Which Dominion Expansion Should we Buy for Passive Play? We love Dominion, and it's about time we buy an expansion, but there are so many!

My wife and I like to play less directly competitive setups, focusing on cards like Woodcutter, Village, Mine and so on. We generally avoid attack cards, liking to just mind our own business as we push towards victory.

With that in mind, I'm trying to figure out which expansion would give us the most value.

So my question is; which expansion for Dominion would most support our preference for friendly (passive) play?

(Note: I've seen there are other versions of this question, but they're quite old and there've been more expansions released since.)

From a pure numbers standpoint, Dark Ages would be the best with 37 new Kingdom cards, only 6 of which are Attack cards. From how well the sets are regarded by the designer (and others from what I have heard), you are better off getting Intrigue or Seaside.

Q: If you could go back in time and redesign which cards were in which sets, and the order the sets came out (but not changing/adding/removing any cards), what would you move and why?
Vaccarino: For set order I like going Intrigue, Seaside, Prosperity – set trying to be a good first set, generally good set, set that adds Colonies. I would put Alchemy last, where it was; it was there because I knew some people wouldn’t like potions, because somebody hadn’t. You could swap Hinterlands with Seaside but I wouldn’t. After Prosperity then there are Hinterlands and Dark Ages to order and well you have the question from before of whether or not Hinterlands is a standalone. I like having another standalone, and if it is one then I would put it ahead of Dark Ages. Possibly I would anyway. A question is, do you recombine Cornucopia and Alchemy. If people don’t like Alchemy then it’s nice that they get a tight package of just it, rather than buying it to get Cornucopia or passing on Cornucopia because of it. So possibly it’s worth keeping them separate. Large sets are better though, so either expand Cornucopia and Guilds or combine them. That’s another decision to make before knowing what order to put them in, but Guilds wants to be near the end due to complexity. If they’re not one set then large Cornucopia could go between Prosperity and Hinterlands still, uh depending on how it turned out.

-Intrigue - 21/24 Non-Attack cards. Intrigue adds Dual-Type cards. From a ratings standpoint, I believe the highest rated sets are
-Seaside 21/26 Non-Attack cards. Seaside adds duration cards.
-Alchemy 11/13 Non-Attack cards. Alchemy adds a new Potion treasure.
-Prosperity 24/27 Non-Attack cards. Prosperity adds new treasure kingdom cards, VP tokens, and high cost Platinum and Colony cards.
-Cornucopia 10/13 Non-Attack cards. Cornucopia rewards players with diverse decks, and offers 5 Unique Gifts available in the Tournament.
-Hinterlands 23/26 Non-Attack cards. Hinterlands adds cards that have an effect when bought/gained.
-Dark Ages 31/37 Non-Attack cards. Cards that do something when Trashed, care about the Trash, or are upgradable.
-Guilds 11/13 Non-Attack cards. Coin tokens that can be played on later turns, bonus effects for paying extra for cards.


How does Words of Waste interact with Varina, Lich Queen? How does Words of Waste interact with Varina, Lich Queen?

Because you have to draw and discard that many cards.

so if you draw 3 and discard 3, can you only use 1 mana for Words of Waste, since the Varina's ability has to complete?

or can you draw cards. pay 1 for each card. then discard.

You will be able to replace each draw with Words of Waste, however you will still discard the full amount. Additionally, you will have to activate Words before Varina's ability resolves as it creates a replacement effect

From the Gatherer Rulings for Varina:

  The number of cards you discard and the amount of life you gain are both equal to the number of Zombies you attack with, even if you draw a different number of cards somehow

emphasis mine


Can two players tie for first place in Hearts? At Pagat's website, it says game of Hearts (the card game) ends when a player reaches 100 points or more: http://www.pagat.com/reverse/hearts.html#scoring

This implies that the game ends even if two players are tied for first place. I've always played it this way.

But recently someone told me that they use a rule so that you must continue playing until there is a single first-place finisher (i.e. single low-scorer).

Is there a clear rule for this, or does it vary a lot?

I cannot recall encountering this situation. I reckon that ties are not common, and that there is not a clear rule.

How it is handled would depend on the scoring system in use. For example, the description in Hoyle lists three settlement methods: "Cumulative scoring" and "Howell Settlement" avoid the issue, whereas in the "Sweepstake" method, if two players are clear then they divide the pot.

Pagat does refer to it in the section about variations of scoring. It does say "may" continue, so i suppose that each game should declare whether the low points are shared or whether the game plays on. (Pagat does not mention those other settlements.)

  If a player reaches or exceeds 100 points and there is a tie for low score, additional hands may be played until there is a clear winner.

In real life games, we did not bother with settlement: as soon a someone blew it, then end of game, move on to the next. Online games would need to utilise settlements, especially if doing rating.

Do you have any statistics from your online game, regarding how often this situation occurs?


Can hexproof remove an opponent's aura already enchanting my creature? If a creature I control is being targeted by an enchant creature my opponent controls, can I equip it with an artifact that grants hexproof to counter the existing enchant creature?

Example: My opponent casts Kasmina's Transmutation on my Serra's Guardian. Several turns later I equip Swiftfoot Boots. Does the "hexproof" ability make Serra's Guardian an invalid target for Kasmina's Transmutation?

No. Hexproof prevents the creature from being targeted. Kasmina's Transmutation targeted the creature when it was cast, but after it's resolved it's no longer targeting the creature.

It's possible you are thinking of protection, which prevents the protected creature from being "Enchanted, equipped, or fortified by permanents with the specified quality." If you give your creature protection from blue, then Kasmina's Transmutation falls off, since a pro-blue creature cannot be enchanted by blue auras. Another possibility is if the aura enchants only certain things which no longer applies. For example if you cast Daybreak Coronet on your Kasmina-enchanted creature, and then opponent bounces the Kasmina's Transmutation, then Daybreak Coronet does fall off (since it can only enchant an already-enchanted creature, and with Kasmina's Transmutation off, the creature is no longer enchanted). Yet another possibility is if your creature turns into (say) an enchantment via One with the Stars, then Kasmina's Transmutation also falls off since it can only enchant creatures (it says "enchant creature").

Hexproof is none of these situations and therefore Kasmina's Transmutation remains attached. It will, however, stop your opponent from casting more auras targeting the creature.


Help me identify a game with a large orange hooter/squeaker in the middle About 20 years ago I had a fun/silly board game that I would love to find again.

It was a turn-based game where each player had a set of red chips, and players moved around the board by rolling a die or two.

The game centered around a set of "Do" and "Don't" cards which you would collect as you went around the board. Before each players' turn they would have to do the actions on their "Do" cards, and make sure they didn't do anything on their "Don't" cards the whole time. If they failed to do either, another player could slam a big orange hooter/squeaker, in the middle of the board, and punish them by giving the offending player two of their chips.

Each player could have at most 5 cards, so if they gained a 6th, they could put one of their old cards back - usually with some relief!

The goal was to get rid of all of your chips.

Some of the "Do" and "Don't" rules that I can remember were: "Do balance a die on your nose for 5 seconds", "Do point at the player to your right", "Don't say a player's first name".

This is my terrible "artists" impression of what the game looked like:

There was a single, large molded piece of plastic in the middle of the board. It had two bowls on either end which contained all of the chips that weren't yet assigned to players.
The big orange squeaker was that circle in the middle. And there were 10 places to put two players' "Do" and "Don't" cards (the 10 numbered slots) - although more than 2 players can play the game.

The game is "Out of control"  though some versions go the name "Outta-control"
The excellent description by the OP gave me hope in finding it with a web search.  I can't provide anymore details as I haven't played the game myself.

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/3539785/outta-control


Survival of the Fittest activations and priority Can someone please explain the ability of Survival of the Fittest and the stack?

Let say I have Survival of the Fittest out, and I have 1 creature in my hand, and I have priority.  Assuming I have unlimited mana, can I keep discarding a creature card and search for a creature card without an opponent casting any instant spell?

In other words, I will discard a creature card and have not pass priority, can an opponent cast instants like disenchant on the survival to stop me to continue searching?  If an opponent can cast disenchant before priority was pass, would I still need another creature card in my hand to be able to discard and search again?

I am unclear of how this would work.

NB: Survival of the Fittest has an activated ability, not a triggered ability.  Triggered abilities always use the words "When", "Whenever", or "At".

You must discard a creature card (and pay green) as an activation cost in order to put the ability on the stack.  It now goes on the stack and your opponent gets priority before it resolves.  So they could destroy Survival of The Fittest before you get to search and add a card to your hand.

You still get to do your search and add the card, but obviously you cannot now use the ability again.

You can discard as many cards to it as you already have in your hand while retaining priority and not allowing your opponent to respond.  However, they will have a chance to respond before you're allowed to tutor up the new ones.


What happens if the Queen and the striker are pocketed together and there are no other pieces on the board? The case seems a bit complicated. The Queen is the only piece remaining on the board. All Men are pocketed. Both the Queen and the striker got pocketed in the same pot. What should happen then?

Should the player return a Man? If he returns one, should he immediately take a turn and strike the returned Man to try to cover the Queen? Or should he return the Queen anyway?

This can't happen.

From these rules, the Queen can't be left without a piece from each team still being on the board.

Pocketing either player's final piece with the Queen still on the board is a foul, which returns the pocketed piece and a penalty piece.

If the Queen and the striker were pocketed together while pieces were left, this is also a foul. Since a foul ends the turn, this means that the Queen can't then be covered, so it will return to the board.

However, from the ICF rules:

Somebody will already have won. Pocketing your own, or your opponent's final piece while the Queen is on the board causes you to lose.


Has there ever been any use for Lich? Is there any good deck which uses Lich?

Sure, there is some very corner-case where having it in the battlefield will help you, such as if you have fewer life than permanents, and you are about to kill your opponent, but even in that case, you'd rather have a card which actually kills him, rather than this…

So: is it just a terrible card, or is or has there been any actual use?

