text:
Are counters (noun) physical things?
Card example: Beckon Apparition (Gatecrash)
There are a lot of cards that use counter as a noun. I did some Googling but I'm just not clear on what I need to use for counters.  Are they physical things I can buy and if so, what is a good online resource?  Can I just make do with coins or something?

Incidentally, Beckon Apparition isn't actually an example of what you're asking about because it creates a token, not a counter. A token represents a permanent of its own, whereas counters have to be placed on a permanent. You can use the same physical objects to represent counters and tokens, but there are also actual token cards you can get that come out of booster packs.

Thanks.  Are you talking cards like Angel that have 4/4 and then the ad on the back?

Yeah, those would be Angel tokens. (Of course the part on the back doesn't matter)

Yes, counters should be represented by physical objects.

122.1. A counter is a marker placed on an object or player that modifies its characteristics and/or interacts with a rule, ability, or effect. [...]

There has been official products for use as counters. Punch cards including -1/-1 counters and brick counters were provided alongside the Amonkhet block (Apr 2017). To help support the keyword counters it introduced, the Ikoria set (Apr 2020) provided punch cards with +1/+1 counters and keyword counters.

You aren't required to use these. The objects used as counter can be anything. Dice and flat-bottomed glass beads meant to be used in flower vases are popular. You can get the latter at Michaels or Jo-Ann, among others. Some gaming stores carry them as well.

I've seen people use pennies, but they will scratch your cards if the cards aren't protected. (Anything could, but beads and dice have rounder edges.)

Using dice works as well, especially if you begin to get multiple counters.

@Discord - As long as you don't knock the dice over.

At a desperate pinch, when absolutely nothing else has been available, I have even used other cards (face down and offset stacked) as counters. Unwieldy, inelegant and annoying, but better than nothing.

Note that using other cards is forbidden in the context of a sanctioned event :)

For what it's worth, Wizard's internal R&D uses beads.

I like tiny d6s; people often have them for minis wargames and RPGs (it's nice to have two different colors). For planeswalkers I'll use a bigger die with numbers on it because I find it easier to think about the cost of their abilities that way.

A good alternative is a set of Go stones. Cheap ones can come very cheap (fancy ones can get very expensive, being hand carved from shells or precious stones) and at 180 per colour in a set you're highly unlikely to run out :)

From the Magic Rules:

100.2. To play, each player needs his or her own deck of traditional Magic cards, small items to represent any tokens and counters, and some way to clearly track life totals.

and

121.1. A counter is a marker placed on an object or player that modifies its characteristics and/or
  interacts with a rule, ability, or effect. Counters are not objects and have no characteristics. Notably,
  a counter is not a token, and a token is not a counter. Counters with the same name or description
  are interchangeable.

Any object will do to mark counters on a card. I tend to use D6s, although there are rare occasions when I have to use D10s or D20s, depending on the card. I find it easier to keep track of the number of counters on a card if I am using dice to mark them.

A big part of that for me is that I have a ton of random dice laying around that I've collected over the years. This seems like the best use for them.

You should just start with the d20s; be optimistic that you might put more than ten +1/+1 counters on that creature!

I always use dice, which makes it real easy to keep track even if you have a lot of counter.
i got something like this.


text:
Is there something like Gatherer but with inventory management?
Gatherer is great (sort of) for building decks, but I'd like the additional filter of specifying the search specifically to the cards I own.  Is this a feature I'm just not seeing or is there an app of some sort that does this?  I'd also like if it were always as up to date as Gatherer is.

As an additional resource, if you have an iOS or Android device, there is an app called Decked that I use for deck building. There are a lot of nice features to this app. Not only does the search criteria make it easy to find cards, it lets you create and manage decks right in the app. There are a lot of other useful features: it also allows you to test decks you've made in the app; you can have it automatically add the appropriate amount of land; you can see prices from multiple sources such as TCGPalyer and CardShark. Decked includes the ability to manage your collection so you can select cards and build decks exclusively using what you already own.
The downside to this is that, while there is a free lite version on iOS, the app does cost money if you want the ability to manage your collection: $3.99 on iPhone and Android, $5.99 on iPad, plus $2.99 for the collection manager (so between $7 and $9 total to get the management feature). But for the small cost, I find the benefits of this app are far beyond what I get with online search engines and collection trackers.

That's cool. They have a desktop version too and all 3 apps stay in sync over iCloud.  Downside is you have to buy 3 apps.  But not bad in the grand scheme of things.

My son and I both have the iOS and OSX versions installed and share decks all the time. Decked is really clean and always updates with the latest cards within a few days of release by Wizards.

The search function is also really good in my opinion, since it provides full text search.

To manage my collection, I have used deckbox.org. Since it uses gatherer as a "database" to know what all the cards are, it stays up to date with the current set. You will have to tell it what cards you do own however, so there is some up front work to tell the collection manager what you have.
It also uses magic.tcgplayer.com to let you know both the individual pricing of your cards and the contents of your entire collection.

deckbox is nice!  I especially like the pricing.  Thanks!

Mtgdb.Gui, a free program I wrote can do this.
The screenshot below demonstrates searching by text (left arrow) while limiting the search to the cards from collection you own (right arrow)

Besides managing your physical collection, you can import your collection and decks from Magic The Gathering Online, build your decks in Mtgdb.Gui and load them back into MTGO.

Wiki to get more information and screenshots

It looks like this is your site, in which case we require you to explicitly disclose your affiliation to it. Please see our advertising policy: how to not be a spammer.

Almost correct. It's not my site, but the program is written by me indeed. So I try to post about it whenever I see it is a valid answer to a posted question.

Mtgdb.Gui has got the filter to narrow down search to cards owned by user - which is what the question is about

edited an answer to remove details not specific to the question

Thank you for the revision and for stating your association.

Hey, we understand wanting to improve/update your post, but could you try to bundle up the edits a bit more, so that there's one larger edit instead of several spread out over a day or two? (I know it's hard to always get everything on the first try, though.)

I apologize for the inconvenience I caused by chaotic frequent changes.
I will avoid several edits within reasonably short periods like 10-30 minutes, maybe hours. I can achive this by reviewing my edits more carefully before saving the change.
Is it ok or you need to have several days delay between changes?

@Nikolay Mostly the concern is those edits bump this thread a lot, though it seems that isn't your intention which is good. Regarding timeframes it's the opposite: Making several edits within a reasonably short timeframe is fine. Our preference is to avoid bumping this question multiple times over several days with minor edits each time.

Get it, really appreciate the explanation.

I would also suggest that you focus on just directly answering the question when you post here: how do you use your program to do what the OP wants? That last section with platforms, pricing, links, etc, is less important - you can just link once to your program's home page, and have all that information there, and update it there as necessary without bumping the threads here.

I see the information I put here such as Supported platforms, price and so on as

highly relevant as it helps reader to deside whether a he wants to explore further at all, e.g. Mac users will save some time by knowing it's for Windows.
Extremly unlikely to change to make me 'Bump' this thread in the future.

The way I see post footer now it's ideal and should not require further changes.

Only just now seeing your reply. You bumped both again, due to another change in the post footer, and many past edits reworked the footer too. I know you don't plan for this, but you've edited these answers far more than the vast majority of posts on the site, and we'd really like to calm things down. If you ever find yourself wanting to update the details again, please follow my previous suggestion unless there's really good reason not to (in which case maybe ask on [meta] first).

iMtG for iOS has full blown inventory management system linked with Deck Builder. It is completely free for people with collections which would fit in 3 binders.
iMtG is made by myself (as someone who cares), it has had regular database updates since 2011. It is important as many other MTG collection manager apps failed to keep updating their databases over the years.
https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/app/imtg/id412798013?mt=8&at=10l74t

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is it allowed to win a game of cribbage with the single point from a "go"?
When playing cribbage and you're at a score of 120, can you then win the game by playing the last card and getting 1 point for the "go"? I've seen people play where you're not allowed to win via the "go", but my personal feeling is that's not correct.

Indeed, I've heard much the same.
Turns out, it is merely a "common" house-rule.
There's no mention of any such limitation in any of the rules I've been able to find, but some people definitely play that way.
It seems to me that in Crib (even more so than in many other games) it's important to know what the house rules are before you start.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How to store cards when game boxes don't have slots for them
I have two board games which use a lot of cards, but their boxes don't have dedicated space to store them in an ordered manner and whenever I'd like to play them again I have to start with sorting all the cards by type.
How can I store these cards so they don't fly all over the box? The exact two games I have in mind are Lord of the Rings LCG and Dragon's Ordeal, but I'm looking for a solution which I could apply to a greater variety of dimensions. I am not from the UK or US so I'd prefer more generic items, because it might be difficult/too expensive to purchase stuff from Amazon or online shops.

Hair Bands

Similar to using rubber bands, but they don't deteriorate and stick to the cards over time. If possible get metal free ones, rather than the type on the right - less likely to catch on the cards.
Small Cardboard Boxes

Have a look around your house, you'll probably find something that's the right size. Plasters often come in boxes that are a good fit for cards.

The more tension the hairbands have, the more they distort the cards. But the less tension they have, the less they keep the cards in place. I would not recommend this method unless you have little concern for the condition of your cards.

Rubber bands - Extremely cheap solution. Allows you to group cards of a similar type together. Over a long period of time though, the rubber will crack and may even stick to your cards. If you sleeve your cards this is of minor concern.
Plastic Sandwich bags - If you submit your games to high humidity, these do not "breath" and may cause moisture damage.
Custom Dividers - You can create custom dividers for your game boxes by cutting cardboard, chip board, foam core, or wood into horizontal and vertical slats with notches. When pieced together, they should hold the cards in place.
Custom Tuck boxes - Many games have custom tuck boxes that have been designed by fans. Check the BGG file section. If not, you can always use a deck box for Magic the Gathering or similar card game.

