text:
What is the use of Lady of the Lake card in avalon?
I have always wondered what is the use of this card. It would be great if someone could help me out with it.

It is to enable players to get more information about each other out in the open. If it starts out on a good player they can use it to help identify other good players. On the other hand if it starts in a bad players hand they can use it to cause confusion.
https://www.ultraboardgames.com/avalon/optional-rules.php

This token is an optional player ability. The player with the Lady of the Lake will be able to look at the loyalty of another player. Unlike the other character powers, the player that has this ability is open information.
At the beginning of the game, give the Lady of the Lake token to the player on the Leader's right.
Immediately after the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Quest is resolved, the player with the Lady of the Lake token will choose one player to examine. The player being examined will receive a pair of Loyalty cards and pass the card that corresponds to the loyalty of ther character card to the Lady of the Lake. Using the wrong loyalty card will result in losing the game.
The lady of the Lake may discuss, but cannot reveal the Loyalty card passed.
The player being examined receives the Lady of the Lake token. The Lady of the Lake will only be used three times in the game. A player that used the Lady of the Lake cannot have the Lady used on them.
Note: the Lady of the Lake is best saved for games of 7 or more people. Adding the Lady of the Lake into a game will make the Good side more powerful and win more often.


text:
Mutate and replacement effects (Example, Darigaaz Reincarnated) and triggered abilities (ex: Sigil of the New Dawn)
How does mutate exactly work with any replacement effects?
For example, lets say I have 2 creatures Mutated on top of Darigaaz Reincarnated, when that creature dies,
A. Darigaaz returned with the mutated creatures on top of him, as 1 being/permanent (I feel this is likely)
B. Darigaaz returns with the other 2 creatures, but as 3 permanents
C. Darigaaz returns alone (but, doesn't mutate count the other 2 creatures as being part of him?)
Also, how does a creature with mutations interact with something like Sigil of the New Dawn?

The specific questions you're asking here aren't really about replacement effects, they're about leaving and re-entering the battlefield. Sigil of the New Dawn isn't even a replacement effect, it's a triggered ability. I think it would be better to modify the question to focus on that.

Understood, will modify the question

You would get to exile and put an egg counter on all merged creatures, but only return Darigaaz eventually. While you control Sigil of the New Dawn and a mutated creature dies, the Sigil triggers once and you may return all the cards that made up the mutated creature by paying 1W.
Mutating causes permanents to merge, and to combine all the abilities of those permanents into the resulting creature:

702.139c As a mutating creature spell resolves, if its target is legal, it doesn’t enter the battlefield. Rather, it merges with the target creature and becomes one object represented by more than one card or token (see rule 721, “Merging with Permanents”). [..]
702.139e A mutated permanent has all abilities of each card and token that represents it. [..]

When a merged permanent leaves the battlefield, it leaves as exactly one object, no matter how many permanents are merged into one:

721.3. If a merged permanent leaves the battlefield, one permanent leaves the battlefield and each of the individual components are put into the appropriate zone.

Because of Darigaaz' ability, the appropriate zone is the exile plus egg counters, and all components of the merged creature are exiled that way. The egg-removing and return-to-battlefield effect only apply to Darigaaz, since it's a separate ability that only applies to the Darigaaz card, no longer to the previously merged cards.
As for Sigil of the New Dawn, the Sigil can track all of the components as they die:

721.3c If an effect can find the new object that a merged permanent becomes as it leaves the battlefield, it finds all of those objects. (See rule 400.7.) If that effect causes actions to be taken upon those objects, the same actions are taken upon each of them.
400.7d 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.

The Sigil triggers once, because only one creature died (721.3). If you pay the 1W of that triggered ability, you return all the creature cards that made up the mutated creature.

Is the wording in 721.3 "appropriate zone" why none commander creatures can end up stuck in the command zone?

Mutate causes permanents to become merged, according to rule 702.139c:

As a mutating creature spell resolves, if its target is legal, it doesn’t enter the battlefield. Rather, it merges with the target creature and becomes one object represented by more than one card or token (see rule 721, “Merging with Permanents”). The spell’s controller chooses whether the spell is put on top of the creature or on the bottom. The resulting permanent is a mutated permanent.

Rule 721.3 and its subrules describe how to handle merged permanents leaving the battlefield:

721.3. If a merged permanent leaves the battlefield, one permanent leaves the battlefield and each of the individual components are put into the appropriate zone.

721.3a If a merged permanent is put into its owner’s graveyard or library, that player may arrange the new objects in any order. If it’s put into its owner’s library, that player doesn’t reveal the order.
721.3b If a player exiles a merged permanent, that player determines the relative timestamp order of the cards at that time. This is an exception to the procedure described in rule 613.7k.
721.3c If an effect can find the new object that a merged permanent becomes as it leaves the battlefield, it finds all of those objects. (See rule 400.7.) If that effect causes actions to be taken upon those objects, the same actions are taken upon each of them.
721.3d If multiple replacement effects could be applied to the event of a merged permanent leaving the battlefield or being put into the new zone, applying one of those replacement effects to one of the objects affects all of the objects. If the merged permanent is a commander, it may be exempt from this rule; see rule 903.9a.

Darigaaz's second ability is covered by rule 721.3d: the ability replaces the event of the merged creature dying, so when you apply that replacement effect, all cards in the merged creature are exiled with three egg counters on them. However, in exile only Darigaaz has the triggered ability that removes egg counters, so only Darigaaz will return to the battlefield.
Sigil of the New Dawn is covered by rule 721.3c: once the ability triggers from a merged creature dying, if you pay the cost, it finds all of the cards that made up the merged creature, and it moves all of those cards to your hand.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Goddric, Cloaked Reveler and Witness Protection
I have a Goddric, Cloaked Reveler enchanted with Witness Protection in play.
During my turn, I have two nonland permanent enter the battlefield enabling Celebration.
Is Goddric a dragon ? Is Goddric a 4/4 ?
I would assume it is a 1/1 dragon because:
Layer 4, celebration makes Goddric a dragon
Layer 6, Goddric loses all abilities
Layer 7a, Witness Protection makes it a 1/1 (and ignore the 4/4 from Goddric since it lost the ability)
On the gatherer page for Goddric, the following is written:

If an effect causes Goddric to lose all abilities during a turn in which it has already become a Dragon, he's still a Dragon creature with base power and toughness 4/4.

I don't understand why it would be a 4/4 since it lost the power setting ability.
If Dress Down was the enchantment instead, would Goddric be a 4/4?
Would flashing in Witness Protection after celebration triggered makes it a 1/1?
Addendum: In the first exemple, magic arena thinks Goddric is a 1/1 dragon

Goddric is a 1/1 Citizen. With Dress Down, Goddric is instead a 4/4 Dragon.
The abilities
Goddric's ability says

As long as two or more nonland permanents entered the battlefield under your control this turn, Goddric, Cloaked Reveler is a Dragon with base power and toughness 4/4, flying, and "{R}: Dragons you control get +1/+0 until end of turn."

Witness Protection's ability says

Enchanted creature loses all abilities and is a green and white Citizen creature with base power and toughness 1/1 named Legitimate Businessperson.

And, Dress Down's ability just says

Creatures lose all abilities.

The rules
These are all static abilities that create continuous effects, so they are governed by the Interaction of Continuous Effects rules, also known as the layers rules. For reference, the layers are listed in rule 613.1:

613.1. The values of an object’s characteristics are determined by starting with the actual object. For a card, that means the values of the characteristics printed on that card. For a token or a copy of a spell or card, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order:

613.1a Layer 1: Rules and effects that modify copiable values are applied.
613.1b Layer 2: Control-changing effects are applied.
613.1c Layer 3: Text-changing effects are applied. See rule 612, “Text-Changing Effects.”
613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.
613.1e Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied.
613.1f Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, keyword counters, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can’t have an ability are applied.
613.1g Layer 7: Power- and/or toughness-changing effects are applied.

Goddric's effect works on layers 4, 6, and 7. Witness Protection's effect works on layers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Dress Down's effect only works on layer 6. Layer 7 is actually divided into sublayers, but both Goddric's and Witness Protection's effects apply in the same layer:

613.4b Layer 7b: Effects that set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value are applied. Effects that refer to the base power and/or toughness of a creature apply in this layer.

There is one other rule that is important to consider here, with effects that apply in multiple layers and effects that remove abilities:

613.6. If an effect should be applied in different layers and/or sublayers, the parts of the effect each apply in their appropriate ones. If an effect starts to apply in one layer and/or sublayer, it will continue to be applied to the same set of objects in each other applicable layer and/or sublayer, even if the ability generating the effect is removed during this process.

This is the rule that the ruling on Goddric quoted in the question is based on. Now, the final piece of this puzzle is seeing how multiple of these effects are applied to the same object, and this is determined by the timestamp rules:

613.7. Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is usually done using a timestamp system. An effect with an earlier timestamp is applied before an effect with a later timestamp.

613.7a A continuous effect generated by a static ability has the same timestamp as the object the static ability is on, or the timestamp of the effect that created the ability, whichever is later. If the effect that created the ability has the later timestamp and the object the ability is on receives a new timestamp, each continuous effect generated by static abilities of that object receives a new timestamp as well, but the relative order of those timestamps remains the same.
[...]
613.7d An object receives a timestamp at the time it enters a zone.
613.7e An Aura, Equipment, or Fortification receives a new timestamp each time it becomes attached to an object or player.

