text:
Confusion in Line and the Master Spy
The question
In Guillotine, the Confusion in Line -action card says:

Choose a player. Randomly rearrange the line just before that player
  collects his or her next noble

The Master Spy card says:

After each action card is played, move this card to the end of the
  line.

If the Master Spy is in the line, will he go to the end of the line after the card is placed on the table, or after the line is shuffled? i.e. Is it possible to collect the Master Spy with the Confusion in Line (and luck), when there are multiple cards in the line?

Additional info
As Zags noted, user Robrob in BGG has asked a question from the makers of this game (WoTC)

The Master Spy card goes to the back of the line each time an Action
  Card is played. There are two possibilities: a) an Action Card is
  played - the Master Spy is moved to the back of the line - the Action
  Card is carried out or b) an Action Card is played - the Action Card
  is carried out - the Master Spy is moved to the back of the line

and got a reply

The answer is B, there is no way to play a card to get the master spy
  to the front of the line without him just going back after the cards
  effects.

But this does not answer the questions, which will arise from the usage of Confusion in line -action card:
c) No action cards are placed on the table - Effect of an action card (Confusion in line) is triggered - Does the Master Spy move? - Noble is beheaded.
or
d) Action card is placed on the table - No effects of an action card is resolved (played Confusion in Line, +2 points at the end of the game, or similar) - Does the Master Spy move? - Noble is beheaded.

The big issue here is that WoTC haven't used the term "resolved" in any way when writing the rules. Does Master Spy move after the card if played or after the card is resolved? Normally we play that the Master Spy moves after the action on the action card had been fulfilled.

@MichaelFrank Exactly. And then there are those action cards, which will be resolved only at the end of the game (+2 points, -2 points, +1 for every green card, ...). Because the Master Spy is moved also when these cards are played (placed on the table), I would suppose that the Master Spy is moved after placing a card on the table. So I suppose that if the card will be resolved on that turn, Master Spy will wait until the card has been resolved before moving.  If that card is not to be resolved on that turn, Master Spy will move after the card has been placed.

My conclusion is that Confusion in Line can move the Master Spy to a different position in line without him moving back.  This conclusion is based on the principal that consistency of rules trumps authorial intent.  The explanation follows.

As noted in this question, there is an official answer from Wizards of the Coast here:

An Action Card is played - the Action Card is carried out - the Master
Spy is moved to the back of the line
There is no way to play a card to get the master spy to the front of the line without him just going back
after the cards effects.

The Master Spy has the ability:

After each action card is played, move this card to the end of the line.

What these together seem to imply is that the resolution of an action card is included in the playing it, and the Master Spy moves only after the card has finished it's resolution and has been placed face up in the play area or in the discard.  Then, the Master Spy will move regardless of whether or not the card had an effect (so playing Fountain of Blood which is just worth two points but doesn't do anything will still cause the Master Spy to move).
Now we are left with two options in the case of Confusion in Line:
Option 1: Take the WotC's answer to the letter.
This means that we pay particular attention to their point that there is no way whatsoever possible in the who wide game to manipulate the line such that the Master Spy does not end up at the end.  And there is your answer.  You play Confusion in Line, and then the Master Spy ends up at the end.
This is an unsatisfactory answer because it isn't well reasoned.  It's saying the Master Spy's ability trumps Confusion in Line's ability because... it just does.  Author's intent is irrelevant without an official FAQ or card specific ruling.  This is not how I play Guillotine.  For that, move on to option 2.
Option 2: Use what we know about other WotC products (namely Magic the Gathering) to create a consistent rules framework for Guillotine.
There are three phases to a turn in Guillotine:

Play an action card (optional)

Collect the first noble in line

Draw an action card

Confusion in Line creates a delayed triggered ability that takes affect in phase 2 of the turn of the player of your choice.  It must be in phase two, because if it were during phase 1, a player could avoid the trigger by not playing an action card on their turn (in which case Confusion in Line would read "Randomly rearrange the line after that player plays an action card").
With this framework, we can also determine that the Master Spy moves to the end of the line at the end of phase 1.  Thus, phase 1 (if the player chooses to have it) has the following steps:

Play action card

Resolve effects

Put action card on table or in discard as appropriate

Move Master Spy (if relevant)

Repeat these steps if you are allowed to play another action card

Let's say you chose yourself with Confusion in Line.  The resolution of effects for Confusion in Line is merely the creation of the delayed trigger.  It is then discarded.  The Master Spy so cleverly moves to the end.  Then we move on to phase 2.  The line gets shuffled.  The Master Spy is at the front!  You scoop him up and get a delicious four points.
Then, on the next player's turn, they play an action card and the Master Spy leaves your score area to go back to the end of the line :P (just kidding; although this might not be a joke since apparently "Clerical Error... end[s] the day and discard[s] all nobles in line if used to get Robespierre from someone else's score pile."; noble abilities working from score areas is a whole other rats nest that we will deal with elsewhere).
Anyways, I also like this option flavor-wise as well because it means even the Master Spy is thrown off by mass confusion (there is no good information for him to act off of).

Thank you for your answer. However, I did not still see how this answers to this question. The original question in the forums was I wrote WotC and asked: "The Master Spy card goes to the back of the line each time an Action Card is played. There are two possibilities: a) an Action Card is played - the Master Spy is moved to the back of the line - the Action Card is carried out or b) an Action Card is played - the Action Card is carried out - the Master Spy is moved to the back of the line"

and the original answer was "The answer is B, there is no way to play a card to get the master spy to the front of the line without him just going back after the cards effects." The question did not include the situation I wrote as a comment to ikegami below my question.

@np8 the response from wizards indicates that the master spy moves after the action on a card is performed, even if this takes place at a later time (like on their turn)

What about when playing a +2 points at the end of the game -card (or similar)? Also, the question to the wizards did not include the case c) No action cards are played - Effect of an action card is triggered - Does the Master Spy move?

I edited the question

@np8 Edited answer for completeness


text:
Couple questions about rerolls
So the Cook has the ability called Scrounger that in the rules states:

Scrounger: Discard 2 Determination tokens to reroll any gray Action
  die. Note! You cannot use the Determination tokens gained from an
  unsuccessful die roll to reroll that die which gave you those
  Determination tokens.

So this brings two questions to mind for me:
1) Can the cook use his ability to reroll a gray die that was rolled by another player or can that only be on his rolls?
2) Since it says "Note! You cannot use the determination tokens gained from an unsuccessful die roll to reroll that die which gave you those determination tokens", does that mean if you already have 2 tokens you can gain the two from the unsuccessful roll and the 2 you already had to then reroll the die? Which would leave you at 2 tokens and the rerolling the die. This seems to me to be not the case but had a friend saying the logic was there. However it seems to me there is not a downside to rolling unsuccessful the first time provided you have 2 tokens.

1) As stated by the rules, the "re-roll" ability may be only applied to the player using it. http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1043001/players-reroll-abilities
2) When you re-roll the dice you completely ignore any previous beneficial results from the re-rolled die. But you may use these 2 tokens received from the "success" die to re-roll the "wound" or "card" die. http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1098036/do-you-get-keep-determination-tokens-if-you-reroll

Thank for the links I forgot to go check out boardgamegeek lots of good info there

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Triggered abilities: Whenever a creature deals damage
I have among others the following two permanents in play under my command:
Derevi, Emyrical Tactician, which has "Whenever Derevi, Empyrical Tactician enters the battlefield or a creature you control deals combat damage to a player, you may tap or untap target permanent."
And a creature enchanted with Presence of Gond, which reads "Enchant creature. Enchanted creature has "{T}: Put a 1/1 green Elf Warrior token onto the battlefield."
Now I am not certain if the following reasoning is correct:
If I attack with four creatures and all deal damage to my opponent, then Derevi's ability is triggered four times, and four instances of "You may tap or untap target permanent" go onto the stack.
The comprehensive rules state for the combat damage step:

510.3. Third, any abilities that triggered on damage being assigned or dealt go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")

510.4. Fourth, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

I.e. I get priority while those four Tap-Untap-abilities are still on the stack. I activate the Make-Token-ability of the creature enchanted with Presence of Gond and it goes on top of the stack. When all pass priority, this one resolve and a token enters the battlefield, when all pass priority again (assuming nothing triggered when the token entered the battlefield), the first of the Tap-Untap resolve and I can untap the enchanted creature. While I have priority I tap it again for another token. Rinse and repeat.
Does this work? Can I make this way five tokens (with the enchanted creature ending up tapped)?

