text:
Mechanism to balance all game stages
I am designing a game in which players add tiles to the board (similar to Carcassone) in order to create sequences of symbols (which are on the tiles) - they are then used for playing cards.
This mechanism works nice, but the problem is, that the first few rounds - there are just not enough tiles (and symbols) on the board so players can only place a tile and pass the turn because they are unable to play any card.
Midgame is fine and at the end of every round, there are enough symbols on the board to play almost any card you have in your hand... which is not what I was hoping for when designing the game.
Do you have any idea for a mechanism, that would eliminate this "slow" start and too "easy" end of every round? I was thinking about dealing some tiles on the board in the beginning at random and limiting the total numbers of tiles avaliable, but I am not sure if this wouldnt spoil the game...
I havent found any boardgames which uses this exact kind of mechanism (paying for cards with sequences of placed tiles) so I am trying to come up with something that would balance the gameplay.
Thanks for any tips (I can provide some additional info if needed)!

I was thinking about dealing some tiles on the board in the beginning at random and limiting the total numbers of tiles available

You need to try it and see. It's the most natural solution, and that's what playtesting is for. If it turns out not to be fun, you can always bail midgame.
Other suggestions:

Are all the symbols the same rarity? If some are associated with more "basic" or introductory actions, you could choose a few specific starter tiles that contain only those symbols and start the round with those in play.
You could include cards that can be played for a reduced effect without the appropriate matching symbols. This would encourage players to match the symbols, but give them something to do early on while the board develops.
As midgame passes, perhaps players move to replacing existing tiles rather than placing entirely new ones. This would keep the board from becoming too full of options while not cutting the round short.

First, I'd make sure this is a real problem. The beginning game of "play a tile" should be really quick, so it may not be as big of a deal as you think it is. I'm thinking of some of the "flip a tile" games for exploration, where it's an obvious move, and those plays go by quickly.
I like sitnaltax's idea of limiting the board to a fixed number of tiles. This would encourage strategy of limiting other player's actions and duplicating symbols on the board (or having some cards require multiple of the same symbol for an enhanced effect).

I would recommend having a starting block.  This could be a 4/4 printed board with some of the symbols on it.  Players could then add their tiles to this block.
You could also draw some tiles randomly and build this block.  It may be less balanced, but a random starting condition often makes games better.  You could even have a suggested starting block for beginners printed in the rules.
What I would be concerned about in this case is 1st player advantage.  They would have an easy time attaching to a random block first and taking full advantage of it.  In a way I like your game's start where going 1st has a disadvantage until you take your second turn

There actually is a starting board with beginnings of the sequences (there are 4 beginnings).. I shoulw have mentioned that in my post...

Other answers have come up with good points. It's hard to say whether this is really a problem without seeing the rest of the game and how it plays. I think a "slower" early start is almost certainly not a bad thing. It's too easy decision-making in late game that most likely needs addressing.
Here's my contribution:

You haven't said how players get cards in hand in the first place. If players are unable to play cards at the start, maybe don't give them many to start? Or conversely, perhaps you want these cards played and you need to give them more to start for more play possibilities, and have them not fill up as fast as game progresses in order to limit options. There's lots of randomness vs. strategy dials to tweak there.
If decisions become too easy later, perhaps you need to add some "hoser" cards of some kind, where symbol tiles are changed or removed.
Although your description is vague, perhaps late game is easy because your symbol constraints are too easy. Are symbols evenly distributed or are there more rare ones? Perhaps a card could only be played if two of a particular symbol touch? Or three? You could have common cards with easy constraints, and rarer cards with harder constraints/rarer symbols.
You said you were hoping for there not to be every symbol

These decisions will surely need lots of playtesting to see where the "most fun" mix of randomness, strategy, and pace of game intersect.
One final point:

Midgame is fine and at the end of every round, there are enough symbols on the board to play almost any card you have in your hand... which is not what I was hoping for when designing the game.

An easy solution used in many board and card games is to set aside a randomly selected pool of unrevealed "dead" tiles at the start of the game. (I'm presuming the tiles, as in Carcassonne, are hidden and selected randomly as the game progresses.) This limits the number of symbols available, and the knowledge of which cards in hand are now harder to play is unknown to the players. It also improves replayability since each game has a different pool of tiles.


text:
Challenging an Ambassador Exchange
A couple nights ago while playing Coup for the first time. During one of our games we came across the situation of someone challenging an Ambassador Exchange action. Given that both the   Ambassador's Exchange and the challenge are going to require the swapping of active influence cards, what is the proper sequence to change them in?
The following sequence is what we ended up using.

Claim to be an Ambassador and state intent to perform an exchange.
Leave current influence cards face down on the table.
Draw two (or one if only one influence left) new cards  from the court deck.
At this point the challenge was issued.
The player then revealed their Ambassador card to the table.
The Ambassador card was then reshuffled back into the court deck and a replacement was taken.
The player then continued on with the Exchange and could swap with either his existing influence card and the newly drawn card which replaced his Ambassador.

This seemed like the most sensible way of doing it. However the rules themselves didn't explicitly define this situation.

After claiming Ambassador, the player should pause for a few seconds and confirm that there are no challenges before drawing new cards. The reason is so that, if successfully challenged, the player does not gain any improper information about the cards remaining in the deck. (For example, seeing two Dukes in the deck can be a powerful suggestion that the players claiming it are lying!)
(According to the rules, you always check for no challenge before proceeding with a claimed action. But for the Assassin and Captain, you're waiting for the victim to take the hit (or claim a blocker) anyway, and for the Duke, it's easy enough to just return the coins. Only for the Ambassador is it important to deliberately pause.
It is also worth mentioning that you seem to have a slight detail confused. A player using Ambassador always draws 2 and returns 2, even if they have only one influence remaining.

For any claimed action, the order is:

State the action you are taking
Wait for someone to challenge you
If challenged, resolve the challenge - either you reveal the card, replace it and continue resolving the action, or you lose an influence and stop resolving the action
If the action can be blocked, you see if it is blocked
Deal with challenges to the claim of the blocker
Finally, if not blocked, resolve the action

So in the case of Ambassador, if you are challenged and you successfully reveal an Ambassador, then you shuffle it back into the deck, draw a card, then go on with your Ambassador action of drawing two cards and shuffling two cards back into the deck (always two, never one).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How can you distinguish a "Standard" Card fro a "Modern" Card?
I recently played in a Standard draft at Friday night magic and I was informed that there are certain specific sets of cards that can be used in Standard.
I am aware that Modern includes all standard cards also. what I want to know is how can you distinguish which cards you can use in standard?
Is there any symbolisation for a standard card? As the markers in the right hand side of the creature type line such as M14 and so on seem to not make much difference.

The answers on the possible duplicate should make this clear, but for emphasis, standard is a rotating format, with only some number of the most recent sets allowed, so there's no way for cards to be physically marked as standard legal. But the set marker (e.g. M14 as you said) does still determine whether a card is standard legal; you just need to know what sets are currently in standard.

Ah this duplicate did not appear in the related section... like at all

The markers on the right hand side are WHAT make the difference : p

The symbol doesn't tell you everything.  A 20+ year old [mtg:shatter] printed in alpha is currently legal in standard, as it's also a common in Khans of Tarkir (a set currently allowed in standard).

What format a card is in being printed on the card doesn't make much sense: cards in standard now won't be in standard two years from now (unless they're reprinted). You just have to know what sets are in standard at the moment.

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


text:
Do creatures put on the battlefield via a sorcery have summoning sickness?
I have a card named Doubling Chant, the effect of this card is "For each creature you control, Search your library for a creature with the same name and put it onto the battlefield. Then Shuffle your library".
After this phase can I then attack with the creatures gained this way or do they suffer from summoning sickness?
My guess is that If they do not have haste they suffer but doubling them seems to suggest a mirroring of the original creature at the time... Its a vague mechanic in all honesty

"but doubling them seems to suggest a mirroring of the original creature at the time". You can't depend on the flavor of a card to determine how it works mechanically. The cards put onto the battlefield aren't "doubles" of the original creatures in any meaningful sense. If the card was called "Cousins With a Strong Family Resemblance Chant", it would still work the same way ;-)

@Autar I saw that question but it wasn't anything to do with Summoning sickness as a mechanic it was more what the card read itself.

Summoning sickness applies to all creatures without haste, regardless of how they came to be. From the comprehensive rules:

302.6. A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the “summoning sickness” rule.

"Summoning sickness" is not a characteristic of the card. It cannot be copied or added. Haste allows creatures to ignore the rule, but if they somehow lose haste, then the rule will apply once again.
A creature does not have summoning sickness; a creature is affected by the summoning sickness rule. The former is just an easier concept for players to latch on to, and it works most of the time.
The Judge's Corner (on YouTube) has a video on Summoning Sickness that explains the ins and outs of summoning sickness in greater detail. Both new and veteran players will get something out of it.

Haste is medicine that merely suppresses the symptoms :)

Can you lose haste? I guess you can lose "all abilities"

@corsiKa Losing all abilities works, but it is possible to lose only haste. Equip Swiftfoot Boots to Elvish Mystic. It has haste. Equip Swiftboot Boots to something else. Elvish Mystic loses haste.

Ah yes, equipment would definitely do it, and in the same vein so would auras.


text:
Splice Onto Arcane - Rulings
I was wondering what happens to the cards once they are revealed using the Splice Onto Arcane ability?
Do they go to the graveyard once spliced?
Or do they stay in your hand?
With this said and considering the spells are all cast at instant speed, if they stay in your hand, what mechanic stops them from being spliced yet again onto another spell? or is this just a ruling so that people can't place infinite copies of the spells effects onto the initial spell (say with an infinite manna combo)?