A small hole punch would probably help plastic bags breath. Just make sure to remember to punch the hole before putting cards in them. There are also bags with hole already in them.

I bought a bunch of these grip seal bags in various sizes. I did buy these from Amazon, but have seen them in stationery shops if you prefer not to get them shipped.
These ones for cards cost me £1.34 GBP with free shipping for 100 (1.3 pence each). Unless eBay/Amazon shipping is super extortionate for you, I think they are worth the investment; I've found them great for storing decks of cards as well as other components.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0026DGN00/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I use Hugo's Amazing Tape.
It works similarly to plastic wrap; but it doesn't tear like that does. And you can either re-wrap it around the deck each time, or slide the wrapped ring on and off the cards (unless they are sleeved, then it won't slide).
I use the 1/2 inch, but I think the 1 inch would actually work better.
Very similarly, a friend of mine actually uses bondage tape for this. It also works in the exact same way, but is at least 2 inches wide I believe.

Amazing tape or ziplock bags. A craft store should have bags in various handy sizes — look in the beading section.
Edit to add: I also bought online a tiny hole punch. Small enough holes that I use it on bits bags and don’t worry about small game pieces falling out.


text:
What happens when you blink a cipher-ed creature?
if I have a cipher ability encoded on a creature, and I cast a Restoration Angel, thus exiling and returning the creature to play, does the creature still have the cipher ability?
How about creatures returning from the graveyard (undying ability)?

The creature ceases to exist (permanently) as soon as it leaves the battlefield for any reason.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are seven exceptions to this rule:

None of the exception help cipher. That leaves the card with cipher in exile, encoding a creature that no longer exists, and which will therefore never deal any combat damage again.
When the card returns to the battlefield, it becomes yet again another object. This is why it comes back untapped, untransformed, with summoning sickness, without any counters it used to have, and of course, without any cards encoded on it.
There is a rule to remind you of this:

702.97c The card with cipher remains encoded on the chosen creature as long as the card with cipher remains exiled and the creature remains on the battlefield. The card remains encoded on that object even if it changes controller or stops being a creature, as long as it remains on the battlefield.

With the 'it' in "as long as it remains on the battlefield" being the object, not the card (which is technically in exile, even though we all just slip the card underneath :-)  ).

When a creature leaves the battlefield and returns, whether by blinking or undying or anything else, it returns as a new creature. The creature that the cipher spell was encoded on no longer exists, and the new creature doesn't have a spell encoded on it. This is the same reason you can do things like blinking a creature to save it from being targeted by a spell or to remove it from combat.
With respect to cipher in particular, the comp rules do say:

702.97c The card with cipher remains encoded on the chosen creature as long as the card with cipher remains exiled and the creature remains on the battlefield. The card remains encoded on that object even if it changes controller or stops being a creature, as long as it remains on the battlefield.

It's not quite explicit, but it pretty clearly implies that once the creature leaves the battlefield, the cipher relationship is gone.

Just remember when anything hits the exile zone that it is a reset of that creature,enchantment,artifact, or land.
If it was a token it dissipates.  If it creature it enters the battlefield for the first time.
Anything stolen, taken, by spells will reset and become your new property.


text:
How is 6-player Castle Panic (with wizard tower) supposed to work?
Has anyone played Castle Panic with 6 players?
I've tried and I think that the rules don't make sense. With more players you actually need more cards, not fewer. Sure you can trade two cards, but even if you use all your cards each turn, the amount of damage just won't equate to the amount of hit-points of the incoming monsters.
Did you house rule the number of cards? If so, how many?

The point of reducing the number of cards is to keep the players from having too many resources at their disposal. If you have 5 players with 5 cards each, that's 25 cards for the players to work with. If you have 6 players with 4 cards each, that's 24. It's about the same number of resources in total.
Being able to trade twice is a huge advantage in resource management; I suspect the lower number of cards is actually to counteract the strength of being able to trade two cards instead of one. The extra trading allows the players to more precisely control who has access to which resources at a given time.
If the players had that amount of control and the extra 5 cards, the game would be too easy. The game is designed to be a challenge.

Did you manage to beat the game with 6 players? The thing is that having the ability to trade is great, but if you play with 6 players you will quickly end up in a situation where the 5th and 6th player basically can't trade anything since everyone has used all their cards.

Well, you kinda need to adjust your strategy to account for that. No matter how many people you are playing with, you can't really win the game without planning ahead.

Well, thanks for those words of wisdom :-D The problem is that if you don't use all 4 your cards each turn you are dead. If you use them, the other players won't be able to trade with you. After you do the first round you will have 6-8 cards on the table at most.

But you also go through the deck and get to new cards faster, get to reshuffle faster. There are a lot of things going into the balance there. Another option is to play the Overlord variation when you have 6 players.

You don't go through the deck faster. Not in relation to how fast you are drawing monsters. You actually go through the deck slower than in a 4 player game.

Touche about not going faster relative to drawing monsters.


text:
Is a card set aside with an Island considered "In Play"?
For example, can I set aside my Lighthouse on an Island to protect myself from attacks throughout the game?
My opinion is that Yes, cards set aside using Islands are still 'In Play', as this makes sense from a mechanism and theme point of view (Lighthouse on an Island).
However, if this is the case, I wonder what happens when combining Island with Goons, Hoard or Quarry...
Since everyone has an opinion, I'm really looking for material references one way or the other.

The flavor of the Island is supposed to be that you're sending things off to an island completely separate from the kingdom where all the action is taking place.

No, cards Set Aside cards are not In Play
The Seaside Rules states rather specifically on page 4 that set aside cards are not in play, only played cards are.

In play cards are those you have played - not those set aside, trashed, or discarded. Nor are they cards in your hand, deck, supply or discard piles. (page4, sidebar)
“In play” -- Action cards and Treasure cards played face-up in a player’s play area are in play until they are moved somewhere else—usually until they are discarded during a Clean-up phase. Only played cards are in play; set aside cards, trashed cards, cards in the supply, and cards in hands, decks, and discard piles are not in play. Reaction abilities like Moat's do not put those cards into play.
Island – [...] Island and the card set aside with it are set aside face up on the Island player mat provided. They should not be shuffled back into your deck when you shuffle your discard pile. [...]

Additionally, the Intrigue rules, define Set Aside (page 4, Intrigue), and instruct you to not follow rules text for cards set aside. And while play is never defined in the rules, it is only used in two contexts while appearing 63 times (3 if you count the single instance in the sidebar, "play passes clockwise").

to play (verb): to place an Action card from your hand to the play area, and follow the instructions on the card or place a Treasure card from your hand to the play area adding their value to any coins provided by action cards then Gain any Card from the supply of equal or lesser value.
play area: the place where Action cards and Treasure cards are placed during a players Action/Buy phases. These cards are usually placed in a player's Discard during the Clean-Up phase.

In the Action phase, the player may play one Action card. [...] To play an Action, the player takes an Action card from his hand and lays it face-up in his play area. He announces which card he is playing and follows the instructions written on that card from top to bottom. [...] Any Action cards played remain in the player’s play area until the Clean-up phase of the turn unless otherwise indicated on the card. Players should not discard the cards prior to the Clean-up phase, unless directed to by the card or another action.
In the Buy phase, the player can gain one card from the Supply by paying its cost. [...] The player may play some or all of the Treasure cards from his hand to his play area on the table and add to their value the coins provided by Action cards played this turn. The player may then gain any card in the Supply of equal or lesser value.
"Set Aside” – when a player sets aside a card, he places it face-up on the table (unless otherwise indicated) without following any instructions on the card. An Action that requires a player to set aside cards will instruct him on what to do with these cards.

My, that was thorough!

@shujaa, I don't know. A little wordy for my taste, but I felt I had to quote Intrigue as well as Seaside, because Intrigue specifically defines Set Aside and defines what playing and Action/Treasure means.

I think it's exactly what the OP is looking for.

It was, and this answer gets the prize! Thankyou @user1873!

No.
It's pretty simple - you don't play the Lighthouse, so it's never In Play. You set it aside in a special area that isn't the play area.

No. If you set aside a Lighthouse (reaction text: While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you) with an Island, which card did you play? Not the Lighthouse, the Island! The Lighthouse never enters play on that turn. The Island doesn't stay "in play" either, it is set aside (analogous to Exile if you play Magic).
At the end of your turn you clean up (put in discard pile) all cards that are in play except for duration cards that entered play on the current turn. If you played an Island, you set it aside with another card, neither are in play, neither get cleaned up, and neither are accessible by anything else or have any affect on anything else until the end of the game.
I don't see how it would make sense from a mechanism point of view. From a theme point of view, I think of Island as a desert island where something gets stranded and only just makes it back to be counted at the end of the game.


text:
+Cards, do you have to draw right away?
How do the +cards work in Dominion? Do you have to draw the card immediately or can you wait?
For example, let's take the Spy cards where it says +1 cards, and then all players must reveal the top card of their deck, you decide whether they discard it or put the card on top of the library.
As of now, I'm doing the latter before the +card label, as it lets me see the card I might draw or not.

YES
You must draw right away.
Page 6 of the Rulebook:

Common terms used on the Action cards:
"+X Card(s)" – the player immediately draws X number of cards from his
Deck. If there are not enough cards in his Deck, he draws as many as he
can, shuffles the Discard pile to form a new Deck, and then draws the
rest. If he still does not have enough cards left after forming a new Deck,
he just draws as many as he can.

