text:
When does Niv-Mizzet's trigger resolve?
While playing a Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind EDH deck. If I cast a spell which would cause me to lose the game via drawing too many cards, but would deal lethal damage to the last opponent e.g a wheel effect with a hand larger than my library, do I draw all the cards before Niv-Mizzet's trigger resolves and lose or deal damage after each card drawn and win?

In a 2-player game, you would lose the game and the Niv-Mizzet triggers would not resolve.
The Wheel of Fortune you played would resolve as the only object on the stack. After the Wheel has finished resolving, before the damage triggers would even be put on the stack, you would lose the game for having attempted to draw from an empty library.

116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.
116.5. Each time a player would get priority, the game first performs all applicable state-based actions as a single event (see rule 704, “State-Based Actions”), then repeats this process until no state-based actions are performed. Then triggered abilities are put on the stack
704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions
704.5b If a player attempted to draw a card from a library with no cards in it since the last time state-based actions were checked, he or she loses the game.

To clarify, triggered actions are put on the stack the next time a player would get priority. Are Niv-Mizzet's triggers put on the stack first, or does the player lose first?

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she chooses. (See rule 101.4.) Then the game once again checks for and resolves state-based actions

But that doesnt really matter since they will not resolve because the game will be over anyway (in a 2 player game)

I've just checked and 116.5 clarifies that state-based actions are checked before triggered abilities get added, so Niv's triggers never make it to the stack. A minor point that wouldn't matter in this case (the abilities would disappear when the player dies anyway), but the game rules have the potential for this to make a difference (e.g. with replacement effects for abilities).

Thanks, a game I played the other week should have gone the other way then. (the table (non of whom were judges)  ruled that the trigger happened per card). I'll make sure not to do that again!


text:
Is there a tier list of all precon Commander decks?
C19 is currently being spoiled and I am thinking about buying it. The idea is to buy a group of deck to play with friends.
Here is the idea. Lets consider that we are 5 people sitting at a table. This is casual kitchen table magic.
We all know how to play mtg and commander. Our global level is homogeneous and mostly amateur.
I would like to buy 5 decks from different commander set, but I fear to buy one deck which will be seen has much more powerful than the others.
What would be a tier list of all precon Commander deck?
A tier list would help because I could choose a group of deck in the same category. Commander being a 100 cards singleton format, it offers a much higher entropy that classical construct. So a tier list may not be relevant.

This question might be opinion based and the strength of deck that will depends on what type of deck you are playing agonist.  Every deck has good and bad match ups, you can design a deck to bet one type of deck but then it might lose to other strategies.

several lists and videos are available on the internet. Ranking preconstructed decks is going to depend on opinions. This article is a good semi-subjective tiered ranking of all 830 available commander cards: http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/list-multiplayer-edh-generals-by-tier/

@Styxsksu so are you saying that I can bought any decks because the whole level of the deck will matter less than the deck's archetype? Most of precon edh are mostly midrange-y deck. So will I be fine no matter what?

@AyatollahofRock'n'Rolla if you are aware about lists and video ranking preconstructed decks from different years, I would love if you could share those links. The link you posted in your comment is a ranking of all edh generals. I am not sure how it is helpful.

@Styxsksu *that I could buy

Link answers aren't answers, that's why. Sorry you don't see the value of a list of all commanders ranked against one another. I thought that would be a good way to see how the commander themselves compare against the whole, and each other. The Commander card is the most important part of a proper commander build after all. Give this a shot: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=commander+precons+ranked

As far as I'm aware there are no official rankings for Commander preconstructed decks. However, each deck in a given set it made with the others in mind to be balanced against. Thus, Mirror Mastery is more likely to be balanced against Counterpunch than it is against Open Hostility.
Here is a list of sets, which each contain the decks that were in that set (and thus what they're balanced around). However, as you said yourself, Commander is a more volatile format and balance is not going to be a consistent thing. This is especially true when you consider that Commander is less competitive than traditional magic and more political/social. Consider Political Puppets. It certainly has win conditions, but the commander is based around giving your permanents away in order to play diplomatically with your opponents.
If you definitely want decks from different sets, in lieu of a formal ranking and because they aren't necessarily balanced around each other, I would look at the price of each of those decks. While certainly not a perfect way of telling, very powerful decks with highly sought after cards tend to be more expensive.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the differences between the various version of Nosferatu?
I am struggling to find the difference between the various version of Nosferatu.
New version

Old Version

There is this one also but I know nothing about it

(source: lapouleapois.fr)
What are the difference between the old and the new version of Nosferatu? Is it just the box?

I uploaded a pic representing the difference between the two latest versions.
https://boardgamegeek.com/image/4244715/nosferatu

@masu your comment could be an answer. :)

back then I did not have anything else than the pic... added it as an answer with my comments

There are differences between all three editions - what they are exactly I do not know
From the Board Game Geek page, your first image appears to be the 2017 edition, while the second image is the 2014 edition.  The third image is listed as the "English/French first edition (2013)".
I found a thread called Which version to buy asking about the different editions.  The thread dates back to 2015, meaning that it is likely comparing the 2014 and 2013 editions.  There are evidently noticeable game-play differences between them.
From the thread:

The new version plays much better imo, as the race against the rituals allows the vampire to be much more strategic than the throne card from the original version. In the original, the vampire regularly had to make very risky plays just to avert crisis when then deck ran out. In larger games, this was a huge downside that often relieved some people of suspicion too early in the game.
The only downside to the new version is that the publisher removed the graphics from the cards for whatever reason. This makes it a little harder to remember what's going on, as new players might forget what bites do, what the rituals do, etc.