Yes, you can do that. Each creature you control that deals damage to a player triggers the ability and puts another copy on the stack. Then after each triggered ability resolves, each player gets priority, so you can again tap your enchanted creature to put another token into play.
Note that you must choose the targets for each instance of the triggered ability when they are put on the stack. Importantly, this means that if the enchanted creature is destroyed in the middle of this process, then the rest of the untap abilities still on the stack fail to resolve, and you can't use them to tap or untap anything else.

"Note that you must choose the targets for each instance of the triggered ability when they are put on the stack." which means you might want to note that if you choose the enchanted PoG creature, someone can Destroy that creature with an instant before the 4x triggers resolve.

Thanks. I meant to say that but I lost track of it.

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


text:
If you block an attack, can the blocker be killed with an instant before you can sacrifice it?
Let's say I control a Brindle Boar. If I block an attacking Nessian Courser with it and then activate the ability of Brindle Boar, can my opponent interrupt it with say, a Shock to kill it before I can sacrifice it? And in this case, would the full damage go through to me?

You almost answered the question when you asked it: "If I sacrifice it, can my opponent respond before I sacrifice it?"

Yes, Rusher, but imagine if someone said "If I enchant it, can my opponent respond before I enchant it?" and the answer would be yes they can. It's poorly worded (what OP actually means is "kill it before it is sacrificed") granted, but it's a completely legit question.

@corsiKa I wasn't questioning the legitimacy of the question. I was challenging the wording. Rather than letting the OP explain his lapse in logic, I went ahead and fixed it myself.

TL;DR
No, your opponent does not have an opportunity to react to you paying the cost to activate the boar's ability, and the creature you blocked remains blocked.
It does not quite work the way you think. To use the Boar's ability you had to pay its cost. Its cost was to sacrifice it. So the boar is gone before any other spell put on the stack would resolve.
The creature the boar blocked remains blocked, and no damage would go to you. Also your opponent would not be able to target the boar because it would not exist at that time.

The relevant rules here start with 509.1h:

509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature;...A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.

Looking at the rules for casting a spell, you will see in 601.2g that all costs must be paid before the spell is 'cast'. In the case of the boar's ability:

Sacrifice Brindle Boar: You gain 4 life

which follows the universal {cost}:{effect} template of MTG; sacrificing the boar is the cost. Before the ability can go on the stack and priority can pass so your opponent could cast a bolt, the boar must be sacrificed.

Note that combat damage would go through if the Nessian Courser had trample.


text:
Does immediately ending the turn cause mana burn?
When cards such as Time Stop or Sundial of the Infinite that immediately end the turn are cast, are players subject to mana burn for excess mana in their mana pools?

You might want to take a look at the Comprehensive Rules. A lot has changed since fourth edition, including the stack and how damage works.

The basic rulebook does at least generally cover how combat damage works (and is a lot faster to read than the comp rules). There's also this article covering the main changes (which happened in Magic 2010) or this one with a bit more detail.

Mana burn does not exist as a rule in MTG anymore. It was removed from the rules when they released the 2010 core set.
You can read the introduction of the Magic 2010 rules changes here.
Back when the mana burn rule did exist, Time Stop still would cause a player to lose life due to mana burn. This is because mana burn happened automatically whenever a phase ended, and time stop caused the current phase to end. Mana burn did not use the stack, and was simply an automatic game action that occurred.

This makes me sad.

But Braid of Fire is so good now!

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


text:
What happens to a creature enchanted with totem armor if both are destroyed at the same time?
If a player controls a Boon Satyr enchanted with Hyena Umbra providing totem armor, and an opponent plays Fracturing Gust to destroy all artifacts and more importantly enchantments. What happens?
An aura with Totem armor replaces destruction of the enchanted creature with destruction of the aura itself. Boon satyr is an enchantment creature.
This question may become more important due to the printing of End Hostilities.

On the rulings for hyena umbra:

If a spell or ability (such as Planar Cleansing) would destroy both an Aura with totem armor and the permanent it's enchanting at the same time, totem armor's effect will save the enchanted permanent from being destroyed. Instead, the spell or ability will destroy the Aura in two different ways at the same time, but the result is the same as destroying it once.

The 'basically what happens' revision is completely incorrect.  The 'effect' of destroying permanents (i.e., the effect of the resolution of the spell) never goes on the stack, and totem armor isn't a triggered ability; it's a replacement ability.  (You can tell it's not a triggered ability because it doesn't follow the templating for triggered ability, and you can tell it's a replacement ability because it follows that templating: 'if... instead...')

By effect I meant the spell, sorry. And yes good point, I didn't realise that.

For both Fracturing Gust and End Hostilities, only Hyena Umbra will get destroyed.

Both

Destroy all Enchantments.

and

Destroy all creatures and all permanents attached to creatures.

are effectively

Destroy Boon Satyr and Hyena Umbra.

There's only one instruction to destroy, so everything is destroyed simultaneously.
The Umbra's ability modifies that instruction

Remove all damage from Boon Satyr and destroy Hyena Umbra and Hyena Umbra.

It's impossible for the effect to destroy Hyena Umbra twice, so it only does it once[CR 400.6][1].

Remove all damage from Boon Satyr and destroy Hyena Umbra.

So, you remove all damage from Boon Satyr and destroy Hyena Umbra[2].
This is supported by a ruling on the Umbras

If a spell or ability (such as Planar Cleansing) would destroy both an Aura with totem armor and the permanent it's enchanting at the same time, totem armor's effect will save the enchanted permanent from being destroyed. Instead, the spell or ability will destroy the Aura in two different ways at the same time, but the result is the same as destroying it once.

This means that only a single regeneration shield is needed to save Hyena Umbra.
Only one Enchantment was destroyed, so you gain two life from the remainder of Fracturing Gust's ability.

I wouldn't have thought you'd need two regeneration shields to save it. Because while there two destroy effects on it, they both happen at the same time and not one then the other. So wouldn't you need one?

@Cameron, Like you said, there are two destroy effects. They both happen even though they happen at the same time.

@Cameron I thought this short discussion was interesting enough to warrant its own question, here.

@Rainbolt, Oh the irony. I made the comment based on my incorrect memory of this thread, the very thread you posted to prove me wrong. In case you didn't notice, I'm the one who found and posted the relevant rule at the bottom of the thread. Fixed.


text:
Can characters join units?
In Warhammer Fantasy characters could join units to move and fight alongside them. In Age of Sigmar characters have different Warscrolls and there don't appear to be any obvious rules to allow them to do so. Is it possible?
The reason I ask is largely to do with battleshock, obviously if a character is part of a unit suffering battleshock then they have a higher bravery value.
So, in Age of Sigmar can characters join units?

I appreciate a sigmar tag would be better here but I can't create new tags on the mobile site. If someone can retag please feel free!

First page under Warscrolls & Units heading.
"A unit can have one or more models, but cannot include models that use different warscrolls."
No.  No warscroll may ever join another war scroll.  Characters are always alone and may never join units.  The only exceptions would be if a specific character has an ability on their warscroll that allows them to join another warscroll.  Goblin fanatics (not a character) are the only example I can think of offhand, but they are actually hidden within a unit.

Also worth mentioning is war machines and crew... They are generally two warscrolls that mention each other and work together.


text:
What do the iPad "End of Times" books contain?
Many of the End of Times hardback books have sold out very quickly (I believe the latest one was out of stock within seven minutes!) however there are iPad versions available.
Do the iPad versions contain just the story or do they contain the rules and scenarios as well?

Games Workshop have replied to my email:

Thanks for the email.
I can confirm for you that the iBook contains everything that the
  physical copy contains except the paper!
I hope that this helps, but if you need anything further, please let
  me know.
Kind regards
Lydia

It looks like iBook has a complete ruleset too.


text:
Black creatures that cause loss of life when they enter the battlefield?
I'm looking for creatures that cause loss of life when they enter the battlefield, can you recommend any?
So far I've found Gray Merchant of Asphodel and would love to find more like it.
Thanks!

