Can this sequence of events cause a commander to be permanently phased out? Suppose that you have a three-player Commander game. The players are Alice, Bob, and Carol. Bob's commander is Isamaru, Hound of Konda, a vanilla creature.

On Alice's turn, she:

Casts Dominate to gain control of Isamaru.
Casts Song of the Dryads to turn Isamaru into a colorless Forest land (that's not a creature).
Activates the first ability of Memnarch to permanently turn Isamaru into an artifact (an Artifact Land — Forest).
Casts Bludgeon Brawl, turning Isamaru into an Artifact Land — Equipment Forest.
Casts Grizzly Bears (a vanilla creature) and equips Isamaru to Grizzly Bears.
Casts Reality Ripple to phase out Grizzly Bears. (Isamaru phases out indirectly per 702.25f.)
Concedes the game.

For reference:

  702.25f When a permanent phases out, any Auras, Equipment, or Fortifications attached to that permanent phase out at the same time. This alternate way of phasing out is known as phasing out “indirectly.” An Aura, Equipment, or Fortification that phased out indirectly won’t phase in by itself, but instead phases in along with the permanent it’s attached to.

...

  702.25m In a multiplayer game, game rules may cause a phased-out permanent to leave the game or to be exiled once a player leaves the game. (See rules 800.4a and 800.4c.) If a phased-out permanent phased out under the control of a player who has left the game, that permanent phases in during the next untap step after that player’s next turn would have begun.

Will Isamaru ever phase back in? That is, does the negative rule “An Aura, Equipment, or Fortification that phased out indirectly won’t phase in by itself” trump the positive rule “If a phased-out permanent phased out under the control of a player who has left the game, that permanent phases in during the next untap step after that player’s next turn would have begun.”? If so, is there any sequence of actions that would cause Isamaru to phase in? (Time and Tide won't do it because Isamaru is not a creature.)

If Isamaru would phase in, then does the situation change if Alice casts Donate to give Isamaru back to Bob before casting Reality Ripple?

I would say that Isamaru does phase back in. Rule 702.25m does not check whether a phased-out permanent would have otherwise phased back in, and it does not in any other way distinguish between direct and indirect phasing, so my interpretation is that it provides an additional way that phased-out permanents could phase back in separate from the direct and indirect phasing described in the other rules.

The situation does change if Alice Donates Isamaru back to Bob before casting Reality Ripple. Rule 702.25m specifically applies to objects that phased out under the control of a player who as left the game. If instead Bob controls Isamaru when it phases out, then 702.25m never applies to Isamaru, and no rule instructs it to phase in, so it stays phased out forever.


When is it worth competing to farm fields? Is it worth fighting for my opponents' fields when there are still 60+ tiles in the game and I have no fields, or is it too soon?

I usually lose games because of fields and not knowing when to lay my meeples.

Any suggestions?

If you're losing because your opponent is scoring fields and you aren't, then yes, you will have to fight for those fields.  The tricky thing with fields is that you have to commit to them before you know what they will be worth, so try to estimate in your own mind what a field will be worth at the end of the game and factor it in your calculations.

Watch out for the "cloister with a road" tile coming out early, this will cause there to be one large field at the end and a big fight for the farming.

If fighting for the farming doesn't suit your playing style then try to play in a way that prevents large fields forming -- use road junctions to break them up and try to stop people creating loops with roads.  Then build your cities away from the big fields.  Additionally, opponents who commit heavily to farming early on will be short of meeples during the game and you should be able to bully them during the game by playing tiles to slow or prevent them from completing their cities/roads/cloisters, or joining your meeples into their cities generally obstructing their completion.  With your spare meeples you should be able complete lots of features and rack up the points.


Can you have the same Pokemon with different names I was thinking about a character in the TV show during one episode of sun and moon Ash meets a trainer who just loves Pikachu and I wanted to make a deck baced on her so I understand you can only have 4 with the same name but what if they had a different name like "Pikachu libre" or "detective Pikachu" or ex and gx

I guess this isn't a complete duplicate, but a similar question has an answer here:

Pokemon cards with the same name and different features

You can play up to 4 copies of cards with the same name. If they have different names you can play up to 4 copies of each of them in your deck.

Rules text on the rule of playing multiple copies of a card (quoted from a quote in this answer: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/47062/24175):

  DECK BUILDING

  (...)

  Also, except for basic Energy, you can only have 4 cards with the same name in your deck. This means you can have only 4 cards called “Pignite” in your deck, even if they all have different attacks. Finally, your deck must have at least one Basic Pokémon in it.

  (...)

If you are wondering what it means to have the same name (quoted from a quote in this answer: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/47062/24175):

  WHAT DOES AND DOESN’T COUNT FOR A POKÉMON’S NAME?

  • Some Pokémon cards have extra information after their name, such as a Level or a symbol like GL. A Pokémon’s name changes how you can evolve or play certain cards. Level is not part of a Pokémon’s name:
      ◆ Gengar, Gengar LV. 43, Gengar LV. 44, and Gengar LV.X all have the same name
  • Symbols at the end of a Pokémon’s name are part of a Pokémon’s name:
      ◆ Alakazam, Alakazam 四, and Alakazam ☆ all have different names from each other
      ◆ However, δ (Delta Species) is not part of a Pokémon’s name. Aerodactyl and
  Aerodactyl δ (Delta Species) have the same name
  • An owner or form name in a Pokémon’s name is part of the Pokémon’s name:
      ◆ Meowth, Alolan Meowth, and Rocket’s Meowth have different names

  When you are building a deck, you can have only 4 copies of a card with the same name in it, except for basic Energy cards. If your deck has 1 each of Gengar, Gengar LV. 43, Gengar LV. 44, and Gengar LV.X, you can’t put any more cards named Gengar in your deck! However, you could have 4 Meowth, 4 Alolan Meowth, and 4 Rocket’s Meowth.


May you choose *not* to use the free construction chain? If you could build a structure for free (thanks to the chain noted on the card), may you choose not to and use resources (whether your own or bought from your neighbours) to build it instead?

This is relevant for cases where you would earn money when "buying" from your neighbours, or where you would have to pay taxes when using the chain (Babel tile 13).

As correctly stated by @unor, you may opt not to use the chain building, but normally pay for resources (English Rules, p. 4):

  If the player has built the structure named there during a previous Age, that player can build the structure for free, meaning without having to fulfill the resource cost.

Both French and German rules confirm the above. The German rules are even more elaborate, as they state (German Rules, p. 4):

  Wenn der Spieler, der das Gebäude errichten möchte, auch das auf der Karte erwähnte andere Gebäude aus dem vorangegangenen Zeitalter in seiner Stadt besitzt, muss er die Kosten nicht bezahlen, sondern kann das Gebäude kostenfrei bauen.

  (English) When the player, who wants to construct a building, has also other buildings from a previous Age mentioned on the card that already exist in his city, he does not have to pay the cost, since he may construct the building free of charge.

If it was obligatory, the German rules would state darf er die Kosten nicht bezahlen, i.e., must not pay the cost.

It should be noted, however, that when you're playing the "Free City" 2-player variant, the Free City has to use chain building, if the chosen card benefits from one (English Rules, p. 7).

  If the card chosen for the Free city can benefit from a free construction (chain), this free construction MUST be performed.

The existence of this rule in the 2-player variant merely confirms that during the normal game (3-8 players) you may either choose the chain or build normally.

Also note that, if you're playing a Team game, you are not allowed to purchase resources from your teammate, if you can build a structure through chain (English "City" Rules, p. 10).

  It is forbidden for the teammates to :

  share coins,
  trade cards,
  not pay for commerce between them,
  buy resources from each other while they can build a structure through a chain.

Note that you are not able to buy resources that you can already produce, but only the resources you're missing (English Rules, p. 4).

  Often, a player will want to build a structure requiring resources he or
  she does not produce. If these resources are produced by a neighboring city – players sitting directly to the left or right of that player – the player will be able to purchase the missing resource(s) through commerce.

This is also confirmed by the "City" expansion rules (English "City" Rules, p. 10).

  A player must use their own resource before buying one from their neighbors.


What does Leovold, Emissary of Trest & Teferi's Puzzle Box do to opponent's hands? Case 1:

Player 1 has Leovold, Emissary of Trest and Teferi's Puzzle Box on the Battlefield.
Player 2 starts with his draw phase and has one card in his hand.

I think he puts his card on bottom of his library and draws a new one.
However he is not able to take another.

Case 2:
Player 1 has Leovold and Teferi's Puzzle Box on the Battlefield.
Player 2 starts with his draw phase and has no card in his hand.

Therefore "nothing" happens with the Puzzle Box and he only draws a card.
Am I right or did I miss something? Do you feel this combo is that strong?

Even though the phrase "beginning of the draw step" suggests otherwise, those abilities trigger after the turn-based action of drawing a card for the turn.

504. Draw Step
504.1. First, the active player draws a card. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.
504.2. Second, the active player gets priority. (See rule 116, “Timing and Priority.”)

Regardless how many cards Player 2 has in this case, they will draw a card, then Teferi's Puzzle Box triggers, eventually resolves, then has that player put all cards on the bottom of their library.
Leovold, Emissary of Trest will prevent them from drawing any other cards, as they've already drawn a card this turn.


king of Tokyo- camouflage If I buy a card that does damage to me, and I have camouflage, do I get to roll to negate that damage? The card says when I take damage I roll to negate it, so I would think I could get rid of the damage by rolling hearts.

  Camouflage: If you take damage, roll a die, on a heart roll you do not take the damage. You roll once die for each damage you take. Does this apply to damage from cards?

