Is there a game that doesn't rely on luck or skill? I would like to know if there exists a game that does not use luck or skill in any of it's game mechanics, such as rolling dice.

How do you figure out who wins if there's no randomness (no luck) and no player decisions that can affect the game (no skill)?

If there's no skill, then that means players can't make meaningful decisions, i.e. ones where a better decision increases chances of winning. If there's no luck, they can't make meaningless ones either, like picking heads or tails on a coin flip.

That leaves games where the winner is pre-determined. For example, in Candyland, shuffling the cards determines the entire game. But then there's still luck, it's just that the entire game is one big coin flip.

So unless you believe in some concept of "fate", so that you can base the winner on who was "fated" to win, and declare that to not actually be luck, there can't be such a game. The player with the alphabetically first name wins? Use the players' names as seeds for a (deterministic) pseudo-random number generator, and use that to shuffle the deck in Candyland? Those still sound like luck to me; even though there's no luck in the actual "playing" of the game, one player was lucky enough to have been given the name that caused them to win.

Bottom line, anything where someone wins, there has to be a way they were determined to be the winner, and the common notions of "luck" and "skill" are such that one or both will always be involved.


Does Trespasser il-vec still deal damage after giving itself Shadow? Scenario

I attack with a 4/4 beast token
My opponent chooses to block with Trespasser il-Vec
After declaring blocker, my opponent uses Trespasser's ability to discard Fiery Temper and pay madness cost to deal 3 damage to my beast creature.

Does Trespasser still deal his combat damage to my beast token, even though he now has shadow and is an illegal blocker?

Yes, Trespasser still deals combat damage.

The relevant passage is in comprehensive rules 509.1b (emphasis mine):

  A restriction may be created by an evasion ability (a static ability
  an attacking creature has that restricts what can block it). If an
  attacking creature gains or loses an evasion ability after a legal
  block has been declared, it doesn’t affect that block. Different
  evasion abilities are cumulative.


Can you counterspell everything? (aside from lands) Artifacts, instants, sorcery, planeswalker, creature, and enchantment spells can all be stopped by counterspells right? So if I play Veil of Summer, and someone hits me with Didn't Say Please, would it cancel its effects (hexproof, spells can't be countered, and draw a card)?

You're right; everything that is a spell can be countered by Didn't Say Please. This excludes lands (they aren't spells and can't be countered)

  305.1. A player who has priority may play a land card from their hand during a main phase of their turn when the stack is empty. Playing a land is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 116). Rather, the player simply puts the land onto the battlefield. Since the land doesn’t go on the stack, it is never a spell, and players can’t respond to it with instants or activated abilities.

and activated or triggered abilities (which can be countered, but with other cards like Trickbind).

Veil of Summer's effects, including the 'spells can't be countered' part, only apply when they resolve; if it's on the stack, it's still vulnerable to Didn't Say Please.

Note that there are some spells which explicitly state they can't be countered, e.g. Obliterate, but there's an important difference in the wording: "This spell can't be countered." vs. "Spells you control can't be countered this turn.". "This spell" refers to the spell itself when it's on the stack; "Spells" does not.


Is there a functional reason for Ghostfire not having the Devoid keyword? Ghostfire is a card that has a colored mana cost, and then is changed by its rules text to become colorless. This is largely what Devoid has been used for in editions printed after Ghostfire has first seen the light of day.

  702.113a Devoid is a characteristic-defining ability. “Devoid” means “This object is colorless.” This ability functions everywhere, even outside the game. (...)

Ghostfire is very similar to Reality Hemorrhage, with the only difference being that you pay one more colorless mana for one more damage, and the difference inquired about here.

The only apparent difference is that Devoid is a keyword ability, but since it only creates a CDA (characteristic-defining ability) with exactly the same text that can be found on Ghostfire, it doesn't seem to make a difference.

Is there any ever-so-slight functional difference at all between these phrasings?

Of course, reasons other than functional ones could be, for example, that only Eldrazi-related cards would actually receive the Devoid keyword, or that Wizards maybe wants to errata as little as possible, but that's not what this question is primarily about. However if you do find citation for that, please post it as a comment, or addendum to an answer.

Yes, there is a practical difference between Ghostfire and Reality Hemorrhage as far as the color-setting ability goes.

The colored mana produced by Corrupted Crossroads could not be used to cast Ghostfire.

Other examples of cards affecting other cards with specific keyword abilities include at least the cards found by this search, except Humility. Note that this was a very basic search, and there are many more such cards that affect specific keyword abilities, such as Adarkar Windform.

It seems unlikely that Ghostfire, a card released in 2007 as part of the out-of-order Future Sight edition and the only card made colorless by a CDA before the Battle for Zendikar block, was intentionally left un-errata'd to nerf its interaction with Corrupted Crossroads. Avoiding unnecessary erratas seems to be the most likely explanation why it was not updated.


Does a creature trigger its own ETB ability even if not explicitly stated? I work heavily on custom magic cards, and in one of my groups there is some discussion around ETB effects.

Take a card like Soul Warden, it explicitly says 'another creature' in its ETB. If we removed 'another' from the triggered ability would soul Warden gain life on ETB from itself?

Yes, creatures can trigger their own ETBs

  603.6a Enters-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent enters the battlefield. These are written, “When [this object] enters the battlefield, . . . “ or “Whenever a [type] enters the battlefield, . . .” Each time an event puts one or more permanents onto the battlefield, all permanents on the battlefield (including the newcomers) are checked for any enters-the-battlefield triggers that match the event.

Emphasis mine.

That said, the standard template for such abilities is "Whenever {cardname} or another [type] enters the battlefield", largely to remove exactly this sort of ambiguity.  This sort of question should only be relevant to players if some sort of type modification is going on (for example, playing Setessan Champion while Enchanted Evening is on the battlefield).

This template also has the minor side effect that if for whatever reason the card in question is not of the specified type, it will still trigger its own ability.  (For example, playing Ayara, First of Locthwain with a Mycosynth Lattice in play)


Looking to identify an unusual type of solitaire I went to college in the 1980s and someone there showed me an unusual way to play solitaire that I've played ever since. This game uses one standard deck of cards [no jokers].

Two rows of cards are dealt into stacks, each stack having 4 cards, and the cards are all face down. The top row is for cards numbered 2 through 8 and the bottom row is for cards numbered 9 and 10 and the jack, king, and queen face cards. The last stack the ace stack and this is placed to the bottom left of the two rows. Play starts with the ace stack; the first card on the stack is turned over and then place under the corresponding stack, i.e.; if a 2 is turned over this card is placed under the 2 stack an the first card on the 2 stack is turned over. The game is won when the last card turned over is the fourth ace.

Any help with the name of this variant is appreciated; I've been playing this game for decades and have no idea what to call it!

This sounds like it's equivalent to Clock Patience, but with a less space-consuming layout and using the aces as the starter pile rather than the kings.  I've also seen it referred to as "Travellers".


Sheriff of Nottingham - Is the sheriff allowed to take your bribe and still search your bag? I was playing in a game where I had offered a bribe on my merchant bag. The sheriff, in turn, chose to take my bribe and still search my bag anyway.  Is this type of play allowed?

No.
The sheriff can either take the bribe or search the bag, not both. From the rules, in Phase 4 (Inspection):

When the Sheriff has made a decision about a Merchant Bag, he has two choices:

Accept whatever final bribe was offered (if any) and hand the bag back to its owner; or

Reject any bribe that may have been offered and unsnap the Merchant Bag, revealing the cards inside.


What is the memory-style game that has pawn-like tokens covering pictures? I remember a while ago having played a memory-like game which had blue plastic "pawns" which covered holes in a round cardboard sheet, while a second lower layer of cardboard was able to rotate underneath.  There were pictures on the lower layer which corresponded to the holes in the upper layer, and there were several different possible picture combinations.  What is that game called?

OK, after asking a few people, I've found the game: Hūsker Dū?:


Card game for children My nephew is 4 years old. I want to teach him a simple card game (my intention is that in some years he will be able to play bridge). For now, I just want to make him familiar with the cards. What simple game appropriate for really young people do you propose?

Here are my suggestions of games that teach various card game rules, ranked in order from least difficult to most difficult.

Go Fish has simple rules and can help you learn basics of card games, such as

Identifying matching sets of cards
Identifying card names and suits
Waiting your turn
Communicating with opponents when required (and being truthful about it)
Drawing and holding cards without revealing them

War kicks the
competitive level up a bit and has more rules. In addition, you learn card value progression, including the hierarchy of J-K (which can be explained fairly simply if the player is familiar with monarchy, fictional or otherwise).

Competition
Card values
Winning a round without winning the game

Bullshit is a matching game, like Go Fish, but it adds the concept of a bluff and shows that following the rules can sometimes feel like cheating, since duping your opponent is truly the objective of the game. This is useful when later learning games like poker. Also, this can introduce the concept of 'house rules', and hones your ability to agree on extra rules once the game is in progress and tensions are high. Requires 3 or more players.

Gin Rummy has quite a few rules in theory, but is quite simple to play most of the time. It provides practice for:

Identification of runs
Using the discard pile to draw from
Keeping score


Should I reopen this hand? I have as South

AJ10x
AQJxxx
xx
x

p(N) has:

xxxx
Kxx
xx
Jxxx

all vulnerable

SOUTH    WEST     NORTH     EAST
1H       3C       Pass      Pass
?

What is South's best call and why?

If partner's double of 3C would have been negative, double here is not for penalty. It shows a hand with shortness in the overcalled suit and tolerance for responder's bids. Your plan here is to double and correct partner's potential 3D to 3H. Partner may have passed with a hand like Qxx x AJxx KJTxx, which might make 3NT but also probably beats 3CX by 3 tricks or more, in which case you need to double to protect partner's holding.