Finding information on possible changes in the 2017 version was a bit trickier.  Among the publishers listed on BGG I could only find the newer version being displayed by one publisher - the Brazilian publisher Conclave Editora.  Conclave lists the 2017 edition as Nosferatu 2nd Edition, and includes downloadable rules for both that edition and the 2014 edition.  Alas, I do not speak Portuguese, so I cannot tell you whether the rules have changed substantially.  There are at least some differences - the newer version includes 7 Vampire Hunter cards instead of 6 and 2 vampires instead of 1.  The listed player-count has changed from 4-8 to 4-10.
The rulebook has been significantly changed in appearance and layout between the editions, further challenging my ability to find discrepancies between them.  However the art on the game pieces illustrated in the rulebook do not seem to have changed at all.
The 2017 edition appears to be able to accommodate two extra players that the 2014 edition could not.  I suspect that there are no other significant changes, but cannot confirm that without the ability to read Portuguese.

New features of the newer version:

extra roles (+1 vampire +1 investigator) and rules for 2 extra players (which I find interesting)
card border is white instead of black (which I like, wear&tear will show later than with the black borders)
tokens for roles and seances (which I don't like as it can be prone to wear&tear)
larger box with insert (which I don't like as this makes the box less compact, the insert is worthless as well)
different and larger stake (which is possible bc of the larger box... which I don't like)
no text on cards (which I do like)
totally different art on seance cards, somewhat different on others (which I don't care about)
missing help cards (which I don't care about)

Card counts are the same (other than the above).

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


text:
What to do when you don't have any move available?
During a game of Splendor on Board Games Arena, I reached a state where no move can be made. My timer ran out and I was expelled from the game.

(source: i.ibb.co)

I can't reserve a card because my hand is full.
I can't take any token because none are available
I can't spend any card because I cant pay them

How should this kind of state be handled by the game? What should I have done while in this state?
I opened a thread on bgg too: What to do when you can't play? | Splendor and someone created a bug report on bga: When no action is possible, player is booted from the game (instead of passing automatically).

It looks like you're playing on BoardGameArena.   If you believe there is a bug in there games you can report them here https://boardgamearena.com/bugs
You've got a screen shot so that will help the developers.

Or more specifically Splendour bugs can be reported here https://boardgamearena.com/bugs?game=1394

Am I missing something? It looks like you can pay for your second reserved card

@Arcanist Lupus BGA has an option to show either card cost (as per physical copy) or show how much more in needed.  for 2nd reserved card it looks like they have enough blue but need one more green.

@StartPlayer, it doesn't show much of what you have you need to spend?? Even if you have enough, it'd seem like important information to know how much you're left with after...

@ikkachu Its an option on the BGA version.  I don't use it.  I prefer the cards looking as the do in physical version.  I find it to confusing and cards wouldn't do that in a real game.   I agree I want to know what I have left.

You pass the turn
More formally, you take the "take three" action and follow the "do as much as you can" principle* to take zero.
From a representative of Asmodee Games

So, official answer:
If a player really has no possibility to make any action, he is allowed to pass.
And of course he has to prove this by showing his hand.
And regardless what the FAQ literally says, the official latest ruling is: If you want to use the action "take 3 different" and you can't because there are no 3 different, THEN, you can take 2 (or 1 if only one kind is available). Under no other circumstances you can take less and you can never take 0 unless you cannot take any other action as well, because this would be a pass turn.

The app may not allow you to take the "take three" action when you have no tokens to take, but that is the official way to handle the situation.
*"do as much as you can" is a fairly common method in board games of resolving situations where the game state makes it impossible to fully complete an action. It's not universal, but very common.

Doesn't the quote kinda contradict the statement in your first sentence? It says you can't choose "take three" to only take zero if there's any other move available, and explicitly calls it "passing" instead when you actually do get to pass because you can't do anything else.

In the Days of Wonder app, if you reach a state where (say) there are only 2 colours of token available, it allows you to just take those two tokens, even though this doesn't meet the action as stated in the rulebook of "Take 3 gem tokens of different colors". (I've never set up a situation where there are no tokens at all available) Again, while not definitive, this highly rated quick ref on BGG states "As many as possible if 3 colors not available".
Generalising this, I'd say you can take 0 tokens as your turn.


text:
What does a player get after defeat the Boss Monster in area 11, 12 and 13?
In the Mini Rogue game, when a player encounters a boss monster and defeats it, he/she gets a reward that is mentioned at the boss monster card based on the level in each area. In front of level 5, the reward is "OG's Blood".
So as I understand, I get the OG's Blood after passing area 14. But what do I get in level 5 other areas like 11, 12 and 13 after killing the boss monster?
Should I continue in area 11, 12 and 13 of level 5 without any reward for killing the boss monster?

In the "latest" version of the rules this card looks somewhat differently.

The way I read the rules it is not possible to encounter boss monster before the last area of a level.


text:
Who controls Oath of Scholars' trigger?
The Oath of X cycle triggers on each player's upkeep and targets an opponent that meets certain conditions. Who controls this ability? The controller of the enchantment or the player whose turn it is?
For a concrete example, suppose I have Oath of Scholars and Rayne, Academy Chancellor on the battlefield. At the beginning of my opponent's upkeep, Oath triggers and they choose me. Do I get to draw from Rayne?

The controller of a permanent always controls that permanent's triggered abilities. This is covered in rule 603.3a:

A triggered ability is controlled by the player who controlled its source at the time it triggered, unless it’s a delayed triggered ability.

The source, in this case, is the Oath of Scholars enchantment itself. This ability is not a delayed triggered ability, so you don't have to account for that.
So, Rayne's ability will not trigger if you are chosen as the target for your own Oath of Scholars.


text:
What happens in the case of multiple land animation effects?
Suppose I have Noyan Dar, Roil Shaper, and I cast an instant and use the trigger to put 3 counters on a Celestial Colonnade, turning it into a 3/3 colorless Elemental with haste.
Now suppose I activate Celestial Colonnade. What happens? My assumption is that it becomes a 7/7 white and blue Elemental with haste, vigilance and flying until end of turn, and then it goes back to being a colorless 3/3 with haste. Is this correct?

