How long does crew change last? When I first read how the crew change works it appeared useless:

  Player may swap their existing Specialist card with and Specialist
  card not currently in play. The player's Firefighter has the AP (less
  the 2 AP required for a crew change) and special abilities of the
  newly selected Specialist for the entire turn.

The last part that states "... for the entire turn" to me makes it sound like you switch back to your old role when your turn ends. If this is the case though, you never get a chance to do much of anything with the new role. This makes it sound like that actually is not the case and that you keep the new role for the remainder of the game. Can someone confirm that this is the case?

Crew Change lasts until you decide to change roles again. You don't automatically change back to your old role.  The "cost" is having to get back to the truck, finish the turn, and then spend the 2 AP to change.


Gin-Rummy end-game considerations In Gin-Rummy, when you and/or the opponent getting close to the winning score (usually 100), how one should modify her play?

For example, I think, that if you just need few points in order to win then trying to Gin is a waste, better to go for a fast knock.

An answer might be divided into three cases:

I am close to Wining
Opponent is close to Wining
We are both close to Wining

The end-game might change the play in the following decisions:

Pickup/Pass
Pickup/Draw
Which card to discard
Knock fast / Gin

From rummytalk about the importance of keeping under the count:

  reduce the point total in your hand so that even if your opponent
  should go gin, your total point count will be low enough so that he
  will not win the game.


Can I transform a token copy of a double-faced card? If I activate my The Scarab God on Jace, Vryn's Prodigy and then flip the token of Jace, do I still get a Jace, Telepath Unbound? And if so, what zone does Jace, Telepath Unbound go to when he dies?

No, you cannot transform a token of Jace, Vryn's Prodigy this way.

110.5g A token that has left the battlefield can’t move to another zone or come back onto the battlefield. If such a token would change zones, it remains in its current zone instead. It ceases to exist the next time state-based actions are checked; see rule 704.

So any effect that exiles a token and then brings it back will fail to bring it back, and it will cease to exist next time state-based actions are checked.
Note that you cannot transform any token that is copying a double-faced card; but for a different reason. If you have a token copy of Delver of Secrets, and try to transform it, it will also fail.

701.27a To transform a permanent, turn it over so that its other face is up. Only permanents represented by double-faced cards can transform.
110.5e A token is subject to anything that affects permanents in general or that affects the token’s card type or subtype. A token isn’t a card (even if represented by a card that has a Magic back or that came from a Magic booster pack).


Pandemonium and Muscle Sliver Pandemonium is an enchantment that says "Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, that creature's controller may have it deal damage equal to its power to target creature or player of his or her choice."  Muscle Sliver is a 1/1 creature that gives all Slivers (itself included) +1/+1.

So if you have no other Slivers in play, does Pandemonium do 1 point of damage or 2 points of damage when Muscle Sliver comes into play?

Pandemonium's triggered ability checks the power of the creature when it resolves, not when it triggers. A ruling on Pandemonium says the same thing.

  The triggered ability does not check the creature's power until the ability resolves. If the creature is not on the battlefield when the ability resolves, it does damage equal to the power of the creature right before it left the battlefield.

By the time the ability resolves, Muscle Sliver is already on the battlefield, and his power is being modified by his own ability. You may have it deal 2 points of damage.

Still not convinced?

There are cases when a creature's power is checked when an ability triggers and when it resolves. To illustrate this, consider the case where we play Muscle Sliver when we already have an Experiment One on the battlefield. Will Muscle Sliver trigger evolve?

The answer is yes. This is because of rule 611.3c (although it is mentioned in a few places).

  611.3c Continuous effects that modify characteristics of permanents do so simultaneously with the  permanent entering the battlefield. They don’t wait until the permanent is on the battlefield and then change it. Because such effects apply as the permanent enters the battlefield, they are applied before determining whether the permanent will cause an ability to trigger when it enters the battlefield.


Spades rules on trumping in after spades are broken In Spades after spades are broken can any player trump in even if he has the suite that was led?  Or does he have to be out of the suite that was led before he can trump?

As in most traditional trick-taking games, a player must follow suit if able. Breaking spades only allows a player to lead spades, i.e. to play a spade as the first card of a trick. Players can only play a spade on a non-spade trick if they have no cards of the led suit.


Dictate of Erebos and Bestowed creatures Bestow is a mechanic with the following reminder text:

  (If you cast this card for its bestow cost, it’s an Aura spell with enchant creature. It becomes a creature again if it's not attached to a creature.)

Dictate of Erebos has the following effect:

  Whenever a creature you control dies, each opponent sacrifices a creature.

Consider the following case:

My opponent controls a Dictate of Erebos
I control a Creature which has, as an Aura attached to it, a card with Bestow (in my case, an Underworld Coinsmith with Hopeful Eidolon as an Aura)
I control a single other creature, which I want to avoid sacrificing (in my case, a Doomwake Giant)
A single effect kills two of my opponent’s creatures (in my case, the Doomwake Giant’s Constellation effect triggered while he had two 1/1s)
I choose, as my first sacrifice, the Creature enchanted with the Bestowed card (in my case, the Underworld Coinsmith above)

In this situation, does the Bestowed card (e.g. the Hopeful Eidolon above) revert to being a Creature in time for me to choose it as the next sacrifice?

Or does it only revert to being a Creature after all triggered instances of Dictate of Erebos have resolved, forcing me to sacrifice the creature I want to save (e.g. the Doomwake Giant above)?

You may sacrifice Underworld Coinsmith, and then you may sacrifice Hopeful Eidolon.

Whenever a creature dies, all of its enchantment(s) become unattached. Normally, they would be sent straight to the graveyard as a state based action. However, enchantments with Bestow immediately become a creature instead due to rule CR 702.102a. The commonly used slang terminology for this action is "falls off".

Triggers from Dictate of Erebos resolve one at a time. If you sacrifice Underworld Coinsmith to the first trigger, then Hopeful Eidolon immediately "falls off" and is ready to be sacrificed to the second trigger.

  702.102a If you chose to pay this spell’s bestow cost, it becomes an Aura enchantment and gains enchant creature. These effects last until the permanent this spell becomes becomes unattached.


Can a player trade 3 groups in one turn? Rules specify that when trading each group exchanged counts as an action to the player whose turn it is. And then later goes on to say that puppets of a group are transferred along with it. Is the player then limited to exchanging 1 group for another group or two groups for cash/special cards? Or can he exchange a parent group with 3 puppets for another group?

On Page 7 of the rule book, it says:

  Each Group exchanged counts as an action
  for the player whose turn it is, whichever way the Group
  moves. So if you trade a Group for a Group on your turn,
  that counts as two actions – one to move the first Group, one
  to move the second one!

Then, on Page 8, it says:

  When a Group is transferred to another player, its puppets (if any)
  must go with it, along with all treasuries involved. The player
  receiving the Group must immediately fit it, and its puppets, into his
  power structure...

(I know you already pointed that out, I just wanted to show the exact rules quotes.)

That would lead me to believe that you can trade off one of your own Groups (and any of it's puppets) for another Group (and any of it's puppets). Doing so will cost your both of your actions for the turn, one to 'release' the old Group and another to 'welcome' the new Group in. The puppets don't have a say in where they are going, so so they don't count as additional 'Groups' in this case.

So you are fine to trade away a parent Group with three puppets for another group, just as long as you get a good enough deal!

(Note, that if a player can't fit a traded group and all it's puppets into their Power Structure, some of the puppets may have to be released to the uncontrolled area.)


Can I activate a bloodrush ability at instant speed? Can I use a card with bloodrush in response to something?

For example:

If an evil opponent wants to kill my attacking Skarrg Guildmage with an
Izzet Charm can I discard Scorchwalker and use it's ability to save my guildmage?

Yes. All activated abilities are at instant speed unless they specifically indicate otherwise*. Because the ability is written with a colon, it is an activated ability. It does not need to be on the battlefield to be activated, and your opponent does not need to know it exists to activate it (although you must reveal it, obviously). In this particular cast, you're discarding the card as part of the cost. That's the only reason you have to discard the card. If it didn't say discard, you could activate the ability as many times as you wanted.

This is spelled out in 112.3b, emphasis mine.

  112.3b Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as "[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]" A player may activate such an ability whenever he or she has priority.

Compare this to the rules text for instants,

  304.1. A player who has priority may cast an instant card from his or her hand.

So the timing for activated abilities is the same as the timing for instants.

As for it being in your hand, this is spelled out here:

  602.2a The player announces that he or she is 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.

Note: I said specifically indicate otherwise. This specification does not need to be on the card. For example, the Comprehensive Rules state that planeswalker activate abilities can only be activated on your turn at sorcery speed, but this is not stated on the card.


Have recent changes in bidding priorities changed the value of finesses? I was taught to "bid to make." That is, it would take 26 points to bid a game that was at least a 2 to 1 favorite to make. (I'd bid game with 24-25 only with "something extra" such as a solid five card suit that would take a disproportionate number of tricks.) Under these cirumstances, I would shun finesses (a 50-50 proposition) except as a last resort, because they "average down" my theoretical  "67%" chances. Instead, I would look for an endplay, squeeze, or maybe a combination play (e.g. a drop play for 3-3 distribution in a key suit followed by a finesse.))

The IMP scoring table allows bidders to come out ahead if they make as many as 40% of the game contracts they bid. Hence, many players will now bid a speculative game with 22-24 points (instead of 26). More to the point, this result is occurring more frequently because of pre-emptive and "competitive" bidding, where the slightly stronger partnership is pushed into a game contract, instead of being allowed to stop at the three level. In this situation, a 50-50 shot at a successful finesse will "average up" their chances.

Do good players play finesses more frequently to "shorten" the odds when they are in long odds contracts with less than 25-26 points? In finance terms, do good players regard finesses as "dilutive" when they have 26+ points and "accretive" when they have 22?