The question is if there is a deck where it would make sense to put this card and not another one, NOT if there is a strange corner case where if you magically happened to have this card in your hand, it would make sense to play it.

Why was Lich created?
I think this is the real subtext of your question: why does Lich exist?
I think to understand Lich, you've got to put it in context: it's a flavor-first design from Alpha. Lich is, first and foremost, supposed to feel like lichdom in fantasy stories, particularly Dungeons & Dragons: undeath, power and immortality at a grave price.
One thing the card does well is establish a big theme for black: trading away your life for power in near-suicidal ways.
However, one of Alpha's biggest shortcomings is that it's all over the map about what cards are worth as a resource. On the one side, you've got cards like Ancestral Recall. On the other, you've got Lich.
So, Lich is an early attempt to do something pretty tricky in Magic, and it is, by most standards, a misfire (part of what hurts it now is errata which forces "cards" to "nontoken permanents," thereby cutting off many strategies for artificially inflating your permanent count). You can see attempts to refine this design in various cards like Nefarious Lich and Necropotence.
What can you do with Lich?
Nearly any card this weird is fodder for at least a few combos.

Lich turns life gain into cards. This is very pretty powerful because it's easier to gain 1 life than to draw a card, but any deck built around this as an enabler is going to be rather fragile.

Lich sets your life total to zero. You can try to abuse this with various cards, such as Mirror Universe.

Lich makes life loss that isn't damage meaningless to you. (Look at Ad Nauseam for instance).  Note that you can't pay life, either, though.

Lich will kill its controller when it goes to the graveyard. You could try to set up some Donate-style combos with this, but it's pretty bad because you need other cards to ensure you don't die at zero life.

Is it good in a competitive environment?
No.
But most Magic cards aren't.


Are there any good intermediate deck building resources available in magic I've gotten to the place where the run of the mill 'basic deck-building' guides offer no more help to me and yet the advanced deck building resources are still a little out of my reach. I am wondering if anyone can recommend any good resources to me that might help.

I realize this is sort of a relative question, so I will provide a hypothetical question I might ask, given the level I am at in my current proficiency-

(this next paragraph is the set up for my hypothetical question)
Say, for example, I want to build a strong enchantment deck: I am at the point where I realize that enchantments have their weaknesses, most notably, a removal spell can completely ruin all the momentum you have built up in the game with a single card. So, when building this deck, an important aspect of it should be built around either countering or protecting against such a event. So I should think about something like hexproof or being able to return cards from my grave yard.

Question: Whether I go for either hexproof or graveyard return, how many cards in my 60 card deck should I dedicate to this protection?

That's an example of the type of question I would be likely to ask at my current skill level. I would love to know any resources that would be good for someone at my stage in the game.

I am not looking for an answer to this hypothetical question and I am not looking for an answer such as, 'Put some in your deck and play it until it works."
*I'm looking for a resource that provides, basic, guidelines for this type of thing, at this level.*

As far as I know, there is not a "catch-all" resource that can answer any intermediate question that anyone could possibly dream up. However, I think that you are looking for what I would call "intermediate building blocks".

Here are some building blocks that are relevant to nearly any deck build, but are not so hard to understand for an intermediate player. Please skip over any material you find to be too advanced (except for the rules - don't skip the rules

What are the rules?

Understanding the rules is the most important tool when building a deck. I find The Judge's Corner on Youtube to be a great resource for understanding the rules. Wizards also releases a "rules clarifications" article right before every new set is released. You can read it to gain a more in-depth knowledge of the more complicated cards.

For example, when Red Deck Wins was in the same meta as Master of Waves, I made a decision to leave Anger of the Gods in my sideboard because Skullcrack removes his protection, and I main decked four Skullcracks. Had I not known the rules, Anger would appear to be useless against Master of Waves.

How much land?

In standard, this boils down to probabilities. If you have an iPhone or Android phone, I strongly suggest you download the free Manalyzer for Magic the Gathering app and play with the numbers. You want the least number of lands that will still give you a high probability or being able to play the cards that you are most likely to draw. There are countless other apps that were built to help with the math, so search for them.

Using an extreme case to serve as a basis for all other cases, if your deck consists of only 1 drops, and you have a 90% chance to have 3 lands by turn 3, you will probably run out of cards to play on turn 3. That may be good or bad, depending on what the cards are.

In short, you need to determine on what turn(s) you need your mana to be there for you. This ties in to the next topic.

Fundamental Turn

When does your deck win? I can't do this topic justice, so I suggest you read about it here, from the guy who coined the phrase.

Assume you have calculated your fundamental turn to be 6. You know that another deck that is in the meta has a fundamental turn of 4. What tools do you have to delay their fundamental turn? If you have none, you will lose. If you fill your deck with 1/3 creatures and he has a deck filled with 2/2 creatures, that will delay his fundamental turn. This leads to my last topic.

The Clock

I can't find the article I wanted to reference here, so I'll reference this one instead.

The clock is basically "if nothing changes, given the knowledge and board state that I have, in how many turns will I win or lose". If your opponent has a 4/4 flyer and you have no board, no cards, and 20 life, you are on a 5 turn clock. If you are milling 5 cards per turn and you have 40 left, you are on an 8 turn clock.

You can anticipate changes to your clock by assuming that your opponent has specific cards in hand and knowing what cards remain in your library. This is where understanding your meta comes in.

The Metagame

There are other decks out there. The ones that show up to tournaments the most form the "tournament meta". The ones that show up to your local store form the "local store meta". If you play with friends, your friends form your meta. Some metas are more stable than others (like legacy), while some are constantly shifting (like your friends).

I determine my meta using TCG player latest decks, by watching the latest StarCityGames tournaments on Twitch.tv, by watching Grand Prix tournaments (also on Twitch), and by playing a lot.

Once you know your meta, you can calculate the fundamental turn of the decks you will be facing, and adjust your deck to handle it.

Now you have the following resources in your arsenal:

The Judge's Corner and other mtg related playlists you may find
The Manalyzer and other probability tools you may find
A knowledge two important concepts: the fundamental turn and the clock
Your meta and 2-4 ways to discover and explore it

In the case that any of my links go bad, simply search for the bolded keywords. In the case that you know of a better article or tool than one I listed, please edit this answer with your awesome material.


Can I cast cost-less cards like Living End with Dream Halls? I think the title is self-explaining :)

Can I cast cost-less cards like Living End with Dream Halls by discarding a black card ?

Yes.

Living End has a mana cost of "unpayable".

Dream Halls introduces an alternative cost of "discard a card that shares a color with the spell".

total cost
= (mana cost or alternative cost) + (additional costs and cost increases) - cost reductions
= discard a card that shares a color with the spell

  117.6. Some mana costs contain no mana symbols. This represents an unpayable cost. [...]

  117.6a [...] If an alternative cost is applied to an unpayable cost, including an effect that allows a player to cast a spell without paying its mana cost, the alternative cost may be paid.

Just in case there's any doubt, Living End is black.

  204.2. An object with a color indicator is each color denoted by that color indicator.

(It had a characteristic-defining ability when it was printed, but it now has a color indicator. Characteristic-defining abilities work in all zones, so the answer would have been the same before the change.)


Can you remove a spell counter to activate an ability during battle? Breaker the Magical Warrior reads:

  If this card is Normal Summoned: Place 1 Spell Counter on it (max. 1). [...] You can remove 1 Spell Counter from this card, then target 1 Spell/Trap on the field; destroy that target.

I attacked my friend's Breaker with my Blue-Eyes White Dragon, destroying it. My friend said: "Well, before it dies, I remove the spell counter to destroy your trap."

Can she do that?

Can she do that?

No. As Breaker's effect is not quick-play.

His effect is Speed 1, which means it can only be activated during the owner's Main Phases.

In Yugioh there are 3 speeds of effects:

Speed 1: As indicated before, can be activated during the owner's Main Phases. You can't activate a Speed 1 effect in response to any activation or condition.
Speed 2: These can be activated technically anytime, and can be chained in response to Speed 1 or Speed 2 effects (unless otherwise restricted). In spell cards these are the ones with the lightning symbol, or trap cards without any symbol for example (there are others, of course).
Speed 3: These are exclusive for Counter Trap Cards (the ones with the arrow symbol). These can be activated in response to any spell speed, and only a Counter can be activated in response to another.

So, no. Breaker can't do that as it is Speed 1 effect.


Maelstrom Pulse, targeting a face-down creature. Does it destroy other face-down creatures? The big issue that needs to be addressed is that face-down creatures don't actually have a name.

So while Maelstrom Pulse would normally remove most creature tokens just fine, its effect on face-down creatures is a bit ambiguous.

What's the rule on this?

A Gatherer ruling on Maelstrom Pulse addresses this:

  A face-down creature has no name, so it doesn’t have the same name as anything else.

So, if you target a face-down creature with Maelstrom Pulse, nothing else will be destroyed.


In Arkham Horror, can you pay sanity costs to go insane on purpose? In Arkham Horror, an investigator must pay the sanity cost of a spell before making a spell check to see whether it would succeed.  If the spell's sanity cost is X, and the investigator has only X sanity, can that investigator willfully attempt to cast the spell in order to go insane?

For example, Gloria has only 1 sanity, and she needs to reach the other side of Arkham all the way from St. Mary's Hospital, but moving there on foot will take her 5 turns due to some ongoing Mythos environment.  She has the spell Withering, which has a sanity cost of 1.  Even though she does not have the lore to cast it successfully, can she use that spell to go insane and teleport herself all the way to Arkham Asylum?

To recap: Spells cannot be used unless they can be paid, but can you game the system when the situation demands it such that you obtain the benefits of paying everything you have?

