source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
What should be used to represent creature tokens when the printed token card isn't available? Many spells or abilities cause one or more creatures to join the battlefield (i.e. 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens, 3/3 green Beast creature tokens, etc.). These token cards are not included with the cards that require them. What do MtG players use instead to represent token creatures? A quick search shows you can buy packs of such cards, but I'm wondering what convenient ways exist to represent these tokens without actually having to buy more cards? <Q> I can cover what is legal and what is common, and you can hopefully determine what is "convenient". <S> The MTG Tournament Rules dictate that you clearly represent your board state. <S> This means: <S> You must be able to represent the tapped state of your token <S> You must be able to differentiate types of tokens Tokens must not be in the same sleeves as the deck you are playing <S> This is under Section 3.8 of the Tournament Policy [...] <S> Sleeves or card backs that appear similar to any player’s sleeves or card backs may not be used as markers. <S> [...] <S> Notably, if you are playing without sleeves, you may not use an unsleeved Magic card as a token <S> I see no reason to ignore these rules for casual play. <S> They aren't very limiting. <S> The most common legal method of representing a token, for those lacking the actual token card, is a plain face down card. <S> Any card. <S> If you control multiple types of tokens, it must be clear to both players which cards represent which tokens. <S> Some players use dice to represent tokens. <S> Depending on what kind of dice you use, it can be difficult or impossible to tell whether a particular token is tapped or untapped. <S> It's also unclear whether a "2" means "two tokens" or "one 2/2 token". <S> You can overcome this by using dice that don't have rotational symmetry and by communicating clearly. <S> I still advise against it because there are easier, clearer options (my opinion). <S> Representing a large number of tokens individually may not be feasible. <S> In these cases, you can group tokens that have the same status using a single card with a numeric counter placed on top. <S> Every token in the group must be identical. <S> If some are tapped, or if some have summoning sickness, represent them as a separate group. <A> When ever I play magic with my brother or friends, we use sticky notes. <S> You can write any abilities they might have just as long as you bring a pen. <S> I use smaller sticky notes as ++ tokens too. <S> This method is occasionally used for feature matches (i.e., matches that get video coverage) at large tournaments, but only when a better alternative is not available. <S> For example, there is no official marker for which mode is chosen for Outpost Siege (Dragons or Khans), so a sticky is used instead. <A> But there is only one product I've found that displays power/toughness and can double as a tappable creature token on its own. <S> It's from Jace's Toy Chest. <S> Only place i've found them is on Etsy and ebay. <A> My friends and I use cards that aren't in the current game, face-down. <S> We put coins (1, 2 or 5 cents) on them depending on the power/toughness of the creature tokens (since most of the time, they have equal power and toughness). <A> Our group uses index cards, which is pretty handy because you can just write the static stats (color, creature type, BASE P/T, etc) on the card. <S> D6 on top of the card is usually enough for counters, and d10/20 to count a group of identical tokens if things start getting... silly... <A> I put all my ad cards in white, blue, green, red, or black sleeves and put those face down with a dice on them. <A> Mini Dice and flipped cards. <S> My friends typically up just use dice. <S> If you want you can easily get a lot of token cards since almost all of them are super cheap. <A> As far as dice go, use two dice for a 2/2 token. <S> When they are horizontal, the token is untapped. <S> Twist them both <S> so they are vertical, and it's tapped. <A> I just use a face-down card and put a piece of paper on it with its stats
|
Most counters and methods use dice or cards to represent that there is a token, or that it has counters on it.
|
Do -1/-1 counters count as damage? I am wondering if -1/-1 counters are considered damage? On creatures with the wither ability is says that the creature deals damage in the form of -1/-1 counters. As such I would like to know if a creatures wither-ability would trigger ex: Rite of Passage ? <Q> In general, -1/-1 counters do not count as damage. <S> When a creature with one of those abilities deals damage to another creature, it still counts as dealing damage to the other creature, but instead of marking damage, you put that many -1/-1 counters on the other creature. <S> This means that damage dealt by a creature with Wither or Infect <S> would trigger Rite of Passage. <A> Dealing damage causes many different results. <S> The following are the most common results of the damage (but it's not exhaustive): <S> The loss of life (by the defending player). <S> The addition of poison counters counters (on the defending player). <S> The addition of marked damage (on the defending creature). <S> The addition of -1/-1 counters (on the defending creature). <S> The loss of loyalty counters (by the "defending" Planeswalker). <S> The gain of life (by the attacking creature's controller). <S> No matter the result of damage <S> , it's still damage being dealt, so Rite of Passage 's ability will trigger for a creature with Wither dealing damage to another creature. <S> Note that while dealing damage can place -1/-1 counters on a creature, putting -1/-1 counters on a creature isn't damage in of itself. <S> Choking Fumes 's effect does not trigger Rite of Passage's ability. <A> No, -1/-1 counters do not themselves count as damage. <S> You can think of them as an effect of damage, when the source dealing the damage has wither (or infect). <S> In general, damage dealt to something in the game has an effect that depends on what it is being dealt to. <S> These are the normal effects: <S> Damage dealt to a creature normally causes the amount of damage to be added to an invisible "damage counter" which is reset at the end of each turn (during the cleanup step). <S> Damage dealt to a player normally causes the player to lose that much life. <S> Damage dealt to a planeswalker normally causes that many loyalty counters to be removed from the planeswalker. <S> Some abilities modify or replace the normal effect with another effect: <S> For creatures : If a source dealing damage to a creature has wither or infect, the damage causes that many -1/-1 counters to be placed on the creature instead of adding to the damage counter. <S> For creatures : If a source dealing damage to a creature has deathtouch, the damage marks the creature as having received damage from a source with deathtouch. <S> For players : If a source dealing damage to a player has infect, the damage causes the player to gain that many poison counters instead of them losing life. <S> and so on.
|
However, in the case where an ability (such as Wither or Infect) says that damage is dealt in the form of -1/-1 counters, it does count as damage.
|
Why can an ability resolve even if I exiled the creature it came from? I just started learning magic a week ago and I've been playing duels of the planeswalkers 2014 to kind of get a hang of things. I'm confused with something that has happened twice now. I'm playing against a campaign deck with a Goblin Fireslinger which has an activated ability that says: {T}: Goblin Fireslinger deals 1 damage to target player. So this gets cast while I have the instant Path to Exile in my hand, which "Exile(s) target creature." So I cast that. Now it is my understanding with the way the stack works that once the GF uses its ability and then I follow it up with the Exile, the exile is resolved first so the GF should be exiled before it can resolve. And that's what the game does, but it still resolves the GF's ability while that card is exiled and deals me one damage. I tried looking for why this could have happened, but I haven't been able to find an answer myself. I can't find anything that says an exiled spell still casts... I'm just confused about the way this works. <Q> Your understanding of how the stack works is correct: your path will resolve and exile the fireslinger before its ability resolves. <S> What you're missing is rule 112.7a, which says that the fireslinger's activated ability exists independently of the fireslinger. <S> Once you put it on the stack, the 1 damage is its own object and exists even if the fireslinger itself leaves the battlefield: <S> 112.7a <S> Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. <S> Destruction or removal of the source after that time won't affect the ability. <S> Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, "Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player") rather than the ability doing anything directly. <S> In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. <S> Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. <S> In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it's expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. <S> The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists. <S> If you want to actually counter the ability, there are very few ways to do so. <S> Less than 20 cards in all of magic can counter activated abilities. <A> This is part of your confusion: <S> I tried looking for why this could have happened, but I haven't been able to find an answer myself. <S> I can't find anything that says an exiled spell still casts... <S> I'm just confused about the way this works. <S> It isn't a matter of "an exiled spell still casts" here. <S> A spell is a card on the stack: an instant, sorcery, creature, etc. <S> When Goblin Fireslinger was being cast, just before it entered the battlefield, it was a spell. <S> When Path to Exile was being cast, before it resolved, it was a spell. <S> Those are the only two spells involved in this scenario. <S> Goblin Fireslinger doesn't create a spell. <S> As you pointed out, it has an activated ability. <S> When you activate it, that puts an activated ability on the stack. <S> (That's important: it means you can stop it with Stifle , but not with Cancel .) <S> If you're imagining the Goblin itself, which you exiled, was on the stack in some capacity, that's not the case. <S> So, the Goblin got exiled just fine and won't be doing anything else, but its ability is now its own thing still on the stack waiting to resolve. <S> And that ability exists independently of it. <S> Check the Basic Rules , page 14: <S> If you activate an ability but then the permanent the ability came from leaves the battlefield, the ability will still resolve. <S> That's why its ability can get resolved even whilst the Goblin isn't still there. <S> If you want to learn more about how spells and abilities work, I suggest you read those pages in the Basic Rules book, and possibly for further clarification read this answer <S> that helped me a lot when I was new. <S> In fact, if you haven't read the Basic Rules yet, I suggest you do! <S> I never knew they existed until a while after I started. <A> When you activate an ability (the damage ability, for example), it exists on the stack as its own object independent from the object it was activated from (Goblin Fireslinger, for example). <S> So even if you exile the Goblin Fireslinger, the ability is still on the stack and it still resolves. <A> So something would have to happen to the ability rather than the creature. <S> To expand a bit on what everyone has said about countering abilities - although there are very few cards that will directly counter an ability, what you can often do much more easily is to make its target(s) invalid. <S> Spells or abilities that don't have any legal targets when they try to resolve are automagically countered (rule 608.2b). <S> E.g. you could cast Gilded Light while Goblin Fireslinger's ability was on the stack, and the ability would be countered. <S> There aren't many ways to make yourself an invalid target, but there are lots of ways to do this with creatures and other permanents.
|
As other people have already pointed out, Goblin Fireslinger's ability still resolves because the ability exists independently of the creature itself.
|
Is there a way to play Twilight Imperium's "age of empire" variant with Shattered Empire's strategy cards? The third edition of Twilight Imperium has become one of the most-played games as of late, and we have finally begun to incorporate the first expansion into the game. In the core TI3 rules is an excellent variant, called age of empire , that makes the entire public objective deck accessible by the fourth round. We have a lot more fun playing with this variant, but ran into difficulty when incorporating Shattered Empire's new strategy cards. Shattered Empire's eighth strategy card, bureaucracy , primarily deals with revealing objective cards, which is pointless with age of empire's fully-revealed setup. We ran into this problem the first and only time we played, and could not figure out a solution—letting the bureaucracy card pile up with bonus counters until there were none left. It was a disappointing way to end my new favourite game. I otherwise found these new cards to be much more interesting, so it would be nice to use them. Has anyone figured out a clever way to modify their rules so as to incorporate both ? I would very much like to keep in the spirit of the card(s), but every modification I have come up with is terribly boring. <Q> As it says in the rules for Shattered Empire, if you're using the Age of Empire variant, you have to use the Imperial II strategy card rather than Bureaucracy. <A> It leads to very smooth matches, so it became our standard set up. <A> I know this thread is very old, but I've enjoyed using the "Red Tape Bureaucracy" Variant, that is popular with some community members. <S> The "Red Tape Bureaucracy" Strategy Card can be seen (and printed from) here: http://checkwolf.com/ti3/images/high%20resolution/jpeg/sc%20bureaucracy_front.jpg <S> The rules discussion and explanation is here: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/757071/red-tape-bureaucracy <S> In short: -Setup the Age of Empire Objective Deck as normal -When dealing out the Objective Deck, place one "Red Tape" marker (of your choice) on each dealt Public Objective Card -Objective Cards that have a Red Tape marker cannot be claimed -Red Tape markers are removed via the "Red Tape Bureaucracy" Strategy Card <S> I hope this helps!
|
We usually play with Age of empire option and variant strategy card , using this set of strategy cards: initiative diplomacy II political logistic trade II warfare technology II imperial II
|
How does the four card limit work? I'm new to the game and trying to make my first constructed deck. My understanding of the card rule is I can only have four cards of one kind. What does this precisely mean? For instance, does this mean I can only have four rat cards total or four rat cards of several kinds? If two different cards do the same thing (like Remove Soul and Essence Scatter ), can I have four of each? <Q> Other than basic lands (Island, Forest, Plains, Swamp, Mountain, and Waste) you are only allowed to have four cards in your deck with a given name. <S> (Barring a few exceptions where the card itself says otherwise, or the card is restricted in the format you're playing.) <S> As an example, you are allowed to have four copies of Plague Rats , and four copies of Ravenous Rats , you can also have any number of Relentless Rats , as the card has specific text allowing "any number" which overrides the four card limit. <A> 100.2a <S> In constructed play (a way of playing in which each player creates his or her own deck ahead of time), each deck must contain at least sixty cards. <S> A constructed deck can have any number of basic land cards and no more than four of any card with a particular English name other than basic land cards. <S> You can't have more than 4 copies of one card, except for basic lands and cards that specifically say so in their text box(so <S> far there are only two cards like that - Relentless Rats and Shadowborn Apostle ). <S> Although this rule applies only to Constructed formats. <S> In Limited formats you can include any number of copies of card if you opened them in your cardpool or picked them during draft 100.2b <S> In limited play (a way of playing in which each player gets the same quantity of unopened Magic product such as booster packs and creates his or her own deck using only this product and basic land cards), each deck must contain at least forty cards. <S> A limited deck may contain as many duplicates of a card as are included with the product. <S> In some formats there are restricted cards of which you can have only one copy in your deck. <S> These cards are listed in official banlists for those formats. <A> All that matters is the English name of the card, not what it does. <S> You can have at most four copies of a card with a given name: 100.2a <S> In constructed play (a way of playing in which each player creates his or her own deck ahead of time), each deck must contain at least sixty cards. <S> A constructed deck can have any number of basic land cards and no more than four of any card with a particular English name other than basic land cards. <S> The main exception is the basic land cards : Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest, the five corresponding Snow lands , and Wastes . <S> The only other time you can have more than four of a given card is when the card itself says so, like Relentless Rats : <S> A deck can have any number of cards named Relentless Rats. <S> So yes, you can have four copies each of several different Rat cards: four copies of Typhoid Rats , four copies of Pack Rat , and so on. <S> And it also doesn't matter if the cards do the exact same thing, as long as the name is different. <S> You can indeed have four <S> Essence Scatter and four Remove Soul .. <S> Of course, you can only have up to four copies of cards you're actually allowed to play. <S> If a card is banned or otherwise illegal in the format you're playing, you can't have any, and if it's restricted you can have only one copy. <S> See <S> How should I determine whether a deck is legal in a particular format? <S> for discussion of that and other deck restrictions. <S> Finally, there are also some singleton formats like commander where you do construct your deck ahead of time, but the usual four copies rule is replaced by a one copy rule. <S> Again in those cases, only card name matters, so you can have one copy each of several cards that do the same thing. <A> All the above are correct. <S> One note however: in the earliest days of magic this rule did not exist. <S> Legend has it that this rule-change came to pass after a totally bonkers combo-deck that used a combination of only two cards: black lotus and ancestral recall, both printed in alpha. <S> If you use the ancestral recall correctly, this means you win the game turn one, every single game. <S> People realized this was not fun...
|
In short, you are allowed any number of distinct card names, but only four instances of any given name.
|
When discarding the card in the Love Letter, is it mandatory to show the card you had? I need a claryfication of the rules: Let's say another player uses Baron and compares his card with mine, mine being the lower valued one. I know that I'm out of this round at that point, but what happens to my card? Is it discarded face up (everyone learns what I had) and or face down (only the comparison-winning player gets that information)? Let's say someone uses the Prince on me. I have to discard a card and draw another one. Do I discard my card face up or face down, keeping the information what I had to myself? <Q> The Tempest version of the rules is just a little bit vague - it <S> does say that to play a card you discard it face up, it does say that your discarded cards go in front of you <S> , it does say that when you're knocked out you place your card face up in front of you, <S> it doesn't explicitly say that a card you discard to the Prince should be face up (although I'd say that they weight of all the other rules says yes it should). <S> The Kanai version definitely spells it out: <S> If a player is out of the round he or she must reveal the card in his or her hand (if any) and place it in front of him or her. <A> Yes, it is mandatory to show your card in both cases. <S> The Nordic version has very clear rules for these: Baron Player with the smaller number in the card drops out from the round and (from "Dropping out of the game") <S> If a player drops out of the game, he puts his card on front of him face up .. <S> Prince <S> The player of your choise puts his card into his discard pile.. <S> and (from "How to play") Cards in the <S> [players own] <S> discard pile are kept so that even all the cards played earlier can be seen . <A> Definitely. <S> If you are knocked out by a Baron or any other card, you must discard your card face up so anyone can see. <S> Also, at any given time, any player can look through any other player's discarded cards stack. <S> Also, when you discard a card for any reason , it goes face up in your stack. <S> This goes for playing cards, etc. <A> yes <S> its very clear out of the roundIf a player is knocked out of the round, that player discards the card in his or her hand <S> face up (do not apply the card’s effect) and takes no more turns until next round. <S> http://www.alderac.com/tempest/files/2012/09/Love_Letter_Rules_Final.pdf
|
All discarded cards should remain in front of the player who played them, visible, so that it is clear in what order they were discarded.
|
Rules for giving away "big item" if you do not have 1000 gold pieces of items to sell In the instructions for Munchkin it states: If something lets you have more than one Big item (for instance, the Dwarf race) and you lose the ability, you must either correct the problem immediately or get rid of all but one Big item. If it's not your turn and you're not in combat you can sell the excess Big items (as long as you have at least 1,000 Gold Pieces of Items to sell). Otherwise, you must give them to the lowest-Level player(s) who can carry them! If any Big items are still left over, discard them. What if there is a tie for lowest-level players? Do you split evenly? How do you handle an odd number in that case? What if you are the lowest-level? Does this follow the same logic as the #4 Charity Phase? <Q> I don't see any reason why either the Charity or the Looting <S> The Body rules should apply here. <S> (Yes, this situation is somewhat similar to Charity, but it's not the same.) <S> Just taking the text literally, all it says is: [...] <S> you must give them to the lowest-Level player(s) who can carry them! <S> So that's it. <S> You must give each of them to (one of) the lowest-Level player(s) who can carry it. <S> Obviously, that does not include yourself, or anyone else who's already at their maximum carrying capacity. <S> Other than that <S> , since the rules don't say otherwise, you're free to choose among the lowest-Level eligible players. <S> Of course, if the player you choose to give one of your Big items to is not a Dwarf, they'll probably become ineligible to receive any more Big items, which means that you'll have to offload the rest of your excess Big items onto other players. <S> (Yes, you may use this tactically: first give your Huge Rock to the Level 1 Thief who just backstabbed you, and then spread your more valuable Big items among players you like more.) <S> On the other hand, a low-level Dwarf could easily end up collecting all of your suddenly-unwieldy loot, whether you want to give it to them or not. <S> That's just how things happen in Munchkin. <A> This is obviously an application of the charity rule, which specifies the following: <S> If players are tied for lowest, divide the cards as evenly as possible, but it’s up to you who gets the bigger set(s) of leftovers. <S> If YOU are the lowest or tied for lowest, just discard the excess. <A> If you want to be fair, rather than choosing a player then I'd go with the rules for looting the body: <S> Starting with the player with the highest Level […] <S> in case of ties in Level, roll a die . <S> If your corpse runs out of cards, tough. <S> So, to reword this for the question in hand (and to hopefully mitigate further discussion around some of the other aspects of this answer): <S> If more than one player is tied for the lowest level and can carry more Big Items, roll a die. <S> If there are more players who can carry big items than you're giving away, tough. <S> In your case the players tied for lowest would roll. <S> Note once again it's left deliberately ambiguous as to how to interpret the roll <S> ;-) <S> It's still up to you how you divide the items. <S> I think the issue I have with the suggestion <S> "It's the same as Charity rule" is that the section "if you are the lowest discard them all" doesn't apply: <S> Otherwise, you must give them to the lowest-Level player(s) who can carry them! <S> If any Big items are still left over, discard them. <S> Now it really then comes down to the reading of " the lowest-Level players who can carry them " - because (unlike Charity) it doesn't explicitly say "If you are the lowest…", it seems to make the " who can carry them " as important as the player levels. <S> I'm then torn as to whether you should be giving them to players who have a higher level you but can carry them <S> (i.e. you're level 1, with two level 2 players - should they get the items?).
|
The only restrictions the rules place on what you can do with your extra Big items are: You must give them away (if you can; otherwise the next sentence in the rules kicks in, saying you must discard them).
|
When is Ferocious checked? When is Ferocious checked? A. When casting begins B. When the spell resolves C. Both of the above D. It depends I think the answer is D. If I understand correctly, Ferocious is a meaningless mechanic with zero rules baggage. I'm tempted to say that the word "Ferocious" could be removed from every card it is printed on, and the card would still function exactly the same. Mechanics like Scry, for example, do have an actual rules meaning. Here are two example cards, and my guess on when the condition is checked: I think Crater's Claw would check on resolution, because damage is dealt on resolution. I think Dragon Grip would check on cast, because it can only be cast as though it had Flash if a certain restriction is met. <Q> As you said, Ferocious doesn't do anything on its own; it just signals that a certain mechanic is present in the ability. <S> It is an ability word : 207.2c <S> An ability word appears in italics at the beginning of some abilities on cards. <S> Ability words are similar to keywords in that they tie together cards that have similar functionality, but they have no special rules meaning and no individual entries in the Comprehensive Rules . <S> The ability words are battalion, bloodrush, channel, chroma, constellation, domain, fateful hour, ferocious , grandeur, hellbent, heroic, imprint, inspired, join forces, kinship, landfall, metalcraft, morbid, parley, radiance, raid, strive, sweep, tempting offer, threshold, and will of the council. <S> As a rule of thumb, you can always safely ignore any text in italics in a card's text box. <S> This includes flavor text, reminder text, and ability words. <S> So if you want to figure out how a card works, you just read it as though the word Ferocious were absent. <S> Crater's Claw's ability modifies what the spell does when it resolves <S> , so you check it when the spell resolves. <S> Dragon Grip's ability modifies when the spell can be cast <S> , so you check it when you are casting the spell. <S> Because you mentioned it, I'll point out that scry is different. <S> It is a keyword action , not an ability word, and as such it has actual rules attached to it. <A> Ferocious almost always checks on resolution. <S> There are only two exceptions so far:1. <S> Heir of the Wilds - Ferocious is checked when Heir is declared as an attacker, because that's when it's ability can potentially trigger <S> 2.Dragon <S> Grip - in this case <S> Ferocious changes when Dragon Grip can be cast, so you must control a creature with power 4 or greater when you want to cast it on instant speed. <S> Here's an article from Magic Judge Rules Blog explaing this matter in more detail. <A> Talking in terms of checking for casting or resolution misplaces the focus. <S> One of the cards you mentioned creates a continuous effect that modifies priority, and the other creates a continuous effect modifies damage dealt. <S> They're not triggered abilities waiting for an event to become active, they are continuously active. <S> You should be thinking in terms of what they effects modify. <S> murgatroid99's answer goes into further details, but I hope this gives you a better framework for dealing with replacement effects in the future.
|
If the ability modified when an ability triggered (such as Heir of the Wilds ' ability) it would check when the ability triggers and when it resolves, like any other condition on a triggered ability.
|
Can I attack a player directly if they still have a flying defender? I have a 4/2 Spiked Baloth (with trample) and my opponent has an untapped 1/1 Bird with flying. He has only 2 lives and I want to finish him off. Can I attack directly even though my attacker doesn't have reach or flying (and his creature does)? <Q> Yes , you can attack your opponent with your Spiked Baloth, and you will win if you do so. <S> (Trample is relevant; it's the reason you win in this scenario.) <S> However, your question seems to indicate that you don't understand exactly how combat works. <S> Combat goes in step: <S> In the Declare Attackers Step , you say what creatures are attacking which players. <S> You can only attack players, and it doesn't matter what creatures they have to block. <S> In your particular case, you would declare the Spiked Baloth as an attacker attacking your opponent. <S> In the Declare Blockers Step , your opponent says which of their creatures are blocking which of your creatures. <S> This is where the flying becomes important. <S> When they're blocking, the fact that the bird has flying just means that it can block your creature even if your creature has flying. <S> In this particular situation, your opponent would declare that their bird is blocking your Baloth. <S> In the Combat Damage Step , all of the combat damage is dealt at the same time. <S> Since your Baloth has trample, it only has to deal as much damage as the bird's toughness (1) to the bird, and it can deal the rest (3) to your opponent. <S> The bird just deals 1 damage to your Baloth. <S> Then your opponent would lose because they have -1 life. <S> In addition, flying and reach only affect what attackers a creature can block. <S> They don't affect damage, or what creatures can attack. <A> As the attacker, you don't have to worry about what creatures the defender has. <S> You attack a player , and that defending player gets to choose if and how to block. <S> Reach only matters on a blocking creature. <S> It means that the creature may block other creatures who have flying. <S> It is not relevant in this case. <S> There are no restrictions on what a creature with flying can block. <S> That means that flying is also not relevant in this case. <S> This means that, if you attack in this case, your opponent may choose to block with his flying creature. <S> If he doesn't, he will lose since you deal 4 damage to him. <S> If he does, he will still lose, since your creature will deal 1 damage to the blocking bird, and 3 trample damage to the defending player, which is enough to bring his life to 0. <A> In Magic, you always (with exceptions in planeswalkers and multiplayer games) attack the player. <S> It is the defensive player who CHOOSE if he will block or not. <S> Let's say the opponent has 5 lives. <S> It is your attack phase and you attack (in a 1vs1 game, you don't even choose who to attack, you just Attack the opponent player). <S> He can decide to block your creature with his 1/1 flier (losing it and getting 3 damages himself) or just let the damage go through, getting the 4 damages and keeping his creature alive. <S> In the actual state of the game the trample MATTERS, because he will die because of the 3 trample damage points. <S> Without trample, he could just block with the flier and stay alive in 2 lives.
|
You can and, if you attack, you MUST attack the player. Flying creatures cannot be blocked by creatures without flying or reach.
|
Does doubling counters trigger Hardened Scales? I have a Hardened Scales and Setessan Oathsworn with no counters on the battlefield. I cast Solidarity of Heroes on the Oathsworn, it gets three counters from it's heroic trigger which happens while the Solidarity is still on the stack. When the Solidarity resolves will it have 6 counters total or 7? Does doubling counters translate to "add as many counters as it has" or is it some special rule that changes the count without "adding" (thus not triggering the Scales). <Q> When the card says to "double the number of +1/+1 counters" on a creature, it means that you should place on to that creature as many +1/+1 counters as are currently on it. <S> This means that Hardened Scales applies, so Setessan Oathsworn will end up with 7 +1/+1 counters on it. <S> Unfortunately, I can't find a rules reference to back this up, but the basic idea is that after Solidarity of Heroes resolves, there are more counters on the creature than before it resolved, and the only way that could have happened (from the point of view of the game rules) is if you put counters on it. <S> There is no other applicable action that has that result. <A> The relevant rule seems to be: 121.6. <S> If a spell or ability refers to a counter being "placed" on a permanent, it means putting a counter on that permanent while it's on the battlefield, or that permanent entering the battlefield with a counter on it as the result of an effect (see rule 614.1c). <S> It is not entirely clear, but my understanding is that it means that "placed" includes all ways one or more counters may end up on a permanent (including the initial placement from entering the battlefield). <S> Thus, doubling the counters will trigger the ability as long as there were any counters in the first place (i.e. doubling zero counters does not place counters). <A> By definition, to "add" a counter, is to place an additional counter. <S> Thus, to place an additional counter, is to "add" a counter.
|
To double any type of counters, you place an additional number of counters on the permanent equal to the number of counters that are already on the permanent.
|
How exactly does Extort ability work? So a friend of mine bought a new deck today which is (heavily) based on Extort ability: Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain that much life. So now I wonder how exactly does it work? Does he have to pay for EACH creature with Extort for each spell he plays or is 1 enough to let Extort trigger from all creatures? An example: A player has 5 lands and 3 creatures with Extort ability. He then plays an Oblivion Ring for 3 mana( ), so he now has 2 mana left. If he taps one, would all 3 Extort s trigger or just one? From the text I would assume the following: Whenever you cast a spell, if you pay extra, then Extort ability will trigger. So am I right or is Extort a pretty useless ability that should be paid on each creature separately? <Q> From the text I would assume the following: <S> Whenever you cast a spell, if you pay {W/B} extra, then Extort ability will trigger. <S> That is incorrect. <S> The triggering event is you cast a spell . <S> Each time that event occurs, the ability triggers. <S> On resolution , you may pay {W/B} and cause life loss. <S> A player has 5 lands and 3 creatures with Extort ability. <S> He then plays an Oblivion Ring for 3 mana ({2}{W}), so he now has 2 mana left. <S> If he taps one, would all 3 Extorts trigger or just one? <S> All three trigger. <S> Note that no time exists between Oblivion Ring being cast and Extort triggering. <S> You don't have to option to tap anything then or when you place the ability on the stack. <S> When the third ability stacked resolves, you may pay {W/B}. <S> If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain that much life. <S> When the second ability stacked resolves, you may pay {W/B}. <S> If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain that much life. <S> When the first ability stacked resolves, you may pay {W/B}. <S> If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain that much life. <S> So you can cause each opponent to lose up to three life, but each life lost will cost you a mana. <S> Michael Snook explained how this isn't useless. <S> This post is mostly about correcting your understanding of triggered abilities. <A> Each one triggers, and then your friend may pay for the first, for the second, and so on. <S> He cannot pay for multiple triggers with just one mana. <S> That said, I wouldn't call it useless. <S> It's a repeatable ping for one mana at a time. <S> It's life loss, so it can't be prevented by damage prevention effects. <S> It hits each opponent, so it scales in multiplayer. <S> Late game it provides a nice mana sink. <S> I've played against it in Commander <S> and it's a fairly consistent threat. <S> It's probably better in Commander than last standard or modern because of those: longer games with higher mana bases and scaling with opponents help the ability out. <A> Yes he would have to pay for each trigger but I wouldn't say it is useless because if he would only have one creature with extort he could only pay one mana at most. <S> If he has three creatures with extort he can pay up to three mana.
|
You're right that Extort costs {W/B} for each creature: each instance of Extort is a separate triggered ability.
|
What is the "Timeshifted" rarity? I'm confused about the "Timeshifted" cards. I looked at the Wizards of the Coast rarity scale. How rare are they and are they valid in Modern? (example Undertaker ) <Q> Timeshifted were rather special. <S> Every booster pack from the Time Spiral block had one Timeshifted card, and each Timeshifted card was equally likely to be the included card. <S> Quoting Wikipedia, The Timeshifted cards are distributed one per booster pack and three per tournament pack (taking the place of common cards), and also appear in the preconstructed decks. <S> According to DCI-distributed tournament primers, Timeshifted cards are tournament legal where Time Spiral or the set of original printing are. <S> This also means that since the Modern format includes Time Spiral, it includes Undertaker. <A> Timeshifted cards are (slightly more than) 1.5 times as rare as Rare cards from Time Spiral. <S> There were 80 Rare cards and 121 Timeshifted cards in the set, and each booster pack included 1 Rare card and 1 Timeshifted card. <S> Due to the rarity distributions, each Mythic Rare in a large set appears in 1 out of every 121 boosters, meaning that they are exactly as rare as Timeshifted cards! <S> Despite using the old borders, Timeshifted cards are legal in Modern, since they were printed in Time Spiral, which is a Modern-legal set. <S> Every Timeshifted card is a reprint of a card from a set prior to 8th Edition. <S> The Planar Chaos and Future Sight sets had their own versions of Timeshifted cards, but they did not have their own rarity. <A> Rarity has nothing to do with legality. <S> The timeshifted expansion symbol color just indicates that the card is a reprint in the Time Spiral set. <S> Legality in different formats depends on what sets a card was printed in. <S> Undertaker, for example, was printed in Mercadian Masques and Time Spiral, so any version of Undertaker is legal in any format that allows either Mercadian Masques or Time Spiral. <S> As ikegami says in his answer, each Time Spiral pack contained exactly one timeshifted card, so they were about as common as rare cards before mythic rares were introduced.
|
The modern format lists Time Spiral, Planar Chaos, and Future Sight as legal sets, so any cards from those sets (other than specifically banned cards), including timeshifted cards, are legal.
