Llawanor Elves Trampled on desert Oasis. Act of God or Force of Nature? Suppose the defending player has an untapped Oasis in play, a Circle of Protection: Green, and an untapped 1/1 Llanowar Elves, which has just been assigned to block a strong creature with trample, such as Force of Nature. Let's throw Lifelink on the Force of Nature as well.

In what order do all the following resolve?:

Attack declared
Blocker declared
Blocker assigned damage
Attacker deals damage
Blocker dealt damage
Trample-over damage calculated
Trample-over damage dealt
Defending player loses life
Attacking player gains life
Damage prevented by CoP if used
Blocker dies
Blocker placed into graveyard
Blocker no longer regenerate-able
One damage prevented to Blocker by Oasis

Key sub-questions that bring this to mind:

at the time when 7 trample damage is dealt to defending player, are Llawanor elves, having received fatal damage, still in play?
how much damage is actually dealt to the elves, 1 (their toughness) or 8 (Force of Nature's power)?
what is the source of the trample damage to the defending player?
if defending player uses CoP, is Lifelink activated?

Very simply, if the defending player activates the Circle of Protection choosing the Force of Nature, they lose no life, the attacking player gains 7 life, and the blocking Llanowar Elves dies. Alternatively, the attacking player can leave the Llanowar Elves alive and gain no life. Specifically, combat proceeds like this:

The Declare Attackers Step begins.

The active player declare Force of Nature as an attacker.

The Declare Blockers Step begins.

The defending player declares Llanowar Elves as the single blocker for Force of Nature.
The defending player taps Llanowar Elves for one mana, activate their Circle of Protection: Green choosing the Force of Nature, and activate Oasis targeting the Elves. This is their last opportunity to do those things before damage is dealt.

The Combat Damage Step begins.

The active player chooses how to assign Force of Nature's damage. If they're smart, they assign all of the damage to Llanowar Elves, because all of the damage assigned to the defending player will be prevented.
The defending player chooses how to assign Llanowar Elves' damage. The only choice is to assign a single point to Force of Nature.
Combat damage is dealt simultaneously. Force of Nature deals 7 damage to Llanowar Elves after 1 is prevented, and the active player gains 7 life. Llanowar Elves deals 1 damage to Force of Nature.
The active player gains priority and Llanowar Elves dies as a state based action because it has lethal damage.

Alternatively, step 3 could have gone like this (highlighting what's different)

The Combat Damage Step begins.

The active player chooses how to assign Force of Nature's damage. They assign 1 damage to Llanowar Elves and 7 damage to the defending player.
The defending player chooses how to assign Llanowar Elves' damage. The only choice is to assign a single point to Force of Nature.
Combat damage is dealt simultaneously. Force of Nature deals no damage to Llanowar Elves after 1 is prevented, no damage to the defending player after Circle of Protection's ability prevents it, and the active player gains no life. Llanowar Elves deals 1 damage to Force of Nature.
The active player gains priority, and nothing dies as a state based action.

Of course, the active player could also assign any amount of damage between 2 and 7 to Llanowar Elves and gain a corresponding amount of life.

As Ivo Beckers points out, if the Llanowar Elves somehow gained Banding, the defending player would choose how the Force of Nature's damage is assigned, which would allow them to choose the alternate option and save the Elves.

The rules for Trample specify exactly how Trample modifies damage assignment. Specifically, 702.19b says

  The controller of an attacking creature with trample first assigns damage to the creature(s) blocking it. Once all those blocking creatures are assigned lethal damage, any remaining damage is assigned as its controller chooses among those blocking creatures and the player or planeswalker the creature is attacking. When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures that’s being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that’s actually dealt. The attacking creature’s controller need not assign lethal damage to all those blocking creatures but in that case can’t assign any damage to the player or planeswalker it’s attacking.


Ghost stories white moon - cemetery tile Qi Ghost stories white moon.

When using the village cemetery tile to bring a player back, the revived player gets 2 Qi.

When using this same tile to bring a villager back from the graveyard, what happens with the Qi? Does the active player get them?

I can't find an authoritative answer, but I believe that no one gets any Qi.

Using the Cemetery in the base game allows you to revive a taoist, which is represented by them having some amount of Qi. For play reasons, this amount is set at two.

Using the Cemetery with White Moon allows you to revive a villager instead; but villagers don't have Qi, they are just either alive or dead.

Looking at the flavour of the action, when you bring back a taoist you are giving them life back (at a cost), but you don't benefit; so when you bring back a villager, why should you be gaining life?


Is the black group dead in this game state? (From Nick Sibicky's lecture #246) In Nick Sibicky's lecture #246, they state that the black group at T3 is dead:

They exactly say that both have 4 liberties and it's White's move so Black is dead.

But, after Black connects at S3 and white takes outside liberty at S5, Black can gain one extra liberty: T5 (threatening to run out), White S7, T6, S8 and Black now has 4 liberties and is on the move! Plays O1 and wins the race.

Like this:

$$Bcm1
$$ |...,.....,
$$ |..........
$$ |..........
$$ |.XXX......
$$ |7OOOX.....
$$ |.OXXOO....
$$ |.OXO.....,
$$ |.OXOO.....
$$ |.X1X2.46..
$$ |.XXX35....
$$ +----------

Or rotated to agree with their coordinates:

$$Bcm1
$$ ..........|
$$ ..........|
$$ ..........|
$$ ,.....,...|
$$ ..........|
$$ ........6.|
$$ ........4.|
$$ .....O...5|
$$ ....XO.O23|
$$ ,..XOXOOXX|
$$ ...XOXXX1X|
$$ ...XOOOOXX|
$$ ....7.....|
$$ ----------+

Or did I miss something?


When an explorer lands in a barrier room from above, which side do they end up on? For example, an explorer discovers the Coal Chute, and the Coal Chute leads into the Chasm. So which side of the Chasm does the explorer land on? Do they then have to cross the Chasm to get back to the rest of the house?

If it is the Vault you always appear on the outside, otherwise it is your choice as to which half of a barrier room you appear on.
From the official errata & FAQ:

Collapsed Room -- If you land in a room with two parts, such as the Chasm, which half do you land in?
If anything transports you to a barrier room, you decide which side of the room to end up in. If the arrival causes a counter to be created, as with the Collapsed Room or the Secret Passage, then that counter is permanently on the side of the room you choose. Anything that takes you to the Vault, however, always leaves you outside the door.


Can I mix same races but different factions in one army 40k Please forgive me but I am incredibly new to warhammer and the other answer didn’t really make sense, could I mix Drukhari and Harlequins?

Short answer

Yes.

Longer answer

Yes, but thinking in terms of "races" isn't the determining factor (it effectively is, as far as I know, but it isn't the language used by the rules).

In 8th edition 40k, there are three styles of play: Open, Narrative, and Matched. In Open and Narrative, you can just bring what you want and play. Though there are additional rules that can be added which may bring restrictions (like detachments). In Matched, you are required to use the detachments rules, where most detachments require the units in the detachment to be from the same faction. Factions are just keywords that are given with a unit's datasheet.

Since you're asking Drukhari and Harlequins (and I happen to have reference materials for them):

Harlequin's Troupe unit has the Faction Keywords "Aeldari", "Harlequins", and "<Masque>".
Drukhari's Kabalite Warriors unit has the Faction Keywords "Aeldari", "Drukhari", and "<Kabal>".

Since both these units share at least one Faction Keyword ("Aeldari"), they can be included in the same detachment.

Additional Information

If you are playing with the armies' codexes, each faction benefits substantially from being in a detachment with ONLY units from that codex (and potentially even more specific than the codex). Each codex has options for sub-factions that give additional abilities to your units, you probably noticed the Faction Keywords that had "<" and ">" above, these are to determine your units' sub-faction (Drukhari are especially complicated, as they have three types of sub-faction, "Kabals", "Wych Cults", and "Haemonculus Covens").

Update:

Per the 2018 Big FAQ 2: The Battle Brothers rule was updated to "All of the units in each detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be CHAOS, IMPERIUM, AELDARI, YNNARI, or TYRANIDS, unless the Detachment is question is a Fortification Network. This has no effect on your army Faction."

This means that two detachments with the AELDARI keyword can be included in the same army, but the AELDARI keyword is no longer enough to include units into the same detachment.


What do the colors mean on Better Settlers? Answers to this question about tile layouts for Catan suggests Better Settlers. When I open Better Settlers, the page shows a board setup for Catan. What do the colors in the setup stand for?

My guess:

maroon/dark red: brick
dark green: wood
light green: wheat
yellow: sheep
grey: ore

Is that correct?

The colors surely match the colors of the resource cards and the actual hexes:

maroon - brick
dark green - wood
light green - sheep
yellow - wheat
gray - ore

And the blank orange hex would be the desert.

(clockwise from bottom left, that's sheep, wheat, ore, brick, and wood;  the center is desert, and there's an extra wood cut off on the bottom)


Patchwork: why so many buttons? Playing Patchwork. There seems to be so many button tokens, but we do not seem to be able to end the game with more than 10 buttons in the pocket. All the 10s, 20s just sit there, unused. Are we missing something? How to accumulate more “money”? :)

The most buttons I've ended with has been about 25. However, it would be entirely possible to end up with more if you stopped purchasing more tiles halfway through the game, and used the "Advance and receive buttons" action until the end.
I would not recommend this strategy, as you will likely be left with many holes in your board, which count as -2 buttons each.


How does Golos work with cards that increase mana costs? Let's say I activate Golos, Tireless Pilgrim's ability while there is a Sphere of Resistance out. Do I have to pay 1 mana for each of the cards that are spells that I play from Golos?

Yes, you have to pay 1 mana in this case. Golos' ability introduces a so-called 'alternative cost':

  118.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.” ...