Yes. Just as there's nothing stopping you from not using your weapons to purposefully fail a combat check against a Nightgaunt to go through a gate, or purposefully failing a sneak check to take combat damage and get sent to the hospital, there's nothing stopping you from casting a spell when there's no chance of you succeeding. The closest thing I can come up with for a reference to your suggested scenario is a question from the Kevin Wilson Answers thread on the Fantasy Flight Games forum:

If one goes insane or unconscious or is devoured as a result of casting a spell or using an item, is it generally the case that the
effect of the spell or item still occurs (in the same way an Elder
Sign's effect takes place even if one of the above happens as a result
of using it)?
Yes. It will often not matter, however, as in the case where you're
getting a combat bonus or something.

So it's definitely allowed that you could cast a spell that drives you insane in the process. So a useful last-sanity draining spell use could be Healing another investigator, or casting Bind Monster, or Greater Banishment, etc. Anything with an immediate effect after making the Casting Check. The only limitation on the spell casting I'd say is that you can't try to cast a spell outside of a situation it would be useful in. i.e. I wouldn't allow casting Shriveling outside of combat just so the Investigator could go insane.


When is it a good time to offer a draw in chess, and when should I accept one? Professional players often offer draws in chess and accept them.  While draws can be very common in professional play, they appear to be very rare in casual play.  Naturally, if you're winning, accepting or offering a draw seems silly, but what if there isn't a clear winner?  When is a good time to offer a draw, and when should I accept one?

In casual play, the main reason to offer a draw is if the game is going on forever and shows no sign of concluding soon. Consider the motivation for the game. Maybe you're playing a game for fun after dinner, but at some point your wife is going to start making loud yawning noises. Maybe you're playing a grudge match with a friend, but both of you are hopeless at rook endings - which is where you've ended up. Maybe you made the mistake of starting a game with someone who takes hours to make any move. I've been in all of these situations! In these cases, achieving the win is secondary to the experience of playing the game. As soon as the experience becomes compromised, or real life starts to intrude, an escape becomes appealing.

One player may actually have an advantage, but if it's going to be necessary to grind out a difficult endgame to convert that advantage into a point, then it may not be considered worth it by the players to continue. A couple of times I have even conceded casual games that I believed I was winning, simply because I wasn't willing to continue to invest the time.

Another reason is if the players are amateurish enough that forcing a win is difficult or impossible. I once spent a frustrating afternoon watching two friends with very basic chess playing abilities circle uselessly for several hours, trying to figure out how to achieve a checkmate. It was like watching Brownian motion on a chessboard; essentially random checks with the vague hope of accidental checkmate. In the end, they gave up and declared a draw. This situation is depressingly common among the large group of casual players who possess no knowledge beyond how to move the pieces.

A final, rather dishonest reason is to protect the ego of your opponent. Too many casual players take losing at chess as a personal failure, or worse, an insult or demonstration of superiority by their opponent. If your opponent is your boss or your grandfather, and they take losing very badly, maybe a draw is a more political decision. In this case, the game is just part of a larger game - the game of maintaining workable relationships in the real world.


What is the best opening lead on this hand, and why? Playing in Flight A-X of a sectional Open Pairs, both Vulnerable at MatchPoints in third seat you hold: (Flight A is 2000+ MPS; Flight X is 0 - 2000 MPS voluntarily playing up instead of at their own level - the up and comers.)

S:J9865
H:T9
D:53
C:AT94

and the auction proceeds:

P  1H  P  2D
P  2NT P  6NT all pass

The opponents are an unbalanced pair (possibly pro-client) with the stronger member on your right as declarer. (in other words, LHO maybe trained to get NT contracts into her partner's hand when possible/reasonable.) Their system is a fairly straightforward Two-Over-One card.

What is the best opening lead and why?

Additional considerations:

A blind lead from Jxxx is a well-known terrible lead, often killing your Jack. This is less true when holding a 5-card suit, but not irrelevant.
If partner doesn't hold at least the queen in one of the red suit opponents may be able to run 13 tricks once they are on lead - that would be a sure bottom if you haven't cashed the CA. Partner can hold a couple of Jacks and that still leaves opponents with a bare 33 HCP that runs 13 tricks once in.

Update:

RHO's 2NT rebid is likely showing any hand that might open a weak 1NT if playing that system; so in the range 12-14. It certainly is not showing any extra values overall, but may or may not be showing stoppers - sometimes it is best NOT to ask, because every question you ask also has the potential of guiding declarer's play.
RHO and I go back > 30 years, so there can be the possibility of a little personal rivalry in play - or not. He is a very good player with > 6,000 ACBL MPs, all earned and non bought, but LHO is likely weaker.

I suspect you won't get a unanimous answer if you asked a number of top experts.  What follows is my guess.

If 6N was bid confidently, that should mean most of the field (since it's a fairly good field) is in the same slam.  I lead the Ace of clubs and take my 45%.

If 6N was not bid confidently, I lead a spade.  My partnership agreements are usually that non-honor leads at slams are meaningless (b/c declarer can usually use the info better than partner), so I lead a random non-honor.

If I am in a swinging situation where I am fairly confident I want top or bottom, I lead a diamond.

Updated to add explanation:

If opponents have 12 tricks no matter what, it's quite likely that they have 13 tricks outside of clubs, or at least they have 12 tricks and can squeeze me in the black suits for the 13th.  (This includes those situations where declarer has no choice but to finesse my partner's heart honor to get to 12 tricks as well as situations squeezing partner (unsuccessfully) in a red suit+clubs and me (successfully) in the black suits for the 13th.)  So I have to lead AC if I think they'll make.

If there is a way to beat the contract, it's quite possible leading AC sets up their 12th trick (for example if their clubs are Kx opposite QJxx).  Indeed, it's quite possible they have 10 or 11 tricks outside of clubs and can set up 1 or 2 more tricks in clubs.  Hence you need to hit partner's king immediately.  The heart king would be useless since hearts are probably with declarer.  That leaves spades and diamonds, with spades more likely because of the bidding.  Spades is also better because there are holdings where partner has the diamond king and the contract goes down except on the lead of the AC, whereas a diamond lead when partner has the spade king and nothing else probably means opponents end up with 1 spade, 5 in each red suit, and a club.

(But there definitely are holdings that require a diamond lead - most of these involve marked finesses against your Jack of spades.  Hence it's a reasonable swinging lead.)

(If one has to lead the 9 or 6 of spades, I think the 9 is better.  If opps have 7 spades (say A52 in dummy vs QT74 in hand), the 6 is more likely to induce declarer to try to drop the KS singleton (either in desperation for trick 12 or hope for trick 13).  Not that I'd think through this at the table.)

A low club hoping to hit partner's king or queen might seem like a good idea, but I very much doubt that LHO bid 6N without neither the ace nor king of clubs (even if 2N promised stoppers).  If partner has the queen and opponents need exactly one club trick, they are more likely than not to get the finesse wrong if you don't lead clubs but right if you do, since a lead of a club strongly suggests you don't have the queen.


In "Prophecy", when going onto a space that has a villain on it, are you required to fight it? A few days ago, I played the RPG "Prophecy" for the first time. While playing, we ran across a question that the experienced player among us did not know, and looking through the rules didn't give any answers (although it is of course possible we just missed it).

After a player has flipped over an "Adventure" card on a space, and a monster / villain is revealed - like, say, a Flock of Harpies - the player then has to fight this monster. If they lose, on the next turn they can then move away from the space with the monster (or of course fight it again).

After the player has moved away from this revealed monster, let's say another player then moves to the spot with this monster.
Are they then required to fight this monster, seeing as how they have just landed on the spot with a revealed monster, or can they choose whether they want to fight or not?

The short answer is yes, if you end your movement on a space with a revealed monster on it you must fight it.

This is set out in the rules, under Adventure Cards, the two parts that govern this are the following:

  You are always affected by the Adventure cards located in the space where you end your movement.

and

  If you encounter a Creature you must battle it (unlike using an Opportunity,
  fighting a Creature is mandatory).


Does the MtG lore have an official explanation for banned cards? (Specifically, those other than: ante cards, un-cards, Shahrazad.)

I remember reading someone speculating that knowledge of how to cast them was mostly lost, with those who still know generally unwilling to teach others. What's the in-universe story behind banned cards, if there is one?

To my knowledge, none of the media put out by Wizards of the Coast provides thematic justification for the banning, or restriction, of specific cards. In a general sense, some keyword abilities or effects only appear in specific regions, because they are generated thematically for those portions of the verse.

Cards are banned solely for mechanical reasons, to limit the dominance they would exercise within one format or another. The intent is to avoid tournaments where the banned cards start to define the meta, to the extent that there is only one deck played, or one deck and a deck designed to beat it.

That is specifically highlighted by Wizards of the Coast on the

  Banned and Restricted Lists
  One key to the continued health of Magic is diversity. It is vitally important to ensure that there are multiple competitive decks for the tournament player to choose from. Why? If there were only a single viable deck to play, tournaments would quickly stagnate as players were forced to either play that deck or a deck built specifically to beat it. In addition, different players enjoy playing different types of decks. If there are plenty of viable options to play, there will be more players at more tournaments.
  To help maintain the diversity and health of the Magic tournament environment, a system of banned and restricted lists has been developed. These lists are made up of cards that are either not allowed at all, or allowed only in a very limited manner.
  It’s important to note a couple of things: First, these lists apply only to Constructed formats and not Limited formats. Second, the banned and restricted lists are format-specific, so a card that is banned in Modern may still be legal to play in Standard.
  Banning a card is uncommon. Announcements for changes to the Banned & Restricted lists are done all together on the Monday after a new set’s Prerelease, to go into effect with that set’s release. This way, the formats you play change as infrequently as possible.

For specific guidance on why a card was banned, you would have to look through the Magic the Gathering Article Archives for Banned and Restricted Announcement's. Googling with the terms "banned", "restricted", "announcement", and card name will get you the pertinent announcement.