You reveal all cards you intend to splice at the same time. Each individual card can be spliced only once onto any one spell.

The above ruling does not give me much context... is this during any one turn?
If so does this mean I can reveal it next turn and splice again?

Do they go to the graveyard once spliced?

They don't, as nothing says they do.

Or do they stay in your hand?

Yes, as nothing says they leave it.

what mechanic stops them from being spliced yet again onto another spell?

Nothing stops them, but the splice cost limits them.

You reveal all cards you intend to splice at the same time. Each individual card can be spliced only once onto any one spell.

The above ruling does not give me much context... is this during any one turn? If so does this mean I can reveal it next turn and splice again?

It's a limit per spell. You can only cast a spell once and you only get one opportunity to apply any "as you play a spell" effects. This includes splicing.
If you would retrieve the card that represented that spell and cast it again, it will be a different spell with the same name and you could again apply any "as you play a spell" effects to it.
You can splice a given card onto something any number of times per turn, as long as you provide a new spell for each splicing and as long as you're able to pay the splice cost.

Ah so essentially, revealing the card can only happen once per spell that was cast and once per card with splice? So it would be impossible to reveal a card and pay its splice cost an infinite amount of times with a manna combo on a single spell that was cast?

@ThunderToes Yes, each splice card in your hand gives you only a single opportunity to improve each relevant spell.


text:
Exert Ability Workings with Untap Abilities
My main question is can you exert a creature twice in the same turn?
For example, if I were to attack with and exert Champion of Rhonas, then activate Aggravated Assault's ability to untap and attack again, would I then be able to exert again giving me the ability to put another creature on the field?

Yes, you can Exert a permanent multiple times in the same turn like this. The rules on Exert very helpfully clarify this:

701.37. Exert

701.37a To exert a permanent, you choose to have it not untap during your next untap step.
701.37b A permanent can be exerted even if it’s not tapped or has already been exerted in a turn. If you exert a permanent more than once before your next untap step, each effect causing it not to untap expires during the same untap step.
(and a couple of other lines)

Very conveniently for us, all the Exerts only apply to the very next untap step. We won't have any Exerts "lagging behind", they all wear off simultaneously.

This is brilliant news... I have been avoiding this ability for too long haha

@ThunderToes Keep in mind that this means Exert has some pretty good synergy with Vigilance, since you can exert without ever tapping the creatures in the first place.

@Malco Which is a big part of why the design space for Amonkhet block had so little Vigilance, they intentionally avoided the exert abuse.

@Malco Thats very sneaky but I like it haha now to find some enchantments/equipment that gives my exert creatures vigilance...

@ThunderToes goodluck, though assuming you are playing standard there isn't much out there for giving creatures vigilance. But here is every standard legal card with vigillance to get you started.


text:
Can I copy a counter spell to then counter said counter?
Is it possible to create a copy of a counter spell to then use to counter the copied counter spell?
I'm not sure if the copied spell will have resolved before the copy can target it.
For example:

Player A: Casts "insert random none-special creature that can be
countered"
Player B: Casts Cancel
Player A: Casts Reverberate and targets the original Cancel
with the copied cancel

This is similar to one of the more common uses for the spell Swerve when it was standard, players would Swerve a counterspell onto the swerve itself or the counter.

@Andrew haha! nifty... just fizzle everything! :P

Yes, that's a perfectly valid play.
For this specific case of Reverberate, these are the rulings you should take into account:

8/15/2010: Reverberate can target (and copy) any instant or sorcery spell, not just one with targets. It doesn't matter who controls it.
8/15/2010: When Reverberate resolves, it creates a copy of a spell. You control the copy. That copy is created on the stack, so it's not “cast.” Abilities that trigger when a player casts a spell won't trigger. The copy will then resolve like a normal spell, after players get a chance to cast spells and activate abilities.
8/15/2010: The copy will have the same targets as the spell it's copying unless you choose new ones. You may change any number of the targets, including all of them or none of them. If, for one of the targets, you can't choose a new legal target, then it remains unchanged (even if the current target is illegal).
8/15/2010: If the spell Reverberate copies is modal (that is, it says “Choose one —” or the like), the copy will have the same mode. You can't choose a different one.
8/15/2010: If the spell Reverberate copies has an X whose value was determined as it was cast (like Earthquake does), the copy has the same value of X.
8/15/2010: You can't choose to pay any additional costs for the copy. However, effects based on any additional costs that were paid for the original spell are copied as though those same costs were paid for the copy too. For example, if a player sacrifices a 3/3 creature to cast Fling, and you copy it with Reverberate, the copy of Fling will also deal 3 damage to its target.
8/15/2010: If the copy says that it affects “you,” it affects the controller of the copy, not the controller of the original spell. Similarly, if the copy says that it affects an “opponent,” it affects an opponent of the copy's controller, not an opponent of the original spell's controller.

Notice that, if you're copying a spell such as Disrupting Shoal, you'll probably not be able to counter it, since Disrupting Shoal requires the spell's CMC to be equal to X, and its CMC on the stack will always be X+2. The same is true for spells such as Remove Soul or Overwhelming Intellect, which have a specific requirement that says they can only counter creature spells.
Also, quoting Arcanist Lupus' comment:

Worth noting perhaps that if you use Reverberate and don't choose a new target for the copy, then your copy of the counterspell will counter the original spell, and the opponent's counterspell will be countered as a state-based effect. This has very little utility, but could come up in a multi-player game if, for example, one opponent was playing a Guile-based control deck, and they counter a spell that you also want countered.

Perfect. The rulings were what I was looking for. I guess with all spells involved in this case being at instant speed, it works.

Worth noting perhaps that if you use Reverberate and don't choose a new target for the copy, then your copy of the counterspell will counter the original spell, and the opponent's counterspell will be countered as a state-based effect.  This has very little utility, but could come up in a multi-player game if, for example, one opponent was playing a Guile-based control deck, and they counter a spell that you also want countered.


text:
What happens with Poison Counters in Two Headed Giant?
I know that in Commander, 10 poison counters kills a player.
However, does the same apply in Two Headed Giant?
There are technically two players, even though they share a life total of 30.
Also I believe counters would only be placed on the targeted player of an attacking infect creature.
What are the conditions for losing due to infect in THG?

In Two-Headed Giant you need 15 or more poison counters. See Comprehensive Rules.

704.5t In a Two-Headed Giant game, if a team has fifteen or more poison counters, that team loses the game. See rule 810, “Two-Headed
Giant Variant.”

Also

810.5. With the exception of life total and poison counters, a team’s resources (cards in hand, mana, and so on) are not shared in the
Two-Headed Giant variant. Teammates may review each other’s hands and
discuss strategies at any time. Teammates can’t manipulate each
other’s cards or permanents.

You share those poision counters as a team. So if your teammate is
being hit for 5 poison counters, your team has 5 poison counters.

810.8a Players win and lose the game only as a team, not as individuals. If either player on a team loses the game, the team loses
the game. If either player on a team wins the game, the entire team
wins the game. If an effect says that a player can’t win the game,
that player’s team can’t win the game. If an effect says that a player
can’t lose the game, that player’s team can’t lose the game.

You win as a team, you lose as a team. There is no 'I' in team.
Further clarification regarding poison counters in Two-Headed Giant.

810.10. Effects that cause players to get poison counters happen to each player individually. The poison counters are shared by the team.
810.10a If an effect needs to know how many poison counters an individual player has, that effect uses the number of poison counters
that player’s team has. If an effect needs to know how many poison
counters a player’s opponents have, that effect uses the number of
poison counters opposing teams have.
810.10b If an effect says that a player loses poison counters, that player’s team loses that many poison counters.
810.10c If an effect says that a player can’t get poison counters, no player on that player’s team can get poison counters.
810.10d If a rule or effect needs to know what kinds of counters an individual player has, that effect uses the kinds of counters that
player has and the kinds of counters that player’s team has. A player
is “poisoned” if his or her team has one or more poison counters.


text:
Caller of the Pack and Counter Placement
If I were to place a sizable number of counters on Caller of the Pack and attack with it, do the copies created share its base power and toughness (8/6) or its current power and toughness at the time of the attack?

The copies are 8/6 because it's the printed values[1] that are copied.

706.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The “copiable values” are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.

If the continuous effect that's boosting the original's power and toughness is from a static ability, and if the copies match the criteria for getting the boost, then (and only then) will they get a boost.
For example, power- and toughness-modifying counters only affect the permanent on which they reside, so they wouldn't affect the copies.
For example, Gaea's Anthem would affect the copies, but a previously cast Marshaling Cry would not.

611.2c If a continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability modifies the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects, the set of objects it affects is determined when that continuous effect begins. After that point, the set won’t change. (Note that this works differently than a continuous effect from a static ability.) [...]
611.3a A continuous effect generated by a static ability isn’t “locked in”; it applies at any given moment to whatever its text indicates.
611.3b The effect applies at all times that the permanent generating it is on the battlefield or the object generating it is in the appropriate zone.

For cards, this refers to the values in Gatherer if they differ from the values actually printed on the card. For tokens, it refers to the values given to it when it was created.

Sorry... completely missed the rulings on Gatherer:

Each token copies exactly what was printed on the original creature
  and nothing else. It doesn’t copy whether that creature is tapped or
  untapped, whether it has any counters on it or Auras and Equipment
  attached to it, or any non-copy effects that have changed its power,
  toughness, types, color, and so on.

So it's base power and toughness.

706.2: The “copiable values” are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics).