The exiled card's original mana cost is waived, but not the additional costs like the one from Sphere of Resistance:

  601.2f The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some spells have additional or alternative costs. Some effects may increase or reduce the cost to pay, or may provide other alternative costs. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. The total cost is the mana cost or alternative cost (as determined in rule 601.2b), plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions. ...


Can the Madman cause you to die from sanity loss? If so, can the dog retrieve him? Two questions, both not directly addressed in the rule book.

1) During the Haunt, if I pick up the Madman card (gain 2 might, lose 1 sanity) and my sanity is already on the lowest value, do I die? Can Omen cards kill you?

2) If I did die and dropped the Madman, can a teammate send the Dog to pick up the Madman (assuming he is within 6 spaces)? Can the Dog retrieve (companion) Omen cards?

1) Yes you would die from the sanity loss. From the rule book (page 9):

  Once the haunt begins, if any of your traits (Speed, Might, Sanity, or Knowledge) moves down to the skull symbol, your explorer dies.

This does not differentiate in any way between taking direct damage and any other forms of stat loss, so gaining the Madman can kill you if your sanity is already at its lowest point.

2) No, the Dog cannot carry the Madman (or the Girl). According to the rule book (page 7):

  Some omens, like the Dog, aren’t items at all, so they can’t
  be dropped or traded. They’re companions that follow
  the explorer who has custody of them. (The Dog, Girl, and
  Madman all work this way.)

and according to the Dog card:

  Once during your turn, the Dog can move to any explored room up to 6 spaces away, using doors and stairs, and then return. It can pick up, carry, and/or drop 1 item before it returns.

The Dog explicitly states that it can only pick up items. The rules explicitly state that both the Madman and the Girl are not items, so therefore neither of them could be carried by the Dog.


Can I move someone else's dolphin? We recently purchased a copy of the original Escape From Atlantis as it was a game I used to love as a child. Playing it last night, however, we came across a couple of situations that the rules didn't seem to clarify.

If a player has an Atlantian on the same tile as a dolphin, and is using that dolphin for travel, can I 1) move a swimmer on to that tile and "steal" the dolphin away from them on a later turn, or 2) when rolling a dolphin move, cause their dolphin to "abandon" them and swim away?

We're unsure as to whether that dolphin effectively becomes "theirs" or not, where only a shark or a sea monster can get that person, or if stealing a dolphin is fair game.

Dolphins don't belong to anyone. In my version of the rules (UK), the only thing a Dolphin does is let you pay 3 movement points (I.E your entire turn) to move a swimmer and dolphin to the safety of a coral island, and leave the dolphin in front of the island.

You can move the dolphin with the swirler without having any effect on the swimmer(s) present.

I think different editions have different rules though.


Hibernation Sliver and sacrifices Hibernation Sliver states all slivers have "Pay 2 life: Return this permanent to its owner's hand". So what if you have a sliver like Necrotic Sliver that gives all slivers "3, Sacrifice this permanent: Destroy target permanent."? Can you sacrifice a sliver and then return it to your owners hand before it goes into the graveyard?

No, you cannot sacrifice a sliver to Necrotic Sliver's ability and then return it to your hand with Hibernation Sliver's ability.

When you activate Necrotic Sliver's ability, you sacrifice the creature as part of the cost. By the time the ability is on the stack and you have a chance to do anything else, the creature is already off the battlefield, so it cannot activate the other ability.


Can I win with a "you lose" effect on the stack? Follow on to this question - with a similar setup, but a slightly different aim.

Setup: I have a Bazaar Trader in play and without summoning sickness and an Immortal Coil in hand. Neither I nor my opponent have any cards in their graveyard.

Question: Is there a way for me to win the game by casting the Immortal Coil and then immediately giving it to my opponent?

What I think happens:

I cast Immortal Coil
Immortal Coil resolves
Immortal Coil checks my graveyard and finds no cards

So it puts "I lose the game" on the stack

In response to that going on the stack I activate Bazaar Trader targeting my opponent and Immortal Coil

That goes on the stack too
Stack is now {"opponent gains control of Immortal Coil", "I lose the game"}

Top of the stack resolves and my opponent now controls Immortal Coil
Immortal Coil checks my opponent's graveyard and finds no cards

So it puts "opponent loses the game" on the stack
Stack is now {"opponent loses the game", "I lose the game"}

Top of the stack resolves and my opponent loses

What happens now? Do I win? Or does the other effect in the stack resolve and I also lose?

In general, you could win while a "you lose" effect is on the stack. Winning/losing is a state-based action and the stack doesn't finish resolving if the game is over (e.g. a 2 player game).

However, with the Immortal Coil situation you describe, you lose. This is because the Immortal Coil in question won't create another triggered ability on the stack until the first one isn't there.

  603.8. Some triggered abilities trigger when a game state (such as a player controlling no permanents of a particular card type) is true, rather than triggering when an event occurs. These abilities trigger as soon as the game state matches the condition. They'll go onto the stack at the next available opportunity. These are called state triggers. (Note that state triggers aren't the same as state-based actions.) A state-triggered ability doesn't trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack. Then, if the object with the ability is still in the same zone and the game state still matches its trigger condition, the ability will trigger again.

So the Immortal Coil can't trigger for your opponent until you've already lost the game, unless you're otherwise able to prevent or counter the ability on the stack.

Here's the bit I'm not certain about and will look up, but I think if you could flicker the Immortal Coil once the opponent controls it, it will trigger, because the "new" Immortal Coil has no memory of being attached to the previous ability (still on the stack) and thus will create a new one.


Mutate and replacement effects (Example, Darigaaz Reincarnated) and triggered abilities (ex: Sigil of the New Dawn) How does mutate exactly work with any replacement effects?

For example, lets say I have 2 creatures Mutated on top of Darigaaz Reincarnated, when that creature dies,

A. Darigaaz returned with the mutated creatures on top of him, as 1 being/permanent (I feel this is likely)

B. Darigaaz returns with the other 2 creatures, but as 3 permanents

C. Darigaaz returns alone (but, doesn't mutate count the other 2 creatures as being part of him?)

Also, how does a creature with mutations interact with something like Sigil of the New Dawn?

You would get to exile and put an egg counter on all merged creatures, but only return Darigaaz eventually. While you control Sigil of the New Dawn and a mutated creature dies, the Sigil triggers once and you may return all the cards that made up the mutated creature by paying 1W.
Mutating causes permanents to merge, and to combine all the abilities of those permanents into the resulting creature:

702.139c As a mutating creature spell resolves, if its target is legal, it doesn’t enter the battlefield. Rather, it merges with the target creature and becomes one object represented by more than one card or token (see rule 721, “Merging with Permanents”). [..]
702.139e A mutated permanent has all abilities of each card and token that represents it. [..]

When a merged permanent leaves the battlefield, it leaves as exactly one object, no matter how many permanents are merged into one:

721.3. If a merged permanent leaves the battlefield, one permanent leaves the battlefield and each of the individual components are put into the appropriate zone.

Because of Darigaaz' ability, the appropriate zone is the exile plus egg counters, and all components of the merged creature are exiled that way. The egg-removing and return-to-battlefield effect only apply to Darigaaz, since it's a separate ability that only applies to the Darigaaz card, no longer to the previously merged cards.
As for Sigil of the New Dawn, the Sigil can track all of the components as they die:

721.3c If an effect can find the new object that a merged permanent becomes as it leaves the battlefield, it finds all of those objects. (See rule 400.7.) If that effect causes actions to be taken upon those objects, the same actions are taken upon each of them.
400.7d Abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, “When Rancor is put into a graveyard from the battlefield”) can find the new object that it became in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered, if that zone is a public zone.

The Sigil triggers once, because only one creature died (721.3). If you pay the 1W of that triggered ability, you return all the creature cards that made up the mutated creature.


What does the comma mean in a card effect's cost? Some cards, such as Lurking Informant, have a comma seperating 2 costs for an ability. What does that mean? Do I pay one of the costs or both to use the effect?

It's a single cost and you pay both parts. From the Comprehensive Rules:

602.1 Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]”
602.1a The activation cost is everything before the colon (:). An ability’s activation cost must be paid by the player who is activating it.
Example: The activation cost of an ability that reads “{2}, {T}: You gain 1 life” is two mana of any type plus tapping the permanent that has the ability.


Can Zombies be killed by the Revolver? N21 In scenario 21, the rules say zombies can be killed by any weapon that rolls might. The revolver says you can use speed instead of might. One player argued the theme of shooting a zombie in the head and the words "instead of might" on the revolver card implies it should be able to kill zombies. Another player pointed out that the revolver says "can use speed instead of might" implies you could pistol-whip a zombie with the revolver to kill it, but since the rules say the weapon must use might the revolver can't kill zombies.

So, can zombies be killed with the revolver using speed?

The revolver is unfortunately ambiguous in its wording, and as far as I can find there is no official ruling on whether it can be used to make Might attacks or not. However my opinion is that it should not be able to make Might attacks rolls (or at best, is useless for making Might attacks).

Firstly, even if you could use the revolver for Might attacks it would provide no additional benefit as the revolver card states:

  Roll 1 additional die on your Speed attack roll

This explicitly makes the bonus die only available on a Speed attack.

Also it would be highly unrealistic to allow Might attack rolls at range with the revolver (you can't improve the way you shoot a gun with sheer force) so a Might attack would only be possible from within the same room (pistol-whipping, basically).

So if you can't use Might at range with the revolver, and gain no additional dice while making a Might attack with it, then a Might attack with the revolver is the equivalent of a barehanded attack.

When this is taken into consideration for the zombies in scenario 21 then, if you decide that the revolver can only make Speed attacks, then you cannot kill zombies with it (it would only stun them).

Even if you do allow Might attacks with the revolver from within the same room you may as well not even consider that you are making the attack with the revolver, and just say you are making a standard barehanded attack since they both provide the exact same chance of successfully making the attack.