If partner's double of 3C would have been for penalty, then your choice is between pass and 3H. Even though partner needs very little for you to make 3H (essentially Kx in hearts and Qxx in spades is enough to give you chances), you could easily go down 3, which is a terrible risk. Therefore, pass is probably the best choice.


When would you buy the Thief in Dominion? The Thief card rarely seems to be of much use, even when my opponents have bought a lot of treasure. Rather than stealing treasure, it seems much better to buy treasure to directly get to the high powered cards that will win the game. Often this card will actually help my opponent by stripping the copper out of the deck.

In what circumstances is the Thief card worth purchasing?

Thief is a specialty card. It improves a lot with the number of players. That and opponent treasure-density are the big factors in deciding if you want a Thief. Almost never buy a Thief in a 2-player game, but there is potential in a 4-player game. (Though honestly, even then it's still rare to be useful.)

There are 2 major drawbacks and one minor drawback to thieving:

It can help your opponents by trashing copper.
The benefit to you is slow: you won't see stolen treasure until after a re-shuffle.
Cycling your opponents deck speeds up their shuffles, thus how soon they can use just-gained cards.*

Thief is a mid-game card, but due to the copper-trashing it's actually bad in the early-game. This is unusual, it's about the only card that can do nothing for you while helping your opponents. You must wait until other players have trashed most of their coppers to get a Thief. However, if you wait too long, your odds of hitting a treasure in a greened deck get slimmer (though stealing a Gold late in the game can make it hard for your opponent to get the last Provinces.) Furthermore, late in the game you might not get a chance to see any of the treasure you steal.

You don't want a Thief unless people have high treasure density: both trashed their copper already and started getting bigger Gold/Platinum. I don't really think it's worth it if Silver is the best you'll get. You also don't want a Thief if people are using action cards for money. Markets, Minions, Conspirator chains, etc. -- forget the Thief.

There's obvious synergy with cards that let you control the top of your opponents' decks (e.g. Spy/Scrying Pool). They can make a Thief much more effective. Additional treasures are also cards that could make you want a Thief. It's great to steal a Harem toward the end of the game, and Venture, Bank, etc. are nice additional targets.

We should compare Thief to Noble Brigand, which has been called in some forums a "fixed version of Thief". This isn't accurate; both cards were designed before the base set was released, they're similar but different, much like Laboratory and Hunting Party, or the different varieties of Village. Thief can steal/trash Platinum, Harem, Hoard, Fool's Gold, and all the other non-standard treasure, whereas Noble Brigand can only steal Silver/Gold. If someone is trashing coppers and buying Hoards, it might be time for a Thief. Mint/Fool's Gold is an excellent 5/2 opening, but a Thief could put a stopper on that. However, for general use Noble Brigand is better because it doesn't suffer from Thief's biggest drawback: trashing Coppers; it actually does the opposite, giving coppers if no treasure is revealed, which is nice for slowing engines.  And it gives you $1. And it activates on purchase. (I do wish Thief had some of those buffs. Even with the $1 and the instant activation it would still seem underpowered.)

If I were to pick a set of Kingdom Cards to make Thief as good as possible, I would want it to be a long game, so the Thief has time to steal and see the rewards, so it would definitely have Platinum/Colony, and probably a Curser (maybe Sea Hag?) to keep things slow. There has to be a trasher or 2 to get rid of coppers, but nothing too effective--again, keeping things slow. Moneylender would encourage trashing of Copper while allowing players to skip Silver and go straight to Gold. Spy is also a good enabler.  But we also want to be stealing interesting treasures! Thrown in some of the nice Kingdom treasures like Venture, Bank, Harem, and things start to look good. Maybe throw in Silk Road to make the Harems extra tempting.

*@Neal pointed out that it goes through opponent's decks, and thus they might miss a card they wanted. Going through someone's deck is usually seen as a con, because for most of the game they're buying cards that make their deck better, so reshuffling sooner gets those new cards in their hand sooner. I would consider this a con for Thief.


Can I "hide" a Vesuvan Shapeshifter? Suppose I control a Vesuvan Shapeshifter and a face-down morph creature, and I then choose to turn the Vesuvan Shapeshifter face-down. My opponent definitely should still be able to tell which of the two face-down creatures is the Shapeshifter (I'm not allowed to shuffle them around). But that can get a bit tricky, as I may move them around in the course of the game, perhaps rearranging for attacking and blocking or anything else.

It seems that there is a mix of private and public information here: which permanent is which is public, but the identity of a face-down creature, even if it was previously revealed, is private. Does my opponent simply have to keep track and never forget which is which? Do I have to answer questions like "which one of those is the Shapeshifter?", "which one of those is the one you turned face down a minute ago?", or any other related questions, or can I refuse to answer or even lie in response to those questions?

(Note: I'm asking out of curiosity about tournament rules, i.e. what a rules lawyering player could get away with if their opponent forgets to mark the face-down card. Personally I'd happily answer the questions, same way I'd play with a revealed hand to save my opponent from having to write it down, but I know that's not required.)

As per the rules reference in the answer you linked (i'll change emphasis to make this clear) :

  707.6. If you control multiple face-down spells or face-down permanents, you must ensure at all times that your face-down spells and permanents can be easily differentiated from each other. This includes, but is not limited to, knowing the order spells were cast, the order that face-down permanents entered the battlefield, which creature attacked last turn, and any other differences between face-down spells or permanents. Common methods for distinguishing between face-down objects include using counters or dice to mark the different objects, or clearly placing those objects in order on the table.

If the opponent doesn't remember that the third face-down creature was the one revealed as the shapeshifter, that's not on you. However, you must be honest about a question such as "Which is the third face-down creature you cast this game?"

CR 707.6 also seems to make explicit that you must answer such questions as "which creature attacked last turn" or the order they entered the battlefield.

  But that can get a bit tricky, as I may move them around in the course of the game, perhaps rearranging for attacking and blocking or anything else.

If you're not using counters or dice to mark the face-down creatures, you must at least keep them always in the same order after combat manipulation, obviously, whether it's "tricky" or not to do so… in a tournament setting you could get in trouble if you don't.

I think, in the spirit of CR707.6, which says "this includes, but is not limited to…" if you're asked "which creature did you turn face down last turn?" – you should answer truthfully. I know this is basically the same as saying "which creature is the Shapeshifter?" but you made the information public.

I'm not sure how this situation is handled in a tournament, but once a creature has been turned face down, as your opponent I would immediately request some sort of die or counter be placed on it so I can keep track of which one is the Shapeshifter.


What does "Wakanda" actually do? Wakanda, from the Marvel Munchkin DC expansion pack Mystic Mayhem, states that no monster can enter combat (via wandering monster, ect.). What exactly does this mean?

Can you use a replicate card, which states another monster appears, to add another monster to combat? Does it just mean you cannot play an actual monster card?

As Replicate is just the Marvel Munchkin version of the Mate card, if you take a look at the FAQ (search for 'is Mate an enhancement card') you'll see that it works like a Wandering Monster card and adds an additional monster.

This means that the Wakanda dungeon prevents players from playing either a  Wandering Monster or Replicate (or Mate if you're playing with non-marvel as well).


Do enchantments played by my opponent on creatures I control count towards my devotion? If my opponent enchants my Spellheart Chimera with Encrust, will Encrust be counted towards my devotion or his?

This is for devotion towards my god, Keranos, God of Storms.

Let's have a look at what devotion is:

Devotion
A numerical value a player has, equal to the number of mana symbols of a certain color among the mana costs of permanents that player controls.

The fact that Encrust is attached to your Chimera does not make you its controller. Your opponent still controls the enchantment, so Encrust will count towards your opponent's devotion to blue. You can take control of enemy's Enchantments with something like Confiscate.


Axis and Allies 2nd Edition: to Pearl Harbor or not to Pearl Harbor When playing as Japan in Axis and Allies, 2nd edition, should Japan attack Pearl Harbor on its first turn?

If so, why and what force structure do you use? Do your actions depend on what Russia and the UK have done on their first turn (e.g. heavily fortified Eastern Russia or build an Indian factory)? Do you press on with the attack no matter what or is there a point at which you'd cut your losses and retreat? If you win, do you take your fleet back to home waters on turn two, or do you continue South or East?

If you don't attack, what's your rationale and what do you do with the units that might have participated?

What the Expert Says...
In his excellent essays, Don Rae says Japan should always attack Pearl Harbor on its opening turn (see Essay #1):

The Pearl Harbor attack (this should be obvious to all players) should be conducted, always, without exception.
If this U.S. fleet is not removed, it will be used against you in the Pacific (non-optimal), or it can be driven through the Panama Canal to assist the U.S. Atlantic invasion front (optimal). Any anticipation of anything less than the optimal response movement from the U.S. player is generally considered as weak play....
Because of this, you must always use enough forces to take out this sea zone area decisively.

Don then goes on to describe what units to use, which depend on whether you follow his suggestions for "basic" tactical play or "advanced" play. In the basic approach, he suggests throwing everything you've got at it except for your transports. That is, you're going to send two battleships, your sub, two fighters, and the carrier.
If you use the advanced play, Don suggests a more muted attack:

1 battleship (Japan)
1 submarine
2 fighters (one from Japan, one from the carrier)
1 bomber

With the carrier stationed off Solomon Islands.


Does Unbridled Growth provide two mana or one? The new Aether Revolt card Unbridled Growth reads:

  Enchanted land has "{T}: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool."

Does this mean the enchanted land provides two mana?

You don't get two mana. If you enchant a basic land (mountain, forest, etc.) then it now essentially has two abilities. For example, if you enchant a mountain, then it's as if that mountain now reads:

  {T}: Add {R} to your mana pool.
  {T}: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.

So you can tap it for the first ability, or the second. You don't get to do both (just like you can't tap a creature to attack and use an activated ability).

Alternatively, you might enchant a non-basic land. For example, also from Aether Revolt is the land Spire of Industry. If you enchant it with Unbridled Growth, then it's as if the card now reads:

  {T}: Add ◊ to your mana pool.
  {T}, Pay 1 life: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Activate this ability only if you control an artifact.
  {T}: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.


