Are (un)tapped permanents still legal targets for "(un)tap target permanent" effects? So I noticed that many cards with tap-effects ship with a clause specifying that they can only be used on untapped permanents, such as Earthcraft and Crackleburr.

So here's my question:

Doesn't that imply that, given the right situation, one can legally tap an already tapped permanent?

I'll give an example of the kinda scenarios this is relevant for: Can Tamiyo, the Moon Sage activate her first ability when no untapped cards are around? Or, thinking untap-effects, could I bounce a forest with Scryb Ranger even when there isn't a tapped creature available?

Notice that, unlike the previous batch of examples, the wording on these lacks the clause restricting their use to un/tapped permanents - does that mean that they aren't?

Any kind of clarification would be greatly appreciated here.

If it's a permanent, it's a valid target for "target permanent". Period[1].

You cannot untap a permanent that's not tapped.

  701.17b To untap a permanent, rotate it back to the upright position from a sideways position. Only tapped permanents can be untapped.

This has consequences[2], but not for Tamiyo.

  609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

The confusion stems from the fact that players intuitively know they cannot choose to do something impossible. This is indeed a rule.

  608.2d [...] The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action [...]

However, while you are forbidden from choosing to do something impossible, there's nothing impossible about activating Tamiyo's ability. It's of no consequence that the ability involves actions that cannot be performed if the ability were to resolve immediately after being activated.

As usual, cards can override the rules. For example, abilities such as Shroud, Hexproof and Protection can prevent a permanent from being targeted.
You are required to pay a cost completely[CR 117.3], so a cost that requires you to untap something that isn't tapped can't be payed.

For example, the untap symbol means "Untap this permanent". Because you can't untap a permanent that isn't tapped, you can't pay the cost of Puresight Merrow's ability when Puresight Merrow isn't tapped.

For example, If you want to untap a tapped permanent so it can attack, and you use an instant that reads "Tap or untap target permanent.", and someone untaps it in response, you would be force to tap it when your ability resolves (because you can't chose to do something impossible.) That's why that type of ability is phrased "You may tap or untap target permanent."

For example, If you have an ability whose effect reads "You may untap an opponent's land. If you do, do X.", you can't do X if the opponent has no tapped lands.


How do costs to attack work? Despite having what I feel is a fairly solid understanding of most rules and timings, I can't figure out Archangel of Tithes, and I'm clashing with intent and wording.

Archangel of Tithes says "As long as Archangel of Tithes is untapped, creatures can't attack you or a planeswalker you control unless their controller pays {1} for each of those creatures." Some of this confusion affects other cards, like Oppressive Rays.

Which of the following is correct?

1: You have to pay every time you attack (as long as AoT is untapped), no matter what's happened previously. Because of AoT's wording, it doesn't mention that it has to happen each attack, nor does it put a duration on how long paying allows you to attack or block. However, is there a part of the rules I've missed that explains this? Can I pay the cost at any time, or does something in the rules make it trigger on each attack?

2: You only have to pay once. This is a static effect that prevents a creature from attacking unless its owner has, at some point, paid, because there's no duration on the "unless".

3: You have to pay at least once, but not any more until AoT becomes tapped and then untapped. Because "as long as it's untapped" puts a duration on the freedom-from-not-attacking.

4: I have AoT completely misunderstood and you have to pay totally. Strictly by the wording, I could interpret AoT as meaning that I have to pay for all of my creatures. It says (creatures can't attack) unless (controller pays for each), so even if I want to attack with 1 of my 5 creatures I still pay 5. The alternate wording would be (each creature can't attack unless its controller pays 1).

I feel like 1 is the intent, but I can't totally justify it based on its wording with my current rules knowledge.

Your interpretation #1 is correct.
Whenever a combat phase starts, you name all the creatures that you want to attack with (or have to). Then if the player (or controller of the planeswalker) you attack has an untapped AoT, you determine the total mana costs (1 per creature that is about to attack), then you choose whether or not to pay the mana costs. If you don't, none of the creatures can attack. If you do, they can. This process repeats in every combat phase, regardless of what you have done or not done in previous combat phases.

508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must attack, or that it must attack if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. If a creature can’t attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.
508.1g If any of the chosen creatures require paying costs to attack, the active player determines the total cost to attack. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. Once the total cost is determined, it becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, ignore this change.
508.1h If any of the costs require mana, the active player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”).
508.1i Once the player has enough mana in his or her mana pool, he or she pays all costs in any order. Partial payments are not allowed.

The equivalent thing happens when you declare blockers while an enemy AoT is attacking.

509.1c The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of blockers is illegal. If a creature can’t block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.
509.1d If any of the chosen creatures require paying costs to block, the defending player determines the total cost to block. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. Once the total cost is determined, it becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, ignore this change.
509.1e If any of the costs require mana, the defending player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”).
509.1f Once the player has enough mana in his or her mana pool, he or she pays all costs in any order. Partial payments are not allowed.


A game with coloured animal tiles & figurines of Chinese men I once found some tiles that each have an animal on them, and some small statuettes of old Chinese men. Like this:

Can anybody identify what this is for?

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3147/mandarin

Its Mandarin, a Chinese Zodiac game by Mattel.


Why is the King of Spades the best opening lead with this hand? Well, you pick up this hand:
K Q J 10 9
x x x
K x
x x x
The opponents bid 1 NT on your right and 3 NT on your left. What would you lead?
Not that difficult, was it? If you line up a million (1.000.000) bridge players – or even a billion (1.000.000.000) of them – we would all lead the king of spades unless we pulled the wrong card or a card fell out of our hand. If you were number 867.354 in that line of bridge players and you led the king of diamonds, I would say you lost your mind (and some of us in that line would probably be raving lunatics). But if you at the same time hit your partner with AQJxx of diamonds I would say that you are a cheater. This is just not happening. Unless you have some extra information which you are not entitled to.

Source
Why is it so very, very obvious to play the King of Spades first? I have no knowledge about Bridge except for the rules, so I'd appreciate an elementary explanation.

Against No Trump the point is to set up tricks that will be guaranteed.  Here the KQJT9 is four safe tricks - so you lead from that hoping to later get in with the diamond King.
When you do get in, either with a spade from partner or a diamond, you have four tricks guaranteed that will set the contract.
By convention, from a run like that you lead the top one (to let Partner know you have the next one or next several).
Beyond that, Kx is a bad lead because it doesn’t set up a trick and if the ace is to your right it gives away a trick. Since right hand opponent has bid 1NT, they probably have around 16 points (A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1) out of 40 total, while left hand opponent has between 9 and 12 or so points. So odds are RHO has the ace, and so your diamond K will be a trick if you don’t lead from it.
Most of the time in bridge in no trump you either lead a high card when it’s next to another high card or two (so leading it and knocking out the one above it makes the one below it a winner) or you lead a low card in a suit you have a lot of cards in. (In a trump contract you might lead a suit you’re short in, also.) That’s of course when you don’t know what partner has (as is true here).  A low card from length (usually your 4th highest, or near that, depending on your agreements) tells your partner what to try and lead back - even a 65432 suit can become a trick or two in no trump if nobody else has more than three of them!


Interaction between Hexproof and "target of an opponent's choice" There exist a small number of cards which have targets chosen by an opponent. While it is old, the most straightforward one I can find is Cuombajj Witches which has the ability:

  {T}: Cuombajj Witches deals 1 damage to any target and 1 damage to any target of an opponent's choice.

Suppose I have only one opponent, both players control a Hexproof creature, and I control a Cuombajj Witches. If I activate Cuombajj Witches' ability, I can choose to target my own Hexproof creature for one point of damage.

However, when my opponent chooses targets, are they also allowed to choose my Hexproof creature for 1 damage? Or are they allowed to choose their own Hexproof creature, as they could for their own spells and abilities? The first seems more likely to me, but I could see it either way.

It is the first one, they can choose to target your Hexproof creature.

The full meaning of Hexproof is:

  702.11b “Hexproof” on a permanent means “This permanent can’t be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.”

The person who activated Cuombajj Witches is controller of the ability. It doesn't matter that your opponent is making a choice.

The process for casting a spell or activating an ability starts with defining the controller:

  601.2a To propose the casting of a spell, a player first moves that card (or that copy of a card) from where it is to the stack. It becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has all the characteristics of the card (or the copy of a card) associated with it, and that player becomes its controller.

And for Activated abilities:

  602.2a The player announces that they are activating the ability. If an activated ability is being activated from a hidden zone, the card that has that ability is revealed. That ability is created on the stack as an object that’s not a card. It becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. Its controller is the player who activated the ability. The ability remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, or an effect moves it elsewhere.


Bridge: Is it a rule that you must announce the meaning of partners opening bid Bridge Playing SAYC Is it a rule for partner to announce to the defenders what an opening bid (eg '1C minimum 3') means

I'm going to go just a bit stronger than Ruds here, assuming ACBL rules here.

Unless the ACBL alert chart mentions a specific announcement, you must not announce the meaning of partner's bid unless asked.  That is conveying information to your partner (conveying your interpretation of it), and is explicitly illegal, and may involve a penalty if a director is called.

Further, if it does call for an alert, you must only say "Alert" and no other information unless asked.  Again, providing that information also informs your partner.  (This may vary in high-level tournaments, where separate rooms or screens are used.)

The specific announcements - 1NT range and 1c shortness - are marked in blue on your convention card (indicating an announcement is appropriate).  Anything else - saying "Weak" after a weak 2, for example - is inappropriate.