Can Accelerated Rot deal 9 damage if you meet elemental requirements? The major power, Accelerated Rot, shown below:

Has "+5 Damage. Remove 1 blight" if you meet the elements. Does this total to 9 damage or just 5, 2 fear and remove a blight? It seems to very clearly indicate it deals 9 total damage, but that seems very powerful.

The only relevant section in the manual, on page 17 says:

  Elemental Thresholds: Optional effects which may only be used if the Spirit has gained certain Elements this turn. The requirement Elements are not "used up"; the threshold is simply a check to see if they are in play. [...] You may always resolve a Power as if you had fewer elements than you actually do. If you meet more than one threshold under a Power, do each of them in order, from top to bottom.
  Exception: If a threshold says "Instead", it replaces the effects of previous levels.

Since this doesn't say instead, it does seem to support it deals 9 damage - so we went with that. Can someone confirm for sure that's the right interpretation?

Yes, major powers are very strong when you hit their thresholds.  I don't have a rules citation beyond what you list there, and I don't see anything explicitly in the FAQ about it, but the lack of "instead" and the plus sign both indicate that the power does 9 damage and removes a blight when played and you hit the threshold.

Compare to Pillar of Living Flame (3 fear, 5 damage, add blight if target land is jungle/wetland), which by the other interpretation would get worse at the threshold (+2 fear, +5 damage).


In LOTR with Sauron, what's the timing of Nazgul cards? We were playing the LOTR board game (Reiner Knizia) with the Sauron expansion (me as Sauron).  On a player's turn, I played a Nazgul card.  They interrupted the card with yellow cards, putting the ring on, and Frodo's special power, and managed to end the scenario, and therefore avoided the entire Nazgul card's effects.

Is this right? I'd argue that although the interrupts seem reasonable, as the Nazgul card is based on a player's turn, and not the scenario, the affects should still happen.  What do others think?

Yes, the players can interrupt the nazgul card and avoid its main effects.

First you must resolve the symbol in the upper left of the Nazgul card.  After that, because the main text of the Nazgul card treated as if an event tile were revealed, it can be interrupted by anything that can interrupt event tiles, such as putting on the Ring, Gandalf, etc.

If this ends the scenario, then the main text of the Nazgul card never occurs.


Game of Thrones 2nd Ed vs 1st + Expansions I've got the GoT 1st Ed, and was wondering: is it better to get the 2nd Edition straight, or is it somehow worthwhile to get the two expansions (Clash of Kings + Storm of Swords), on which I understand the 2nd Ed is based on?

Having played both, the second edition is definitely more streamlined than the first edition.  The mechanics and "feel" of the game are pretty much the same (although the new "Wildling" and optional "Tides of Battle" cards do make wildling attacks and battles more interesting), a few balancing tweaks, but the biggest changes are mostly aesthetic.

To me, just being able to play without messing around with the overlays from Clash of Kings is a significant selling point (second edition only contains one King's Court overlay to balance three/four-player games), but if you already have the first edition base game, I don't know that any of these benefits are really worth the jump.

Storm of Swords, for the record, contains a completely different game mode/map which is not included in the second edition (and which I have never actually played); it is, however, playable with second edition pieces despite being a first edition expansion.


What is the most cost effective Warhammer box set based on size and number of models? I've only been able to find comparison of points/price ratio of single armies. What I'm looking for are the best quality models (number of models/box, size of models etc.) for the lowest price.

So, which armies (both in Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40k) are best for a modeller/painter like me?

(Please don't answer that the best one is the one I find most beautiful :))

40K-wise, there are a few builds that you can do that are relatively cost effective.

Any of the marine variants tend to get you a full army for the least cash.  Xenos armies tend to have much cheaper point cost units that are still equivalent to Marine cost in cash money.   Of the marines, Space Wolves and Grey Knights are probably the cheapest to build.  They have some high points cost units that are worth every point in competitive game terms.

The Draigowing Grey Knight build is the most cash efficient list out of those two options.  Draigo, a Librarian, and two 10 man squads of Paladins will cost you about $250 and can be up to 1850 points depending on how you kit the Paladins out.

I'm less familiar with Fantasy, but I've always heard that High elves tend to be a good balance of cash cost and points cost.  Ogre Kingdoms might also be a good choice given their lower model count.  However, even a cheap Fantasy army will cost you 3x as much as a cheap 40K army given the higher model counts required for that game.

EDIT:

Since on re-reading the original post, the question is about models and not armies I would say that most of the plastic box sets are actually fairly equal in value.  You usually get 10 small models or 5 more complex models for 25-35 dollars.  Older kits tend to have less of the trimmings; newer ones(such as ones for Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, and Necrons) have more alternate upgrade options and tend to let you build more than one unit type from the box. Plastic Kits in the 50-60 dollar range all tend to be larger more complex models.

The only place where you are probably going to get a little more for you money is with basic transport vehicles.  These are usually costed a little lower at the $35 price point.  Though these tend to be the most boring of the vehicle types.  Basic Fantasy troops boxes will also tend to have more models in them at the cost of simpler sculpts.  Battleforce boxes can also save you about 15% over buying models individually.

Anything Finecast is a little pricey and you wont get as much model for your money.  Unfortunately some of their best looking models have been converted to Fincast already.

GW is pretty consistent with their pricing in this way.  If you see two boxes both marked at $35 you're probably going to get a pretty equivalent value--slightly skewed towards the newer kits.  GW's basic product value isn't so bad, it's always been the amount of things you need to buy to play the game that's the trouble.

So, unfortunately, the answer is whatever you think looks coolest ;)


Can I play/use a card that can't fully resolve? Some cards (e.g. Anger - "Ready and fight with a friendly creature.") say to do multiple things. What if not all of those things are possible (e.g. if my opponent has no creatures for me to fight) - can I still play the card? Does it do anything?

Yes! From the rulebook, page 7:

  When resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can
  be resolved, and ignore the rest.

In the Anger example, you would first gain the aember from playing the card. Then, if you have one or more friendly creature in play, you must choose one. If that creature is exhausted, ready it. If there is one or more valid fight targets, your chosen creature fights one of them. But any one of these bits fizzling doesn't prevent the others from happening. If there are no valid targets, you still get to ready a friendly creature. If you have no exhausted creatures, you can still have one of your ready creatures fight as a result of Anger. If you have a stunned card, Anger can remove its stun, as the stun removal replaces the fight use, even if your opponent has no creatures on the board.

FFG further clarified this in this video.


When a creature is exiled with Nightmare Shepherd, does Teysa Karlov create two copies of the creature when dying? Example

I have Teysa Karlov and Nightmare Shepherd in play. They mention, respectively:

  If a creature dying causes a triggered ability of a permanent you control to trigger, that ability triggers an additional time.

  Whenever another nontoken creature you control dies, you may exile it. If you do, create a token that’s a copy of that creature, except it’s 1/1 and it’s a Nightmare in addition to its other types.

Then, I sacrifice my Doomed Dissenter:

  When Doomed Dissenter dies, create a 2/2 black Zombie creature token.

Confusion

I'm still not sure about replacement effects and whether or not the Doomed Dissenter in this case actually dies, when I choose to let it go into exile to copy it as a token. Because the demon's ability doesn't mention "instead", I think the human still "hits" the graveyard before going into exile. This would mean Teysa does trigger twice, creating two 2/2 Zombies. Does the Nightmare Shepherd also create two copies of the Doomed Dissenter?

This case confuses me, since I can only exile the creature once? But the death trigger still happens twice instead of once? Any clarification would be much appreciated.

You get two 2/2 zombie tokens and up to one 1/1 Doomed Dissenter token.

Both Doomed Dissenter's ability and Nightmare Shepherd's ability trigger twice on Doomed Dissenter's death (i.e. it moved from the battlefield to the graveyard).

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

These abilities are now on the stack. Dissenter's own ability will resolve, no matter what happens to the Doomed Dissenter card in the graveyard, and you will eventually get 2 zombie tokens.

When it comes to resolving Nightmare Shepherd's ability, assuming you choose to exile the Dissenter card with the first instance, you get a 1/1 Dissenter token. The second Shepherd ability will no longer have a Dissenter card to exile, so that instance does nothing. If you don't choose to exile the Dissenter with the first ability, you can still do so with the second.

There are no replacement effects involved with these cards. None of the abilities have the words "instead" or any other term required for identifying as a replacement effect.

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


Establishing number of secret Pokemon cards per quarterly release How is it ever proven or demonstrated as to the final number of secret Pokemon cards in a series? These are the cards that are numbered higher than the set number e.g. 194/192 and tend to be holos, rainbow holos etc.
The cards released on the official website only number up to the "official"  amount.

Pokémon Trading Card Game Online, official simulator of the card game, has all cards available, including all secret rares. You can access all cards e.g. through Collection mode with checkbox Show Not Owned checked.


In MTG, was there ever a five-color deck that worked well? The first pre-con I ever bought was the five-color one from I believe planeshift. I liked that deck when I was learning the game, but it didn't hold up when I actually started going to tournaments, and learned more about the game (such as the fact that you had a maximum hand size). The first deck I made myself was a massive five-color deck made up of probably around 100 cards (everyone else had their decks in card sleeves, which made me think that they too were running far more than the minimum 60).

I didn't get to play during invasion block, when there were cards in type II that encouraged five-color decks. I always thought that there may have been one during tempest block due to sliver queen, but I don't know that for a fact. I did have a friend who played a five-color deck, but all I know of that he had in it was Cromat and worship. I have no idea if he had ever run the thing in tournaments though.

Has there ever been a five-color deck that could be played outside of casuals? Obviously, I don't expect such a thing to be the top deck, I'm just asking if there ever was one that didn't suck because of it running too many colors?

Yes. Emphatically yes.

Some notable examples include:

"The Deck" by Brian Weissman – a classic five-color control deck focused on reactive play and denial with only Serra Angel and Braingeyser as finishers; arguably the prototype for all control decks, and the strongest Magic deck of its day.