Yes.

Your doubts probably stem from thinking about the cards that react to attacks. Damage from cards aren't attacks, so those cards don't react to damage from cards. However, Camouflage doesn't mention attacks, only damage. As such, there's no reason for it not to function in the scenario you describe.


How does Decree of Silence interact with multiple spells cast? With a Decree of Silence in play with two depletion counters on it, what would happen if my opponent were to cast Titan Strength and then Giant Growth?

If your opponent cast Giant Growth without waiting for Titan Strength to be countered, both will be countered.

Whenever your opponent casts a spell, Decree of Silence will trigger and its ability will become the topmost object on the stack. When that ability resolves, the first spell will be countered, Decree gets its third counter and will be sacrificed. Therefore, if your opponent casts Titan Strength and just waits for the stack to resolve, Decree will be gone and he will be able to play Giant Growth without it being countered.

If, however, your opponent casts another spell before that ability resolves, Decree is still on the battlefield and will trigger again, putting another instance of its ability on the stack.

Now the stack starts resolving. The second spell gets countered and a counter is put on the Decree. It will be sacrificed immediately afterwards. Now the first instance of the Decree's ability resolves. It does not put a counter on Decree because it's already in the graveyard, but it will do as much as possible, i.e. it will counter the first spell.


Am I obligated to distinguish between morphs and megamorphs when I'm casting a card face-down? I cast a card with megamorph and state "I'll pay {3} and morph this." Is this particular method of communication for casting a face-down creature legal? The reason I ask is because morph and megamorph mean different things.

If I control a face down creature with megamorph, and my opponent asks if it was morphed or megamorphed, am I obligated to respond? If I'm not obligated to respond, but I choose to do so, am I obligated to respond truthfully?

I know that I have to distinguish between manifests and morphs. I'm just not sure if I have to distinguish between morphs and megamorphs. Nearly all of my opponents at my Dragons of Tarkir prerelease events just said "Morph this guy." and it turned out to be a megamorph (surprise!). Given the non-existence of regular morph cards in Dragons of Tarkir, I decided to not ask a judge because I knew they were really all megamorphs. I want to know in case I run into this later.

As long as you make it clear that you are casting the card as a 2/2 face-down creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost, it doesn't matter what you say. The comprehensive rules aren't specific about what you can legally say, and the tournament rules only say that everyone has to be clear about what's going on.

When you cast a Megamorph creature, you are casting it as a Morph creature, so there is no need to distinguish. The Dragons of Tarkir release notes add this to the morph rules:

  702.36e Megamorph is a variant of the morph ability. “Megamorph [cost]” means “You may cast this card as a 2/2 face-down creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost by paying 3 rather than paying its mana cost” and “As this permanent is turned face up, put a +1/+1 counter on it if its megamorph cost was paid to turn it face up.” A megamorph cost is a morph cost.

In addition, as Jefromi points out, the Mechanics of Dragons of Tarkir says

  If you understand how morph works, megamorph is almost exactly the same. The only difference is that if you turn a face-down creature with megamorph face up by paying its megamorph cost, not only will it suddenly have its normal characteristics, but you'll put a +1/+1 counter on it as well!

Morph and Megamorph use the exact same wording for the bolded section, so you should just be able to say "I cast this face down" and pay {3}.


Can Spoils be trashed by Counterfeit? I'm looking for an authoritative answer here. Where does the Spoils card end up after being played twice by Counterfeit?

In fact, can Spoils be trashed at all? My understanding is that yes it can when it isn't played, e.g. in order to increase the value of Forager.

Spoils is played twice, but is returned to the Spoils pile and not trashed.

Spoils is a treasure providing three coins that reads:

  When you play this, return it to the Spoils pile.

Counterfeit reads:

  When you play this, you may play a Treasure from your hand twice. If you do, trash that Treasure.

According to the Dark Ages rulebook (PDF), page 11:

  If you use Counterfeit to play Spoils twice, you will get [six coins], (in addition to the [one coin] from Counterfeit) and return Spoils to the Spoils pile; you will be unable to trash it.

To answer your second question, Spoils can be trashed, but not when it is played, exactly as you expect.


Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent? Nathan controls Jeskai Infiltrator. His deck has green sleeves. Anthony controls three Mountains. His deck has blue sleeves. Anthony casts and resolves Act of Treason, gaining control of Infiltrator. He attacks Nathan, deals combat damage, and triggers and resolves Infiltrator's ability. Anthony now controls two manifested permanents: Jeskai Infiltrator and a random card from the top of his deck.

Two questions:

Can Anthony desleeve both manifested cards, or otherwise manipulate them so that they cannot be differentiated?
Assume the cards are not sleeved to begin with, or Nathan is colorblind, so that Nathan is unable to differentiate between the two face down cards. Is Anthony obligated to tell Nathan which card is the card that he owns?

It seems to me that, depending on the answer, Jeskai Infiltrator's ability might not work the way it was intended. If Nathan knows which card is which, then shuffling them is pointless.

I am looking for a rules based answer if one exists. The Release Notes for Fate Reforged say the following:

  A card's owner is public information at all times. If the two cards you exile are owned by different players (perhaps because you gained control of a Jeskai Infiltrator owned by your opponent), which card is which is no longer hidden from your opponent. That player will know which face-down creature he or she owns.

However, it does not provide rules to back this up. I checked the Tournament rules on Free, Derived, and Private information, but I found no mention of this. If the answer depends on what Rules Enforcement Level you are playing at, please describe the rule as it applies to each level.

I too was unable to find anything in either the CR or MTR defining this, so I asked Matt Tabak, current Rules Manager of Magic and he said:

  I just assumed that was self-evident. Like, if you get up from the table, you should know which cards to take with you.

And a Level 2 Judge I asked said:

  From a practical standpoint, you’re going to be using different sleeves from your opponent 95% of the time. Even if the sleeves are the same, you have a right to your property, so you have the right to know which cards you own.


Can exiled players only increase an unused die once if they spend a Food 2 card? Page 14 of the rules under Exile says

  The exiled player cannot spend food tokens to increase his action die results, but may play food cards to increase an action die result by 1 for each food card played rather than carrying out the effect listed on the food card

The literal reading seems to imply I can only increase a die by 1 for even a Food 2 card.  Is this true or can they increase a die twice or two dice once each with this sort of card?

The rule you quoted clearly says it raises the dice result by one for each food card, so the dice result is raised by one for each food card.


If too many players wins the game, can the Boss and Profiteer win no gold? If 5 players wins the game (2 green dwarfs, 1 blue dwarf, a Boss and a Profiteer), they only get 1 gold piece each. But the Boss gets 1 less, and the Profiteer gets 2 less. That means that they get no gold piece at all?

Yes. Part of the game is knowing when not to end the game. In the scenario you described, the Boss or the Profiteer must have ended the game (because it's the only way a Green and a Blue can both win with those characters). But that might not have been their best option.

The following is the scoring possibilities for the party you presented:

           There's   There's |         |
  Game     a Blue    a Green | Winners | Nuggets    Green     Blue      Boss    Profiteer
  Ender     Path      Path   |         |
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Green         Y         Y    |    4    |    2         2         0         1         0
Blue          Y         Y    |    3    |    3         0         3         2         1
Boss          Y         Y    |    5    |    1         1         1         0         0
Profiteer     Y         Y    |    5    |    1         1         1         0         0
Anyone        Y         N    |    3    |    3         0         3         2         1
Anyone        N         Y    |    4    |    2         2         0         1         0
Noone         N         N    |    1    |    5         0         0         0         3

For the most points, the Boss should have joined the Blue team (by blocking green or by enabling Blue to end) rather than ending the game. Joining Green would also grant some points.

For the most points, the Profiteer should have sabotaged the miners rather than end the game. Helping Blue would also net some rewards.


How often does the standard set change? I started playing Magic (or started again rather) just after the Theros set had come out. The standard format was defined to include the Return to Ravnica block and the entire Theros block of which the last two sets had not come out.

I do not think Wizards of the Coast has made any official announcements yet so I'm asking for what may happen based on what has happened in the past. When can I expect Standard to change and what should I expect? Is it likely that the Theros block will remain in and the Return to Ravnica block will drop, or are the changes unpredictable?

Standard rotates once a year, in the fall. New cards printed in a core set or expansion set stay in Standard for between one to two years after their printing.

Currently, the normal set release schedule is:

One block (like Theros) on a yearly cycle: one sets each for fall, winter, and spring.
One core set (like M14) each summer.
A couple of specialty products throughout the year, like Commander decks or Modern Masters. These aren't part of Standard.

Both the structure of Standard and the release schedule have varied over time, but there's no particular reason to think Wizards of the Coast will change them anytime soon.

Modern-day Standard environments consist of:

The current block.
The previous complete block.
Any core sets released since the previous complete block.

The cards in Standard rotate once a year, when the first set of the new block is released in the fall. At its smallest, Standard is one old block + one set from the new block + one core set. At its largest, just before rotation, Standard is two complete blocks + two core sets. Because rotation happens in the fall, the cards in the summer core sets effectively "age out" the fastest (after about 1 1/4 years).


Why does Rhizome Lurcher see itself in the graveyard as it enters the battlefield? (GRN spoilers) Rhizome Lurcher is a new card in Guilds of Ravnica that says:

  Undergrowth — Rhizome Lurcher enters the battlefield with a number of +1/+1 counters on it equal to the number of creature cards in your graveyard.

It has a ruling that completely surprises me:

  If you return Rhizome Lurcher from your graveyard to the battlefield, its undergrowth ability counts itself.