Do any Small World expansions lengthen play time? I have recently bought Small World and I'm loving it.  I find it hovers just on the edge of what I find an acceptable play time, but I figure that once it's learned, we can speed it up a bit.

I'm sure I'll want to get into the expansions sooner or later, but I know in some games (such as Carcasonne) each expansion makes the game take longer.

Are there any changes in any of Small World's expansions that lengthen play time?

Most of Small World's expansions (Grand Dames, Be Not Afraid, Cursed) just add additional races and powers. Those won't lengthen the game.

Realms adds a modular board and scenarios. Those will presumably add to the setup time a little, and some of the scenarios might also take longer than an ordinary game.
Tales & Legends adds events, which will take a little extra time to resolve and consider the consequences of.
Tunnels allows you to play with six players and combine the base game with the standalone follow-on game Small World Underground. It's difficult to imagine that both factors wouldn't considerably increase the play time.


If I attack with 2 creatures that both have "All creatures able to block this creature do so", how are blockers determined? Say I have 2 creatures enchanted with Lure or 2 Taunting Elves attacking: Does my opponent get to choose which of their creatures blocks each one or do I? What if one of those attacking creatures also has flying but the other does not? If one of my opponent's creatures can block multiple creatures, must they block both?

Comprehensive Rule:

  509.1c The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of blockers is illegal. If a creature can't block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.
  Example: A player controls one creature that "blocks if able" and another creature with no abilities. An effect states "Creatures can't be blocked except by two or more creatures." Having only the first creature block violates the restriction. Having neither creature block fulfills the restriction but not the requirement. Having both creatures block the same attacking creature fulfills both the restriction and the requirement, so that's the only option.

Answers to your questions, as covered by this rule:

  Does my opponent get to choose which of their creatures blocks each one or do I?

Nothing in the Lure ability says that you get to choose. The defender has to follow the maximum number of requirements without disobeying any restrictions.

One of the restrictions on the defenders, barring any additional abilities, is that they may only block one creature. Therefore, the defender must block one of your attackers and may choose which one to block, as that fulfills the maximum number of requirements without disobeying the restriction of only being able to block one creature.

  What if one of those attacking creatures also has flying but the other does not?

Obviously, if a defender is unable to block creatures with flying (that is a restriction) that defender must block the one it is able to block.

  If one of my opponent's creatures can block multiple creatures, must they block both?

If a creature is able to block multiple creatures it must meet the maximum number of requirements that could be obeyed, therefore it must block both creatures if able. (Unless that blocker is something like an Anurid Swarmsnapper… as rule 509.1c states, the defender is not required to pay a cost to increase the number of requirements obeyed.)


Game that this piece comes from? I’m trying to figure out what game this piece comes from. I only have two pieces, but apparently they are different shapes and colors. It almost looks like a rock. Size is about half of dime:

Thanks!!

Yes, it ended up being from "Magic Rocks." Not sure if that's exactly a game, but that's what it was!!


MTG Masters Edition 2 &3 Release Notes Is there a online backup of the Masters Edition II FAQ (EN_MTGME2%20FAQ%20080918.txt from https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/masters-edition-ii-faq-2008-09-23) and Masters Edition III FAQ?
The WotC links seem to be broken.

If you want to find an archive of a lost web page, the first place you should always check is the Wayback Machine. Simply copy the URL you are looking for into the search bar, and you can see all of the copies they have by date. Here is their most recent snapshot of that page.


Furyblade Vampire vs Blinding Mage The Blinding Mage has an ability to tap a target creature. Furyblade Vampire has the ability to discard a card at the beginning of combat for +3/+0. I don't see who has to act first? Furyblade doesn't want to discard a card if it cannot attack, but the Blinding Mage might not want to spend the resources to tap if Furyblade isn't buffed? Who has the last say?

player1: discard card to buff Furyblade

(does player2 get the option to use abilities?)

player2: use Blinding Mage's ability to tap Furyblade

Furyblade Vampire has a triggered ability, and Blinding Mage has an activated ability. In this case, that means that the player with the Vampire has more restricted options, and basically has the worst expected outcomes with this interaction.

Here's how it plays out (let's say Amy controls the Furyblade Vampire, and Nat controls the Blinding Mage):

Amy's Beginning of Combat step starts. Furyblade Vampire's ability triggers and goes on the stack.
Both players have an opportunity to act. Nat can activate Blinding Mage's ability at this time, but he's probably better off waiting.
Furyblade Vampire's ability resolves. At this point, Amy chooses whether to discard a card.
Both players have another opportunity to act. At this point, Nat can choose whether to activate Blinding Mage, depending on whether Amy chose to discard a card.


Can effects (like Majesty's Fiend) prevent Exodia from winning? Majesty's Fiend is on the field.  It says

  Cannot be Special Summoned. Monster effects cannot be activated.

If all Exodia cards are collected, does Exodia's player win even though Majesty's Fiend prevents Monster effects from happening?

If all Exodia cards collected, does Exodia's player win?

Yes, the player will win.

The reason is because Exodia has a win condition not an effect. From its rulings, emphasis mine:

  When you add the fifth piece to your hand and declare that you win the Duel, you are using a victory condition. You are not activating a monster's effect, so "Divine Wrath" and "Gladiator Beast War Chariot" cannot be activated

This means that Majesty's Fiend, who negates effects, won't be able to prevent the player from wining. From its text, emphasis mine:

  Cannot be Special Summoned. Monster effects cannot be activated.


What type of game is Village idiot? I love to play Village Idiot (I'm sure it goes by other names, but I don't know them), and I am wanting to play games similar to it, mainly shorter games.  Is there a definitive category or name that Village Idiot falls under, which would help me in my search for similar games?

Here is a link to the rules to the version of the game I play: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/310871

From the rules I have seen, Village Idiot is one of a handful of climbing card games. The most notable of these are The Great Dalmuti/Dilbert Corporate Shuffle.


6 player Dog variation In Dog there is a expansion from 4 to 6 players. The only variation I know and have played is 3 vs 3. Does anyone have experience with 2 vs 2 vs 2? Does that play well too?

Background: I'm thinking about doing a tournament and it would be easier to get the required number of boards if I could pit three teams against each other.

Today I talked with a friend who has experience playing Dog this way. According to him the game is much more competitive when played 2 vs 2 vs 2 instead of 3 vs 3. There are more enemy pieces underway and they have more opportunities to intercept yours.

I'm still looking forward to playing this variant myself one day, but at least the question is answered.


If you have infinite life, can your life total be set to a specific number? Earlier in the game an Infinity Elemental was given Lifelink and dealt damage, giving me infinite life. I have a Form of the Dragon in play, so that at my end step my life total becomes 5.
Rule 119.5 states

If an effect sets a player’s life total to a specific number, the player gains or loses the necessary amount of life to end up with the new total.

The ruling on Infinity Elemental states

If an Infinity Elemental you control gains lifelink and deals damage, you’ll then have infinite life. From that point on, your life total effectively can’t change. If you lose life, you’ll still be at infinite life. You can pay any amount of life and still be at infinite life. In fact, you can be hit by an opposing Infinity Elemental and still be at infinite life.

On one hand, "the necessary amount of life to end up with the new total" seems to indicate that I must end up at 5 life, but the ruling seems to indicate that not even an infinite loss of life can change my life total (infinity minus infinity being mathematically undefined aside). Which one controls?

There is a ruling on this already in gatherer. You said it was rule 119.5 but it is also a ruling on this card. So in this situation your life becomes 5 at the end of each turn regardless of being set to infinity because of life link.

If an effect sets your life total to a specific number, it will be that number, even if you previously had infinite life.

The other gather ruling even makes reference to the ruling that is right below it which I have listed above.

If you give Infinity Elemental lifelink and it deals damage, you will gain infinite life. You might think infinite life sounds like a lot, and you’d be right. Once at infinite life, your life total mostly can’t change (see below). At infinite life and gain 2 life? You’re at infinite life. At infinite life and lose 29 life? You’re at infinite life. You can pay any amount of life and still be at infinite life. In fact, if you’re at infinite life and get with an opposing Infinity Elemental, you’d still be at infinite life.


Babel tower tile #15 (ignore resource cost for Wonder) overpowered? In our recent 7 Wonders play session we've tried playing Babel extension, which triggered a question/thoughts about babel tower add-on.

Specifically tower tile nr. 2 and 15 which states:

  These two tiles allow players to ignore the resource cost when constructing military buildings or for a Wonder stage.

Now, while building military buildings virtually for free seems to be very powerful, especially if you are lagging behind in a 3rd age and want to catch up with at least one neighbour, but it felt okay-ish.
However, building Wonder stages for free felt like completely messing up game mechanics - some wonders require a lot more of resources to build than others, with a cost and reward system being quite balanced, but with this card open, everyone would just built their wonders within few turns. It felt as if someone switch on god mode. Besides, it wasn't a fair game from that point on, considering how different rewards for Wonders are.

So my question is, whether we've misread/misinterpreted the rules, or does this card really effectively permits building Wonders completely for free for every player, apart from the money, that aren't required for the most of wonder stages?

P.S. And while we are here, tile nr. 20 - " Raw materials cards (brown cards) which produce a unique resource (Lumber Yard, Stone Pit, Clay Pool and Ore Vein) produce an infinite number of resources." felt overpowered as well, just maybe by a lesser degree than the previous ones.

You have played correctly; tile #15 indeed lets you construct wonder stages without paying the resource cost. It's very true that some Wonders will benefit much more: Gizah B, with its massive 4 stages, will be able to take 20 points for "free" (using 4 actions), even if other players conspire to lock this player out of resources, which is very possible in 3-player or 7-player games. On the other hand, Rhodes B would benefit little, with only 2 stages to construct.