|
In what kind of deck is Aether Vial good? I'm pretty much a beginner at deck building, and I'm toying around with a Modern GR Shaman tribal deck. It's too slow to be competitive, but there are a lot of options and things to try out. I find it hard to decide whether Aether Vial is good in it, and what adjustments I should make to the deck if I decide to include it. Aether Vial seems like an awesome card at first sight (putting creatures on the board for free, at instant speed, for an initial 1 mana? Huh?) but I note that very few competitive decks run it. Arguments against and for I can think of: by itself, it doesn't do anything yet, and having multiple in your starting hand means you probably have too few creatures. You can only use it for creatures with the right CMC, and you can only add counters, not remove them. On the other hand, it does save mana that can be left up for other things, and instant speed is nothing to sneeze at. My creatures have CMC of 1, 2, 3, 4 (too spread out?) but I don't have many 1-drops, and Vial is one, so that helps. Those are things I see. But I can't decide. What kind of reasoning should I use to decide whether Aether Vial is worth it in any given Modern deck? <Q> Obviously <S> Having to tick up a Vial to 3 or 4 means waiting 3 or 4 turns before it gives you any value. <S> In addition to the points you listed above, one advantage that you missed is that creatures put into play by Vial are not cast, and therefore sidestep counterspells and related effects. <S> This property also enables the Vial to break symmetry on effects that prevent players from casting spells, or affect the costs to cast spells: (e.g., Trinisphere , Standstill , Sphere of Resistance , Rule of Law ). <S> Multiples are not completely redundant: in addition to being able to vial in multiple creatures per turn, you can hold the vials at different number of counters, for creatures with different CMC. <S> I would say the reason you don't see it more often in competitive play is that simply putting more creatures on the board isn't always that strong of an effect. <S> Many decks with lots of cheap creatures are on an aggro plan, and so Vial is both tempo loss and card disadvantage. <S> The positive benefits of Vial accrue over multiple turns, so it does the most work in a deck that wants somewhat longer games, and also has lots of cheap creatures, preferably with redundant synergy (e.g., Fish). <A> Merfolk decks in Legacy are a good use of AEther Vial, because they're packed with 1- to 3-cost creatures and their play strategy is to dump a bunch of them on the board quickly. <S> To take an arbitrarily selected decklist : <S> Lands: <S> 4 Cavern of Souls 4 Mutavault 12 Island <S> 1-cost <S> Creatures: 4 Cursecatcher <S> 2-cost creatures: 4 <S> Silvergill Adept <S> 4 Lord of Atlantis 4 Master of the Pearl Trident 3 Phantasmal Image <S> 3-cost creatures: 3 Merrow Reejerey <S> 4 True-Name Nemesis Noncreature spells: 1 Relic of Progenitus 2 <S> Umezawa's Jitte 4 <S> Æther Vial <S> 3 Daze 4 Force of Will <S> A web search for legacy merfolk will find you plenty of other sample decklists with similar distributions. <S> The point is, this is the kind of mana curve it takes to make AEther Vial good, but it's also important that the creatures have strong synergies, because any random bunch of small creatures doesn't make a competitive deck. <S> ( anymore :-P)That's why putting together this kind of deck is not quite as viable in Modern; it doesn't have as many synergistic creatures. <S> You can still do it though. <S> Maybe there are some cool tricks you can pull using AEther Vial to put out a giant creature late in the game, but I don't see that being very likely, and as far as I know it's never been exploited successfully in a competitive deck. <A> Besides the fact that you need a critical mass of creatures with a certain curve to make vial good you should probably look at the format you want to play it in. <S> Things to consider here include: How long do games last, do you have manasinks in your deck, how prevalent is countermagic, do you need to play around (mass-)removal, can your creatures provide tricks when they etb <S> , are there some special synergies your deck can make use of (e.g. Standstill, Affinity), etc. <S> Legacy Merfolk is one of the decks that profit from almost all of these points. <S> Since the Counterbalance/Sensei's Divining Top <S> two card combo is so strong in Legacy Vial <S> is much better there than in Modern.
|
Aether Vial does best in a creature-heavy deck where many of the creatures have low CMC.
|
Who draws a card if my opponent has stolen control of Pelakka Wurm when it dies? If an opponent casts Act of Treason to gain control of Pelakka Wurm then sacrifices it who will draw the card? <Q> Your opponent would draw the card. <S> When an ability triggers, what matters is who controlled the object with the ability (in this case the Pelakka Wurm) when it triggered. <S> With "dies" triggers, what matters is who controlled it just before it died. <S> 112.8. <S> The controller of an activated ability on the stack is the player who activated it. <S> The controller of a triggered ability on the stack (other than a delayed triggered ability) is the player who controlled the ability's source when it triggered , or, if it had no controller, the player who owned the ability's source when it triggered. <S> To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f. <S> 603.6d <S> Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. <S> Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. <S> However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially. <S> Leaves-the-battlefield abilities , abilities that trigger when a permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. <S> The game has to “look back in time” to determine if these abilities trigger. <A> The first thing to note is that rule 700.4 says The term "dies" means "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield." <S> So the Wurm's ability is equivalent to "When Pelakka Wurm is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, draw a card. <S> " This is a triggered ability, and specifically, it is a "leaves-the-battlefield ability" (rule 603.6c): 603.6c . <S> Leaves-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent moves from the battlefield to another zone , or when a phased-in permanent leaves the game because its owner leaves the game. <S> These are written as , but aren't limited to, "When [this object] leaves the battlefield, ..." or "Whenever [something] is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, ..." An ability that attempts to do something to the card that left the battlefield checks for it only in the first zone that it went to. <S> An ability that triggers when a card is put into a certain zone "from anywhere" is never treated as a leaves-the-battlefield ability, even if an object is put into that zone from the battlefield. <S> 603.6d . <S> Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. <S> Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. <S> However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially. <S> Leaves-the-battlefield abilities , abilities that trigger when a permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward . <S> The game has to "look back in time" to determine if these abilities trigger. <S> This means that when the Wurm dies, it looks at its existence before it died to determine how the ability triggers. <S> Specifically, when the Wurm was last on the battlefield, your opponent controlled it, so they control the ability and draw the card. <A> What matters is the state that Pelakka Wurm was in when it was last on the battlefield, so it matters whose control it was under then. <S> 603.6d <S> Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. <S> Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. <S> However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially. <S> Leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. <S> The game has to “look back in time” to determine if these abilities trigger.
|
The person who controlled it with Act of Treason when it died will draw the card. If your opponent takes control of Pelakka Wurm and it dies while they control it, they draw the card.
|
How to make The Tower less of a pain in Carcassonne I'm a big fan of Carcassonne and have a most of the expansions available in my language. One of the only expansions I don't play, at all, is The Tower. In my opinion, the ability to remove followers is too powerful and only incites retaliation. The cost of blocking this tower is too high, since you're losing one of your followers for the remainder of the game. When I look at reviews on the game, most people feel the same. I'm wondering if there are ways to work around these restrictions. Right now I'm just using the tiles without using the tower pieces. How does everyone deal with this? Is there a way to counterweight the towers' impact? <Q> We rarely play with either the Tower or the Dragon, mostly because neither my wife or I like having to worry about 'randomly' losing our Meeple like that. <S> and of course the fact that to stop the tower, you have to sacrifice another piece. <S> But your question got me thinking, so my idea is to add extra Meeple to each player. <S> I have two whole sets of Meeple, but you could add them in depending on the number of people playing. <S> There are 18 tiles with tower places so if playing a 2 person game, add 6-7 extra Meeple, 6 person game 2-3. <S> The closer you want it to be toward game design the fewer extra Meeple you add in. <S> 2 players = 6-7 extra Meeple3 players = 5-64 players = 4-55 players = 3-46 players = 2-3 <A> Well, we had the same problem and solved that making the tower only as a point generation rule. <S> What we did was, the player play the tower base tile and if he/she will, can put only in the tower foundation turn a tower piece and a meeple, the meeple can't leave the board, only once by turn the player can rise one of his / hers towers, at the end of the game, as many floors have the tower, the player have points by tiles up-down-right-left to the tower tile, by example, at the end of the game a tower will have 5 floors, but are 6 tiles up, 3 down, 5 left and 4 right, that tower punctuation is 5+3+5+4 = 17 points to the player final score. <S> Regards <A> I found a bunch of house rules in this document , some of which could be used to weaken The Tower: <S> Towers cannot capture over empty tiles. <S> (Thanks to viberunner) <S> A single-storey tower can only capture a follower on its own tile. <S> Each additional storey adds an additional tile of range in each direction – the rate of increasing range is the same as the normal rules, but the starting point is less powerful (the “No Surprises” rule). <S> (Thanks to keyofnight) <A> We scrapped the official Tower rules and instead use the following: <S> Whenever a player doesn't place a follower, builder, or pig, they may place a tower piece on any tower or foundation. <S> Each tower piece added to a city tile <S> is the equivalent of a shield ( <S> e.g. a 3 high tower on a city would add 3 points if uncompleted at the end, or 6 points if completed). <S> Whenever a player doesn't place a follower, builder, pig, or tower piece, they may place a follower on any unclaimed tower to claim it. <S> a. A claimed tower can't be made any higher. <S> b. A claimed tower in a city that you own (i.e. have the most followers in) is protected, in that you still count each tower piece as specified above. <S> c. A claimed tower in a city that you don't own, ceases to count towards the scoring of anyone (this adds some nice tension—the taller/valuable you make a tower in your city, the more likely your opponent will claim it!). <S> When a city is completed, the tower pieces remain on the board but if there's a follower on top of it, that's returned to the player. <S> The kids <S> and I think the above works really well, however, we're still testing what to do with the foundations on a road, cloister, or in the one in the middle of field… currently we are using the same rules as the city tiles. <S> For example, a 4 high tower on a road would add 4 points to the road, regardless of whether or not it's completed (unless you're playing with inns, in which case it would be 0 points if uncompleted or 8 points if completed). <S> Likewise, a tower on a cloister would add 1 point for each tower piece added. <S> We treat the one in the middle of the field as not doing anything, although I guess you could build a tower on it to waste tower pieces if you really wanted to. <S> I'd be interested to hear how the above work for you, and if you think of any improvements to them. <A> Towers cannot reach higher than a certain height. <S> Add an extra meeple. <S> These are just my ideas and they are not found in any rule book. <A> Allow players to destroy any tower that is 3 or higher this gives the ability to use the tower but not abuse the tower. <S> Leave the broken tower on its tile to show it can no longer be used. <S> This action would be made instead of placing a meeple. <S> But set the minimum hight befor the game starts so everyone knows. <S> But allow the tower to be as tall as anyone can build it.
|
Here are some house rules that can solve this problem: To build a tower, you have to skip your turn altogether and not evendraw a tile.
|
Is an Enchantment Creature also an Enchanted Creature? Is an Enchantment Creature also an Enchanted Creature? For example, Spiteful Returned states Whenever Spiteful Returned or enchanted creature attacks, defending player loses 2 life. If I have Spiteful Returned and Nyxborn Eidolon on the battlefield - both cast as creatures, not bestowed - and attack with both, does the defender lose 2 life or 4 life? Nyxborn Eidolon is an Enchantment Creature, but it has no enchantments on it. Is it technically an enchanted creature? <Q> In addition to the answer you've already gotten, I want to point out that Spiteful Returned doesn't say ' another enchanted creature'; it specifically uses the phrasing 'when enchanted creature attacks'. <S> This refers to the creature that Spiteful Returned is enchanting, and that creature only; if you have Spiteful Returned in play and, say, a Bloodcrazed Hoplite that has a Hopeful Eidolon bestowed onto it, then attacking with the Bloodcrazed Hoplite <S> won't trigger Spiteful Returned's ability. <A> 303.4b <S> The object or player an Aura is attached to is called enchanted. <S> The Aura is attached to, or “enchants,” that object or player. <S> Since Nyxborn Eidolon has no Auras attached to it, it's not Enchanted. <S> More importantly, it's not enchanted by Spiteful Returned. <S> Spiteful Returned's triggered ability only triggers when Spiteful Returned or the creature it enchants attacks. <S> It would say " Whenever Spiteful Returned or an enchanted creature attacks " if it was meant to trigger whenever any enchanted creature attacks. <A> They only lose 2 life. <S> Spiteful Returned is a creature with Bestow. <S> This means that when you cast it you have the option to pay its Bestow cost and when you do that you cast just like an Aura picking a Creature for it to Enchant. <S> A creature with bestow gives you the option to cast it as an Aura that enchants a creature, granting that creature its power, toughness, and abilities. <S> When a card with bestow is in your hand, you have two options: <S> cast it normally for its mana cost, or cast it for its bestow cost. <S> If you cast a bestow card normally, it's an enchantment creature spell that resolves and becomes an enchantment creature on the battlefield. <S> Its bestow ability and its "Enchanted creature gets..." text are ignored. <S> If you cast a bestow card for its bestow cost, it's never a creature spell. <S> Instead, it's an Aura spell with enchant creature, so you have to target a creature to cast it. <S> If that creature has a heroic ability, this will trigger it, just as any other Aura spell would. <S> If the target creature leaves the battlefield after you cast a card with bestow as an Aura but before the spell resolves, the Aura spell will resolve as an enchantment creature rather than being countered like a normal Aura spell. <S> If the target creature is still on the battlefield when the Aura spell resolves, it resolves as an Aura enchanting that creature. <S> While it's enchanting a creature, an Aura with bestow grants the creature the bonuses listed in its text box. <S> If the creature it's enchanting leaves the battlefield for any reason, the Aura immediately becomes an enchantment creature again rather than being put in the graveyard like other Auras. <S> From The Mechanics of Theros
|
When it is an Aura the Creature it is attached to is the "Enchanted Creature", it is never an "Enchanted Creature" if it is not attached to anything and is just an Enchantment Creature.
|
When you "sacrifice 3 creatures" as a cost, are they sacrificed one at a time? If you want to activate the activated ability of Teysa, Orzhov Scion , does "sacrifice 3 creatures" count as 1 cost, or 3 separate costs? And, does it matter which it is at all? 601.2g says The player pays the total cost in any order. Does this mean that the creatures are sacrificed in any order; or are they sacrificed all at the same time, as 1 cost? Further, is it any different if they are sacrificed all at the same time, or one after the other? I believe it wouldn't matter, because no triggered abilities would go on the stack until a player is about to receive priority anyway. 603.6d says ...will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. But what is "the event" that it looks prior to? Is each sacrifice of a creature a separate event? If this were the case, then sacrificing Teysa before the other creatures would mean that you don't get the tokens for Teysa's triggered ability. Or, is "the event" the activating of Teysa's ability, in which case the order makes no difference? <Q> When you “sacrifice 3 creatures” as a cost, are they sacrificed one at a time? <S> No. <S> " <S> Sacrifice 3 creatures" only has one keyword action. <S> This differs from "Sacrifice a creature. <S> Sacrifice a creature. <S> Sacrifice a creature." <S> When a payment consists of more than one action, those action aren't performed simultaneously as per the rule you quoted ("in any order"). <S> That is practically never relevant. <S> It means that if part of the cost requires that you sacrifice a permanent, and that part of the cost requires that you tap a permanent, you could tap a permanent then sacrifice that same permanent. <S> If all parts of the payment was done simultaneously, I don't think that would be possible. <S> In this case, there's only one action ("sacrifice"), so asking about order makes no sense. <S> All three creatures are sacrificed at once since there's only one instruction to sacrifice. <S> So yes, for each black and white creature you sacrifice at the same time as Teysa, Teysa's second ability will trigger. <S> Because of 603.6d, all that's relevant is that the Teysa was on the battlefield immediately before the sacrifice, and that the sacrificed creatures were black [1] . <S> This is supported by a ruling on Teysa: You may sacrifice Teysa itself to help pay for its first ability, but unlike other white and black creatures, it won't cause its second ability to trigger. <S> Any other white and black creatures you sacrifice to pay for the first ability will cause the second ability to trigger. <S> It doesn't matter that Teysa left the battlefield during, that Teysa isn't on the battlefield afterwards, or that one of the creatures became a colorless artifact card when it got sacrificed. <A> The reason that rule 601.2g exists is for payments with multiple parts. <S> Take for example Birthing Pod , it has a payment that includes mana, tapping the pod, and sacrificing a Creature. <S> 601.2g says you can pay the costs in any order, so you can tap the pod first, sacrifice creatures second and pay mana last. <S> Or what ever order you want to, I cannot think of an example of a time when the exact order matters. <S> So in this case there is only one cost, to pay sacrificing creatures (the fact there is more than one creature doesn't matter). <S> This means that if any of the sacrificed creatures has an ability that triggers off of any of the creatures dying or getting sacrificed they would trigger. <S> If they weren't all sacrificed at the same time it would indeed matter what order that they were sacrificed in since if the first on sacrificed has the trigger that cares about the other creatures dying it will not be on the battlefield when those creatures die and thus would not trigger. <A> On Teysa's gatherer page, there is a single ruling that says You may sacrifice Teysa itself to help pay for its first ability, but unlike other white and black creatures, it won't cause its second ability to trigger. <S> Any other white and black creatures you sacrifice to pay for the first ability will cause the second ability to trigger. <S> This means that either all sacrifices happen at the same time or the order doesn't matter. <S> And it doesn't make a difference which it is because the game will "look back in time" (as 603.6d says) to before any of the cost was payed.
|
For something like Teysa all of the creatures get sacrificed at the same time because there is only one direction to sacrifice the creatures.
|
Athreos, God of Passage, and Martyr of Sands My opponent has Athreos, God of Passage on the field. They then play Martyr of Sands and use her ability "{1}, Reveal X white cards from your hand, Sacrifice Martyr of Sands: You gain three times X life." They sacrifice the Martyr, triggering Athreos's ability. I choose not to pay 3 life, and they return the Martyr to their hand. Does my opponent still gain life even though Martyr of Sands isn't in the graveyard as her ability resolves? <Q> Nothing in the ability says that the Martyr has to be in their graveyard to gain the life. <S> The sacrifice cost was paid, and once the ability was on the stack, it existed independent of the creature card (CR 112.7a). <A> Since nothing but the sacrifice tries to move the Martyr, the Martyr would still be on the battlefield if it wasn't sacrificed. <S> The Martyr was sacrificed, so the cost was payed, so your opponent gains the life [1] . <S> Athreos caused a triggered ability to happen to Martyr after Martyr's ability was put on the stack, but that doesn't matter. <S> The steps taken in order are: <S> The costs are paid for Martyr of Sands's ability: One mana is paid, you reveal some number of white cards from your hand, and Martyr of Sands is placed in the graveyard. <S> Martyr of Sands's ability is placed on the stack, but doesn't resolve yet. <S> Athreos's triggered ability is triggered and then placed on the stack. <S> Athreos's ability resolves. <S> In this case, you decide not to pay three life, and Martyr of Sands is returned to your opponent's hand. <S> Martyr of Sands's ability resolves, causing your opponent to gain three times X life. <S> Additionally, your opponent would still gain the life even if the sacrifice itself was replaced with another action [CR 117.11][2] : the cost to activate the ability would have changed, but the ability would still have the same effect when resolving. <S> 117.11. <S> The actions performed when paying a cost may be modified by effects. <S> Even if they are, meaning the actions that are performed don’t match the actions that are called for, the cost has still been paid. <S> The sacrifice happened (even if the creature didn't end up in the graveyard), so abilities that trigger when you sacrifice a creature (such as Dragon Appeasement 's second ability) will trigger. <S> The sacrifice itself was replaced, so abilities that trigger when you sacrifice a creature (such as Dragon Appeasement 's second ability) <S> won't trigger [CR 614.6] . <A> They will still gain life. <S> This is because sacrificing the Martyr is sacrificed and once that happens the ability doesn't care what happens to her. <S> What happens is your opponent activates the Martyr's ability, sacrificing her, paying the mana, and revealing white cards from your hand. <S> Once they've done all of that the ability goes on the stack. <S> After it is on the stack Aethreos's ability triggers and when it resolves you allow the Martyr to return to their hand. <S> At this point the Martyr's ability is still on the stack waiting to resolve, and since there is nothing in the effect that requires the Martyr to be in the graveyard when it resolves it is perfectly happy to give your opponent life.
|
Your opponent does still gain the life.
|
Are (un)tapped permanents still legal targets for "(un)tap target permanent" effects? So I noticed that many cards with tap-effects ship with a clause specifying that they can only be used on untapped permanents, such as Earthcraft and Crackleburr . So here's my question: Doesn't that imply that, given the right situation, one can legally tap an already tapped permanent? I'll give an example of the kinda scenarios this is relevant for: Can Tamiyo, the Moon Sage activate her first ability when no untapped cards are around? Or, thinking untap-effects, could I bounce a forest with Scryb Ranger even when there isn't a tapped creature available? Notice that, unlike the previous batch of examples, the wording on these lacks the clause restricting their use to un/tapped permanents - does that mean that they aren't? Any kind of clarification would be greatly appreciated here. <Q> If it's a permanent, it's a valid target for "target permanent". <S> Period [1] . <S> 701.17b <S> To untap a permanent, rotate it back to the upright position from a sideways position. <S> Only tapped permanents can be untapped. <S> This has consequences [2] , but not for Tamiyo. <S> 609.3. <S> If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible. <S> The confusion stems from the fact that players intuitively know they cannot choose to do something impossible. <S> This is indeed a rule. <S> 608.2d <S> [...] <S> The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action [...] <S> However, while you are forbidden from choosing to do something impossible, there's nothing impossible about activating Tamiyo's ability. <S> It's of no consequence that the ability involves actions that cannot be performed if the ability were to resolve immediately after being activated. <S> As usual, cards can override the rules. <S> For example, abilities such as Shroud, Hexproof and Protection can prevent a permanent from being targeted. <S> You are required to pay a cost <S> completely [CR 117.3] , so <S> a cost that requires you to untap something that isn't tapped can't be payed. <S> For example, the untap symbol means " Untap this permanent ". <S> Because you can't untap a permanent that isn't tapped, you can't pay the cost of Puresight Merrow 's ability when Puresight Merrow isn't tapped. <S> For example, If you want to untap a tapped permanent so it can attack, and you use an instant that reads " Tap or untap target permanent. ", and someone untaps it in response, you would be force to tap it when your ability resolves (because you can't chose to do something impossible.) <S> That's why that type of ability is phrased " You may tap or untap target permanent. " <S> For example, If you have an ability whose effect reads " You may untap an opponent's land. <S> If you do, do X. ", you can't do X if the opponent has no tapped lands. <A> You cannot untap an untapped permanent to pay an "untap" cost, exactly like how you cannot tap a tapped permanent to pay a "tap" cost. <S> 107.6. <S> The untap symbol is {Q}. <S> The untap symbol in an activation cost means "Untap this permanent." <S> A permanent that's already untapped can't be untapped again to pay the cost. <S> However, Tamiyo CAN use her first ability even without any untapped creatures around. <S> This is because it says "target creature", not "target untapped creature". <S> So you can target a tapped creature as a legal target. <S> When the ability resolves, it will first attempt to tap the already tapped creature (which will do nothing), and then the "it doesn't untap..." will still take effect. <S> In the same way, you can use Scryb Ranger's ability even without any untapped creatures, because you can target a tapped creature. <S> But again, when the ability resolves, it will attempt to tap the already tapped creature, which will simply do nothing. <S> The key here is that you can never tap a creature that's already tapped, or untap a creature that's already untapped. <S> Attempting to do so to pay a cost is like attempting to pay 1 mana when you have no mana in your mana pool; you can't do it. <S> However, nothing stops you from using a spell or ability that, as part of its resolution, attempts to tap a tapped creature. <A> You are looking at two different things here: costs and effects. <S> Earthcraft and Crackleburr both require you to tap untapped permanents (or untap tapped permanents) to activate their abilities. <S> If Earthcraft allowed you to tap a tapped creature to untap your a land, then with just one creature you could untap all of your land forever. <S> For the other two, the tapping or untapping is the effect of the ability. <S> In Tamiyo's case, you pay the cost by adding one loyalty counter and you choose a target. <S> Then, when the ability resolves, the targeted permanent becomes tapped. <S> Similarly, in Scryb Ranger's case, putting the land in your hand is the cost of activating the ability. <S> Even if the creature dies before the ability resolves, the land is already in your hand.
|
You cannot untap a permanent that's not tapped.
|
Settlers of Catan cities and knights mighty knights maximum numbers Playing Settlers of Catan there have been a few instances where one runs out of Settlements or Cities (the pieces). How I have been playing it is that if you don't have it you can't build it. However playing the expansion Cities and Knights for the first time I explored the Politics Calender which gives you the special of "Fortress: You may promote strong knights to mighty knights" Only then did I realize that there are only 2 Mighty Knight Token pieces. If the Politics special is to promote to Mighty Knights but only able to perform this for two knights(if they've not been promoted already) then it seems under powered compared to the other Building tree abilities. My question is: Can you only play the 2 mighty knights during a game because there are only 2 mighty knight pieces? <Q> In the case of Cities and Knights, the Fortress does only allow you to upgrade your two strong knights (level 2) to mighty knights (level 3), which in itself is only an upgrade of 2 strength. <S> However, in doing so, it also means that you can have up to six knights on the board - 2 of each level - compared to the 4 you can build without the Fortress. <S> And in terms of total strength, you go from a maximum of 6 to a maximum of 12, so <S> you're actually doubling your capacity to defend against the barbarian. <S> And that's not even looking at the options of displacing strong knights on your roads. <A> Yes, like the Settlements and Cities, you are constrained by the number of knights you have to promote to Mighty knights (or any other type) 2 of each. <S> You can always make house rules but the game was designed with the specific number of pieces they sent along. <A> You should play with the number of pieces (cities or mighty knights) specified by the game rules. <S> You in your example, you should play with only two mighty knights because that's what the rules specify. <S> Suppose you "lost" one of the two knight pieces and had only one. <S> Then you could import an additional one from another set, or use a "token" for the "second" mighty knight piece called for by the game rules.
|
Yes, you are always limited to the number of pieces you have, no matter what that piece is.
|
House rules to speed up Citadels play time? I enjoy Citadels, but find the game can often quite a long time. Since players must draft their role card in sequence, there ends up being a lot of down time while other players make their selections. The game is particularly prone to analysis-paralysis. Even limiting the game to a small number of players (4 or 5) and triggering the end game sooner (first player to build 7 buildings instead of 8), the game can still draw out. Any more ideas on how to improve the flow of this otherwise great game? <Q> I played this game intensely a few years ago with 2 and 3 players (sometimes up to 4) and the analysy-paralysis problem disappeared after, say, 2-3 games with the same group. <S> I tried the same solution of lowering to 7 buildings (in fact, it is even suggested on the rulebook) and worked quite well for 2 players, never tried it with 3-4 players. <S> I personally think the hard time-limit is a too crude option. <S> I'll try instead to insist on the players to 'think fast' in order to make a more agile game. <S> Notice that you can begin to think about which characters are the best for you on advance, while other players make their choose. <S> And never forget that a little randomness on your decissions are desirable, as you'll be a perfect target for assassination and/or robbering the moment you become too predictable. <A> This is a crude instrument but you could try running a timer on decisions then deducting a player one gold OR their lowest value building if they exceed say, 2 minutes on a decision. <S> I'll be honest and say I haven't tried this myself but my group tend to play quite fast. <A> Citadels is more likely to drag due to the experience level of players vs. number of players involved. <S> I too have had some lighting fast games with 2-4 players, but ultimately the speed of those games came down to myself and the other players being highly experienced with the game, knowing each role available, its power, and being able to make those choices (as well off call the roles as the King) in a short manner due to our experience. <S> The one time I played an 8 player game as well as my experience with 6-7 player games is that there will be 1-3 new/rusty players who do not remember the roles and are unable to make truly informed decisions and thus deliberate for awhile. <S> They tend to forget which role they choose and do not immediately respond when their role is called out during play. <S> Likewise if they happen to become king then they take a long time to call of the roles even with them in front of them. <S> Additionally I've found that just about any competitive strategy game like this can drag if people tune out when its not their turn vs. paying attention and planning/thinking ahead as the turns progress.
|
The solution is simply to try to play more often and with experienced players, your time issue should self-correct over time.
|
In Settlers of Catan, if you have unrevealed victory point cards that would make you win, are you forced to declare victory? If you have enough points to win on your turn, but only by including your unrevealed VP development cards, are you forced to win? E.g. I have three cities (6 VP), three settlements (3 VP), and I buy a development card, which ends up being a victory point card. Can I wait until my next turn where I believe I'll have a chance to steal longest road, and end the game on 12 VP, or do I need to declare victory now? The reason why I ask is that we keep a running total of stats from the games we've played over the years, and finishing on a higher total would bring up my average VP per game score. <Q> You have won the game as soon as your have 10 points on your turn, there is no requirement to "declare" victory. <S> So no, you cannot keep playing extra rounds. <S> From the official FAQ: <S> Victory Conditions - May I continue scoring points after having reached the number of victory points required for a win? <S> This could make sense in a private tournament where the scores from several games are added up. <S> http://www.catan.com/faq/4613-victory-conditions-may-i-continue-scoring-points-after-having-reached-number-victory-points <S> and: <S> Victory Conditions - <S> What if someone has reached the required number of victory points for a win but is unaware of it? <S> Did this player win anyway? <S> Yes. <S> The game ends as soon as a player has reached the required number of victory points on his turn. <S> If he’s unaware of it, you should tell him, because you can’t take an already gained victory away from him. <S> http://www.catan.com/faq/4616-victory-conditions-what-if-someone-has-reached-required-number-victory-points-for-win <S> Note that you have the point from VP development cards as soon as you buy the card. <S> You don't "play" the development card to get the points; you already have those points. <A> The key thing that nobody here has yet clearly and explicitly stated is this, from the rules on http://www.catan.com/service/game-rules : (From Victory Point Card section): <S> You only reveal your Victory Point Cards when you or someone else wins the game! <S> Keep Victory Point Cards hidden until you have 10 points during your turn <S> and you can declare victory. <S> So you keep your VP cards secret, but they still count towards your goal. <S> Once you reach 10 VPs, you win. <S> Important note (from Development Card section): <S> You may not, however, play a card that you bought during the same turn. <S> Exception: If you buy a card and it is a Victory Point Card that brings you to 10 points, you may immediately reveal this card (and all other VP cards) and win the game. <S> So you buy a new dev card, and hit 10 points because of this new card, you then win on that turn. <S> Job done. <A> Once 10 Victory Points (VP) has been reached, then you have automatically won, even if you have played a development card prior to purchasing the winning VP card. <S> If you are playing alternate rules, then you can always agree upon a new set of rules which cover this topic. <A> I'm going from memory of 1st edition here, rather than the current rules. <S> I'm pretty sure you had to declare victory on your turn to win - even with the 5/6 player expansion. <S> However - one fix for this is question, which is used in some tournaments I've played - is to always score victory as 12 points, regardless of number of points. <S> 12 is about the right emphasis on winning to usefully use a VP/game average.
|
For individual games and official tournaments, the following applies: You have won as soon as you have reached the required number of victory points on your turn – and then the game is over.
|
What does "cannot be countered" mean in MTG? Mistcutter Hydra says it "cannot be countered." What does that mean? Is it like saying that it cannot be blocked? Or it can not be stopped from being summoned this turn or what? I have no idea what this means. <Q> Cannot be countered means that your opponent(s) will not be able to counter this spell. <S> In other words: this spell will hit the battlefield no matter what(except for a very few very rare cases described in the edit). <S> If a card doesn't have Cannot be countered text, then a simple Counterspell can counter this spell, so that it will end up in graveyard instead of the battlefield EDIT <S> As diego mentioned in the comment, there are some very rare cases when Cannot be countered can still get "countered"(even though it will not be countered as per definition(rule 701.5a ) <S> , it can be returned back to the hand/exiled before it resolves). <S> A couple examples would be Mindbreak Trap and Venser, Shaper Savant . <S> Mindbreak Trap can exile a spell before it resolves and Venser, Shaper Savant can return a spell back to its owner's hand before it resolves. <S> Ruling of these 2 cards say: Mindbreak Trap : <S> If a spell is exiled, it's removed from the stack and thus will not resolve. <S> The spell isn't countered; it just no longer exists . <S> This works on spells that can't be countered, such as Terra Stomper. <S> Venser, Shaper Savant : <S> If a spell is returned to its owner's hand, it's removed from the stack and thus will not resolve. <S> The spell isn't countered; it just no longer exists . <S> So with these 2 cards <S> your opponent may actually "counter"(read <S> : prevent spell from resolving) <S> your cannot be countered spells. <S> Rule 701.5a says: To counter a spell or ability means to cancel it, removing it from the stack. <S> It doesn’t resolve and none of its effects occur. <S> A countered spell is put into its owner’s graveyard. <A> It means you can't counter it using a card like Cancel or Nullify : <S> It can still be blocked and everything else. <S> For an explanation of how Countering works, I suggest you read here: <S> How does "Counter target spell" work? <A> "Counter" is a keyword action, which is to say a verb with a specific meaning to the game. <S> To counter a spell, one moves it from the stack to the graveyard. <S> Cancel is one example of its use. <S> "Mistcutter Hydra can't be countered" means that instructions to counter Mistcutter Hydra are prevented, which means they have no effect. <S> If Cancel is cast targeting Mistcutter Hydra , nothing will happen when Cancel resolves. <S> It doesn't prevent blocking or any other action. <S> It doesn't prevent Mistcutter Hydra from moving from the stack to the graveyard for any other reasons than as a result of an instruction to counter. <A> To counter a spell or ability means to cancel it. <S> When a spell is countered, it doesn't resolve; it is removed from the stack with no effect, and the card is put into its owner's graveyard. <S> Note that "counter" does not apply to permanents, and therefore doesn't remove anything from the battlefield or prevent creatures from attacking or blocking. <S> Only spells and abilities on the stack can be countered. <S> Note that a spell with "this spell can't be countered" <S> is technically a legal target for "counter target spell". <S> This means that you can still cast a spell with "counter target spell" even if the target can't be countered, and any additional effects not contingent on that spell being countered <S> , e.g. "you gain 3 life" ( Absorb ) will still apply. <S> Effects that are contingent upon that spell being countered will say so, typically with "If that spell is countered this way...". <S> Likewise, if you cast a spell A with "counter target spell" targeting another spell B while it could still be countered, but spell B can no longer be countered by the time spell A would resolve (e.g. as a result of Vexing Shusher 's ability), spell A will still resolve even if it has no other targets. <S> The fact that spell B can't be countered doesn't make it an illegal target for spell A, and any additional effects from spell A that don't depend on spell B being countered will still occur.
