text:
What is the fastest possible game in Splendor?
In the game of Splendor, what is the fewest number of turns you could take to get 15 points?

I disagree. You can definitely figure out some kind of "perfect setup" and find the minimum number of turns based on that. It will never happen in practice (especially since you would have to assume either a solo game or a really stupid opponent), but it's a valid theoretical question.

BGG has a complete decklist if anyone wants to use it.

On BGG there's also a google sheet with the same data by luless (make sure to scroll down, the one on the top of the page isn't correct) and a group photo of all cards in case anyone wants to double-check.

I have found 15 points in 15 turns, which works even for 3 player rules:

Take: white, blue, green
Take: white, blue, green
Take: white, blue, red
Claim: white card (3 blue)
Take: green, red, black
Claim: white card (2 red, 1 black)
Take: white, blue, green
Claim: white card (4 green) +1 pt
Claim: white card (6 white) +3 pt
Take: 2 white
Claim: blue card (7 white) +4 pt
Take: white, blue, black
Take: 2 white
Claim: blue card (7 white, 3 blue) +5 pt
Claim: green card (4 white, 2 blue, 1 black) +2 pt

Although, I don't have proof that 14 turns game is not possible.

Given that it's been a year and a half to get a one turn improvement, I don't think you should feel bad that you don't have a 14 turn proof....

14 turns looks really close to possible but I haven't been able to quite get there. This game would be a turn 14 win in 4p except it holds 11 gems one turn.

Great work on shaving off 1 turn! I've been trying to bruteforce all shorter solutions to find the shortest path but can't quite optimize the code enough.

Update: here used to be my solution for 16 points in 16 turns, but since then I've managed to find an even better solution with my bruteforce tool. Still 15 turns only, but this feels so efficient that I doubt a 14 turn one exists. This also exploits the green/blue imbalance that I mentioned below.
16 points in 15 turns:
 1. Take    blue,  red, ⚫ black
 2. Take    blue,  red, ⚫ black
 3. Take    blue,  red, ⚫ black
 4. Claim   blue card  (3 ⚫ black) + 0 pt
 5. Take    blue,  green,  red
 6. Claim   blue card  (4  red) + 1 pt
 7. Claim   blue card  (6  blue) + 3 pt
 8. Take    blue,  green,  red
 9. Take    blue,  green,  red
10. Take    blue,  green,  red
11. Claim   blue card  (2  blue, 2  green, 3  red) + 1 pt
12. Claim   blue card  (5  blue) + 2 pt
13. Claim   green card (7  blue) + 4 pt
14. Take    blue,  blue
15. Claim   green card (7  blue, 3  green) + 5 pt

One thing I've noticed is that there's an interesting disbalance among the 2 pt cards for 5+3 gems: only 2/5 cards (blue and green) give the bonus of the same color as one of the requirements. Feels like something that might yield an even better solution.

@John: Yes, I think I have the same version as the ones I have linked in the comment to the main post: https://i.imgur.com/12DIzjz.jpg

I am amazed that there is an imbalance on the 2 pt 5+3 cards. That is very unexpected.  Nice catch.  Can you exploit it?  Your above solution is very clever.

I think you have a calc error in there ... I step through it a few times .. but keep getting different #'s at your step #8:  #1 (Stash: W,G,B)
#2 (Stash: WW,GG,BB)
#3 (Stash: WW,GG,BBB,U,R)
#4 (Stash: W,GG,B,U,R) (Perm: U)
#5 (Stash: G,U) (Perm: U)
#6 (Stash: G,UUU) (Perm: U)
#7 (Stash: G,UUUUU) (Perm: U)
#8 (Stash: G,U) (Perm: UU) (but you claim you have G,UU in stash .. which makes step #10 impossible) :(  Did I make a mistake? or are you off there?

@Ditto: You missed that I have not one but two blue cards after step #5, which allows me to save 2 blue chips out of 5 that I have on step #8. That leaves me with 2 blue chips.

@monk-time:  you're right!  Gotcha!  :)

The nobles don't get you to 15 points faster?

@Acccumulation All current best solutions accumulate at most 7 cards in 15 turns, and you need minimum 8 cards to get a noble. It's very tight. My non-exhaustive brute-force checker found a 16 turns/19 pts solution with a blue/green noble when I ran it on only b/g cards: 0B3-0B12-0B113-0G113-2B5-2G35-3B6-4G7-5G37

EDIT: fixed violation of limit on taking 2 of same gems (Forbidden when <4 gems remaining).
First of all, @Arcanist Lupus has provided good answer with simple yet efficient approach and also provided link to cards table in the comments, so I want to thank them. But looking at the table I noticed that 4 pts. cards have better conversion rates than 5 pts. ones, and a lot of gems are lost when going straight for 5 pts. cards.
So, assuming all required cards are available, no nobles and no interference from other players, here is my solution:
Cards I'm going for: White 4 for 7 blacks; Blue 4 for 7 whites; Green 4 for 7 blues; Green 3 for 6 greens.
Steps:

+2 black
+2 black
+1 black, 1 green, 1 {any}
+1 black, 2 {any}
+1 black, 1 white, 1 green. Return 3 {any}
Claim White 4 card for 7 blacks. (1 white and 2 green remain in the stash)
+2 white
+2 white
+1 white, 1 blue, 1 green
Claim Blue 4 card for 6 whites + card. (1 blue and 3 green remain in the stash)
+2 blue
+2 blue
+1 blue, 1 green, 1 {any}. Return 1 {any}
Claim Green 4 card for 6 blues + card. (4 green remain in the stash)
+1 green, 2 {any}
Claim Green 3 card for 5 greens + card

Done. 15 points in 16 turns.

steps 3 and 4 are just about getting 2 blacks, since it's forbidden to get 2 at once at that point. Alternatively you can take golden tokens and secure couple of cards for yourself, in that case in step 15 just take 2 greens (you will have 1 less, so it would be legal move).

This is good, but you've forgotten that you can only take 2 gems of the same color if there are 4 or more left, so taking 2 of the same 3 times in a row is impossible

@ArcanistLupus Gotcha, forgot that rule. Only played the game once. Looking at the steps, I think only step 3 violates the rule, so it can be split into 2 "take 1 of each" to get same 2 blacks, which bumps total steps to 16. I'll edit after more thorough check.

The top answer by Marcin_smu does not work in two player games. On move 10, he picks up 2 white chips but has one in his hand, in 2 player this is not possible. In 3 player or 4 player, it would be possible.
I have 15 points in 15 turns for 2 player:

1 blue + 1 black + 1 red (0 points, 1u1b1r, 0 cards)
1 blue + 1 black + 1 red (0 points, 2u2b2r, 0 cards)
1 blue + 1 black + 1 red (0 points, 3u3b3r, 0 cards)
Claim the 3 black for a blue card (0 points, 3u3r, 1 blue)
1 blue + 1 green + 1 red (0 points, 4u1g4r, 1 blue)
Claim the 4 red for a blue card plus 1 point (1 points, 4u1g, 2 blue)
Claim the 6 blue for a blue card plus 3 points card (4 points, 1g, 3 blue)
1 blue + 1 blue (4 points, 2u1g, 3 blue)
Claim the 5 blue for a blue card plus 2 points card (6 points, 1g, 4 blue)
1 blue + 1 blue (6 points, 2u1g, 4 blue)
1 blue + 1 green + 1 white (6 points, 3u1g1w, 4 blue)
Claim 7 blue for a green card plus 4 points (10 points, 1g1w, 4 blue 1 green)
1 blue + 1 blue (10 points, 2u1g1w, 4 blue 1 green)
1 blue + 1 green + 1 white (10 points, 3u2g2w, 4 blue 1 green)
Claim 7 blue 3 green for a green card plus 5 points (15 points, 2w, 4 blue 2 green)

note: a duplicate version of this could be done with green but not red, black or white because the 2 point 5 chip card is not monochrome

As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.

Each color has a single card worth 5 points, which can be taken by 7 gems of one color and 3 of another.  Conveniently, the maximum number of gems you can hold at once is 10, and in a 4 player game there are 7 gems of each color available, which means that you can go after these cards immediately.
For example:

2 red
2 red
1 red, 1 black, 1 {any}
1 red, 1 black, 1 {any}
1 red, 1 black, 1 {any}, return 3 {any}
Claim the 5 pt black card
2 black
2 black
1 black, 1 white, 1 {any}
1 black, 1 white, 1 {any}
1 white, 1 blue, 1 {any}, return 3 {any}
Claim the 5 pt white card (keep the blue)
2 blue
2 blue
1 blue, 1 white, 1 {any}
1 blue, 1 white, 1 {any}
Claim the 5 pt blue card.

Congratulations!  You've won!
It's possible that there's a faster Nobles strategy, but I'm not sure.  3 Nobles requires at least 12 turns of taking cards, which means you have a total of 4 spare turns for gem collecting (5 to tie my score, 4 to win outright), and it takes three gem turns to get your first 3 cards.  Plus you have to stay in cards that produce only 3 different colors.

Actually, I think you can shave off a turn by saving a gem in the second round, but it's too late tonight to lay it out completely.

nice upper bound, I think you can do better than 21

@Cohensius You are indeed correct!  Especially since I couldn't math, and it turns out that 6*3 is 18, not 21

"Conveniently, the maximum number of cards you can hold in your hand is 10" Cite? Are you confusing cards with tokens?

@Acccumulation fixed

@Cohensius Fixed

@Cophensius 4 Green + 4 Blue + 4 Red card gems, is 12 cards.  What am I missing?

must been very late when I wrote the comment, indeed 4 Green + 4 Blue + 4 Red card gems, is 12 cards.