Jakub Slemr's 5-Color Black Weenie deck — a black-based creature aggro deck using cards of all five colors for efficient answers and disruption (and sheer card value from running most of Visions' good "ETB" creatures); 1997 World Champshiop winner.

Many Llorwyn-era Cruel Control decks, like this one — these were not as absolutely dominant as the previous examples, but Vivid lands made it reasonable to play even absurdly "greedy" combinations like putting Cloudthresher in the same deck as Cryptic Command and Cruel Ultimatum.

There are also numerous four-color decks that could possibly be adapted to a fifth color but don't really benefit from it much, especially in the modern day, when the Legacy/Vintage card pool is a lot deeper and "color pie" design conventions have changed a bit to make it easier to access certain effects without having to go into one specific color.

The reason you're stumbling is that pre-assembled multi-color decks tend to have garbage mana bases, because part of the game's business model is to force good multi-color supporting lands (which are highly desirable for a range of competitive decks) into rare/mythic slots, and preconstructed decks are limited to only including a handful of rares. On top of that, some styles of cards (like Moxes and no-drawbacks ABU dual lands) are considered too powerful to print today.

This answer discusses some of the benefits of four- and five- color decks, as well as tricks to their mana base construction, in more detail.


Pokemon TCG: is there a way to remove energy from your own pokemon? I'm starting to get into Pokemon TCG with my daughter and after the first few games I already have some questions to which I cannot find an answer in the official rulebook. One of them is - is there a way to remove an energy card from one of your own Pokemon?

I've found there are some cards that allow you to remove energy from your opponent's pokemon - which is also useful - but what about your own? Like, if I see that my Pokemon will soon be knocked out and I want to salvage the attached energy card(s), is there a way to do that? The rulebook doesn't mention that at all, and Google searching doesn't turn up any cards like that.

OK, I can answer my own question after all. After some more searching I came across the Energy Reset and Energy Pouch cards. Since there are cards like that, that means you can't do it on a whim, but it is possible, if you have the right card.


Combo question: urborg tomb of yawgmoth, torpor orb, kormus bell, dark depths = free Marit Lage? If I have the following in play:

Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth

  Each land is a Swamp in addition to its other land types.

Kormus Bell

  All Swamps are 1/1 black creatures that are still lands.

Torpor Orb

  Creatures entering the battlefield don't cause abilities to trigger.

And I play Dark Depths:

  Dark Depths enters the battlefield with ten ice counters on it.

  {3}: Remove an ice counter from Dark Depths.

  When Dark Depths has no ice counters on it, sacrifice it. If you do, put a legendary 20/20 black Avatar creature token with flying and indestructible named Marit Lage onto the battlefield.

What I am hoping happens is: The Urborg makes my Dark Depths also a swamp, so Kormus Bell makes it a creature, so then Torpor Orb makes its comes into play ability not trigger, so the Dark Depths will not enter play with any counters, allowing me to immediately sacrifice for 20/20 Marit Lage. Any reason that would not work?

It won't work.  Dark Depths' "Dark Depths enters the battlefield with ten ice counters on it." ability is not a triggered ability; you can tell because it doesn't use the words "when," "whenever," or "at," which are part of the definition of "triggered ability" in the Comprehensive Rules:

  112.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and include (and usually begin with) the word "when," "whenever," or "at." Whenever the trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority and stays there until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities."

  603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and begin with the word "when," "whenever," or "at." They can also be expressed as "[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect]."

Instead, the ability is just a plain old static ability (specifically, a replacement ability, but that doesn't matter here).  Thus, Torpor Orb won't stop the ice counters from being placed on your Legendary Snow Creature Land — Swamp, and your combo won't work.

Stick with Vampire Hexmage.


In Small World: Underground, do the Iron Dwarves keep their hammers from turn to turn? We just played our first game of Small World: Underground, and we're not sure if we played the Iron Dwarves right.

The Iron Dwarves can get Silver Hammer tokens for occupying Mine regions, and it sounds like those hammer tokens are permanently gained, not used up when the dwarves use them for conquest.

The rules state:

  Take your Silver
  Hammers back in hand and place them off the
  board, in front of you, where they will wait until
  the start of your next Conquest phase.

This sure sounds like they earn the 7 Hammers and then have 7 to use every turn as long as they feel like staying active.  We played it this way, but the Iron Dwarves dominated heavily because they were also Immortal.

If we played it correctly, my next question for BGSE is going to be: "How do you counter Immortal Iron Dwarves?"

Yes

You are playing this correctly.  Perusing the rules and the BGG forums (where the designer posts occasionally) there isn't any doubt that the hammers accumulate to their maximum of 7 every turn.

It is also noted that the races and particularly race/power combinations are not meant to be balanced in Small World: Underground.  Players should be expected to have to overpay when powerful combos show up and to be teamed up on in 3+ player games when they do get the powerful combo.


Which MtG core set has had the greatest change in cards from a previous core set? From its beginning through 2015, Magic the Gathering released a new core set every so often (at first every two years, then every year). At first, core sets would only contain previously released cards, but that changed with the Magic 2010 series.

What core set contains the largest number of different in cards within that core set from the previous core set? (how many cards were changed from that previous year?)

The MTGSalvation wiki tracks core set changes here. The summary, assuming I haven't made any copying/arithmetic errors:

Unlimited -> Revised: 39 added, 35 removed (total 74)
Revised -> 4th: 122 added, 50 removed (total 172)
4th -> 5th: 194 added, 128 removed (total 322)
5th -> 6th: 167 added, 266 removed (total 433)
6th -> 7th: 177 added, 177 removed (total 354)
7th -> 8th: 167 added, 160 removed (total 327)
8th -> 9th: 165 added, 163 removed (total 328)
9th -> 10th: 214 added, 190 removed (total 404)
10th -> M10: 158 added, 292 removed (total 450)
M10 -> M11: 136 added, 136 removed (total 272)
M11 -> M12: 153 added, 153 removed (total 306)
M12 -> M13: 193 added, 193 removed (total 386)
M13 -> M14: 154 added, 198 removed (total 352)
M14 -> M15: 235 added, 201 removed (total 436)
M15 -> Origins: 263 added, 259 removed (total 522)

So Origins had the largest total number of changed cards as well as the largest number added, while M10 had the largest number removed. If you don't want to consider Origins a "true" core set for these purposes (because it was also introducing a bunch of new lore) then M10 also has the largest number of changed cards, and M15 added the largest number of new cards.
It's worth noting, however, that some this is driven by changes in set size — the number of cards removed from 10th edition to get to M10 is literally larger than the total number of cards in many of the more recent core sets.


How do Humility and Mishra's Factory interact? Can someone explain the layer order and interaction between Humility and Mishra's Factory?

If you activate Mishra's Factory's second ability while Humility is on the battlefield, Mishra's Factory will be a 2/2 Artifact Creature Land--Assembly-Worker with no abilities for the rest of the turn. If you activate Mishra's Factory's second ability, then Humility enters the battlefield later in the turn, Mishra's Factory will be a 1/1 Artifact Creature Land--Assembly-Worker with no abilities for the rest of the turn.
Mishra's Factory's second ability has this text:

{1}: Mishra's Factory becomes a 2/2 Assembly-Worker artifact creature until end of turn. It's still a land.

Upon resolving, this ability creates a continuous effect that lasts for the rest of the turn and exists independent of the Factory's current characteristics.
and Humility has this text:

All creatures lose all abilities and have base power and toughness 1/1.

This is a static ability that creates a continuous effect that always applies as long as Humility is on the battlefield.
As mentioned in the question, both of these effects apply in layers. Mishra's Factory's effect adds the Creature and Artifact types and Assembly-Worker subtype in layer 4 and sets the power and toughness to 2/2 in layer 7b. Humility's effect removes the creature's abilities in layer 6 and sets the power and toughness to 1/1 in layer 7b.
These modifications are applied in order by layer. So, first Mishra's Factory gains the Artifact and Creature types and Assembly-Worker subtype in layer 4. Then, because it is now a creature, Humility removes its abilities in layer 6. Then both effects try to set the power and toughness in layer 7b. At this point, the timestamp rules come into effect:

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

613.6a A continuous effect generated by a static ability has the same timestamp as the object the static ability is on, or the timestamp of the effect that created the ability, whichever is later.

613.6b A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability receives a timestamp at the time it’s created.

613.6c An object receives a timestamp at the time it enters a zone.

So, the timestamp of Humility's effect depends on when it entered the battlefield, and the timestamp of Mishra's Factory's effect depends on when the ability resolved. Whichever one is later overrides the earlier one, so if Humility entered the battlefield second, the creature will be a 1/1, and if the Factory's ability resolved second, the creature will be a 2/2.


Will I die if I lose enough life to kill me from an effect that also heals me? What happens if I dip below 1 life from an effect that will also heal me after the damage is dealt?

For example:

If I bolt myself while I'm at 3 or less with a Soulfire Grand Master on the board?
Will I die while at 3 or less if I -2 Ajani Vengeant, targeting myself?
Will I die if a creature with my Armadillo Cloak on it damages me?
Will I die if I target myself with enough damage to 'kill' me with a Corrupt?

and so on and so forth.
You get the idea.
I'm pretty sure there's a relatively simple answer that I just don't know about.

TL;DR: You survive if the damage and the life gain happen during the resolution of a single spell or ability. If the damage happens in one ability, and the life gain happens in a later one, you lose in between.

In all of your situations except for the third (the one with Armadillo Cloak), you will survive. This is because in all of those cases, in every way that matters, the damage and life gain happens at the same time. In the Armadillo Cloak situation, you take the damage, then Armadillo Cloak triggers, then you die before you get the life.