OK, I'm willing to believe that. But why does it count itself? I would have thought that as it enters the battlefield it's no longer in the graveyard and would not count itself. What's going on in the rules for this interaction that have it work out this way?

Rhizome Lurcher's ability is a replacement effect, specifically the kind described in 614.1d:

  Continuous effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield . . .” or “[Objects] enter the battlefield . . .” are replacement effects.

Replacement effects apply to an event before that event occurs. So replacement effects that modify a permanent entering the battlefield apply before it enters the battlefield. In Magic, objects can't be "between" zones or not in any zones, so in the situation in question, before the Rhizome Lurcher is on the battlefield, it is in the graveyard. So, it counts itself when counting creatures cards in the graveyard.


When does Tiana, Ship's Caretaker check card type? At what point does Tiana, Ship's Caretaker's last ability check if a card that went to the graveyard is an aura or equipment? Is that determination made when the card is on the battlefield and going to the graveyard, or when the card enters the graveyard?

In my specific example: I control a Bludgeon Brawl, Liquimetal Coating, and Tiana. I use liquimetal coating to turn Bludgeon Brawl into an artifact, and it then becomes an equipment because of bludgeon brawl. My opponent Shatters it. Does Tiana's second ability trigger because it was an equipment when it died, or not because it is an enchantment in the graveyard?

The ability will still trigger; what matters is what the object was when it was on the battlefield.

  603.10. Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions, and continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. However, some triggered abilities are exceptions to this rule; the game “looks back in time” to determine if those abilities trigger, using the existence of those abilities and the appearance of objects immediately prior to the event. The list of exceptions is as follows:

    603.10a Some zone-change triggers look back in time. These are leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a card leaves a graveyard, and abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library.

Tiana’s ability is a leaves the battlefield ability; even though it talks about entering the graveyard:

  603.6c Leaves-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent moves from the battlefield to another zone, or when a phased-in permanent leaves the game because its owner leaves the game. These are written as, but aren’t limited to, “When [this object] leaves the battlefield, . . .” or “Whenever [something] is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, . . . .” (See also rule 603.10.) [...]


Does a -1/-1 effect from a static ability cause a creature to die before it can do anything, upon entering the battlefield? My friend has played Engineered Plague, naming Elf. Is the Elvish Hexhunter of any use here? Imagine it has haste via Concordant Crossroads.

Your elf can't do anything. It becomes a 0/0 just after it enters the battlefield, and pretty much immediately goes to the graveyard. There's no opportunity to activate the ability before it dies. This has to do with state-based actions, and the fact that they're checked before you get priority:

  704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for
  state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions
  simultaneously as a single event.

  704.5f If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. Regeneration can’t replace this event.

Triggered abilities, such as that of Elvish Visionary, will still trigger. You will place the ability onto the stack as soon as you get priority, which in this case is after the creature is already dead.


How does second edition farmer scoring work? Related to this question; I am wondering how “each city can only be scored once” worked in the second edition rules. Second edition, like third (current); scores each farmland as opposed to scoring each city. But if a city can only count once; then how do you treat a city that is adjacent to multiple farms?

A simple example; imagine a competed game where there is only 1 city; and it has 2 farms touching it. Each player controls a different farm. In third edition, each farm would be worth 3 points. What happens in second edition?

I was able to find the rules for first and third editions online; but not second.

A city can be scored once per player, so in the given example, each player would receive 3 points.

I found the answer while combing through some threads on boardgamegeek.com, as well as in an answer to this other question.

From the other answer:

  A player can score for a single city one time, and only one time... no matter how many fields and farmers he has next to it.

And from bgg:

  German 2nd Ed:
  1) look at each city
  2) if a player has the most farmers in any one of the
  fields adjcent to the city he scores 3 points.

So it appears that while second edition does consider each field separately; it still scores city-by-city, as opposed to scoring farm-by-farm, and for each city multiple players might score the 3 points.


How do zombies win in Last Night on Earth: Timber Peak? My friends and I played Last Night on Earth extensively. Games were always very close, and tough for both sides. We liked it so much we got the Timber peak sequel/expansion.

However, we find now that the heroes are having a ridiculously easy time.
After about halfway through the game, the heroes become so powerful they are literally running into hoards of 5+ zombies, and killing every one without a wound.
I'm starting to think we are missing a trick or new rule, as I can't believe other people would consider what we've seen as balanced. The only buffs to the zombies are generally to fight cards, and only after they wound. Problem is, after a certain point, it becomes almost impossible to wound a hero.
Yet the heroes now get triple bandages, triple ammo, triple gasoline, police shotgun, very powerful upgrades like winning on ties and extra fight dice. The Ed Baker guy, who can take 4 wounds, and starts off with an upgrade, always becomes an unstoppable tank every game.
I once had 6 zombies on him, and I was only able to roll to see if I might win once, and needed a 6.. but if I had got a 6 he could have made me re-roll it..

Anyone got any tips/strategies for how zombies might win in Timber Peak?

I don't actually own Timber Peak so I can't help you from experience but I did find the following comment from this post on BGG relevant.

  I found that zombie tactics in TP are different from LNOE. Without going into detail, I'd say the zombies require a bit more subtlety than in the earlier game.

So to answer your question: If your gaming group is really use to vanilla LNoE they may need to adapt a different play style for Timber Peak.

The rest of the thread on the above link might also help answer your question.


Can Japanese Cards be played if using an English based Deck? I was reading on the Yu-Gi-Oh Wiki that some cards have their artwork changed due to censorship, examples are the Fortune Lady's

Original Japanese version

English Version with Censor

Now I am wondering, if I were in a sanctioned tournament in an English speaking country and my deck contained mostly English cards, could I play the Japanese card and have the English one off to the side for the other players or spectators to reference the effects?

No, although you can use foreign language cards from the TCG, OCG cards are not allowed.
From Konami's Yugioh FAQ, that lists several Official Tournament Stores

Q: Can I use foreign language cards in my Deck?
You can use foreign-language copies of legal-for-play cards printed for the TCG market, as long as you can show an official translation of the card, kept outside of your Deck and Deck box, when asked to do so by an opponent or tournament official.
Q: Can I use OCG cards in my Deck?
No. Cards printed for Asian markets are not legal for play in TCG tournaments.

There are several reasons for this, which make the cards identifiable in a regular TCG deck.


Why do all Go board sizes have an odd number of lines? Why is a 19x19 board so much better than a 20x20 board? Here are the number of games played on every different board sizes on DGS (Dragon Go Server):

| Size | CNT    |
+------+--------+
|    5 |   2464 |
|    6 |    466 |
|    7 |  11015 |
|    8 |    434 |
|    9 | 101230 |
|   10 |   1256 |
|   11 |   3166 |
|   12 |    716 |
|   13 |  65205 |
|   14 |    455 |
|   15 |   4656 |
|   16 |    315 |
|   17 |   1145 |
|   18 |     91 |
|   19 | 639319 |
|   20 |    293 |
|   21 |    371 |
|   22 |    104 |
|   23 |    265 |
|   24 |     79 |
|   25 |   3657 |

As you can see boards of odd size are much much more popular than boards of even size.

In total: 99.5% of games have been played on boards of odd size, while only 0.5% of games have been played on boards of even size.

There seems to be something severely wrong with boards of even size...

So my first question is: what is the problem with boards of even size?

I also wondered why 19x19 is the number one most popular size for Go boards...

Just like the accepted answer to this question says, the principal reason that the 19x19 board is considered to be the best is that:

  it is the largest board size on which there are more points on the sides (under the third line) than in the center (above the fourth line).

But I found that to be inaccurate! The board size with the best balance between territory (on the sides) and influence (in the center) is not 19x19, it's 20x20.

If Black puts all his stones on the third line, and White puts all his stone on the fourth line, then:

On a 19x19 board:

Under area scoring: Black has 192 points, White has 169 points.
Under territory scoring: Black has 136 points, White has 121 points.

On a 20x20 board:

Under area scoring: Black has 204 points, White has 196 points.
Under territory scoring: Black has 144 points, White has 144 points.

So my second question is: why not a 20x20 board?

Almost all go boards are x by x, where x is an odd number (e.g. 9, 13, or 19).

The point is to have the product yield an odd number of potential points. So that there would be an odd number of points in the game and a clear winner.

(In the Japanese counting style of "points," it is possible for both players to have the same number, but under the Chinese counting style of points plus stones played, the sum of the two players' results will be an odd number.)


MTG - Priority and timing between instants and instants - Well, returning back to the creature 2/3 just summoned, what happens if I have priority and cast an instant that gives +1/+1 to that creature, and then, giving priority to the opponent, he/she casts Lightning Bolt in order to kill the creature counting on that it resolves before my instant (giving +1/+1 to the 2/3 creature)?

In other words, here's the order of the spells:

Summoning of a 2/3 creature
Priority is mine, and I cast an instant (giving +1/+1 to the 2/3 creature just summoned)
I give priority to my opponent, and he casts a lightning bolt with the 2/3 creature as a target.

What happens? Does the Lightning Bolt kill the creature, or not? The stack is now:

Lightning Bolt on the top
My +1/+1 instant on the bottom

It will kill the creature. After the Lightning Bolt resolves, state based actions will be checked:

704.1. State-based actions are game actions that happen automatically whenever certain conditions (listed below) are met. State-based actions don’t use the stack.
704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event.

One of those checks will destroy the 2/3 creature:

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

This happens before the +1/+1 instant can come to the rescue.