How do Lasso, The Judge and Belle Star interact with equipment cards? I am wondering how Lasso/The Judge/Belle Star should interact with equipment cards, since the rule book doesn't seem to be very clear about interactions with other expansions.

Lasso: cards in play in front of all players have no effect.
The Judge: players cannot play cards in front of themselves.
Belle Star: during her turn, cards in play in front of other players have no effect.

The rules say that the only way to remove one from a player is by paying the purchase cost + 1 gold, and they can't be the target of panic/cat balou cards/effects. But how does that apply to  effects that say "cards in play"?

Also, since it's not mentioned at all in the rules: if a sheriff kills the deputy, does that mean he would lose all his equipment in addition to the normal losses?

Lasso and Belle Star would keep permanent (which I think are black-bordered?) equipment cards from having any effect. You can, however, still play one, since those cards don't specifically prevent playing cards. Since removing one by paying cost + 1 gold is an action (according to the Gold Rush rulebook), you should also still be able to do that even in Lasso or Belle Star are active. The cards don't have any effect, but they're still equipment.

I'm less sure about The Judge. It says you can't play cards in front of you or any player, but I think "play" refers to playing from your hand. Getting equipment cards is called "buying", so I'm inclined to say it's a different action and isn't affected by The Judge. I'm not completely sure about that, though, and I haven't found any errata about it.

The rules seem to indicate that equipment cards are identical to other cards in play when it comes to elimination. It does say that all equipment cards are discarded when eliminated, and the rules for Shadow-Gunslinger says "All the rules for the elimination of a player still apply: You discard all your cards in hand and in play (including all equipment)...." That tells me that a Sheriff who eliminates a Deputy would lose his equipment just as though they were regular cards in play.


Game of Thrones: Are Tides of Battle cards used when attacking a neutral force? If players decided to use the optional module "Tides of Battle", are Tides of Battle cards used when attacking a neutral force?

The section about "Tides of Battle" on the rulebook (page 29) mentions that they are used on combat. But when reading the section about Neutral Forces on the rulebook (page 26), it did not become clear to me whether or not destroying a neutral force strictly counts as combat.

I couldn't find anything relevant in the errata/FAQ either.

Thanks in advance!

The Combat section of the rules (page 17) states that Combat ensues "whenever a player marches one or more of his units into an
area containing units from another House…" However, it says nothing about marching into an area containing neutral forces, and nothing in the Neutral Forces section actually defines taking a neutral territory as "combat".

While obviously very combat-like in nature, as I read it "Destroying a Neutral Force" is very much its own thing and not simply an extension of combat. The line about collecting support actually lampshades that it's performed "as in combat" which, to me, demonstrates that this is in itself not "combat".

And technically, combat or no, the first step of drawing Tides of Battle cards is done "after choosing and revealing House cards," which would never happen anyway since "no House Cards are played" when Destroying a Neutral Force.


What does current focus mean? I've started playing with friends and for spells, the bonus on the hit dice is current focus.

  Determine a magic attack's success by making a magic attack roll. Roll 2d6 and add the attacking model's current FOCUS. roll an additional die if the roll is boosted. Special rules and certain circumstances might modify the attack

What does it mean? Is it the remaining focus you have at the time of the spell? And if so, is it counted before or after you spend the focus?

Example:

With my warcaster, I have 6 max focus (the number of focus I have at the beginning of the round) after spending some of my focus on my warjacks, I have 2 left available. I decide to cast a spell that costs me 2 focus.

So my bonus to hit is 6, 2 or 0?

From the PrivateerPress forums:

  FOCUS (in all caps) refers to the warcaster's FOCUS stat, which will only change if affected by an ability (Eg pDenny's feat). Focus (lower case) refers to the number of focus tokens.

  In the case of a spell, your magic attack roll is FOCUS + 2D6, using your caster's FOCUS 6.


Can I play multiple Idols one at a time and receive the effects each time? We just played Dominion Nocturne and had the Idol victory card in play for the first time. As you see it has an effect that depends on the number of Idols you have in play.

From the Dominion Strategy Wiki on Gameplay under Buy phase I read that:

  At the beginning of the buy phase, the player may play any number of Treasure cards from their hand, in any order, to their play area.

Does this mean that at the start of my buy phase, if I have multiple Idols on my hand, I can play them one at a time and first receive a Boon, then deal a Curse to the other players, then receive another Boon, deal a Curse, etc. for as many Idols I have on my hand?

Yes, you play them one at a time, and therefore you get the alternating boon and curse effect.

Note that this mandatory, not merely an option: You always play (and resolve) your treasures one at a time. Usually order doesn't matter, so players tend to gloss over that protocol in practice. But the order is always there.


Jace memory adept 0 ability with less than 10 cards If I activate Jace, Memory Adept's 0 ability (Target player puts the top ten cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.). What happens if the target player has less than 10 cards in his library? Does he lose the game? Or does he lose the game on next draw step? Or the ability doesn't work?

The player has to put as many cards as possible, up to 10, into his or her graveyard. He will lose the game whenever he tries to draw from an empty library

  609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

An empty library is not a loss condition; only drawing a card from one is. Jace's 0 ability does not make the player draw cards, it only puts them into the graveyard.

  704.5b If a player attempted to draw a card from a library with no cards in it since the last time state-based actions were checked, he or she loses the game.


How to keep the game interesting if a player is 95% certain to win? Yesterday I played "Fury of Dracula" with 4 friends. One friend became the Dracula, and he is the owner of the game, so he's the one who explained the rules to us. He knew most of the rules.

We are fairly experienced in board games, so despite this is our first time playing Fury of Dracula, we progressed quite well. Found him within 5 days (by luck), and we proceeded to engage him. Unfortunately, streak of Dracula events turned the table, and after another 5 days, the influence counter already reached 12, and it's just a matter of days before he wins.

Because of that, we played like we don't really care anymore. We still tried to guess where he escaped, but it was not fun anymore. The mood dropped, and there's little to none interaction after reaching 12 influence.

This is our first time playing a long-session board game, and I don't want this keeping us from playing more long-session board games, especially those with "1 vs many" playstyle.

What can we do to keep the game interesting after the winning of one side is certain?

We played with basic rules.

If your goal is to keep that same game fun even though you're certain to lose, then perhaps you could rebalance on the fly by choosing a more attainable goal, e.g. "We can't deal 15 damage and win, but how about we try to reach 12."

However, if your goal is to have fun playing games, you could also just concede and use the time you save to play again (or play a different game). In a game with more than two teams, this option doesn't work so well because one team conceding can throw off the balance between the remaining players. But when there are only two teams, then not only are you certain to lose which is no fun, but also your only opponent is certain to win which in my opinion is also no fun because there's no challenge to it anymore, so everyone should be better off ending the game early.

You can also combine the two approaches above: explicitly concede to your opponent, and then suggest that it might be interesting to continue with a rebalanced goal. This is because if you choose a new goal without conceding, then your opponent might not try to stop you from achieving it if trying would damage their chances of winning normally, and the game will probably be more fun if they're trying to stop you.


How many cards can I hold? (How do conflicting effects work?) How many cards can I hold? Normally, I'd have 7, but card text trumps rules.

On my field, I have Null Profusion and Kruphix, God of Horizons:

It depends, whichever one entered the battlefield last is the one that takes effect.
When a permanent enters the battlefield it receives a timestamp. Then when determining the result of continuous effects (the kind generated by both Kruphix and Null Profusion) you apply them in timestamp order.
So if the Profusion entered last you will have a max hand size of 2, and if Kruphix entered last you won't have a maximum hand size. If they were to enter the battlefield at the same time then the Active Player (the player whose turn it currently is) decides what the order of the timestamps is.

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.
613.6c An object receives a timestamp at the time it enters a zone.
613.6j If two or more objects would receive a timestamp simultaneously, such as by entering a zone simultaneously or becoming attached simultaneously, the active player determines their relative timestamp order at that time.
613.10. Some continuous effects affect game rules rather than objects. For example, effects may modify a player’s maximum hand size, or say that a creature must attack this turn if able. These effects are applied after all other continuous effects have been applied. Continuous effects that affect the costs of spells or abilities are applied according to the order specified in rule 601.2f. All other such effects are applied in timestamp order. See also the rules for timestamp order and dependency (rules 613.6 and 613.7).


Saint Petersburg: What happens when you upgrade a full warehouse? In Saint Petersburg, if you own a warehouse you can hold an extra card in hand.  What happens if you have four cards in hand and then upgrade the warehouse?

Do you keep the fourth card, but can't take another fourth in hand
after you've played it?
Do you discard one?
Are you just not allowed to do the upgrade?

As with your first option, you keep the extra card but your hand limit goes back to normal.

This is covered in these rules in the special cards description (which I think isn't part of the main rules book but is an extra rules reminder sheet):

  The player can have up to 4 cards in his hand. If the player upgrades the warehouse, he need not immediately reduce his hand to 3 cards.


Small World: Do Orcs Get Race Bonus When Conquering Abandoned Territories? So Orcs get a bonus for conquering unoccupied territories.  If the Orcs abandon a territory and then re-conquer it later in a turn, do they get the bonus? Technically they are conquering an unoccupied territory, but should it read "unoccupied at start of the player's turn?"

You have it backwards.  Orcs do not gain a bonus for conquering unoccupied territories.  From the Rule Book, emphasis mine:

Orcs
Each not empty Region your Orcs conquered this turn is worth 1 bonus Victory coin, at the end of your turn.

Vacating a territory would mean that it was unoccupied when conquered, and therefore the orcs would not get a bonus.