|
It only means that effects that would counter the spell will do nothing instead.
|
How much mana can I tap per turn? So I am fairly new to Magic and I have read the entire rulebook multiple times and it never gave a clear answer," how many mana can I tap per turn", because to would just feel weird to be tapping all of the mana for example with my Arbor Colossus he requires 3 forest and 3 of any mana to attack, so if I get enough do I tap them all at once or do they stay tapped after each turn? <Q> There is no limit to the number of lands that you can tap per turn. <S> For your other question, all of your tapped permanents will untap at the start of each of your turns, during the "untap" step. <S> You have a few different important basic terminology mixed up though. <S> Mana and Land are 2 different things. <S> Land is a type of card, one that most commonly produces mana <S> (but some lands do not produce any mana). <S> Thus, "Forest" is not a type of mana, "Green" is a type of mana, and Forests are cards that produce Green mana when tapped. <S> Also, you do not need to pay mana to attack with creatures, including Arbor Colossus. <S> You need to pay mana to cast Arbor Colossus (to out him from your hand into the battlefield), and to activate his "Monstrosity" ability, which gives him 3 +1/+1 counters. <A> First of all, you cannot tap mana at all. <S> Mana only exists in your mana pool, it is not a permanent of any kind that can be tapped. <S> Lands, like Forest , can be tapped to produce mana. <S> There are also creatures and artifacts that can be tapped for mana. <S> Secondly, you usually only want to tap lands (or creatures or artifacts) for mana when you have something to pay for that needs mana, you technically can pretty much whenever you want to <S> but there isn't generally a reason to. <S> In the case of Arbor Colossus that is casting it (which takes 2 generic mana and 3 green mana) and activating its Monstrous ability (which takes 3 generic mana and 3 green mana). <S> It doesn't take any mana to make it attack, or block. <S> Finally, at the beginning of each of your turns you have an Untap Step where you untap all of your tapped permanents. <S> Once they are untapped you are free to tap them again to pay for other things, but once you've used it to pay for something you can't use it again until it is untapped again. <A> First, let me echo the point brought up by other answers that you do not tap mana <S> , you tap <S> lands <S> (and sometimes, creatures or artifacts) to produce mana. <S> That's important. <S> Now, the core question: why is there no limit on how many times you can do this per turn? <S> I suspect you're missing one critical piece of information, which is that each land which is a Forest has the ability {T}: Add {G} to your mana pool. <S> where {T} is the tap symbol and {G} is the green mana symbol. <S> Somewhat confusingly, this ability is not printed on the card (except for very old Forests), but it is there nonetheless. <S> [CR 305.6 ] <S> So there is nothing special about how you produce mana from a land. <S> It's just an ability that you can activate. <S> You can activate an ability at various times during the game, as long as you can pay the cost. <S> [CR 602.2 , 601.2a ] After you activate an ability, you always get another chance to activate an ability. <S> (And there are decks that rely on being able to activate thousands of abilities in one turn.)
|
[CR 116 ] Nothing in the rules gives any limit on the number of times you can activate an ability per turn; as long as you can pay the cost, you're free to activate as many abilities as you want.
|
Goblin Brigand and Norn's Annex My opponent has Goblin Brigand on the battlefield. It says: "Goblin Brigand must attack each turn if able " I control a Norn's Annex . My opponent is unable to produce white mana, but can (of course) pay for the attack with his life. The question is: Is the Goblin still " able to attack " since my opponent has no other option (in this particular game) than to pay for the attack with his life? Is my opponent " forced " to pay 2 life for the attack? <Q> You are mistaken about the lack of another option: He has the option of not paying the cost, since it's an optional cost ("unless you") <S> [1] . <S> If he doesn't pay the cost, the goblin isn't able to attack, so it doesn't attack [CR 101.2] . <S> You are never forced to meet any requirements. <S> If you don't have enough mana to cast a spell, you don't have to play that land that would allow you to cast it. <S> If Norn's Annex prevents your Goblin Brigand from attacking, so be it. <S> This is supported by a ruling <S> If you control Norn's Annex, your opponents can choose not to attack with a creature with an ability that says it must attack. <S> He might also have the option to sacrifice the Brigands, to destroy the Annex, etc. <A> From rulings of Norn's Annex you can clearly see your answer. <S> The answer is: If you control Norn's Annex, your opponents can choose not to attack with a creature with an ability that says it must attack. <A> The effect of Norn's Annex can be interpreted as follows: <S> Creatures can't attack you or a planeswalker you control. <S> A creature's controller may pay (W or 2 life) at a given attack step for that creature to be exempt from this restriction for that attack step. <S> The fact that a player could choose to pay a cost which would make Goblin Brigand able to attack is not relevant. <S> The comprehensive rules that support this interpretation are 508.1d ... <S> If a creature can't attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed. <S> and more generally, <S> 117.12a <S> Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, "[Do something] unless [a player does something else]. <S> " This means the same thing as "[A player may do something else]. <S> If [that player doesn't], [do something]. <S> " <S> I think it's a fairly general rule of thumb that players are not required to pay costs to make things possible.
|
So as far as the game is concerned, Goblin Brigand is not able to attack.
|
Is there any strategic reason to skip a turn to untap Time Vault? A bunch of recent Channel Fireball videos ( LSV , Cheon , LSV again ) show players exploiting Time Vault combos, where you untap the Vault with Voltaic Key or some similar effect to take infinite turns. That got me thinking that Time Vault seems like a pretty useless card from a competitive perspective if you're not using it in a combo. Has there ever been a competitive deck that used Time Vault's manual untap ability, where you skip your turn to untap it? Or can anyone even think of a situation which could plausibly occur in competitive play where skipping your turn to untap Time Vault is a good (or at least defensible) strategic choice? <Q> One consideration is if there is some symmetrical negative effect in play, such as Smokestack or Bottomless Pit . <S> Skipping your turn skips a trigger on such cards that would effect you. <S> Another possibility would be if you're able to essentially take your turn during your opponent's turn. <S> Prophet of Kruphix is pretty good for that, as is Seedborn Muse . <S> Of course you're not getting combat steps, but there are plenty of decks which don't need combat in order to win. <A> I don't know about any competitive decks <S> but I can imagine it being useful. <S> Sometimes having two turns in a row is worth skipping a turn for. <S> Imagine your opponent only has one creature available to block and you can remove it somehow. <S> That gives you two turns you can attack him without him blocking you. <S> The first of the turns you can even drop another creature you know that can't be blocked the second turn. <S> If you hadn't the extra turn your opponent might have left more blockers. <S> The other way around is therefore also true. <S> Your deck could benefit from your opponent playing more defensively. <A> If you happen to be running a Millstone deck with Island Sanctuary, you may not care how many turns your opponent takes as it just gets him through his deck quicker. <S> If you're running a Stasis deck and your opponent is tapped out. <S> If you have Racks or Black Vises out and your opponent is low on life. <S> As a 2 mana artifact, you may not care that much if your opponent reverses advantage on the third turn to bank a turn for later. <S> It's pretty situation specific, but it exists. <A> IIRC, Luis Scott-Vargas actually talks in some of his Vintage videos about untapping Time Vault 'the hard way'; <S> the primary reason that you might want to do it is that turns aren't necessarily equivalent. <S> If you, for instance, play T1 Time Vault (pick your favorite way) and your opponent goes Island, Delver of Secrets, then you may just choose to charge up the Time Vault right then, since about the worst thing that's going to happen on T2 is that you're going to get hit for 3 — it's certainly conceivable that your opponent might resolve something brutal like Ancestral Recall, but about as likely that they'll just run out a Young Pyromancer or the like and hold up Daze. <S> By contrast, you'll be able to take your extra turn somewhere in the midgame, where you may be able to e.g. run out Thoughtseize to clear the way, use the banked extra turn, and set up Yawgmoth's Will for an outright win.
|
Knowing that you skipped a turn and have an extra turn available at any time you wish forces your opponent to be more defensive because otherwise you could do tricks like I mentioned above.
|
Who determines the target creature or player when a card says "deals 1 damage to target creature or player"? Vigilante Justice says "Whenever a Human enters the battlefield under your control, Vigilante Justice deals 1 damage to target creature or player." Do I decide if the damage goes to the creature or player or does my opponent? <Q> Whoever controls Vigilante Justice chooses the targets. <S> The ability is a triggered ability, and the rules for triggered abilities say <S> 603.3a <S> A triggered ability is controlled by the player who controlled its source at the time it triggered , unless it's a delayed triggered ability. <S> To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f. <S> 603.3d <S> The remainder of the process for putting a triggered ability on the stack is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2c <S> –d . <S> If a choice is required when the triggered ability goes on the stack but no legal choices can be made for it, or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal, the ability is simply removed from the stack. <S> 601.2c <S> The player [who controls the ability] announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. <S> The "source" of the ability is the object that has the ability, which in this case is Vigilante Justice, so Vigilante Justice's controller controls the ability. <S> When the ability triggers, as part of the process of putting it on the stack, that player chooses the targets. <A> This is because whomever controls the Vigilante Justice controls its trigger <S> [603.3a] and whoever controls the trigger chooses the targets [601.2c] <A> Whoever controls vigilante justice and the human entering play decides.
|
Whoever controls the Vigilante Justice and the Human chooses which creature or player it will target.
|
How should I modify Risk to play with 7 persons I am planning on creating my own version of Risk in such a way that we can play it with 7 persons. For this I am planning to create my own map with a local theme. What kinds of ratios/parameters are common in games with fewer players (e.g. countries per player, armies per turn)? Based on these, what kind of modifications do I need to make to the map (number of countries / connections between countries or continents) to make it suitable for 7 players? Or is the game playable with the current map and 7 players? <Q> We used to play Risk 2210 a lot, often with more than the recommended 5 players, and used the rule that if you are wiped out, when your turn comes around, you can start a rebellion. <S> Rebellions Take two cards and choose one of the shown territories to rebel in. <S> Roll 3d6. <S> That many troops in the chosen territory are replaced with your troops. <S> If there are any enemy troops remaining in the territory, you must fight them, but if you win, you can continue your turn as normal. <S> If you lose, your rebellion failed but you can try again on your next turn. <S> It leads to a more chaotic game <S> but it's a LOT more fun that one or two people sitting around doing nothing for hours. <A> If you wish to make your own map as I have, you could perhaps visit strategygamenetwork.com where you will find at least 80 different maps created by various users of this site. <S> My map is Polar World. <S> I have found that playing with 7 players does not make for an enjoyable game of RISK, but if you must, a good ration is 7 to 10 territories per player. <S> If you want to play with 7 players, your map should have approximately 48 to 70 territories. <S> Given that Parker Brothers/Hasbro has issued different coloured & styled soldiers over the years, finding more colours or styles on e-bay is not difficult. <A> It is an official "spinoff" where the map changes and each faction is different and evolves a bit getting special and unique habilities. <S> While it is initially for 5 players, without spoiling the fun let's say it gets more variety. <S> There are lots of reviews out there ( example of a nice one I read a while ago ), so you can read about it and decide. <S> I have it and really love the concept, keeps the basics of Risk but "expands".
|
I haven't tried original Risk with more than 4 players, but there is an alternative that can more or less be played with 7 players, Risk Legacy .
|
Why do all Go board sizes have an odd number of lines? Why is a 19x19 board so much better than a 20x20 board? Here are the number of games played on every different board sizes on DGS (Dragon Go Server): | Size | CNT |+------+--------+| 5 | 2464 || 6 | 466 || 7 | 11015 || 8 | 434 || 9 | 101230 || 10 | 1256 || 11 | 3166 || 12 | 716 || 13 | 65205 || 14 | 455 || 15 | 4656 || 16 | 315 || 17 | 1145 || 18 | 91 || 19 | 639319 || 20 | 293 || 21 | 371 || 22 | 104 || 23 | 265 || 24 | 79 || 25 | 3657 | As you can see boards of odd size are much much more popular than boards of even size. In total: 99.5% of games have been played on boards of odd size, while only 0.5% of games have been played on boards of even size. There seems to be something severely wrong with boards of even size... So my first question is: what is the problem with boards of even size? I also wondered why 19x19 is the number one most popular size for Go boards... Just like the accepted answer to this question says, the principal reason that the 19x19 board is considered to be the best is that: it is the largest board size on which there are more points on the sides (under the third line) than in the center (above the fourth line). But I found that to be inaccurate! The board size with the best balance between territory (on the sides) and influence (in the center) is not 19x19, it's 20x20. If Black puts all his stones on the third line, and White puts all his stone on the fourth line, then: On a 19x19 board: Under area scoring: Black has 192 points, White has 169 points. Under territory scoring: Black has 136 points, White has 121 points. On a 20x20 board: Under area scoring: Black has 204 points, White has 196 points. Under territory scoring: Black has 144 points, White has 144 points. So my second question is: why not a 20x20 board? <Q> Almost all go boards are x by x, where x is an odd number (e.g. 9, 13, or 19). <S> The point is to have the product yield an odd number of potential points. <S> So that there would be an odd number of points in the game and a clear winner. <S> (In the Japanese counting style of "points," it is possible for both players to have the same number, but under the Chinese counting style of points plus stones played, the sum of the two players' results will be an odd number.) <A> On an even sized board it is much easier to mirror your opponent's moves (this special tactic is known as "mane go"). <S> Playing the tengen point on an odd sized board is a move that cannot be mirrored. <A> The 19x19 board is considered the most interesting configuration because of the strategic and tactical scenarios it enables. <S> $$cm1$$ +---------------------------------------+$$ <S> | . <S> . <S> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |$$ | . . . . <S> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |$$ | . . a . . <S> x . <S> b . <S> x . <S> b . <S> x . <S> . a . . <S> |$$ | . . . <S> B . <S> B . <S> b . <S> B . <S> b . <S> B . <S> B . . . <S> |$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <S> | <S> In the above diagram for example, K16 is a 3 space extension from both F16 and O16. <S> It gives black a strong option on the top side, but still allows white invasions, at b for example. <S> K17 could be considered too. <S> Details on the possible invasions can be found here . <S> It is also true that the 19x19 offers a good balance between center and sides. <S> Beyond the simple math in your question, you need to factor in that in a real game of go: <S> black and white are supposed to play the same number of stones <S> a central area is harder to enclose (4 borders) than a side area (3borders) or a corner area (2 borders). <S> Now, once a size has been chosen as the official reference, it becomes de facto the most popular. <S> Same applies to gomoku, ping pong or swimming... <S> Humans might reconsider their decision to trump computers (cf. <S> AlphaGo's achievement ), but that's another story. <S> Historically, I think the board size also has an astrological meaning (e.g. 19x19 is the closest to the number of days in the year), but I am not an expert here... <A>
|
Just speculation: Boards with even lengths are rarely used because there is no tengen and because handicap stones cannot be placed point symmetrically in a 9x9 grid .
|
Texas hold'em flush Tie or Not? I was playing Texas Holdem last night with some friends at my house and this was the hand we were dealt: My cards 7♠ 6♦ His cards 10♠ 7♥ Cards on table 6♠ 8♠ Q♠ J♠ 2♠ Odd hand. Everyone else folded after the flop. Who would have won? My arguments, 1. Because there is a flush on the table our pocket cards are void and we split the pot. 2. Because the Queen is the highest ♠ card on the table it is shared by both of us so we split the pot. I thought that in a flush the only card that matters is the highest for example if he had a pocket K♠ he would have won. His argument, was that since his 10♠ is higher then my 7♠ he won and takes it all. We were all confused and the vote between players was split 50/50 so i said house rules and split the pot. He got pissed and left the table and didn't come back. Was i in the wrong? Any help is appreciated. <Q> Your opponent won the pot. <S> The fact that there's a flush on the table isn't relevant to whether or not your pocket cards matter. <S> Each player creates the best 5-card hand that he can out of the total 7 cards (2 pocket cards plus 5 table cards). <S> While it is possible that the best 5-card hand is the 5 table cards, that is not the case here. <S> The best 5-card hand that you could make was Q♠-J♠-8♠-7♠-6♠, and the best 5-card hand that your opponent could make <S> was Q♠-J♠-10 <S> ♠-8 <S> ♠-6♠. <S> Your opponent's resulting 5-card hand was better than yours. <S> You both had a flush, so you look at the highest card you each had. <S> This was a tie, so you look at the second-highest card. <S> Still a tie, so you look at the third-highest. <S> Your opponent's third-highest was an 10, while yours was an 8, so he wins. <A> And a Q-J-10-8-6 is better than a Q-J-8-7-6 <S> so your opponent won the pot. <S> It's the same for any other non-flush hand where the highest cards form the tie break. <S> Then you compare the next one and the next until 5 cards are in both hands. <S> Then if both 5 card hands are identical <S> it's a tie. <S> In this case, your 3rd best card lost to his 3rd best card. <S> He should have won the pot. <A> There are situations where "board plays," in which case it would be a tie. <S> This is not one of those situations. <S> A "board plays" situation would be something like A♠ <S> K♠ Q♠ J♠ T♠ (your friend would have to have the 9♠ or 8♠ against your 7♠). <S> That is to say that the board represents the best possible hand. <S> Here, your pocket cards are "void." <S> The reason "board plays" does not apply is because his T♠ and your 7♠ both improve the board. <S> Therefore, these respective pocket cards are not "void." <S> Both your holdings replace the 2♠. <S> His hand is, 6♠ 8♠ Q♠ J♠ T♠. <S> Your hand is 6♠ 8♠ Q♠ <S> J♠ 7♠. <S> His hand is better because T♠ beats 7♠ (when you compare the two hands),
|
The higher flush wins the pot.
|
Defense to Strong Pass Systems "Strong pass" systems are classified as Highly Unusual Methods, so most players never worry about them. My understanding is that they are not particularly overpowered (otherwise all the pros would have switched to them) but that one needs highly detailed defensive methods to defeat them and it's not worth memorizing these methods for the casual player. I am curious what these methods look like. Has any team ever played a Strong pass system at the national or international level, and what sorts of defenses did their opponents come up with? <Q> In extremis, adopt your Strong 1C defence by substituting a 1C call for a double of a 1C opening, and warm up the Double cards if opponents open a fert (any call besides Pass that is definitely limited) instead. <S> Anecdotes and alternatives from <S> BridgeBase.com : <S> When I met it years ago, I played that a One Spade overcall said "I am present at the table". <S> The next player bid 1NT, alerted as Stayman. <S> and "Need" is a strong word, but it's always a possibility to consider making your "opening bids", especially in the majors, be more akin to overcall strength than full openers. <S> This is tougher for the minors because you might need to make convenient minor full opening bids and it can be harder to distinguish them from overcall-style openings. <S> and <S> If they 'open' a pass bid as much as you can as fast as you can. <S> If they open a fert be prepared to double them lots with balanced hands and your overcalls are more like opening bids with shape. <S> If they open with something else then use your generic meta defence and bridge principles. <S> and even: <S> Use an anti-fert over the fert. <S> 1H = 0-8, 1NT = 0-10. <S> Its a lot of fun. <A> Much of the time your specific defence won't be against the strong pass itself, which is relatively easy to defend. <S> In fact the pass itself can be a weakness of the system as your side can come in before the opponents have described their hand properly. <S> If the pass is actually "super" strong you can defend it like a strong club (above answer).If the pass is medium, so they open on either properly strong or weak hands, you should treat pass as 0-no-trumps <S> so you can come in like you <S> would over 1NT but a level lower. <S> And of course more frequently as it is less risky. <S> (In a typical strong pass system, they like to open more often than not, so pass might be 13-15 with opening bids 8-12, and usually one bid showing 0-7 known as the "fert" bid, often 1Spade, and 1NT or other bids showing strong hands). <S> What you have to now handle though are their opening bids. <S> These are no doubt the strengths of the system when they open the limited 8-12 range as they open a lot and show their hands reasonably descriptively. <S> You need to also be constructive whilst being able to compete. <S> Be prepared to reach par on these. <S> Go plus when the hand is yours. <S> Compete to the right level. <S> This is your hardest area so probably prepare it well. <S> Answer above suggests how to handle the fert bid. <S> I'm <S> pretty certain Strong pass systems were used in the 1991 Bermuda Bowl, held in Yokahama, and won by Iceland. <A> If you play in ACBL sanctioned events the forcing pass is illegal per their GCC. <S> since they banned it, it must have some merit. <S> as a Precision player, this system was the forerunner for various Precision systems. <S> unfortunately I'm unaware of any local events where it is legal. <S> for what it's worth, the GCC also bans the popular in Europe & UK multi 2D
|
Strong Pass systems are very rare, and as a Highly Unusual method you will never encounter one outside extended team play or without notice.
|
Is the quest leader required to be part of the team? One of the players suggested that the team leader should be able to pick the team and not include himself in it, so we decided to try that for one game. We were playing with 10 people. As we tried this out, I got the role of Merlin and immediately knew who all (except mordred) the bad guys were. The first team that the team leader picked was all good people and we passed the first quest. The next quest leader was on his left, and he was in the first quest, so logically we told him to pick that same team and add one person. And after we added that person, he was also good and we passed the quest. However, now the next quest leader was a bad guy, but because we are allowed to pick the team without the leader in it, we basically forced the bad guy to choose the previously same successful team without the quest leader (who was bad), because after all, if the bad guy didn't, then obviously that guy is bad or else why would they not pick the team that had no troubles? This strategy ended up in a 3-0 match, and the assassin didn't guess me correctly. So the good guys won quickly and easily. We all thought that this rule seemed kinda weird, so I wanted to ask you guys who played more than us to explain this to me. Should the quest leader have to include himself? because if not, than the game could happen like what happened before. <Q> It is legal to create a team that does not have you on it. <S> It should be very rare though. <S> Here's why: <S> The argument that the previous teams succeeded is not logically strong enough to force the leader to leave himself off the team. <S> He could argue that the previous teams had a sleeper spy (which is not provable either way with the information public at the time) and replace one with himself. <S> Consider that a person can always make the argument that he trusts himself more than any other single person, and that argument is essentially irrefutable. <S> After all, if he is a resistance member, he knows with 100% certainty that he is a resistance member and should put himself on the team. <S> Therefore, a resistance leader would need a very good explanation for why he would be excluding himself from the team he builds. <S> Since a spy should frequently act like a resistance member to be convincing, a spy leader also has a strong reason to put himself on the team and needs a good explanation to exclude himself. <S> In my opinion the third leader in your game played poorly in that situation. <S> That player should have replaced one of the earlier team members, had some discussion about it, and put it for a vote. <A> That's absolutely correct. <S> You need not choose yourself. <S> However, if you're good and don't have inside knowledge, you have a much higher chance of including someone evil. <S> It could also be dangerous to do this as Merlin as it might tip off the assassin. <S> Note that the scenario you presented could just as easily have happened if you had picked yourself and the next person. <A> Sometimes people get convinced, or bullied not to put themselves on it because of the results of the previous round, or because everyone threatens to vote their team down if they are on it, but ultimately I think it should be up to the leader.
|
I've always played the leader can choose whatever team they want with themselves on it or not their choice.
|
Forgetting to steal in Settlers of Catan A Knight card is unique because it can be played on your turn before the dice is rolled. We ran into an interesting scenario last night where one player played the Knight and then rolled the dice, without stealing... And then we realized it. What's the best course of action? Is the roll null until he steals? Or did he forfeit his right to steal? Or does he steal after the roll? On one hand, he now knows the value of the roll which could influence what he steals. On the other hand, forfeiting a steal might not be allowed (otherwise you might do so if you had 7 cards, to evade a 7 being rolled). <Q> There are two issues here, and I think they each deserve a separate answer: <S> If you forget to steal, do you forfeit your right to steal a card? <S> If you go back a step in the game, do you re-take each step including rolling the dice? <S> The first is personal preference, I would say he forfeited his right to steal. <S> It's not just he who missed the steal, it was the other players as well. <S> It could be that people's hands have changed because they've received resources from the dice roll, and you'd have to account for that. <S> In that, you would need to rely on everyone's honesty about (and memory of) <S> the cards they'd received. <S> Re-rolling the dice after backtracking is something I never do, as a rule. <S> If there's a possible argument about whether or not the dice should be rerolled, it's better not to, to avoid all discussion. <S> No one is impartial in a game of Settlers. <A> Game rules don't tend to say anything about what to do if you don't follow them, so it's up to you to figure out what the most fair thing is to do. <S> Unless you're being extremely competitive or you think that the people you play with are inclined to cheat in the way you mentioned (and he actually had 7 cards), I don't really see the need to punish someone for forgetting for a moment. <S> If you noticed it much later (say, once a turn or two had gone by), it's probably best to just leave it be, since it's hard to really reverse things at that point. <A> When we play, while it is still someones turn we tend to let them do things out of order as long as it isn't abused (mostly accidents). <S> If someone actually does things out of order to 'cheat' then I would watch them like a hawk for the rest of the game and then not play any with them anymore. <S> Generally until then next person rolls the dice things can be 'fixed' but we generally ask each other anyway. <S> If a new player isn't doing well, I'll even let them draw their forgotten resources from a different role. <S> If you are playing very seriously then you have them steal the resource and everyone can vote if the dice should be re-rolled by the offending player.
|
In this case, since you noticed it basically right away, I would be inclined to go back and let him steal, and then redo the roll.
|
End of game questions I have a couple of questions.... Firstly, do the bad guys reveal themselves before the end of the game and talk to the assassin or does he simply rely on himself. Also, does Oberon reveal himself at the end of the game too? Lastly, can the good guys talk when the assassin is choosing, or must it remain completely silent? <Q> At the end of the game no role cards are reveled until the Assassin declares who he thinks Merlin is. <S> The Assassin should be able to remember who the evil players are and determine who Oberon is based on game play. <S> Without revealing any Character cards, the Evil players discuss and the player with the Assassin character card will name one Good player as Merlin. <S> There is nothing mentioned about the good players remaining silent or being able to speak. <A> Although it may not directly advise doing so in the rules. <S> We have played a number of games and found that without doing this the good players (particularly those new to the game) might take an accusation from another evil player as being the Assassin's choice, which can ruin that game if merlin reveals themself before the assassin disagrees. <S> I would always suggest, particularly as it has no bearing on the rest of the game, that the Assassin is revealed. <S> After the final mission, whoever has read out the instructions during the rest of the game (or whoever is generally "running" the game as it were) has a similar instructional statement that the Assassin reveals their identity and discussion and naming of Merlin begins. <A> I've always played that the evil team can discuss all they want, but ultimately the decision is up to assassin. <S> I didn't realize it was a rule not to reveal character cards <S> so we usually had <S> the entire evil team reveal themselves and actually use that to try and logically figure out who Merlin was. <S> For example if someone wasn't suspicious of the person who was Mordred till the very end, but immediately was accusing the other evil people this would obviously be valuable information you wouldn't necessarily know about unless Mordred also revealed who they were. <S> Usually the good players sit silently while the entire evil team discusses and so far this has worked really well for us. <S> Sometimes discussion is helpful and sometimes it steers the assassin away from the right choice, but I find it just makes things more interesting. <S> And as soon as the assassin is reveal the rule is they must say "I choose to assassinate ________" to make their final decision so there's no confusion.
|
I would strongly recommend that the assassin's character card only is revealed at the start of the end game.
|
Would it matter if I mark a Star Realms deck on the front? I bought a pair of Star Realms decks to allow play with up to 4 people. To make it easier to separate the decks for 2-player play, I was thinking I'd mark one of the decks on the front, with a small mark. However, does this somehow convey any information that wouldn't be available with unmarked cards? Or is knowing which deck the card came from irrelevant in gameplay? <Q> No relevant information is conveyed by marking the front of a card. <S> Logical example <S> You have two Vipers in your deck. <S> One is marked, and one is not. <S> There are four possible situations. <S> You draw both Vipers. <S> You know that both Vipers are in your hand. <S> You draw the marked Viper. <S> You know that one Viper is in your hand and one is in your deck. <S> You know that the Viper in your hand is marked. <S> You know that the Viper in your deck is unmarked. <S> This provides no benefit to you. <S> You draw the unmarked Viper. <S> You know that one Viper is in your hand and one is in your deck. <S> You know that the Viper in your hand is unmarked. <S> This provides no benefit to you. <S> You know that the Viper in your deck is marked. <S> This provides no benefit to you. <S> You draw no Viper. <S> You know that both Vipers are in your deck. <S> Notice that the relevant information available to you is identical in situations 2 and 3. <S> Only the irrelevant information is different. <S> Less logical example <S> Consider Magic: the Gathering along with every other card game that has foil, promo, alternate art, artistically modified (with restrictions), or otherwise "premium" cards. <S> These are all tournament legal. <S> If premium cards compromised the integrity of the game, I think someone would have spoken up by now. <A> Keep a small black light with the game and you can use it to sort out the cards. <A> Tl;dr: Go ahead and mark the cards - <S> the difference in gameplay is real but negligible. <S> Here is one of the rare scenarios where it makes a difference, and even then it's a tiny one <S> : Your opponent knows you are holding card X but does not know your whole hand - in particular, they don't know that you're holding a second copy of X.¹ <S> Then they force a discard (e.g. with Imperial Frigate) and you discard an X. <S> Now <S> if the two copies of X are indistinguishable, your opponent can't tell you're holding another one - for all <S> they know you discarded the one they knew about. <S> But if one is marked then you have to be careful: if you discarded the X they didn't know about, they <S> can tell that you're still holding the other one and can make the remaining decisions of their turn with that information in mind. <S> In Star Realms this issue is small enough that you should ignore it, but e.g. in pro Magic, similar considerations make it commonplace for players to avoid using multiple versions of the same card . <S> ¹This can happen if they return a base to your hand (e.g. with Mega Mech), or if they can remember all your cards so that when you draw the last couple, shuffle, and draw a few more, they know the pre-shuffle draws by process of elimination.
|
This provides no benefit to you. All cards with the same name are totally interchangeable, regardless of whether they are marked. Whether or not the information matters most of the time, you could mark the cards with invisible ink and then it wouldn't show up while playing.
|
Are there cards which turn life gain into damage instead? I was playing Hearthstone the other day and was intrigued by a card that causes healing spells to do damage instead. I was curious if there was ever anything printed in MTG that would have a similar effect, i.e. every time you would gain X life you take X damage instead. <Q> Yes, there's Rain of Gore . <S> If a spell or ability would cause its controller to gain life, that player loses that much life instead <S> As well as False Cure . <S> Until end of turn, whenever a player gains life, that player loses 2 life for each 1 life he or she gained. <S> There's also Sanguine Bond . <S> Whenever you gain life, target opponent loses that much life. <A> <A> There is Vizkopa Guildmage , which has the following activated ability: {1}{W}{B}: Whenever you gain life this turn, each opponent loses that much life. <S> I play a health to damage deck. <S> All I have to do is pay 1 white, 1 black, and 1 mana of any color each turn, and play any health gaining card, and my opponent loses that much health. <S> I run 4 of these with some instances of Font of Vigor , Centaur Healer , Kheru Bloodsucker (gain health when creature of toughness 4 or higher is killed) and finish with a Soul of Innistrad : for {3}{B}{B}, bring 3 creatures from grave to my hand. <S> These make an infinite loop!