Technically, Gray Merchant doesn't do any damage; it just causes loss of life.  This matters for things like Curiosity; does it matter to you?

sorry, loss of life is more what i'm looking for

Blood Artist sounds like a good card in a deck with this theme.
You might also want to check out Blood Clock and Umbilicus

@AndSoYouCode Nice suggestions. Blood Clock would be great. (this will be a modern deck)

Technically, there appear to be only three black creatures that deal damage when they enter the battlefield, and for color pie reasons they're all black/red: Anathemancer, Hellhole Rats, and Murderous Redcap.  However, if, as your example indicates, you're also after creatures that cause loss of life (which doesn't count as damage; this matters for things like Curiosity), you also have available:

"When ~ enters the battlefield, target player/opponent loses X life."

Geralf's Messenger

Inquisitor Exarch

Laquatus's Champion

Maga, Traitor to Mortals

Singe-Mind Ogre

Soul Scourge

"When ~ enters the battlefield, target opponent loses X life and you gain X life."

Bleak Coven Vampires

Bloodhunter Bat

Dakmor Ghoul

Ghost Council of Orzhova

Highway Robber

Obzedat, Ghost Council

"When ~ enters the battlefield, each player/opponent loses X life."

Blood-Toll Harpy

Howling Banshee

Maggot Carrier

Rathi Fiend

Netherborn Phalanx

"When ~ enters the battlefield, each opponent loses X life.  You gain life equal to the life lost this way."

Gray Merchant of Asphodel

Malakir Bloodwitch

You can used the Gatherer's Advanced search to find cards. Gatherer-Black, EtB+Lose+Life will find you all Black cards that aren't any other color, that contain the words "enters the battlefield", "lose", and "life" in the rules text. The URL contains variables after the '?', and are separated from each other by the '&'.

action=advanced :  Use the advanced search instead of the basic search.
color=+@(+[B]) : The cards color is black and no other.
text=+[%22enters%20the%20battlefield%22]+[lose]+[life] : The cards rules text includes EtB, lose, and life. Certain characters are encoded so they can appear in the URL, like  and .

Do you really construct these as URLs instead of just using the advanced search form?

@Neřekli, no. I was just explaining what the parameters that I passed, and therefore the search URL that returns. In general, I use the search form, unless I want to do something strange and the form is making it difficult (I.e. wanting cards with rules text that is ((destroy && creature) ¦¦ (exile && permanent)) is difficult to do from the form.)

Who's Neřekli? Anyway, I see - just surprised to see an explanation of the URL instead of how to do it with the form.

Possibly worth noting for advanced users: Gatherer supports regular expression searches. (Although it doesn't seem to support character classes, unfortunately; this is likely due to the URL encoding more than anything else.)


text:
When can power be converted?
When another player builds next to you, you can choose to taken power (and lose the #power-1 points). But when the number of power you can take is greater than the number of tokens you can move to your third power bowl, can you immediately convert power into something else?  Or do you lose the rest?

You lose the rest. Conversions are performed only on your turn. According to the rulebook (p. 13):

Anytime during your turn, on top of your Action, you may do any number of Conversions.

and from p. 9:

Once all Power tokens are in Bowl III, you cannot gain further Power.

Therefore, if you are close to the limit of your Power, and expect to gain more before your next turn, you may want to consider Converting some of it to a useful resource.

You indeed lose the rest. But keep in mind that you only have to pay VPs according to the power you actually get, so in contrast to what @sitnaltax suggested I'd rather advice that you do not covert power into money or workers in order to be able to gain more, unless you are in desperate need of that resource.
1 free power is a no-brainer
2 power for 1 VP is usually a good choice until round 4 or 5
3 power for 2 VPs is usually ok during the first 2 or 3 rounds. In the second half of the game it is rarely taken - only if it makes the difference between being able or not to take a particular power action in the very next move.
4 power for 3 VPs is something that is hardly ever taken (less than once per game)
I have rather seen players deliberately not spending power in order to only have the capacity to gain 1 or 2 when their buildings next to the presumed building site of an opposing player would have entitled them to gain 5.

You said "you only have to pay VPs according to the power you actually get" but the example in the rules says "The Mermaid player (blue) needs to inform the Nomad player (yellow) that he may gain exactly 3 Power due to the newly built blue Dwelling..." Which seems to indicate that it is all or nothing in both power and cost.

@EricAnderson: Yes and no - if you have enough power tokens in bowl 1 and/or 2  it is indeed all or nothing, you can not voluntarily take less power; that is what the cited rule says. But if you have almost all tokens in bowl 3 and can gain only an amount of power less than what you would be entitled to through the level of your buildings, then the "all" equals that maximum of what you can gain, and the VPs you have to pay are calculated according to that. It is still an "all or nothing" decision with that new, lower "all".

I see the exception now: "If you have not enough Power tokens in Bowls I and II, gain as many Power as needed to move all of them to Bowl III and lose Victory points accordingly." Also that you can gain less power to prevent a negative score, although I've never seen that come up.

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


text:
How can we determine the winner in Love Letter if the last two players tie and have the same value of cards discarded?
At the end of the game, both remaining players have a Baron.
The sum of all cards discarded by both players is equal.
Who wins?

I did not find the rules stated below from the English rulebook (Alderac). Maybe they did not have this situation during the early test games. The Finnish/Swedish/Danish/Norwegian rulebook (Nordic version, Lautapelit.fi), has been published a bit later, and there is a solution for this problem.

Tie-breaker for the winner of a round
The round ends if one player cannot draw a card at his turn. Then you compare the cards in your hands. If you both have the same card you will have to calculate the sum of the cards you have discarded. The rules say:

whoever has the highest sum will win the round.

This implies that if you both have the same card in your hands and the same sum, you will both win the round (i.e., that round has multiple winners). This rule (that there might be multiple winners) is confirmed in the section concerning the beginning of a new round. It says:

The player who won the last round will start the next round. If the
  round had multiple winners, the youngest one will start.

But what if this happens and the game ends?
This might also lead into a (very rare) situation, when the entire game ends and two players have to equal amount of points. The rulebook of the Nordic version states:

When a player collects the required number of points/hearts, he wins
  the game and conquers the heart of the Princess. In the case of
  draw, the youngest player wins.

So, quite thematically, the Princess prefers to fall in love with the younger guy ;) (In a real life situation, it might happen that the fate favours the one who has more digits in his bank account. But the Princess does not lack in riches so...)

Ugh, what a terrible official ruling! I'd much rather just call it a joint victory than have someone win arbitrarily.

@Samthere Have you tried being younger when this situation comes up? It might help.

@Samthere the problem with a joint victory is that thematically, the winner gets to marry the princess, and apparently this kingdom does not practice poligamy.

I just want to add that in online implementation on BoardGameArena.com this situation results in a draw and no one gets a point.

@Veskah If a group/family wants to let someone win because they're younger, that's fine. I think it's a terrible rule to include in the rulebook.

Younger in age, or "youngest hand" (i.e., the person who received cards last as they were dealt)?

I would interpret it to mean the youngest person in age.


text:
How to stimulate more creative storytelling?
According to the blurb on the box,

Rory's Story Cubes® is a pocket-sized visual story generator that sparks the imagination of all ages.

You throw 9 dice and then create a story that connects the images shown on the dice.
However, when I play with my kids, the game often devolves into "connect the dots as fast as possible", for example:

There once was a (first cube), who met a (next cube), and then he saw a (next cube), then he went to the (next cube), and so on.

What can I do to help us get away from this type of storytelling and become more creative with our stories? Are there any house rules I can add to discourage or prevent the "and then, and then, and then" storytelling?

I'm not sure this is the best place to get an answer to this question. Your question is related to a dice game, but the core problem you are facing is about writing/telling a good story from a prompt. I would suggest checking Writers.StackExchange, but if you do you should check their rules to see if this would be on topic.

Well yes, the whole point of the game is telling a story. And creativity can be an important part of a game (for instance the more RPG-like games).

You want help with storytelling. The storytelling is happening in the context of a board game, but that does not mean that you are going to get a better answer on a site about board games than on a site about storytelling.

Well, not exactly. In looking for mechanisms that will enable our stimulate more creative storytelling. Perhaps additional (house) rules, like "you need to use at least 4 lines per die".