What happens if I double Meddling Mage's 'enter the battlefield' trigger? Let's say I play Meddling Mage while I have Panharmonicon out. What happens? Do I get to name two cards that can not be cast? Or does the second card I name overwrite the first one?

Nothing happens; you can't double Meddling Mage's 'enter the battlefield' trigger since it doesn't have one.

But then... what is the thing that happens as the Mage enters the battlefield? Well, it's a replacement effect:

  614.1c Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . “ are replacement effects.

while triggered abilities are always worded differently (at least in Oracle, but Meddling Mage is modern enough):

  603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]”

The rulings below Panharmonicon also note this:

  Abilities that apply “as [this creature] enters the battlefield,” such as choosing a creature to copy with Clone, are unaffected.

In most Magic games, the difference between these kind of replacement effects and triggered abilities can be neglected, but not in this particular case. Another difference is that after Meddling Mage starts to resolve and it's on the battlefield 'banning' a specific card, nobody gets priority so you can't sneak in a final casting of the named card - you'd have to do so while the Mage is still on the stack.


Which version of Taboo is the official version? I played Taboo in college about 10 years ago and it enjoyed it thoroughly. I want to play it again. But looking at Amazon, I can't tell what game it is that I played. There's a Hasbro version. There's a Parker Brothers version. Supposedly there's even a "long out of print" Milton Bradley version. And there are plenty of reviews claiming the listings are deceptive.

So which Taboo is the Taboo that I played? And if it's out of print, what's most similar to the version I played?

According to BGG, the original Taboo game was released by Hasbro in 1989.

However, the company acquired the Parker Brothers (or the remains thereof) in 1991, which can explain why there's Parker-Brother-labeled Taboo games. Later Hasbro decided to get rid of Parker Brother mentions in 2013.

So generally speaking, there has only been one version of Taboo at all times, junior and themed versions and the like excluded.

The main differences over the year are

of course up-to-date cards (asking for current events gets a bit weird, when the game you're playing is ten years old)
a playing board used to track progress
different versions of sound device used to signal an error (some honk-like thing vs a classic buzzer)

There's a version called XXL with additional challenges besides the "classic" taboo cards, like drawing, some kind of puppet-charade and community-rounds.


How do I search the collection for a weakness? When I have to search the collection for a weakness, do I just go to the game box and randomly pick a weakness that wasn't used in our hands, then after applying the weakness, place it into my discard pile?

Generally, yes. However there are multiple effects going on here:

1) You are being asked to search your collection (meaning your card pool) for a random basic weakness.

2) Then that card is being drawn. Since basic weakness cards are (typically) revealed upon being drawn, it would be played. Depending on the basic weakness drawn, it may either be placed in your threat area or your discard.

There might be effects in the future that operate differently (such as search your collection and add a basic weakness to your deck, which would be shuffled), but I believe in the coreset the above guidelines are the only ones applicable.


Strongest early-game counters for a Modern deck? Magic's Modern format has a rather large card pool, including 90-ish counterspells with a good variety of mana costs and limitations. Assume you're playing a control deck that can fairly reliably take over the late game, but really wants early disruption to get there, as well as occasional protection for your big controlling power play (whether it's a combo, a powerful fatty, or just a wrath to buy you more time). Given the constraints on counterspell power represented by the Modern set, which of the counter cards available make the strongest inclusions for early-turn defensive play, and why?

(I scoped this question to Modern because it's an "eternal" format with many options but no access to the early-edition uber-counters like Mana Drain and Force of Will.)

It all depends, I suppose, on your precise definition of "early game".  Most people would probably agree that the best counter in Modern is Cryptic Command, but at 4cc that's not anyone's idea of "early disruption"...

If you really want to come out of the gates countering, you'll want to be looking at 1cc and 2cc counters.  At the 1-drop level, Spell Snare is probably top of the heap, because so many good, fast decks will lean heavily on good 2-drops.  Spell Pierce might fit the bill if it's not fast creature swarms you're most worried about; or Mana Tithe if you want something a bit more off-the-wall (and are capable of making white mana)!

Beyond those, 2cc counters are the "classic" option.  Mana Leak is better than Rune Snag in the early game, which seems to be what you're worried about; and then there's the excellent Remand, which, while it doesn't make the problem go away permanently, hopefully makes your tempo problems go away, until you can, as you say, "take control of the late game".  Both Mana Leak and Remand are non-negotiable solutions to the problem of an opponent overrunning you in the first few turns of the game, and those'd definitely be my first port of call when working out a solid base for a Modern counter-heavy deck.


What are some good 8 player games? What's a good strategy game for 8 players? Many games can be played by 8 players, but suffer from a loss of pace, and long waits between turns. What games have parallel planning phases, or lots of interaction during turns?

I'm looking for games that can safely be called strategy games, so apples to apples and some other party games don't really count.

This is basically an extension of this question for 6 players.

I have two 8-player games in my collection that I've brought along to my weekly cafe boardgames group.  (Well, they have variants or expansions that allow 8 players, anyway...)

Citadels

A good, solid gamery game.  I expect the 8-player version would be too intimidating for people who hadn't played before, but it's definitely the sort of game that people can become obsessed over, and want to play again and again.  Individual turns are really quick, and there's a lot of tension in the fact that everyone's role for the turn is secret until it comes around, so there's definitely plenty to hold people's interest while they're waiting for 7 other players to take their go!

Bang!

Kind of a polar opposite to Citadels, in that I would have no qualms about letting a beginner sit down to the game, but I don't think there's quite as much to hold the long-term interest of dedicated strategy-heads.  Bang! is a lot of fun, as players form alliances (or, more often, get embroiled in vendettas) in a Wild West shootout, where no one is quite sure who is on the Sheriff's side and who wants him dead (Werewolf style).  The one issue with it as an 8-player game is the same one that Werewolf has: it's possible to be knocked out of the game pretty quick, and if that happens it's tough to be just a spectator for the next half hour or more.

ETA: Here's a list of LOTS of 8-player boardgames for anyone interested in really exploring the possibilities: http://boardgamegeek.com/tag/8-player.  Hopefully we have already covered the major contenders between us!


Does Sylvok Lifestaff work with Bronze Bombshell? Suppose I use Endless Whispers to gift a Bronze Bombshell to my opponent.  Do I have enough time to equip a Sylvok Lifestaff that I already have on the field to the Bronze Bombshell before the opponent sacrifices it, so that I can gain 3 life from Sylvok Lifestaff's second ability?

For reference, Endless Whispers' rules text reads: 'Each creature has "When this creature dies, choose target opponent. That player puts this card from its owner's graveyard onto the battlefield under their control at the beginning of the next end step."'  Bronze Bombshell has the ability: 'When a player other than Bronze Bombshell's owner controls it, that player sacrifices it. If the player does, Bronze Bombshell deals 7 damage to the player.'

And Sylvok Lifestaff has the relevant ability: 'Whenever equipped creature dies, you gain 3 life.'

You don't have enough time (since equipping is done 'at sorcery speed'), but it doesn't really matter; you can only equip a creature you control:

  02.6a Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. "Equip [cost]" means "[Cost]: Attach this permanent to target creature you control. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery."


Cards used for combat I recently got the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game and have played a few games, but have a clarifying question about how many cards can be used for a combat check.

I understand that according to the rules only one of each card type can be used for a particular check, but can a person use a "weapon" and a "spell" that each can be used for a combat check?

So far, I've been playing using only one card type that says "For a combat check...", but I want to make sure that's correct.

The rules can be tricky to find stuff in, but it's there:  page 11, under the heading Determine Which Die You're Using, second paragraph:

  [Y]ou may play only 1 card or use only 1 power that changes the skill you are going to use.

So yes, you're playing correctly.


Can I exceed the maximum Army size by moving in more units? Lets say I have two units at Winterfell, and two units at White Harbor. I can march from White Harbor. Can I do that with both units and march to Winterfell, and by doing so break the maximum limit of three units at Winterfell?

I haven't found any rule saying something about marching from somewhere and making a total army of, say, six or more in one area...

No, from the rule book, on page 11:

  The Golden Rule: You may never move (or retreat) a unit so that it violates your current Army Supply limits (as indicated on the Supply Track). Should you do so by accident, you must immediately destroy enough units to make your armies in Supply again.


What happens when a reanimated creature returns from exile? Let's say I bring a creature (the canonical Runeclaw bear) into play from an opponent's graveyard using one of the "enchant creature in a graveyard" cards (Necromancy, or Animate Dead, or Dance of the Dead).

Now the Runeclaw Bear is exiled (by a Bishop of Binding, say).  Since it leaves the game, Necromancy goes to my graveyard, right?

Later, the Bishop of Binding expires.  Thus, the Bear should return from exile.  Under my control, now independently of Necromancy?

And what about "when Necromancy leaves the battlefield, that creature’s controller sacrifices it"?  Does that simply fizzle?

In the examples you provide, yes, exiling and returning the creature will make it a "regular" creature again that no longer requires the enchantment to live. However, it will return to the battlefield under its owner's control, not yours.
You are correct in most of your assumptions. When a creature enchanted with Necromancy etc. leaves the battlefield, Necromancy no longer enchants a legal target and is put into its owner's graveyard as a state-based action.

704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

As its death trigger, it tries to make you sacrifice the creature it enchanted, but since that creature object no longer exists (it becomes a new object on zone change), that sacrifice simply doesn't happen. When the previously-enchanted, now exiled creature returns to the battlefield, it becomes a new object again, with no relation to its former existence. At that point, Necromancy is long gone and has no more effect on the Bear.