Can you buy a property on your next roll? Let’s say a player rolls and he lands on Park Avenue but doesn’t buy it. On his next turn before he rolls Can he buy that property?  Or does he lose this opportunity?

No, that player may not buy that property. That property should have immediately gone to auction when the player opted not to buy it on their turn. Thus when they start their next turn, the property is already owned.
From the Monopoly Rules:

BUYING PROPERTY: Whenever you land on an unowned property you
may buy that property from the Bank at its printed price. You receive the
Title Deed card showing ownership; place it faceup in front of you.
If you do not wish to buy the property, the Banker sells it at auction
to the highest bidder. The buyer pays the Bank the amount of the bid
in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that property. Any player,
including the one who declined the option to buy it at the printed
price, may bid. Bidding may start at any price.


Does recasting Omnath, Locus of creation, reset it's "Landfall Counter?" I have Omnath, Locus of Creation out. I play 3 lands, triggering his landfall ability 3 times. I gain 4 life, add some mana, deal some damage. I decide I want to gain some more life, get some more mana, and deal some more damage. So I return Omnath to my hand, then recast him. My understanding is that if I now play another land, Omnath's landfall will trigger and I will gain 4 life, because this Omnath has no memories of his previous triggers. Is this correct? Does bouncing or flickering Omnath reset his landfall ability?

Yes. Comprehensive rules 400.7:

An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.

Followed by some exceptions, none of which apply here. As it's moved from the battlefield to your hand and then back to the battlefield again, it's a new object, so the next land entering the battlefield is the first one it's seen and you gain 4 life.


Does something which affects "defending player" target that player? If I have shroud or hexproof, because I control Ivory Mask or Witchbane Orb, am I immune to something which affects "defending player," such as a creature with Annihilator, or will I still have to sac, since it doesn't say "target opponent"?

Ulamog's Crusher

  Annihilator 2 (Whenever this creature attacks, defending player sacrifices two permanents.)
  Ulamog's Crusher attacks each turn if able.

No, it doesn't target. You are not immune.
If the word "target" isn't used, it doesn't target. Keep in mind that some keywords (e.g. "Equip") use the word "target" in the abilities they represent, and the rules for casting an Aura use the word "target".
You're asking about Annihilator, so let's look up what abilities it represents:

702.85a Annihilator is a triggered ability. “Annihilator N” means “Whenever this creature attacks, defending player sacrifices N permanents.”

As you can see, it doesn't use the word "target". As such, it does not target.

In case you're interested, the following is the exhaustive list of what targets:

114.1a An instant or sorcery spell is targeted if its spell ability identifies something it will affect by using the phrase “target [something],” [...]
114.1b Aura spells are always targeted. [...]
114.1c An activated ability is targeted if it identifies something it will affect by using the phrase “target [something],” [...]
114.1d A triggered ability is targeted if it identifies something it will affect by using the phrase “target [something],” [...]
114.1e Some keyword abilities, such as equip and provoke, represent targeted activated or triggered abilities. In those cases, the phrase “target [something]” appears in the rule for that keyword ability rather than in the ability itself. (The keyword’s reminder text will often contain the word “target.”) See rule 702, “Keyword Abilities.”


What mana fixing should I use in Khans of Tarkir Sealed Format? Some Khans of Tarkir terminology:

Banners are a cycle of mana rocks that can be sacrificed to draw a card (e.g., Abzan Banner).
Wedge lands enter tapped and produce one of three colors (e.g., Mystic Monastery).
Life lands enter tapped, gain 1 life when played, and produce one of two colors (e.g., Dismal Backwater).

How do you know how many banners to play in your deck?

I've been practicing with this sealed pool generator, and on average, I get 1 Wedge Land and 2-3 Life Lands. Is that enough mana fixing? Would you guys advise throwing in 1-2 (maybe not 3) banners? Going to the basics of deck building for sealed pool, it's supposed to be 17 lands, 17 creatures, and 6 other spells. If you throw in 2 banners to fix your mana, it would only leave you with 4 other spells.

Am I doing it wrong? Are banners supposed to be counted towards the total land count?

Mana fixers can virtually never be counted as full lands because you need mana to cast them.

Let's take the case of the banners specifically. If you swap out a land for a banner, the main difference is the banner:

Costs 3 mana to cast
Can be sacrificed for a card draw

(1) makes them a higher mana screw risk than a land (how happy are you if you mulligan into 2 land+banner instead of 3 land?), while (2) makes them a reduced mana flood risk than a land (sac them if you have nothing better to do with your mana).

They should almost certainly be counted as full spells for purposes of mana ratios, especially if you're also playing lands that come into play tapped.


Carcassonne: The Grass Connection Been looking into the rules a bit but can't find all the answers I want and it's possible this is more of a house rule with no definitive answer, but what I'm looking for is some official ruling if it exists.

Do grass continue under bridges? i.e. is the grass connected? I'm thinking of the bridges from for example River 2 that cross the river.

 Source

Also does the grass go around the well/pond from River expansions? Usually even if no other tiles connect the grass we do play as if the grass does connect on well/pond.  source

Do grass continue around the monastery from Catapult (that has the yellow fair thing stretching from one end to another)?

Source

Finally Bridges, Castles and Bazaars I'm assuming grass under the wooden bridges does connect?
Source

There are a lot more pieces in the expansions that basically asks the same question about farmer grass. If there is no official ruling I'm still interested in what is most common out there.

The rule in all cases is the same.

A field is contiguous only if there is an unbroken path of green on the tile(s).

The large wooden bridge does not interrupt the green so it does not break the field.  Everything else you mentioned does except for the path around the well/pond.


Can the Dispatcher spend actions to allow others to knowledge transfer? I saw the following question: exchanging cards in pandemic

And now I am wondering if the following (specifically step 3) is a legal move in pandemic?
1. Play the dispatcher (can spend actions to move other pawns).
2. Use a couple of my actions to move other player's pawns into the same city.
3. Spend an action to allow them to exchange cards.

The linked question has this excerpt from the rules:

  Transfer a card from one player to another. Every card transferred
  costs 1 action. Both your pawn and your fellow player’s pawn must be
  in the same city, and you may only transfer the card of the city that
  you are in together.

The first sentence says that any players can be involved in the transfer, but the second makes it sound like the active player needs to be involved.

No. This is not a legal action.
The Dispatcher's two abilities are:

Move your fellow players' pawns on your turn as if they were your own

Move any pawn to another city containing a pawn for 1 action

The rule book has a very specific wording for each action. The actions Drive (or Ferry), Direct Flight, Charter Flight, and Shuttle Flight all use the word "move" to explain what you do during that action. All of the others, including Share Knowledge, do not. These actions do not deal with moving, which is all the Dispatcher is allowed to do to other pawns.
Or more simplistically, the rules state specifically:

The Dispatcher may move other player’s pawns on his turn (using any of the available Basic actions) as if they were his own pawn. He may also spend an action to move a pawn to any city that contains another pawn. He may only move other players’ pawns if they permit him to do so. Note: For the Charter Flight action, the Dispatcher must play the card corresponding to the current location of the pawn he wishes to move.

The Basic actions only include the four I mentioned above, plus Pass. You cannot spend an action to allow other players to trade cards using the Dispatcher; Share Knowledge is a Special action and outside of the Dispatcher's abilities.


Is there an official rule on "setting up" your deck before play? It never occured to me that this might not be an action sanctioned for tournament, but me and my friends have always done it as long as I can remember.

Every time before a new game, we look through our decks and separate the lands from the non-lands, shuffle the non-lands, and build a deck (assuming a 2:1 ratio of non-lands to lands) 2 non-lands then 1 land -- repeat until no cards are left. Then give a light shuffle and begin. This is used to ensure that there's no long strings of only land or no land.

I've done a quick search for others doing this behavior but I can't seem to locate any reference to it. But based on a couple games in Magic online, I've noticed that quite frequently I'll mulligan a hand and then get back an unhealty ratio of lands to spells and I basically lose the game right away because of it. This leads me to think that the official tournament rules are that you just shuffle your deck and play.

The Magic tournament rules have this to say (emphasis added):

3.9 Card Shuffling
Decks must be randomized at the start of every game and whenever an instruction requires it. Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck. Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random.

Per the Gilbert-Shanon-Reeds model, the number of riffle shuffles1 needed to properly randomize a deck can be expressed mathematically as a function of the base-2 logarithm of the number of cards in the deck2. For a 60-card deck, you would need nine riffle shuffles, while a deck with 40 cards in it (a Limited game, or a Constructed game that's been going for a bit) would need eight shuffles3.
When your deck is properly randomized, nothing you have done to it prior to the randomization has any effect on the final permutation. If you're randomizing your deck correctly, the mana-weaving you and your friends are doing has nothing more than a psychological effect. Since it isn't affecting the outcome of the game, it's legal, although it wastes time.
At Competitive and Professional Rules Enforcement Level (REL) tournaments, which use the Infraction Procedure Guide to determine penalties for various infractions, failing to properly randomize your deck can result in Tournament Error — Insufficient Shuffling. The penalty for this is a Warning assuming the error was unintentional (if the error is intentional, then it falls under Unsporting Conduct — Cheating). If you get the same Tournament Error a second time (or more), the Warning is upgraded to a Game Loss.
At Regular REL tournaments (Friday Night Magic, prereleases, etc.: the type of tournaments most players attend), which use Judging at Regular REL (JAR) to guide judges in decision-making, "Inadequate Shuffling" falls under General Unwanted Behaviors. At Regular, the judge will most likely instruct you on proper shuffling technique and/or simply remind you to shuffle better or shuffle more. Only if you are consistently failing to properly shuffle your deck will you get Game Losses at Regular for the error.
In a tournament, after shuffling your deck, you must present it to your opponent (with the implicit claim that you have randomized the deck). At Regular REL, your opponent may shuffle the deck, cut the deck, or even leave the deck as is, essentially trusting that you've randomized it correctly. At Competitive and Professional REL, your opponent must shuffle the deck you present them. If you do not feel comfortable with your opponent shuffling your deck (for example, if you see evidence of your opponent mistreating his own cards, while you have expensive Mythics etc. in your library), you can request a judge's assistance (although a judge may not have the time to oblige you every time the deck needs shuffling).
At all levels of play, while mana-weaving isn't against the rules when followed by sufficient shuffling, it may raise red flags in the minds of your opponents and the judges and cause problems where there oughtn't be any. It is recommended that you do not do this at a tournament, even if you are shuffling correctly afterwards.
Also note: a properly randomized deck will often have runs of only lands or only nonlands: there are many permutations of your deck where this is so, and a properly randomized deck will not have preference to one permutation over another. this is a point of consternation of many Magic Online players, who do not do a proper job of shuffling their paper cards and are befuddled by the properly shuffled digital decks, which do not have a near-uniform distribution of lands to nonlands, but are, in fact, random.