I found a number of "ways to play" on the Story Cubes website. Some just involve getting more or other dice and are little more then showcases or advertisements for different sets, but others are actually house rules, or alternate rules. I will be trying those out.
#4 Superheroes
Each person roles 3 cubes and uses these to create a superhero (superpowers and a name). Then all 9 cubes are rolled by each to create a back story for their superhero. Finally, all 9 cubes are rolled again to create an arch-nemesis, as a group.
Now we're set to play. Cubes are rolled as usual to create exciting adventures pitting the heroes against their enemy.
#1 Roll & Play
Also, while roll & play is the standard way of playing, it showed the icons on the dice do not need to be interpreted as literally as we were doing. No additional rules, but another way of using the existing rules.

I initially thought they were all just advertisements for different sets of cubes, but some of them offer the kind of additions to the rules I was looking for.

Of course, other ideas are still welcome.


text:
Can I Nope a Defuse?
If Alice draws an Exploding Kitten which she tries to Defuse, can Bob Nope that, making the kitten explode and eliminate Alice?

At the time of asking, I had only played it once, an hour before. As it wasn't my own game, I had no access to the rule book leaflet.

Not sure why this is +6.  It is pretty much the epitome of "This question doesn't show any research effort?"

@Kevin Well it's +6 for 1,962 views. I'm thinking that "exploding kittens" and "can I nope a defuse?" are attracting amused viewers from the hot questions list.

@Dronz maybe I'll post "How many dice do you roll in Monopoly?" and see how many views and upvotes I get.  As a test, or course. Not in any way to reap cheap reputation points

@Kevin Try that one and the same question about Cat-opoly and of Monopoly: Cat Lovers' Edition, and see how they each do.

@Kevin I saw a question about keeping your hand secret and now I feel a bit less bad about this question.

Nope.
From the rules

Nope
Stop any action except for an Exploding Kitten  or a Defuse Card.
Imagine that any card (or  Pair  or  Special Combo ) beneath a Nope
Card no longer exists

You can not nope a defuse card.

Huh. Must have missed that. Didn't feel right, though, so we didn't allow it.

You can always blame the kitten.

We house-ruled this in for fun. Definitely consider who you're playing with if you choose to do so.

So can you Nope your own draw?

@Acccumulation, the second part states "any card" so it does not counter a draw.


text:
How do I make Home Builders more fun?
Home Builders is a cooperative game, published by Family Pastimes and Zonnespel/Sunny Games.
My youngest son likes it, mainly because of the theme. My eldest thinks it's boring, and I have to agree with him.
Its rules are pretty simple.
First off, while it's a cooperative game, there's actually very little cooperation needed or even possible. Most of it is pure luck.
But the main objection I have is that at a certain point, which can be quite early in the game, depending on what you draw, you already know if you're going to win or lose, even though you still have to finish the game.
Ideally, I'd like to delay the moment when you know you've won, or you've lost.
There are four disasters, two repair options and two disaster prevention options. If you have at least as much prevention cards left as there are disasters left, you know you're going to win. If there are more parts of buildings destroyed than there are repair cards left, you know you can't win anymore. As I said, this can occur early in the game, depending on the luck of the draw.
How can we change this?

Sounds like you've figured out what's wrong: cooperation isn't needed/possible, winning based on luck, outcome known long before the endgame.  Fixing all those would require changing most of the game.


text:
How exactly is Tally Ho! imbalanced?
In Tally Ho! one player plays the humans (hunters, lumberjacks) while the other plays the animals (foxes, bears). The Dutch rulebook states that since the game is imbalanced, a game is comprised of two hunts, with the players switching sides.
I have played it several times now, but while it's clear that the game is asymmetrical, it isn't clear to me which way the imbalance lies.
Can anyone enlighten me?

Since it's asymmetrical, it's very hard to prove that it's balanced. Perhaps they were too lazy to prove it?

The game tends to be much easier for the Hunter player. They have 8 pieces that can kill animals, while the animals only have the 2 bears. Yes, hunters can only attack in a certain direction, but they can move as far as they want, while Bears have to creep up on the hunters.


text:
What's the (Dutch) name of this "push your luck" dice game?
My wife and her family introduced a game to me that they know (in Dutch) as "knobbelen". It seems similar to the game of 5000s(in Dutch).
In this game, each player throws three dice (d6) repeatedly, either until the current throw doesn't score or the player has their cumulative throws scored.
The dice score as follows:

3 equal dice scores 1000
1, 2, 3 scores 500
if not one of the above, every 5 is worth 50 and every 1 is worth 100

A running total is kept during each player's turn. Once that has reached 300, the player can choose to end their turn, scoring that total. But they are encouraged to keep on throwing, pushing their luck. If a throw doesn't score, the running total is lost and their turn ends.
Is this game known under another name than "knobbelen"? Especially since knobbelen is more commonly the Dutch name for the game of Spoof.

This sounds like one of the many variants of Farkle. (Not posting as an answer because I know nothing about Dutch versions/names.)

@BenjaminCosman it sure looks like it, thanks. Seems like the game of 5000s I mentioned is a farkle variant as well.

If I look for the game on boardgamegeek it gives me the following game: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11456/zilch


text:
Is No Thanks! playable with just two players?
No Thanks! is advertised as a game for 3–7 players. I've never played it, but going by the explanations I've seen on YouTube (such as Tom Scott playing it with some friends), there seems to be nothing in the rules that necessitates at least three players.
Am I overlooking something?
Is it because you will know the number of chips the other player has? Does it work but is it just not as enjoyable, or is it broken for just two players?

I've looked at the 2 player variants over on the BGG forum and the only thing I could find is that the knowledge of the number of chips is a problem, but is that really so? Also, by paying attention, the number of chips for each player can be kept track of in a 3 or 4 player game, as demonstrated by Matt Parker in the video I've linked to.

This is possibly opinion based but I'll try and explain why it wouldn't work with 2.
Looking at the rules here

When you don’t have any counters left, you must take the card.

In a two player game you would have perfect information about how many chips another player has.   Yes a player could mentally track all this information in a multiplayer game but it would be considerably more difficult.
Its also worth noting the rules on suggest you keep chips hidden

HINT: It’s a good idea to keep your counters hidden. Most people hold
them in their closed fists, but anywhere you hide them will work.

If you play on Boardgamearena its an option to have chips hidden or not.
So why does it matter? You say you've never played it so I draw you attention to this scoring rule.

If you take cards with consecutive numbers, only the lowest number in
the series will count against you.

So lets say Player A has already taken 29 and 31 and the 30 card has come to them.  Someone new to the game tends to just take it.  More often than not a player will try to send it round to get extra chips. If you know that no player has no chips left you know this won't work and have to take the card no or rush not getting it.
If the game was two player and Player A was presented with 30 and didn't take it player B would just take it with no decision as they are giving Player A -60 point whilst they just have -30. Now imagine that situation multiplayer. Would you really take 30 to stop player A making a run of consecutive cards?  Taking the -30 hit to hurt player A and probably giving victory to another player?  This whole dynamic of game would be missing in a 2 player game.


text:
Do you move a surveyor when they are already on the westmost tile?
In Carcassonne: New World, you need to move the eastmost surveyor one tile to the west every time a feature is completed and scored. However, it is quite possible to finish a feature while both surveyors already are on the westmost tile(s). How to proceed?
I see several possible options:

Move a surveyor one step to the west, to where the next column is going to be.
Do not move a surveyor.
Draw an extra tile, place that to the west of the westmost tile and place the surveyor on it.

This situation is not found in the rules, at least not in my version (in Dutch, where the game is called Carcassonne: Mayflower).
The FAQ at BoardGameGeek says that option 2 is the correct one. It does seem the most likely, but is there an official source for that?

While searching a bit more, I came across the rules of the American version. They state quite clearly that surveyors don't move if they can't.


text:
Where can I find a list of cooperative "beat the game" games?
I know of Pandemic and I remember having played a game about mountain climbing where the goal was to as a team climb the mountain and get back down safely but there must be more of these games where one play as a team rather than against each other. Where can I find a good list of such games?

"Flash Point: Fire Rescue" & "Zombicide" are two good ones

What cooperative board games are there that I could safely play with my wife?

By the way, I think this question is really just an instance of, "Where can I find a list of games that meet specific criteria?"

@AndrewVandever I totally agree. However without a link to what you mean with that comment I have a hard time understanding what you mean... Is it missing some tag for that or what point are you trying to make?

So for example you could check here: http://boardgamegeek.com/tag/cooperative. @sitnaltax's answer is really good. My point is that 95% of it is also applicable to the questions, "Where can I find a list of 2-player games?", "...worker placement games?", "...deck building games?", "...Lovecraft-themed games?", etcetera. So this is a very specific question with an answer that is very general. I would also say that the identify-this-game tag seems to generally consist of questions for which the answer is very specific (http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/identify-this-game).