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

The bear returns under its owner's control, i.e. your opponent's:

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

Note that there are a few reanimation effects that prevent the order of events as described. For example, the reanimation effect of Isareth the Awakener exiles the Runeclaw Bear when it would leave the battlefield. Even though Bishop of Binding would also exile the creature, Isareth's exile effect replaces the Bishop's, which means the Bishop's never happens, and thus the Bishop leaving the battlefield would not cause the Runeclaw Bear to return.

614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. [..]


What happens when two global enchantments affect the same type of permanent (e.g.lands) At some point in the game, a player puts Blanket of Night on the battlefield.
Then,some turns later,another player puts Blood Moon into play.
If a non-basic land capable of producing mana comes into play, will it be able to produce either red mana or black mana, or just red mana?
And what if the opposite happens?
In other words, if Blood Moon and then Blanket of Night come into play, what types of mana will be able to produce a non-basic land instead?

Non-basic lands will be only mountains. Basic lands are their original type and also swamps.
Lands are basic if and only if they have the "Basic" type. All other lands are non-basic. Therefore, Blanket of Night does not turn lands into non-basic lands, because it only adds the "swamp" subtype and the "T: Add B" mana ability to lands.

205.4c Any land with the supertype “basic” is a basic land. Any land that doesn’t have this supertype is a nonbasic land, even if it has a basic land type.

If a land was basic before, it still is - for example a Forest with types "Basic Land - Forest" is now a "Basic Land - Forest Swamp", with the ability to produce 1 green or 1 black mana.
If a land was a non-basic land, it still is. Blanket again adds the swamp type. For example Gemstone Mine will be a "Land - Swamp", and it will gain the "T: Add B" ability in addition to its printed abilities.
Blood Moon then replaces all of that land's types with "Mountain" and all its abilities with "T: Add R", including the swamp gained by Blanket, so the resulting lands will have the types "Land - Mountain" and the only ability "T: Add R".
Note that for non-basic lands, the order in which you play the Blanket and Blood Moon matters, because of the layer system.

Interaction of Continuous Effects

613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.
613.2. Within layers 1–6, apply effects from characteristic-defining abilities first (see rule 604.3), then all other effects in timestamp order (see rule 613.6).

Timestamp order is, generally, the order in which an object or effect entered the game.
If you cast the enchantments in the order you described, Blanket first then Blood Moon, the result will be as described above.
In the reverse order, Blood Moon first turns all non-basic lands into non-basic mountains, then Blanket adds the swamp type and ability to those lands. These lands will then have the types "Land - Mountain Swamp" with respective mana abilities instead of just "Land - Mountain".


Does anyone use the P-K4 type of chess notation anymore? I have several chess books, all of which use the P-K4 type of notation rather than the e4 type.  I am still more used to the older form, since those books were my first introduction to chess literature.

I'd like to find out if anyone still uses it or can read it (1 P-K4, P-KB4; 2 N-KB3, N-QB3; etc).  As far as I've seen, it's only in books.

The new way of notating - algebraic notation - has pretty much completely replaced the old way - descriptive notation.  Most people nowadays use algebraic notation, except old players who are very stuck in their ways.

However, there is still a purpose in learning descriptive notation:  reading old books.  Some of my favorite old chess books are only available in descriptive notation, so you have to be able to keep track of long series of moves in descriptive notation.


Running out of cards in Exploding Kitten I run out of cards as others were asking for it using the combo multiple times on me - does this mean I lost? or is drawing multiple action or combo cards allowed in drawing?

It's impossible to run out of cards. The last card in the deck is guaranteed to be an Exploding Kitten. You must either handle it using a Defuse (which would create a deck consisting of just an Exploding Kitten) or lose (which would cause the only other remaining player to win).

If you find yourself playing another turn immediately, you must contend with the Exploding Kitten a second time (unless you Attack or Skip).


Why is Homelands considered among the worst Magic expansions? In various forums and articles, it is frequently mentioned that Homelands is one of the worst, if not the worst, Magic the Gathering expansions. Even on the main Wizards website, you will occasionally see this mentioned. Is there any canonical consensus as to what was wrong with the expansion?

It helps to look at the whole set in Gatherer and think about what you don't see.

The only counterspell is Memory Lapse (this is actually better now than it was back then -- remember this was competing with Counterspell and Mana Drain).
There are no real card draw spells. There is one looting spell, Forget, and one search spell, Merchant Scroll; all the other "draw a card" cards are cantrips.
The only straight-up removal spell costs 5 (beyond that, you've got the annoyingly-specific artifact-smashing Legends and Serrated Arrows, which is one of the few cards to escape Homelands and actually see competitive play).
The only sweepers are a couple of cards that do 1 damage to everything (e.g. Dry Spell) and Apocalypse Chime.
There's no real burn in the entire set. Direct damage is limited to overcosted pingers and cards like Winter Sky.
There are no mana-ramp cards in the set. Only Renewal, which is an awful Crop Rotation.
There are a lots of cards like Æther Storm and Aysen Highway -- which do practically nothing (one notable exception: An-Zerrin Ruins).
Its flagship cards are Legends-style giant honkin' Legends that are practically unplayable against the competitive decks of its day.

Basically it's a set that's full of rather weak creatures and almost nothing else. Have fun turning Spectral Bears sideways!

Mark Rosewater described Homelands this way:

  It wasn't very innovative. It didn't introduce any strong mechanics.
  It didn't have good synergy. It wasn't particularly elegant. It didn't
  have many of the qualities that we now judge a set's design by. (To be
  fair, the set was very flavorful, so it wasn't without any design
  merit.)

This reputation was further cemented when Wizards tried to "fix" Homelands' unpopularity by adding stupid rules forcing you to use Homelands cards to the first Pro Tour.

What I find surprising isn't so much that Homelands had all these problems but that the original Magic set (Alpha/Beta/Unlimited) largely didn't. Most of the design space of modern-day Magic can be traced directly to about 300 cards in ABU: direct damage, removal, countermagic, bounce, fast mana, mana ramp, card draw, card filtering, tutors, sweepers, tokens, reanimation, X-spells, even morph.

Now, Homelands was never really meant for stand-alone play; note the inclusion of Leeches, for instance, without any in-set poison cards. As a 1995 Duelist article explained:

  Legends also sparked a few key card ideas; in response to
  Serpent Generator and Pit Scorpion, for example,
  Scott and Kyle added an anti-poison card to the set — one of
  what would turn out to be a series of cards meant to help
  counteract various deck strategies.

But, even if you use the core set or previous expansions will make up for them, I think the gaps in the set are still noteworthy as reflections of the designers' general unpreparedness and confusion: Why are there no real burn or removal in Homelands? Because the designers just couldn't seem to get their heads around the role of those things in a game of Magic. Instead you've got way too many narrow cards that try to answer strategies that were mostly too weak to need "answers" anyway.

Overall, it has the feel of someone taking their "kitchen table" dynamic and turning it into a set. I think that's a reflection of the set being designed by folks who weren't really plugged into the ways Magic had developed as a strategic game.


Is Okk able to attack with a 1/1 goblin and a Goblin Piledriver in the first attack phase? Okk is a beefy goblin that can't attack if it's the biggest creature attacking.

  Okk can't attack unless a creature with greater power also attacks.

As the Active player, during the Declare attackers step (508.1), I choose to attack with Okk, a random 1/1 goblin, and Goblin Piledriver. I think that Goblin Piledriver provides me an out, because it is boosted for each other attacking goblin, in this case making it stronger than Okk.

  Whenever Goblin Piledriver attacks, it gets +2/+0 until end of turn for each other attacking Goblin.

If I declare Goblin Piledriver, Okk, and another Goblin attacking, does that satisfy the restriction portion of 508.1c?

You cannot do that.

The Declare Attackers step breaks down like this:

Declare your attackers.

Choose what's attacking, and which player or planeswalkers they're attacking.
Make sure you're obeying all restrictions and all requirements. If you are not, the declaration of attackers you've made is illegal. (We rewind and you reconsider what you're declaring.)
Other stuff about paying costs, tapping the creatures, etc.

The active player gets priority, all triggered abilities go on the stack that were triggered during attack declarations, people get the opportunity to cast spells and activated abilities.
(then a whole bunch more stuff)

You can read more about how this step functions on the MTG Wiki page for the declare attackers step.

You might see the issue there:

Goblin Piledriver needs to be at least a 5/2 in step 1 in order for you to be able to declare Okk as an attacker.
Goblin Piledriver doesn't become a 5/2 until step 2 where its triggered ability can go on the stack and resolve. This is way past the point we've already made sure our attack declarations are all legal, and we're not allowed to "look ahead" to take this eventuality into account at the time we're assessing that our attack declarations are legal.
Therefore in step 1, Goblin Piledriver is still just a 1/2, and we don't take into account how big it will be after attack declarations. Declaring Okk as an attacker would be a violated restriction and the declaration of attackers would be illegal.


In the sixth adventure, how do you destroy the Gravestorms Phylactery Token? You can either kill the dragon by attacking it or by destroying the Gravestorms Phlactery Token.  My question is how do you destroy it.  There are no directions in the rule book or adventure book as how to accomplish the task.

The phylactery doesn't have an AC iirc, so you can essentially destroy it just by attacking it with an at-will.


Exchanging in Jaipur One of the actions you can do on your turn in Jaipur is to trade cards from your hand with an equal amount of cards from the market. I wasn't sure how this worked mechanically as well as its interaction with the 7-card hand limit.