Finesses, now as always, are worth half a trick (absent information about opponents' distributions). In IMPs scoring, it is usually appropriate to take a finesse if that is the most likely way to make your contract, and usually inappropriate to take a finesse if it risks the contract for a chance at an overtrick.

Just because a contract is less likely to make, it doesn't change the value of a finesse. If a squeeze, endplay, or combination play gives you better chances, you should do that instead of finessing. If no better alternatives exist, you should finesse.

It may be that finesses are more commonly employed by players who bid lighter games, but that doesn't reflect on their desirability.


What exactly is affected by the new rule 614.16? In the Ixalan Comprehensive Rules Update Bulletin, one of the sections says that rule 614.16 is changing, with this explanation:

  This new rule hops in and bumps the existing 614.16 down. The new rule establishes that when a replacement effect watches for "an effect" creating a token or putting counters, it'll do its thing if a replacement effect or prevention effect causes these things to happen. This covers some weird cases where Doubling Season may or may not double the counters and tokens.

What are those "weird cases" and how are they affected by this change? Are any other cards affected?

Rule Change
Doubling Season has the following abilities:

If an effect would create one or more tokens under your control, it creates twice that many of those tokens instead.
If an effect would put one or more counters on a permanent you control, it puts twice that many of those counters on that permanent instead.

The cards Anointed Procession and Parallel Lives also both have that first ability.
Under the previous rules, those abilities just care about whether the original event is an "effect", which is defined in rule 609.1:

An effect is something that happens in the game as a result of a spell or ability. When a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability resolves, it may create one or more one-shot or continuous effects. Static abilities may create one or more continuous effects. Text itself is never an effect.

In particular, costs and special actions are not effects and do not create effects, so Doubling Season would not apply to counters and tokens created by those events. In addition, if those counters or tokens were created by replacement effects that applied to those events, Doubling Season would still not apply, because the original event was not an effect. This part is changing; the new rule 614.16 has this text:

Some replacement effects apply "if an effect would create one or more tokens" or "if an effect would put one or more counters on a permanent." These replacement effects apply if the effect of a resolving spell or ability creates a token or puts a counter on a permanent, and they also apply if another replacement or prevention effect does so, even if the original event being modified wasn't itself an effect.

Interactions
As the rule says, this rule change affects replacement effects that create tokens and replacement effects that put counters on permanents. In particular, it affects those replacement effects that can replace events that are not themselves effects.
Counters
Lands
The largest category of cards this rule change affects is lands that enter the battlefield with counters. Playing a land for the turn is a special action, so it is not an effect. And the ability that causes it to enter the battlefield with a counter is a replacement effect, as defined in rule 614.1c. So, under the old rule, if you play one of these lands for your turn, the counters would not be doubled by Doubling Season, but if you put the land onto the battlefield due to some other effect, Doubling Season would apply. Under the new rule, Doubling Season's ability always applies.
The lands affected by this are

Dark Depths
Gemstone Mine
Depletion Lands: Hickory Woodlot, Peat Bog, Remote Farm, Sandstone Needle, and Saprazzan Skerry
Llanowar Reborn
Tendo Ice Bridge
Vivid Lands: Vivid Crag, Vivid Creek, Vivid Grove, Vivid Marsh, Vivid Meadow

Similarly, Dryad Arbor has the same interaction with cards that cause creatures you control to enter the battlefield with counters, such as Bloodspore Thrinax and Master Biomancer.
Combat Damage
Some other cards are affected because they can replace damage with adding counters. Combat damage is not an effect, so under the old rules, Doubling Season would not apply to combat damage, but it would apply to damage from other effects. Now, Doubling Season always applies to these replacement effects:

Force Bubble
Lichenthrope
Phytohydra
Soul-Scar Mage
Szadek, Lord of Secrets

Replacing Counters with Counters
Finally, there is a single card that replaces adding counters to permanents with adding more of the same counters: Winding Constrictor. Under the old rules, Doubling Season would have only applied if the original counters were added by an effect. Under the new rule, Doubling Season always applies to the counters added by that replacement effect. This will most commonly come up in the case of combat damage dealt to creatures by creatures with wither or infect. The -1/-1 counters are the result of damage, not a replacement of the damage, so Doubling Season wouldn't normally apply, but it does apply to the counter Winding Constrictor adds. On top of that, you can use a card like Mycosynth Lattice or Liquimetal Coating to make planeswalkers into artifacts. Then Winding Constrictor's ability applies to counters added to pay the costs of those planeswalkers' "plus" abilities, and once Winding Constrictor's replacement effect is applied to those counters, Doubling Season will apply to the counter that Winding Constrictor added.
Tokens
There are only two cards that create tokens as a replacement for an event that does not create tokens: Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet and Words of Wilding.
In the case of Kalitas, under the old rules Doubling Season's ability would apply or not depending on why the original creature died. In particular, if the creature died directly from a spell's effect, Doubling Season would have applied; some examples are Murder's "Destroy target creature" or Innocent Blood "Each player sacrifices a creature". However, Doubling Season would not have applied if a creature died while paying a cost (such as Ashnod's Altar's "Sacrifice a Creature: Add {C}{C} to your mana pool) or died of a state-based action such as having 0 toughness or taking lethal damage. Under the new rules, Doubling Season always applies to tokens created by Kalitas.
Similarly, with Words of Wilding, under the old rules, Doubling Season would have applied if the card would be drawn due to an effect (like Divination), but not if the card would be drawn due to the turn-based action of drawing a card during your draw step. Under the new rules, Doubling Season always applies to tokens created by Words of Wilding.


Can I stack ongoing action cards on the same base in Smash Up? In Smash Up, can I play multiple actions on a base?

Yes, unless an earlier played action card or minion on the base prohibits that.

In the rules there is a section that states that the rules are not perfect. There will be clashes. And there are some tie-breakers.

If rule A prohibits X and rule B grants X, rule A wins.
If all else fails, the player whose turn it is decides.


Did Wizards ever write a followup for the 2003 card face redesign? I started playing Magic: The Gathering in 1997, when the Fifth Edition had just been released. The game immediately captivated me, and I especially loved the visual design.

A radical card face redesign was announced in early 2003 for the Eighth Edition. Today, in 2016, this is ancient history, and the "new" look has been the standard for more than half of the game's existence.

My question is this: Wizards of the Coast has repeatedly written followups for card mechanics, such as a lengthy blog post explaining design mistakes that led to several Urza Block cards being banned. Has anything like that (positive or negative) ever been published by Wizards employees about the 2003 visual redesign? I'd really love to know how they view their decision in hindsight.

The references section of the Card Frame article on the MTGSalvation Wiki refers to a large number of articles published by Wizards about card frame changes. The ones about the Eighth Edition change that you're asking about are:

Card Frame Redesign FAQ, by the magicthegathering.com staff.
Frames of Reference, by Mark Rosewater
A Scary Card Frame Story, by Randy Buehler

The article most relevant to your question is Frames of Reference, because it is where Mark Rosewater explains why exactly they made those changes.


Does Steel Hellkite destroy cards in my opponent's library and hand? The rules for Steel Hellkite say any nonland permanent with  converted mana cost X gets destroyed if I deal combat damage this turn. The second ruling states     "It doesn't matter who controlled those permanents at the time Steel Hellkite dealt combat damage, or if those permanents were even on the battlefield at that time."

Does this mean if I make the X cost 2/2, all my opponent's 2/2 cards, even in his library are destroyed?

The key word here is "permanent", which in the game of Magic essentially means "a card or token that's on the battlefield".  Cards in someone's library are never counted as being "permanents".

MTG Comprehensive Rules, 110.1:

  A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. A permanent remains
  on the battlefield indefinitely. A card or token becomes a permanent
  as it enters the battlefield and it stops being a permanent as it's
  moved to another zone by an effect or rule.

Also note that "converted mana cost" has nothing to do with being a 2/2 creature.  There are quite a number of things that cost 2 mana that are also 2/2 creatures, but not all 2/2 creatures "have a converted mana cost of 2", by any means!


Different game modes for Thunderstone While plenty entertaining in the original version, the game Thunderstone looks like it could be played in many more ways.
Besides the most obvious modifications like playing with more (or less) monster, item or hero classes, what are the most popular/best modes? I'm interested in single- as well as multi-player ones.

There are a number of variants listed in the rulebooks (Wrath of the Elements, in particular, has solo play and epic variants printed in it among others).  Having tried most of them out, I have to say that I still greatly prefer just the basic scenario.  In particular, the small size of the Village stacks means that any longer variants tend to turn into just grinding towards the end, as there is little purchasing one can do once the premium Village stacks are exhausted.


Can a player collect nobles after a day ends in Guillotine? I was playing the game with two friends and there were just two cards left on the second day, when my friend decided to use the [Escape!] card which allowed him to Randomize and discard 2 cards.

After this the day ended, we drew the next 12 cards. Then, my friend collected the first noble in line, saying that his last play (from day 2) was not over because he didn´t collect a noble, which is obligatory according to the rules.

Is this allowed?

The day doesn't end when the line becomes empty.  It ends at the beginning of someone's turn if the line is empty.

After your friend plays Escape!, the line is randomized and two nobles discarded, resulting in an empty line.  Your friend tries and fails to collect the first noble in line (there no longer is one).  Then the day ends, a new day begins, and twelve new nobles are added to the line.

Your friend is out of luck, I'm afraid!  No noble for him until at least his next turn.


Is a commander send to the command zone by Release to the Wind subject to the commander tax? In a Commander game, if my commander would be exiled, I can put it in the command zone instead. And Release to the Wind has the effect

  Exile target nonland permanent. For as long as that card remains exiled, its owner may cast it without paying its mana cost.