Yes, the land will be 7/7 until end of this turn, and a 3/3 otherwise.
Noyan Dar's and Celestial Colonnade's abilities do the same thing: Turn the Colonnade into a creature that's still a land and set its power and toughness to a specific value. When both effects are active, the latest effect "wins".
Therefore, the order in which you activate them matters. If you first activate and resolve Celestial Colonnade's ability, then trigger Noyan Dar, the Colonnade will be 3/3, because the Colonnade's power/toughness-setting ability will be overwritten by Noyan Dar. If you trigger and resolve Noyan Dar first and then activate the Colonnade, it will be a 7/7.
Noyan Dar's ability has no end condition, and counters always remain on permanents, so the land will be a 0/0 with 3 +1/+1 counters on it when the Colonnade's ability has ended.

Yes, this is correct.

613.6. 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.

(source: Comprehensive Rules)
Since the Celestial Colonnade's has a later timestamp, it 'overwrites' the power and toughness from Noyan Dar. It will still have the +1/+1 counters and Haste; Celestial Colonnade's ability doesn't say it loses those.


text:
Do I draw a card when I resolve an enchantment with Eidolon of Blossoms, Opalescence, and Torpor Orb in play?
I control the following permanents:
Eidolon of Blossoms

Whenever Eidolon of Blossoms or another enchantment enters the battlefield under your control, draw a card.

Opalescence

Each other non-Aura enchantment is a creature in addition to its other types and has base power and base toughness each equal to its converted mana cost.

Torpor Orb

Creatures entering the battlefield don't cause abilities to trigger.

Summary:

Eidolon of Blossoms triggers a card draw when an enchantment enters play.
Opalescence makes enchantments into creatures.
Torpor Orb prevents creatures from triggering enter-the-battlefield effects.

So when I cast my next enchantment (that will be creature due to Opalescence), does it trigger the draw from Eidolon of Blossoms?
I anticipate the answer is no, but I wanted to confirm my suspicions.

Should we start considering a tag for "mtg-opalescence"?  :P

Eidolon of Blossoms will not trigger due to rule 603.6b.

603.6b Continuous effects that modify characteristics of a permanent do so the moment the permanent is on the battlefield (and not before then). The permanent is never on the battlefield with its unmodified characteristics. Continuous effects don’t apply before the permanent is on the battlefield, however (see rule 603.6d).
Example: If an effect reads “All lands are creatures” and a land card is played, the effect makes the land card into a creature the moment it enters the battlefield, so it would trigger abilities that trigger when a creature enters the battlefield. Conversely, if an effect reads “All creatures lose all abilities” and a creature card with an enters-thebattlefield triggered ability enters the battlefield, that effect will cause it to lose its abilities the moment it enters the battlefield, so the enters-the-battlefield ability won’t trigger.

Let's use Armistice as an example of a non-aura enchantment that would be affected by Opalescence.
You cast and resolve Armistice. According to the rule, Armistice is never on the battlefield without being affected by the continuous effect from Opalescence. Therefore, the Armistice enters as a creature. Torpor Orb prevents creatures from triggering abilities, so nothing triggers.

No, you will not draw a card.
With Opalescence on the battlefield, every other non-Aura enchantment enters the battlefield as a creature in addition to as an enchantment. Normally they would trigger Eidolon, but Torpor Orb prevents that. Logically, you couldn't have Eidolon trigger on a permanent but not have it prevented by Torpor Orb, they trigger on/prevent the same condition. Either both have their effect, or neither.

I am not sure this is correct since wouldn't an enchantment such as Pacifism still trigger Eidolon of Blossoms since it won't get turned into a creature with Opalescence since it is an aura?

@JoeW No, OP asked about So when I cast my next enchantment (that will be creature due to Opalescence),

Thanks for pointing that out, I missed that critical part of the question.

Non-aura enchantments won't trigger the Eidolon.
Other answers have focused on Opalescence and how its state-based effect interacts with enters-the-battlefield triggers, but there's another aspect of your question that might be a source of confusion: Torpor Orb specifically refers to creatures, but non-aura enchantments would still also be enchantments, which is what the Eidolon's ability checks for. It's kind of plausible to interpret this distinction in favor of the Eidolon triggering, but it's not correct.
I haven't been able to find anything in the comprehensive rules that explicitly addresses this, but there's a card ruling on Torpor Orb that clears up some doubt:

The trigger event doesn’t have to specify “creatures” entering the battlefield. For example, Amulet of Vigor says “Whenever a permanent enters the battlefield tapped and under your control, untap it.” If a creature enters the battlefield tapped and under your control, Amulet of Vigor would not trigger. If a land (that isn’t also a creature) enters the battlefield tapped and under your control, Amulet of Vigor would trigger.

(See Gatherer)
Essentially, Torpor Orb's effect is about a class of events - i.e. a permanent whose types include creature ETBing - rather than a class of abilities - i.e. those that trigger in response to permanents whose types include creature ETBing.

Whether you draw a card or not will depend on the enchantment being cast.

Opalescence makes enchantments into creatures.

Actually, Opalescence makes other non-Aura enchantments into creatures. That means that Auras and Opalescence itself are not affected by its effects, so the Eidolon's ability will resolve normally if you've either cast Opalescence or an Aura enchantment.
For other kinds of enchantments, however, Opalescence will have them become a creature as soon as they enter the battlefield, and Torpor Orb's ability will prevent the Eidolon's from triggering.