As a partial solution, here are some of the qualities I suspect will need to be part of such a "perfect game":

All Noble tiles claimed (since they represent a large source of points for no additional action taken).
Very few turns where chips are taken, and a turning point somewhere in the middle of the game after which no chips are taken (since every turn taking chips is a turn you aren't taking cards which gain you points).

Additionally, I suspect that the structure of the game will be something like (assuming a 2-player setup, so there are 9 points available in nobles):

Spend a few turns taking chips and acquiring cheap level 1 cards.
Get enough level 1 cards that all future purchases are free, probably earning the first noble near the end of this step.
Get 1 or 2 level 2 cards worth 2-3 points, earning the second noble.
Get a level 3 card and the third noble.

It might be possible to shortcut step 3 if you get a couple of the 1 point level 1 cards in step 2, but I don't think that there's a lot to be gained going that way (the 1 point cards are not particularly cost-effective).

Maybe I am missing this but this does not answer the questions of how fast can the game be won but is just a general strategy of how to win faster

It's me trying to theory-craft what the fastest game is likely to look like, since I haven't had the chance to actually sit down and turn the above "shape" of a game into actual turns. The fact that it might also be decent advice on winning faster is a neat corollary.


text:
Klondike Solitaire - moving partial sequences between columns
You'd think all the rules for this game would be well established but I have a question about the movement of partial sequences between columns in the tableau. Lets say I have two columns with the values:
7C, 6H, 5C, 4D and 4H, 3C, 2D
I want to get the 4H and move it to a foundation pile so I take the 3C, 2D and move them onto the 4D of the first column. I've always played this way and I've yet to find a computer version that doesn't allow it but is that how it is supposed to work?
The Microsoft help says - "You can also move sequentially organized runs of cards between columns. Just click the deepest card in the run and drag them all to another column." So I have to wonder if deepest means you can only move the entire sequence or just the deepest desired card...
Lady Cadogan's Illustrated Games of Solitaire or Patience actually says "If there be more than one card at the bottom of a row, all must be moved together or not at all." (where row means column)
http://www.bicyclecards.com/card-games/rule/klondike says "If more than one card is face up on a tableau pile, all such cards must be moved as a unit."
Solitaire and Patience By George Hapgood 1920 - "Any number of cards, provided that they form a complete sequence of alternating colors, may be transferred to the opposite colored card of the next higher rank, but parts of sequences may not be moved."
Patience : a series of games with cards 3rd Edition by Ednah Dow Littlehale Cheney, Copyright 1894, Published 1895 by Lee and Shepard in Boston
Appears as Triangle but only allows one card to be moved at a time - "You cannot (as in Fooliana) change more than once card from one line to another at once;". This version of Triangle allows complete access to the stock. A 2 deck version appears under the name Staircase. Staircase allows any number of cards in a sequence to be moved. The 2nd edition in 1875 did not include Triangle. The 3rd edition notes that the previous edition contained only one game, Brunette and Blonde, that had an alternating color marriage rule.
Mary Whitmore Jones's third series of collected Patience games from 1894 says "a sequence of cards may be lifted bodily and transferred to where it fits".
Games of Patience by Tarbart (1901) states says about Demon (1 deck Klondike) "A sequence of cards may be played bodily at any time..." but says about Triangle (2 deck Klondike) "A sequence of cards, or any portion of a sequence, may be played bodily at any time..."
Foster's Complete Hoyle - 1909
"If there is more than one card face up on any pile, they must be moved together or not at all."
Hoyle's Games - 1914
No partial movement - "In this game the player is not allowed to borrow a card from one file unless it is the only card on that file, face up, or unless he can take all the cards that are face up together."
This book claims that Klondike is the 4 pile version (now commonly known as Canfield or Demon) was the original form and what we know as Klondike is a simplified form which is called "Seven-Card Klondike" in this book.
Do you ever play where you can NOT move partial sequences around on the tableau? I know there are lots of variations - redeals, draw 3 vs 1, reuse foundation cards, etc but I haven't seen partial/full sequence movement categorized as a variation.

This is regarding the game that when played with 1 deck uses 7 build piles.
The earliest recorded rules for this game appear in two different books from 1894 both refer to the game as Triangle. In one version only a single card can be moved and in the other entire sequences may be moved. Partial sequence movement was first recorded in a 2 deck version named Triangle in 1901.
So in the span of 7 years 3 different variations of movement between the tableau or building piles were recorded.
From 1909 to at least 1920, after the game became known as Klondike or sometimes Canfield, the rules almost always required complete sequence movement when more than one face up card was present on the source pile.
At some point partial sequence movement became more common (at least in computer versions) and is allowed by Microsoft Solitaire. Very few computer versions can be found that have split-sequence/full-sequence as a variation, one example is http://www.solitairecity.com/Klondike_Rules.shtml.

I've never heard of any variation that would not allow you to do this. Though the help text you quoted is ambiguous, I believe that "deepest card" refers to the "deepest card that you want to move", not the "deepest card in the entire column". If the computer itself that has such a help file allows you to do the partial-run move anyway, do you have a reason for thinking that there is any such variation that doesn't allow it?

Lady Cadogan clearly states you have to move all cards at once, at least I can't read it any other way. Another old book, "The Official Rules of Card Games: Hoyle Up-to-date By U.S. Playing Card Co" uses the same wording as Cadogan.

Added another quote from the Hapgood book.

Most digital versions of the game not only allow for this but also tend to show how to do it in basic tutorials that they have.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Leonin of the Lost Pride and undying creature
How would Leonin of the Lost Pride interact with an opponents creature who has undying? The player with the undying creature sacrificed it and he also had out Dictate of Erebos, which when the undying creature died player 1 sacrificed the Leonin. Does the Leonin trigger prior to the undying creature coming back?

Hi! Welcome to B&CG. Whose turn it is when this happens?

Your opponent can control what happens, i.e. whether or not you can exile his undying creature before he can return it.
When the undying creature dies, both Dictate of Erebos and Undying trigger at the same time. Since your opponent controls both abilities, he can choose the order in which they go on the stack. Your Leonin is still alive at this point, since it only dies when Dictate actually resolves.

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities they control on the stack in any order they choose. [..]

If your opponent puts the Undying trigger on the stack first, and the Dictate trigger second, i.e. on top, the Dictate trigger resolves first. You sacrifice the Leonin, which triggers its own death trigger, which becomes the topmost object on the stack. You can choose to target the undying creature in the graveyard and exile it. Finally the Undying trigger resolves, but the undying creature card is no longer in the graveyard and nothing happens.
If your opponent puts the Dictate trigger first, and the Undying trigger on top, the undying trigger resolves first and that creature will return. Then the Dictate resolves, you have to sacrifice a creature. If you sacrifice the Leonin, its ability will trigger, but you can no longer exile the Undying creature because it already returned to the battlefield.

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


text:
In Monopoly Deal, can I put properties of the same color on the table, but not in a "set"
I want to get properties on the table, but not complete the set. I am trying to avoid having a complete set stolen. I realize by keeping same color cards separate, they could be taken in a forced deal or sly deal, but when it is my turn, I can arrange my properties how I want to collect rent or if I get three complete set, arrange them on my turn for the win. But by keeping the same color cards separate, at least I won't lose an entire set when the deal breaker is played.

This concept of separation is neither explicit nor implicit in the rules. Once you have "put down properties into your own collection", they are there. Physically placing them close or far does nothing to change their color or number towards a complete set.

If the properties are all mono-color, they are automatically added to the set.
The key piece in the base rules is the rules on playing properties:

Lay Property cards down in front of you to build up your Property sets.
Each card shows how many properties there are to collect in that color-set.

With a bit of scrutinizing of this section, I think it's reasonable to conclude that colors and sets are synonymous.  As a result, playing a property on the table makes it part of the set.
What if you have more than the number of properties in the set?
This is one exception, where you can have a second set in the color.  The ruling listed here is reasonable, but doesn't provide a source, so I can't tell how authoritative it is:

If you have more properties of one color than is needed to make a complete property set, you must form as many complete sets as possible, and group the remaining properties of that color together.

(Credit to L. Scott Johnson for finding this)
What about wilds?
Wilds are the other exception.  If you have a wild (either 2-color or any-color), it's up to you which color it counts as.  The rules for this are the following:

You can only reorganize your property collection on your turn.
...
You can swap [wilds] around amongst different sets on your turn.

So, if at least one of the properties in the prospective set is a wild, you can intentionally not have a set by putting the wild in a different color.

If you have enough to make a set, then you have a set.
From the compiled FAQ on BGG:

If you have more properties of one color than is needed to make a complete property set, you must form as many complete sets as possible, and group the remaining properties of that color together.

The separate placement of the cards does not affect the status of the card as a set, unless the double card is actually being used as part of a set, having a full set of cards in front of you is considered a set; the card should be placed the 'color you are using' side up:

You can use these to build Property sets. Choose a color, and play the
card with that color faceup. You can flip the card to change the color
of the Property any time on your turn!

In the (non-official) rules clarifications this is quite clear:

Keep in mind that Wild Property cards only count as 1 color at a time, so if you have a Baltic Avenue card and a half-brown dual-wild
property card, you can treat the dual-wild property as its non-brown
color so that you don’t have to group it with Baltic Avenue (which
would be vulnerable to a Deal Breaker card). Of course, if you have
non-wild properties of both colors that are on the dual-wild property
card, you must group it with one of those properties, as it must be
treated as exactly 1 of its colors at any given time


text:
Can a single card have multiple activations on a stack?
For further context, it has to do with Ghost Town in my landfall deck. It has the ability "0: Return Ghost Town to owner's hand."
If I activate it during an opponent's upkeep and they respond by destroying it(such as Field of Ruin), is there a rule preventing me from activating Ghost Town's ability again to keep it on the top of the stack?