You must immediately draw the cards. You cannot wait to draw the cards after you have performed the other phases of your turn, or perform other actions on the card after the "+X Cards" line before drawing the cards.
Also note your specific example is clarified in the rules on page 7 (emphasis mine):

Spy – Spy causes all players, including the one who played it, to
reveal the top card of their Deck. Note that you draw your card
for playing Spy before any cards are revealed. Anyone who does
not have any cards left in their Deck shuffles in order to have
something to reveal. Anyone who still has no cards to reveal
doesn't reveal one. If players care about the order in which
things happen for this, you do yourself first, then each other
player in turn order. Revealed cards that aren't discarded are
returned to the top of their players' Decks.

You do the actions on the card in the order it says.  So in the case of a spy, the +1 card comes first, so you draw a card.  Then all players reveal their top cards and that part of the Spy is resolved.

I understand quite correctly the actions resolving, but how is the +cards differ from the +action or +buy, both add to your actions and buys banks, you don't have to do it immediately or at all if you want. Isn't the +card the same, meaning if you want you can just ignore this privilege.

@user4837 +action or +buy add to the number of actions and buys you get to perform during the action and buy phases of the turn. +cards means you immediately draw cards. There is no separate card drawing phase of your turn.

@LittleViking26 Another way of saying it: +1 Action/Buy/Card means "you now have one more action/buy/card available in your bank of actions/buys/cards", and your bank of cards is your hand, so you naturally must immediately draw.

@LittleViking26 To word Jefromi's comment another way, you do immediately get another action/buy/card, you just don't have to use it immediately (or even at all).

"There is no separate card drawing phase of your turn." Actually, there is, but it's the very end of your turn, so moving +Cards to it wouldn't actually make any sense.

The rules claify this in several places.

(page 6) To play an Action, the player takes an Action card from his hand [...] and follows the instructions written on the card from top to bottom.
(page 6) "+X Card(s)" - the player immediately draws X number of cards from his Deck. [...]
(page 7, First Few Turns guide) Spy - Spy causes all players, including the one who played it, to reveal the top card of their Deck. Note that you draw your card for playing Spy befoe any cards are revealed. [...]

Page 7 covers how other '+' cards differ from +Card kingdom cards. Notably, the +Card instructions must be performed immediately, where the other cards bank those additional Actions, Buys, and Coins for use at a later time.


text:
Are multicolor decks in any color combination viable in modern Magic?
I've just recently regained interest in MtG and was overwhelmed by the quantity of new collections and the amount of cards.
I stopped playing MtG when the Fallen Empires expansion was just out.
One of the things that pops up immediately when browsing the cards (aside from the numerous new mechanisms) is that there's a lot of multicolor cards.
In the old days, building a deck of more then one color was very hard, and in most cases it involved playing at least green because of Birds of Paradise (BoP). In terms of tactics this was very limiting, since green used to be the way for cheap creatures.
Now it seems pretty much every combination of color is a viable tactic. Is that true? Or, are there still some colors that work better together?
One other thing; I used to stick very stubbornly to a 60 cards maximum deck size, with two copies of most cards (except lands), and four copies for some very useful cards (one example was Giant Growth when playing green). Do cards now exist that help the probability of running the deck fluidly, rendering obsolete my stubornness for requiring no more than a 60 card deck?

Unless you are running a specialty deck like http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=288878, you still generally want to have exactly 60 cards, because that gives you the best chance of drawing your best cards.

I cringe a little inside every time I see a deck with 41 or 61 cards.

There are really two quite distinct questions here. Consider asking your 60-card question in a new question. Also see Why would you want to play with a deck bigger than 60 cards in MTG?

Has it ever been the case that building a deck of more than one color was hard?  The original base set had a full suite of 10 dual lands, and every core set and every large set since then has had at least some version of a 2 (or more) color land cycle.  The original 'competitive' Magic deck, "The Deck", was three colors (blue plus white plus Mind Twist); the first World Championships pitted a U/W/g Stasis deck vs. a 4-color Zoo deck.

Can you define what you mean by "modern Magic"? The two definitions would be "Magic as it exists now, compared to ten years ago", or "The format of play that allows cards printed during or after Eighth Edition".

@corsiKa - 'modern Magic' was an edit by me. I intended it to mean your first definition, since the OP hasn't played since Fallen Empires, which was a long time ago...

Running 60 is still the best plan. You have the highest likelihood of drawing into your best cards when you have fewer cards.
As far as seeing more multi-color, right now we're in a multi-color block. Retrun to Ravnica (RTR)and Gatecrash (GTC) each feature five of the ten Ravnica guilds.
Right now in current standard are the ten 'shocklands', lands that come into play tap unless you pay two life and can tap for two colors (in RTR and GTC), for example Blood Crypt; a cycle in M13 of allied dual lands which come into play tapped unless you control a land type that it taps for, for example Glacial Fortress, and a cycle of enemy dual lands which do the same from Innistrad, for example Isolated Chapel.
Dual lands are the primary source of mana fixing. RTR and GTC also released gates, which are dual lands at common that always enter the battlefield tapped. These are typically considered too slow for standard constructed play.
Green is still considered the fixer color, granted access to tools like Caravan Vigil, Arbor Elf, Avacyn's Pilgrim, and Farseek, Mulch, Ranger's Path, Seek the Horizon, or if you have insane mana already like perhaps in a Commander game, Boundless Realms.
Currently Llanowar Elves and Birds of Paradise have rotated out of standard. They aren't usually out for long, so we stand a chance to see them in 2014, but honestly with all the fixing in right now, they aren't as necessary.
As to your question of "pretty much every combination of color is a viable tactic" you could make that argument. Each two color combination has a Ravnica guild, and half of the three color combinations have an Alara shard. Each of the Ravnica guilds is seemingly viable in standard, although many of them do have a third splash color. There are fewer monocolor top decks right now just because the set is so focused on multicolor decks.
Other formats have different archetypes. There is no single Commander deck that is winning everyone's hearts and minds. Jund (and to some extent, Storm) is completely dominating Modern to the extent that the DCI just banned two cards, one core to each deck, to level the playing field a little. Legacy and Vintage I don't follow enough to really comment on, but I'll say as far as I know there are no dominating color patterns there.

As I said in a comment, I would dispute the very premise of this post — not only have there been tournament-viable multicolor decks for as long as there have been Magic tournaments, but I would say that over Magic's history it's more often been the case that a multicolored deck is (one of) the best in the format than that it hasn't.  (The three exceptions that come to mind are the Buehler-style mono-Blue control decks in post-bannings Tempest/Urza standard, the mono-Black 'Napster' control deck that won the world championship a couple of years later, and various flavors of mono-red decks)
One deckbuilding principle that's been fairly consistent throughout Magic's history is the 'power splash': stretching your mana base a little bit to include one or two cards that provide an effect you couldn't get otherwise.  Brian Weissman's inclusion of Demonic Tutor and Mind Twist into his otherwise pure Blue/White control deck is a good example of this; modern versions include a very similar idea, UW control decks splashing just a little Black to be able to play Ultimate Price to destroy early creatures and (most importantly) activate Nephalia Drownyard as the deck's primary (uncounterable and hard-to-destroy) win condition.
As far as the state of tournament Magic right now, one good resource for checking out what decks are doing well (at least in a particular metagame) are the current winning decks on Magic Online, which you can find in a sidebar on the "What's Happening" page on Wizards' Magic Online site.  From a cursory examination of that you can find that mono-Red decks are still doing well, but so are White/Green/Black reanimator decks, and Blue/White control decks (often splashing a little bit of Black), and Red/Green/Black midrange decks with lots of value creatures, and White/Green/Blue decks, either pure control or with lots of acceleration into larger creatures, and White/Green/Red decks also on the big-guys plan, and Green beatdown decks splashing a little Black, and a Green/Blue/White 'enchantments' deck, and... well, you get the idea.

You neglected WUR. Also, I <3 UW Drownyard.

@AlexP It was on my mind, but I didn't see any good Flash decks in the couple of standard tournaments I looked at. :-)


text:
Does Fateful Hour apply in this combat?
My opponent is at 7 life and has a Grizzly Bears (2/2) and a Gavony Ironwright (Fateful hour — As long as you have 5 or less life, other creatures you control get +1/+4.).
I attack with 2 2/2s and my opponent blocks with his Grizzly Bears. This attack will knock my opponent down to 5 life. Does my opponent's Grizzly Bears die or does Fateful Hour kick in before hand and save it? (making it a 3/6 with 2 damage marked on it)

Why wouldn't your opponent block with Gavony Ironwright? As a 1/4, both the attacking GB and it would survive.

I just wanted to make a situation that explained what I wanted to know with out going into to much detail. Gavony Ironwright could have been tapped but I didn't think that mattered.

Also, his opponent probably would WANT to go from 7 life to 5 life, if he's playing Fateful Hour...

Dealing damage does not directly destroy creatures. It's actually state-based actions performed afterwards (the next time someone would get priority) that do. His Grizzly Bear would survive because your opponent has 5 life when SBAs are performed.

All participants assign their damage [CR 510.1]. No damage is actually dealt at this point, so your opponent has 7 life for the entire process, so his Grizzly Bear is 2/2 for the entire process.

2 damage is assigned to your blocked attacker by his Grizzly Bear
2 damage is assigned to his Grizzly Bear by your blocked attacker.
2 damage is assigned to him by your unblocked blocked attacker.

All participants deal the previously assigned damage simultaneously [CR 510.2]. (The power/toughness of the participants is not checked here.)

2 damage is dealt to your blocked attacker by his Grizzly Bear.

2 damage is marked on your blocked attacker.

2 damage is dealt to his Grizzly Bear by your blocked attacker.

2 damage is marked on the Grizzly Bear.

2 damage is dealt to him by your unblocked blocked attacker.

He loses 2 life.

State-based actions are performed.