So, if that spell hits my commander, and I choose to put it into the command zone instead of exile, then if I later cast it without paying its mana cost, do I still have to pay the commander tax?

"Exiled", when used as a state, means "in the exile zone", so the continuous effect created by Release to the Wind only last for as long as the card it exiled is in the exile zone. Since the commander never even entered the exile zone in this case, the continuous effect doesn't do anything at all.

  611.2b Some continuous effects generated by the resolution of a spell or ability have durations worded “for as long as . . . .” If the “for as long as” duration never starts, or it ends before the moment the effect would first be applied, the effect does nothing. It doesn’t start and immediately stop again, and it doesn’t last forever.

If something did allow your commander to be cast from the command zone for an alternative cost, you would still have to pay the "commander tax" because the tax is an additional cost, and additional costs must still be payed when using an alternative cost instead of the mana cost.

total cost to cast
= mana cost or alternative cost
+ cost increases and additional costs
- cost decreases

The casting will also count towards the "commander tax" in future castings because the tax simply counts how many times it was cast from the command zone. For what cost it was cast is irrelevant.

  903.8. A player may cast a commander he or she owns from the command zone. A commander cast from the command zone costs an additional {2} for each previous time the player casting it has cast it from the command zone that game.

I would take something that moves the commander out of the zone (such as Command Beacon) to avoid the the "commander tax".


Would Cabal Stronghold count Snow-Covered Swamps? Would Cabal Stronghold count Snow-Covered Swamp for making mana?

I would assume so, as Cabal Stronghold counts basic swamp cards, and Snow-Covered Swamps have both basic and swamp on the card type.

Yes, the snow-covered lands do count as basic 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.: Cards printed in sets prior to the Eighth Edition
  core set didn’t use the word “basic” to indicate a basic land. Cards
  from those sets with the following names are basic lands and have
  received errata in the Oracle card reference accordingly: Forest,
  Island, Mountain, Plains, Swamp, Snow-Covered Forest, Snow-Covered
  Island, Snow-Covered Mountain, Snow-Covered Plains, and Snow-Covered
  Swamp.


Can anyone block a steal or assasination? Lets say:

It's Andy's turn and he pays three coins to assasinate Bob.

Charlie has a Contessa and wants to disrupt Andy.

Is Charlie allowed to use his Contessa here?

When Andy has his turn, the following happens:

Andy claims to have an Assassin, and named Charlie as his target and pays 3 coins
Bob and Charlie both have an opportunity to challenge Andy
If Andy has not been challenged (or he was challenged but does have the Assassin), the Assassination action proceeds. If the challenge was successful, the Assassination action did not take place and thus Andy has his 3 coins returned to him
Charlie (and only Charlie) may claim Contessa to block the assassination
If he does, Andy and Bob both have an opportunity to challenge Charlie
If Charlie does not (claim to) have the Contessa, the assassination goes through and Charlie loses an influence

A similar effect happens with someone claiming Captain. On the other hand, anybody may claim to have the Duke in order to block someone's Foreign Aid.

Source: The game's designer, answering pretty much this exact same question on BGG: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/10440845#10440845


When you use Cloudshift on Zada Hedron Grinder, do the creatures return simultaneously? When you use Cloudshift on Zada, Hedron Grinder does it resolve like Ghostway (simultaneously) or does each creature blink in order that the copy targeted them? I ask because if it resolves like Ghostway that's better in my opinion since allies entering simultaneously versus one at a time will trigger to a greater effect.

Add-on: I am actually assuming each happens individually and so want more of a confirmation, but this actually raised another question about Otherworldly Journey and its interaction with Zada. Since Otherworldly Journey returns the creatures at the end step they would indeed return and trigger simultaneously correct?

Spells never resolve "simultaneously".  Every effect goes on the stack, and each effect resolves from the stack in order, one at a time.

To quote the relevant rule regarding copies of spells (emphasis mine):

  706.10 To copy a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability means to put a copy of it onto the stack... A copy of a spell or ability is controlled by the player under whose control it was put on the stack....

So when you cast Cloudshift targeting Zada, Zada's ability is triggered and produces a bunch of spell copies, each of which is targeting another one of your creatures.

Even though all the spell copies were created at the same time, they still go on the stack and are resolved one after the other.  Since you control all the spells, you get to decide the order in which they go on the stack, and consequently the order in which they will resolve.  The Gatherer rulings for Zada say this specifically:

  You control all the copies. You choose the order the copies are put onto the stack. The original spell will be on the stack beneath those copies and will resolve last.

The end effect of all of those spells is that each one of your creatures is exiled and then returned to the battlefield in the order you decide when you load up the stack with all those copies.

Keep in mind, though, that this means each of your creatures finishes blinking before the next one starts.  That means that any "enters the battlefield" effects will go onto the stack and resolve before the next creature blinks.
 Also note that since each of the spells goes on the stack, your opponent has the option to respond with spells or abilities in between blinks.

In the case of Otherworldly Journey, there are two sets of spells/abilities that trigger simultaneously.  Casting Otherworldly Journey works similarly to Cloudshift - all the spell copies go on the stack and resolve one at a time, exiling your creatures in the order you specify.  Then at the next end step, the second half of each Journey is triggered, producing a bunch more abilities that you can place on the stack in any order.  The order in which the creatures return does not have to be the same as the order in which they were exiled.


Do -1/-1 counters count as damage? I am wondering if -1/-1 counters are considered damage? On creatures with the wither ability is says that the creature deals damage in the form of -1/-1 counters. As such I would like to know if a creatures wither-ability would trigger ex: Rite of Passage?

In general, -1/-1 counters do not count as damage. However, in the case where an ability (such as Wither or Infect) says that damage is dealt in the form of -1/-1 counters, it does count as damage. When a creature with one of those abilities deals damage to another creature, it still counts as dealing damage to the other creature, but instead of marking damage, you put that many -1/-1 counters on the other creature.

This means that damage dealt by a creature with Wither or Infect would trigger Rite of Passage.


Initial meld with a canasta In Modern/American canasta can I meld with a canasta that contains wild cards if I also have a natural to meld with it?
For example, I have five J’s and two 2’s, and three 9’s.

Counting card points it is not enough points to make the initial meld, but as a canasta it would count as 300 points for the canasta and 30 points for natural.

Can a player make the initial meld with this dirty canasta?

The value of the cards in the canasta counts as points in the meld; but the 300 bonus points for the canasta does not.

This means that in your example, you would be melding 120 points worth (50 for the Jacks, 40 for the 2s, and 30 for the 9s).

If instead your canasta were made of 4s instead of Jacks; then you would only be melding 95 points (25+40+30).

From the rules:

  You can make the initial meld for your team by melding cards from your hand whose total value is at least the minimum count. The minimum count depends on your team's cumulative score at the start of that hand:

  This initial meld from your hand must include either

    a pure meld of at least three matching natural cards (with no wild cards), or

    a wild card meld (at least three wild cards).

While these rules don't specifically cover the question of whether to count the 300 points for the canasta bonus; we can look in the rules for Classic Canasta:

  The count of a meld is the total point value of the cards in it. To meet the minimum, a player may make two or more different melds. If a player takes the discard pile, the top card but no other may count toward the requirement. Bonuses for red threes and canastas do not count toward the minimum.

There is nothing in the American Canasta rules to imply that not counting the bonuses for canastas would be changed.


Words of Worship and Nefarious Lich Suppose I have Nefarious Lich and Words of Worship in game. When I draw a card, I can pay 1 to draw 5 cards instead. But can I pay 2 and draw 9? Or, repeating this, can I pay X to draw 4X in addition to that first one?

You can only draw at most five cards from this. You could however gain up to 25 life.
Replacement effects can only be applied to an event once, and not indefinitely:

614.5. A replacement effect doesn't invoke itself repeatedly; it gets only one opportunity to affect an event or any modified events that may replace it.
Example: A player controls two permanents, each with an ability that reads "If a creature you control would deal damage to a permanent or player, it deals double that damage to that permanent or player instead." A creature that normally deals 2 damage will deal 8 damage-not just 4, and not an infinite amount.

Nefarious Lich has a ruling reminding us of how that applies here:

If you were going to gain life and you also have a replacement that can turn card drawing into life gain on the battlefield, you can gain life by using the Lich to turn the original life gain into card drawing, and then using the other replacement to turn a card draw into life gain. Nefarious Lich will not replace the life gain with a card draw again because it has already acted on this event.

Here's how that works out. When you draw a card, that's the event. You can replace it using Words of Worship:

{1}: The next time you would draw a card this turn, you gain 5 life instead.

... which turns the “draw a card” event into “gain 5 life”. This is still the same event, it's just doing something different now. That effect will in turn be replaced by Nefarious Lich:

If you would gain life, draw that many cards instead.

This turns the event into “draw five cards”. This is still the same event, just doing something different again.
If you had activated Words of Worship twice, the second Words of Worship replacement effect would see this event and replace one of the card draws to make this event: “Gain 5 life and draw four cards”. If you'd activated it six times total, these last five would would replace all card draws in this event, and turn the event into “Gain 25 life”.
You might be looking at the lifegain and thinking you'll draw cards, but remember: Nefarious Lich has already applied its replacement effect to this event to transform it once. Its replacement effect will not apply a second time. This means no life gain from this same event will be turned back into cards.


What would be the reasons for not having Jokers in a deck? In Doomtown Reloaded, it is optional to have Jokers in your deck. However, it seems to me like having Jokers in your deck is extremely useful, since you are more likely to get a better hand in a shootout.

I suppose that not having them in your deck means that there isn't a chance of having an unplayable card in your play hand, but that seems to be a small risk with many options for discarding cards. In fact, I have never played against any player who has not had Jokers in their deck, and those whom I have asked have always said it was better to have them.

So what would be the reasons for not having Jokers in a deck?