Yes, you can do this.
There is no limit to the number of times you can activate an ability other than being able to pay the cost. It doesn't matter if the other activations are still on the stack or if they have resolved already.
Some activated abilities have a built-in limit, where they say something like "activate this ability only once each turn". An example is Aggressive Mining.

117.1b A player may activate an activated ability any time they have priority.

602.2. To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect.

If things do happen as you suggest, then the stack will look like this:

Ghost Town's ability
Field of Ruin's ability
Ghost Town's ability

First Ghost Town will resolve and return to your hand. Then Field of Ruin's ability will fizzle and leave the stack without resolving because it has no legal target anymore. The searching for land part will not happen. Finally the original Ghost Town's ability will resolve, but it will not do anything upon resolving because it cannot find the Ghost Town on the battlefield anymore.

Wouldn't this allow building an infinite (but pointless) stack?

Well an arbitrarily large stack, yes. Though if you have something like Burning-Tree Shaman it wouldn't be pointless.

Goblin Cannon is a nice example of a card that depends on the ability to activate multiple times in order to be even close to useful (or even make sense: sacrificing the card you activate is usually a cost, not part of the effect).

@WeckarE.Yes. You activate the card 10 million times. It resolves once, returning to your hand. The 999,999 other times resolve doing nothing. This wouldn't take any extra time or have an effect on the game so there's no problem with this being the case.

@WeckarE. The way to handle this gets into shortcuts and such... you can declare that you are activating it some finite number of times that you choose. But if you tried just to repeatedly activate it one at a time before any resolve, with no reason to do so, you would get into slow play tournament rules.


text:
Possible to use mana ability in response?
Mana abilities don't go onto the stack and are resolved immediately. If my opponent tried to play Shock (deal 2 damage) to Maraleaf Pixie, would I be able to use its mana ability in response? (Tap: add G or U).
There's a lot on forums about the other way around. If I initially tapped Maraleaf Pixie, and my opponent tried to kill it, they would not be able to because the mana ability resolves immediately.

Yes, you may.
The pixie's ability is an activated ability that happens to be a mana ability as well. Unless otherwise stated, you can activate those any time you have priority, so it's possible to do so in response to Shock.

602.1. Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]”
605.1. Some activated abilities and some triggered abilities are mana abilities, which are subject to special rules. Only abilities that meet either of the following two sets of criteria are mana abilities, regardless of what other effects they may generate or what timing restrictions (such as “Activate this ability only any time you could cast an instant”) they may have.

Also, even if your opponent destroys a creature in reaction to you activating an ability, the ability still resolves, since it is already on the stack.


text:
Do field enchantments stack?
Do field enchantments, such as cards that say "opponent puts the top two cards of their library into their graveyard", stack with multiple iterations of it on my field? The specific example I'll use is what happened last night:
My friend had played two copies of Drowned Secrets and was basically milling me out for 4 cards every time he played a blue spell. I let it play out, but I would like to know what the legality of it is going forward. I'm aware of the Legendary card rule, but we're just getting into Magic, and we're learning the rules as we go along.

Each will trigger. Each will mill 2 even it resolves, for a total of 4

As a rule of thumb, unless specifically stated, the interaction between cards is minimal. They are not aware of each others' existence, and they just do their own thing. Some exceptions are things like the legend rule, or auras caring about the creature they enchant.

Yes; each Drowned Secrets on the battlefield will trigger when the controller casts a blue spell. It is no different than 2 unrelated abilities both triggering upon the same event.
For example, if you had both a Drowned Secrets and a Merrow Levitator on the battlefield and you cast a blue spell, both abilities would trigger. It is no different with 2 separate Drowned Secrets.
Other abilities besides triggered abilities stack as well; such as if you had 2 copies of Honor of the Pure on the battlefield. In that case, White creatures you control would get a total of +2/+2.


text:
In Risk when do I have to give up my turn?
In Risk when it's my turn and I attack.
Do I give up my turn if I lose some troops while attacking or could I continue attacking until I want to give up my turn?

Please ask one question at a time.  Edit this question to have only a single question, and ask the other two as separate questions.  That works much better for this format, in that it allows for a single best answer for each individual question.

That's much improved.

Your turn does not end if you lose troops.  You may continue to attack until you either don't want to attack, or have no territories with 2+ troops adjacent to an enemy.

When editing to reflect an update to the question, you should leave your answer in the ideal form, rather than leaving both the original answer and your new answer. You can always get back to the original via the revision history. I've gone ahead and tried to do this; if there's something more that was supposed to be included to address the question in its current form, please do edit further.

You could continue attacking as long as there is at least one soldier attacking your opponent's territory. Or you could choose to retreat, but that wouldn't mean giving up your turn. You could attack somewhere else, or move your troops to some other country.

Btw this is answered after he edited the question

it's worth noting that you need a minimum of two troops remaining in the territory you are attacking from

From the rules: https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/risk.pdf

You must always have at least two armies in the territory you’re
attacking from.

You may continue attacking one territory until you have eliminated all
armies on it, or you may shift your attack from one territory to another,
attacking each as often as you like and attacking as many territories as
you like during one turn.


text:
Proliferate and Bloom Hulk
I'm new to proliferate and my friend was playing a proliferate deck. He had a creature with 3 +1/+1s on it and he played a Bloom Hulk. He said that his creature gained 3 +1/+1s because of proliferate and I thought that was weird.
We looked it up and it said you gain 1 for each kind of counter, so does that mean he gets 3 for each +1/+1 counter already on the creature or just 1 +1/+1 counter?

Proliferate gives you the opportunity to choose different types of counters too, placed on different permanents or players; and each of these counters will increase by one unit thanks to the proliferate ability. But under no circumstances is it possible to increase the number of counters, placed on each permanent / player chosen,by more than one unit.

@ManoFromBerlin "But under no circumstances is it possible to increase the number of counters [...] by more than one". That's usually true, but not quite always the case. Some cards create a replacement effect for adding counters to objects. Consider Hardened Scales, which replaces the number of +1/+1 counters you would place with one more. It's not a triggered ability but a replacement effect, so technically the Proliferate is putting two +1/+1 counters on something.

Yes, Aetherfox, my "under no circumstances" is excessive. But I just meant to proliferate "on his own": that is, without adding other cards that create effects of various kinds - eg, the cards you mention in the comment above - you can't add more than one counter to a permanent. Which, moreover, seems to me the exact situation described in this question. Don't you think?

Proliferate's rules read as follows:

Choose any number of permanents and/or players, then give each another counter of each kind already there.

So note here as emphasized above:

It's the permanent/player that is being chosen, not the counters on the permanent/player.
It's a counter of each kind already there.

So the creature he selected only had one kind of counter on it (+1/+1 counters), so it would get one more +1/+1 counter, not 3.
If it happened to have some other kind of counter (say, a feather counter), it would get another one of those as well.
Cards like Doubling Season, Winding Constrictor and Hardened Scales can increase the number of counters given by Proliferate, if this is something your friend wants to do and they're legal in the format you play.
This is more relevant when targeting players, especially in formats like Commander, who may have -1/-1 counters, energy counters or experience counters simultaneously; it's rare for other permanents to have more than one kind of counter on them (I believe this is by design, as otherwise it gets confusing).


text:
Is it legal to trade 1 wood for 1 wood + 1 hay?
I ran into this situation. I had helped out a player by not placing the robber on them with my knight card. To sweeten the deal, she agreed to give me 1 wood + 1 hay in exchange for 1 wood. Is this legal?
The board mentions that trading 1 wood for 2 wood is illegal, but is 1 wood + 1 hay considered legal?

I would argue the rules say this is not legal.  Quoting from rules found on Catan Website

However, you cannot give away cards, or trade matching resources (“trade” 3 ore for 1 ore, for example).

Your example in effect breaks both those rules.  You are trading wood for wood which is illegal.  The exact amounts don't matter, the example is 3 and 1 ore but if there is a matching resource in both sets then it is not a trade.
If you take out wood cards from your trade then you are in effect giving away a Wheat card for free which is also against the rules.

Sure, but you can still end up at the same result. "You may trade as many times as you want, using single or multiple cards". Trade one wood for two hay. Afterwards, trade one hay for the wood. The rules aren't as iron-clad as one would hope.

@Polygnome But then you'd have to have two hay

@Kevin or brick, sheep or ore. Any 3rd card that isn't wood.

The rules mights not be as Ironclad as one would hope I agree.  Then I think Its down to players to do things in spirit of the rules and not make a series of elaborate trades in order to manipulate them.  But I guess that ultimately that's down to taste of each group and what's fun for them.


text:
Can you hide your number of cards in Uno?
Can you hide your cards so other players can't see how many cards you have left? So if you don't remember to say UNO, others can't know if you had only one card left.

The official rules of most games tell you what is allowed, and usually only tell you what isn't allowed when it seems that it would be possible otherwise.
For instance, there is no rule that says I can't add four cards to your hand whenever I feel like it. (feel free to add your own ridiculous rule here)
Should this be allowed because the rules don't specifically prohibit it? No! Of course not! The rules can't possibly list everything that's not allowed.
It's an important part of Uno that you can easily tell how many cards your opponents have so that they can be penalised for not calling "Uno" on their last card. The only way they can get out of this penalty is if the other players don't say anything about this before they can play their last card.
So, no, while it isn't specifically prohibited, it's not legal to hide your cards to gain an unfair advantage.
Of course, if you have a house rule that says you can do this (and all the players have agreed before the game began), it is allowed. However, you're not truly playing Uno anymore, just a game that's very similar to Uno.

"It's an important part of Uno that you can easily tell how many cards your opponents have so that they can be penalised for not calling "Uno" on their last card." Technically that only makes it relevant to correctly show whenever there's 1 or 0 cards left. The difference between 3 and 8 cards is quite irrelevant in this context, no?