The results
Goddric + Witness Protection
So, in the situation with Witness Protection, Goddric must have entered the battlefield before the Witness Protection became attached to it, so Goddric has the earlier timestamp, which means that Goddric's effect has the earlier timestamp. As a result, the effects are applied like this:

Layer 3: Witness Protection makes Goddric's name "Legitimate Businessperson".
Layer 4: Goddric's effect makes Goddric a Dragon, then Witness Protection overwrites that, making Goddric a Citizen.
Layer 5: Witness Protection makes Goddric green and white.
Layer 6: Goddric's effect gives Goddric flying and "{R}: Dragons you control get +1/+0 until end of turn," and then Witness Protection removes all of Goddric's abilities.
Layer 7b: As a result of rule 613.6, even though Goddric lost its ability in a higher layer, the effect continues to be applied in this layer. Goddric's effect makes Goddric a 4/4, and then Witness Protection overrides that, making Goddric a 1/1.

As a result, Goddric is a 1/1 green and white Citizen with no abilities. The reason that the result looks the same as if we only applied Witness Protection's effect is that it just happens that Witness Protection has an overriding effect on every layer that Goddric's effect works in. If we replaced Witness Protection with Kasmina's Transmutation, for example, Goddric would end up as a Dragon.
Goddric + Dress Down
With Dress Down, we instead only apply Goddric's effects except in layer 6, like this:

Layer 4: Goddric's effect makes Goddric a Dragon.
Layer 6: Goddric's effect gives Goddric flying and "{R}: Dragons you control get +1/+0 until end of turn," and then Dress Down removes all of Goddric's abilities.
Layer 7b: As a result of rule 613.6, even though Goddric lost its ability in a higher layer, the effect continues to be applied in this layer. Goddric's effect makes Goddric a 4/4.

So, the result is that Goddric is a 4/4 red Dragon with no abilities.
Goddric + Dress Down (Dress Down enters first)
One other possibility here is that Dress Down entered the battlefield before Goddric, giving it an earlier timestamp. In that case, the only difference is that layer 6 goes like this:

Dress Down removes all of Goddric's abilities and then Goddric's effect gives Goddric flying and "{R}: Dragons you control get +1/+0 until end of turn."

The result here is that Goddric is a 4/4 red Dragon with flying and "{R}: Dragons you control get +1/+0 until end of turn."

Bonus: Goddric + Kasmina's Transmutation
As mentioned in the section about Witness Protection, you would see a different outcome with Kasmina's Transmutation. Here's the details of how those effects would be applied:

Layer 4: Goddric's effect makes Goddric a Dragon.
Layer 6: Goddric's effect gives Goddric flying and "{R}: Dragons you control get +1/+0 until end of turn," and then Kasmina's Transmutation removes all of Goddric's abilities.
Layer 7b: As a result of rule 613.6, even though Goddric lost its ability in a higher layer, the effect continues to be applied in this layer. Goddric's effect makes Goddric a 4/4, and then Kasmina's Transmutation overrides that, making Goddric a 1/1.

The result is that Goddric is a 1/1 Dragon with no abilities.

Oh I see, it's much clearer now, thank you !

"loses all abilities" includes the celebration ability. That's why what happens is:
godric enters play
godric is enchanted with witness protection - making him a 1/1 with no abilities, including the celebration one.
The ruling text implies a hypothetical way to cause godric to lose all abilities, but not set his power and toughness. (I don't know of any cards that do this). The celebration ability only needs to trigger once to be active - for example if it said "transform godric", losing all abilities wouldn't untransform him.
I don't know why arena says he's a dragon - he should be a citizen, shouldn't he?

Sure but celebration is a static ability, and affects a lower layer than losing abilities.
On layer 4, you have witness protection that says it's a citizen, and celebration that says it's a dragon. The dragon one wins, because they are ordered in timestamp order.
I think

I think this answer's conclusion is essentially correct, but the reasoning isn't quite right. I explain in more detail in my own answer. One "hypothetical way to cause godric to lose all abilities, but not set his power and toughness" is the card Dress Down, which is mentioned in the question.

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


text:
What are the standards for algorithmically forecasting metagame evolution under certain conditions of TCG design?
Company X operates a trading card game, periodically designing and releasing new card sets, which seed evolutionary shifts in its competitive metagame.  For the purpose of achieving balanced card design, it would be ideal if X could forecast in advance what shifts a candidate new card set would induce, and what new equilibrium metagame state would result.  Computer simulations surely play a role here, but I'm not sure how close to solvable this problem is, even under ideal conditions.
Assuming their game's mechanics roughly reflect that of an actual trading card game (30 - 60 card deck size, normal gameplay actions such as playing creatures and spells attacking and so forth, modest design power creep over time, etc.), to what extent can X attempt to accurately forecast the impact of a new set as they design it, given...
1)  Set rotation (like Hearthstone's standard format; the number of total cards in the card pool remains relatively constant over time)
2)  No set rotation (like the Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG; the number of total cards in the card pool grows large over time)?

I don't see how this can be answered, one of the biggest problems with this type of game is how all the card interact with each other and that can be very hard to determine no matter the size of the card pool. The problem is hard because how cards interact are not always seen/realized by the designers so it is hard to plan for shifts in power.

I think "Could ... be forecast using a computer" might be on topic, though perhaps broad (and that's really what the two answers are answering).  The question as posed and titled is very much both too broad and opinion based.

Voting to reopen. As demonstrated by the existing answers, fact-based answers can definitely be provided for this question.

@ikegami You are correct. While at first I didn't think it was answerable I was quickly proven wrong by answers that basically say the idea isn't feasible

@Joe W, It can be hard to tell sometimes :)

It is likely that making this kind of prediction to any useful degree of accuracy is beyond the current state of the art in computing.
First, consider that forecasting the future metagame that uses unreleased cards is essentially equivalent to "forecasting" the current metagame using the current card pool. This actually helps, because that means that you can validate your methodology against every current and past metagame.
So, the task is now to create a simulation that takes the existing card pool, and produces the current metagame. In order to do that, you need to understand and reproduce the reasons that the metagame exists as it currently does. There may be a variety of reasons that a deck may be stronger or weaker in a metagame, including raw deck strength, how easy the deck is to pilot, and how flexibly it can handle different matchups. There are also additional reasons that a deck may appear more or less in a metagame, including card availability, card prices, people's existing decks and collections, and how well it matches popular deck-building heuristics.
In order to understand the strength of any single deck, you would need to be able to pilot it at a pro level to evaluate how it would perform in real top-level tournaments. To my knowledge, there are currently no programs that can play trading card games that well. The cutting edge of research into making computers play games better than humans is probably AlphaGo, and that task is probably simpler because it plays deterministic games on a single pre-defined board.
If you do somehow manage to produce a program that can accurately simulate how any particular matchup would play out, you would need to figure out what matchups are worth testing and evolve that into a stable metagame. This may require independently reconstructing modern deckbuilding strategy, while also allowing for potential rogue decks that exist outside of that strategy. This is the point where you may need to account for the factors like card availability and price. Price is also heavily dependent on metagame popularity, so that would also need to be simulated and fed back into the main simulation. This is also where you would need to evaluate whether a human could and would actually pilot that deck effectively.
Let's say you do manage to put all of that together into a working prediction machine. There are still some potential pitfalls to be aware of. You may miss a rogue deck that is outside of your search space that completely breaks things. Your players may fail to think of a specific deck that features heavily in your simulated metagame, unbalancing the rest of the metagame. You may mispredict whether players would actually be willing or able to use a deck in tournaments, again potentially unbalancing the metagame.

The rogue deck thing is a significant pitfall to making such an algorithm.  Consider MTG for instance, where you play lands to cast spells to beat your opponents.  However, this would miss manaless Dredge (where the goal is to dump huge portions of your library into your graveyard using Bazaar of Baghdad) or landless Charbelcher (which tries to oneshot an opponent by activating Goblin Charbelcher with no lands in the library.

Also consider the Time Vault/Flame Fusillade combo from one of the previous revisions of Time Vault.  Time Vault is a card designed to allow you to skip a turn to take an extra turn later.  Someone combined it with a card that turned artifacts into pingers and used time vault to machine gun their opponent.