I have 6 cards in hand
I take two cards from the market, my hand is now 8
I put two cards back into the market, my hand is 6 again

Is this a legal move, or at no point can my hand exceed 8? I would think inbetween an action resolving, you can have >7 cards in hand but the rules are ambiguous.

That is a perfectly acceptable action to take.

The rules at the bottom of the "Take Cards" page explicitly state:

  Players may never have more than 7 cards in their hand at the end of their turn.

Nowhere in the rules does it disallow gaining more than 7 cards to your hand during an exchange.


What Betrayal at House on the Hill scenarios can work with just two players Are any of the scenarios in Betrayal at House on the Hill suitable for just two players?

I'm asking as I'd  like to play just with my wife at times,  but the instructions say it requires three people minimum.

I'd suggest playing with 2 characters each.

When the haunt starts, the player who controls the traitor hands their non-traitor character over to the other player to control.


Can Reveillark bring itself back from the graveyard? Can Reveillark's leaves-the-battlefield ability target itself?

For example, let's say its power and thoughness are turned to 0: it is destroyed (so its ability triggers) and its power is 2 or less (so it can be a target).

Reveillark cannot target a Reveillark card in the graveyard, including itself. While it is in the graveyard, it has its printed characteristics, including 4 power. There are currently no cards that can change the power or toughness of a creature card in a graveyard. So, once it is in the graveyard, it is not a legal target of its own ability, even if it had power 2 or less while on the battlefield.

However, there is a way to get a very similar effect. If you have a Clone, for example, copying a Reveillark, and the Clone dies, it will have power 0 while in the graveyard, and it will be a legal target for the triggered ability. So it can bring itself back, and copy the Reveillark again, effectively achieving the same outcome that you are looking for.


Should trample damage get through a creature with protection from the attacker? I had the below scenario happen while playing MTG Arena.
I have a 1/1 soldier token.
I have given it protection from Red, by sacrificing an Alseid of Life's Bounty.
My opponent has a Rimrock Knight equipped with an Embercleave.
My soldier blocks the Rimrock Knight.
Damage still gets through.
I was under the impression that protection from red would force all damage to be absorbed by the soldier.  That was not the case.  I'm assuming this is a bug in my understanding of the rules, as opposed to a bug in Arena?

The trample damage should get through in this situation.
Protection prevents damage, but it does not have any effect on how damage is assigned in combat. The attacking player must still assign 1 damage to the token before assigning any damage to you. The token will not take the damage and will not die, but the rest of the damage assigned to you is not prevented, so it will still be dealt to you.
One interesting note here is that this attacking creature has double strike because Embercleave grants that ability. This means that it will deal damage in both the first strike and regular combat damage steps, and since the damage is prevented by the protection ability, the token will be undamaged after the first strike combat damage step, so the attacking player will need to assign another 1 damage to it in the regular combat damage step.


Can a squad use a leader or unit from another squad? I've never played Warhammer. I have a close friend that does. I am looking for a gift to get her for the game.

Is it possible for a Blood Angels squadron to use a character like Sammael from ravenwing? If I were to get her that would it be useful in her game RAW? Also can a 40k 8th edition game, use units from 30k?

The Short answer is "yes, but throw in some other guys to make sure"

The only restriction that Warhammer 40k has for building armies is that the chosen models need to share a Faction Keyword, though specific factions within that keyword need to be grouped together. As it turns out, since Blood Angels and Dark Angels share two Faction Keywords, Imperium and Adeptus Astartes, that is fully acceptable. However, because they don't share all the same Keywords, they can't be played in the same group or Detachment. Though a unit may be played by itself at a penalty, it'd be polite to also gift a Troop choice, such as a tactical squad or scout squad, for each HQ Character you are gifting, like Sammael. Units like Apothecaries, Ancients and Champions are Elite Characters, not HQ Characters.

As it stands, having a chunk of the army that doesn't maybe hurt itself for loosing too many models, or takes moral checks, is a very good thing. Also, Dark Angels in particular tend to have particularly strong abilities to take advantage of. As of the current edition of 40k, 30k models that are listed in either the book that an army is tied to, or Codex, or approved through the Forgeworld website for the game may be used in Warhammer 40K armies. Such models include Tartaros Terminators and Contemptor Dreadnoughts


Is it true that all computer chess programs can be forced into a three-fold repetition draw? Disclaimer: I know very little about chess: basically, how to put pieces on the board, how to move them, and how to lose (I'm a pro at this). I have no idea about my Elo rating, but I guess it's in the two digits range. Thus, please be forgiving of possible blunders in my question.

One of the few things I thought to know was that today computers are stronger than humans at chess. Programs such as Stockfish, Komodo and Leela Chess Zero should be able to regularly beat GrandMasters, and even give the World Champion a hard time. However, an acquaintance who is a way better player than me,, told me that you can draw against any computer chess program just by using threefold repetition. In other words, you make your move, the chess program makes its own, you go back, the chess program does the same (??), repeat three times and voilà, you get your draw. He said he used this strategy against chess engines you can play with on the Internet, and it works.

This seems unbelievable:

Even I could write a program which doesn't fall in such a trap. Just compare the current move with the preceding one: if they're the same, increase a counter, otherwise set it to 0. When the counter gets to 2, remove this move from the list of candidate moves. In other words, never perform the same move three times. Of course, there may be cases where actually performing the same move three times could be the best strategy: in that case, just offer a draw to the human opponent. But on the average, just avoid making the same move three times consecutively.
Different chess engines also use very different algorithms (e.g., Leela Chess Zero is based on neural networks, RL, and MCTS, while Stockfish and Komodo use other approaches, including opening databases, list of hard-coded heuristics, etc.), so it seems highly unlikely that a single approach could exist which can force a draw against all existing chess engines.
A chess engine's next move doesn't obviously depend only on my (the human opponent's) current move. I guess it depends on the full move history of the current game, as well as on the estimation, done by the chess engine, of which moves are more likely to lead to victory further down the game. Why should my current move be so important for the chess engine, that it would keep repeating the same move just because I do so?

I conclude that this is "fake news", or at most a silly bug in the chess engines this acquaintance played against (maybe not a major bug, because people who play chess on the Internet probably are not interested in a cheap trick to draw against the computer, but still a bug). But definitely not something that happens when playing against the major chess engines, such as the three I mentioned initially. Am I right?

What your friend is saying isn't "fake news", it's outright bull****. Of course computers can recognize 3-fold draws, in fact just about the first step of writing a new engine is to tell the engine what the rules of the game are.

Here're the relevant lines in Stockfish's code:

bool Position::is_draw(int ply) const {

 if (st->rule50 > 99 && (!checkers() || MoveList<LEGAL>(*this).size()))
     return true;

 // Return a draw score if a position repeats once earlier but strictly
 // after the root, or repeats twice before or at the root.

 if (st->repetition && st->repetition < ply)
     return true;

 return false;
}


Can you run away without losing against a monster? In Munchkin, I found the following for running away (source)

  If nobody will help you . . . or if somebody tries to help, and your fellow
  party members interfere so the two of you still cannot win . . . you must Run
  Away. You don’t get any levels or Treasure. You don’t even get to Loot the
  Room. And you don’t always escape unharmed . . .
  Roll the die. You escape on a 5 or more. Some Class and Race abilities
  and some Treasures make it easier or harder to Run Away from all
  monsters. And some monsters give you a bonus or penalty to
  your roll for that monster only.

However, it is not clear to me if you can run away if you would win.

For example, if you don't have cards on your hand and if you have "die hard" ("Hart im Nehmen" in German; it prevents you from losing your stuff when you die) you might actually want to die. Or if you are forced to help somebody and you can run away easily, you might rather try that.

Can you choose to run away even if you would win?

No, you cannot run away if you are winning with just your equipment. From the Munchkin FAQ:

  Q. Do I have to kill a monster? Even if I'm winning, can I just choose to Run Away?
  A. You can't Run Away if you are winning with what you have in play. However, you are not required to play one-shot cards, negative Monster Enhancers, etc., to beat it, even if you could win handily. So, in that sense, you would be able to choose to Run Away.


Are the large box sets stand alone, or do they require Descent 2nd Edition base-set? I've been dying to start playing this for a good year now, so I'm finally going to grab a copy. My question is simply do I have to start with the 'base-set' box, or can any of  the larger box sets be used without the base box, for example 'Lair of the Wyrm' or 'The Trollfens'.

You'll need to have the base set.  The expansions are just that.  No rules, no dice, only a few cards to add to the base set.


How to build decks with cards not present in my MTG Online collection Previously in MTG Online was possible to build decks with cards not present in your collection. This is not possible any more in the latest MTG Online client.

Can someone advice on how I can build a deck with cards which I do not own, pls?

When viewing your collection, click the quantity button and then move the left slider to 0 to show cards you don't own. Once you see them you can just doubleclick them to add them to your deck.


Clarification of Pillbug movement rule in Hive The fourth exception on Page 3 of the rulebook for the pillbug states:

  The Pillbug may not move a piece through a too-narrow gap of stacked pieces (violating the Freedom to Move Rule).

What excactly would be considered a too-narrow gap of stacked pieces?

Our guess was a situation, where the bug to be moved is between two stacks of pieces (two Beetles on top of the hive, both also adjacent to the pillbug). But I don't see how this would violate the Freedom to Move rule.

Another option (ignoring the word stacked): If the bug to be moved would not be able to move by itself (e.g. surrounded by 5 pieces), the pillbug can not move that piece, either.