|
Tainted Remedy : if an opponent would gain life, that player loses that much life instead
|
Can you force property onto players in Monopoly The Monopoly rules state that if your debt to another player is greater than the cash at hand, you can give property at its original (or higher, if mutually agreed) price to the person you owe. However, if you have, say, 3 stations (worth 600) and 100 at hand, and you have to pay a debt of 500 to another player, and no other player wants to buy them from you (or no other player exists). Can you force the player you owe to take 2 stations plus 100, or even 3 stations, to pay your debt, or is it at his will, in which case he/she can refuse the deal, and declare you bankrupt to him/her, and take all 3 stations and the 100? (Since mortgaging is inadequate.) <Q> I cannot find anything close to what you have quoted in any of the rules I have looked at online. <S> However, the general rule is: Whenever you would owe money, you have the opportunity to do trading with other players to raise the funds, including with the person who you owe money to, but they are not obliged to accept. <S> This site backs this up and claims it is from official tournament rules. <S> http://mospaw.com/monopoly/some-obscure-monopoly-rules-explained/12/information#comment-5 <S> If you do not have enough cash to cover rent, you may sell any other asset you have in the game, such as unimproved properties to raise the rent. <S> You can sell the properties for whatever amount the market will bear. <S> You may also make a trade of unimproved properties (or properties and cash) to the landlord, which is effectively selling the properties to that person for the amount in question. <S> The only time a sale cannot take place is if a player will be cheated. <S> For example, Player A lands on Boardwalk with hotels and owes $2,000 to Player B. Player A cannot raise enough cash or make a trade with Player B, so he is effectively bankrupt and should turn over all assets. <S> Player A would not be able to make a deal with Player C to <S> sell some properties for less than their value (say the red properties for $1) since that would cheat Player B. He could sell them for more than their purchase value, however. <S> There is a lot of flexibility in how you can finance your debts. <S> Most limitations are that the deal is limited to the game (you can’t trade a cookie or a kiss) and that you don’t cheat the player due money by making a deal with another player when owing money. <S> Other limitations involve the inability to grant immunity to someone. <S> It’s simply not allowed. <S> Further, from the official rules on the Deluxe edition of Monopoly has this to say and supports the general rule I mention above: <S> Using a Mortgaged Property to pay a debt: <S> Your opponent has the option of deciding whether or not to accept it. <S> If you opponent accepts, he/she must immediately pay 10% of the mortgaged value. <S> http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/DeluxeMonopoly.pdf <A> You can't "force" a creditor to take your property at full (or higher) value. <S> Your "fallback" option is to "mortgage" property to the bank for HALF price. <S> You can, in theory, sell property to other players (including the creditor) for more than the half price you can get from the bank. <S> (Or sell mortgaged properties for whatever they will bring.) <S> The creditor may agree to this to keep your property out of the hands of a third player. <S> If these maneuvers succeed in raising enough cash to pay the debt, you can continue. <S> If not, the "trades" have to be "undone," and you have to turn over everything you have to the creditor and leave the game. <A> I think that when he doesn't want to make a deal you are obliged to take mortgage on your property. <S> If every property you have has mortgage and you still haven't enough you are bankrupt. <S> Edit: <S> To disprove your assumption that property must be given a minimal of the original price I quote this rule I found in this rulebook http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/monins.pdf . <S> (which is on hasbro's site <S> so I think it is valid) <S> Unimproved properties, railroads and utilities (but not buildings) may be sold to any player as a private transaction for any amount the owner can get
|
If you owe money to any of your opponents, you can offer them a piece of mortgaged property to cover all or part of your debt.
|
Granting Indestructible and the Stack If I play an instant that grants target creature "indestructible," can an opponent use an instant in response to destroy said creature? Would the stack resolve their ability first? If so, would I be allowed to change target for indestructible? If not, do I still pay the mana cost? <Q> Would the stack resolve their ability first? <S> Yes. <S> A spell cast in response to another resolves first (Last In, First Out). <S> 116.4. <S> If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends. <S> would I be allowed to change target for indestructible? <S> No. <S> When you are about to resolve a spell, the following happens: 608.2b <S> If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. <S> A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. <S> [...] The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. <S> [...] If your spell isn't countered by the above check, it continues on to resolve. <S> 609.3. <S> If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible. <S> do I still pay the mana cost? <S> You already did. <S> The mana cost to cast a spell is payed when casting the spell. <S> Acting in response to a spell means acting after the spell is cast, but before it resolves. <S> 601.2. <S> To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. <S> [...] You don't get a refund if your spell is useless. <S> You don't even get a refund if it's countered. <A> The short answer to your question is yes, your opponent can destroy your creature, no <S> you can't change targets and you have to pay the mana cost. <S> Longer answer. <S> So to cast you spell, you have to pay <S> it's mana cost. <S> Once it is paid there are no refunds. <S> You also declare targets at this point. <S> At this point the stack looks like this: (top) <S> Indestructible Spell (targeting creature A) <S> (bottom) <S> Then your opponent responds with his spell: (top) Kill Creature Spell (targeting creature A) <S> Indestructible Spell (targeting creature A) <S> (bottom) <S> After everyone passes priority we then resolve the top-most spell on the stack, which is to destroy creature A. <S> So creature A dies. <S> Now the stack looks like this: (top) <S> Indestructible Spell (targeting creature A) <S> (bottom) <S> Assuming no one does anything and passes priority again, we then resolve the next item on the stack (grant indestructible to creature A). <S> We always try to do as much as possible. <S> Since A is gone, the spell does nothing. <S> Now the stack is empty and the rest of the turn resumes as normal. <A> Their spell will resolve first and your creature will be destroyed, the spell granting it indestructible will "fizzle" (go to the graveyard without resolving due to lack of legal targets) <S> you cannot redirect it to a new target, you will have already payed the cost of the spell and you will not get a refund on it. <S> I would recommend reading the Basic Rulebook , page 10 has information on the process of casting a spell, responding to a spell, and resolving a spell. <S> Basically what happens when you cast a spell the very first things you do, before the spell even goes on the stack, are choosing the target(s) of the spell and paying the cost of the spell. <S> Once you have done that your opponent gets a chance to respond. <S> If they do so their spell is put on top of the stack. <S> Once nobody has anything to add to the stack spells will start to resolve (note that one of the players could cast a spell between the one destroying your creature and the one granting it indestructible if they wanted, but for simplicity we will assume that doesn't happen). <S> After that resolves the one you cast to give it indestructible will try to resolve, but since it no longer has a legal target it will go to the graveyard without resolving by the game rules, or "fizzle". <S> When this happens, you do not get any sort of refund on the spell.
|
The first spell to resolve is the last one that was put on the stack, in this case the one destroying your creature.
|
What variations are there on Solo whist? This was the second trick-taking game that I learned as a kid and it involved bidding and gambling (we played for tiddlywinks). Needs 4 players and you can play to lose. It was used as a training-wheels simple introduction to the concepts of contract bridge (my dad was a bridge-player). Since childhood, I've never heard of anyone else playing the game - is it known as something else? I've found it in the odd card game book, but the rules were slightly different to what I recall. <Q> The Pagat site is very useful: <S> http://www.pagat.com/boston/solowhist.html <S> It explains the main game "Solo Whist", and also lists some minor variations, and other similar games in this "Boston group". <S> They say that it is mainly played in Britain. <S> Here in Australia we also play it. <S> Solo Whist was taught to us as children to introduce us to card games, and has held us in good stead for Bridge. <S> Regarding the "Prop and Cop": We believe that that is an important aspect of the main game. <S> We do have that bid, and we find it to be very enjoyable. <S> It is an opportunity to collaborate as two teams, rather than three people collaborating to defeat the solo declarer. <S> If a Prop-and-Cop does not eventuate, then we also sometimes do the "Goulash" deal. <A> See Wikipedia's page on trick-taking games for a lot of variations. <S> The version you mention could possibly be Spades . <A> We allow the dealer to do whatever order that they want. <S> Some try to get fancy regarding when they deal each four (e.g. different for each round), while most just start with a packet of 4 (i.e. 4,3,3,3) so as not to confuse themselves. <S> The Pagat and Wikipedia descriptions involve a single deck and use the final card of the dealer face-up to determine the trump suit. <S> We instead use a second deck. <S> This is then ready to go for the next game, being already shuffled and so just needing to be cut. <S> So the game should be faster. <S> This also means that the dealer does not need to expose one of their cards. <A> We have a variation which we call " Nash Whist ". <S> (Disclosure: Our group of players has been refining "Solo Whist" for many years. <S> I have documented our version at the linked location.) <S> We have streamlined and simplified the shuffling and dealing (as described in the earlier answer). <S> In the original game the bids are limited. <S> Apart from the Misere bids, the solo bids are Solo (five tricks) and Abundance (nine tricks) etc. <S> This means that the main bid that occurs is Solo, and you also get paid for any "over-tricks" that you manage to make beyond the five. <S> For Nash Whist, we added other bids at every level from 6 to 13. <S> We also added rank of suits, as for Bridge (explained below) and No-trumps. <S> Apart from the normal Prop-and-Cop, the minimal bid is the normal "Five-in" solo, i.e. play alone against the other three with the initial turned-up suit as trumps. <S> So win five tricks in the indicated trump suit. <S> The trump suit can be changed by any bidder when it is their turn to bid. <S> Higher bids will beat the previous bid. <S> For example "Seven-Out" in any suit will beat "Six <S> -In" (i.e. Six in trumps) and Seven-In will beat Seven-Out. <S> The rank of suits is as for Bridge (i.e. Spades is highest, then Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs). <S> For example, if Hearts was turned up trumps and the current bid is Six-In, then a bid of Seven-Out Clubs would beat that, and a bid of Seven-Out Diamonds would beat that. <S> Note that a bid of Six-Out Spades does not beat Six-In, because in this example Hearts are trumps and so automatically rank at the top. <S> The bidding can start at any level, and proceeds with higher bids until no-one wants to bid further. <S> The last bid is the "declarer". <S> Their suit is now Trumps. <S> There are no payments for over-tricks. <S> This encourages people to bid to the limit of their hand and not be safe. <A> We have a three-handed variant. <S> We simply remove the whole Clubs suit. <S> No Prop-and-Cop. <S> Misere is difficult and often does not occur, so we add a "Triste" bid below 8-out, allowing one trick to be won. <S> Everything else is the same, just need to modify some guidelines for hand-assessment and play.
|
We have a variation regarding the dealing: We deal in clumps, i.e. one round of four, and three rounds of three.
|
When is it worth competing to farm fields? Is it worth fighting for my opponents' fields when there are still 60+ tiles in the game and I have no fields, or is it too soon? I usually lose games because of fields and not knowing when to lay my meeples. Any suggestions? <Q> The tricky thing with fields is that you have to commit to them before you know what they will be worth, so try to estimate in your own mind what a field will be worth at the end of the game and factor it in your calculations. <S> Watch out for the "cloister with a road" tile coming out early, this will cause there to be one large field at the end and a big fight for the farming. <S> If fighting for the farming doesn't suit your playing style then try to play in a way that prevents large fields forming -- use road junctions to break them up and try to stop people creating loops with roads. <S> Then build your cities away from the big fields. <S> Additionally, opponents who commit heavily to farming early on will be short of meeples during the game and you should be able to bully them during the game by playing tiles to slow or prevent them from completing their cities/roads/cloisters, or joining your meeples into their cities generally obstructing their completion. <S> With your spare meeples you should be able complete lots of features and rack up the points. <A> That really depends on what expansions you play and on the individual game. <S> Sometimes you can tell very early that a field is going to be very important, when you have lots of tiny cities from the very beginning on that field. <S> In those cases, fighting for that field can become an early priority. <S> On the other hand, when you're playing with the Princess and Dragon expansion, there is a good chance that you can kick a competitor out of a field (or he does it to you), so you may not have to go all too aggressive on the fields. <S> All in all, there is no general answer. <S> Try to play consciously, play a lot, and eventually you'll get a good feeling for when to fight for a field and when not. <A> Yes, fighting for fields in an important part of the game and you should devote a percentage of your meeples to this task. <S> Using 2 meeples at minimum for fields will help you diversify your strategy. <S> Be sure to wait until about a third of the game to lay your pieces down in fields so that you can get an idea of what your opponents' strategies are before committing too early or too late. <S> Knowing that you have set aside pieces for this strategy will keep you from feeling pressured about laying those meeples down or not. <S> It will also distract from other strategies you may be pursuing, like building cities or roads. <S> I would especially keep one or two meeples ready for fields as the game gets close to finishing as those may be the ones that secure the fields for you as your opponents scramble to complete cities and roads.
|
If you're losing because your opponent is scoring fields and you aren't, then yes, you will have to fight for those fields.
|
How do you deal with the edge of the table in tile laying games like Carcassonne When playing a tile-laying game, like Carcassonne or Qwirkle, what rule should we use for reaching the edge of the table? Play "off the table" is illegal Play is legal, and we'll faff around moving tiles around to make things fit something else? Obviously the best answer is to play on a bigger table in the first place, but sometimes these things happen. How does your group handle it? <Q> <A> Everyone I play with leave it that if the piece can't sit there it can't be played there. <S> If you make the rules that you can't play 'off the table' then it becomes part of the strategy for playing. <S> Don't place meeple on things that can't be completed. <S> You can do what ever you want <S> but this rule keeps things very simple and if everyone knows, then they can try to avoid getting themselves in a sticky situation. <A> In Carcassonne, the edge of the table is the edge of the world. <S> I thought it was in the rule book, but I can't find it. <S> Maybe it was in a BGG FAQ. <S> I can't think of a general rule. <S> In Bananagrams, where each person has his own tableau that he is constantly rebuilding anyway, you just moved your tiles as you need to, but that counts as part of your turn -- that is, everybody doesn't stop and wait for you. <S> If somebody finishes while you're adjusting, too bad. <S> I can't recall seeing it come up in Qwirkle or Qwirkle Cubes.
|
Everyone I play with move the tiles to accommodate when possible.
|
Do Get Out of Jail Free cards "have value"? When going bankrupt in Monopoly the rules state that you must either turn over to that player all that you have of value and retire from the game if going bankrupt thanks to another player, or turn over all assets to the Bank if going bankrupt thanks to the Bank. Versions of the game with Rules for a Short Game state that after the second player goes bankrupt: Each remaining player then values his/her property. Cash on hand Lots, Utilities and Railroads owned, at the price printed on the board. Any mortgaged property owned, at one-half the price printed on the board. Houses, valued at purchase price. Hotels, valued at purchase price including the value of the three houses turned in. The richest player wins. This mentions nothing about Get Out of Jail Free cards. Despite being a sell-able item, do these not have "value"? If not, do these get returned to the board after a player retires from the game with one or both in their possession? <Q> The rules do not explicitly tell us what happens. <S> But it makes sense to say that they have 'value' and that they are transferred during bankruptcy. <A> The "face value" of the get out of jail card is $50. <S> The "time value" is probably less than that, because not everyone will be willing to pay $50 today to save $50 at some indefinite point in the future. <S> In a two player game, the creditor doesn't "have" to accept such as card as legal tender. <S> But if things are so bad that the $50 represents "survival," you're probably going to lose anyway. <S> In a multiplayer game, there is likely to be a third party that will want to keep you in the game (so that the landlord won't get all your property) who can "reasonably" pay $50 for a get out of jail free card. <S> That formalizes a "value" that doesn't exist under the official rules. <A> If the player to which you defaulted wants it, then it has value to him. <S> Since it is a transferable item, he should therefore take possession of it. <S> I've looked at numerous definitions of value and assets. <S> As something useful that can be transferred to settle debts, Get Out of Jail Free cards easily match both definitions. <S> I can't find any basis to support your position that only items having a guaranteed sale cost are considered to have value. <S> Besides, they do have a "face value". <S> The price to get out of jail is normally $50. <A> The Get Out Of Jail Free card does not have a 'face value', but it does have intrinsic value, in so far as somebody may be willing to buy it from you. <A> I have always played they get returned to the deck from whence <S> they came, in the event of bankruptcy to another player. <S> And, of course, in the event of bankruptcy to the bank, they also go back into the deck. <S> This seems to be one of the few undefined points in the Monopoly rules - arguments for turning them over to the player who bankrupted you and for returning them to the deck, in my opinion, are equally valid. <A> I'm sure there's something in the rules allowing you to sell Get Out Of Jail Free cards to other players. <S> Hence they must be transferred to another player if they bankrupt you. <S> But they don't have a "face value" as such - they are worth $50 to someone in jail and $0 to anyone else; hence they are not counted in scoring for the quick game.
|
In some games I've played, there is a house rule that says that you can sell the get out of jail free card back to the bank for $50 by putting it at the bottom of the chance or community chest pile.
|
When are good times/circumstances to build harbor settlements in Settlers of Catan? According to this question , the opening phase is not the best time to do so, because you get too few resources. Harbors are good for trade, so I would imagine that a good time would be when one has "many" resources, but not necessarily the right ones. So would that be late in the game, or even in the middle game? Or could game "circumstances," rather than game "phases," be the critical factor? <Q> There are 2 types of Habour (or port) in the game, and they have different best times. <S> The 3:1 ports are always handy, more so in the late game. <S> However, there are few reasons to have one early. <S> This may just develop late game (especially with brick and wood once you've got no expansion), or you may purposefully give yourself an excess with initial placement. <S> This is most common with sheep. <S> However, rarely is it worth starting on a harbour unless it has excellent numbers (5-8, for example). <S> In general, you should be able to build on a 3-resource hex and have an uncontested build to the harbour for your first settlement, which should give you more resources early on before the trade would be useful. <A> If a specific resource is exceptionally difficult to obtain (for example, brick has numbers 2-3-10) <S> it could be worth your time investing heavily in a different resource and a matching port. <S> A surefire return on investment would be getting three different numbers in the 4-10 range of the same resource (4-5-10 would qualify, but obviously 5-6-8 is better). <S> Having multiple good numbers on the same resource is a prerequisite here, because otherwise you'll be robber bait. <S> If you can meet these requirements with your starting settlements and take a port as well, go for it. <S> Otherwise try to get settled near the desired port and head there later on. <S> Once you have this port, you wouldn't have to focus on building near specific resources. <S> Instead, you can focus on building near different numbers, and fill the gap in your available resources with your port. <A> My harbor strategy is to place one or both of my original placements near harbors ... with the plans of making my first new settlement in a harbor -- preferably in a spot that borders the harbor and two hexes. <S> In my experience <S> you particularly need a better trading ratio early in the game , when resources (both yours and others) are scarce, but I agree with those that suggest not placing either of your original settlements on a harbor. <S> A secondary benefit of putting your original placements near a harbor is that it prevents you from being boxed in, as it is usually easy to continue expanding around the edges of the board, settling on places that didn't look good for your original settlement, but are not at all bad later in the game. <S> Whether I use 3-1 or 2-1 harbors depends of course on which hexes I place my original settlements on, and whether I can reach the 2-1 that is most beneficial. <S> Some of my best games have been when I am heavily invested in a certain resource, and have the 2-1 port in that resource. <S> (Because if I'm getting most of the wood, I can often get 1-1 trades with wood-deprived competitors first, then fall back on the 2-1 when necessary.) <A> Stating with an harbor is doable when for example one settlement is on a resource with at least 1 red number and you have the matching 2:1 harbor. <S> You try to make a city as soon as possible to draw 2 cards at a time which with the trade basically gives you 1 resource of any kind. <S> Else, you can play with the harbor master tile expansion which gives 2 VP when you have 3 point worth of settlement on the shore (1 pt per settlement, 2 point per city). <S> Game is won at 11 VP since it's easier to get 2 VP tile.
|
The 2:1 ports are worth building if, and only if, you have an excess of production in a particular resource.
|
When does Chief of the Edge die? Lets say my friend attacks with Chief of the Edge and two other Warrior creatures, and I declare three blockers, one on each creature. If Chief of the Edge dies due to combat damage from blockers, when do the other Warriors lose the +1/+0? Is it instantly and now his 2 other creatures are normal again? <Q> All combat damage happens simultaneously, and creatures who have taken lethal damage will die almost immediately after damage is assigned (before the next time any player could do anything else; when state-based actions are checked). <S> This means that the warrior creatures will still do the 1 extra damage during the combat which causes Chief of the Edge to die, and will lose the +1/+0 immediately after that. <A> You're asking "when does the Chief die" but honestly, you need to tell us that, as ironic as that sounds. <S> If there is "nothing fancy" and there's just his attackers and your blockers, then all his attackers will all get the +1/+0 bonus. <S> If you kill the Chief with First Strike damage, or if you kill him with an instant or an ability on your Declare Blockers step, then by the time his other warriors do damage the Chief isn't around anymore, so they wouldn't get the bonus. <S> So really, it all depends on which step the Chief dies on. <A> The ability on Chief of the Edge is a static ability. <S> It only applies while he is on the battlefield. <S> The instant that Chief dies, the effect created by his ability ceases to exist. <S> 112.3d <S> [...] <S> Static abilities create continuous effects which are active while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield [...]
|
If Chief of the Edge takes lethal damage, then the next time state-based actions are checked, he will die, and all other warriors will instantly lose the +1/+0 granted by his ability.
|
Why are MUD decks called MUD? I have done numerous Google searches, and come up with nothing remotely definitive for the reason for the name MUD given to MUD decks. The definition of MUD appears to be, an artifact deck, that uses Mishra Workshop , AND Metal Worker . If the deck doesn't use Metal Worker the name to the deck is a "shop" deck. <Q> Generally, quite a few older deck names aren't really meaningful — they're a weird in-joke or just a random word someone pulled out of nowhere — and that tradition has been carried forward to the modern day in Legacy/Vintage as well. <S> This is how you get the likes of Fruity Pebbles, Cephalid Breakfast, Team America (which is BUG, not red-white-blue), and Tinfins. <S> Sometimes there's a story behind it, but that story amounts to " <S> I liked this reference" or "We had waffles at this restaurant the day before." <S> About the most interesting story you're going to get from these is Boat Brew (created for a cruise; <S> achieved massive hype quickly; lots of people today joke that it was an awful pile of a deck). <S> I've seen various backronyms for MUD, but really what you need to know is: <S> MUD plays gobs of artifacts <S> MUD decks are usually defined by Metalworker Artifacts (used to) have brown frames <S> The rest seems to be speculation and folk tales. <A> This quote is from an article written by one of the creators of the deck: <S> Now Mud didn't really have a name at that time; it was simply called "our Artifact deck" or "the Artifact deck" or it was just referred to as Mono-brown control. <S> It wasn't until December-January when we first started making up names so it actually about five months after we created Mud. <S> (...) <S> In the train coming back from a Castricum tournament we figured it was about time to give our deck its own identity since decks like Stax and TnT were showing up in our environment. <S> So we started making up more names using the word Mud; things like Muddy this and Muddy that. <S> Can you believe it still took about three more days before I e-mailed Koen with this message? <S> You know <S> what... <S> How about 'Mud'? <S> So it's not MUD <S> (it's not an acronym) and it is a reference to the brown (for the artifact frame) and slowing (for the lock) nature of the deck. <S> That said, I still think other (non-Metalworker) Workshop decks can be called Mud, without confusion. <S> I really recommend the article (there is a part 2 and part 3 ), it's a great read about a great deck. <A> You tend to see cards such as Tanglewire (Tapping permanents), <S> Thorn of Amethyst (All non-creature spells cost 1 more to cast), and even Chalice of the Void on Zero or One <S> (This prevents the powerful Moxen and Black Lotus cards in Vintage, Stops a lot of burn plays like Vexing Devil, Monastery Swiftspear, Lightning Bolt in Burn in any format <S> Chalice is Legal). <S> These decks capitalize on the slower gameplay caused and play threats that then become unstoppable. <S> The signature name comes from an analogy, like wading through mud. <S> Hope this helps! <A> I've always known MUD to mean Mono Uncolored Deck <A> Yes, MUD is the name of the deck because of the brown frames artifacts used to have, the deck is mono-brown, and the prison/tax elements slow the game down. <S> MUD was not intended to be an acronym, but Metalworker Urzas Destiny would be a great one. <S> Chalice of the void, trinisphere, and thorn of amethyst slow the game down,and big robots like sundering titan/steel hellkite/wurmcoil engine/walking ballista can dominate the board. <S> Big planeswalkers like ugin/karn can also exile threats and control the game. <S> Fast mana like simian spirit guide/ metalworker/grim monolith/voltaic key/city of traitors/ancient tomb <S> /vesuva cloning cloudpost + glimmerpost <S> give you easy turn 1 chalice or thorn of amethyst,monolith into 3 mana which means you could also turn 1 trinisphere, or better, a turn 1 metalworker and do crazy things very fast.
|
MUD Decks are typically decks that attempt to slow gameplay down drastically.
|
Has there ever been any use for Lich? Is there any good deck which uses Lich ? Sure, there is some very corner-case where having it in the battlefield will help you, such as if you have fewer life than permanents, and you are about to kill your opponent, but even in that case, you'd rather have a card which actually kills him, rather than this… So: is it just a terrible card, or is or has there been any actual use? The question is if there is a deck where it would make sense to put this card and not another one , NOT if there is a strange corner case where if you magically happened to have this card in your hand, it would make sense to play it. <Q> Why was Lich created? <S> I think this is the real subtext of your question: why does Lich exist? <S> I think to understand Lich, you've got to put it in context: <S> it's a flavor-first design from Alpha . <S> Lich is, first and foremost, supposed to feel like lichdom in fantasy stories, particularly Dungeons & Dragons: undeath, power and immortality at a grave price. <S> One thing the card does well is establish a big theme for black: trading away your life for power in near-suicidal ways. <S> However, one of Alpha's biggest shortcomings is that it's all over the map about what cards are worth as a resource. <S> On the one side, you've got cards like Ancestral Recall . <S> On the other, you've got Lich . <S> So, Lich is an early attempt to do something pretty tricky in Magic, and it is, by most standards, a misfire ( <S> part of what hurts it now is errata which forces "cards" to "nontoken permanents," thereby cutting off many strategies for artificially inflating your permanent count). <S> You can see attempts to refine this design in various cards like Nefarious Lich and Necropotence . <S> What can you do with Lich? <S> Nearly any card this weird is fodder for at least a few combos. <S> Lich turns life gain into cards. <S> This is very pretty powerful because it's easier to gain 1 life than to draw a card, but any deck built around this as an enabler is going to be rather fragile. <S> Lich sets your life total to zero. <S> You can try to abuse this with various cards, such as Mirror Universe . <S> Lich makes life loss that isn't damage meaningless to you. <S> (Look at Ad Nauseam for instance). <S> Note that you can't pay life, either, though. <S> Lich will kill its controller when it goes to the graveyard. <S> You could try to set up some Donate-style combos with this, but it's pretty bad because you need other cards to ensure you don't die at zero life. <S> Is it good in a competitive environment? <S> No. <S> But most Magic cards aren't. <A> You can use Lich with Death's Shadow or Magus of the Mirror or Repay in Kind . <A> Lich, at a cost of BBBB, is too expensive to be part of a competitive tournament combo given <S> it's only playable in Legacy (compare to the 6 mana win with Painter's Servant + Grindstone ) or Vintage <S> (compare to the 4 mana win with Time Vault + Voltaic Key ). <S> There is also the big downside that you can lose the game to a Disenchant or have to sacrifice all of your lands to a big swing from an agro deck. <S> But there are a lot of cool things you can do with it in casual play (possibly with <S> Platinum Angel as backup). <S> Most combo cards have one ability you can combo off of. <S> Lich has three. <S> These have been partially discussed by @VolleyJosh <S> and @AlexP , <S> but I want to go more into detail. <S> Here they are: <S> It let's you be alive with 0 (or less) life. <S> This means you can use it to kill a player using cards that give your life total to someone else like Mirror Universe , Magus of the Mirror , and Repay in Kind . <S> It also makes Death's Shadow a 13/13 for one mana. <S> It lets you turn life gain into card draw. <S> This can create a powerful draw engine with cards like Essence Harvest , Consume Spirit , and Sapling of Colfenor . <S> It lets you ignore any non-damage loss of life . <S> Because you don't die for having less than 0 life, and the only penalty from Lich is for taking damage, other sources of life loss don't matter. <S> This combos great with Delaying Shield , which converts all of that pesky damage into irrelevant life loss. <S> This also negates the downsides of cards like Ad Nauseam , Dark Confidant , Reanimate , and Sapling of Colfenor . <A> Lich is an extreme card advantage card. <S> If the battlefield is balanced - no advantage to either player in attacking - and your opponent is not playing direct damage, and you have any repeatable life gain at all, you will draw your whole deck in short order. <S> It isn't a card you could drop into any Black deck; it requires you to construct a deck around it. <S> But a good combo deck is designed to reproduce the conditions that are good for the combo. <S> So the disadvantages are mitigated and you have a powerful card drawing engine.
|
Lich is actually a really interesting card for it's combo potential.
|
Ticket to Ride: May a train segment count for 2 different routes? We have a question regarding Ticket To Ride. Can part of one train be used to fulfill two different destination routes? For example, my clever son completed his San Francisco-Atlanta “Destination Ticket” (17 bonus pts.). He then drew the Portland-Nashville “Destination Ticket” (also 17 bonus points) and decided this would be a cinch since he had already completed San Francisco to Atlanta. He simply added another 5 train cars, from San Francisco to Portland, and claimed another 17 bonus points for the Portland-Nashville ticket! I think he should not be allowed to do this, but should complete a whole separate train between Portland and Nashville to earn those 17 additional points. I may be reading the rules too quickly, but I don’t see where the rules explicitly address this one way or the other. Do you know if there is an “official” rule on this? Or is it up to people to determine this in their own house rules? Thanks for any tips you have! <Q> From the rule book: <S> The object of the game is to score the highest number of total points. <S> Points can be scored by: ◆ Claiming a Route between two adjacent cities on the map; <S> ◆ Successfully completing a Continuous Path of routes between two cities listed on your Destination Ticket(s); ◆ Completing the Longest Continuous Path of routes <S> You shouldn't think of it as building trains, but as claiming routes. <S> The plastic trains are only there to show that the route is yours. <S> Once you've claimed a set of routes between Atlanta and San Francisco, you can (and should) use and re-use this route as often as possible. <A> In Ticket to Ride, any segments you have placed can and will work for any Routes you wish to complete. <S> By sheer luck he pulled one that required very little additional track and re-used much existing track. <S> It's unfortunate for you as an opponent, but it is something both of you can leverage, legally. <S> Reading the Official Rules PDF doesn't seem to call this out specifically (nor does it refute it), but it is how I've seen the game played in person as well as on the official Ticket to Ride PC game . <S> Track re-use seems in the spirit of the game, to say the least. <A> You don't need 'Make a new route'. <S> That is a large part of the fun of the game and the challenge to decide if to draw more destination tickets near the end. <S> "will I already be connected to some? <S> Or will I only need one more 'link' to complete another?" <S> From the rules: Each Destination Ticket includes the name of two cities on the map and a Point Value. <S> If a player successfully completes a series of routes that connect the two cities , they will add the amount of points indicated on the Destination Ticket to their point totals at the end of the game. <S> If they do not successfully connect the two cities, they deduct the amount of points indicated. <S> The high-lighted part just says they need to be connected, not connected again. <S> Also other editions of Ticket to ride (Europe) build on this tactic buy have railway station to use others tracks to a similar purpose. <S> If you play with more than 2 people you will see it makes a lot more sense to play that way.
|
Everyone I've ever played with count as long as you have a train route that connects to both ends on the card you are good to go.
|
Why is this NOT joseki? Why is white 4 in this diagram not joseki? How can it be punished by black and how bad is it compared to standard joseki play? $$ ----------$$ ..........|$$ ..........|$$ ..3.2.....|$$ ...4..1...|$$ ..........| A partial answer is probably: "Because this variation is joseki and it looks more forcing": $$ ----------$$ ..........|$$ ..........|$$ ..3.2.....|$$ ..4...1...|$$ ..........| <Q> I don't think it's that the joseki move is forcing, it's more that the joseki move is better. <S> 5 here is pretty sad for White. <S> $$ ----------$$ .......... <S> |$$ .......... <S> |$$ .. <S> 3.2.....|$$ .. <S> 54 <S> ..1...|$$ .......... <S> | <A> NOTE: I am stupid and misread your diagram as komoko (3-4) instead of hoshi (4-4) in the corner. <S> The following applies to komoku only! <S> I was going to delete this answer, but then decided to leave it up, because the question would probably be interesting for komoku, too. <S> W4 is actually joseki, but it is very, very rarely played. <S> I have never witnessed it in high level matches, and I would not at all be surprised if dan players do not know it (the opposite, rather). <S> I learned it in a book by Yilun Yang (Whole Board Thinking in Joseki). <S> Basically, it is a move that moves white out very steadily (i.e. slowly). <S> Sadly, I do not have the book with me for an extended period of time, but maybe someone else can jump in an add a more detailed explanation of the move. <S> Either way you don't have to worry about it, really - if your opponent plays W4, deal with it as you would anyway (remember that a non-joseki move can be good sometimes, and also that a joseki move can be bad sometimes, too). <S> If you feel that W4 is a good move on a certain board, don't be afraid to try and play it. <S> You'll see how it turns out! <A> White 4 gives black another chance to reinforce the corner (at a or b), as it doesn't put much pressure on 3: $$ ----------$$ .......... <S> |$$ .......... <S> |$$ .. <S> 3.2..... <S> |$$ ... <S> 4 <S> ..1...|$$ .......... <S> |$$ <S> ...... <S> ab.. <S> | <S> For example: $$ ----------$$ .......... <S> |$$ .......... <S> |$$ 7.3.2..... <S> |$$ .. <S> 64 <S> ..1...|$$ .......... <S> |$$ ...... <S> 5...| <A> Some of those have been covered by other answers, but one good move is P17 (one right of 2) that gives Black the corner, while leaving White very cramped. <S> If you play a sequence that gives your opponent so many good options, the sequence is probably to your opponent's advantage.