Furthermore, your feelings are justified; yes each Babel tile tilts the game to one way or another. They are not meant to be "fair for all". However, in general you may find both tiles that tilt the game to either way; take for example the opposite tile, tile #16: every player will have to pay a tax for each wonder stage; Gizah B would effectively have to pay 10 coins (+ any resources, if applicable) to construct all wonder stages. In another example, tile #22 double the penalty for losing a Military battle, while tile #19 diminishes the points gained by the victors, making military less or more important, respectively.

Finally, if you feel that one tile turns "god mode" on for a specific player, there's always a solution: conspire with other players to cover the tile. If you do it correctly, it won't stay there for more than a single turn.


Something that only happens every X turns I'm working on a new board game where there's an action (we'll call it Brazening) that only happens every X turns (let's say it happens every 5 turns).

What's a good way to keep track of when it's time for the next Brazening?

The perfect method would:

be easy for players to do
be hard for players to forget
require a minimum of pieces or moving parts
not require pencil and paper

There might not be a perfect method.

I'm no game designer, so this is just off the top of my head:

I'd try and tie it to a mechanic that already exists in the game and which the players can't avoid, or at least get a obvious (maybe short term) advantage from, so it's unlikely to for them to forget.

Examples:

Each player gets 5 cards at the start of the game and must play one each turn. When everyone has no cards left, execute Brazening and everyone draws 5 new cards.
A pool of 5 times number of players tokens in it, and at the start of their turn a player must take a token and do something with it. When the pool is empty, it's time to Brazen and then refill the pool.

What kind of actions do the players take in your game? Maybe if you roughly describe the mechanics, we could find a simple may to modify them.


In Gin-Rummy, what is the bonus points for Gin and Undercut? In the traditional rules of Gin-Rummy:

Is going Gin worth 20 or 25 points?
Is undercutting worth 10 points?
If a player knocks and is undercut by their opponent and this opponent lays off and has no deadwood, do they get a Gin bonus of having no deadwood?

Gin-Rummy has many scoring variantions.  As Andrew suggested in a comment, Paget is a good source for rules of card games.

From Paget:

  Some people play that the bonus for going gin is 25 (rather than 20)
  and the bonus for an undercut is 20 (rather than 10). Some play that
  the bonus for an undercut, the bonus for going gin, and the box bonus
  for each game won are all 25 points.

The score on Wikipedia are 25 points per gin, undercut and box bonus.

Both Zinga's popular app Gin Rummy Plus, and cardgames.io use 25 points bonuses for undercuts, gin and box bonus.

For the third question, the answer is no, that player just get the undercut bonus.


Identify the source of this white die To which board games does this die belong?

It is a white die with 2 blank face, two faces with one pip, and two faces two pips.
Been wondering for a while.
Thanks in advance

Betrayal at the House on the Hill uses 8 dice like that one.

Betrayal at Baldur's Gate uses 8 dice like that one.

There are surely other games that use these, though Betrayal Legacy is not one of them.


How can I resolve my Dragon Shield sleeves being curved? I've always used Dragon Shield for sleeving my decks and recently I've noticed the sleeves come slightly curved in the box. This means when I sleeve my decks they sometimes slide and fall on the floor. I've tried stacking books on them to make them stay flat but it doesn't help much as they never stay. I was just wondering whether anyone else had this problem and what they did about it, I noticed that putting them in a particularly tight box can help, but it also sometimes bends the cards which I don't want.

This answer comes from personal experiences I've had with using Dragon Shield sleeves, so it shouldn't be taken as fact, since the sleeves from different batches can vary.

First things first, I'd recommend always using Matte sleeves, for several reasons:

I find them much easier to shuffle;
They don't get as grimy as smooth sleeves;
They don't tear as easily as smooth sleeves;
They don't get as curved as smooth sleeves.

For the specific problem of curved sleeves, I've tried many solutions over the years, and some seemed to work better than others.

One thing that worked best for me for straightening both sleeves and cards was to weight them down with a couple heavy books over a warm surface. I usually use a hair drier to warm up a metal surface, and then keeping it warm while the cards and/or sleeves are being weighted down. This works great for a couple cards/sleeves, but it's a lot of work for a whole deck.

Also, sleeving the cards with a "perfect size/fit" (the inner sleeves that go inside the outer sleeves) makes them slightly less bendy, which could help in straightening out your outer sleeves.

As you said, storing the whole (preferably double-)sleeved deck in a tight fitting deckbox also helps with straightening out both sleeves and cards.

P.S.: To whomever it may concern, I am thinking of opening this answer as a community wiki, so everyone can chip in with their own experiences on the subject. What do you guys think?


When do you increment the 'Successful run' counters? Do you increment your 'Successful run' counters at the moment you successfully went through the ice(s) and are accessing a server or do you increment your counters after a run is completed?

For example: With Medium virus (anarchs), incrementing during the run would affect the number of card you can access.

  Medium: Whenever you make a successful run on R&D, place 1 virus counter on Medium.
  Each virus counter after the first on Medium allows you to access 1 additional card from R&D whenever you access cards from R&D.

Add tokens, then access. There's a timing structure in the FAQ (here). The end of the run goes like this:

  4 The Runner APPROACHES the attacked server.

    4.1 [Paid abilities]

    4.2 The Runner decides whether to continue the run.
        ...Either the Runner JACKS OUT: [end the run unsuccessfully]
        ...Or the Runner continues the run: go to 4.3.

    4.3 [Paid abilities and non-ice can be rezzed]

    4.4 The run is considered to be successful. (‘When successful’ conditionals meet their trigger conditions)

    4.5 Access cards, then [end the run].

The run is considered successful (and tokens are added to Medium and the like) in 4.4. You access the cards in 4.5.

To answer the question within the question, this also means you'll get extra cards starting from your second Medium run, and not just starting from your third.


When is it best to break Hearts? I usually break them as soon as I can't follow suit but others have told me that's not "appropriate."

Also, when is it appropriate to play the Queen of Spades? I usually do the same, play it when I have my first opportunity to do so.

There's a couple of things that are important when deciding what to play when you can't follow a suit:

Is it at all likely you can take all the points with this hand? Then don't throw any points at your opponents.
Are there any cards you need to get rid of to avoid catching points yourself? Examples are the Ace or King of Spades, or a high Diamond. When you have a lot of Diamonds, chances are others can't follow Diamonds and throw in points themselves when you are forced to play the Ace. This can become very costly if all you have is more Diamonds to play. If you still had that little Heart that you threw out instead of Ace of Diamonds, you could have played that and forced another player to take it.
Is it possible that the opponent taking the first point, takes all the points? Sometimes you'll regret tossing away that one point when you get 26 added to your score at the end of the hand.
Does the ability to lead Hearts give an escape to a player? If a player is forced to lead Spades (and cut in on his own AK in Spades) because he isn't allowed to play Hearts yet, that might be an advantage also.

Conclusion: Don't automatically break Hearts when you can't follow suit. Think of the long-term game, there's plenty of tricks still coming.


Activating Golos during another player’s turn Golos, Tireless Pilgrim's ability can be activated during another players turn, but does doing so allow you to still play the cards if it is not your turn? The ability text says you may play those cards “this turn”.

I am assuming that you would not be able to play anything other than any revealed instants unless the revealed card has “flash” or some other card gives those revealed cards flash (e.g. Teferi or Leyline of Anticipation).  Is that correct?

Similarly, because it is not my turn, is playing a revealed land card from Golos forbidden?

Gatherer often answers rules questions about cards with special effects directly. In this case, it says

  Golos’s last ability doesn’t change when you can play the exiled cards. For example, if you exile a sorcery card, you can cast it only during your main phase when the stack is empty. If you exile a land card, you can play it only during your main phase and only if you have an available land play remaining.

Which is to say, if you activate him on your opponent's turn, you can only cast exiled instants and cards with flash, just as with regular cards from your hand.


Twilight Struggle, Longer game My friend and I play a lot of Twilight Struggle and we have a lot of fun with it. The thing is we only reach the late war 1 in 5 times so far.

Is this how it is supposed to go or are we doing something wrong?

After an answer:
USSR and USA both win equal amount of times.
Every ending of the game is because of victory points

1 in 5 getting to the Late War isn't much of a sample size, but it does appear to be on the low side. Do you have more details on why it ended early? DEFCON, Europe Control or 20 VPs? Is it USSR or USA that's winning early? Is one of you always winning early?

I found this spreadsheet from this link depicting stats for a pair of players, and they get to the Late War about half the time. My own experience is 17 of 44 games decided in the Late War, which is on the low side because my opponents were newer and overmatched (I was 36-8). Games reach the Late War more often if both players are evenly matched.


How do Snapcaster Mage and Cipher cards interact? Let's say I cast a card with Cipher from my graveyard with the help of Flashback (provided by Snapcaster Mage). Will I be encoding it on a creature instead of exiling it from the effect of Flashback?

Yes. Cipher will continue to work as normal.

Cipher exiles the card it encodes.

  Then you may exile this spell card encoded on a creature you control. Whenever that creature deals combat damage to a player, its controller may cast a copy of the encoded card without paying its mana cost.

The relevant part of Flashback is the following replacement effect:

  If the flashback cost was paid, exile this card instead of putting it anywhere else any time it would leave the stack.

Flashback does absolutely nothing if you exile a card using Cipher because the card is not put "anywhere [other than exile]" when it leaves the stack. Cipher will continue to work as normal.

If you chose not to encode the card, Flashback will cause it to be exiled instead of going to the graveyard.


In Uno when playing a Wild Draw 4 card, can I choose a color not in my hand? If I play a Wild Draw 4 card and the only card I have left in my hand is a red one, can I change the color to green?
Or is it required to have the called color?

Yes you can do that. In the rules, there is nothing restricting the color called.