The English explanation sounds kind of different to the German rule (translated by me):

  The Pillbug may not move a piece, if this movement would also move other pieces or if the piece is surrounded.

So, the Pillbug is not able to 'rescue' a surrounded piece? Also, can the Pillbug move a piece into a location (e.g. enclosed space) the piece would not be able to move into?

The piece that is moved by the Pillbug's special ability travels on top of the hive in the same way that a Beetle would. If there are Beetles at that level, you will have to move around them as you would during normal movement at ground level.

To illustrate this, I'll use the picture from the rules that you quoted:

In this example the Ant can be moved by the Pillbug ability. Now imagine two beetles (B) present on top of the white Bee and white Spider:

This would make the gap between those two stacks too small for the ant to pass through, thus violating the freedom of movement restriction.


Catan - Rules Lawyering the behavior of the "Commercial Harbor" Progress Card Before explaining what happened, here's the literal text of the "Commercial Harbor" card, as a reference:
Card Text:

You may offer each Opponent a resource card from your hand. In exchange, each player must give you a commodity card of his choice. If he has none, your resource card is returned.

Additional Text in the rulebook:

You may force each of the other players to make a special trade. You may offer each opponent any 1 resource card from your hand. He must exchange it for any 1 commodity card of his choice from his hand, if he has any.
You may use this ability at any point during the turn you play the card. However, you may only force each player to make this trade with you once that turn. Your opponent chooses which commodity card to give you if he has more than one. If you offer a resource to a player who has no commodity cards, then you take your card back and the trade is void. You do not have to give this player the resource card.

So this was the scenario that took place:

Four player game, players A, B, C, and D.
Player A played the "Commercial Harbor" card.
Player A approached Player B, asked if they had a Commodity Card, Player B truthfully answered that they did not.
Player A approached Player C, asked if they had a Commodity Card, Player C truthfully answered that they did not.
Player A approached Player D, asked if they had a Commodity Card, Player D falsely claimed they did not have a Commodity Card
The turn resolved with the card being disposed and Player A receiving no Commodity Cards
Player D revealed after the conclusion of the turn that they had lied about their claim of not having a Commodity Card
Players B & C immediately concluded that Player D violated the rules, arguing that Player A's approach constituted the necessary contract fulfillment to "make an offer", per the text of the card.
Player D concluded that they obeyed the letter of the rules, pointing out that Player A did not physically show the card they intended to trade to them, and thus wasn't required to answer truthfully.
Played D offered that in an earlier turn in the game, they had played the card exactly as they felt it should be played, but this behavior was not consciously observed by players A, B, or C.

Now, in the context of our specific play session, we concluded that this was a violation of the rules, but this determination was made via majority vote (Players B & C agreed that this was a violation, Player D disagreed, Player A abstained due to being a novice and being unsure of the rules). So I'm curious what the determination would be in a tournament setting, or at least what the usual resolution of this kind of act would be in your sessions.
I personally determined the following:

That this was a violation of the rules, because I don't consider the text of the card to establish a distinction where only the literal act of showing a card is sufficient to establish an attempt to make an offer.
That the rules as written in the rulebook are intended to offer a form of "Mercy Play", i.e. "Let's not screw over a player who's already behind", and is not intended to produce ambiguity on what kind of actions are intended to constitute a valid offer.

What do you make of these rules? Do you feel that Player D obeyed both the letter and spirit of the rules as written, or that it was correct to determine that their actions were in violation of the rules?

In a tournament, player D may get away with it; but he definitely wouldn’t at my house, or during any games I’ve played with friends.

In a game that involves open negotiation and trade, intent is an important factor. When a player asks “anyone have a sheep” and anther responds “Sure. For a wheat?” Both players have to infer from the language that the other is offering a specific resource for trade. So it would be illegal to have the players pass a card to each other after that dialog, and for one to pass something other than what is expected.

Similar case here. When player A asked “do you have a commodity card” the player was obviously asking in reference to the commercial harbor card he just played; in order to take/trade the commodity. That should have been obvious to all people based on the language used.

The rules never clarify what specific language is allowed to be used to convey what specific actions. The play group must decide that, based on if the language was clear enough to convey the intent. In this case, that language combined with he playing of commercial harbor should be sufficient to convey the intent. Thus it’s as good as “I’ll give you this resource for a commodity that you have”.


Are there good two player rules for resource trading in Settlers of Catan? I've tried playing two-player Settlers, where each player controls one set of pieces, and each time a player builds they need to play a piece of the same type for one of the two uncontrolled colors (so there are two non-player nations in play).

What I would like to add to this is for the uncontrolled nations to have resource cards and some mechanic for them to allow trading with the players in the game.

Are there any two-player rules that support this?

While I've never tried it out, there is a variant set of rules here that uses the white player as a neutral third party.  It looks a little interesting, but the rules in the link only allow the neutral player to build roads, and nothing else.  Building roads for the neutral player is determined by highest dice roll.

It does allow for trading with the neutral player using a special trading chart.  The chart may or may not need to be tweaked to your liking.


Does the ability from Sorcerer's Wand deal combat damage? If I were to equip Virtus the Veiled with Sorcerer's Wand and used the Sorcerers Wand's ability, would that be considered combat damage allowing Virtus's ability to trigger?

Sorcerer's Wand does not allow the triggering of Virtus the Veil's ability

From the Comprehensive Rules Glossary:

  Combat Damage
  Damage dealt during the combat damage step by attacking creatures and blocking creatures as a consequence of combat. See rule 510, “Combat Damage Step.”

Damage from spells or abilities such as the ability granted by Sorcerer's Wand is not combat damage because it is not a consequence of combat.


What happens if Perplexing Chimera is used on a Storm spell? Perplexing Chimera is a newly spoiled card with the rules text:

  "Whenever an opponent casts a spell, you may exchange control of
  Perplexing Chimera and that spell. If you do, you may choose new
  targets for the spell. (If the spell becomes a permanent, you control
  that permanent.)"

If a player exchanges control of Perplexing Chimera with Tendrils of Agony or Grapeshot, who controls the storm copies?

The player who cast the Stormy spell.

There's two scenarios :

Bob is Chimera's controller, Alice casts a spell with Storm ability.

a. It's Bob's turn when Alice casts Brain Freeze. Active player's triggered abilities go on the stack first (thanks to the rule 101.4 known as "Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order"), then do his Alice's. So Storm is resolved first, Alice is still the spell's controller at that time so she gets the copies, and Chimera's ability resolves and Bob get the original Brain Freeze.

b. It's Alice's turn and she casts Grapeshot. Storm triggered ability is placed on the stack, Alice controls the ability while it's on the stack, and then Chimera's ability is placed on the stack. Chimera's ability resolves, Bob get the control of the original Grapheshot, but the Storm ability is already on the stack, and is still controlled by Alice, so she gets the copies.

TL;DR : you can't resolve Chimera's ability before Storm goes on the stack.


Diplomacy 'Trojan Blind' hints I am starting a diplomacy game with the "TROJAN" rule.  Does anyone have any hints on how to adapt strategy from a game with more typical rules?

  TROJAN (BLIND modifier)
  A TROJAN game is a BLIND mixture in which units only "see" units of the opposite type (army or fleet) and supply centers do not report information.

This thread at Play Diplomacy points to the main problems:

  You're going to need redundancy

You're likely to need to leave units behind your desired front lines to serve as tripwires.

The early game is just going to be a crapshoot as aggressive players either shoot ahead through lucky coups or get clobbered by walking into traps. You can either try to be one of the lucky agros or play defensively and hope you don't end up too far behind and look like a trustworthy partner for the survivors.

  You're going to lean heavily on your friends

Assuming you're working with someone to maintain short and mostly offensive lines, you're going to need to depend on them not coming around behind.

  Really heavily

It'll also be possible to pull your allies off balance by claiming attacks that don't really exist, exposing their position to yourself or your 'real' ally.

  It's also rather unrealistic

As fun as it is to strengthen the importance of diplomacy, it is rather silly that you wouldn't be able to get any reports from anyone of actions within your own territory, units or not.

  It's only really possible online

It would be difficult to partition the board to do that last bit; it'd be impossible to play your 'trojan' game on an actual board.

Given the importance of lies and backstabbing in this version of the game, you'd probably only want to play with people online, lest it negatively affect your real-life relationships.


What happens if a creature's ETB would bounce Thalia, Heretic Cathar? So during a game I had this scenario:

On my battlefield I have Thalia, Heretic Cathar, whose ability says

  Creatures and nonbasic lands your opponent control enters the battlefield tapped.

Now the opponent played a creature that said

  Whenever [this creature] enters the battlefield, return target creature an opponent controls to its owner's hand.

Now the question is, even if my Thalia is returning to my hand, I think that her ability still triggers or am I wrong? Would that creature be tapped?

In theory, since Thalia says that the creatures enter the battlefield tapped, this should resolve before the opponent's ability that says whenever the creature enters the battlefield, so according to the wording the opponent creature is already tapped before the ability resolves.

Is that correct?

Yes, this is correct. Thalia's ability is a so-called replacement effect

614.1. Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply continuously as events happen-they aren't locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event. They act like "shields" around whatever they're affecting.
614.1d Continuous effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield . . ." or "[Objects] enter the battlefield . . ." are replacement effects.

which doesn't go on the stack. Only when the new creature actually enters the battlefield (tapped), its enter the battlefield ability will trigger.