Commander Damage Stacking & Player Control In Commander/EDH, as far as I understand if a commander does 21 damage to an opponent they lose. I understand separate commanders must be tracked separately in multiplayer.

How does this count if for instance you attack and hit Opponent A, with an 11/11 Commander. Then Opponent B gains control of that same commander (Donate, Confiscate, etc) and on his combat attacks and hits. Is the damage totalled and Opp A loses, or is it tracked separately again? If it’s the latter does commander damage from two different commanders but controlled by the same player stack?

Please include if there are “Mind Control” effects that would yield difference results to this questions.

They would not track separately; the player will lose.

  903.10a A player that’s been dealt 21 or more combat damage by the same commander over the course of the game loses the game. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

And

  903.3. Each deck has a legendary creature card designated as its commander. This designation is not a characteristic of the object represented by the card; rather, it is an attribute of the card itself. The card retains this designation even when it changes zones.

Basically, no matter who controls a commander, it is still the commander of the deck it started in; it is the same actual commander. While you can take control of a player's commander, there is no way to change it into your commander.

In regards to your question about 1 player controlling 2 separate commanders, this can easily happen with the Partner ability, that allows you to have 2 Commanders. In this case, damage from each commander is tracked separately; you need 21 damage from the same commander to lose the game.

  702.123d Except for determining the color identity of your commander, the two commanders function independently. When casting a commander with partner, ignore how many times your other commander has been cast. When determining whether a player has been dealt 21 or more combat damage by the same commander, consider damage from each of your two commanders separately. See rule 903.11a.


How important is game theory in Dominion? A lot of the strategic advice I've read for Dominion seems to be based around honing your deck based on fixed criteria - which cards are good, which work well together, when to start buying Provinces, etc.

But Dominion is a multi-player game, and clearly you are affected by the decisions that your opponent(s) make. Are they going for lots of attack cards, a "big money"-type strategy, or focusing on one particular action card? Are they ahead of you on points at a given moment?

My question is: how much is it important to consider the actions of your opponent(s)? Are "good strategies" always fairly good, and just need tweaking on the basis of what your opponent(s) do? Or is there a lot of game theory involved, such that your decisions depend almost entirely on what others are doing?

Advice in the question What are good standard tactics for Dominion? has only one answer of a few lines that addresses what your opponent(s) are doing. Surely there is more to it than that?

One of the clearest examples of game theory in Dominion shows up quite frequently in 2 player endgames, and it's called the Penultimate Province Rule (PPR). Basically, you should avoid buying the second to last Province if buying the remaining Province would allow your opponent to win.

Imagine a game where my opponent and I each have 3 Provinces, with 2 left in the supply. My opponent also has 4 Estates, while I only have 3. If I buy the penultimate Province, my opponent will probably buy the last one on his turn and win by a point (27-28). Instead of doing that, it's better for me to buy a Duchy (even with $8 or more). Now my opponent is in the same situation I was just in - if he buys a Province, I can get the last one on my turn and win (30-28). So his best option is to get a Duchy as well. We'll both continue to avoid the second-to-last Province, doing a "Duchy dance" until somebody's deck falls apart from the extra green cards or the Duchies run out.

In this example, knowing what your opponent is likely to do, and is capable of doing, is extremely important. Sometimes it's necessary to break PPR and hope that your opponent isn't able to snag the last Province, and it's good if you can time it so that this is more likely - perhaps you were able to attack, or maybe the opponent just had to shuffle at an inopportune time, or maybe he just missed putting his Alchemists on top. If you have to break PPR, it's best to keep an eye on what your opponent is doing so you can find the best time to strike.


Carcassone - placing barn figure in field Game : Carcassone with expansion "Abbey & Mayor".

Question - theoretically barn can be placed:

A) only if my farmer has already been placed in field?

B) regarding if any farmers already exist in fields?

According to the rules, the barn can be placed in a field as long as that field doesn't already have a barn. Farmers are no concern when placing the barn:

  You may place your barn on a field already occupied by farmers. You may not,
  however, place your barn on a field already occupied by another barn. Once
  placed, a barn remains in play until the end of the game.


When can you flip items face-up? I just picked up Boss Monster and I'm a little confused about items.
The rules say:

  If you kill a Hero with an attached item, you may place the face-up item in your score-keeping area. However, you may only have one face-up item at a time. (You may choose which item to keep face-up)

The All About Item Cards guide also says:

  Before you claim the new Item, you have a choice: A) immediately use your existing Item, B) turn your existing Item face-down, or C) leave the existing Item face-up and turn the new Item face-down.

  To show that an Item is used, flip it face-down. There are also some other effects in Tools of Hero-Kind that can flip an Item face-down, but these do not trigger the ability

From what I can tell, the only cards in the Tools of Hero-Kind expansion that can flip cards face-up are Excavation and Burial Mound. Which only amounts to three cards.

Am I missing something? Does this mean that if you don't control one of those three cards that you can never flip up a face-down item?

You are not missing something.  Acquiring a second item if you have a faceup one is generally only helpful if the second item is better than the first, or you can use the first immediately.  But at least you're keeping it away from your opponents!


Can a creature with megamorph block then morph? Imagine I have a 2/2 creature that can be megamorphed, can I block with it and pay its megamorph cost before damages are done?

Yes you can. Morph/megamorph can be used any time you have priority. After declaring blockers but before combat damage is assigned and dealt, there will be a priority pass where you can megamorph your creature.

  702.36e: Any time you have priority, you may turn a face-down permanent you control with a morph ability face up. This is a special action; it doesn't use the stack...


Vastwood hydra + Cathars' Crusade + Mercy Killing I have a question about a combat trick involving the cards mentioned in the Title. Situation is:

I control a 4/4 Kalonian Hydra and a 4/4 Vastwood Hydra. I also have Cathars' Crusade on the battlefield as well.

On my turn I declare both of the Hydras as attacking creatures. As such the Kalonian Hydra doubles the number of +1/+1 counters on both Hydras, making both of them 8/8 creatures.
My opponent decides to block my Vastwood Hydra with multible blockers, wich would do  leathal damage to it.

So when blockers are declared, before combat damage is resolved, I cast Mercy Killing on my Vastwood Hydra. As a result 8 Elf Tokens comes into the battlefield, and triggers Cathars' Crusade (and makes all the Elf tokens 8/8 Elves, but that is not important in this situation)

It also puts 8 +1/+1 tokens on my Kalonian Hydra, making it a 16/16 Hydra. And when the Vastwood Hydra goes to the graveyard (because I sacrificed it) I distribute all of its 8 +1/+1 counters to my Kalonian Hydra and makes it a 24/24 Hydra.

Combat damage resovles and the kalonian Hydra kills off my opponent.

Is this how it would work, or have I missed something?

Vastwood Hydra is already in the graveyard at the point where you say "And when the Vastwood Hydra goes to the graveyard". But everything else is correct.

You declare your attackers. [Kalonian Hydra's third ability triggers.]
Kalonian Hydra's third ability is placed on the stack, then resolves:

Add 4 +1/+1 counters to Kalonian Hydra.
Add 4 +1/+1 counters to Vastwood Hydra.

Your opponent declares his blockers.
You cast Mercy Killing targeting the Vastwood Hydra, then it resolves:

Sacrifice Vastwood Hydra. [It goes to the graveyard here. This triggers its second ability.]
Put 8[1] 1/1 Elf Warriors on the battlefield. [Cathars' Crusade's ability triggers 8 times.]

At this point, a player (you) is about to gain priority for the first time since some abilities have triggered, so triggered abilities are placed on the stack. You can place your abilities on the stack in any order you want. It doesn't really matter here.

Place Vastwood Hyra's second ability on the stack.
Place Cathars' Crusade's ability on the stack. (1)
Place Cathars' Crusade's ability on the stack. (2)
...
Place Cathars' Crusade's ability on the stack. (8)
Cathars' Crusade's ability (8) resolves.

Place a 9th counter on Kalonian Hydra, and one on each of the 8 Elf Warriors.

Cathars' Crusade's ability (7) resolves.

Place a 10th counter on Kalonian Hydra, and a 2nd on each of the 8 Elf Warriors.

...
Cathars' Crusade's ability (1) resolves.

Place a 16th counter on Kalonian Hydra, and an 8th on each of the 8 Elf Warriors.

Vastwood Hyra's second ability resolves.

Place 8[1] counters on Kalonian Hydra for a total of 24.

Notes:

Last known information (LKI) is used. When it last existed, it had 8 power and 8 +1/+1 counters.


Using the Chamber of Commerce as Alexandria I was the Alexandria civilization

which starts with the glass luxury good as a starting resource. I played the Chamber of Commerce card (the middle one)

which grants a player 2 gold and 2 victory points for each luxury good they have. However, upon counting my starting resource as "a card", my friend pointed out that the Chamber of Commerce has a gray rectangle on it; obviously this meant that it only counts if the luxury good is a card, not a starting resource.

Obviously I thought this was outrageous, but I thought it would make for a good question here. Any thoughts? I didn't find anything in the rules about special exceptions for starting resources.

Your friend is correct, Chamber of Commerce and other cards like it only count resource cards, not your starting resources or resources produced from other sources such as Wonder benefits or Yellow cards.

On the Description of the Wonders page of the rules you'll see a clarification at the top

  Clarification: the resources produced by the boards are not considered
  to be cards.


Is there an explanation as to what the DLCs add with the Talisman Digital Edition? In short I bought the Talisman Digital Edition earlier in the week (oddly reminisced about the game that I hadn't played for 30 years in the morning bought it and the starter pack in the evening).

Have now bought the Season Pass because of a spot Steam Sale.
I added all the downloadable content (DLC) in but found myself a bit lost in terms of what was doing what (e.g. the Dragons and Dark and Light Fate tokens totally threw me).
Have started another game just adding in the base game, Sacred Pool, Frostmarch, City, Dungeon and Reaper expansions & it seems a balanced kind of game.

