source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
Can you cast Hangarback Walker for X=0 and have it survive with Hardened Scales? I'm building a deck with Hangarback Walker and Hardened Scales , and I was wondering if I could cast Hangarback for X=0, and it would activate Hardened Scales. Just a thought. <Q> The key text here is 'If one or more '. <S> You're trying to put zero counters on the Hangarback Walker, and so Hardened Scales never processes. <A> Casting Hangarback Walker for 0, and it will enter the battlefield with zero +1/+1 counters. <S> Since Hardened Scales requires "one or more" +1/+1 counters to be put on the permanent to trigger the replacement effect, Hardened Scales won't trigger. <S> Hangarback Walker will Enter the Battlefield as a 0/0, and die due to state based Actions. <S> If you want to play Hangarback Walker for free, there are options: <S> Have a permanent in play that provides an anthem effect to your creatures of at least +0/+1. <S> Have it enter with a +1/+1 counter for Free. <S> Zameck Guildmage or Master Biomancer . <S> Graft is not an option. <S> Though the triggered effect of the creature will happen, state based actions will kill the 0/0 Hangarback Walker before the trigger can be placed on the stack. <A> I would just like to add to Steven Stadnicki's answer that even if it was a triggered ability that put counters on creatures when they enter the battlefield it still will not work. <S> State base actions would see a creature with zero toughness and it would be put in the graveyard before the triggered ability gets a chance to put any counters on it. <S> So lets say for instance instead of the scales you had Aquastrand Spider <S> it still would not work for the reason I stated.
|
No, and for a very straightforward reason: Hardened Scales requires that at least one counter be placed on the creature before it adds any additional counters:
|
What game asks "who is most likely to..."? There is a board game popular amongst students at my university back in the mid 90's that I am trying to identify. What I remember (or think I remember) about it is that there was a stack of cards asking questions about "who is most likely to" do a certain thing. Everyone then voted who amongst the game players is "most likely" to do what was on the card. Everyone has some sort of token they use to select someone else in the game. Once everyone has voted they reveal their picks. I think if you voted along with the majority you got to move your token forwards on the board. <Q> However, there isn't any mention of a board or tokens. <S> So, its probably a modern variant on what you've described. <A> I believe the game you are looking for is Imaginiff . <S> The game is played in rounds. <S> Each round, one of the players is chosenas the "subject" of a question. <S> The question has 6 multiple choiceanswers. <S> The question is read aloud and players vote on the answerthey think is correct. <S> Points are awarded to the players that chosethe most popular answer. <S> An example of a question: Imaginiff were a flying object. <S> Which would he/she be? <S> Blimp <S> Biplane Glider <S> Frisbee Lear jet Brick <S> It is at least, the most similar game I know to what you are describing. <A> True Colors seems to be the closest match to what you are describing, though the party game market is so full of clones that your basic description could probably work for many of them. <A> Could this be A Question of Scruples , which I remember being popular in the mid '90s indeed? <S> Each player is dealt five (yellow) cards with moral dilemmas, along with a single red card with an answer on it — <S> either Yes, No, or Depends. <S> They must then ask the question on one of their five cards to a player who is most likely to give the answer on their answer card. <S> If the answers match, both the question and the answer card are discarded and a new answer card is drawn (but not a new question card), otherwise both a new question and a new answer card are drawn. <S> The player to first empty their hand (of question cards) wins, so <S> there are no tokens to move on a board. <S> Read more on Board Game <S> Geek or on Wikipedia .
|
This one sounds like "Point Out", which you can find here: http://www.glopgame.com/who-is-the-most-likely-with-Truth-game.php
|
Can I use the effect of the Winged Dragon of Ra from the Yu-Gi-Oh! anime in a real game? The anime says that the Winged Dragon of Ra's attack and defense is what is added up by the attack and defense of the tributes to summon it. From the Yu-Gi-Oh wiki : When Summoned by Tributing 3 monsters, the ATK and DEF of "Ra" become the combined ATK and DEF of the Tributed monsters. The card that is legal for tournaments does not say that on the card. Is the anime effect OK to use in a actual card game? Similarly, people are saying how you can give life points for the attack like in the anime, but I'm asking if we can use the effect in a duel. <Q> Effects from the Yu-Gi- <S> Oh! <S> anime do not apply to the card game, especially not in a legal tournament. <S> Of course, in a friendly game, you and your opponent are welcome use those affects if you agree. <S> If you want to play that way, nothing is stopping you. <A> No that effect is only the effect of the anime card Ra's attack is made by paying life points as read on the card <S> You can pay Life Points so that you only have 100 left; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to the amount of Life Points paid. <A> You would have to use the printed effect, but if you can get the people you are playing against (in a casual setting) to agree to the change in effect, sure you can! <S> (Most people wouldn't want to play you if you had that though, even if it requires the tribute of three monsters) <S> Summary: <S> As house rules, yes. <S> In a tournament, no.
|
You can only use the text that is actually on the card (and any modifications due to errata or official rulings). Definitely not in a tournament.
|
How to play Werewolf/Mafia with exactly 6 players? Wikipedia claims that werewolf/mafia requires "At least 6 people" but all calculations for that I can figure out results in the "evil" side winning the vast majority of the time. I would like to play something similar to this game live but have not been in a large social group (more than 6) that might enjoy such games for a number of years. I do, however, meet up with a group of 6 people where we do play board games occasionally. We have played 1 Night Ultimate Werewolf but that (though sometimes fun) ends up being a completely different game because players don't know their roles. I want to know if there is a smaller variation or modification to Werewolf or Mafia which can be played with the following requirements: Exactly 6 players are involved initially (though this number will obviously decrease) Players are eliminated by a voting process. All players know their own identities. Each side has a reasonably even chance to win. The game is fun As of yet, Resistance (very fun) is the closest I've found but no players are eliminated. I think incorporating multiple "lives" into the game would work but I'm not aware of how that rule would be implemented. <Q> I've found one option I overlooked until after I asked this question. <S> It appears that the "good" side has a 44.4% chance of winning if all votes are random, they have the option to not lynch someone on a particular day, and there is only 1 mafioso. <S> A large portion of this, however, relies on the 16.7% chance they successfully guess the mafioso at their first vote. <S> This would make it more of a "serial killer" game. <S> This is far better than I initially thought. <S> I suspect it might be most fun if players are told they only win if they survive, multiple rounds are played, and they can lynch as many players as they like on a particular day as long as each defendant received a quorum of the votes as required in the original mafia game. <S> This answer is only speculative and, therefore, not a good answer. <A> I have tried various different styles of games to help a lower number of players over the years and the conclusion I've come to is that if you want an interesting game, the fewer the players you have, the more you end up deviating from "classic" werewolf play, and six is one of the most awkward numbers there is. <S> Some of the more successful variants we have played - 1) Doubles <S> Create two piles of cards, one for alignment and one for possible role. <S> An example might be [Wolf, Villager x 5], [Seer, Healer, Villager x 4]. <S> If you get two villager cards, you are a villager with two lives, if you get villager + <S> Seer/Healer, you are that role as normal. <S> If you are Wolf + Seer/Healer you are a wolf with that power (which becomes fairly useless). <S> This helps create some ambiguity so the game isn't necessarily solved by people coming forward with their alignment, because the power roles in the game could still be evil. <S> The extra lives of the villagers help to slow the game down a bit. <S> A lot of the players simultaneously love and hate the ambiguity of the setups because it reduces some of the deductive logic involved. <S> 2) 'Broken' Seers <S> In this variant, most players will have the Seer role, but they won't know what type of Seer they are. <S> The Insane Seer gets a reverse report (sees wolf as village and village as wolf), the Paranoid Seer always gets an evil check, the Naive Seer always gets a good check. <S> This style of game starts to feel like a giant simultaneous equation, matching up people's claimed checks against who has died in the night. <S> We play this variant on my online site more often than in real life. <S> More info on the Seers there . <S> It can be quite a headache to moderate properly in person, and I'd recommend writing down people's roles if you are. <S> 3) Throw in a neutral party <S> The Tanner, for example adds some extra danger to lynching and some cover for the wolf to fake claim something. <A> You can play it with 6, but you need to be creative. <S> And adapt the rules a bit. <S> Also be carefull with the roles with a higher kill rate (hunter, cupid). <S> Maybe give the witch only one healing potion and no poison. <S> One werewolf is probably enough. <S> You also can skip the kill in the first night (the previous mayor is killed). <S> Another thing to do is to introduce hitpoints. <S> Each player has two hitpoints, each kill removes a single hitpoint. <S> If the player reaches 0 hitpoints, she is emiminated and the role revealed. <S> This changes the game a bit. <S> But it will last a bit longer.
|
We play Doubles quite a lot at my monthly local meet up when we don't have sufficient numbers for a more standard game of werewolf.
|
Do you score points for claiming a route in Ticket to Ride Pennsylvania? Do you score points for claiming a route in Ticket to Ride Pennsylvania as you do in all other variants of the Ticket to Ride game? The rules aren't explicit and there is no scoring guide. <Q> In Ticket to Ride, the expansions rules feature the differences with the base game ones. <S> On the Pennsylvania map, you score using the same points scheme as usual: 1 space -- <S> > <S> 1pt <S> 2 spaces --> <S> 2pts <S> 3 spaces -- <S> > <S> 4pts <S> 4 spaces --> <S> 7pts <S> 5 spaces --> <S> 10pts <S> 6 spaces --> <S> 15pts <S> 7 spaces --> <S> 18pts <S> This <S> backed by Alan R. Moon himself on BGG <A> The original USA map says under the rules for 'Claiming Routes': <S> "When a player claims a route, he records the points he receives by moving his Scoring Marker on the Scoring Track" <S> The Pennsylvania rules say as follows: <S> "When a player claims a route, he may also take the top Stock Share from any of the Railroads listed on the route he claims." <S> It also starts with: " <S> This rules booklet describes the game play changes specific to the Pennsylvania Map and assumes that you are familiar with the rules first introduced in the original Ticket to Ride <S> " I take this to means that you do score points when claiming a route as this in the origional rules and taking a share is an additional optional action. <S> If the expansion rules says it assumes you are familiar with the original game and doesn't specifically say you don't score routes then that rule, along with all other basic rules, still apply. <A> It makes more sense to keep the convention of scoring for the tracks you place as per other TTR ride games. <S> My beef is that I started with TTR Europe as my base game and there are no five place routes on that board, so it took quite a while to find out how much to score a five place route in the Pensylvania expansion. <S> Indeed, because of the existence of five place routes in TTR Pensylvania we assumed initially that you didn't score routes as you placed them.
|
If the routes were not meant to be scored, it would be stated in the rules for that map.
|
What´s the reasoning for carry and equip items in Munchkin? In Munchkin, what is the logic behind the rule of carry and equip items? What is the difference between carry and just keep the card in your hand? It is not simplier keep in hand and not use the carry rule? <Q> You equip items so you can get their benefits. <S> But there are restrictions to what you can equip. <S> You can't equip items for which you don't meet race and class requirements. <S> You can't equip "use only once" items. <S> But there are limits to one's hand size. <S> You carry items you can't equip and won't fit in your hand to avoid having to discard them, or worse, having to give them to another player through the charity rule. <S> Note that you might hold back from equipping an item in your hand if you think you might lose it (e.g. to a thief, especially one at level 1), <S> but there's virtually no reason not to equip something you can equip if you're currently carrying it. <A> Further to what the other answers have pointed out, you can only trade items that are in play , not items in your hand. <S> Therefore you must first (legally) play an item to the table, either equipped or carried, before you can trade it with another player. <S> As one can only play an item ( Update - other than one-shot items , which can be played from your hand when in combat.) <S> from your hand either upon receiving it or during your turn when not in combat one might also play an item as carried in order to trade it during another player's turn, before your turn comes around again. <A> If it prevents you from having more than 5 cards in hand, you avoid the charity rule, requiring that you discard down to 5 cards in hand by donating the remainder to the lowest level player or the discard pile, at the end of your turn. <S> The ability to carry items, allows you to build a stock of items beyond those you are able to equip, whether restricted by class limitations or available body slots. <S> For example, short an item providing additional hands, you only have two; you can only equip 1 two-handed item, or 2 one-handed items.
|
You can't equip items for which you don't have the required free body slots (e.g. hand). You keep items you can't equip in your hand to protect them from traps and thieves, and to hide what they are from other players.
|
Is there any way to stop someone from sacrificing a Golden Urn? My friend had a Golden Urn on the board with 10 counters on it. If I destroy it and he sacs it in response to gain the life, is there anything that can be done about that? Like, can I put another destroy artifact on the stack to resolve before his sac resolves? <Q> Golden Urn's ability is an Activated Ability. <S> You would need an effect that counters activated abilities in order to prevent it. <S> Stifle and Trickbind are the most common choices (In my own experience), though other similar cards do exist. <S> Golden Urn's ability cost includes sacrificing itself. <S> Therefore, it is no longer on the field by the time you would have an opportunity to respond. <A> You cannot do anything to the Urn to stop the ability once they activate it. <S> In an activated ability, the cost is the part before the colon. <S> Since they sacrifice the Urn as part of the activation cost, it's already in the graveyard by the time you have a chance to resolve. <S> More specifically, starting with your destruction spell (or ability), here's what happens: <S> You cast a spell that would destroy their Urn ( Naturalize , for example). <S> Your opponent gets a chance to respond, and they decide to activate the Urn's second ability. <S> To do that, they tap the Urn and sacrifice it. <S> Now, the Urn is in the graveyard and its ability is on the stack on top of your spell. <S> You now have a chance to respond. <S> You can't cast anything targeting the Urn, because it's not on the battlefield. <S> Their ability resolves and they gain 10 life. <S> Your artifact destruction spell does nothing to the Urn. <S> Note that while you can't do anything to the Urn to stop the ability, you can stop the ability itself. <S> Stifle , for example, would allow you to counter the ability directly once they activate it. <A> Responding to the activation of Golden Urn's ability with another destroy effect will not work, since you cannot respond to the cost being paid (which is sacrificing the Urn in this case). <S> Other answers explained it better, I just wanted to offer another solution: Krosan Grip . <S> Due to Split Second, your opponent will not have a chance to activate the Golden Urn in response, causing it to be destroyed without an opportunity to activate it. <S> Note that Split Second does not prohibit abilities to trigger, in case that should matter.
|
You could also cast a spell to prevent players from Gaining life ( False Cure , SkullCrack , etc), or End the Turn before the effect resolves ( Time Stop )
|
How can I handicap Ticket To Ride: USA, without seeming patronizing? I'm struggling to find a good handicap for Ticket To Ride. When I'm playing with newer, or less strategic players, I'm beating them by 50 points or so. I don't like a simple points handicap, as that can seem patronizing. Instead, I prefer to have a personal handicap, that I don't tell the others about. I've tried a 'Keep all three tickets to start, and then for first turn immediately draw another three' system, but that often backfires if I get a good bonanza get a massive score achieving them all. <Q> Some actions you can take, in increasing order of difficulty it will impose: Don't aim for the Longest Route. <S> Don't draw from the visible options. <S> This will reduce the 'skill' you can exercise, making your plays more dependent on luck. <S> Don't use wild Cards to fill out a color set. <S> Makes it harder to get the longer routes. <S> Knowing that they may gather in your hand, you can still use them as a full set to claim a route. <S> Don't use wild cards at all. <S> Increase the number of trains you have to collect to claim the smaller routes. <S> Instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, use 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 6. <S> This will drastically slow your ability to claim routes. <S> Don't actually play the extra card, just collect them. <A> Simply play a game with a fully open hand. <S> All of your car cards, tickets are played face up. <S> Pre anounce & explain your every move & intention openly to the novice player. <S> This will not only serve as a handicap but will accelerate the rate at wich your novice players become seasoned players. <S> This applies to all games you will teach to novices as I have done thousands of times to all ages & level of interest. <A> In addition to the suggestions from Drunk Cynic I would suggest: Allowing a 50 point weaker player to draw 1 extra long route and 2 extra short routes at the start and allow them to keep up to 2 extra route cards. <S> You can reduce this handicap as their play improves. <S> (again this handicap may be reduced as their play improves) <S> Eliminate the tunnel penalty phase for them <S> Let them pick 1 or 2 extra train cards at each draw (perhaps for the first 25 draws or some other limit that can be adjusted as their play improves) <S> Let them use 1 to 4 free stations <A> If you're looking for a subtle personal handicap that will enforce a minor disadvantage while still allowing you to play "intelligently," I've had luck with enforcing my own rules regarding the use of route cards. <S> Any or all of the following have proven effective: <S> Do not draw route cards unless all previous routes are complete. <S> Do not keep more than two (at setup) or one (during subsequent draws) route cards from your drawn hand <S> Never take a "long route" ( or <S> only take route cards below a certain point value) <S> Don't build connections that will not be a part of your routes <A> Another suggestion to the above is that you can take the routes that give you the least number of points. <S> For example, if you get the Los Angeles to New York card, take the following route. <S> LA to PhoenixPhoenix to El PasoEl Paso to Santa FeSanta Fe to DenverDenver to OmahaOmaha to Kansas CityKansas City to St LouisSt Louis to ChicagoChicago to PittsburghPittsburgh to New York <S> Instead of taking 6 turns to complete that route, it will take you 10 turns, giving your opponent 4 extra turns to make their own moves. <S> In addition to that, each segment will give you fewer points, making your overall score lower.
|
Give them 2 or 3 or more free moves at the start of the game
|
Do Surge triggers happen "on cast" or when the spell resolves? Consider this new card from Oath of the Gatewatch -- Crush of Tentacles. I realize the first part -- "Return all nonland permanents to their owners' hands" -- happens when the spell resolves, but what about the second part of the card text -- "If Crush of Tentacles surge cost was paid, put an 8/8 blue Octopus creature token onto the battlefield." Does that trigger when the card is cast or when the spell resolves? <Q> This is because abilities of Instants and Sorceries are by default "spell abilities", and resolve when the spell resolves. <S> Rule 112.3a says Spell abilities are abilities that are followed as instructions while an instant or sorcery spell is resolving. <S> Any text on an instant or sorcery spell is a spell ability unless it’s an activated ability, a triggered ability, or a static ability that fits the criteria described in rule 112.6. <S> None of those exceptions apply here. <S> It's not an activated ability, because it doesn't have the form "[cost]: [effect]" [CR 112.3b]. <S> It's not a triggered ability because it doesn't start with the word " <S> At", "When", or "Whenever" [CR 112.3c]. <S> And it's not a static ability, because it's written as an instruction, not a statement [CR 112.3d]. <S> When you are resolving the spell, rule 608.2c <S> says The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. <S> [...] <S> so the Octopus token enters the battlefield immediately after the other creatures return to their owners' hands, and it does not itself get returned. <A> The Surge effect will occur when the Card resolves, since it is in the same paragraph as the spell's effect, per 112.2c. <S> 112.2c <S> An object may have multiple abilities. <S> If the object is represented by a card, then aside from certain defined abilities that may be strung together on a single line (see rule 702, “Keyword Abilities”), each paragraph break in a card’s text marks a separate ability. <S> If the object is not represented by a card, the effect that created it may have given it multiple abilities. <S> An object may also be granted additional abilities by a spell or ability. <S> If an object has multiple instances of the same ability, each instance functions independently. <S> This may or may not produce more effects than a single instance <S> ; refer to the specific ability for more information. <S> If it were to happen when you cast the spell with Surge, it would be worded more like Genesis Hydra : <S> When you cast XX for its surge cost, do this thing. <A> CR 603.1: 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> Crush of Tentacles doesn't say “when,” “whenever,” or “at,” it says "if". <S> Thus it can't have a trigger. <S> Consequentially it must do it's thing when it resolves.
|
The effect that checks whether the Surge cost was paid resolves when the spell resolves.
|
How to beat Ill-Gotten Gains? I find Ill-Gotten Gains in Dominion Hinterland to be such a clogger, with all the curses and coppers it generates. How can I beat a player who keep getting the Ill-Gotten Gains when there are no trashing cards available? <Q> Not sure which Dominion expansions are you running, but there are several cards that can counter this. <S> If you have prosperity, you can add the Watchtower to the kingdom cards which blocks curses gained in this manner, priced at only 3$. With Masquerade from Intrigue, or Ambassador from Seaside <S> you can give those curses back to your opponent. <S> Dark Ages has several cards which work with trashing. <S> On the other hand, if you put a more valuable 5$ card you can rush that instead of going for IGG. <S> Embargo from Seaside also works wonders. <S> As the other poster states, if there is no counter focus on going for duchies as well as any other victory cards placed in the kingdom set. <S> Source: http://dominionstrategy.com/2012/02/06/hinterlands-ill-gotten-gains/ <A> The major thing to understand about heavy ill-gotten gains strategies is that they rapidly deplete two piles: both ill-gotten gains itself and the curse pile. <S> This means that ill-gotten gains games tend to end based on a third pile running out rather than the province pile depleting, and so you need to adjust your strategy to compensate -- <S> notably it makes duchies a lot more attractive, and all the extra junk in your deck makes the free copper you get from running ill-gotten gains' effect more attractive. <A> if you add garden and start buying copper yourself, you can probably effectively counter this strategy.
|
So, while this obviously varies from game to game, barring some more effective game specific strategy my usual answer is to take ill-gotten gains and duchies.
|
Does Claustrophobia prevent triggered abilities? If I have a Blightcaster and my opponent enchants it with Claustrophobia will my Blightcasters ability still work when I cast an enchantment? <Q> Blightcaster's ability is a triggered ability that triggers whenever you (the controller) casts an enchantment. <S> Claustrophobia doesn't say anything about preventing active or triggered abilities, it just taps the creature. <S> If in doubt, expect no more than what the cards say. <A> The ability triggers. <A> Yes, the ability will still work. <S> Under very old and outdated rules of MTG, triggered abilities of artifacts didn't work if the artifacts were tapped. <S> These rules were changed in the 6th edition though, so now being tapped or untapped has no effect on a triggered ability, unless that ability specifically says "if [card name] is untapped...". <S> Also, as Blightcaster is a creature and not an artifact, even under the very old rules being tapped wouldn't matter here.
|
Blightcaster's ability is a triggered ability, which means it doesn't matter if it is tapped or not.
|
Milling cards with discard an draw abilities I have a Blue Black Mill deck with Sphinx's Tutelage and Day's Undoing ( Whispering Madness works in the same way). If I had all four Tutelages on the field, and cast Days Undoing / Whispering Madness, how would the card draws work afterwards? I am under the impression that either way this would give me the game, but would the opponent draw first, then me so that I could start milling them or do I draw first, start milling them, then they draw seven? <Q> Here is what happens when the active player casts Day's Undoing : <S> The active player shuffles his or her hand and graveyard into his or her library and then draws seven cards. <S> Sphinx's Tutelage triggers seven times, but those triggers do not go on the stack just yet. <S> The nonactive player shuffles his or her library hand and graveyard into his or her library and then draws seven cards. <S> The turn ends. <S> "The turn ends" means something special in Magic. <S> Specifically, rule 713.1a says that any triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack cease to exist. <S> 713.1. <S> Three cards (Time Stop, Sundial of the Infinite, and Day’s Undoing) end the turn. <S> When an effect ends the turn, follow these steps in order, as they differ from the normal process for resolving spells and abilities (see rule 608, “Resolving Spells and Abilities”). <S> 713.1a <S> If there are any triggered abilities that triggered before this process began but haven’t been put onto the stack yet, those abilities cease to exist. <S> They won’t be put onto the stack. <S> This rule does not apply to abilities that trigger during this process (see rule 713.2). <S> And here is the rule that says explains why the active player draws first. <S> 120.2a <S> If an effect instructs more than one player to draw cards, the active player performs all of his or her draws first, then each other player in turn order does the same. <A> For Day's Undoing they will not mill any cards, they will only draw 7. <S> From the Magic Origins Update Bulletin : <S> 713.1 <S> This new rule explains a bit more about Day's Undoing and ending the turn. <S> Day's Undoing is the first card that has additional effects before it ends the turn. <S> If any abilities trigger while players are shuffling or drawing cards, before the "end the turn" procedure starts, those abilities won't be put onto the stack. <S> The "end the turn" procedure will essentially eat them. <S> Of course, abilities that trigger during the "end the turn" procedure will go on the stack during that turn's cleanup step. <S> (These abilities are pretty rare though.) <S> For Whispering Madness you would both draw the appropriate number of cards, then for each card you drew <S> you would have <S> 4 Tutelage triggers go on the stack. <S> 603.3. <S> Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. <A> You both draw 7 at the same time. <S> At that point, the triggers from Sphinx's Tutelage are pending going on the stack. <S> Then the turn ends. <S> At that point, those pending triggers are removed from the stack and the turn ends. <S> So, you have 7 cards, no graveyard, and your opponent has 7 cards, no graveyard. <S> (You still have your Tutelages, so good luck!)
|
They would draw before milling because triggered abilities wait to be put on the stack until a player would receive priority which doesn't happen until after the spell is done resolving.
|
Can I use one spell multiple times If I have a card like Lightning Strike (that costs 2 mana) and I have 6 mana, can I use the card 3 times? In an online Magic game I played, I had this specific card also. When I casted it, it asked me how many times I wanted to use it. To be honest, it sounds like this would make the card too overpowered so I wanted to know for sure. If the answer is yes, please explain me exactly how it works. E.g. which spells can do it and which can't? Can the effects be divided with each cast? <Q> If it doesn't say somewhere you can, then you can't. <S> Unless either the card itself or something else in play says "...you can cast this/that multiple times... <S> " then you can't. <S> Either you're misinterpreting what happened in that game, or that game is not made to play with the same rules as Magic. <A> No, you can't cast it multiple times. <S> After the spell is resolved it is put into your graveyard (the discard pile). <S> There are some spells that, for example, return to your hand so you can cast them again. <S> But all such exceptions are written on the spell card itself. <A> The rules only give you permission to cast a spell when you have priority and to cast spells from your hand. <S> One of the first steps in casting a spell is to take the spell from you hand and to put it on the stack. <S> Once you start casting a spell you can't do anything else until you finish casting the spell (that is putting the spell on the stack, which is different to having the spell resolve). <S> Then the spell is on the stack, it is no longer in your hand for you to cast again.
|
Seriously - best rule to go by - Unless it says you can, you can't.
|
Etiquette for the Stack in MTG More often than not it doesn't matter, you cast a spell and it either lands in its designated spot on the field, or it resolves and heads into the graveyard. What I always wondered is, whenever there is a complicated situation playing out in the stack, is there a specific place you are supposed to put your cards? For Example: 1) I play Storm Crow2) My opponent casts Dissipate targeting Storm Crow3) I play Negate targeting Dissipate 4) My opponent plays Cancel targeting Negate5) I play Counterflux targeting Cancel While all this is happening, is it 'acceptable' to simply lay the cards down on the play-space or for official, tournament-level play do I need to immediately place my cards in the graveyard and simply remember they are on the stack in their particular order? <Q> What is legal? <S> Cards go on the stack when you cast them. <S> They remain there until they resolve or are otherwise removed from the stack. <S> According the the Tournament Rules, the current zone of any object is free information. <S> The stack is a zone. <S> Therefore, the presence of an object on the stack is free information. <S> It does not matter where the card physically goes, so long as it is clear that it is on the stack. <S> You are not allowed to obscure or otherwise misrepresent the presence of an object in a zone, because it is free information. <S> What is considered good etiquette? <S> There is no official etiquette about where in the table you should play your spells and how exactly a complex stack should be built. <S> I play in a lot of tournaments, and most players put the card somewhere on the table where everyone can see it. <S> Some players (incorrectly) put the card straight into their graveyards. <S> Some players like to play the card behind their lands, perhaps to gain some kind of advantage by making it slightly more difficult for me to read. <S> When we build a complex stack, very rarely do we build an actual physical stack. <S> To do that requires the cooperation of both players, and it also requires that all of the spells be tangible cards (i.e., not a trigger or an activated ability). <S> Perhaps the most common situation in which I see a stack built with cards is during a counterspell war, such as the example you gave in the question. <A> There is no rule that specifically governs the physical location of cards on the stack, so you should put them wherever makes the game state clearest. <S> That usually means that you should put them in an actual stack in the play area. <S> Since Instants and Sorceries go to the graveyard when they resolve, if you put them in the graveyard immediately, you are obscuring which ones have already resolved. <S> This makes it more difficult for your opponent (and for you) to tell what the stack actually is. <A> Not only is it "acceptable" to lay the cards down on the play space, but it is required. <S> CR <S> 608.2k <S> As the final part of an instant or sorcery spell’s resolution, the spell is put into its owner’s graveyard. <S> As the final part of an ability’s resolution, the ability is removed from the stack and ceases to exist. <S> Instants and sorcery cards don't go into the graveyard until they resolve. <S> This is actually quite important for certain abilities. <S> Using your example, if you don't have a Counterflux, you won't be able to use Snapcaster Mage to give the Negate you cast in step 3 flashback in step 5. <A> While a card is on the stack, it is not in the graveyard. <S> If you wanted the cards to enter the graveyard (say you wanted to play a Delve counterspell), you let part of the stack resolve. <S> As the stack resolves, cards enter the graveyard. <S> So, you could play your Crow in the middle, then each counterspell on top/next to the crow as you play them.
|
While the card is on the stack, it doesn't really matter where it is, as long as it is visible and clear that the card is being played and is on the stack.
|
How important is it to avoid bagging out in Spades? I'm very new to Spades, and am trying to grasp the basic strategy. In the few games that I've played so far, I've been sort of paranoid about bagging out; 100 points seems like a lot to lose. (Of course, I might be wrong about that.) Because of this, I've ended up overbidding several times in order to avoid bags. So, I was wondering, how important is it for me to avoid overtricks and bagging out? <Q> What's the alternative to bagging out? <S> If you over bid, you risk losing the number of points of your bid. <S> If you under bid, you have a good chance of making your bid, and any bags are effectively minus points for that hand, but you still get the points for your hand. <S> For example, a bid of 9 that doesn't make it sets you back 90 points. <S> A bid of 5 with 3 bags effectively nets you 20 points. <S> So what's better, -90 points, or 20 points? <S> One flip side of under bidding is that you might make your opponents over bid, causing them to go set. <A> In general, you are better off bidding accurately or 1 books under <S> so you can make your bid and get positive points (rather than getting set and taking negative points). <S> So yes, in general some small amount of bags is better than getting set. <S> As stated in other answers, there are statistical dynamics that depend on what score you are playing to (300, 500, etc.) <S> so you have to strategize each round to prevent bagging out (-100) or anticipate it. <S> Over-bidding is not a winning strategy - and it's unlikely to lead to wins. <S> The real art of Spades is learning how to bid <S> Well! <S> The more you play, the more you learn. <A> Depending on the rules you're playing with, there are different risks you can afford. <S> You can always adjust your bidding strategy after taking 3-4 bags and still make it without the penalty. <S> When playing for 500 points, you'll want to aim your bids more carefully. <S> If you find yourself bidding too low, don't forget to throw away some spades or high cards after you hit your bid. <S> This can cause the opponent to take bags, which is usually a good thing. <S> When playing with a blind nil rule, it can be entirely ok to take the penalty points every once in a while. <S> Just play into a scenario where if you take the penalty, you would be somewhere between 100 and 110 points behind. <S> Then you would immediately qualify for blind nil and play break-even while claring all your bag points (assuming you succesfully complete the bnil). <A> You should always bid your hand and hopefully the sum of all bids is 13. <S> If the sum is less than 13, you and your partner should try to give the bags to your opponents. <S> It can be very difficult to overcome a loss of a hundred points <S> , therefore it is very important not to collect that tenth bag. <S> Nine bags is fine, but stressful. <S> On 10 point scale of things to avoid, I would say it is a 9.
|
If you're playing up to 300 (or less) points, chances of a bagging penalty are slim if you bid for what you have, especially as a beginning player.