Your blocked attacker is destroyed because its toughness, 2, is not greater than than its marked damage, 2.
(Nothing happens to his Grizzly Bear because its toughness, 6, is greater than its marked damage, 2.)
(Your opponent does not lose the game because his life, 5, is greater than 0.)

I realise the question has already been answered, but I hope you find my explanation and walkthrough more readable than the wall of rules of the earlier answer.

+1, I like your walk through approach to answering. I agree with your reason for a new answer, I could have totally excluded someof the irrelevant portions of the cited rules.

Your opponents Grizzly Bear will survive. Damage is dealt simultaneously but because the lethal damage is checked as state based action it will not happen until after your opponent has 5 life and the Fateful hour ability has kicked in.

510.2. Second, all combat damage that's been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. No
  player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the
  time combat damage is assigned and the time it's dealt. This is a
  change from previous rules. Example: Squadron Hawk (a 1/1 creature
  with flying) and Goblin Piker (a 2/1 creature) are attacking. Mogg
  Fanatic (a 1/1 creature with the ability "Sacrifice Mogg Fanatic: Mogg
  Fanatic deals 1 damage to target creature or player) blocks the Goblin
  Piker. The defending player sacrifices Mogg Fanatic during the declare
  blockers step to deal 1 damage to the Squadron Hawk. The Hawk is
  destroyed. The Piker deals and is dealt no combat damage this turn. If
  the defending player instead left Mogg Fanatic on the battlefield, the
  Fanatic and the Piker would have dealt lethal damage to one another,
  but the Squadron Hawk couldn't have been dealt damage.\
510.4. Fourth, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

704 State-Based Actions
704.1. State-based actions are game actions that happen automatically whenever certain conditions (listed below) are met. State-based
  actions don't use the stack.
704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, "Timing and Priority"), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for
  state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions
  simultaneously as a single event. If any state-based actions are
  performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated; otherwise all
  triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack are put on
  the stack, then the check is repeated. Once no more state-based
  actions have been performed as the result of a check and no triggered
  abilities are waiting to be put on the stack, the appropriate player
  gets priority. This process also occurs during the cleanup step (see
  rule 514), except that if no state-based actions are performed as the
  result of the step's first check and no triggered abilities are
  waiting to be put on the stack, then no player gets priority and the
  step ends.
704.5g 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. Regeneration
  can replace this event.

Is the total damage marked on it at the time state-based actions are checked lethal? You're suggesting that the Fateful Hour static ability is applied later than the state-based check somehow?

@StevenStadnicki Haha yea, I totally misread 704.3 this morning while writing this. I think you guys are right.


text:
If creatures targeted by Living Inferno's ability all die, what happens?
If I were to target a ton of creatures with Living Inferno's ability and then all those creatures were to die (or be sacrificed, per Dismiss Into Dream) in response to Living Inferno's ability going on the stack, what would happen?
I can see one of two things:

The creatures die, then LI's ability checks for the creatures, sees that they aren't there, and then fizzles.
When LI's ability goes on the stack it records the creatures power, thus ensuring that LI gets dealt damage when it's ability resolves.

The ability fizzles if and only if,  all of it's targets are gone, so long at least one of it's targets is still there, It will still resolve and deal damage to that target, but if they're all gone, the ability is countered(fizzles)

Creatures on the battle field can't perform actions(such as dealing damage) if they are illegal targets of the ability, and they're illegal targets of the ability if they've changed zones(such as from the battlefield to the graveyard).
If they died while living Inferno's ability was on the stack, than those creates would not deal damage.

both of these points are covered by section 608.2b of the comp rules

608.2b
If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are
still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it
was in when it was targeted is illegal. 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. If the source of an ability has left the zone it
was in, its last known information is used during this process. The
spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance
of the word “target,” are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not
countered, it will resolve normally. However, if any of its targets
are illegal, the part of the spell or ability’s effect for which it is
an illegal target can’t perform any actions on that target, make
another object or player perform any actions on that target, or make
that target perform any actions. The effect may still determine
information about illegal targets, though, and other parts of the
effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them.

Example:
Sorin’s Thirst is a black instant that reads, “Sorin’s Thirst
deals 2 damage to target creature and you gain 2 life.” If the
creature isn’t a legal target during the resolution of Sorin’s Thirst
(say, if the creature has gained protection from black or left the
battlefield), then Sorin’s Thirst is countered. Its controller doesn’t
gain any life.

Example:
Plague Spores reads, “Destroy target nonblack
creature and target land. They can’t be regenerated.” Suppose the same
animated land is chosen both as the nonblack creature and as the land,
and the color of the creature land is changed to black before Plague
Spores resolves. Plagues Spores isn’t countered because the black
creature land is still a legal target for the “target land” part of
the spell. The “destroy target nonblack creature” part of the spell
won’t affect that permanent, but the “destroy target land” part of the
spell will still destroy it. It can’t be regenerated.

This is also supported by the Gatherer ruling for pit fight

1/24/2013     If either target of Pit Fight is an illegal target when the
ability tries to resolve, neither creature will deal or be dealt
damage.

take note that pit fight does not fizzle in this case, because it still will have 1 target.

if pit fight isn't good enough for you because it uses the fight mechanic, than the ruling for Flesh/Blood also applies

4/15/2013     As Blood is resolving, if only one of the targets is legal,
Blood will still resolve but will have no effect: If the first target
is illegal, it can’t deal damage to anything. If the second target
creature or player is illegal, it can’t be dealt damage.

Thanks! So, hypothetically if one of the creatures survived, I assume the ability would only affect the one creature and then only that one creature would deal damage to Living Inferno?

@MiloGertjejansen yup

@MiloGertjejansen, actually if one creature survives, the Last Known Information (LKI) of the dead creatures are used to deal damage to Living Inferno (along with the surviving creature)

@user1873 are you sure about that? I would interpret the quoted text to mean that that part of the ability can't "make that target perform any actions".

@tengfred, the non-bolded part agrees with [CR608.2g], "The effect may still determine information about illegal targets, though, and other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them." Living Inferno needs to know information about all the creatures it targeted, even the ones that are now illegal because they no longer exist (in the graveyard, in a players hand because they were bounced, etc.) in the zone where it expected them, so LKI is used for those creatures to, "deal damage equal to their power" to Living Inferno.

@user1873 I'll admit to not being a magic rules expert, but it still seems strange to me. Maybe action has some special technical meaning here, but otherwise, I'd expect dealing damage to be an action. If it had been e.g. "then you gain life equal to the total power of those creatures", it would make more sense to me to use LKI.(Although I still would probably have got it wrong before this discussion :))

@user1873 Damage is calculated on resolution. As per the gathering ruling: "The amount of damage Living Inferno will deal is locked in as you activate its ability, since you're dividing damage. If Living Inferno's power changes after its ability is activated but before it resolves (via Giant Growth, for example), the amount of damage Living Inferno deals won't change. The same is not true for the amount of damage dealt to Living Inferno by the other creatures, which is determined when the ability resolves."

@ghoppe that's really not a relevant ruling.  The reason why Living Inferno doesn't take damage is not directly about whether or not the targets have changed zones.  It's because they have become illegal targets.

@SamIam of course you're right, as I have realized. :)

@ghoppe actually, that ruling would be somewhat relevant if posted on user1873's answer because it illustrates the difference between the language in rule 112.7a and the damage being dealt to LI

@ikegami I had a little doubt myself until I read the Gather ruling for Pit Fight

@Sam I am, That's because fight explicitly checks if both creatures to exist.

@SamIam, you cannot use Fight as an example, because the rules specifically tell you not to assign damage if either Target ceases to exist, " 701.10b If a creature instructed to fight is no longer on the battlefield or is no longer a creature, no damage is dealt. If a creature is an illegal target for a resolving spell or ability that instructs it to fight, no damage is dealt." If Fight didn't explicitly tell you that, then CR112.7a and CR608.2g would instruct you to use LKI.

@user1873 What about the last part of CR608.2b? It cannot be ignored. "However, if any of its targets are illegal, the part of the spell or ability’s effect for which it is an illegal target can’t perform any actions on that target, make another object or player perform any actions on that target, or make that target perform any actions." Clearly, Living Inferno cannot force an illegal target to deal damage. I believe the explicit rules you mention for the keyword fight are a direct consequence of CR608.2b, and not just grafted onto the rules.

Thought experiment: What if Living Inferno were instead a Psionic Inferno (see Psionic Entity) "{T}: Psionic Inferno deals damage equal to its power divided as you choose among any number of target creatures and X damage to itself where X is the total power of the targeted creatures." — then 112.7a kicks in.

@ikegami you have a similar ruling for flesh/blood

@Sam I am, I stand corrected

...I missed that it was covered by the rule you quoted.

I've actually become uncertain on this one again, I'll probably edit it


text:
Can the extra players extension work with Seafearers or Cities and Knights?
If I have the Settlers of Catan 5-6 player extension (for the base game), does that mean I can use the Seafarers or Cities and Knights expansions with 5-6 players?