This problem isn't really a solvable one due largely to the size of the problem space.
Consider a game with deck building rules like Magic: The Gathering's standard format (minimum 60 card deck, no maximum size, up to 4 of any given card except basic lands).  Imagine you have a 100 card set and have available to you infinite copies of every card.
With just that 100 card set how many decks can you make?  Given that there is no maximum deck size, the answer is infinite.  But using an infinite maximum deck size isn't really useful, as no one can really play a game with a million card deck.  Plus so many of those decks become the same as another deck with one more land in it, they stop being interesting at some point.
So we have to start setting limits on how much of that problem space we are willing to search to find "the best decks" (which will presumably become our meta).  So if we are taking Magic as the example here, we can probably limit decks to a maximum size of 300 cards or so (because Battle of Wits exists).  Even with a pool of only 100 cards, that's still a ton of decks to consider.
Now you have to program computers to play hundreds of matchups of all these decks to see what is statistically the best.  That's hard.  Like, really, really hard.  Games with perfect information (ie. you know everything that is going on, think checkers) are relatively easy to program AIs for.  But even games with perfect information can get tricky.  Chess, for example is a game with perfect information and no randomness.  Yet making good AIs for that is hard (it can and has been done).  And doing so can be time consuming and expensive.
Card games and their AIs are different though.  There isn't perfect information (you don't know what's in your opponent's deck, hand or what that face-down card is) and there is randomness (what is your next draw going to be).  That makes it really hard to design an AI.  It's relatively easy to look at a board and figure out what the best move is to make right now assuming no opponent interaction.  But that's how most novice players of any game play and that strategy doesn't take you very far.  To add in opponent interaction, probability of getting certain cards, planning longer term, having contingency plans, etc. is going to make this insanely complicated.  Oh, and you need to teach computers how to bluff and read bluffs.  Good luck with that one.
Oh, and you also have to program in all the rules (without bugs).  Depending on your card game, that could be really hard.  Any bugs in that programming can invalidate all your test data (think if the AI comes up with a deck that wins 85% of the time in non-mirror matches, that would clearly be the meta deck.  Except someone can't program a certain card correctly and that deck wouldn't work out in the real world... oops.)
So at this point (if you've made it this far, both in terms of being able to do this at all and spent the time and money on this) you have an engine that can play and test your game.  Now you have to teach the computer about human psychology, metagames, and how they evolve.  Metagames evolve usually by figuring out what can topple the current meta.  This helps a little in that now you have a starting point for figuring out what to beat and don't have to consider beating every possible deck out there (yay).  Now the trick is teaching the computer how to make a meta.  Yes you can figure out which deck is statistically the strongest, but one deck does not a meta make.  A meta is defined by a lot of rock-paper-scissors type things.  In Magic, that's usually some combination of aggro decks, combo decks and control decks.  As one deck (or type) rises in popularity (something else you need to program), the meta should change to counteract that by trying to create favorable matchups against the most common deck.  Which can change what the most common deck is.  Which requires a new decks to counteract that, which changes the meta, which....
Also, you need to deal with some real world simulations here which involve psychology and economics (add those to the programming backlog).  People can only realistically make decks with the cards they have.  Which means usually having to buy cards.  And as cards become more "meta" they become more expensive, leading to people looking for cheaper alternatives or being unable to play the theoretically best deck.  Now you have to model supply and demand and things like the time it takes for players to be able to get the cards they need to build these decks.  That time and money factor can slow down how fast a meta can shift, meaning that if you are looking at a rotating format your game (and players) may not reach a meta end-state before a rotation happens or a new set comes out and shakes everything up.
You've also need to predict what a human can realistically play and what they will have fun playing.  Some people will stick to the "best" deck no matter what but others will get tired of Arcbound Ravager mirror matches and want desperately to play anything else.
This thing can also screw itself over pretty easily.  Since it forms a feedback loop (the results of the new meta are fed back in to predict the next meta), any errors, mispredictions or deviations from reality could send it into a spiral or weirder and more wrong predictions.
Oh, and so far we've worked with a small, static set of cards and a static set of rules.  Every new set increases the problem space exponentially, rotations require re-evaluation of the meta and new rules or rules changes means new interactions.  So more programming... without bugs...
All in all this is going to be an insanely complicated, nigh impossible thing to make.  On top of that, it'll likely cost an insane amount to build and maintain which no business will likely want to take on.  So I don't think anyone will even try such a thing.  It just isn't worth it.


text:
What real-life buildings are the Settlers of Catan Victory point cards based on?
Every version of Settlers of Catan that I've played (all US Mayfair, editions 1-4) has had a "University" victory point card that is clearly the church of Santa María del Naranco in Oviedo, Spain. Are any of the other victory point cards based on real-life buildings?

The veranda in the palace is very similar to the one in the University. As Santa Maria del Naranco doesn't actually have the veranda, I'm guessing that the real-life version of the palace might also not have the veranda, and might also be a stone building based on the construction.

The chapel is a close depiction of the Gol Stave Church in Oslo. The palace, I don't know.


text:
What is the purpose of the "if" in Kofu's card text?
Kofu (Stellar Crown) has the following card text:

Put 2 cards from your hand on the bottom of your deck in any order. If you put 2 cards on the bottom of your deck in this way, draw 4 cards. (If you can't put 2 cards from your hand on the bottom of your deck, you can't use this card.)

Other than the implied unresolvable action rule being explicitly stated on the card, I found it interesting that the card specified "if" for the draw cards condition, rather than stating directly to draw four cards.
If the card text simply read:

Put 2 cards from your hand on the bottom of your deck in any order. Draw 4 cards.

Would there be any difference? Does the card's text imply that I can play the card and fail it by choosing not to pay its cost despite being able to?

There is a principle not well documented that is called ‘do as much as you can.’  That allows you to do things like play Professor’s Research and draw five with a deck of five cards.  In general, if not otherwise restricted, fulfilling as much as possible will allow you to play a card. However, that does not mean you can choose not to do things that you otherwise are known to be able to do; see this ruling:

Whether a card's effect is optional or not is determined from the card text. If there is no explicit indication that you have a choice, then you don't have one and the effect is mandatory.

In the example given, there are two separate card effects.  The ‘put two cards on the bottom’ effect and the ‘draw four cards’ effect. Both must be done if possible - as per the ruling above, nothing indicates either is optional.  Neither is related to the other in this new card text though - if you have zero cards in hand you just draw four. But if you have any cards in hand, you must put them (up to two) on the bottom of the deck.
Of course in the real card text, there is a relationship - you are required to put two exactly on the bottom to play it, similar to Ultra Ball requiring you to discard two cards to play it.

Ah ok, so the "if you put 2 cards on bottom" is there to establish the relationship that makes the cost of 2 cards mandatory?

That makes it a cost (so you can’t play the card without doing that).

It seems to me that the if alone is insufficient to make the card unplayable in the case where you have only one other card in hand. You could play Kofu, put one card on the bottom of your deck ("do as much as you can"), and then, since you did not put two cards on the bottom of your deck, not draw four cards, and end with an empty hand. The parenthetical note at the end is required to forbid this usage.

Parenthetical text is never intended that way though - it's always reminder text only.  The card would work the same way with or without it.  Most likely this is a translation-related reason; ultimately, though, the way it's implemented the "put two cards on bottom" is being considered a cost, not an effect.  It could be an effect, and often would be, but since the "if you do this" is there for whatever reason the game designers decided this is a cost, not an effect.

Ultimately in Pokémon, the game designers have a way they intend a card to be used, and you can't always intuit that way from plain English reading of the card.  Sometimes it's because of losing things to translation, sometimes it's not even that.


text:
Interpretation of "If x R.R.'s are owned"
The railroad cards in my Monopoly set state different rent amounts "if x R.R.'s (sic) are owned". The obvious interpretation is that the player collecting rent has to own multiple railroads for this to apply. However, in a recent game one of my players suggested that since the cards don't specify who owns the railroad, the rent increase should take into account the total number of railroads owned by any player.
I couldn't find anything clarifying this in the rules that came with my set. I'm guessing tournament play would use the common-sense interpretation of only the rent-collecting player's ownership counting, but is there anything in official rules (or possibly a newer version of the card) that clarifies this further?

The use of passive language here is quite annoying, and the official Monopoly rules from the Hasbro website don't actually provide enough detail to give a definitive answer. There are plenty of websites that argue in favour of the interpretation that it's based on how many Railroads are owned by the player collecting rent, but for a definitive answer? We have to go back.
In fact, the version of the rules that seems to most clearly explain how to collect rent on the railroads is the 1904 version of the Landlord's Game, by Lizzie J Magie, whose design was taken and rebranded as Monopoly (and Clarence Darrow credited as inventor) about 20 years later. In these rules:

If one player owns 2 railroads, he charges $10 fare; if 3, he charges $20; 4, $50.

This is reflected in several versions of the rules available on the linked site. Unfortunately, I've found it hard to find exactly where the rules stopped bothering to explain this, but as far as I can tell this has always been the common interpretation (but Monopoly is famous for having rules that "everyone knows" even though they aren't official, so this doesn't necessarily mean much).


text:
Can I play Xerosic's Machinations when my opponent has 4 cards in their hand?
The card is a supporter whose text reads:

Your opponent discards cards from their hand until they have 3 cards in their hand.

When playing on Pokemon TCG Live, the game did not allow me to use the card when my opponent only had 4 cards in hand (I could otherwise play supporters that turn) despite my opponent ostensibly being able to discard down to 4. The only interpretation I could see preventing the card being played is the plural in "cards" mattering, meaning my opponent needs to be able to discard multiple cards and not just the one, making the minimum 5.
Is PTCGL correct in its interpretation of the card or is this a bug? Is there a TCG rule that explicitly clarifies whether the plural "cards" should be taken literally?

That sounds like a bug, have you reached out to the game developer to ask?

Pokemon support is notoriously slow to reply so I figured I'd ask here in case anyone else got confused or overly pedantic in a physical game

Rules-wise, yes this should work fine:

Your opponent discards cards from their hand until they have 3 cards in their hand.

One card would satisfy "discards cards".  You cannot play this if your opponent has three cards in their hand, but are welcome to play it if they have four or more.
See for example, this compendium entry on playing cards for no effect:

You cannot play a card if it is public knowledge that it will have no game effect. Paying a cost does not satisfy the requirement that the card has a game effect.

Why couldn't you play that card if they have three or fewer cards in their hands? Sure it will do nothing but what is stopping you from playing it?

I can't find a specific ruling for this but iirc if you know a card will have no effect you cannot play it (e.g. poffin on a full bench, searching an empty deck, retrieving from an empty discard)

Actually found a few relevant rulings: https://compendium.pokegym.net/ruling/1946/ https://compendium.pokegym.net/ruling/1985/
In general, if you know you cannot perform a mandatory action you cannot play the card that invokes this action, so Xerosic's Machinations would not be able to be played when your opponent has 3 or fewer cards

Added the main source for this (it's a meta ruling).  But yes, @JoeW it is not allowed to play a card when it is known it cannot change the game state.  (However, this is very very particular - it has to be knowable right now by someone just walking up as you start to play it.  A deck with 1 card in it that you just super rodded an energy into (so everyone knows it's psychic energy)? Sure, play ultra ball, that's fine - it's not public knowledge even though everyone knows it.