|
Can I counter a spell that can't be countered? Specifically, can I counter Dragonlord Dromoka with Voidmage Apprentice 's triggered ability? <Q> No, you cannot counter Dragonlord Dromoka with Voidmage Apprentice. <S> Also "When ~ is turned face up, ..." is a triggered ability. <S> So flipping a card face up is a special action that doesn't use the stack, and once the card is face up its ability triggers and is put on the stack. <S> If instead you were trying to counter something like Abrupt Decay that "can't be countered by spells or abilities. <S> " you still couldn't counter it because you would still be using an ability to try and counter it. <S> The "by spells or abilities" rider is there on spells with targets so that if a spell has no legal targets it can still be countered by the game rules. <A> Is there a limit on Dromoka's can't be countered? <S> Nope, so it can't be countered. <S> And the flip itself isn't an ability, but the triggered counter is an ability. <A> The answer to the question as written is no. <S> But, the answer to the question in the subject line is different. <S> If your definition is the usual, technical definition, then as other answers have pointed out, you cannot counter a spell that cannot be countered. <S> However, if your definition is a bit broader, such as, "stop that spell from resolving, no matter what. <S> " <S> Then the answer is YES. <S> Here is what we've found so far: <S> Remove the Spell from the Stack . <S> Venser Shaper Savant , and Brutal Expulsion are cards that directly return spells from the stack to their owner's hand. <S> This is a tempo play, but sometimes that's all you need. <S> End the turn . <S> Here, Time Stop , or if it's your turn, Sundial of the Infinite are two options. <S> If you have a way to cast sorceries as instants (for instance Hypersonic Dragon ) you can also use, Day Undoing but only on your turn will it destroy the stack. <S> Kill the player . <S> Sort of obvious, but <S> if you're in a multiplayer game, and someone is casting that creature using a flash ability during Bob's turn, you can "just" kill Bob while that spell is on the stack, and that will stop the spell from coming into play.
|
Dromoka cannot be countered at all, it doesn't matter what is trying to counter it. The answer is, it depends on your definition of "counter a spell."
|
Why was Kird Ape banned in very first Extended ban list? I'm curious as to what sort of reasoning went behind Kird Ape being too strong for Extended play? Granted this was many years ago but I was surprised to see that it was banned in a format that allowed powerful cards like Necropotence . <Q> It could put an opponent pretty far behind pretty early, and many decks had to tailor early plays just to deal with Kird Ape. <S> As Mark Rosewater notes in an article from 2003 (emphasis mine): <S> We ban and restrict cards because we believe there is something worse than not allowing players to use a particular card, and that is having a play environment become so degenerate that the game is no longer fun. <S> Sometimes individual cards have to be sacrificed for the needs of the larger game. <S> When an individual card takes over a format because it seems unbalanced, WotC bans it in order to try and change the metagame. <S> This is constant battle for them in the Modern format, where they're trying to figure out a way to ensure it's a four-turn format. <S> If it's any consolation, in the same article by Rosewater he admits the Kird Ape ban may have been a mistake: <S> Why did you ban Kird Ape in the original Extended format when Hypnotic Specter was not? <S> I’ll let you in on a little secret. <S> We’re not infallible. <S> We occasionally, gasp, make mistakes. <S> We correct them when we catch them, but <S> hey nobody’s perfect. <S> Was the above a mistake? <S> To quote my grandfather: “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has a giant sign on it that says: ‘I’m a freakin’ duck!’ <S> , odds are, it might be a duck.” <S> I'm also skeptical that you are going to find a direct quote online referencing the Kird Ape ban. <S> The earliest articles on the WotC website for Magic are from December 2001. <S> I legitimately can't figure out when Kird Ape was actually banned and then unbanned, but this timeline shows Hypnotic Specter being banned in October of 1997. <S> Since the above Rosewater quote references the banning of Kird Ape instead of Hypnotic Specter, I can only assume <S> Kird Ape had both its banning and unbanning before then, more than four years before WotC decided to start using the internet to disseminate information about their game. <A> This is just speculation and my thoughts about it <S> but I think that at that time a 2/3 for 1 mana was really very strong. <S> I remember myself when they printed Isamaru, Hound of Konda and everyone was like, wow a 2/2 for 1 mana, (so strong that it had to be legendary). <S> And even cards like Watchwolf people really liked, because also at that time you simply didn't get a 3/3 for 2 mana <A> Mostly, the given reason for the ban was that it was too good of an agro card. <S> It outclassed every other 1 drop, and likely was better than many 2 drops as well. <S> Of course, Wizard never really knows which cards are completely broken (ala Necropotence ), so after time it was unbanned.
|
The simple answer is that at the time of the banning, WotC saw this card as a problem for the metagame in Extended.
|
How can I mitigate the luck factor of drawing destination tickets in Ticket To Ride? I get the feeling that a big part of how well someone does in Ticket to Ride, is the drawing of their initial destination tickets, and the drawing of subsequent destination tickets, and how well they fit within the player's existing route, etc. Are there any house rules for mitigating this? One suggestion might be that three destination tickets can be placed face up on the table, and players can draw from those, or elect to scrap them before drawing from them. Note: I'm specifically asking about how luck dependent the game is, and if there are any house rules to reduce the luck factor. I'm not asking for strategies used to deal with the standard rules. <Q> Find a new game. <S> Taking of tickets in Ticket to Ride is supposed to be a high risk/high reward action that has the potential to lose you a significant amount of points. <S> Once you try to mitigate an aspect of a game, you're changing how the game plays in ways that weren't intended by the designer. <S> At this point, it's better to find a new game that more closely aligns with your board gaming preferences. <S> There are over 82,000 games in the Board Game Geek database, and one of them is sure to have the aspects of Ticket to Ride that you enjoy while eliminating the randomness of drawing cards. <S> My suggestion would be Hansa Teutonica . <S> This is also a strategy game that focuses on taking routes, but instead of taking tickets for points, you are taking actions over the course of the game. <S> One game session should take you about the same amount of time as Ticket to Ride . <S> Hansa Teutonica also has the benefit of multiple paths to victory, so it will have a longer shelf life than Ticket to Ride . <A> The problem with your suggested solution is that it increases the impact of good luck for everyone. <S> The result is that everyone's potential score will be that much higher, so the winner will end up being the person who doesn't get screwed out of routes by other players. <S> As you say, getting lucky with grouped routes does have an impact on the game, and no amount of cleverly playing around your mixed hand will beat someone who gets a cluster of many tickets in an area. <S> If you're not doing so already, I would suggest trying Ticket to Ride: Europe. <S> While the luck of the ticket draw is still a factor, it's lessened in a few ways: Your starting tickets are picked from at least 2 of 4 tickets, where 1 of those tickets is a long route that's only available in the starting hand. <S> Stations are available, so if you do get screwed on a route you can still complete it using other people's routes and build your other tickets. <S> Similar to the above point, if you're drawing new routes and nothing matches your game plan, you can pick a route that's mostly completed by your opponents and spend your stations to attach their routes to your network, saving your trains. <S> If you absolutely want to house rule any of the games, you could do some form of ticket drafting in which, as a group at the start of the game, you build a starting hand publicl. <S> For example everyone gets 4 cards, picks one face up and passes the hand until they have 3 or 4 cards. <S> Then you pick out of those routes normally. <S> If you want to go full-out on this you could then draft the rest of the deck and build individual decks, allowing the players to balance how well the routes go together and giving a vague idea of what routes each player might be capable of without having perfect knowledge of what they're doing. <A> Our house rule is to take all of the tickets that are 17 or higher, shuffle them, and deal one to each player, and deal the other tickets from the (shuffled) rest of the deck. <S> Then shuffle all remaining tickets to form the ticket pile. <S> That way (similar to TTR: <S> Europe) <S> all players have a long route to choose from at the start. <A> If you want people to have more control over their initial tickets, just give them move to choose from. <S> Instead of 'Draw 4, keep 2-4', you could allow people to 'Draw 6, keep 2-4'. <S> This doesn't impact any part of the game, other than the initial route drafting. <S> There is of course a very simple solution that doesn't involve house rules: ditch your longest route. <S> Although it feels natural to go for the longest route, you don't have to. <S> Just make sure you get the most points, by any means necessary. <A> My proposed "house rules" solution is the opposite of the another poster's: Raise the bonus for Longest Route from 10 to 25. <S> That would give people that drew low destination cards an alternative means of achieving a high score. <S> They would build their destination routes as quickly as possible, then spend the rest of the game 1) connecting them, 2) extending them, and 3) blocking others' routes. <S> The "flexibility" that they gain in this manner might compensate them for the low value of their routes. <S> Sometimes one might want to do this in "reverse" order (e.g. poaching others' routes first), which might create confusion as to what your routes are.
|
You could just do the deck draft and then have each player draw their initial routes from their drafted deck.
|
Optimal Dominion strategy with only the Mine action card Consider a Dominion game where the only cards are Copper, Silver, Gold, Estate, Duchy, Province and Mine, i.e. the only action card is Mine. Is there an obvious optimal strategy/strategies in this simplified game? <Q> Using the Dominiate Online Simulator <S> I simulated a few Mine and money strategies in two player games against Big Money . <S> The simulator upgrades Silvers to Gold rather than Coppers to Silvers if there's a choice (the Dominion Strategy Guide <S> agrees with this decision here). <S> I tested varying the number of Mines to aim for and simulated 1000 games against Big Money. <S> Here are the results: <S> 1 Mine: 59.1% wins2 Mines: 56.3% wins3 Mines: 53.1% wins4 Mines: 49.7% wins After the first Mine, additional Mines hinder your deck, as you start to draw two terminal actions in some hands. <S> This is backed up by Matt Sargent's investigation where he tried to find the optimal number of various different single cards in 'Single Action plus Big Money' decks. <S> If you want to try simulating this yourself, here's the strategy I was using: { name: ' <S> One Mine and Money' author: 'tttppp' requires: ['Mine'] <S> gainPriority: <S> (state, my) -> <S> [ "Province" if my.getTotalMoney() <S> > 18 "Duchy" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 4 <S> "Estate" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 2 <S> "Gold" "Duchy" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= <S> 6 <S> "Mine" if my.countInDeck("Mine") < 1 <S> "Silver" ]} <A> The best way to answer this type of question is using simulations. <S> There are 2 Dominion simulators available: here and here . <S> Using Dominate, I ran some simulations of different options; here's what I found: Buying 1 Mine is slightly better than buying 2 Mines. <S> Very slightly; wins about 54% of the time. <S> Buying 1 Mine when you could afford Gold is slightly worse that buying 1 Mine only if you couldn't afford Gold. <S> (Loses 55% of the time.) <S> Here's the script that I used in the simulator: # 1 Mine{ name: 'SingleMine' author: ' <S> Gendo' requires: ['Mine'] <S> gainPriority: <S> (state, my) -> <S> [ "Province" if my.countInDeck("Gold") <S> > 0 "Duchy" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 5 "Estate" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 2 <S> "Gold" "Mine" if my.countInDeck("Mine") < 1 <S> "Silver" ]} <S> The Big Money part of it probably isn't completely optimized, but it was copied from other Big Money scripts. <S> But I kept everything the same except the Mine gaining. <A> If your only action card is mine, there's not much you can do; just buy your first Mine as soon as possible to upgrade your treasures and maybe get at most a second one later on. <S> But, otherwise, you have no other choice than just buying treasures, Gold or Silver. <S> Still, this is not a situation you would normally encounter. <A> The ideal state is probably that you draw one mine per turn. <S> Any extras are wasted, and any turns without a mine are less efficient than ones that had one. <S> What that means in terms of when you should buy another one would probably be best solved by a computer simulation where you try it different ways and see what gets you the best final score.
|
The best strategy I could find was to play Big Money, but buy a Mine in preference to Silver if there is enough money.
|
How can I save myself from Arcbond? I run a white and red burn deck with an Arcbond and want to be able to save myself from taking damage but still have it deal the damage to everyone else. Are there any white or red cards that could do this? <Q> Choose a card from your format, undefined, to give the targeted creature lifelink. <A> A search for damage replacement effects in those colors finds 3 cards: Ajani Steadfast 's ultimate ability says −7 <S> : You get an emblem with "If a source would deal damage to you or a planeswalker you control, prevent all but 1 of that damage." <S> Gisela, Blade of Goldnight has the ability If a source would deal damage to you or a permanent you control, prevent half that damage, rounded up. <S> Hedron-Field Purists can level up to gain the abilities If a source would deal damage to you or a creature you control, prevent 1 of that damage. <S> and If a source would deal damage to you or a creature you control, prevent 2 of that damage. <S> A different search for damage prevention effects in those colors yields another 18 cards. <A> Cards that I would suggest are Purity , Personal Sanctuary (when doing it on your turn) or maybe Runed Halo (naming the card you are going to cast Arcbond on)
|
There are a couple of common types of damage mitigation cards in those colors (primarily white): damage replacement effects and damage prevention effects.
|
Can the owner of the largest army move the robber every turn? Someone told me that in catan the possessor of the largest army card can move the knight each time it is their turn. Is this a common house or tournament rule? I could find no such statement in the rule book. <Q> This is not an official rule; <S> that is why you didn't find it in the rule book. <S> The reason this isn't a rule is because it would detrimental to the game experience. <S> The player with the 'largest army' has already moved the Robber at least three times and has 2 victory points. <S> Giving the player the power to move the Robber each turn, without a roll or playing a Knight card, allows them to squash the efforts of the other players. <S> Thusly empowered, the player with the Largest Army could 'attack' the other players who are trying to gather resources. <S> It would be hard to build the Longest Road, or upgrade their villages to Cities for Victory points, the robber keeps shutting down the resource tile you're depending on. <S> From here, the optimal strategy would be to create and maintain the Largest Army, than hold down your opponents while racing for the other eight Victory Points. <A> There's no rule I could quote to prove this, but as you say, the rulebook doesn't mention it. <S> The rulebook says when you CAN move the robber (when playing a KnightS/Soldier or when rolling a 7), but doesn't list all the different times that you CAN'T. <S> It must have just been a house rule; Catan has all sorts of house rules people play in their own groups. <A> No, Absolutely NOT. <S> The Longest Road and Largest Army are rewards for achievement, nothing more. <S> Sure, the soldier/knight cards allow you move the robber, but only once when that card is played. <S> You are allowed to continue playing soldier/knight cards after you've achieved largest army. <S> In fact, it's not a bad idea because if you have played 3 and someone comes along and plays 4 then you lose your largest army. <S> As long as you keep playing soldier/knight cards you can continue to move the robber, but never more than once per card.
|
No, this is not a rule.
|
Bridge: Holding both 5 card majors which should I bid first in Jacoby transfers In SAYC my partner bid 1 NT showing 15-17 HCP (no void, no singleton and only one doubleton). I was holding a hand of 10 HCP with 5S, 5H, 2D and 1C. Using Jacoby transfers should I have responded 2D (showing 5H) or 2H (showing 5S) <Q> This is mostly a matter of agreement. <S> The reason this is so, is that what you decide to do with a 5-5 game forcing hand would effect other hand types. <S> Here are some hand types the responder can have: 5-4 majors game forcing.5-4 majors invitational <S> 5-5 majors game forcing5-5 majors invitational. <S> They are multiple ways of bidding: <S> For instance, some folks play 3H response to 1NT as invite with 5-5 majors and 3S response as GF with 5-5 majors. <S> This allows them to transfer and bid the other suit to show some 5-4 hands etc. <S> So there is no one way to bid this, and is something you need to agree with your partner. <A> In bridge, the rule is to bid the lower suit in order to proceed more slowly. <S> Here, the "lower" bid is two diamonds, partner transfers into two hearts, and then you bid two spades, staying at the "two" level when you show your second suit. <S> It depends on the partnership style, but such bids at the two level are often treated as "invitational," and not forcing. <S> If you bid two hearts first and partner transferred into two spades, you'd need to bid three hearts to show your hearts. <S> More to the point, a bid at the three level would be considered by many to be game forcing and show slam interest. <S> Whatever "subsystem" you use should be agreed with partner beforehand. <A> Playing SAYC there is always the possibility of partner making an error - both my partner or partner's partner. <S> This is a different situation that two strong players with a very solid system understanding. <S> With 10 points you are entitled to show both majors, creating a game forcing situation - however with a weak partner <S> it is advisable <S> always bid 2D first (showing Hearts) instead of the other way around, because a rebid of 2S will be unambiguous to a weak partner, but a return to 3H might be misunderstood. <S> All else equal <S> this also happens to be best practice, as Tom Au has already mentioned, but in practice there are advantages in this situation to bidding your weaker suit first - middle honours in partner's hand are gold, and he learns fo their value sooner this way. <A> In SAYC , continuations from Jacoby in other suits are all game forcing. <S> If, after the transfer is accepted, responder bids a new suit, that is natural and game forcing. <S> As such, both 1NT - 2D 2H - 2S and the inverse 1NT - 2H 2S - 3H are game-forcing. <S> Without any other agreements, there is technically no difference in the system; I would suggest that the choice of transferring to spades first is the weaker option, and transferring to hearts first is the stronger option, as it gives you more room to discuss possible slams. <S> Since partner is guaranteed to have a 3 card fit with <S> one of these two suits based on your rules for opening 1NT <S> , you don't need to worry about ending up in 3NT. <S> Of course, it is preferable to have a superior agreement with partner than the basic SAYC agreement, as this hand pattern (5-5 Majors opposite 1NT) is frequently a slam-going hand even with only 10-12 points, if things line up properly. <S> You likely can't find that with only Jacoby, while the direct bid of 3S (GF 5-5 Majors) as Aryabhata suggests would be quite helpful in possibly finding that slam. <A> This is too long for a comment <S> but it could be of interest to somebody. <S> I do not play the SAYC but, with my partners, what we use for describing a 5-5 distribution after the partner open 1 NT is a bid at the level of 5 in the shortest suit (for H and S) or at the level of 4 (for C and D). <S> For example : 1 NT - pass - 5 C means 5 H + 5 S (void or singleton in C) <S> 1 NT - pass - 5 D means 5 H + 5 S (void or singleton in D) <S> 1 NT - pass - 4 H means 5 C + 5 D (void or singleton in H) <S> 1 NT - pass - 4 S means 5 C + 5 D (void or singleton in S) <S> This implies no hope for a slam. <S> Using this convention for almost 30 years, we think it is very precise <S> and we have good results with it.
|
As you are a minimum game forcing hand (10 points opposite 15-17), you should make the weaker choice, and bid 2H to transfer to spades.
|
Do outpost siege abilities stack? Say I ran four Outpost Siege s had two of them on the field, would the effects stack? Moreover would the effect stack if I chose Khans/ Dragons twice? Basically if I had two Outpost Sieges would it allow me to exile two cards and play them each upkeep/ deal two damage as opposed to one if a creature leaves the battlefield? <Q> Each Outpost Siege will trigger at the beginning of each upkeep. <S> Example: <S> You play Outpost Siege, naming Khans. <S> You play Outpost Siege, naming Dragons. <S> At the beginning of your upkeep, both Outpost Sieges trigger. <S> You stack the triggers in whatever order you choose. <S> You resolve the triggers in the opposite order. <S> As each trigger resolves, follow the instructions written on the card. <S> If you control three Outpost Sieges, then all three will trigger. <S> If you control ten, then all ten will trigger. <S> There's no rule that says, "Only one enchantment with the same name can trigger at the same time." <A> 603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she chooses. <S> (See rule 101.4.) <S> Then the game once again checks for and resolves state-based actions until none are performed, then abilities that triggered during this process go on the stack. <S> This process repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no abilities trigger. <S> Then the appropriate player gets priority. <S> I think this rule answers your question. <S> Basically you get to choose the order in which they stack. <A> Yes.
|
Each Outpost Siege will trigger and resolve separately.
|
Bridge: Is it a rule that you must announce the meaning of partners opening bid Bridge Playing SAYC Is it a rule for partner to announce to the defenders what an opening bid (eg '1C minimum 3') means <Q> It depends on which organization's umbrella you're playing under. <S> If you're playing duplicate bridge in the US, this is the ACBL, and you generally don't have to announce the meaning of the bid. <S> Exceptions: <S> For natural 1NT openings, announce the agreed point range. <S> For non-forcing 1C and 1D openings that do not promise at least 3 cards in the suit, announce "may be short." <S> Most conventional openings must be alerted (ie, you say "alert" when your partner makes the bid). <S> See the ACBL alert chart for more details. <S> Edited to add: When it's an opponent's turn to bid or play, you must always truthfully answer questions about your agreements with partner about partner's bids. <A> I'm going to go just a bit stronger than Ruds here, assuming ACBL rules here. <S> That is conveying information to your partner (conveying your interpretation of it), and is explicitly illegal, and may involve a penalty if a director is called. <S> Further, if it does call for an alert , you must only say "Alert" and no other information unless asked. <S> Again, providing that information also informs your partner. <S> (This may vary in high-level tournaments, where separate rooms or screens are used.) <S> The specific announcements - 1NT range and 1c shortness - are marked in blue on your convention card (indicating an announcement is appropriate). <S> Anything else - saying "Weak" after a weak 2, for example - is inappropriate. <A> To give a non-US example, the English Bridge Union's rules (from the Blue Book, chapter 4 ) are: exchange system cards at beginning of round (which looks like this ), the front page of which has: General system description <S> 1NT opening and responses <S> 2-level openings and responses Other Aspects of System which Opponents Should Note Announce non-forcing 1m openings that could be on 2 or fewer cards <S> "May be 2", <S> "May be 1", " <S> May be 2, could have 5 diamonds". <S> Announce range of 1NT and 2NT openings; "12-14", "15-17, may contain a singleton", "20-21". <S> Alert 1-level openings that are not natural, unless Announced. <S> Announce 4-card Stayman after 1NT-p and 2NT-p Announce Transfers: 1NT-p-2H, "Spades". <S> Announce 2-level suit openings, if they are natural: "Strong, forcing" "Strong, not forcing" "Intermediate" "Weak" Alert 1-level openings that are not natural, unless Announced. <S> Alert non-Announced 2-level suit openings. <S> They've made a really nice table of all the Alerting rules. <S> So, similar to the ACBL, but customized to suit their bridge population. <S> As explained, other Regulating Authorities have different rules, and you should follow the ones of the RA you play under. <S> For rubber bridge, it is common to have a fixed system, so there aren't any "announcements"; if you are permitted your own system with this partner, either the club will have rules for that, or people follow the duplicate rules in force in their area (out of habit, if nothing else).
|
Unless the ACBL alert chart mentions a specific announcement, you must not announce the meaning of partner's bid unless asked.
|
What Betrayal at House on the Hill scenarios can work with just two players Are any of the scenarios in Betrayal at House on the Hill suitable for just two players? I'm asking as I'd like to play just with my wife at times, but the instructions say it requires three people minimum. <Q> I'd suggest playing with 2 characters each. <S> When the haunt starts, the player who controls the traitor hands their non-traitor character over to the other player to control. <A> I don't think any would work well by default, but there are a handful that begin the haunt with removing the betrayer's character. <S> Those can be modified slightly in that the player isn't, then, the betrayer (and isn't removed). <S> Play the traitor's turn as a sort of 'this is what the board does', and keep both players on the board. <S> The game then turns into a players-vs-game game (like Pandemic, etc). <S> It wouldn't have the same 'feel' as the main game since there isn't a 'someone will betray us' vibe. <S> Instead it's a 'the house will attack us' game. <S> I played something similar once (the player who ended up being the traitor <S> really didn't want to be, so we improvised) and it worked out. <A> According to the Haunt Chart, scenarios 9, 12, 31, and 50 have no traitor, just heroes, so they could likely serve your needs. <S> (However scenario 9 says "None (at first)" and 31 and 50 both say "None (see Secrets of Survival )", so scenario 12 is the only scenario that has an unequivocal lack of traitor for the scenario. <A> The book has a table in it which matches up omen cards with rooms they can be found in, you look up the scenario based on which open was in which room when a player loses the haunt roll. <S> Though you could theoretically play a game like this, the haunts tend to be stacked in the traitor's favor, since the game expects it to be a many on one game at that point.
|
None really work with just two players, and you don't actually make the decision on what scenario you play, the game makes that choice for you part way through.
|
Does any cards care about the color of mana spent on other spells/abilities? There are plenty of cards, such as cards with Sunburst and Converge and most of these cards, which care about the colors of mana spent on themselves . Additionally, Nix cares about whether or not any mana was spent on its target, but doesn't care about what color(s) it was. Are there any cards that care about what color(s) of manawere spent on something other than the card which cares ? As a concrete example, suppose I tapped a Mountain and Temple Garden to cast Roast . Can it ever matter whether the Temple Garden was tapped for G or W, i.e. whether Roast was cast for GR or WR? <Q> It depends on what you mean by "care". <S> There are abilities that remember what colors of mana were spent to activate them, such as the abilities of Illusionary Mask and Ice Cauldron (credit to this answer and its comments). <S> There is <S> at least one spell allows you to cast another spell based on the number of colors used to cast it: Bring to Light . <S> There are also indirect effects. <S> Although things like Sunburst only directly affect the card with Sunburst, other spells could depend on attributes of the Sunburst card which in turn depend on the color(s) of mana spent to cast it. <S> For example: Situation A Cast <S> Arcbound Wanderer for { <S> W}{U}{B}{R}{G}{G}. <S> Cast Devour Flesh , targeting yourself. <S> You gain 5 life. <S> Situation B <S> Cast Arcbound Wanderer for {G}{G}{G}{G}{G}{G} Cast Devour Flesh, targeting yourself. <S> You gain 1 life. <S> There are zero spells currently in existence that do the following: <S> "If you/the controller of the spell spent [color] to cast [some other spell], [effect]. <S> " <S> "Whenevever you cast a spell, if you spent [color] to cast it, [effect.] <S> " <A> Probably not what you are looking for but in a way it might fit the description. <S> If Illusionary Mask is used to cast a creature then that creature spell cares about what colors are used on the Mask's ability. <S> Otherwise I don't think anything else comes even remotely close, but of course it's very hard to prove that something doesn't exist. <S> Anyway, i searched for cards that either had the word "spend" or "spent" in the text and checked them one by one, because I think that if such a card existed it should have one of those words <A> Addressing specifically: <S> "Can it ever matter whether the Temple Garden was tapped for G or W?" <S> Because that is substantively different from: <S> Are there any cards that care about what color(s) of mana were spent on something other than the card which cares? <S> Yes, there are cards that cares about the mana a source produces: Gauntlet of Power and Caged Sun . <A>
|
There are also cycles in Eventide (e.g. Batwing Brume ) and the original Ravnica block (e.g. Azorius Herald ) that care about using specific colors of mana to cast spells.
|
Boggle: What is the dice configuration for Boggle in various languages? This is the dice configuration for the English Boggle: Other variants and discussions concerning letter distributions for English can be found here: http://www.bananagrammer.com/2013/10/the-boggle-cube-redesign-and-its-effect.html http://everything2.com/title/Boggle https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/300883/letter-distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3aBoggle I am interested in the 16 dice configurations for also other languages (Spanish in particular) and I am unable to find it anywhere online. Versions I managed to find so far: Czech 16 dice version: http://www.deskovehry.info/pravidla/boggle.htm English 25 dice version: Spanish 25 dice version: Italian 25 dice version: <Q> EHIFSE RECALS ENTDOS OFXRIA <S> NAVEDZ EIOATA GLENYU BMAQJO <S> TLIBRA SPULTE AIMSOR ENHRIS <S> According to this French wikipedia article <S> it is the configuration for the 'international' edition of Boggle. <S> I assume it is also the configuration for the Portugese 16-die version, since it is used for a Portugese Excel version of Boggle (see here ). <A> I finally got my hands on a Spanish version of a 4x4 (16 dice) <S> Boggle, specifically the "enclosed electronic-timer" version (sometimes referred to as "Scrabble Boggle" or "Boggle Reinvention") <S> The dice configuration is: ARHSDE FUAARB IOTALG UOEEOCh <S> * <S> FOMTUI OODBLG RPSZTL EBIOUA <S> CAREME RSJEFI NSXJAH UVDQBCh <S> * <S> NBIMEE BAANIT EPVOCU SCAAPT <S> * <S> In Spanish Boggle, Ch is printed together but counts as two separate letters when scoring. <A> I made Dice combination in Bosnian language. <S> It can be used in Serb and Croat language. <S> Dice configuration: <A> The (one of?) <S> the German version(s) <S> you can find on my blog at http://blogabissl.blogspot.com/2016/08/boggle.html , standard 4 times 4 = 16 dice, including the way I turned the dice. <A> Another 16-die Spanish version from Argentinean manufacturer Kipo's: ['N', 'D', 'S', 'E', 'A', 'O'], ['A', 'O', 'U', 'E', 'A', 'I'],['N', 'I', 'T', 'A', 'G', 'U'], ['V', 'O', 'N', 'J', 'S', 'L'],['E', 'S', 'O', 'Ñ', 'A', 'D'], ['E', 'Qu', 'O', 'S', 'H', 'D'],['C', 'E', 'N', 'O', 'L', 'S'], ['D', 'T', 'A', 'R', 'O', 'I'],['C', 'N', 'I', 'R', 'T', 'F'], ['P', 'S', 'C', 'E', 'L', 'O'],['E', 'H', 'I', 'X', 'U', 'R'], ['B', 'O', 'M', 'L', 'E', 'Z'],['A', 'R', 'E', 'C', 'M', 'A'], ['S', 'A', 'C', 'E', 'N', 'O'],['P', 'O', 'D', 'E', 'T', 'A'], ['B', 'R', 'A', 'E', 'L', 'A'] <S> (my apologies if the brackets and commas are uncomfortable <S> , I'm taking this from my JavaScript project)
|
This French page gives the following configuration for a 16 die Boggle version: ETUKNO EVGTIN DECAMP IELRUW
|
How can I protect my tron deck against Crumble To Dust So I made a really cool Mono-Black Eldrazi Tron deck. The only decks it has lost to are Bogles and an Izzet Control that was running a few copies of Crumble to Dust . The only thing I can come up with for Crumble to Dust is Memoricide and/or Cranial Extraction . Does anyone know another or better way? And what could I do about Bogles? <Q> You could go with regular black hand disruption like Thoughtseize or Duress then maybe have some Surgical Extraction to clean them up after that. <S> For Bogles, making the player sacrifice a creature would be good. <S> Cruel Edict or Devour Flesh or Geth's Verdict are some low-mana options. <S> You could go for a bomb with Liliana of the Veil <S> What's good about the hand disruption is that it's just good in general, against most decks, and might even be in you main deck. <S> The creature sacrificing is a bit more situational, but for decks that ramp w/o mana dorks, or bogles it'd be good to have in the sideboard. <A> Warping Wail has some other utility and it requiring a colorless mana should be no problem for you. <A> It costs four mana. <S> Just kill them before they cast it. <S> Or, in black (and colorless, with Though-Knot Seer ), use targeted discard to take it out of their hand, and then kill them before they draw another. <S> You want some sort of targeted discard to deal with sweepers and such anyways, so this doesn't even have to cost a slot. <S> Land destruction spells don't actually do anything to protect against threats you have already resolved. <S> It's disrupting spells that you might play later. <S> So the solution is to punish them for spending an entire turn's worth of mana to kill your land, by hitting them with the threats you already have out. <S> Against Boggles, any sort of removal that doesn't target will work. <S> Damnation , Cruel Edict , Infest , Ratchet Bomb , etc...
|
Since Crumble to Dust is a sorcery, you could use the card Warping Wail to counter it.
