-effects—if that's how it's called—refer to all triggered abilities by any spell? Am I misinterpreting and/or missing something?

I'm uncertain whether my deductions are correct, so a clear definition of state-based effects and stack-effects (including source for further reading) is much appreciated.

Generally, if you want to learn about the rules in-depth, you can check the current, official rules, either the basic rulebook, or the comprehensive rules that include everything but are intended to be read to look up specific details rather than from beginning to end.

State-based actions are a set of rules that are automatically checked throughout the game, specifically whenever a player would gain priority (the right to take actions like casting spells, playing lands, etc.). Among others, they make players lose to lack of life points, cause creatures to die to lethal damage or zero toughness, make you put identical legendaries into the graveyard, and kill auras that are not attached to anything. They cannot be reacted to in any way. You can find the full list of state-based actions in section 704 of the Comprehensive Rules.

Spells and abilities on the stack (not effects) are just that. As you noted, they resolve in reverse order and have effects such as dealing damage or drawing cards. Whenever a spell or ability has finished resolving, the active player (the player whose turn it is) gets priority, which, as mentioned above, causes state-based actions to be checked first.

Abilities are represented by the text on cards. The four types of abilities are

Spell ability: an effect that happens as an instant or sorcery spell resolves
Activated ability: pay a cost do put an ability on the stack
Triggered ability: creates an ability on the stack whenever a specific event happens
Static ability: creates a continuous effect that is always active

Spell abilities only appear on instants and sorceries, and while instants and sorceries can have all four types of abilities, the overwhelming majority of instants and sorceries have only spell abilities. Other objects such as permanents on the battlefield can have activated, triggered, or static abilities.


Are in-universe Magic characters aware of colors? There are 5 colors in Magic and many characters are associated with one or more of these colors. The colors thematically represent aspects, but are the characters aware of the existence of these aspects? For example, does Teferi know that he is a blue-white mage?

Characters know that forming mana-bonds with different areas (mountains, swamps, forests, etc.) will give mana that can then only be used for specific purposes; i.e. a mage who draws upon a mountain mana-bond will gain mana that can be used for creating fire, earthquakes, etc. whereas drawing on mana-bonds from the sea will give magic that allows for illusions, etc. Consider this 1999 story, where the mage Feldon visits various colours of wizard and learns from them. The scholar in the story says:

"Green calls to the living," he said. "Black calls to the dead. Blue creates the shadow of life. Red consumes, and that's very important as well, because you must often destroy before you can build. I study, and the magic I wield is White, which is the magic of comprehension and understanding."

Therefore yes, the in-universe characters (or at least some of them) are aware of the various colours of mana and what each is for.


If an effect would prevent a spell from doing damage, does it continue to prevent that damage after the spell changes zones? Anthony casts Searing Blood, targeting Nathan's Elvish Mystic.

Nathan casts and resolves Dromoka's Command, choosing to 1) prevent all damage that would be dealt by Searing Blood this turn and 2) put a +1/+1 counter on Elvish Mystic.

Searing Blood resolves, deals no damage, and goes to the graveyard.

Anthony casts and resolves Lightning Bolt to kill Elvish Mystic.

Searing Blood triggers from the graveyard, because Elvish Mystic died. Does the prevention effect created by Dromoka's command still apply to it after it changes zones? In other words, will Searing Blood deal 3 damage to Nathan?

The damage is prevented.

An reference by an object to its own name is a reference to itself. So "Searing Blood deals 3 damage" has the object on the stack deal three damage. That's the very same object that was targeted by Dromoka's Command.

The object no longer exists when you are instructed to have it deal 3 damage, but that's fine. It can still deal damage. Last Known Information about the object is used if required.

  201.4. Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.

  400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are seven exceptions to this rule: [none of which are pertinent]

  112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.

This scenario occurs more often for creatures with abilities. Take a Prodigal Sorcerer that was killed before its ability resolved, for example. It's the object on the battlefield that's doing the damage, even though it no longer exists. It's the color of the object on the battlefield that's consulted if the target has any Protection from Red, not the color of the object in the graveyard.