Thanks for that update as it wasn’t clear to me that was the case.


text:
Is it better to ask a question or guess with 3 characters left in Guess Who?
Say you have 3 potential characters left.
If you go with a guess, you have a 1/3 chance that turn and a 1/2 chance next turn.
If you go with a hint, you would have a 50% chance of leaving 2 left (with a 50% chance to win next turn) or a 50% chance of leaving 1 left (with a 100% chance to win next turn).
I don't know statistics well enough to figure it out from there.
EDIT: We were not aware of the rule that state if you guess incorrectly it means you instantly lose. That definitely makes it clear which you should do. We will definitely try to follow that going forward, thanks all!

When I played this as a child we would deliberately flip down down non eliminated characters to trick opponents into guessing or we would leave eliminated characters stood up so opponent didn’t know how close were to winning.   As an adult this might have been against printed rules but was very much a house rule for us.

If you guess and get it wrong you instantly lose.  Your question suggests you get another go which is not correct.  Source of rules here.  https://winning-moves.com/images/guesswho%20rules.pdf   “ If you guess correctly – or your opponent guesses incorrectly – you win the game!”

We'd need clarification from OP, but I assume he is playing without the rule of "if you guess wrong you instantly lose."

My original answer assumed that there was no penalty for guessing incorrectly. This answer assumes that you are playing with the rule that incorrect guesses cause a game loss.  My original answer is provided below this one
Never guess, unless a player has only a single character left
If your opponent guesses, then your odds of winning are 50% if they have two characters left or higher if they have more.  If you guess, your odds are 50% if you have two characters left, or lower if you have more.  Therefore, there is never any benefit to guessing - the odds are always equal to or better if your opponent guesses.  This only changes if your opponent have a single character left.  At that point the odds of losing jump to 100%, and any odds are better than that, so guess.  (Also, if you only have 1 character left you should obviously guess as well)

Guess. Always guess when there are three or fewer characters left
Any question you ask is guaranteed to divide the remaining characters into a group of one and a group of two.
Guessing also divides the characters into a group of one and a group of two.
Literally the only difference is that if the character is in the group of one and you ask then you need to take an additional turn to guess, whereas if you guess and the character is in the group of one then you've already won.

Your error is in assuming that asking a question has a 50% chance of putting the character in the group of one.  It's actually 1/3, same as when you guess.

Guessing doesn’t divide the group into 2 if wrong as guessing wrong is instant loss.

@StartPlayer fixed

Assuming that asking a question has a 50% chance of putting the character into a group of 1, wasn't an "error" of my answer.  That was an explicit assumption that was built into the OP's question.

@Parseltongue just because the OP stated the odds were 50% doesn't make it true.  It's a false assumption, and therefore can't be used to derive accurate probabilities.

Except it's completely possible that he has a question in mind that really does guarantee a split into a group of 1 or 2.  For example, let's say there are only three available characters -- two of them have glasses, and one of them does not.  You ask "does your character have glasses?"  This has a 50% chance of leaving 2 remaining, and a 50% chance of leaving one remaining.  I assume this is the exact situation that OP was facing when he asked the question (otherwise, the solution is trivial)

@parseltongue, no, it doesn't.  In your stated scenario, (if the character was randomly chosen) then there is an equal chance of the chosen character being any of the three.  Therefore, there is a 2/3 chance that the character has glasses, and a 1/3 chance the character does not.  To put it another way, the odds are 33% A, 33% B, 33% C. A and B have glasses, so the odds are 67% glasses, and 33% not.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing.  2 of the characters have glasses, 1 does not.  By asking a question (turn 1) you are either guaranteed to get the character the next turn (if the character didn't have glasses), or you have a 50% chance of getting it (if the character does).
How does what you said differ from any of the above?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

EDIT: We were not aware of the rule that state if you guess incorrectly it means you instantly lose. That definitely makes it clear which you should do. We will definitely try to follow that going forward, thanks all!
Guessing wrong lose the game: take a hint.

guessing has 1/3 to win and 2/3 to lose.
single hint: 1/3 you left with 1 charecter -> win at turn 2.
2/3 left with 2 characters -> 50/50 for a win.   So 1/3+2/3*1/2=2/3 for wining.
Two hints: 100% win. 1/3 at turn 2, 2/3 at turn 3.

If guessing wrong does not lose you the game: always take a guess.
Whether you just care about getting minimal questions on average (on expectation) or you care about getting fewer questions than your opponent.  - In both scenarios taking a guess is better.
Comparison of the number of turns on expectation:
If you guess:

got it right the first time with probability 1/3
got it right the second time with probability 1/3
got it right the third time with probability 1/3

Thus the expected number of turns is two. E(turns)=1/3*1+1/3*2+1/3*3=2
If you go with a hint

1/3 you leave 1 left, then win on the next turn.
2/3 you leave 2 left, then either win on the next turn or on the 3rd turn.

So the calculation is E(turns)=1/3*2+2/3*1/2*2+2/3*1/2*3=2.333
By comparing expected turns we get that taking guesses will find the right character faster.

As above this is incorrect.  A wrong guess is instant loss.

@ArcanistLupus, you right, tnx, fix that.


text:
Name of a board game about American politics
I can't remember the name of this board game I played many years ago. It was about American politics, the players voted on someone to become President, which lasted one round.
You could pursue different agendas like business, religion, environment, etc. When an event card was turned over, if it had the same agendas you were invested in, you got cash. The board had 4 spaces, Wall Street, Main Street, White House, and ?Campaign Trail?. In each round, the whole table visited each location.
You could spend the cash to buy new agenda cards or give it to other players to buy their votes.
President candidates could vie for votes by promising to pursue other players' agendas when they are in office, but were under no obligation to keep their promises.
That's all I can remember.
[Edit] I think the title was a pun about money in politics

When you say “many years ago”. Can you be more specific as it helps eliminate any games release after then.

I'd say 5-10 years ago.

Sounds like Corporate America.  Electing the prez, hoping the "correct" investment cards come up, 4 locations (i.e., draw decks) on the board. played it once at a con and I'm surprised the name stuck with me.  Corporations buying political favor certainly fits your recollected theme of "american politics" anyways

Winner, winner, chicken dinner! That's it!


text:
What is the name of this card game
I played this game when I was younger but I cant remember its name, its a 2 player game,  3 cards in your hand, and then deal 2 cards face up in front of each person. You then have to each add a card from your hand to the face up card, with the aim being to have the highest combined numerical value (jack = 11, queen = 12, king 13 and ace 14). If you win, the face up cards on the table are discarded and you get a point (if there is a tie, then you both add another card from your hand and a third time if it is still a tie. if its a tie after the 3 hand cards then nobody gets a point). The unused cards in hands are added back to the draw deck and shuffled, the face up cards are discarded.You continue until there are not enough cards left in the draw deck to complete everyone's hands.
I'm trying to introduce it to friends , but I cant keep calling it "A card game I really like" does anyone know what its called?

information that might help people,  what do you mean by the 'highest value'. Is that sum of the card ranks, is it something similar to Three Card Poker?   Is claiming cards some sort of trick taking?  Is the game just 5 rounds long as your going through 10 cards a round?

Sounds a lot like War

The rules as given are pretty uninspiring. If the goal is to have the highest sum (of your given face-up card plus the one you play from your hand), then wouldn't you just play the highest card in your hand every time? Why would you ever play either of the lower ones? Expanding or correcting your explanation of the rules might help someone answer the question; right now you're describing a game that isn't worthy of a name. ;P


text:
Are there cases where an Enchantment Aura effect remains on a creature when it is returned to owners hand?
I had Lorescale Coatl on the battlefield, which has the ability:

Whenever you draw a card, put a +1/+1 counter on Lorescale Coatl.

In response to this threat, my opponent used the Enchantment Aura Frogify on Lorescale Coatl:

Enchanted creature loses all abilities and is a blue Frog creature with base power and toughness 1/1. (It loses all other card types and creature types.)

On my next turn, I cast the creature Roaming Ghostlight with its ability:

When Roaming Ghostlight enters the battlefield, return up to one target non-Spirit creature to its owner's hand.

I used this ability to return Lorescale Coatl to my hand.
This however created a discussion around which creature returned to my hand.  Should it be Lorescale Coatl with all its abilities or a blue Frog Creature?
What is correct in this situation?  Your advice is as always highly appreciated.

FWIW:  If your Lorescale Coatl had some +1/+1 counters on it, Frogify doesn't impact those counters.

Comprehensive rules 400.7:

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

and none of the exceptions apply here. Therefore the object in your hand is the card Lorescale Coatl, and if you successfully cast it then it will be a "regular" Lorescale Coatl with its normal abilities.
Related to this, Frogify itself will go into its owner's graveyard.

Thanks. you now have me researching the nine exceptions!

I am wondering, why would this not apply to the use of Frogify?:… 400.7a  Effects from spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities that change the characteristics of a permanent spell on the stack continue to apply to the permanent that spell becomes.

@Spaciousmind Neither Lorescale Coatl nor Frogify are spells on the stack at this point.

Lorescale Coatl is never a frog in your hand, and Frogify is moved to the graveyard when Lorescale Coatl leaves the battlefield.

When does Frogify have an effect?
Frogify creates a continuous effect that changes the characteristics of the creature it enchants.