Seafarers and Cities & Knights have their own 5-6 Player expansions in addition to the base game 5-6 player expansion. Think of them as expansions to expansions. So to play a 6 player game of Seafarers you will need the following:
Base Catan Game + 5-6 Person Base Expansion + 4 player Seafarers Expansion + 5-6 Person Seafarers Expansion

No--not easily at least. Each expansion has it's own 5-6 Player Extension, which you would need in addition to the base 5-6 Player extension. (BTW, they use the term expansion for things like Cities & Knights or Seafarers that change the rules significantly, and the term extension for sets that just add support for additional players.)
Seafarers adds boat pieces for each of the 4 base-set colors, but does not include boat pieces for the 2 additional colors. These you could proxy, or you could buy the Seafarers 5-6 Player Expansion.
Cities & Knights has more player-specific equipment: knights tokens, city walls, flipbooks for each player... playing without the C&K 5-6 Player extension would be very difficult. Traders & Barbarians is even more extreme than Cities & Knights.
Searching for the Expansion-Specific 5-6 Player Extensions on Boardgame Geek (Seafarers here and Cities & Knights here, Traders & Barbarians here), you can see what they include.


text:
What is the meaning of OMP, GWP, OGP?
I am using mtgarena for my tournament organization.
What do OMP, GWP and OGP mean? Does anyone know what they stand for?
Example:
Player  Points  OMP     GWP      OGP
1           9   33.33   100      31.11
2           6   66.67   60       69.44
3           6   44.44   75       42.22
4           6   22.22   66.67    22.22
5           3   72.22   20       80.56
6           3   50      20       53.33
7           3   33.33   0        36.11

These are percentages, used by the DCI as tie-breakers. From Section C4 of the Tournament Organizer's Handbook:

OMP - Opponents’ Match-Win Percentage. A player’s match-win percentage is that player’s accumulated match points divided by X
times the number of rounds in which he or she competed, or 0.33, whichever is greater.
GWP - Game-Win Percentage. Similar to the match-win percentage, a player’s game-win percentage is the total number of
game points he or she earned divided by X times the number of games played.
OGP - Opponents’ Game-Win Percentage. Similar to opponents’ match-win percentage, a player’s opponents’ game-win percentage is
simply the average game-win percentage of all of that player’s opponents. And, as with opponents’ match-win percentage, each opponent has a minimum game-win percentage of
0.33.

The links in this answer are broken. What is the definition of X please?


text:
Can the Mask of Avacyn be targeted by spells after being equipped to a creature?
Can the Mask of Avacyn be targeted by spells after it's been equipped to a creature?
This is an odd question, because the mask gives the equipped creature a +1/+2 and has hexproof  and says it "can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponent controls", where "it" refers to the equipped creature. However, can your opponent use a spell or ability to directly destroy the Mask of Avacyn (in this case an Artifact - Equipment card)?
Example: Mask of Avacyn is attached to a creature.  Can my opponent use the Planeswalker ability of Nicol Bolas that reads: "Destroy target noncreature permanent"?
Alternatively, can my opponent use a spell card that reads, "Destroy target permanent" or Recoil, an Instant that reads:, "Return target permanent to its owner's hand. Then that player discards a card"?

the creature can't be the target of spells or abilities.  The mask itself still can.

If the answer is satisfactory, please check the mark next to it. If not, please indicate why you think it isn't. Welcome to StackExchange!

Yes. The Mask doesn't have hexproof, shroud or similar.
Even when attached, the equipment and the equipped creature are two separate permanents. Only the creature gets +1/+2 and hexproof. Nothing in the scenario you described gives the Mask any abilities (such as hexproof) when attached.

I would have thought that you could not attach the Mask directly unless you get rid of the creature first.  I would not have a problem it the equipment was on the battlefield and you wanted to destroy it with a destroy target card, however, I would think since in this case its attached to creature, that an opponent would have to destroy the creature first.  What do you think?

I already said what I think. Attaching the Mask doesn't give Mask hexproof or similar, so nothing's stopping you from targeting the Mask. It's the other way around, you can't target the creature until you get rid of the Mask first.

If you want Avacyn's Mask to have hexproof, you could try using Privileged Position (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=83720).  Note that Privileged Position can still be targeted by your opponent!


text:
Does the wording "each land" also include Basic Lands?
I have a Bountiful Harvest. It's a Sorcery that reads "You gain l life for each land you control."
Does this refer to only cards that say Land and not Basic Land, or does it count for both?

This explanation might be helpful.

A Basic Land is still a land. Any card with "Land" in the type line is a land.

205.1. The type line is printed directly below the illustration. It contains the card's card type(s). It also contains the card's subtype(s) and supertype(s), if applicable.
205.2a The card types are artifact, creature, enchantment, instant, land, plane, planeswalker, sorcery, tribal, and vanguard. See section 3,"Card Types."
305.5. Land subtypes are always a single word and are listed after a long dash. Land subtypes are also called land types. Lands may have multiple subtypes. See rule 205.3i for the complete list of land types.
Example: "Basic Land — Mountain"means the card is a land with the subtype Mountain.

The question is do I get a life point for ever basic land.  My opponent did not allow me to gain a life point for ever basic-land card.

@user4893 Like the answer says, basic lands are lands. So are nonbasic lands. You get a point of life for each land you control, no matter what kind it is.

good, then I wonder why this card only got a 1 star rating :)

@user4893 This card only has a 1 star rating because life gain, in itself, does not win games. This is one of the first lessons of the aspiring magic player. All life gain by itself does is slow down how fast you lose the game. This particular card is expensive for its effect.

Lifegain can be effective to the extent that it buys you time, just like bounce or tap spells. It needs to be cheap and gain you a lot of life though. Like Rest for the Weary in a deck that's just trying to survive til turn 4, or Gnaw to the Bone in a self-milling Limited deck.

The one exception to the "life gain only buys time" rule is if you're playing against burn because then your spells are essentially countering their spells. For instance if my opponent bolts me in the face then I gain 3 life I essentially countered their lightning bolt.

@LeeAbraham Real burn decks are packed with cards like Skullcrack, Flames of the Blood Hand, and Sulfuric Vortex, though. I've had more success with lifegain against RDW than actual Burn.

Land is short for land permanent, which means permanent that has "land" as one of its types.
It doesn't matter what supertypes it might have, if any. For example, both Forest (basic) and Academy Ruins (legendary) match.
It doesn't matter what other types it might have, if any. For example, both Dryad Arbor (creature) and Tree of Tales (artifact) match.
It doesn't matter what subtypes it might have, if any. For example, both Forest (forest) and Golgari Guildgate (gate) match.
So, if you have a three Forests and one Golgari Guildgate, you'll gain four life.


text:
Can you use Throne Room to Mine a Copper to a Gold?
One of the most frequent barely-civil discussions in my group is what is possible when you use Throne Room (repeat an action card), in conjunction with Mine (trash a treasure to gain a treasure with cost of three greater).
In my experience, one of two things happen:

The person trashes two copper to gain two silver - completely valid
The person trashes one copper to gain a gold - under debate

Is it legal to gain a gold from a copper with a Throne Room-ed Mine?

You can go from Copper to Silver (or Loan, or some other $3 treasure), and then from this newly gained Silver/Loan etc. (or any other treasure in your hand that costs $3+) to go to a Gold.

Yes, you can trash Copper -> Silver -> Gold, since Mine requires you trash cards from your hand, and then gain them back into your hand, setting you up for another play.
Copper -> Platinum with a King's Courted Mine is also possible (and incredibly devious!)
For clarity, Mine reads:

Trash a Treasure card from your hand. Gain a Treasure card costing up to 3 Coins more; put it into your hand.

And Throne Room reads:

Choose an Action card in your hand. Play it twice.

So the order is (with a hand like Throne Room, Mine, Copper, X, X):

Play Throne Room
Choose Mine
Trash Copper from hand; Gain Silver into your hand
Use Mine again
Trash Silver from hand; Gain Gold into hand
Profit

As I was writing the question out, and remembered the wording of cards (specifically put it into your hand, and Treasure card from your hand), I came to the same conclusion. Love the idea about King's Court though, that'll be epic when we play next.

Just a caveat: the trashing does require gaining a Silver (or other 3-cost treasure) first. If you can't gain a Silver or similar for any reason (e.g. there are none left), you cannot go from Copper to Gold.

Is there any other forseeable reason why I wouldn't be able to gain a silver, besides them all being gone? I don't have most of the expansions so I don't know what all the cards do.

@pandorym I actually can't think of any off the top of my head. The pile emptying is definitely the most likely scenario but there could be an Embargo-like situation, where you COULD gain one, but don't want to for whatever reason and you wouldn't be allowed to shortcut to the Gold (and Embargo wouldn't apply in this situation anyway since it only affects buys)

@pandorym A more simple example of when you might be able to take a Silver but not want to: when doing so would end the game while you're behind.

It's also important that the Silver is gained and trashed for several Dark Ages cards like Forager, Graverobber, and Rogue.

@sitnaltax - The Hinterlands cards Trader and Jack of All Trades also tend to deplete the Silver pile.


text:
Can a sacrifice be used to pay for more than one effect?
Someone tried to play the following combo in a game I was in. I think it is an illegal play, so I wanted some help to clarify the rules.
The cards were:

Launch Party - "As an additional cost to cast Launch Party, sacrifice a creature."

Mogg Fanatic - "Sacrifice Mogg Fanatic: Mogg Fanatic deals 1 damage to target creature or player."

The other player played Launch Party and wanted to sacrifice Mogg Fanatic to pay Launch Party's cost. However, they also wanted to benefit from Mogg Fanatic's own ability.
This doesn't seem legitimate, because it would be a "two for one" (pay one cost, get two spells). Am I correct?

You're absolutely correct: you can only sacrifice the Mogg Fanatic to pay the cost for one of those two effects, not both.  From the Comprehensive Rules:

117.10. Each payment of a cost applies to only one spell, ability, or effect. For example, a player can't sacrifice just one creature to
  activate the activated abilities of two permanents that each require
  sacrificing a creature as a cost. Also, the resolution of a spell or
  ability doesn't pay another spell or ability's cost, even if part of
  its effect is doing the same thing the other cost asks for.

The key part is that these sacrifices are costs. Since you realise this, it becomes quite simple.
You can't pay for two $1 products with the same dollar.
You can't pay for two costs using the same mana.
You can't pay for two costs using the same sacrifice.
CR 117.10 reminds you that nothing allows you to reuse a payment you previously payed.