Does creating colored tokens affect a card's color identity? God-Eternal Oketra is a white creature that creates black creature tokens.

Is God-Eternal Oketra's color identity [White] or [White,Black]?

God-Eternal Oketra's color identity is White

From the comprehensive rules, regarding Color Identity:

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

God-Eternal Oketra has white in it's mana cost, has no other mana symbols on it's card, and does not have any relevant characteristic-defining abilities or color indicator, so it is a White creature


Playing Multiple Lands in One Turn I know that for the most part you can only play one land per turn. However I also know that it is possible to put multiple lands onto the field with the effects of certain spells. I want to know if there are any limitations or certain situations where you cannot do this. I am especially curious about lands that have a tap ability to add land to your mana pool (such as New Benalia or Boros Guildgate). Can I play a land from my hand and use their abilities to get two land per turn?

Cards don't "add land to your mana pool." They add mana to your mana pool. The little symbols in card text and casting costs represent mana, which you get from tapping your lands (or from other cards like Elvish Mystic, Darksteel Ingot, and Seething Song), not the lands themselves.

New Benalia's ability, "{T}: Add {W} to your mana pool," is actually the same as the ability of a basic Plains card.

From the Comprehensive Rules:

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

If you have New Benalia and a Plains on the battlefield, you can tap both to make two white mana (like the casting cost for a Precinct Captain), just like if you had two Plains.

Cards that actually put more land into play say things like "Search your library for a basic land card and put that card onto the battlefield tapped" or "You may play an additional land this turn" (e.g. Evolving Wilds and Explore).


What kinds of table talk are allowed in Shadows Over Camelot? Games like Battle Star Galactica define pretty clearly what kind of table talk is allowed during the game to help give the Cylon Traitor a chance to remain hidden.

What, if any table talk is allowed in Shadows Over Camelot?
What kind of talk is specifically forbidden?

Can you for example peek at the Progression of Evil deck (with the appropriate knight), and then say "don't draw from the deck," or "the top card is everyone lose a life," or can you say nothing?

Similarly, with King Arthur, you pass cards face down. I assume you cannot reveal what each player passed the other after the fact (hands should remain hidden, right)?

Page 8, of the Official Rules talks about collaboration.

You can talk about, generally, what you're going to do.
You can talk about, generally, what your hand can do in terms of your previous intent
You can not talk about specific cards.

After a peek, you can say "This would be bad, take a catapult instead",  but you cannot say "This causes everyone to lose a life" as it will identify that specific card.

Similarly, you can't ask for a "Fight 5" or use any kind of code that will 'get across' the hint of what card you need (e.g. "I need a very powerful warrior, sir" is cheating).

Hands remain hidden, all specifics are hidden.

The best and more fun way I've found to enforce these rules is to speak only 'in character' in the game.  "Sir Arthur, my men-at-arms are lacking in strength to seek the armor, please assist".   Or, "I have heard rumors of the location of the grail, shall I go seek it, or does someone else feel that can find it before me?"


Can I target an indestructible creature with a 'destroy target creature' spell? Of course the spell won't resolve, but is the indestructible creature a legal target for a spell with the effect "destroy target creature"?

For example, can I target Gideon, Champion of Justice, animated by its second ability, with Rapid Hybridization?

Yes, Indestructible creatures are legal targets for spells/abilities that say "destroy target creature."

The spell actually does resolve, but when it attempts to destroy the creature rule 700.4 prevents it from happening. The requirements for a "legal target" for a spell must be a permanent, unless the spell/ability specifies otherwise. Indestructibility does not modify the rules for targeting, unlike the rules for protection (702.15b A permanent or player with protection can’t be targeted by spells with the stated quality and can’t be targeted by abilities from a source with the stated quality).

You can target Gideon with Rapid Hybridization, and when it resolves it will fail to destroy Gideon and will create 3/3 frog owned by Gideon's controller.