Wild – This card represents all four colors, and can be placed on any
card. The player has to state which color it will represent for the
next player. It can be played regardless of whether another card is
available. If turned up at the beginning of play, the first player
chooses what color to continue play.
Wild Draw Four – This acts just
like the wild card except that the next player also has to draw four
cards as well as forfeit his/her turn. With this card, you must have
no other alternative cards to play that matches the color of the card
previously played. If you play this card illegally, you may be
challenged by the other player to show your hand to him/her. If
guilty, you need to draw 4 cards. If not, the challenger needs to draw
6 cards instead. If turned up at the beginning of play, return this
card to the Draw pile, shuffle, and turn up a new one.


Keeping track of many independent variables on a physical board? I have a large number of independent variables which I would like to represent on a physical game board. One idea I had was to implement these using rotating disks, a little like the metal spinning mechanism used to select numbers on some types of lock.

Would it be possible to implement these spinning mechanisms on a physical board game as smaller plastic spinning disks? Have any games made use of this idea? Three or four of them would have to fit on a little square with many of these little squares on the board.

Alternatively, is there some other mechanism that would solve the problem more elegantly?

Here is a picture of what I am considering implementing. However I am not sure of the feasibility of adding about a hundred of them to a board.

One solution I've seen to this is a cardboard disk with a hole cut out; the disk can be rotated to reveal any of several items below. Battlestar Galactica does this to track resources; Chaos in the Old World tracks both advancement towards victory and threat.

Using 100 moving-parts dials sounds problematic. It would be a huge effort to set up, expensive to produce, and there's a lot of pieces to break. Assuming that each number to be tracked is small, another solution would be a six-sided die for each number, or using a few counters in a specified location.


Can a creature token represent a different creature token? I have quite a few cards that have the ability to create creature tokens when they're played or their ability is activated.  The only problem is I don't have the specific token for each one, but I have a handful of other creature tokens.

Can I substitute creature token Y for creature token X? For example, if the ability allows creating two 2/2 Black Zombies, but I don't have any Black Zombie tokens, could I use, say, a Green Wolf and a White Human to substitute as placeholders?  I don't see why not since the tokens are pretty much empty objects that are filled in whenever they're brought into battle.

You can represent your tokens however you want with

coins
dice
sleeves
deckboxes
your smartphone, etc
If you have different types of tokens, I normally put them face down.

But there are some things to be careful of however. (mostly applies to competitive scenarios)

If you have many of the same token, Avoid using dice to represent the quantity.  If you do this, you'll have issues differentiating tapped tokens from untapped, and tokens with summoning sickness from tokens without.
If a card produces a token, avoid turning that card face-down for your token.  If that card is in your graveyard, your graveyard is where it belongs.  find another object to  represent your token with.

To Summarize:  You can represent your tokens in whatever manner you want, so long as they're clearly and accurately represented.


Agricola - Acreage minor improvement The Acreage minor improvement in the K (complex) deck states that:

  When you
  Sow, you can plant 2 grain fields on
  this card.

  (This card does not count
  as a field when scoring.)

Does this mean that when I sow, this card can be treated as if I have 2 extra plowed regular fields and hence, I can put 6 grains on it (2 from my personal supply that I planted, 4 from the general supply)?

Also, what happens during the harvest period? Do I get to remove 2 grains from this card and put it in my personal supply?

Yes, you can plant two grains, and get four more from the general supply. At each harvest, you'll get two grains back, exactly as if the card was two fields.

Note that you don't have to sow two grain - you can choose to just sow one, if you like (as if it was a single field, i.e. get two more from the general supply).


Where can I find the web app for designing Robot Turtles boards? I once heard about a web app for designing Robot Turtles boards. Where is that?

That web application exists at http://maze-builder.robotturtles.com/.


What happens when Boldwyr Intimidator makes a creature with Changeling a Coward? Boldwyr Intimidator has the following ability:

  {R}:Target creature becomes a Coward until end of turn.

Changeling is defined as:

  702.72a: Changeling is a characteristic-defining ability. “Changeling” means “This object is every creature type.” This ability works everywhere, even outside the game.

What happens to the creature with Changeling's creature type when Boldwyr's ability is applied to it?

For example:
I have a Boldwyr Intimidator on the board, my Opponent has a Changeling Sentinel and Muscle Sliver on the board.
I use Boldwyr on my Opponents Changeling Sentinel to make it a Coward, does it still receive the +1/+1 bonus from Muscle Sliver?

The creature will be only a Coward (or Warrior), and not get any bonuses for being a Sliver.

This is true for the same reason that using Intimidator on a vampire will cause it to no longer be a vampire; it's type has been set, which overrides any other types it previously had.

  205.1a Some effects set an object’s card type. In such cases, the new card type(s) replaces any existing card types. Counters, effects, and damage marked on the object remain with it, even if they are meaningless to the new card type. Similarly, when an effect sets one or more of an object’s subtypes, the new subtype(s) replaces any existing subtypes from the appropriate set (creature types, land types, artifact types, enchantment types, planeswalker types, or spell types). If an object’s card type is removed, the subtypes correlated with that card type will remain if they are also the subtypes of a card type the object currently has; otherwise, they are also removed for the entire time the object’s card type is removed. Removing an object’s subtype doesn’t affect its card types at all.

Changling is a characteristic-defining ability, as as such the layer system applies it before the type-defining ability of Intimidator.

  604.3. Some static abilities are characteristic-defining abilities. A characteristic-defining ability conveys information about an object’s characteristics that would normally be found elsewhere on that object (such as in its mana cost, type line, or power/toughness box) or overrides information found elsewhere on that object. Characteristic-defining abilities function in all zones. They also function outside the game.

    604.3a A static ability is a characteristic-defining ability if it meets the following criteria: (1) It defines an object’s colors, subtypes, power, or toughness; (2) it is printed on the card it affects, it was granted to the token it affects by the effect that created the token, or it was acquired by the object it affects as the result of a copy effect or text-changing effect; (3) it does not directly affect the characteristics of any other objects; (4) it is not an ability that an object grants to itself; and (5) it does not set the values of such characteristics only if certain conditions are met.

When determining what a card ends up as, different effects are applied in a specific order, starting with the characteristics of the card itself:

    613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.

Both the Changeling ability and Intimidator's ability apply in layer 4. When multiple things get applied in the same layer, characteristic-defining abilities happen first:

  613.2. Within layers 1–6, apply effects from characteristic-defining abilities first (see rule 604.3), then all other effects in timestamp order (see rule 613.6).

It is worth noting that even though the creature will not have any types other than Coward / Warrior, it will still have the changeling ability; because nothing removed its abilities.


How does Babylons's second stage wonder work for building/discarding your last two cards? Babylon: When you have the second stage of the wonder that allows you to buy your last 2 cards in the age instead of discarding, does this count as 1 turn or as 2 separate turns?  Here's why I ask...  I needed to buy glass from my neighbor.  Each card needed me to buy a glass, and he only had 1 glass.  If the cards count as 1 turn, I could only buy 1, and would have to discard the other card to collect 3 coins.  If the cards were 2 turns, then I would buy the glass twice in 2 separate transactions.  After 15 minutes debate, our group voted that it was 2 turns.  But we would like to know what other people think.

The designer, Antoine Bauza, has responded to this question on BGG, it is as if the Babylon player had two turns. You get to produce resources twice, buy twice from your neighbor, and even receive production from your newly built/discarded 6th card.

Q: When playing both cards in round 6 to build two buildings: Can you use one resource twice for each of the buildings?
A: Yes, it's two different cards, like two different turns... The first could help you to play the second (discard the 6th for money and use the money to play the 7th for example...)

This can also be somewhat surmised from the rules, since you need to have that stage of the wonder built to "use it." (page 9)

Clarification: - during the sixth turn, the player can therefore play both cards they have in hand. If the second stage of the Wonder is not built, the Babylon player can then build it on their sixth turn and then play the seventh card instead of discarding it.


Can multiple 40k psykers cast the same spell in the same phase? I really enjoy psykers, and I've built a Tyranid army that is pretty psyker heavy. This question is for 8th edition rules for Warhammer 40k.

The friends I play with, are trying to tell me that once a single power (other than smite) is manifested, that power itself cannot be manifested again in that turn. With multiple units that are capable of knowing multiple powers, this seems like a problem.

I'm currently running with:

A Swarmlord which knows Smite plus two other powers
a Broodlord which knows Smite plus one other power
a Tervigon which knows Smite plus one other power
a Neurothrope which knows Smite plus one other power
a unit of Zoanthropes which know Smite plus one other power

Since the Hive Mind Discipline psychic list has 6 powers, if this is true, then I can at least cover them all and not have to worry about overlap. But if I get another psyker unit or character, then I'm in trouble.

The closest mention I can find in the rulebook is in the Psychic Phase on pg. 178:

  A psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once in a turn.

This sounds like a single psyker unit or character just can't cast the same spell itself. Can different units or characters cast the same psychic power in the same phase?

So I've found out where the rule is in the book. The rule is found under the Matched Play Mission Rules, found at the bottom of page 215.

Psychic Focus

  With the exception of Smite, each psychic power can be attempted only once per turn, rather than once per psyker per turn.

So this only applies to Matched Play, involving point limits and restrictions for organized events or tournament play. If you're playing Open or Narrative play matches, this does not apply.


Texas Hold'Em Heads-Up Blind Structure Why does the Dealer post the small blind and the other player post the big blind?

Normally the person to the left of the dealer will post the small blind then the second player to the left of the dealer will post the big blind.

So why does this switch when going heads-up?

Quote from Wikipedia

  When only two players remain, special 'head-to-head' or 'heads up' rules are enforced and the blinds are posted differently. In this case, the person with the dealer button posts the small blind, while his/her opponent places the big blind. The dealer acts first before the flop. After the flop, the dealer acts last and continues to do so for the remainder of the hand.