117.10. Each payment of a cost applies to only one spell, ability, or effect. For example, a player can't sacrifice just one creature to activate the activated abilities of two permanents that each require sacrificing a creature as a cost. Also, the resolution of a spell or ability doesn't pay another spell or ability's cost, even if part of its effect is doing the same thing the other cost asks for.

I like the dollar analogy, +1!


text:
Do areas with depleted resources count for Jim Raynor's victory condition?
I was playing Star Craft: The Board Game recently as Jim Raynor, and a question arose:
Do planet areas with (fully) depleted resources count for Raynor's special victory objective? We ruled it as "no" on the spot, but later I couldn't find anything related in the rules.

Yes, depleted areas do count. From the FAQ:

Q: If an area has been fully depleted of resources, does it still
  count towards players’ special victory conditions?
A: Yes. For
  example, Jim Raynor needs to control six areas containing gas and/or
  minerals; this includes any area that has a printed gas or mineral
  icon on it.


text:
How to find a game of Munchkin?
I've been playing Munchkin for about two years.  I just moved to a new city, and now that I'm away from my friends, I've realized that not many people know the game even exists and most have no interest whatsoever. How do I go about finding people to play with?

Maybe talk to some of the people on this group: http://www.meetup.com/Valhalla-Gaming-and-Entertainment/... not a million miles away from you I think, and some of them may know somewhere even closer.

In my experience, Munchkin is how you lose friends, not make them :)

-1 - I'm not a fan of this question. To me, this seems more like a question about social skills than gaming...

Steve Jackson Games, the makers of Munchkin, have a Gamer Finder. You can check to see if there are any stores or individuals are nearby, and even register yourself so other SJG players can find you. If you are really gung-ho about the game, you might also want to join the MIBs which is a not so secret group of gamers who run demos of Munchkin and other SJG Games at Hobby Shops and conventions.

Look for stores that sell board, CCG, or role playing games.  I'd start with store finders on sites like Wizards.com. If you don't have a specialized hobby store, you can try more general stores that sell that product type such as Hastings. People at these locations might know other players, or even have places set up to play / hang out.
Check sites like Meetup and Facebook for board game groups. Also check any local universities for that type of group as well.  Sometimes you have to dig, but there are gamers out there!

If you're even in a moderately urban area You should be able to find a board/tabletop/card games store, and it's not entirely rare for people to come to the store just to play non-specific board/card games.
You can probably ask the owner if he knows of such a group.  Odds are that he does.


text:
When can sea units support land battles, and vice versa?
In the 1st edition rule book it is explained that ships can support an adjacent battle:

Ship units may support adjacent combat in a sea area or a ...

But what if I'm attacking from a spot that touches water, into a spot that does not touch water? The rules don't ever specify what the battle area is. It makes intuitive sense that the ships wouldn't actually be able to cross land, but since the rules don't specify the answer it has become a question for my gaming group.
This would also be the question for land units. Do the units need to be touching the defending land/sea area? Or would they be allowed to be called in from areas adjacent to the attacking land area?

potential duplicate: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/6992/what-regions-count-towards-support-of-another-region

I'm only familiar with the 2nd Edition, but I believe it's similar. (This question doesn't list include support in it's list of differences.)
When thinking about support, it doesn't matter where you're attacking from. The battle takes place in the region troops enter to attack, and only units (ships or land units) bordering the defending region can offer support to either side.
This makes sense: you can't march your troops to the border and yell taunts until the defenders come to you, you have to go to them. Hence attacks are initiated by a March order. It doesn't matter at all what regions border the region your attackers came from. Only the regions bordering the one region where combat occurs--the region being attacked--can offer support to the combat.
Regarding your last point, land units can never support a naval battle. They can't swim well enough.
I bet this was a common confusion from the 1st Edition; the 2nd Edition rules seemed to really drive both of these points home.

Ships may support land combat, land units may not support sea combat (my friends always say "imagine the men and horses swimming out into the sea" as opposed to ships raiding the shores).
The battle takes place in the area which you are trying to conquer, so only units adjacent to it may support it.
References:
From the rules p. 17:

Ship units may support adjacent combat in a sea area or a
  land area. Footmen, Knights, or Siege Engine units, however,
  may never provide support to combat in a sea area.

From the rules p. 13:

During the “Declare Support” step of combat, supporting units
  adjacent to the embattled area may add their combat strength to
  one of the two participants in the adjacent combat.


text:
How do I get the "5 routes" achievement?
What is meant in the poker player of using all "5" routes - is it all routes that use 5 carriages or tickets that score 5 points? I did the former but didn't get the achievement.

this question is not about ticket-to-ride, is it about an online version?

It sounds like you are talking about a computer version of the game. Although Such questions can be in scope, this particular question deals only specifically with the computer version, and is of no meaning or help with the non-computer version. Voted to close.

Yes. Get all the 5-car, 10 point scores, there are 8. You must also win the game too. Recommend playing against only one bot.

It needs to be in the standard version. I tried with the 1910 version and it didn't work.

Hello user6863! You should add comments as comments to the answer/question as appropriate rather than adding a comment as a new answer. It's best if answers stand by themselves :)


text:
How long can I wait before choosing to counter a spell?
Today, I was playing a duel, and my friend played a Wall of Reverence, which he then ended up enchanting with an Ethereal Armor. Between those two actions he asked me if I would counter it, to which I answered that I would wait for him to play the rest of his cards so I could choose what to do. He said that I had to counter the Wall of Reverence before he played Ethereal Armor for the counter to work. Was he right about that?

The most elegant way to put it is "As long as it's still a spell". Of course, that requires an understanding of when something stops being a spell and starts being something on the battlefield, stack and resolving, et al.

Your friend was right.
Casting spells and activating abilities puts them on the so-called Stack before they actually resolve and turn into creatures, enchantments, and so on. The Stack is a pretty important part of MtG.
You can only counter spells and abilities while they are on the stack; indeed, a spell can only be a spell on the stack, and if you read your counter spells carefully, they say exactly that: counter target spell. Therefore, if it's not on the Stack, you can't counter it, because it can't be a spell. Once a spell has resolved, it's off the Stack and it's too late to counter it.
Most spells, like creature, enchantment, or sorcery spells can only be played while the stack is empty, among other things. That means, if your friend first played a creature (the Wall of Reverence), and then an enchantment (Ethereal Armor) on that Wall, the Wall can no longer be on the Stack and must already be on the battlefield. Not to mention that this enchantment requires a target, which can in this case only be a creature that's already on the battlefield.
The only situation where you can choose which spell to counter is, obviously, when multiple spells are on the Stack. The first spell can be anything, and the other spells are typically instants.
Note that your opponent is not required to respond to a spell, even if he could (which he could not in this case) - if he so chooses, he can just let any spell resolve, then cast the next, let it resolve, and so on, until he has played everything he wanted to. Indeed, this is a common strategy against a player like you who plays counter spells, because he forces you to decide on incomplete information. If all spells were on the Stack at the same time, you would of course have a much easier time to decide which spell to counter, if any, which is why a smart player would deny you that opportunity, and he has every right to do so.

So there's a card in RoR, it has an overload of countering every spell, when can't i counter everything, or almost everything except for the "cant be countered" and in this case cards that are played in the same turn and that are enchanted with cards like Ethereal Armor. for example let's say he played the Wall, then something like oblivion or angel's mercy, then armor and then, for example another Angel's mercy, what can i counter?

To counter multiple spells, it's not enough that they have been played in the same turn. They have to be on the Stack at the same time, and normally you cannot have more than 1 creature spell or enchantment spell on the stack, as I explained in my answer. A spell that lets you counter all other spells can do nothing about things that are already on the battlefield. If your opponent casts nothing but creatures and enchantments, you can only choose 1 of those spells, and you have to decide whether or not to counter exactly then when he plays it, not later.

oh ok, guess i had some pretty stupid ideas about Stack resolving, thanks

So Counterflux would be better used when the other player uses several sorcery spells and instants that have several negative side effects to me, like a combo with storm cards?

Yes, that would be the best use for an overloaded Counterflux.

@L So Counterflux would be better used when the other player uses several sorcery spells and instants: almost. Sorcery spells also can't be played while something is on the stack (see Hackworth's 3rd paragraph). But several instants, yes.

shujaa is spot on there - you get a single sorcery (or other spell at sorcery speed, i.e. any non-instant, non-flash spell) and any number of subsequent instant or flash spells played in response.

The most common scenarios for hitting multiple spells with Counterflux or Mindbreak Trap are storm, cascade, and lots of instants on the stack due to back-and-forth between multiple players.

He's right.

He cast Wall of Reverence.
He didn't want to cast anything in response, so he passed priority. ("Do you want to counter it?")
At this point, you either had to cast a spell or pass priority. If you were to pass priority, Wall of Reverence would resolve, so it would no longer be a spell, so you would no longer be able to counter it. You have to Cancel it there and then, or lose your chance.

Ethereal Armor is not an instant, and Ethereal Armor can't enchant Wall of Reverence before the wall enters the battlefield, so he didn't even have the option of casting Ethereal Armor in response to Wall of Reverence.

You can counter an Ethereal Armor only if you don't counter Wall of Reverence. If you counter the wall, there would not be a legal target for EA. Since EA isn't an instant, your opponent cannot cast it until the stack is empty. This implies that the wall has either been countered, or you have decided to allow it to resolve. You cannot choose to wait to see what else your opponent casts.


text:
How do you score the Mayor in an unfinished city?
How do you score the Mayor in an unfinished city at the end of a game of Carcassonne?