|
Do you need to show what you draw? I've had exploding kittens for a while but haven't really played it because every time I try to play, nobody really knows whether they are supposed to keep what they draw secret or show it to everybody to prove it isn't an exploding kitten. Are you supposed to show everybody what you draw when you draw it (allowing more complicated strategies based on remembering what cards people have) or do you just trust that nobody hides an exploding kitten? The instructions make no mention of this. <Q> This is within the setup section: <S> Shuffle the remaining deck and deal 4 cards <S> face down to each player. <S> Deal 1 Defuse card to each player so that everyone has a hand of 5 cards total. <S> Keep your hand secret <S> The draw step is part of the normal turn order: <S> Finally, end your turn by drawing a card from the Draw Pile into your hand and hoping it’s not an Exploding Kitten. <S> So the game tells us that hands are secret and cards drawn are added to our hand - at no point does it tell us to reveal the drawn card. <S> The exception for an exploding kitten being revealed immediately is covered under the specific rules for exploding kittens: <S> EXPLODING KITTENS <S> You must show this card immediately. <S> Unless you have a DEFUSE CARD, you’re dead. <S> Discard all of your cards, including the EXPLODING KITTEN. <S> So yes, you trust people to admit when they have a kitten. <S> Cheating is possible (i.e. hold a kitten, then steal a defuse and pretend the next card was a kitten), but apart from that specific case it won't stop them being found out by the end of the game. <A> You know exactly how many exploding kittens are in the deck and there are no cards that allow you to put cards from your hand back in the deck, so it would become obvious at some point if someone cheated (either someone else drew an exploding kitten from their hand or the end of the deck was hit and there was more than one player left). <S> Thus, I believe keeping cards secret is the way to go. <A> It is not defined in the rules. <S> Edit <S> I just found a section in the rules that implies very clearly that you don't show the card unless it is an exploding kitten: <S> EXPLODING KITTENS: <S> You must show this card immediately. <S> Unless you have a DEFUSE CARD, you’re dead. <S> Discard all of your cards, including the EXPLODING KITTEN. <A> Adding to other comments regarding cheating, I think it would be practical to draw, look at the card, and then if it isn't a kitten, add it to your hand. <S> That way, no one can sneak kittens out of their hand and into the game to defuse it, since the drawn card is clearly separate from your hand.
|
The rules ( which are available online ) do specify that hands are secret. You get the most interesting game by drawing blind and revealing only the exploding kitten.
|
What kind of mechanics can make MTG fun for my opponents? I'm looking for a way to build an EDH deck that makes sure my opponents have fun while playing against me. In other words I'm less concerned with winning than with doing fun/creative/interesting things with my deck. I want the group to say "Wow, that's cool". I've never tried to build a non-competitive deck that focuses on something other than winning. So what are some mechanics that would be considered fun by the opponents? <Q> This isn't mechanics specific, but theming is a good way to go. <S> Themes can be based on Magic blocks with poor synergy or underpowered mechanics, like Kamigawa block (which likely will just make people laugh), or themes can be pulled from outside of the game, like trying to make a Lion King themed deck (or something else you like). <S> Themes limit your options while being interesting to watch, especially if other players know the theme. <S> Half the fun of out of Magic themes is in players trying to guess how specific cards fit into the theme. <S> As an example, I'm currently working on an Apocolypse deck (not the block, the out of Magic concept). <S> The commander will be Child of Alara , with the four horsemen of the apocalypse as Iroas, God of Victory <S> (War), <S> Mogis, God of Slaughter <S> (Death), Phiraka, God of Affliction (Pestilence), and Phenax, God of Deception (Famine). <S> After getting these five cards set, the next step of the deck was to find cards that included the name of the four horsemen, so things like Sudden Death and War Elemental . <S> This doesn't quite fill up the deck, especially if you're avoided hated cards like Death Cloud , so the rest of the deck is made up of mechanics that fit the four horsemen's mechanics. <S> This included some mill for Famine, like Glimpse the Unthinkable , and some extra sacrifice for Death like Cruel Edict . <S> What you'll notice is that this deck isn't very synergistic and it will play differently every game. <S> Competitive decks are tuned to play identically every time even though you only have 1 of every card. <S> The theming will take away that consistency and will be fun to watch. <S> And generally, you're going to have to put a decent amount of thought into the cards in a theme deck to make sure you're staying on theme, so it's going to take as much thought to produce as a well-tuned competitive deck. <S> This process has the added benefit of causing you to think about Magic in a way you wouldn't normally, and maybe you'll find some playstyle or set of interactions you hadn't ever done before. <A> I haven't played much EDH, but I can imagine that these kinds of decks are NOT fun: Mass land destruction <S> Too many counter spells / mass destruction <S> "You can't" decks. <S> E.g. Thalia, Sphere of Safety, etc. <S> Now, you have to deal with opponents eventually, so here might be some cards that can swing the tides in your favor while being "cool" Ezuri Predation or Clone Legion to handle / fight opponents creatures with your own. <S> Ridiculous red/black spells: Descent of Dragons , Ghastly Conscription , Whims of the Fates (might be controversial, likely highly entertaining), <S> Worst Fears <S> e.g. Hydra <S> Broodmaster for a ridiculous number of tokens) <S> Or just play a theme deck that isn't too oppressive. <S> Slivers might be a bit too strong. <S> Elves/goblins/ <S> humans/zombies/angels/demons/giants/enchantments/soldiers/whatever. <A> Examples of cards that opponents may like: Howling <S> Mine Font of Mythos Temple Bell Prosperity <S> Walking Archive <S> Kami of the Crescent Moon <S> Rites of Flourishing Heartbeat of Spring Weird Harvest Hunted Wumpus New Frontiers Oath of Lieges <S> Join Forces cards
|
"Battlecruiser magic" mostly big, flashy spells/creatures ( Not sure if this is what your looking for but of course one way to make people happy is to play cards that help everybody, by letting players get mana, draw cards, or any other beneficial "each player" card.
|
Calculating the probability of NOT drawing a traitor card in Dead of Winter If you're playing a 3 player game and hand out 1 card to each player, out of a deck of 3 ally and 1 traitor cards, how likely are the players all allies? I think the math is you have a (3/4)^3 or approximately %32 chance of everybody being an ally. Is this correct? Thanks. <Q> Deal out the four cards in a line. <S> How likely is it that the one on the far right is the traitor card? <S> 1 in 4 right? <S> Now have the players pick up everything except the far right card. <S> What are the chances that they didn't pick up the traitor card? <S> It's the same question. <S> So your answer is still 1 in 4. <A> The statistic theory presented by the question is best described Hypergeometric Distribution . <S> During the game set up, 2 Non-betrayal objectives per player, and 1 Betrayal objective, are combined in the opening deck. <S> From that 7 card deck, each player will draw 1 objective, 3 total. <S> Your goal is that 3 non-betrayal objectives are drawn. <S> N = number of items in the population = number of cards in the deck <S> = 7 k: <S> The number of items in the population that are classified as successes. <S> = <S> number of non-betrayal objectives <S> = 6 n: <S> The number of items in the sample = 3 <S> x: The number of items in the sample that are classified as successes. <S> = <S> number of non betrayal objectives drawn = 3 h(x; N, n, k) = <S> [ kCx ] <S> [ N-kCn-x <S> ] / [ NCn ] where [aCb] = <S> a(a - 1)(a - 2) ... <S> (a - b + 1)/b! = <S> a! / b!(a - b)! <S> Your question stipulates that the starting deck is only 4 objectivess, 3 non-betrayal and 1 betrayal. <S> N = number of items in the population = number of cards in the deck <S> = 4 k: <S> The number of items in the population that are classified as successes. <S> = <S> number of non-betrayal objectives = <S> 3 n: <S> The number of items in the sample = 3 <S> x: The number of items in the sample that are classified as successes. <S> = <S> number of non betrayal objectives drawn = 3 <S> There is a 25% probability the betrayal objective isn't drawn, or that 3 non-betrayal objectives are drawn. <S> This is equivalent to the prospect of choosing one card from the Deck of 4, and letting the players select what remains. <A> You math is slightly off because you aren't accounting for cards being removed from the deck. <S> In order for all three to be allies: Player 1 gets the first card, where the ratio is 3:1. <S> This means they have a .75 probability of drawing an ally. <S> Player 2 gets the second card, but the ratio has been reduced to 2:1 since player 1 removed an ally. <S> Player 2 has a .67 <S> (rounded) probability of drawing an ally. <S> Player 3 gets the third card, but the ratio is now 1:1, giving a .5 probability of drawing an ally. <S> If we multiple those together (3/4 <S> * 2/3 * 1/2) we get a total probability of .25 that all three players will be allies , depending on how you want to round the 2:1 ratio.
|
There is a 57.1428571428571% probability the betrayal objective isn't drawn, or that 3 non-betrayal objectives are drawn.
|
How does each copy of a spell cast to Zada, Hedron Grinder count towards Storm abilities? Zada, Hedron Grinder allows you to copy spells for all your other creatures, as long as it only targets him. Thus, you will be casting a potentially large number of spells. Does every copy of the spell count towards a storm count? <Q> Unfortunately no. <S> Storm counts how many spells were cast, where Zada just copies spells already on the stack. <S> Storm <S> When you cast this spell, put a copy of it onto the stack for each other spell that was cast before it this turn. <S> If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for any of the copies Zada <S> Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell that targets only Zada, Hedron Grinder, copy that spell for each other creature you control that the spell could target. <S> Each copy targets a different one of those creatures. <A> Only the original spell counts for storm. <S> Zada creates the copies directly on the stack; they're never actually cast . <A> Like the other answers, I'm saying no , copies created by Zada, Hedron Grinder don't count towards storm. <S> But I think it's worth adding some explanation of why. <S> Casting a spell is a specific process you go through. <S> It's not something that just happens any time an object is placed on the stack. <S> Casting involves moving a card (or copy of a card - more on that later) on to the stack, choosing modes and targets, and paying costs. <S> The full process is described in rule 601 . <S> However, Zada's ability <S> copies <S> a spell which was already cast. <S> Therefore, the copy is "pre-cast" for you - in other words, it gets created, on the stack, in an already-cast state. <S> You don't need to (and in fact, you can't) go through the process of casting it again. <S> Since storm only counts the number of times you (or another player) go through the process of casting, copies of spells don't contribute to storm, since they never went through that process. <S> Naturally, this also applies to the copies created by the storm ability itself. <S> They don't add to the storm count, which is important to know in case someone casts another storm spell later in the same turn. <S> Although it's not all that common, there are some cases in which you can copy something and still have it contribute to the storm count. <S> Those cases involve effects which have you copy a (nonland) card somewhere other than the stack, and then cast the copy. <S> ( Examples ; see also the cipher ability .) <S> Here's the key difference: the thing you copy has not been cast, so the copy is created in an uncast state. <S> Once the copy is created, it works just like the original card. <S> Casting it follows the normal process for casting, and so it does add to the storm count. <S> Thanks to <S> Ivo Beckers for additional examples of casting copies.
|
Storm only counts spells that were cast, not copies created on the stack.
|
How is Pandemic Legacy impacted by playing with two characters? What are the mechanical/strategic differences in playing Pandemic Legacy: Season 1 with just two characters, as opposed to three or four? If discussing Season 1 spoilers is unavoidable, please remember to use the spoiler notation ( >! hidden text ) and clearly mark them. <Q> The biggest spoiler-free Legacy-specific difference is probably in the end-game upgrades: if any given character gets half the player turns instead of a quarter, buffing a character becomes comparatively more powerful. <S> By the same logic, the amount of damage a single Scar can do to a smaller team is greater. <S> However I think the most important differences are the same as those of the base game (and are covered in this other question ). <A> In general, its about the same as Pandemic with two players. <S> You have the advantage of a lot less happening between your turns, so you are better able to predict and react to the state of the board. <S> And if you get players with strong abilities, you'll be able to use them more times during a game. <S> The downside is that you lack versatility in being able to have lots of special powers that can be applied to different situations, you can't have presence in as many places on the board, and you have a lot less cards in hand collectively, so you need to be careful about how you go for cures. <S> Also, the Dispatcher role in particular is significantly weakened with fewer players. <S> There are elements that come up in Legacy that amplify each of these, but nothing that dramatically changes them. <S> so it shouldn't be a problem. <A> There are a couple roles in Legacy that have powerful advantages but corresponding significant disadvantages. <S> Some of those disadvantages affect the ability to cure diseases. <S> While a three- or four-player game can absorb that cost, when we played a two-player Legacy campaign we found that we never used those roles because we couldn't afford to take that hit. <S> While objectives change throughout the year, curing diseases is a persistent need.
|
I would say that I typically find games with fewer players slightly easier, but Legacy has some elements that auto-correct the difficulty
|
Why would one player ever need more Army units in a battle than their opponent? I am learning the rules of Risk, but am failing to understand why, during a battle, one player would ever need more Army units than their opponent? According to the rules of risk, during a battle each player compares their highest dice rolls. The player with the lowest roll of the two removes one unit from the battle. The players then compare their next highest rolls (if they have rolled more than die). My misunderstanding can be explained in the following two scenarios I have created. In both battles, the attacker rolls 2 die and the defender rolls 1. Battle 1 In battle 1, the attacker has the highest roll and so the defender removes one of his units. Now the defender has no more dice and so there is no defending die to compare the attacker's 2nd die with. The attacker wins this battle. Battle 2 In battle 2, the defender has the highest 1st roll and so the attacker removes one unit. As by the rules, the players should now compare their next highest dice . The defender does not have a next highest dice, only the one which they have already used in the battle. So what happens here? Am I right in thinking that once this stage is reached, the defender can reuse their die that have already won during this battle? And so 'Battle 2' would now look like: Now, the defender wins again and so the attacker has lost all his units in the battle. The defender wins this battle. Battle 3 Here is a 3rd scenario following the logic I have proposed: Part 1: Part 2: Part 3: Is this the correct process in which battles should be played? <Q> I have since confirmed the rules. <S> My scenarios for 'Battle 2' and 'Battle 3' are incorrect. <S> Once a die has been used in a battle, it cannot be used in that battle again. <S> The only reason for a player having more dice than their opponent is to increase their chance of rolling a higher number. <A> The rolls don't stay the same. <A> The use for having more than one unit in a confrontation isn't for increased chances in the battle itself (as you stated in an answer), but for a more stable expansion after the battle. <S> As I am sure you know, after a territory has been claimed, a chunk of the units in that battle move into the newly acquired territory up to leaving only one unit in the territory that you fought the enemy with. <S> The problem with leaving token units behind and not fortifying them later is an unforeseen expansion into the heart of your territories. <S> Let's say that you have a choke-point claimed that has a surplus of units defending from three separate forces. <S> Because the forces are small enough to not be a major threat, you ignore that part of the board for a few turns and expand outwards elsewhere. <S> Suddenly on the fourth turn, one force draws enough reinforcements to expel the other two from the entire chunk of territories leading up to your border and thus have control of all three territories that threaten the choke-point (providing 3 chances a turn to destroy that border with uncontested reinforcements from its surrounding territories). <S> Since the fastest any unit can move is one territory a turn, <S> if the bulk of your forces are on the other side of the board and your territories behind the wall are too soft, your opponent can take a huge chunk of your territories before you can bolster them. <S> TL: <S> DR <S> , It's so you aren't squishy later in the game
|
Having more dice means you get more chances to outroll them, which is a necessity considering that defenders have an advantage.
|
When is there no going back on a trade? In Settlers of Catan, what are the precise rules for when a trade is completed and there is no going back? For example, if player 1 asks if anyone is looking to trade a resource for another resource and player 2 agrees, is player 1 bound to that trade or do both parties have to then agree on an exact trade before continuing? In other words, is offering a trade to all players an implicit agreement to a specific trade with a particular player? If not, is there any way to agree on trades that does not result in showing what's in your hand? <Q> Trading <S> The type of rule you are asking for is similar to the Chess <S> rule that says... <S> Once the hand is taken off a piece after moving it, the move cannot be retracted (unless the move is illegal)." <S> Catan rules aren't that specific, unfortunately. <S> There is no rule in Catan that covers when a trade is complete with this level of detail. <S> Therefore, it is up to you and your play group . <S> If I were in your play group, I would argue that a trade is complete when the cards have physically changed hands. <S> That is how goods exchanges work in real life - I give you money, you give me goods. <S> If you allow trades to be taken back after cards have exchanged hands, then you have to remember what cards you traded. <S> More importantly, you have to still have the cards, and not have spent them. <S> If you don't allow trades to be taken back before cards have exchanged hands, then what happens if I don't have the cards I said I would trade? <S> Maybe I wanted to bluff that I had a card for trade just so the other guy would get a worse deal. <S> Bluffing Bluffing is generally an acceptable practice in any game that involves hidden information. <S> But, the difference between lying and bluffing is not always clear. <S> In Catan, you just have to know it when you see it. <S> For example, saying "I have wheat. <S> " when I really don't is a bluff by any reasonable definition of the word, but saying "I have seven cards. <S> " when I really have eight is just a lie. <S> If your group is not okay with bluffing, then your play group may need to create a house rule that prohibits it. <S> Otherwise, it's fair game. <A> Trades are done when cards change hands, not before, not after. <S> Another player isn't allowed to take cards that are in my hand, I can only give them. <S> Similarly, once the cards have changed hands, I have no way of forcing my opponent to give it back if I change my mind. <S> In Catan, possession is ten tenths of the law. <S> Proposing a trade to the table as a whole is usually just a shortcut for proposing it to one player at a time. <S> Even if the leading opponent is the first to speak up about a trade, I would much prefer to trade with someone who isn't winning. <S> Again, even if he's the first to "accept" the trade, he has no way of forcing me to carry it out. <A> Catan isn't MTG; the rules aren't that specific. <S> It's a social game, so <S> the first rule is don't be an asshole. <S> That said, you can say you have an open call to trade wheat for bricks, but that is just a matter of you letting the other players know what you want. <S> Exposing the cards in your hand isn't required, AFAIK. <S> That means that in regards to your specific example, you could put out an open trade agreement on your own turn, then if another player wants to trade with you on their turn and offers it to you you can take it up. <S> However, you are never obligated to make a trade. <S> As far as take-backs, etc goes, generally the trade is considered done when both people have exchanged cards. <S> But the specific timing of that is up to your group. <S> I would not allow trade-backs once any other action (negotiation, card usage, rolls, etc) has taken place. <A> Bluffing <S> I have very important addition to this part of Rainbolt 's answer. <S> Catan is game without hidden information. <S> By the rules and how it is implemented in Catan Universe online version, every move in terms of resources is open to everyone. <S> When you gather resources from first settlement, when you roll the dice, when you trade (both people and bank), when you buy, every person have to see what you get and what you give out. <S> Hence, you can remember all resources that every player has. <S> As I see trade, you can't offer resource that you don't have. <S> Trading <S> Proposing a trade to the table as a whole is usually just a shortcut for proposing it to one player at a time. <S> If you have several options to trade, e.g. two or three players agree to trade, you select the one that is good for you. <S> If you don't want to trade with specific player (who have 9 points or you just don't like that guy) you can decline trade request.
|
If I propose a trade and then change my mind, the other player has no recourse for obtaining the card I offered, unless I consent to the trade. The rules don't explicitly declare it as "locked in and done" at any one point.
|
How/where can I get comments from strong players on my gameplay? I'd like to get advice from strong go players - let's say amateur 6D+ or pros. What are my options for getting that advice? I am not necessarily looking for full game reviews, rather comments on one or two turning points in a game. <Q> I did not use it myself, but it looks promising. <S> I have no experience how strong the players are which are commenting regularly, however I saw at least many 1d or 2d comments. <S> If you are willing to spend money on getting regular full reviews on your games I can highly recommend In-seong's Yunguseng Dojang . <S> It is available for American and European timezone. <S> You are getting lessons and reviews of league matches from high amateur dan players. <S> I participated in the school myself for 1 year. <S> As I am new to this site I am not sure if such an advertisement is considered good practice here. <S> Please comment if it isn't. <S> I am not completely sure if the question already is a good fit for the site, because there can be very many answers providing different resources. <S> Selecting one of them as the one right answer is probably not possible. <A> Join a Go club with strong players. <S> Your club mates will give you comments and hints. <S> If joining a Go club is not practical for you, consider to take some payed Go lessons by a professional player. <A> The Go <S> Teaching Ladder is a good place to get comments on your games. <S> Unless you're already a dan player, you won't get comments from 6d+ players, but you also don't need them. <S> Your game will be reviewed by a player several stones stronger than you, and they will be able too see enough of your mistakes to help you get stronger. <A> OGS has a review requests section . <S> I just got a great review there <S> so I'd like to share the link. <A> Some Go tournaments will feature professional commentators who will also play several "simultaneous" games with players, typically for a small fee, such as $10 or $20 a head. <S> They will remember the salient points of those games and point out the most egregious errors. <S> These professional commentators also observe and comment on games, but typically only if you are 1-2 dan or higher.
|
GoKibitz is a new website that offers a nice frontend for discussing games. Visit Go conventions and go to Go tournaments.
|
Are you able to build a settlement from a separate ship? Let's say that I have a boat from island A, after a few turns I move boat to island B, now can I start a settlement on island B? Or do I have to make a full shipping line from Island A to Island B or can I just move one ship to island B and start a settlement? I have read the Seafarers rules booklet, but I have not been able to find any information on this. <Q> Boats are like roads with a few exceptions: they must border at least on one side to water. <S> they require wood and sheep to build. <S> you can pivot the last ship in a row of ships (but it needs to stay connected). <S> they are affected by pirates You can only change from road to ship (or ship to road) through a settlement (or city). <S> In order to build a settlement on an Island where you have no settlement yet, you need to build a row of ships starting from a settlement at the first island until you get to the second island. <S> You can now continue building ships along the coast, or you can build a settlement. <S> And if you are the first to build on an island, some scenario's reward you with an extra victorypoint. <A> You need to create a full shipping line. <S> You can never reach another island with just one ship. <A> The manual doesn't clearly state if a shipping route needs to be connected to a city, <S> so If your shipping route reaches a coastline, you can then build a new settlement on that coast, even if it's a new island. <S> is everything I can find on that topic. <S> Source <S> Catan: <S> Seafarers Manual
|
If you want to move a ship, you have to place it so that it is attached to another ship, or to a city or settlement.
|
Spells are not exiled by Jace, Telepath Unbound's second ability in MTG Duels I used Jace, Telepath Unbound 's second ability, which is casting a spell from the graveyard. It says the spell will be exiled. However, it didn't. For example, Adverse Conditions was in the graveyard when I activated the Jace's second ability. And Adverse Conditions was cast, but didn't get exiled and instead went into the graveyard again. Why so? <Q> Should it have been exiled? <S> Yup. <S> You cast it from your graveyard, it went on the stack, resolved then returned to your graveyard. <S> Going to your graveyard should have been replaced with exiling the card. <S> Why didn't it? <S> No idea. <S> It's probably a bug. <S> With a game and rules as complex as Magic's, it wouldn't surprise me that something doesn't work like it is supposed to. <A> " This means whatever spell you pull from the graveyard, if it were to return to the graveyard by any means (casting, countered, etc,.) then the card gets exiled instead of going to the graveyard. <S> In short, when you use Jace's second ability, any card you cast from the graveyard will most likely be exiled. <S> There are ways to prevent this with other spells or abilities. <S> For example, if you cast a spell with Buyback (e.g., Walk the Aeons ), it never goes to the graveyard, and Jace's ability will not exile it. <S> Likewise, if you cast a spell from your graveyard and then Remand your own spell, it returns to your hand. <A> There was an update to Magic Duels just under a week ago. <S> There seems to have a lot of bugs that got introduced. <S> This may be the case <S> but I can't access the bug list at the moment because I'm at work <S> (Although it may be unreported, may just be a bug with just this card combination). <S> There is no date set where a patch is to be released at the time of writing.
|
Jace, Telepath Unbound 's second ability states that "If the card (the spell cast from the graveyard) would be put into the graveyard this turn, exile it instead.
|
Are there big differences in gameplay (not just theme) between Munchkin sets? I have looked around and was overwhelmed by the number of Munchkin base sets out there. I googled what the best Munchkin set is, but so far, all I found is that I should pick the theme I like best. But I'm not sure if there might be other factors. In reality I'm looking for the answer to the question: what Munchkin set is the best in terms of card functionality, bad stuff, and surprising and interesting turnouts? Or is the gameplay broadly similar between them and the theme is the only big difference? <Q> I have played the super hero, pirate, legendary, old west, and "normal" munchkin. <S> All 5 sets have similar card functionality, similar bad stuff, and lots of surprising, amusing, and interesting turnouts. <S> Really it does just come down to, "is there a genre you enjoy?" <S> Then, that's the variant you should play because you'll get the jokes. <S> ps. <S> Tsuama534 mentions some very interesting rule changes in Munchkin Cthulhu and Munchkin Apocalypse in his answer. <S> There are no corresponding rule changes in the expansions I mentioned. <A> I have played regular Munchkin, Munchkin Cthulhu, and Munchkin Apocalypse. <S> The two non-regular sets each had one big difference. <S> Munchkin Cthulhu has special Cultist Rules. <S> Among them is a rule that when every player is a Cultist then a game immediately ends. <S> This tends to end games with low player counts very fast. <S> I think this is a major difference from the regular game. <S> Munchkin Apocalypse also has a built-in timer in form of Seals. <S> In my experience this doesn't affect the game time very much but it introduces some extra complexity to the simple game of Munchin. <S> In both regular Munchkin and Munchkin Cthulhu to win you need to maximize your character level. <S> In Munchkin Apocalypse you may also win by having the highest combat bonus when the Seventh Seal is opened. <S> This alternative way of winning may bring more strategy or more chaos to the game, depending on the group. <S> Besides that, differences between these three sets are very minor. <A> I haven't played all themes but its my understanding that they can all work together. <S> In fact, you can just shuffle the different sets together and play with all of the expanded characters/items/steeds/etc. <S> Of course if you have cards that go together they will be harder to pair up because you are playing with a larger deck. <S> As a result the core game mechanics are unchanged between them. <S> According to a SuperMod on this thread (SJgames is the producer of Munchkin): <S> http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=66801 <S> Every Munchkin game except the original comes with rules or hints on how to blend that particular game with the others. <S> All those games have their rules available online on their individual web pages, too. <S> In conclusion, what you were told is correct. <S> Go with whatever theme you fancy more. <S> And if you decide you get bored of that one, just go buy another and spice it up a bit. <A> I have played through most (though not all) of the munchkin sets, and I think that you would enjoy playing any set combined with "Cheat with Both Hands". <S> Just trying to have a fun set to choose from is great, and adding in all the crazy cards and class/race cards makes it even better. <S> I would try to stuff your munchkin set full of big items and monsters that you enjoy playing against, that's how I usually pick out what my particulars doors and cards are, and it works out very well. <S> So just make sure to pick out a set you like, a set that is crazy, and pick your favorites from both.
|
There is no significant difference between them wrt "Card Functionality", "Bad Stuff" and "surprising and interesting turnouts".
|
Have recent changes in bidding priorities changed the value of finesses? I was taught to "bid to make." That is, it would take 26 points to bid a game that was at least a 2 to 1 favorite to make. (I'd bid game with 24-25 only with "something extra" such as a solid five card suit that would take a disproportionate number of tricks.) Under these cirumstances, I would shun finesses (a 50-50 proposition) except as a last resort, because they "average down" my theoretical "67%" chances. Instead, I would look for an endplay, squeeze, or maybe a combination play (e.g. a drop play for 3-3 distribution in a key suit followed by a finesse.)) The IMP scoring table allows bidders to come out ahead if they make as many as 40% of the game contracts they bid. Hence, many players will now bid a speculative game with 22-24 points (instead of 26). More to the point, this result is occurring more frequently because of pre-emptive and "competitive" bidding, where the slightly stronger partnership is pushed into a game contract, instead of being allowed to stop at the three level. In this situation, a 50-50 shot at a successful finesse will "average up" their chances. Do good players play finesses more frequently to "shorten" the odds when they are in long odds contracts with less than 25-26 points? In finance terms, do good players regard finesses as "dilutive" when they have 26+ points and "accretive" when they have 22? <Q> Finesses, now as always, are worth half a trick (absent information about opponents' distributions). <S> In IMPs scoring, it is usually appropriate to take a finesse if that is the most likely way to make your contract, and usually inappropriate to take a finesse if it risks the contract for a chance at an overtrick. <S> Just because a contract is less likely to make, it doesn't change the value of a finesse. <S> If a squeeze, endplay, or combination play gives you better chances, you should do that instead of finessing. <S> It may be that finesses are more commonly employed by players who bid lighter games, but that doesn't reflect on their desirability. <A> You are essentially asking for statistics on the tactics chosen by expert players over the course of playing many games, correlated with the ease and perceived necessity of making their desired score in those games. <S> While fascinating, i don't think you can find this out other than by asking experts directly for several reasons: stats of this kind are hard to find or not produced <S> it depends on the player and their "style" good players aren't playing to make their contract anyhow; they are playing to equal (defensive bidding) or marginally beat the field, so you can't correlate play tactics to actual bids, you have to correlate to their estimate of the tricks they feel they need and the risks they feel safe in taking to obtain them in that game <S> good players may perceive extra information/insights which guide them to more effective plays (if you can better read the lay of cards maybe you don't need to guess/finesse 100% of the time with 50% error but only 60% of the time with a 20% error, or you are much more sure than 50% <S> so they aren't a 50/50 chance any more, or something?) <A> I broadly agree with ruds, but want to give some thoughts based on Tom Au's comment on that answer <S> and they didn't fit in a comment. <S> There is a confusion about a priori (prior) and a poserteriori (post-facto) knowledge going on here. <S> The fact that bidding 4H on 22 points will not make most of the time doesn't necessarily mean that finesses are better plays when they are available, it could be that most 22 point hands simply can't make 4H, or can only make when the lie of the cards is highly favorable. <S> When the game will make, it might well be that finessing is still a bad idea a lot of the time, because in these scenarios there is also a higher percentage line of play. <S> There may simply be fewer opportunities to finesse with 22 points. <S> Similarly, in 27 point games, it might be the case that when a finesse is available it is actually likely to be the right play because they are only commonly available in scenarios where other, higher probability plays, are unlikely. <S> What makes for a good line of play is based on the hand you see, not the unknown of the bidding sequence. <S> I don't really think the latter is true, <S> the former might be (experience tells me that cross roughing might be that competing line) but instead what I'm saying is that the analysis needs to be based on sampling a large number of hands, it can't be based on the sort of probabilistic argument you're proposing.
|
If no better alternatives exist, you should finesse.
|
How to clone a Legendary permanent? I want to clone Geist of Saint Traft without falling prey to the legend rule and without using Mirror Gallery . Are there any cards that allow you to copy a card's text without copying its name? I was unable to find any but might have failed to search the right wording. <Q> Sakashima the Impostor copies a creature except its name; <S> Spark <S> Double copies a creature or planeswalker except it loses legendary. <S> The rule that is responsible for preventing the existence of multiple identical legendaries is the so called "legend rule". <S> It is a state-based action: <S> 704.5j <S> If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. <S> This is called the “legend rule.” <S> Both creatures restrict you to one additional Geist each, because the legend rule still applies to Lazav and Sakashima, respectively. <S> Helm of the Host creates non-legendary token copies of the equipped creature. <S> It costs 4 mana to cast and 5 mana to equip, but it lets you get any number of copies with only 1 reusable card invested. <S> If your group allows Un-sets, there is also Rules Lawyer , which makes state-based actions not apply to you and your creatures, which disables the legend rule check. <A> Helm of the host. <S> Sorry, it also has a 5 mana cost to equip, but you keep getting them. <A> Since the legend rule is state-based, Rules Lawyer would prevent it from taking effect. <S> Of course, that would run into your "5 mana is too much" concern. <A> Spark Double is now probably the best spell to do this and super cheap and can hit planeswalkers as well as creatures. <S> If you are specifically looking to duplicate Geist of Saint Traft <S> I suppose you can use Invocation of Saint Traft . <S> But it seems like the real question was can you copy a triggered ability <S> and yes you can with Strionic Resonator <S> it drops right before Geist of Saint Traft for 2 and can be activated once he can attack. <A> If what you care about is cost, you shouldn't be trying to copy the whole creature. <S> It's much cheaper to copy just the ability you care about, such as with one of the following: Strionic Resonator , Tawnos, Urza's Apprentice , Illusionist's Bracers , or Rings of Brighthearth <S> (Rings and Bracers are included for the general case; they won't work for Geist of Saint Taft, as its ability is a triggered ability, not an activated ability). <S> That said, there are three general mechanics that will let you have multiple copies of a legendary creature on the battlefield at the same time <S> *: <S> Things that make non-legendary copies of a creature: o:"isn't legendary" . <S> Currently, this is Spark <S> Double and Helm of the Host Things that clone a creature with a different name <S> **: <S> o: <S> copy o:"its name" . <S> Currently, this is Sakashima the Impostor , Lazav, Dimir Mastermind , and Lazav, <S> the Multifarious (noting that the later two will require the creature you are copying to go the graveyard and back in the process). <S> Things that ignore the legend rule: o:"legend rule" . <S> Currently this is Mirror Gallery (and Brothers Yamazaki , which creates an exception only for itself). <S> I know you said you don't want to use Mirror Gallery, but I'm including it for completeness. <S> * You can use any old Clone on a legendary creature if you need it to exist quite briefly (such as to get the enter the battlefield trigger on Archangel Avacyn ), but you will have to lose all but one of them the next time state based actions are checked. <S> ** <S> This works because the legend rule care about things with the same name: <S> 704.5j <S> If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. <S> This is called the “legend rule.”