To clarify, casting Opalescence when no Opalescence is on the battlefield will draw a card. Casting a second Opalescence would not draw a card because each Opalescence can affect each other (it says "other non-aura enchantment" not "non-aura enchantment not named 'Opalescence'")

Eidolon of Blossoms effect does activate when the enchantment is cast, since Opalescence would change it afterwards to be a creature as well. The effect of Opalescence only affects enchantments that are on the field, meaning it would chain alongside Eidolon (allowing you to pick how they go, so let Eidolon's effect resolve first by making it chain 2).Torpor Orb will not have any response then, has a creature has not yet entered the fray.

That's not how it works. Opalescence's ability is a static ability, and it applies as soon as an enchantment enters the battlefield.

I am not one of the down voters, however, there are multiple mistakes in this answer.  Eidolon does not "activate," it "triggers."  Eidolon triggers when the enchantment enters the battlefield, which is not the same timing as when you cast it.  Opalescence will cause an enchantment to enter the battlefield as a creature and trigger anything that triggers when creatures enter the battlefield.  It is worth noting, though, that Opalescence will not turn enchantment spells into creature spells, so an enchantment spell can't be countered with Remove Soul.


text:
How can I determine whether two decks are equally strong?
I am making a homemade TCG using cartoon network card wars as a backbone. How can I determine whether the deck of any two specific characters are equally strong, including the floops and not battling between the decks?

Other then random testing of the decks and looking at  win/loss ratio it is going to be hard to determine. If you do that you need to ensure that the people testing the game understand both decks that are being played and the game.

Playtesting is by far the best option (and how all major (and minor) trading card games) have been designed. Do not only pitch the two decks against each other, but also against other decks.
Other than that, if the rules are simple enough, you can do some mathematical analysis. E.g. for Magic: The Gathering, compare the mana curves of the decks, and if both are Aggro decks, you can compare the average Power/Toughness of the creatures. But given Magic's rich ruleset, that is bound to fail. Still, it might work for simpler examples, such as when comparing two non-standard chess armies by relative piece value.


text:
Do I draw a card in this situation with Oblivion Ring in MTG?
Situation:
My opponent has an Oblivion Ring exiling my Wirewood Savage. I play Beast Within targeting the Oblivion Ring.
The following things will happen:

The oblivion ring will be destroyed
A beast will be put on the battlefield
My Wirewood Savage will come back

But in what order? I want to know whether or not I'll be able to draw a card by Wirewood Savage's effect.

You will not draw a card.
When a spell or ability resolves it resolves fully, then all abilities that were triggered during that resolution are put on the stack immediately after.
Beast Within resolves fully, destroying Oblivion Ring and creating a beast.
Oblivion Ring's 'leaves the battlefield' ability it put on the stack.
The ability resolves, bringing back Wirewood Savage.
Modern versions of Oblivion Ring such as Ixalan's Binding use a different template.  For those, you would draw a card.
Ixalan's Binding reads

When Ixalan's Binding enters the battlefield, exile target nonland permanent an opponent controls until Ixalan's Binding leaves the battlefield.

This creates a one-shot effect (exiling a permanent) that lasts "until" Ixalan's Binding leaves the battlefield.  As per rule 610.3:

610.3. Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones “until” a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.

Wirewood Savage would return to the battlefield immediately after Ixalan's Binding leaves play.  Then you would create a Beast token, and because Wirewood Savage is in play, Wirewood Savage would trigger.

So one-shot effects can happen halfway through the resolution of a spell or ability? They don't have to wait until a player next has priority?


text:
Is Root really asymmetrical and balanced?
As in the title, I wonder if the game really has different win conditions and gameplay between factions, I wasn't able to grasp it  in reviews.
Also are every factions equally inclined to win or are some of them stronger? (Difficulty not included, if it requires to be really good to play well with faction A and faction B is really easy to play but both of them win as often, it's balanced in my eyes)

Root is highly asymmetrical
While each faction has technically the same goal (reach 30 victory points), and there are some universal ways of gaining victory points (destroying your opponents' cardboard, and crafting items), each faction has its own unique mechanics for playing and earning other victory points.
The Marquise de Cat earn victory points by building Sawmills, Recruiters, and Workshops.  No other faction even has these buildings, let alone gets victory points for building them.
The Eyrie have a building of their own (Roosts), but they don't get victory points for building them - instead they get victory points based on the number of nests they own every turn.
The Woodland Alliance earns victory points for spreading Sympathy, which superficially resembles the Cat's method of earning points, but the Cats build using wood (which the other factions don't interact with at all) in areas they control, and the Woodland Alliance spreads Sympathy without needing control (or even board presence) by discarding supporters (an extra 'hand' of sorts, which the other factions don't have.
The Vagabond earns points for giving cards to the other players and completing quests.  The other factions can't even do these things, much less get victory points for them.
The asymmetry of Root comes from the highly asymmetric mechanics of the factions, rather than an asymmetry in the factions' goals.
Root isn't perfectly balanced, but it's practically balanced
Perfect balance is nigh impossible to achieve.  Even if every player has identical abilities, any game with sequential player turns will have at least a slightly unbalanced nature, meaning that the only games with the potential to be perfectly balanced are ones that involve simultaneous play, like Set or Bananagrams.
But a game is practically balanced if the advantage difference between the factions (or turn order positions) is smaller than advantages created by randomness, player skill, and play dynamics (i.e. who's being beaten on by all the other factions this time).
Root is practically balanced.  The differences in overall strength of the factions is slight enough that it's not obvious who will have the advantage in any given setup, and vagarities of play have more of an effect on the winner than any inherent advantage that faction has.
Slight caveat
I'm pretty sure that the Lizard Cult from the expansion is weaker than the other factions.  Certainly nobody in my playgroup has managed to win with them, and I've heard that they're getting some power errata with the newest expansion.  But the four base factions are extremely well balanced.