The Mayor's ability allows him to count as more than one follower. So at the end of the game, an unfinished city is scored as normal - compare the Mayor's effective follower number with that of any other player present in the city. The player(s) with the most followers each score one point per city tile, and one point for each pennant.
The only special case is that if the city has no pennants, then the Mayor doesn't count as a follower, and can't score anything.
Here are the relevant rules:

On his turn, a player may place his mayor instead of a follower. He
may only place his mayor in a city, which has no knight or follower.
The usual follower placing rules apply. When a city is scored, the
mayor counts for as many followers as there are pennants in the city. For example, if the city has 3 pennants,
the mayor counts as 3 followers. If the city has no pennants, the mayor counts as no followers. A normal follower counts as 1 follower. The large follower from Inns & Cathedrals counts as 2 followers. The value of the city is not changed by the presence of a mayor. After scoring the city, the player takes his mayor back.


text:
Is the 4-player variant unbalanced? Is there a fix?
In Game of Thrones (second edition):
I have marveled at the balancing put into this game, specifically for 3-player games, where the whole south of the map is blocked, forcing the game to stay in the north, and thus creating a very good balance between the 3-players.
The 5-player variant is also very well balanced. Including all of the map in the game with no blocked territories, the only difference is that house Martell is gone which releases some tension on the board so the game is simply delayed a bit, but still very balanced (IMHO).
And the 6-player version (the recommended) is obviously balanced, as it is the main design of the game.
However, I feel that the 4-player version of the game is extremely unbalanced compared to the other variants.
First of all, there are no blocked territories, creating a huge empty space in the south, the only thing to hinder a rush are neutral troops which can be easily defeated after the first few turns.
But worse still is that house Tyrell's starting spot (Highgarden) is left completely unguarded, almost requiring house Lannister to move in.
House Baratheon is almost unhindered in its capture of all of the south unless Stark moves in aggressively or Baratheon moves inland or north, which barely happens when the south is so seductive.
House Lannister can also grab for the south, but much keep care of Greyjoy as they have easy access to the lands as well. As long as Lannister leaves the Riverlands and goes south, they are pretty safe from Greyjoy for the start of the game.
House Greyjoy, the extra house which makes the difference from 3 to 4 players, is stuck between Lannister and Stark, but with the empty south, and both Baratheon and Lannister moving down the board, Greyjoy is pretty free to take the Riverlands, unless Stark moves in, which would weaken both players and block their progress, and let Lannister or Baratheon get a big lead at the start.
House Stark has a great time of this board, being able to see what the other players are doing, and where they are focusing, and then adapting. Being able to go either direction on the board, and also into the Riverlands, they are in a great situation on the 4-player board and it is very difficult to do anything to them.
If Baratheon moves against Stark, Lannister or Greyjoy can easily grab the Riverlands, or the south, if Greyjoy moves to the Riverlands and north then Lannister can land-grab in the Riverlands or move south with ease.
The above are just a few examples of some of the things I feel are wrong in the balance of the 4-player game.
I would like to know if others have suggestions on how to improve the balance with house-rules, or if I am overlooking something, to please inform me as to how it actually is balanced.

I'm much of the same mindset, except I don't have as high an opinion of the 3 or 5 player versions as you do! I'm interested in seeing what answers show up

The 4-player game is extremely unbalanced.
Greyjoys need to play fast and aggressive with building a navy to stay in the game to begin with, in a 4-player game that need is greatly expanded; if they don't get an army down south, they'll never be able to be a real competitor.
(My group is current on hiatus from playing this game as the last game we played I (as my first time as the Lannisters) took over Ironman's Bay, and stranded the Greyjoy player for the rest of the game, continually raiding his Consolidate Power so he couldn't bid on the Influence Tracks, and kept him unable to place a single starred order the entire game.)
5-player has similar Greyjoy issues, but the inclusion of Tyrell (starting in the completely undefended south) usually makes a huge advantage for the lucky 5th player.
Generally speaking, I never used to play when I don't have 3 or 6 players, however, one of my friends stumbled upon this:
Using this overlay, and the rules that come with it (no Martells, a strength 5 neutral token on Sunspear, take out Greyjoy and make Pyke unclaimable with only 4 players), we were able to have quite a few successful games.
Then... I found these:
Rumble in the South  puts everybody deep in awesome. From boardgamegeek:

4 Players: Rumble in the South
In this variant, Stark and Greyjoy are unplayable and their lands are
impassable. The impassable regions thus include: Bay of Ice, Flint's
Finger, Ironman's Bay, Seagard, The Mountains of the Moon and The
Narrow Sea. This variant is excellent at creating a true 4-way battle
with shifting alliances! However I tend to make the win condition only
6 castles instead of 7 to speed up the game.

After a full 6-player game, this is my favorite way to play. Boardgamegeek also has 3 other game variants:

4 Players: Struggle in the North
In this variant, Tyrell and Martell are both unplayable and their lands are impassable. The impassable lands start at: Highgarden, The Reach, The Boneway, Storms End and includes all lands south of there. Interestingly, this variant leaves the oceans around the southern end of the continent open, and I recommend The Arbor remain in the game as well.
5 Players: Race to King's Landing
In this variant, Baratheon is unplayable and Dragonstone is impassable. But all other areas on the board are fair game. I like this variant since everyone else, except Greyjoy really, has a shot at taking King's Landing first.
5 Players: King in the North
Despite its name, this variant has Stark as the unplayable house, with their lands and the Arryn's lands impassable. This includes: Bay of Ice, Moat Calin, The Twins, The Mountains of the Moon and The Narrow Sea. I don't like this variant as much since Greyjoy goes at Lannister, and Tyrell tends to go at Martell, leading to a relatively easy Baratheon victory unless Tyrell and Martell team up on Baratheon. But it's still better than the neutral armies in the rules!

None of the 5-player games are nearly that interesting, so what we do with 5-player games is simply add +1 to all Martell neutral tokens; it seems to be enough to slow the onslaught of destruction set on by the Tyrells. At least enough for the Lannisters to join into the fun.
Variant 4/5-player board:

Nice! I like some of those ideas a lot, could you possibly edit your post and put the post about the different games where you got Rumble in the South from into your post for reference?

Not entirely sure if I did it right, but I think I've linked everything that I referred to. :D

Yes, but its good practice to include the information at the other end of the link here, in case the link dies so that your post is not meaningless... so copying the rules to Rumble in the South here and including the overlay as an image would be the correct thing to do.

This answer has really helped out.  But, it looks like the image is gone.

I recently got the game. Me and my friend (yes, only the two of us) played the game twice. We set up a 4-player game and took 2 houses each. We went by the rulebook and left out Martell and Tyrell. In the first game, we learned the rules and what-not. I chose Stark and Baratheon. I was a little late picking up, so my friend won using Lannister and Greyjoy. In the second game, I chose Baratheon and Lannister. I held off the middle part of the map thanks to Lannister while I conquered the neutral cities of Martell with Baratheon. That was a walk in the park.
In a 4-player game, I think the game is really unbalanced when you consider how it's so easy to stay away from the north and conquer south when you play as Baratheon. Of course, considering that Lannister stays away from you. And they will, because they have to deal with Greyjoy and Stark. It's a good thing I found these variations. When playing with 2 people, I can use Struggle in the North. That's very good.

Thanks for the story, but I don't see how this answers the question? Also - playing multiple houses is not part of the regular rules - so any balancing you may have felt in the game as a result would be unmerited in a real discussion of how many houses and which houses to include in a game.

Well I don't have the solution. I am aware this game has its flaws. We tried to fix it as much as possible. I found this on the board geek site: mcfretn.nl/GoT345players_allhouses.pdf.
Tonight, we played two games. First was the Rumble in the South as mentioned in this article. The second, however, we took it from that pdf file. Lannister&Baratheon were left out. Several neutral tokens were placed in the middle map. Overall it was a pretty balanced game in my opinion. It took very long and was very strategic. At the end of the 10th round I won with Martell when I took my 6th castle.

i'd believe it wouldnt be too hard just either spreading more evenly the factions or, take all the closest bunched-together factions for a massive free for all.
Or actually using diplomacy with stark... "guys, bash yourselves up as you want, i'm going to war to the south, i'll leave you guys alone, you dont come closer to me or we all end up as slave fodder for the other guy"
or you could always 3way rush the opponent in the south , one goes mainland, and the 2 others follow the seas down and siege the sides. (so long as no one disturbs the shipping lines, all 3 could potentially lay waste to the southerner player.
i don't think its a question of imbalance, i think its a question of focusing on the wrong players... yeah, those close -COULD- take your castle... or they could be taking territories that are much less defended

i have found that even though the standard four player game is rather unbalanced (at least it seems so, when compared to the other variants), however, if you replace greyjoy with tyrell the game is more balanced. that's how my friends and i have played it... we decided to also make pike impassable... it may or may not be necessary, but i think it adds a lot more balance to the game, as tyrell and baratheon focus more on the south, and  stark and lannister focus more on the north/center, and it just makes the game as a whole a lot more enjoyable


text:
What is done with discarded Tides of Battle cards?
In A Game of Thrones Second Edition there is an optional rule variant to use the included Tides of Battle (TOB) cards.
However, the rule book does not mention what is to be done with the discards.
We have been playing that after each battle, all the TOB cards are returned to the deck and it is reshuffled, such that each battle will have the same random chances of getting each card, the only exception being that when the Valyrian Steel Blade is used to draw a new card, the old card is not returned to the deck until after the combat, with the rest of the TOB cards.
I think the way we are playing is correct, because I don't think that the way one battle was fought should influence another in any meta-type way. However, some of the players in my group think that the cards should be discarded into a discard pile (like every other deck of cards in the game) and only when it is empty should they be reshuffled.
This would drastically change the way combat is played out, as players would remember the previous TOB cards drawn and know what advantages and disadvantages they might have in combat.
What is the official verdict on this? Should the cards be reshuffled each battle to create a more balanced system of combat, or should they only be reshuffled when they run out, so as to create much less balanced and much more calculated battles?