In my experience, the vast majority of decks do in fact run Jokers.

The main exception is a deck that does not want to get into shootouts at all or make any pulls. This is typically a "Landslide" deck that focuses on playing more dudes & deeds than the opponent can deal with.  It often includes cards like Make the Smart Choice or Pistol Whip, seeking to remove everyone from a posse before it ever gets to comparing Draw Hands. In such a deck a Joker will be a dead card if ever drawn to your Play Hand so there is no point in including them at all.


What is the origin of the term "converted mana cost"? In Magic: the Gathering, a card's converted mana cost is the card's mana cost converted to an integer by replacing all mana symbols with 1's and summing all of it.

My conjecture here is that it was named "converted" because it's "mana converted to an integer".

Still, I was wondering when has the term been first used and why is it named "converted". An official explanation would be preferred.

The term started to be used in Classic Sixth Edition.

In Fifth Edition, Spell Blast says total casting cost. In Sixth it says converted mana cost.

Pyromancy also says total casting cost, and Urza's Legacy was the set immediately before Sixth.

Sixth introduced many major rules changes, including the removal of interrupts and the introduction of the stack. You can read more details here, but in general it was a major push by WotC to redesign the rules and wording to lead to a more consistent environment.

I don't know why they chose the exact wording they did, but it makes sense as a term. A spell's mana cost includes colours and generic mana. The word "converted" (as opposed to "total") makes it clear that you're not paying attention to the composition of colour symbols (and later, other symbols), and instead just want a single number answer.

This would be important for comparing two spells in different colours, or reducing a spell's cost by a number but still requiring coloured mana.


Is 3-4 player endgame necessarily a deadlock? I played Ravensburger's Labyrinth with two friends, and we didn't manage to finish the game.

As far as I can see, you can never effectively move your piece more than 2 steps during your turn (step 1 by shifting the space you're standing on, step 2 by making your step). With 3+ players, you also can't limit what shifts your opponents make in any way (with 2 players, you could shift a row in one direction and then your opponent can't shift that row in the opposite direction that turn; with 3 players, player A shifts a row, player B can't reverse it, player C can).

Assuming all players always prefer to prevent an opponent from winning the game next move, how is it possible to finish the game? I assume that if you wait until 2 players are positioned close to their goals, then eventually a situation might occur where the deadlock would be broken... but that's a rather tiresome conclusion.

According to this translation of the rules, you can move your piece as far as you like down an open corridor, not just one step.


Are the (player) cards in your hand supposed to be face up or not? In playing Pandemic, I've always played where the cards in your hand are face up - i.e., visible to everyone. It is a cooperative game after all, and looking at another player's cards is easier than asking everyone what they have each turn. Certain actions require you to have knowledge of other player's cards (e.g., Share Knowledge), so it doesn't seem to be prohibited that you do know what cards the other players have.

In watching a video of BoardGameGeekTV playing Pandemic (well, Pandemic Legacy), they keep their hands face down. The Pandemic episode of Tabletop had the players' hands face up. Which is the correct way to play?

Both ways are correct and dependent on who is playing the game and what their skill and preferences are:

When players are getting used to the game they are encouraged to play with their hands face-up to simplify the communication and memory aspect of the game.

To increase the importance of accurate communication and memory and to give everyone something to contribute to the group plan, the players can play with their hands face-down.

From the official rules, p.7

  PLAYER CARDS

  When playing the Introductory game (4 Epidemic cards), place your
  cards face up in front of you, for all players to see.

  Only Player cards count towards your hand limit. Your Role and your Reference cards are not part of your hand.

  When playing the Standard (5 Epidemics) or Heroic (6 Epidemics) games,
  keep your cards private, so everyone has information to contribute to
  play discussions.

  Experienced groups may decide to play with open hands, if desired, in these games.

  Players may freely examine either discard pile at any time


At the end of the game, can you play a route that is longer than your number of trains? A recent quandary came up with some friends in a game of Ticket to Ride.  If, in the last turn, you have the cards to play a route longer than the number of trains that you have left, can you do so?  Or are you limited by your number of trains?

No, you are limited to the 45 trains you started with.

From the rules, under Claiming a Route (emphasis mine):

  The player may claim a route on the board by playing a set of Train Car cards that match the color and length of the route and then placing one of his colored trains on each space of this route

If you do not have the trains available to place on each space needed then you may not claim the route.

This is also how Days of Wonder's electronic implementation works.


In Shadows Over Camelot, when does a knight die if his life points drop to zero on another player's turn? Rules as written, p. 12, emphasis mine:

  If your Life points fall to zero (as a result of this voluntary sacrifice, or at any other point during the game, regardless of the reason for it), you die and disappear from the game at the end of your game turn.

Suppose I have one life point remaining. The player to my left begins their turn and plays a black Morgan card, "Each Knight immediately loses 1 Life Point." Barring being saved by the Grail, what happens? Am I immediately dead and out of the game? Or does play go all the way around the table back to me, where I can take a full turn at zero life points, and then die at the end of my turn? The latter seems to be what the rules indicate, but that seems rather... wrong... for this otherwise unforgiving game.

in fact, this is a translation error in the English rules of the game.

The "at the end of your turn" part should be removed from this sentence. When you fall down to 0 Life points, you're dead immediately unless you drink from the Grail...

Here is a forum thread where Bruno Cathala brings light on the issue:
https://www.daysofwonder.com/en/msg/?th=4531

As you say, this game is unforgiving and whenever in doubt, you're pretty safe to choose the worst option ;-)


Does my counter to a spell have to be relevant? If my opponent plays a creature, can I respond to that creature because technically it is a spell being cast?

If so, am I allowed to respond to the casting of a creature spell with a flame lash dealing damage to the player or must it concern the spell it is responding to?

If my opponent plays a creature, can I respond to that creature because technically it is a spell being cast?

Yes, you can. At the moment your opponent casts it (which means they reveal the card, pay the associated costs, and maybe even verbally declare that they are casting it), it becomes a spell, specifically a creature spell. It does not become a creature permanent, a.k.a. a creature, until the spell resolves. Before that happens, you get a chance to do things in response.

  If so, am I allowed to respond to the casting of a creature spell with a flame lash dealing damage to the player or must it concern the spell it is responding to?

Yes, you can cast Flame Lash targeting the player at this point. There is no rule that says the thing you cast must be related to the creature spell being cast; it can be anything you can play at that time, which generally means any instant or card with flash.

In detail, if we take the example of your opponent casting an Aether Herder with no other creatures in play, the process goes like this:

It is your opponent's main phase.

  Stack:
  (empty)

  Battlefield:
  (no creatures)

Your opponent reveals an Aether Herder card from their hand and moves it to the stack (i.e. on to the table), pays the cost {3}{G}, and (maybe) says "Cast Aether Herder" or something like that.

  Stack:

  Aether Herder (spell)

  Battlefield:
  (no creatures)

Your opponent may cast or activate something else: any instant, or any card with flash, or any ability whose activation is not restricted by the text "Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery" or the liky. Let's say they don't. (It would be very rare for them to do this.)

  Stack:

  Aether Herder (spell)

  Battlefield:
  (no creatures)

You may cast or activate something (instant, flash card, ability). Let's say you cast Flame Lash. You reveal the Flame Lash card from your hand and move it to the stack, choose what to target (your opponent), pay the cost {3}{R}, and (maybe) say "Flame Lash you". (Note: you cannot target the Aether Herder. Flame Lash cannot target spells. It can only target creatures - that is, creature permanents on the battlefield - and players, as it says on the card.)

  Stack:

  Flame Lash (spell)
  Aether Herder (spell)

  Battlefield:
  (no creatures)

You may cast or activate something else. Let's say you don't. (Again, it would be very rare for you to do this.)

  Stack:

  Flame Lash (spell)
  Aether Herder (spell)

  Battlefield:
  (no creatures)

Your opponent may cast or activate something. Let's say they don't.

  Stack:

  Flame Lash (spell)
  Aether Herder (spell)

  Battlefield:
  (no creatures)

Since all players have passed priority consecutively, the top item on the stack resolves. This is the Flame Lash. It deals 4 damage to your opponent. (Then, if they are at 0 life or less, they lose.)

  Stack:

  Aether Herder (spell)

  Battlefield:
  (no creatures)

Your opponent, as the active player, may cast or activate something. Let's say they don't.

  Stack:

  Aether Herder (spell)

  Battlefield:
  (no creatures)

You may cast or activate something. Let's say you don't.

  Stack:

  Aether Herder (spell)

  Battlefield:
  (no creatures)

Since all players have passed priority consecutively, the top item on the stack resolves. This is the Aether Herder. It stops being a spell and becomes a permanent. Your opponent moves the card from the stack to the battlefield.

  Stack:
  (empty)

  Battlefield:

  Aether Herder (permanent)


Can Harvey Walters solve the final rune puzzle with his special ability? Harvey Walters has a special ability that allows him to solve any rune puzzle once per game for a certain cost (can't remember exactly).

One of the scenarios requires the investigators to solve a rune puzzle to win. Can Harvey Walters just use this ability to win the game (which seems very anti-climatic)?

There is nowhere mentionning you cannot use the character's power against the "boss"

I would find it rather hard to believe you can use the statuette that reduces the boss's damage to harvey to 1 but couldnt save the 1shot power versus the "boss puzzle"

Anti-climactic yes, but then again what's the point of wasting a good power to get a 1shot use if you cannot use it when it really counts


What happens when you have multiple copies of Nine Lives on the board? I couldn't find any prior rulings to this question.
So what happens if you have multiple copies of Nine Lives on the board and receive damage from any source.
Do both copies trigger each time you get damage so that both copies would have nine counters at the same time making them redundant or do they alternate giving you functionally 17 lives (8+8+1 lethal)?