@GendoIkari the wording on that rule is strange does this support my answer or does it contradict it I'm not certain haha

I agree it's not that easy to read; but basically "counters on the permanent" is not in the list, therefore it is not copied. (The next part of the rule says other things not in that list aren't copied).


text:
Which Dominion Expansion Should we Buy for Passive Play?
We love Dominion, and it's about time we buy an expansion, but there are so many!
My wife and I like to play less directly competitive setups, focusing on cards like Woodcutter, Village, Mine and so on. We generally avoid attack cards, liking to just mind our own business as we push towards victory.
With that in mind, I'm trying to figure out which expansion would give us the most value.
So my question is; which expansion for Dominion would most support our preference for friendly (passive) play?

(Note: I've seen there are other versions of this question, but they're quite old and there've been more expansions released since.)

A little off topic, but you might also enjoy race for the galaxy, which is a "race" to build the best space empire, without directly competitive elements (until you get to the third expansion, and even then it's rare).

Ultimately, any of the expansions will be excellent. If you don't want to play with the attack cards in a given set, simply take them out of the randomizer pile.

Thank you everyone for the excellent input, this has really helped us. Most interested in Prosperity and Dark Ages based on what's been said here, and I think we'll start with Prosperity (Hinterlands sounds pretty cool too, we love chaining effects) And finally thank you to @TimothyJones, I'll add that to my list :)

From a pure numbers standpoint, Dark Ages would be the best with 37 new Kingdom cards, only 6 of which are Attack cards. From how well the sets are regarded by the designer (and others from what I have heard), you are better off getting Intrigue or Seaside.

Q: If you could go back in time and redesign which cards were in which sets, and the order the sets came out (but not changing/adding/removing any cards), what would you move and why?
Vaccarino: For set order I like going Intrigue, Seaside, Prosperity – set trying to be a good first set, generally good set, set that adds Colonies. I would put Alchemy last, where it was; it was there because I knew some people wouldn’t like potions, because somebody hadn’t. You could swap Hinterlands with Seaside but I wouldn’t. After Prosperity then there are Hinterlands and Dark Ages to order and well you have the question from before of whether or not Hinterlands is a standalone. I like having another standalone, and if it is one then I would put it ahead of Dark Ages. Possibly I would anyway. A question is, do you recombine Cornucopia and Alchemy. If people don’t like Alchemy then it’s nice that they get a tight package of just it, rather than buying it to get Cornucopia or passing on Cornucopia because of it. So possibly it’s worth keeping them separate. Large sets are better though, so either expand Cornucopia and Guilds or combine them. That’s another decision to make before knowing what order to put them in, but Guilds wants to be near the end due to complexity. If they’re not one set then large Cornucopia could go between Prosperity and Hinterlands still, uh depending on how it turned out.

-Intrigue - 21/24 Non-Attack cards. Intrigue adds Dual-Type cards. From a ratings standpoint, I believe the highest rated sets are
-Seaside 21/26 Non-Attack cards. Seaside adds duration cards.
-Alchemy 11/13 Non-Attack cards. Alchemy adds a new Potion treasure.
-Prosperity 24/27 Non-Attack cards. Prosperity adds new treasure kingdom cards, VP tokens, and high cost Platinum and Colony cards.
-Cornucopia 10/13 Non-Attack cards. Cornucopia rewards players with diverse decks, and offers 5 Unique Gifts available in the Tournament.
-Hinterlands 23/26 Non-Attack cards. Hinterlands adds cards that have an effect when bought/gained.
-Dark Ages 31/37 Non-Attack cards. Cards that do something when Trashed, care about the Trash, or are upgradable.
-Guilds 11/13 Non-Attack cards. Coin tokens that can be played on later turns, bonus effects for paying extra for cards.

Being completely subjective, I can say that my wife and I also play similar to OPs stated styles, and we greatly enjoy Intrigue and Seaside. Note that Intrigue has 'tribute' which isn't labeled as an attack card, but can act like one sometimes.

A straight "non-attack/total" ratio can only be so useful; there are a number of cards that have attacky qualities  without actually being labelled attacks.  A few examples off the top of my head: Masquerade (Intrigue), Embargo (Seaside) and Ill-Gotten Gains (Hinterlands)

Personally, I would recommend Prosperity for players that don't like attacks. Prosperity adds interesting type of strategy that is less dependent on attacks.
However, amazon does sell a big box deal that includes 3 different sets for a lesser price. May be worth checking out, but I think it may unfortunately include the base set too.
If you are not familiar, each expansion introduces a different type of strategy. Perhaps, by knowing this, it may help which expansion to choose.

Intrigue - Supports extra players and extends the basic cards
Alchemy - Adds the Potion treasure which is used to purchase Alchemy unique cards.
Seaside - Duration cards. Allows you to play cards this turn, and your next turn
Cornucopia - Encourages having a deck with variety
Prosperity - Big Money
Hinterlands - Ending the game by running decks quickly.
Dark Ages - Trashing techniques
Guilds - Coin purchases

The Big Box is the base set plus Alchemy and Prosperity, so if they already have the base set, it's not a good choice over getting Alchemy and Prosperity separately.

I think you might enjoy trying Intrigue.  It is not an attack-heavy set, which is good for your passive play, but it emphasises interaction and choices.  This can pull Dominion away from being so multi-player solitaire.  As others have mentioned, you can choose to not play with specific cards if you find them too attacky.
The only drawback is that Intrigue is an alternative starter set, so the only way to get it is to also get a new set of base (non-Kingdom) cards (base treasures, base vp cards), at the same cost as the original set.  While this does allow you to play 5 and 6 player games, that doesn't seem like what you are doing anyway.

I think Prosperity, since it extends the game with Colonies and Platinum, and action cards to boost income without adding many attack cards. I wouldn't choose Dark Ages since that has a lot of attack cards and interaction.

You want the multi-player solitaire angle?  All the sets have attack cards, I'd say the really devastating attacks are Saboteur, Torturer, Possession, Familiar, and Mountebank  (Yes, I know Possession isn't technically an "Attack" card).  Sea Hag and Pirate Ship and Cultist are bad too.
Hinterlands doesn't have any of those.  But the cards are more complicated, so maybe you don't want to get it right after the base set.

Very surprised to see Swindler not in your devastating attacks list. Top Dominion decks are all about playability per card, and Swindler absolutely destroys that.


text:
Self-Referencing Effects when a Monster is Destroyed
Keep the general implications in mind but, in particular, consider "Banisher of the Radiance".  Its effect reads, "Any card sent to the Graveyard is removed from play instead."   So does this monster go to the Graveyard or is it Removed from Play instead?  As another example, suppose a monsters' effects read "If a monster on your side of the field is destroyed, you may pick a monster on the field and add DEF to it equal to the ATK of your destroyed monster."  If this monster was destroyed, could you add its (non-zero) ATK to another monster's DEF?

Banisher of the Radiance wouldn't banish itself, it would go to the Graveyard. Banisher of the Radiance has a Continuous Effects, which is only active while it remains on the field face-up. (Rule book page 14).

Continuous Effect
This effect is active while the Effect Monster Card is face-up on the field. The effect starts when the face-up monster appears on the field, and ends once that monster is gone or is no longer face-up; there is no trigger for its activation. These monsters are most useful if you have a strategy to protect them while they are on the field.

This is supported by previous rulings:

If "Banisher of the Radiance" and "Sangan" are destroyed simultaneously by an effect like "Lightning Vortex", then both are sent to the Graveyard and "Sangan's" effect activates normally.[5]

Destroy means to send a card from the field to the Graveyard. Banisher of the Radiance prevents that from happening, so the hypothetical Card that you described would have no effect.

Destroy - A card is destroyed when it is sent to the Graveyard due to battle between monsters or by an effect that destroys a card. [...]

(Note: These TCG rulings were issued by Upper Deck Entertainment and have since been deemed unofficial by Konami.[6] They were previously considered official and can still be correct, as long as they follow the official gameplay rules, or unless Konami has issued a ruling that says otherwise.)

Note that Banisher does not prevent destruction. Destroying a Card and sending it to the Graveyard are distinct terms that are not interchangeable. Destroying a Card usually sends it to the Graveyard (similar to how shooting a person usually kills them), but the reverse is not necessarily true (you can kill someone without shooting them and you can send a Card to the Graveyard without destroying it). The way the example effect is worded, it will work if Banisher's effect is active at the same time as the effect doesn't require the Monster to be sent to the Graveyard.

For an example where the rulings show this distinction, look up Apprentice Magician.

Adding to user1873's answer, what you have to look at is the scope of the effect as well as the effect type of the Monster in question.
Unless an effect states so specifically or implies so, it does not work unless the Monster is face-up on the field. An example for stating so specifically is "When this Card leaves the field, ...". An example for implying so is "... Special Summon this Card ..." (a Card cannot be Special Summoned if it is on the field already).
In the specific case of Continous effects (like Banisher of the Radiance), these stop working as soon as the Card on the Field is destroyed (which happens just slightly before it's sent to the Graveyard from the rules' point of vew). This means that unless it implies so (Dark Magician of Chaos is an example of this, Battle Fader is another), a Monster's Continous effect that affects Cards leaving (or having left) the Field never applies to itself.
The example effect you provided would fall into the group "Trigger Effects". Those follow the same general rule, they have to specifically state so or imply so in order to work when the Monster is not face-up on the Field. Your example doesn't specifically state so and also doesn't imply so, which means it will stop working as soon as the Monster itself leaves the Field. This also means that it won't affect itself and only work on other Monsters which leave the Field while the Monster with this effect is still face-up on the Field.


text:
Yugioh: Sacrifice a field card to destroy target monster
Is there a Yugioh card with the effect (activated on the field) that you can discard a card in your hand and/or one you control to target another card on the field and destroy it?  This would, in theory, be nice to couple with Master Hyperion -- because you could then use Master Hyperion's effect to send the card recently put in the graveyard to the banished area to resolve Hyperion's effect.