Basically, as Wikipedia hints at, to make sure that a different player acts first before that flop than after the flop — just as in non-heads-up, where “Under The Gun” (the player after the Big Blind) acts first before the flop, and the Small Blind acts first after the flop.

In heads up, if the non-dealer would post the Small Blind and the dealer the Big Blind, then the non-dealer would act first both before and after the flop.

I guess it would be possible to “reverse” the rule, and instead “simply” let the dealer act first after the flop, but that would be a rule exception after the flop, so if someone would make a mistake in the order of play it would probably be more complicated to “clean up” or “reverse” that mistake after the flop than before it.


Card that deals damage and adds a +1/+1 counter Simple question: Is there a permanent that has "Pay 1 Mana: Target creature takes 1 damage and gains a +1/+1 counter" or "Tap: Target creature takes 1 damage and gains a +1/+1 counter"?

No, there isn't such a card.

Gatherer is the official source for Magic card wordings, and has a powerful search engine behind it.

The text of the card you're looking for would certainly contain the wording "(deal/deals) 1 damage to (target creature/any target)", and also the term "put a +1/+1 counter".
So we can search for any card that at the same time contains the terms "1 damage to", "put", and "+1/+1", resulting in this search

As you can see, none of the currently 10 results fitting that pattern match your exact requirements.

Also note that  under most circumstances, dealing 1 damage and putting a +1/+1 counter on the same creature in the same effect would cancel each other out, as far as survivability of that creature is concerned. It's unlikely that such a card will ever be made, because the +1/+1 counter is supposed to be the reward for surviving the initial damage, which has to come in a separate effect.

That "+1/+1 counter for surviving damage" mechanic isn't all that rare. You might be looking for cards such as in this search. Those are the cards that put +1/+1 counters on themselves or other creatures whenever those creatures are dealt damage. Then all you need is a source of ping damage, which is plentiful on permanents, at least for {t} cost. A repeatable ping damage ability, i.e. one with a mana cost instead of tap or other cost, will usually cost at least {2} per damage, because {1} per damage would be too strong.

In any case, you will probably never find both ping damage and putting a +1/+1 counter effects in the same ability of any card.


Donk betting in No Limit Hold 'Em I've been playing Hold 'Em for a while, and I've considered a variety of different strategies.  However, one thing that's always left me a little baffled is "donk" betting.  Rather, betting into the pre-flop raiser on the flop (before he/she had the chance to bet).

What's the purpose of this play?  When might be a good time to "donk" bet?

This play seems to have a bad reputation, but what is so bad about it?  Rather, how do bad players misuse the "donk" bet?

How you should be thinking about donk bets when deciding whether to use them:

Donk bets don't have an inherently set purpose.  You can do it as a bluff, you can donk bet for value, or you can do it to try to influence behavior (like a block bet).  What you're trying to obtain by doing it depends on your hand and your expected response from your opponent.

As a thinking player, you shouldn't ever just check solely because the other player was the preflop aggressor.  Like any other decision you're faced with in poker, you should only be choosing to check if you believe that you will get more value from the hand by checking than from any of your alternatives.  Whether you believe this depends on your opponent.  For example, if you're holding a hand which is likely ahead, rationally choosing to check requires something like believing that your opponent will bluff continuation bet more often than they will call your donk bet.

Specific extreme examples: If you were playing against someone who does not bluff continuation bet on the flop, but had a strong tendency to call with weak hands, then you should donk bet every time you hit a decent hand on the flop, and rarely bluff them.  If you were playing against a person who rarely calls unless they have the nuts, yet bluffs all of the time, then you should check to them every time when you have a strong hand, and bluff donk bet them every time you don't.

Not only are you sometimes missing value if you decide never to use donk bets; such a decision would be an exploitable aspect of your play.  It gives a larger advantage than is due to the preflop aggressor, as they can be confident that they know what at least one of your moves will be in a following betting round (you will check).  In particular, they can derive more value from raising preflop cards which are geared more toward drawing (e.g.: suited connectors like 7s 6s), because they know that they will usually be able to check behind he flop if they missed, so they actually get to see 4 board cards before being faced with any possible aggression.

Why is it perceived as bad:

Inexperienced players tend to make bad donk bets (bad independently of being donk bets), and commit extra money to the pot in situations where they're generally already at a disadvantage by being out of position, or where board cards suggest that their hand is not as strong relative to the preflop aggressors as they may think.

Also, some people perceive donk bets as sort of against poker etiquette.  They think that "check to the raiser" is the proper, gentlemanly thing to do.  This is more of a cultural thing, and has little to do with trying to play profitably.

They are not inherently bad, and there are situations in which a donk bet is the optimal choice.

How players misuse them:

Players misuse donk bets the same way they misuse any other sort of bet.  They make their decision without considering likely hands their opponent is holding or their opponents tendencies.


Mascarade - When must you swap your card? In the game of Mascarade there is an note on page 5 of the rule book that reads:

  WARNING !

  If a player has revealed their card during the turn of the
  player immediately before them (by having called the character
  announcement of the player to their right, or by having been revealed
  by the Inquisitor), then the player cannot announce that they are
  their revealed character. The player will be forced to swap their card
  – or not – with that of another player.

It seems fairly straight forward that you must swap your card with that of another if you just revealed your card in the previous turn.

So in a 4 player scenario what happens when one player 'announces' they are the king and two others 'claim' to be the king? do both of the other players have to swap on their following turn or only the very next player?

Here is a visual:

the players are arraigned as such:

      1
   4     2
      3

And player 1 announces they are the king. Players 2 and 3 claim to be the king as well.

Now from the way I read the note on page 5, player 2, who's turn it is next, is required to swap their card. They can not 'announce' to be the card they just revealed. So where does that leave player 3? If player 2 does not swap with them, then player 3 knows what card they are and essentially gets to announce with perfect certainty.

Is this the correct interpretation?

There is always a responsibility of the players to swap with players who know their cards.  The reason that rule exists, is because there would be no one in place to run "defense" against player 2.

Player 3 does have someone to interfere; player 2. So no one gets a free ride as long as player 2 plays correctly.


How do Sphinx of Foresight and a discard effect on the first turn interact? My question revolves around Sphinx of Foresight and any discard effect targeting the Sphinx on Turn 1. I'll take Thoughtseize as an example.

Sphinx of Foresight has the following effect:

  You may reveal this card from your opening hand. If you do, scry 3 at
  the beginning of your first upkeep.

Imagine the following Scenario:

Player A plays first, Player B draws first.
Player B reveals Sphinx of Foresight.
Player A plays a Swamp and casts Thoughtseize targeting the Sphinx of Foresight.
Player A ends his turn.
Player B gets to his upkeep. Is he allowed to scry now?

I couldn't find any remarks regarding this topic in the gatherer.

If a player reveals Sphinx of Foresight, that player gets to scry on their first upkeep even if the Sphinx gets discarded or exiled beforehand.

The Sphinx's ability creates a delayed triggered ability. That ability remains in the game no matter what happens to the Sphinx card. The ability only requires its controller's first upkeep to trigger, and its effect does not reference the Sphinx card as a prerequisite.

  603.7. An effect may create a delayed triggered ability that can do something at a later time. A delayed triggered ability will contain “when,” “whenever,” or “at,” although that word won’t usually begin the ability.


What are some methods for delivering questions to players? I am design several games for students. The purpose of these games is to encourage the students to discuss various topics related to their lessons during their study hall period or at home. If the games are interesting enough, this motivates them to do the work without outside help.

I am not so familiar with games and only know of two ways to deliver questions to players:

Players land on a space and the space contains the question.
Players draw a card and the card contains the question.

Are there any other types of game mechanisms that can deliver questions for players to discuss?

Maybe the original question is "overly broad"; I'll answer a related question:

  How can I implement academic drills into existing games?

Some games, such as "Jeopardy!", "Who Wants to be a Millionaire", "Are You Smarter...", etc. are already set-up for academic Q & A. We can also adapt other games to fit this requirement. Off the top of my head:

Monopoly - properties are always auctioned (not bought), with the winner being the first player to correctly answer a question.

Egyptian Rat Screw (played with a standard deck of cards): whenever a "double" or a "sandwich" occurs, the winner is decided by Q & A (not by who slaps first/fastest)

Fore more serious games like Agricola, Power Grid, and Puerto Rico, you could require students to pass the "first player" marker left/right if they fail a Q&A check. Of course, if they all fail, then the marker could work its way back to the original owner...


How many lands should I have in my sealed or draft decks? A standard draft deck has 40 cards in it; a 4-booster sealed deck has 30 cards. How many lands should I put in each of these formats? And why do I need this ratio?

The conventional wisdom that I received for a 60-card constructed deck is to have 20 lands, suggesting that 1/3 of the deck should be land. However, I was also told to include 17 lands in a draft deck, which is higher than 1/3. But a smaller draft deck will have a lower variance (fewer ways to shuffle a deck and get mana-screwed), so shouldn't you be able to get away with fewer lands than the 1/3 ratio?

Conventional wisdom is to run around 40% lands in Limited.  This means around 12-13 lands for a 30-card deck, and 16-18 lands for a 40-card deck.

Typically, you see three variations. Aggressive, low-curve decks (which curve out at at four or five) will run as few as 11/16 lands. Typical decks (one or two colors, curve out around six or seven) will typically to run 12/17 lands. Slower decks (and decks in slower formats) will often run 13/18 lands, especially if they're three-color or hitting a third or fourth land drop is very critical.

Mana fixing is always very important - anytime you can run a mana creature/artifact or filter lands of some kind, it's likely in your favor to do so.

As far as why, in Limited your reliance on never missing a land drop in the first four-six turns is much higher than usual. That consistent ramp up to four-six lands means dropping those higher-cost creatures and game-winning bombs.