Nine Lives second ability is a prevention effect not a triggered ability:

CR 615.1a Effects that use the word “prevent” are prevention effects. [...]

When there are two Nine Lives on the battlefield, the interactions are resolved according to:

CR 616.1. If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object’s controller [...] or the affected player chooses one to apply [...]

In this case you would choose on which copy of Nine Lives to put the counter, effectively giving you 17 lives.


Bridge Responders Jump shows a preempt or points...Playing Standard American I am back, played a club level tournament recently.  Got creamed in it.  I think I couldn't deal with the pressure.  MY question is that my partner (an old timer) to my opening bid of 1 Club responded 2 Diamonds.  I thought it was a sort of a preempt bid but she had 14-15 points and 5 diamonds.  She was trying to say show a big hand which I failed to comprehend.  Needless to say we missed game.

as always many thanks for your time.

For questions about Standard American, you can always refer to the  Standard American Yellow Card System Booklet.

In this case, the booklet says that jump-shift responses are strong and slam invitational. The downside to the booklet is that it doesn't really cover followups for most bids.

Preemptive jump-shifts are quite popular among players who play a 2/1 system, but Standard American's inability to force to game at a low level makes slam exploration too difficult when responder holds a good hand with an excellent suit unless you play strong jump-shifts.


Income boosting Special cards in Illuminati: Y2K I recently picked up the Illuminati: Y2K expansion for Illuminati. I'm a little confused about the "double Income" Special cards. These cards say: "Play this card at any time to give all your FOO groups extra income equal to TWICE their normal income", where FOO is an Alignment.(Shown here is a sample image of Flower Power, the double Income card for Peaceful groups.)

1) Do you place the extra MegaBucks(MBs) on your Peaceful groups right away or do you have to wait until they would normally get their Income again, on your next turn? Other Special cards that add MBs state they're added right away, and don't reference Income at all.

2) Do these cards permanently change the Income of those groups, or is this just a one-time deal? Again, because changing Income is different than just adding MB, I'm not sure what the correct way to use them is.

The cards are a one-time effect.  Whenever you play it, collect income twice for each aligned group.

From the rules:

  Collect Income. For each Group that has an
  Income, draw that income from the bank. Put the
  money directly on that card


Theft: Does a Returning Creature Keep Equipment? If I steal a creature card from my opponent with a theft card such as Wrangle, then attach an equipment such as Dead Iron Sledge to said creature.

At the end of the turn, my opponent gets his creature back. At this time, what happens to the Dead Iron Sledge or any other equipment I attached to said creature? Who controls the equipment after the creature is returned?

My argument is that if the exchange were the other way, the equipment would remain under control of the one who cast it, but the equipment would be attached to the stolen creature. This is clear in Wizards rulings.

https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/7p3h5u/stealing_an_equipped_artifact/

If I lose control of an equipped creature, does the equipment stay attached to it?

Thus, when the creature is returned, it will keep the Dead Iron Sledge attached to the opponents creature.

Your instinct is correct, there is no difference between changing control due to stealing a creature with something like Wrangle, and changing control due to something like Wrangle's effect ending. The answer provided by the linked question remains exactly the same. In both cases, control of the creature is changing from one player to another; while control of the equipment stays with the player who originally cast and controlled the equipment.

The equipment will stay attached until something changes that. As the controller of the equipment, you could use the Equip ability to attach it to a different creature.


7 Wonders Duel Pantheon : Can a player invoke a God during Age I? From the 7 Wonders Duel Rules

  The first player begins Age I. On your turn, you must choose an
  “accessible” card in the card structure and play it. An accessible
  card is a card which isn’t partially covered by other cards.

  You can play the card you’ve chosen in one of three different ways:
  1. Construct the Building
  2. Discard the card to obtain coins
  3. Construct a Wonder

A player can therefore build Wonders during Age I.

From the 7 Wonders Duel Pantheon rules

  During Age I, the players will choose the Divinities they will be able
  to invoke during Ages II and III.

Later, in 7 Wonders Duel Pantheon rules

  The Divine Theater Wonder
  Reveal all of the cards from a Mythology
  deck of your choice.  Choose one of the Divinities revealed this way
  and activate it for free. Then stack the unused cards, in the order of
  their choice. This Wonder is worth 2 victory points.

The question

Can a player build "The Divine Theatre" Wonder during Age I and activate a God from one the Mythology draw piles?

Yes I believe you can activate a God in Age I using the Divine Theater.

  During Age I, the players will choose the Divinities they will be able to invoke during Ages II and III.

is taken from the Overview of the rules.  I think that's more just a general guide of what happens rather than a strict rule that prevents The Divine Theater from working.  I think if using The Divine Theater was in some way forbidden during Age I then that should be explicitly stated in the rules.  Note The Gate allows a player to use any god revealed from the top of any deck,  This was not chosen by a player to be able to be invoked during Ages II and III.  So if A God can be played that way (just not following the exact letter of the overview)  then I see no reason why The Divine Theater can not either.

Note your revealing all the cards from a 'Deck' so if you choose a category that only has 2 or 1 card left in the deck that that is all you reveal.  Note you return them in the order you choose, this is relevant for the Gate card.  I would also argue that as the cards are 'revealed' that your opponent will see the order they are returned.


Why would one player ever need more Army units in a battle than their opponent? I am learning the rules of Risk, but am failing to understand why, during a battle, one player would ever need more Army units than their opponent?

According to the rules of risk, during a battle each player compares their highest dice rolls. The player with the lowest roll of the two removes one unit from the battle. The players then compare their next highest rolls (if they have rolled more than die).

My misunderstanding can be explained in the following two scenarios I have created.

In both battles, the attacker rolls 2 die and the defender rolls 1.

Battle 1

In battle 1, the attacker has the highest roll and so the defender removes one of his units. Now the defender has no more dice and so there is no defending die to compare the attacker's 2nd die with. The attacker wins this battle.

Battle 2

In battle 2, the defender has the highest 1st roll and so the attacker removes one unit. As by the rules, the players should now compare their next highest dice. The defender does not have a next highest dice, only the one which they have already used in the battle. So what happens here? Am I right in thinking that once this stage is reached, the defender can reuse their die that have already won during this battle? And so 'Battle 2' would now look like:

Now, the defender wins again and so the attacker has lost all his units in the battle. The defender wins this battle.

Battle 3

Here is a 3rd scenario following the logic I have proposed:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Is this the correct process in which battles should be played?

I have since confirmed the rules. My scenarios for 'Battle 2' and 'Battle 3' are incorrect. Once a die has been used in a battle, it cannot be used in that battle again. The only reason for a player having more dice than their opponent is to increase their chance of rolling a higher number.


2 player 2 decks card game This game is called Touch in Egypt (my country) but I can't find it online.  Can anyone help me with the real name of the game?  Also I would love to hear any competitive strategy I can use to win!
Setup:

Two players
Two shuffled decks of cards
Players create 8 columns that can be completed like K-Q-J-10-etc but in different colors.
Aces are drawn out so the both players can complete the Aces' columns according to their suite and order.

Rules:
Each player has two piles to draw from, one is faced up that other player can put his cards on if they are the same suite and according to their order like if you have 3 of hearts, I can put my 4 of hearts on it.
Game play:
Players take turns...
TOUCH:
if any player made unnecessary move, like arranging the columns when he/she had the chance to complete an Ace column, the other player can say "TOUCH" ending the first's turn.
Win condition: you need to finish both of your piles.

This sounds like Russian Bank, which seems to have a wide variety of different names (including Touch) in different countries. (I knew it as Cravat when I grew up playing it in the UK).


Card game similar to jokers and pegs I recently read about a popular game that, similar to Jokers and Pegs, used cards to determine play. As I recall, it required multiple decks of cards - two more decks than the number of players, but I don't think it required a board of any kind. Supposedly easy to learn, suitable for adults or children, and about equal parts chance and skill. But for the life of me, I cannot recall the name. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Head and foot is a game that uses multiple deck and has no required accessories or board.


Why can't I activate Rank-Up-Magic Admiration Of Thousands on duelingnexus.com? I have made a deck with the goal being to reduce my opponents LP to 100 by the effect of Number C6: Chronomaly Chaos Atlandis.

In order to activate his effect to reduce my opponents LP to I need Number 6: Chronomaly Atlandis as an XYZ material so I decided to use the effect of Gale Dogra to send 3 Chronomaly Atlandis's to my graveyard and activate Rank-Up-Magic Admiration Of Thousands to special summon Chaos Chronomaly Atlandis.

However Rank-Up-Magic Admiration Of Thousands isn't working. Is there a reason why I have missed?

However Rank-Up-Magic Admiration Of Thousands isn't working. Is there a reason why I have missed?

If you can't activate your RUM it may be because of it's requirements. From it's text, emphasis mine:

  Target 1 or more Xyz Monsters in each Graveyard, all of the same Rank; Special Summon from your Extra Deck, 1 "Number C" or "CXyz" monster that is 1 Rank higher than those monsters, and attach those monsters to it as Xyz Materials. You cannot Special Summon other monsters during the turn you activate this card. You can only activate 1 "Rank-Up-Magic Admiration of the Thousands" per turn.

This restricts you because:

You have to select at least 1 monster from each graveyard. If your opponent does not have one you can't play that RUM.
All the selected monsters have to be of the same rank. If neither graveyard contains valid targets you can't activate the RUM.
If you special summoned something else previously, you can't activate the RUM.

All these are possible reasons (besides a bug, naturally) for you not to be able to play the Rank-Up-Magic card.


Destroying a permanent with ability "as long as this card is on the battlefield" Example scenario is:

P1 plays a creature like Skilled Animator that says:

  When Skilled Animator enters the battlefield, target artifact you control becomes an artifact creature with base power and toughness 5/5 for as long as Skilled Animator remains on the battlefield.