Are you asking specifically about Fairy-type cards or cards in general? There are quite a few which don't work with Hyperion, though.

Snipe Hunter is your guy. He can discard as many cards from your hand as you like to target any card on the field. Then you roll a die and if it's 2, 3, 4 or 5, the card is destroyed.
A good once-per-turn option is Scrap Dragon. He allows you to target one card on each side of the field which then get destroyed.
Spell and Trap wise, there's Raigeki Break, Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and Dark Core. There might be more of them, see my advice below.
Other than that, there are mainly only specific cards which won't work with Hyperion, such as Exiled Force or Chiron the Mage. That kind of card isn't that rare.
You might want to look for Cards that destroy cards on the field on the wikia. Most of them have a drawback, which is often discarding or Tributing cards.

May I suggest the monster card effect called Exiled Force?

You can Tribute this card to target 1 monster on the field; destroy that target.

Another option could be the trap card called Raigeki Break

Discard 1 card, then target 1 card on the field; destroy it.

This last one card matches with your requirement.

you can use this list to Send cards from your Deck to the Graveyard or this list to Send cards from your Deck to the Graveyard at a cost
there are also cards like Card Destruction or Graceful Charity might come in handy, while the first can wipe out your entire hand if you have a hand full of light type fairies, the second can allow you the chance in drawing 2 and sending them right into the grave yard.
Your best bet is to find cards which allow you to draw a new card at the same time as discarding, if they draw before discard then you have a chance in drawing a light type fairy
your other option is to stock up on weaker ones and use them as fodder in Defense Mode, even if your opponent works out what your doing they have no choice but to wipe them out unless they have cards which can deal direct damage


text:
Dominion Seaside cards. Wharf and Outpost in the same hand
I was playing in a two player game recently in which both Wharf and Outpost were being used. My opponent played both these cards in one turn. We decided that the extra turn dictated by Outpost, did not count as "the start of your next turn" dictated by Wharf. As a result he played Outpost with three cards and one buy, rather than 5 cards and two buys.
My question is did we do this right? Should the extra 2 cards and 1 buy from Wharf go the the extra turn from the Outpost, or should the duration phase of Wharf follow my turn that follows his bonus Outpost play?

Your opponent should have drawn the extra cards on the next turn (the bonus one awarded by Outpost).
From the Seaside rules, about Outpost:

If you play Outpost as well as a "Now and at the start of your next turn" card, such as Merchant Ship, the turn from Outpost will be that next turn, so you'll get those coins then.

I think you can replace Merchant Ship with Wharf and get the same result.


text:
Should runners be able to tell the difference between installed upgrades and agendas/assets?
If a corporation installs an upgrade on a remote server, should the runner be able to tell it's an upgrade, and not an asset or agenda?
You can install multiple upgrades, but only one asset or agenda.  If you install an upgrade and an agenda/asset, does it matter how you place them on the table?  Should the runner be able to tell whether you have an agenda/asset and an upgrade, or two upgrades?

From the Netrunner FAQ:

Where is an upgrade installed in a remote server?
  An upgrade is
  installed in a remote server in the same position  as an agenda or
  asset. The Runner should not be able to tell  what type of card is
  installed in a remote server by its position.  This is different than
  installing an upgrade in a central server,  where it is always
  installed in the root.

For this, I place all remote server cards next to each other, to let the runner know that there are N cards in the server.

No, the runner should not be able to know what type of card is in the server, be it Agenda, Asset or Upgrade. The only place a runner should know what the card type is is in the central servers. This is intentional, to bait the runner into runs, particularly with upgrades like Mumbad Virtual Tour or Prisec, letting the runner think the ice and upgrades are protecting points when it's just a heavy tax for the runner to pay getting into the server, letting you put the asset behind the ice next turn when they go broke.


text:
Can I take a jack if I'm at the hand limit?
When at the hand limit, I can always draw one card. Does this include a jack, or can I only draw a face down card from the deck?

The "Hand limit" is a soft limit.
You can take a card when at or above the hand limit. Including a Jack.


text:
Playing wildcard (Jacks or multiples of a role) for a role which I have in hand
In Glory to Rome, is there any rule prohibiting players from playing wildcards if I have the role in hand? For example, can I play three (or two, depending on the cardset used) laborers and call that a laborer wild card?

There is no restriction on wildcarding that I have seen. It can be, in fact, a good idea if you need a particular ability to use a jack instead for the role, so that you can then play the card itself onto a foundation.

Yes, you can play three Laborers as a Jack, to lead or follow the Labor action. It's a bit silly, but it gets several cards into the pool, it empties your hand, and it'll amuse everyone at the table.
With a little luck, your next Thinker action will get you more useful cards, and perhaps you can Merchant some of that Rubble into your Vault. This is particularly tempting if you can't think of anything to do with all of those Laborers in your hand. (On a side note, if your play group likes to keep the pool empty, then the Bar is particularly handy for picking up clients.)


text:
Settlers Cities and Knights + Fish: Cost of a commodity
When using fish, the card states that 4 fish are used to buy a resource.  What is the cost, in fish, of a commodity?

You cannot buy commodities using fish.
http://download.catan.com/en/download/?combination-Fishermen_Cities-and-Knights.pdf

If you discard 3 fish, you may draw one card from the hand of one of your opponents  (Resource or Commodity Card).
If you discard 4 fish, you may take resource card but not a commodity.
The following applies also for the combination with Cities & Knights: Fish are no resources  – and no commodities. This implies
  that fish are never affected by Progress Cards,  particularly not by
  the yellow Progress Cards.

TY for your answer.


text:
Cities and Knights: Played to virtual deadlock
Recently I have been playing cities and knights with fish and harbor master.  Victory points needed to win is 15.
The last two times we have played we have basically played to a deadlock.  No one with enough points to win, and no real way to get more victory points.  The only way to get additional points would be through the defender of catan, but by the time the pirate ship comes around the players in the running to win can match knight strength.
It has kind of ruined the game for me.  Any ideas or suggestions?

Let's see...
5 settlements 5VP
4 cities =8 VP
Longest Road = 2VP
Metropolis = +2VP (above the city it's on) (3 of them).
2 1VP progress cards
6 Defender of Catan VP's as well.
There is a progress card that allows removal of an opponent's knight. Time it for just before the barbarians, and make him pull one, then you get your VP for Defender of Catan.
Remember - Defender of Catan is earned for there being enough knights... and being the man with the most strength when that happens.
If you have misplayed so that your cities and settlements are more than 2 apart, then you've simply played poorly.
It is possible that, through particularly poor play, you might be stuck at 13 VP; if all the VP cards are out, and you're out of spots to play, it is time to call it, and I'd call it a double loss.
I'll note however: The Fishermen of Catan does not increase VP to win (unless you hold the old boot), and the Harbor Master variant only increases VP needed by 1.

With C&K, it should be 13pts FTW.  Even with Harbor Master, it shouldn't up that
Harbor Master gives you 2pts, and with only 2p, there should be enough room to build and get to 13 or 15.
If it really does drag on, consider calling it after x # of time, or the next time the Barbarians strike.


text:
When do dead Evil Elders join the villain?
The rules say that dead elders should keep their Secrets.

The reason that they keep their Secrets is that if they turn out to be evil, it is assumed that they faked their own death and still join the Villain.

But so far, the only way I can see of this ever coming into play is if a player uses Accusation at the beginning of a Showdown and points at a dead elder, who turns out to be evil. Is that it? Are there other possibilities and which game modes are they valid for?
Note: I've played one Basic game so far, so maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I did read advanced rules and didn't see anything about this.

What you are missing is that the rules are slightly different for Competitive and Cooperative play. In a competitive game, the rules allow each player to accuse a single Town Elder of being evil, thereby showing that the Town Elder faked his death, and subsequently joining the Villain. The Evil Elder will add +1 Combat to the Villain, and will add +1 wound to the Villain (if the Villain is about to take its last wound). Preventing an opponent from winning is a good strategy if you want to win. (page 19)

4. Accusations - One other advantage of investigating the Town Elder’s Secrets ahead of time is that when a player starts a Showdown, each other player may make up
  to one Accusation of a Town Elder, calling them out as being evil! [...] If the revealed Secrets turns them into an Evil Elder, they immediately join the Villain.
Winning the Game - The first player to fight a Showdown with the Villain, AND defeat it, saves the town of Shadowbrook and wins the game.

In the cooperative game though, dead Town Elders have their secrets revealed immediately. If they were evil, they become Evil Elders and join the Villain. (page 20)

Town Elder Secrets - [...] When a Town Elder is killed, move the Shadow Track as normal and then reveal all of that Elder’s Secrets. Any Keyword Evil Secrets they have immediately take affect, turning them into an Evil Elder instead.

I hadn't played a co-op game back then, thus more confusion than necessary. Thanks for pointing out the competitive use of Accusation. I now realize one may look at the secrets without revealing them, know the elder is evil, see the elder being killed... and then accuse them to mess with another player's Showdown.


text:
Are 4-of-a-kind dedications unbalanced?
I read a review of Lanterns: The Emperor's Gifts that argued:

The base game of Lanterns has a flaw, and it was one that threatened to kill the game for me over time. You see, the "four of a kind" tiles were statistically better than the other types, to a degree that if you did nothing but target them through most of the game (until they were depleted enough to make the card-cost-to-VP ratio more even with the other dedication types), you were probably going to win.