EDIT: On the subject of mana acceleration, as I previously mentioned, it's almost always in your favor to run what you can (mana fetch spells, mana creatures and artifacts, filter lands, etc.), but depending on how many of them you run, you can sometimes decrease your land count.  Some people reduce by one land per mana/land-generating spell, others say one land per two spells - however, this is usually to a minimum of 15-16 lands in 40-card and 11 lands in 30-card (11 is very uncommon).


MTG: Enchantments that require opponent to pay mana to attack I had a deck many years ago that was blue/white and used a blue enchantment that made players pay 2 colorless to attack.  I can't remember the name of the card, but it was around Mirage, no later than Urza block.  I also had Kjeldoran Outpost and Thawing Glaciers.

The main concept of the deck was to get out the mana generating diamonds from mirage, then blow away the lands with Armageddon and keep the opponent locked out of attacking for a while.

This card is stuck in my head and I can't seem to find the name of it anywhere.  I remember seeing it reprinted as a white enchantment sometime ago as well.

If anyone knows what this card might be, please let me know the name.  I have not found anything via searching so far.

You're thinking of Propaganda from Tempest, which came out right after Mirage.

Ghostly Prison is the white version and Collective Restraint is a close cousin designed for multicolor-happy decks. (There's also the rather terrible Koskun Falls.)


Consume>Trade in RftG Base game In the base game of RftG, if you chose Consume>Trade as the action, do you have to trade on a card that has a $ ability? If it is a +3 and do you get +3 cards in addition to the normal trade value?

You first sell any one of your available goods for the number of cards indicated by the kind of good (i.e. 2 cards for a Novelty good, up to 5 for an Alien good).  Some cards in your tableau may have Trade powers (marked with a $) that may affect what you get from this trade.

Then you must use as many of the Consume powers (marked with a IV) as you have on your cards as possible, on as many of the remaining goods that you have as you can.  You can use these powers once only each, but you can use them in any order you like.

From the way you phrase your question, it sounds as though you think that the initial Trade is performed based on one of your Consume powers, somehow.  It isn't; the initial Trade is a completely independent bonus and takes place before you refer to the special powers of the cards in your tableau.


Is there any way to remove an emblem? Since an emblem is neither a card nor a permanent, and doesn't have a card type (as per rule 113.5, shown below), "has no name, no types, no mana cost, and no color" (rule 113.3, also below), and (as pointed out by murgatroid99) isn't even on the battlefield in the first place (rule 113.1, ... also below), is there any way to either nullify or destroy/exile it?

  113.5. An emblem is neither a card nor a permanent. Emblem isn’t a card type.

  113.3. An emblem has no characteristics other than the abilities defined by the effect that created it. In
  particular, an emblem has no name, no types, no mana cost, and no color.

  113.1. Some effects put emblems into the command zone. An emblem is a marker used to represent an
  object that has one or more abilities, but no other characteristics.

There are currently no cards that explicitly remove emblems. The only way to get rid of an emblem is by activating the last loyalty ability on Karn Liberated. This restarts the game, and resets everything in the game except a specific set of cards that he keeps track of.

Mechanically, an emblem is intended to be a reward, in some sense, for completing a somewhat complicated process: casting a Planeswalker, adding to its loyalty for multiple turns, and then activating its expensive ability, all while keeping your opponent from messing up the plan. Because they are so hard to obtain, they are correspondingly difficult to remove. Some are easier to obtain, like the one from Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, but they are also weaker.


Islands as Coastal Spaces Do Islands count as Coastal spaces?

One specific effect in the game makes reference to coastal spaces, which do not appear to have a clear definition or specific terrain icon.  Do islands count for this purpose?  By definition, islands are surrounded by coast and thus contain coast; however, they are not part of the coast of any mainland continent or landmass.

Barring any rules to the contrary, coastal is generally interpreted as "next to water", so I would say that an island certainly counts for this.


What is the original purpose of Bazaar of Baghdad? I have a lot of interest in Bazaar of Baghdad

  {T}: Draw two cards, then discard three cards.

I know how powerful this card is in a Dredge deck in Vintage and thus why it's banned in Legacy, but since the Dredge mechanic has been introduced in the Ravnica block in 2005 and Bazaar is a card printed in 1993 in Arabian Nights: what was the purpose of that land?

I suppose there must have been another use other than "create a card disadvantage for me" (even One with Nothing had one!), so I'm wondering how and how much was Bazaar used in those twelve years and if its price has risen so much only after Ravnica: City of Guilds.

You get to draw two cards. This (at the time of printing) was 5% of your deck. At worst case, the two you drew were not as good as what you had in your hand and you will get rid of them, and chances also are that you had one card you would be willing to get rid of, or at least would be worth the risk.
You get to discard AFTER drawing the two cards. If the two cards you drew were crap, you don't have to keep them. It would be much worse if it was {t}, discard three cards: draw two cards.
You don't have to draw the cards you drew later. Key to the design of magic is the ability to make a comeback win, and this comeback typically comes with a top-deck bomb. Sometimes there's only one or two cards in your deck that can allow you to win, and the rest of your cards are just to keep you alive until this bomb gets on the board. So in that sense, this card could be {t}: draw two cards, then discard cards from your hand until you have one card left in hand. and it would probably still be sought after for that purpose. (Actually, the dredge crowd would salivate over this card even more if it did that...)


Can I spend all my life points to draw cards? The rules of Friday state

  If at any point you must discard a life point but do not have any
  remaining, you lose the game.

What if I have 1 life point left, and voluntarily discard it to draw a card?

Can I do that?

The game hasn't required me to discard a non-existent life point yet (and I may gain more life before it does).

As I read this, I could go several turns at 0 life, without losing, as long as the game does not require me to spend a life point that I don't have.

Friday? The current text of the rules does not include the passage you quoted. It seems they realized the behaviour was unusual enough to warrant clarification, and updated the rules to do so.

  If you need to pay a life token during the game and do not have any left you immediately lose the game. Having zero life points is OK, but if you need one more life token you lose the game!


Does creating a token copy count as having cast a spell? If I have Prototype Portal copy an artifact but I have Paradox Engine, would Paradox Engine’s abilities activate every time I copy?

No.

Casting a spell is a keyword action that involves placing a card (or copy thereof) on the stack, making choices, optionally activating mana abilities, and paying its cost.

Activating an activated ability (such as Prototype Portal's second abiliy) is not casting a spell.

Creating a copy of an object is not casting a spell (even if the object being copied is a spell).

Putting an artifact on the battlefield is not casting a spell.


Grave Betrayal vs. Blightsteel Colossus My opponent has to sacrifice a creature. He sacrifices a Blightsteel Colossus. I have Grave Betrayal on the battlefield. Will my opponent get to shuffle the colossus into his deck again, or will it return to the battlefield under my control?

Consider this portion of the text on Blightsteel Colossus.

  If Blightsteel Colossus would be put into a graveyard from anywhere,
  reveal Blightsteel Colossus and shuffle it into its owner's library
  instead.

This text creates a replacement effect. A replacement effect "watches"
for an event to happen. For example, regeneration is a replacement effect that watches for the creature to be destroyed.

The rules for replacement effects neatly state that the event being replaced never happens.

  614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens.

So, when Blightsteel Colossus starts to head for the graveyard, instead, he is revealed and shuffled into his owner's library. The event that got replaced never happens.

To die in Magic has a specific meaning:

  700.4. The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”

Blightsteel Colossus never went to the graveyard, and so Blightsteel Colossus never died. Therefore, Grave Betrayal never triggers.


Texas Hold'em: The flop vs Turn/River In Texas Hold'em, the first common cards dealt are the three cards known as the flop. Then we proceed to deal the Turn and the River, which are single cards. Is there any specific reason why we first deal multiple cards and then single cards? How would the game be different if we dealt all five common cards separately, and have a betting round between each?

The flop eliminates a majority of reasonable players because they have such a low probability of winning anything. With a dripfed board, they would stay for longer and commit more, thereby being priced in despite having no real chance.

It avoids early big bets by high pocket pairs and (suited) connectors that have caught something from the first single card or the first two community cards, from taking a pot based on the luck of their pocket.

Overall, it turns a game based on luck into one that allows for substantial skill, without eliminating player choice in how to play the game.


The Nexus - when does its ability resolve? I'm confused about the base from the Science Fiction Double Feature expansion.

  The Nexus (19; 3, 3, 2): The winner replaces this base with a base of his or her choice from the base discard pile, if possible.

I'm unclear about the timing of the replacement. Does this ability resolve before or after the base scores?

If it's before, what is the point of printing victory points on the card? Its value would always be dictated by the base that replaces it.

If it's after, why isn't this ability worded similar to The Mothership and other bases in the base set, something like "After this base scores, the winner replaces this base with..."?

I play it as after, though the change in wording caused me to doubt my interpretation.

Also, what happens if there are no bases in the base discard pile, does the base get replaced from the base draw pile as usual?

I'm unclear about the timing of the replacement. Does this ability resolve before or after the base scores?

The ability doesn't cause the base to replaced. It simply changes how it is replaced.

Bases are replaced at the end of the base scoring process. A base is normally discarded and replaced by one from the face-down base pile. Nexus is instead replaced by one from the discard pile if possible.

This happens after points are assigned.

  If it's after, why isn't this ability worded similar to The Mothership and other bases in the base set

Space on the card? Better wording?

  Also, what happens if there are no bases in the base discard pile, does the base get replaced from the base draw pile as usual?

Yes. If Nexus isn't capable of changing what normally happens, then it doesn't.


Do you lose/gain any life when you drain yourself e.g. you activate Orzhova, the Church of Deals, targeting yourself. Do life gain conditions trigger (like Ajani's Pridemate) or not?

(it's simultaneous, so you gain 0 net life, which triggers nothing, right?)

You still get the life gain/loss trigger. Even though the net result of the ability is 0, triggers can be "created" (pending priority) in the middle of abilities resolving.

  603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.

    603.2a Because they aren’t cast or activated, triggered abilities can trigger even when it isn’t legal to cast spells and activate abilities. Effects that prevent abilities from being activated don’t affect them.