P1 has an artifact, so it becomes a creature with base power and toughness 5/5
P1 goes to attack with at least the artifact
P2 plays an instant card that deals enough damage to the Skilled Animator to kill him. But the artifact creature is not blocked

What happens to the artifact/creature? Does it still deal combat damage, or does the instant resolve first, killing Skilled Animator, and causing the artifact to lose its creature status before dealing damage?

Provided that Player 2 sequences correctly, the artifact will cease being a creature before combat damage is dealt.

The situation that you're describing would play out like this:

Player 1 declares attackers, including the artifact creature.
After attackers are declared, both players will receive priority. Player 2 can use their instant now to kill the Skilled Animator. At this point, the artifact is no longer a creature. This will cause it to be removed from combat, per rule 506.4 (emphasis mine):

  A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it phases out, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it’s a planeswalker that’s being attacked and stops being a planeswalker, or if it’s an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.12) or stops being a creature. A creature that’s removed from combat stops being an attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker that’s removed from combat stops being attacked.

The declare blockers step begins. After Player 2 declares their blockers (if any), both players will receive priority again. At this point, Player 2 can use their instant again, with the same effect.
The combat damage step begins, and damage is dealt. After damage is dealt, both players will receive priority again. At this point, Player 2 can use their instant; however, at this point, it's too late to prevent the damage, as it has already been dealt.


Can a creature with hexproof be targeted by spells that target all creatures? examples:
Blazing Volley,
Fumigate,
Last One Standing.

Cards that affect "all creatures" (such Blazing Volley, Fumigate, and Last One Standing) are not stopped by hexproof because they don't actually target anything (to target, something must literally say the word "target"; the "choose a creature" in Last One Standing still doesn't count as targeting).

Even spells with overload (like  Electrickery) won't target if cast with overload because overload changes them to not target.

However, spells that do target a bunch of creatures, such as spell with replicate (ex. Gigadrowse) or strive are stopped by hexproof.  The difference is that these spells do literally say the word "target".

The relevant rules are:

  114.1a An instant or sorcery spell is targeted if its spell ability identifies something it will affect by using the phrase “target
  [something],” where the “something” is a phrase that describes an
  object and/or player.

  114.1c An activated ability is targeted if it identifies something it will affect by using the phrase “target [something],” where the
  “something” is a phrase that describes an object and/or player.

  114.1d A triggered ability is targeted if it identifies something it will affect by using the phrase “target [something],” where the
  “something” is a phrase that describes an object and/or player.


How does the help system work in munchkin? The rules say to add your combat strength to theirs and in a separate section it says that your combat strength is your level plus weapons etc.

In our first few games this essentially meant that every monster was easily beaten so we were wondering if maybe it was just your level you add to them and any enhancement cards.

Yes, the rules do specifically say

  Combat strength is the total of Level plus all modifiers - positive or negative - given by items and other cards.

So the helping player adds all their bonuses to yours. Remember also to count situational modifiers that are brought about by the new helper eg. a monster who is +4 against Elves would gain a +4 bonus if the person you brought in to help was an Elf but you weren't.

Just remember that Munchkin is a competitive game and it is up to you whether you assist or not (unless a specific card says otherwise). It isn't always in your (or your fellow player's) best interests to agree to help, thus forcing the player in the combat to fight alone or run away.


What is new in the 6th edition of Warhammer 40K? So it has been a couple years since I played 40K, and it seems Games Workshop has come out with a 6th edition rules book since then.

I saw it in the store and first noticed that it is almost twice as thick as my 5th edition book. I also noticed it was plastic wrapped so I couldn't even flip through it.

So my question is not so much "what are some of the new rules" as much as it is "what more is in the book that makes is so much bulkier?"

A perfect answer would cover some of the new rules (in a general sense) and give me a brief overview of the contents (I expect there will be story sections, rules, painting techniques, pictures, ect., but what else?).

The rule-book itself is full color with expanded art and fluff sections.  Though you won't find anything here that wasn't present in previous versions outside of some new artwork.  Most of the price increase was because it's GW and that's just what they do.  Any other gaming company would probably charge 10-20% less for the same thing.

GW did just release a rules only version that drops the fluff and color artwork for a price reduction.  The new starter also contains a mini-rulebook just like last edition.

6th was a pretty big overhaul to the game.  For better or worse a lot of mechanics from the current version of Fantasy where ported over.  I'll go over the big changes:

Flyers - Probably the biggest change and also includes Flying Monstrous Creatures.  They move fast and are hard to hit (always requiring a 6+ to hit regardless of BS).  They also neglected to give many of the armies any units with the new Skyfire rule to shoot them down.  This has had a great impact on balance.
Allies - You can take small detachments from other codexes based on an allies matrix.  Some allegiances are good enough that your characters can join up with allied squads.  Game balance has been tossed out the window this edition.
Hull Points - Vehicles essentially have wounds now.  Usually 3 for standard vehicles, 2 for lights like speeders, and 4 for the big guys like Land Raiders.  Pens or Glances take off a hull point.  There is no damage table for glances anymore.  They also made AP 2 weapons add 1 to the damage table, and AP 1 adds 2.  Pretty much everyone's mech has been shelved this edition. It's far to easy to glance vehicles to death.
Snap Fire - Pretty much anything can move and shoot now, but heavies need 6+ to hit if they move.
Assault - Big changes here.  Assault moves are 2d6 now instead of a fixed 6".  They also included challenges between characters.  Defender can also snap fire into assaulting units now.
Wound Allocation - Another big change.  Wound allocation is by closest model.  Characters can jump out of the way to transfer the hit to a mook on a 4+(2+ if it's an IC).  This effectively allows you to take a nasty character with a big squad of guardsman for +20 wounds.


Can you gain a Silver with Trader if the original supply pile was empty? We had a game with the following relevant cards: Trader and Witch. We're several turns into the game and the Curse pile has emptied. I have a Trader in my hand, and it's Barry's turn. Barry plays Witch to get the cards, I'd like a Silver.

I contend that even though the Curse pile is empty, I would gain a Curse (according to the wording on Trader) and therefore I can gain a Silver instead.

Barry says that since the Curse pile is empty, you wouldn't gain a Curse therefore you can't reveal Trader and in turn, cannot gain a Silver.

Who is right? If possible, please provide sources.

  Trash a card from your hand.  Gain a number of Silvers equal to its cost in coins.
  When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, instead gain a Silver.

"When...would" text is only applied when the event specified actually would occur; if it is impossible for any reason, then the conditional is ignored.  The following is the relevant section in the FAQ:

  19.2 "When would"

  An ability that happens when an event would occur (such as when you would gain a card), happens before the event actually occurs (before you gain the card). Note however that this ability can only happen if the event would have otherwise occurred, i.e. if the event would have occurred if no when-would abilities had interfered (so you cannot for instance trigger a when-would-gain ability when "trying" to gain a card that's not available in Supply)

Donald X explicitly refers to this exact situation in this post on BoardGameGeek:

  Trader only works if you really would gain a card. If you try to gain a card from an empty pile, you can't use Trader then. I see how this is a question and sadly it is not covered in the FAQ.


What is the mass (or density) of the average Jenga block? I am attempting a project in which a robot needs to carry 5 layers of Jenga pieces around a course, while following a line and without dropping the stacked blocks. Figuring out the static frictional force needed to move the Jenga blocks off of one another requires certain values.

I already have the coefficient of wood on wood, which is 0.35, but I need either the average mass of a Jenga block, or the typical density of the wood used to make Jenga blocks.

Thank you in advance!

Well, it looks like that per Hasbro, an official Jenga set is made of Alder, which apparently has a density of 0.38 g/cc, which when combined with the dimensions of a standard Jenga block from this answer of 1.5cm x 2.5cm x 7.5cm, gives us an average of 10.6875g per block for a 28.125cm³ block.

The margin of error on both the density (one site I found had a range from 0.4–0.7 ×10³ kg/m³, or 0.4–0.7g/cm³) and the dimensions of the block due to manufacturing tolerances are enough to be considered significant, so I'd add a nice fudge factor to that before running further calculations.


How is Yu-Gi-Oh played with more than two players? When I play Yu-Gi-Oh, I want to play with my brother and sister. The problem is that we don't know how to play with more than two people playing. Are there any additional rules I have to incorporate to be able to play this way?

For example, how do I determine whose monsters I can attack? Or do both my opponents count as a single one?
 Just saying, nobody should be on teams*.

Play with the rules the show gave for free-for-all duels

The closest we have to official rules for Yu-Gi-Oh! with more than three players is Episode 122 of the original Yu-Gi-Oh! anime. It featured a four way free-for-all duel with the following rules (plus a rule involving the results of this duel determining seeds for the final four):

  Each Duelist must play with no more than 40 cards in his Deck.
  Each Duelist can attack or target any of the other three, but may not attack until one full turn has been played.

  The turn order is determined as follows: each player selects 1 monster from his Deck and removes it from play; the owner of the monster with the highest ATK goes first and the lowest ATK goes last. [All duelists had  different ATK, so it was not explained what happens in a tie]

Throughout the duel, there were temporary alliances that were made and broken. The duel ended when the first player got to 0 Life Points and everybody was ranked for tournament seeds. In other words, the highest remaining Life Points was ranked first, with others being ranked in relation. Yugi and Joey initially teamed up, then then turned against each other when they realized it was advantageous to do so in order to get favorable tournament seeds. Again, there were no ties, so it was unclear what would have happened in that case.

I would suggest adding the following rules:

Each player selects 1 monster from his Deck and removes it from play; the owner of the monster with the highest ATK goes first and the lowest ATK goes last. You cannot choose a monster with a ? on either ATK or DEF.
In the case of a tie with the highest ATK, all tied players use the following tie-breakers with the cards they chose until there is no tie, with the winner going first.