|
For 4 to be joseki, you would need a response to this move that turns out better than the accepted sequence for White. The problem with W4 is that it is a "slow," non-forcing move that gives Black many options.
|
Why is 'equity' much more commonly used than 'winning probability'? What is the mathematical formula that links 'equity" and 'winning probability'? In backgammon, people always speak about 'equity', but never about 'winning probability'. To me, 'winning probability' seems much more simple and much more intuitive than 'equity'. So why is 'equity' much more commonly used than 'winning probability'? And is there a mathematical formula that links 'equity' and 'winning probability'? <Q> Let's say that the value of the game, or bet, is $1. <S> (That would occur if the cube is in the middle. <S> If it has been turned, you multiply by 2, 4, or whatever the number is on the cube.) <S> Let's further say that White is Playing red, they are both "bearing off," but White is ahead. <S> White has a 55% chance of winning, and Red has a 45% chance of winning. <S> Then White's equity in that $1 bet is .55*$1 or 55 cents, while Red's equity is .45*$1 or 45 cents. <S> Assume a second situation. <S> White has a good "back game" against Red, who has started bearing off. <S> White's chances of winning are still 55%, and Red's is 45%, but Red will probably score a gammon if White doesn't hit him before Red starts bearing off (that is 45%). <S> For now, let's ignore the possibilities that Red will score a backgammon (a triple game) and that Red will win a single game, and assume that he gets a double game, if he doesn't get hit. <S> White's equity is .55*$1, or 55 cents. <S> But because Red can win a double game, his equity is .45*$2, or 90 cents because of the gammon possibility. <S> In this example, Red has more equity, even thought White has the higher win probability. <S> For a mathematica formula, let's say your chances of winning a single, double, and triple game are a, b and c, respectively. <S> Your win probability is just a+b+c. <S> But your equity is a*$1+b*$2+c*$3. <S> The gammon and backgammon possibilities double and triple the value of your probabilities, b and c. <S> To address a comment below, in the examples above, I quoted "gross" equity. <S> It is normally calculated as "net" equity. <S> So if White's equity from winning a simple game were 55 cents, and Red's chances of winning a simple game were 45 cents, White's "net" equity would be 55 cents-50 cents (his share of the $1 bet), or 5 cents, and Red's "net" equity would be 45 cents- 50 cents or negative 5 cents. <A> You can "translate" the word "equity" as a value of the particular position. <S> Lets imagine we are one roll away from ending the match and we only have two checkers on deuce point. <S> We will win with the probabilty of 26/36 and we will lose with the probability of 10/36. <S> Lets also imagine that there is a friend who offers us some money and asks us to abandon the game for that price. <S> Now what would the fare price be? <S> That "fare price" is what equity in fact is. <S> Equity = probability of winning - probability of losing. <S> Which means that Equity can be a negative number too. <S> And to return to our previous example, if our game stake was $100, how much would have an honest buyer offer us? <S> [(26/36)-(10/36)]*$100 = $44.44 and to complete the example, our opponent in the same match, should "sell" his position, or bail himself out, paying $44.44 <A> Equity is especially useful because it pre-calculates some of the analysis used in utilizing the Doubling Cube. <S> Consider the situation described by @Skytten: We have two chequers on the 2-point to roll; opponent has two chequers on the 1- and 2-points (a guaranteed win if he/she gets to roll). <S> Our equity is $44.44. <S> If we offer a double to opponent our equity becomes either $100.00 (if opponent declines) or $88.88 (if opponent accepts. <S> Unintuitively, opponent should accept the offered double because his/her choices are to have an equity of -$100.00 (declining) or of -$88.88 <S> (accepting); the latter is a lesser evil.
|
The reason that equity is used instead of winning probability is because it is possible to win a single game, a double game (gammon) or triple game (backgammon).
|
Are tribal spells with changeling considered creature spells? Does Heartless Summoning make Tribal Changeling Instants cheaper to cast? Crib Swap 's type line says: Tribal Instant - Shapeshifter In the reminder text it says: Changeling (This card is every creature type at all times.) So is Crib swap a creature or not, and if not, does Heartless Summoning affect it in any way because of the Changeling clause? <Q> The spell is not a creature spell, so it is not affected by Heartless Summoning. <S> The Changeling ability says that the card has "all creature types", but "creature type" is just the name for the subtypes that Creature and Tribal share. <S> So, Changeling doesn't make the card a creature, it just makes the card have all of the creature subtypes. <S> The relevant rule is 205.3m : <S> Creatures and tribals share their lists of subtypes; these subtypes are called creature types . <A> Heartless Summoning has the following ability: <S> Creature spells you cast cost 2 less to cast. <S> Creature spell means a spell on the stack with the type Creature. <S> However Crib Swap has types Tribal and Instant, neither of which is Creature. <S> Thus Crib Swap is not affected by Heartless Summoning . <S> Lets contrast this with a card that cares about sub-types (of which both Tribal and Creature share creature types). <S> Ballyrush Banneret would cause Crib Swap to cost 1 less as it is a Kithkin spell, a spell with the sub-type Kithkin. <A> No. <S> "Goblin", "Elf" and "Druid" are creature types (aka creature subtypes). <S> Changeling grants all creature types. <S> Crib Swap is a Shapeshifter (a creature type). <S> Crib Swap is a Goblin (a creature type). <S> "Creature" is a card type, not a creature type. <S> Changeling doesn't grant any card types. <S> Crib Swap is a Tribal (a card type). <S> Crib Swap is an Instant (a card type). <S> But Crib Swap is not a Creature (a card type) Crib Swap can have creature types without being a creature because creatures and tribals share their lists of subtypes [CR 205.3m] .
|
Crib Swap is a Druid (a creature type).
|
Are there any tabletop apps to allow you to play warhammer 40k with friends in other cities? Pretty much as the title; I've looked at vassal 40k, but it hasn't been updated in a while and is missing units. I'm not necessarily looking for something for WH40k in specific - as long as it allows for moving units, measuring distances, and custom sprites/enough sprites to use "counts as" we should be fine. <Q> As @Skeith mentioned, Games Workshop LLC is very vicious when it comes to protecting their Intellectual Property license, so it will be very hard to find anything designed for this on purpose. <A> Gw are famous for taking legal action against anyone and anything that uses its IP without license. <S> Vassal were the last to try what you are asking <S> and i believe were shut down with a cease and desist. <S> Sadly anything close to what your seeking would be shut down quickly by GW. <S> This means no one is making any such software. <A> The closest program that I can suggest for doing this is with Tabletop Simulator . <S> It is a program on Steam <S> that is a physics engine with a wide variety of pre-loaded boardgames and tens of tools that allow you to emulate virtually any table-top game imaginable. <S> In fact, the game has it's own Workshop application that has tens of thousands of games, sets and models to choose from, including some from WH40k . . . <A> You could use roll20.netWhilst geared towards RPG, it does come with a tabletop with grids or hexes, you can define the size of each grid, u can place custom tokens and what not, but you would need to do a lot of the prep work yourself in terms of uploading images for the units and preparing the map <A> I know this sounds simple and slightly low-tech, but setting up a board with proxied models and emailing turns is always a good way to play. <S> I am working on something to simulate games, and am going to try and get it published with Games Workshop, but even if that does work, it won't be as good as actually having the table set up in front of you. <A> VASSAL works and there is a 40K module for 7th edition. <S> https://www.reddit.com/r/Vassal40k/
|
That being said, Steam recently released a game called Tabletop Simulator , which, with a lot of work, could probably be used as a tool for this (right up until GW catches on and their lawyers destroy the life of whoever is supporting the mod).
|
How can I reduce the planar die "whiff factor" with house rules? I like to play Planechase sometimes. Mostly this variant , which gives players some additional choices when planswalking. However, the most annoying part of Planechase is that the planar die has such a high " whiff factor " (incidence of null results). A particular thing I dislike is the handling time when a player has nothing else to do or desperately wants to planeswalk — rolling the die, tapping some mana, rolling the die again, &c. Criteria for a house rule that meets my needs: reduced incidence of totally null results reduced handling time (compared to multiple rerolls) whatever you change, the vast majority of the existing planes should still be playable as-is it's okay to replace the planar die with some other game piece (including a custom die) <Q> This is inspired by the action-choosing mechanism from Speculation . <S> Start of game setup: <S> Get six objects that can represent planeswalk/chaos/nothing: colored marbles, Scrabble tiles, popsicle sticks with symbols drawn on them, etc. <S> Place the objects in an opaque bag. <S> When the player wants to "roll": <S> The player pays the cost for rolling and chooses an item from the bag without looking. <S> If a Nothing item is removed, set it aside on the table. <S> If a Planeswalk or Chaos item is removed, perform that action and return all the items to the bag. <S> This reduces the likelihood of whiffing over time. <S> Normal 4/6 chance on the first roll. <S> 3/5 chance after the first whiff. <S> 2/4 chance after the second whiff. <S> 1/3 chance after the third whiff. <S> No chance of whiffing after four whiffs. <S> This seems to well satisfy criteria 1, 3, and 4. <S> Admittedly, it's not much faster than regular rolling, if you discount the fact that on average you'll get a favorable result faster than if you had used a die. <A> I play with a large group of people (5 <S> +) when we play Planechase, and we have a runnning rule: after 2 null rolls, you flip a coin and call it for either planar or chaos. <S> While it assures an eventual result for spending the mana, it also limits the ability to spend it freely to achieve a result by placing a 50% chance at the end, which can be devastating. <S> Example:null roll 1 (Player 1) = <S> nothing happensnull roll 2 <S> (player 1) = <S> nothing happensChaos roll (Player 1) <S> = <S> Chaos event happensnull roll 3 (Player 1) = <S> coin flip for chaos or walk. <A> Here's one option: limit the number of chaos rolls and the number of planeswalk rolls to 1 per turn. <S> If you roll the planar die n times, the probability of rolling at least one planeswalk symbol is 1-(5/6)^n , and of course the probability is the same for chaos. <S> So, my suggestion is this: determine the number of rolls (and tap for that much mana), then calculate that probability and round to the nearest 1/20. <S> Then we can map those probabilities onto a D20. <S> For example, say I have enough mana to pay for 5 rolls. <S> Then the probability of success is 0.598 , so we round to 0.60 . <S> Then we can say that the "bottom" 12 numbers (1-12) correspond to planeswalk and the "top" 12 numbers (9-20) correspond to chaos. <S> 9-12, of course, correspond to both. <S> In those cases, flip a coin to determine which happens first. <S> Note that this severely inflates the probability that something happens. <S> In the previous example, if I actually rolled the planar die 5 times, there would be about a 0.13 chance of nothing happening. <S> However, it also removes the possibility of either planeswalk or chaos happening more than once. <S> For reference, here are the success rolls on a D20 corresponding to various numbers of planar die rolls: <S> chaos: 15-20 planeswalk: 1-8 . <S> chaos: 13-20 planeswalk: 1-10 . <S> chaos: 11-20 planeswalk: 1-12 . <S> chaos: 9-20 planeswalk: 1-13 . <S> chaos: 8-20 planeswalk: 1-14 . <S> chaos: 7-20 planeswalk: 1-15 . <S> chaos: 6-20 planeswalk: 1-16 . <S> chaos: 5-20 planeswalk: 1-17 . <S> chaos: 4-20 planeswalk: 1-17 . <S> chaos: 4-20 planeswalk: 1-18 . <S> chaos: 3-20 planeswalk: 1-18 . <S> chaos: 3-20 planeswalk: 1-18 . <S> chaos: 3-20 planeswalk: 1-19 . <S> chaos: 2-20 planeswalk: 1-19 . <S> chaos: 2-20 planeswalk: 1-19 . <S> chaos: 2-20 planeswalk: 1-19 . <S> chaos: 2-20 planeswalk: 1-19 . <S> chaos: 2-20 planeswalk: 1-19 . <S> chaos: 2-20 <S> Above 20, the probability for each rounds to 100%, so just flip a coin to see which happens first.
|
Just use a planar die planeswalk: 1-6 .
|
Can I counter a creature by invalidating the target of its “comes into play” effect? For example, consider Akoum Boulderfoot . It says: When Akoum Boulderfoot enters the battlefield, it deals 1 damage to target creature or player. At what point does the player have to decide on the target? Specifically, is the following sequence of events correct? Player announces the casting of Akoum Boulderfoot and declares my 1/1 creature the target I cast Unsummon on my 1/1 Akoum Boulderfoot resolves, but its target is invalid, so the spell fizzles. Or is the following sequence correct? Player announces the casting of Akoum Boulderfoot I cast Unsummon on my 1/1 Akoum Boulderfoot resolves, enters the battlefield, and then the player chooses a valid target <Q> Easy answer is the second scenario you propose. <S> Akoum Boulderfoot's ability is a triggered ability, with the trigger for the ability being 'Akoum Boulderfoot has entered the battlefield'. <S> Targets for spells and abilities are chosen when the spell or ability is put onto the stack. <S> Triggered abilities do not go on the stack until the trigger for the ability is true. <S> Permanents are not actually on the battlefield until the spell resolves. <S> Answer to your primary question though is no, <A> Just because you cause a creature's triggered ability to fail, that doesn't mean the creature <S> spell is countered. <S> Once a creature is on the battlefield it is no longer a spell and can't be countered. <S> Here's the sequence of events. <S> Opponent casts Akoum Boulderfoot. <S> Opponent passes priority. <S> You pass priority. <S> Bouderfoot resolves, enters battlefield. <S> (Note: It can't be countered now. <S> But its triggered ability may still be thwarted.) <S> "Comes into play" triggered ability is placed on stack. <S> Opponent choses target of triggered ability. <S> Opponent passes priority. <S> You cast unsummon on the 1/1. <S> You pass priority. <S> Unsummon Resolves. <S> Triggered ability of the Boulderfoot tries to resolve and fizzles when it checks for a valid target. <S> One more point of confusion: the first step of your first scenario is a common shortcut in casual games, although it isn't ideal play (because you're giving away information before you need to.) <S> I see people announcing triggered ability targets as they cast quite often. <S> If the opponent doesn't accept the shortcut and wishes to counter the creature spell before the trigger is added the stack, they can say so. <A> If an enters the battlefield ability is countered by game rules, the source of that ability doesn't suddenly get countered as well. <S> The target of an enters the battlefield ability is always chosen when the creature enters (your second scenario). <S> In general, you cannot choose targets for an ability that hasn't triggered yet.
|
you can't counter a creature by invalidating the target of its 'come into play effect', due to the come into play effect not going on the stack until the creature has fully resolved.
|
When a permanent is being made to copy another, does it count as entering the battlefield? I want to cast Polymorphous Rush on a strong creature on my battlefield so that my Hamletback Goliath 's ability will trigger. The creature that will become the copy is already on the battlefield, but when it becomes a copy of the strong creature, will this trigger my Hamletback Goliath's ability? For reference, Hamletback Goliath reads: Whenever another creature enters the battlefield, you may put X +1/+1 counters on Hamletback Goliath, where X is that creature's power. <Q> What you can do, however, is wait for a new creature to enter the battlefield and trigger the Goliath. <S> With the trigger on the stack, you can then Polymorphous Rush the triggering creature, and the Goliath will get counters based on the new power. <S> This is because the Goliath's ability doesn't check to see what the power of the creature is when it enters, it checks as the ability is resolving. <A> The answer is stated plainly by comprehensive rule 706.4. <S> 706.4. <S> Some effects cause a permanent that’s copying a permanent to copy a different object while remaining on the battlefield. <S> The change doesn’t trigger enters-the-battlefield or leaves-the battlefield abilities. <S> However, as you might have guessed by reading the other answers, this rule is redundant. <S> Rule 603.6a tells us what we need to know. <S> 603.6a <S> Enters-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent enters the battlefield. <S> [...] <S> Rule 603.6a doesn't care what the permanent's name is. <S> It just cares that it is a permanent. <S> The permanent could change names a hundred times, and it would still be the same permanent, (sitting there on the battlefield). <A> No. <S> The creatures are already on the battlefield and merely change by copying the original, so they don't enter the battlefield. <A> No. <S> Using Giant Growth or Polymorphous Rush to modify the characteristic of a permanent does not cause it to change zones. <S> No creatures left or entered the battlefield.
|
No, it will not trigger the Goliath since nothing is entering the battlefield, a creature is just changing characteristics.
|
Proper way to play character cards? I have a few questions below. 1) Do we play the character card to the center of the table (stacking on previous character)? or we place in front of us? 2) I also understand from the rules that the assassinated character suppose to act stupid upon their character is called. Question here is, at the end of the round, does the king have to verify who are the assassinated character is? or it's like poker where u can return the card without revealing yourself? 3) Can we purposely skip our character (act like it's assassinated to avoid tax collector)? 4) When the last character is called and someone still holding non-assassinated character, how should we deal with such situation? Thanks for clearing my doubts :) <Q> The rules explicitly state [italics mine]: <S> When the name of your character card is called, you must reveal your character card, place it face up in front of you, and take your turn. <S> It will be obvious by the round's end, however, that you did not play a turn and that you were the assassinated character. <S> Using the most sensible interpretation of the above rules, it follows that it would be considered cheating to pretend that your character was assassinated when it in fact was not. <S> Since every character is called in numeric order, there shouldn't be any unplayed characters left in anyone's hands at the end of the round, except of course for the assassinated character. <A> It doesn't matter, you are revealing the card to let everyone know it is now your turn. <S> I wouldn't say that the assassinated character plays stupid they just don't get a turn. <S> And at the end of the round you know who everyone is <S> so there is no reason whatsoever to try and hide it. <S> No you can't skip your turn your turn to avoid the negative effects of another character. <S> That is just straight up cheating When the name of your character card is called, you must reveal your character card, place it face up in front of you, and take your turn. <S> If you found that someone cheated and did not play then depending on if they where the last one that was supposed to play or not you either make them play (if they where the last ones to play) and make any negative effects that they where trying to avoid happen (such as losing all their money) and if its still a problem them make them lose the game and start the next round with one less player. <A> Good answers have been provided for your last three questions, but I feel there's more to be said about your first question. <S> There's no rule on where you place your cards, but there are certainly reasons to keep the card in front of you instead of stacking it at the center of the table. <S> If your character has an extra action in another character's turn (Witch, Thief, Tax Collector) <S> the card in front of you can serve as a reminder of that action. <S> If you're the King or Emperor, and the Queen is in play, your card can help in identifying whether or not the Queen gets her 3 gold bonus. <S> If you're the Bishop, your card will identify to the Warlord that he can't target your districts with his ability. <S> You can do all these things without keeping the cards in front of you, but I find it a lot easier to just collect them at the end of the round.
|
If your character has been assassinated, you say nothing and do not acknowledge that you have been assassinated in any way.
|
Can you interfere and help and win the game as an elf in munchkin? In the rules it says you can interfere with combat "use a one shot item to help another player by casting a potion against his foe" My friend drew a lvl18 card and someone else helped him. I wanted to play a flaming poison potion to add +3 to their side and "help" them. Then by the wording of the rules, as an elf, do I go up a level? <Q> According to the Munchkin FAQ under Important Note #2: Playing/Using/Switching Items During Combat : <S> Playing/using a one-shot Item during a combat that aids the munchkins (and not the monsters) does not constitute "helping" in combat, as described in the rules. <S> This means that in any given combat, any number of players can play cards to aid or hinder either side as often as they want, as long as they have the cards. <S> Only one other player can actually join the combat as a helper, however. <S> So, no, this would not actually constitute "helping" in the combat to satisfy the Elf racial ability. <S> However, if through some other means you had actually been the helper in the combat, then yes you could have won or tied, as long as the card that allowed you to help did not specify that the level gained could not be the winning level, because according to the FAQ under Important Note <S> #1: <S> Reaching Level 10 : <S> Note also that ANY level gained as a result of killing a monster counts as the winning level. <S> And also from this post on the official Munchkin forum <S> The level the Elf gains for helping in combat can be the winning level, because it's a level gained as the result of winning a fight. <A> The answer's very likely that no, that doesn't count. <S> It isn't the kind of help talked about in the Asking for help section, where you actually join the combat and are at genuine risk of suffering Bad Things if you lose. <S> Vitally people can refuse help offered this way, and limit the elf's ability to gain bonus levels. <S> Interfering with combat by playing cards to benefit the player involved is, however, called "help". <S> But there's lots of other risk-free things you can do to "help", including telling the player to use their own consumables, or getting them a glass of water to help them think and focus on combat. <S> Ultimately if this comes up it probably should be resolved by a loud argument with the owner of the game having the final word. <S> I would probably argue against it, since elves will have an unstoppable, risk-free ability to gain quite a lot of levels. <S> (To your title of whether you can help and win the game: you can't reach level 10 by helping this way as an elf, as you didn't kill a monster yourself, you just helped someone else who killed one.) <A> Otherwise, no an elf interfering one way or the other would not yield a win unless they were actually in the combat. <S> https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/68/10/40/6810402a1635377095ac830016f9ebfc.jpg
|
If you use a "Dark" race modifier then causing your opponent to lose could win you the game if there loss causes their character to die.
|
What is this game with a 12x8 pegboard and 59 double sided pegs? I was wondering if anyone knows what this game is.It has 59(maybe missing 1) pegs that are red on one side and wood color on the other.It is a 12 x 8 Pegboard Game.There are no markings on the inside or outside and it folds like a briefcase. Everything is made of wood except the handle, rubber feet, and latches. <Q> your pegboard looks like an earlier or a later edition of the plastic pegboard we have at the psychology museum. <S> All pegs have two colors like yours. <S> Among other things these and other pegboards were developed for testing dexterity in recruitment contexts and for testing and training eye-hand-coordination in neuropsychology. <S> In neuropsychology it helps to assess neurological damages. <S> Our version has the imprint "U.S.E.S. PEGBOARD". <S> The abbreviation stands for "United States Employment Services". <S> We got our exemplar donated though from the psychological laboratory of the Otto Wagner Hospital in Vienna, a psychiatry. <A> A lot of games that originate from primitive cultures have hand-made wood-sculpted boards, are played with pretty pebbles from the local beach or forest, and have countless variations to the rules (like Mancala ). <S> To me this looks like one of those games, but from a somewhat more recent time. <S> There are infinitely many games you could play on this 12x8 board with double sided pieces, so <S> I hope you have a game in mind but can't remember the title. <S> Here's some guesses: <S> Five Stones is an old five-in-a-row game with some restrictions that is played on a 12x8 board, but it doesn't require double sided pieces. <S> City can be played on a 12x8 board, but it only requires 24 pieces to play. <S> It could be a variation on Halma , although that doesn't require double sided pieces. <S> Konane has no board size defined in its rules, but requires as many pieces as positions on the board. <S> This is my best attempt at an answer to a question that I fear has no single answer. <S> If you feel that these don't answer your question, please explain in your question why not, and I can delete this answer. <A> I just did a Massachusetts state assessment test for the local Boston insulators union and this board was given to us to test manual dexterity. <S> The test was broken down into two parts, each 30 seconds long. <S> The first test we had to remove the pegs from one side to the next using both hands, the second test we had to flip the pegs one by one using only one hand. <S> By the way, the board we used looked exactly like the one posted by Sascha Frank <A> Although this is a non-standard board size, you could play Pente with this set. <A> As Bostonian previously stated.... <S> I also took a mechanical aptitude and spacial relations test for a Boston Trades Union (Plumbers and Gasfitters) and as part of the Manual Dexterity portion of the exam, the U.S.E.S. Pegboard was used as the exam was proctored by MA Div. of Career Resources. <S> (following the written portion of the exam) <A> This honestly looks like a simple connection game. <S> (See m,n,k games ). <S> They used to have games like this at "folksy" restaurants when I was a kid. <S> (The peg board resembles a cribbage-type board, although it's obviously not a cribbage board.) <S> Although it's possible it could be a jumping game, like Konane <S> , I'd be surprised if it was for a jumping game like Halma or Checkers, where a checker board is pretty standard. <S> The lack of context may be for the purpose of generalization--it is not a single game, but can be used for a variety of connection games and jumping games.
|
It could be a Reversi/Othello variant, but those usually require as many pieces as positions on the board. It might be a proto-version of TwixT , without the strings.
|
What does 'play' mean in the context of Courser of Kruphix? Definition of 'play' in mtg for spells indicates it is synonym of cast. On the other hand on Courser of Kruphix it seems to be constant ability. What does 'play' mean in Magic? <Q> Courser of Kruphix uses the word "play" in two different ways. <S> When it says Play with the top card of your library revealed. <S> It means that you play the game with the top card of your library revealed. <S> That ability is a static ability, so it is in effect for as long as the Courser of Kruphix is on the battlefield. <S> On the other hand, when it says You may play the top card of your library if it's a land card. <S> That simply means that you can play lands on top of your library like your are normally able to do from your hand. <A> Play means two different things here. <S> (It used to mean a lot more things; see the footnote at the end.) <S> The first ability's instruction to play with the top card of your library revealed just means that whilst you're playing the game, you should have the top card of your library revealed. <S> In the second ability ("You may play the top card ... <S> ") <S> , "playing" a card is close to casting, but "playing" is a broader term that refers to something else in addition to casting. <S> Playing a card refers to one of two things: <S> cast a card as a spell 1 , or put a land onto the battlefield 2 , which doesn't use the stack or count as casting. <S> In particular, that means lands cannot be cast. <S> They can only be played. <S> So, Courser of Kruphix has to use the verb "play", as must anything that lets you put a land on the battlefield. <S> Compare this to Daxos of Meletis , who allows you to cast exiled cards — which means you can cast creatures, sorceries, instants, artifacts, and enchantments exiled by Daxos, but not lands. <S> Footnote: <S> In cards printed before the Magic 2010 core set (released 2009), "play" meant other things, such as activating an ability, and the "cast" verb wasn't a thing. <S> "Play" was pretty overloaded and confusing, so they made those usages obsolete in 2010 and added new concepts such as "casting" a spell and "activating" an ability. <A> When playing with Courser of Kruphix you will play with the top card of your library revealed (first ability). <S> If that revealed card happens to be a land you can then play it as if it was in your hand (can still only play the normal amount of lands each turn and you can only use it when you can normally play a land). <S> This will gives you a couple of benefits. <S> First it lets you play a land if you don't have one in your hand (or chose not to play a land from your hand). <S> Second it lets you get a land card out of the deck faster <S> so you can get to more valuable cards. <S> Third you get to gain life from the third ability. <S> Here is the rulings on this card http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=courser+of+kruphix
|
So in short for this card "play" is treated like playing any other land on your turn
|
How to play Risk for office fundraiser? My office frequently raises money for charities holding lotteries or raffles. A coworker and I were considering more creative & entertaining ways to raise money, and we hit on the idea of playing Risk! Participants would be randomly assigned territories (most likely one territory per participant given the # of participants in my office) and could raise armies by donating money (say $1 per army token). Players would be free to form alliances & conquer neighboring territories as per the rules. Not sure if the Risk cards would be used in order to keep our rules as simple as possible. The winner of the game wins a prize, with runners up winning secondary prizes. Questions: How can the rules of Risk be adapted to a fundraiser in order to maximize the amount of money raised? Once a player is knocked out of the game, how can she continue donating money in a meaningful way? How do we link # territories owned with # of armies you can raise without placing undue restrictions on donation amounts? <Q> I would veer away from having to paying money to raise armies, which, depending on implementation, might be perceived badly (as either being able to pay money to buy huge armies, or requiring money to even make it to the end by having to pay ever-increasing amounts of money just to play.) <S> Instead, I would suggest allowing players to pay money to re-roll the dice used for determining battle outcomes. <S> This way, you get a little bit of an advantage from paying money, but you may still roll badly and not win. <S> (plus, it can incentive the other player in the battle to pay money to re-roll his dice, etc.) <S> I might also try a staggered cost - so that for each player, the first 10 re-rolls cost $1, but the next 10 cost $2, etc. <S> As for players that have already been defeated, you could allow them to pay for re-rolls on one side in future battles. <S> Depending on how competitive your office is, this may break friendships as people contribute money to their favorite faction, etc. <S> Also, note that the physical Risk game comes with a limited number of colors, so you might need to find some sort of work-around (have several independent "pods" where the winner of each goes on to play in a final game) or digital version. <A> Meta suggestion: <S> Playtest : I strongly suggest that you do a dry run with whatever combination of rule modifications you come up with. <S> Maybe give a few Risk-loving friends allocations (different allocations, since different people will have different amounts of money they are willing to spend) of poker chips, and try some of the rule ideas that get suggested here. <S> Advantage here is that you don't have to change the rules as much (that's likely a good idea to optimize your modifications toward). <S> Money considerations <S> You might set a target amount of money <S> you want to raise, and have individuals recruit pledges from other coworkers to sponsor them--maybe have a minimum amount you have to have pledged to get in at all, say--and whoever organizes those pledges is a leader of a faction (=one color). <S> You could have a sign-up sheet with faction leader slots, or you could have <S> it be that whoever gets in their pledge sheet first (with the minimum pledge) gets the slot. <S> Consider setting a maximum amount of money to prevent it devolving into pay-to-win. <S> One more idea <S> --there have been many iterations of Risk, so if you end up wanting or needing more factions that you have colors, obtain pieces from differing versions (i.e. of different colors or shapes) to differentiate more than six factions. <S> Time may be your enemy (given that this is in a workplace). <S> Consider that a game of Risk will often go for three hours. <S> If you use the faction strategy (multiple contributors playing one color), perhaps people can rotate in and out during the day as "the player" for their color. <S> Or, if you have room where you can securely leave it out, play on lunch break over multiple days . <S> Consider using time reducing rule variations (like Capitol Risk ) to mitigate this issue. <A> You could allow players to buy Risk cards (they eventually turn into armies when you get a set) - $5 per card, only can buy one card per turn. <S> This would allow 'eliminated' players to buy back in - as if they collect a set while 'eliminated' (by buying a card each round) they could get some armies and attack back in (say, allowing them to attack back in at their starting country).
|
Split into groups Define "factions" and have them pool their money and vote or take turns taking turns in the actual play.
|
Does preventing damage prevent things like land destruction? For example, if a player plays Personal Sanctuary then plays Armageddon does the damage prevention mean they don't lose lands? <Q> No, for two reasons. <S> If it doesn't say "deal(s) damage", it doesn't deal damage. <S> It's only damage if it's the result of the "deal damage" keyword action. <S> That means those words must appear in the rule or effect. <S> Currently the only damage caused by the rules is combat damage. <S> So if it's not combat damage, and if the effect doesn't use the words "deal damage", it's not damage. <S> For example, In the Combat Damage Step, attacking and defending creatures deal damage. <S> If any of that damage is directed to you, it will be nullified. <S> You won't lose life (or gain poison counters if the attacking creature has Poison or Infect) if you don't block an attacking creature because you are protected from the damage that would cause you to lose life (or gain poison counters). <S> A <S> Lightning Bolt targeting you will have no effect. <S> Armageddon destroys lands. <S> It does not deal damage, so it's not affected by Personal Sanctuary . <S> Sign in Blood causes lose of life. <S> It does not deal damage, so it's not affected by Personal Sanctuary . <S> "You" refers specifically to the player. <S> Personal Sanctuary only protects you from damage. <S> Your permanents are not protected. <S> For example, A Lightning Bolt targeting you will have no effect. <S> A <S> Lightning Bolt <S> targeting one of your creatures will deal damage as normal. <A> It will not stop anything else; Armageddon will still destroy lands, Wrath of God will still destroy creatures, and so on. <A> Firstly Personal Sanctuary only protects you not your permanents. <S> Nope <S> the the only time a damage prevention effect can save a land is when the land is also a creature (weird <S> but it sometimes happens) and is actually assigned damage from a spell, ability or another creature. <S> Similarly damage prevention doesn't work against effects that say 'lose life' (this phrase is used on effects that affect a player) or destroy creatures outright. <S> So for example Personal Sanctuary won't protect you against some thing like Absorb Vie .
|
No, "prevent all damage" only prevents actual damage - the kind of thing that happens when a creature deals combat damage to you, or a spell or ability deals damage (it'll actually say "damage", like " Lightning Strike deals 3 damage to target creature or player").