@Mast How do you know if they have 3 cards or 1 card if they're hiding their hand?

@CJDennis How about hiding part of the hand? It's possible to make 6 cards look like 3.

The question in the title is slightly different from the question in the body.

@Mast It really doesn't matter. My answer has covered my position and is highly upvoted. The basic question is "is dishonesty allowed" to avoid the penalty of having to pick up if you don't say "Uno" on your final card. The rules are clear that this is not allowed. It's only the lack of attention of the other players (or their deliberately turning a blind eye) that allows you to win without saying "Uno". Trying to deliberately deceive them is against the rules.

Absolutely, the question seems to be about "if you don't remember to say UNO, others can't know if you had only one card left.", which is indeed illegal.

To be fair most people don't play uno, just a game similar to it, since Uno has some common house rules people tend to assume are actual rules, much like how monopoly works.

@Andrew The last game of "Monopoly" I played was actually "Jane Wins". "Jane" made up rules to suit her during the game and no-one stopped her!

"... is indeed illegal" It is not illegal. Actually the rules state it clearly:  "If the player is not caught in time [...] no penalty applies to that player". If you want to catch a player, you can count their cards. How I hold my cards is not subject to any rule.

@LukeSkywalker How can you count a player's cards if it's legal for them to hide them or otherwise prevent the number of cards in their hand from being known to the other players?

@CJDennis I don't understand the question. When you play Uno, all the cards the player puts down or takes are visible. It's up to you to count. That's how it works on many types of card games. The way a player holds their game is not relevant.

@LukeSkywalker I see no rule that says all other players must monitor how many cards another player picks up and puts down. It's perfectly legal for a player to only pretend to pick up cards as long as the other players don't catch them.

It's absolutely illegal and specified in the rules.

@LukeSkywalker Where does it say players aren't allowed to trick other players?

While there is no rule stating that you can't hide your number of cards, it is definitely against the spirit of the game to attempt to bypass the rule that requires you to say "Uno".
Personally, if someone did this consistently against me I would stop playing the game with them.

Well I wound't want to play a game with people making rules as they go. The spirit of the game is elusive and subject to interpretation. For example, the rules says that if you do not say "uno" on you last card and you are not caught, you don't get a penalty. This shows that the "spirit" of the game is to be playful with the uno rule. If the rule had said that "you get a penalty if you didn't says uno on you last card" then the spirit would indeed be what you say. In any case it's all subject to interpretation and thus should be treated with leniency.

This is not banned by the rules - and does not remove information from the game
From the official rules: https://service.mattel.com/instruction_sheets/42001pr.pdf
There is no rule stating how a player must hold their hand. The only relevant section, is that you must declare UNO when you are down to 1 card, and that if you are caught - you must draw 4 cards.
As such, it is "legal" to hide the cards.

That said, most people play UNO with friends for fun. In such a setting, you would absolutely be breaking social norms - and I would be surprised if many people want to continue playing with you, as such behaviour would be considered against the spirit of the game by many.

However, the reason it does not matter from a game perspective - is hiding your cards does not change the game mechanics at all.
In UNO, players have enough knowledge at all times, to calculate the number of cards any other player is holding. There are no hidden cards, or cards that are not played to the center of the table, and likewise, all players start with 7 cards - as such, by following the cards that have been played, it is always possible to track the (number of) cards somebody must be holding.

As such, the game does not change at all by hiding your hand on a fundamental level - but as with any attempt to rules-lawyer in a game designed to be casual fun; you will very quickly gain ill-sentiment and people will simply stop playing with you.

Actually hiding cards may change the game mechanics. After all, I play my game by stinging the person with the lowest cards regardless of whether or not they've called Uno. So hiding your cards may actually make you more of a target if players suspect you have less than you are holding. E.G you have six cards remaining but your hand covers three. I now suspect you have three cards and I'll most likely attempt to stop you from "winning".

@GhastlyCode Purely mechanically, you do not lose any information about how many cards a player has by not seeing them visibly; you would still be able to make the same decisions whether you visibly see the cards or have just memorized the number of cards being held (e.g. a blind player can play equally effectively as another, while only being informed of which cards are being played to the table).

You can but it is, at best, pointless.  People are just going to end up calling Uno on you all the time, only for you to show that you have more than 1 card left.  There is a chance that people will get complacent if you do this all the time and forget to call Uno on you.  There is a much greater chance that you will annoy people and they won't want to play with you anymore.


text:
Want to find a website listing MTG groups in Japan
I want to find a group to play MTG with in Japan near my area that speaks English rather than Japanese, but I have been unsuccessful in finding a website that lists groups other than those located in a few main areas (Tokyo, Kyoto, etc.).
I would be very grateful if someone could provide me with information of a website or page where I can make contact with local players.
If this is not the correct place for this question, I would appreciate any tips on where the proper place would be.

You can find more useful information in How can I learn about and keep track of major Magic tournaments in my local area? and Getting started (Advanced) with Magic: The Gathering, and where to play.

Just use WOTC Store & Event locator at https://locator.wizards.com/.
With that you can find Events and Stores near you.

Just to elaborate, the Wizards website has its store locator. You can type any city/ town into the finder and it will show you places nearby. Otherwise Google is your friend :)


text:
Does a Joker have the value of the number it represents when played as part of the initial minimum 30 point row?
I played Rummikub yesterday and you know: To start a game, one has to lay down a minimum of 30 Points with new rows created.
However, yesterday, my mom laid out following:
[11] [11] [JO]
In my Computer Rummikub, this isn't allowed, but my mom said we will keep this rule. I said that I will ask on a very good forum, if this is allowed.
So when attaching the Joker to a row, will it get assigned the value of the number it represents? Or will it only stand for this number, as I think, with having a value attribute of zero?

It is clearly stated in the rules (section "The Joker:"):

A joker used in the opening set scores the value of the tiles it represents.

So your mom was right and the Computer uses its own rules.

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


text:
Phase 10 Twist, If I lay down a phase how will I get enough cards to continue?
I was given Phase 10 Twist as a gift.
Most of the rules seem straight forward enough, but when trying to play it I'm confused on one point.
There came a time I laid down a phase and had 5 cards left. When my turn came I drew one card and discarded one as you are supposed to, but I still only had 5 cards.
How am I supposed to get enough cards to complete the next phase if every time I have to draw one card and discard one?
The rules aren't making any sense on that to me.

After you complete a phase you must get rid of all the cards in your hand by hitting on existing Phases and discarding cards you can't play. Once someone who has completed a phase runs out of cards the hand is over and all the cards are dealt out again and players who completed the Phase can move on to the next Phase.

During a round you can only ever work on the Phase that you started the round with. The round ends once someone has gotten rid of all of the cards in their hand by completing their phase and playing their remaining cards, if any, on other completed phases. Once a round is over your pieces will move and you have a new phase to work on for the next round. For example;
All players are working on Phase 1. Player 1 completes the phase but still has cards left. That player cannot attempt to work on Phase 2 until the following round when they are actually on the space for that Phase.


text:
Stacking combat triggers with Raffine, Scheming Seer
I have 3 opponents and attack one of them with Raffine, Scheming Seer and a Grizzly Bears equipped with Blade of Selves.
If I stack the triggered abilities such that Blade of Selves' resolves before Raffine's does, do I have a creature connive for 2 or for 4?
Another way to phrase this question is, is X determined for this kind of triggered ability when the ability is triggered, or when it resolves? If it is determined at the time of triggering, I would have a creature Connive for 2, but if its determined on resolution, I would have a creature Connive for 4 (because I have 3 attacking Grizzly Bears instead of 1).

You can have a creature connive for 4.
Raffine's ability has this text:

Whenever you attack, target attacking creature connives X, where X is the number of attacking creatures

This is handled by rule 107.3c, which says

If a spell or activated ability has an {X}, [-X], or X in its cost and/or its text, and the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that’s the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn’t get to choose the value. Note that the value of X may change while that spell or ability is on the stack.

So, the value of X will update while the ability is on the stack, which means that if you stack it as specified, it will have the value 4 as the ability resolves.

You will connive 3 assuming Raffine doesn't attack (3 Bears) or 4 if they do (3 bears and a Sphinx). Note that Raffine's ability does not require that they are attacking.
Also note, that you can only target Raffine (if they are attacking) or the attacking equipped Grizzly Bear with Raffine's ability as the two Grizzly Bear tokens from Blade of Selves will not exist at the time you need to pick a target for Raffine's triggered ability.
This could matter if your opponent wants to remove the Conniving creature to prevent the +1/+1 counters from discarding a nonland card to Connive.

Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.


text:
Could it be right to "convert" a takeout double with a weaker trump holding when it is made from the "balancing" rather than "direct" seat?
In the usual situation, South opens one spade, West doubles for takeout, and North passes. If East wants to "convert" the double, they need a very strong trump holding, in fact one that is likely stronger than South's since East is sitting in front of the declarer.
But here, with nobody vulnerable at matchpoints, North deals and opens one spade. East passes with the following: ♠ QT987 ♡ 82 ♢ AK5 ♣ K76.
South passes, and West "balances" with a takeout double, showing about 11 high card points and shortness in spades.
Can East now pass for penalties sitting behind North? (I would not do this if West doubled South whom I would be setting in front, of as declarer.) Or could it be that the principle regarding needing a weaker holding in this position is right, but the trump holding is still too weak to "convert"?

At the level of 1S, I would bid 2NT. You do have a nasty surprise to declarer, so if they had competed to 2S I would double.

Just bid 2 No Trump to describe your hand. Taking "views" in the auction is known as Top-Or-Bottom bridge, and it's a losing game.
A reasonable estimate is that you will take 1 less trick playing Spades than No Trump, due to South getting a ruffing trick. Then the scoring works out as:

7/6 tricks: - 50 in 2 NT and - 80 in Spades;
8/7 tricks: +120 in 2 NT and +100 in Spades;
9/8 tricks: +400 in 3 NT and +300 in Spades
or          +150 in 2 NT and +300 in Spades.