|
There is also Lazav, Dimir Mastermind , but it only copies creatures that go to your opponent's graveyard, so the creature you want to copy has to go to your opponent's graveyard somehow, which requires either elaborate setup, or that your opponent also happens to play Geist.
|
Can poison action card destroy Warbot? In the Smash Up game, Ninjas have a poison action card. Will it have any effect on Warbot, who is a minion which cannot be destroyed? Poison - Play on a minion. Destroy any number of actions on it. Ongoing: This minion has -4 power. (Minions have minimum power of 0.) Warbot - power 4 - Ongoing: This minion cannot be destroyed. <Q> No, it can't destroy Warbot, but that's because it can't destroy minions in general. <S> It can only destroy actions attached to a minion, and Warbot doesn't prevent that. <S> Poison affects Warbot as any other minion because Warbot's ability has no effect on Poison's ability. <S> Poison doesn't destroy minions. <S> Warbot's ability doesn't prevent actions from being played. <S> Warbot's ability doesn't prevent actions attached to the Warbot from being destroyed. <S> Warbot's ability doesn't prevent the Warbot's power from being reduced. <A> The Poison card does not destroy any minion directly. <S> Reducing a minions power to 0 does not destroy it. <S> It hangs around until an effect destroys it or the base that it is on scores. <A> In the Smash Up game, Ninjas have a poison action card. <S> Will it have any effect on Warbot, who is a minion which cannot be destroyed? <S> Will it have any effect. <S> Yes. <S> The effect will be to reduce the power to 0. <S> However poison doesn't destoy the minion merely reduces it's power. <S> To the Warbot will be a minon of 0 power. <S> While most of the time this is an academic point there are cards that are affected by minion prescence. <S> For instance Count how many minions you have on a base. <S> Destroy a minion with that power less than or equal to that number. <S> In this instance, the Warbot though it does not give any power, would still count as a minion. <S> Plus the poison action can be removed restoring the Warbot to full power or the Warbot can have other actions placed on it that increase it's power to again.
|
The Poison card does not destroy Warbot.
|
Does "cards with the same name can't be played" affect tokens? So a friend of mine has a card with the ability "Name a card. Cards that share a name with that card cannot be played." My question is does this work on tokens? I play a zombie token deck mainly, and this would cause a big hiccup to my ability to win the game. <Q> Can I "play" a token? <S> No. <S> You can still produce zombie tokens even if you are not allowed to play Zombie. <S> "Play" has a very specific meaning in Magic: <S> 701.11b To play a card means to play that card as a land or to cast that card as a spell, whichever is appropriate. <S> When instructed to name a card, can I name a token instead? <S> It depends. <S> If a token has the same name as a card, then you can name it. <S> Here are a few examples: <S> Pack Rat creates tokens that are also named Pack Rat. <S> Meloku the Clouded Mirror creates Illusion tokens, but Illusion is also the name of a card. <S> Zombie is not currently the name of a card, and so Zombie is not a legal choice when instructed to name a card. <S> However, if Zombie were printed as a card in the future, then it would be a legal choice. <S> 201.3. <S> If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player must choose the name of a card that exists in the Oracle card reference (see rule 108.1) and is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. <S> (See rule 100.6.) <S> If the player wants to name a split card, the player must choose the name of one of its halves, but not both. <S> (See rule 708.) <S> If the player wants to name a flip card’s alternative name, the player may do so. <S> (See rule 709.) <S> If the player wants to name the back face of a double-faced card, the player may do so. <S> (See rule 711.) <S> A player may not choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card. <A> The name of the token is "zombie", but it isn't a card that can be named, and you can still generate zombie tokens. <S> Relevant rules: <S> 110.5 <S> Some effects put tokens onto the battlefield. <S> A token is a marker used to represent any permanent that isn’t represented by a card. <S> 110.5c <S> A spell or ability that creates a token sets both its name and its subtype. <S> If the spell or ability doesn’t specify the name of the token, its name is the same as its subtype(s). <S> A “Goblin Scout creature token,” for example, is named “Goblin Scout” and has the creature subtypes Goblin and Scout. <S> Once a token is on the battlefield, changing its name doesn’t change its subtype, and vice versa. <A> No, such a card can never directly affect tokens. <S> Cards such as Conjurer Ban require your opponent to name a card : 201.3. <S> If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player must choose the name of a card that exists in the Oracle card reference (see rule 108.1) and is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. <S> (See rule 100.6.) <S> [..] A player may not choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card. <S> Tokens are not cards: 108.2. <S> When a rule or text on a card refers to a “card,” it means only a Magic card. <S> [..]Tokens aren’t considered cards—even a card that represents a token isn’t considered a card for rules purposes. <S> Even if your opponent named a card that also happens to be a token you want to bring into play somehow, you would still not be prevented from doing so, because "playing" a card has a specific meaning: 601.1a <S> Some effects still refer to “playing” a card. <S> “Playing a card” means playing that card as a land or casting that card as a spell, whichever is appropriate. <S> Tokens are never played, they always enter the battlefield indirectly because of another spell or ability. <S> Of course, your opponent could name the card that created the tokens. <S> If he, for example, named Army of the Damned , you wouldn't be allowed to play that card, and thus would indirectly prevent your Zombie tokens. <S> However, you could still play any other card that also creates Zombie tokens. <A> No they cannot name 'Zombie', when instructed to name a card they must do <S> exactly that 'Zombie' is not the name of a card, it is a creature type and the name of a token. <S> Also even if they could name 'Zombie' (or say you had a way to create Zombie Assassin tokens) it still wouldn't matter because playing a card means casting it if it is not a land and when you create tokens they aren't being cast, a spell or ability is just putting them onto the battlefield. <S> 201.3. <S> If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player must choose the name of a card that exists in the Oracle card reference (see rule 108.1) and is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. <S> (See rule 100.6.) <S> If the player wants to name a split card, the player must choose the name of one of its halves, but not both. <S> (See rule 708.) <S> If the player wants to name a flip card’s alternative name, the player may do so. <S> (See rule 709.) <S> If the player wants to name the back face of a double-faced card, the player may do so. <S> (See rule 711.) <S> A player may not choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card.
|
Some cards do care about the name of tokens (e.g. Declaration in Stone ) and those cards would hit all zombie tokens you have in play.
|
Can you re-equip equipment to the same creature? Murderer's Axe has an equip cost: discard a card, and since madness runs off discarding, this can be rather useful.Can an equipment card be re-equipped to the same creature that already has it equipped? <Q> Note that if you have other cards that care about things becoming (un)equipped or (un)attached they will not trigger since the equipment never actually stops being equipped, and it doesn't gain a new timestamp. <S> 702.6a <S> Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. <S> “Equip [cost]” means “[Cost]: <S> Attach this permanent to target creature you control. <S> Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.” <A> Since there is no restriction (other than control) based on the wording of "equip", I'd say yes. <S> 702.6a <S> Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. <S> “Equip [cost]” means “[Cost]: <S> Attach this permanent to target creature you control. <S> Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.” <A> Yes you can. <S> That card doesn't specifically mention anything about its equip ability having to be used on a different creature and not on one it's already attached to. <S> A good rule of thumb with Magic: <S> Unless the card specifically states something, more oft than not you do exactly what is says on the card and nothing else. <S> So since it doesn't specifically tell you to only equip it to a different creature, then you're good to go. <S> Enjoy that madness ability!
|
Yes, you can choose the currently equipped creature to target with the equip ability since it doesn't require the target to be a different creature.
|
What is the use of Swift Silence? So I have a red blue Guttersnipe deck that I personally love to use, but my friend and I keep running into this situation. In my hand for the purpose of explaining this say I have all Lightning Bolt s and a Guttersnipe on the field. All he has available is a Swift Silence . Now since I know that he runs Swift Silence I will only play 1 lightning bolt in the ending phase before passing off priority. My friend will then also pass priority because he wants to stop the full combo with the Swift Silence. So what happens? Since he passed priority, Guttersnipe's ability which is on top of thestack will resolve but the Lightning Bolt won't. So when I play another Lightning Bolt on the stack he can than use Swift Silence to counter both Lightning Bolts and Guttersnipe's ability? Guttersnipe's ability resolves, I pass, then he passes again so the Lightning Bolt would resolve. I can than play another Lightning Bolt on top of the empty stack and start the loop over? When we let both Guttersnipe's ability and Lightning Bolt resolve since it is a empty stack would my turn then be over since I was doing this on my end step? However if I can just keep playing stuff using this loop what would Swift Silence ever be useful for other than say a Grapeshot ? <Q> Assuming you play your Bolts right your opponent can counter at most 1 of them. <S> This is what happens: <S> You have priority, you cast Bolt, Guttersnipe triggers, you have priority again <S> You pass priority, your opponent gains priority and can cast their counter if they want to, eventually they also pass priority Guttersnipes ability resolves, you gain priority, you pass priority <S> Your opponent gains priority, again they can choose to cast their counter, eventually they pass priority back to you <S> As long as it wasn't countered your Bolt resolves. <S> You gain priority after it resolves and can cast another Bolt if you want to. <S> If at anytime your opponent casts their counter the following is added to the previous steps: <S> They have priority, they cast their counter spell, they still have priority and pass <S> You gain priority, at this point you can choose to cast more spells if you want to, eventually you will pass priority <S> The counter spell will resolve, your Bolt will be countered, you gain priority and can cast more Bolts if you want to <S> A step or phase doesn't end until both you and your opponent have passed priority and the stack is empty. <S> 116.3b <S> The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves. <S> 116.3c <S> If a player has priority when he or she casts a spell, activates an ability, or takes a special action, that player receives priority afterward. <S> 116.3d <S> If a player has priority and chooses not to take any actions, that player passes. <S> If any mana is in that player’s mana pool, he or she announces what mana is there. <S> Then the next player in turn order receives priority. <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. <A> The short answer is that Swift Silence is simply not good in this situation. <S> First, note that Swift Silence only counters spells. <S> Guttersnipe's ability is a triggered ability, not a spell, so it is unaffected by Swift Silence. <S> Your optimal strategy is to simply cast one Lightning Bolt at a time, and then let both the triggered ability and the Lightning Bolt resolve before casting another one. <S> If you do that, then your opponent can only ever counter one Lightning Bolt with Swift Silence. <S> In this case, your end step would play out like this: You cast Lightning Bolt. <S> Guttersnipe's ability triggers. <S> You pass priority. <S> Your opponent either casts Swift Silence and you let it resolve, or they just pass priority. <S> Guttersnipe's ability resolves and deals 2 damage to your opponent. <S> You pass priority again. <S> Your opponent has another opportunity to cast Swift Silence and have it resolve, or they just pass priority again. <S> Unless your opponent cast Swift Silence in step 2 or 4, Lightning Bolt resolves and deals 3 damage to your opponent. <S> Go to step 1 if you have the mana. <S> If you can kill your opponent even if they counter one of the Bolts (for example, they're at 15 life and you have 4 Bolts in your hand and 4 available red mana), one variant to consider is going through that whole loop in response to the Swift Silence as soon as they cast it. <S> This prevents them from drawing more countermagic from the Swift Silence. <S> In general, Swift Silence does best at stopping storm spells like Grapeshot or Tendrils of Agony . <S> It can also be good at cleaning up a countermagic battle and drawing extra cards in the process. <S> Especially in a multiplayer game, you can let two opponents respond to each others' spells a few times, and then stop it all with Swift Silence and draw several cards. <A> You have the advantage, since your third point is incorrect. <S> When the stack is empty, if both players pass priority, then the phase ends. <S> So, what you do is let Guttersnipe and the Bolt both resolve, then cast another one when you get priority again. <S> 500.2. <S> A phase or step in which players receive priority ends when the stack is empty and all players pass in succession. <S> Simply having the stack become empty doesn’t cause such a phase or step to end; all players have to pass in succession with the stack empty. <S> Because of this, each player gets a chance to add new things to the stack before that phase or step ends. <S> One other issue with your scenario is that Swift Silence doesn't counter Guttersnipe's triggered ability. <S> That's an ability, not a spell.
|
As you point out Swift Silence is best against Storm decks, and other decks that have multiple spells on the stack at the same time (like Hive Mind)
|
Why is "LGS" the standard term for a game store? Why is LGS the term of choice for gaming stores? Is it to specifically refer to local gaming stores, as opposed to distant or non-local gaming stores? I have never seen DGS or NLGS , so I don't know why it is necessary to specify local in the acronym, instead of just using GS . If LGS is intended to convey a physical store as opposed to an online retailer, why not Brick & Mortar or B&M ? Most other retail industries I've read about (electronics and cigars come to mind) regularly use B&M when talking about physical establishments instead of online retailers. But strangely, I've never seen B&M used in the Magic/TCG/gaming vernacular. <Q> "Local" implies familiarity, and some connection specifically to you . <S> It's a store near you, it's convenient for you, it's something from your area that you can be proud of, it's part of your community, it's a place you might see people you know. <S> It also implies that it's not a chain. <S> All of this adds up to a more warm and fuzzy emotional connection. <S> Brick and mortar, on the other hand, is really just about offline vs online. <S> A brick and mortar store could still be a giant national big box chain store. <S> The only important thing is that it's physical, so it still sounds pretty impersonal. <S> Note that this isn't just a gaming thing <S> ; for example LBS (local bike store/shop) is pretty common too. <S> You can also see a lot of other common "local * store" terms in the Google ngram viewer . " <S> Local grocery store" is the most common, tying into the local food movement. <A> Local Game Store is supposed to be a counter to Big Box store that sells games. <S> So instead of the generic large Wal-Mart chain. <S> FLGS (Friendly Local Game Store) refers to your distinct, independent and local (usually not chain store) <S> independent game store. <S> (Also sometimes referred to as Mom-n-Pop Stores) <S> While easier to access in some ways is in no way local to you as an individual. <S> But terms can and do change and adapt. <S> Lately I've seen others use the term FLGS to refer to stores such as Barnes and Nobles when they have game nights. <S> My own FLGS has four locations. <S> But the term is essentially about a collective term for "Whever it is you choose to play" as opposed to "This store that we're telling you to play at" <A> I do believe that lgs is a mtg term. <S> I have never heard other card games talk of it. <S> It stand in contrast to the mega stores like wallmart that also sell the product but do not engage the community in any other meaningful way. <S> The local store is much more than just a store it is a hub for all the related nerd culture activities. <S> Without the lgs a lot of the activities would simply not be possible. <S> It is a great vehicle for like minded hobby enthusiasts to come together and enjoy there favourite past time. <S> Brick and mortar is a specific term that designates a real life store. <S> Because mtg is so dependant on the hobby store to not just sell the product but engage with the community, they receive special privileges. <S> I know that in the us at least to register with suppliers you have to prove you have a physical store front. <S> Also if you want to host fnm you need a store. <A> The terms LGS and the one I hear more often, FLGS <S> (Friendly Local Game Store) both come from the game manufacturers and distributors. <S> As the owner of a tea & game store, I'm much happier selling a game when the manufacturer/distributor encourages people to come to their FLGS to buy it. <S> They send me business, I make them money. <S> There's an oft-unstated implication to the term FLGS as well: support. <S> You don't expect to walk into a supermarket or WalMart and find someone that can intelligently compare two games, give you a demo, or point you to games that meet certain criteria. <S> At my store, we commonly get questions like, "My brother's a poor loser. <S> What game could we play together without getting in a fight? <S> " We can point them to cooperative games like Pandemic or Forbidden Desert and invite them to game night to try out a demo copy and learn how to play it. <S> A megastore probably can't. <S> Hence the "F" for friendly and the "L" for local. <A> Because promotional material encourages players to go to them. <S> The idea is that players will form playgroups around their local gaming store. <S> In that sense, "Your" LGS would be the (hopefully) nearby store that you would to to to play games/purchase materials. <S> This is in contrast to other brick and mortar shops that you may go to for a particular event, but is not local, or convenient. <S> As to why we use the particular phrase LGS, that's a little harder to pin down. <S> Most likely, that's just the wording that TSR decided to use for Dungeons and Dragons. <S> Since Magic the Gathering (the first of the wave of trading card games) hails from the same distributor, it makes sense to use the same terminology. <S> Other TCGs follow suit, and here we are. <S> Additionally, the D&D and MTG communities formed before online retailers became mainstream. <S> There would have been no need to differentiate between a physical and online retailer. <S> This would explain why the E-Cigarette community uses said phrase: <S> Because E-Cig supplies have been widely available online from the beginning of the Craze (Or, at least, since it became mainstream). <S> Either way, Communities such as those around E-Cigs and Electronics do not share roots with the D&D/TCG communities (though there is definitely overlap), and so developed their own jargon. <S> Plus, of course, you don't expect to play games at a store that sells Vaping Fluid.
|
In a more contemporary context it's also used to counter the online store more than chain retail locations.
|
Can you choose not to assign damage to a second blocker? In a game of Magic, I attack with a 5/5, indestructible, trample. My opponent blocks with a 2/3 and a 2/2. He hopes the 2/2 will die because of an effect when that creature dies. Can I choose to just sink my five damage into the first creature and not touch the second <Q> You can always assign more than lethal damage to a creature. <S> In your example, you can assign five damage to the 2/3 and not touch the 2/2. <S> 510.1c <S> A blocked creature assigns combat damage to the creatures it’s blocking. <S> If it isn’t currently blocking any creatures (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage. <S> If it’s blocking exactly one creature, it assigns all its combat damage to that creature. <S> If it’s blocking two or more creatures, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. <S> This may allow the blocking creature to divide its combat damage. <S> However, it can’t assign combat damage to a creature that it’s blocking unless, when combat damage assignments are complete, each creature that precedes that blocked creature is assigned lethal damage. <S> When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures that’s being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that’s actually dealt. <S> An amount of damage that’s greater than a creature’s lethal damage may be assigned to it. <S> The Judge's Corner has a great video that covers the specific scenario in your question and more. <A> Yes, per 510.1c, quoted below in its entirety with emphasis added. <S> 510.1c <S> A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. <S> If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage. <S> If two or more creatures are blocking it, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. <S> This may allow the blocked creature to divide its combat damage. <S> However, it can’t assign combat damage to a creature that’s blocking it unless, when combat damage assignments are complete, each creature that precedes that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage. <S> When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures that’s being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that’s actually dealt. <S> An amount of damage that’s greater than a creature’s lethal damage may be assigned to it. <S> You announce the damage assignment order for the blocking creatures, putting the 2/3 first and the 2/2 second. <S> Assign 5 damage to the 2/3, leaving 0 damage to be assigned to the 2/2. <S> Since your 5/5 has trample, briefly look at 702.19.b. <S> Since lethal damage hasn't been assigned to each creature that blocked it, you can't assign damage to their control. <A> Yes. <S> You can assign as much damage as you want to a single blocker. <S> The only restriction is that you cannot assign damage to a second blocker until you have assigned lethal damage to the first. <S> 510.1. <S> First, the active player announces how each attacking creature assigns its combat damage, then the defending player announces how each blocking creature assigns its combat damage. <S> This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. <S> A player assigns a creature’s combat damage according to the following rules: <S> 510.1a <S> Each attacking creature and each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. <S> Creatures that would assign 0 or less damage this way don’t assign combat damage at all. <S> 510.1b <S> An unblocked creature assigns its combat damage to the player or planeswalker it’s attacking. <S> If it isn’t currently attacking anything (if, for example, it was attacking a planeswalker that has left the battlefield), it assigns no combat damage. <S> 510.1c <S> A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. <S> If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage. <S> If exactly one creature is blocking it, it assigns all its combat damage to that creature. <S> If two or more creatures are blocking it, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. <S> This may allow the blocked creature to divide its combat damage. <S> However, it can’t assign combat damage to a creature that’s blocking it unless, when combat damage assignments are complete, each creature that precedes that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage. <S> When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures that’s being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that’s actually dealt. <S> An amount of damage that’s greater than a creature’s lethal damage may be assigned to it.
|
If exactly one creature is blocking it, it assigns all its combat damage to that creature.
|
Does Reduce to Ashes Kill indestructible creatures? When I first read Reduce to Ashes : Reduce to Ashes deals 5 damage to target creature. If that creature would die this turn, exile it instead. I thought "ok, a way to deal with indestructible", but then I thought again and wondered. Because indestructible will stop you dying, and the exile only kicks in after you die. So does it work? <Q> The creature will not die or be exiled. <S> The ability Indestructible is defined in rule 702.12b : <S> A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. <S> Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g). <S> So, if you resolve Reduce to Ashes targeting an indestructible creature with 5 or less toughness, this is how it plays out: <S> First, Reduce to Ashes deals 5 damage to the creature. <S> For the rest of the turn, if that creature would die, it is exiled instead. <S> Then, State-based actions are checked. <S> In particular, rule 704.5g says If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed . <S> Regeneration can replace this event. <S> But the creature has indestructible, so it can't be destroyed and nothing happens. <S> Then, since the creature wouldn't die, the replacement effect never happens. <S> Rule 614.7 says If a replacement effect would replace an event, but that event never happens, the replacement effect simply doesn’t do anything. <S> However if the creature dies for some unrelated reason (if its controller sacrifices it, for example), then the replacement effect will kick in, and the creature will be exiled. <A> Reduce to Ashes can exile an indestructible creature, but it can't kill such a creature. <S> However, it will still exile that creature if it dies in another way. <S> 700.4. <S> The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.” <S> This usually happens as the result of the destruction of a creature, but there are other ways too: 701.14a <S> To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. <S> A player can’t sacrifice something that isn’t a permanent, or something that’s <S> a permanent he or she doesn’t control. <S> Sacrificing a permanent doesn’t destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can’t affect this action. <S> 704.5f <S> If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. <S> Regeneration can’t replace this event. <S> Indestructibility does not prevent a creature dying, only its destruction, which is one way to make a creature die. <S> 702.12b <S> A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. <S> Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g). <S> So if you damage an indestructible creature with Reduce to Ashes, and later that turn it dies because of a sacrifice or its toughness goes to zero, it will be exiled. <A> No, the indestructible creature doesn't die, so the replacement effect of Reduce to Ashes doesn't happen. <S> 702.12. <S> Indestructible 702.12a Indestructible is a static ability. <S> 702.12b <S> A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. <S> Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g). <S> 704.5g <S> If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. <S> Regeneration can replace this event. <S> 700.4. <S> The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”
|
You are correct in that Reduce to Ashes can't kill an indestructible creature.
|
Help with the rules of checkmate I am playing white and it is my turn. I am currently in check. Can I capture the pawn in front of my king to escape the check, placing his king in checkmate? Or is it illegal and therefore I lose? <Q> No, you may not ever move your king into a position in which it is threatened ("in check"). <S> If you did, your opponent could just immediately capture your king, and you would lose. <S> Reference from the FIDE Laws of Chess : 3.9. ... <A> You can solve any such problem by pretending the rules of check and checkmate don't exist, and instead you just lose when your king is captured. <S> In your case, if you take the pawn, black will take your king and you will lose. <S> The rule of check becomes unnecessary since all it says <S> is you can't make a move that allows your opponent to win immediately, and you wouldn't want to anyway. <S> (Note: <S> this way of thinking about it doesn't account for the rules about stalemates or castling through check.) <A> Taking the pawn places your king in check, under threat from the opponent king. <S> As white, you have no way of creating check on your opponent, let alone mate. <S> White loses.
|
No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.
|
Mercurial Pretender and Typhoid Rats interaction Player A has Mercurial Pretender on the board (copied a 4/4 creature) Player B attacks with Typhoid Rats Player A blocks Typhoid Rats with Mercurial Pretender Player A then pays 4 mana to "Return this creature to his owner's hand" Player A returns Mercurial Pretender to his hand, then says Typhoid Rats dies and goes to graveyard. Player B thinks that player A cannot both successfully block and return Mercurial Pretender to his hand, considering Typhoid Rats Deathtouch ability. Who is right? <Q> However, it did still block them successfully and the rats won't deal combat damage to Player A or anything else this combat. <S> One possible source of confusion in the situation is that it used to work the way Player A thinks. <S> You could "put damage on the stack" then play abilities in the combat damage step in response, before the damage resolved. <S> This was removed with the 2010 major rules update (the one that also changed Lifelink and Deathtouch ). <S> Now, player B is correct, because there is no place to respond between assigning and resolving damage. <A> Player B is right. <S> In each combat damage step (First strike/double strike, then other creatures), all creatures deal their combat damage at the same time, and you don't get the chance to cast spells or activate abilities: 510.2. <S> Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. <S> This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. <S> No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it’s dealt. <A> Neither is correct. <S> Player A is wrong because he returned his blocker before combat damage was assigned and dealt therefore <S> the attacker would not die. <S> Player B is wrong because player A can successfully block AND return his creature. <S> The attacker's deathtouch ability is irrelevant.
|
As noted by Hackworth, Player B is correct under the current rules that the Pretender can't kill the Rats if it is returned to hand.
|
Can Boss Monster work with 5+ players? The Boss Monster game is specific in that it says only 2-4 players can play the game, but from reading all the rules, and the fact that there are more than 4 monsters, I don't understand why it cannot go to five or six. I imagine it might be because there might not be enough resource cards to go around. (Note: I've only played a couple of rounds of the digital product but just recently got the physical game.) However, if I put in the expansions would 5-6 players be more reasonable? Or is there some additional catches that keep it from allowing more than four players? <Q> I was just considering this a few days ago: <S> No, there are simply not enough hero types to go around. <S> Because the game operates on 4 basic hero types, it is limited to 4 players for fairness. <S> (ie each player can concentrate on one hero type in a 4 player game: <S> A goes Thieves <S> , B goes Clerics, C goes Fighters, D goes Mages). <S> If you add more players ( E & F ), then the players come into conflict over resource types ( E tries to go for Fighters. <S> Suddenly, (depending on luck of the draw) either E or C is getting all the Fighter heroes and the other player gets nothing . <S> The problem magnifies more for each player as you add players beyond 4 in our thought experiment. <S> Get to 8 players and 4 are unable to score any points. <S> Not very fun. <S> Edit/Update: <S> Official Brotherwise opinion on the matter (from their website): <S> Boss Monster 2 is balanced and recommended for 2-4 players. <S> Here are some unofficial guidelines for larger games: <S> Play using the Unlimited Lives variant described on page 17 of the rulebook. <S> (Players are not eliminated upon reaching five Wounds. <S> The game ends when a turn ends with no cards left in the Hero decks. <S> The winner of the game is the player with the highest total Souls minus Wounds.) <S> For a 5-player game, start with all the Heroes and Epic Heroes from one set. <S> Then add an extra 4-Health Cleric, Fighter, Mage and Thief. <S> Add an extra 11-Health Cleric, Fighter, Mage, and Thief. <S> For a 6-player game, also add an extra 6-Health Cleric, Fighter, Mage and Thief. <S> We are currently developing a set designed to facilitate larger multiplayer games. <S> If you would like to share feedback on multiplayer over 4 players, please e-mail us at bossmonster@brotherwisegames.com! <A> If you have Boss Monster 2, you will have twice as many heroes available to you, so you could figure out how many extra heroes to add to the hero decks, presumably +25%. <S> This would solve the problem of game length. <S> You would also want to balance which kind of treasures the heroes want, I assume something like: 5 Players: add the 2nd set of 3 player heroes <S> 6 players: add the 2nd set of 4 player heroes <S> I'm not sure <S> if the treasure types being less than the number of players will be a problem or not. <S> Players are competing for heroes either way. <S> Presumably the competition would be stronger, more ties, more heroes building up in town. <S> You would also have twice as many bosses to provide plenty of variance between what bosses are competing. <S> I have tried mixing the old and new bosses, and they seem to be somewhat balanced; the one shot level ups are strong, and the repeating effects are mostly small and rather narrow. <S> Since these rules are untested, the next step would be to try them, and see what breaks, and then try to iterate and fix the problems, or give up if the problems are intractable. <A> There is now an official expansion that allows up to 6 players called Crash Landing . <S> I don't own it yet <S> so I can't tell how well it works, but it does address the concern in Mint's answer by adding a fifth treasure type. <A> More players means a faster dwindle. <S> It's the same issue in Pandemic where a fifth player works in every level except that you will run out of cards even faster. <S> The same thing happens with Dominion where the game ends faster because three piles will empty in fewer rounds than normal. <S> With more cards Boss Monster could accomodate a fifth and sixth player. <S> You are however adding time to the build phase and if you follow the rules literally the adventure phase too because that's more time waiting for five other players to take their turns before you go. <S> The adventure phase is so simple that most people I've played with just do it simultaneously <S> but the rules do say to perform them in order and there are a few rooms in which it matters.
|
However, if you also own the core set, it is possible to play with 5-6 players. The only problem with more players in Boss Monsters is that game length is dictated by a dwindling deck.
|
Blackjack Strategy Chart for only hitting and standing I'm try to program a blackjack strategy which makes use of a predetermined chart of moves given the dealer's upcard and the user's hand total. The version I'm implementing only allows hitting and standing — no doubling down, splitting, or surrendering. Furthermore I'm forcing the dealer to keep hitting until his total is greater than or equal to 17 — so no soft-17 rule. I've looked all over and haven't been able to find a chart that meets these specifications — could anybody help me get one? Thanks. <Q> You shouldn't have much trouble at all finding a chart.. <S> Replace any double/split with a hit, surrender with fold if your simulation does not allow it. <S> Edit: As Hymie pointed out in the comments, splits are not always a hit.. <S> in fact many splits you would stand on. <S> A close approximation would be to use the same rules as if pairs (6,6 8,8 etc) were just treated as though they were their totals (12, 16 in those examples). <S> Generally speaking, if the dealer card is 7 or better, you draw to 17, otherwise you draw until 12 and stand otherwise (with some exceptions, notably 12 vs dealer 2,3) <S> Not sure if you allow soft-totals for the player.. <A> Why not make the software self learning? <S> There are several strategies. <S> Code them all (preferably parameterized). <S> Now start a sequence of simulations and compare the results for each strategy. <S> You can then drop the worst and add adaptations of the winners. <S> Then continue. <S> Until you are satisfied by the result. <S> For the final product, use some of the winning strategies with a probability similar to the result. <S> This way you eliminate the predictability of the strategy. <A> All the basic strategy charts I've seen have three sections: one for hard hands, one for soft hands, and one for pair hands. <S> In addition, they contain five strategies: hit, stand, double or else hit, double or else stand, <S> split. <S> Simply ignore the chart for pairs and treat, say, a pair of 8s as a 16. <S> ( Steve Oakes' answer calls this "a close approximation," but it's actually exactly correct for a large shoe.) <S> Then treat "double or else hit" as "hit," and "double or else stand" as "stand." <A> The way to calculate this is to simply take the remaining cards (the ones the dealer isn't showing and aren't in your hand), and calculate the expected for hitting and standing for each card. <S> You should start with highest total (i.e. where your cards add up to 20), then for lower totals, calculate the outcome in terms of those higher ones. <S> The expected value of holding a particular total is the higher of the expected value of hitting and the expected value of standing. <S> For instance, if you're trying to decide whether to hit on 17, you'll want to know what the expected value of getting to 18, 19, and 20 are to calculate the expected value of hitting and standing. <S> Expected value of hitting on 17 = (expected value of 18) <S> * (number of aces out) + (expected value of 19) <S> * (number of twos out) + (expected value of 20) <S> * (number of threes out) + (expected value of 21) <S> * (number of fours out) <S> You will also have to deal with hard and soft totals.