Is there a preferred amount of DLC to add in (or a preferred set of what to add?) and is there any explanation for what they add to the game (e.g. the Dragon tokens have totally thrown me)?

I am of the impression it's a virtual carbon copy of the board game so I'm figuring it might be appropriate to ask for advice here? (given the subject).

Thanks in advance for any advice or suggestions.

Edit: asked a similar question on r/Talisman on Reddit and got broadly the answer I was after so as I'm happy enough with the answer below I'll mark this as an answer for closure.

Reddit answer https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/fbktfm/is_there_a_sensible_amount_of_dlc_to_add_in_on/fjaafwl

If you're looking for the rules applicable to all the various mechanics added by a given expansion, your best bet is to start reading the manual provided by nomad games. There are sections detailing the mechanics added by each expansion and their rules. This will also include the three released Digital Edition Exclusive expansions, which are not part of the Season Pass. (The Season Pass specifically only includes the physical expansions, the full Runestone card set, and a sizable bunch of extra characters with the notable [and then-controversial] exception of the Shaman character).

If you're looking to see what cards specifically are added by an expansion, you can go to My Collection from the Digital Edition's main menu, select the expansion (or even the base game), then Browse Pack. This will allow you to view all the cards from that expansion, including alternate endings and special cards like The Reaper and The Werewolf.

You can also try looking up information about the physical editions of the expansions themselves, but keep in mind that the following expansions do NOT have a physical version and only exist for the Digital Edition:

Realm of Souls Expansion (Players become ghosts when killed and interact on a separate plane until they revive or their ghosts gets killed off.)
Ancient Beasts Expansion (Adds Ancient beasts, some of which can "Apex" triggering an automatic game loss for everyone)
Clockwork Kingdom Expansion (introduces material cards and the ability to create inventions)


How does Cascade work with Teferi? Teferi, Time Raveler says that enemies can only cast spells at sorcery speed. Does this prevent spells that are getting cast off of Cascade from casting?

Teferi will stop Cascade from working; as well as any other triggered or activated abilities that allow you to cast a spell as part of the abilities’ resolution.

From a Gatherer ruling on a similar card, Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir:

  11/17/2017 If a spell or ability lets an opponent cast a card as part of its effect (such as suspend and rebound do), that opponent can’t cast that card since the currently resolving ability is still on the stack. This is true even if that card is an instant.

This is because Teferi’s ability is a restriction, so the second golden rule applies:

  101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.

Also, it does not matter that while cascade is resolving, it is actually a time that you could cast a sorcery, because that's not actually what "when you could cast a sorcery" means:

  307.5. If a spell, ability, or effect states that a player can do something only “any time they could cast a sorcery,” it means only that the player must have priority, it must be during the main phase of their turn, and the stack must be empty.


Can I move a wildcard after melding if I get 3 natural cards in canasta? Can I move wildcards around, from set to set, to build a canasta?

No.

There is no specific rule that I can point to in the various online resources I know to quote; but there is nothing in the rules that says that this would be allowed.

You can add additional cards from your hand to an existing meld; if the rules intended for you to be able to move or remove cards from a meld they would list that as an option.


Atemsis, All-Seeing and Mask of Immolation interaction Does sacrificing Atemsis, All-Seeing equipped with Mask of Immolation trigger Atemsis' second ability, or does it not trigger because Atemsis left the battlefield already?

Atemsis' second ability:

  Whenever Atemsis, All-Seeing deals damage to an opponent, you may reveal your hand. If cards with at least six different converted mana costs are revealed this way, that player loses the game.

Mask of Immolation's sacrifice ability:

  Equipped creature has “Sacrifice this creature: It deals 1 damage to any target.”

(Emphasis mine)

No, it doesn't. While it's certainly Atemsis, All-Seeing who does the damage (so a Circle of Protection: Blue would work to prevent it), the damage is done at a moment when Atemsis, All-Seeing is in the graveyard (it has been sacrificed as part of activating the ability). It has the reveal-your-hand ability only when it's on the battlefield, so it won't trigger.

  113.6. Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield.

A list of exceptions follows but this ability is not one of them.


What are the possible archetypes in Innistrad draft? Assuming Innistrad-Innistrad-Innistrad in a booster draft, what are the potential archetypes a player could draft?

For a reference, see Alex P's answer to another quetion here

In my Innistrad drafts so far, I've noticed the following as dominating archetypes:

Red-black vampires. This is a classic red aggro strategy, since there lots of small, fast vamps that get big to put a major hurt on your opponent, especially the Bloodcrazed Neonate and the Falkenrath Marauders. The bombs in this deck are the Bloodline Keeper or Olivia Voldaren -- if you see either of those in pack one or two, then jump into black-red vamps with both feet.

Green-red werewolves. This is another aggro deck, though it's slightly slower than the vamp deck since the werewolves are a little bit bigger and take a while longer to flip and become monsters. The Mayor of Avabruck is a good keystone card here, as are the Kessig Cagebreakers -- but really, all of the werewolves in this set are strong enough once flipped to win the game in a few turns. This is my favorite of the current archetypes.

Blue-white flyers (or "Things with Wings" as I like to call it). This deck runs lots of humans, spirits, and angels. In the early game it tends towards control rather than beat-down, since this deck will not win a race against werewolves or vampires, but towards the late game it'll amass a critical mass of flyers to hit for the win. Bombs include the Angel of Flight Alabaster, The Geist of Saint Traft, Geist-Honored Monk, and Intangible Virtue as a key enchantment. In my experience, this is one of the weakest archetypes, since there isn't enough good removal or cheap common flyers to build out a strong deck, and the good blue utility cards are heavily competed for by people playing the following archetype.

Blue-black zombie mill. This is a control deck, relying on removal and counterspells to clear out the early threats, then bring down the skaabs once there are plenty of creatures in the graveyard. The bombs in this deck include Grimgrin, Corpse-Born and the Skaab Goliath. This deck benefits the most from flashback -- conveniently, since blue has the most flashback of any color in Innistrad. There is also a pure mill variant of this deck which I had the misfortune to play against once, when my lucky opponent had managed to draft pretty much every mill card in the set, including 2x Nephalia Drownyard and 2x Curse of the Bloody Tome. This strategy can be very effective, but it's very hard to draft enough cards to make it viable.

Green-white humans should be mentioned to round out the color wheel, though in my experience the synergies among the humans in the set aren't strong enough to really call this a tournament archetype. If you're running green-white you're probably doing it to get the most value out of Travel Preparations, but in that case you'll probably want to construct your deck around white flyers or green werewolves instead, and splash to cover the off-color costs of Travel Preparations.


Star Wars Imperial Assault tutorial questions How do I decide who goes first and in what order players take their turns?
Do the rebel players start with any of the class cards specific to their character?

The players decide which hero goes first, and in what order they go.
The rebel players start with all class cards that cost 0xp.


Is there a solution to this freecell game, shown below? Encoding:
4D AH TS 3S 5C 4C KD
3C 5H TC 5D TD JD 2C
7H 6D AC 5S 7D 2S 2H
4H 9S AD 9H 9D QC 7C
6C 3D QH 8S 3H KH
QS 8C 2D 4S 9C KS
6S 7S 6H 8H 8D JS
JC QD KC TH AS JH

I downloaded an open source solver and attempted to solve this, but it was unable to using any of its different algorithms.
c:\Program Files\Freecell Solver 6.2.0\bin>fc-solve -t -m c:\files\fc.txt
I could not solve this game.
Total number of states checked is 133770.
This scan generated 133770 states.

c:\Program Files\Freecell Solver 6.2.0\bin>fc-solve -t -m -me dfs c:\files\fc.txt
I could not solve this game.
Total number of states checked is 133770.
This scan generated 133770 states.

c:\Program Files\Freecell Solver 6.2.0\bin>fc-solve -t -m -me bfs c:\files\fc.txt
I could not solve this game.
Total number of states checked is 133770.
This scan generated 133770 states.

c:\Program Files\Freecell Solver 6.2.0\bin>fc-solve -t -m -me patsolve c:\files\fc.txt
I could not solve this game.
Total number of states checked is 198952.
This scan generated 1 states.

c:\Program Files\Freecell Solver 6.2.0\bin>fc-solve -t -m -me soft-dfs c:\files\fc.txt
I could not solve this game.
Total number of states checked is 133770.
This scan generated 133770 states.

c:\Program Files\Freecell Solver 6.2.0\bin>fc-solve -t -m -me a-star c:\files\fc.txt
I could not solve this game.
Total number of states checked is 133770.
This scan generated 133770 states.

c:\Program Files\Freecell Solver 6.2.0\bin>fc-solve -t -m -me random-dfs c:\files\fc.txt
I could not solve this game.
Total number of states checked is 133770.
This scan generated 133770 states.


betrayal at house on the hill crystal ball and used items Is a used item (lucky stone, angel feather, etc) returned to the deck after use or is it completely out of the game.  The rules say "discard this item after you use it".

I ask because with the crystal ball it can make a difference.  Can I use the crystal ball to retrieve a "discarded item" to put it on top again?

Our thought was that its possible to go through all the items so we should put discarded (used items) on the bottom of the deck...especially if you got the crystal ball early and use it many times during a game?  maybe its not possible to go through all the items, but it seems like it would have to be possible.  Or maybe discarded items are only returned to the game after all items are used?

Looking at the rules here there are instructions for discarding rooms tiles.

  If you go through the whole stack of room tiles, shuffle the tiles you set aside in a discard pile

With that in mind I would handle all discards (of room tiles cards etc) into a discard pile for each and shuffle again if the draw deck for them runs out.  I couldn't see anything in rules about discarding to bottom of deck so that doesn't feel correct.


Is it advisable to play Legacy without having played Pandemic before? My group and I are planning to start playing Pandemic Legacy.