BoardGameGeek's advanced search can be used to find a large list of co-op games. You can then sort or filter this list in several helpful ways. This form is a little bit daunting, but powerful. From the "Board Game Mechanic" list, select "Co-operative play". You will probably also want to check the "Filter Expansions" box and, if you are interested in widely available games, a minimum rating and minimum number of user ratings such as 200. (Here is a direct link which will perform that query for you.) You might want to sort the results by Geek Rating, which penalizes games that have fewer ratings, or by Average Rating, which does not.

An excellent answer. I would like to point out, however, that this search does have some false positives, such as Betrayal at House on the Hill -- the game is co-op at the start, but once the Haunt begins, the game is almost guaranteed to become one-vs-many or a free-for-all (depending on the specific Haunt that occurs, which is random with some weighting). I say "almost" guaranteed, because IIRC there are one or two Haunts which maintain the co-op aspect of the game... but Betrayal 2nd edition has 50 different Haunts.

True. It is interesting (and perhaps a testament to the fuzziness of definitions) that Betrayal, Scotland Yard, and Shadows over Camelot have the "Co-operative" mechanism tagged, while Letters from Whitechapel and Battlestar Galactica do not.

Check out http://boardgamegeek.com/ and play with the advanced search feature. You'll find everything you need. It probably will be a better source of knowledge than your local game store, as BGG is not limited to what it has on the shelves and does not try to sell you something.
(btw,  the game you played was most probably K2)
The link to boardgamegeek for coop games.


text:
Never-ending game with two players?
The Shadow Mage is summoned once one player uses his entire hand. However, in the vast majority of two-player games I have played we get so stocked up on weapons, shields, and treasure that we become invincible and never run out of cards.
We usually just summon the Shadow Mage once the deck pile is emptied out to get the game over-with.
Is this game properly balanced for two-players?


text:
How do you play Winter Tales (in a non-gamist manner)?
I recently bought Winter Tales and had my first two games with five friends last night. It was kinda fun, but we really felt like we were missing something or misinterpreting the rules somehow.
The problem was, that we found it exceedingly difficult not to play the game in a gamist manner. Most of us have played pen and paper RPGs and are not averse to storytelling, and we were all well aware that the main focus of Winter Tales is to tell a coherent story. However, the way the game is designed, pitting two factions against each other, obviously means that players will do what they can to ensure their side is victorious.
The main issue in this regard, to us, arose during quest battles. Player 1 would start a quest and the five other players would then try to affect it with story cards. The thing was, story cards all went into one big pile, and everyone could see how many cards each side had gathered. This meant that the last few players could always tell their story and weave in just enough story cards to win the quest.
The rule about the active player being allowed to throw in one (and only one) last story card to wrap up the story likewise seemed useless, since one story card would never be able to impact the results anyway.
Additionally, since a player can pass on activating a character during other players' turns, we always ended up with one ready character and one open quest. This meant that the player with the last ready character could wrap up the game by activating that character, starting the specific quest and ending it immediately, since no one else around the table would have a ready character (or a character in that quest location). This guaranteed an automatic memory favoring whoever ended up with the last ready character.
On a final note, the game is supposed to consist of several chapters; whenever a player activates his last ready character and finished his turn, the chapter ends and a new one begins. We played the game twice, with 3 and 4 memories, and during both games we finished the final memory during the first chapter.
All this leads me to conclude that one of the three following is the case here:
A) Winter Tales wants its players to focus on the story and not actively try to win the game. However, elements such as the opposing factions and the battle/trap mechanics lead me to believe that the game does in fact expect its players to attempt to win.
B) Winter Tales is a poorly designed game. Since the game is still relatively new I guess this could be possible, but the reviews lead me to believe that this can't possible be the case.
C) Our group misinterpreted the rules or otherwise missed something important. This is supported by the, quite honestly, poorly worded/translated rule book, and is what I hope and expect to be the case.
Thus, my questions are these:
is C the case here, and if so, what did we misunderstand?

For the next time we play Winter Tales, we've talked about introducing the following House Rule: during quests, each player puts the story cards he or she wants to use into a pot. While this makes sure that the other players don't play their own story cards based on how many are required to win the quest, it would introduce a bunch of other problems.

I will precede this answer by saying that I have never played the game. I have, however, played both a bunch of board games, as well as various pen and paper role playing games. From that, as well as having read the ratings for this game on BGG (read below), I come to the following assumption:
My guess is that you really are looking at a boardgame at heart, with an arbitrary storytelling overlay.
Looking at the ratings on BoardGameGeek, the game gets very mixed ratings. I'll quote some of them (and as a word of warning, I will be cherry-picking answers here, but not primarily to underline my own guess but to answer the question directly):

(...) the [gameplay] itself is a bit forced and artificial feeling. (...) there simply isn't a game here really; just a cool theme.

(...) it tries to hybridize storytelling with strategy/tactics. And that does not work. The winner is the player who plays the most cards, period. The story behind it does not matter at all as to who wins. Some could say that winning isn't the point, but why bother playing such a thematically charged game about the fierce war between two factions if you're not going to win?

Interesting story telling concept. I am loathe to use the word game here as there really isn't much game here other than a very simple card management game. (...)

I'll say it again because this is important - I've been cherry-picking just the points that support my guess - that Winter Tales is a game that potentially makes two main types of players happy:

players who like the strategic card aspect to the game, and don't mind the storytelling aspect
players who like roleplaying, and don't care about winning it (in essence, your option A)

This makes sense at the end of the day, as if you're in it for the roleplaying and don't need a "Us vs. Them" aspect to the game, you'd probably resort to a roleplaying game. And as far as boardgames go, many have some degree of flavor that invites us keen-at-roleplaying people to engage more in the story than necessary, but most of the time, that's all there is to it - the game will nevertheless be decided by points, win conditions, or whatever other factors that exist in a parallel world to the story the players create at the table.
From the outside looking in, Winter Tales sounds like a beautifully illustrated and themed nourishing ground for stories if you're inclined to engage into it, but what it doesn't appear to be is a game that combines roleplaying and traditional competitive board game mechanics all in one package. I personally wouldn't call it badly designed based on that, but I could perfectly understand if anyone would see it that way because it's not what they expected.
And keep in mind that this is just an educated guess, so I could very well be wrong.

This meant that the last few players could always tell their story and
  weave in just enough story cards to win the quest.
The rule about the active player being allowed to throw in one (and
  only one) last story card to wrap up the story likewise seemed
  useless, since one story card would never be able to impact the
  results anyway.

You seem to contradict yourself here. If one side has used "just enough" story cards to win, then a single final card should be able to tip the balance in favor of the active player's faction.
Of course, then the other faction has to account for this, and use "just enough plus a little more", to the point that the active player's likely plays would be balanced out, on average. Then, assuming everyone plays optimally, the deciding factor is the random selection of cards, and you are back to it being purely a randomly decided storytelling game, as intended.

By "just enough", I mean "just enough for the final card to not make a difference". The problem is still that players play the number of cards, not the story. Making the story redundant seems to me like a major flaw in a storytelling game.

If side A always plays enough cards to certainly win the story, and side B only plays enough to win 51% during the first one or two stories, side B will develop a card advantage and be able to win the game. The strategy you describe is a losing strategy, but I can see how the game would suffer if both teams followed it.


text:
When can an Ætherling use its blinking ability?
If an Ætherling blocks something that could kill it, can it then use its blinking ability before it takes damage? I can't stop it with anything as it blocks and leaves with no damage.

U: Exile Ætherling. Return it to the battlefield under its owner's control at the beginning of the next end step.
  U: Ætherling can't be blocked this turn.
  1: Ætherling gets +1/-1 until end of turn.
  1: Ætherling gets -1/+1 until end of turn.

Trampling creatures can deal damage to the Player/Planeswalker that they are attacking even if blocked by a creature that is later removed from combat (to prevent that creature from dying)

See http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/12280/what-can-i-do-against-aetherling for ways to deal with an aetherling.

As long as it is on the battlefield, Ætherling can use any of his abilities at any time when you have priority, unless another effect prohibits it.

116.1b A player may activate an activated ability any time he or she has priority

I suggest you read the relevant comprehensive rules, here, if you want to fully understand priority, but I'll provide two examples to make it easy.