In a reply, the reviewer explained:

So, in the base game, to start, it's 4 cards for 8 points, or 7 cards for 10 points for the first tile. The latter is wildly worse, for what I believe are obvious reasons. It's a 2:1 point ratio vs. something near 1.4:1. You get 2 less points, but keep 3 cards toward your next turn-in. At that point, those three cards are worth more than 2 points regardless of which dedication type you use. Now extrapolate that advantage across a whole game. Taking it a step further, a 6-point four-of-a-kind dedication is still a better ratio. Which is exactly my point. It takes a lot of depletion in four-of-a-kind before this isn't true. And if the other piles are being similarly depleted, it's often going to be true for the entirety of a game.

My experience is the game is very competitive. I just finished a 4-player game that ended 45, 43, 43, 42.  (I was 43 and my 7-year-old son was the winner!) We depleted the  3-pairs dedication and almost depleted the all-7-colors dedication leaving 4-of-a-kind barely touched. If one of us had saved their lanterns by going after 4-of-a-kind, would we have made up for the smaller payout of that dedication? Does the one-dedication-a-turn rule come into play in the analysis?

It's hard to say what would have happened in your game had more 4-of-a-kind tiles been claimed, but it only takes 3 (8, 7, 7, if I remember correctly) in a 4p game for the points per card to be more in-line with those of the 6- and 7- card dedications.
To answer the question in the title, one of the goals for the expansion was to make the 4-of-a-kind strategy (even if only for the first few dedications) less powerful/obvious. Yes, there is a trade-off when considering the limited opportunities to dedicate in the game, favor tokens, etc., but 2 points per card is very strong while you can get it!
Source: I developed the game with Randy, the publisher.

Interesting and sounds cool to be working on the development of a game like that.

Those were fun times! Every game (and publisher) that I've worked with over the years has gone down a slightly different path, but they all involve lots of spreadsheets and playtests!

If I understand what you mean, if the first three dedications are 4-of-a-kind, the rest of the game is more balanced. You did remember correctly and the score per card drops from 2 to 1.5. The other two dedications start at 1.5 and 1.43, so that makes sense. The dedication payouts seem very deliberate. Was the idea that people would aim for 4-of-a-kind first? Or is that dedication harder than it seems to get?

I was just a playtester for the original game, so I'm not sure how the numbers came about =) Now we use a lot more computer simulation to help us spot potential imbalance.

I put together a spreadsheet to figure out what the payout schedule looks like for four players:

Legend:

Blue—all seven colors
Red—three pairs
Yellow—four of a kind

For 3 players:

And this is for two players:

You can see the pattern is consistent:

6 and 7 card dedications (red and blue) line up almost perfectly as you go.
The 4 card dedication (yellow) is worth more per lantern in every case.
After X number of 4 card dedications are taken (where X = the number of players), they start to line up with the other dedications in terms of score per lantern.

This seems to be by-design. One potential reason could be that 4-of-a-kind is harder to obtain than other dedications. I believe I have correctly calculated the odds having each dedication by hand size if lanterns are distributed randomly:

With 4 lanterns there's a tiny chance (0.13%) you'll randomly get 4-of-a-kind. As you collect more lanterns, the odds improve. At 6 lanterns, you might also get 3-pairs (0.07%). At 7 lanterns, collecting all colors is possible (0.12%). Obviously, collecting more lanterns increases the odds. But your chances improve a lot faster for the other dedications than it does for 4-of-a-kind. Therefore, collecting 4 cards of the same color could be a harder feat than the other dedications.
Hand size is the biggest factor determining which dedications you can make. The game gives you two ways to improve your odds: lake tile placement and spending favors. Given the data above, it seems the best strategy is to focus on collecting one color, which has the following advantages:

4-of-a-kind dedications are the most lantern-efficient at the start of the game and, assuming other dedications are taken as well, most of the rest of the game too.
Dedicating 4 lanterns instead of 6 or 7 keeps your hand size up, which increases the odds of making dedications in future turns.
Holding more of one color increases the odds other players won't be able to draw that color.

The charts also suggest a simple fix if this bothers you: remove a 4-of-a-kind dedications from the top of the stack for each player in the game. That shifts the payout so that every dedication gets roughly the same score per lantern. It doesn't eliminate the other advantages, however.
On the other hand, there might be strategic possibilities if all players understand the advantages of 4-of-a-kind. In particular, it could make denying a color to another player a more viable tactic.

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


text:
Does it matter what faction Mech World is?
I'm playing the core set of Star Realms and I find myself picking up the Stealth Needle and Mech World whenever I can afford them. Because of their abilities to mimic other factions, I really don't care what faction(s) I'm focused on. The Stealth Needle can only mimic one other faction in a turn, but it also retains the ability to ally with Machine Cult. So it's possible to imagine an alternate design where Stealth Needle belongs to another faction and it makes a difference in the game.

But Mech World is a whole nother story. Since it counts as an ally for all other factions, the Machine Cult color and emblem are superfluous. As far as I can tell, it would work just as well as an Unaligned card like Explorer, Scout and Viper. Obviously there's a lore component here. Machine Cult is the only faction devious enough to invent this type of base. But I'm thinking in terms of the game's mechanics, so to speak.

So for the core set, does the Mech World faction matter in terms of gameplay?
Bonus: Are there rules in any of the expansions that make the faction of this card matter?

It matters for the solo variants.  I can't find rules for these online but I can explain how they work in the app.
In a typical solo scenario on the bots turn a card is turned up and depending on the faction this dictate how it behaves.  This image is from Star Realms website to explain show what I mean and is best 'reference' I can fine.

In the app there is a weekly scenario in online 'Arena'. The rules for these are different each week but I have seen games with a random faction removed or different factions.
It also matters if playing with Missions expansions.  Some of those cards will refer to playing cards of the same faction type.  That is not the same as triggering an ally ability of all factions..
There may be other answers to this but there are lots of expansions to look at!

For the core set & expansions, I am aware of, Mech World counts as an ally for any faction, but it being a Machine Cult does matter in some cases.
Blob World, for example, reads:

So, you cannot draw an extra card for playing Mech World - since it is not a blob card and Blob World doesn't care about allies.
On Star Realm - Frontiers, there are cards that require two allies such as the Light Cruiser. Mech World would still count as one for Machine Cult, as for any other faction. From the Rulebook:

An Ally Ability is triggered as soon as you have another card of that faction in-play. A double Ally Ability works exactly like a regular Ability, except it required two other cards of that faction in play to trigger.

Nice catch with Blob World - so even in Core Set only it matters! However, do you have a source for your other claim that it counts as a double ally for Machine Cult? Because that is not how I would have played it, but I'm not sure either way.

@BenjaminCosman Actually, upon further reading, the Ally ability does say it needs cards from a faction - so it was a wrong interpretation of the rules on my side. Fixed, thanks!

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


text:
A Game of Thrones Feast breaking ties for objectives
In A Game of Thrones the board game the player who holds the iron throne breaks ties. In the expansion A Feast for Crows, objective cards are introduced such as

Control more land areas than any other house

If two players are tied for most number of land areas, is a player able to score this objective? If so does the iron throne player decide who has the "most" land areas?

Rulebook, p.8 (emphasis added):

The outcome of all ties in bidding is decided by the player holding the Iron Throne token. This player places the Influence tokens of tied players on the highest (i.e., left-most) available positions on the track, in the order of his choice.

Rulebook, p.11:

The Iron Throne Token
The player holding this token decides the outcome of all ties that occur in
the game, with the exception of ties in combat (which are resolved by a player’s
position on the Fiefdoms track) and ties in determining the winner of the game.

Of course there is no reference to the FFC objective cards in the rulebook for the base game (since the expansion came afterwards), but I think a strict reading of the objective card itself (control more X than any other House) combined with the normal use of the Iron Throne token in the base game (breaks all ties in bidding, but not in combat or determining the winner of the game) means that if two players are tied for the most X, the player holding the objective for having the most X cannot score it.
Edit: The only reference to scoring in the FFC rules that seems relevant is on pp.7-8:

In turn order, each player may choose to score one Objective card of his choice from his Objective hand (if the criterion described is fulfilled) ...

In my opinion, this doesn't shed any further light on the issue, but I included it for completeness.

This is what we figured, but we were a bit confused based on the two wordings of the original use of the iron throne. In the future we'll use it only to break "bidding" ties.

No, you cannot score this objective.
If two players control the same amount of land, it is quite clear that you do not control more land than any other players, and hence you cannot score the objective as the criterion described has not been fulfilled.
The second part of your question, regarding the Iron Throne, is not relevant. From memory, all the objectives had a hard criteria that could not be 'shared' between players (e.g. controlling particular locations etc)


text:
Does Feast for Crows Expansion balance 4 player Game of Thrones?
Feast for Crows expansion came out relatively recently for A Game of Thrones: The Board Game 2nd Edition. The core set is playable 3-6 players, however, 4 player was terribly unbalanced. The expansion makes the game only 4 player, so I was wondering if they did a good job balancing the game.

That is certainly one of the goals of the expansion.  Whether or not it succeeds is somewhat subjective, but it currently has 23 ratings on Boardgame Geek and is averaging an 8.61 out of 10, so I would say that most people seem to think it works pretty well.


text:
How does the devoid-granting ability of Slivdrazi Monstrosity work?
Slivdrazi Monstrosity grants devoid to all slivers. And then the Gatherer ruling says this:

Due to the carefully calibrated system of layers that Magic uses to determine the interaction of continuous effects, gaining an ability that changes the color of an object has no effect on the color of that object. Despite this, Slivdrazi Monstrosity causes Slivers to become colorless as they gain devoid. Rather than try to figure out how this could work, this card should just be played as though it read “Slivers you control have devoid and annihilator 1 and are colorless.”

Unfortunately for me, I would very much like to figure out how this could work. CE 613.1 says color changing effects are applied in layer 5, and then ability-adding effects in layer 6. So just as the Gatherer ruling says, it very much seems like slivers will stay colorful, but have devoid, as their color is set before devoid is granted.
How does the Monstrosity make slivers colorless? Is it just a case of the above Gatherer ruling standing in as an errata? Or does the Monstrosity's ability, taken at face value, with correct rules interpretations, actually make slivers colorless somehow? And how would that work?