Highest DEF
Highest Level (monsters without a printed Level, such as Xyz monsters, count as 0)
Highest Xyz Rank (monsters without a rank, which would be any monster aside from Xyz monsters, count as 0)
Highest Link Number (monsters without a Link Number, which would be any monster aside from Link Monsters, count as 0)
Each player rolls a die with the highest winning the roll, repeat as needed for ties.

Example: Yugi chooses Kuriboh (300/200, Level 1). Bandit Keith chooses Machine King Prototype (1600/1500, Level 3). Odion chooses Dragon Zombie (1600/0, Level 3). Mako chooses Fire Kraken (1600/1500, Level 4). Yugi goes last since his monster had the lowest attack, but the three remaining duelists' monsters tie with 1600 ATK, so we need to go into tiebreakers, starting with comparing DEF. Mako and Bandit Keith both have DEF 1500 monsters, while Odion has a DEF 0 monster. Odion will go after the other two. Since there is still a tie, Level is compared. Mako's monster is a Level 4 monster, but Bandit Keith's is a Level 3, so Mako goes before Bandit Keith (since Odion is already out of the running, his monster's Level is not compared). Thus the order is Mako, Bandit Keith, Odion, Yugi.

If you don't want to have the strategic layer of selecting monsters, you could just have it where all players roll a die with the highest roll going first. The disadvantage to this is that players do not have the ability to strategically determine whether they want to go first, last, or in the middle.

Also, you can play to the last man standing if desired.


Do you waste your attack if you try to attack a monster that can't be attacked? In haunt 28, the Traitor's Tome says:

  The Revolver and other Speed attacks can't be used against the Demon Lord.

The Secrets of Survival book doesn't mention this. If a hero tries to make a speed attack against the Demon Lord, do they waste their attack, or do I have to tell them about this before they try?

You have to tell them, but only when they're about to try.

They don't waste an attack by making a speed attack, because they can't make a speed attack. As soon as the hero announces that they're going to make a speed attack, the traitor must tell them that they can't, and they carry on with their turn. However, they may have already wasted some time getting into a position to find this out.

Unfortunately due to how Betrayal is made, there's no rules reference to clarify this specifically. While it's not identical, there's a similarity in the "Make an Attack" rules (page 13):

  You can’t use a trait to attack an opponent who doesn’t have that trait. For instance, if a monster doesn’t have Sanity, you can’t make a Sanity attack against it.

It's not that the attack just fails; you can't even try it. You might not know that the monster doesn't have Sanity until you tried to attack with it, and the traitor says "you can't, it doesn't have Sanity." In that case, you haven't made an attack yet.

This is distinct from monsters that are immune to, or can't be damaged/stunned by a particular type of attack, as they can still be attacked in that way.


Can a creature be killed by damage from two different instants? During a game, an opponent cast two instants, one after another. One did two damage to a creature, while the second instant did two damage and if that killed my creature, did 3 damage to me. My creature was a 4/4, so obviously it did 3 damage to me according to my opponent. Is that a legal move? Assuming the first instant resolved, would that leave my creature at a 4/2? Or would the card have no effect?

Yes, that was a legal move.

You may cast multiple instants in the same turn. There's no limit beyond having the instants and being able to pay their cost.

After taking the first two damage, your 4/4 would still be a 4/4. Those two numbers represent power/toughness - toughness is not health, but the amount of damage a creature can withstand in one turn.

Your 4/4 would be a 4/4 with two damage marked against it after the first spell, then a 4/4 with four damaged marked against it after the second. Since it has taken damage at least equal to its toughness in one turn, it dies.


How to win at Nine Men's Morris I always find finishing off my opponent tricky in Nine Men's Morris.
If they have 3 pieces and can fly, how do I guarantee a mill to secure the win? What's the minimum number of pieces I can do this with?

You can't guarantee a win. In a 1996 paper called Solving Nine Men's Morris, Ralph Gasser describes how he used search techniques to determine that, given best play, the game of nine men's morris should end in a draw.

In figure 11 of that paper, he gives a graph of the percentage of won positions for the player to move, against the number of stones each has on the board. The highest percentage of won positions is 83% when the player to move has 3 stones against 3.

The data also reveals that a player with 3 stones left cannot force a win against an opponent with 6 or more stones left. Although many of those positions should still end in draws, rather than wins for the player with more stones.

A player is much more likely to be able to force a win when they have 7 or more stones left, than when they get down to 6. A player with 4 stones against 3 can only force a win if it is their go, and they can immediately make a mill.

All of this assumes two players who are playing completely optimally, which is not usually the case. In 1990 six games were played between the British champion Mike Sunley and a heuristics-based computer program. Two games were drawn and four were won by the computer.


How Does Syr Konrad Interact With Living Death? I have two scenarios in which Syr Konrad, the Grim will be involved from two different perspectives, and I'm curious to see how Living Death will interact here.

Scenario 1: Syr Konrad is in play with a full board of creatures for each player. I cast living death. I'm fairly certain he sees all the other creatures die with him, but does he also see the creatures being removed from the graveyard as per Living Death's temporary "exile" effect for the creatures that are about to be brought into play from the graveyard?

Scenario 2: Same as above, except Syr Konrad is already in the graveyard. What does he see, if anything, once living death is cast in a board state full of creatures? My assumption tells me he doesn't trigger at all in this scenario but I am not 100% certain.

Scenario 1: Syr does indeed see all. Living Death does three things in order, one after the other. First it exiles all creatures from graveyards. At this stage, Syr is on the battlefield, so he sees this happen, and triggers from the creatures leaving your graveyard. Next, all creatures are sacrificed. Syr does indeed see all creatures that die at the same time he does, and he triggers. This is explicitly mentioned on his Gatherer page:

  If one or more creatures die at the same time as Syr Konrad, its first ability triggers for each of those creatures.

Finally, creatures are brought back from exile to the battlefield, but 1) Syr is in the graveyard, and 2) he doesn't care about that in the first place.

Once Living Death is finished, all the triggers are put on the stack (once for each creature exiled from your graveyard, and once for each creature sacrificed, apart from Syr himself), and your opponents are probably quite unhappy with all the life they are about to lose.

Scenario 2: Syr's ability only works while he is on the battlefield. And all creatures that go into or out of graveyards do so well before Syr enters the battlefield. So he won't trigger.


In Robo Rally, what happens if I run out of cards and can't play a card on the 5th register? The crab legs option card lets me play 2 cards in one register. If I have 4 damage, this leaves me with no cards to play in the 5th register. Is this just a pass in that turn?

Unfortunately the rules don't quite say this explicitly, but the intent is that you must have a card in every register. If you only have 5 cards, then in order to satisfy that you have to put one on each register, meaning you can't use crab legs.

There are a few things in the rules that at least strongly imply that. The biggest one is the "reveal program cards" step, which says "Each player reveals his or her Program card for that register at the same time." That doesn't make much sense if a register can be empty. The instructions for placing your program cards also seem to assume you're putting one on each register.


Is there any reason to buy the Ascension base game? Since Ascension: Storm of Souls is both a standalone and expansion to Ascension: Chronicle of the Godslayer, is there any reason to buy COTG? SOS adds new mechanics and seems to have better artwork.

Not to be Captain Obvious, but you would buy CotG if you want the cards.

I quickly glanced at the card list and a few "must-haves" stuck out:

Enlightened: Master Dhartha, Twofold Askara, and Tablet of Time's Dawn (though you might NOT want the possibility of infinitely many turns...)

Mechana: all the constructs in this set are valuable, Burrower Mark II maybe not as much.


Risk - To secure a world domination win? I have been playing Risk with my four best friends and i have very rarely won.

I have been wondering what is the best strategy to win at Risk?

Usually securing a continent and ALWAYS being on the aggressive.

When you keep getting Territory cards and playing them at the right time (usually after your opponents have played them first so that the count will be higher), you should always have a formidable army (i.e. so that your opponents won't want to mess with you).

The other critical part to winning risk is being aggressive. You should be getting a territory card each turn usually in a quest to prevent your opponents from ever owning entire continents. This means you constantly annoy them by taking at least (and usually only) one territory of the continent they control on your turn. This prevents them from getting massive bonuses.

Hope this helps.


Shadows over Innistrad Starter Box I completed the story mode for Shadows over Innistrad (Magic Duels on iOS), but never received the Starter Box. I raised the issue and they responded by giving me 300 coins, which would give me two boosters. Is that adequate? What exactly do you get in a Starter Box?

From my Reddit post, I just had to spend those 300 coins on getting two Shadows Over Innistrad boosters, and the cards from the Starter Box were added to the collection automatically.


Can the Mah Jong force out the Phoenix as part of a straight in Tichu? Suppose I play a straight with 1-5 and wish for a 7. The next player has a 3,4,5,7, and Phoenix.

Does my wish compel the player to complete the straight using the Phoenix and fulfill the wish, or the usage of Phoenix exempt from the wish, since the Phoenix cannot be wished for under ordinary circumstances?

Yes, the 7 is forced out in this case. The rule for the wish is that if a player has any legal play that involves playing the 7, then he must do so.

Note that if the player had 5,6,Ph,8,9; then he would NOT be forced to play that straight; because he doesn't actually have a 7.


Expansion//Explosion and Siren Stormtamer I've had this situation come up several times in Magic Arena. I cast the Explosion half of Expansion // Explosion targeting my opponent's Siren Stormtamer. Opponent sacrifices the targeted Siren Stormtamer to itself targeting my Explosion. Somehow, I still draw cards.

Why? Siren Stormtamer's effect should counter the spell, which means both the "deal damage" and the "draw cards" halves. Is this a bug?