While we haven't played Pandemic before, we're accustomed to decision making games like Dead of Winter or Small World.
As I understand it, a normal round of Pandemic is hard enough to win for beginners, so the question came up if starting with Pandemic Legacy would be an enjoyable experience for us at all.

Without to many spoilers:
Would we possibly be able to grasp the concepts of Pandemic while playing the Legacy version, even enough to win a percentage of the games?

Go for it and have fun!

The Pandemic Legacy rulebook covers this contingency on page 3, telling you what sections of the rules to use to play a "vanilla" Pandemic game and advises you to play that way at least twice before starting the Legacy campaign.


Hidden Schemes if third location is a sea zone? The Hidden Schemes Event card states:

  If there is a hideout on the third space of the trail, place an encounter card on it.

The rules don't seem to be clear about how to resolve this event when the third location on the trail is a sea zone.

If the third location on the trail is a sea zone when Hidden Schemes is played, should an encounter card be placed?

Dracula is not allowed to place an encounter card on a sea zone under any circumstances.

The Rules Reference entry on "Hideouts" should have specified only non-sea locations are hideouts, which would have removed any ambiguity.


Adventure cards and Feather, the Redeemed? Short Version:
If I cast an adventure card targeting one of my creatures, while I have Feather, the Redeemed on the battlefield, am I required to return the card to my hand?  Or can I leave it in exile?
Long Version:
Adventure cards, let's use Faerie Guidemother, allow you to exile the card after casting the adventure, and to later cast it from exile.
Comprehensive rules:

715.3d Instead of putting a spell that was cast as an Adventure into its owner’s graveyard as it resolves, its controller exiles it. For as
long as that card remains exiled, that player may cast it. It can’t be
cast as an Adventure this way, although other effects that allow a
player to cast it may allow a player to cast it as an Adventure.

Feather, the Redeemed has the following text:

Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell that targets a creature
you control, exile that card instead of putting it into your graveyard
as it resolves. If you do, return it to your hand at the beginning of
the next end step.

As these are both replacement effects, does how the card gets exiled for Feather matter?  Or do I get to choose how I move the card?  i.e. can I choose to leave Faerie Guidemother exiled, or can I choose to put her in my hand?

Short answer:
You can do either, your choice, but you have to pick if you intend to return it with Feather or have it exiled as on an adventure while the spell is being exiled, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Long Answer:
Rule 715.3d creates a replacement effect for when the instant/sorcery resolves, as does Feather's text. Like most other replacement effects, the player gets to choose which order they apply, with some limitations. These limitations are covered in Rule 616.1 from the Comprehensive Rules:

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 its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply, following the steps listed below. If two or more players have to make these choices at the same time, choices are made in APNAP order (see rule 101.4).

616.1a If any of the replacement and/or prevention effects are self-replacement effects (see rule 614.15), one of them must be chosen. If not, proceed to rule 616.1b.
616.1b If any of the replacement and/or prevention effects would modify under whose control an object would enter the battlefield, one of them must be chosen. If not, proceed to rule 616.1c.
616.1c If any of the replacement and/or prevention effects would cause an object to become a copy of another object as it enters the battlefield, one of them must be chosen. If not, proceed to rule 616.1d.
616.1d Any of the applicable replacement and/or prevention effects may be chosen.

The effects are not self-replacement effects (616.1a), they don't change control of control of an object entering the battlefield (616.1b), and they don't cause an object entering the battlefield to become a copy of another object (616.1c) so 616.1d is what applies, making it your choice.
Feather has 2 rulings on Gatherer that sound like they apply here, the first:

If an instant or sorcery spell’s own effect instructs you to exile it or put it anywhere else, it won’t try to be put into your graveyard or exiled with Feather’s effect, so you won’t return it to your hand.

This is talking about spells like Cyclical Evolution, View From Above or Redeem the Lost. The text on these cards tell you to put the card somewhere as part of the effect. Cyclical Evolution will be in exile suspended when it resolves, View From Above and Redeem the Lost might already be in your hand if you meet their conditions, and if not then they would be sent to your graveyard, and Feather can catch them. This is not what happens with Adventure spells, if it was every adventure would have to say "Exile [adventure half name], as long as it remains exiled, you may cast [creature half name] from exile." on it.
The second is the one that does apply:

If another replacement effect instructs you to exile an instant or sorcery spell, such as that of Dreadhorde Arcanist or the flashback keyword, you may choose to apply Feather’s replacement effect first. If you do, Feather’s delayed triggered ability will return that card to your hand.

This ruling is really just applying the rules of 616.1 as explained above, since there are 2 replacement effects that don't fall into any of the special cases that must be chosen first, the player gets to choose whichever they want.
For your second part of your question, you do have to choose which effect you apply as it happens, and the other replacement effect will not apply at all. An adventure exiled using Feather's replacement effect cannot be cast from exile, an adventure exiled under rule 715.3d will not return to your hand because of Feather. Unless you intend to cast the creature immediately, using Feather's effect is likely the better choice, as you will have the option to do either from the hand again.

As a side note, a self replacement effect would be something like the Finale cycle of spells, where they say "if X is 10 or more" where the trigger condition and replacement are written as part of the effect they are replacing.
If you see this coming up in MTG Arena and it is not giving you the choice, there is a gameplay setting to tell the game to auto choose replacement effect order, turning that off will allow you to pick for yourself which one to apply.


Dominion - Using Stash How do you use this card strategically?  Since you don't know where any other cards are in your deck, how do you choose where to put this one?  Are there other cards this combines well with?

Normally you would want to put it on top of your deck.  Getting a silver (essentially) is generally a pretty good move.

If you create a deck that draws a lot of cards you will be shuffling in the middle of your turn fairly often.  In that case, you definitely know whether you want to draw more treasures now or not.


Does having one or two tap effects change anything for MtG dual lands? On MtG Arena, there is a notable difference between the shocklands and the other dual lands: the shocklands have two separate tap effects for the two colours:

while the other dual lands (e.g. the guildgates, but also the check lands, gain lands etc) have one tap effect which can produce both colours:

Does this difference have any practical impact - i.e. is there any way the game could be different if the shocklands had just one tap effect?
(I acknowledge that Gatherer is the source of truth and that Breeding Pool and the other shocklands have just one tap effect there, but this does seem to be more than just a visual issue in Arena; the Arena client downloads the card database to the local disk, and with a bit of digging you can find that the shocklands do have two separate tap effects in the database. Feel free to consider the question as "Would this have any practical effect if the shocklands did have two tap effects?" if you'd prefer)

Lands having one combined or several separate mana abilities has no direct gameplay effect, but is due to templating reasons. Lands with basic land types get their mana abilities inherently from the rules, rather than from the textbox, and other lands can get more compact, more readable explicit abilities. In Arena, lands with basic land types are handled subtly differently because of the advantages of a digital adaptation.
In terms of interaction with other cards, there is interaction due to the number or ordering of abilities on an object. The game rules also make no mention of a hypothetical ordering of abilities on objects, so there is no relevant distinction between a first, second, third etc. ability.
Whenever cards such as Humility and Experiment Kraj interact with abilities that fulfill certain criteria, it's always all of those abilities, so their number and/or ordering does not matter either.
However, there are practical reasons why e.g. Breeding Pool has 2 mana abilities, and Simic Guildgate has one.
First of all, the card Breeding Pool technically does not have any mana abilities, contrary to what you suggest. The text printed on paper Breeding Pool and what you see in Gatherer would imply one combined mana ability, but it is only reminder text that has no relevance to gameplay.

Reminder Text: Parenthetical text in italics in the text box of a card that summarizes a rule that applies to that card, but is not actually rules text and has no effect on play. See rule 207.2.

In-game, it has two mana abilities, which are granted (through the rules) only to the object the card represents:

305.6. The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. An object with the land card type and a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol],” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is {W}; for Islands, {U}; for Swamps, {B}; for Mountains, {R}; and for Forests, {G}. See rule 107.4a. See also rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”

Second, the two mana abilities printed on MTGA Breeding Pool are two explicit mana abilities, as can be seen from their non-italics font. It appears that they are explicit abilities, not inherent as in paper Magic, to simplify the rules implementation and type-changing effects in Arena. In other words, Arena does not implement the rule 305.6, but simulates it through templating and modification of effects that change land types. This is possible because in paper Magic, the text is (mostly) the rule, but in a digital game, you can have an arbitrarily large disconnect between card text and effect, because the computer does all the bookkeeping in the background.
In summary:
Whatever the source (rule or explicit), Breeding Pool needs 2 mana abilities because other cards can take away one basic land type (and thus mana ability) while leaving the other intact - 305.6 simplifies the templating necessary to add and especially take away mana abilities based on the basic land types a land gains or loses. Arena does not have to implement 305.6 because a computer can hide the bookkeeping from the player while showing readable text. Guildgates cannot lose a basic land type, so there are no templating problems in the first place, so it can have a single, compact ability for readability.


How does the "Bean Protection Rule" affect Bohnanza? I learned recently that there is a rule stating "If there is only one bean card in one of your fields, you cannot harvest it as long as you have another field
containing more than one bean card."

My friends have decided to house rule this out of the game, but I was wondering how does having or not having this rule affect the mechanics of the game?

For example:
Does it influence the game length?
How much does this change the implicit value of a 3rd bean field?

You lose tension without this rule, since players can effectively just "burn" undesirable beans - both those in hand and those that are flipped in the second phase of each turn.

My suspicion is that players would trade less and plant more - though without necessarily scoring more points - without the rule.

The 3rd bean field could be more valuable without the rule, since you are effectively doubling your useful fields (in the case where most players, most of the time, are using their second field for trash).

The impact on the game length - at least, in terms of how many turns there are - is tied to points scored. More points scored [earlier] --> fewer cards in the deck for each shuffle --> shorter game.


Triominos Bridge Rules I recently had an argument with my wife about a "correct" bridge in triominos.

I got a "bridge" figure, but with a flaw: the numbers at the tops of the two tiles didn't match. (see image).