The Gatherer ruling is saying that the card doesn't change Slivers' colors as written, but the intention of the card is to change the colors, so you should play the card as though it does. That is a playtest card, so it is unsurprising that it doesn't exactly work within the rules.

Right. That explains it. Gatherer ruling being an errata it is, then. And it not being a legal card means the oracle text doesn't have to reflect said errata.

Maybe not worth a new question since it's not a playable card anyway, but could you elaborate on why the card wouldnt work as printed? Is it because devoid would take effect in layer 1, but the monstrosity adds the ability only in layer 6?

Arthur explains it in the question, in the first paragraph after the quoted Gatherer ruling.

If Slivdrazi Monstrosity was a "real" card, released in a proper set, it would have full rules support. Part of that support involves modifying rules that prevent cards from working how they are intended.
For instance, among the rules changes with the release of Strixhaven was a change to rule 603.3B:

Players paying close attention during preview season noticed that Strict Proctor has an odd trigger condition and effect that wouldn't quite work right under current rules. Sometimes, Strict Proctor's ability would end up placed on the stack underneath the ability it was trying to counter. This rule has been changed to make putting triggers on the stack a two-part process, ensuring that Strict Proctor can always enforce its requirement.

In this case a timing issue existed that could interfere with how a card was obviously supposed to work, so the rule was changed to prevent it. Because Slivdrazi Monstrosity is a playtest card and lacks rules support, Gatherer notes that players should modify the rules in a similar way so that the card can work as intended.

The Gatherer ruling does not say that players should modify the rules so that the card can work. It says that the player should play as though the card has different text. It's more of an errata than a rules change. The fact is that changing the rules to support that ability as written would be a nightmare, and would probably cause other problems elsewhere.


text:
How language agnostic is Magic Maze on Mars
I'm considering buying Magic Maze on Mars. It is out of stock in my local game store (which is always my first option, they need and deserve my support). So the next option I checked was directly from the publisher at https://sitdown-games.com/produit/magic-maze-on-mars.
At the moment they have only the French version available. I speak maybe a dozen or two words of French. I have been able to find an English version of the rule book online, which might make it worthwhile to buy the French version of the game anyhow. But that depends on the rest of the game. Excluding the rule booklet, would there be any other French in the game?
I may be looking for other ways of getting a copy of the game, but that's not what the question is about. It is solely about whether a French copy is playable without having to learn any French.

BoardGameGeek says "no necessary in-game text" so you should be fine if you've got an English rulebook.

Well, that's a nice and useful thing I didn't know BGG did. Thanks a lot.


text:
Choosing the right Duel Deck
In our gaming circle there is one person who's unfamiliar with M:tG. Now, we had the idea of buying a duel deck to get her into it (at least so her presence is not excluding / excluded by Magic as The Game of the Night), but then we fell short. We couldn't find any comparison (comprehensive or otherwise) between different decks. All we can find on the internet is reviews of single sets.
What's most important to us is basically balance between the two deck and how well they complement eachother. I.e. the Izzet vs Golgari has graveyard shenanigans pitted against burn and control, while Ajani vs Bolas seems to be more of a white weenie vs heavy hitter. Of course, how fun the decks are to play also matter a great deal. So does availability, unfortunately, but I'll look into that later.
Bottom line, is there any comparison of the different duel decks out there, or do I need to go through reviews of each one and see which one feels most fitting?

This one is awesome, some hilarious stuff on both sides http://www.magicmadhouse.co.uk/magic-the-gathering-c1/duel-deck-phyrexia-vs-the-coalition-c1224/duel-decks-phyrexia-vs-the-coalition-p5318 :D

(Full Disclosure: I've purchased a lot of the Duel Decks: Knights vs. Dragons, Venser vs. Koth, Ajani vs. Nicol Bolas, Izzet vs. Golgari and Sorin vs. Tibalt.)
If I was trying to teach a new player, I actually wouldn't use any of the Duel Decks. They are classified as 'Expert' level products by Wizards of the Coast, so they may contain a lot more complexity than a new player is ready for. The complexity comes from the actual cards in the decks and the strategies that one deck needs to use to beat the other. (Side note:  Also, if you plan on playing in Standard or collecting for it, most of the cards in the Duel Decks won't be Standard legal.)
In my experience, one of the Duel Decks is typically stronger than the other, usually to provide contrast between a fast aggro deck and a slower control or ramp deck. For example, in Knights vs. Dragons, the Knights win a LOT, because the deck is full of really strong, low casting cost creatures. The dragons are bigger and tougher, but have a much higher casting costs. The Dragons deck does have SOME ramp, but most of the time it will take a early beating before it can get established, and not recover.
(Also in Knights versus Dragons, there's a Knight with Protection from Red. The Dragons deck has a grand total of two ways to remove this guy. One colorless burn spell and one artifact creature. If you don't drawn into those, or if you use the burn spell on something else, you've got trouble.)
The same thing happens in Ajani vs. Nicol Bolas; Ajani has a lot of strong threats that are very cheap to cast. Bolas is more of a control deck, but it's not as well built of a control deck as you could hope for. The control is spread all over the place: a couple of counters here, a couple of discard spells there, so it's not very focused on one aspect of control, and therefore weaker. Again, most games go with Ajani taking the early lead and Bolas hoping to catch up and win.
The imbalance in the Duel Decks could lead to very frustrating games, especially for a new player. That could be mitigated by having the players switch decks, but all in all, they are likely to see that one deck is stronger than the other and wonder why the weaker deck is there at all.
In short, Duel Decks are great for experienced collectors and veteran players, but not so hot for new players. What you should try is....
If you are trying to have them learn the game from square one, a Booster Battle Pack is the way to go. A Booster Battle Pack has 40 cards total. Those are split by color into 5 lands and 5 other cards. The colors that you get are randomized, so you might get one that includes Red, Black, White and Blue, but no Green. You select two of the colors and then have a deck of 20 cards that you use to play a short game.
The small deck size helps a new player to get to playing the game right away, without a bunch of rules explanations. Once you've played several games, you can swap around the colors and try different combinations. The Booster Battle Pack also contains two actual booster packs, that you can crack open and add to your decks.
I used Booster Battle Packs to teach my fiancee how to play and she's really enjoyed it. For Magic Veterans, it seems like a useless product because of the simplicity, but you'd be surprised at how much fun the (mini) games can be.
Once your player understands the fundamentals of the game, have them play someone else's decks until they get a good idea of which deck archetype they like. (Aggro, Control, Combo, etc.) That way, the new player doesn't have to invest any money, but still gets to try out a range of different decks. Or, you could have the other players sit down and donate cards from their collections to build a deck of them.

Since my usual store doesn't stock the booster battle packs, I've used regular boosters when teaching too: add 3 lands of each color to a booster for each player - preferrably not looking at them first. While potentially playing with 5 colors might seem strange, it actually works out nicely most of the time, and it's a nice way to make sure you show all colors to your pupil regardless of your own preferences.

They're definitely supposed to be balanced; it's quite possible that if you found them this drastically imbalanced you weren't getting the whole picture. http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/27228/409

I believe that duel decks are better when played with players who know what they're doing since it provides a challenge to win, however, if you know which deck is overpowered (if either deck is) and you have your mind set on getting one then I would suggest letting the new player play with the more easily operated deck and then the tougher one, kind of like stages or levels of difficulty. This way it gives you a bit of a challenge (depending on your skill level) and them an easier time.

I suggest you do what my son and I do (He is a keen player and card collector, I know the rules enough to give him a good game). He selects two decks that he wants to analyze, and we play a red-and-white series, playing the decks one way and then the other.
Surely the rest of you all have additional decks, beside your current favourite, that might benefit from being played a different way.
Alternatively, let a card collector put two decks on the table, and your newbie chooses which one to play. This works when each series against an opponent is one game/match instead of two.


text:
Too few resource cards to distribute, but only one player receiving that resource type. Do they get the cards?
Let's set up a simple example to illustrate what I'm getting at:

A player has a city bordering an ore tile, and they are the only player with a settlement bordering an ore tile.
There is only 1 ore resource card left in the "bank".
Someone rolls for resource production and it causes the ore tile to produce 2 ore for the city owned by the player in question.

Do they get the 1 remaining ore resource card?
Personally, I would assume no. The rules do state that if there are not enough resources of a given type to distribute, nobody gets anything. But this situation is a little different just because there is only one player receiving resources.
I'll note that I've never actually had this happen, but am working on a computer based simulation and am trying to be precise.

Yes, the lone player gets the cards.
The Official FAQ at catan.com answers this directly.

Resource Cards - In case not enough Resource Cards of a certain type are available, does a player get nothing even if he is the only one to receive this resource?
No. In this case, he receives all available Resource Cards of this type.

The rules that I have state that you first give cards to whoever is getting the most of that resource. So if you have only one player getting cards, they get all the cards. If one player should get 4 cards, and one 2 cards and there are 3 cards left, the first player gets all 3 and second gets nothing.
This is >10 year old edition of the game though.

Mine says player order, ending with the player who rolled the dice. Again, older edition.