  114.2. Only permanents are legal targets for spells and abilities, unless a spell or ability (a) specifies that it can target an object in another zone or a player, (b) targets an object that can’t exist on the battlefield, such as a spell or ability, or (c) targets a zone.

  700.4. If a permanent is indestructible, rules and effects can’t destroy it. (See rule 701.6, “Destroy.”) Such permanents are not destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the lethal-damage state-based action (see rule 704.5g). Rules or effects may cause an indestructible permanent to be sacrificed, put into a graveyard, or exiled.


Origin of Puppet Stayman There are many variations, but I presume there was an initial original version of puppet stayman.

Does anyone know who came up with it, and why it is named as such?

(A google search has been unrevealing)

According to Wikipedia:

  Puppet Stayman, initially developed by Neil Silverman and refined by Kit Woolsey and Steve Robinson in 1977-78

If you can locate copies of the April 1977 and April 1978 editions of The Bridge World magazine that might have more details on the history of the system.

As to why it's called puppet stayman, this page has an answer from the editor of The Bridge World:

  In The Bridge World's terminology, a puppet is a transfer that systemically requires partner to make the cheapest bid. Puppet Stayman is so-called because in the original version a 2♣ response to 1NT required opener to bid 2♦ (as in Gladiator before it).


General advice for maximizing fun playing multiple games of Dominion My girlfriend and I are a bit late to getting Dominion but so far are really enjoying it - we have the base set and just bought Intrigue. We don't have a lot of time to play (and so far at least have only played Dominion two player against ourselves) so I'm looking for some general "meta game" advice to maximize our fun when we do get a chance to play.

At the moment the one technique which we have adopted that is fun for us is to do the following:

we use the randomizer cards for the set we are playing with (since we just got Intrigue we still want to play with just it a bunch of times before we mix the sets) and deal out 10 cards to play with
we then reserve the remaining 15 cards and when we finish the first game, instead of reshuffling the randomizers we simply deal off the next 10 cards.

This insures that when we play two games back to back we experience two completely different games and play with 20 different cards.

Are there any other similar meta-game techniques people have to add to the enjoyment of playing Dominion - especially techniques for players who don't get a lot of time to play boardgames?

We don't have any of the Promo cards though I've thought about trying to get the Black Market card as playing with that would similarly allow us to experience a greater variety of card interactions (albiet with introducing more randomness to the game)

(I'm open to making this a wiki if people think that is the best format for this type of question)

We've used a mixture of user-selected and randomly selected cards. One scheme that's worked: each player gets to pick one card they don't want in the next game (this is done first), and then two cards they do want in the deck. The remaining 2 cards are selected at random. (This was for a 4-player game; in a two-player game I'd experiment with 1 or 2 banned cards and 2 or 3 selected cards).

The purpose of this method is to give each player the ability to tailor the deck to include a couple of kingdom cards they think might be synergistic, enabling them to try out a new strategy. Also, as the latter players select their cards they're able to try out counters and other means of blocking what they think the other player's strategies might be.

Once you become experienced and comfortable with the cards and the potential interactions this method turns into a meta-game that may detract from the fun, but early on, while you're still learning the ins-and-outs of a new set of cards, it's an easy way to design decks to test out specific theories--and the random cards that are still in each game provide a mechanism for random learning and discovery.


Question about April Does a Faded Figure also count as a cube for the purpose of removing a cube?

For example the Funded Event card Remote Treatment, which allows removal of 2 cubes from anywhere on the board,

  can this be used to remove Faded Figures?

No.  Only things that specifically refer to Faded affect them.  Things that interact with cubes generically cannot.

This along with many other questions is handled by the Pandemic Legacy FAQ on BoardGameGeek


What to do with starvation tokens? The rules state that when the players cannot feed their colony, they should place a starvation token in the food supply and decrease morale for every starvation token in the supply. What to do after that is unclear to me.