What tactics should Baron Blade use in the Power Splicing scenario? I just played through the first scenario of Sentinels Tactics, Baron Blade vs Tachyon/Legacy/Ra, where he is trying to blow up the power plants.

Baron Blade got totally destroyed, he only managed to kill 2 of the plants, and that was when we were playing wrong and allowing him to attack the plants from higher ground. Once we fixed that, he was mostly useless. Should he be trying to avoid even being touched with teleport? Should he be trying to incapacitate the heros? It seems like fighting is a losing battle for him.

I watched the demo game for the scenario in which Baron Blade won, but it seemed that the heroes played really poorly. The heroes were running away from baron blade, never using aim, and doing attacks that lowered movement (which might be good in other scenarios, but in this one, baron blade can teleport to get large distances anyway, so it's probably useless).

I have played as Baron Blade multiple times and never lost Scenario 1.
The key is using the terrain to your advantage.  There are eight potential targets of which you have to take out six.  That means you should be teleporting to an unoccupied target just about every time.
Pay close attention to turn order.  Remember that you get two turns for every turn any particular other hero gets.  Is Ra over by himself protecting a target?  As soon as he takes his turn, jump over there and splice it, then jump away on your next turn before he gets to act again.
Always wear your suit for +1 defense, and don't be afraid to change out your teleport for your restributor (and +1 Defense token) on a turn when you're going to let them hit you - especially if you can burn an action to Dodge.  Never attack unless you know you can get a kill, like a six-space Fusion shot with Aim.
Good luck.  With a good handle on the terrain and the Baron's defensive powers, you should have the Megalopolis power grid in your hands in no time!


Anyone know more 'social' games like 'Werewolves" I am looking for examples of good social games, the kind that can be played at parties where rather than using stuff like dice most of the play is done through social interaction

One example of the sort of thing I mean is "Werewolves" or "Villagers and Werewolves". In that game everyone assumes the roles within a village with some people being the werewolves. There are a number of rounds in which the group try to reason among themselves about who the werewolves are, the interest of course supplied by the fact that the werewolves are present trying to hijack the discussion. The game made excellent by of the nuances introduced by the roles and the restrained cooperative aspects.

Anyone know anything similar or a place where I can find games like this?

It depends on exactly what type of social interaction you're looking for. There is a very broad category of games known as "party games" which loosely meets your definition. Party games tend to favor social interaction over luck and strategy (in many cases, no equipment at all), tend to require less per-player equipment, and tend to be flexible in the number of players they support. Take a look at the linked Wikipedia article for more information, or you can browse the party games category or subdomain on BoardGameGeek. A somewhat older category, that has considerable overlap with party games, are parlour games, so you can look there too.

Within the broad category of party games, there are a few subcategories. The one you mention, Werewolf (also known as Mafia), is known as an "uninformed majority" game, in which some people have information that the rest of the players are trying to figure out, mostly through social means. There's another thread on games with uninformed majority mechanics, though many of them are more traditional board or card games. Other party games in this category include Are You the Traitor? and the How to Host a Murder series of games.

Other subcategories of party games include word games, creativity games, and icebreakers, with some overlap between them. Word games tend to involve someone having one or more secret words, and giving clues that other people use to guess the word or definition. Creativity games involve being given some sort of creative prompt (a pair of words, a picture, an object), and doing something creative with them, such as telling a story, drawing a picture, inventing a product, or the like. Icebreakers are games in which people reveal facts about themselves, in order to provide a structure to break the ice and allow people to get to know each other better.

In the word games category are games like Contact, in which one player has a word, gives the first letter, and players try and discover the word by giving clues that indicate their guesses, making the player who has the word try to figure out what word they're guessing or give up another letter if they can't. There's also Taboo, in which someone is given a word, and has to get their teammates to guess the word, but has a list of other words that they cannot say while describing it.

As both word games and creativity games, there are games like Balderdash or Fictionary in which you pick an obscure word, one person gets the real definition, and a few people make up definitions. The other players have to then figure out which definition is real. There's Charades and Pictionary, in which you get a word or phrase and must describe that to your teammate, in charades by acting it out, in Pictionary by drawing it. Apples to Apples is a very popular party game, which might be considered a word game, in which someone draws a card with an adjective, and everyone must play nouns that closely match that adjective, at least according to the person who is the current judge; due to the limited selection people have to choose from, you get some very amusing juxtapositions in the process.

Some other creativity games include The Big Idea from Cheapass Games, in which you get pairs of words such as "electric pants" and must describe that as an invention and get people to invest in it, Why Did The Chicken? by Kory Heath in which you must make up jokes, and Nanofictionary by Looney Labs in which you get cards for Characters, Problems, Settings, and Resolutions, and must combine those into the best tiny story.

Then there are the icebreakers. These are games like Two Truths and a Lie, in which each person in turn will tell two truths and one lie, and the other players have to guess which is the truth and which is the lie. There's Never Have I Ever, in which each person says something that they've never done, and everyone who has done it gets a point (or has to drink, as it's commonly played as a drinking game, however it's not necessary to play this way, you can simply keep score instead); if only one person has done the thing in question, they need to tell the story. There are many more such games.

A little further afield than what you're looking for, I think, but still involving more social interaction than traditional game mechanics, are negotiation and alliance type games like Diplomacy. I have a question open now looking for "lighter" versions of it, and there are few games that look promising.

Another somewhat further category of games, that can be more social interaction based, is roleplaying games; some creative one-shot roleplaying games can have a lot of the same elements of games like Werewolf, with intrigue, cooperation, and backstabbing. I recall one that a friend ran in which all but one of the players were minions of the dark trying to take over the world, but there were two dark lords, a Satanic type and a Cthulhoid monster, competing with each other, plus all of the minions were competing to be favored by their lord. So everyone had three sets of enemies; the Good, the other Evil team, and the other minions on their own Evil team. It was quite the treacherous game, involving lots of intrigue and social interaction; it turned out that Evil had too much infighting, and Good won. There's an entire other StackExchange for roleplaying games, so check in there if you want to learn more about them.

So yes, there are a lot of games that have more social interacting and less traditional board, card, and dice mechanics. I hope I've given a good overview; feel free to ask about a more specific category or game if you want more information.


If an Old One takes damage while attacking my farm, do I get credit for it? AuZtralia includes the following personality card:

  Alanza Castro
  Whenever an Old One attacks one of your Farms, it suffers two damage.

The rules don't say and we couldn't find an answer online: if I have this card in play and an Old One attacks my farm, do I get credit for the two points of damage?  In a game today, an Old One with four hit points died entirely from attacking two of my farms, and we weren't sure whether I got to collect the victory points.

The wording is passive (it suffers damage, as opposed to "you deal damage"), but as far as we've seen (only played a few games so far), all other damage dealt to Old Ones is "owned".

Yes you get the credit for killing the Old One exactly as if you had attacked it.

This was verified by Martin Wallace the game designer in this thread on BGG.


Simplistic Area Control Board Game with Discs I'm trying to find a game I played 4 years ago. It was a very simplistic game, everybody had a specific color and bag of disc of their color. The board was also a simple grid. On the board you had your starting locations and also a bunch of other "land masses" ( different colored squares ). If I remember correctly the rest of the board background was a blue, maybe space. The goal was to color as much "land mass" as possible with your discs before everyone ran out. Taking your turn you would place 1 disc in a straight line direction away from your starting position until you hit land mass, another player, or the edge of the board. You could use any of your colored discs as a launch point to lay your next disc. Game ends when all players have placed. Scores were based on how much of each land mass you owned ( or how many discs possibly ).
I think there were other rules that allowed you to place additional discs. I think you could replace a players color with your own in certain circumstances. Disc placement may have been based on dice rolls. I don't remember any cards. If I were to guess this is game came out maybe 2005+? We played as 3 players, I would think maybe 4 or 6 is max player count.

Glüx is a family game all about illuminating rooms. Every
player tries to play the brightest light tokens in different areas on
the board, thus gaining the majority in those areas. Who can place
their light tokens in the cleverest way and illuminate the most areas?

It looks like you decide how many spaces you move based on the number of pips from the disc blindly pulled from your bag. I was way off on the date, it's only a few years old. Also surprisingly expensive for a simple game that's 4 years old.


2000s Tabletop war game, hex terrain pieces, mix of science fiction and fantasy I remember a friend of mine was trying to get me to implement this as a computer game. It came about around 2002-2006. Terrain pieces were stackable plastic hex pieces. Figures were similarly on hex pads, and had a series of stats. There were Ranged and melee attacks defined. Ranged attacks involved line of sight and measured distance from the tip of the weapon to a "vulnerable area" on the figure (shown in kind of a two color front and profile views on the associated chart). Characters had a mix of technology and magic (I remember one figure having a military rifle and a magic sword) and might have been drawn from different dimensions. There were some goblinoid characters also, I remember. And... that's most of what I remember at the moment, but it's bugging me.

I had a sudden inspiration and looked at an archived copy of a USB stick I carried back then and found the rules PDF. It was Heroscape.

  Heroscape (stylized as "heroScape" or "HeroScape") is an expandable turn-based miniature wargaming system originally manufactured by Milton Bradley Company, and later by Wizards of the Coast, both subsidiaries of Hasbro, Inc., and discontinued by Hasbro in November 2010. The game is played using pre-painted miniature figures on a board made from interlocking hexagonal tiles that allow for construction of a large variety of 3D playing boards. The game is often noted and lauded by fans for the relatively high production quality of the game materials, in particular the pre-painted miniature figures as well as its interchangeable and variable landscape system.