Your opponent has priority. He casts Doom Blade on your Ætherling.
You get priority. You respond by using Ætherling's first ability.
Your opponent gets priority. He does nothing.
You get priority. You do nothing. Ætherling's ability resolves and he goes into exile.
Your opponent gets priority. He does nothing.
You get priority. You do nothing. Doom Blade goes to resolve and is countered by game rules for not having a legal target.

As you may have noticed, every time both you and your opponent "do nothing", the top of the stack resolves. Let's looks at another example, in which you actually lose your Ætherling.

There is a Pithing Needle in play with Ætherling as the named card.
Your opponent has priority. He casts Doom Blade on your Ætherling.
You get priority. You want to activate Ætherling's first ability, but you can't because of Pithing Needle, so you do nothing.
Your opponent get's priority. He does nothing. Doom Blade resolves, and Ætherling is destroyed.

In order to avoid games that take hours, players generally do not step through these phases. You are allowed to take shortcuts as long as your opponent agrees, but you are never obligated to do so. You may always ask your opponent to step through the official phases, and you should when it matters.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the Ætherling that comes back to the field is not the same Ætherling that went into exile. It may be represented by the same card, but anytime an object changes zones, it becomes a new object. Ætherling will lose all memory of who it was in a previous visit to the battlefield.

Asking your opponent to "step through" is bad advice. Taking unecessary steps is the very definition of taking too long between actions, which could land you a slow play infraction. There is no reason to do this, so it is not reasonable to do this. The proper way is to force the game along (e.g. "Foo resolves", "moving to declare attackers", etc), and the opponents stops you if he wants to do something ("In response to Foo", "In the beginning of combat step").

Yes, the Combat Phase is divided into 5 steps. Ætherling will be assigned as a blocker during the third step, but combat damage will not be assigned until the fourth step. Ætherling's controller can activate its Exile effect to prevent it from taking damage. Ætherling says:

{U}: Exile Ætherling. Return it to the battlefield under its owner's control at the beginning of the next end step.

From the Comprehensive Rules

510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage.

When can an Ætherling use its blinking ability?
It's simple: Any time the controller has priority.

This implies that the card's owner, not its controller, gets to activate the ability. :/

You're right, that was a silly mistake. Edited.


text:
Multiple questions about Betrayal at the House on the Hill
We bought and played our first game of Betrayal at the House on the Hill and we had a great time. Our haunt scenario was with a mummy, I won't spoil more about it.

Whose turn is it when the haunt starts? Is it the turn of the betrayer (who just activated the haunt and who's the betrayer) or is it just normal and is it the player next to him?
In some haunts the betrayer can control multiple characters and/or monsters (like the mummy). Can the betrayer use both his explorer and all of his other minions in the same turn or is it one character per turn?
An explorer had found a clue in the library and took the "knowledge roll" token as proof. But then he got killed. We made a quick house rule where the dying explorer had the chance to yell out the clue to the survivors in the house doing a 3 dice 5+ roll. It wasn't clear if the clue token could be dropped and picked up, or even shared with other explorers. In a real life situation I would definitely share this information.

Your third question is already answered at http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/671/betrayal-at-house-on-the-hill-scenario-50-do-the-clue-tokens-drop-when-a-cha?rq=1

@bwarner I don't believe that that's the same question. The answer given there talks about "item tokens", not "knowledge roll tokens".

Your questions have already been answered, but next time, please limit yourself to one question per question. Also, you can accept the answer if you consider it correct by clicking the checkmark next to it.

People like you make it annoying to post on Overflow.

When the haunt begins, the player to the left of the traitor always takes the first turn. It doesn't matter who had the last turn (the person to reveal the haunt will not always be the traitor). There are a couple scenarios that change this, but they will specify their own rules in the haunt description. Rulebook, page 11:

Haunt Turn Order
  The first turn always starts with the player to the traitor’s
  left and goes clockwise (further away from the traitor).

The monsters get their own "monster turn" after the traitor's turn. So the traitor does not control both himself and the monsters in the same turn, but he does control all the monsters right after he's done with his regular turn. Rulebook, page 11:

After each hero has had a turn, the traitor gets his or hertraitor turn. After the traitor’s turn, any monsters controlled by the traitor get a monster turn. (One player gets two turns: one for the traitor and one for the monsters.

All information always openly shared between the heroes. So it doesn't matter which hero found the clue and has the knowledge roll token; all that matters is the total number of knowledge roll tokens found by all heroes combined. From the FAQ:

If someone in the house makes a knowledge roll to find out a particular piece of information (a mummy's name, a room that needs to be visited, etc.), do all the other explorers know this information automatically?

Yes. Perhaps they all have walkie-talkies.

It is the player after (to the left of) the Betrayer's turn.  When the Haunt starts, every player gets a turn before the Betrayer takes his turn.
It probably depends on the actual Haunt, but typically the Betrayer can activate every character he controls, whether they be his own explorer, an explorer he has taken over, a monster, or a board effect.


text:
Leyline of the Void and exiling stolen permanents
What I love about M:tG is the fact that even after 10+ years of playing you always come up against new situations. This one stumped me earlier tonight though.
I've gone up against Leyline of the Void a few times over the years, but earlier I had mind controlled the Leyline's owners creature, then sacrificed it for an ability, pretty standard fare.
He immediately swiped back the card putting it into his graveyard and stated that I don't actually get any benefit for the sacrifice and definitely don't get to exile his creature from the Leyline's ability?
I said he was wrong based on my understanding of graveyard triggers. I thought that, even though I don't own the permanent, it still triggers graveyard entry, even if it essentially can't exist in my graveyard and goes to the owners. For example sacrificing a token still counts as a creature dying and entering a graveyard, even though they cease to exist after triggering entering the graveyard. So I thought his creature would exile even though he was the owner, I was the controller and anything that goes to my graveyard exiles?
It was late and we agreed that he was right to move game on, but ironically the 2 judges in our group had gone by then and I think he just wanted to keep the card in his graveyard so he could recur it. So was I wrong to challenge him? Just having and playing a card doesn't mean you know how it plays.

Could you be more specific about which "sac benefit" you are referring?

@ikegami I assume he means that he used an ability that said "Sacrifice a creature: " and is talking about whether he gets the "do something."

@Jefromi, It could mean that, but it's hard to believe his opponent said he wouldn't get the benefits of that. I think he means something else. See my answer for a couple of possibilities. (It also covers that one.)

Thanks guys, both answers were well done, I chose answer based on the extra info about multiple outcomes and rules text. The sac ability was just a sac creature : draw card, but his argument was I didn't get card because creature didn't reach my grave sorta thing.

Look at it this way: Either you were able to sacrifice it (and therefore activate the ability), or you weren't and you didn't do anything at all to the creature and it's still on the battlefield.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. I'll admit I was wrong on the exile thing, but he was wrong about me not being able to draw a card...but after a couple hours into a Commander game late into the night/morning, I let it slide- and then knocked him out of the game on my next turn anyway (and it felt good!) which got rid of the Leyline altogether.

yup! just giving you a nice short explanation about why you were right that you can use if the situation ever arises again.

He's right. It goes directly to his graveyard.

Just to be clear, he controls Leyline of the Void, which has the following ability:

If a card would be put into an opponent's graveyard from anywhere, exile it instead.

You control one of his creature, which you somehow sacrifice.

701.14a To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. [...]

108.3. The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in his or her deck. [...]

As part of sacrificing the creature, you place it in his graveyard. The Leyline's replacement effect does not apply since the creature enters his graveyard (being the creature's owner), not the graveyard of one of his opponents.

As for whether you benefit from the sacrifice, the answer isn't clear, since it's not clear what you mean by that.

If sacrifice is part of the cost of activating an ability: The ability resolves as normal, no matter where the creature ends up. As the person who activated the ability, you control it.

If the creature has an ability that triggers on leaving the battlefield, it would trigger with you as the controller of the ability. (LTB abilities look at the state of the game before the event happen.)

If another one of your permanents has an ability that triggers whenever you sacrifice a creature, it triggers no matter where the creature ends up. The sacrifice action still take places even if the effect of sacrifice is modified by a replacement effect.

If another one of your permanents has an ability that triggers whenever a creature enters your graveyard, it will not trigger since the creature moved from the battlefield to his graveyard.