Just from a Rules-As-Written reading, it literally says "nobody" which should mean nobody.
From a spirit-of-the-rules view, I believe that rule is intended not to give unfair advantage to certain players at the cost of other players, but in this case there's no cost to other players, so no unfair advantage would be gained.
Either way, as you pointed out, it is an extremely narrow edge case.


text:
Combat damage assignment with multiple blockers
After reading the comprehensive rules, the answer to these questions seem clear, but I'm still having trouble reconciling them in my mind.
Here on some scenarios:
(1) My opponent attacks me with a 4/2 and I choose to block with a 1/5 and a 1/1. If he assigns damage to the 1/5 first, and then the 1/1, what happens? From my reading of the rules, no creatures would die because blockers only assign damage if all creatures "in front" of them are assigned lethal damage. Therefore the 1/1 does not assign damage.
(2) My opponent attacks with a 4/6, and I block with six 1/1s. What happens? My interpretation is that I would lose four 1/1s and the 4/6 would be assigned 5 damage. This implies that as long as an attacker has toughness at least 2 higher than its power, an army of 1/1s cannot kill it. Likewise an attacker with toughness three higher than its power cannot be killed by an army of 2/2s, etc.
(3) If the 1/1 in the first scenario had first strike, it would deal damage regardless of the blockers order. This would result in the 4/2 being assigned 2 damage.
Are all of these interpretations correct?

One of the better explanations of multiple blockers and lethal damages is in the this article about the Magic 2010 rules changes - about halfway down, under "5) Combat Damage No Longer Uses the Stack" there's a detailed explanation with several examples and pictures.

Nope, nothing weird happens with blockers - they always assign damage equal to their power, no matter what order you've put them in. The order is just about dividing up your attacking creature's damage.
The rule you were probably looking at is:

510.1c  A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. ... However, it can't assign combat damage to a creature that's blocking it unless, when combat damage assignments are complete, each creature that precedes that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage. ...

It sounds like the thing you missed is that this is only talking about the blocked creature (the attacking creature) assigning its combat damage to the creatures that are blocking it - it's an explanation of how that damage can get divided up among multiple blockers. The friendly/oversimplified version is "put them in order, then kill as many as you can starting with the first one" - pretty intuitive.
But the blockers? They always assign damage equal to their power:

510.1a Each attacking creature and each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. ...
510.1d A blocking creature assigns combat damage to the creatures it's blocking.  ...

There's no weird confusing rules here. The blockers always get to hit the creature they're blocking. (With the usual sorts of exceptions, e.g. they get killed before they get a chance to.) So your examples are pretty easy to deal with:
1) The 1/5 and the 1/1 both hit your 4/2, so it dies. If you put the 1/1 first, it'll take 1 damage (killing it) and the 1/5 will take 3; if you put the 1/5 first it'll take 4 damage and the 1/1 won't take any.
2) The six 1/1s all deal damage to your 4/6, so it dies. The 4/6 presumably assigns 1 damage each to the first four 1/1s you put in order, killing them. (Though you're actually allowed to deal more than lethal, e.g. 2 each to the first two, if you want to leave some of them alive for some reason.)
3) First strike doesn't change the result here; the 1/1 hits the 4/2 first, but then normal damage happens, and the 4/2 still gets to deal all 4 of its damage as you see fit. First strike would matter if instead you had a 2/1 with first strike; it'd kill the 4/2 before it had a chance to deal any damage.
If you want to make sure you understand the comprehensive rules (though it's probably overkill) read through that section again being careful to distinguish between "blocked creature" (an attacking creature which is blocked) and "blocking creature" (a creature which is blocking an attacking creature).

That was indeed the passage that was causing confusion. I'm not quite sure why I interpreted it to apply to blockers also. I even read it several times. :(

You're misunderstanding the rules. The attacking player decides the "order" in which blockers are damaged, which only limits how you can spread the damage: you can only assign damage to an additional blockers if all other blockers that you choose to be dealt damage are dealt lethal damage. Lethal damage is damage equal to or higher than a creature's toughness (accounting for other damage that might have been dealt earlier to the creature, and effects like deathtouch).
Damage assignment "order" does not create a queueing of damage. It is just an expression to (in theory) clarify the above description I gave. Once damage has been assigned, it will be dealt to all creatures simultaneously (unless there is a creature with first/double strike is involved, see below), so what happens in your scenarios is...
(1) Your opponent's 4/2 will die. If your opponent "assigned damage" to your 1/5, both your creatures will survive because he must assign lethal damage to that creature before he can damage another, so if he chooses to assign damage to it, he must deal all 4, which is not lethal damage. No damage is dealt to your 1/1, but both your creatures deal 1 damage to the 4/2, enough to kill it. If he chose to assign damage the other way around, the 4/2 still dies, but so does your 1/1, and your 1/5 is is dealt 3 damage.
(2) The 4/6 will be dealt 6 damage (each 1/1 deals 1 damage) and die. I'm sorry, but I can't make sense of what you understood of the rules here.
(3) When there is a creature with first/double strike involved, there is basically 2 Combat damage step, one for the "strikers", and one for everyone else (include the double strikers). In your first scenario, this changes nothing. If both the 1/5 and the 1/1 had first strike (or there was a 2/* with first strike amongst the blockers), the 4/2 would die before ever getting a chance to deal deal damage.
I hope I managed to be clear.

The fundamental confusion the OP had here was applying the rules about attackers assigning damage as also applying to blockers. So he thought, okay, the 4/6 assigns lethal damage to the first four 1/1s, and only the creatures for which all creatures in front of them have lethal damage get to hit back, and that's the four that are dying plus the next one (while the sixth has a guy in front of him who's not dead).

Oh, I see. I couldn't quite make that out.


text:
ipad implementation of board games with strong AI
I sometimes enjoy playing some board games like ticket to ride or settlers of catan on my ipad. In most cases I prefer to play against the AI, because it allows me to pause the game and continue at a later time. However, the AI-players in the games I played are kind of weak and I lose interest after playing a couple of times.
Now I would like to buy a new game but with a competitive AI. I prefer games for 3-4 players with a length of less than 2 hours. Can you recommend something?

I find the AI in Ascension to be capable, but that could just be a revelation that the game is more random and more winnable with consistent application of 'best play' rules than the designers would like to admit :)

I have to strongly disagree with the comment regarding Ascension. The AI is very predictable after a few plays

Agricola from Playdek offer a good challenge. And you can play single or the serie mode against yourself.
Elder Sign , Summon War and Yggdrasil are also good choice.
More depend of the game theme that you like ?


text:
What happens with Lifelink when a creature's power exceeds its blocker's toughness?
Lifelink typically says:

Lifelink (Damage dealt by this creature also causes you to gain that much life.)

Suppose I attack with a 5/5 creature which has Lifelink, and it's blocked by a 1/1 creature.
Do I gain 1 life or 5?

You will gain 5 life in that case.  Creatures assign and deal damage equal to their power in combat and do not "Pull their punches" if the blocker happens to have lower toughness.

510.1a Each attacking creature and each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. Creatures that would assign 0 or less damage this way don’t assign combat damage at all
...
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.

Assign equal to power.
Deal what was assigned.
Size of defender does not factor into it.

When a creature attacks (or defends), it deals damage equal to its power. As such, a creature which has 5 power will deal 5 damage and you will gain 5 life. Only damage prevention (e.g. Protection) can reduce that.

510.1a Each attacking creature and each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. [...]
510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. [...]


text:
Why do some cards which counter abilities say they can't counter mana abilities?
Some cards, like Voidslime, counter abilities - but they say they can't counter mana abilities. Why is that?

Asking this as it came up as an early version of a previous question, which I think is worth being preserved.

Because mana abilities get special treatment that prevents countering: they resolve instantly, without first going onto the stack. That leaves no opportunity to target them with anything - such as a counter spell - before they resolve.
Rule 605.3 describes this for activated abilities (as in Elvish Mystic), and rule 605.4 describes this for triggered abilities (as in Lotus Cobra).

605.3. Activating an activated mana ability follows the rules for activating any other activated ability (see rule 602.2), with the following exceptions:

605.3b An activated mana ability doesn't go on the stack, so it can't be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after it is activated. (See rule 405.6c.)

605.4. Triggered mana abilities follow all the rules for other triggered abilities (see rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities"), with the following exception:

605.4a A triggered mana ability doesn't go on the stack, so it can't be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after the mana ability that triggered it, without waiting for priority.
Example: An enchantment reads, "Whenever a player taps a land for mana, that player adds one mana to his or her mana pool of any type that land produced." If a player taps lands for mana while casting a spell, the additional mana is added to the player's mana pool immediately and can be used to pay for the spell."

Note that Voidslime's italicized "(Mana abilities can't be targeted.)" is reminder text. It's a statement about how these rules work, not a specific limitation of Voidslime.
Rule 605.1 defines what counts as a mana ability. At the time of writing, it has to meet three criteria: "it doesn't have a target, it could put mana into a player's mana pool when it resolves, and it's not a loyalty ability." This means Deathrite Shaman's first ability is not a mana ability.


text:
What strategies are effective against a spot destruction deck?
In Standard (Return to Ravnica, M14, and the first Theros set), a friend of mine is currently working with a tri-color RGB deck heavy on control via spot destruction: Abrupt Decay, Dreadbore, Ultimate Price, and other cards that follow the format of "Destroy target X".
Between those cards, said friend can fairly effectively keep our side of the board clear and pave the way for a powerful mid- to late-game creature (e.g. Polukranos, World Eater, which doubles as another destroyer) to end the game.
What strategies are generally effective against destruction-focused control decks like this? (Bonus points for strategies currently viable in Standard)

Sounds like a midrange deck with a lot of removal. See What's actually good against Jund?

@AlexP That sounds like a fit - it is a Jund deck with a focus on removal.

What's best against spot removal?
The absolute best decks against decks packed with spot removal is decks without any (good) targets for them. This will make those cards dead or bad draws. So how do you do that?

Play a deck without creatures. Maybe you can build a combo-, planeswalker- or mill-deck without creatures?

Creatures with hexproof, shroud or other protection. Their spells can't hit them, so they're useless.