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.

The continuous effects of static abilities apply as long as the static ability is active.

611.3a A continuous effect generated by a static ability isn’t “locked in”; it applies at any given moment to whatever its text indicates.

With few exceptions, static abilities function as long as their source is on the battlefield.[1]
From this, we know that something is only a frog as long as Frogify is on the battlefield and enchanting it.
For example, if Frogify were to be destroyed, its effect on the creature it was enchanting would cease immediately.

Can Frogify affect a card in someone's hand?
So we know that Lorescale Coatl is only a frog as long as its enchanted by Frogify. So we ask ourselves if Frogify can enchant a card in someone's hand.
A Lorescale Coatl in your hand can't be a frog because Frogify can only enchant creatures.  "Creature" specifically refers to creature cards and tokens on the battlefield.

303.4. Some enchantments have the subtype “Aura.” An Aura enters the battlefield attached to an object or player. What an Aura can be attached to is defined by its enchant keyword ability (see rule 702.5, “Enchant”). Other effects can limit what a permanent can be enchanted by.

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

110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. [...]

But it doesn't even try to enchant a card in your hand
Even if Frogify could enchant a card in someone else's hand, it still wouldn't even try to do so in the OP's scenario.
In Magic, there's a concept of objects moving between zones. ("Enters the battle field", "leaves the battlefield", "put into the graveyard", etc) But that's a lie. Objects don't move between zones. What really happens when an object is moved is that the object in the first zone ceases to exist, and a new object is created in the new zone.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. [...]

This means that when Lorescale Coatl is returned to your hand, the following two things really happen:

The Lorescale Coatl on the battlefield enchanted by Frogify ceases to exists.
An unrelated Lorescale Coatl card is created in your hand.

Since Frogify is no longer enchanting anything, it's sent to the graveyard.

704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

There are nine situations in which one object can see a relationship between the object that ceased to exist and the new object. These are obvious in practice. (For example, Acrobatic Maneuver would never be able to return a card if it didn't recognize the link between the permanent it exiled and the card in exile that was created as a result.) None of those exceptions allow Frogify to enchant the Lorescale Coatl card in your hand.

The primary exception is that characteristic-defining abilities work in all zones, even outside of the game. The others are rare and obvious.


text:
Paying mana cost, Targeting, Sacrifice, and Ward
My opponent has Kykar, Wind's Fury, a 1/1 Spirit Token, and 5 lands (that produce any mana.) The only creature I control is a 6/6 Trample, Ward {1}.
Opponent has a Switcheroo in hand and their goal is to exchange control of a 1/1 Token with the only creature I control. Is my opponent able to do this in any way? (without exchanging their Kykar)
There was some confusion about when targeting happens, when paying mana costs happen, when Ward 'triggers', if ward is an additional cost or just paying for the ability, using Kykar's ability to sacrifice a token for mana, and being able to target the new token being created from Kykar's 1st ability.
I've seen several topics discussing each of these effects and abilities individually but not all together.

Sadly, I don't think it will work.

Cast Switcheroo, targeting the 1/1 and the 6/6
Two triggers happen: Kykar sees the spell cast, and the 6/6 sees it is targeted by an opponent's spell.
In AP/NAP order they go on the stack; first is Kykar's ability, then the Ward 1
Ward 1 has to resolve, but since you only have the original 1/1 that was targeted by Switcheroo, if you sacrifice it to pay the ward cost, Switcheroo does nothing (since you can't exchange control with nothing). So either Switcheroo is countered by Ward, or it does nothing.
Kykar creates another 1/1.

So if you manage to play Switcheroo on your opponent's turn instead, then this would work due to the AP/NAP order being switched.

The rules for Ward are in 702.21, the most basic meaning of the ability is 702.21a:

702.21a Ward is a triggered ability. Ward [cost] means “Whenever this permanent becomes the target of a spell or ability an opponent controls, counter that spell or ability unless that player pays [cost].”

This answers a lot of your questions, ward triggers whenever a creature with ward becomes the target of a spell (this will include if a spell that was already cast changes target onto something with ward, say with Deflecting Swat). Ward is not an additional cost but it's own triggered ability that you can pay for or not, so it is paid for at a different time than the spell itself. A lot of the time players will short cut this by treating it as an additional cost, since usually the ward trigger is the top thing on the stack when a creature with ward is targeted.
Effectively for this situation Ward  works like a Force Spike/Mana Tithe cast while Kykar's trigger is still on the stack. Becaused of this JonTHeMon's answer is correct in how the ability would resolve, assuming your opponent has no other way to make mana, the new token from Kykar will come in to play after the ward trigger resolves, meaning it cannot be used to pay for the ward cost.

UPDATE: Based on the edit to the question there's a few  more points.
First, as part of casting Switcheroo, both targets need to be chosen. This means a few things, first that the new token Kykar would create is not going to be in play when targets need to be chosen, so it cannot be one of the targets, the only legal targets are Kykar, the 6/6 and the existing 1/1 token.
Second Exchange is a keyword action in magic even if most players don't realize that it is. This means that the full rules on it are in the CR in section 701, specifically 701.10:

701.10 Exchange

701.10a A spell or ability may instruct players to exchange something (for example, life totals or control of two permanents) as part of its resolution. When such a spell or ability resolves, if the entire exchange can’t be completed, no part of the exchange occurs.

Example: If a spell attempts to exchange control of two target creatures but one of those creatures is destroyed before the spell resolves, the spell does nothing to the other creature.

This means if you sacrifice the first token after it is targeted by Switcheroo to pay the ward cost, even though there will be an identical token in play when Switcheroo tries to resolve, it's not the same creature that was targeted by the spell, the spell no longer has enough legal targets, so Switcheroo will fizzle.


text:
MTG: Who is responsible for applying triggered ability effects, and what is the limit in time to claim that effect?
While playing MTG, who is responsible for a triggered ability and what is the limit in time to claim it?
Let put an example:
Using the activated ability of Obsidian Fireheart, I add a counter on one of my oponent's lands.
Then I end my turn and they start untapping their cards.
Is it my responsibility to tell them "hey!, don't forget to lose your 1 life" and can they intentionally foreget it otherwise?
Also, if it's my responsibility to tell them, what is my limit in time to do so?

House rule was to conduct untap and upkeep in parallel. If you untapped all your lands and you forgot to leave one tapped to pay for my Nefs Asp having damaged you that one time before, then you took one again, and I can point that out at any time before you end your turn. But if you're going to nettle with a card that I can do nothing about, then you're keeping score.

In general, it is always both player's responsibility to ensure the game rules are followed; quoting from the Tournament Rules, section 1.10 "Players":

Players are responsible for [...] Maintaining a clear and legal game state.

The exact rules around missed triggers are complicated and vary by Rules Enforcement Level (REL), but in general:

Players are responsible for triggers they control
You are not required to point out missed triggers your opponent controls to your opponent - but unless you're in a real competitive situation, consider doing so, particularly if you are playing against a less experienced player as this makes you a Good Person™.
If you accidentally miss a trigger which is beneficial to you, there is in general no penalty.
Accidentally missing a trigger which is detrimental to you is a minor penalty.
Deliberately missing a trigger is a major penalty.

As always, if you end up in a situation with missed triggers or anything else, the correct action is to call for a judge and let them sort it out. It's what they're there for.

Consequently, If I understood well: The owner of the land is the triggers controller and responsible of getting  the 1live dommage. However, when in non-competitive game (without judge), what is supposed to be the penalty?

If you don't have a judge, sort it out between you. If you can't sort it out between you in a friendly game, don't play with that person.

Yes, sure! It was to understand what kind of penalty applies. As begginers, we usually miss lot of triggers, thus, assuming some type of penalty is also an incentive to play better.

The penalties in the rules are essentially "out of game" effects: warning, game loss, match loss, tournament disqualification. None of those are particularly helpful for a friendly game, if you think penalties will make you play better I suggest making some up: doing the dishes, buying the next round at the bar or whatever.

@PhilipKendall the "what kind of penalty applies" part is IMO important and worth including into the answer since that's not obvious.

@ivan_pozdeev that comes under the "complicated and vary by Rules Enforcement Level (REL)" bit; those penalties apply only at Competitive / Professional REL, and most players will never play at that REL.

In the olden days (pre-covid) the answer would be different depending on the REL (Rules enforcement level) of the event.
Pre-release were entry level events and celebratory in nature. If somebody missed a trigger, no big deal. The event was meant to celebrate the new set.
FNMs were somewhere in the middle, depending somewhat on the concentration of Spikes, Johnnies and Timmies at the event.
At a PTQ or GP things were different. Here people came to compete. Here both players were expected to keep accurate game states. In these types of matches lack of rules knowledge or the forgetting of a trigger was not considered a valid reason to loose a match.
If a player was under some misconception in regards to rules it was not acceptable to remain silent for some benefit. Competitive mtg has always desired the better player to win, not just the better rules lawayer

Is this not still true today?

I dunno, I was under the impression in person mtg events don't exist anymore.

There's still in-store pre-releases and the pro tour is still held in paper; not to be confused with the Arena Championship.

Also Regional Championships and Regional Championship Qualifiers.

@PhilipKendall All those events were started in 2022. We did have a certain amount of time without in person MTG.


text:
Does Vexing Bauble counter taxed 0 mana spells?
Imagine there is a Vexing Bauble and Thorn of Amethyst in play. If I play a 0 mana artifact like Black Lotus and pay the tax collecter their dues does the zero mana artifact still get countered?