If the creature has an ability that triggers when it enters a graveyard, it will trigger with your opponent as the controller since it went to his graveyard.

Short answer: your friend is right about putting it in his graveyard, but wrong about you getting no benefit from the sac.
Leyline of the Void's text:

If a card would be put into an opponent's graveyard from anywhere, exile it instead.

So if a card tries to go into anyone's graveyard except his, it would be exiled instead. When the creature dies, it attempts to go to its owner's graveyard. It never even tries to go to your graveyard, so he's right that he gets to keep it.
That said, he's wrong about you not getting a benefit from the sac for two reasons:

If you played an ability with "sacrifice a creature" as a cost, it doesn't matter if the creature is prevented from entering a graveyard somehow; you still paid the cost. This also applies to any effect that triggers upon a sacrifice (although cards that specifically care about creatures dying still care if the creature makes it to the gravyeard)
Going to someone else's graveyard from the battlefield still counts as dying.

If you controlled the Leyline instead of him (so that the creature would be exiled), the second reason would not apply, but the first still would.
Tokens work a bit differently. The reason tokens can get death triggers even though they don't stay in a graveyard is because they are removed from the game in an entirely different way. Tokens have the following property:

A token in any zone except the battlefield ceases to exist.

So tokens actually do go to the graveyard, and then vanish next time state-based effects are checked. It's not a replacement effect, so it doesn't keep them from actually dying.
(NOTE: I originally misread it to mean the asker controlled Leyline so my original answer was wrong)


text:
First aid skill
In Castaways, Charles Barnard's or Mary Rose Rhone's first aid skill is so poorly worded that it is incomprehensible. It reads:

You may roll a die before checking for trauma. If you get a 5 or 6, remove one trauma from any player. Then, you may discard 2 story points in order to remove 1 trauma from any player.

It seems it should read like:

During the End of the turn phase, you may roll a die before checking if injuries will become traumas. If you roll 5 or 6, remove 1 trauma from any player. Even if you did not roll 5 or 6, you may discard 2 story points in order to remove 1 trauma from any player. This skill can be used once per End of the turn phase.

So, those characters can remove up to 2 traumas from any player (meaning 2 from a single player or 1 from 2 different players) during the End of the turn phase.
Am I right? What is the correct interpretation for this card?

You are right. I have found the most recent version of the German rulebook. It clarifies this in several places (and shows the translation is inaccurate). The translations provided hereafter are my own work.

Description of Abilities (Page IV)

Erste Hilfe:
  Zu Beginn von Phase D (Ende
  der Runde) kannst du eine Infektion mit
  Glück (würfeln) und/oder durch Erfahrung
  (Abgeben eines BP-Plättchens) heilen.
First Aid:
  At the start of Phase D (end of the round), you can heal a trauma with luck (rolling a die) and/or with experience (discarding story points).

The notable point here is "and/or".
Picture of Character card Charles (Page XI)

Du kannst (würfeln), bevor du nach Infektionen
  schaust. Wenn du 5/6 erhältst, entferne eine
  Infektion von einem beliebigen Spieler. Du darfst
  2 BP ablegen, um eine Infektion von einem Spieler
  zu entfernen.
You may roll a die before checking for traumas. If you get a 5 or 6, remove one trauma from any player. You may discard 2 story points to remove one trauma from any player.

Note how there is no conjunction here. It simply puts each possibility into its own sentence, implying they're not dependant on each other.

For reference, here's my original post which pointed out why the conclusion would have been different if the translation had been accurate.
Let's take this text apart:

You may roll a die before checking for trauma.

Checking for trauma, as you said, can only refer to the check whether injuries will become traumas, which happens during the End of the turn phase. Before performing this check, you may roll a die.

If you get a 5 or 6, remove one trauma from any player.

That's pretty self-explanatory. You choose any player and remove one trauma from that player. Unless you rolled 1-4, in that case you don't.

Then, you may discard 2 story points in order to remove 1 trauma from any player.

I think this is where the confusion really starts. "Then" in this case could either refer to "After rolling and potentially removing 1 trauma" or to "After successfully removing one trauma". It really comes down to interpreting this "Then".
Unfortunately, the official rulebook gives no hint as to how it is to be interpreted except (Page IX)

IN CASE OF DOUBT
  Castaways is a game with many options, and while we try to clarify all of the interactions
  between the cards, sometimes there is some doubt about how they should interact. In
  these cases, we recommend that the players use common sense. If that is not enough,
  you have the option of taking sides and performing a strength roll.

Common sense (this is reflected in several other card games) dictates that "Then" is only applied if whatever was supposed to happen before did actually happen. This is more obvious in cases such as "take a shower, then put on some clothes, then leave the house" and less in cases such as "eat something, then do the laundry", but still usually applies. If you're told to do "A, then B", unless you can do A, doing B is either obsolete, unwanted, or impossible.
If you were to do the last part even if the roll is unsuccessful, it should read something like "Also, you may ..." or "Additionally, you may ..." or even "After trying, you may ...".
To conclude, the clear text should read

During the End of the turn phase, you may roll a die before checking if injuries will become traumas. If you roll 5 or 6, remove 1 trauma from any player. Then, if you do, you may discard 2 story points in order to remove 1 trauma from any player. This skill can be used once per End of the turn phase.

Your interpretation looks correct: regardless of the result of the die roll, you may spend two story points to remove one trauma. Looking at the cards, they are extremely short on space. Using the shorter word "then" instead of "additionally" for spending story points looks like a compromise based on space. (Considering the game is made by a German company, it might simply be an ambiguous translation.)

Wait, so upvotes here depend on whether or not voters like a conclusion instead of the quality of an answer? This answer cites no sources, has no references and just says "I think that's how it is because there's not enough space on the card to put a longer and less aboguous word." One of my examples for a word better suited for the reverse case is "Also", which has the same length as "Then". Your argument is void.

And you could even omit the conjunction all along to make clear it doesn't depend on the first part. That would even save space.

@scenia, both answers here are simply opinion. I added this opinionated answer to balance the other one, and because I believe it to be correct. Apparently, it's slightly more popular. (You make excellent points about the wording, though.)

Well, it was right in the end, I found better info and changed my answer accordingly. Wasn't meant to criticize you, by the way, i was just surprised about the votes because, well, it really is no more than an opinion put into words :P please don't take offense from this!


text:
Do I draw a new hand if I start my turn without any card?
I played with a new group of friends recently and they are playing with such a rule where they will draw a new hand if they don't have any card. Basically their strategy is to finish off all the cards in their hand so they can draw a new 4x treasures and 4x doors the next turn. Any idea if this true? Thanks.

No, you do not draw a new hand when yours runs out. Your friends are playing with a house rule. It might be an optional rule in some expansion's handbook, but I'm not aware of such an optional rule.
The only time you draw a new hand is when you start a new character: at the beginning of the game, or after you die.
You are not expected to always have cards in your hand in Munchkin. In fact, it's highly likely that you won't have any cards in your hand a while into the game, and that's fine!

I don't remember seeing this rule anywhere in the first eight expansions.

No, you do not draw 4 cards from the Treasure or Door deck when you empty your hand.
The official rules mention '4' seven times, and 'four' twice. All the '4' references are examples (I.e. [general rules list] "4. You must kill a monster to reach Level 10," [phase] "(4) Charity: If you have more than five cards in your hand," "Drooling Slime and an Elf helps you, the monster’s combat strength is increased by 4," etc. ). The two places 'four' are mentioned is in the Setup and Death sections. These are the only rules that allow you to draw four cards from both the Treasure and Door decks.

Setup - [...] Divide the cards into the Door deck and the Treasure deck. Shuffle both decks. Deal four cards from each deck to each player. (page 1)
Death - [...] Your new character appears when the next player begins his turn, and can help others in combat . . . but you have no cards.
On your next turn, start by drawing four cards from each deck, face-down, and playing any legal Race, Class, or Item cards you want to, just as when you started the game. Then take your turn normally. (page 3)


text:
Can Wheel of Sun and Moon go into graveyard from play?
If Wheel of Sun and Moon is destroyed – for instance by a disenchant – does it go into the graveyard, or at the bottom of your library?

First of all, you'd often put Wheel of Sun and Moon on your opponent, in which case there's nothing to worry about. It's only affecting cards that'd be put into their graveyard, and when it's destroyed it goes to yours.
A more likely similar example is Rest in Peace, which says "If a card or token would be put into a graveyard from anywhere, exile it instead." The Gatherer rulings mention exactly this scenario:

If Rest in Peace is destroyed by a spell, Rest in Peace will be exiled and then the spell will be put into its owner's graveyard.