Low values targets. Tokens and creatures with CITP effects comes to mind. It's not fun playing Dreadbore on a Lingering Souls token or on a Venser, Shaper Savant.

--
In your specific case: Is anyone playing control decks? The deck you describe tend to have a quite rough time against those.


text:
How do I search for cards without a casting cost (excluding {0})?
Ancestral Vision is an example of a card with a total absence of any casting cost: you can't cast it the ordinary way. In this case, you have to cast it using its Suspend ability.

I've just found that I have no idea how to search for these cards in Gatherer or in MagicCards.info. I can search for cards with a mana cost or converted mana cost of 0, but that also gets me cards like Accorder's Shield.
How can I search up cards with no mana cost in either Gatherer or MagicCards.info?
Lands are also in this category — it's fine if this search turns lands up as well; I can exclude those by their type easily enough.

Looking at MagicCards.info it looks like for their their system doesn't differentiate between a mana cost of 0 and a mana cost of NULL, so the only way I could find involved various hacks like excluding Kobolds that aren't necessarily future proof...

@diego It's ok if the only viable method is via Gatherer. Thanks for taking a look into it.

You can search for cards that have a CMC of 0 but don't have a mana cost of 0 or that contains X. Here is an example on Gatherer. Many of them are transform cards or tokens.

You can also skip both Innistrad blocks and Magic Origins to ditch the transform cards, leaving just the tokens and the real no-cost cards.

Instead of excluding each different occurance of X, you could include mana=+!=[0]+!~[X] and get the same result. This is safe to use even in case a card with even more Xs as costs is printed.

You can actually directly search for all cards without a mana cost (or, more specifically, an empty mana cost) like this [direct link]:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&mana=+=[]

This can be input directly in the Advanced Search by submitting Mana Cost and =, without adding any value to the field.
This query also excludes lands and some tokens.

As far as I can see, there's no simple way to exclude the back faces of cards without excluding entire editions they appear in, or excluding their names one by one. The only data-wise unique qualifier is that the collector number contains b, however Gatherer doesn't seem to offer a search query for the collector number.

The results of the second search you linked to include tokens.

@KSFT: Wow, you're correct... I fixed the link declaration, as I can't seem to come up with a query that reliably excludes tokens in general.


text:
What is the difference between Hexproof and a card like Canopy Cover?
Canopy Cover is an Aura enchantment that includes this effect:

Enchanted creature can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.

This sounds the same as Hexproof's definition in the glossary:

This permanent can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.

So what's the difference between Canopy Cover and a card like Alpha Authority, which just says "Enchanted creature has hexproof"?
Why does Canopy Cover spell it out like this?

I'm posting this because of an inquiry on this question - I think it merits its own question.

It kinda sais so on the gatherer: 4/15/2013 This is not the same as hexproof. If, for example, you target one of your opponent's creatures, your opponents won't be able to target their own creature with spells or abilities.

Oh, Hm. Should I delete this?

Nah, it's ok. Doesn't hurt to have the info in two places.

The "why" is really simply that hexproof hadn't been invented/added to the game as a universal keyword at the time that card was printed.  The fact that the actual functionality is a little bit different when the aura is controlled by a different player than the enchanted creature would be the reason the card hasn't been errata'd to say "enchanted creature has hexproof."

The effects are different because of what you/your refers to: it refers to an object's controller.
Canopy Cover's effect is radically different from an effect that says "Enchanted creature has hexproof", but the difference only becomes important when you use it on a creature an opponent controls.
Let's suppose you're a Green player facing a Blue player.
Enchanting your opponent's creature with Hexproof means you can't target it
Doing so means the creature now has a static ability that says:

This permanent can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.

The "your" here refers to that creature's controller - Blue player - so now Blue player's opponents can't target that creature with spells or abilities. That's you, Green player. You now cannot target that creature with spells or abilities.
Enchanting your opponent's creature with Canopy Cover means they can't target it
Doing so means the enchantment says:

Enchanted creature can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.

Since you are the enchantment's controller, the "your" in this case refers to you, the Green player. So your opponents can't target that creature with spells or abilities - that's the Blue player.

doppelgreener did a good job of explaining the impact the difference has on the game. However, that doesn't explain why the Oracle text of Canopy Cover continues to spell out the effect in full.
Specifically: Canopy Cover does not grant any abilities to the enchanted creature. There is no means by which you can word this effect such that the keyword "Hexproof" is included and no ability is granted to the creature. Thus, Canopy Cover spells out the effect.
In addition to the results spelled out by doppelgreener, consider interactions with cards such as Muraganda Petroglyphs and Sudden Spoiling. Canopy Cover does not prevent the buff from Petroglyphs, while Alpha Authority does. Sudden Spoiling does not remove the Hexproof-esque effect of Canopy Cover, but it would remove the Hexprof granted by Alpha authority.

Worldwake was released on February 5, 2010, and Hexproof was released with Magic 2012 on July 15, 2011. Thus the keyword hexproof did not exist. Typically when releasing cards they match the phrasing, even if the actual resulting mechanic is different. In this case cards were templated "~ cannot be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control" so canopy cover has the same with the name of the permanent replaced with "Enchanted creature".

Muraganda Petroglyphs does not target anything, so it can affect a creature with either Canopy Cover or Hexproof. Sudden Spoiling is a very good point though.

@JonathanHobbs, While Petroglyphs doesn't target and thus could in theory affect a creature with Hexproof... a creature with Hexproof by definition has an ability, so Petroglyphs would stop affecting that creature.

@Guvante, Good point, I will revise my answer to refer to Oracle text rather than printed text.

@BrianS Now I understand. It sounded to me like it being hexproof would prevent the buff from affecting it (by nature of being hexproof and untouchable, not by nature of having an ability and thus becoming ineligible).


text:
Can I exile a token copy of Greenwarden of Murasa for its second ability?
I have a Greenwarden of Murasa out, and I make a token copy of it with Fated Infatuation or Progenitor Mimic or something along those lines.
When the token dies it will immediately vanish from the graveyard per token rules, but this ability will also trigger:

When Greenwarden of Murasa dies, you may exile it. If you do, return target card from your graveyard to your hand.

Will I have no option to return a card via this ability? It vanishes too soon for me to exile it, and I don't have the ability to meet that "if" with a token, right?

You cannot choose to exile the token because it has already ceased to exist, and you won't be able to return a card to your hand.
A token ceases to exist as soon as it moves to a zone other than the battlefield:

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

When the token dies, its death ability will trigger. As per state-based actions, the token ceases to exist. On resolution of the triggered ability, you will get to choose whether to exile the token. However, because the token has already ceased to exist, you cannot choose to exile it, and you will not be able to return a card to your hand.

Can't you technically still choose to exile it? Of course, that doesn't do anything, because you only get to return a card "if you do [exile it]", which you can't? So you can make the choice as you wish, you just can't exile it.

It may be that trying to assess whether you can/can't choose to exile a token that isn't there is splitting hairs: the fact remains you can't compete all of "choose to exile it", or there is no way to take advantage of "you may exile it", and whether that's because you can't choose or there isn't an "it" is probably immaterial.

Would this be different if the wording said: "When Greenwarden of Murasa dies, you may exile it instead of placing it in your graveyard"? Would that change of wording make this a replacement-effect? And would a token be able to do the replacement effect (ie instead of moving from the battlefield to the grave and cease exisisting,  it now moves from the bf to exile and ceases being)?

@steenbergh To be a replacement effect it would have to not be triggered, since if the ability gets triggered it's too late to replace that event, so we'd get something like "If Greenwarden of Murasa would die, you may exile it instead. If you do...". I think that would certainly change the answer, but alas.

@doppelgreener, Re "Can't you technically still choose to exile it?", I think there's a rule against choosing to do something impossible, but it's moot. Even if you could choose to do it, you couldn't actually do it, so the "if you do" condition wouldn't be matched.

@doppelgreener, The wording of the replacement effect would be closer "If ~ would be put into your graveyard from anywhere, you may exile it instead. If you do, return target card from your graveyard to your hand." That would indeed work, because tokens can be exiled.

You cannot exile the token for the ability
This is what happens:

Your Greenwarden of Murasa (token) is put in the graveyard, triggering its ability. The ability is put on the stack and you choose a target card in your graveyard (you do not get to exile the token at this time).
State-based actions are checked, and the token stops existing.
The active player gets priority, and presumably you and your opponent(s) pass.
Greenwarden's trigger resolves, and asks if you want to exile it from your graveyard. Since it has ceased to exist, of course, you don't have that option. Nothing happens.


text:
Why does Rhizome Lurcher see itself in the graveyard as it enters the battlefield? (GRN spoilers)
Rhizome Lurcher is a new card in Guilds of Ravnica that says:

Undergrowth — Rhizome Lurcher enters the battlefield with a number of +1/+1 counters on it equal to the number of creature cards in your graveyard.

It has a ruling that completely surprises me:

If you return Rhizome Lurcher from your graveyard to the battlefield, its undergrowth ability counts itself.

OK, I'm willing to believe that. But why does it count itself? I would have thought that as it enters the battlefield it's no longer in the graveyard and would not count itself. What's going on in the rules for this interaction that have it work out this way?

Rhizome Lurcher's ability is a replacement effect, specifically the kind described in 614.1d:

Continuous effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield . . .” or “[Objects] enter the battlefield . . .” are replacement effects.

Replacement effects apply to an event before that event occurs. So replacement effects that modify a permanent entering the battlefield apply before it enters the battlefield. In Magic, objects can't be "between" zones or not in any zones, so in the situation in question, before the Rhizome Lurcher is on the battlefield, it is in the graveyard. So, it counts itself when counting creatures cards in the graveyard.