|
What you are looking for is known as Basic Strategy
|
Is it okay to draw from the middle of the deck? This question is not related to "Ticket to Ride", but while playing Ticket to Ride, the following happened: There were 5 us around the table, and to make it easier to reach for all players, we split up the draw deck into 2 decks, one on each side of the table. Is that okay? In theory, drawing a card from the deck is meant to be "random", so drawing from anywhere in the deck is still "random". On the other hand, once the cards have been physically shuffled, they are what they are, then it becomes more of a "fate" in regards to drawing. So I wanted to get a response from others: Is it okay to draw from the middle of the deck? <Q> Mathematically the probabilities are unaffected. <S> Let's consider a simplified example with just 4 cards. <S> Let's say we draw one card from the 4 aces from a standard deck of playing cards. <S> The probability of drawing the Ace of Spades is 1/4. <S> Now let's split the deck evenly and pick the first card from the first split to compare the probability of drawing the Ace of Spades. <S> Using the Law of Total Probability, there is half a chance the Ace of Spades is in the first split of 2 cards. <S> There is also half a chance that in the first split, the first card is the Ace of Spades. <S> Multiplying these out gives the probability of drawing the Ace of Spades as being (1/2)*(1/2) = 1/4, just as in the case of drawing normally. <A> As long as you draw the whole deck before shuffling discards, it doesn't matter. <S> Simply put, all cards in a well shuffled deck are equal. <S> (Or have an equal probability of being this or that.) <S> However, in games where (e.g.) used or discarded cards are put back to the bottom of the deck without a reshuffle, it obviously matters. <S> (The mechanic is usually something like draw two, keep one, put the other to the bottom of the deck.) <S> Shuffling the discards in to the deck before all cards are drawn once, will also change the odds slightly. <S> Also, in some games, players may actually want to draw cards from the original deck (before drawing cards that have been discarded and reshuffled once), so when the end of the deck is near, even minor rules about the order of almost simultaneous draws will matter. <S> Incidentally, since Ticket to Ride was mentioned: well shuffled is also a key word, since a badly shuffled deck might very well have bunched remains of previous sets. <S> -- <S> Of course, any of that doesn't stop people from being superstitious. <S> :) <S> I'll admit to sometimes drawing from the middle of a shuffled deck in cases where my previous draws (from the top) have been utter garbage. <S> I know it doesn't change the odds (and if it did, it would be cheating), but only makes me feel better by being able to act out on my misfortune. <S> ;) <A> From the Ticket to Ride official rules: Draw Train Car Cards – The player may draw 2 Train Car cards. <S> He may take any one of the face-up cards or he may draw the top card from the deck (this is a blind draw). <S> If he draws a face up card, he immediately turns a replacement card face-up from the deck. <S> He then draws his second card, either from the face up cards or from the top of the deck . <S> (See Train Car Cards for special rules for Locomotive cards). <S> So for this specific game, no, it's not allowed to draw from the middle of the deck. <S> The chance of drawing a specific card is the same no matter what card you draw <S> so it dosen't matter. <S> But if it dosen't matter, why go through the trouble of drawing the middle card? <S> As long as the game dosen't interact with the deck <S> (like in MTG where you can peak at the cards, or order them) there's nothing wrong with creating your own house rules and draw whatever card you'd like. <A> It's true that there's no statistical difference between a card taken from the top of a perfectly shuffled deck and a card taken from the middle of the deck. <S> (Assuming that no one has already looked at the top cards.) <S> The caveat is perfectly shuffled . <S> Humans, in general, are rather bad at shuffling cards. <S> For a standard 52 card deck, it takes about 7 riffle shuffles to randomize the deck well. <S> Very few people will shuffle that many times. <S> This means that there is normally some residual order in the deck, even after shuffling. <S> People have been know to take advantage of that. <S> For example in bridge , top players can (unconsciously) incorporate the non-randomness of typical shuffling patterns into their playing decisions. <S> I remember hearing that when automatic shufflers were first introduced for bridge tournaments, there were objections that the machines weren't shuffling "properly", as the randomness of the decks were greater than the previous human shuffles, throwing of established strategies. <S> So that is something to consider. <S> If you don't have a truly random shuffle in the deck, there may be some residual order in the cards. <S> If you then split the deck into multiple draw piles, this would allow a particularly perceptive individual to gain an advantage by strategically drawing from whichever deck is "hot" at the moment. <S> You can, of course, mitigate this by preventing people from picking which pile they draw from (e.g. Forcing everyone to draw from the closest deck), or simply shuffling better. <A> First, there are games where rearranging/peeking at the top cards is an inherent mechanic, so obviously, don't split and draw in those games. <S> Furthermore, splitting the deck before drawing might be perceived as a hint that card backs are marked, and that you actually know which card is coming, and you don't want it. <S> For those reasons, and the superstition of some players, I'd go against splitting decks unless everyone at the table agrees beforehand, and the game mechanics allow it.
|
Splitting the deck, drawing in the wrong order, or intentionally drawing from the middle of the deck, or even shuffling the deck between draws does not matter, if there's no way to gain knowledge of the cards , either from how the deck is used in the game, or by (accidental) peeking.
|
Can different Aces have different values? I understand that Aces are worth either 1 Point or 11 Points , depending on the player's will. But how are multiple Aces valued? Here are some examples: Ace, Nine, Ace Is this always x+9+x, where: Case 1: x = 1 or x = 11; (This hand would always be 11 or 31) Or can this be x+10+y, where: Case 2: x = 1 or x = 11; y = 1 or y = 11 (This hand can be 11, 21, 21 or 31) <Q> First off Ace value is either 1 or 11 (this is why face+ace is a blackjack) <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack <S> Second you choose what it is worth, but most places will assume you want 11 unless it will bust you <S> So in your hand you can choose between 12,22,22,32 <A> The hand is always scored to give the best possible value for the player, such that they have the highest score they can get without going bust. <S> The player never chooses the values or the score ; it is decided by the rule and the cards on the table. <S> Source: <S> professional experience dealing in a regulated casino. <A> Each ace has it's value determined separately. <S> If you somehow drew 4 aces, you could have 4, 14, 24, 34, or 44 as the value of your hand.
|
A+A+X will always be valued as 12+X, unless this would bust, in which case it must be valued as 12 (since the only such X is a ten-value card, and therefore the only non-bust score is for both aces to be one-value).
|
Using the King as an attacking piece Are there examples of expert-level games where the King is used as an attacking piece early in the game? I.e. brought out into the center of the board behind the bishops, pawns and knights, to gain a superiority of attacking force over the opponent? Certainly there would be great risks in doing this: the opponent can check you any time he wants - but do you think, if handled with care and expertise, this strategy could work? As another example, maybe developing the King would become desirable if a player loses his ability to castle. Thank you very much. <Q> There was one very famous game, Spielmann vs. Tartakower , where Black kept his king in the center instead of castling, moved it forward on the 15th move, and again on the 21st move to reinforce his other pieces. <S> Note, however, that these moves were made in the middle game, and not the opening. <S> This game is actually unusual, because as another poster pointed out, it's not usually a good idea to move the king too far forward early in the game. <S> That's because the king is a likely target, and a liability to his own pieces when there are many of them on the board. <S> For instance, the other side can often attack a king and fellow pieces through forks and "skewers," and also pin pieces against a king. <S> The reason why Black's maneuver worked was because all the minor pieces (Bishops and Knights) had been exchanged, and both sides were "short handed" in the center and kingside. <S> In effect, Black's king was an "extra" piece. <S> It traveled with a protective screen of pawns, and Black secured the king further by offering White chances to exchange the heavy pieces. <S> (White declined and lost important ground.) <S> But this kind of maneuver goes against the logic of most games. <S> One test of this was that I had to go back almost 100 years to find a suitable game to answer your question <S> And although Tartakower (Black) was an international grandmaster, he was considered a bit "unconventional." <A> This is a bad idea in the early game. <S> You already mentioned the greatest issue. <S> Your king is open to attack. <S> Not only attack but it makes it easier to land absolute pins, forks, and skewers which will cost pieces. <S> If we could keep it safe, it's not useful. <S> The king cannot directly attack a piece. <S> It needs to spend two moves, one to get aside a piece and a second to capture it. <S> The piece would just move away or get supported. <S> Sure, the king could support another piece, but a pawn could likely do that role just fine. <A> This is very rare. <S> There has been a lot of discussion on this in the past in Dutch, so searching for "winnende wandelkoning" gives some examples. <S> The most famous example is Short - Timman, Tilburg 1991 . <S> Black was so paralyzed that white could just walk his king up the board to help the queen with giving checkmate. <A> Checkout google chess playing a.i "AlphaZero" <S> It used chess moves using the king as attacking piece that's never been recorded before! :)
|
Such a attack with the king in the middlegame (forget about the opening) is known as a "king walk", or a "winning king walk" if it wins.
|
Do I need to keep the Ascension expansion boxes as I have the original one? I have the original Ascension box with wooden separators (pictured below), what makes for a nice, long lasting storage for cards - I would say, a lot of them, as the separators seem quite empty holding only the original game cards. I'm planning to buy a couple of expansions when travelling abroad, and given the original box and separators, I'm thinking about getting rid of the boxes and bringing home only the cards and manuals - this way I can bring more stuff with me. Is this idea reasonable? Are there reasons to keep the other boxes (besides, maybe, space for several expansions)? <Q> It looks like that version of Ascension has the Broken Token Box Organizer (or similar) included, which should allow for most, if not all, of the expansions to fit into the one box. <S> The game normally comes with an insert that looks a little different . <S> As such you would not need to keep the additional expansion boxes if you have no desire to resell the game, or display the boxes. <A> Unless you sleeve all your cards you will need at least 2 boxes, almost 3 <A> if you don't want them, they just take up space at that point. <S> I kept mine, but that's personal preference there, my cards are currently all stored in 2 years of the special edition tins, and it already takes up both years full space. <S> It should be noted that you definitely need the rule books from each still, as you mentioned, since last I checked Stone Blade has yet to release a comprehensive rulebook (I have emailed asking for a PDF) and each new expansion adds new rules to the base game.
|
The original box won't fit all the current expansions, there's just too many cards at this point, but no there is no good reason to keep the other boxes
|
Minimum score for 7 letters and what beats it My girlfriend and I got into a discussion about scrabble the other day and we were wondering what the smallest score you could get for a 7 letter word is, presuming the board is empty. The word can be placed anywhere and all other scrabble rules are adhered to. And then what would be the smallest scoring word that would be able to beat said 7 letter word. Is there a way you can work this out? I could probably work out the first bit if I had a scrabble board but I wouldn't know where to start with the second part. <Q> The minimum score for a seven letter word if you can place the word anywhere is 55. <S> e.g. RETiNAs C2 across. <S> (lower case indicate blanks) <S> The score is 5 for RETNA, 0 for the blanks, and 50 bonus for using all 7 letters. <S> The word would lie on a TL square, but since this is covered by a blank, it gives no bonus since 3x0 = 0. <S> This could be beaten by a three-letter word <S> e.g. ZAX A1 across <S> The score is 19 x 3 = 57. <S> I can't think of any common three letter word that would fit here, but ZAX is valid in both TWL and SOWPODS dictionaries. <S> For common words, I suspect you'd have to go to four letters and something like QUIZ. <S> The largest possible score for a two-letter word, before bonus squares, is 11 (QI, ZA or ZO), so you couldn't get higher than 33. <S> While these match the criteria in your question, they could never occur in isolation in a real game since they would either have to be opening moves across the central DW square, or joined onto existing words. <A> The minimum turn score for <S> a 7-letter word is 5, supposing that the 7 tiles are both blanks and 5 1-point tiles, no premium squares were covered in that turn, and fewer than 7 tiles were played in that turn (that is, at least one tile in that word had been played earlier). <S> The minimum turn score for playing 7 tiles in one turn is 56, not 55. <S> If the board is empty, the word played will get doubled, and so will score at least 5 <S> *2+50=60. <S> If none of the tiles played hooks anything, they make a word of 8 or more letters. <S> If any of the tiles played hooks anything, 8 or more tiles will be involved in the score: <S> the 7 played and at least one other in at least one hook word. <S> These 8 tiles will score at least 6 before the bonus is added. <A> This can be achieved in many different ways around the board <S> but it must be an 8-letter word that is played, and it must involve 6 single point scoring tiles and both blanks. <S> One way is by playing an 8-letter word, all single scoring tiles and both blanks, playing across any of the 4 central triple word squares that is already occupied by a previous turn and putting a blank scoring tile on the double letter square that is on that line. <S> I have scored less than 60 points, using all 7 tiles, on many occasions playing against a computer, but I`ve never scored 56.
|
The lowest score possible, under real game conditions, when placing all 7 tiles down in one go, is 56.
|
What is this game with cards you describe, draw, or act out, decided by an electronic unit? Can anyone help me remember the name of this game? We played it around 2005. It was an electronic game with a purple (I think) unit. There were no teams. Each player chose a color. All the participating colors checked in on the unit to start the game. There was no game board. The game then chose a color to take a turn. You would select a card and insert it into the unit. The game then decided if you had to describe it, draw it, or act it out. The game also chose which color you would be doing the card with. It was all completely random. The game unit kept up with the score and at the end announced how many points each color had earned. I think there were two electronic hosts, one male and one female. I distinctly remember the female voice slowly saying, "Maybe you should try to act", slowly sounding out each letter in the word 'act'. <Q> I remember playing this game as a kid! <S> I believe it was called "Express Yourself". <S> Hope I helped in some way! <A> Could this be Cranium Turbo Edition ? <S> It has an electronic purple unit and 4 different types of activities: <S> Data head (fun facts), Star performer (act & hum), Creative cat (sketch & sculpt), and Word worm (word puzzles). <A> Your description reminded me of Taboo. <S> Therefore, I googled for an electronic version of the game and got two hits. <S> Taboo Buzz'd <S> Electronic Taboo (Platinum Edition) <S> I do not know these versions <S> so I do not know if they match the rest of your description <S> but I hope one of these two is the game you are looking for. <A> It could be Pictionary. <S> Although this does have a board, maybe you have a different version. <S> But in pictionary, you do have 2 different coloured cards and you have to draw what card comes up.
|
The "unit" that you are talking about might be an electronic version of Pictionary where the "unit" gives out a random card.
|
What does playability of a Scrabble word mean? While studying Scrabble word lists through Zyzzyva, I came across the term playability order. I understand the term probability order, which lists the most probable tile combinations on a rack of 7 tiles. However, I was unable to understand what criteria orders the words based on playability order. The first three words in the playability order for 3 letter words are QIN QAT QIS Which according to me is quite absurd to be most playable, as one is more likely to draw two E 's (out of 12) and one R (out of 6) to play ERE or REE , rather than drawing the only Q . Can someone explain to me in simple words the meaning of playability order of words in Scrabble? <Q> Someone will have made a database of all the words played across a large number of "high-standard" games (e.g. club level and above) and ranked how often certain words crop up. <S> QIN ranks highly because it is a very common way of getting rid of a Q (since there are relatively few Q words to choose from). <S> In addition, it can be formed by hooking -N onto QI, which itself is a very commonly played word. <S> Thus QIN can be considered a useful word to know. <S> In your example, it might be quite common to have the option of playing ERE, but in most situations that won't score you many points, and there will be better combinations present on your rack. <S> Note that "playability" is a slightly more subjective concept than "probability". <S> The latter can be calculated precisely, whereas playability will depend on the set of games chosen to average across, and ultimately the decisions of the players taking part in those games. <A> "Playability" refers to the expected benefit from playing the word. <S> That is, the actual benefit times the expected chances of getting to make the play. <S> Q is a very high-valued letter, so any word made with a Q will give you a large benefit. <S> QIN, QIS, and QAT, also have pretty good chances of being played, because you can tack on the Q to common words such as in, is, and at, or tack on Q and N or T around a vowel. <S> A word with two E's actually has a decidedly better chance of being played, but the value of the two <S> Es is much less than that of one Q. <S> It is this factor that makes the "Q" combinations more playable. <A> Playability of a word indicates how useful it is to know a word in a Scrabble game because it is likely to be playable as the best move in a particular situation. <S> It is measured by <S> how much worse off you are if you don't know that word. <S> The difference in equity point between that word and the next best play (i.e. equity loss) is tallied over many games to calculate its playability score; the higher the better. <S> (For an explanation on equity loss, see my other answer here ) <S> See here for further explanation <S> http://crosstables.livejournal.com/24367.html <S> Taking your Q example, it's easier to understand the concept from the reverse angle: your Q will be unplayable if you don't know QIN and it will severely hamper you (i.e. big equity loss), so QIN has high playability score. <S> On the other hand, not knowing ERE is not as bad if you know RE (for example), so even if that situation happens more often, the cumulative effect will not be as bad as that one time you had Q and don't know QIN, hence the lower playability score of ERE. <S> Another thing to note is that words with more anagrams tend to have lower playability score. <S> Take the highly valued RETINAS rack, high in probability and (deservedly) must be learnt. <S> However RETINAS itself has low playability score, because most likely most of the time if you don't know RETINAS <S> but you know RETAINS (or any of the other anagrams) and the other anagram can be played, no big damage done and equity loss is small.
|
"Playability" refers to how often these words crop up in real games.
|
Dominant strategy in chess Is there any proof ensuring there can be no dominant strategy for chess? By dominant strategy, I mean a way of playing that always works regardless what the opponent do. <Q> One of the following is true: <S> There is a dominant strategy for White. <S> There are strategies for both players that guarantee they don't lose, i.e. perfect play results in a draw (e.g. as in Tic-Tac-Toe). <S> No one knows which is true. <S> Most experts guess that perfect play leads to a draw, and a few believe White can always win. <S> It is unlikely Black has a dominant strategy, but no one has been able to rule it out either. <S> Theoretically, a computer working for long enough could just try everything and tell us the answer, but with today's best technology and algorithms that would take prohibitively long . <S> Here are some important features of chess that together guarantee that one of the 3 cases above is true: <S> Chess is a game of complete information, i.e. both players always know everything that is going on. <S> Players take turns (as opposed to playing simultaneously, e.g. as in Rock Paper Scissors) <S> The game always ends eventually (at least under tournament rules as of 2014 , after enough moves are made that aren't irreversibly advancing the game, it's a draw). <S> There is no randomness. <S> There are only 2 players. <S> Intuitively, these facts let you completely reason out the consequences of everything that could possibly happen (if I do A, my opponent could do B or C, in which case I could do D or E...). <S> For a more formal explanation of why this implies there are either dominant or drawing strategies, see Zermelo's Theorem . <S> [Parts of this answer are synthesized from earlier answers/comments.] <A> essentially, it seems that in a more complex game, it is more likely that there will be a draw. <S> Connect-Four is the most complex game we have solved so far, and although the first player wins, that is due to the mathematical nature of the game (i.e., it is impossible to go back to a previous position like for one side of chess). <S> There is no proof that either side wins in a perfect game of chess, however, a draw is very likely since most expert games are beginning to end that way. <S> We don't have to explore every single chess game possible--just the strongest moves. <S> (NH3 is stupid, guys. <S> It doesn't help us at all) <A> The term "dominant strategy" is generally used for games with incomplete information (or simultaneous moves, which can be analyzed as a game with incomplete information). <S> In a deterministic game where players take turns and there is no secret information, the term "perfect play" is generally used, rather than "dominant strategy". <S> The term "dominant strategy" refers to a strategy that is better than every other strategy, regardless of what the other player does. <S> However, in chess, you always know what your opponent did on their last turn, so the "regardless of what your opponent does" part is a bit redundant. <S> The term "strategy" is often used to refer to the entire decision tree, including what you would have done if your opponent had done something different, but even there, the "regardless of what your opponent does" part doesn't add much; two strategies can't possibly have different results unless they differ with regard to moves actually taken. <S> And technically speaking, there is a weakly dominant strategy in chess ( <S> that is, a strategy that does as well as or better than every other strategy), but there isn't a strictly dominant strategy in chess (that is, a strategy that does better than every other strategy). <A> IMO this outcome would probably be a draw, but could be victory for either side.
|
There is a dominant strategy for Black. Since chess is open-information deterministic game, it is bound to have some kind of optimal strategy for both players, which would result in same outcome every time, provided both players play perfectly.
|
Eye of the Storm and Kicker Costs If Rite of Replication is exiled with Eye of the Storm , can people pay the kicker cost to still get 5 tokens? <Q> Some cards copy spells on the stack directly. <S> You cannot choose to pay kicker for those spells, the choice and additional costs are copied from the original. <S> In this case, however, the whole card is copied, and you may cast it as a new spell without paying its mana cost. <S> In that case, you are free to decide whether or not to pay the kicker costs, which are additional costs and have nothing to do with the spell's mana costs: <S> 702.32a Kicker is a static ability that functions while the spell with kicker is on the stack. <S> “Kicker [cost]” means “You may pay an additional [cost] as you cast this spell.” <S> Paying a spell’s kicker cost(s) follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f <S> –h. <S> Note that you may also pay the kicker costs for the original Rite, but that would be a waste of mana, because the original is exiled and does not resolve. <S> Neither paying nor not paying the kicker on the original Rite has any effect on the copies. <A> From the gatherer entry for Eye of the Storm : The player chooses modes, pays additional costs, chooses targets, and so on for the copies when casting them and <S> When a spell with Replicate is copied by Eye of the Storm, you have the opportunity to pay additional costs <S> Replicate was used in the reminder above, as that was an additional cost mechanic in that block. <S> Kicker follows the same rules in this matter. <A> Yes, you can use Kicker. <S> The total cost to cast a spell = <S> (mana cost or alternative cost) <S> + (additional costs and cost increases) - cost reductions Eye of the Storm's ability allows you to cast the spell for an alternative cost ("for free"). <S> Kicker can be used when you cast a spell by imposing an additional cost. <S> Nothing about casting a spell using an alternative cost prevents this.
|
Yes, you can pay the kicker costs for the each copy if you want the extra tokens.
|
I tend to focus on one aspect of a game. How do I take the necessary balanced approach that's necessary in games like Seven Wonders? My personality is to pick one thing, and then go all out on it. For instance, if I play Civilization, I might tons of a single unit. Or Settlers I might focus on roads. Often this negatively hurts me. The problem is that I just don't have an intuition for how to handle many different aspects of a game. How do I change my mindset when playing? <Q> 7 Wonders is a game that rewards flexibility. <S> Moreso than anything else, the winner will be the one who has identified the key weaknesses in the rest of the players and exploits that. <S> The problem that many players have is they think "I'll go science" or "I'll go military" or some other strategy. <S> Alternatively, they just pick the juciest looking card every time, with no thought to the ultimate purpose for the card. <S> Both of these methods are bad. <S> 7 Wonders is a game about optimising your draft options. <S> Sometimes that means forgoing wonder levels. <S> Other times that means forgoing brown resources and other times that means neglecting yellow buildings. <S> In all cases, what you should realise is that while your civ has strengths, your opponents are revealing vital information about their game plans in each and every draft. <S> In one 7 Wonders game I played I was Rhodes (who are very, very strong). <S> I went a very early military building and then pure science and won. <S> The reason that I did that was that I identified early on that nobody was going science and my neighbours were scared of me going military. <S> They went heavy brown resources and yellow/blue buildings. <S> In another game I didn't get a single science card but picked up early game blue cards (which were being ignored by the board), enough military to get my 18 points and denied my neighbours the use of their marketplaces (which were both pointing away from me) by snagging and preventing key resources for their strategy. <S> In all cases, realising that the game was not multiplayer solitaire was enough to give me resounding wins. <S> Remember not to fixate on a strategy, rather, fixate on your opponents strategies. <S> You won't be able to counter them all, but you will be able to identify the gaps in demand and exploit them. <A> Well, the first step to changing your mindset is realizing that your strategy could be improved, which you have already done. <S> One big problem with monolithic strategies is that they can be readily identified and countered by other players. <S> The rock-paper-scissor aspect of Civ units allows opponents to build the perfect counter to your single-unit army. <S> A road-building strategy in Catan can be countered by limiting access to brick and wood. <S> Don't think about just the potential gain from your strategy, but the potential weaknesses as well. <S> Your monolithic strategy may win if it works, but what will happen if it's derailed? <S> A more balanced strategy allows for more options later in the game, and is not so tightly tied to successes in a particular area of the game. <S> If one aspect doesn't work out, you can always pivot to focusing on something else. <A> Going all-in on one thing can be a viable strategy sometimes, but ultimately that strategy is just the core of an overall goal. <S> Also, plans never survive contact with the enemy. <S> For Catan, a road building strategy is good for getting to better settlement spots, cutting off opponents, and expanding. <S> It's not just a road, it helps your other strategies. <S> Or focus on resources early so you have building flexibility later. <S> I've never played Civ, but if your opponent can see your units, shouldn't you be able to see theirs and know when they are trying to counter you? <S> Also, you could take your units to a third opponent instead.
|
For Seven Wonders, you can pick a strategy initially, but if the cards don't support it or you see a neighbor is doing the same strategy, it might be good to change it up.
|
Are there times it's actually advantageous to wait to pay mana abilities until casting a spell? In Magic, you have two ways to pay for a spell (or ability): Collect the mana first, then cast the spell and spend the mana to pay for it. Cast the spell, play some mana abilities as part of the casting, spend the mana to finish the casting. I can name some situations when the first approach is more advantageous. For one, you can collect mana from other sources, like spells. As spells aren't mana abilities you can't use those in the second approach. Are there some situations where the second approach is more advantageous mechanically? What kinds of situations are those? Let's assume no mistakes are made, so no need to rollback an illegal casting. <Q> I can think of one that I used to use back in the Mirrodin days using Mycosynth Golem and Krark-Clan Ironworks . <S> The short version is that in the case where you cast the spell before paying its cost, you can save yourself from sacrificing more artifacts than necessary. <S> As an example, you have five artifacts on the battlefield, so your affinity is five. <S> You also have two available land that produce two mana, and an Ironworks. <S> Here are the two ways you could play it: You pay the costs first. <S> You tap your 2 land, so now you need 9 more. <S> In order to get this to work, you have to sacrifice 4 artifacts to generate an additional 8 mana. <S> This leaves you with an affinity of 1, which gives you enough to pay for the Golem. <S> You cast the Golem first. <S> The Golem goes on the stack with an affinity of five, reducing the cost to six mana. <S> You then pay the six mana by (1) tapping your two land and (2) sacrificing two artifacts to the Ironworks for four mana. <S> In most cases, the second option is better (unless you are wanting to sacrifice more artifacts for some reason). <S> This is a case where casting your spell before paying costs is beneficial. <S> The example above illustrates this principle, and rule 601.2h in JonTheMon's answer <S> has an equally important example. <S> This is going to be a little verbose, but the standard is probably something like: <S> "If you are going to be paying a reduced cost for your spell because of effects of cards on the battlefield, but in paying the cost for your spell you will be removing those cost-reducing cards from the battlefield, you should put the spell on the stack first and then pay costs." <A> We get a pretty good example from rule 601.2h: <S> The player pays the total cost in any order. <S> Partial payments are not allowed. <S> Unpayable costs can’t be paid. <S> Example <S> You cast Altar’s <S> Reap, which costs {1}{B} and has an additional cost of sacrificing a creature. <S> You sacrifice Thunderscape Familiar, whose effect makes your black spells cost {1} less to cast. <S> Because a spell’s total cost is “locked in” before payments are actually made, you pay {B}, not {1}{B}, even though you’re sacrificing the Familiar. <A> Yes, there is at least one situation where the special timing rules for mana abilities allow plays that would be impossible with non-mana abilities: <S> If you want to activate the Skyshroud Elf , and pay for its ability's activation cost by sacrificing the elf to an Ashnod's Altar , you can do that.
|
In a more general sense, the cases where you'd want to cast the spell before paying costs are ones where you want to lock in a casting cost that has the potential to change as you're paying for it.
|
BRIDGE - What to do with 5 or more trumps in my partners (opening) major? While playing Standard American, If my partner opens 1 of a Major and I (as responder) have 5 cards in the same Major and 4/5 POINTS, what do I respond, 4 of the Major or something else ? Thanks. <Q> It depends on a few things, but basically you have a choice between a simple raise to 2M or a jump to 4M. First, did partner open in first seat, or later? <S> If partner opened in first seat, your LHO has not had a chance to enter the auction yet and opponents are more likely to have a game. <S> This makes the jump to 4 of the major more attractive. <S> If LHO has already passed, opponents are unlikely to have a game, so the preemptive value of 4M is less useful and partner may have some extras. <S> When partner has moderate extras, you're propelling your side to a shaky contract at best while the opponents are unlikely to find a plus. <S> Next, what is the shape of your hand? <S> If it's 5332, 4M is less attractive. <S> If it's 5431 or shapelier, 4M is more attractive. <S> If you decide to bid 2M only, your plan is to bid 3M over opponent's part-score interference and then go away, and not to accept partner's game tries. <S> If you bid 4M, you've essentially shown your hand and you're done in the auction unless partner makes some forcing bid (essentially a cue bid or blackwood). <A> In Standard American, the normal bid is to raise to two of the major. <S> You are a bit "light" in points for this raise, but you also have two extra trumps (over three) to compensate, so you can think of your hand as a bit "better" than 6-7 points. <S> More, if the "two extra trumps" means that you have a singleton or void elsewhere in your hand. <S> The reasons they give are as follows: <S> 1) <S> If you and your partner have 17 points and ten trumps between you, you should make nine tricks (down one). <S> 2) <S> If partner has "extras" (16-17 or more), you should make your contract with about 20 points and ten trumps in total. <S> 3) <S> If you and partner have 10 in one major, the opponents are likely to have 10 in the other major, and one (or both) partnerships will probably have the 20 points and ten trumps needed to make four of a major. <S> And if your side has less than 20, your sacrifice in 1) may "head off" an opposing game. <A> This highly depends on the shape of the rest of your hand. <S> Note that my answer (and my experience) doesn't come from the Standard American system. <S> When you know you have a fit with your partner, you can add points for distribution. <S> As a rule of thumb: One additional point for each trump over the eighth Three points for a renonce/void Two points for a singelton <S> One point for a doubleton <S> For instance, partner opened Spades (as a 5-card) <S> and you hold KxxxxQxxxxxxx <S> This hand shows 5 HCP, and 2 additional points for the trumps, and 3 points for the lack of diamonds for a total of 10. <S> Bidding 3 Spades as a game invite is a serious option in this case. <S> However, a hand like this: KxxxxJxxxxxxx has only 4 HCP, 2 extra trumps, but really no redeeming value in distribution. <S> Your doubleton is worth only 1 additional point, but it also already holds a point in Hearts, so you can't count it for distribution as well. <S> This hand shows about 6 points total, a limit raise to 2 Spades is the best call in this case.
|
It is under some alternate bidding systems, like the one proposed by Larry Cohen and Marty Bergen of "the Law of Total Tricks , that you should go directly to four of the major with your known ten card major fit.