That said, Wheel of Sun and Moon behaves in the same way.  If for some reason you use it on yourself, and then destroy it, it will go to the bottom of your library.
Wheel of Sun and Moon creates a replacement effect, which applies as long as it's on the battlefield. When it would be destroyed (i.e. moved to the graveyard) it is still on the battlefield, so the replacement effect changes that to putting it on the bottom of your library.
It's only once it's left the battlefield that the replacement effect goes away, but by that time the effect has already been applied. Note that this means that, if you destroyed it with Disenchant, the Disenchant will go to your graveyard, because when you finish resolving the spell and move it from the stack to your graveyard, Wheel of Sun and Moon is now gone.

+1 but I am not sure I agree with your first sentence. I would keep this on my sideboard and play it on myself when trying to counter mill decks.

@ColinD I did say "likely" not "always" or even "generally" - from what I've seen, decks that need their graveyards (flashback, reanimator, etc) are a lot more common than mill decks. But perhaps the OP's metagame is a bit different.

WoSaM is used for more than just graveyard hate or mill protection; I've seen it used to interesting effect for combos, as well. (I mostly play EDH, though.) As a trivial example, WoSaM enchanting self, plus Doubling Season in play, leads to infinite use of Jace, Architect of Thought's final ability.

Okay, I'll change it to "often" and avoid unnecessary debate about what to use it for.

@BrianS, can you explain the Jace combo? How does that lead to multiple uses of his final ability?

@GendoIkari I think the idea is that you activate his final ability when he has exactly 8 loyalty, put it on the stack, SBAs happen and he tries to go to your graveyard, goes to the bottom of your library instead. Then when the ability resolves, you search for him in your library, cast him for free, and Doubling Season brings him into play with 8 counters instead of 4.

@Jefromi, And, of course, you also cast something from each opponent's library, so the loop accomplishes something, too ;)


text:
Magic the Gathering lingering spell effect
I have a question about a card sequence.
Let's say I play an instant card that says "all creatures who dealt damage this turn return to owners hand" in my first main phase.
Then if my opponent flash summons a creature card in my second main phase that says "when this creature enters the battlefield do two damage to target creature/player", does that creature return to my opponent's hand because I played the instant spell card in my first main phase and it says this turn and my turn hasn't ended? Or does that effect of the spell resolve and the effects no longer affect subsequent events?

The wording "All creatures who dealt damage this turn return to owners hand" is a little off. You could find the virtually identical

Return all creatures that dealt damage this turn to their owners' hands.

"Return." There's no duration. It's something that happens there and then. When it resolves, all creatures that dealt damage earlier this turn are returned to their owners' hand. Creatures that deal damage latter will not be affected.
"That dealt damage this turn" is just a condition that specifies which creatures are affected.

Return all creatures <matching this condition> to their owners' hands.

While there are no existing card with the initial text, there are existing cards with the different conditions. For example, there's Part the Veil. It's an instant with

Return all creatures you control to their owner's hand.

If at a later time you gain control of a creature, it will not be returned to your hand. Only creatures matching the condition at the very moment the effect resolves are affected.

There is a thing called continuous effect which can last beyond the source of the effect that created it. Some of them affect the objects that matched the condition when the continuous effect was created and some of them continually revise what objects they affect. Here are the examples associated with rule CR 611.2c:

Example: An effect that reads “All white creatures get +1/+1 until end of turn” gives the bonus to all permanents that are white creatures when the spell or ability resolves—even if they change color later—and doesn’t affect those that enter the battlefield or turn white afterward.
Example: An effect that reads “Prevent all damage creatures would deal this turn” doesn’t modify any object’s characteristics, so it’s modifying the rules of the game. That means the effect will apply even to damage from creatures that weren’t on the battlefield when the continuous effect began. It also affects damage from permanents that become creatures later in the turn.

Related Answer

I believe the proper templating for the "other way of looking at this" would be something like: "Until end of turn, when a creature deals damage, return it to its owners hand". A lot of people think this is what's happening when they see "Return all creatures that dealt damage this turn to their owners hand", probably because they assume "all" isn't limited by time.

@corsiKa, If that explanation was true, they'd think "Deal two damage to every creature" deals two damage to creatures that come into play later, and I don't think that's the case. It's more complicated than that. (I'm assuming you're not claiming they see "all" and "every" as anything but synonymous.)

In your example, the spell you played would have no affect on anything that happens after the spell itself it done resolving. If a spell were going to have a lasting effect as you describe, that spell would need to create what is called a "continuous effect."

611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.

In most situations, a card that creates such an effect will state a duration, such as "until the end of turn." So to get the effect you are thinking, a card would need to state "Until the end of the turn, whenever a creature deals damage, return that creature to its owner's hand."

so if i play an instant card that says all your creature get +1/+1 until end of turn, then i play a creature card after this instant card then does that creature get +1/+1 to?

@ikegami: Several cards with "Until end of turn, whenever ..." already exist.

It does not in that specific case because the continuous effect was created by a spell and it modifies a characteristic. I'm just added something to that effect to my answer.

@magicnewbie, No, in that case your new creature would not benefit from the +1/+1. Note, however, that a spell which altered the rules of the game (eg, "Until end of turn, creatures you control are unblockable") would affect a creature that entered the battlefield later, as opposed to a spell which modifies characteristics. It's a fine line that's difficult for new players to distinguish.


text:
Do I need On The Brink to play In The Lab?
I bought the Pandemic base set, and In The Lab, as I saw it plays up to six people. (Though I notice now that's for team play).
When I got home, I saw the box says that you need both the base set and On The Brink to play.
Is this correct?

Yes, it's correct, in that to use everything in the box, you absolutely need the base set and On the Brink. There are things in there that directly add on to things from On the Brink, and would be useless without it.
But you can still use most of it without On the Brink. You can add in the roles and events, and you can play the lab, solo, and team variants. This is all summarized in the "overview" section at the beginning of the rules, and the other sections make it explicit:
Lab Challenge: "This challenge can be played with just the base game or combined with other challenges, except the Team game."
Solo Game: "The solo game pits you, with a little help from the CDC, against all the diseases. It can be combined with other challenges, except the Bio-Terrorist challenge."
Team Game: "The Team game can be combined with other challenges, except the
Bio-Terrorist or Lab challenges."


text:
Can Big Parasol stop the extra damage a moves does?
Can the Big Parasol tool card stop the extra damage a move could do?

As long as the Pokémon this card is attached to is in the Active Spot, prevent all effects of attacks from your opponent's Pokémon done to all of your Pokémon (Existing effects are not removed. Damage is not an effect.)

As an example of a Pokémon that does extra damage, Charizard ex's Burning Darkness attack states:

This attack does 30 more damage for each Prize Card your opponent has taken

Would Big Parasol prevent this extra damage?

As description on Big Parasol says (just for clarifications, I believe card would have same effect without this clarification):

Damage is not an effect.

Description on "Burning Darkness" attack just specify details of damage, not some other effect of attack. So "Big Parasol" does not prevent damage from this attack. If your opponent took one prize card and you are attacking with "Burning Darkness" his pokémon having Big Parasol you would do 210 damage (ignoring other possible modifiers)
I like description of effects here:

Effects of attacks are effects that are applied externally and
triggered by an attack. Some examples would be discarding attached
energy, placing damage counters, and applying Special Conditions.
Restrictions that can be placed on Pokémon like “The Defending Pokémon
can’t retreat during your opponent’s next turn.” or “The Defending
Pokémon can’t attack during your opponent’s next turn.” are also
effects of attacks.


text:
Can I play a land on my opponent's turn?
So I was playing MtG Commander with a group of 4 and I was 3rd in turn order. We were wondering about casting a land that would enter tapped on an enemies endstep or second main phase, so it could untap on their turn? For example let’s say player 2 goes to end step, would I be able to cast a Drowned Catacomb if I didn’t play a land on my previous turn, or would it have to happen on their second main phase?

No, that won't work. You can't play lands on other players' turns.
You don't cast lands like a spell, you play lands. Playing lands is a special action that you can only perform during one of your own main phases and when the stack is empty.
I would recommend you and your playgroup read the Basic Rulebook.