The GRS model deals only with riffle shuffles, not other kinds of shuffling. Riffle shuffles are generally the most efficient, and other shuffling methods would require additional shuffles to achieve the same randomness.
Sepcifically, 3/2 * log_2(n), where log_2 is the base-2 logarithm and n is the number of cards in the deck.
A graph of the number of shuffles required: Wolfram Alpha


LOTR CG: May I keep the resource tokens of a dying hero? Do I discard the resource tokens of a hero that dies or may I keep them? I assume I need to discard them. But I didn't find this info in the rulebook.
The resouce token belong to a certain sphere of influence, yes, but if I have another hero of the same sphere left, then theoretically I could move the resource token of the dying hero to the other hero.

Tokens on a card are discarded when the hero dies, the comprehensive rules cover this under Leaving Play

Leaving Play: When a card (other than a site) leaves play for any reason, any cards played on that card (or borne by or stacked on that
card) are discarded. Any tokens on that card are removed.


Is this Barbarossa token used in a boardgame? I found a few of these Barbarossa tokens in the back garden - similar to those depicted here.

  BARBAROSSA - CORSAIR KING OF ALGIERS
  SCOURGE OF MEDITERRANEAN AS PIRATE AND ADMIRAL OF THE TURKISH FLEET FROM 1536

It's aluminium and just feels to me that it might be part of a treasure chest piece on a board game, or a tacky souvenir from a Turkish tourist trap!

As you indicated in the question, there are existing tokens (i.e. coins, possibly as a souvenir) that bears the exact same inscription in your question.

Two commenters have already indicated that the token does not appear to be part of a board game. Given the similarity to non-board game tokens and the fact that nobody has been able to identify it as part of a board game in over a year, I'm inclined to say that this is not a board game piece.


Dominion: How to Deal With a Board Filled With Terminal Actions My hardest games are where the board is filled with terminal actions.  When you have a board where 10 out of 10 actions are terminal actions, some of which are attack cards, or there is one card that has a plus card and plus action, but may not be the most appealing to chain with, I'm not sure what a good strategy is here.

It seems like it may be beneficial to go with a 2 or 3 to 1 coin to action, does that make sense?

A high money:action ratio is definitely required with an overabundance of terminals. What ratio is appropriate will depend on which of those terminals you decide to use and if/how you're being attacked. Generally it's better to err on the side of too much money; people aren't usually disappointed by a hand full of Silvers, and you won't bore your friends taking time to decide which 1 of 3 actions to play. A slightly augmented big money strategy is often very competitive in the absence of an engine.

If your hand will be small (due to, say, a discard attack and not much card draw available), you can risk having more actions because they odds of collisions are lower. In a >2 player game where you think Militia is likely to be played between almost every one of your turns, you could probably do nearly a 1:1 ratio of Militias and Silvers until you get to Golds. Games like this often end on piles, so getting an extra buy and starting early on Duchies is probably a good idea. (If you're discarding cards anyway, they might as well be points rather than money.) Also realize that in games with more than 2 people, joining in on attacks is less mandatory. If both other players are snapping up the Militias, you'll be better off letting them attack each other and instead getting a card that actually benefits you (e.g. Navigator).

On the other hand, if you are trashing or drawing a lot, you should be buying more money. If one of your terminals is Council Room, that means you're drawing 4 cards and hoping none of them are actions. Even if your terminal only draws 2 cards, if you've gotten rid of your Coppers, you need to be buying Silver and Gold to make sure your deck has enough money cards. "Doublejack" where the only non-money cards you buy are two Jack of All Trades is incredibly good because it trashes, draws, and helps you treasure-up all at once (not to mention it's extremely resilient against attacks). And you only need 2 Jacks to do it.


How does playing for "survivor" work in a Diplomacy tournament? I've never seen the following happen in an informal game, but tournaments appear to be different.
There, a player that is "hopelessly" lost may make a deal with another player to hand over all but one of his supply centers in exchange for being able to survive with one center (e.g. Italy is allowed by Turkey to "strand" an army in Tunis in exchange for handing over his "homeland"). In informal games, Italy would just declare civil disorder and resign/leave.
Most of the props go to a "solo" winner, but apparently some tournaments allow points for people who are still playing (not in civil disorder) when one person reaches "18." Other variations of "survivor" means that Turkey promises not to take Italy's last supply center before a certain date, thereby allowing Italy to finish with a higher standing.
How do the above arrangements work in various tournament formats, exactly?

Not all tournaments are the same. But they all have some scoring system, which enables the various endstates of a game to be converted to a numerical score for the purposes of tournament standings. Here are some examples of scoring systems.
Most tournament games end in draws, either by agreement or time limit. Points are then scored by the players based on the supply centre distribution. In the event of a solo, under most systems the soloist gets a very large number of points and all other players score zero. Any exceptions to this rule are rare, and mostly occur in historical systems that are not in use any more.
Note that there are very few truly hopelessly lost positions in Diplomacy. The vast majority of those that are involve an elimination or a loss to a solo at the next Fall turn.
P.S. For Italy to go abandon the game and go into civil disorder in your example is rude to the other players. If this is happening in your games, you should find a place to play that has more reliable players (or at a minimum replaces players in civil disorder).


Is Mr. Jack balanced? Is Mr. Jack a balanced game, or do experienced gamers tend to win more often with either the Inspector or Jack the Ripper?

Excellent question: I play it a lot, often with the same people (my wife, family, friends). It's one of the few games for two that I really enjoy.

To answer your question, maybe we haven't fully explored the possible strategies, but we find that the game is quite biased in favour of the Inspector. Other people who have played with us seem to agree. Also, I discovered while browsing the web that there are extensions (referred to here, for example) that make the game more balanced.

On a related note, while Jack sometimes win, I have only once seen him win by escaping (and that was because of a terrible mistake made by the Inspector). All the other times I've seen Jack win, it was by reaching the last turn, or by the inspector accusing someone at random because time was short anyway.


Board Games development online course Are there any online courses like codecademy.com or teamtreehouse.com for Board Games development? Or something similar where you can learn BG development? Also if you know any other useful resources like books, videos and similar things, please share

Here are a couple EdX options. The first is about game design (both board and computer games). The second focuses on games meant for education.

https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-game-design-mitx-11-126x
https://www.edx.org/course/design-development-games-learning-mitx-11-127x


What does "you may not use any investigator cards in this encounter" mean? A science building encounter had a mi-go appear and stated I could not use investigator cards if I failed a speed check. What does this mean?

Investigator cards are explained in the Arkham Horror rulebook.

They are briefly mentioned on page 2 under Game Components and Preparation, and are covered in more detail on page 3 under Investigator Cards:

  The small cards included in Arkham Horror are called
  investigator cards. They represent useful allies the investigators
  may meet and items they may acquire during the
  course of the game. There are six types of investigator
  cards

The specific cards that fall under this category (in the base game) are:

Common Items
Unique Items
Skills
Spells
Allies
Specials

Silver Twilight Membership
Bank Loans
Retainers
Blessings & Curses
Deputy of Arkham cards

Expansions also add their own additional Investigator Cards, such as Injury & Madness cards in Dunwich Horror.

This does point out a specific lack of clarification in the rules that is not covered in the FAQ as far as I can see: If Curse, Injury, Madness and other detrimental statuses are also Investigator Cards, then by definition of the Science Building encounter in question they could also not be used. This would then present the potential for the encounter with the Mi-Go to become easier for some investigators. (If you chose to play it strictly by the wording of the card as-is. Personally, I would use the implied intent of the card, which is that beneficial Investigator Cards could not be used.)


Struggle for Catan card sizes Hi I'm looking to buy card sleeves as a surprise for a friend who has Struggle for Catan but can't seem to find the cards' dimensions. Please help.

According to this post on boardgamegeek.com:

  SwanPanasia 'Standard USA' 57x90mm sleeves are reported to fit these cards perfectly. They are, however, larger than similarly-sized sleeves from other makers, so those other makers 'Standard USA' sleeves may or may not fit these cards.

Those card sleeves can be found for sale on SwanPanasia's site. Standard or Premium.


Accessing Tale 2,600 Is there a way to access passage 2,600 in The Book of Tales through normal play?

Passage 2,600 in The Book of Tales appears to be a humorous easter egg referencing the fact that it is the last passage in the book and congratulating you for reaching it.  Can this passage be accessed through any adventures in the game, or is it simply a joke to be found by those who happen to read it (by accident or otherwise)?