The other aspect about balance is the ability of players to influence each other - if there are some players with apparently unbalanced abilities but it's also easy for players to target the player in the lead to keep them in line, that can provide a form of balance (although that comes with its own issues). I haven't played Root so I don't know to what extent that matters, but given its similarity to war games I would assume that there's a decent amount of that.

@ConMan there is, and I mentioned it briefly (I called it play dynamics).  But I didn't talk about it too heavily, because while play dynamics brings a degree of automatic self-balancing to any heavily interactive game, I don't think that it makes the factions themselves any more balanced.

Root is asymmetrical.
Aside from a game where you have 2 Vagabonds every faction is wildly different while still using the same core mechanics. Even in a game with two Vagabonds however, they do share some asymmetry as each has 3 different characters to choose from which slightly modifies how they play compared to the other Vagabond characters.
Root is balanced (with some caveats).
They're balanced to some extent by the meta, but the latest Kickstarter is going to release revised rules for several of the factions. So yes, but no.
Since scores are public info, if one person pulls into the lead there's usually at least a full round where everyone else can try to stop them. This can lead to a "better" faction suffering and losing more often because they pull into an early lead and then get beat up by everyone else because of it.
In light of the release of rules revisions for factions in the latest Kickstarter it's obvious balance is being improved. It's worth noting that while I've read over the revisions I haven't actually played with them yet.
That said I've played several dozen games and I don't feel like any faction is excessively strong or weak. Any faction that is ignored can pull a win out. Depending on how well your group understands the other factions it can be more or less obvious that one faction is going to win on their next turn. Being the player to the left of a clear contender for the win is often enough to win yourself, because everyone will focus on taking them out of the running but then not be able to stop you.

I've played it a dozen times and seen all factions win. Also, in BGG comments all factions are alternatively seen as the "best" faction, so I guess it depends on the playing groups. For example, Woodland Alliance can quickly come from behind for the win if other players don't remove sympathy, the Vagabond can take the lead if no player attacks him, a well planned Eyrie can wreak havoc on other players, etc.
So my guess is that the factions are balanced but they are so different that the playing style of the players of each group will determine which will be the better faction to play for each specific group.

It is definitely asymmetrical, since each faction is completely different in their abilities and the way they have to play.
I only played it a couple of times:
 - The first time, the person who taught it played the Eyrie and he kept failing to accomplish his mandate almost every turn. And the person (older lady) who usually doesn't like complex games won playing the Marquise, to everyone's surprise. I played the Woodland alliance, and since I didn't know what I was doing, I made a couple of mistakes at the beginning and I wasn't able to catch up. I had the impression that even I had played it right it was a hard faction to play with. My son played the vagabond and he finished second.
 - The second time I played Eyrie and I was worried after seeing how the other guy struggled in the first game, but I was doing really well, until I was beaten by an experienced guy playing the Woodland alliance 30-28 >:-( (the vagabond scored 29).
Based on my experience, the Eyrie's strategy is to go after the Marquise as much as it can, and I believe the guy who taught was too nice to do that to the old lady. I didn't have that problem since the Marquise in the second game is a friend of mine with whom we are very competitive and always go at each other's throat. And realized that the alliance, when played well, can catch up very fast at the end.
So based in my little experience, it looks like it is a balanced game, if everyone knows how to play its faction.

Root isn't balanced.
A look at the Root Community Data Sheet, summarizing thousands of games, gives the following win percentages for the various factions.

As you can see, a player has a 1 in 3 shot at victory just by picking the Vagabond.

That data isn't very useful as it lets anyone enter data with no controls to validate any of it. You are also leaving out some very critical information such the number of games played which is up to 590 or as low as 5. It is very possible that the numbers are skewed based on player skill level and people picking the same faction each game. Meaning a skilled player picking Vagabond each game against players of lesser  skill is going to inflate those numbers. For an accurate number you need the same group of players playing lots of games rotating which faction they play each time.

Looks reasonably balanced to me based on this data, most of the factions are 23±7% WR except the last three which are massive outliers in their representation in the data, making them skew.


text:
Necroskitter and creatures dying because of placing -1/-1 counters
Necroskitter has the ability to return creatures your opponents control under your control if they die with a -1/-1 counter on them.
Sound perfectly fine to me, but I read here that when an undying creature with a +1/+1 counter on it dies through an effect which places enough -1/-1 counter on it, state base action is checked and the last information was, that it had a +1/+1 counter on it, so undying won't trigger.
Is this the same for Necroskitter? If there is a 1/1 creature and I play mtg:Black Sun's Zenith for X = 1 and place a -1/-1 counter on it, that state based action doesn't see a -1/-1 counter and Necroskitter won't trigger?
Tl;dr: If I place a -1/-1 counter on a 1/1 creature will I get it with Necroskitter? If yes, why does the game see the -1/-1 counters placed on the creature?

If it's a regular 1/1 creature, it will die and you'll get it back with Necroskitter, since when it dies it had a -1/-1 counter on it, so it qualifies.
If it's a 1/1 creature with a +1/+1 counter and 1 normal damage already, it will get a -1/-1 counter; that -1/-1 counter 'merges' with the +1/+1 counter, which would make them both vanish at the same moment the creature leaves the battlefield.

608.2g If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it’s no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object’s last known information. See rule 113.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.

The 'creature' referred to by Necroskitter is expected to be on the battlefield; creature cards in graveyards can't have -1/-1 counters on them. So last known information will be applied; it 'sees' a creature with a -1/-1 counter (and a +1/+1 counter) on it, so you'll get it back with Necroskitter.
It's essentially the same situation as Why doesn't Undying trigger if a creature with +1/+1 counters dies from -1/-1 counters?, the answer there explains the timing in great detail.