Under this assumption, the only time Pass wins is when Partner is unable to raise to (a makeable) game yet you still manage a 2+ trick set; or somehow you're not making a trick better in No Trump than in Spades.
You will be endplayed on this hand, whether as Declarer or Defender, given those minor suit controls. Would you rather be endplayed at Trick 2 after seeing Dummy? Or on Opening Lead without knowing Partner's hand? I know I'd prefer the former.
The time to pass 1 Spade Doubled is not when you have a hand playable in No Trump - it's when you have a hand that wants to play in Spades, even against the marked 5-something hostile split. That means a hole in some other suit where opponents can set a No Trump contract.


text:
Card game possibly called kings
I'm looking for the name or instructions for a card game. This is what I've been told but feels like I'm missing something.
Looking for a card game apparently called "kings".
Everyone is dealt 4 cards each and always only has 4 cards in hand at a time.
Can only look at 2 of your cards at the start of each round.
Take turns either taking a card from the top of the deck or from the discard pile but you need to put down a card from your hand.
Idea is to get the lowest score possible. King is worth 0. Ace is 1. Jack, Queens are 10. Joker is 50 and as soon as it is flipped onto the table the round is over.
First to 100 loses.
Round is ended by either the joker being place on the pile or when someone knocks on the table. Everyone else gets one more go after someone knocks. You knock When you think you’ve got a pretty good low score and want to wrap up the round before others have a chance to swap out some of their cards for a lower score.
I've read the rules for kabo but I don't think it's quite the same.

This is definitely the card game played with a traditional playing card deck that inspired the commercial game Cabo. If you look at the French version of the wikipedia page you'll find more complete rules for the traditional game, and it fits exactly.

See also this related question: Can you identify this memory card game with secret cards?

The description of this sounds like a variation of Golf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_(card_game)
In Golf, each player has a grid of cards that you replace with cards in a middle pile to try to lower the score of your cards. The scores of the cards you mention line up with Wikipedia's description. Golf has additional rules where pairs in a column cancel out and 2's are worth minus two points.
Golf is usually played with six cards in each player's grid, but there is a four-card variant.


text:
Player pays too much for houses in Monopoly?
In a two player game of Monopoly a player pays $100 per house where he should’ve paid $50 per house. 30 minutes later, the player puts houses on the property again.
The other player noticed that the first player has paid too much and says those houses are only $50. The first player then wants a refund for his previous purchase.
Should that player be entitled to a refund?

Not an answer I can back up with rules but...   It's just a game.  a mistake was made,  let them have their money back and move on!    By the rules he probably isn't entitled but do you want gaming to be fun and them want to play games with you again?

Without an official rule to say either way, this cannot be answered except with an opinion on which is better, being harsh or being generous.

@Nij While we won't have an official answer it is still possible to have a generic answer on how to handle mistakes like this in games in general.

This question is not about Monopoly, but about gaming ethics.

If this happens in an official tournament, then a referee will probably not allow a refund.
If this happens in a friendly game, better to be friendly and allow it.  The goal is that everybody will have fun. A win due to someone doing a silly mistake is a silly win.

Isn’t there a limit of how long you can wait to correct the mistake? Such as waiting to correct it until doing so would prevent you from losing?

What rule places that limit? And if it would prevent you losing now, it's almost sure that doing it correctly earlier would have even greater impact to prevent losing as well.

@Nij The rules can't cover every situation and there are good reasons to have a limit in place for how long a mistake can be fixed because it can negatively impact the game if it happens a long time after the mistake.

The rules do place a limit on how long you can recover rent after the fact. But not on correcting other errors. It would have been easy to make this limit more general, but it is not.

@Nij The fact that the rules do limit how long you can correct some mistakes also suggest that there is a general limit on how long you have to correct mistakes in general.

It doesn't suggest that at all: the rule makers chose to put a limit on that specific action and chose to not put a limit on any other. There simply is no limit.

@Nij Although the incentives to delay correct payment to prevent losing may only arise in fairly narrow situations, the impact on the outcome of the game when it does happen would likely be huge.  If Player A is not successfully bankrupted by Player B when they otherwise would have been, and A is later bankrupted by Player C instead, then C gains a massive advantage relative to B.

More broadly, IMO the answer to pretty much every "gaming ethics" question of this nature is to communicate in advance when your casual play group wishes to deviate from a known tournament rule.  If an issue arises mid-game, then use tournament rules and communicate the deviation before the next game, unless everyone agrees otherwise, but "majority rule" deviations should be communicated in advance.

There is just too much variation in each player's mental representation of a game to assume implicit consensus around what "should" happen in a given circumstance.  Policy is, at the least, a Schelling Point around which a temporary consensus can be justified.

Arguing that you can't fix a mistake because it would change the course of the game is a pretty weak point. The mistake itself has already changed the course of the game directly. Bringing up "tournament rules" as if everyone knows they exist, let alone knows and uses them, in a casual environment, is a red herring. You can't deviate from rules that never applied in the first place! Again, as this answer has said, it's purely down to what the group decides, which should be for the most fun.

@Nij A proposed fix changing the course of a game isn't intrinsically problematic, sure, but in this case it leads either to unwieldy tracking obligations or incentive incompatibility in Nash Equilibrium gameplay. That is, you're forced to decide either that players are allowed to intentionally overpay as a strategy (which requires maintaining consensus on the entire history of the game's financial transactions to function), or that they are not (which opens the door to a player drastically altering the course of a game by lying about their intentions).  Both seem worth avoiding, if feasible.

The idea behind respecting a tournament rule (assuming the players do indeed know the rule) even though it does not apply in casual settings, is that it may be the most reasonable Schelling Point available.  Players overestimate the extent to which their mental representations of a game naturally overlap, and thus tend to believe everyone shares their intuitions on how nuances should be resolved.  There's nothing wrong with deciding to use some alternative non-tournament rule, but IMO this should always be communicated in advance, not after a player has already pursued a strategy in question.

The entire point of this problem is that no rules have been agreed, beyond those on the paper with the game itself. Tournament rules are very much not part of the package, so to speak of agreeing on an alternative is misleading; the tournament rules themselves are an alternative to the true default resolution which is "no rule exists"!

@Nij Right, that's exactly what a Schelling Point achieves.  It establishes a default for consensus when no rule exists and players can't communicate.  In this case, it's not that the players literally can't communicate, but that they can't communicate behind a veil of ignorance regarding the game state, as they could have before the game began.

No, because the mistake was made too long ago to be retconned. While the rules don't say anything about overpaying for a house they also don't say anything about getting money back when overpaying the bank. In cases like this it is generally a good idea to limit how far back a mistake can be undone which is generally a turn or two later. In this case the mistake was noted 30 minutes later which means a lot of game play has happened and the time for fixing the mistake is over.
If the mistake had been noted more promptly such as in the next turn or two a refund should be given as long as it will not negatively impact the game based on what has happened since the mistake.
As a note this is a general rule to making mistakes in games and how they should be fixed and doesn't just apply to this situation.

No. He is not entitled to a refund, as he made the mistake and already paid the money, thus altering the dynamic of the game. (Even if it hurt him more than you.)
Disclaimer: Despite this, there is nowhere in the official rules where it states a passage about refunds, it is generally assumed that when a player makes a mistake (and it hurts his position) and the game proceeds, the mistake is accepted and not reversed as it would affect the latter positions of players in the game.
However, if y'all are playing with house rules, it is plausible to allow him to get a refund if you both agree. This would be a mutual decision however, and not in accordance with the rules of the game.

Do the rules say that you can overpay for houses? If they don't, then you've entered an illegal game state.  Does monopoly have rules for resolving an illegal game state?

Mistakes in games should be fixed when possible though in this case as it was noticed 30 minutes later I think it is no longer possible to fix.


text:
Resolution of abilities triggered by combat damage
I'm attacking with 20 creatures. My opponent blocks one with a creature with lifelink triggering an ability that says whenever they gain life their opponent loses that much life.
The damage I'm dealing is enough to kill my opponent even after they gain life from lifelink, does the ability proc happen before or after the rest of my creatures hit?

Opponent dies, you survive.
Combat damage resolves all at once (other than first strike or double strike), so any abilities that player owns will leave the game with them. The game goes in this order:

Declare attackers step: you declare attackers; 20 creatures.
Declare blockers step: they declare that their one creature with lifelink will block and will choose the attacking creature it will block.
Move to the combat damage step.
All first strike damage, and the first part of double strike damage, is dealt.
All remaining combat damage is dealt. This is where their creature with lifelink will both deal damage to your creature and gain them life. The lifegain ability is triggered, but does not yet go on the stack.
We check state-based actions. Creatures die from combat, and the opponent loses the game for having 0 or less life and leaves the game. (If you're the only player left, you immediately win the game and the game ends.)
We check for abilities to put on the stack. The opponent has already left the game, so their triggered ability will never go on the stack.
Players receive priority and play continues.

Slight correction, the triggered ability is never put on the stack. Triggered abilities are put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority after they triggered, state based actions would be checked after combat damage before that happens, causing the opponent to lose the game before that happens.

I've revised this answer for the actual procedure, which includes observing that triggers go on the stack only after all state-based actions are checked.


text:
With the new rulings is It That Betrays able to take an enemy's Commander?
I've been looking it up and back in 2016 it said that you can't because when it goes to the graveyard the player can change it to go to the command zone, and because they change where it goes it can't be taken from It That Betrays.
But I've looked it up the new rules, and it says that commanders now go to the graveyards and then if they're found in the graveyard they can be put back into the command zone, because they changed it so that commanders can now be used as death triggers.