|
What are bidding sequences in which the responder is likely to be the "captain" of the partnership? I can think of two: The first one is when the opener bids no trump. Then the responder knows that the opener has a "balanced" hand, and 15-17 high card points for 1NT, 20-21 for 2NT, etc. Another example is when the opener bids 2 clubs (strong), the responder 2 diamonds (waiting), and the opener bids a suit (or no trump). Then the responder knows opener's strength (22+ points) and preferred suit. In these cases, the responder is "captain," because he knows his own hand, and has a pretty good idea of opener's. The opener, on the other hand, should "dance to his partner's tune" because he can't match his partner's knowledge of the combined holdings. Are these the main instances, or are there other instances of responders' captaincies that I have missed? <Q> In addition to Opener's notrump openings, whenever Opener rebids notrump to show one of the gap-ranges in the opening notrump structure (typically after opening one of a suit or 1C/2C strong) <S> Responder becomes Captain by virtue of a better grasp of combined partnership holdings. <S> Likewise if Opener makes a splinter raise of Responder's response then Responder becomes Captain. <S> Either Opener or Responder also becomes Captain by making a Blackwood or Gerber Ace-asking call, an area where beginners and intermediates often err by having the wrong hand makes this call. <S> Consequently you will see this call made by experts on a three card suit from time-to-time as a prepared rebid , often revealing on the third round a hand too strong for an immediate splinter raise, which would have given Captaincy to Opener without properly revealing Responder's strength). <S> It's important to note that Captaincy can change during the auction, and these situations should be well discussed by any ongoing partnership as they are rife with possibilities for gross over- and under-bidding. <S> Even in world-class play it is not unheard of to see slam played in part-score, which is a sure sign that a Captaincy change error occurred. <S> It is especially important to discuss how and when these occur in competitive auctions. <A> Possibly the most likely scenario for a responder to end up as a captain is when the responder does a weak take-out. <S> i.e. Opener opens 1 of a suit, Responder says 1 of a different suit, Opener says 2 of his original suit, Responder says 2 of his original suit. <S> Opener passes because it is clear there is no good match, and knows that Responder has chosen to play in his suit because (based on his limited knowledge) he believes it will play better than Opener's original suit. <A> At the beginning of the auction, Responder is the captain responsible for both level and strain for the partnership. <S> If Responder then completely describes her hand, she then cedes the captaincy to opener.
|
Also Responder becomes Captain, at least temporarily, by making a Fourth-Suit Forcing (FSF) call at the second round.
|
How does one defeat an enemy's True-Name Nemesis? In Magic the Gathering, there is a card called True-Name Nemesis . This card, when entering the battlefield, allows the caster to select an opponent. Once selected, True-Name Nemesis gets protection from said opponent. Just how does someone deal with one that was played by an opponent in a 1v1 match? <Q> Protection doesn't provide perfect invulnerability against your stuff. <S> The reminder text on the card lists specifically all of the things that you can't do. <S> Here are some ways to deal with an opponent's True-Name Nemesis: <S> Decrease your opponent's creatures' toughnesses. <S> For example, if you play Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite , your oppenent's creatures will get -2/-2, so the True-Name Nemesis will have less than zero toughness and die due to a state based effect. <S> Destroy or exile all creatures. <S> There's nothing that say's that it can't be destroyed by effects you control. <S> Force your opponent to sacrifice a creature. <S> If you play Consuming Vapors , they'll have to sacrifice a creature. <S> You can force them to sacrifice the True-Name Nemesis if you get rid of their other creatures. <S> Prevent it from attacking. <S> You can either make it very expensive to attack you, with Norn's Annex , for example, or just prevent it entirely with Blazing Archon . <S> Remove its protection. <S> If you play Polymorphist's Jest , Sudden Spoiling , or Humility , all of your opponent's creatures will be 2/2 Frogs with no abilities, including the True-Name Nemesis. <S> Then you can get rid of it like any other creature. <S> Make damage unpreventable, then deal mass damage. <S> For example, you could play Everlasting Torment , then Anger of the Gods . <S> Outpace your opponent. <S> If you have enough power on the field, you can either kill kill them faster than they can kill you, or force them to keep the True-Name Nemesis untapped as a blocker. <S> Prevent it from entering the battlefield in the first place. <S> You can counter it with any of a number of counterspells, name "True-Name Nemesis" with <S> Nevermore , Meddling Mage , or Voidstone Gargoyle , <S> cast Iona, Shield of Emeria and choose "blue", or just cast Llawan, Cephalid Empress . <S> Force it to block with an effect that destroys blocking creatures. <S> For example, if you enchant an Engulfing Slagwurm with Lure and attack, the True-Name Nemesis will be forced to block if able, and it will be destroyed. <S> Make it deal damage to itself using Wave of Reckoning . <A> Council's Judgment is a clean answer. <S> It works because, rather than targeting the true-name, you chose it (this conveniently gets around shroud, hexproof, and other protection effects as well) <A> two easy ways come to mind when dealing with heavily protected creatures: <S> global/non-targeted <S> destruction- <S> If the card does not say 'target' the spell does not target and can be used. <S> Think 'wrath of gods'. <S> forced sacrifice - target the player and force them to sacrifice it. <S> For example using the card 'diabolic edict'.
|
If you play Wrath of God , all creatures will be destroyed, including the True-Name Nemesis.
|
Can Bloodrush satisfy a forced discard? If my opponent makes me discard a card and I choose a creature card with the Bloodrush ability, can I pay the cost during the forced discard in order to activate the ability? <Q> No you cannot. <S> The ability you are looking for is called madness. <S> Here are the cards that have madness: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text=+[madness] <A> No, for two reasons. <S> The only time you could activate bloodrush is either in response to your opponent's spell or after it is done resolving (when you have priority again). <S> Note that discarding the card is part of the cost of activating bloodrush. <S> If you activate bloodrush in response to the spell you have to discard your card before your opponent's spell resolves, meaning you still have to discard another card when their spell resolves. <S> If you do it after their spell resolves, you still have to have the bloodrush card in your hand (because you discarded something else) in order to pay the bloodrush cost. <S> Also, as @John said, the madness ability does what you are describing, not bloodrush. <A> No you cannot. <S> If you activate the Bloodrush ability of a card you have to discard that card as part of paying for the ability, thus it is not a valid card to be chosen for the discard effect your opponent is using on you. <S> This is how it would end up working: <S> Your opponent targets you with Funeral Charm choosing the discard mode. <S> Before the Funeral Charm resolves you have a chance to cast spells or activate abilities like Bloodrush. <S> If you do the spell or ability will go on the stack above the Funeral Charm and resolve first. <S> It doesn't matter if you activate a Bloodrush ability, the Funeral Charm is still on the stack and will resolve after the Bloodrush ability if you activated it. <S> While it is resolving all you can do is choose a card to discard, you cannot activate any abilities or cast any spells.
|
First, you don't have priority (and thus the ability to activate bloodrush) while your opponent's discard spell is resolving.
|
What are the rules updates for Catan in the 5th edition? Are there any? Page 6 of the new Seafarers rulebook states: "A general note on Catan rules. This is the 5th English-language edition of Catan Seafarers. Over the years, the rules have been clarified, refined, and occasionally updated. As of January 1, 2015, all of the rules in this version of Catan take precedence over any previously-published rules." Is this notice simply a formality for the 5th edition release, or is there actually something that was changed, refined, clarified? (And I ask regarding any of the expansions, not just this one.) Because I can't find what it is. Also, does anyone know if any of the default map layouts changed? <Q> Changes to the base game <S> The biggest change in the base game is that the name has switched from "Settlers of Catan" to just "Catan". <S> They've also updated the art ( citation ). <S> Changes to seafarers <S> Many of the scenario maps are different. <S> It seems they used the maps from the 2008 German printing of seafarers when making 5th edition. <S> Additionally, the layouts of "The Fog Islands" has been completely changed. <S> For a look at historical Catan scenarios, see this compilation . <S> Prior to fifth edition Between third and fourth edition of base Catan, they added a rule allowing you to move the robber to the desert, and renamed the "Soldier" card to a "Knight", presumably for terminology consistency with Cities and Knights. <S> Between third and fourth edition of Seafarers, they changed the game border from rectangular to hexagonal, meaning all of the scenario maps got changed then as well. <S> Also, see What are the differences between the four editions of The Settlers of Catan base game? <A> One clarification of the rules regards moving ships. <S> In the 4th edition Seafarers Rulebook, there was a poor translation which made some people think that you could not ever move the ship that is closest to a homeport (i.e. you could never divorce a settlement and its first ship). <S> Catan's product manager, Sebastian Rapp, clarified that this was a miscommunication. <S> The wording in the 5th edition Seafarers rulebook has been updated with a new diagram to clarify the rule: <S> A ship MAY be moved such that a settlement exists without a ship or a road attached. <A> The setup for the non-randomized beginner game has changed. <S> The desert moved from the edge to the center of the map. <S> They also suggest, if only as a teaching aid, that you consider a turn to have three sequential parts: resources, trade, then build. <S> From page 6: <S> The separation of the trade and build phases was introduced to make the sequence easier to learn for beginners. <S> We recommend experienced players ignore this separation.
|
The big change is that there are now separate maps for 3 players vs 4 players on the first four scenarios. The 4th edition rules stated: "You may only move the ship that is at the end of the shipping route that is not connected to the “homeport” for that route."
|
How do "side effects" interact with a card that grants hexproof? I was looking at the card Leyline of Sanctity and noticed that it gives its controller hexproof. I understand that this means that I can't use any spells or abilities that target the player, but what about "side effects" that target another permanent, and then result in damage or an effect on the player? If I use Draconic Roar and reveal a dragon, will the 3 damage fizzle or will it get through since the player isn't the primary target? <Q> Hexproof only prevents targeting. <S> Any effects that affect the player without targeting (e.g. "Deal 2 damage to each opponent") still work. <S> Draconic Roar doesn't target your opponent, so his hexproof has no effect. <A> While both answers answer the specific case, would like to explain a bit more broadly, since the question is a lot more broadly worded than the specific instance. <S> Since the player has hexproof, but the card Draconic Roar does not say 'target player', all effects of the spell will occur. <S> However, a very similar card, Searing Blaze instead reads: <S> Searing Blaze deals 1 damage to target player and 1 damage to target creature that player controls. <S> In this instance, if your opponent had Leyline of Sanctity out, you would not be able to cast Searing Blaze targeting your opponent's creature, because in order to cast a card, you have to have a valid target for each instance of target of the card, and you can't target your opponent. <S> If you have a creature though, you could still cast it targeting yourself and your creature. <S> Now, a bit more niche of an instance that still is relevant to the general question at hand <S> : lets say your opponent has Leyline of Anticipation out, as well as a creature. <S> You cast Searing Blaze targeting them and their creature. <S> In response, they cast Leyline of Sanctity, giving themselves hexproof when it resolves. <S> Searing Blaze will still resolve and deal 1 damage to their creature (or 3, if Landfall is in effect), but won't deal any damage to them. <A> It doesn't affect damage, or life loss, or anything else once the spell is resolving. <S> In the specific case of Draconic Roar, the only target you choose is a creature, so it is legal to cast and it resolves. <S> The Leyline can't affect what happens once the spell starts resolving, so the damage is dealt to the player.
|
Hexproof is very simple: if a spell or ability uses the word "target", that target can't legally be that player.
|
Why are the port arrangements in Better Settlers not like the arrangements in my game? In the Better Settlers' setup, I can trade with bank at 3:1 or 2:1 ratio if I have a settlement or city on specific harbors. But the location of the harbors (3:1 and 2:1 ratios shown) doesn't match with the game that I have. In my game, these ratios are printed on outside long pieces. I also went to the official Catan site and compared pictures in the rule book with one from Better Settlers' site, and the pictures don't match :( Why does Better Settlers site show custom 3:1 and 2:1 placements? <Q> I created Better Settlers and the other answers are correct in that the version that I usually play with, the harbors are completely individualized on their own hexes so it's possible to completely randomize them. <S> Newer versions of the game have the continuous puzzle-interlocking pieces to make things quicker for setting up. <S> The reason I chose not to force harbors positions even after the new version is I found that it was possible to create better and more variable board setups if I didn't add the constraint of fixed harbors. <S> The best solution with new versions is to flip the frame pieces over (so harbors aren't visible) and then use the additional harbor pieces that come included with the game (you can even just use a piece of paper if you don't have the additional pieces). <S> Hope that helps! <A> @Jefromi is correct, there are card pieces that you can use to cover over the ports printed on the sea frame. <S> In this image <S> you can see the port pieces covering the printed ones. <S> They are used to randomise the ports, in a similar way to randomising the tiles. <S> Note that they only change what type of port it is, and not its location. <S> Seafarers of Catan also comes with additional port pieces, but they are used in a different way specific to that expansion. <S> This is to do with balance of the game: if they are arranged differently then you could get ports too close together, which makes that area of the board much more powerful than it otherwise would be. <S> To avoid this, each port needs to be at least two hex edges away from its nearest neighbour. <S> As the board only has 30 outside edges, with nine ports this only leaves three leftover edges, so the possible variations are all very similar to each other if you try to space the ports out evenly. <S> As to why there are nine ports, not ten, I don't know, but I expect the game designer tried the game with different variations and found nine to make a better game than ten. <S> To quote Andrew Flynn's answer: <S> The reason I chose not to force harbors positions even after the new version is I found that it was possible to create better and more variable board setups if I didn't add the constraint of fixed harbors. <S> While I haven't played Andrew's game, I would be surprised if it allows ports to be too close together, and so while the exact locations may be different, the board will look similar and the overall balance of the game won't be affected. <S> (The screenshots I've seen seem to support this.) <S> As an aside, the Seafarers of Catan introduces many scenarios with different port locations, but the ports are still carefully placed, and the "variable setup" rules suggest you don't move them (although you can shuffle them up, as usual). <S> Again, this shows that the placement of ports is very important to the balance of the game, and shouldn't be messed with too much to avoid breaking it. <A> In my version of Settlers of Catan (bought in the UK circa 2007) <S> the land hexes are surrounded by sea hexes. <S> Some of these sea hexes have harbours drawn on them. <S> But as the harbours are on individual hexes, their placement can be completely randomised. <S> In my version of Seafarers of Catan (bought in the UK circa 2009) the playing area is edged by long pieces, similar to the OP's. <S> But the harbours are on small individual pieces that are placed on top of the sea (whether the sea in question is an edge piece or a sea hex in the middle of the play area). <S> Hence, again, their placement can be completely randomised. <S> So, in answer to "Why does better settlers site shows custom 3:1 and 2:1 ratios?" <S> - It's not custom, it's just what came with the version they purchased.
|
To answer your comment, there is a specific reason that the ports are arranged as they are in the board game.
|
When does a sacrifice on entering the battlefield happen? My opponent plays Vexing Devil which states: When Vexing Devil enters the battlefield, any opponent may have it deal 4 damage to him or her. If a player does, sacrifice Vexing Devil. When does this sacrifice happen? Is he able to play Collateral Damage on the Vexing Devil before the sacrifice resolves? My current interpretation is that the sacrifice resolves instantly on entering the battlefield so the creature is never there to use Collateral Damage on, but we wanted to verify that this was correct. <Q> You do have a chance to cast Collateral Damage. <S> Vexing Devil's ability is a triggered ability, so the ability goes on the stack when the creature enters the battlefield, and you can respond to it before it resolves. <S> You can tell that it's a triggered ability by rule 603.1 : <S> Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. <S> They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and begin with the word "when," "whenever," or "at. <S> " They can also be expressed as " <S> [When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect]. " <S> Here's how it plays out: You cast Vexing Devil. <S> Vexing Devil resolves and enters the battlefield. <S> Its ability triggers and goes on the stack. <S> You cast Collateral Damage and sacrifice Vexing Devil. <S> Collateral Damage resolves, and deals 3 damage to something. <S> Vexing Devil's ability resolves. <S> At this point, your opponent can choose whether or not to take the 4 damage. <S> If they do choose to take the damage, you would sacrifice the Vexing Devil, but it is already dead. <S> Note that there is no time to respond during step 5. <S> Once an opponent chooses to take damage, the damage is dealt and you make the sacrifice without doing anything in between. <A> It happens during the resolution of the ability. <S> Here is what happens in detail. <S> You cast Vexing Devil . <S> Vexing Devil resolves. <S> His ability triggers. <S> You and your opponent have the opportunity to cast instants and activate abilities. <S> This is your absolute last chance to cast Collateral Damage before the trigger resolves. <S> The trigger resolves. <S> Your opponent makes a choice. <S> If your opponent chooses to take four damage, Vexing Devil is sacrificed. <S> All of this happens during the resolution of the triggered ability There is no point after your opponent makes the choice but before you sacrifice Vexing Devil where you could cast Collateral Damage. <S> You can only cast spells when you have priority, and no player gets priority during the resolution of an ability. <S> The "If you do [...]" clause is not a separate triggered ability. <S> If it was, it would start with "When", "Whenever", or "At". <A> No choices are made at all until the ability starts to resolve, at this point you can choose to take 4 damage and the Devil will get sacrificed or not take the damage and it sticks around. <S> If your opponent uses Collateral Damage before the Devil's ability resolves the Devil will be sacrificed and you will take 3 damage. <S> If they choose to do this there is no reason for you to take 4 damage from the Devil's ability (removing the Devil from the battlefield before the ability resolves don't stop it from happening, it just makes it <S> so the Devil doesn't get sacrificed if you take 4 damage). <S> There is no time during the resolution of the ability (like after you take 4 damage but before the Devil is sacrificed) where anyone has the ability to respond with any spells or abilities. <S> The best your opponent can do is wait to see if you take the 4 from the Devil, then if you don't cast Collateral Damage and sacrifice the Devil to that. <S> So they can deal either 3 or 4 damage, never 7.
|
Vexing Devil's ability is a triggered ability that happens when it enters the battlefield, and goes on the stack like any other enters the battlefield trigger.
|
Effect of "Thran Lens" on Devotion I want to know the effects of Thran Lens on a devotion-dependent enchantment creature, like a god or something. I read somewhere that, when a permanent becomes colorless, the Thran Lens makes the 'cost symbols' turn into 'colorless'. With this in mind, if I have Heliod, God of the Sun on the battlefield will he ever be a creature while Thran Lens is on the battlefield? <Q> Mana cost and color are two completely separate characteristics. <S> Devotion <S> 700.5. <S> A player’s <S> devotion to [color] is equal to the number of mana symbols of that color among the mana costs of permanents that player controls. <S> Mana Cost 202.1. <S> A card’s mana cost is indicated by mana symbols near the top of the card. <S> Color 202.2. <S> An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost, regardless of the color of its frame. <S> 202.2f Effects may change an object’s color, give a color to a colorless object, or make a colored object become colorless <A> All the Thran Lens does is make permanents colorless, it doesn't change their casting costs at all. <S> Devotion counts the number of colored mana symbols in a permanents casting cost, it doesn't care what color the permanent is. <S> Your Heliod will animate just fine even is everything on the battlefield is colorless assuming there are enough white mana symbols among the permanents you control. <S> 700.5. <S> A player’s devotion to [color] is equal to the number of mana symbols of that color among the mana costs of permanents that player controls. <S> A player’s devotion to [color 1] and [color 2] is equal to the number of mana symbols among the mana costs of permanents that player controls that are [color 1], [color 2], or both colors. <A> Thran Lens or other color-changing effects have no effect on Devotion. <S> 700.5. <S> A player’s <S> devotion to [color] is equal to the number of mana symbols of that color among the mana costs of permanents that player controls. <S> The mana symbols in a card's mana cost determine the card's color, but not the other way around. <S> 105.3. <S> Effects may change an object’s color or give a color to a colorless object. <S> If an effect gives an object a new color, the new color replaces all previous colors the object had (unless the effect said the object became that color “in addition” to its other colors). <S> Effects may also make a colored object become colorless. <S> The above rule covers everything about changing an object's color. <S> Note that it does not say anything about mana symbols being changed, so nothing like that happens.
|
Thran Lens only modifies the color, not the mana cost, and so Thran Lens has no effect on devotion.
|
Is "refund with discount" a valid move on Catan? On her move, Alice trades with Bob: Alice gives 2 wheat, Bob gives 1 sheep. Then Alice does her calculations again and decides it was a wrong move. She wants to trade her sheep back for one wheat, and Bob is willing to give her back 1 wheat for 1 sheep. Alice does nothing else between those trades. Other players object, saying it's a catch to work around "no giving away cards for free" rule, and Alice and Bob might be conspiring. I (being Bob) know for a fact it's not true, and the game rules don't explicitly forbid it, as far as I can tell. Is it a valid move? <Q> This is not a card giveaway. <S> You were under no obligation to make the second trade. <S> For that reason, she is not, technically or otherwise, giving away a wheat for nothing. <A> This is what the official rules say: ! <S> Trade After you roll for resource production, you may trade with other players or with the bank. <S> • <S> You may trade as long as you have resource cards <S> • <S> If you decide not to trade during your turn, no one can trade <S> • <S> and he elects to trade with you <S> • <S> You may not trade with the bank during another players <S> turn <S> • <S> You may not give away cards <S> • <S> You may not trade development cards <S> • <S> You may not trade like resources (e.g., 2 wool for 1 wool) <S> The rules don't specific say this is not allowed although you can't give away cards, but seeing <S> as a trade is concluded after you handed over the cards to each other, the second trade will be a new trade and is certainly a valid (although not nice)trade. <S> Technically she's giving away a wheat without anything for it <S> and so it seems like you're ignoring the rule of <S> you may not give away cards . <S> You can try to deny it to the other players but if they don't believe it you can't prove that it isn't so. <S> So if I would be present at the table I would make trades only refundable for the whole amount if both parties agree to exchange the cards back. <S> Other than that you can't discount a refund. <S> So it really is up to the players and you should try to avoid this sort of situations and make trades permanent, no refunds. <A> I fall somewhere in between here. <S> I think that if it happened exactly as stated above, it's fine: she made a trade, changed her mind, and now wants her sheep back - fine, <S> but you have every right to get something in return. <S> You certainly don't have to 'refund' the trade, right? <S> So you charge her one of the two wheat. <S> However, if the first trade is entered into with the express intention of doing the second , then it's cheating, because it's trying to work around the rules. <S> At least, it has the appearance of that. <S> If the people you play with are more rules-focused, as in 'exactly as the rules are written', then it's still legal - in that case cards can't be given to someone with zero cards, otherwise they always can be via a trade like this. <S> But with me, I'd think that has the appearance of violating the rule (and violates its spirit). <A> Technically speaking nothing in the rules would prevent that from happening, even if they are "giving away cards for free through the trading". <S> That is a moral issue of playing ethically. <S> It depends upon whether or not you play with people who are douches or not. <S> If you play with nice people who understand that sometimes people make mistakes then you should let them undo the trade. <S> If they won't trade back, then maybe you shouldn't be playing with them anymore.
|
You may trade with another player between your turns, but only if it’s his turn
|
How difficult is Eldritch Horror with differing numbers of players? Removing the element of how easy or hard it is to work as a group, and assuming that you are 1 player controlling all 1 to 8 players, what numbers of players are easier or harder to win Eldritch Horror, and roughly how much easier or difficult? I don't expect statistically significant replies, just interested in what people's impressions are by feel. It already seems evident that playing with 1, 3, 5, or 7 players is a disadvantage due to the number of clues spawned, gates spawned, and monsters surging being identical to those for player-counts one greater. <Q> While stronger monster surges start at 3 players, it's easier to cover the entire world with a 4 player team. <S> I find gates spawning is the most dangerous issue that needs to be dealt with since leaving gates open will help advance doom. <S> Having extra monsters is also bad, but some monsters will sit quietly until you go deal with them. <S> A few cards look at how many monsters are on the map, so you don't want to let the total number of monsters to get to hight. <S> That being said, monsters that move to expedition locations often don't have retribution effects and tend to be ignored in many of the games I've played. <S> If you have Akachi as one of your investigators, she can control where the next gate spawns by using her ability to look at the top two gate locations and putting one of them on top of the stack and one on the bottom. <S> I'm not sure how powerful this strategy is, but it certainly is an option in a four player game. <S> Once you get that second gate spawning, it's no longer an effective strategy. <S> Then build your mythos deck from the remaining cards. <S> To make the game harder, you can remove all of the easy mythos cards. <S> The mythos cards that come up heavily effect the difficulty of the game. <A> There are some statistic available on average difficulties and on doom track levels vs number of players . <A> In my opinion the difficulty on changes with which enemy you fight. <S> I have played several enemies against a different size of group. <S> We won the first time with a group of 3 and lost the second time with a group of 5 against enemy A. <S> With enemy B we lost with a group of 4 but won with a group of 7. <S> In my experience the amount of players don't change the difficulty.
|
The game scales that it stays the same difficulty with the same enemy against a different amount of players. The jump from 4 players to 5 players seems to makes the game tougher. If you want to alter the difficulty of the game and make it easier, I suggest altering the mythos deck and removing the hard mythos cards that have tentacles.
|
Randomly but Evenly Distributing Tokens on a Board I'm designing a board game where, as more sections of the board are added, tokens are randomly placed on the new board section. Each board section is 2'×1' (24"×12"), so we using dice to randomise coordinates: 4d6 for the X coordinate and 2d6 for the Y coordinate. Note that the board is not in a grid; the dice results just correspond to inch measurements on the board. For some reason this system doesn't seem to work very well, as tokens tend to be grouped together rather than spreading evenly. Are there better ways to distribute the tokens more evenly? <Q> You can see this happening in Catan: rolling two dice results in a lot more sevens than twos. <S> If you do this with 4 dice, almost everything will be centered around the 14th coordinate. <S> If you don't mind some normalization, you could use 2d12 instead of 4d6. <S> You could give the players some say in where the pieces are placed. <S> There are many ways in which you could do this, either before or after the dice are rolled. <S> If you want 'complete' randomness with dice, you'll need a 1d10 and a 1d20, or two decks of numbered cards. <A> So, after some discussion, this is the idea we're going with. <S> We will create 12 (not concrete yet) set layouts for tokens that can be applied to any given board section. <S> These layouts will be drawn onto cards and shuffled together to make a deck. <S> When the game is started and the Board is tiles are placed, a card is drawn for each section and tokens will be placed on the section as depicted by the card giving a semi-random placement. <A> I think freekvd explained rather well why your probability distribution is not flat, but if you want a flat distribution, you could do one of the following: get a 24-sided and a 12-sided die and do basically the same thing you had already done. <S> make cards numbered 1-24 and draw two of them for each token placement. <S> Those on the 12-inch side can either be divided by two or taken mod 12 (meaning that you subtract 12 from anything above 12, just like with time). <S> You could also have a separate 1-12 deck. <S> If you only have 6 sided dice and only want to use dice, then you could roll two six sided dice for each side. <S> The two dice are not interchangeable, so they'll have to either be different colors or be rolled one at a time. <S> For this example, let's say you have a black and a white die. <S> Roll both dice and subtract 1 from each roll. <S> Multiply the roll of the white die by 1/6. <S> Add the two values. <S> This will give you a total between 0 and 5 <S> + 5/6.(You could then add 1/12 to that number if you're worried that two edges will have tokens and the other two won't.)For the 24-inch side, multiply that total by 4 inches and for the 12-inch side, multiply it by 2 inches. <S> Mark <S> the edges of your board with number pairs from 1-1 to 6-6 which are evenly spaced. <S> Forget about inches and just place the token on the corresponding part of the board. <S> Put walls around your board and then toss the tokens in from a few feet away. <S> There's no guarantee that it'll be an even distribution, but it'd probably be more fun than rolling dozens of dice and making measurements just to set up your game. <A> If I understand your question correctly, you want a way to determine terrain on a X by Y grid such that a logical terrain layout is created. <S> You start with putting the upper left square first (for example a mountain). <S> Next you determine the tile to the right <S> (methods below). <S> Continue until you reach the right end. <S> Then use the same method to find the tiles below the first row. <S> Continue until the board is filled. <S> There are two possible methods: Use a table with probabilities using dice. <S> For example, a mountain has 40% chance for another mountain, 30% for hills and so on. <S> This method is a bit cumbersome. <S> Use several stacks of tiles one for each terrain type. <S> So if you want a tile next to a mountain, use the mountain stack. <S> If that is a hill, use the hill stack. <S> This method is faster but requires more tiles.
|
The more dice you use to generate a single random value, the closer each random value will be to a certain average.
|
Is an old edition of Cinder Wall able to attack? The most recent iteration of Cinder Wall has the creature type "Wall" and has Defender. However, the Weatherlight print of this card stood by the old rules where Wall creatures couldn't attack, so it doesn't have the Defender keyword. If I use a Weatherlight edition of this card, can it attack, or does the fact that its errata gave it Defender mean that older prints would also have it even if they do not say so? <Q> No; Oracle is the authorative source of card wordings. <S> From the Comprehensive Rulebook: <S> 108.1. <S> Use the Oracle™ card reference when determining a card’s wording. <S> A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com. <S> The official text on all versions of Cinder Wall is: Defender <S> When Cinder Wall blocks, destroy it at end of combat. <S> "Wall" specifically is mentioned in the Glossary: <S> Wall <S> A creature type with no particular rules meaning. <S> Those cards have received errata in the Oracle card reference to have defender. <S> Some older cards that referenced the Wall creature type have also received errata. <S> See Defender. <A> No, it doesn't really matter what is printed on the card, since according to the rules: 108.1 . <S> Use the Oracle™ card reference when determining a card’s wording. <S> A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com. <S> The Oracle text for Cinder Wall says: Defender <S> When Cinder Wall blocks, destroy it at end of combat. <A> 108.1. <S> Use the Oracle™ card reference when determining a card’s wording. <S> A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com. <S> There are special situations where a card cannot be used as a normal card without some special conditions(the only ones that comes to mind are oversized cards like some commanders, and the slightly differently shaped cards of Alpha set.), but this is due to the cards being visually different from the back and therefore identifiable. <S> Besides this, there is no difference in game between using different sets versions of a card.
|
Older cards with the Wall creature type but without defender had an unwritten ability that precluded them from attacking. All copies of a card, regardless of set or source, have identical rules regarding how they function in game.
|
What are the best ways to manage challenges to the storyteller? The rules list various subjective ways players can force a storyteller to end her turn when she: Gets stuck Contradicts the story Rambles Is too silly Introduces unimportant elements What have you found are the smoothest or best ways to handle these challenges? Do you simply put it to a majority vote, a unanimous vote? Are there problems that often occur like spirited agreement to the challenges by people simply wanting to get more of an edge toward winning? I'm looking for insights on what people have found works better and what sort of stumbling blocks they encountered with this aspect of a game that clearly requires people to be on the same page and somewhat sporting of each other to truly make it work. Or drunk. <Q> For my money the simple thumbsup system works with my group. <S> You're welcome to tell the story and if someone contradicts or uses a card for a nonessential element you call an audible and stick out your hand thumbs down. <S> You have about five seconds <S> and then everyone else joins in thumbs up or thumbs down. <S> Majority rules. <S> The rest of the time if the story teller is rambling <S> you can just stick out your hand thumbs down and as they go if more people join your thumbs down <S> and it reaches majority <S> then you lose and the story passes on. <A> I would say that first, this is a game that is not meant to be played competitively or seriously. <S> Second, disputes concerning challenges to the storyteller are generally best resolved by a concensus built among those neither challenging nor being challenged. <S> Given that people in this category normally form a group no larger than 3, this consensus is generally quite achievable. <A> This highly depends on your playgroup composition and style: <S> Anything that's quick enough <S> so it doesn't slow the flow of the game. <S> It's also quite common for the storyteller to voluntary end their own turn when they get stuck etc. <S> On the other hand, the group that introduced the game to me had several very competitive players, and there another limitation was required - the player to the left of the storyteller can't raise objections (i.e. the one who'll become storyteller next if the vote to end the turn passes) <S> - This was necessary to prevent some players from raising an objection every second sentence... <S> Finally, when playing with my younger relatives (a group of 2-4 young children and 1-3 adults), we usually have one of the adults double as a referee - leaving it to him to call for turn changes, optionally raising it to a vote. <S> As RM Bee said, this game doesn't really work that well when played too competitively or seriously.
|
In my usual gaming group (2-8 adults looking for light, social gaming with only a minor interest in who actually wins), we use a basic majority voting like Wolfkin described - when someone thinks a turn should end, he says so, and everyone quickly nods / raises a hand / mumbles 'uh-ha' or 'naaa' etc.
|
In Monopoly, Can I mortgage properties as I am bankrupted? Rules state that properties can be mortgaged at any time. But if I can't raise enough money to pay rent, I am bankrupt and out of the game. Mortgaging properties just prior to handing them over to the new owner would be a nuisance. Since the new owner is required to pay a 10% fee to the bank.As the player being bankrupted, am I allowed to reduce the spoils I turn over in this fashion? Note a similar question about making deals with other players when going bankrupt. <Q> But when it is obvious that you can't, you are supposed to restore the status quo ante, (before you landed on the other person's property), and hand over your property to your creditor as they "were. <S> " That is, mortgaged or unmortgaged, as they were at the beginning of your turn. <S> If your debt is to another player, you must turn over to that player all that you have of value and retire from the game. <S> In making this settlement, if you own houses or hotels, you must return these to the Bank in exchange for money to the extent of one-half the amount paid for them; this cash is given to the creditor. <A> Straight from the Classic Monopoly Rules : You are declared bankrupt if you owe more than you can pay either to another player or to the Bank. <S> So my interpretation of this, consistent with commentary on Board Game Geek, is that any and all attempted transactions are contingent on the right to perform transactions : namely, avoiding bankruptcy by raising sufficient funds to pay the debt. <S> Consider that your assets are now controlled by a trustee, as in real life, and released back to you if and only if you can release the bankruptcy; otherwise the trustee will not approve the transactions. <A> You can mortgage property if it makes you enough money to clear your debt. <S> You can't mortgage things just to screw over the person who bankrupted you by forcing them to pay the 10% mortgage penalty.