+1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters cancelling eachother out is a state-based action, same as a creature with 0 or less toughness dying. That means that if a creature with undying has a +1/+1 counter on it, and some effect (an ability, combat damage from something with wither or infect, etc.) places enough -1/-1 counters on that creature to kill it, it will die exactly simultaneously with the counters cancelling. Last known information therefore had it with a +1/+1 counter on it.
With Necroskitter, on the other hand, there is a delay between creatures getting -1/-1 counters and them dying from it. Most of the time you don't notice this delay, because you can't play spells or abilities in it, and nothing can begin to resolve between the two events. However, it is most definitely there: the damage or effect that places -1/-1 counters places them, and after that, state-based actions are checked and creatures die. Necroskitter will trigger from last known information.

I like the explanation with simultaneously canceling the different counters after they were placed and delay between damage assigned and state based action checked. This is where my confusion was.


text:
Is there a full analysis/explanation of the newspapers available?
We are playing through Carlton House at the moment, and we are feeling like we are missing a ton of hidden clues and Easter eggs in the newspapers. Has anyone done a full analysis of these, and where could we read it?


text:
What is the name of this 90's Planechase-like Magic format?
I have a vague memory of an unofficial Magic format from the 90's, that was similar in some ways to Planechase or Vanguard. In addition to the players' regular decks, there were cards that applied rules changes from "outside the game" ("command zone" by modern terminology), like Vanguards or Planes. A lot of the "command" cards were based on World Enchantments; some may have been based on other enchantments or artifacts with static abilities. I don't remember if each player picked one like Vanguard, or there was rotation like Planechase.
There was a site that listed the rules and had images of the "command" cards for making proxies. I saw it around 2001-2003, and it seemed a little old then.
Does anyone know what this format was called, or any extant sites with information about it?

I was pretty active in Magic in 97 and don't recall this, so I think it's from after that. Either 98, 99, or the early 2000s. Although it's possible it had been developed and just had very little popularity in my circles.

This sounds a lot like the Chaos format.

Chaos is a casual multiplayer format for Magic: the Gathering where the players add a Chaos Deck to the game to create new and exciting challenges. Chaos Magic is a variant of Free-for-All and might be considered an early form of Planechase.
The Chaos deck consists of 20–30 cards selected by some of the players involved. The player who goes first is designated the Chaos player; before that player untaps at the beginning of their turn, that player flips a card from the Chaos Deck face up on the table. That card is considered "in effect" until the Chaos player flips a different card after a full series of turns. The active Chaos card isn't in play and can't be affected by spells or abilities. Any player may use any abilities granted by the card, or, if it has a specific effect, each player immediately resolves the effect.

The earliest reference I can find to this is the "Mixing It Up" article on wizards.com (archive link), posted 11 December, 2007, which describes a few formats including Chaos Magic.

Fantastic lead!

Chaos also got a lot of exposure since it was built into "Apprentice," a client popular in the late 90s and early 00s for playing magic online.

@Chuu I haven't been able to find any reference saying Apprentice supported Chaos by design. Although Apprentice lacked a rules engine, didn't have the concept of card ownership and allowed creating cards on the spot. That seems to provide the flexibility to play something resembling Chaos if players are already familiar with that.

@NotThatGuy Apprentice by default had a menu option to roll a chaos die, and I believe also had an option to add a "chaos phase" to the phases of a turn to allow for chaos.  It did have an option to draw from one of the chaos decks as well, but I do not remember how it worked.  If you look in Addon.dat in Apprentice 1.4 you can see all the chaos rolls, for example, "Chaos1="Eureka" - All Players can drop Permanents into play, one at a time, until no player wishes to play more."  Online chaos tournaments were run, including once where the winner would add a card to PersonaLand.

If anyone is curious, Addon.dat from Apprentice v1.4: https://pastebin.com/HYNSZmsm  The ChaosMagic/WackyLand/PersonaLand/EnchantWorldLand are all part of the "chaos" ruleset.  EnchantWorldLand and PersonaLand do resemble planechase planes.

I think you might be referring to the "World Enchantment" format, also known as "Worlds". In this format, players would bring their own decks, but in addition to those decks, there would be a shared pool of "world enchantments" that would affect the game. The enchantments would be placed face-down on the table, and each turn, the active player would reveal the top card and apply its rules for that turn. Some versions of the format had players vote on which enchantment to use. I did some research with Google but wasn't able to find any website mentioning the format, but I am pretty positive to have read about it in a magazine in the late 90's.

There is a world enchantment type, but I can't find any link whatsoever to a format featuring these. It might be an obscure custom format (the 90s was very much the era of someone writing a random idea they had in a magazine, a bunch of people following that, no-one else having ever heard about it, and there being no traceable historic reference of it).


text:
Redirecting damage to my own planeswalker
Here's the situation. My opponent is at three life, has three creatures and a Nahiri, the Harbinger with three loyalty. I cast Rakdos Charm, choosing the "Each creature deals 1 damage to its controller." mode. My opponent controls the sources of damage, so are they able to redirect some of the damage to Nahiri in order to not lose?
I ask this because I was playing magic online a few days ago and a similar situation came up. I was surprised I didn't get the option to redirect damage to Nahiri myself until I read Rakdos Charm more carefully, but then I realised my opponent didn't get the prompt either. I'm wondering if the client handled this incorrectly, or there's some rule that caused this to happen.

No.
As of the Dominaria rules update in 2018, the planeswalker redirection rule is completely gone, so Rakdos charm cannot deal damage to a planeswalker at all.