It That Betrays cannot steal an enemy commander.
The short version is that the commanders don't move to the command zone using a normal triggered effect, they instead use a state-based action.  State based actions are fast - the commander has already left the graveyard by the time any regular triggered actions like the one It That Betrays has resolve.

I did hear that it can happen as long as there's an enchantment like Wheel of Sun and Moon on it saying when sacrificed it goes through the commander zone. Is that true?

Comments are not for asking additional questions.

Technically, It The Betrays can steal an enemy commander, if its owner doesn't exercise their option to move it to the command zone. If you Mindslave an opponent, then you have them "choose" to waive the option.

It The Betrays will also steal a commander that would not have ended up in the graveyard or exile, like Progenitus

Under the current rule 903.9 It That Betrays can't steal a commander that has returned to the command zone via the graveyard or exile.
The updated rules mean that commanders will enter the graveyard or exile first, and then move to the command zone via a state-based action.
This movement creates a new game object, causing It That Betrays to lose track of the card.
If however a replacement effect would mean that the commander would be placed into its owner’s hand or library instead (e.g. Wheel of Sun and Moon, or Progenitus), and the owner chooses to use 903.9b to put the commander in the command zone instead, then It That Betrays will track the card to its ultimate destination and steal it.
This is enabled by 400.7e which allows It That Betrays to find the new object if the target zone is public.
With the original destination on the left and location while It That Betrays' ability resolves across the top, this table should clarify things:

Command Zone
Graveyard/Exile/Library/Hand

Graveyard/Exile
Remains in Command Zone
Returned to Battlefield

Library/Hand
Returned to Battlefield
Remains in Library/Hand

Rules

903.9. A commander may return to the command zone during a Commander game.
903.9a If a commander is in a graveyard or in exile and that object was put into that zone since the last time state-based actions were checked, its owner may put it into the command zone. This is a state-based action. See rule 704.
903.9b If a commander would be put into its owner’s hand or library from anywhere, its owner may put it into the command zone instead. This replacement effect may apply more than once to the same event. This is an exception to rule 614.5.
400.7e Abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, "When Rancor is put into a graveyard from the battlefield") can find the new object that it became in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered, if that zone is a public zone.

It can, but...
Only if the owner of the commander choses to not move it back to the command zone.  As other people have pointed out:

903.9a If a commander is in a graveyard or in exile and that object was put into that zone since the last time state-based actions were checked, its owner may put it into the command zone. This is a state-based action.

Most of the time, the owner will chose to put it back into the command zone.  If they do, you would not be able to pick it up with It That Betrays, even if you flash it in.  However, there are cases where it is advantageous to leave your commander in the graveyard (you have a resurrect ability, you're playing Haakon, etc).  If the commander is left in the graveyard, then you can pick it up with ITB.

It That Betrays will also steal commanders with replacement effects that direct them to a hand or library.


text:
How does the interaction between Jon Irenicus, Shattered One and Fettergeist work?
If I would give the Fettergeist to someone with the effect of Jon Irenicus, Shattered One and they can't pay the price would they sacrifice it or would they just have to tap out?

Fettergeist's ability provides a choice for the player - they either pay a generic mana for each other creature, or will have to sacrifice Fettergeist.  They are never required to pay any mana, and therefore do not have to tap out if they can't pay the cost, or even if they could pay the cost - they may simply opt to sacrifice Fettergeist.

118.12a Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, "[Do something] unless [a player does something else]." This means the same thing as "[A player may do something else]. If [that player doesn’t], [do something]."

In this specific case, Jon Irenicus, Shattered One's ability will prevent the creature from being sacrificed - however this does in no way force the player to choose the "non-sacrifice" option. Instead, all it does is prevent the creature from actually being sacrificed if some effect said that it would be sacrificed.
In other words: Your opponent can choose to not pay the cost, and doesn't have to sacrifice Fettergeist in either case.

I think it's worth mentioning that even if the player chooses not to pay the cost, they don't actually sacrifice Fettergeist because of the "This creature can't be sacrificed." ability granted by Jon Irenicus's effect.

I guess that might even be an operative part of the question: OP might consider that they can't sacrifice it so they must pay the cost.


text:
Is Myrkul’s effect a replacement effect?
I was wondering if this was a replacement effect? For instance if I play Solemn Simulacrum [fetch my land] sacrifice it while Myrkul, Lord of Bones is on the field. It goes to graveyard. Myrkul’s effect triggers to exile it.
Do I still get to draw my card from the death trigger of Solemn since it still died? Normally a replacement effect says “instead of” which is why I’m unsure.

No, Myrkul, Lord of Bones's second ability is a triggered ability, not a replacement ability. When Solemn Simulacrum dies, it triggers both its own ability and Myrkul's ability at the same time. You get to choose the order that they go on the stack, but it doesn’t matter in this case, you will both draw a card and exile Simulacrum.
Note that the ability starts with “when”. All abilities that start with “when” are triggered abilities.

603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]”


text:
MTG Corrupted Roots and Contaminated Ground
I have in my hands the cards Contaminated Ground and Corrupted Roots. Let's suppose that I target a Forest for my Corrupted Roots. Now, if I cast Contaminated Ground on that same Forest I have a doubt about which way they will work.
1.- Two both Auras will remain attached to the Forest (now turned into a Swamp) because Corrupted Roots entered first just like auras don't fall off of permanents when they gains veil or hexproof and both effects of losing life will trigger when the land is tapped.
2.- Contaminated Ground will transform the Forest into a Swamp. The land will become illegal for Corrupted Roots and it will fall off of the new Swamp and only Contaminated Ground will remain.
3.- Other I have not considered.
I think the correct is number two, because it is the same thing when a white aura is enchanting a permanent and it gains protection from that color (even if it is until end of turn). In this cases the auras will fall.

Option 2. Corrupted Roots will be unable to enchant the land, so it will fall off and go to the graveyard.
From the comprehensive rules (emphasis mine):

303.4c If an Aura is enchanting an illegal object or player as defined by its enchant ability and other applicable effects, the object it was attached to no longer exists, or the player it was attached to has left the game, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

The interaction with Dryad of the Ilysean Grove would not generally work like that. Once you introduce that, you have multiple type-changing effects, so they apply in timestamp order, and since Contaminated Ground enters later, its effect takes precedence and the land will still be just a Swamp. That would only change if the order completely changes, and Contaminated Roots enters first, followed by the Dryad, and finally Corrupted Roots.

Dryad's ability is phrased "Lands you control are every basic land type in addition to their other types." so wouldn't it be a Basic swamp that then got the other 4 land types?

Actually, scratch that, I think I figured out why this doesn't fall under the "dependency" rule for applying the layers (as described in 613.8). So yeah, looks like the default timestamp system would apply.


text:
Flames Of War tank movement
I'm new to this game and gaming in general. I have general questions about tank movement.
At the end of a tank's turn is it allowed to turn and face any direction it wants (to keep front armor toward enemy)? If not, how do you complete your movement before next player's turn?


text:
Underrealm Lich vs. Dredge
No doubt, Underrealm Lich is cool. Still I am wondering, how it interacts with dredge, such as on Life from the Loam.
As both are replacement effects, I should be able to choose which happens, shouldn't I?
Asking for a friend.

I'm curious what interaction between dredge and Underrealm Lich you see that involves putting something "on top" of anything else. The existing answer seems to be correct, but if you can elaborate on your intention then a more detailed answer could be possible.

"On top" seems to imply you think the stack is used, but that's not the case. You apply one of your choice. (Then if still applicable, you apply the other.)

"On top" as in colloquial speech for "apply first".

Both dredge and Underrealm Lich's ability are replacement effects. As such, you can choose which one you want to apply when you would draw a card.

616.1. If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object’s controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply [...]


text:
Dominion - Kings Court on Tragic Hero
What happens when you play a kings court on a tragic hero?
Does it go like this:
Lets say your hand is 3 coppers, a kings court and a tragic hero.

Play the kings court
Select the tragic hero
(Play tragic hero first time) Pick up 3 cards (now have 6 cards in hand)
(Play tragic hero second time) Pick up 3 cards (now have 9 cards in hand)
Tragic hero gets trashed for say a gold
(Play tragic hero third time) The effect fizzles as the tragic hero has been trashed.

Is the above correct?

The classic version of this is Throne Room and Feast, which was addressed in the original FAQ: If you use Throne Room on Feast, you will gain two cards, even though you can only trash Feast once. https://dominioncg.fandom.com/wiki/Feast

Not quite. Effects only fail if their conditions can't be met - for example, if Tragic Hero had said "Trash this to gain a Treasure"[1], then that wouldn't activate. However, instead, it goes like this:
Play a King's Court from your hand
- Select Tragic Hero to play 3 times
- Play Tragic Hero 1st time
  - Draw 3 cards
  - Get +1 Buy
- Play Tragic Hero 2nd time
  - Draw 3 cards
  - Get +1 Buy
  - You have more than 8 cards in hand
    - Trash Tragic Hero
    - Gain a Treasure
- Play Tragic Hero 3rd time
  - Draw 3 cards
  - Get +1 Buy
  - You have more than 8 cards in hand
    - Try to trash Tragic Hero, but you can't (it's no longer in play)[2]
    - Gain a Treasure

[1] "Do X to do Y." in Dominion is equivalent to "Do X. If you did, do Y." so you must do X if possible, but you only do Y if you successfully did X. "You may do X to do Y." is the same except that you choose whether to do X, then you do Y if you did X successfully.
[2] This is the Stop-Moving rule. Tragic Hero's effect comes from being played, so it expects to find itself in play. It isn't in play, so it can't trash itself.