Unfortunately, your intuition is correct. It's an unreachable easter egg. Kevin Maroney, developer of the 2nd and 3rd editions of Tales of the Arabian Nights, states in this BGG thread:

  Nope. It's an unreachable Easter Egg, a tradition going back to the first edition in 1985 (paragraph 1400) and continued in the 1999 second edition (paragraph 1600).


Cluedo and the Great Museum Caper characters Are there any other games in the Cluedo series that has the same characters? The only other one I could find was The Great Museum Caper...

http://www.theartofmurder.com/ is probably the most comprehensive list I know of. It goes through all the editions, variants, spinoffs etc of Clue/Cluedo. Which are mostly the same game.

The Great Museum Caper is a 1991 variant in the US.


Playing a card on Hanabi: choose the pile first, or play it and then check? My playgroup and I are a little confused on this part of the rules. Say the piles are as below:

  Blue: 1
  Green: 2
  Red: 2
  White: 3
  Yellow: 4

I have a Green-3, but only know the number. Before playing it, do I announce "I'm playing this in the green pile" and check if it works, or do I show the 3, see that it is Green, and put it there?

It makes sense you'd select a pile before playing the card, else it's too ambiguous and easy to stack piles. If the card is green, it goes on the green pile, but if it was red, it also goes in a pile.

You announce the card you are playing, then it is played. Checking for legitimacy is a separate act. Play proceeds as follows:

Play the chosen card face-up on the table (not on a pile).
Check whether it can be legally placed on an existing pile. Do so if possible, increasing that pile by one.
Otherwise, check whether it can be legally placed to start a new pile (i.e. it is the first number one card in a colour). Do so if possible, starting a new pile.
Otherwise, discard the played card and lose a fuse token.

The ability to play a legal card before knowing precisely how it is legal, is intentional. Latter stages of the game rely increasingly on the tactical use and provision of information to others.

If it was necessary to know the precise pile on which to play a card before doing so in order to succeed, the game would be made far more difficult than it already is.

  In your example, you would play the Green-3, then, seeing it is a legal card on the Green pile, place it there.


Does Silent Gravestone stop eternalize I have Silent Gravestone in play, does that stop creatures from using embalm or eternalize?

No. (Mostly)
Silent Gravestone's abilities read

Cards in graveyards can't be the targets of spells or abilities.
{4}, {T}: Exile Silent Gravestone and all cards from all graveyards. Draw a card.

The first ability prevents targeting in much the same way Hexproof and Shroud do.  So do embalm and eternalize target?
Embalm is defined as follows:

702.127a [...] “Embalm [cost]” means “[Cost], Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that’s a copy of this card, except it’s white, it has no mana cost, and it’s a Zombie in addition to its other types. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.”

Eternalize is defined as follows:

702.128a [...] “Eternalize [cost]” means “[Cost], Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that’s a copy of this card, except it’s black, it’s 4/4, it has no mana cost, and it’s a Zombie in addition to its other types. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.”

There is no mention of targeting in embalm and eternalize, therefore Silent Gravestone's ability won't affect them.
Generally speaking, an ability that only affects the card it is on doesn't target, while abilities that affect other cards do (unless it's affecting all cards of a specific type, like Silent Gravestone)
That said, Silent Gravestone's second ability will prevent players from embalming or eternalizing any of the creatures it exiles.


Whats a good way to handle multiple players bidding when playing by email? I have recently moved away from most of my gaming friends and taken to playing by email.  We have played a few rounds of Age of Steam but the bidding at the start of each turn takes many emails just to get through.  With a time zone difference it can mean a week to do one round of bidding.

Does anyone know a similar mechanic that can work like bidding?  Or a way to do bidding through email that would be faster than each player saying their bid one at a time?

Well in a normal (at the board) game, you will find that the person who starts the bidding has the advantage, because the following players need to beat, rather than equal the first player's bid.

So, one option you have (and the one I would use) is a blind auction, where if there is a tie, then the order of bidding is the person who wins. Obviously, the way you do a blind auction is difficult over email as you cannot prevent the other person or persons from seeing your bid, unless you do one of two things

Have a 'referee' for want of a better word, who collects the bids until all are received and email the results once collected.
Have a player (possibly the final player in the bid order) act as the referee, who cannot bid themselves, but collects all blind bids.

However, I would suggest looking for one of the online board game sites that allow you to play turn-by-turn. There are a few that do this (I believe there are already questions on this topic), but I am not sure if there is one for this game.


How many wounds does each Ripper Swarms model have in 40K 8e? In the 8th edition Tyranid codex, on page 91 for Ripper Swarms, the unit description text is as follows:

  This unit contains 3 ripper swarms. It can include up to 3 additonal Ripper Swarms (Power Rating +2) or up to 6 additional Ripper Swarms (Power Rating +3). Each model is armed with claws and teeth.

This doesn't help that you can't buy Ripper Swarms on their own. So far, I've collected models that seem to be given as a bonus for buying other unit boxes. I've found that if I purchase a Termagaunt or Hormagaunt unit box, they'll come with three models of Ripper Swarms, but if I buy a Genestealers unit box, it will come with two models of Ripper Swarms.

How many models actually make up a Ripper Swarm? The unit description states a wounds of 3. Does that mean that each model has 3 wounds, and a full unit is nine models, for a total of 27 wounds?

Or are you supposed to collect a handful of these, and glue two or three onto a single base and then that base has 3 wounds? Which then a full unit is three bases, for a total of 9 wounds?

Each Ripper Swarm model has 3 wounds, as per the 8th edition codex.

A unit of Ripper Swarms is made up of anything from 3-9 models of Ripper Swarms. Each base is a model. Regardless of what you actually put on the model aesthetically, it will have 1 base, and that based model will have 3 wounds. So a unit composed of 3 models of Ripper Swarms would have 9 wounds total, 3 wounds each. A unit of 4 would have 12 wounds total, etc.

You can mix and match unit sizes to accommodate the number of models you have too. It's perfectly legal to run a unit of 3 Ripper Swarms and a unit of 4 Ripper Swarms in the same army.


Are counters (noun) physical things? Card example: Beckon Apparition (Gatecrash)

There are a lot of cards that use counter as a noun. I did some Googling but I'm just not clear on what I need to use for counters.  Are they physical things I can buy and if so, what is a good online resource?  Can I just make do with coins or something?

Yes, counters should be represented by physical objects.

  122.1. A counter is a marker placed on an object or player that modifies its characteristics and/or interacts with a rule, ability, or effect. [...]

There has been official products for use as counters. Punch cards including -1/-1 counters and brick counters were provided alongside the Amonkhet block (Apr 2017). To help support the keyword counters it introduced, the Ikoria set (Apr 2020) provided punch cards with +1/+1 counters and keyword counters.

You aren't required to use these. The objects used as counter can be anything. Dice and flat-bottomed glass beads meant to be used in flower vases are popular. You can get the latter at Michaels or Jo-Ann, among others. Some gaming stores carry them as well.

I've seen people use pennies, but they will scratch your cards if the cards aren't protected. (Anything could, but beads and dice have rounder edges.)


What is the general name for this particular game mechanic? I'm hoping to find a common general terminology for a mechanic I have encountered in several board games.
As an example, here's an excerpt from the rules for The King's Dilemma:

At the end of your voting turn, if you are now the player with the most Power [tokens] on your Vote (no matter which side you chose), you immediately take the Leader token. Do not take the Leader token if you only equal the highest bidder’s amount of Power [tokens].

The general idea is that, if you have (say) 3 tokens on the space I want to control, it's not enough for me to put 3 of my own tokens on it; I have to put 4 or more to be in control. And if I do put 4 tokens on it (thereby gaining control), it's not enough for you to then add a 4th token of your own—you'd need to bring your total number of tokens up to 5 or more to regain control.
Is there a general term for this mechanic?

This is called first in wins.
See for example this article on game design

First in wins.  Markers placed later are considered to fall behind those placed earlier.  The only way a later player can get ahead is to exceed the previous count. This is generally best if the game has a start player disadvantage.

This is in a broader class of tie-breakers favoring efficiency, which one author categorizes as epsilon tie-breakers:

The efficiency argument and even the game balance factor are a restatement of the epsilon argument addressed above. The game balance point is perhaps a little more subtle, but in essence is the same as the many majority/plurality games which state that the first one in is the default winner of the contest (eg Medieval Merchant, Die Neuen Entdecker, etc): another phrasing of epsilon.

(which I found interesting because of the default formulation of this rule: "first one in", a form of "first in wins")


Extra Story Cards for Firefly Does anyone know of a place that compiles extra story cards for Firefly: The Board Game? I'm aware of the 'First Time in the Captain's Chair' official one, but I'd like to try some others too.

There are a few of them on BoardGameGeek.com, in the Firefly - Variants forum.

Some people put "Story Card" or "Custom Story Card" in the title, which helps find them, others just put a title that describes what the story is.


When can I nuke someone? Civilization: The Board Game (the 2010 version) has the Atomic Theory tech which lets me nuke someone.

  Movement: Nuke a non-capital city.  The city is destroyed, along
  with all buildings, wonders, figures, and great people in its
  outskirts.

Can I do this at any point during the movement phase of a turn, or can I only perform this action during my movement phase?

Only during your movement phase.