|
Do multiple instances of paying extra mana to target a permanent stack? When I have two copies of Diffusion Sliver on the battlefield, does my opponent have to pay four mana, or two mana to target my slivers? I mean it says, pay two, so when he pays two both cards should be happy, or does this stack? An explanation how and why would be nice. <Q> For convenience, I will quote Diffusion Sliver 's ability: <S> Whenever a Sliver creature you control becomes the target of a spell or ability an opponent controls, counter that spell or ability unless its controller pays {2}. <S> So, you've got two Diffusion Slivers. <S> Let's call them Artemis and Boromir. <S> Each of them has their own independent copy of this ability. <S> When your opponent casts a spell that targets one of your slivers, you get <S> two triggered abilities going on the stack: one from Artemis and one from Boromir. <S> When Artemis's triggered ability resolves, your opponent has to pay 2 mana to satisfy the cost of that ability (unless they let their spell be countered, but let's assume that doesn't happen). <S> So the two mana used to pay for Artemis's ability's cost cannot also pay for the cost of Boromir's ability. <S> When they pay the mana, they no longer have that mana - just like money. <S> Later on when Boromir's triggered ability resolves, your opponent will have to find two additional mana to pay for that cost. <S> That makes a total of four. <A> They have to pay four mana, when he casts the spell both slivers trigger and their ability to counter the spell unless he pays mana goes on the stack, to prevent these ability's from countering his spell they need to pay two mana for each of them making him pay a total of four mana <A> Those are perfectly normal triggered abilities. <S> Each ability triggers when a sliver is targeted with a spell or ability. <S> The controller of the abilities gets to put them on the stack in any order <S> he or she prefers and his opponent gets to choose to pay either 0, 2 or 4 colourless mana. <S> The fact that two cards have the same name does not change how triggered abilities work, or how they are put on the stack.
|
It's a general rule in Magic that you cannot pay for more than one cost using the same resources .
|
Does Classic Egyptian Rat Screw have Marriages? I've played Egyptian Rat Screw for years, and I've encountered one major discrepancy in the way others play compared to how I do. The combinations that were grounds to slap that I learned were - Double : Two of the same card in a row. Sandwich : Two of the same cards with a different card in between. Ex.2,3,2. Joker : Any joker on the field. Straight : Four cards in order ascending or descending, excluding face cards or aces. Marriage : King and a queen next to each other. Everyone I've played with who knew this game prior to me showing them played without the marriage. I've wondered for some time whether it was a valid part of the game. Does anyone know definitively? Thanks! <Q> In the revised 2001 edition of Hoyle's Rules of Games by Albert Morehead, Geoffrey Mott-Smith, <S> Philip D. Morehead <S> there is no mention of marriages and also some discrepancies with the "standard rules" you and every player I've encountered myself know today. <S> However the latest (at time of writing) version of the Wikipedia page for the game does mention it. <S> When one examines the edit history however, the initially created page has no mention of marriages. <S> After viewing the edit history I found what I believe to be the first mention of marriages on the page on the version published at 22:45, 19 October 2010 under the heading of "Rule Variations". <S> The page has been massively reformatted and altered many times since and the mention of marriages has come and gone throughout these many edits. <S> Since I cannot access the other referenced source on the current page, Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society, Volume 1. <S> by Rodney P. Carlisle <S> , I cannot conclude whether or not it makes any mention of the marriage rules especially since the Wikipedia page's rules section does not specify from which references they are drawn. <S> While this is purely speculation given that I cannot find a conclusive source, my best guess would be that these rules are either a regional or group-specific variant. <S> This isn't uncommon for playing card games since there are even games based off of this phenomenon such as Mao. <S> Since it does seem to be an ongoing debate whether to include it on the Wikipedia page or not, I think it's safe to assume that it is at least a pretty well known variant of the game. <S> Note: Both Wikipedia links are to specific timestamped versions of the pages, this is done in case future versions (yet again) drop the mention of marriages. <A> I learned this game probably around 20 years ago, and have never heard of anyone playing with Marriages, or Straights for that matter. <S> But hey, if you enjoy it, there's no reason why you can't play with those rules. <S> I don't think Egyptian Rat Screw is really a game with a "definitive" rule set. <A> Everything else is "house rules" giving more slappable chances for people who are paying attention.
|
In the Klutz Book of Card Games entry for "Egyptian War" (same game, cleaner name), the only slappable combination is any double (face card or otherwise).
|
Alternative play for Splendor My husband and I like Splendor, but once someone manages to get one high level card, the game is pretty much over in minutes. Increasing the number of points you need to win doesn't make the game last much longer, either. And by the end, it's more just who-can-grab-the-card-first. Can you think of a good alternative way to play? The game is beautiful and I'd like to use it more often if I had a better set of rules. <Q> I play quite a bit of Splendor, love the game, but I've never run into this problem. <S> Do you each pay attention to the other's gameplay? <S> (that sounds rude, but I promise it's not meant to be!) <S> Do either of you ever sabotage the other? <S> For example, if I see that my opponent's purchase power leans toward a particular premium card, I snatch that card off the market, along with a wildcard token. <S> I'll score it later. <S> Also, if I notice that a particular gemstone is hard to find, I'll buy those up to slow a leading opponent. <S> Maybe you already do these things. <S> If not, try paying closer attention to what your opponent's cache could purchase, at any given time, and if it looks like he could spring ahead by purchasing one of the 4 higher level cards, then snatch that card, along with your wildcard token, and shout, "Punked! <S> B!tch!" <S> That last part is very important. <A> I play Splendor a lot with my wife <S> and I don't run in the problem you mention. <S> Maybe you suffer from a "group thinking" problem. <S> This happens when several people play the same game over and over and after a while they all seem to think that there is only 1 correct way of doing things and to win. <S> Suddenly, if you happen to play with someone else, you might be surprised because they play differently. <S> At 2 players this game allow for a lot of "control" (at least, a lot more than with 4 players). <S> You can try to make you opponent suffer from a shortage in one color for example. <S> You can reserve cards that are really good for your opponent, and so on. <S> I would also like to point out that Splendor is not a game that aims to be a long game. <S> Especially at 2 players, once you know how to play, the game is quite fast. <S> When we play with my wife, we usually play "best of 3", or we just play several games one after the other until we have enough. <S> But to answer your initial question "is there other ways to play? <S> ", yes, there is one provided by the publisher: an extension box exists for Splendor, which contains 4 mini-expansions. <S> Each expansion is independant of the other, which means you can play with 1 of them, 2 of them, 3 of them or all of them at the same time. <S> If you really like Splendor, this should bring you a lot more to consider and to enjoy. <S> The extension is called "Cities of Splendor" <A> The problem you're describing sounds like "runaway leader". <S> A lot of games have this problem and a lot of games have worked to solve it. <S> Power Grid for instance affects the leader by giving them a disadvantage. <S> Suburbia slows down progress so people cant speed ahead. <S> I can't think of any simple solution but <S> you might try some sort of leading punishment such as giving a token when he buys a two tier card and giving two for a third tier card. <S> Of course that solution might not be balanced. <S> You could try for something like event cards that would benefit someone who wasn't in the lead so if you buy a card you give the other person an event card. <S> There are lot ofpotential solutions. <S> Unfortunately most of them are untried and likely unbalanced and most likely inelegant. <A> I think Wolfkin is pretty spot on about it being a feature of the game design. <S> Splendor is really a very simple game. <S> That's not a bad thing, but ultimately you can trade away some of what you're describing in exchange for increased complexity. <S> One way to do that would be to modify the game, as Wolfkin suggested. <S> Another is to try a more complex game with similar mechanics. <S> For example, here is a boardgamegeek query for games that have a "card drafting" and "set collection" mechanic, like Splendor (you could search for those mechanics separately [OR vs. AND] to come up with even more ideas). <S> I would personally recommend 7 Wonders, although that works best with a third player (it has rules for 2-player, it's just not optimized for it). <S> My wife and I both really enjoy that, as well as Ticket To Ride. <S> Citadels is a bit more combative, which may or may not be to your taste. <S> Explore, and try something that sounds fun to you! <A> One solution we discovered is collecting level one gems to go after noble tiles instead of level three cards. <S> But I also wondered since the three levels are supposed to represent mining the raw stones, cutting and crafting the stones into jewelry, and then selling them through a merchant empire, perhaps a house rule of making sure winners had at least one card of each level would be a fun challenge. <S> In other words winners would be required to have at least 15 points and at least one mining card, artisan card and merchant card
|
You could also try player powers.
|
Why would I want to increase the costs of creatures that I cast? Geist-Fueled Scarecrow has an ability that says Creature spells you cast cost 1 more to cast. I don't see the strategy in casting a 4/4 creature and then penalizing myself for the added creature cast cost... Please elaborate, thanks! <Q> There's a few ideas that spring to mind. <S> Most 4/4 creatures that cost {4} (without requiring specific types) have some sort of downside. <S> If it didn't have the downside, it might not get printed. <S> Even if it's supposed to be a strict downside, though, there can still be unusual cases where you can take advantage of the downside. <S> You could give it to an opponent with Harmless Offering and make them pay the extra costs. <S> I guarantee you that at least one Zedruu the Greathearted player out there is running this. <S> You can cast Etched Oracle for {5} and get a full sunburst. <S> Maybe you want to use Hall of the Bandit Lord to cast a big creature and give it haste, but it has no generic mana in its mana cost. <S> Are these strategies particularly strong or likely to see significant play? <S> Probably not, but there's a lot of players who enjoy finding ways to take advantage of things intended to be downsides. <A> Under current rules, there does not seem to be any use for its ability, However, abilities of spells and creatures do not always have to be beneficial to their caster. <S> Many years ago, there was a rule called "mana burn". <S> At the end of each phase or step, all players would lose all their unspent mana and lose that much life, and there are cards that punish you for having untapped lands. <S> Having to pay extra mana for your creatures would allow you to evade both penalties. <S> However, mana burn has always been a niche rule, and strategies building around it have been equally niche. <S> Therefore, bringing a card that counters mana burn strategies would have been even more niche and practically irrelevant. <S> Nowadays, with the mana burn rule long gone, even that niche use is non-existant. <S> The only explanation is that the Scarecrow's ability is simply a drawback to balance the card, because the overall power of a card depends on all of its characteristics such as cost, power/toughness, and abilities. <A> There are some uncommon and even some rare cards that are just meant to be bad. <S> But there are two reasons I can think of that would make sense. <S> You could give it to another player with cards like Harmless Offering , Donate , and Switcheroo . <S> In the very same set that Geist-fueled Scarecrow was released, there is a card called Emrakul, the promised end that allows you to take control of a target player for a turn.
|
The simple answer is that it's intended specifically as a downside.
|
Can I cast Quarantine Field with Brisela in play for my opponent? Can I cast Quarantine Field with Brisela, Voice of Nightmares in play for my opponent? I just tried, Magic Online wouldn't let me. But with X as 2 Quarantine Field has a CMC of 6. Is this right? <Q> The Gatherer page for Brisela has this ruling: <S> For spells with {X} in their mana costs, use the value chosen for X to determine if the spell’s converted mana cost is 3 or less. <S> For example, your opponent could cast Burn from Within (a spell with mana cost {X}{R}) with <S> X equal to 3, but not with X equal to 2. <S> You should have been able to cast the spell, so you should report this as a bug. <A> You can cast Quarantine Field while your opponent controls Brisela, Voice of Nightmares , as long as you choose 1 or greater for X. First, before you even begin to cast a spell, the game checks to see if you are allowed to do so. <S> The game ignores any effects that require information determined during the spell’s proposal (this is an exception described in 601.2). <S> This means that we ignore Brisela's effect for now. <S> 601.2. <S> [...] <S> A player must be legally allowed to cast the spell to begin this process (see rule 601.3), ignoring any effect that would prohibit that spell from being cast based on information determined during that spell’s proposal . <S> [...] <S> Second, we follow the steps for casting a spell as described by 601.2a through 601.2i. <S> 601.2a <S> - Put the spell on the stack. <S> 601.2b - Choose a value for X. ... <S> 601.2e - Check if the spell can legally be cast. <S> (This time, no exception is made for effects that require information determined during the spell’s proposal.) <S> When we reach 601.2e, the spell is on the stack and has a value chosen for X. <S> According to 202.3c, the converted mana cost of a spell on the stack includes X. 202.3c <S> When calculating the converted mana cost of an object with an {X} in its mana cost, X is treated as 0 while the object is not on the stack, and X is treated as the number chosen for it while the object is on the stack. <S> If you choose a value of 2 for X while casting Quarantine field, then the converted mana cost will be 6. <S> 6 is not "3 or less", and so the spell is legal. <A> Rule 202.3c states: <S> 202.3c <S> When calculating the converted mana cost of an object with an {X} in its mana cost, X is treated as 0 while the object is not on the stack, and X is treated as the number chosen for it while the object is on the stack. <S> And Rule 601.2b specifies that the XX have a value as soon as you state that you want to play that spell: <S> [...] If the spell has a variable cost that will be paid as it’s being cast (such as an {X} in its mana cost; see rule 107.3), the player announces the value of that variable. <S> [...] <A> You should be able to cast it. <S> From the gatherer's ruling on Brisela: <S> For spells with {X} in their mana costs, use the value chosen for X to determine if the spell’s converted mana cost is 3 or less. <S> For example, your opponent could cast Burn from Within (a spell with mana cost {X}{R}) with <S> X equal to 3, but not with X equal to 2. <S> Meaning you can cast Quarantine Field for any cost greater than 0 as it will have a cmc of at least 4
|
Yes, you can cast Quarantine Field.
|
Should I get $200 for passing "Go" if I then get a card that says "don't collect $200"? Take this scenario: Someone rolled the dice and landed on Community Chest, passing "Go" in the process. They picked up the card and it read 'Go to jail. Don't collect $200'. They argued that they should still receive $200 because they already passed "Go". <Q> You collect $200 immediately when you land on or pass GO, then the player would continue their move and land on Chance/Community Chest, then draw that card. <S> The text on the card specifies that you cannot collect $200 if you pass GO (again) in the process of moving around the board from a Chance/Community Chest square to the Jail square. <A> Yes, the player collects $200. <S> To understand this, let's step through each action the player takes. <S> First, the player passes GO during normal movement of his/her token. <S> The GO square reads: <S> Collect $200.00 salary as you pass GO <S> Read plainly, this means the player collects the $200 the moment the player's token reaches GO while moving around the board. <S> See <S> : If you pass GO, do you collect 200 at the end of the turn or as you pass GO? <S> The official rules support this: "GO"… Each time a player’s token lands on or passes over GO, <S> whether by throwing the dice or drawing a card, the Banker pays him/her a $200 salary. <S> The card subsequently drawn from Community Chest reads: GO TO JAIL <S> Go Directly to Jail DO <S> NOT PASS GO <S> DO NOT COLLECT $200 <S> The "do not pass GO <S> , do not collect $200" is simply to distingish it from cards that state "Advance to <location>", which usually clarify that "if you pass GO, collect $200". <S> In the case of the "Go to Jail" card, the player is sent straight to Jail without moving around the board (and potentially passing GO). <S> The "collect $200" effect for passing GO has already resolved, and the text of the card only refers to the direct movement to Jail and not anything that happened before the card was drawn. <S> As such, the player does not forfeit the $200 already collected. <A> Technically, the player should have collected $200 before even landing on Community Chest . <S> The text on the space says that you collect the money " as <S> you pass Go", so the money goes to players passing Go as soon as they reach the space. <S> If we really want to get pedantic, they shouldn't even continue moving (if the die roll indicates that they should move further) until they have the money. <S> In practice, it's unlikely that anyone actually picks up the money at the moment they land on the space, but the fact that they should collect it then still matters . <S> They passed Go before the card came up, so they still get the money, because at the time they should have gotten it, there was no reason for them not to get it . <S> The "Do not collect $200" on the card only matters if the character would pass Go after picking up the card, but before landing in Jail.
|
Yes, they would still gain $200 from passing GO then landing on a square that makes them draw a card like this.
|
Cards that untap lands on opponents' turns I used to use Prophet of Kruphix in my commander deck, but it is now banned. While giving all creatures flash is nice, but I really used it for it's land untap ability. Are there any other cards that let me untap my lands on other player's turns? <Q> You can do a quick search for keywords like 'untap' + 'other player' to find some cards. <S> This'll put you on Seedborn Muse . <S> She's the original Prophet of Kruphix, but hasn't been hit by a ban because she doesn't have that super-juicy "flash" clause. <S> (And because being mono-green means she props up more diverse archetypes than a UG card does.) <S> Is that your only option? <S> Not quite: try other keywords (maybe filter down to your colors and search 'untap' + 'land' or 'untap' + 'permanent'). <S> Some highlights that you're likely to miss unless you try a lot of search permutations: <S> Awakening is a green enchantment that untaps everyone's stuff. <S> (And allows heavily-instant-speed decks to double-dip mana on their own turn.) <S> (And can also be used to double up your mana on your own turn.) <A> Here are 2 other options for you: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/cards/tenth-edition/13990-seedborn-muse http://www.mtgsalvation.com/cards/stronghold/4946-awakening <A> Another option (though unfortunately just for a single land) is Urban Burgeoning from Return to Ravnica. <S> I haven't looked it up myself, but <S> im pretty sure there are other cards that untap on opponent turns if you widen your search for "land", "untap", "upkeep", and "player".
|
Patron of the Orochi is a big green creature that you can use to untap all your green creatures and forests each turn.
|
"Target attacking creature gets -3/-0 until end of turn" Help a noob out! So I understand the concept of dealing damage in the form of -X/-X to a creature. The card in question is Elven Palisade .But with the example in my title, what's the point? If I use this enchantment on my opponent to give a creature of his -3/-0 until end of turn, wouldn't that -3/-0 disappear at the end of my turn and then his creature would be back to normal again? If I was dealing damage and reduced his toughness to 0 or less then I'd understand the significance, it would kill the creature. I know there are similar questions out there but they usually revolved around the toughness, not power. I'm also fully aware that my vocab here might make some of you cringe, but I'm just starting and trying to learn. Any help would be awesome! Thanks. <Q> The -3/-0 of Elven Palisade is the effect of its activated ability . <S> It's not something that happens when you cast the palisade (which indeed will usually happen on your turn). <S> You can activate the ability (and pay the cost of sacrificing a forest) any time you have priority. <S> But (as noted in the comments by Gendolkari) you must choose an attacking creature as the target, so generally you will do this during the opponent's turn after they declared attackers and make one of the attacking creatures less powerful until the end of their turn. <A> Let me help you with your vocabulary. <S> I feel that, if you understand this terminology better, understanding of the rules will follow. <S> Magic is very consistent in its wording, so it helps to understand that. <S> So I understand the concept of dealing damage in the form of -X/-X to a creature. <S> You do not 'deal damage' in the form of -X/-X. <S> The term 'dealing damage' is reserved for combat (when a creature uses its power-stat) and for 'burn'-spells or abilities that explicitly say 'deal damage'. <S> See, for example, Shock or Spikeshot Goblin . <S> The card in question is Elven Palisade . <S> But with the example in my title, what's the point? <S> If I use this enchantment on my opponent to give a creature of his -3/-0 until end of turn, wouldn't that -3/-0 disappear at the end of my turn and then his creature would be back to normal again? <S> You are right that the effect is not permanent. <S> A -3/-0 will normally not kill a creature, and the ability on Elven Palissade explicitly state that it ends at end of turn. <S> I notice that you speak of enchanting his creature, but that's not the case here. <S> You have an enchantment in play that has an activated ability (and it's the ability that gives a -3/-0), like Compulsion . <S> This is not an enchantment that is attached to a creature, like for instance <S> Insolence is. <S> So, when to use this ability? <S> Well, you can activate this ability on his turn. <S> When he attacks with a Trained Armodon , you can sac a forest to give it -3/-0 and avoid getting damaged. <S> If you also block it with, for example, a 4/2 Firewing Phoenix , the Phoenix would kill the Armodon, but stay unharmed himself. <S> If I was dealing damage and reduced his toughness to 0 or less <S> then I'd understand the significance, it would kill the creature. <S> Damage does not reduce toughness. <S> -X/-X reduces toughness. <S> Damage stacks until it's equal or greater than a creature's toughness and the creature dies. <S> If a creature is damaged in a turn, but not sufficiently to kill it, the damage wears off. <S> A special case is dealing too little damage to a creature to kill it, but using another effect to reduce its toughness. <A> Giving a creature -X/-X is not dealing it damage. <S> It simply reduces its power and toughness. <S> A creature dies when it has damage marked on it greater than or equal to its toughness, or when it has zero toughness. <S> So the toughness reduction makes it easier to kill or may just kill it outright, but it doesn't do so by dealing it damage. <S> So no, reducing a creature's power won't kill it. <S> But that doesn't mean it's completely useless. <S> The big reasons you might want to reduce an attacking creature's power: you want to take less damage from an attack (effectively gaining life) <S> you want to block the attacking creature, and have your blocking creature less damage. <S> For example, blocking a 5/3 with a 3/3 normally means they'd trade. <S> But if you can turn your opponent's creature into a 2/3, your 3/3 will survive. <S> So you can cast Elven Palisade, and it'll sit around on the battlefield doing nothing until you decide you want to activate its ability. <S> Since it has to target an attacking creature, you'll have to wait until your opponent attacks to use it. <S> At that point, hopefully you'll be able to take advantage, using its ability on one or more attacking creatures of your choice. <S> If you're really lucky, just the fact that you could use it will force them to be more cautious about attacking. <S> But that also makes it much less likely you'll be able to take full advantage; they can just avoid dangerous attacks. <S> Obviously those things aren't as powerful as killing the creature outright, and sacrificing a land is a steep cost, so Elven Palisade isn't exactly the most powerful card. <S> But the effect in general is far from useless. <A> First off, effects that reduce power and toughness are not damage, and damage does not (normally) reduce toughness. <S> You are correct that reducing the power of your opponent's creature won't kill it, and it'll be back to normal the next turn. <S> This can potentially buy you time to find a better answer, or prevent an ability that would trigger on combat damage. <S> If it buys you one turn, but that one turn is enough to win, it's done work for you. <S> Maybe there's some effect that cares about the creature's power; you might have a Puncturing Light that you want you use to actually destroy the attacker <S> but the attacker is too big.
|
What it does do is reduce the damage the attacking creature does.
|
What is the colored part of a mana cost called? Suppose I wanted to author a homebrew spell that would require paying just the colored portion of another card's mana cost as an additional cost. Is there a "proper" way to format that with the rules as written? For example, imagine a creature with the following ability: {T}, Reveal a creature card from your hand and pay the colored part of its mana cost: Put the revealed card into play under your control. Using this ability should give me a Terastodon for {G}{G}, or a Blightsteel Colossus for free. I know there are cards that refer to the number of colored mana symbols of permanents (devotion), but I don't know any that refer to them while they are cards or spells. <Q> The rules don't directly define a term for this part of the cost, but they do use a relevant term in one of the rules describing cost reductions, 117.7a : <S> Effects that reduce a cost by an amount of generic mana affect only the generic mana component of that cost. <S> They can’t affect the colored or colorless mana components of that cost. <S> You could also get a functionally equivalent effect by borrowing the wording of the Emerge ability: {T}, Reveal a creature card from your hand and pay its mana cost reduced by its converted mana cost: ... <A> We can accomplish your goal without using any unusual terminology: {T}, Reveal a creature card from your hand and pay its mana cost reduced by {X}: Put the revealed card into play under your control. <S> How does this work? <S> When you begin to activate the ability, you reveal a creature card and you also choose a value for {X}. <S> 107.3a <S> If a spell or activated ability has a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, and/or activation cost with an {X}, [-X], or X in it, and the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of casting the spell or activating the ability. <S> [...] <S> Then, you pay the cost of creature card reduced by the value chosen for {X}. <S> This only affects the generic part of the cost, and not the colored part. <S> 117.7a Effects that reduce a cost by an amount of generic mana affect only the generic mana component of that cost. <S> They can’t affect the colored or colorless mana components of that cost. <S> You are left paying the non-generic part of the cost. <S> This will usually* be the colored part of the cost. <S> Also, you could technically choose a small enough value for X that you end up paying part of the generic cost. <S> *A small handful of cards have actual colorless mana in the cost. <S> The colorless part of the cost would not be reduced. <A> The term would be 'colored mana cost' Although there is no specific definition of such a term because no card uses it, rule 601.2b mentions the term "colored mana cost" in the context of Phyrexian mana symbols: 601.2b <S> [..] <S> If a cost that will be paid as the spell is being cast includes Phyrexian mana symbols, the player announces whether he or she intends to pay 2 life or the corresponding colored mana cost for each of those symbols. <S> [..] <S> The wording on your card could be: {T}: You may pay the colored mana cost of a creature card in your hand. <S> If you do, put that card onto the battlefield. <S> Revealing the card would be omitted as a step because you would put the card onto the battlefield anyway, where everyone can see it and check that the appropriate amount of mana has been paid.
|
So, "colored mana component of the cost" is a reasonable term to use for the colored part of the mana cost.
|
Choosing same color after Wild (+4) Playing Uno this weekend, one of the players played a Wild+4 but chose the same color that was in play (this led to a successful challenge). I had thought that, regardless of what's in the player's hand, the player could not choose the same color after playing a Wild+4 - it had to change to one of the other 3 colors. A player could choose the same color after playing a regular Wild, though. Looking at the rules, though, I did not see this restriction; only that the player playing the Wild+4 must not have any cards of the same color in play. Given that my Uno deck is a fairly recent version, I'm wondering if older versions did have that rule? Or maybe it was just a house rule. If so, is that a common house rule? Or maybe it just stemmed from the need to not have the current color in your hand... <Q> These rules appear to be from 2001, and these rules appear to be from 2003. <S> The points from both rules about Wild Draw 4 are: <S> You play it and choose the colour to continue. <S> The next player draws 4 and misses their turn. <S> You can only play this if you don't have a card of the matching colour. <S> You can break the above rule. <S> The person drawing 4 may challenge you. <S> If they win, the you draw 4 instead. <S> If they lose, they draw an additional 2. <S> (Note that they still miss their next turn) <S> Neither set of rules have any limitation on the colour choice. <S> For further reference, there's this question regarding the history of UNO rules. <S> The 1983 rules found there follow the same draw 4 rules as the more recent rules printings. <A> The rule is you must not have any of the current color to be able to play the wild draw 4. <S> If you chose the current color as the color for the wild, this implies you are choosing a color you don't have any cards in. <S> You can do it, but it's very rarely a good idea unless you are trying to draw a challenge. <A> As far as I know, the Wild+4 card has always had the restriction that you cannot play it if you could have played another card of the same color. <S> However, when I learned Uno, this restriction was true for both Wild and Wild+4, not just Wild+4. <S> They may have lifted the restriction on the normal Wild card at some point or we may have always played it wrong. <S> In any case, you aren't alone in feeling like you learned it one way only to find the rules say something else.
|
Both sets of rules do not indicate any restrictions on the choice of colour after either wild.
|
In multiplayer, can a player concede abusively? Arnold, Beth, and Chuck are playing a multiplayer game (e.g. Commander or Free-for-All). Arnold has Maralen of the Mornsong : Players can't draw cards. At the beginning of each player's draw step, that player loses 3 life, searches his or her library for a card, puts it into his or her hand, then shuffles his or her library. Beth has Dictate of Kruphix : At the beginning of each player's draw step, that player draws an additional card. Currently, it's Chuck's turn. He begins his draw step, and chooses that Dictate of Kruphix's ability go on the stack, and Maralen's ability go on top of that. Because Maralen is on the board, Dictate's ability is essentially useless (Maralen prevents players from drawing cards). Using Maralen's ability, Chuck tutors up a card. Suppose Arnold really hates Beth. After Maralen's ability resolves, Arnold concedes. Because Arnold has conceded, Maralen is no longer on the field. 800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time he or she left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game. Chuck now proceeds to draw 2 cards (1 from the draw phase and 1 from Dictate of Kruphix). Obviously, this isn't an ethical thing for Arnold to do. But is it within the rules of the game? Or am I mistaken? Would something else happen instead? A separate question: would this result in Arnold being banned from future tournaments? <Q> The rules say you can concede whenever you want to: <S> 104.3a <S> A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. <S> He or she loses the game. <S> This is kind of unavoidable, because people have to be able to pick up their cards and leave. <S> And it's certainly possible to use this spitefully, whether via your scenario or another. <S> (It doesn't even have to be something fancy - just dropping out a turn before your inevitable death can swing things.) <S> Many people adopt house rules in order to curtail that sort of behavior. <S> It's hard to define clearly what is and isn't acceptable, especially since you can be plenty spiteful even without ever conceding, but if you play with people you get along well enough with, you may be able to get away with "don't be a jerk". <S> More broadly, if you do things that make you miserable to play with, you might quickly find yourself not having anyone to play with. <S> As for tournaments, well, there aren't really serious multiplayer tournaments, and so the Magic Tournament Rules <S> don't have anything explicit about multiplayer. <S> There is potentially commander at Friday Night Magic, and if they're abiding by the rules, they'll have to allow you to concede at any time. <S> But while I don't think the store could actually kick someone out for making a spiteful concession, the same about being pleasant to play with probably applies there: it's a local store, with many of the same people coming repeatedly. <A> This is NOT a rules based answer. <S> I have not played Magic for some time, but when I did play there was a simple house rule (for multiplayer). <S> If you conceded, you could not play the next "game" either. <S> The general idea is that concessions were not supposed to be tactical things in multiplayer, but to fill the need of "I gotta go" Kind of the same way with being dealt out in poker. <S> If you miss the blinds then you have to wait for them to come back around. <S> That said, there was no rule that said you could not concede. <S> So some people did, just to get their friends a boost. <S> Those people usually had a hard time finding others to play with though. <A> The most powerful example I have seen of tactical concession in multiplayer comes from control changing effects. <S> If Player A has a giant creature (say Blightsteel Colossus ), <S> Player B has stolen control of that creature from Player A and is swinging at Player C with it, Player A can concede to exile the creature (since Player A is that creature's owner). <S> A concession in this situation can immediately change the winner of the game. <S> gives you some benefit (such as gaining life). <S> For example, if you are attacking them for lethal damage with a creature with lifelink or are dealing them lethal damage with Death Grasp , they can concede to prevent you from gaining the life. <S> Using specifically timed concessions is absolutely legal in multiplayer. <S> The important thing to consider is that it is only one of the may tools a player has to play spitefully. <S> In a multiplayer game, you could attack only one player. <S> You could use removal spells or counter spells in obviously sub-optimal ways to harm a particular player. <S> You could play the most spiteful card in the game: Kaervek's Spite . <S> At the end of the day, the ability for a player to concede at any time is important for reasons beyond the game (if someone needs to leave immediately, they should not have to wait for someone else to finish an exceedingly long retention of priority). <S> While it can be used to obnoxious ends, it can also be used to punish players who are being obnoxious or winning in obnoxious ways. <S> Multi-player in any game involving player elimination (of which Magic is one) is very likely to have problems of kingmaking ( Is kingmaking in multiplayer games a problem that can be fixed? ). <S> This is one of the big reasons there aren't many serious multi-player Magic tournaments. <S> But this is also a thing you have to play around to win at multi-player. <S> You must not only win against your opponents decks; you must also win against your opponents and their personalities. <S> As far as how this impacts deck-building, try to make sure you are winning with your own cards rather than with Confiscate d permanents. <A> I'd just like to point out that this scenario doesn't work the way you think it does. <S> Maralen's draw cancellation is separate from her second ability. <S> During the draw step, the first thing that occurs is the state-based draw, which wouldn't occur due to Maralen's first static ability. <S> Then the two abilities would trigger. <S> So in this specific scenario, the initial draw is skipped, the player would tutor, then Maralen's controller concedes with Kruphix's trigger on the stack. <S> Then Kruphix's ability resolves, resulting in the player drawing a card, but only one, because the draw for turn action has already occurred and was blocked by Maralen. <S> Now, back on topic... <S> In multi-player casual, it's douchebaggery to do something like this. <S> Giving another player an advantage by leaving the game intentionally is just messed up. <S> Im not sure there are multi-player tourneys, but the rules state a player may concede at any time. <S> So there's no rules infraction, just a major dick move.