MTGA handles the rules correctly in this case. Explosion is a valid target for Siren Stormtamer's ability when your opponent activates the ability. By the time the ability resolves, that is no longer true, so the ability fizzles for lack of legal targets. Explosion is not countered, it can resolve and, since it still has a legal target (you), it does as much as possible, namely draw you cards.
By the time your opponent activates the ability, Explosion is targeting his Stormtamer, so Explosion is a legal target for the ability. As part of the ability activation, your opponent has to sacrifice the Stormtamer, but only after declaring targets. Sacrificing the Stormtamer as part of paying the ability activation costs has no effect on Expansion's legality as the ability's target at this point.

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell includes proposal of the spell (rules 601.2a-d) and determination and payment of costs (rules 601.2f-h). [..]

(the rules for casting spells and activating abilities are the same as far as this question is concerned.)
When the ability resolves, it checks again that its target is still legal. Since the Stormtamer is no longer on the battlefield, Explosion no longer targets your opponent or a creature he controls. Therefore, Explosion is no longer a legal target for the Stormtamer's ability on the stack, and the ability fizzles.

Resolving Spells and Abilities

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. [..] If all its targets, for every instance of the word "target," are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn't resolve. It's removed from the stack and, if it's a spell, put into its owner's graveyard.

Explosion can then resolve because it wasn't countered and still has a legal target; it will do as much as possible with the remaining target (yourself), so it will draw you cards.


Euchre Leads question If I have called the suit, and I have the lead and the highest trump card, but not much else, isn’t it the best strategy to lead that card, flushing out my opponents trump?  Then lead my next best card hoping for help from my partner.   My friend contends that I would be robbing my partner a chance to trump because I would have taken his chance by forcing him to follow suit.  Thank you.

There are many variables and unknowns here.  That said, the fact that the initial card was turned over by the dealer and no one had ordered it up provides a great deal of information.
You say you called the suit and have the lead and the right bower... What was the rank of the card turned over?  Was it a jack?  An Ace?  A nine?  Now... was the suit you called the same color as what was turned over by the dealer?
If what was turned over wasn't a jack and is the same color as what you bid, then chances are better that the opponents won't have the left bower (as them having it would have increased the likelihood that the dealer would have picked up or been ordered up by their partner) implying there is a slightly increased chance your partner does.
At the same time, noting that no one liked the initial suit well enough to order up or pick up, this implies the non-bowers of that suit are rather well distributed among all four players or are turned down (with the initial card specifically being among those turned down), specifically with slight bias away from the opponents.  That is to say, it is very likely your partner has one of the suit turned down in addition to possibly the other bower and it is quite possible that one of your opponents has a void in that suit.
In such a situation, if your strongest notrump kickers are in the suit of the same color as trump, I would personally want to burn trump twice before trying to run the off suit.  You say "and not much else" which implies to me one other small trump and middling kickers.
Now... the lead I recommend may be controversial, however I have had great success with it in the past (and was frequently accused of cheating / table-talking as a result) and that would be lead with your smallest trump.
For example:  You sit left of the dealer, your hand is Qs,Js,9h,Ah,Kc and Qc was the turned-up card.  Four passes occur and Qc is turned over.  You bid spades.  I would lead with the Qs.
From here, you hope your partner replies with the Jc.  If they do and if they are thin on trump, they will likely continue by playing their strongest notrump, hopefully Ad or Kh.  In the case of Kh, you actually overplay them with your Ah and then burn a final time with Js, followed by 9h and then Kc.  In the case they had a second or third trump, they will instead lead a low trump back to you on the second play.  In the case they didn't have Jc, you'll hope to regain control via hearts or clubs, or hope to see your partner take control somehow instead.
The easiest way for you to be set in this scenario is if the person to your left had the left bower and another trump as well as strong diamonds.
Do I get set some times playing this way?  Yes, but being in control of the bidding goes a long way, and I win on this bid more than often enough to make up for the occasional setbacks to make it worth it.  Especially for tournament style play where risks are more rewarded.

Now... in the event that you are opening bidding on a color different than what is turned over... that is a different story.  If your hand was Qs,Js,9h,Ah,Kc and it was a heart that was turned over... I would not have bid at all and would have waited for an opponent to bid black and tried to set them (begin by leading Ah, trumping in on a diamond lead with the Qs or Kc, burning with the Js, and then playing 9h) or let my partner bid diamonds if they were so inclined.  (Them knowing me however, that I didn't bid the suit turned over while sitting left of the dealer lets them know that I don't have any help for them in terms of trump in that case)


Can Russia make a truce with Japan (without USA/UK knowing)? Just played a 16 hour game of Axis & Allies (classic). I thought the guy playing Russia just didn't know what he was doing, but it turns out he had made a deal with Japan to just leave him alone. Thus it basically became Russia kept to himself while the UK battled Germany and the USA fought Japan. Needless to say the Allies lost handily.

Is this allowed? Can a player basically switch teams or have a truce with the other team? Without any other players knowing?

It looks as if your friend has read too much history and not enough of the rulebook.  Russia did have such a truce with the Japanese (actually, there was no declaration of war until Germany had been beaten), and I'm sure Stalin would have loved it if the US and Japan had pounded each other into shreds while the Red Army was busy.  But Stalin, whatever else he may have been, was a good game player: the troops he transferred from Siberia to Moscow kept him in the game that turn, and allowed him to win on one front while keeping the other at status quo till the last turn, when he made a dash for the Far Eastern victory points.

Getting back to the question: of course secret inter-player agreements are 'allowed', if only because there's no way of stopping them.  But they only work if both players believe it is in their interest to keep to the agreement.  In A&A, it's a zero-sum problem; this Russian strategy benefits either the Axis or the Allies, and all the information to work it out is available to everybody. In your game it was a very bad plan; but in Stalin's game it worked like a charm.

A friend of mine summed up a similar situation as "Everybody's happy? Then somebody's miscalculated."


What is the name of this pyramid game? I used to have this game, not any more. It must be at least 10-15 years old, but possibly older. I don't remember the rules, only that you had to follow a certain path with your pyramids, and that they could be stacked in a way (perhaps blocking off others?). Searching on the internet, I have found pictures of the game, however I can't seem to trace it back to a name. One of the pictures I found shows the board clearly:

It is called Pyramidis (at least the dutch version). I found one last year in a thrift store. Fun little game.
To move, take a stack of pyramids of which the top color is yours and put these one by one in the next few spots, covering other pyramids. You need to get five of your eigh pyramids into your start area. Or (which is the harder option) cover all other users pyramids so they can't move and lose the game.

Useless trivia, the game Ramses II uses the same pyramids.


Returning permanents from my graveyard If i have a sorcery or instant or creature ability that allows me to return target permanent to its owners hand, can I use that ability or spell to return permanents from my graveyard

No, you cannot do that.

Only objects on the battlefield are called permanents. In the graveyard, they are just cards. You can only return cards from the graveyard to the battlefield or to your hand if the spell or ability specifically says "from the graveyard".


Attaching equipment, when the equipment wasn't actually cast Lets say, I use a Genesis Wave, and I reveal an equipment. Can that equipment enter the battlefield 'automatically' attached to a creature already in play? Or does it just enter the battlefield, and I have to attach it by paying its equip cost during a main phase?

(Secondary clarification, is it true I can't put auras/equips on creatures also revealed by genesis wave?)

Equipments never enter the battlefield attached to a creature unless an effect specifically says that it does, no matter whether you cast it or put it onto the battlefield with a card like Genesis Wave.

Aura Enchantments, on the other hand, always enter the battlefield attached to something. If you cast an Aura, it enters the battlefield attached to the object that was the target of the spell. If you put it directly onto the battlefield with a card like Genesis Wave, you choose at that time what object it attaches to. Just like casting an Aura, this choice is constrained by the "Enchant [something]" ability on the aura, so an aura with "Enchant Creature" can only be attached to a creature, whether or not it was cast.

One caveat you should keep in mind is that Genesis Wave puts all of the permanents onto the battlefield simultaneously, so you cannot attach an aura from among those permanents to another one of those permanents. This is different from a card like Warp World, which puts Enchantments onto the battlefield after other cards so that you can attach those Enchantments to other permanents that it puts onto the battlefield.


As the first player, can I choose whether to perform a Special Activity after completing my Operation? When I'm the first player on a card in Cuba Libre, can I perform my Operation before deciding whether to perform a Special Activity or not? The distinction is important because the desirability (and even possibility) of certain Special Activities can vary based on the die roll(s) of an operation. Also, one might desire to see their operation through before deciding to Launder (which is only possible without Special Activity), particularly if depending on another player's Cash to Launder.

The rules as written of Cube Libre have no say in whether the Special Activities must be declared beforehand. The turn track is adjusted after the player completes its activities so it can be deduced that the player can choose to add a Special Activity if the rest of the involved rules are respected.

I have played several COIN games and only Pendragon comes to mind in that all Operations and Special Activites (Feats in that game) must be declared and marked on the map before executing any action.


Settlers of Catan - What counts as longest road? My friends and I are new to Settlers of Catan. We had a dispute over what counts as the longest road. Suppose we have a road that is 8 segments long. Between the 4th and 5th segment we have a road coming off it that is 2 segments long, does this count as that person's road being 10 segments long?

Pictured: For the Longest Road, does this count as 8 segments long, or 10?

S           S — — S
 \         /
  \       /
   S — — S
          \
           \
            S

Assuming all roads and settlements are from the same player, where:

S : Settlement
\ : Road
/ : Road
— : Road

The Argument: One friend was arguing that because the road is not broken by another player, it is 10 segments long while another was arguing that the longest road should be able to be taken in 1 trip, so it is 8 segments long. We know that the rule is given as

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

But we were unable to determine which it should be.

It's 8 segments. The game rules say:

  The first player to build a continuous road (not counting forks) of at least 5 road segments, receives the Special Card “Longest Road”. [...]

so you don't get to count the two-segment fork.