Page 22 or the rulebook, there is the card Currency :

  City management : Gain 3 culture tokens

and the following explanation :

  For example, Currency (shown above) allows a player to spend  one
  incense resource token to gain three culture tokens during the
  player’s City Management Phase


No-thanks: What if a player has no card? | If a player hoards cards? In No-thanks, according to the rulebook:

  When finally a player decides to take the card (and all chips next to
  it), he puts it in front of himself face-up and takes the chips up in
  hand. After that, this player turns over the next card of the deck.

So assuming, player C took the card that players A, and B declined. So he now has that card + 2 chips. He then turns over the card and lucky him, it's a card close to his first card so he took it again, and the cycle repeats until there's only a few cards left in the deck.

We played the game and there was a specific scenario like this that luckily for one person, even though the shuffling was a bit random, the cards were close together that he just took almost all the cards (but of course in the end, he lost because there were gaps). But how about other players who weren't able to get a card due to one person's hoarding? Does that mean they get negative points (due to the chips plus the fact that they don't have a card)?

First off, did you remember to randomly remove 9 cards from the deck? This would greatly reduce the chance of a player getting lucky enough for that to be a good idea.

Other than that, it is certainly possible that a player could get negative points (though I don't think I've seen it happen). If you have a player that is purposefully losing the game by just taking every card, and thus making the game unplayable for the other players, then it is simply an issue of sportsmanship, and not one of rules. The rules do not prevent a player from ruining the game in this way.


Can Taigam grant rebound to spells I already cast before his attack? So, for example, if I cast Shock, and then during my combat step attack with Taigam, Ojutai Master, then after he attacks, cast another spell like Opt, would both Shock and Opt gain rebound as they were cast on a turn that the creature attacked? Or only Opt as it was cast after he attacked?

It would only count instants or sorceries that you cast after Taigam attacks.
Taigam's ability only triggers at the time that you cast an instant or sorcery, and at that moment it checks to see if he has attacked that turn. Each time you cast an instant or sorcery, his ability triggers if he has attacked that turn. Any instants or sorceries you cast when he hasn’t attacked that turn don’t meet the requirements for triggering.
Note that Taigam's triggered ability has an intervening if clause:

603.4. A triggered ability may read “When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect].” When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn’t true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the “intervening ‘if’ clause” rule.

This means that when you cast an instant or sorcery spell, if he hasn’t attacked this turn, the ability doesn’t trigger at all. But even if it were not an intervening if clause (such as “whenever you cast an instant spell, it gains rebound if Taigam has attacked this turn), then the ability still wouldn’t work in that case. It would trigger and go on the stack, but when it resolved it would have no effect because the condition wouldn’t be met.
In order to affect instants and sorceries that were cast before attacking, it would have to have a completely different wording; such as something that triggers when he attacks instead of triggering when you cast the spell.


How could you change what creature a creature with soulbond is paired with? I'm trying to make a custom card. It's a creature with soulbond. I would like it to be able to tap to change what it's paired with. I was thinking:

  {T}: Unpair this creature, then you may pair it with another unpaired creature you control.

Is this the correct formatting? Is there a better way to do it? Does this idea even work within the rules?

Currently the Soulbond rules don't have a specific precedent for ending a pairing of two creatures like this, but we can work one in.
We need to format your ability slightly differently to take care of some things:

Make sure this ability can only be used while it's paired, if that's what you want.
Make it clear to players that the other creature gets unpaired as well.
Use the portion of the Soulbond ability templating that's missing.

First, point 3. I'm going to paraphrase part of rule 702.94a here slightly for the sake of readability:

702.94a Soulbond is a keyword that represents two triggered abilities. “Soulbond” means:

When this creature enters the battlefield, if you control both this creature and another creature and both are unpaired, you may pair this creature with another unpaired creature you control for as long as both remain creatures on the battlefield under your control
Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control, if you control both that creature and this one and both are unpaired, you may pair that creature with this creature for as long as both remain creatures on the battlefield under your control.

We'll need to take some of that boilerplate; the "as long as" stuff is important.
It seems like you might want this unpair-repair ability to only work if the creature's already paired, but I could see it either way. We could ensure it only works if it's paired by borrowing Deadeye Navigator's ability-gain wording, but all those cards with similar wording grant the same ability to the paired creature. Because that doesn't happen here, using that wording would be confusing and should be avoided.
I think templating from Hanweir Battlements is more appropriate.
A version which works whether it's paired or not:

{T}: If {this card} is paired to another creature, unpair them. Pair {this card} with another unpaired creature you control for as long as both remain creatures on the battlefield under your control.

If you want it to work only when it's already paired, add this clause:

Activate this ability only if {this card} is paired.

An option for leveraging existing unpairing mechanics
Currently 702.94e says:

702.94e A paired creature becomes unpaired if any of the following occur: another player gains control of it or the creature it’s paired with; it or the creature it’s paired with stops being a creature; or it or the creature it’s paired with leaves the battlefield.

You have some options here for fiddling around with this card to leverage existing un-bonding rules:

Give this creature an ability that has it leave the battlefield temporarily and come back sooner or later. This also lets the Soulbond ETB do the rest of the hard work. For example, flicker it (similar to Deadeye Navigator, but using Acrobatic Maneuver's wording): "{1}{W}: Exile {this card}, then return it to the battlefield under its owner's control."
Enable it to turn into a noncreature (a land, enchantment, or artifact).
Give away control of the bonded creature to an opponent for some proportionate benefit. This is probably a Red or Black effect based on past cards that give away control. Cards like Humble Defector and Harmless Offering have your back here for templating.

The ability that turns this card into a noncreature, or which gives away control of its paired creature, should reminder text similar to the following: ({this card} and the creature it is paired with both become unpaired.)
In the second and third cases, you'll need to give it a means to re-pair itself again. Options include:

{T}: If {this card} is unpaired, pair {this card} with another unpaired creature you control for as long as both remain creatures on the battlefield under your control.

For either of the second cases, add this to the end of the ability that turns this card into a creature again or gives away control of the bonded creature:

Then you may pair {this card} with another unpaired creature you control for as long as both remain creatures on the battlefield under your control.

For the becomes-a-noncreature option, something like the following (suggested by diego):

When {this card} becomes a creature, you may pair {this card} with another unpaired creature you control for as long as both remain creatures on the battlefield under your control.


Do Attached Cards follow the Swapped Monster when Creature Swap is used? Suppose you have cards attached to a creature, and then use Creature Swap. Do those attached cards follow the monster to the other side of the field?

So I know my comment started this question, and if you want someone else to answer I understand. But here is why I do not think they go with the creature.
The official rules about equip cards:

  These cards give an extra effect to
  1 face-up monster of your choice
  (either your own or your opponent’s,
  depending on the card). They remain
  on the field after they are activated.
  The Equip Spell Card affects only
  1 monster (called the equipped
  monster), but still occupies one of
  your Spell & Trap Card Zones. If
  possible, place it in the zone directly
  behind the equipped monster to
  help you remember. If the equipped
  monster is destroyed, flipped facedown, or removed from the field, its
  Equip Cards are destroyed

Emphasis mine.

So it points out that Equip cards you control can in fact be on monsters your opponent controls. Creature Swap only says it gives your opponent control of the creature. Not anything else. In my mind the objects attached to the creature would still be under your control.


Can you win with two creepers when the goal only has one creeper? In various flavors of Fluxx, there are Creepers; they all say "You cannot win if you have this card in front of you, unless a card says otherwise." In Cthulhu Fluxx, there are frequently Goals that have creepers on them.

If there's a Goal out there that has a Creeper and a Keeper on it, and I have the right Keeper, the right Creeper, and one other Creeper, can I win?

No. The Goal will specify which Creepers are allowed for that Goal to succeed. Any surplus Creepers do not have their "unless a card says otherwise" triggered, so you cannot win.


What are the possible ways to test a deck? Naturally when you make a new deck, you test it on your friends but mine have all stabilised their tournament decks now and the game ends so quickly that I don't get a feel for how my deck flows.

What I want to know is if there is ways of testing decks to see their potential without another player. I really need to give the deck a thorough test so I can see what cards don't fit and which combos are better than expected.

I have seen people play games against themselves but I don't believe this works very well.

What methods do tournament players use to test their decks?

Please note that simply playing games is not an acceptable answer as I do not know people that will just play for fun; they are all super competitive.

There are different ways of testing that you can do, but none of them are as effective as playing real games against other people.

1) Play without an opponent. I usually play new decks over and over without an opponent to see how the basic idea works out. Just draw and play and see how many rounds it would take you to win on average. Do your combos work out as you had hoped for? Do you have too much or too little mana available? Adjust your deck until you are satisfied with the results.

2) Analyze the meta-game you are playing in. What are other players going to play against you? Try to identify the main threats in those decks and see if you can counter them. Are you fast enough so that they do not matter or can you establish enough control to break their combos? If you find a common deck that you are helpless against, try to find a solution.

3) Put up your desk for analysis online. There are many forums with experts from the MTG scene. Post your deck in the appropriate forum and hear what others think about your deck. They usually will have more experience and find weaknesses without having to play the deck. If you have more specific questions than "is my deck any good?", the MTG experts from this site here (Board and Card games on Stack Exchange) will also be able to help. I learned a lot already here.

These three steps can help you a lot already. In addition you can analyze the Mana Curve of your deck and identify problems there. But in the end, finding practice partners helps the most. I have played MTG-games over webcam in the past with friends of mine. It works better than it sounds like in the first place ;). So even if you don't have anyone in reach, you can try to play with friends who live farther away over the Internet.


Suspend spells and outpost siege Let's say I have Outpost Siege in play with Khans chosen. I exile the top card of my library during my upkeep, that card being Wheel of Fate. Am I able to play Wheel of Fate for free, or is it exiled since I cannot play it without suspending it?