First, a subtle point that is relevant here is that having 0 life does not immediately cause you to lose. The way it works is that there is something called State-based actions, which are checked whenever any player has priority (basically, whenever a player has an opportunity to cast spells or activate abilities). This happens all the time, but the important point for this question is that it does not happen in the middle of resolving a spell or ability. One of those State-based actions is to check each player's life total; if they are at 0 life, they lose.

I'll go through each case in more detail:

Soulfire Grand Master

Soulfire Grand Master's relevant ability says

  Instant and sorcery spells you control have lifelink.

and the rules for lifelink say

  Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source’s controller, or its owner if it has no controller, to gain that much life (in addition to any other results that damage causes).

So, when your Lightning Bolt (with lifelink) resolves, it deals you 3 damage (which causes you to lose 3 life) and it also causes you to gain 3 life. When the spell resolves and state-based actions are checked, you are still at 3 life, so you survive.

Ajani Vengeant

The relevant ability here says

  Ajani Vengeant deals 3 damage to target creature or player and you gain 3 life.

This is the same situation as before. When the ability resolves, it deals you 3 damage (which causes you to lose 3 life), and also causes you to gain 3 life. Again, by the time it resolves and state-based actions are checked, you have 3 life, so you survive.

Armadillo Cloak

This is the interesting situation because it is different from the others. Its relevant ability is

  Whenever enchanted creature deals damage, you gain that much life.

This is different because it is a triggered ability. Rule 603, in part, says

  603.1 Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and begin with the word "when," "whenever," or "at." They can also be expressed as "[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect]."
  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.
  603.3 Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that's not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 116, "Timing and Priority." The ability becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on the stack until it's countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

The condition on Armadillo Cloak's ability is that the creature deals damage. The effect is that you gain that much life. So, when you get attacked by an opponent's creature enchanted with your Armadillo Cloak, it plays out like this:

The creature deals combat damage to you. Armadillo Cloak's ability triggers (from the second rule).
State-based actions are checked. You die because you have 0 life.
If you were still alive, Armadillo Cloak's ability would be put on the stack.
If you were still alive, Armadillo Cloak's ability would resolve, and you would gain the life.

As you can see, you are dead well before Armadillo Cloak would be able to help you. (Note: the ordering between 2 and 3 is specified in rule 704.3)

Corrupt

Corrupt's text says

  Corrupt deals damage equal to the number of Swamps you control to target creature or player. You gain life equal to the damage dealt this way.

You would survive this for the same reason you survive the first two: both the damage and the life gain happen before state-based actions are checked.


Occult Research for azathoth on Eldritch Horror One occult research card for Azathoth states that in order to solve it, you must research Clue tokens found across the map. In a game just finished, I did a clue research and gained a clue but failed the overall encounter. Could I still place the clue I gained on the occult research card even though I failed the overall encounter?

The description for the occult research card is:

  After an investigation resolves a research encounter, he may spend 1
  Clue he gained form that encounter and place that clue on this card.
  At the end of the Mythos Phase, if there are Clues on this card equal
  to the number of investigators, solve this Mystery.

Yes, resolving the encounter doesn't mean you have to resolve it successfully. Your clue gained during the encounter still entitles you to place it, as the Mystery states.
A few references to illustrate that the term resolve doesn't imply success or passing a test:
On page 9 of the rulebook, when describing Phase 2, the Encounter Phase:

During this phase, each investigator resolves one encounter.... is phase starts with the Lead Investigator. He resolves an encounter, then the investigator to his left resolves an encounter, and so on, until each investigator has resolved one encounter.

Under Token Encounters on the same page:

Clue tokens allow investigators to draw and resolve Research Encounter cards.
Gate tokens allow investigators to draw and resolve Other World Encounter cards.
Active Expedition token allows investigators to draw and resolve Expedition Encounter cards.

On Page 12 under Complex Encounters:

Expedition Encounters, Other World Encounters, and Special Encounters are rewarding but dangerous adventures called complex encounters. Each of these cards has three effects. To resolve these encounters, an investigator first resolves the initial effect (the top box of the card). Depending upon the result of this effect, he immediately resolves one of the other two effects.

These examples illustrate that resolving doesn't imply success, as the last case even talks of resolving and then branching based on the result of the effect (implying that 'resolve' could be a success or failure).


Is it possible to defeat Azathoth when playing with only 1 Investigator? I'm new to Eldritch Horror and am baffled by how difficult this game is. I've won difficult co-op's before (like Ghost Stories and Pandemic with 7 Epidemics) but Eldritch seems impossible. Thusfar, I've only played against Azathoth (the recommended Ancient One to get acquainted to the game) and only with 2 Investigators (although I've tried different combinations of Investigators). I've read posts like this one (https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/2an394/is_eldritch_horror_too_easy_with_only_2/) suggesting that it's too easy, and so I'm wondering if I'm missing something. I'm aware that Azathoth is not the Ancient One with the highest win rate, but it should be possible to win.

I've also seen this post (What is a solid basic strategy for surviving Eldritch Horror?) on basic strategy, but I have never lost from running out of Mythos Cards...every loss (5, now) has been from Doom hitting 0 (because awakening Azathoth is immediate loss). So here are my questions:

I always lose from Doom getting to 0, meaning I need to prioritize closing Gates. How can I effectively do this with only 1 or 2 Investigators?
How important is the choice in Investigators? (Again, I know there are stats, but I'm looking for a qualitative answer.)
Is the game difficulty significantly different with different numbers of Investigators? 1 Investigator seems dramatically more challenging than 2 due to the values on the Icon Reference.
I know some cards like the Icon Reference have been updated. How important is it for me to see if I have the old info or the new info (in terms of my success rate)?
This question is on some general rules that I'm unclear about. I've chosen the easier interpretation for each so far. When resolving a Monster Surge, do you place Monsters on Gates in which the color is covered by an Eldritch Token? E.g. With Azathoth, the Green Gate starts with an Eldritch Token; so does a Monster Surge happen when the Omen Token is on Green and a Mythos Card requires it? Similarly, does Doom advance for each Green Gate in this case or just the Eldritch Tokens on the space? Finally, do Reckoning Effects apply to Cards/Monsters that get drawn during the current Mythos Card?

Investigator count

Look at these statistics calculated from hundreds of logged plays: Eldritch Horror Statistics.

With the original reference cards, you can see the normal win rate for 1 investigator is 23% versus 66% for 4. If I play this game with four or fewer players, I always play with four investigators. I find this much more enjoyable.

The updated reference cards you've heard about are now considered a variant of the game: Revised Reference Cards. They make the game slightly easier for 1 or 5 investigators, and slightly harder for any other number (which you can see in the above statistics). But the difference between 1 and 4 investigators is still 32% vs 55%. So "easier" with 1 investigator is still harder than the "harder" 4 investigators.

Reckoning

From the rules reference, last bullet point on page 9:

  If a Monster is spawned or an investigator gains a component while investigators are resolving [reckoning] effects, they do not resolve the [reckoning] effect on that Monster or component.

So no, reckoning effects don't apply to monsters or possessions gained during the reckonings step. Remember also that the icons on mythos cards are resolved left to right, and the event text is resolved last of all - so if a gate opening or a monster surge spawns a monster with a reckoning effect, or if the event spawns such a monster or gives players possessions with reckoning effects, those effects will not trigger this round because the reckonings step has already been resolved.

Eldritch Tokens

The eldritch tokens on the omen track serve one and only one purpose with azathoth: they cause you to advance doom even if no green gates are open. If green gates are also open, the eldritch tokens cause additional doom on top of the normal amount.


Canasta pick up from discard pile If your discard is the only card in the discard pile, can the next player pick up the one club assuming they have 2 in their hand.

Yes

Unless the discard was a three or a wild card.  Those can never be picked up when they are on top of the pile.

http://www.canasta.net/canasta_rules.php


How does Emissary of Grudges work exactly? I have Emissary of Grudges in my deck and I was wondering if I use it correctly. In exemple:

I play Emissary of Grudges and I secretly choose player 2.

Player 2's turn. He casts Clone and targets me with its ability:

  You may have Clone enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield.

First question: Can I use Emissary of Grudges's ability as an instant?

If so, can I "cancel" Clone's ability, and use it myself on anyone?

In example, could I choose to target Player 3? Or am I forced to use it on its owner?

Last question: if Emissary of Grudges leaves the battlefield, do I keep this ability? Or do I just throw out the chosen player's name?

Thank you!

Can I use Emissary of Grudges's ability as an instant?

Yes, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. A spell or ability is something on the stack.

  can I "cancel" Clone's ability, and use it myself on anyone?

Nope. Clone's ability doesn't target; the word 'target' has a very specific meaning in Magic and is almost always printed on the card, in the rules text or the reminder text. A similar card which does target is Rite of Replication, which does not target you but it might target a permanent you control. If it does, you can choose another target for that spell, but it must be a creature (for example, a Grizzly Bears; it doesn't matter who owns it) and the controller of the spell doesn't change. The cloned Bears will still be controlled by player 2.

  if Emissary of Grudges leaves the battlefield, do I keep this ability? Or do I just throw out the chosen player's name?

You don't need to reveal it, you can just throw the paper you wrote it on away. If it enters the battlefield again, you can choose a new player.


Is Simic Ascendancy triggered by Awakening of Vitu-Ghazi? Does Awakening of Vitu-Ghazi trigger the ability of Simic Ascendancy?

Awakening of Vitu-Ghazi says:

  Put nine +1/+1 counters on target land you control. It becomes a legendary 0/0 Elemental creature with haste named Vitu-Ghazi.

So either the land gets the +1/+1 counters and afterwards becomes a creature.
Or it becomes a creature and then receives the +1/+1 counters.

To me the last assumption seems correct because it is irritating to me to be able to put +1/+1 counters on a land.

The two actions (adding counters and the permanent type change) are two different steps of the same spell. That means they're executed separately:

  608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written.