No, Vexing Bauble will not counter a spell that was cast with a mana tax that increases a spell's cost.
Vexing Bauble's ability says

Whenever a player casts a spell, if no mana was spent to cast it, counter that spell.

and Thorn of Amethyst's ability says

Noncreature spells cost {1} more to cast.

This is an additional cost to casting a spell. If you cast a non-creature spell while Thorn of Amethyst is on the battlefield, you have to spend at least one mana casting that spell to pay that additional cost (assuming there are no cost reducing effects). Since at least one mana was spent to cast the spell, it is not the case that no mana was spent to cast it, so Vexing Bauble does not trigger.
Note: this does not apply to effects that are also colloquially referred to as "taxes" but do not affect a spell's cost, such as Rhystic Study.

+1 because this does answer the question, but it might be good to address other kinds of taxes - for example, paying {1} to prevent the draw from a Rhystic Study would not satisfy a Vexing Bauble, because the {1} is paid into a triggered ability and not an additional cost to cast the spell.

I think that's just basic logic that anyone can work out on their own. Thorn of Amethyst says in its ability text that it increases the cost to cast spells, so you are spending that mana to cast the spell. Rhystic Study doesn't say that, so it doesn't do that.

@murgatroid99 realistically, almost everything we answer here falls into that category if someone took the time to read up on the entire CR. It's better to be explicit, clear and verbose than leave possible ambiguity from shortcuts and interaction misunderstandings.

This isn't one of those cases where you need to have read the entire CR to be able to work out the answer. It's just basic logic applied to the plain English meaning of the text of the cards in question. And I answered the question that was asked, directly and completely. This conversation is about answering a different question that wasn't asked, about a different card that does a different thing.

The rulings on Vexing Bauble covers this situation, it even mentions Thorn of Amethyst directly (Emphasis mine):

If a spell is cast with an alternative cost that includes mana (such as flashback), Vexing Bauble's first ability won't trigger and won't counter that spell. Similarly, if a spell is cast without paying its mana cost, but the player did pay mana for additional costs such as from kicker or from Thorn of Amethyst, Vexing Bauble's first ability won't trigger and won't counter that spell.

All that cards like Vexing Bauble, Lavinia, Azorius Renegade, Boromir, Warden of the Tower, or Nix care about is that at least one mana was spent towards the total, final cost of casting the spell. And it does care that it was paid with mana, since effects like convoke and improvise all allow you to satisfy the mana cost "rather than pay that mana" it is still not paying mana.
Note this only covers the final mana cost to cast the spell, not any other effects. Effects like Ward, Rhystic Study, and Esper Sentinel aren't part of casting the spell. While many players will short-cut these by tapping the extra mana during casting the spell, they are triggers that happen after the spell is cast, just like Vexing Bauble is a trigger after the spell is cast, and will all still go on stack even if Vexing Bauble is going to counter the spell. Also from the rulings on Vexing Bauble (emphasis mine):

Players may cast spells that they know Vexing Bauble will counter. Any abilities that trigger when spells are cast will still trigger and resolve if appropriate, and any effects that count how many spells are cast will still count those spells if appropriate.


text:
Can I steal a commander and return it to my hand?
I was in a commander game with some friends and I was playing rogues. I popped the saga The Trickster-God's Heist stealing their commander, then I wanted to return that card to my hand with say Alley Evasion, or Fading Hope. Can I keep their commander in hand or can they return it to the command zone?

You can never return an opponent's commander (or any other card) to your hand
All cards that return cards to hands always specify that they return the card to their "owner's hand".  A card's owner is not its controller.  While a card's controller can change throughout a game, the card's owner cannot.  You will always own all the cards that you started the game with, and never gain ownership of any of your opponents cards.
Card you own will never enter your opponent's hand, library, or graveyard.  More than being unallowed, there are simply no cards (outside of Un-sets) which do such a thing.  And of course, this means that cards your opponents own will never enter your hand, library, or graveyard.
If you were to use Fading Hope on your opponent's commander that you control, it would return to your opponent's hand.  They could choose to use the commander redirection rule to have it return to the command zone instead, but it would never enter your hand regardless.

108.3. The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in their deck. If a card is brought into the game from outside the game rather than starting in a player’s deck, its owner is the player who brought it into the game. If a card starts the game in the command zone, its owner is the player who put it into the command zone to start the game.

400.3. If an object would go to any library, graveyard, or hand other than its owner’s, it goes to its owner’s corresponding zone.

Technically, there are some old cards that do change a card's owner. All of them are only allowed when playing for ante, a game mode where the mode itself already means that at least one card, selected at random, will change ownership as a result of the game (unless the game ends in a draw). Playing for ante is hardly ever done, for obvious reasons.

@Douglas: It should probably also be noted that playing for ante may constitute gambling in some jurisdictions, and you could theoretically get into legal trouble over it. In practice, I highly doubt most authorities are going to care unless you're conducting a tournament or something (which would have to be unofficial, as DCI/WotC prohibit ante in sanctioned events).

@Douglas There are some silver border cards as well.

As neither silver bordered/acorned nor ante cards are legal in any constructed format (outside a playgroup rule 0ing them in) the cards that can change ownership of cards tend not to be relevant.

Owner vs Controller
When one plays Magic, reading the card in detail is important because the words that are not in parentheses describe what the card does free of any interpretation.
The effects in spells are generally written following the same formula, they state what the card will do, for example "deal 3 damage" or "draw a card", when it will do it, for example "when it enters the battlefield" (the exception being non-permanents like sorceries and instants whose effect comes in play the moment they resolve) and  who/what is affected by that effect, for example "target player" or "each opponent".
Here in that second part is usually where "owner" and "controller" are important, when a card states that an effect affects a permanent (like a creature) "you control", it affects any permanents that entered the battlefield under your control and haven't had a controller change (which can occur with effects of spells like Mind Control).

110.2. A permanent’s owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it (unless it’s a token; see rule 111.2). A permanent’s controller is, by default, the player under whose control it entered the battlefield. Every permanent has a controller.

110.2a If an effect instructs a player to put an object onto the battlefield, that object enters the battlefield under that player’s control unless the effect states otherwise.

So then Fading Hope should work right, it just lists that it affects a "target creature", well yes, the spell does work but it doesn't do what you may think.
In Fading Hope and all spells that return a target creature to the hand (but not just this type of spells, it happens in a lot of other types too), the part that describes what the effect does is the one that causes the confusion.
In Fading Hope as an example the card says

Return target creature to its owner's hand. If its mana value was 3 or less, scry 1.

It targets any creature in the battlefield, but it returns it to its owner's hand, not its controller's hand.
The owner of a permanent is the one who started the game with the card that represents it in their deck, sideboard or command zone, so your opponent will always be the owner of their commander, and that can't change no matter what.
You can change the controller of said commander, but the owner will stay the same as initially.
So what happens when you cast Fading Hope in the commander you stole is

You target the commander who is owned by your opponent
Assuming the spell resolves it goes to its owner's hand, as stated in the card
Your opponent can decide to move it into the command zone because of the rules of commander
If its mana value was 3 or less you scry 1

The end result is the same if you cast the spell on the opponent's commander before you steal it or after.

108.3. The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in their deck. If a card is brought into the game from outside the game rather than starting in a player’s deck, its owner is the player who brought it into the game. If a card starts the game in the command zone, its owner is the player who put it into the command zone to start the game. Legal ownership of a card in the game is irrelevant to the game rules except for the rules for ante.

This might go a bit too far in going back to basics; we can probably assume the reader understands the basics of how the text of a card's text works, and probably should assume that since it's not in the scope of the actual problem.

I've played MTG for 8 years, but I've only recently started playing EDH so new to the concept of it

@doppelgreener I disagree in this case, since the entire question hinges on a misunderstanding of the difference between controller and owner, which I would say is pretty core basics to the workings of Magic: the Gathering


text:
How should a creature-centric deck prepare for board wipes?
The game would be short, or so I thought. My opponent was at less than 10 life, while I was at 20, commanding an army of burly creatures with nothing to block them. Victory was mine.
And then they played something. Maybe it was Doomskar, or Extinction Event, or Blood on the Snow, or Shatter the Sky, and those are just the ones I know by heart. The point is, now I had no creatures, while they could spend the rest of the game taking their sweet time and killing the few creatures I managed to play with spot removal.

Seriously, board wipes irritate me to no end. Especially because they're so cheap — Doomskar, for example, costs just 3 mana if it's foretold. That could allow you to build a substantial board presence afterwards!
At this point I wonder if I need to build my decks around the possibility of board wipes to have a chance of surviving. Packing along a few counterspells and cards that grant indestructible seems reasonable.

Are you playing Bo1 or Bo3? (It doesn't fundamentally change the answers but there are a bunch of things that apply to post-sideboarded games)

Is this a midrange creature deck or an aggro creature deck?