Note that the rules are being updated slightly to say that you can’t play a card that wouldn’t be able to be put into play; but it doesn’t affect Throne Room or King’s Court because the new rule says that a card can play a card multiple times if the first play succeeds. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19893.msg871558#msg871558


text:
Looking for name of very old board-type game
I do not remember if it is competitive, cooperative or solo game.

It is played with small cubes having a different marking on each side representing directions such as straight, turn, an X, diagonal, and two other symbols I don't recall.
The board has numerous square notches in it for the cubes to fit in. The notches are aligned in columns/rows similar to a chess board with connecting lines.
I do not know what the goal of the game is.
I know that the cubes can only be moved in the direction of the marking on the current face of it.
It's possible the game may even be ancient in origin.

I found the game in a book of games that no longer exist. There were diagrams of the game along with detailed playing instructions. I made a physical copy of the game about 20 years ago, but accidentally threw it out last year.
The book I found it in was one of those history-of-board-games books, but I do not remember the title and I've not found the game in other books of those type.

Can you make a guess on the title of the book you had it from?

Why did you tag this quoridor?  Quoridor is a specific game which, as far as I can tell, this question is unrelated to.

@Gary N. it looks like you may have split into two accounts by accident, you may want to contact a Mod to have them merge back your accounts.

I've removed the Quoridor tag.

Was the book "The Way to Play" ? https://www.amazon.com/Play-Illustrated-Encyclopedia-Games-World/dp/0846700603

Its form is that of "Tigers and Goats" or "Tiger Move" (Bagha Chal), and its cell number indicates that it is a puzzle rather than a game, or  variant.

Welcome to the site! Your answer would be greatly improved if you could provide a bit more information and a source to support it.

The cube appears to be nothing to do with Bagh-Chal, as far as I can determine from this wikipedia article.


text:
How do character upgrades interact with Dispatcher's special ability?
(This should be spoiler free, all of this info is available at the start of the season.)
In our game we upgraded the dispatcher with the Pilot upgrade to Direct Flight without discarding the card. Pilot seems especially powerful since the dispatcher can then move anyone to himself and then trade them that cities card.
Last night the question arose about could he Direct Flight another player's pawn without discarding the city card and without moving himself to that city, for example, moving the medic to a city with a cured disease to instantly treat it?
My instinct says that this is a legal use, as the Dispatcher ability says "Move another player's pawn as if it is your own" and his pawn has the ability to Direct Flight without discarding.

Possible duplicate of What are legal ways to use the Dispatcher's special ability in Pandemic?

@JoeW This is not a duplicate as that question is about pandemic and not Pandemic legacy. This is specifically about the mechanics introduced in legacy

The rules apply the same way to both game so the answer is the same to both.

@JoeW The pilot upgrade literally does not exist in Pandemic so it is impossible for the answer to be the same.

@JoeW Not a dupe, as character upgrades are not a part of vanilla Pandemic. The essence of this question is about the upgrade that the Dispatcher has, and whether it can be used in conjunction with the regular Dispatcher ability

I don't see this as an issue of the upgrades existing or not but how it interacts with the rules, In this case it just modifies the rules to prevent discarding the card in question.

Yes, this is a legal move, and it is clarified in the rules (page 5) (emphasis mine):

When the Dispatcher moves a player’s pawn as if it were his own:
• use the Dispatcher’s scars and upgrades, not those belonging to the
  character he is moving,
• cards that need to be played or discarded (for Direct and Charter Flights
  or to enter a collapsing or fallen city) come from the Dispatcher’s hand.
  A card discarded for a Charter Flight must match the city the pawn is
  moving from.

The Pilot upgrade allows your character to take a Direct Flight without discarding the card. I don't see an upgrade that allows you to take a Charter Flight without discarding, however, so be sure you're using the correct action. Looking around on google, a Pilot Dispatcher is a very common combination, as it is very efficient to move players around that way.

I was confusing Charter Flight and Direct Flight, you are correct I was referring to the pilot upgrade. I will edit to fix that.
I didn't want to google too heavily for fear of spoilers, so thank you for doing that.


text:
Can I Shatter a Lotus Petal, using mana from the Lotus Petal to pay for Shatter?
I was just thinking about the differences between how Magic is played and how the rules describe its play. In particular, I see most people cast a spell this way:

Tap mana,
Put spell on stack, declare targets.

But the rules describe it happening in a specific order,

Put spell on stack, declare targets,
Pay for costs.

Which is backwards from the way I see most people play it (even though both are legal).
So, can I do the following?

Propose Shatter, putting it on the stack.
Declare its target as my Lotus Petal.
Sacrifice the Lotus Petal and tap a Mountain to pay for the Shatter.
The Shatter does not resolve because all of its targets are not legal, and it is put in the graveyard.

File this under “shenanigans that have no real point”, but I’m curious if this bizarre sequence is legal according to the rules.
I’m also curious if there is any reason why you might want to pay for a spell after declaring its targets, other than contrived scenarios (e.g. opponent has a Black Vise, and the Lotus Petal is the only artifact in play).

Did you mean a card other than Black Vise? I'm not seeing how that relates here.

I'm guessing the Black Vise thing is about getting a card out of your hand to be damaged less or not at all. But it is undercut somewhat by the fact that if an opponent has Black Vise, Shatter can just target the Vise itself.

@murgatroid99 But it wasn't given as a reason you might want to cast a pointless spell; it was given as a reason to pay for the spell after declaring targets. Unless it really meant the same thing, since you have to activate Lotus Petal after declaring targets if you want to cast the pointless spell in this case.

If Lotus Petal is the only valid target, then performing the operations in this order is necessary to get the card out of the hand.

As an interesting side note: the recent Modern combo deck KCI actually depended on this kind of interaction to execute its combo, using the mana ability on the card Krark Clan Ironworks. Krark Clan Ironworks was banned in Modern as a result of that deck.

Yes, you can do this.
When casting a spell, declaring targets happens before paying costs:

Casting Spells

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect.[...]

601.2c The player announces their choice of an appropriate object or player for each target the spell requires.[...]
[...]
601.2g If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid.
601.2h The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid.

And as you suggest, doing so will result in Shatter fizzling; going to the graveyard without resolving when it attempts to resolve. You might want to do this for a reason such as increasing your Storm count, or because you have other things that combine with having Shatter in your graveyard.
You also could choose to sacrifice Lotus Petal first, for example if you wanted to cast Argivian Find, targeting the Lotus Petal in your graveyard (again just to either increase Storm count, or because you need Lotus Petal in your hand for something, etc).
You seem to be mixing up "tapping lands" with "paying costs". These are 2 separate things. Tapping lands (or Lotus Petal, etc) adds mana to your mana pool. This can either be done any time you could activate any other ability, or it can be done during 601.2g while casting a spell.
However, paying the cost itself can only ever happen during 601.2h. You can't pay the cost for a spell before you begin the process of casting that spell.
In terms of the difference between tapping lands before you begin to cast the spell or during the casting of the spell, there is generally no difference. The rules allow for either, and I think as casually played, I've seen players do either. The difference is whether your opponent sees the card you are casting as they see you tapping your lands or not.
There are some cases where you need mana that isn't produced by a mana ability. For example, if you are casting Dark Ritual to cast a spell that costs 3 mana even though you only have 1 Swamp in play. In this case, you wouldn't be able to wait until you start casting the spell you want to cast, because you aren't allowed to cast Dark Ritual as part of that process.

Good answer, although I thought it was pretty clear that I’m not confused about the difference between paying costs and tapping lands.

@Dietrich Epp I think that the impression of confusion comes from where you said that tapping lands before casting the spell is "backwards" when it is a perfectly valid sequence of events. There's an implication (which you presumably did not intend) that you saw this sequence as less correct than tapping afterwards.

Actually it was the reference to "why you might want to pay for a spell after declaring its targets", when really the question actually being asked seems to be asking about why you might want to activate mana abilities after declaring targets, rather than why you might want to pay for a spell after declaring its targets.

@ArcanistLupus: I was precise about whether I said "tap lands" or "pay costs", since they are different things. I guess readers did not pick up on that.


text:
Opened Legendary Dragon Decks; wrong card order?
Hi guys I’ve bought the Legendary Dragon Decks pack from Amazon.
My problem is the order that the cards were in when I opened the pack was not the right order. For each deck the first few cards were in the right order. However after that the spells & traps came up before monsters. Most the monsters were at the end of each deck.
I have picture showing on the left the fake card and right the real one. As you can see the left on is lightly coloured.
Are these cards fake?

Isn't the one on the left the one you pulled from your Legendary Dragon Decks pack? The other one (YS16-EN040 seems to be from another set... mind clarifying (both seem original)

The one on the left appears the same on the yu gi oh wiki. http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Pendulum_Reborn

Sorry the other way around, the left one is fake and the right is real.

@MicolasKage updated my answer. I still think they are original.

What about the colour difference between them? I read that if Yugioh card is too bright, it’s fake. The left one is brighter.

@MicolasKage addressed that in my answer... it is of my experience that sometimes new print versions of cards tend to have slightly different colors, and this should be normal (Konami surely used new tints, newer paper, perhaps even changed the color code slightly). Just having a "too bright" card doesn't make it fake. Perhaps it's your card on the right (which was printed on 2016) the one that is a bit wore and more faded color

On wiki it said that, logically why would the cards be in different order. I’ve seen over 10 unboxing videos and all had the same order of the cards. Main monster followed by few extra deck monsters, then regular monsters and finally spells/traps and few other extra deck cards at the end. You should check it out.

@DarkCygnus and Micolas, one is American print and one is EU print

Are these cards fake?

tl;dr: No, they seem original. Cards may have slightly different details (like coloring) between different printings. Also, cards appear ordered by card number and not by card type.