So my questions:
1. is this allowed?
2. does this qualify for "bridge" extra points?

My suggestions:
1. Yes, it's allowed, since my printed rules do not forbid it.
2. No, allowed but no extra points, since it's not a "real" bridge.

You must match all three numbers so this is not allowed. So you can not place the tile there.

In this version of the rules:

  Bridges are made by matching one side of the tile and the point opposite. Score the tile's points plus a 40 point bonus


Catan settlements on roads Let's say I have 4 connected roads with no settlements or cities in between.  Can I later go back and place a settlement in there?

Yes, so long as it's not adjacent to another settlement.

A valid location for a settlement is any spot that touches one of your roads, and is not adjacent to any other settlement.  I'll also note that it's legal for someone else to put a settlement in the middle of your road, so long as they also have a road that touches that intersection - this will cut your 4-segment road into two 2-segment roads, which can be a useful strategy for killing someone's longest road.


Is it possible to jump back into MTG after 20 years away? So I haven't played any Magic the Gathering since the Ice Age expansion and now I have a friend who is interested in playing.  If I'm interested in playing where is a good starting point? I am guessing that my best bet is to go buy a starter box, but I do not want to fall down the rabbit hole again if avoidable.  Are some of the rules still applicable? Are any of my Ice age cards even legal to use? Thanks in advance!

You can always play, but it will have some cost.
The rules have been neatened up and there are some core differences, but it remains mostly the same game.
Your existing cards can be played with, regardless of how good they are in light of current cards. You can make a few roughly even decks and play them against each other. The main risk of relying too much on old cards is that they can be confusing when teaching new players; a lot of them have had their text updated so you'd need to refer to Gatherer (e.g. Arcum's Whistle. Also, some of them don't present the stronger colour identities that help define Magic today.
If you just want to play together and get used to the game: I highly recommend building a few weaker decks out of a small-ish pool of cards. I did this on my return to Magic with a little more than the cards from 2 prereleases (About 20 packs in total), resulting in 4-5 decks which were varied but all playable against each other. Another way to do this is to ask for welcome decks at a game store, which are free 30-card introductory decks. Another option is to buy duel decks, which are full 60-card decks designed to play fairly evenly against each other.
You can also use your older cards in Commander decks (known as Elder Dragon Highlander), but these tend to require a larger card pool to put something decent together. Commander decks run 100 unique cards (unique apart from basic lands) with one legendary creature set aside that you can always cast. The format is designed for multiplayer, but there are more competitive two-player versions. Commander isn't pushed as a competitive format by Wizards, so different groups have very different philosophies to deckbuilding. Commander can be fun for new players, but there need to be enough decks and ideally enough players.
Constructed Formats
The following formats are competitive formats in which you bring a prepared deck. There are also banned cards which have been individually banned to prevent them from warping the game environment due to their strength (or for practical purposes).
Legacy and Vintage are competitive formats that use older cards, but far fewer players take part in these, and decks are streamlined and [incredibly] expensive. Games are often ruthlessly quick, as the best cards and combinations from all time are used. Legacy has a banned list, while Vintage allows 1 of each card on the Legacy banned list. Due to the complexity of the interactions and older cards, and the price, this isn't recommended for new or returning players.
Modern and Standard use more recent cards, and are better supported by Wizards and local game stores. Modern decks can contain cards that were printed in a Standard-legal set from Eighth Edition onward. Standard decks can contain cards in the 3 most recent blocks (each block having 2 sets). Due to the wide range of cards, Modern is a more stable format, with powerful and somewhat expensive decks. Standard is less expensive, and changes faster, but players need to change their decks as cards rotate out with the sets. Standard is okay for new/returning players, but still has a reasonable price tag.
Note that some cards from older sets may be legal if they've been reprinted since. Here are Ice Age cards that are Modern-legal, and here are Ice Age cards that are Standard-legal (currently only basic lands).
Limited Formats
While the constructed formats have varying price tags to be competitive, there are also limited formats, in which you use sealed booster packs of cards and build the deck before you play with it. Limited takes away the price factor in winning and distributes it between skill and luck. While each game of limited is cheap, you'll be using new packs each time you play. It can be a good way to play as you build up a base of cards for general play, or you can sell the cards after you play to minimise the cost as a hobby.
In Sealed, you build a 40-card deck using six booster packs and basic lands. This is a fairly quick way to play, and isn't too difficult to take part in once you're comfortable in Magic. Prerelease events use this format, and these are more casual events which are suited to newer players.
In draft, you pass booster packs around, picking a card each time. You then build a 40-card deck using the card pool you picked and basic lands. There are also 2-player draft formats which can be strategic and interesting. I've greatly enjoyed drafting with friends, although part of its success is that sometimes I've bought the packs and kept the cards (so newer players can experience the format without buying in). I love draft personally as it forces you to judge the value of cards that would be overlooked in constructed formats, and lets you build a variety of decks. However, I also don't mind the cost, and the cards go into my collection.
Finally, you have a combination of the two: Cube. This is essentially a constructed draft pool. You pick a large set of cards, and then take a random portion of it to play limited with. Some people spend a long time putting together and curating their cubes to make them interesting. You can also throw together a handful of cards you had otherwise.
Leagues
There's also the new format hosted at stores, Magic Leagues. This is kind of like an ongoing mini-sealed format. You use 3 packs and build a 30 card deck. As the event goes on over several weeks, you can add more packs to your card pool, and adjust your deck. This is designed to be a quick-to-play format which gives you experience building and then refining a deck from a limited pool. I haven't tried it yet myself.


Are duel deck pairs always released with an even chance of winning? My friends and I have acquired some of the recent duel decks over time — Heroes vs Monsters, Zendikar vs Edrazi, Elspeth vs Kiora, and Speed vs Cunning.

We've tried each of them a few times, and while I'm pretty satisfied with them, some of my friends are coming out concerned that one of the decks in the pairs we've tried might simply have a greater chance of winning than the other. For Zendikar vs Eldrazi they're thinking the Eldrazi has a moderate edge; for Heroes vs Monsters they suspect Heroes have a strong advantage.

This might just be our limited number of games, who was inclined to play what, confirmation bias, etc. Trick Jarrett won with monsters 3-1 for instance, and I imagine duel decks are at least intended to be even. I haven't been able to cue Google to offer up an answer as to the odds of each deck of winning.

So, I need to turn to your expertise and shed some light that might either confirm what my friends suspect or assuage their concerns.

Are all duel deck pairings intended to have a roughly even chance of winning against each other? I'm assuming this is the case, but that's just me assuming. More importantly, do they actually tend to work out that way in practice, or are they known to sometimes come out with a strong bias toward one of the decks?

I would prefer to see citations from credible sources about developer intentions and win rates. (Official sources like the Wizards development team are credible. If there's genuinely no citations available, I can accept that, but I'd like to be informed of that.) It's pretty reasonable to assume that something called "duel decks" would be intended to have even chances of winning, but I don't want to go by assumptions — and I want something for my friends to have confidence in. It's possible they have design time constraints that prevent them from really achieving evenness, or that the product's seen as secondary and 70/30 odds is considered good enough, etc. It's more probable they want everything to be 50/50 (or 55/45 at worst) and have plenty of resources available and devote themselves to successfully achieving that every time, but I'd like to know that.

Wizards' intentions in designing/developing/releasing the decks is for them to be balanced, with 50/50 being the ideal, and further, for the gameplay itself to have plenty of back-and-forth. I found a handful of official articles on wizards.com supporting this; I'm sure it's difficult to be perfect at, but they clearly do a lot of playtesting aiming at that goal.
I'm aware that Wizards' description of their playtesting is potentially biased, but they do suggest that they manage to achieve a pretty high degree of balance and it's certainly in their own interests to do so! They're also up-front about when their playtesting can't match real-world gameplay (e.g. they commonly mention not being able to fully "solve" Standard), and they don't mention that here, suggesting that they genuinely think they do a good job.
Unfortunately I haven't found any empirical playtesting evidence from outside Wizards. The closest I've seen is forum threads where someone says "A is so much better than B" then someone else says "no way, B is way better", someone else says "they came out pretty even in my games", and no conclusion is reached. That's consistent with them actually being balanced and no one having a big enough sample size, but it's not exactly clear evidence.

Some Number of Questions about Knights vs. Dragons - 2011, on Dragons vs. Knights. This is the most explicit one, indicating that they care not only about odds but about the progression of the game feeling balanced:

Balance! This is Development's area of expertise and involves more than simply playing a bunch of test games and making sure the match-up is 50-50. There need to be moves and countermoves and counter-countermoves. In early testing of Phyrexia vs. The Coalition, for example, the decks just exchanged blowouts, which was "balanced" but not very fun.

Playing with Jace & Vraska - 2014, on Jace vs. Vraska, by Sam Stoddard (a developer!), also confirming the strategic balance aspect:

I probably played a hundred plus games of Jace vs. Chandra, and was excited about the opportunity to try to sculpt a fun and interesting matchup between two of our characters using cards from throughout the past.
[...]
When working on this Duel Deck, I tried to position the decks in such a way that the matchup between them was something that was strategically deep and allowed for both decks to have early and late game strategies. ... I definitely didn't want the entire game to come down to whether one deck survives until turn 7, at which time it would have a tremendous advantage. Instead, both decks can take the game over at any point.

Making Enemies: Designing Decks in Pairs - 2011, from the intro; the actual article is a reprint of a 1995 Duelist article from way before duel decks:

These days, Magic R&D designs and develops Duel Decks, specifically made to be balanced against each other.

Pointy Ears vs. Pointy Teeth - 2007, on Elves vs. Goblins, describing the results of playtesting:

Once we had our initial decklists, we put them through the playtesting grinder, fighting both sides of the matchup dozens of times, tweaking as we went, then handing them to other R&D members and watching them play. We knew we were getting close when one playtest pair assured us that the Goblins were better, while another playtest pair with the same decks assured us that the Elves were better.