Ah, Wrath effects, the bane of creature decks everywhere.  Named for the great granddaddy of them all, Wrath of God, they can eliminate all your hard work in an instant.  But there are a few ways to work around them.
Don't overextend
If playing a deck likely to have a wrath, don't play all your creatures.  Keep one or two powerful creatures back in your hand to play once the creatures on your board get wiped.  It will slow down your ability to crush your opponent, but you won't be left completely high and dry if they kill your existing board.
Protect your creatures
Selfless Savior can protect one of your creatures from destruction.  Linvala, Shield of Sea Gate can protect all of them, as can Heroic Intervention (assuming you kept 2 mana open).  Some cards, like Seasoned Hallowblade and Toski, Bearer of Secrets protect themselves.  That said, black -X/-X effects and exiling wraths can still kill these.
Use death triggers to get revenge, or refill your board state
Creatures like Beskir Shieldmate or Garrison Cat replace themselves with tokens when they die. Anax, Hardened in the Forge, Basri's Lieutenant, and Hofri Ghostforge can replace your entire board. Luminous Broodmoth brings your creatures back from the grave, and Bastion of Remembrance punishes your opponent for killing them.  Exiling wraths dodge death triggers, though.
Use non-creatures that survive wipes to refill your board
Crawling Barrens and Faceless Haven will survive most wipes on account of not being creatures at the time.  Castle Ardenvale can refill your board and Castle Locthwain can refill your hand.  Vivien, Monsters' Advocate will keep churning out tokens turn after turn, and doesn't die to Wraths.
Use creatures that can come back
Creatures that can return themselves from the graveyard to hand or battlefield can keep you from ever running out of creatures.  Exiling wraths dodge this technique as well.

More common than -X/-X effects, are exiling wraths (Extinction Event, Ugin, Shadow's Verdict).

Similar to death triggers, ETB effects to gain value even after the creature is gone.

One more option: use burn or creatures with haste to just kill them even after the board wipe.

Also, I find that Shepherd of the Flock is a very cost-effective way of gaining some protection from wipe effects.

I'm glad you put "don't overextend" at the top --- that is the best method IMHO, since it does not require you to splash any counters.

If your deck includes blue, counterspells are generally good solutions for stopping your opponents' most dangerous spells, and if you are playing a creature-focused deck, board wipes certainly qualify. In addition, if your deck has "bounce" spells like Unsummon, you can cast them on your own creatures in response to the board wipe to save them. In other colors, you could respond to the board wipe spell by giving your creatures indestructible, or regenerating them.
However, the simplest way to handle a board wipe, in any color, is to keep some of your creatures in your hand instead of playing all of them. That way, you can play them after the board wipe resolves and rebuild your own substantial board presence. You will have to figure out the right balance of real board presence on the battlefield vs potential board presence in your hand during the game.

Good points, though I'd say bouncing your own creature is kind of a significant card disadvantage. I'm not sure how relevant that is at the level of play the question is asking about, but it might be worth a brief mention to help players who would benefit from caring about such things.

It's card-neutral at worst. It's essentially equivalent to playing an Opt and drawing a powerful creature.

If it's a powerful creature, sure, that's a different story. But I was talking about bouncing whatever you happen to have sitting on the board on, say, turn 4, which may not necessarily be that good.

Whether or not the creature is powerful, the action is still card-neutral. In both cases, you're spending a card to get a different card in hand that you otherwise wouldn't have at all. And you can always just not play the Unsummon at all if none of the creatures are worth saving with it. Of course, if the board wipe is coming down on turn 4, it's probably not setting you too far behind anyway.

Ah right, I was kind of tired and probably got the counting mixed up in my head :-P But the point I meant to make is that bouncing your own creature to avoid a wrath is a pretty undesirable use of a bounce effect, compared to what you'd rather be using it for in an aggro deck (bouncing blockers), and I don't think your answer makes that caveat clear. (Also, kind of a separate thing, it certainly is possible for a turn-4 board wipe to cripple an aggressive deck.)

It's not that I'm "not making that clear", but rather that I don't agree with it. If a bounce spell on your own creature at the right time prevents you from losing the game, then that is a very desirable use of the card. Sure, in another situation you might have been able to get more value out of bouncing a blocker, but you play with the board state you have, not the one you wish you had.

Fair enough... I guess all I can say is that the fact that the answer doesn't present bouncing a creature to avoid a wrath as a relatively undesirable use of a bounce spell (in an aggro deck) makes it a less useful answer IMO.

In what sense is it relatively undesirable, in the context of "there's a board wipe on the stack"? At that point, if you happen to have an Unsummon that you can cast, what better use is there for it?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@DavidZ Shepherd of the Flock can bounce one of your creatures without the card disadvantage.

Three more strategies that haven't been mentioned yet:

Just get under the wrath.  This is what mono-red usually tries to do.  You either win on turn 4, or you have some reach to get the last few damage in after the wrath (Stomp, Faceless Haven, Anax tokens, Phoenix, etc.).

If you're playing black you can use discard spells to remove the wrath from their hand (Duress, Elspeth's Nightmare, Kitesail, etc.)

If you're playing white you can use taxing cards (Reidane, Elite Spellbinder) to delay the wrath by a turn or two and get under it.


text:
Deciding winner with flush on table (Texas Hold em no limit)
I am creating my own poker game prototype as a hobby project.
The game calculates the combinations every player has and decides a 5 card hand
to be used when calculating a winner if players have the same combination.
The attached images show my exact scenario.
In this specific case there is a flush on the table and HUMANPLAYER and Ramon Tandheelkunde (a Dutch randomized name for fun) both split the pot because they have exactly the same five card hand. (See the image with the log). Lisa Rutte however, loses because her 9 of Hearts is added to her five card hand. Is this supposed to happen or should Lisa also win or be the only one to win since she has a hearts in her hand unlike the others?
Edit: Lisa Rutte actually gets a six cards hand instead of a five cards hand. This obviously is a bug but my issue is with her 9 of Hearts getting added at all making her lose. This happens because the game compares each five cards hand from left to right making Lisa kicked out of the race because her 9 is lower than the J's on that spot in the five card hands of the other players.
Thanks for thinking with me! :)
Kind regards,
Ricardo

It does, but is is not a fun answer haha. So basically I have to code the whole algorithm that gets explained in the answer of that post just for the three rare scenarios described in that post he is answering to. xD

And the thing that confuses me. All players MUST make the best five cards hand available. So it seems logical that the 9 gets added to the five cards hand of Lisa between the 6 and the J. But it's not fair she loses because of that.

She should win because the 9 gets included.  All have A,K,J.  Lisa has a 9 vs Ramon and HUMANPLAYER 6.

The real problem is why your interpreter gives Lisa a 6 card hand instead of 5.

Thanks, is it okay then to say: the player with the highest card of the same suit as the table flush wins, if no one has a same suit card in hand then the pot is split? Because you are only allowed to look at five cards.
Let's talk straights for a moment. If there is a straight on the table and no one has an adjacent card then everyone has the same five card hand so the pot is split.
Is it OK to apply this logic to a digital poker game without any intention to let players play with real money?

Even if someone has an adjacent card, there could still be a tie. If there's a 3,4,5,6,7 on the table and a player has a 2 in their hand, their best hand excludes the 2. A good way to think of this is, everyone has 7 cards available (2 in their hand, 5 on the board) and must make the best 5 card hand they can. Take everyones top hand and compare them to each other.


text:
Number of possible hands in last two rounds of Texas hold-em
In the paper for the Poker AI, Libratus, the following is said:

The last two betting rounds, which are exponentially
larger, are more coarsely abstracted. The 55 million different
hand possibilities on the third round are grouped into 2.5 million buckets, and the 2.4 billion different possibilities on the
fourth round are grouped into 1.25 million buckets.

I don't understand how the 55 million and the 2.4 billion hand possibilities in the third and fourth round are calculated. This seems like it would be obvious, but the calculations I'm doing give me different numbers, and I'm unsure what I'm doing wrong. I also know very little about Poker, so it's very possible I'm missing something.
Any help would be appreciated.

One factor is whether "the number of hands" is the number of possible hands a single person can have, or whether it's the number of possible overall board states (that is, taking into account every player's hand). If the latter, we would have to know the number of players.

An explanation of how these numbers were derived is available in Johanson, Michael. (2013). Measuring the Size of Large No-Limit Poker Games.
Essentially those are the number of card combinations from one player’s point of view in a heads-up limit Texas hold’em game after merging strategically identical combinations.
How to count different card combinations with isomorphism? over on the Mathematics stack has more information on the combinatorics used to losslessly merge isomorphic card combinations.


text:
Tabletop heist game
I don't remember a thing about the name but here is what I remember from playing:

The stats/ability side of character creation was done with 3 cards (probably have the names wrong) a family, a class, and a quirk, ex: my character was a gravedigger thief with some quirk that allowed me to heal.

The game was set when guns were just becoming a thing.

It seemed somewhat wargamey as the GM would gain heat tokens if we did suspicious stuff.

Actions would use a d100 and you would have to hit below a number designated by class.

There were day and night phases (only got to play one day and one night) where during the day we would plan and during night we would do footwork ex: gathering information, murder, casings, and theft.

You had 100 luck which you could spend to add to your roll but it was also your hp.

The other 2 people in the party were an _____ assassin who was a failed alchemy apprentice as quirk and a vodok? brawler ______.

That's all the information I remember, thank you for taking your time to read.
i dont know how to say its answered as im new to this site but ATCOlogy got the game, thanks for that https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/51616/32773

[I directed this user here based on a much terser description of a game they played on Tabletop Simulator.] Is this based on a board game or an RPG? I can't really tell by your description. I may have guided you to the wrong site of this network.

Going to bed. This is the RPG site if that's more appropriate.

Re "i dont know how to say its answered", You click the checkmark next to the answer you like :)

This sounds like Dusk City Outlaws, a tabletop RPG from Scratchpad Publishing, which is available on Tabletop Simulator according to the publisher's website. Gravediggers are a character type in the game, and the other mechanics you describe (heat tokens, percentile-based skill rolls based on your class, day- and night-based phases, luck serving as HP and a way to modify rolls) would also fit. A video example of play is available here.


text:
Marrying Mr. Darcy - Can Kitty Bennet play one more turn after the last turn?
In the card game "Marrying Mr. Darcy", Kitty Bennet's special power states that

When it's time to draw an Event Crad, she can choose to draw the top discarded Event Card instead.