|
Basically, you can mortgage properties to try to avoid bankruptcy.
|
In Smash Up, can you "destroy" a card from your hand? Here are the definitions from their rulebook located here: Smash Up Rules Discard : When a card gets discarded, it goes to the discard pile of the player whose deck it came from, no matter who played or controlled it. Destroy : When a card says to destroy another card, put the destroyed card in its owner’s discard pile. If I can destroy one of my minions to draw the same number of cards as its power, would I be able to destroy one from my hand? I'm thinking no, but would like to appeal to others who may have broader experience with other games that might use this terminology commonly or might simply know a ruling on this. <Q> No. <S> I don't know if this is explicitly mentioned anywhere in the rules, but destroying a minion refers to destroying a minion card on a base. <S> This is akin to Magic: <S> The Gathering, which has concepts of discarding cards from one's hand and destroying permanents on the battlefield. <A> Anything in your hand is currently out of play, likewise, to remove anything from your hand would require the keyword "discard" and not "destroy". <A> No . <S> This has been clarified in more recent rules (pg 9): <S> Destroy: <S> This lets you remove a card that’s in play and put it in its owner’s discard pile. <S> Destroy specifically refers to cards in play .
|
In Smash Up, you can only destroy cards that have explicitly been played.
|
Numbers after a draft format Most drafts that I have seen on MTGO use a set of numbers after the format. I think it describes what matches are played after the drafting portion. For example: Modern Masters 2015 6-2-2-2 [1] Modern Masters 2015 refers to the types of boosters that will be opened. What does the "6-2-2-2" mean? I have also seen "8-4" as a common postfix. Are there others, and if so what do they mean? <Q> You must be referring to MTGO (the online version of the game). <S> You generally enter a draft with seven other players (for a total of eight). <S> The postfix refers to how many packs you will receive when the tournament is over. <S> The postfix "6-2-2-2" indicates three rounds of Swiss. <S> Swiss means that you will continue to play whether you win or lose. <S> After three rounds of 6-2-2-2 are completed: One player will have three wins. <S> That player receives six packs. <S> Three players will have two wins. <S> They will each receive two packs. <S> This means that when you lose, you are out. <S> After three rounds of 8-4 are completed: One player will be the winner. <S> That player receives eight packs. <S> One player will be the runner-up. <S> That player receives four packs. <S> This is described in more detail on the Wizards of the Coast website (which I just noticed you also linked to in the question). <A> That is the prize payout. <S> First place receives 6 booster packs, 2nd 3rd and 4th receive 2 each. <S> (Or first place receives 8 and second receives 4, in the other example.) <S> If you scroll down a bit on your link it's written out in a table. <A> That is the prize payout. <S> 6-2-2-2 means 1st place will get 6 packs, and <S> 2nd - 4th will get 2 packs each. <S> 8-4 means first gets 8 packs, 2nd gets 4. <S> This is shown underneath under the Prizes section on the page you linked to. <S> 3 <S> Wins 6 Modern Masters 2015 Edition booster packs <S> 2 <S> Wins <S> 2 Modern Masters 2015 Edition booster packs <S> With a normal 3 round, 8 person draft, assuming no ties you will end up with 1 person with 3 wins, and 3 with 2 wins (and 3 with 1 win and 1 with 0 wins, though they don't get any prizes in a 6-2-2-2 tournament)
|
The postfix "8-4" indicates three rounds of single elimination.
|
Does 'The plot thickens' make the game easier or harder? Just curious for games going forward. Because the expansion allows you to see how people have played on missions, can reveal people's cards, etc, it seems like these are all an advantage mostly to the resistance. In people's experience - does it make it easier for the resistance? <Q> The Plot Thickens basically adds more opportunities to link players together, thus creating longer and more complex chains of information. <S> What I mean by chain of information is something like this: <S> Player A and Player B both were on a failed mission. <S> Player B knows Player C's role card. <S> Player C has declared players D and E to play success cards, but their mission with player A failed. <S> Chains make it easier to deduce information, thus making the Resistance players' role easier. <S> But of course, experienced Spy players can learn to work with, or around, such cards, to confuse people even more. <S> Tl;dr: <A> There is a slight advantage to <S> The Resistance but the plot cards mostly just throw a monkey wrench into the pattern of the game. <S> When you play a game like this repeatedly, you as a group can fall into the same rhythm. <S> Plot cards are designed to interrupt that rhythm. <S> They cause the game to have more chaos and that chaos can in theory help both sides. <A> I would agree that it makes the game slightly easier for the resistance side, but as a comment mentions it can vary a lot depending on the play style of the group. <S> In my experience and opinion, it makes the game more strategic and interesting. <S> Since it provides some extra information, allows for a better focusing of the speculation and decision making processes. <S> After discovering the expansion, I wouldn't play without it unless I'm teaching new people how to play thus making an exception for the first game.
|
The Plot Thickens makes the game more balanced.
|
In a&a 1941 can tanks and infantry hit aircraft? The book does not specifically say anything. <Q> Only submarines are unable to hit aircraft. <A> Yes, in both cases. <S> If aircraft are supporting a ground attack, they can be hit by anti-aircraft fire, but the player may choose to take infantry or tank losses before sacrificing aircraft. <S> As a practical matter, aircraft are seldom hit. <S> That's because the player can choose which units to take as casualties, and will usually choose infantry or tanks. <S> Aircraft become casualties only when the player has "run out" of other units. <A> Yes, aircraft units can be hit by both infantry units and tank units. <S> Remember that a unit is not a single individual; this is not a single infantryman or a single tank. <S> Think of a unit as a division (or corp) with all the attached artillery, half-tracks, jeeps, headquarters tents, mechanics, engineers, and light anti-aircraft weaponry required to support ~10,000 men.
|
If the aircraft are defending a territory, it can be hit by infantry or tanks, but this will typically happen after the defender has lost all his less valuable infantry and tanks. If you mean the original rules, then yes.
|
How to capture unoccupied enemy-controlled territories? How do I capture them? (besides tanks blitzing). That would not work if im trying to capture an island. Just move in with a bunch of infantry and claim it for myself? <Q> On an island, there wouldn't be an opportunity for a tank blitz (unless it started from a land zone two zones away). <S> If they "outlast" the enemy defenders, the survivors can move ashore and occupy the island. <S> Tanks or infantry attacking an unoccupied island have "outlasted" the enemy defenders, by definition. <A> You can capture an unoccupied enemy terrority either by blitzing through it (as you mentioned in the question) or by moving a land unit into the territory. <S> It is treated as a combat move and is essentially as if you are fighting a battle against zero defenders (which you automatically win) <A> In addition to the accepted answer, for islands: Move a transport into an adjacent (emptied) sea tile; unload 1 to 2 infantry or 1 tank onto the island.
|
But tanks or infantry can assault an island (or any coastal region) from a transport, possibly with air or battleship support.
|
How can I ensure the Commander deck I'm creating is appropriate for my group's meta? Our group's been playing Magic since mid-2013, and Commander 2013 since a while after that. A couple of us are keen on building our own commander decks now. We're aware the Commander format can easily be very powerful, and that different groups vary from decks that finish within a few turns to those that easily last 15-20 turns (like the C13 decks do). We're having some trouble working out how to gear our decks to be at a suitable power level for our table's current meta. We can tell when a card's just going to outright break things and be un-fun. However, we encounter fairly powerful cards and we're not sure if they're too powerful, or OK because it's just what that deck does, or maybe it should be considered a bomb like Serra Avatar . Is Pontiff of Blight too powerful or just right in our C13-based environment (pay a few {W/B}, cause life loss and get 3-4 life for each mana spent this way because multiplayer) — how do we tell? How do Commander groups usually work this out? Are there design standards available? Is there a well-defined tier list that can guide our deck construction? What do people go by to ensure they match their game's meta effectively without breaking it? Or is it just done by feel and experimentation and group moderation of "don't use that card, it won't be fun for us, use this one instead maybe"? As a subjective question, this will be governed by the Stack's Good Subjective, Bad Subjective guidelines and the subjective questions guidance offered at the bottom of this help page . This means answers need to adhere to the back it up principle: your solution must be accompanied by based on either something that happened to you personally, or something you can back up with a reference. In general that means cite direct experience (your own or someone else's) that demonstrates the effectiveness of solutions you provide. A solution that comes with no experience of its effectiveness is low quality. <Q> If there's one thing you can learn from Mark Rosewater's "Making Magic" articles (check out the section on "Empires") , it's that the best way to find out if a deck is unfair and/or miserable is to play it. <S> This may seem like something you could shortcut, but card evaluation is really hard, and cards or decks that seem oppressive at first glance may turn out to be actually really fun and exciting; and vice versa . <S> The best way to tell this is the same way you'd analyse anything; change one thing and see what happens . <S> For example, if everyone turns up with a new deck, and one can't compete, one's horrifically broken, and one just feels like it could be fair <S> if the removal suite in the opposing decks were different, you change the broken one, and see how it fits. <S> If you change all of them, suddenly you could get massive swings against the "could be fair" which you weren't expecting. <S> Also, be aware that if your deck is requiring people to significantly adapt their decks to deal with it, then even though it seems fair, it's actually warping. <S> Another issue is play skill; for example, Black Lotus is an entirely reasonable card as long as you're using it to ramp into Centaur Courser on turn 1. <S> The deck may seem reasonable, and then suddenly stop being reasonable in the hands of a more experienced player. <S> So it's worth agreeing that, just because a deck was fine originally, it could now be time to retire it as it starts to cause issues. <A> I think group moderation is the way to go. <S> Build the deck you want to play. <S> If there are cards that look particularly brutal, maybe ask your group about them ahead of time. <S> Otherwise, just play, and if something happens that ruins the fun for everyone, then adjust as needed. <S> If you want to keep games from feeling "samey" every time, you could ban cards that let you search your deck for a specific card. <S> That way, even if someone has a bomb, they'll probably only see it in about 25% of games. <S> Also, keep in mind that Commander is intended to be multi-player. <S> If someone has a particularly powerful deck, they should expect the other players to all be targetting them. <S> It is difficult for even a strong deck to take on multiple players at once consistently. <A> In addition to the other suggestions here like getting feedback from your fellow players as you play, you can do a couple free-for-all games. <S> In my play group that is mostly what we do <S> and it's pretty easy to see who has the best board position at any given time (we all usually start conspiring to hurt that player's board, he is getting constantly attacked, etc.). <S> If the deck you play is constantly garnering hate from the other players, your deck may be over-powered. <S> For example: one of my friends has a few EDH decks, including one that uses Gisela, Blade of Goldnight as his commander. <S> When that deck comes out, we all know that while the game may technically be a free-for-all, it is really everyone vs. him. <S> If people are constantly feeling threatened by you deck so much so that you constantly have a target on your head, you probably need to dial it back a bit. <S> Note: being in a good position is part of the game and key to winning. <S> It is when you are in a good or great position a disproportionate amount of the time that it becomes a problem.
|
The key thing here is to have a group happy to communicate that your deck is stopping them having fun, and to be able to tell which deck it is that's doing it.
|
Terminus as an instant? If my opponent has Sensei's Divining Top in play on my turn, can he activate it in response to my attack phase in order to play Terminus for its miracle cost? <Q> Yes, your opponent can do this, as long as the Terminus is the first card drawn that turn. <S> It doesn't matter whose turn it is, or that Terminus is a sorcery, Miracle will trigger if it is the first card drawn on by that player on that turn. <S> From the Avacyn Restored Mechanics article: <S> As you draw an instant or sorcery with miracle, if it's the first card you've drawn this turn, you can immediately reveal it. <S> When you do so, you may cast it for its miracle cost. <S> It doesn't matter whether it's an instant or sorcery; if you choose to cast it, you do so right away, even if it's at a time (such as your draw step) when you couldn't normally cast it. <S> And the CR: <S> 702.93a <S> Miracle is a static ability linked to a triggered ability (see rule 603.10). <S> "Miracle [cost]" means "You may reveal this card from your hand as you draw it if it's the first card you've drawn this turn. <S> When you reveal this card this way, you may cast it by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost." <A> Yes, he can. <S> It's a common misconception that you are forbidden from casting Sorcery spells outside of your turn. <S> There's no such restriction. <S> Priority simply doesn't give you the option to cast a Sorcery when it's not your turn. <S> But Priority isn't the only rule or effect that allows you to cast spells. <S> Miracle is one too. <S> 702.93a Miracle is a static ability linked to a triggered ability (see rule 603.10). <S> “Miracle [cost]” means “You may reveal this card from your hand as you draw it if it’s the first card you’ve drawn this turn. <S> When you reveal this card this way, you may cast it by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost.” <S> Unlike Priority, Miracle doesn't check the type of the card or whose turn it is. <A> The rules for Miracle <S> (702.93a) say Miracle is a static ability linked to a triggered ability (see rule 603.10). <S> "Miracle [cost]" means "You may reveal this card from your hand as you draw it if it's the first card you've drawn this turn. <S> When you reveal this card this way, you may cast it by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost. " <S> So, when your opponent activates the Top's ability, the following steps happen: <S> They draw Terminus, and put the Top on top of their Libary. <S> Terminus is the first card they draw that turn, so miracle ability allows them to reveal it. <S> Revealing it triggers the Miracle triggered ability. <S> The Miracle triggered ability starts to resolve, and they choose to cast Terminus for {W}. <S> They are casting Terminus as part of the process of resolving the ability, so normal timing rules do not apply . <S> Terminus resolves.
|
Yes, an opponent can use Sensei's Divining Top, or any other instant-speed draw effect, to draw and play a Miracle like Terminus on your turn.
|
Do morph cards suffer summoning sickness When you have the card face down then you morph the card to face up, does it suffer summoning sickness? My friend has lots of them in his deck and I'm not too sure and would like to know whether they suffer from summoning sickness the turn they are morphed. <Q> Playing creatures face down and turning them face up (commonly called morphing/unmorphing) has no effect on them having summoning sickness. <S> Unless they have haste, they have summoning sickness until they've been in play since the beginning of your most recent turn, whether they've been turned face up or not. <S> For example, if you play a creature face down then immediately turn it face up, it still has summoning sickness until your next turn. <S> Similarly, if you play a creature face down, wait til it no longer has summoning sickness, and then turn it face up, it still doesn't have summoning sickness. <S> Morph does have a lot of interesting rules associated with it, but a morphed creature is still a creature. <S> Morph means: <S> You may cast this card as a 2/2 face-down creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost by paying {3} rather than paying its mana cost. <S> There's nothing in there about having haste, so like all creatures, it has summoning sickness. <S> (It can't attack, and its activated abilities with a tap or untap symbol in their costs can't be activated unless it's been under your control since the beginning of your most recent turn.) <S> Similarly, turning it face up <S> has its share of rules, but all it really does is turn the creature face up: <S> [pay the cost] ... turn the permanent face up. ... <S> The morph effect on it ends, and it regains its normal characteristics. <S> It's still the same creature it was before, so if it already had summoning sickness, it still does, and if it didn't have summoning sickness, it still doesn't. <A> Let's recollect the summoning sickness rule: 302.6. <S> A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. <S> A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. <S> This rule is informally called the “summoning sickness” rule. <S> A creature with morph fully obeys this rule. <S> If you cast a creature and then morph it on the same turn - it will suffer from summoning sickness. <S> If you morph it during next turns and you didn't lose control of it - it won't suffer from summoning sickness and will be able to attack or use "tap" activated abilities. <A> No, it won't have "summoning sickness" unless it already had it. <S> Turning the card face up ("morphing") <S> just changes its characteristics, just like Giant Growth does. <S> Turning the card face up doesn't give or take away "summoning sickness" any more than Giant Growth does. <S> If you haven't controlled the card since the beginning of your turn, it has summoning sickness. <S> If it's a creature, it can't attack, and you can't use <S> it's {T} or {Q} abilities. <S> 302.6. <S> A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. <S> A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. <S> This rule is informally called the “summoning sickness” rule. <A> Summoning sickness is more a property of the card, and it affects cards that have Creature type. <S> So, if the card has summoning sickness while it's face-down, it'll still have summoning sickness when it's turned face up. <S> If it doesn't have summoning sickness, turning it face-up <S> won't re-give it summoning sickness: it's in the clear, it can attack and pay tap costs immediately, etc. <S> The lore behind morphing has always had the notion of a creature leaping out from disguise when it was turned face up. <S> In the Onslaught block, morph creatures came from a spider-shaped shell . <S> In Tarkir, morph takes on the flavour of being obscured by dragon magic : <S> In the story, morph is descended from a draconic magic. <S> The humans (and humanoid creatures) of Tarkir managed to take the draconic magic and warp it to their own means. <S> The key to the magic is that it hides the identity of the creature using it, making it harder to fight against, as you are forced to fight blindly without any knowledge of your foe. <S> So you're not summoning a new creature out of Morph that would obtain summoning sickness; the creature casts its disguise aside fully alert.
|
Morphing doesn't actually change the state of summoning sickness at all.
|
How can creatures with indestructible end up in the graveyard? How does a creature with indestructible end up in the graveyard? I have been trying to figure this out for a little while. <Q> Indestructible prevents the permanent from being destroyed. <S> This usually is caused by damage exceeding a creature's toughness, or an effect that explicitly says that it will destroy a permanent. <S> ( Tragic Slip , Black Sun's Zenith ) Being sacrificed. <S> ( Innocent Blood ) <S> Losing indestructible and being destroyed ( Hour of Devastation , Turn to Frog + destruction effect) <S> Other ways to deal with indestructible permanents that do not cause them to "die" include: Exiling. <S> ( Swords to Plowshares ) Bounce. <S> ( Unsummon ) <S> Interacting with them on the stack. <S> ( Counterspell ) <S> Discard. <S> ( Thoughtseize ) <S> Removal from the deck. <S> ( Memoricide ) <S> Taking control of them. <S> ( In Bolas's Clutches ) Move them to their owner's library. <S> ( Condemn ) <A> A creature with indestructible can die as a result of anything that is not damage ( Lightning Bolt ) and does not explicitly use the word 'destroy' ( Doom Blade ). <S> The most common ways: Toughness reduced to less than zero. <S> (This is neither damage nor a 'destroy' effect.) <S> e.g., Death Wind <S> The creature's controller is forced to sacrifice it. <S> e.g., All is Dust <A> Damage dealt with infect is able to kill Indestructible creatures. <S> This is because sources with infect deal damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters, which eventually can reduce the creature's toughness to 0 or less.
|
The main ways that a creature with indestructible will die (being put to the graveyard from the battlefield) will be: Having its toughness reduced to zero via -X/-X effects.
|
Passengers and Fugitives: can they be cashed in at a location, like goods? Just as some Nav cards give you Cargo and Contraband, which you can sell to a contact for cash, some situations result in you having extra Passengers or Fugitives. I know they may be useful to keep in case they are needed for a later mission, but is there any way to cash in on them at a location, like you can with cargo and contraband? Im playing currently with the vanilla Core set of Firefly the Board Game , but will accept answers related to the expansions, if its just not possible to "sell" fugitives or passengers in the core set. <Q> There is no way in either the base game or any of the expansions to "sell" fugitive or passengers. <S> This does not use an Action and can be done during another Action, on your turn. <S> Thematically this makes sense. <S> People however want to get to a certain place and won't be willing to pay if they wound up somewhere else <S> (would you pay if an airline dropped you off at the wrong city?). <A> In the Kalidasa expansion there are jobs from Fanty & Mingo where you Pick up a fixed amount of fugitives from one place, and drop off a variable amount at the destination. <S> So you get paid per fugitive. <A> You may trade with other players any time they are in the same sector as you. <S> You can trade as much or little as you both agree, for as much or little compensation as you both agree. <S> And if the Reavers just wiped out all their passengers and fugitives one sector away from delivering them for a critical job, I bet you could negotiate a really good price for those extra passengers you keep stored in your stash—er... hold, or wherever you keep them.
|
The FAQ describes the only way to get rid of them: You may drop Fugitives and Passengers off in any sector with a Planet (you can’t toss them out the air-lock in deep space). Goods left over from a failed job or found from salvage still have value to others aside from their intended recipient.
|
Ticket to Ride house rule to help players with short destination tickets The game balance in Ticket to Ride (in my social not highly competitive environment) seems to favour the person with the longest destination tickets and getting short tickets is almost automatically a loss. I have been wondering about game balance in Ticket to Ride and thought a good idea might be to allow a player to draw a new ticket after completing a mission and being allowed to throw it back if they don't want it. Perhaps we play in too friendly a fashion and the person with small tickets should be more disruptive of long routes but what are people's thoughts on the game balance and this suggestion? <Q> The goal in TTR is not "complete the cards you're given", it's "get the most points". <S> There are plenty of ways to do this with short routes (e.g. by focusing on building only length 4+, not going for longest route, and picking the spots where everyone wants to go). <S> If no one in your group wants to adjust their play style to match the cards they're dealt, then you obviously don't want to play the game as intended. <S> A rule change might be an outcome, but this perceived unfairness might be part of the process of getting to know the game mechanics. <S> I (...) thought a good idea might be to allow a player to draw a new ticket after completing a mission <S> This rule comes with a drawback. <S> You would have to show your completed routes, which is something you would normally do at the end of the game. <S> I would not recommend this as it would upset yet another part of the game. <A> I disagree that the player who draws the longest routes has an advantage. <S> A winning play in Ticket to Ride (TTR) doesn't boil down simply to that. <S> Here are a few reasons why I don't think changing the rules is necessary (according to my many many TTR games played): <S> Many games can be won by completing only small routes, and by using connections that are essential to connecting certain parts of the map that many players often want to use in a game (for example Omaha to Kansas City on the America map). <S> Choosing strategic routes (not simply the shortest one to get from on city to another) makes a big difference in TTR. <S> There is also the possibility to take smalls gambles when you think you have an idea of where someone wants to go. <S> Here's an example: if you think a player is trying to connect Houston to New Orleans in the America map, a move I have often used is to play that connection even if it has nothing to do with my objectives. <S> As I said, it is a gamble, but more often than not you can somewhat judge the direction a player is heading in. <S> Another good strategy is to draw three more route cards on your first turn, and sometimes three more on your second turn. <S> You will be behind other players in map building cards, but you can potentially have 5-6 route cards that you can manage to connect with 25-30 trains. <S> My opinion is that in TTR there are many ways of playing to avoid the winner to often be the one with the longest route cards drawn at the beginning. <A> How much have you played? <S> However, other players can disrupt the player by blocking his routes... <S> in which case he loses a lot points. <S> Also - the 1910 expansion has <S> a 'most tickets' complete bonus -which gives a bonus 15 points. <A> Yes, without the risk of beïng disrupted, the long routes are a winner. <S> I'm not sure if your solution helps. <S> But I have a few of my own: <S> Disregard the points for the routes. <S> Divide the routes in three stacks (long, middle and short). <S> First deplete the long routes, then the middle and then the short. <S> That way each player has a similar chance for long routes. <A> In my experience, I don't think starting with short tickets is an automatic loss. <S> In fact, I've been very successful with shorter tickets. <S> When I start with short tickets, I try to complete them fairly quickly, but keeping an eye on the long routes on the board. <S> Completing a 6-long route gives you 15 points. <S> Your routes do not need to connect to each other, so just going around gobbling up the longer routes is a viable strategy, especially since it will be fairly disruptive to the other players. <S> In addition, the 1910 expansion gives 15 points to the player with the most tickets. <A> I think you could mitigate this by having a hand drafting of initial routes, ala 7 wonders/agricola. <S> Let's say you seed each player with a minimum of two long routes and two short. <S> On top of that, people will have partial knowledge of routes in play which may lead to more screwage. <A> Yes, I've also observed that to be the case in friendly games of the original TTR. <S> Probably it means that you have to be more aggressive in disrupting each others routes. <S> Other boards, like Netherlands and Africa, don't have the super long routes that TTR, TTR Marklin and Switzerland have, perhaps this change was in part to fix that imbalance. <A> Don't lose sight of the bonuses for long route segments. <S> For instance, in the Europe version there is only one eight route segment worth as much as a long route all by itself. <S> Folks can get so caught up in the routes that they lose sight of the points available by simply grabbing long segments. <S> There is an added benefit that grabbing random long segments might mess up an opponents route segment plans for their formal routes.
|
I agree that someone who gets lucky and gets several long tickets that are all along the same route will have a big advantage.
|
Can Auras be moved between creatures? Say I play Valeron Warden and then play Knightly Valor , enchanting Valeron Warden. Valeron Warden now has +2/+2 and Vilgilance. On the next turn, I play Archangel of Tithes , a much stronger creature. To make it stronger, can I move the enchantment, Knightly Valor from Valeron Warden and enchant Archangel of Tithes? All I can find on this is that it must have a target and that it can be sent to the graveyard if the target is sent to the graveyard. <Q> There are exceptions though, cards like Simic Guildmage have the ability to move Auras to different permanents, and Illusory Gains moves itself whenever a creature enters the battlefield. <A> No you cannot move the enchantment (unless you have a card like Aura Finesse . <S> Aura spells need a target when they are cast. <S> 113.1b <S> Aura spells are always targeted. <S> These are the only permanent spells with targets. <S> An Aura’s target is specified by its enchant keyword ability (see rule 702.5, “Enchant”). <S> The target(s) are chosen as the spell is cast; see rule 601.2c. <S> An Aura permanent doesn’t target anything; only the spell is targeted. <S> (An activated or triggered ability of an Aura permanent can also be targeted.) <S> The target is only chosen when it is cast and is a spell (ie. <S> on the stack but before it has resolved and entered the battlefield). <S> Unless something allows you to move it ( Simic Guildmage , etc.) <S> there is no way for you to cast it again while it is on the battlefield and choose a new target. <A> An Aura is attached to something when it enters the battlefield, and it doesn't get to move around. <S> From the basic rules (in the glossary): Aura A special type of enchantment that can be attached to a permanent. <S> Each Aura has the keyword "enchant" followed by what it can be attached to: "enchant creature," "enchant land," and so on. <S> When you cast an Aura spell, you choose one of the right kind of permanent to target. <S> When theAura resolves, it's put onto the battlefield attached to that permanent (it's not targeting it anymore). <S> The Aura stays there until it's destroyed or the permanent it's attached to leaves the battlefield. <S> If the permanent leaves the battlefield, the Aura card is put into your graveyard. <S> Yes, you can figure out the answer to your question from the comprehensive rules (113.1b plus the generic rules for casting a spell in 601.2, and the lack of anything in the rules that says you can move it around), but the basic rules are easier and quicker to understand, and you also learn a lot more in the process. <S> For example in this case, you learned for free that auras go to the graveyard when they get detached, but from the comprehensive rules you'd have to have thought to look up state-based actions to find out. <S> And to really verify that there wasn't something somewhere that did say they could be moved, you'd have to search/read through everything about auras.
|
In general once an Aura is enchanting an object it stays enchanting that object. There are no rules that allow you to move Auras from one object to another, therefore you cannot do it.
|
Am I allowed to take a red 5 after reaching? When I'm in riichi and draw a red 5 from the wall, am I allowed to exchange it with the non-red 5 in my hand? I would argue it might be allowed, because it does not change the yaku, wait or hand structure in any way. In case the above is correct, what happens in case there is an (isolated) 678 in my hand? Would I be allowed to discard the 8? Given the above rationale, the answer should be yes. However, this could be very complex in practice if the 678 were not isolated, or if there are were similar sequences in other colors, and I doubt this would be acceptable for the players to keep exact track of. In comparison: I've learned earlier that a kan is allowed, when there are 3 equal tiles already present. <Q> I think most "official" rules will not allow you to do this. <S> (For reference, I looked up the Japanese Mahjong rules from the European Mahjong association here .) <S> In principle, I think swapping tiles that do not change the wait structure would be allowed, but it is impossible to verify. <S> In your example of swapping the 5 for the 8, all that is visible is the discarded 8. <S> From an outsider perspective, it is possible that you completed a different meld and simply discarded an 8 from 5-6-7-8 in hand. <S> It also appears that the hidden kan/kong is allowed, but only when the pung is isolated and cannot be interpreted as a different set of melds (e.g., you cannot draw and complete a kong if you have 1-1-1, 2-2-2, 3-3-3, because those tiles could be interpreted as 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3). <A> According to the Japanese Wikipedia article on riichi : 打牌の選択（手牌の入れ替え）ができない。つまり、和了する場合と後述の暗槓する場合を除いて、自摸した牌をそのまま捨てなければならない。 Translating, this means "You are no longer allowed to select your discards (switching the drawn tile with a tile in your hand). <S> In other words, save for drawing your winning tile or calling a concealed kan as described below, you must discard each tile you draw." <S> That means if you draw a red five after calling riichi, it's either your winning tile <S> and you're calling tsumo, you have three other fives of the same type and you're calling a concealed kan, or you're discarding it. <A> Japanese mahjong does not allow swapping tiles into the hand after riichi, as noted by so many. <S> Apocryphally, the European Mahjong Association did allow this between 2008 and 2012 (changed that year) because their community's comprehension of the rules as played elsewhere was incomplete and lacking, so they made stuff up to bridge the gaps. <S> Now, EMA rules from 2016 onward are functionally the same to what people would consider to be modern Japanese mahjong, with variance only related to protocol and game etiquette, with a natural focus on a competitive style. <S> As for using Japanese wikipedia or a pro organization or a jansou chain as a source: it depends who, for what, and under what optics. <S> Using a single source might not always work, but if they all conform to one or two clear options, then it does make sense. <S> There are people who have their done their research on this and other topics already. <S> Some things do have variance: this isn't one of them. <S> House rules govern agreements between 4 players that have chosen to abide by them, but this does not make them normalized or "an equivalent option" because they simply are not common or relevant enough to make that distinction.
|
You cannot simply switch a red five with a regular five, even if it wouldn't change your waits.
|
Can The Card "Suppression Bonds" enchant a creature with Shroud So the description of Suppression Bonds states: Enchant non land permanent. Enchanted permanent can't attack or block, and it's activated abilities can't be activated. The card doesn't use the word target so basically I was confused on whether or not I could use it on a creature with shroud. Any clarification is welcome and appreciated. P.S. If it can enchant a creature with shroud using this method, could I also use other cards that do not specifically target a creature with shroud? <Q> It depends on how you are enchanting the creature. <S> This is because aura spells target while they are on the stack. <S> 114.1b Aura spells are always targeted. <S> These are the only permanent spells with targets. <S> An Aura’s target is specified by its enchant keyword ability (see rule 702.5, “Enchant”). <S> If the aura is entering the battlefield due to some ability or spell just putting it there (like Starfield of Nyx 's triggered ability) you can put it on a creature with shroud, because the aura is not on the stack, therefore it doesn't target. <S> 303.4f <S> If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player’s control by any means other than by resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn’t specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. <S> The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura’s enchant ability and any other applicable effects. <A> Suppression Bonds is an Aura and as such, it targets as per the following rule: 303.4a <S> An Aura spell requires a target, which is defined by its enchant ability. <A> As an answer to your main question, see Diego's answer. <S> In response to your P.s. <S> , yes shroud only prevents the creature from being targeted - nothing else. <S> For example Clone , Wrath of God , Diabolic Edict , Prahv, Spires of Order , Sovereigns of Lost Alara , Quest for the Holy Relic and Bolster do not target creatures and all work against or with a creature with shroud. <S> Generally things that specify 'all' of something, or things that target players can effect creatures with shroud. <S> There are some cards, like Clone that say 'choose' rather than target, or that do things to specific cards without using the word 'target' like Sovereigns of Lost Alara - for these, if the card is older, it is generally worth double checking, as it may have had errata like Blue Elemental Blast which on the printed card doesn't mention targeting, but has had errata to include that word*, but other than these older cards with errata you can generally choose or select a creature with shroud, so long as the card doesn't target and you aren't casting an aura or equipping an equipment. <S> N.b. <S> Generally these cards also get around protection - Clone or Wrath of God for example ignore protection just as they ignore shroud, that said Diego's specific example (getting an enchantment on to a battlefield without casting it) doesn't get around protection like it does shroud. <S> (Protection prevents Damage, Enchanting, Blocking and Targeting - providing the handy acronym DEBT - from anything that meets the criteria it has protection from; The classic example is that even Progenitus is killed by Day of Judgement ) <S> Example <S> Cyclonic Rift cannot effect a creature with shroud because it tries to target the creature, unless it is Overloaded, in which case it no longer targets and it instead effects ' <S> each creature you don't control', rather than 'target creature you don't control'. <S> You can see this verified in the first and second rulings on Gatherer for Cyclonic Rift . <S> *Generally done to preserve the original intended functionality following a rule change.