Duel or Die - 2012, on designing Venser vs. Koth, with a weaker statement of balance:

At this stage, we do what we do best in R&D: playtest and refine. Over and over and over. We swap cards in and out. We speculatively try some cards just to see what they do (and often, what they do is come right back out of the decks). We balance the decks with one another so neither one is an auto-win.

Duel Deckin' Upgrades - 2010, Jacob van Lunen (a player this time, not someone from R&D) on Elspeth vs Tezzeret, suggesting that play skill/style may well have something to do with perceptions of imbalance:

A lot of players at my local shop have complained that the Elspeth deck wins almost every game they play. After having played a lot of games with both decks I was very surprised to hear this. In my experience, the decks present each other with a very even and exciting match.


Can you use a Wizard's charm on another player's monster? The card says "You may discard your whole hand (minimum 3 cards) to charm a single Monster instead of fighting it." Can I use this on another player to charm his monster? Or does it only apply to a monster I am fighting?

The charms only work for wizards in the combat.  From the Munchin FAQ

Q. Can a Wizard use his charm ability if he's not involved in the combat?
A. No. The card says this is something he may do instead of fighting a monster. It's not for interfering with others' fights, so the Wizard in question must be the munchkin who opened the door or is helping.

Nice try but you can't charm an opponent's monster unless you are helping in combat.  If you somehow manage to become part of combat, you can betray them by charming to prevent them from killing a monster and gaining a level.


Why was Gifts Ungiven so popular? Back in Kamigawa Block, Gifts Ungiven was a very popular card, showing up in a good percentage of blue decks.  I don't understand why it's considered useful.  What made this card so popular?

The short version

Gifts Ungiven was — and is — popular because it's one of the most powerful and flexible tutor cards in Magic, thanks to its ability to find multiple relevant cards for just 4 mana, at instant speed. In practice, the card is much more powerful than it looks:

The opponent's choice is not a meaningful disadvantage: it's easy to render the opponent's choice practically meaningless, using functional equivalents or Regrowth effects.
Putting cards in your graveyard is actually a desirable feature of the card, not a disadvantage: it's fairly easy to build decks that efficiently reuse cards in your graveyard; it's very easy to cheat on costs when you do that, too.
Tutoring for multiple cards is super-powerful: Gifts is exceptionally good at setting up combos and engines.

The long version

Gifts Ungiven isn't just any tutor card. Sure, it costs the same as Diabolic Tutor, with the following added bonuses:

Gifts is an instant-speed tutor in blue, the best "draw-go" color. You don't have to tap out on your own turn to cast Gifts. Instead, you can keep your mana open, ready to counter any important plays your opponent makes, and then play Gifts whenever it's convenient.
Gifts gives you more than one card. That's always good, right?

So, it's at least as good as Mystical Teachings (also an instant-speed tutor with built-in card advantage — one that saw tournament play during Time Spiral Standard and later in Modern). But it's way better than that, too!

Gifts give you four cards. Not two cards, four cards — it's just that two of them will end up in your graveyard. And you get all those cards at the same time, which makes it an amazing combo tutor.

Your opponent gets to control which cards go where, but, with careful deck-building and skillful play, you can get much more power from the card by effectively removing your opponent's meaningful choices.

Functional equivalents

At the least, Gifts allows you to tutor for four cards and get the third and fourth best ones for the current situation into your hand. That's pretty powerful by itself, though it relies on building a deck that even has a third and fourth best card for many situations.

An easy way to get that effect is to run one-ofs of a bunch of very similar cards, so that your "third best" card is basically the same as your "best" card. Here's the classic example:

(I'm using general examples rather than all Kamigawa-block ones because it's much easier to think about what's good in general Magic than in the rather idiosyncratic world of any set's Block Constructed.)

Two of those cards will end up in your hand. Three of them are 4-drop sweepers. So, whatever your opponent picks, you're guaranteed at least one sweeper in your hand. (The fourth card could be anything, in this case — Path to Exile just fits because you can use it to answer a creature your opponent plays after the wrath.)

Regrowth effects

Running lots of functional equivalents takes up a lot of space in your deck. This isn't too bad for the sweepers example above, since decks often run three of four wraths anyway. When you've got one particular, functionally-unique card you really want, though, or a niche case where you'd only run a one-of.

A common solution is to run "Regrowth" effects, forcing your opponent to choose between the card you want and a card that'll fish it out of your graveyard.

An example from the Kamigawa era is Frank Karsten's 2005 Worlds (Standard) deck. Let's say Frank's opponent has an artifact that needs to be removed right away. The deck has one maindeck answer — Putrefy. Here's a way he could tutor it with Gifts:

Recollect gives you Putrefy back in hand. Reclaim can put it on top of your library; you could either cast Reclaim on your upkeep and draw the card naturally, or use the Top to bring the card to your hand. Your opponent can make you spend a couple of cards and some extra mana to cast Putrefy, but, short of graveyard hate, he can't keep you from casting it.

An easy way to get the same effect with more recent cards, without even having to run green mana sources, is to include Snapcaster Mage and Noxious Revival in your Gifts pile.

Card you just want in your graveyard anyway

Hopefully you saw that this is where we were going when I mentioned Snapcaster.

The graveyard is a very active zone in Magic. So much so that some cards are actually at their most powerful in the 'yard. Kenji Tsumura's 2005 Pro Tour Los Angeles (Extended) deck includes Darkblast and Life from the Loam, whose Dredge ability helps power up his Psychatogs; as well as Wonder, whose in-your-graveyard ability is more relevant than the creature itself.

Flashback cards are great to tutor up with Gifts — whether they go in your hand or the graveyard, you can cast 'em either way. In addition, it's important to note that this is a valid Gifts pile:

That's it! Just two cards.

  701.14b If a player is searching a hidden zone for cards with a stated quality, such as a card with a    certain card type or color, that
  player isn’t required to find some or all of those cards even if
  they’re present in that zone.

(The "stated quality" in this case is "different names".)

Since your opponent must choose two cards to go in your graveyard, both of these will end up in your 'yard. At which point you can flashback Rites and bring out your big reanimated finisher. It's the best graveyard-filling tutor this side of Entomb!

I believe the first example of using Gifts like this was actually during Kamigawa block. During one of the Pro Tour matches, a player was about to lose the game but had Goryo's Vengeance and Gifts in hand. So he Gifts-ed for just Kokusho and then let him die to drain his opponent.

Combos and engines

You know how Tooth and Nail is so good because you can dig out both pieces of a combo at the same time?

Gifts does that as well. It's especially easy with graveyard-based engines. For example, Patrick Chapins' 2008 Pro Tour Berlin (Extended) deck could set up his win condition using something like this:

Regardless of which card goes where, this sets up an engine that lets you make a bunch of Worm tokens every turn.

Plain old deception

Setting up "no-win scenarios" for your opponent is powerful and consistent, but sometimes you don't even need to do that.

For instance, let's say you have Urza's Mine, Urza's Tower, Steam Vents, and two Izzet Signets in play (five mana total, but one land away from completing the UrzaTron).

You show me this Gifts pile:

Now, I do have real, serious choices here.

If I let you complete your Tron with the Power Plant, you might cast something nasty next turn — or have nothing to do with all your mana.
If I give you Through the Breach, you could crush me with an Eldrazi next turn, but only if you have one in hand.
If I give you Emrakul, it might sit uselessly in your hand for a number of turns. Or you might be sanbagging a Power Plant already in hand, ready to ramp you all the way to 15 mana in a couple more turns.

There are right choices and wrong choices, but they're based on hidden information. If I guess wrong, you're probably won the game. You're taking a chance when you do this, of course, but it's a chance with a big upside.

Another common way to play mind games with your opponent is to use the Regrowth trick detailed above, but then regrow some other card that was already sitting innocuously in your graveyard.

What a truly busted Gifts deck looks like

Did you know that Gifts Ungiven is restricted in Vintage and banned in Commander? Do you ever wonder why?

Look at this deck (more discussion available here).

Gifts gets so much better with a deeper card pool: there are more ways to cast stuff from your graveyard, more functional equivalents to choose from, more powerhouse "silver bullet" singletons, more two-card combos.

In the right deck, Gifts Ungiven is a one-card combo, an obscene card advantage engine, and every kind of disruption you need to win the game.


When should I take a curse in response to Torturer? In Dominion, when someone plays a Torturer, I almost invariably choose to discard rather than take a curse. The exceptions are if I have a trasher (Chapel, Steward, Upgrade, etc.) that I have the actions to use anyway, or if I think there's a good chance a Masquerade will be played and I don't want to give away any cards. In the case of multiple Torturers (whether action-chaining or 3-4 players), unless it's happening every time I'll prefer to discard 4 cards and essentially lose a turn than add 2 curses to my deck.

I think the most common reason people take curses instead is they think their cards are too good to discard, but unless I am guaranteed a good turn (e.g. Village and 2 Torturers in hand, not relying on lucky draw), I'll choose to discard.

What is the value trade-off of discarding vs. taking a curse? How good of a hand do you need to take a curse? How do you evaluate the damage a curse does to your deck?

Of course, all Dominion games are subjective to the Kingdom Set. In a set with lots of ways to trash things, taking curses isn't so bad. I'm more interested in answers where trashing is harder, say a Remodel or Expand are the only options, or where +actions are hard to come by.

Short answer

You should take a curse when discarding two cards would hurt your strategic plan, but you should also take into account your curse total compared to the other players and how it's likely to change.

Long answer

I 'm not going to dwell on "obvious" circumstances like

There are no curses left
Your hand is all victory cards
etc.

Under normal circumstances you should make the decision based on strategic (long-term) factors. If discarding would mean not being able to buy a card you need in the long term (this usually means 5+ cost cards, and of course not all of them) then you should consider taking the hit so that you can advance your plan.