Where can you post new Dominion card rule suggestions? The question

I am a big Dominion fan and have made some "fan cards".  I have followed these suggestions on how to make your cards work, have play tested them many times and now would like to share with others some interesting new cards.  Unfortunately there does not seem to be a place to post these.  Do you know?

BoardGameGeek.com

This seems to be the place to post, but does anyone else have problems posting to this site?  To post there, the site itself says, you need to confirm by email, but I never receive the confirmation email even though my email address is correct as I am able to use it when I purchase something from the site.

Donald X himself

I have recently read that he is working on an expansion coming out in 2015 (yeah!), but I can´t seem to find any contact information either to him or his publisher.

Othe suggestions?
Thanks in advance!

If you have read the post that you link to, then you are familiar with forum.dominionstrategy.com. They have a subforum just for this sort of thing here.  If you post your cards there, people will likely comment on them, give advice, and even try them out and playtest them if they are interesting enough. It's a friendly community with lots of people who are experts at Dominion.

Donald X posts on that forum as well, and you can "contact" him there by asking questions in posts, but he has said that he does not read fan cards, largely because he wants to make sure that any ideas he uses are his own.


Is Harvey Walters immune to the Man in Black? Harvey Walters has an ability which lessens each sanity loss by one point, which means that single point sanity losses have no effect on him.  The Man in Black, a mythos card, causes one sanity loss per failed die roll.  Therefore, it seems that Harvey is immune to the MiB's devouring and will always gain rewards from this card.  Is this correct?

I'd like an "official" answer, because half of my gaming group was fully convinced that Harvey was immune to the MiB, and the other half was sure that Harvey could be devoured just like everyone else.

Yes, that's correct. Harvey Walter's ability applies to all losses (but not costs), as the FAQ explicitly states:

  Q: Does the Strong Mind ability (reduce all Sanity loss by 1) of the
  professor, Harvey Walters, apply to the casting of spells?

  A: No. The professor’s ability works on losses, not costs. The same
  distinction applies to the gangster, Michael McGlen, and his ability
  to reduce Stamina losses.

So Horror checks, Elder signs, Mythos cards, Tomes... are all covered. While it's a cool combo if you happen to draw that Mythos card, it's not a game-breaker, IMHO. You still have to hang around French Hill Streets, and the reward, while good, isn't exceptional.

I'll note that an alternative way to play this would be to add up all the sanity losses from the Man in Black, and then subtract one from the total. In fact, this is the way I normally play this interaction, since getting the clue and spell for free feels kind of lame. As far as I know, there is no official ruling one way or the other on that though. Whichever way you play it, I don't think it is going to substantively affect your games - there are many more, much more decisive random elements in a typical game of Arkham!


Is Master of Arms pointless under new blocking rules? Master of Arms

  2W, Summon Soldier 2/2, Weatherlight Uncommon

  First strike

  1W: Tap target creature blocking Master of Arms.

I used to use this in my deck as powerful creature which could attack, tap a couple of defenders to prevent them from dealing combat damage and kill off the remaining untapped one with first strike.

Now under the new rules tapping a blocking creature doesn't actually do anything, and since it will untap in its next turn is rather pointless. Since Master of Arms used to prevent combat damage, should it be re-worded to:

1W: Tap target creature blocking Master of Arms, that creature deals no combat damage
this turn.

which would then make the card function in the same way it used to?
Otherwise the ability is worthless outside of a Royal Assassin / Master of Arms combo.

Is there an errata on what do with old cards which are rendered useless by the news rules, or should they just no longer be used?

You are correct, that Master of Arms ability is basically useless now, and functions differently now than it used to under pre-6th Edition rules.

If there was errata for Master of Arms', it would show up in the Oracle wording. The Gatherer page for that card lists the Oracle text, along with errata changes and dates. The Oracle is the official wording on Magic cards. The card used to work the way that you described, but in May 2011, the errata that supported the cards original functionality was removed so that the card now works as written.

  Master of Arms - Just like Winter Orb, Master of Arms had a mystifying Oracle wording intended to replicate original functionality. The rule that changed this time was the one saying that tapped blockers didn't deal combat damage. ...

  My general philosophy is that I'm okay with rules changing out from underneath cards and changing their functionality. Heck, just look at the Magic 2010 rules changes.

This recent change to Master of Arms is part of an ongoing rules philosophy change that began years ago. Several different articles point to the reason for these changes. In Power-Level-Errata-B-Gone, you learn of the architect behind the rules changes, Mark Gottlieb the lead rules manager. The reason for the change is that without an online reference, it is difficult to verify how a card is supposed to work. For that reason, power-level errata is being removed from cards as well as errata to make cards work as originally designed.

  Why Did We Make This Latest Batch of Changes? - Over the years, the sheer number of rules revisions and changes of rules managers the game has undergone—as well as unintended consequences that arise when new mechanics and card abilities are unleashed each set—has led to cards slipping through the cracks. As the evil genius currently in charge of maintaining Oracle, Magic rules manager and former cult-leading columnist Mark Gottlieb is a strong, strong believer that cards should have functionality that matches their printed intent as often as possible.

Ben Bleisweiss talks specifically about tapped creatures and combat damage under fifth edition rules (as well as other interesting changes). The rule was essentially removed, because it wasn't intuitive to new players. Someone who was unfamiliar with the rules probably wouldn't understand why tapped attacking creatures deal damage, and defending creatures don't.

  TAPPED CREATURES DEAL NO DAMAGE - Change: Under Fifth Edition rules, tapped blocking creatures dealt no damage in combat. Under Sixth Edition rules, they do.

  Why: Much like the old "tapped artifacts shut off" rule, the rule about tapped creatures dealing no damage wasn't something a player would intuitively know just by looking at a card.

Mark Rosewater even lists Master of Arms' as a famous example of cards being useless under new rules changes.

  In fact, our Oracle database encounters this problem every day because it has to modernize cards and mechanics that were created in a different time. Often what was done then doesn't even work now. I don't know how many times I've heard Mark Gottlieb gripe because some card that was made to do something that made sense in the past simply doesn't make any sense in modern day.

  A famous recent example would be the card Master of Arms. The card was designed at a time when tapping a blocking creature kept it from dealing damage. Then Sixth Edition rules came along and removed the rule and all of a sudden Master of Arms's mechanic made a lot less sense.

All that being said, Master of Arms isn't really a tournament level card, which means that you are probably playing this deck in a casual setting. Most likely, if you told your opponents, "Hey, I have this fun deck I play that got completely hosed by sixth edition rules, would it be ok with you if Master of Arms said '1W: Tap target creature blocking Master of Arms, that creature deals no combat damage this turn.' for the purposes of this game?" I don't think anyone would object.


Can I deal damage to Hornet Nest multiple times before it dies? If I have a Hornet Nest on the battlefield, can I cast 2x Lightning Axe on it to get 10 tokens? Or does the creature die between the first Lightning Axe and the space that the opponent has to respond? I think I can play as many instants as I want on the same creature before the stack resolves and the creature dies, right?

If it is your turn, you may cast two instances of Lightning Axe (or any other instant) before your opponent gets priority. However, they do not resolve until your opponent has a chance to respond.

The order is:

You get priority
You cast Lightning Axe, choosing targets and paying the costs; Lightning Axe is on the stack
You intentionally retain priority.
You cast Lightning Axe, choosing targets and paying the costs; second Lightning Axe is on stack.
You get priority, you pass
Opponent gets priority, they may cast a spell.
Opponent passes priority.
Second Lightning Axe checks if the target is still legal. It is, it resolves. Creature has lethal damage.
a. 5 Damage has been dealt to Hornet Nest, so next time priority would be given, ability that creates 5 Hornet tokens would be put on stack.
State-based actions are checked, creature dies.
Ability that creates 5 Hornet tokens goes on stack. (It resolves)
You get priority, pass
Opponent gets priority, pass.
First Lightning Axe checks if target is still legal.  It is not, so it fizzles. No damage is dealt to Hornet Nest

Final result: 5 Hornet tokens


Is the scry mulligan rule implemented in the rules at large yet? On Friday, my local store said the mulligan rule being tested at PTORI (Before starting the game, any player who mulligans to less than 7 gets to scry 1) had been implemented into the game proper. But there's been no announcements on wizards.com to that effect, and no source hosting the comprehensive rules reflects this in 103.4. The TO just said that "mtgsalvation confirmed it", but their wiki doesn't, their front page doesn't, and the last relevant forum post I found was from mid-July, before the pro tour actually happened. I know it's looking likely that it'll stick around, but they were pretty clear that only PTORI would be affected for the time being. Am I missing an announcement somewhere?

The new mulligan rule was officially added starting with Battle for Zendikar prereleases on September 26-27, 2015 (or October 9-12, 2015 for Magic Online).

As of this question being asked, it was definitely not a rule yet. In fact the Latest Developments column on August 7 said:

  We will be looking at both how the Pro Tour played out, as well as the reactions from the players regarding the rule. I don't know when we will have a decision based on this, but we hope to have new information fairly soon.

Anything official will surely be on the official site, so I wouldn't bother digging on forums or anything - things like this happen in official ways, not just via rumors and forums.


Beast combat in Scenario 19 (The Beastmaster) In Scenario 19, the Traitor's Tome says that certain beasts get extra successes when they initiate an attack. What does "extra successes" mean?

When we played, we assumed it meant add the number of successes to the roll, but we were not sure. For example, we added 2 to the total of the dice when the Bear initiated an attack.

Consider the number of pips showing on any rolled die as a success.

Then, a standard creature/character rolling one die has a range of possibilities from 0-2.  Let's say a creature got to roll one die, but had one additional succcess.  Then that creature rolls a die (normal 0-2 distribution) and adds one.  So, their overall distribution is 1-3.

The impact of this is that the creature will always have some successes that must be defended against.