There's no rule prohibiting +1/+1 counters on a non-creature permanent. For example, the land Llanowar Reborn enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter.

So unfortunately Simic Ascendancy wouldn't trigger, as the counters are put on the land while it's not a creature yet.

Simic Ascendancy would trigger if the land was already also a creature prior to the spell resolving: for example, casting Awakening a second time on the same animated land, or casting it on a land that was animated by Nissa, Who Shakes the World.


When is the right time to do a scholar-only run? I've seen people win In The Year Of The Dragon by ignoring the disasters, taking the losses, and simply taking as many scholars as possible to build victory points almost exclusively via the scholar action. How successful is this strategy? Does the layout of disasters matter for this? Are there any other related strategies, such as almost-all-scholars-plus-something-else?

You can't stand all disaster you need to at least protect your scholars.So you always need other people that you sacrifice for the disaster effect.

But if a lot of disaster are in the beginning of the year this can be possible. Also you need to play against beginner player as experienced players will block you or do more point than you , by having more room than you.

Getting the geisha soon is also a plus for this strategy.

I've already see someone win by this strategy but more often they will fail. In my opinion you need to mix other source point to achieve victory.


What are the differences between the various versions of Stratego? I've only played the classic version of Stratego from the 1970s but it looks like there are at least 3 fundamentally different versions as of 2012. What are the differences between the various versions and how do they impact the overall feel of the game?

If some versions have identical rules but only differ cosmetically, please indicate that. If versions have been produced with minor rule changes over the decades, that would be useful to know as well.

I can't speak definitively for all versions, but I can give you some information.

"Classic" Stratego is played with 40 pieces per side on a 10x10 board. There was a misprint in an early version that claimed Scouts could not move more than one space and attack in the same turn, so this is sometimes incorrectly cited as a difference between editions. There are also some differences in numbering among different versions; sometimes the highest rank is 1, in other cases it is 10.

As of early 2012, Spin Master Games has 3 different versions available. The 50th Anniversary Collectors' Edition has the original rules, theme (Napoleonic) and piece distribution, with some variant pieces available optionally. They also released a 50th Anniversary version that's a Toys R Us exclusive, which has the classic rules and theme, but no variant pieces. The third version is simply titled Stratego, and has a Sci-Fi theme, 30 pieces per side on a 10x8 board, and one of the pieces has a special ability to destroy an adjacent piece of any rank if it can correctly guess its rank.

Some retailers have some special edition exclusives, like Barnes & Noble's Onyx Edition and Target's wooden box and bookcase editions. These are generally the classic version.

Several other sets have had pieces with special abilities over the years, including (but not limited to) Stratego revised (sometimes called Fire & Ice), Civil War Stratego, Stratego Legends (which also supports up to 8 players) and Lord of the Rings Stratego. Most of these give most of the pieces powers, not just one as with the current version. (There's also Ultimate Stratego, which adds 4 player options, but I do not believe this version adds special powers to any pieces.) My understanding is that most of the rethemed versions have changed gameplay at least somewhat.

Of the variant rulesets, I have only played the LOTR version, and I will say that special powers do change the game significantly. In LOTR, the piece powers are asymmetrical, and I found them to be unbalanced. It also minimized the role bluffing plays and made the game more about getting the pieces with useful powers into the right positions - which could be a good or a bad thing. (I personally didn't like this change; it's also my main objection with some of the Stratego-inspired games I've played like Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation.) The piece distribution and board size was the same as classic in that version, so I can't say how the change in numbers impacts gameplay, though the consensus on BoardGameGeek seems to be that the smaller board doesn't change the feel of the game. The two rows that are lost are horizontal relative to the players, which means it shouldn't impact the way the armies interact. (If this is true, any of the special power sets should be acceptable, since you can always apply the classic ruleset to them.)


How balanced are the character powers in Colt Express? Colt Express (rules) has six player characters with different powers.  After a few plays it seems like some of the powers are significantly better than others.  I would like to know if there are any stats showing how each of the characters rank?

Obviously weaker players can gang up on the strongest to mitigate this, so maybe two player results would give the fairest comparison.  The downside of two player is that there's probably less games played (Colt Express isn't as good with two) and the rules are slightly different (each player has two characters).

If one compare the base power, we can easily conclude that Ghost and Doc got the easiest to use powers, since it works no matter what. Belle has an interesting power that needs someone close, Cheyenne Django and Tuco changes how a basic card is played. Cheyenne is, statistically, the one with the "hardest" to use power, since it only works for one card in her deck AND only for a type of loot.

Belle's power is usually considered powerful, because it makes her hardest to hit, on average, with a lot of players. On 3-4 players game, her power is harder to use, but this power can save you and punish your opponents, paving your way for success.

Ghost's power is psychological warfare at it's finest. It works for every round, it hides the first card of each round... On a game where you try to predict opponent's move, it's horrible to face. The power doesn't help you "win" by itself, with bad hands it can also do nothing, but the bluffing abilities of this power is incredible - if you can pick your character and dislike mind games, pick him, facing him is not for the fait of hearts.

Doc's power is bland. You draw one more card. Every turn. That's boring, but practical. You'll more often than not get the card you need and not be too crippled by bullet but that's it. Your opponents won't see you play differently, because you won't. You have no specific strength, no trick, it's just the cards and their stated effect. Surprisingly effective, he's never a bad choice and id perhaps the easiest character to play.

All in all, I think Ghost is the best, but depends on your group and how well you can bluff. With very large groups, I tend to go for Belle, because her power is much easier to trigger and well, it helps. Doc is the one I pick if I know people won't buy bluffs and are prone to mass shootings.

With one of the expansion pack, there is a chinese kung fu girl available which can move horizontally and vertically on the same move (well it's a bit more complex actually). She's VERY good because of this, her movements are hard to predict, and a skilled player always get where he wants, faster than anyone else. If expansions pack are included I'd vote for her.


Do bridge champions retain their abilities to a later age than those of chess or go? My understanding is that bridge champions can continue winning tournaments into their sixties, and even later in life. On the other hand, chess champions often seem to lose their crowns in their forties and fifties, and Go champions seem to make no further progress after their thirties. And of course, most sports champions are "done" by age 40, if not before.

Do bridge masters in fact last longer at or near the top than those of other games? And even so, would it make sense to have top bridge partners of very different ages where the older one might have better bidding judgment, and the younger one, greater endurance for the cut-and-thrust of "play?"

Source for Go: "The 1971 Honinbo Tournament," by James Davies. Source for others: Various Wikipedia biographies.

Not only do bridge players retain their abilities to a later age than Chess and Go players, they don't even attain their peak ability until an age, around forty or so, when they have decidedly passed their peak in Go and Chess.

Bob Hamman, born 1938, was ranked 7th in the world by the World Bridge Federation as of October, 2012, at the age of 74. His Championship performances in the preceding 5 years were:
 - Bermuda Bowl: Win 2009;
 - United States Bridge Team Trial Championship: win 2008 & 2012;
 - Spingold North American Championship: win 2007;
 - Reisinger North American Championship: Win 2008;
 - Open Board-a-Match Teams North American Championship: win 2008;
 - Jacoby Open Swiss Teams North American Bridge Championship: win 2009;

A quick glance at Hamman's record suggests that this 5 year period may have been one of his most prolific, with seven significant wins.

Lorenzo Lauria, born July 7 1947, was ranked 5th in the world at that time at age 65.

Jeff Meckstroth, born May 1956, was ranked 6th in he world at that time at age 56.

Eric Rodwell, born May 1957, was ranked 8th in the world at that time at age 55.

Tor Helness, born 1957 or 1958, was ranked 10th at that time at age 54 or 55.

The youngest player in the top 10 at that time was Geir Helgemo, born February 1970, at age 42.

This is and has been consistent for the several decades that I have been playing the game - players very rarely crack top ten in the world until after 40, peak in their fifties and sixties, and often retain world championship caliber play (if not quite championship level play) into their seventies and eighties.

As posted on July 10, 2016, though apparently without adjustments for the cheating scandal of September 2015, the current WBF Top 10 Masterpoint holders with their ages are:

Fulvio Fantoni: Age 52 (disgraced)
 Claudio Nunes: Age 48 (disgraced)

Geir Helgemo: Age 46
Tor Helness: Age 59 or 58
Giorgio Duboin: Age 57
Zia Mahmood: Age 70
Frank Multon: Age 52
Alfredo Versace: Age 47
Pierre Zimmermann: Age 61
Jeff Meckstroth: Age 60
Lorenzo Lauria: Age 69
Norberto Bocchi: Age 55

Top 10: Youngest: 46; Median: 53.5 (52&55); Oldest: 70

Note that Fantoni & Nunes, 1st and 2nd on both lists, are now disgraced; found guilty in April 2016 of cheating and banned for life as a pair, and individually for three years.


When playing Talisman as the assassin, can I assassinate creatures I encounter following the draw of a card? When playing Talisman Revised 4th Edition as the assassin, can I assassinate creatures I encounter following the draw of a card? Or is the assassination limited to when I, the assassin, decide to purposefully attack a creature or a character?

The character chard and the linked wiki merely say:

  You may assassinate when you attack a character or creature. You cannot assassinate when you are attacked by another character. When you assassinate, battle takes place as normal except that your victim may not roll a die to add to his Strength. If you win, you must force the loser to lose 1 life; you cannot take an Object or gold instead.
  You may not assassinate while at the Crown of Command.

An extension to this question is: can the assassin assassinate the pitfiends and the werewolf in the inner region?

According to the official errata (linked here for reference), yes, you can assassinate creatures you encounter on cards you draw.

Q1: Can the Assassin assassinate any creature, regardless of whether or not it is drawn from the Adventure deck or already faceup on the space when he encounters it?
A: Yes.