I doubt it. Besides, I also doubt that Amazon would sell fake products advertised as legit.
You mention that the order were some monsters first, then spell/traps, and then other monsters. However, cards appear ordered based on their card number, not by card type.
The Legendary Dragon Decks cards have a specific card number, for example Dark Magician, the Dragon Knight is number "LEDD-ENA00". This card, as it is number 00, should come first in the order. Then number "LEDD-ENA01" comes, etc...
If we check the first link I included we can see that this is true. Some monsters come first, then a bunch of spell/traps, and finally other monsters, all based on the card number and ordered in ascending manner.

Edit given card images:
Judging by the images you included, I'd say that those cards seem to be legit. Be careful, as they are from two different sets, so the newest version (the one on the left, from the LEDD collection) may have slightly different coloring (as it's newer), but that doesn't make either fake:

We can see that the card number corresponds to the official one: LEDD-ENC23. The one on the right also displays it's corresponding number from the Yuya Starter Deck: YS16-EN040
We can see the dimensions fit, and all parts of a YGO card are there (type, the frames, copyrights, etc.).
The First Edition golden Millenium Eye sticker on the corner seems like the original ones (holographic). Do check both of them more closely but from here it seems ok).
The card code matches for both of them: 77826734

I know what you’re saying about numbers, but the magician girl that comes after is completely different number like 31 or something. So that’s not issue, I also compared pendulm reborn with my own pendulm reborn. The one from pack was brighter than my one.

@MicolasKage was the box sealed? Did it was a verified Amazon seller? I feel that those aspects are not so on topic here (they should be taken to Amazon instead). If you got more details on the pack you opened would help: did the cards match the card number order (perhaps now you can't tell after sorting them), any details on the cards that make you suspect it's fake, perhaps a pic on one of the cards to give it a look?... otherwise I think this is hardly a fake product (will keep posted in case you reply, and keep searching other sources)

Yes and I don’t know if he was verified, he was 3rd party seller, however the box says made in Belgium. Dude this set comes in one order, and many youtubers have opened it in same order of cards. I’m returning it

@MicolasKage yeah, I suggest you contact them to find out about this, and so you get the product you ordered. If you need further help with regard to the YuGiOh game itself feel free to write a new question or update this one (if related)

Already have, and ordered another set, well that’s over $60 down the drain.

@MicolasKage sorry to hear that, although I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss this as fake products... take a good look on them, see if they match the official card numbers, artwork etc (we could help you discern that if you posted an example image of the possibly fake cards)

@MicolasKage I suggest you edit your Question to include such example. When editing the post you can include pictures (be sure to include good pics, ideally both sides). Or consider asking a different question if you want a post more specific on the fake/legit of your cards

"Besides, I also doubt that Amazon would sell fake products advertised as legit." Funny because Amazon has recently caught a lot of flak for shipping counterfit boardgames.

@Veskah well I was not aware of that news :) still, regardless of the source of that fact, we have to be careful not to generalize as these sorts of companies put great effort into maintaining a good image. Also, OP indicated it was a 3dr party seller, which isn't as "guaranteed" as Amazon's own.


text:
Can I use a Planeswalker's ability when I took over its control this turn?

My opponent controls a Planeswalker and uses its ability. End of turn.
I play In Bolas's Clutches and target that Planeswalker. It comes under my control (right?).
Can I now use this Planeswalker's ability or do I have to wait another "round" because its ability was already used this  "round" by my opponent? (by "round" I mean two turns)

In Bolas's Clutches
Types: Legendary Enchantment — Aura Card
Text: Enchant permanent / You control enchanted permanent. / Enchanted permanent is legendary.

There's no such thing as a round in MTG

There are no rounds in the sense of "turns", though there are rounds in the CompRules: "draft rounds" (905.1a+b) and "mulligan rounds"(103.4b)

You may use one of the planeswalker's abilities during your turn.
In Bolas's Clutches does indeed allow you to control planeswalkers, and each player's turn counts separately. If your opponent ended their turn, your turn is separate from that, those two turns do not count as the same turn.

606.3. A player may activate a loyalty ability of a permanent they control any time they have priority and the stack is empty during a main phase of their turn, but only if no player has previously activated a loyalty ability of that permanent that turn.

Please note that the game structure doesn't have a concept of "rounds". In order of decreasing scope, the structure of MtG is as follows:

Tournament (a series of matches)
Match (series of games)
Game (series of turns)
Turn (series of phases)
Phase (series of steps)
Step (some phases don't have steps)

@corsiKa There is, in fact, at least one way to do so: Teferi, Temporal Archmage's -10 ability is 'You get an emblem with "You may activate loyalty abilities of planeswalkers you control on any player's turn any time you could cast an instant."'


text:
Does "Ingenious Jury-Rig" block cards from returning to their owners pile
When Ingenious Jury-Rig is revealed from the Dilemma Stack and placed into my core, does it then stop the effect of returning dilemmas (example Authenticate Artifacts )?
Or does it only prevent actions like The Manheim Effect?

Non-Persistent dilemmas may not be returned to your dilemma pile from
  beneath your opponent's incomplete missions.

Dilemmas that return themselves never go "beneath your opponent's incomplete missions", so they are unaffected.


text:
Can the "Gatling" be countered by "Missed!"?
The following rules are taken from English manual of Italian version of Bang! The Bullet!.
Regarding the card Missed! the interesting part is:

If you are hit by a BANG! you may immediately play a Missed! - even tough it is not your turn! - to cancel the shot. [...]

Regarding the card Gatling! the interesting part is the note:

The symbols show "a BANG!" to "all the other players". Note: even though the Gatling shoots a BANG! to all the other players, it is not considered a BANG! card.

This note makes me wondering if the Gatling can be countered by a Missed! or not. Reading the rules I think that the Gatling cannot be countered but in this case the card is too overpowered.
Note that also other characters and cards are influenced by how we interpret the Gatling card.
e.g. These characters of the base game are influenced:

Calamity Janet: she could use BANG! as missed
Jourdonnais: he can draw! when he is target of a BANG!
Slab the Killer: players trying to cancel his BANG! cards need to play 2 Missed!

Using the FAQ here the following question and answer says,

Q19. How many Missed! cards are required to cancel a Gatling played by Slab the Killer?
A. Only one. The special ability of Slab the Killer applies to BANG! cards only.

For reference Slab's ability is "Players trying to cancel his BANG! cards need to play 2 Missed!"
This would infer to me that a Missed card can be used against a gattling as the question says that one card is needed to stop it.
There is also This thread on BGG which goes into detail saying a Miss can be played.  It makes the distinction between a bang card and a bang action so whilst you can only play one Bang card you can play multiple cards with bang actions and any bang action can be missed.

Thanks, the difference between BANG! actions and BANG! cards clean all doubts even for further cards.


text:
What happens when two cards both modify what I'm allowed to do?
Suppose my opponent has Teferi, Time Raveler in play, and I have a Leyline of Anticipation. The former says I can only cast spells any time I could cast a sorcery, and the latter says I can cast spells any time I could cast an instant.
In this case, looking it up on Oracle gave me a direct answer in the past rulings: Teferi's ability overrides the Leyline's.
But is this just an arbitrary decision? When cases like this come up, how can I decide which effect wins out without searching for specific rulings on each combination? As a general rule, when something like this happens in play, how should I figure out the result?

related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/47604/interaction-between-leyline-of-anticipation-and-teferi-time-raveler

I think it could use some editing to make the distinction clearer; but I don't think it's a duplicate, because this is asking about a general scenario using a specific example (and it so happens that the specific example doesn't have the same answer as the general scenario)... the other question is asking about that one specific scenario, and is answered by just addressing that one rule.

I really don't see the difference. We always answer specific questions with general rules references and how they apply to the given example. To me, it's the same question with the same example, only worded a little more generally, and with the same answer.

I'm fine with reopening though, let the community decide.

Many thanks! @GendoIkari Indeed, I'm not curious about the specific case of Teferi-vs-Leyline (which Oracle answered for me), but about the general case, which seems to come down to CR 101.2 (as given in J. Sallé's answer).

But is this just an arbitrary decision?

No, it's not.
That specific interaction is governed by one of Magic's "Golden Rules", specifically CR 101.2, which states:

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
  Example: If one effect reads “You may play an additional land this turn” and another reads “You can’t play lands this turn,” the effect that precludes you from playing lands wins.

This is valid for any interaction of this kind. Therefore, the answer to your question is that the effect preventing you from taking an action has precedence over the effect allowing you to take that action.

As per the answer in the linked question, I don't think 101.2 comes into play here. The reason for the ruling is 307.5.

@Gendolkari you're correct. I didn't notice Teferi doesn't actually have the word "can't" in its text.

However your answer is still overall good because the question is asking about more than just that interaction.

Many thanks! This indeed covers the general case I was curious about.

Re "I didn't notice Teferi doesn't actually have the word "can't" in its text", That's is not required by 101.2. 101.2 gives restrictions power over permissions, and Teferi's static ability is a restriction.

Neither of the cards have can't clauses?

There are really 2 separate things at play in your question.
In regards to the specific interaction between  Teferi, Time Raveler and Leyline of Anticipation; you can read about it in the linked question, but to summarize, having flash simply doesn't do anything useful when Teferi is around, because Teferi's "any time you can cast a sorcery" is defined as "when the stack is empty and it is your main phase." Having flash means you could cast things when you could cast an instant, but thanks to Teferi, your opponent's turn is not a time that you could cast an instant anymore.
In regards to the general question, Rule 101.2 as quoted in J. Sallé's answer covers any situation where one effect says you can do something but another effect says that you can't.

I think this is the real answer to this specific case. As 307.5 says, "any time you can cast a sorcery" isn't really linked to the card type sorcery at all (or any effects in play that might affect them), but rather shorthand for "at any time where one would conventionally be able to play a sorcery", or more explicitly "at any time where you have priority during one of your main phases and the stack is empty"