|
If you are casting the spell then no, you cannot enchant a creature with shroud.
|
If you knock, but actually have a gin hand, is it valid to change it after you've knocked? I was playing a game of gin rummy when I knocked for a non-zero amount. As I laid out my cards, I noticed that I could have rearranged to cards and gone gin. Now this isn't a question about whether or not changing my declaration of knock to gin was in the spirit of fairness , just whether or not it is allowed by the rules. We consulted the wikipedia page on gin rummy, read the section on knocking, and found: Once a player knocks or declares gin the round is over and scores are tallied, players cannot draw. The purpose of this sentence could be interpreted as: Saying that when either knocking or declaring gin, the had is over and a declaration cannot be changed OR simply that the sentence is trying to point out that a draw is no longer possible at this point OR both (the two are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive) The knocking section does not seem to state clearly whether or not a knock hand can be changed to gin if the knocking player realizes their mistake. And to add spice to this question, the interpretation of the rules is especially important, because the defending player, had I only knocked, would have been able to undercut me. So it wasn't just a question of whether I was going to receive X or Y points, it was a question of whether I would win the hand or be undercut. Not looking for opinions, as we could create our own house rule out of this scenario going forward. Looking for any kind of official reference on the matter if one exists. <Q> It is important to note that knocking and going gin are not mutually exclusive. <S> From Pagat : Knocking with no unmatched cards at all is called going gin [...] <S> And Wikipedia : <S> Knocking with 0 points of deadwood <S> is known as going Gin or having a Gin hand [...] <S> If you announced a non-zero count , then you are stuck with the count that you announced and cannot take it back. <S> Your opponent may proceed to lay off cards. <S> If you did not announce a count , but you have arranged your cards into matched and unmatched groups, then your count is the total of the unmatched cards, and it is too late to change your mind. <S> If you are still in the process of arranging your cards, then your count is not finalized yet, and you can still change your mind. <A> The sequence of play should be: <S> You knock <S> You announce your count (or gin) <S> You can do this silently by laying down your cards organized with the extras clearly off to the side in an unmatched group. <S> Your opponent lays out there hand, laying off on your cards <S> if you didn't gin. <S> The important questions are then - <S> Did you announce a count? <S> Did your opponent begin laying down their hand? <S> If you'd announced a count, you're stuck with it. <S> If you hadn't, and your opponent laid down their hand, they've jumped the gun a bit and you should be allowed to reorganize and formally announce your count. <S> The rules on RummyTalk don't address this directly, but the above is how I've played in tournaments (admittedly just local (<100 people) tournaments. <S> Obviously you'd want to bring in the official to get the ruling directly. <A> Hoyle says "the cards read themselves"
|
If you announced a zero count , then you have gone gin.
|
What's a good way to shuffle sleeved cards? I usually use a riffle shuffle with unsleeved cards. Riffle shuffling sleeved cards however is, uh, slightly disastrous as cards frequently get caught in the sleeve openings. What's a good way to shuffle sleeved cards? iIs there's good riffle technique? <Q> While cards are equally thick across the surface, cards in sleeves are not. <S> They get thinner near the edges. <S> This makes for a very easy faro shuffle. <S> But generally, just make sure you're shuffling the cards along their long edges. <S> This prevents cards falling out of their sleeves and sleeves intertwining. <A> What I do is have the top of the sleeves pointed away from me, split the deck into two parts, and riffle them so they are in a V shape with only the bottom right corner of the left pile over lapping the bottom left of the right pile. <S> If you sill cannot shuffle them that way <S> the next best way is a mash shuffle or side shuffle. <S> For this one take the deck and split it in two piles again, then take the two piles and 'mash' them together along the long side. <S> There are other ways of shuffling as shown on Wikipedia , but from what I've heard these are the two techniques that create a random deck the fastest. <A> Riffle is not easy on the sleeves or the cards. <S> Use the faro shuffle on the long edge and then do a "power shuffle". <S> One by one from the top of the deck make 6 - 8 files. <S> Once all cards are in 6 - 8 smaller piles, randomly start stacking the piles. <S> Then cut and perform a faro shuffle. <S> Performing both of these techniques a couple of times will give you an adequate shuffle without damaging sleeves or cards.
|
I usually use a riffle shuffle with sleeved cards with not problems.
|
BANG! Where do cards played in phase 2 go when "Abandoned Mine" is in effect In the Fistful of Cards expansion pack for the card game BANG!, the Abandoned Mine card states in both languages used on the card: Nella propria fase 1, il giocatore pesca dagli scarti (se finiscono, pesca dal mazzo). Nella propria fase 3, scarta a faccia in giù sul mazzo. During his phase 1, each player draws from the discards (if they run out, from the deck). In his phase 3, he discards face down on the deck. Unfortunately, it never says what to do with the cards played in phase 2. Argument 1 Some would argue that for the whole round, the discard pile becomes the draw pile and the original draw pile becomes the discard pile. So for example, during your phase 2, when you play a Bang! card, it would go face down on the original draw pile. Argument 2 However, this card is very specific about stating which "phase" things happen in. Therefore, the other argument (and the one that it sounds like the card seems to say) is that: ONLY during phase 1, and ONLY during phase 3 the draw pile and discard pile are swapped. For example: when playing a Bang! card in phase 2, it would go to the original discard pile (face-up stack). This can get weird at times, because when playing Indians , the card says that all other players need to discard a Bang! card in order to avoid being hit. Since they are "discarding", would those cards go to the face-down pile? References Phases are talked about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang!#Gameplay And the Fistful of cards expansion is talked about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang!#A_Fistful_Of_Cards (When speaking about the Abandoned Mine, it's language does not use what is stated on the card.) So, where are cards played in phase 2 actually placed? <Q> The actual answer is a little more complicated and so doesn't match either of the arguments. <S> While the original card's wording (Italian/English) doesn't match the effect, it doesn't affect played cards (like the Bang! <S> you mentioned), nor does it affect other players outside of their turn <S> (so Bang! <S> cards discarded for Indians are discarded as normal). <S> This is clarified in their official FAQ on the expansion : <S> Q4. <S> Where I have to place my played cards while Abandoned Mine is in play, especially when I play Wells Fargo, General Store or Stagecoach? <S> A. <S> There is a difference between "discarded" and "played" cards: Stagecoach, General Store and Wells Fargo are "played", while cards exceeding hand size limit at the end of the turn or by means of a Duel are "discarded". <S> So, discarded cards goes on the draw deck, while played cards go on the discard deck. <S> Draw the cards after Stagecoach and Wells Fargo always from the draw deck. <S> Note that this applies to current player only: all other players draw and discard normally. <S> For clarification, here's how it works with certain cards. <S> In all cases, the played card will go to the discard pile: <S> Cat Balou : Unless you play it on yourself, the target will discard it normally. <S> Duel : The Bang! <S> cards <S> you discard will be put on the deck, but those discarded by your opponent will go to the discard pile. <S> Indians : <S> All Bang! <A> I play with the French version of the game which is very clear and could be translated as follow: <S> During phase 1 every player picks his card from the discard pile if it is possible. <S> If so, every card discarded during his round will be put face-down on the draw pile Translation from the original French card: Durant sa phase 1, si c'est possible, chaque joueur pioche ses cartes dans la défausse. <S> Si c'est le cas, toutes <S> les cartes <S> défaussées pendant son tour seront posées face cachée sur le paquet <A> From what I understand of the card, and from the wikipedia link which states players draw from the discard pile and discard on the top of the deck. <S> is that when you play a card during phase 2 or if you make anyone discard cards (ex. Cat Balou) then it would go on top of the deck. <S> My card (similar to VGO's translation but from Italian) has confirmed my understanding of this card.
|
cards discarded by opponents will go to the discard pile.
|
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? <Q> In general, you could win while a "you lose" effect is on the stack. <S> 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). <S> However, with the Immortal Coil situation you describe, you lose . <S> This is because the Immortal Coil in question won't create another triggered ability on the stack until the first one isn't there. <S> 603.8. <S> 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. <S> These abilities trigger as soon as the game state matches the condition. <S> They'll go onto the stack at the next available opportunity. <S> These are called state triggers. <S> (Note that state triggers aren't the same as state-based actions.) <S> A state-triggered ability doesn't trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack. <S> 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. <S> 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. <S> 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. <A> A tricky one, and I fear I might be mistaken, but I suppose the answer still lies in 603.8 rule in the linked question (emphasis mine): 603.8. <S> 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. <S> These abilities trigger as soon as the game state matches the condition. <S> They’ll go onto the stack at the next available opportunity. <S> These are called state triggers. <S> (Note that state triggers aren’t the same as state-based actions.) <S> A state-triggered ability doesn’t trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack. <S> 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. <S> Therefore, even if Immortal Coil is now owned by your opponent with no cards in his graveyard, it won't trigger since its ability is on the stack. <S> However, if you, for example Stifle it before it resolves, it will trigger again, but for your opponent now. <A> One thing to note though is rule 109.5: <S> The words “you” and “your” on an object refer to the object’s controller, its would-be controller (if a player is attempting to play, cast, or activate it), or its owner (if it has no controller). <S> For a static ability, this is the current controller of the object <S> it’s on. <S> For an activated ability, this is the player who activated the ability. <S> For a triggered ability, this is the controller of the object when the ability triggered , unless it’s a delayed triggered ability. <S> To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f. <S> To my understanding, this means even if the ability resolves when Immortal Coil is under you opponent's control, the ability will still cause you to lose. <S> However do see the last part of Vilmar's answer. <A> There's actually a known Modern deck that can do exactly this: Ad Nauseaum. <S> You can read more about the deck and how it works here . <S> To quote from the section "Why should you play Ad Nauseam?" <S> c) <S> Opponent: "I cast [some lethal spell]/swing for lethal." <S> You: <S> "In response, Pact of Negation / Slaughter Pact . <S> On my turn, untap, upkeep: while the Pact trigger is on the stack, Angel's Grace + Ad Nauseam , draw my entire library, kill you." <S> In principle Angel's Grace would also keep you alive through the Pact's you-lose-the-game trigger, without having to play Ad Nauseaum.
|
The given answers are correct - you can win with a "you lose the game" trigger on the stack as long as you win the game before the trigger resolves.
|
Can Mizzium Meddler steal the effect of a Renown ability? Basically, I am thinking of a situation: say Outland Colossus attacks and deals damage to a player. Before the Renown ability resolves, can I activate Mizzium Meddler to steal the six +1/+1 counters? Is Renown an ability that Mizzium Meddler can steal? I am not sure how Renown works on the stack, if at all. <Q> Mizzium Meddler cannot 'steal' the Renown of the Colossus. <S> This is <S> because Renown is not a targeted ability, it just effects the creature it is on. <S> 702.111a <S> “Renown N” means “When this creature deals combat damage to a player, if it isn’t renowned, put N +1/+1 counters on it and it becomes renowned.” <S> As you can see there is no mention of targeting anywhere in the rules, thus the Meddler cannot redirect it. <S> Note that the Meddler can still target the ability, it will just do nothing since there are no targets to change. <S> If Mizzium Meddler’s triggered ability targets a spell or ability with no targets, nothing happens. <A> No, you cannot. <S> Renown is a triggered ability: 702.111a <S> Renown is a triggered ability . <S> “Renown N” means “When this creature deals combat damage to a player, if it isn’t renowned, put N +1/+1 counters on it and it becomes renowned.” <S> But it is not targeted, since to be considered one it should have the word "target" in it: <S> 114.1d <S> A triggered ability is targeted if it identifies something it will affect by using the phrase “target [something],” where the “something” is a phrase that describes an object, player, or zone. <S> The target(s) are chosen as the ability is put on the stack; see rule <S> 603.3d. <S> Therefore you can target triggered Renown ability, but nothing will happen since you won't be able to change the target as Renown doesn't have one. <A> No. <S> Only three things target: <S> Spells and abilities on the stack that have the word "target" in their text. <S> Spells and abilities on the stack that have a keyword ability that has the word "target" in their text. <S> Auras on the stack (since the rules for them uses the word "target"). <S> "Renown" is keyword ability, but it doesn't have the word "target" in its text: <S> 702.111a Renown is a triggered ability. <S> “Renown N” means “When this creature deals combat damage to a player, if it isn’t renowned, put N +1/+1 counters on it and it becomes renowned.”
|
Renown is a triggered ability. Mizzium Meddler can't affect the ability since it has no target to change.
|
Removing Assassin in 3 players game In French rules, playing at 3 means having two characters at every rounds.One character card goes face down then crown owner chooses a character and pass the rest to next player. If the crown owner takes Assassin , he will assassinate without any risk because he can deduce two missing character cards.I'm thinking a 100% hit ratio by Assassin is nonsense, assassination is a risky task and thus should not be at 100%. Also, this can be extended this to the Thief with a 100% hit rate if taken by crown owner (and if Assassin is face down). What do you think about removing Assassin and Thief and inserting Artist to make a more balanced 3 players game ? <Q> I think this would actually be less balanced. <S> Assassin From the perspective of the choosing player, the main strength of the Assassin is rarely the actual assassination. <S> The Assassin's main strength is actually that since he plays first, he is able to avoid attacks by the Thief and Magician. <S> (Occassionally the Assassin's player will benefit directly by eliminating the Magician or Warlord) <S> The player who generally benefits most from an assassination is the non-involved player, since (unless he took Warlord) is the only one who can take two actions towards city improvement. <S> Thief <S> The thief in a 3-player game still has a lot of things that can go wrong. <S> He could be killed by the Assassin prior to being able to steal. <S> If one opponent has coins and the other does not, he has a 50% chance to choose the wrong player and get no money. <S> If he only sees roles late in the rotation, (ex: Merchant and Architect), there is a good chance the target will also have an earlier role and have spent the money already. <S> Probable Effects of Removing Assassin and Thief <S> This would be extremely unbalanced. <S> Can you imagine a game where the Magician goes first every round? <A> If you are adding the 9th role, there is a different solution for the same problem. <S> When we play a 3 player game, the roles are distributed as follows: <S> Player 1 puts one card face down (1), and picks one (2). <S> Player 2 picks a card (3) <S> Player 3 picks a card (4) and puts one face down <S> (5) Player 1 picks a card (6) <S> Player 2 picks a card (7) and puts one face down (8) <S> Player 3 picks up the first face-down card (1) and chooses from this card and the last (9). <S> The remaining card goes face down. <S> This method of picking up the first face-down card is based on the 8 player rule from the Dark City expansion. <S> With this, there is no 100% knowledge. <S> Alternatively , if you don't have the 9th role, you could let the first player choose which card to place face down, but it has to be either the thief or the assassin. <S> This doesn't solve the problem, but takes some weight off the circulating 100% knowledge. <A> I've played a lot of 3-player games and <S> no, I don't agree. <S> Here's why: <S> The Artist is actually a crappy character. <S> He doesn't do anything except defend some of your districts, which he doesn't even do for free. <S> Whenever my playgroup tried using the Artist, nobody would pick him at all. <S> The Assassin does get a 100% hit rate, but crucially there is no guarantee on who he hits. <S> For example, say the three players are Alice, Bob and Charlie. <S> Alice has the crown counter and picks the Assassin. <S> This means she can guarantee a hit on either Bob or Charlie, but she can't guarantee a hit on Bob or Charlie. <S> Say Bob is currently leading, so Alice wants to hit Bob. <S> But she might end up killing Charlie. <S> Since the Assassin (like the Artist) doesn't add any extra value, this just ends up extending Bob's lead. <S> The Assassin is great in a 1v1 game, but in a 1v1v1 game, you have to stop both opponents from winning, not just one. <S> The upshot actually is that my playgroup considers the Assassin pretty bad, and he's not usually picked first. <S> The Thief can be played around by using as much gold as you can each turn. <S> Near the end of the game with one player threatening to win, what the others will generally try is to pick the Assassin & Thief to stop the player from winning, because these are the strongest gankers. <S> If you remove them then the only gankers you have are the Magician (and that doesn't even work unless you have weak cards in hand) and the Warlord (but since the Warlord moves last, the player might have build 8 districts already, and the Warlord cannot gank). <S> tl; dr: don't remove the Assassin and the Thief, and if your friends want to keep picking the Assassin, let them.
|
If you remove the Assassin and Thief, the most severe consequence is that ganking gets much weaker .
|
Will Endless One still enter with X +1/+1 counters while Humility's in play? Humility says "all creatures lose all abilities and have base power and toughness 1/1" and Endless One comes into play with X +1/+1 counters. According to a comment in How to understand Humility once and for all , triggered abilities don't get triggered with Humility, but I'm thinking Endless One's ETB "ability" doesn't count because it's not a triggered ability? Because it doesn't say "when it enters the battlefield X +1/+1 counters are placed on it"? <Q> As other answers have mentioned, Endless One's ability is a replacement effect that modifies how it enters the battlefield. <S> The new version of rule 614.12 says: Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. <S> (See rules 614.1c–d.) <S> Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). <S> They may also come from other sources. <S> To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities that would apply to it once it’s on the battlefield, and continuous effects that already exist and would apply to the permanent . <S> Applying this kind of replacement effect involves checking continuous effects that already exist. <S> Humility's ability is one such continuous effect, and applying it removes the ability that would add the counters. <S> The Ixalan Comprehensive Rules Update goes into some detail about how this rule changed, and it specifically mentions a similar situation: <S> Humility causes creatures with modular to enter without their +1/+1 counters. <S> For reference, the definition of Modular is <S> Modular represents both a static ability and a triggered ability. <S> “Modular N” means <S> “This permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it” and “When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, you may put a +1/+1 counter on target artifact creature for each +1/+1 counter on this permanent.” <S> The part of the Modular ability that affects how the permanent enters the battlefield has basically the same wording as Endless One's ability, so Endless One's ability is affected the same way by the rules change. <A> You are right that it doesn't affect it because of the below rule, it will get it's counters and it is indeed not a triggered ability: 614.12. <S> Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. <S> (See rules 614.1c–d.) <S> Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). <S> They may also come from other sources. <S> To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent’s characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it . <A> Endless One's ability is not a triggered ability. <S> 112.3c <S> Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. <S> They are written as “[Trigger condition], [effect],” and include (and usually begin with) the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” <S> [...] <S> Endless One's ability is a replacement effect. <S> 614.1c <S> Effects that read “ <S> [This permanent] enters the battlefield with . <S> . <S> . <S> ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . <S> . <S> . ,” <S> or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . ” <S> are replacement effects. <S> Because Endless One's ability is a replacement effect, it ignores continuous effects that are not its own for the purposes of determining how the effect would apply. <S> 614.12. <S> [...] <S> To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent’s characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it. <S> Although Humility's continuous effect is ignored momentarily, it still applies as the permanent enters. <S> For example: If you pay {0}, then Endless One will enter as a 1/1. <S> If you pay {5}, then Endless One will enter as a 6/6.
|
As of the Ixalan rules update, Endless One will not enter the battlefield with counters if Humility is on the battlefield.
|
Is it possible to lose Catan to a player with fewer points than you? So let's say you are playing a 6-person game. You have 9 points. During Special Building Phase, you reach 11 points. However, you have not won yet because it is not your turn yet. In the meantime, another player reaches 10 points on her turn. She has beaten you, even though you have more points that her. From the official Catan FAQ : Victory Conditions: Can I win during the special building phase? Answer: No. You can only win during your own turn. Based on this FAQ, I'd have to believe the answer is yes, but it's the first time I realized it's possible. I suppose it could also happen during a 4 player game: Let's say you have 9 points. During someone else's turn, the Longest Road is broken up and is transferred to you, putting you at 11 points. However, you have not yet won yet, because it's not your turn. In the meantime, another player reaches 10 points on his turn. <Q> Victory Conditions: <S> Can I win during the special building phase? <S> Answer: <S> No. <S> You can only win during your own turn. <S> So <S> yes if you reach 11 points and it is not your turn it doesn't matter and someone else will still win if they reach 10 points on their turn <S> and it is before your next turn. <S> In Catan it isn't just about reaching 10 points to win but to do it on your turn as there is a chance you could lose some points before your next turn. <A> (Warning: clicking on the rules link below will start a PDF file download.) <S> You can lose to an opponent with less points than you. <S> From the Catan 5th Edition Rules : <S> Ending the Game <S> If you have 10 or more victory points during your turn , the game ends and you are the winner! <S> If you reach 10 points when it is not your turn, the game continues until any player (including you) has 10 points on his turn. <S> It states that you must have 10 or more points, and it must be your turn. <S> If you meet those two conditions, you win. <A> Yes The victory condition is not "who has the most points." <S> The victory condition is "who has gotten ten (or more points) on their turn. <S> " That is to say, the issue is one of "winning a race for a high score," not one of the "highest score." <S> If your opponents' actions take you to, or over 10, and its not your turn, you haven't (yet) fulfilled the victory condition. <S> After all, some other opponent could take some action to nullify your advantage. <S> If no one decreases your point count, and no one reaches ten before your turn, you win. <S> If someone does reach ten on a turn prior to yours, they have won the "race. <S> " That's true even if you have the same, or larger number of points than their ten. <A> This can happen even in vanilla Catan. <S> Imagine 4, players, A, B, C, and D. <S> You are A and have 9 points. <S> D has the longest road. <S> On B's turn, B builds a settlement that breaks up D's longest road, giving you the longest road. <S> Now you have 11 points, but it's not your turn. <S> Then C goes, gets a 10th point and wins, even though you have 11 points. <S> There are imaginable scenarios where this could happen in 3 person Catan too.
|
The rule does not say you have to have the most points. Yes, as it says in the rules you quoted you can only win on your turn
|
How to shorten Puerto Rico to fit one hour? I do love Puerto Rico, it's mostly strategy oriented over random factors. But this board game is so long to play, I would like to shorten the play time to fit one hour. Do you have suggestions for this? <Q> We have played 2-3 times a month for a long time. <S> Of course games are shorter with fewer people and go faster when everyone is well acquainted with the game. <S> We have played normal extended version games in about an hour with 3 people. <S> We recently added a column of property spaces on each town to extend play - you could remove a column to shorten play. <S> You can deal out some random plantations at the start to accelerate play (like a bunch of Hacienda plays.) <S> You may give everyone a quarry to accelerate play. <S> You may add squares to the trading center or to the ships to accelerate play. <S> You may add 2 coins jnstead of one to unused roles. <S> Note that any of these steps will alter the playing strategies from a normal game. <S> Cheers. <A> Play it more often. <S> I finish two-player games with an expert friend in about 50 minutes, after having played a lot over the Internet and live. <S> As you start learning the buildings and understand the two fundamental strategies of the game, i.e., building vs shipping, you'll start realizing your chances faster. <S> There are a lot of house rules you can apply to accelerate game play, most of them already mentioned, but all of them giving advantages to specific strategies or players in a specific player order. <S> In general, there are two ways to go: 1. <S> Nevertheless, be aware that shortening the game by removing colonists or building spots favors in general the building strategy, as a heavy builder will try to build the Guild Hall and fill in his spaces or empty the colonist pool before the shippers' engines kick in. <S> Removing some VP chits might counterbalance it, but I am not sure. <S> 2. <S> Make it easier for players to reach the current game-ending conditions .You <S> can provide them with infrastructure, such as: <S> Random plantations; would make the game too random, though, giving advantage to players who might receive corn. <S> First player with starting corn and having the first pick on the first quarry is in a very good position. <S> Starting colonists. <S> It will shift the advantage to the first/second player. <S> A huge headache of the first two players is that they don't receive a second colonist, therefore they can't do much, except if they got a corn during the first settler. <S> A quarry to each player. <S> This sounds fair, but again favors the building strategy a bit more now. <S> More coins to each player. <S> This could work. <S> However, I read on BGG that a couple of simulations have been carried on the Puerto Rico AI, by giving $100 to each player; 3rd player would win 100% of the time. <S> So, more coins might mean more advantage to the 3rd spot. <A> The quick answer would be to use a timer and set it to an hour. <S> When the timer goes off, you can finish the round. <S> You might try limiting the spaces available for buildings, maybe remove a row or column, thus filling the spaces more quickly and triggering the endgame. <S> Also, remove some of the potential workers from the worker pool. <S> I'm not sure how these changes would affect the overall game play, and any changes may introduce adverse effects that can be exploited. <S> I'd love to hear how they work if you try them. <A> If you play in 2 players, chess clock is always good. <S> If you play Puerto Rico online, the mean of the duration is around 27 minutes. <S> So technically is possible to play even faster. <S> You can speed up by having the paper and pen and writing the scores down there. <S> Searching for the VPs (1 or 5) is a lil' bit lengthy. <S> Especially when you firstly put 3 objects on the ship, then other 2, so you get 5, but u take five ones, not one five. <S> The minus is, the results are public. <S> But in 2-players mode it does not mater (you + opponent is always 65). <A> I would use a "first past the post" rule. <S> In my answer to another question, I noted the following: <S> "I'm used to games where someone wins if they are the first to reach a specified number of victory points, say 15, or if they have the most victory points at the end of a specified number of rounds, say 15." <S> That's the kind of rule that makes for a short, or at least time-limited game. <S> Further on, I wrote:" " <S> But that's not how Puerto Rico works. <S> Basically, you win if the game ends [when you run out of one of three things, colonists, victory points, or building space] when you have the most victory points. <S> So the goal of the game is not just to get the most victory points, but to end the game when you have the most." <S> This is the feature that lengthens the game. <S> Eliminate it, and you have a shorter game.
|
Shorten the game-ending conditions .That means, remove colonists, building spaces and/or victory point chips from the game.
|
Has anyone heard of a game called connect 5 I have memories of a game. I'm 30 now and I think I was most likely early teens when I played it, so probably sometime around 1998 or so. I think it was called "connect 5" but I'm not positive on that. It was played by dropping tiles into a physical vertical grid. The game was like the famous "connect 4" except. You had to get 5 in a row rather than 4 to win. The grid had far more positions than a connect 4 grid. The counters were much smaller to accomodate this. It had some (two iirc) horizontal "tricky move" bars in the grid. Instead of dropping in a tile a player could chose to move these bars. This would move tiles sideways and could sometimes cause them to fall out of the grid. My web searches for connect 5 doesn't turn up anything like this game. Is my memory faulty? <Q> I found this game today at a house garage sale, called "Challenging Tricky 5 <S> In A Row Game", which looks like what you're asking about: <A> It was called Shift, but I have no idea who manufactured it or what year it was published. <S> I'm looking right at it right now <S> , it's in my hand, but there's absolutely no identifying marks other than the cover image, the title, "(THE TRICKY CONNECT-FIVE) GAME", and the instructions on the back that describe the move you're talking about. <S> Other than that <S> , it says it's "Made in Hong Kong". <A> The game does definitely exist! <S> Bizarrely I asked my partner to play it this eve <S> but he actually just threw it out today as a few pieces were missing, thinking it would be easy to replace! <S> I've just gone to replace it hence this search <S> and I cannot find anything like it all online - no images or anything. <S> My partner says he got it about 25 years ago, such a shame it was a great game. <A> Hasbro makes "Connect 4 with Five ways to play" games which have a variation where you slide down alternating red-yellow columns on each side of the board, and must use those pre-played pieces to try and make five in a row instead of four. <S> Here's a link to Hasbro's PDF instructions showing this variant That same game also includes a "Pop out" variant where you slide the bottom bar into a "pop-out" position. <S> On your turn you may either drop a checker in the top as normal or pop one of your own checkers out from the bottom row. <S> This adds another strategy of changing the board to a more advantageous position, as the column of checkers shifts down after you pop your checker out of the bottom. <S> Perhaps your memory was a bit hazy on the "tricky move" bars, this sounds like what you're thinking of for that other variant. <A> Perhaps you are thinking of this game? <S> Touche ? <S> Pieces don't fall out, but they might flip over and become your opponent's.
|
But yes exactly as you describe connect 5 instead of 4 with movable sliders that made the game much tricker and interesting!
|
Returning card to hand off Emeria Shephard from Plains trigger If I trigger Emeria Shepherd ability of a Plains , may I choose to place the card in my hand instead of into the battlefield? <Q> Yes, you can. <S> When Emeria Shepherd triggers from Plains entering the battlefield, you target a nonland permanent in you graveyard to return it to your hand. <S> Since it is a Plains, you may choose to return the permanent to the battlefield instead, but you don't have to. <A> Landfall — Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may return target nonland permanent card from your graveyard to your hand. <S> If that land is a Plains, you may return that nonland permanent card to the battlefield instead. <S> Using Magic terminology, here is how Emeria Shepherd 's ability reads: <S> [Keyword ability] - Whenever [trigger event], [optional one-shot effect]. <S> If [condition], [optional self-replacement effect]. <S> The result is that you have the following options: <S> Choose to apply the one-shot effect. <S> Choose to apply the replacement effect. <S> The card goes to the battlefield. <S> Choose to apply the one-shot effect. <S> Choose not to apply the replacement effect. <S> The card goes to your hand. <S> Choose not to apply the one-shot effect. <S> The card remains in the graveyard. <S> 603.4. <S> A triggered ability may read “ <S> When/Whenever/ <S> At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect].” <S> [...] 610.1. <S> A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn’t have a duration. <S> Examples include dealing damage, destroying a permanent, putting a token onto the battlefield, and moving an object from one zone to another. <S> 614.1a Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. <S> Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events. <S> 603.5. <S> Some triggered abilities’ effects are optional (they contain “may,” as in “At the beginning of your upkeep, you may draw a card”). <S> These abilities go on the stack when they trigger, regardless of whether their controller intends to exercise the ability’s option or not. <S> The choice is made when the ability resolves. <S> There are differing interpretations on whether the "may" makes the application of the replacement effect optional, or only the action of returning the card to the battlefield. <S> It's a purely linguistic argument, so I won't get into it. <S> I will, however, quote <S> Matt Tabak's ruling on this particular case that supports the interpretation taken by this answer: <S> The replacement is optional. <A> I disagree with Vilmar's answer. <S> I believe the "may" is not linked to the "instead". <S> The "may" in this case means "return it to the battlefield" or don't return it at all. <S> But I do think it's a bit an ambiguous wording. <S> Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may return target nonland permanent card from your graveyard to your hand. <S> If that land is a Plains, you may return that nonland permanent card to the battlefield instead. <S> To look at the wording. <S> Usually when the word instead is used, it is as if you actually replace the words of a previously mentioned phrase to other words so this is how I see it: <S> Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may return target nonland permanent card from your graveyard to your hand. <S> If that land is a Plains replace "to your hand" with "to the battlefield" in the above phrase. <S> So it becomes: <S> Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may return target nonland permanent card from your graveyard to the battlefield.
|
You may choose to put the card into your hand, or onto the battlefield, or leave it in the graveyard.
|
Is studying tactics for Go useless? There are plenty of chess tactics trainers online, to improve your chess skills, but I cannot find a single one for go. Is studying tactics useless for go? <Q> Books or online resources on Joseki , Tesuji , and Life and Death situations are good places to start, followed by general opening strategy as you gain experience. <S> Playing games on 13x13 boards as well as the standard 19x19 will assist you in gaining experience in the balance between influence to the centre and territory along the sides and corners. <S> However, programming go is considerably more complex than programming chess, leading to fewer good trainers available. <A> Go tactics are essential, as other answers have said. <S> Two critical aspects of beginning Go play are fuseki (openings, similar in theory to chess; you want to position your first pieces to stake a claim and assert control over territory on the board that you will then defend) and joseki (tactical "battles" for a section of the board; various combinations of white and black stones can be played in a wide variety of ways that boil down to a lesser number of "best practices" that should be studied). <S> However, as with almost any pursuit, a good player knows the unwritten rules and how to follow them, but a true master knows which of those he can break, and when. <S> You might make it to single-digit kyu just by studying joseki, but the mark of a true dan-rank Go player is an intuitive knowledge that he doesn't have to play the joseki exactly as he's memorized, if he sees an alternate play based on the surrounding stones that would create an advantage that doesn't exist in the smaller, more sterile joseki studies. <S> As far as joseki/fuseki resources, there are tons of online resources; <S> Google those terms and you'll find websites/apps that teach you various aspects of these tactical battles. <A> The best way to study Go tactics is to do lots of problems. <S> GoGrinder is a really good way to practice if you're using a computer or an Android phone. <S> I haven't kept the iPhone version up to date, so I can't really recommend that anymore. <A> In chess, there are a handful of maneuvers such as "pins, forks, hurdles, discovered checks, etc. <S> that are grouped under "tactics." <S> In Go, there are whole subcategories of tactics such as "Life and Death," (self explanatory), "tesuji," (literally "sleight of hand"), endgame tactics, etc. <S> Each of these subcategories has whole books devoted to them, and improving in even one category will substantially raise your overall strength. <S> So, unlike chess, you don't study "tactics" as a group, but rather individual categories of tactics.
|
On the contrary, studying tactics for go is essential.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.