It's stuck in exile.

You can't suspend it.

You can only suspend a card when in it's your hand.

  702.61a Suspend is a keyword that represents three abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with suspend is in a player’s hand. The second and third are triggered abilities that function in the exile zone. “Suspend N—[cost]” means “If you could begin to cast this card by putting it onto the stack from your hand, you may pay [cost] and exile it with N time counters on it. This action doesn’t use the stack,” and “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card is suspended, remove a time counter from it,” and “When the last time counter is removed from this card, if it’s exiled, play it without paying its mana cost if able. If you can’t, it remains exiled. If you cast a creature spell this way, it gains haste until you lose control of the spell or the permanent it becomes.”

You can't cast it.

Unless some alternative cost applies, casting Wheel of Fate is illegal because it would require paying an unpayable cost.

  117.6. Some mana costs contain no mana symbols. This represents an unpayable cost. An ability can also have an unpayable cost if its cost is based on the mana cost of an object with no mana cost. Attempting to cast a spell or activate an ability that has an unpayable cost is a legal action. However, attempting to pay an unpayable cost is an illegal action.

The ability that triggers when the last time counter is removed from a suspended card provides an alternative cost ("without paying its mana cost"), but Outpost Siege doesn't provide an alternative cost.


How should I group rare Magic cards when selling them online? [Background: this was previously part of a longer question which has been edited into multiple smaller questions. I’ve already researched selling Magic cards, including reading through How do I find out a fair price for my Magic the Gathering cards? and Where can I sell my Magic: The Gathering cards?, and am getting into finer detail.]

Question: I’ve divided my cards by rarity and I'm now deciding between selling the Rares individually or in small groups. My plan is to start with individual sales and then group the unsold Rares. Any suggestions for what these groupings should be, such as Color or Expansion?

Primarily, you need to judge how much your time is worth. In the general case, you can get more money per card by selling them as singles, or as small groups (such as playsets of 4). However, that will take a lot of time, especially for a large collection. Dumping your whole collection at your LGS for a bulk price is extremely quick and easy, but you're not going to get anywhere near as much money as selling each card individually online... but making all of those online sales will take a long time and require a lot of effort. (Shipping costs should also be considered.)

Rares and old desirable cards are more liquid, meaning it's easy to find someone willing to buy them, which means less time and effort spent selling them. Foils may or may not be liquid, depending on the cards in question.

I do not recommend trying to sell loose old packs over the internet. In the very oldest sets, it is possible to determine the exact contents of the pack before opening it, meaning the savvy buyers will refuse to purchase any packaged old cards unless they're in a factory-sealed box/case. (The assumption being that the seller has determined the pack contains nothing of worth already.)

Even in the sets new enough where that isn't possible, box mapping has been a thing for years, so a seller could pull out all of the worthwhile packs from a box before selling the rest; Wizards has made efforts to counteract this over the years, but they have only really been effective in the most recent sets (roughly Avacyn and onwards -- mapping is still possible, but it is no longer financially beneficial). The possibility of repacks also makes online buyers wary of purchasing loose packs from older sets.


Catan longest road card question After you get the longest road card, can you start building on it and still retain the longest road card?

Yes, you can freely extend the length of your longest road to make it even harder for an opponent to claim the Longest Road bonus from you. The rules talk about how you gain the Longest Road card and how someone else takes it from you; nowhere does it say anything that would imply that ownership of the card prevents you from building roads.
Your own settlements and cities do not disrupt your road in any way, but opponents ones do (see Longest Road in the Almanac, p9).


How do I tell at a glance whether a Warjack is focus hungry or not? I'm fairly new to Warmachine and whilst perusing through various fora and what not, I hear that some Warjacks are focus heavy and some are not. Obviously some like the Berserker are focus-light but how does one generally tell whether a Warjack is focus hungry at a glance?

It may not be easy as a new player since some of that will come with experience.

Ask what role the warjack is going to fill and then how much focus it will normally need to do that.  Will you need to spend focus to run/charge/power attack?  Will you need to boost to hit? To damage? To make extra attacks?  Do they have something that lets them save on focus (this is why the Berserker is focus-light)?

A basic jack designed to run into melee and whack something is going to need more focus than a 1 ROF ranged jack with a good RAT, or one that is mostly just used for its arc node.


How to count non fully walled territory? I just started to learn Go. I still have some problems to properly understand how to count territory when the game has finished (by both players passing). For example, if the game ends in the following situation, what part of the upper area would count towards black's territory?

$$c13
$$ -------------
$$|...........X.
$$|...........XX
$$|..XXXXX....X.
$$|..X.X.XXXXWXX
$$|XXXXXXX...O..
$$|..........OOO
$$|..........OO.
$$|OOOOOOOOOOO.O
$$|..........OOO

I know, usually black would just place a stone at L11 befor finally passing but what happens if black forgets to do so? (and white also misses the opportunity to exploit this)

The resources I read about counting did not answer this question for me.

This isn't really a finished game.  If both players passed, then all of the points around E13 would count as dame just like the ones around H8, and wouldn't be territory for Black.  This wouldn't happen in a serious game, so in a beginners' game, you would notice the problem during the scoring and probably just fix it.


Can other players try to stop you from completing Joining the Winning Team? The Dunwich Horror expansion of Arkham Horror includes a card called Joining the Winning Team. Basically it's a mission where you have to sacrifice an ally at a number of places. On completion, you win the game and all other players lose the game.

I'm aware of the fact that this is nigh impossible to complete (as of this writing, the Arkham Horror Statistics page says that only 11 of their nearly 13,000 recorded games have ended by its completion), but in the rare event that you might be able to pull it off, can the other players do anything to stop you? Can they attack you or anything?

There's no direct way people could try to stop you. They can't attack you; there's nothing in the rules about players attacking players.

There are at least a few ways they could try to indirectly stop you:

They can try to close gates and kill monsters before you can get to them, so that you won't have any trophies you could use to buy allies.
They can deliberately leave monsters that'd block your path alive.
They could try to equip themselves for the final battle and let the ancient one wake up quickly, giving you no time for your mission. The gate limit makes it pretty easy to let the ancient one wake up early, if you're feeling daring.
If you do get close, they can try to make sure you can't get lost in time and space. If you try to hop in a gate that someone's about to close; they can decline to close those gates. So you'll be trying to get to 0 sanity/stamina in another world. To prevent that, they could also try to prioritize closing the gates to more dangerous other worlds before you're ready to get lost in time and space, so that when you get to that point, you'll probably just waste a few turns passing through. I suppose they could even try to heal you if they have the right character or item!


Why does not being able to draw a card make you lose (in universe) Is there an in universe explanation for why being unable to draw a card would make you lose (Rule 104.3c)? Running out of life, or losing as the result of a spell or effect, all make sense to me in universe, but I don't understand why a planeswalker running out of new spells would make them die.

Put simply, losing due to trying to draw from an empty library represents succumbing to madness.

In the flavor of Magic, the library basically represents memories and knowledge that you draw on to cast spells. In turn, mill effects are often represented as causing insanity or memory loss. For example, the first printing of the card for which "mill" is named, Millstone has this flavortext:

  More than one mage has been driven insane by the sound of the millstone relentlessly grinding away.

You can see similar flavor in the names of cards like Mind Grind and Mind Funeral.

Keep in mind that in general, mechanics are only loosely related to flavor, if at all. Not all mill cards are directly related to this flavor, but many have some relation to madness, or mental pain, or some other (generally unpleasant) interaction with the mind.


In Elder Sign, If I free a locked die by defeating a monster, can I use it in the same turn? If a monster locks a yellow die, can I use an item/spell to gain that die once I defeat the monster?

Also, I have not looked through the cards, but if there is a monster that locks the green die, would I gain the green die to use for rolling on the very turn I defeat that monster?

Not normally - monsters defeated within adventures are not destroyed and removed until the end of the adventure.  Theoretically, this would work if you could destroy a monster instantly with some sort of monster-destroying special effect in the middle of the adventure; however, I believe that all such effects have timing windows that intentionally exclude the ability to do it at that time.


How does Cheat Code interact with Monster's Ballroom? Cheat Code's Boss Item ability allows a player to choose a room in any dungeon and ignore its ability text for the duration of a turn. Monster's Ballroom deals damage *, where * is equal to the number of Monster Rooms in the dungeon it is in, but I am unsure whether the explanation for the * is considered ability text or if it should just be seen as explaining how to resolve the *. I checked the Room Card wikia page to see if Monster's Ballroom's text fell under any of the Room Ability categories and it seems to fall under passive, but this doesn't really get me any closer to an answer on this.

How does Cheat Code affect Monster's Ballroom? Does it remove the text that determines how the * is calculated and thus force this room to deal 0 damage for a turn? If the damage isn't simply set to 0 for the turn, how is the damage determined?

Or does Cheat Code simply not affect Monster's Ballroom, under the idea that the card's text is not considered an ability, but rather an explanation of the * (implying this card has no ability in lieu of it having the potential to be rather powerful)? I assume that this would be how Cheat Code would interact with Dragon Hatchery, as its "ability text" only says "This Room contains all four treasure types", but simply ignoring this text doesn't change the fact that it has all four Treasure Type icons, so I'm wondering if Cheat Code is similarly ineffective here.

What makes this room special is that its ability is not just a passive ability, but a characteristic-defining ability.

I can see both interpretations as valid. But in the absence of anything rules to the contrary, you are instructed to ignore the ability, so you should ignore the ability.

The room therefore deals an undefined amount of damage, and therefore no damage.