306.7. Previously, planeswalkers were subject to a redirection effect that allowed a player to have noncombat damage that would be dealt to an opponent be dealt to a planeswalker under that opponent’s control instead. This rule has been removed and certain cards have received errata in the Oracle card reference to deal damage directly to planeswalkers.

Keeping the original answer below for historical reference:
Damage can only be redirected if the source of the damage is controlled by your opponent, and even then it's the opponent that can choose to redirect it, not you.

306.7. If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead. This is a redirection effect (see rule 614.9) and is subject to the normal rules for ordering replacement effects (see rule 616). The opponent chooses whether to redirect the damage as the redirection effect is applied.


text:
Can I use a Murder to kill a planeswalker if it is a creature?
Assume the other player has used Sarkhan the Masterless +1 to turn all of their planeswalkers into 4/4 Dragons can I cast Murder and destroy one of the planeswalkers, since they become creatures?

Yes, that's exactly how it works. Note that Sarkhan makes them not planeswalkers anymore (until end of turn), but even if they'd become a creature in addition to being a planeswalker, Murder would still work.


text:
Are you required to search your deck when playing a search card?
I had a miss click while playing arena and played a search card and it automatically showed me my deck.  In the paper magic could you play a search card and choose not to look at your deck if you had scry something to the top and you just want another affect of the card, I had Aetherflux Reservoir in play and mainly just wanted the life gain from playing a cheap spell.

related - https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/11831/can-you-fail-to-find-a-card-in-someones-hand#:~:text=Per%20the%20comp%20rules%2C%20%22fail,re%20present%20in%20that%20zone.

@Styxsksu, it depends on the specific wording of the card.  Some cards require you to search, some cards say "may" search.  Can you give the exact cards you are asking about here?

It was enlighten tutor but was wondering if the shuffle was required or just a function of playing on arena.

Yes. (Unless the card says "You may search your library for ... If you do, shuffle it afterwards.)

608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written.

If the spell tells you to search your library, you search your library. Most of these place restrictions on what cards you search for; in those cases, actually finding a card is not required:

701.19a To search for a card in a zone, look at all cards in that zone (even if it’s a hidden zone) and find a card that matches the given description.

701.19b If a player is searching a hidden zone for cards with a stated quality, such as a card with a certain card type or color, that player isn’t required to find some or all of those cards even if they’re present in that zone.

701.19d If a player is searching a hidden zone simply for a quantity of cards, such as “a card” or “three cards,” that player must find that many cards (or as many as possible, if the zone doesn’t contain enough cards).

Essentially, if you haven't touched your library (except drawing and milling) since you last shuffled it, you could argue that you don't really need to shuffle it if you don't actually search for anything (I don't know how official tournament rules are, but casually it really should not matter). But if you know what the top of bottom card it because you've scried, then you can't get away from shuffling.

unless it says may or another effect prevents or modifies it (like aven mindcensor or leonin arbiter)

Also that's not 100% correct on not being required to find a card - if the search has criteria that would be hidden info (rampant growth requires the found card to be basic land) you can choose to fail to find even if there are cards that meet the condition in the deck, but for something like Grim Tutor (search for a card), there's no criteria that is on hidden information so you must find a card unless you are searching an empty library.
https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rulestips/2011/03/failing-to-find/

this answer is incorrect, you can always fail to find as long it is a hidden zone.

@NeilMeyer The answer used to say that until my comment, with supporting info got it changed, can you please support your comment? Most searches have restrictions on the cards they can find, by type or possibly name, and you can fail to find based on this hidden info, but some (mostly black) searches just require that you look for a card - if your library has cards in it or not is not hidden info and thus you must find one of them in these cases.

@Andrew You would still shuffle the entire library with an opponent's Aven Mindcensor or Leonin Arbiter on the battlefield

@MatthewJensen The comment was made 3 years ago on an old edit of the answer. It had nothing to do with the shuffle and everything to do with the searching.

In the specific instance (from OP's comment that the card was Enlightened Tutor):

Search your library for an artifact or enchantment card and reveal that card. Shuffle your library, then put the card on top of it.

All these are mandatory actions.  Glorfindel gives the rule that says you may "fail to find" (701.19b applies; "artifact or enchantment").  If you do fail to find,

609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

Means that you won't reveal "no card", and after shuffling, you won't put "no card" on top, but it is possible to shuffle, so you do.
So here you may not choose to not search.  You also may not choose to not shuffle (for obvious reasons!)  This would also apply in paper, but it's likely "at the kitchen table" that everyone equated "fail to find" with "don't search", and didn't realize the effect that had on known cards in the deck (or shortcutted it frequently when it didn't matter, and didn't realize it's different when it does matter.  I have certainly seen on YouTube that shortcut taken in Commander games - when everyone agreed that no card's places were known).

Note: The OP is playing Arena.  Enlightened tutor is not in Arena.  However, Idyllic Tutor is.  I suspect that is the card of interest.  Wording (for purpose of this question) is essentially identical for both cards, so this doesn't change your answer.

You are allowed to fail to find if you are searching a hidden zone. Your deck specifically is a hidden zone.

701.18b If a player is searching a hidden zone for cards with a stated quality, such as a card with a certain card type or color, that player
isn’t required to find some or all of those cards even if they’re
present in that zone.

You are required to shuffle your deck afterwards regardless if you failed to find or not.

This is already covered by Glorfindel's answer; you also seem to be using an outdated version of the CRs - "search" is 701.19 in the latest rules.


text:
Interaction between Esix, Fractal Bloom and Forbidden Orchard
Could I stop another player from ever creating more than one token for Esix, Fractal Bloom to affect on their turn by giving them the spirit in their upkeep from Forbidden Orchard or does it not count the token given to you?