Essentially you can always assassinate a creature you do battle with (i.e. has a strength value that you are choosing to engage in battle), unless the rules on some other card specify otherwise. Regarding pit fiends or the werewolf (or other board enemies like the sentinel, mutant, ice beasts, etc.), that seems like a separate question so I'd post that separately.


Settlers of Catan: Cities and Knights - Rule Clarificarions The rules of Cities and Knights state the following:

"...you may not purchase any improvements beyond the third level of a given color unless you have a city where you could build a metropolis."

Let's say someone has a metropolis built for Science (level 4) and I am currently holding a metropolis for Trade (level 4) though own no other cities. Does the rule imply that, even though the metropolis has already been taken for Science, I still cannot go past level 3 for Science?

Correct, you cannot upgrade to another level 4 unless you first build another city. From the FAQ:

  City Improvements and Metropolises - May I upgrade a city to 2 metropolises at the same time?

    No. If you only have 1 city and already upgraded it to a metropolis, you are not allowed to build a 4th level of improvement in another area. Before you do this, you must upgrade another settlement to a city.

Although the question being asked is about placing 2 metropolises on one city, the answer provided specifically states that you are not allowed to build a 4th level of improvement in another area until you upgrade another settlement into a city.

This same question generated some discussion on BGG a while ago; most people seemed to agree with this interpretation, even though it is not fully clear.


Floodtide Serpent and Can't Attack Enchantments I control Krasis Incubation enchanting my Floodtide Serpent. My mana pool is empty and I have no way to gain more mana this turn. The only enchantment I control is Krasis Incubation. Floodtide Serpent does not have summoning sickness.

Can I attack with Floodtide Serpent by returning Incubation Krasis to my hand?

Here is what I have found so far, to help you guys answer my question.

Rule 508 describes the declare attackers step in depth. 508.1 is broken down into a few steps. Here are the parts I found to be relevant.

508.1c
The game checks for restrictions. Floodtide Serpent has a restriction that I am disobeying. Krasis Incubation has a restriction that I am disobeying.
508.1d
The game checks for requirements. I have none.
508.1g-i
I determine my total cost for attacking. I bounce Krasis Incubation to pay this cost.

If the game backs up at 508.1c, then Floodtide Serpent cannot attack. However, if this is the case, it would appear that Floodtide Serpent could never be allowed to attack, because his cost can never be paid prior to reaching 508.1g-i.

If the answer is that he cannot attack with Krasis Incubation, then I couldn't describe any situation in which he could attack.

In this situation, the Floodtide Serpent cannot attack.

For this situation, the most important quote (from 508.1) is

  If at any point during the declaration of attackers, the active player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration.

The rest of 508.1c says

  If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of attackers is illegal.

So once you got to the point that you are disobeying the restriction from Incubation Krasis, the attack is illegal and the game returns to the moment before declaration.

If Incubation Krasis was instead enchanting a different creature and you try to attack with, then when we get to 508.1c, it is not restricting Floodtide Serpent's ability to attack. Then when we get to 508.1g, you determine that the cost of attacking is returning one enchantment you control to its owner's hand. Then when you get to 508.1i, you pay that cost by returning Incubation Krasis to your hand. Then Floodtide Serpent becomes an attacking creature.

Note that the text on Floodtide Serpent is not a restriction, it is a cost. The difference is that restrictions have the form "This creature can't attack" or "This creature can't attack unless [some true/false statement about game state]", while attack costs have the form "This creature can't attack unless [you do something]". It wouldn't make sense to count those costs as restrictions because then every attack with an additional cost would have already failed at 508.1c. That would make cards like Propaganda nonsensical.


Does immediately ending the turn cause mana burn? When cards such as Time Stop or Sundial of the Infinite that immediately end the turn are cast, are players subject to mana burn for excess mana in their mana pools?

Mana burn does not exist as a rule in MTG anymore. It was removed from the rules when they released the 2010 core set.

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a

Back when the mana burn rule did exist, Time Stop still would cause a player to lose life due to mana burn. This is because mana burn happened automatically whenever a phase ended, and time stop caused the current phase to end. Mana burn did not use the stack, and was simply an automatic game action that occurred.


Intentionally Fizzling Mandatory ETB Effect Can one stack several mandatory triggers on one target in such a way to make the consecutive triggers Intentionally fizzle?

The situation is you have several mandatory ETB creatures coming into play (we'll say 4+ Acidic Slime or Indrik Stomphowler), entering at the same time from mass reanimation or something like Legion's Initiative. Your opponent for whatever reason has no valid targets, but you control 2+ valid targets.

Are you able to minimize the loses by having all the ETB effects target a single Artifact/Enchantment? Thus the first one successfully destroys it's target and the following fail? Or must they resolve in such a way that you must target,destroy #1, new target, destroy #2, etc?

Yes, you can choose the same target for all the effects.

When multiple creatures enter the battlefield simultaneously, their ETB effects all trigger at once.  The next time a player gets priority, all those abilities are placed on the stack one at a time (in the order of the player's choice or APNAP order, whichever is applicable).  Nothing resolves (and nobody gets priority) until all the 'waiting' triggers have been placed on the stack.

Targets are selected when the spell or ability goes on the stack, as per rule 601.2c.  At that time, the chosen target must be legal, and the game does not "look ahead" to see whether or not the target will still be legal when the spell resolves before allowing you to choose the target (because, among other things, doing so would be impossible).

Incidentally, this technique is rather similar to the trick of using a redirection spell to counter a counterspell by changing the target of the counterspell to the redirect.  The counterspell could not possibly counter the redirect because the redirect is going to leave the stack as soon as it finishes resolving, but until it does it is still a legal target for the counterspell (which is good, because the counterspell itself is not a legal target for itself, and there is usually only one other spell on the stack, the one that you don't want to be countered).


How do I Detect/Defend Against an throw in In Bridge? When I see declarer draw trumps, and then start to "eliminate" (ruff out) one or more plain suits, my biggest fear as a defender is of a throw in. That is, the declarer will put me on lead because I'll give him back the trick he needs with say, a "ruff-sluff."

If I knew for sure that it was ME being thrown in, the solution might be simple; discard high cards that the declarer might try to use as a "throw in" to me.

But perhaps declarer was trying to hurt my partner with a "throw in." If that's the case, maybe I should retain my high cards in a key suit so that PARTNER doesn't get "thrown in" in that suit.

And what if declarer were following a simple ruffing strategy without intending an throw in? Then throwing away a key card might give him an undeserved extra trick.

Defending such a play might not be so hard if I can detect one in the making. Are there good, or at least "established" ways of doing so? Or is this something one learns the hard way by trial and error?

Unfortunately, the literature seems to be lacking regarding this (unlike squeezes!).

The key to any good defense is counting, trying to figure out what is going on and what is likely to happen.

There might be some indications that declarer might be going for an endplay. As you noted, one of them is when declarer is ruffing out side suits. This is actually one of the most common ways for an endplay in suit contracts (and even has its own name, I believe: Strip and EndPlay).

Sometimes your own hand will make you alert to the possibility of an endplay, for instance, you hold AQ of a side suit over declarer and declarer probably holds the K etc.

A count of declarer's/defense's tricks, and an idea of how he might try and obtain them might give you another clue as to whether an endplay etc might be coming.

The best way would be to get familiar with the hands which might have an endplay, and that can be done by playing (with good players) and reading.

For reading, I would recommend Killing Defense at Bridge I,II by Kelsey.

Not sure if it helped answer your question.


What is the statistically favorable amount of lands for Yennett? Recently I have been brewing up Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign, as a commander deck. The deck was going well, with only 3 cards with even mana costs, and those being  Lightning Greaves, for protection, and Strionic Resonator and Helm of the Host, which serve to increase my statistical chance of hitting an odd card with Yennett's trigger.

This was fine until I remembered that lands have an even converted mana cost, since 0 is considered even in magic. So now I run into a problem where to increase my chances past 60% or so, I need to decrease my land count. This can be compensated for by replacing lands with odd CMC mana rocks, but this still makes my deck low on lands and still dependent on them, as most of the mana rocks would end up at 3 CMC. To allow my deck to function, it needs Yennett on the field.

This leads to a few questions:

What is my optimal amount of lands to increase my chances to a consistent amount and still have the mana to make my deck function?  How few lands can I realistically go?
What should I do to compensate for the lack of mana?  Which mana rocks are worth it?
Can this be compensated for with library manipulation and draw such as Ponder, Brainstorm, and Portent?  If so, how many of these small cantrips must I run to make them effective?

I think you're missing few key aspects of Yennett's ability.  Rules text (emphasis mine):

  If that card’s converted mana cost is odd, you may cast it without paying its mana cost. Otherwise, draw a card.

This means that lands would go to your hand even if they didn't have 0 CMC because you can't cast lands as spells.  But you're also overlooking the fact that you would still draw the land into your hand even if you miss.  Drawing free lands is still good.  Less good than most free spells, but still good because you can guarantee your land drops.

  What should I do to compensate for the lack of mana?

Don't do this.  You should not ever have a lack of mana.  Making sure you hit your land drops is important in Commander so that you can actually play the game.  I would not got below the typical advice of 35-39 lands for a 3 color deck depending on what you your curve looks like.  It's really hard to get to 5 mana with all three colors running much fewer than that.

I would not focus exclusively on 3-mana rocks even though you could get them for free with Yennett.  Mana rocks are at their most useful in accelerating your gameplan.  Once you already have Yennett on the field, does getting a free 3-mana rock really help you more than just guaranteeing your land drop for the turn?  And playing a pair of 2-mana rocks could help you get Yennett out on turn 4 instead of turn 5.

Also keep in mind that if you have a bunch of odd CMC spells, casting cards naturally out of your hand could leave you with awkward amounts of mana left over.  A few quality even CMC spells can fill the gaps and let you get more efficiency out of your mana.  For example, drawing a 2-mana counterspell is still useful, even if your opponents know you have it in your hand.