The FAQ indicates the cards should be reshuffled each combat, as you have been doing:

Reshuffling the Tides of Battle deck: Immediately before the "Choose
  and Reveal House Cards" step of every combat, all Tides of Battle
  cards are reshuffled together to form a new deck.

Awesome, thanks. I didn't know there was a FAQ / ERRATA for the game, that should help in future disputes.


text:
What are the odds of drawing a given card after discarding my initial hand?
Let's say that I have 4 of a card in my 60 card deck.
What are my odds of drawing at least 1 of that card in my initial 7 card hand?
If I discard those 7, what are the odds of drawing 1 of the 4 in another 7 card draw?  (I guess you could think of a Wheel of Fortune type situation)

I amnot sure I understand the question. Are you asking if you don't draw it in your initial 7, what are the odds if you draw it in the next 7 when mulliganing (HGD(same answer)), without reshuffling (1-HGD(53,4,7,0) i.e. just remove 7 cards from the "deck", or something different.

No, there is no way to send private messages, welcome to the site :)

Thanks for the info Stephen. @user1873, I'm not sure how a mulligan works... are those 7 cards removed altogether? Or do you reshuffle and draw a fresh 7 cards?

@Osidan For a mulligan, you actually shuffle your original hand back into your deck and then draw the new hand (usually a hand with one card fewer, per tournament rules, but in friendly play and certain odd formats there are exceptions).  This means that the contents of your original hand have no influence whatsoever on the contents of your mulligan hand.

@Steven, thanks for clearing that up. In that case, my question remains: What are the combined odds of of drawing two hands of 7 out of 60, where only one of them has to hit at least 1 of the 4 cards. Does it not give you higher odds if you can draw another 7 if the first 7 didn't leave you with one of the 4 cards you want? How do you "add" those precentages?

@Osidan, I have updated my answer to address your clarification.

Now that I think about it, your clarification is even more confusing. This one is asking before you draw any cards, "combined odds of drawing two 7 card hands, where only one of them has to hit at least 1 of the 4 cards." This is asking after you drew your first hand, "Does it not give you higher odds if you can draw another 7 if the first 7 didn't leave you with one of the 4 cards you want?"

corsiKa and Stephen have the right odds if it truly is a "Wheel of Fortune" where you discard the first 7 and draw another 7. user1873 has the right odds if it's the more typical Magic multiplayer first mulligan: put the first 7 back into the deck and reshuffle, draw another 7.

@ghoppe, they only have it right if they are calulating to odds before having drawn the initial 7. the question as worded seems to imply that the first 7 missed, so what are the odds now for drawing another 7. this question is poorly worded.

Since no one has provided the correct answer, at least not they current way you have it worded, I will take a stab at it.
What are my odds of drawing at least 1 of that card in my initial 7 card hand?
Answer: 1-Hypergeometric Distribution(population=60,successes in population=4,sample size=7,successes in sample=0) = 1 - .600500 = 39.95%
Everyone got this right. I personally like corsiKa's answer, because if your aren't interested in drawing at least 1 success then it is easier to do the calculation (especially by hand) by figuring the odds of not drawing any cards and subtracting from 1.
If I discard those 7, what are the odds of drawing 1 of the 4 in another 7 card draw? (I guess you could think of a Wheel of Fortune type situation)
This is where everyone mucks it up. First realize that this question is fundamentally different than any of the following

What are the odds of drawing at least 1 of the 4 in 14 cards? 66.54%
What are the odds of drawing at exactly 1 of the 4 in 14 cards? 43.58%
After discarding 7 cards that aren't successes, What are the odds of drawing exactly 1 of the 4 in 7 more cards?
What are the odds of drawing at least 1 of the 4 in 7 cards, with two chances? (This is what I thought you saying originally. You wanted to know how unlikely you were to miss, then mulligan shuffling the cards back into the deck, and then missing again) 1 - (.6005 * .6005) = 63.94%
etc.

What you actually asked for was the bolded question above. So, what that means is that at that moment, you have removed 7 cards from the deck that weren't successes, leaving you 53 cards. The odds of drawing exactly 1 card can easily be found, HGD(53,4,7,1) = 36.29% or of getting at least 1 is (1 - HGD(53,4,7,0) = 44.27%).
Now that you have finally clarified what it is that you want. The answer that you seek is above. It is the last answer, which is = all possibilities - (chance of missing first 7 cards * chance of missing again after replacement) = 1 - (.6005 * .6005) = 63.94%
In general, you either multiply probabilities (when determining how likely two independent events will occur in a row), or add them together (when determining if either of two mutually exclusive events will occur). As for when to "add" these probabilities together and when to "multiply" them, it is very difficult to know when to do which.
In your above question, you might realize that there are 4 independent mutually exclusive events for drawing 7 cards, replacing those 7 cards, shuffling and drawing 7 cards again. From the answer from the first question, you know that you have about a 40% chance of drawing at least one copy, and a 60% chance of drawing zero copies. (0.60 + 0.40 = 1 these mutually exclusive events equal 100%, so that makes sense)

Miss twice in a row. (0.6 * 0.6) = 0.36
Miss the first time, succeed the second. (0.6 * 0.4) = 0.24
Succeed the first time, fail the second. (0.4 * 0.6) = 0.24
Succeed twice in a row. = . (0.4 * 0.4) = 0.16

Your first and second (draw 7 cards and see if you succeed) events are independent of each other, because you are replacing the cards you drew back into the deck. Neither event has any effect on the results of the other, so you can multiply the first and second events together to see how likely it is to get a particular result twice in a row. Finally, because you are interested in the chances of succeeding at least once, you can either add all the mutually exclusive results above that succeed one or more times, or just subtract 1 from the chance of missing twice. (realizing that those two values should be the same)

Doh, sorry for the number of edits. I knew what I wanted to write as the correct answer, but I kept copying the wrong values.

Note that edits within a five minute grace period are collapsed together. So it's not that big of a deal.

Thanks for the answer. I didn't mean a discard, though, but a new draw from a reshuffled deck. Basically, you have twice a chance of 39.95% to get one... how do you add these odds to a total chance in two draws?

.3995 + (1 - .3995)* .3995 = 0.64  Would be your chances for getting a success or a failure followed by a success.

@Affe, with or without replacement about 40%, since the first 7 didn't count.

The chance of drawing the card will be 1 - (chance of not drawing). I know that sounds silly, but bear with me.
You get to draw 7 cards. The chance of avoiding it on your first draw is 56 / 60 because there's 56 cards that are not that card. The next card is a chance 55 / 59. This carries on for 7 cards.
56 * 55 * 54 * 53 * 52 * 51 * 50
--------------------------------
60 * 59 * 58 * 57 * 56 * 55 * 54

You can cancel out some of those values (56, 55, 54)
53 * 52 * 51 * 50    7,027,800
----------------- = ---------- = .6005
60 * 59 * 58 * 57   11,703,240

So there's a 60.05% chance of NOT getting the card on the first go. That means there's a 39.95% chance of getting it.
You can carry this out to 14 cards to represent your wheel. As in the last one, we can keep the 60, 59, 58, and 57 on the bottom, and the last four on top (46, 45, 44, 43). The rest will cancel out
46 * 45 * 44 * 43 = 3,916,440
----------------- = ---------- = .3346
60 * 59 * 58 * 57   11,703,240

So you have a 33.46% chance of avoiding your target card, which means a 66.54 chance of getting it.

Of course, the answer to the first part of your question is here, and describes to some degree what a hypergeometric distribution is.
For the first part of your question, your odds are about 39.95% of drawing a particular card in your opening 7 card hand given 4 in a 60 card pool.
If you are in a situation where you draw 7 then draw 7 more without replacement, you are effectively drawing 14 cards instead, then your probability changes to 66.53%

What I meant is: what are the odds that I end up with one of those cards if I redraw another 7 if it wasn't in the first sample. Does it not increase the odds overall if you have two chances of getting it in those 7 cards drawn?

@Osidan I've assumed you have 4 chances to draw that card in your initial 7 out of 60 total.

Yes Stephen, 4 chances out of 60. What I'm wondering is: what are the combined odds of drawing two hands of 7 out of 60, where only one of them has to hit at least 1 of the 4 cards. Does it not give you higher odds if you can draw another 7 if the first 7 didn't leave you with one of the 4 cards you want? How do you "add" those precentages?

@Osidan You don't have to add the percentages.  The odds are the same as if you had drawn 14 cards.  If you draw 7 you get about 40%, if you draw 14 you get about 67%.

@Stephen, "the odds are the same as if you had drawn 14 cards" not so sure about this. What exactly are you saying it is equal to? (drawing 7 after having missed with the first 7, with/out replacement, etc. Your 24% seems to be wrong, or it is unclear what those odds are in reference to.


text:
Does March of the Machines make artifacts in hand creatures as well?
I looked over the Gatherer rulings and it didn't mention anything about it, nor does it mention permanents on the card or in the rulings.
I ask because I wanted to know if I could use Æther Vial to summon any artifact from my hand with March of the Machines in play.

As an addendum, I would recommend using the Comprehensive rules as your guide to any rules based questions you might have - it's a huge document, but it's all in there.  http://www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules_20121001.pdf

On any given card, a card that specifies a permanent type without explicitly saying 'card' only affects permanents in play (unless otherwise specified by the card).  If you have an artifact card in your hand, it is exactly that - an artifact card, and not an 'artifact'...
Relevant rule

109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.

(https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Object)

Also, note that this means that (normally non-creature) artifacts played from your hand will be artifact spells but not creature spells, and cannot be countered by cards like Essence Scatter.