Penalties for forgetting to draw/discard cards What is the penalty when a player forgets to draw card?

What is the penalty when a player forgets to discard a card and has six (6) or seven (7) cards in his hand?

Irregularities like this are rarely covered explicitly in a ruleset, so most of this comes down to "use your judgement."

For the first situation, since everyone always draws and plays 1 card, it makes the most sense to let them draw the card once they have realized their mistake. Since there's nothing more than draw 1 play 1, the only way a player would have less than 5 cards is if they forgot to draw afterward, so that would be the best way to resolve the situation in a casual game. (Of course, they don't get to "undo" any of their previous turns due to "I would have played that card instead", that would be the penalty for forgetting to draw.) Even in a competitive game, I cannot think of any reason why someone would benefit from not drawing, waiting for a while, and then claiming they had too few cards and drawing one to refill, so this would probably work then as well.

For the second situation, either they played a card and then picked it back up by mistake, or they didn't play a card and therefore didn't take a turn. If it's the former, then they should discard the card they shouldn't have (and if it's a competitive setting get some sort of formal warning, as they should know better.) Should the card already have been played...well that's a bit of a predicament, as you can't really recover a legal game state. (Bear in mind that that since all the cards are unique, the opponents should have noticed it, so all parties are somewhat at fault.) In a super casual game, perhaps just discard a random card, and ensure this doesn't happen again. In anything even somewhat competitive, a game loss is the fairest outcome.

For the latter (drawing, not finishing the turn by playing and moving, and therefore having an extra card) in a casual environment forcing the player to discard a random card is a decent option. They've already served their penalty by losing a turn, there's no need to make it worse. It should be a random card due to the fact that the player might have gotten a possible "combo" that they wouldn't have gotten if they actually played. However, this option should not be used in a competitive game, as there are situations where a player would want to "pass" (because they like their current position,) but the rules would force them to play and do something. The safest option would be a game loss (although again, both sides are at fault for not paying attention and letting things get to this point.)


If I search for a Miracle and put it in my hand, can I cast it for its Miracle cost? Lets say I use Mystical Teachings to grab Thunderous Wrath out of my library during my upkeep and put it in my hand.  Can I then cast Thunderous Wrath for its Miracle cost?

No. The card changes zones but is never drawn by you.

  120.5. If an effect moves cards from a player’s library to that player’s hand without using the word
  “draw,” the player has not drawn those cards. This makes a difference for abilities that trigger on
  drawing cards and effects that replace card draws, as well as if the player’s library is empty.

This means you can't cast the cards you tutor directly into your hand by paying their miracle cost.

It does, however, mean that any cards you tutor up with Mystical Teachings won't count towards your "first card drawn this turn" -- so you could use Teachings on your upkeep and still cast a miracle card you drew naturally, for example.

If you want to cast miracle cards with tutors, use ones that put cards on top of your library, like Mystical Tutor and Liliana Vess.


Moonlight hunt with trample If I play Moonlight Hunt, and my Werewolves have trample, does the excess damage from my creatures get applied to the player?

No, trample only works when dealing combat damage. The damage dealt by creatures because of Moonlight Hunt is non-combat damage.

  702.19a Trample is a static ability that modifies the rules for assigning an attacking creature’s combat damage. The ability has no effect when a creature with trample is blocking or is dealing noncombat damage.


What happens if I have two Pledges of Loyalty attached to a creature? Let's say, I only have Ersatz Gnomes (1/1 Artifact Creature) with Pledge of Loyalty on it. Since the Pledge is my only colored permanent, it will grant the Gnomes protection from white. If I now use the Gnomes' ability to make the Pledge colorless, I won't have any colored permanents on the battlefield and the Gnomes won't have protection any more.

I can now cast a second Pledge of Loyalty on the Gnomes, giving it protection from white again. Now, what happens at the end of the turn, when the Gnomes' effect ends? Are one or both Pledges moved to the graveyard, since they enchant a creature with protection from white? Or do they both remain on the battlefield, since their effect does not remove Pledge of Loyalty? (The last one seems unlikely because a name on a card refers only to the card itself and not to another card with the same name.)

Once the second Pledge enters the battlefield, the first one again starts granting protection from white to the Gnomes, which causes the second aura to fall off. This happens as a state-based action just after the second Pledge resolves.


Are there any side effects if am supposed to draw a card but have no cards to draw? I was playing Hero Realms this weekend with a friend. He ended having a combo that made him able to virtually draw endless cards.

He was able to draw his full deck within one turn, shuffle his discard pile drawing that one empty, too and he would have still been able to draw additional cards, but his whole deck was being played out in this one turn, until there were neither cards left in his deck, nor in his discard pile.

We agreed if there are no cards left, he can't draw any cards anymore.

Do the rules state any side effect about drawing cards, if there are no cards to draw left and the discard pile being empty as well?

Never played the game but i'm very familiar with Star Realms.

Your question was asked here on BGG.  No official source chipped in but its seems common sense that if you are unable to do something nothing happens.  Just do as much as you can on the cards.

When I play Star Realms on the app and I want to draw cards and the draw and discard are empty then there is just no effect.


Lord Windgrace; Resolving the First Loyalty Ability Lord Windgrace's first ability reads:

+2: Discard a card, then draw a card. If a land card is discarded this way, draw an additional card.

If a land is discarded with this ability, is the order of events with this to draw, discard, then draw again because it doesn't specify to draw an additional card—or draw two cards—"instead?"
The confused other approach would be seeing the ability as reading to draw, draw, discard; which I believe is the way I initially interpreted it.
I believe I recognize that a replacement effect is not in place here.

Neither of your interpretations are correct. The order of events is discard, draw, [draw]. Look at the way the ability is ordered "+2: Discard a card, then [...]" The very first thing you do while resolving this ability is discard a card, then you draw either one or two cards. There is no replacement effect involved, and the first draw is unconditional. This means that even if you fail to discard a card (no cards in hand) you will draw that first card, but the discard definitely happens first if possible.


Will my opponent lose from his own Plague Spitter enchanted with Soul Link, if the Plague Spitter deals him lethal damage? My opponent is at 1 life. He controls a Plague Spitter and 2 other creatures (1/1 tokens). In his second main phase, he puts Soul Link on the Plague Spitter and passes the turn.

In my turn I do nothing that changes his board.

Will my opponents die in his next upkeep phase, due to the 1 damage dealt by the Plague Spitter, or will he be able to gain life from his other creatures (and me) taking damage before he takes damage?

He dies. Soul Link's ability is a triggered ability, meaning that when the Plague Spitter deals damage, the life-gaining ability is placed on the stack. Before it resolves, state based actions are checked and players get priority. During the state based action check he will be at 0 life, and lose the game.

The similar card Spirit Link has a ruling on Gatherer that supports that:

  You only gain the life when the triggered ability resolves. If you are reduced to zero life before the ability resolves, you will lose before gaining the life.

If he had used Lifelink instead, the creature would have had lifelink. That changes the way damage is dealt, so that the controller of the creature gains life as simultaneous part of the damage dealing. He would have survived in that case.


3 Missiles in a Single Combat packet - how should this sticker be treated? 3 Missiles in a Single Combat packet spoilers in this question:

   Does the mutant faction gain 1 troop after each turn in the Fallout Zone territory like it does in biohazard territories? We have a different opinion of “treat it like a biohazard” and the rule where mutant faction gains a army in biohazard scars.

Yes.

3 Missiles in a Single Combat packet spoilers:

   Mutants ignore the troop-loss effects of the Fallout Zone and treat it like a biohazard. Mutants gain a troop at the end of the turn in a biohazard, so they gain a troop at the end of the turn in the Fallout Zone.


Can players in single-elimination rounds agree to split prizes unevenly? Paragraph five of section 5.2 of the Tournament Rules states the following:

  Players in the single-elimination rounds of a tournament offering only cash and/or unopened product as prizes may, with the permission of the Tournament Organizer, agree to split the prizes evenly.

Ana Lucia and Nikki are paired in the finals of a single-elimination tournament. The winner receives four booster packs, and the loser receives one. Five booster packs cannot (objectively) be split evenly. Are Ana and Nikki forced to play out the round, or can they agree to split the prize unevenly?

Assume that the judge is willing to allow Ana and Nikki to split if and only if the split is legal. If the answer differs between RELs, please describe how the situation would be handled differently at each REL.

You are referencing the wrong part of the MTR for you question the relevant part is a few paragraphs above that.

  Players are allowed to share prizes they have not yet received in the current tournament as they wish and may
  agree as such before or during their match, as long as any such sharing does not occur in exchange for any game
  or match result or the dropping of a player from the tournament. As an exception, players in the announced last
  round of the single-elimination portion of a tournament may agree to divide tournament prizes as they wish. In
  that case, one of the players at each table must agree to drop from the tournament. Players are then awarded prizes
  according to their resulting ranking. [MTR 5.2]

So what they are allowed to do is combine their prizes (4 + 1 in this case) and split them anyway they choose to, from 5-0 to 0-5 or anything in between. Then one of the 2 players drops from the tournament and they get their prizes and split them up as previously agreed.

The portion you quote is intended more for when you are in single elimination brackets, but you haven't gotten to the final 2 yet. For example at an FNM after 4 rounds of Swiss and a cut to Top 8, it is 1am and everyone wants to go home to sleep, as long as all the players and the TO agree they can stop the tournament there and split all of the prizes that would go to the Top 8 spots evenly between all of them. The rules do not state what happens if the prize payout in this case is not evenly divisible by the number of players.