|
A player can concede the game at any time. Another fairly common way that a player can concede spitefully is to prevent you from dealing damage to them if you dealing damage
|
Delayed effects after player's loss I would like to know what happens to delayed abilities, or abilities like "until your next turn" when the controller of that spell/ability loses and leaves the game. For instance, suppose you cast Cruel Entertainment , and then the first controlled player kills you, the second player still will get controled by the first one? Also the first ability from Liliana, the last hope , which says "+1: Up to one target creature gets -2/-1 until your next turn" , will the affected creature restore its power/thoughtness immediatelly after the Liliana controller dies? Also note this excerpt from this answer : A delayed triggered ability (DTA) follows the same rules. A DTA is a triggered ability that creates instances of itself on the stack that are also called "triggered abilities". Is the effect from Cruel Entertainment a delayed ability, or is it just a effect whose effect spans more than the current turn? <Q> Cruel Entertainmet's effect will still work in full as long as the two targeted players are in the game, whether or not the player who cast the spell is still in the game. <S> And Liliana's ability will last until her controller's next turn would have started. <S> The following rules about Multiplayer games are relevant: <S> 800.4a <S> When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. <S> Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. <S> Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. <S> This is not a state-based action. <S> It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. <S> 800.4b <S> If an object would change to the control of a player who has left the game, it doesn’t. <S> If a token would be created under the control of a player who has left the game, no token is created. <S> If an object would be put onto the battlefield or onto the stack under the control of a player who has left the game, that object remains in its current zone. <S> If a player would be controlled by a player who has left the game, he or she isn’t. <S> 800.4j <S> When a player leaves the game, any continuous effects with durations that last until that player’s <S> next turn or until a specific point in that turn will last until that turn would have begun. <S> They neither expire immediately nor last indefinitely. <S> "Objects" in 800.4a refers specifically to the things defined in rule 109.1 : <S> An object is an ability on the stack, a card, a copy of a card, a token, a spell, a permanent, or an emblem. <S> Importantly, this does not include effects that were created by spells or abilities, and rule 800.4j explicitly points out that effects created by a player stick around after that player leaves the game. <S> So if a player casts Cruel Entertainment and then leaves the game, the effect will still exist in the game. <A> Nothing changes for the other players, since the abilities have resolved and no control effects are for the player who left. <S> The relevant rule is: 800.4a <S> When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. <S> Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. <S> Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. <S> This is not a state-based action. <S> It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. <S> If the player who left the game had priority at the time he or she left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game. <S> As for "until your next turn", there's another subclause about that: <S> 800.4j <S> When a player leaves the game, any continuous effects with durations that last until that player’s <S> next turn or until a specific point in that turn will last until that turn would have begun. <S> They neither expire immediately nor last indefinitely. <A> If one of the players chosen in Cruel Entertainment leaves the game before they can control another player's turn, they are no longer a player and therefore cannot control anyone's turn. <S> If an ability specifies "until your next turn," but you have left the game, the ability will last until when your next turn would have begun according to what the turn order was while you were still in the game.
|
If the player who left the game had priority at the time he or she left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game.
|
How does Energy Field interact with effects that say you lose life? How does Hissing Miasma affect a player protected by Energy Field if their creatures are attacking? Additionally, how does Tainted Remedy affect Energy Field if same player does something to gain life? <Q> In both cases Energy Field does nothing because both Hissing Miasma and Tainted Remedy cause loss of life and not damage, so Energy Field can't prevent it. <S> Damage to players causes them to lose life (assuming the source doesn't have infect), but loss of life isn't always damage. <S> 118.2. <S> Damage dealt to a player normally causes that player to lose that much life. <S> See rule 119.3. <S> 118.3. <S> If an effect causes a player to gain life or lose life, that player’s life total is adjusted accordingly. <A> Hissing Miasma will continue to make the attacking player lose 1 life. <S> Losing life is not the same as damage. <S> Since it's losing life and not damage, Energy Field doesn't come into play here. <A> Energy Field only prevents damage, while the effects of Hissing Miasma and Tainted Remedy both directly cause life loss. <S> Damage causes life loss, but not all life loss is damage.
|
Energy Field has no interesting interaction with either Hissing Miasma or Tainted Remedy.
|
How can I find games similar to a certain type? I have recently been playing a lot of the game "Patchwork" ( https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163412/patchwork ) and really am enjoying it, but it becomes redundant quickly as it is a two player game. I'm looking to find more games of this type so that I can have a game rotation. I'm just not sure on how I can find games that are similar in quality, fun, game time, complexity, etc. So what would be a good way other than reading all the reviews on websites or forums to find same style games? <Q> If you look under the "Classification" section on the game's BGG page, you can click one of those tags to see other games with similar features. <S> E.g.: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2041/card-drafting <A> If the (advanced) search results of BGG do not satisfy you you should try to find additional keywords. <S> One solution is to click on the Designer of the game you are looking for. <S> In the case of Patchwork this is Uwe Rosenberg. <S> There you get a list of all games he designed. <S> If you look at the games you will find that "A Feast for Odin" (a more complex game) and "Cottage Garden" (more or less the same complexity as patchwork) use the same puzzling mechanism. <S> If you check these BGG pages you can find additional Categories and Mechanisms for such games and use them in the advanced search. <A> It is ambiguous as to what the "certain type" really is. <S> If you look on the "full credits" notebook page for that game you'll find the "Categories", "Mechanisms" and "Families" which have been listed for that game. <S> You can search for various combinations of "Categories" and "Mechanisms" using the advanced search option. <S> For instance this BGG search yields the games which are in the "abstract strategy" Category and use the "tile placement" mechanism. <S> There isn't any way to restrict a search to/through a "Family". <S> You'll just have to spin through the whole list for each family. <S> There are a lot of games in the Combinatorial family (and the BGG family misses many since this is a "new" family).
|
There are also a lot of games in the Polyominoes family.
|
What are the uses of holding priority? I've recently learned about holding the priority after playing a spell or ability. I understand this can be used for beneficial effects affecting your own spells, for instance copying your own instant/sorcery with Twincast or Reverberate . But since the stack resolves it's content 1 by 1, I don't see how playing two spells back to back without passing priority would differ from playing one, let it resolve, then play another. Apart from spell copying/redirecting/etc... effects, what would holding the priority allow a player to achieve ? <Q> You hold priority when you need to take additional actions before a previous action resolves, and those additional actions depend on the previous actions. <S> That is the general answer to your question. <S> The list of specific examples would be endless, and so I'll only provide one example that falls outside of the "spell copying/redirect" category. <S> Example: <S> You have four cards in your graveyard. <S> Activate <S> Jace, Vryn's Prodigy and hold priority. <S> Activate and resolve Minamo, School at Water's Edge to untap Jace. <S> Activate Jace. <S> If you had not held priority after activating Jace's ability, then Jace would have transformed before you had a chance to activate him a second time. <S> Note that in order for any spell or ability to resolve, both players must pass priority without taking any other actions. <S> At Competitive and Professional REL, when a spell or ability is added to the stack, its controller is assumed to have passed priority unless they explicitly state otherwise. <S> That explicit statement is what most players call "holding priority". <S> This answer to another question goes into far more detail about not only why holding priority matters, but why priority in general matters. <A> The only time I've ever had to do this is playing around Extirpate . <S> In the particular scenario that came up, my opponent had just milled a large portion of my deck, including a lightning bolt (me playing burn). <S> I had two more in my hand. <S> If I cast one and try to let it resolve, my opponent can Extirpate Lightning Bolt and remove the other from my hand. <S> My best option is to dump both of them on the stack before giving my opponent priority. <S> Split Second is unique in that it doesn't let you respond to it, so effects that don't use the stack or otherwise shut down the stack until they resolve are a good place to look, even if it might end up a little contrived. <S> Imagine a Manifested Void Winnower . <S> Since flipping it face up is a special action that doesn't use the stack, the opponent can do it as soon as they get priority, immediately shutting me down from casting any even-CMC spells. <S> In that case, if I have know it's there, and I have two spells I need to cast, I should put both of them on the stack before giving priority. <S> However, you are correct; 90% of the time it is correct to cast, wait to resolve, then cast the next spell. <S> The examples I gave were very much corner cases, and the second one I'm fairly confident will never happen in a game. <A> There is at least one corner case that I know of where it is important. <S> In certain legacy storm decks, it is really important that when you play your Infernal Tutor you keep priority and crack your Lion's Eye Diamond in Response. <S> If you don't do that your opponent can just pass priority <S> and then the spell resolves which does not let you tutor for anything. <A> I played a game once with Baral, Chief of Compliance on the board, I desperately needed to cycle for an answer <S> so I casted a spell, and while holding priority, was able to counter my own spell to draw a card <A> Scion of the Ur-Dragon allows you to search your library and have it become copies of other dragons in your deck. <S> What you can do is activate it once, then a second time (or an arbitrary number of times). <S> When the first activation resolves, you choose a dragon that has an activated ability (like giving itself +1/+0, something that several dragons do). <S> You can then throw that ability on the stack as many times as you want/are able. <S> Those abilities then resolve. <S> Then the second Scion of the Ur-dragon activation resolves, and you choose a dragon with a static and/or triggered ability, like Atarka, World Render. <S> Bingo: <S> you have a flying creature with 6/4 that gives all dragons Double Strike when they attack, with the added bonus that it gave itself +7/+0.
|
By holding priority, you got a "bonus" activation out of Jace.
|
Fairness of Cowry Shells as Dice I just learned about the use of cowry shells as binary dice and find the idea enchanting. However, I'm concerned about the apparent "fairness" of the dice. Obviously, because there are multiple instances, they are not an equivalent to a single die with equal sides, ( 1d6 vs. 6*d2-1 ) as they'll have a curved probability distribution, rather than flat probability, and have an incredibly low chance of rolling 0. More than that though, it seems apparent that each shell would have subtle proportional variations depending on the lifestyle of the cowry it came from, and these would likely make each shell prefer one state or another, meaning each instance would be weighted. Also, cowry shells may just, in general, not be especially 50/50 in the first place the way coins are. (I'm OK with that, but the individual weighting bothers me) I can't seem to find any statistical examination of their balance or probability. If I wanted to use cowry shells as dice in a home made game, what could I do to improve the apparent fairness of their application? <Q> This has been a problem since the days when dice, hand-carved out of sheep's knucklebones, could never be considered mathematically fair. <S> Historically, there have been two principal ways of improving a game: <S> In Craps, rolling a 7 is good for the shooter on the first roll, but bad thereafter; a slight unevenness making 7 more probable is not likely to materially affect the chances of winning, which it might with a simpler rule. <S> Where possible, make results comparative not absolute. <S> To decide randomly who starts in a two-player game, it would be possible to roll two dice and choose based on even or odd; this is 50/50 if the dice are fair, but not otherwise, so it is rare. <S> I would also suggest using all the shells every roll if possible; it is annoying enough waiting for those players who carefully select the "high-rolling" or "low-rolling" dice each time, without the possibility that they might actually have a point. <A> Answer found through personal research. <S> Cowry shells have a roughly 30% chance of rolling a 0. <S> Depending on the shell, that can get as low as 18.65% and as high as 39.11%. <S> (At least, with the test subjects I had) <S> It seems that the larger the shell is, the less likely it is to roll 1. <S> Even between shells of similar size, there is significant variation. <S> So, as predicted and advised, they are totally unfair. <S> I feel sorry for those ancient gamblers. <S> To create the impression of fairness, I collected 24 shells of approximately equal size and put them in a black bag. <S> Before rolling, players pick out six shells, blind and random. <S> After rolling, they return the shells to the bag. <S> So, although any given roll is weighted, the way it is weighted is unpredictable for the people involved, and the seemingly identical appearance, size, and shape of the shells reduces the chances of cheating by feeling for the best shells. <S> For the players, it gives an impression of fairness without mandating theoretical fairness in implementation. <S> (Which is impossible, given the item in question.) <S> To reduce the impact of any given roll being weighted in some way, win/loss conditions are only determined after many rolls, with the exact number dictated by the plays made during the game. <S> Because no single roll determines a victory, one cannot reasonably blame the shells for their failure. <A> The game would not be fair if one player used coins, and another used cowry shells. <S> The question reminds me of playing Shagai . <S> Shagai is the Mongolian word for an ankle bone (sheep to be specific). <S> Mongolians have come up with many games which use shagai. <S> One of these games is a "horse race" where the shagai are rolled like dice. <S> There are 4 sides a rolled ankle bone will come up on, one of which is called horse. <S> Each time a player rolls a horse they get to move one space, and the first to reach the finish wins. <S> The probability of rolling a horse is not 1/4 but the game is fair because all players roll the same shagai. <S> Cowry shells would be perfectly fair, as long as everyone gets to use the same ones, and rolls the same number of them each time. <A> They are nowhere near 50/50. <S> I'm guessing the round part is much more likely to land down. <S> So, unless you want a game that takes into consideration the lower probability, using such shells would be detrimental. <S> That said, the odds would be the same for everyone if everyone used the same set of shells. <S> Maybe even let the players select from a few to introduce a new element to the game.
|
I think that fairness in the game is more dependent upon everyone using the same cowry shells, and less on having a 50/50 probability. Make sure that a particular number is not always good or always bad. Each player rolling the dice and the higher result starting is common, giving even chances no matter what unevenness there may be.
|
What is the difference between an artifact and a creature? My opponent (we're both beginner players) casts a Renegade Freighter , which is an Artifact — Vehicle. Can he attack me with it on his next turn? They are attacking me with it like it is a creature, but this doesn't seem right to me. Also, it says "Crew 2", which, when enabled, turns it into an artifact creature. What is an artifact creature? <Q> An artifact is simply a card type, like "land", "creature", "instant" etc. <S> After you cast an artifact card, it just sits there on the battlefield and only does whatever its own text says it does. <S> A creature is also a type of card, but creatures are different than other card types in that they can attack and block. <S> An "artifact creature" is just an object that is both an artifact and a creature. <S> So Renegade Freighter, as an artifact, cannot attack or block. <S> But because it is also a vehicle, it has a "crew" ability that lets it become an artifact creature, so that you can attack and block with it. <A> A Vehicle is a kind of object that becomes a creature when it is crewed : a number of creatures with total power not less than the crew cost are tapped, and the artifact vehicle is now an artifact creature until end of turn. <S> See the definitions of these objects for information on the implications. <S> If it has not been crewed, it is not a creature, and by rule 506.3, it cannot be used to attack. <A> My opponent (we're both beginner players) casts a Renegade Freighter, which is an Artifact — Vehicle. <S> Can he attack me with it on his next turn? <S> Yes, if it's a creature. <S> A creature can attack when it has been in play, under the same players control since the beginning of the turn (or if it has haste), even if it wasn't a creature previously. <S> Also, it says "Crew 2", which, when enabled, turns it into an artifact creature. <S> What is an artifact creature? <S> Crew X is an ability, when activated adds creature to its types. <S> So the card by default reads: <S> Card Name: Renegade Freighter <S> Types: <S> Artifact — Vehicle Card <S> Text: <S> Whenever Renegade Freighter attacks, it gets +1/+1 and gains trample until end of turn. <S> Crew 2 <S> (Tap any number of creatures you control with total power 2 or more: This Vehicle becomes an artifact creature until end of turn.) <S> P/T: 4 / 3 <S> After a player activates Crew 2 the card reads: <S> Card Name: Renegade Freighter <S> Types: <S> Artifact — Vehicle Creature Card <S> Text: <S> Whenever Renegade Freighter attacks, it gets +1/+1 and gains trample until end of turn. <S> Crew 2 <S> (Tap any number of creatures you control with total power 2 or more: This Vehicle becomes an artifact creature until end of turn.) <S> P/T: 4 / 3 <S> This makes the card a creature, so if you have a card that says Kill Target Creature, you are now able to target Renegade Freighter. <A> Cards that are not creatures can't attack or block. <S> That includes artifacts. <S> So even if a card has a power and toughness and an effect when it attacks, it can't attack or block if it isn't a creature. <S> An artifact creature is a creature that is also an artifact. <S> These things can attack and block, because they are creatures. <S> By default, the Renegade Freighter isn't an artifact creature. <S> But once you activate the crew ability, it becomes an artifact creature instead of just an artifact until the end of turn. <S> Then, if you controlled the card since the beginning of your upkeep (summoning sickness), you can attack with it.
|
An artifact creature is just an object that is both an artifact and a creature.
|
Bridge and limitations for Dummy One of my partners is nearly blind and has trouble distinguishing between hearts and diamonds and between spades and clubs. Is it proper for me, as Dummy, to call out the cards as they are played on the table so the my partner leads the proper suit? <Q> From the Laws of Rubber Bridge : Law 42 – Dummy’s <S> Rights <S> Dummy is entitled to give information as to fact or Law but may not initiate the discussion. <S> So if declarer asks, dummy can say what suit was led. <S> It looks like dummy can not do so without being asked, but I'd assume that if you explain the situation to your opponents (or a tournament judge), they'd allow you to dispense with the asking as long as you are consistent (e.g. naming the suit <S> every time should be fine, but naming the suit sporadically might get you accused of some kind of signaling scheme). <S> Note that Law 42 for Duplicate Bridge is slightly less permissive; definitely clarify with your opponents first under those rules. <A> The laws are intended to handle normal circumstances. <S> I've been playing in ACBL tournaments for 40 years. <S> No one has ever objected to the partner of a player with impaired vision calling out the cards, nor would I expect them to. <S> As Benjamin notes, you should do it for every card, not just some of them. <S> If you're playing rubber bridge and your opponents object, find new opponents. <S> But that would surprise me. <A> I played recently at an ACBL tournament where a pair had this exact problem. <S> The partner with unimpaired eyesight announced each card as it was played, and read off the entire dummy as it came down. <S> This was done on every play throughout the event. <S> At the start of each round the pair explained this to the opponents -- except those who had faced this pair before, as I had. <S> No one objected, and as a qualified director, I am confident that had anyone objected, the objection would have been denied by the director, unless the announcements had been made inconsistently so as to convey added information, or had been loud enough to be heard at other tables.
|
Common courtesy can deal with this situation, no matter the letter of the law.
|
Can a noncreature artifact be destroyed by reducing toughness? I was reading through the answers of this question when I suddenly wondered about Vehicles in their artifact state. They have a listed Power and Toughness. If I were to reduce that toughness to 0 and the Vehicle is not crewed (i.e. does not have the Creature type, only Artifact), is it destroyed? Are there other examples of this, like enchantments that have a power and toughness even though they are (at the moment) not creatures? Can those permanents be destroyed by reducing toughness? <Q> The Gods from Theros aren't creatures sometimes. <S> 208.3. <S> A noncreature permanent has no power or toughness, even if it’s a card with a power and toughness printed on it (such as a Vehicle). <S> 208.3a <S> If an effect would be created that affects the power and/or toughness of a noncreature permanent, that effect is created even though it doesn’t do anything unless that permanent becomes a creature. <S> Thus, they have no power and toughness that can be reduced to below 0. <A> No, it will not be destroyed. <S> The most direct way to reach this conclusion is to look at the rule that specifies that creatures with zero or negative toughness will die: <S> 704.5f <S> If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. <S> Regeneration can’t replace this event. <S> This rule applies only to creatures , not to noncreature artifacts (like unanimated vehicles). <S> There is no corresponding rule for vehicles, artifacts in general, or any type of noncreature permanent. <S> (It wouldn't make sense because noncreature permanents don't have toughness .) <S> Another argument is a little more technical. <S> "Destroy" has a specific meaning in Magic; it's one particular way that a permanent might be caused to die, but but not the only way. <S> Reducing a creature's toughness to zero or less is a completely different way. <S> One of the differences is that regeneration can save a creature which would be destroyed, but it does not save a creature with zero or negative toughness. <S> Other answers have identified other justifications for the same conclusion, which I will not repeat here. <A> No, and you can't even target the vehicle with effects that target creatures, such as Tragic Slip , unless that vehicle has been turned into a creature. <S> Until a vehicle is crewed (or granted creatureship through some other means like Start Your Engines ), it has no power or toughness. <S> From the Gatherer rulings for an arbitrary vehicle : <S> Each Vehicle is printed with a power and toughness, but it’s not a creature. <S> If it becomes a creature (most likely through its crew ability, but the Kaladesh set includes other such effects), it will have that power and toughness.
|
Even when a creature does have zero or negative toughness, it's not destroyed .
|
Will multiple Exquisite Archangels give me many extra chances, or just one? Let's say I've somehow managed to get two or more Exquisite Archangel s out onto the battlefield: (Possibly more. I apologise for making you see this.) Something causes me to lose. Let's say it's just regular creature damage, and my life will reset just fine with no shenanigans. What happens? Do all Archangels get exiled at once, or do I exile just one and have one more chance left for each extra Archangel beyond that one? <Q> This is because the Archangel has a replacement effect, and when you have multiple replacement effects attempting to modify the same event you do it one at a time. <S> The first Archangel replaces you losing with her effect. <S> You are now no longer losing so the remaining Archangels don't have anything to replace so their effects do nothing. <S> 616.1. <S> If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object’s controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply, following the steps listed below. <S> If two or more players have to make these choices at the same time, choices are made in APNAP order (see rule 101.4). <S> 616.1a-c <S> These rules don't apply to this case. <S> 616.1d <S> Any of the applicable replacement and/or prevention effects may be chosen. <S> 616.1e <S> Once the chosen effect has been applied, this process is repeated (taking into account only replacement or prevention effects that would now be applicable) until there are no more left to apply. <A> You choose one to apply, and it saves you, and the other one sticks around until the next time you would lose. <S> This is explicitly stated in one of the card's rulings in Gatherer: <S> If you control two Exquisite Archangels, you choose which one’s effect applies. <S> The other’s effect won’t be applicable after that until the next time you would lose the game. <A> You will exile just one of them. <S> When you would lose the game, both Archangels try to replace "lose the game" with "exile this and reset your life total". <S> Since multiple replacement effects are trying to apply at the same time, <S> you choose which one applies first . <S> Regardless of which Angel you choose to use, once you've made your choice, the other Angel will no longer apply, because you're no longer about to lose the game. <S> You'll exile the one angel, reset your life total, and then continue on your merry way. <S> Also, as was stated in another answer, this is explicitly called out in a Gatherer ruling as well : If you control two Exquisite Archangels, you choose which one’s effect applies. <S> The other’s effect won’t be applicable after that until the next time you would lose the game.
|
Only 1 Archangel gets exiled each time you lose.
|
What would happen if you made Spellskite Hexproof? I would like to know if making Spellskite hexproof would render him useless or make him ultra effective at fizzling spells? I'm thinking about his activated ability: if he was hexproof, would I be able to pay the cost to change the target to him making the spell fizzle or would it mean I cannot use his activated ability? Either way this would be a useful thing to know to either use to enhance him and take him out of the game with an enchantment. <Q> You can fizzle a spell, but only once. <S> Here are the two sequences possible: 1. <S> Give Spellskite Hexproof, and then change target to it <S> Spellskite's ability resolves, and attempts to change the target. <S> It fails because Spellskite is not a valid target. <S> The spell or ability in question continues to target its original choice. <S> 2. <S> Change target to Spellskite, and then give Spellskite Hexproof <S> First you change the target of a spell (say, Lightning Bolt ) to Spellskite, and let Spellskite's ability resolve. <S> Lightning Bolt is now targeting Spellskite, but before it resolves, give Spellskite Hexproof. <S> When Lightning Bolt tries to resolve, it will fail, as its current target is now invalid. <S> Basically, if you want to do what you're thinking of, you need to change the spell's target to Spellskite, and let the target-changing ability resolve BEFORE giving Spellskite Hexproof to fizzle the spell. <S> Just to be clear, here's a hard example of the second, more useful case. <S> Player A controls a Spellskite, and is at 3 life. <S> Player B casts Lightning Bolt targeting Player A. <S> In response, Player A activates Spellskite's ability targeting Lightning Bolt on the stack. <S> Spellskite's ability resolves, so now Lightning Bolt is on the stack targeting Spellskite. <S> Then, Player A casts Blossoming Defense targeting their own Spellskite, which resolves and gives Spellskite Hexproof. <S> Lightning Bolt tries to resolve, and is countered as its target (Spellskite) is no longer valid. <A> This would not be effective Gatherer has a pretty clear ruling: <S> However, the target of that spell or ability will remain unchanged. <S> So you are allowed to pay the costs (it's 'pay 2 life' cost <S> might be handy combined with Transcendence , for instance) but because Spellskite has Hexproof he is an illegal target; Spellskite's ability would resolve - but have no effect - and the original target of the spell would remain targeted. <A> Here's what the Spellskite 's ruling says about that : You can activate Spellskite’s ability even if Spellskite wouldn’t be a legal target for the spell or ability. <S> However, the target of that spell or ability will remain unchanged. <S> This means you can still activate Spellskite 's ability to redirect your opponent's spells and abilities to it, even if it has hexproof, but since it's not a legal target the original target will remain unchanged.
|
You can activate Spellskite’s ability even if Spellskite wouldn’t be a legal target for the spell or ability.
|
What is the benefit of having an "Inflict X damage to your opponent" spell card that does less damage than others? I have noticed that there are a number of cards that have the following text (or a variation of it): Inflict [some amount of] damage to your opponent's Life Points. Cards that follow this format are: Sparks : 200 points Raimei : 300 points Hinotama : 500 points* Final Flame : 600 points Ookazi : 800 points But why would you ever want to choose Sparks or Raimei when Ookazi does the exact same thing, but deals more damage? This doesn't seem to be a matter of power creep; these cards all seem to have come out at about the same time: 1999 for the Japanese versions, 2002 for the North American versions, and 2004 for the worldwide versions. So all of these cards were available at about the same time, (and Ookazi was in the Kaiba starter deck, so it wasn't hard to find). When a spell card exists that says "Inflict 800 damage to your opponent's Life Points", why would you ever want to include a card in your deck that says "Inflict 200 damage to your opponent's Life Points"? * There is also Goblin Thief that deals 500 points of damage to your opponent and you gain 500 points. I understand why someone might want to choose Goblin Thief over Ookazi, but not why someone would want to choose Hinotama over Goblin Thief. <Q> There is no benefit whatsoever. <S> The only reason why someone would use this sort or not-as-useful card is that there are some decks that mainly focus on damage from spell or trap cards, such as 'Magic Cylinder' These decks basically only contain cards that deal instant damage. <S> It is one of the most quickest way to deplete someone's LP. <A> The only use I can think of, is you can only have 3 copies of each card in the deck. <S> So if you wanted more direct damage cards in your deck, you'd need to use a lower damage version. <S> I don't play the game, and I only understand the rules superficially, so I might be overlooking some other factor. <A> As far as the game goes, you can only have a maximum of 3 copies of a card. <S> If you have 3 copies of Ookazi, which deals 800 damage, that would mean it is a maximum of 2400 damage (800x3 copies). <S> A player, be default, has 8000 life points, and thus they're now down to 5600 (8000-2400). <S> To be able to consistently deal damage, you have to have more than one thing that can deal damage, regardless of just how much each individual card can do.
|
The benefit is that not many decks are prepared for this type of damage, and since there are only three copies of a single card within a single deck, varieties of a card are necessary.
|
Can you sacrifice Implement of Ferocity in response to a revolt trigger? Can you sacrifice Implement of Ferocity in response to a revolt trigger? So for example can I play a Greenwheel Liberator and then in response sacrifice the implement to give the liberator +1/+1 and then have the liberator get its own pair of counters for a total of +3/+3. I think the answer is yes, but wondered whether there might be some rule saying the trigger doesn't happen at all if the condition isn't met or some other tricky timing issue. <Q> This cannot work because the Implement of Ferocity can only be activated anytime you could cast a sorcery. <S> This means it must be your main phase and the stack must be empty. <S> Assuming that you could activate the ability at any time it would depend on exactly how the ability is worded, in most cases you need to sacrifice the Implement before the Revolt ability would happen. <S> For you example of a Greenwheel Liberator entering the battlefield, you would have to sacrifice the Implement before the Liberator enters the battlefield in order to get the Revolt effect. <S> Also note that the Liberator doesn't have a triggered ability it has a replacement effect that modifies how it enters the battlefield. <S> For triggered abilities like Airdrop Aeronauts or Call for Unity you also need to sacrifice the Implement before the trigger condition would occur. <S> This is because they have what is called an 'intervening if clause'and if the 'if' clause isn't true nothing happens. <S> 603.4. <S> A triggered ability may read “ <S> When/Whenever/ <S> At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect]. <S> ” <S> When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. <S> The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. <S> For instants and sorceries with Revolt, like Fatal Push you can sacrifice them after they have been put on the stack and still get the Revolt effect. <S> This is because the Revolt condition isn't checked until the spell goes to resolve, unlike the other types of Revolt abilities. <A> So for example can I play a Greenwheel Liberator and then in response sacrifice the implement to give the liberator +1/+1 [...] <S> Greenwheel Liberator doesn't have a trigger. <S> Its Revolt effect is actually a replacement effect that changes how it enters the battlefield - so your last chance to turn on Revolt is before Greenwheel Liberator enters the battlefield at all. <S> Therefore, no, this does not work as described. <S> Also, this doesn't work well for other Revolt effects, as they are usually worded as "When ~ enters the battlefield, if a permanent you controlled left the battlefield this turn, [do something]. <S> " Those effects are triggers, but because of the way they're worded, they won't trigger unless a permanent has already left the battlefield. <S> So, for example, this wouldn't work with Airdrop Aeronauts either, as you'd need to have sacrificed Implement of Ferocity before the Aeronauts enters the battlefield in order to get the trigger. <A> No, you cannot do that. <S> It would also not work if you could sacrifice the implement at any time, because revolt is not a triggered ability that can be responded to at all: <S> 603.6d <S> Some permanents have text that reads <S> “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . <S> . <S> . <S> ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . <S> . <S> . <S> ,” “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . <S> . <S> . ,” <S> or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield tapped.” <S> Such text is a static ability—not a triggered ability—whose effect occurs as part of the event that puts the permanent onto the battlefield. <S> The condition for revolt is checked as soon as the Liberator enters the battlefield. <S> Since it is a static ability, it is always true. <S> If the condition for the ability is true, i.e. if a permanent has left the battlefield this turn before the Liberator entered, it will already have the +1/+1 counter on it; otherwise, it will not get it later on. <S> By the time you could choose the Liberator as the target for Implement and pay the sacrifice cost, it is already too late for revolt to put the counter on the Liberator.
|
The first and most simple reason is that you cannot sacrifice Implements while the stack is not empty, because you can only sacrifice them any time you could play a sorcery.
|
Is it possible to generate mana at instant speed when tapped out Supposing my opponent is tapped out, has no floating mana, and has nothing on the battlefield capable of directly generating mana at instant speed (No Moxen or Loti, for example), or of untapping their lands, or otherwise being self-evidently relevant. Is there any risk of the opponent acquiring new mana, or otherwise casting non-zero-mana spells?Are there any zero-mana instant-speed spells? Can you think of any abilities, that could really subtly end up with mana available, but might not be obvious at first glance? Basically, does "tapped out + no obviously relevant abilities on the battlefield" equal "I am guaranteed that I can play un-hindered?" Ideally, it would be good to know the answer for any given format (Standard, Modern, etc.) <Q> You asked two different questions. <S> For both, we are assuming that the opponent is tapped out with no relevant mana abilities on the field. <S> It possible for my opponent to generate mana at instant speed? <S> As an example, see Simian Spirit Guide . <S> Am I guaranteed that I can play unhindered? <S> Even without cards that can generate mana, like Simian Spirit Guide, the answer is no. <S> Cards like Force of Will can disrupt you for an alternative cost. <S> Cards like Pact of Negation or Slaughter Pact allow your opponent to pay later. <S> Three of the four cards I mentioned are legal in both Modern and Legacy. <S> Standard rarely has effects like this, but it happens every now and then. <A> As an extension of Rainbolt's answer, anything that depends only on Phyrexian mana could be played. <S> E.g. <S> Mental Misstep <A> Another extension to both Rainbolt's and Brondahl's answers; as it is somewhat relevant. <S> You say their field is clear of any creatures that are "capable of directly generating mana at instant speed". <S> First thing that pops into my mind is the Convoke mechanic used in Stoke the Flames or Chord of Calling . <S> It can tap creatures to assist in paying for the spell on cast, each creature tapped contributes (1) mana of that creatures color, usually going towards the generic cost. <S> This is very relevant with things like Chord or Stoke. <S> While you did mention them being tapped out, this is still relevant in situations where they have so much as an untapped token creature on the board. <S> Some other possibly relevant mechanics: Dredge , Energy (about halfway down the page) , Trap spells , or just graveyard interactions in general. <A> Phyrexian costs can be paid with 2 life instead. <S> I can't think of any Phyrexian counterspells, but Mutagenic Growth can buff a creature for +2/+2 for 2 life. <S> Modern Infect uses this as a defence mechanic.