Do you lose morale after every round for every starvation token you have in the food supply? Is there a way to get rid of starvation tokens?

There is no way to get rid of starvation tokens but they only cause a loss of morale when there is not enough to food to eat for that round. In that situation, you would lose 1 morale for each starvation token in the food supply.

This is covered in the rules in the section that describes the Pay Food section of the Colony phase. The rules indicate that in the situation where you do not have enough food in the food supply to feed the colony, you do not remove the food, but instead add a starvation token and then decrease morale for each starvation token in the supply.

This was further confirmed in a forum discussion on BoardGameGeek that involved Johnny Gilmour, one of the game designers.


What happens when I sacrifice a blocking creature? In Magic:The Gathering it is possible to trigger abilities of creatures at the same time you can play instants?

I play it that I can block with a creature and sacrifice it at the same time. The attacking creature blocked this ways does not deal damage because the blocking creature is gone - and I get the bonus for the sacrifice (e.g. Blood Pet gives me an extra B-Mana).

In a recent discussion the topic came up again. It seems like the rulings even allow for the blocking player to wait until the damage is put on the stack. Once the damage is on the stack, I can sacrifice my creature, gain the benefits from the sacrifice ability AND deal damage to the attacking create. In my Blood Pet example I would be able to kill an attacking creature with toughness 1 and get 1 B-Mana.

Is this correct? Where can I find the official ruling that clarifies that?

There was a fairly long period of time ending with Magic 2010 when you could put damage on the stack, and then play instants and abilities before the damage resolved.  Those days are over!

Nowadays, you declare blockers, and then both players have a chance to play spells and abilities.  Once everyone is finished doing this, we move onto the combat damage phase, and only then do creatures even start thinking about dealing damage to each other.  If you sacrificed your creature after declaring it as a blocker, then it never gets an opportunity to deal damage, I'm afraid!

One corner case: if your creature has First Strike and also a sacrifice ability, you can have it deal its first strike damage and then sacrifice it in the window of opportunity both players have to play spells and effects before normal combat damage.  Try this page for a handy breakdown of when players have a chance to do things in the course of a Magic game.

Also have a look at Magic 2010 Rule Change, explaining some of the latest changes made to the game rules, particularly section 5, about combat damage not using the stack.  Much more readable than the Comprehensive Rulebook, I think you'll find...


How can I minimize Black Market set up and clean up time? The Black Market (promotional) card requires considerable set up time.

From description:

  Before the game, make a Black Market deck out of one copy of each
  Kingdom card not in the supply.

There are a few ways to approach this:

1) Follow directions literally: take 1 of the 10 cards from each Kindom. For those with several expansions, this would involve drawing over 100 cards, and even more time consuming, putting away these cards when the game is over. Depending on the number of expansions, this could add anywhere between 3 and 15 minutes overhead per game.

2) When we first got the card we used it a lot. So to save time, we did not put away the extra card - instead we always kept a single card out for each Kingdom. This saves on put away, but when setting up the game you have to find the 10 cards for the game (whether or not Black Market is used), which adds 3-4 minutes to every game.

3) An idea we'll soon try: Use the randomizer cards for the Black Market deck, removing the 10 cards in play (which is especially easy if you randomized Kingdoms for a given game, as you already have the cards out). Then, each time a Kingdom is purchased from the Black Market, the regular card is pulled and placed into the purchaser's discard pile, while the randomizer card is removed from the play area (The back of Randomizer cards are a darker shade of blue so that's why you don't want them mixed in with the regular cards).

(1) is too tedious and we'll never do it. (2) was doable but still a bit of chore. I suspect (3) will be best though we haven't tried it yet.

On the other hand, perhaps Dominion players have come up with better methods?

Obviously this is not an issue with online or other form of electronic play, but I'd like to know about the best way to minimize Black Market set up and clean up time with regular play.

Here's an option used by Donald X. Vaccarino. Instead of using the normal randomizer cards, take one card from each kingdom stack and use those for randomizer cards. When you're doing normal randomization, just add the chosen cards to their respective kingdom stacks, and after the game, take one card from each stack to add back to the new randomizers.