Usually, when the last Event Card is drawn, the game ends. However, if the last Event Card is drawn by the player to the right of Kitty Bennet, can Kitty still take one more turn by re-drawing that same last Event Card after it is discarded? or is the game immediately over when the last Event Card is intially drawn regardless of Kitty's special power?

No, she can't take one more turn by re-drawing that last event card. The game enters the Proposal Stage as soon as that last card was played.
From the rules:

When all Event Cards have been played, the Proposal Stage
begins immediately


text:
Munchkin - can you put cards which you cannot use sideways
In the card game of Munchkin (or Munchkin Zombie) I've seen people put some cards on the table sideways. Usually, they can't use those cards for some reason like it's not for their class or they exhausted body parts limit.
They do that, so they could trade cards, that they cannot use.
Is it used to distinguish equipped and carried items?
The rulebook that came with the game (in the Polish language) does not cover this kind of behaviour.
Edit: For the base version of the game, there is a new one available online which has this covered. Also, all rulebooks in English include this rule.

Afaik it is covered in the rule book, but I could remember wrong. I do this, too, and these "tapped" cards are supposedly in your backpack.

@Erik you are right, all current rulebooks in English contain this rule. My mistake.

This appears to be a standard part of the rules for Munchkin for Item type cards.;

All Items you have in play are considered “carried.” Items that are actually
giving you a bonus are “equipped.” You should indicate Items that are not
equipped by turning the cards sideways. You may not alter the status of your
Items during a combat or while running away

For rules for more specific expansions, the parent page of the link above is loaded.

Might be worth pointing out that the rules only specify this for Items (not for Races or Classes).

@Raj, yes it is just for items, I will highlight that.


text:
Warhammer 40K White scars
Im trying to work out what rules still apply to white scars. I have watched lots of videos about the different space marine factions and white scars Play style appealed to me. Since getting the support codex I can't find the rule that lets them charge after falling back or advertising this being the main point of the videos I have watched as there are not very old I didn’t think it would be a redundant rule. So if anyone could shine some light on this rule it would be a great help.

Be aware that "not very old" may still be "too old" right now, as WH40K 9th Edition has released in the past 2 weeks.

To the best of my knowledge (I'm quite new to the game), the current edition of WH40k (9th, ca. Aug 2020) is largely compatible with the previous edition (8th, ca. June 2017), but not any of the earlier editions. If the videos you were watching are older than 2017 then they are very likely to be out of date.

That said, I believe the trait you're looking for is called "Lightning Assault". I couldn't tell you where to find it (I'm not a Space Marine player and haven't read their codices), but it looks like it applies to any battleforged army consisting of only "White Scars" units

James Otter's comment is right. The rule you're looking for the the Lightning Assault is the White Scar's "Chapter Tactic" and allows a Charge after Falling back or advancing.

It's covered in detail her Goonhamemr Review
The Supplement itself was first published in August 2019 according to its Amazon listing. But the rules for the Chapter Traits appear in the main Space Marine Codex.
Note that the linked articles are from the 8th Edition period, and Space Marines as GW's poster children are the most subject to frequent change. I'm unaware if these rules have been modified by the recent 9th Edition release.


text:
Go question about eyes
I just learned how to play GO today, and I was stuck on one thing in particular. This was the board state:

As you can see on the south-west corner (close to A1), I tried to capture my opponent's (which is a computer, 25 kyu) group of pieces. But I found out that I couldn't place my pieces on those empty squares because that would be a suicidal move. How do I acquire those pieces?
I was black and the computer/AI was white.

Who is white and who's black? Which corner is "south west"? perhaps the corner nearest the point A-1? If yes, say so. That's why the points are labeled.

"How do I acquire those pieces?" Do you imagine that it should always be possible to capture pieces that are on the board? If so, why should the game ever end?

@Forget I was ever here Ok, my apologies, but I just learned Go yesterday. I will change it right now.

@Karl Knechtel This is the first game I have ever played. People don't know anything when they're born. They rely on instincts and other people for help. Same way, I used my instincts and I thought I could capture that group of pieces on the board. Because that didn't work, I asked other people for help. If that's a problem, please don't hesitate to tell me. Thanks!

I didn't ask about that group; I asked about groups in general. The point is that jumping to "how do I do this" is the wrong question; first you must question what is possible.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: I see no need to discourage the questioner from using compass points, which seem to me self-evident, given the convention that N is up, and capable of useful nuances such as SSW (or even “NE by E”, though I realise that 32nds are not well known!).

As you now know from the answer you accepted, you were mistaken in thinking it was possible; I think @KarlKnechtel was simply trying to help you ask yourself the right questions, but his comments unfortunately came across as rather discouraging. I hope you take to the game, which can provide a lot of satisfaction whatever level you reach, and enjoy it. If you want to find out more about it, Sensei’s Library, at https://senseis.xmp.net/ , is one of many useful sources.

You did not need to capture, as long as you were winning anyway: I estimate the score as roughly 70 for Black to 45 for White. You just had to make sure White did not capture any of your positions; in particular your group in the E, which you could easily make quite safe by playing at playing S13 to connect it to the rest. But even if White attacks that group, you would have to make several bad mistakes for them to actually capture it!

In order to capture a group, you need to deprive it of all "liberties," the empty spaces touching the stones. In this case, the southwest group has two liberties, on A1 and C2.
However, as the rules don't allow you to leave any of your own stones without liberties at the end of your turn, you can't play on A1 due to suicide, and the same goes for C2. In order to capture that group, you'd have to somehow play on A1 and C2 at the exact same time, but you only get to play one stone per turn.
So how do you capture the southwest group? The answer is, you can't! Welcome to an important fundamental part of Go strategy: "Life and Death."
The southwest group is in a state where it is invincible, and nothing you do can capture it, so we refer to this group as "alive." On the other hand, a group which can't save itself from being captured is "dead."
How does a group become alive? In the exact way shown on your board here. Inside the group are two separate liberties (empty spaces), and since you can't play inside both spaces at the same time, capturing the group is impossible. Liberties inside a group are called "eyes," and if a group is capable of making two eyes, it is alive.
A group that can't save itself is a group that has no way of making two eyes. These groups are considered dead. Typically Go players do not even go through the process of capturing groups that are clearly dead, and instead just capture the dead stones once the game is over.
Though, playing out the position to check if the stones are really dead does not affect the final score, as each additional stone added to the dead group is worth a point for the capturing player, but each additional stone played to complete the capture fills up one point's worth of the capturing player's territory, so it all balances out in the end.

Great answer! So the key is to surround the pieces before the group gets too huge?

If you really have to capture, then yes surround before it's too huge, though to clarify it's a specific kind of huge which has space for eyes in the middle. (See the ladder technique here for an example where you can let their group get quite big in a controlled manner and still capture it.) However, the real key is that this is a game of tradeoffs: it's fine if their group gets huge and invincible as long as in exchange you're able to get an even bigger invincible group somewhere else!

What @BenjaminCosman says about trade-offs is very important, but perhaps even more important is to realise that you win by making more territory than your opponent; you only need to capture if they would otherwise have more than you.

@Sriswaroop Koundinya: Yes, that's the idea. More specifically, you have to prevent the group from forming two separate eyes. So it's not all about size; a group of as few as six stones can become alive in the corner, and as Benjamin said, even a large group can still be dead if it can't make two eyes. And as PJ said, not being able to capture a group is fine if you're already winning, one captured stone is worth no more than one controlled square of territory. In the case when you're ahead, your opponent is the one who needs to take the risk of trying to capture you.

@SriswaroopKoundinya Adding to what David S. said, my Go teacher preferred to say that you need to take away eye-space if you want to kill a group. Limiting the total size of a group is a way to take away eye-space. But you can also play stones into the area that your opponent wants to take, which are connected to stones outside. No eye can touch an opponent's stone, so such a connected chain of opponent stones is very effective at taking away eye space. You don't care how big your opponents group is if it's just meandering through a two-space corridor with your stones on both sides.


text:
What is the name of this tabletop multiplayer card game
You start with a normal 52-card deck, you then distribute the cards randomly and evenly to all players. First player starts by putting down any number of cards he wants (provided they are the same number) face down,(for example 2 5's), he then says what he just put down.
All other players can either pass and the turn goes to next player, or say bull$***. If they were correct and that player was putting down cards different than what he was saying, he gets the pile of cards that have been played, if the cards matched what was played, the one saying bull$*** gets all the cards. If it is your turn, and you don't have any cards you want to play you can skip.
The player who finishes the cards in his hand wins, sort of like UNO, but without knowing the real cards.
The strategy is to sneak in the cards that you don't have all 4 suits of without anyone knowing and returning the entire card pile to you.
Some obvious no-no's to better explain:

If you don't have all 4 suits of some number in your hand, don't put down a mix of cards and say (4 6's when you don't have the 4 6's)
Start your turn by putting any sets of 4 suits you have as there is no way for someone to win a bull$*** on them
If someone is about to finish his cards, it can be rewarding to claim bull$*** and bring him back to square one

My friends call it bull$***, what is it's common name?

I always called it B.S. growing up, but it is also knows as Cheat, as well as a couple other names.
From Wikipedia:

Cheat (also known as Bullshit, B.S., Bluff, or I Doubt It[3]) is a card game where the players aim to get rid of all of their cards.[4][5] It is a game of deception, with cards being played face-down and players being permitted to lie about the cards they have played.