|
Yes, players can generate mana at "instant speed" (mana abilities technically don't use the stack and can't be responded to like an Instant spell).
|
When I buy expansions, should I take out duplicate bases? The title says it all, I recently bought the base set + expansion awesome level 9000. I now have duplicate bases. Should I play with duplicates or take them out? <Q> Each expansion contains functionally unique bases , which makes sense, as every expansion adds a number of new factions, each of which have their designated bases. <S> Some expansions may also contain reprints of existing bases - in case of Awesome Level 9000, as mentioned on the back of the package (see the image below), there are reprints of the original bases included - likely as replacements of the original cards due to design changes, not to double the chances of those bases appearing in games. <S> Some ways I could see you otherwise obtaining exact duplicates of original bases is if you bought the same expansion more than once, got a mispackaged edition of the game, bought it used and unordered by the previous owner, or something along those lines. <A> Each faction has exactly two different bases associated with it, and they are different from the bases of every other factions. <S> Awesome Level 9000 reprinted the bases of the original game because the font and/or art changed. <S> These reprints are meant to replace the bases from the original game; they are not meant to be used in addition to them. <S> It's not as fun to have two of the same base in a game, and it can favour (or disfavour) a player. <A> There are sets that have duplicate bases. <S> There is no rule that prohibit a duplicate base (you can have two or more of a single race, it only prohibits picking one race twice). <S> So you have to decide for yourself. <S> Do you prefer to use all cards or do you favor uniqueness of the bases. <S> For myself, I have just been to lazy to remove the duplicates. <S> And because they don't bother me, it probably stays that way forever.
|
There should not be any duplicates in the base pile.
|
Is there custom boardgame leaderboard online? Let me quickly set up a scenario: Me and my cousins all play 7 Wonders. We want to keep track of who is the last person that won and how many wins/losses we each have. Is there a current online resource (outside of Google sheets) that can allow me to do this? <Q> You can include details about other players, whether the game was stopped before the end, how long the game took, where the game was played, and who won. <A> Rankade , our multipurpose ranking system, is free to use and it's designed to manage rankings (and stats, including matchup stats, and more) for small or large groups of players. <S> Its algorithm (called ree algorithm - here's a comparison ) can manage - via webapp, iOS, Android - any kind of match: one-on-one, faction vs. faction (two teams, which may be asymmetrical), multiplayer, multi-faction, cooperative games, single player games, and so on. <S> We host many boardgames groups/clubs, as well as other sports/games ones (here's our dojo ). <A> You can use the iOS app BG Stats (Board Game Stats) for that use (and many others, this app is just awesome). <S> Or you can use Nemestats, an online tool.
|
If you have an account on BoardGameGeek , then you can record "plays" of a game against that account.
|
Are TCG's the only class of games that have lists of Banned or Restricted pieces? I'm familiar with TCG's that employ banned or restricted lists for cards that are deemed to powerful for fun, interactive gameplay. Are there any other types of games that have similar ways of affecting game balance after release? Is this a feature present in other games with expansions? Are there any games without expansions that have had game balancing bans/restrictions created by the game maker or game community? <Q> Miniatures games often have units or models banned if they are over powered or "break" the game. <S> Generally it's less frequent than w/ some CCGs, but it does happen. <S> That said bannings are often specific to a specific tournament rules set (LVO vs ITC for 40k) rather than issued by the creators of the game, especially when the game creators don't actively support tournaments. <S> On the other hand most miniatures companies that do support tournaments tend towards errata rather than outright bans <S> (See X-Wing Miniatures from FFG). <A> Expandable Card Games (a.k.a. Living Card Games®) also do it. <S> These are pretty much just like Trading Card Games, but instead of buying booster packs of random cards, you can buy a set that contains multiple copies of all the cards in the set. <S> Fantasy Flight Games popularized this under their registered trademark Living Card Games®. <S> A Game of Thrones is one such game that has banned cards. <S> For instance, their 2010 tournament rules noted that in the standard LCG format, the cards " Pyromancer's Cache ", " Jaqen H'Ghar ", and " Compelled by the Rock " were all banned (although some of these were later removed from the ban list). <S> Note that this is not always the case for ECGs. <S> Doomtown Reloaded had several broken cards like " Hot Lead Flyin' ", but instead of banning it, they just provided errata that made some radical changes. <S> In many cases, future sets included four copies of a previously errata'ed card so that players could have a card with the corrected text on it. <A> Banned and Restricted cards and/or pieces only matter in official gameplay matches. <S> If you are paying with your friends or family for instance there's no need to follow those restrictions anymore than a need to follow any other restriction in a board game. <S> That is to say you follow what you feel is necessary. <S> If, for example, you feel that waiting until your turn to draw a Carcassone tile needlessly elongates everyone's turn <S> then you can do as many people do and draw the file after your turn so you can begin considering placement while you wait. <S> This of course doesn't mean that all rules are so easily broken to no detriment. <S> We have the infamous case of Monopoly with so many home rules which often do nothing but change the rewards superficially while oftentimes ruining the balance of the game. <S> Banned and Restricted cards can fall into either of those categories. <S> There are cards which are banned because they unfairly balance the gameplay in high level dedicated play. <S> There are also cards which are restricted for other reasons. <S> Any game with "Official Play" is likely to have those types of Restrictions. <S> The most prominent example being <S> They might often release expansion sets in waves or seasons and restrict older season cards as newer seasons are released. <S> From a business standpoint this of course incentives the players to buy the newer sets even if the card abilities they want are already featured in older sets. <S> Evolution rebalanced their cards and now that they have tournament kits they likely restrict those older cards. <S> In short again any game with official play will be a candidate for Restriction and Banning. <S> It's not impossible in games without official gameplay <S> it's just less likely. <S> I'd be more common to errata the card, or release a new version as a replacement but again with out an official play <S> there's no need or way to ban it. <A> I can name one such example - Seasons. <S> There is a list of "tournament allowed cards" <S> Thought those cards are perfectly fine in any casual game (and honestly, I don't see much reason behind restriction) <A> Many games of all types have errata that are published after the game is released, to change the way the game plays or fix balance issues or generally to make the game better. <S> It is quite common in wargames to have "Living Rules" that change over time adding and removing features of the game to address problems that occur either in official tournaments or just to make gameplay smoother.
|
Living Card Games (LCGs) which have official play and may restrict cards which will unbalance the game or cards which are too old for the current meta.
|
What's the most valuable Avalon Hill wargame? From a collector's point of view, what is the most valuable wargame published by Avalon Hill ? I'm not interested so much in prices as in knowing if there's a "Holy Grail" in Avalon Hill's wargames catalog before the Hasbro purchase. I looked in eBay listings and BoardGameGeek, but not being all wargames available for sale, it's hard to get the whole picture. <Q> Prices vary somewhat naturally, especially if you find a motivated seller, or desparate buyer! <S> In general, prices are pretty stable and slowly creep up over time. <S> A reprint can drop prices quickly, but most of the below have difficult rights situations and are unlikely to see full reprints <S> (AoR had a foreign release a while ago). <S> Games are valuable if they are still played, or weren't printed in enough quantity, preferably both.... <S> Currently, my top 5: <S> $500 - Star Wars: <S> The Queen's Gambit $300 - Advanced Civilization <S> $250 - Axis & Allis Anniversary Edition $200 - Dune $150 - Age of Renaissance <A> Of course, it all depends upon definitions... <S> This article claims that to go "all in" on Advanced Squad Leader, you need to drop $3200. <S> But, presumably you meant "a single box"? <S> If you use EBay as a way to track prices , as of today, there's a $1K price on Advanced Civilization, and the second highest at $600 is ... <S> Queen's Gambit. <S> Those are asking prices, not sale prices. <S> BoardGame Geek's list of most expensive games available for purchase today, none of them are AH, but based on the lack of hits on EBay, one can assume it's not a particularly liquid market. <S> Finally, my original answer to this question, quoted this article to give answer of: <S> "Star Wars: <S> Star Wars: <S> The Queen’s Gambit: Play as either the trade federation or the Naboo as you reenact the four-fold climax of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. <S> Why it’s rare: <S> It’s great, highly complex, and happens to come with 155 individual pieces, a 3D Theed palace, 16 dice, and 180 cards. <S> Sure it was released in the comparatively recent year 2000, but prying one of these suckers from the hands of another Star Wars fan will still cost you. <S> Price: $300-$1000 <A> Starting in I guess the mid-1980's, I played a ton of board war games and had a decent collection. <S> I can remember Avalon Hill catalogs from that time, and often the catalogs were printed some years before I eventually purchased the game. <S> I was always curious what the most expensive thing was in the catalog. <S> The highest price that I recall for a new-in-box game was $85 for The Longest Day , in a catalog dated, I believe, 1985. <S> I purchased a copy in the early 1990's, and I eventually sold it in 2015 for around $200 (open, excellent condition, unpunched).
|
The Queen's Gambit"
|
Do you lose/gain any life when you drain yourself e.g. you activate Orzhova, the Church of Deals , targeting yourself. Do life gain conditions trigger (like Ajani's Pridemate ) or not? (it's simultaneous, so you gain 0 net life, which triggers nothing, right?) <Q> You still get the life gain/loss trigger. <S> Even though the net result of the ability is 0, triggers can be "created" (pending priority) in the middle of abilities resolving. <S> 603.2. <S> Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. <S> The ability doesn’t do anything at this point. <S> 603.2a <S> Because they aren’t cast or activated, triggered abilities can trigger even when it isn’t legal to cast spells and activate abilities. <S> Effects that prevent abilities from being activated don’t affect them. <A> Ajani's Pridemate would trigger in this scenario. <S> When Orzhova's ability resolves targeting yourself, you will lose life, then gain it back. <S> The key there is that you do gain it back, meaning you did gain life - and that's all that Ajani's Pridemate cares about. <A> In this situation I would take the card at face value. <S> What it is telling you is that you can have any target player lose 1 life. <S> Then it states you gain 1 life. <S> Even if the player you chose is yourself, you lose one then gain one in that order. <S> I would add that I'm not certain of any reason why you would have yourself lose one life from this ability <S> but I'm sure someone here will be able to think of a situation where the life loss would help you if triggers happened from it.
|
Any triggers that happen as a result of: first the life that was lost, then the life that was gained, will all still trigger regardless of the player that was chosen to lose 1 life.
|
Talking about Go: Using "he" and "she" for Black and White It comes quite handy to assign different genders to the two abstract players "Black" and "White" and than use gendered personal pronouns in order to refer to them. But who should be male, and who should be female? Berlekamp and Wolfe in their book Mathematical Go use Wright White (male, "he") and Bella Black (female, "she") for the two rôles, but in this answer Using the edges of the board in Go by Benjamin Cosman it seems that the opposite assignment is used. Where does it originate from? Which assignment is preferable? EDIT: I just noticed that Sensei's Library seems to use the White/she convention. <Q> Employing some search engine tesujis, I found the page Player Gender on senseis.xmp.net. <S> It clearly states my anecdotal finding, that Sensei's Library uses White= <S> she and Black=he as a convention. <S> The same convention is used in several influential books, e.g., Whole Board Thinking In Joseki by Yi-Lun Yang, Essential Joseki by Rui Naiwei and in the works of Janice Kim (co-author <S> of the Essential Go series). <S> Note that traditional Yin/Yang symbolism would support the other assignment that is also used by Berlekamp and Wolfe in their book Mathematical Go. <S> From all what I can see, this is the minority position. <S> My conclusion is that—if one want to use gendered abstract players at all—the White=she and Black= <S> he convention is used in the majority of influential sources and therefore preferable over the opposite convention. <A> There have historically been a few different ideas how to approach this issue, as you have discovered. <S> Nowadays, if genders are assigned to colors at all, usually white is female, and black is male. <S> As a source I can only name my personal experience on Go servers and discussion boards, so I'm curious to hear other experiences. <S> I'm not sure where this convention originated - myself, I read about this in a book translated from Japanese, though I can't remember which one. <S> Most people however prefer to just use the colors themselves as nouns ("Black made a mistake here"). <S> As a side note, if either player is a computer program, and you want to gender it, I encourage you to use it to address it. <S> There have been moves to assign a female gender to computer programs, though that was, I believe, not well thought through, and leads to a wide range of related problems, some not too obvious. <A> A couple of reasons why: There will always be people who associate themselves with the color that you assigned to the opposite gender, and your (semi-)arbitrary choice may frustrate them. <S> There are just too many negative connotations with the colour black that could come out as offensive to some people, such as "evil", "bad", "sinful", etc. <S> There are people who dislike the idea of thinking in the binary sexual terms. <S> With this out of the way, it is important to remember that from the physical point of view, white is the colour formed by a multitude of electromagnetic waves of different lengths, while black is nothing but the lack of any visible light and colour. <S> Colour white can "give birth" to any colour of the visible spectrum by means of refraction , colour black cannot give birth to anything. <S> Colour white is also the colour that our Sun gives to Earth to bring and maintain life, while colour black is the color of lifeless space. <S> Colour white = fecundity, colour black = lifelessness. <S> From the above, it seems more logical to consider colour white more feminine than colour black.
|
I severely dislike the idea of assigning gender to a color under any circumstances, unless the only reason you want to do this is for personal use as some kind of a mnemonic that you wouldn't share with anyone.
|
Requirement and Restrictions for Declaring Attackers This is a question I've had for some time. It involves rule 508.1 from the Magic: The Gathering Comprehensive rules. I feel the rules are a little ambiguous, and I wonder if someone can elucidate which of several interpretations is correct. Consider the following situation. Entering my declare attackers step, I control a vanilla creature and an Ekundu Cyclops . Ekundu cyclops has the text If a creature you control attacks, Ekundu Cyclops also attacks ifable. The Ekundu Cyclops is enchanted by Pacifism , which has text Enchanted creature can't attack or block. My question: What are the legal declarations of attackers here? The relevant part of the rules for resolving this question seems to be 508.1c The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any restrictions (effects that say acreature can’t attack, or that it can’t attack unless some conditionis met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration ofattackers is illegal. Example: A player controls two creatures, eachwith a restriction that states “[This creature] can’t attack alone.”It’s legal to declare both as attackers. 508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say acreature must attack, or that it must attack if some condition ismet). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewerthan the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyedwithout disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers isillegal. If a creature can’t attack unless a player pays a cost, thatplayer is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with thatcreature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.Example: A player controls two creatures: one that “attacks if able”and one with no abilities. An effect states “No more than one creaturecan attack each turn.” The only legal attack is for just the creaturethat “attacks if able” to attack. It’s illegal to attack with theother creature, attack with both, or attack with neither. First of all, it is pretty clear that in no valid declaration of attackers can the Ekundu Cyclops attack. The rules are explicit that the effect of Pacifism constitutes a "restriction" on attacking that cannot be overridden by any "requirement". Since the Cyclops' effect is phrased without the word "can't", I interpret the Cyclops' ability as a requirement under the condition that another creature is attacking. There are a few ways to interpret the bold section, in my mind. We could interpret it to say: If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximumpossible number of requirements that could be obeyed under anypossible declaration of attackers without disobeying anyrestrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. Under this interpretation, it would be illegal to attack with the vanilla creature, since if one attacks with the vanilla and not the Cyclops, then the Cyclops' requirement to attack is violated, while it would be obeyed if I had chosen not to attack with the vanilla. Under this interpretation of the rules, I also find it uncertain whether we consider the Ekundu's requirement "obeyed" if the conditional that another creature is attacking is not satisfied. Perhaps if neither creature attacks then there are no requirements obeyed. We could also say If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximumpossible number of requirements that could be obeyed if this creature were to attack without disobeying anyrestrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. In this case, we could attack with the vanilla, as attacking with that cyclops will never result in a legal attack. Edit: It seems pretty clear to me that people here interpret "could be obeyed" to refer to all possible configurations of attackers that do not violate restrictions. The ambiguity boils down to this: if a creature has an ability that says "This creature attacks if X" and X is not true, does that count as a satisfied requirement (since the clause in itself is true), or does it not count as a satisfied requirement (since the conditional is not met)? <Q> You are allowed to attack with your vanilla creature. <S> The Cyclops' ability becomes an attack requirement if and only if it is able to attack: If a creature you control attacks, Ekundu Cyclops also attacks if able. <S> However, Pacifism makes it unable to attack under any circumstances, so it doesn't become a requirement that you would have to satisfy. <S> Therefore, you are free to attack with your vanilla creature. <S> Look at the example section of 508.1d to see an example of when the rule would apply. <A> You can attack with just the vanilla creature <S> The section of 508.1d that you highlighted says: If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions , the declaration of attackers is illegal. <S> In the scenario you describe, there are two different declarations of attackers that do not disobey any restrictions: <S> You attack with nothing. <S> In this case, there are no requirements, so you are obeying 0 out of 0 requirements. <S> You attack with just the vanilla creature. <S> In this case, the Cyclops has a requirement to attack, and you are not obeying it, so you are obeying 0 out of 1 requirements. <S> So, among the cases where the Cyclops is not required to attack, you can obey up to 0 of the 0 requirements, and among the cases where the Cyclops is required to attack, you can obey up to 0 of the 1 requirement. <S> Therefore, both of those attack declarations obeys the maximum number of requirements, so they are both legal. <S> Variant Scenario Compare with a slightly different scenario: you control an Ekundu Cyclops and a vanilla creature, and your opponent controls a Silent Arbiter instead of a Pacifism. <S> This situation has a different attacking restriction because Silent Arbiter has the ability No more than one creature can attack each combat. <S> In this case, there are three possible declarations of attackers that do not disobey any restrictions: <S> You attack with nothing. <S> In this case, there are no requirements, so you are obeying 0 out of 0 requirements. <S> You attack with just the vanilla creature. <S> In this case, the Cyclops has a requirement to attack, and you are not obeying it, so you are obeying 0 out of 1 requirements. <S> You attack with just the Cyclops. <S> In this case, the Cyclops has a requirement to attack, and you are obeying it, so you are obeying 1 out of 1 requirement. <S> This case is different because you can obey a maximum of 1 requirement in the cases where the Cyclops is required to attack, so you can't choose to disobey that requirement and attack with just the vanilla creature. <A> You can attack with the vanilla creature, but I have a different justification than the existing answers. <S> There is exactly one restriction in effect: <S> Ekundu Cyclops can't attack or block. <S> First, we must satisfy all restrictions. <S> This is easy: don't attack with Ekundu Cyclops. <S> Next, we must satisfy as many requirements as possible. <S> This particular requirement contains two "if" conditions, and one of them is always false. <S> If a creature you control attacks, Ekundu Cyclops also attacks if able . <S> If a creature you control attacks, Ekundu Cyclops also attacks if false . <S> It makes no difference whether a creature you control attacks, because the other "if" always evaluates to "false". <A> Hackworth's answer is correct and Ekundu Cyclops only has to attacks if another creature attacks and if able. <S> But in addition, and as general rule of thumb (since I can't find the correct number of the rule): Effect's that say you "can't", are "prohibited", are "not allowed to" have precedence in comparing effects. <S> So your Ekundu Cyclops HAS to attack, but it also CAN'T attack <S> , so the effect tha says it can't do something is considered the one that counts. <S> Similarly if your opponent plays Silence and you have a Isochron Scepter into play. <S> If Silence has already resolved you can't use (or rather it will have no effect) <S> Isochron Scepter's activated ability since it makes you cast a spell (a copy is made and you can cast it) <S> but Silence does not allow you to cast spells till end of turn. <S> The part you were worried was " If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal " but since there is a restriction (something that says it can't attack) the requirement goes against a restriction and so does not have to be taken into account. <S> That way attacking only with your vannila is perfectly legal.
|
There is exactly one requirement in effect: If a creature you control attacks, Ekundu Cyclops also attacks if able.
|
Can you still fizzle in response to a spell that can't be countered? If I have Fleeting Image in play, and my opponent targets it with Urza's Rage , am I not allowed to bounce the Fleeting Image in response, since making Urza's Rage fizzle technically counters it? <Q> You can bounce your Fleeting Image. <S> The key you're looking for is that Urza's Rage is countered by the game, not a spell or ability. <S> It's just like if you gave Fleeting Image hexproof. <S> Since hexproof makes it an illegal target, Rage is countered by the game. <S> 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> Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. <S> If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. <S> The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal . <S> If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. <S> Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. <S> Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. <S> If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.10), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets. <S> If part of the effect requires information about an illegal target, it fails to determine any such information. <S> Any part of the effect that requires that information won’t happen. <A> Note the text on uncounterable spells, which always limits the un-counterability to spells and abilities: Urza's Rage can't be countered by spells or abilities. <S> If all targets of a spell become illegal before that spell resolves, that spell will be countered by the rules, from which no spell is protected from: 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> Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. <S> If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. <S> The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. <S> [..] Nothing prohibits you from bouncing the Fleeting Image. <S> Since you did bounce it, it is an illegal target for Urza's Rage, which gets countered because of it. <A> What the other answers fail to address is the reason why you can bounce your Fleeting Image , seeing as your question seems to be whether you're allowed to activate the ability in the first place: <S> Whether Urza's Rage can be countered or not has nothing to do with whether you're allowed to bounce your creature . <S> As the other answers did state, Urza's Rage will fizzle in this case for not having any legal targets, which is due to the fact that no spell can be protected from being countered by the game rules. <S> Yet, even in situations where it wouldn't be countered - for example when trying to Counterspell it, you're still allowed to cast the Counterspell , simply because there's nothing keeping you from targetting Urza's Rage or from casting your spell. <S> On resolution, Counterspell will resolve and simply do nothing. <S> As long as you're not taking an illegal action, the game will progress and work with what you give it, so to speak, as nothing checks for what would happen if something happens. <S> Assuming you are able to pay the cost to activate Fleeting Image 's ability, and nothing else keeps you from activating the ability (such as a spell with Split Second being on the stack, for example), you may do so whenever you have priority - in response to anyone casting a Urza's Rage , for example.
|
You can bounce Fleeting Image, and Urza's Rage will be countered because of it.
|
How do you score a word that has multiple bonuses? How do you score a word that begins on a triple word space, ends on a double word space and uses all seven of your tiles? <Q> Note that this is something that is impossible to pull off in a standard game as the only row/column that has both a triple word and a double word is the one with the starting space and you need 8 tiles to get from the double word space to the triple word space. <S> According to the Scrabble rules you would take the value of the word and multiply by by 6, and then add 50 points. <S> (The rules don't explicitly state this due to it being impossible, but they do account for 2 doubles or 2 triples <S> so there is no reason to think that a triple and a double would work differently) <A> It depends on which letters were already on the board, and which ones you added. <S> When you place a word in Scrabble, it must attach to existing words (except for the very first play of the game). <S> When you add to an existing word, you score any letters that were already on the board again, but you do <S> not score any triple or double word or letter points for the spaces underneath already-existing letters; only for spaces that you just covered up for the first time. <S> If you mean a situation where your own letters were used to cover up both the triple and double word spaces, then this is impossible. <S> The only places on the board where a double and triple word score exist on the same row or column use the center space; and if you were going there as your first move, you cannot reach a triple word score with only 7 letters. <S> Either way, you would add 50 points to the normal word score for having used all 7 of your letters. <A> Ignoring the board configuration, scoring works in the following way: For each word created or extended by the placed tiles: Double/triple letter multipliers under newly placed tiles are applied to the tiles. <S> The score [including multipliers from (1)] for the letters in the word are added together. <S> For each double/triple word multiplier under a newly placed tile in the word, the score from (2) is doubled/tripled. <S> We'll call the resulting number the word score. <S> The word scores for each new/extended word are added together. <S> Finally, if all 7 tiles were used, you add 50 points. <S> In other words, the important point is that letter multipliers are applied first, word multipliers are applied next, and the tile bonus is applied last. <S> Let's have an example. <S> Look at the following situation. <S> The board looks like this: The light/dark blue squares are double/triple letter. <S> The beige/red squares are double/triple word. <S> Let's say you play the following word: <S> You'd score two words: "grenades" and "stickers". <S> You didn't modify "aisle", so you don't score it. <S> Let's do "stickers" first. <S> Ignore the double letter and double word spaces, since they've already been used up. <S> Only tiles placed this turn activate bonus spaces. <S> There are no letter multipliers. <S> Add the letters together: 14. <S> Apply the triple word multiplier from the S: 42. <S> The word score is 42 . <S> Now "grenades". <S> All of the bonus tiles are new, so we apply them. <S> Apply the double letter modifier to the N, making it worth 2 instead of 1. <S> Add the letters together <S> : 11 Apply both triple word multipliers from the G and S: 99. <S> The word score is 99 . <S> To finish up: <S> Add the word scores together: 141. <S> Add the bonus 50 for using all 7 tiles. <S> The turn score is 191 . <S> The order doesn't matter; it'll be x3 and x2, <S> so x6 <S> either way around.
|
If you were playing on a board that made it possible to apply double and triple word bonuses to the same play, you just multiply the word for each one.
|
What is the point of having a token for the Dog companion? The text for the Dog Companion is as follows: Take a small monster token to represent the Dog. Put it in your room. (Use a token of a different color from other monsters, if any.) Once during your turn, the Dog can move to any explored room up to 6 spaces away, using doors and stairs, and then return. It can pick up, carry, and/or drop 1 item before it returns. The Dog isn't slowed by opponents. It can't use one-way passages or rooms that require a roll. It can't carry items that slow movement. So in other words, the instructions say: Use a token to represent the dog The dog can go to another room (and can carry items, perhaps to trade with another investigator) and then come right back The dog can't get stuck by using a one-way door or a room that requires a roll Since the dog always comes back to you immediately, and there is no situation where a dog can go somewhere they can't return from, what's the point of having a token for the dog? <Q> To the best of my knowledge, there is none. <S> I had the exact same question come up in my last game of Betrayal, in fact. <S> We talked about it a while; couldn't see any reason to use a token, so we just didn't. <S> It could be only for theme purposes, that you can actually see the dog following you from room to room. <A> Apart from the flavour, which is the basis of Betrayal, I suspect the main reason is to act as a visual aid to check how far the dog can go to do stuff with items. <S> For most players this isn't necessary, but it's easy enough to include in <S> case it's helpful to someone. <A> Technically speaking, the card never says that the dog needs to move where you move. <S> The way I've always played it is that the dog remains in the room in which it was found for the rest of the game. <S> From there, it can help its owner with item management. <S> It's just a little boost, provided you're near it (which, if you're the traitor, and the Dog started the haunt, you will be). <S> Therefore, the tokens shows the origin point (and permanent location) of the dog. <A> The rules on the Dog card say it isn't slowed by opponents. <S> However, it doesn't say anything about the reverse. <S> My playgroup is of the opinion that because the Dog has a token, it counts as an opponent for slowing movement by those opposed to the explorer to which it is a companion.
|
At my table, we tend to keep the dog token on the character sheet so we don't have to move it around.
|
Can I untap Nettle Drone in the untap step? I was playing the game with my dad when I dealt one damage with Nettle Drone . In my untap step, I untapped it. My dad thought this wasn't allowed because it says "Whenever you cast a colorless spell, untap nettle drone". I argued that the card doesn't say it doesn't untap in the untap step. Who was correct? <Q> You are correct. <S> All permanents will always untap during the untap step UNLESS a continuous effect stops them from untapping. <S> This continuous effect could come from its own static ability (e.g. Basalt Monolith ), another object's static ability stops (e.g. Arena of the Ancients ), or a non-static ability (e.g. Frost Lynx ). <S> Nettle Drone's triggered ability lets you untap it when you cast a colourless spell in addition to the normal conditions where it would untap (that is, during your untap step). <A> What the wording does is allow the card to be untapped during your turn if you meet certain conditions. <S> 502.2. <S> Second, the active player determines which permanents he or she controls will untap. <S> Then he or she untaps them all simultaneously. <S> This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. <S> Normally, all of a player’s permanents untap, but effects can keep one or more of a player’s permanents from untapping. <A> You are correct. <S> The trigger is an if-then condition: if you cast a colourless spell, then you untap Nettle Drone. <S> Your father is making the logical error known as negating the antecedent. <S> Nothing in the ability requires Nettle Drone to stay tapped during the untap step.
|
You are correct since the card does not prohibit it from being untapped during the untap step it will untap as normal.
|
Can I mill my opponent into defeat with Mindcrank and Duskmantle Guildmage? Okay the scenario I'm thinking of is as follows: I control a Mindcrank , Duskmantle Guildmage and 3 untapped lands (2swamps, 1 Island to be perdantic). In my opponents turn he casts a burn spell to kill my duskmantle. I activate his first ability in response. The way I am hoping the following interactions will go is: Duskmantles ability will hit the stack at the top and resolve The burn spell resolves dealing its damage to Duskmantle The burn spell card hits the graveyard and triggers the infiniteloop for duskmantle and mindcrank killing my opponent Duskmantle perishes Is this the way that the stack would pan out?Do I win in this situation regardless of the stack being correct or not above? (I am not fully familiar with how the stack really works in magic)You can see the cards from my deck here . <Q> Your opponent will die The first ability from duskmantle is a delayed triggered ability: 603.7. <S> An effect may create a delayed triggered ability that can do something at a later time. <S> A delayed triggered ability will contain “when,” “whenever,” or “at,” although that word won’t usually begin the ability. <S> 603.7a <S> Delayed triggered abilities come from spells or other abilities that create them on resolution, ... <S> After it is created, it does not matter what happens to the object that created it. <S> Meaning that as soon as this ability resolves, the next time this turn that something goes to your opponents graveyard, they die. <S> Even though the last steps of the stack do not matter in this situation as your opponent has already lost after step 1, your stack is correct, because a spell going to the graveyard is the last part of resolving a spell and state-based actions that move your creature to the graveyard are only checked right before anyone gets priority. <S> 608.2k <S> As the final part of an instant or sorcery spell’s resolution, the spell is put into its owner’s graveyard. <A> This is not really an infinite loop. <S> It also doesn't necessarily end with your opponent losing the game. <S> The loop ends when your opponent runs out of cards or life, whichever comes first. <S> The burn spell resolves and goes to the graveyard. <S> Then, state-based actions are checked and Duskmantle Guildmage is moved to the graveyard. <S> Lastly, triggers go on the stack <S> and you begin the loop that will eventually kill your opponent. <S> Here is the correct sequence of events: <S> Opponent casts a burn spell, targeting Duskmantle Guildmage . <S> You activate Duskmantle's first ability. <S> Duskmantle's ability resolves. <S> It creates a delayed triggered ability. <S> The burn spell resolves and goes to the graveyard. <S> The delayed triggered ability triggers, but does not go on the stack yet. <S> State-based actions are checked. <S> Guildmage dies. <S> The delayed triggered ability goes on the stack, and we enter the Mindcrank loop. <S> If your opponent runs out of life first, you win. <S> If your opponent runs out of cards first, the game continues. <S> You basically swapped the last two steps. <S> Most of the time this distinction will be irrelevant, but not always. <S> If your opponent has a a card like Crypt Incursion in hand, the extra 3 life gained from Duskmantle being in your graveyard could give your opponent just enough life to survive the loop. <A> The phrase "mill my opponent into defeat" would normally be interpreted as forcing your opponent to draw so many cards that they run out of cards. <S> When a player is required to draw a card, but is unable to do so due to their library not containing any cards, they lose. <S> However, the wording on Duskmantle Guildmage is not that your opponent draws cards, but that they move cards from their library .
|
So you can't get a mill victory from just this combo, but you can get a damage victory, and you can leave your opponent with no cards in their library, which means that unless they can get more cards in their library, the next time they are required to draw a card they will lose.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.