Then, when you play Black Market games, you will have a ready-made Black Market deck! The 10 cards in the kingdom will already be out of the randomizer deck, and the backs are the normal backs so you don't have to pull cards from the box like you do with your option 3.

Donald X. Vaccarino talks about this method here.


What do the Tau battlesuit numbers mean? Tau battle suits are often dubbed XV88 or XV81, is there a pattern to the number? What does it mean?

The common consensus is that the Battlesuit number is XV (indicating Battlesuit), followed by two digits, constructed based on size/mass (1-9, light to heavy) and function (1=long-range?, 2=experimental, 4=high-precision(?), 5=stealth, 6=space-faring(?), 8=heavy support), although the functional categories are less clear.

Lexicanum references Codex:Tau Empire, 4th Edition, p.35, and says:

  Standard nomenclature has these battlesuits categorized by two numbers
  - the first number denoting which mass class it belongs to, the second its role. For example, in the XV22 Stealth Battlesuit, the first '2'
  denotes it as a lighter-weight suit, while the second '2' means it is
  still undergoing field-testing.

The Warhammer 40K Wiki has more detail:

  All Tau Battlesuits are essentially the same pieces of Tau technology
  but can be customized and then given an alphabetical classification
  code of XV, which is followed by two digits. The first digit indicates
  the size of the suit: "1" being a complete exoskeletal version of
  standard Tau body armour, while "8" represents the largest available
  Battlesuits, the Crisis Battlesuits. The second digit indicates the
  role or status of the particular suit design. For example: "2"
  indicates an experimental design, "5" represents a Battlesuit with
  stealth capability, and "8" denotes a Battlesuit outfitted to provide
  heavy fire support. Other variations of a Battlesuit may be given
  different numbers to indicate their functions.

There is also the XV9 close combat suit, which has a slightly different naming scheme, and comes in two weapon flavours, the XV9-01 and XV9-04.

Additionally, the 5th edition codex mentions the XV16 and XV26. There is some speculation that the "6" may refer to a new functional designation, possibly space-faring.

Other letters represent different troop types. A detailed (exhaustive?) attempt to summarise them all can be found here.


Dark Shaman vs Monsterslayer Shield In Champions of Midgard, I've run into a bit of an "unstoppable force vs immovable object" issue.

From The Dark Mountains expansion, there's a monster card called Dark Shaman that has the special ability: "Shields block no damage against this monster".

From the Valhalla expansion, there's a card you can get called Monsterslayer Shield that: "Blocks all damage when fighting monsters".

When fighting the Dark Shaman, I rolled a shield. What should the end result be? I can think of three possibilities:

Dark Shaman trumps Monsterslayer Shield
Monsterslayer Shield trumps Dark Shaman
They cancel each other out, and shields work as normal

There's rationale for each of these outcomes. For the first, because it says shields block no damage, it might beat the shield. However, for the second, because the shield uses the same phrasing in reverse, that it blocks all damage, it wouldn't qualify as a normal shield and thus would block (especially since shield odds are already so low, and the card is rather unique). Lastly, because they use the opposite phraseology, you could easily say that they just cancel each other out (seems the most balanced to me).

The rules don't clear this situation up. Has anyone encountered this before, and what is the consensus on how to resolve it?

In situations like this, games generally favour effects that add restrictions over effects that enable. ("Can't trumps can", as Magic: The Gathering players paraphrase the second Golden Rule of that game.)

It's not very clear from the wording which effect adds a restriction until we rephrase them in terms of damage: "Damage from Dark Shaman can't be blocked by shields" vs "Monsterslayer Shield can block any amount of damage". This makes Dark Shaman's ability the winner.

In short, it doesn't matter how much damage Monsterslayer Shield can block because it doesn't block any.

Keep in mind I have never played the game, but your question has been asked on Board Game Geek before, and all three posted opinions concur .