If all you were going to buy anyway is a "nice to have" card, then taking a curse is probably not warranted.

In a 3- or 4- player game,

you should gravitate a little more towards discarding in the beginning of the game, as taking curses too early (before you have the chance to load up on necessities) might leave you too far behind the other players
you should consider the possibility of multiple Torturers being played before your next turn; in this case, taking one curse and then playing a good turn might be warranted because with multiple players playing Torturers you can never be sure just when you 'll get the opportunity to play your turn unhindered


Can the Crate of Alcohol be played if the wind isn't favorable? In Mad Zeppelin, you're a Traitor trying to throw cargo off of the airship Nostria to your black-market compatriots on the ground. At the beginning of the turn, the current first player throws three dice, which shows what color of Traitors can throw cargo overboard.  (The idea is that the dice show the "wind direction," which would be more plausible if the winds weren't capable of blowing north, south, and west at the same time.) So, on any given turn, a Traitor might or might not be able to throw cargo overboard, depending on the colors showing on the dice.

This is well and good until you get to the Crate of Alcohol cargo card; it says that "This card is not thrown overboard." Does that mean that a Traitor can play the Crate of Alcohol even if the wind isn't in their favor? The rules themselves assume that all cargo cards are "thrown overboard," so it's a bit confusing.

A second thought: if playing the Crate of Alcohol doesn't count as being thrown overboard, does that mean you can also play a second cargo card during that Traitor's turn?

A user on Board Game Geek sent a list of questions to the game designer, and the purpose of the Crate of Alcohol was included. A full list of these can be found here.

Regarding the Crate of Alcohol, game designer Oliver Pauwels replied:

  "Crate of Alcohol" pay 3 gold coins (as indicated on the bottom of the card) to activate this effect. Once you've paid the fee, the card is placed in front of you and stays there for the rest of the game. This does not give you any points, but it does lower your cost to throw cargo overboard for the rest of the game. A player can have more than one Crate of Alcohol in play, and the effects are cumulative (so two of them would reduce the cost of all cargo being thrown overboard by 2). Since no level 4 cargo are ever thrown overboard, this cost reduction NEVER applies to level 4 cards (for instance, a 2nd Crate of Alcohol still costs 3).

Additionally, the Crate of Alcohol is a Level 4 cargo. Pauwels also notes

  [T]he level 4 are special cargo. NONE of these cargo are thrown overboard and as such the color of the die rolls do NOT apply to use of level 4 cards (use them any time).

So it doesn't matter what color die you roll, but they are never counted as being thrown overboard.


Preventing/minimising damage from beer spills Spilt some beer on a hand of 7 Wonders cards last night, and it had the potential to completely ruin the cards.

As it was, managed to prevent too much serious damage by carefully sliding the cards apart and drying them off with paper towels.

Am wondering generally for boardgames what the best ways to minimise damage from beer spills are - other than being careful not to spill beer.

You could potentially get sleeves for your cards.

In your case it looks like some companies make sleeves specifically for 7 wonders.


What are the rules regarding mutual support? What are the rules for when you are allowed to support a supporting unit?

For example, if France has units in Belgium and Holland, are they both allowed to mutually support each other, increasing their defensive strength to 2 each?

Let's say Germany has an Army in Ruhr and a Fleet in the North Sea. If the fleet attacks either Belgium or Holland with support from Ruhr, does this fail?

Or is France not allowed to have two units mutually support each other. Does one have to hold and the other can support the hold, thereby making France guess where Germany will attack?

The rulebook states:

  Support can be offensive ... or defensive (supporting a hold, support or convoy order)

What are the circumstances where supporting a support is a valid rule? When is it invalid? I don't see any examples of this in the rulebook.

A unit that is supporting is also holding and is always eligible to receive support in its hold.
The relevant quote from the rulebook is:

A unit not ordered to move can be supported by a support order that mentions only its province.  A unit that is ordered to hold, convoy, support, or not ordered at all can receive support in holding its position.

The most relevant thing to notice here is that a unit that is not moving is holding.  A support or a convoy is also a hold.  If a supporting unit is attacked, the unit does not revert to holding (this is a useful flavor justification but is not technically accurate), but rather the unit was holding the whole time.  All that happens is that it is no longer able to support in addition to holding as it is under attack (the support is cut).
As a result of this, two units can support each other, assuming they can each legally support the other (based on adjacency and unit type).  Since each unit is supporting, they are each also holding, and thus each is eligible for support in holding its position.  If one unit is attacked, it's support for the other unit will be cut, but it will still hold and the other unit will support it's hold.
An opponent needs a minimum of three units to dislodge one of your units and thus disrupt your position.  They can do this by either doing a doubly supported attack on a single unit, or by doing a singly supported attack on one unit and an unsupported attack on the other unit to cut it's support.
This is consistent with the basic principle of diplomacy: equal numbers create a standoff, whereas superior numbers (eventually) win.  Your two units can defend against an attack of two units but not against an attack of three units.
Note that you can also support the hold of a fleet that is convoying an army.  This will help prevent the fleet from being dislodged if it is attacked while convoying.


Does stonecoil serpent count as entering battlefield when paying X=0? Currently building a Purphoros, God of the forge deck and I'm wondering if his ability is triggered when I pay x=0 for Stonecoil Serpent or does it go straight to the graveyard without entering the battlefield?

Stonecoil Serpent does enter the battlefield as a 0/0 (causing Purphoros's ability to trigger), then dies immediately.
The exact events in order in case you want them:

Stonecoil Serpent enters the battlefield. Purphoros's ability triggers but is not put on the stack yet (603.2).
After Serpent resolves, you would normally get priority. Since a player is about to get priority, state-based actions are checked (704.3).
Serpent dies by state-based actions (704.5f).
State-based actions are checked again; none are relevant so now the ability is actually put on the stack (704.3).
State-based actions are checked one more time and then you get priority and the game proceeds normally.

The relevant parts of the rules cited above:

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

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority.

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated; otherwise all triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack are put on the stack, then the check is repeated.

704.5f If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard.


Is there an official Catan FAQ that is a supplement to the included rules book? I was wondering if Mayfair Games or Klus himself created an official FAQ for the base (or all versions) of the Settlers of Catan.

Yes. FAQ:

http://www.catan.com/faq.html


Replenishing the deck after both draw and discard piles have been exhausted The Ticket to Ride rules include this process:

When the deck is exhausted, the discards are reshuffled into a new draw pile deck.

The phrase "when the deck is exhausted" could be interpreted several ways:

"at the time the deck is made empty"
"at the time the deck cannot satisfy a player's draw"
"at the time the deck is made empty or cannot satisfy a player's draw"
"any time the deck is empty"

Option 4 seems the most reasonable. With this interpretation, assuming the deck is empty and there are no discards, when a player claims a route, their discarded cards would be immediately reshuffled into a draw pile deck.
Is this the intended interpretation? If not, when should the draw pile deck be replenished after it and the discard pile have both been exhausted?

Yes, that is what would happen but that is supposed to be a rare situation as it is not intended for the players to hold all the cards in their hands. The rules cover the situation for when there are no cards at all for players to draw and by extension it also covers the situation when a route is claimed and there are now cards to draw
https://ncdn0.daysofwonder.com/tickettoride/en/img/tt_rules_2015_en.pdf

When the deck is exhausted, the discards are reshuffled into a new draw pile deck. The
cards should be shuffled thoroughly, since all the cards have been discarded in sets.

In the unlikely event that there are no cards left in the deck and there are no discards
(because players are hoarding many cards in their hands), a player cannot draw Train
Car cards. Instead he may only claim a route or draw Destination Ticket cards.


How can I collect information on all the MTG decks that have ever been played in standard/type 2? I personally played mainly during the Onslaught block (Judgement came out around the time I started, and I quit during Mirrodin due to ravager affinity, then came back briefly during Kamigawa).

Of course, few of the decks I saw back then made it into the lower formats, and the few that did were heavily altered due to the extra cards allowed in the lower formats. There was a lot of decks back then that I thought were rather unique. Nightmare reanimator, rift slide, mirari's wake, madness, all the tribal decks (even if most of them sucked).

Of course, nobody remembers these besides those who played during Onslaught. It seems that only the stupid op decks that broke the format get remembered. Everyone knows about Tolarian Academy, Ravager Affinity, Psychatog, you get the idea.

That got me thinking, what about the decks you saw during other versions of standard/type 2? Besides psychatog and some green-red rush deck using Fires of Yavimaya, I don't know of any decks made possible by invasion. I don't know what decks Mercadian Masques gave. What decks were popular during Invasion-Odyssey (beyond the reanimator and madness decks I mentioned). I've also heard of Sliver decks from around Tempest, but I've never seen an actual Sliver deck from the time, nor do I have any idea how they actually performed in the format as it existed back then.

Is there anyone who has ever tried to compile a list of all the versions of standard that have ever existed? I hate games that are forever evolving. If you find a deck you enjoy, chances are you'll never be able to play it again once the cards it needs rotates out. And even type 1 (or vintage I think its called now) is constantly in flux due to the ever increasing power of newer cards.

As for why I want to know this? I was thinking of using pygame to make my own card game that allows you to play with decks that work like the ones I liked (though not with the exact same cards, and not all of the decks would even be based on MTG decks). I know of the decks that were fun in my time, but are there any other interesting decks that have existed in standard either before or after I played?

All Standard MTG decks will be hard, but I assume you're mostly interested in the most successful ones. In that case, I'd start with the Event Archive on Wizards' website. Especially for older events, the format isn't always shown in the list, but a few clicks will be enough to determine the format.

Now, for example, let's take the 2000 Pro Tour Chicago. Scrolling down the coverage article, you'll get to the Top 8 Decks page, which shows you the archetypes which were successful back then:

White Rebels
Red/Green Aggro
White/Blue Rebel Control
Blue Control (Rising Waters)

(not sure about the names, though)