Given the Oracle wording for Forbidden Orchard "target opponent creates a 1/1 colorless Spirit creature token" could you explain what you are finding difficult to understand here?

If

your opponent controls Esix, Fractal Bloom
they have e.g. a sorcery to create a lot of tokens
they have a good creature to copy
you want to limit them to only one copy on their turn

then yes, you can activate Forbidden Orchard to do this. Esix does not care about who controlled the trigger, it only cares about who created the token, which in the case of Forbidden Orchard is your opponent.


text:
What happens if Merfolk Trickster taps Emmara?
Emmara, Soul of the Accord

Whenever Emmara, Soul of the Accord becomes tapped, create a 1/1 white Soldier creature token with lifelink.

Merfolk Trickster

When Merfolk Trickster enters the battlefield, tap target creature an opponent controls. It loses all abilities until end of turn.

What happens if the trickster targets Emmara?
She gets tapped and then loses all her abilities - but does it count as simultaneous so her ability sees the tapping and creates the soldier?

Great question! I went back and forth a couple times before deciding on an answer. I'm only about 75% confident that it works according to the rules I've quoted....

You will still get the token.
Merfolk Trickster's ability does 2 different things, one after the other. Emmara's ability will trigger when the first one happens (tap target creature).

603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.

So at that moment, the ability has triggered (but it is not on the stack yet). Then, immediately after, Emmara loses all abilities.
Next time a player gets priority, the triggered ability goes on the stack:

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority.

This ability is not tied to Emmara at all; so it doesn't matter that Emmara doesn't have the ability anymore:

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability.

That's exactly the line my thinking went too, but like you I was also unsure.

If the order of actions were reversed would you not get the token?  Say the ability said "Target creature loses all abilities until end of turn.  Tap it."

@DenisS I'm almost sure that's correct. Losing the abilities is something that would happen immediately, before it was tapped, even if players don't get any priority between the two events.

According to the Gatherer rulings for Merfolk Trickster:

If the target creature has an ability that triggers when it becomes tapped, that ability triggers before it loses all abilities.

So yes, you do get the token.

Funny that I somehow missed the Gatherer ruling! Also, the rulings there are making me re-open an old question of mine.

@ikegami https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/15438/what-happens-if-a-creature-has-no-toughness-defined

Excellent thanks, I've accepted the other answer as it used the rules as a source but upvoted this one which confirmed it was correct.


text:
Spawn zones: the tile or the zone?
One quick clarification.
I was playing with a new group of friends and the way they spawn the zombies is on the spawn tile (the red tile). Because of that, when the activation phase for the zombies comes, this group does the first walk from the tile to the zone where the tile is located.
How I play is, the red spawn tile marks the zone the zombies spawn; then, during activation, they will move to the next zone and not into the zone from the tile as the group above.
What's the correct way to spawn and do the movement for the zombie?

The tile (or possibly multiple tiles) is used to mark the zones that zombies spawn in, but the tile itself isn't a zone. Zombies can't be "in" the tile, they are in the zone that tile is on.

That's how I thought it worked.


text:
MTG Layer System - Does adding a basic land type to a land grant the mana ability at layer 4 or layer 6?
This question was inspired by this question involving the interaction between Dryad of the Ilysian Grove, Ichthyomorphosis, and lands.
In the original question, OP asked why his lands could tap for any color in spite of the fact that the Dryad had lost all its abilities.  This was, of course, due to the layer system, because the Dryad added the basic land types to all of it's controller's lands in layer 4 and then the Dryad later lost it's abilities in layer 6.
However, in writing the answer, I found myself wondering about the abilities of the lands themselves.  I was wondering if the lands gain the abilities to tap for any color at layer 4, when they become all basic land types, or at layer 6, when abilities are added and removed from cards.  This distinction doesn't change the answer to the linked question in any way, due to rule 613.5.

613.5. 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.

However, we all know Magic is an extremely complicated game sometimes, and there could be an edge case where the abilities being intrinsic to the basic land type or added at layer 6 could potentially effect the game state.
Obviously, the Dryad's type-changing ability starts to apply in layer 4, and doesn't stop applying even though it is removed in layer 6, but does the intrinsic ability for basic lands to tap for their corresponding color appear at layer 4 or layer 6?
I can see one of two possibilities.

The ability to tap for mana is intrinsically tied to the basic land type.  A swamp doesn't gain abilities at layer 6 because Swamps tap for {B}.  Therefore, if you change a land into a Swamp via a type-changing effect, it gains the ability at that layer.

A land having a basic land type is a continuous effect, and part of that continuous effect includes adding mana abilities.  If a land is a swamp, then at layer 6 it gains the ability to tap for {B}, because abilities are added at layer 6.

When a card has one of the five basic land types it simply intrinsically has a corresponding mana ability:

305.6 The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol],” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is {W}; for Islands, {U}; for Swamps, {B}; for Mountains, {R}; and for Forests, {G}.

This isn't granted by the layer system because the layer system is about interaction of continuous effects (and in fact exists inside the rule section named the same). The intrinsic ability isn't granted by a continuous effect; it's just granted by the rules as a matter of fact based on the card type. A card granted a basic land type simply has that ability as soon as it gains the type (at layer 4).
A basic land can lose all abilities though, in which case it would lose these abilities in layer 6.

Where do Wastes fall in the basic land type rules?

While Wastes are basic lands, they are not a basic land type interestingly.

Yep, there's no Wastes type. There were too many problems with making it one. The Wastes lands have an actual mana ability in their oracle text, unlike the five basic lands.

@L.P. They don't. The ability "tap: add colorless" was added to the card by day 1 oracle errata, not by the rules, so it's in effect a printed ability, not a rules granted ability on the card. This was a sidestep to not change the basic land rules and add a type, but not have the land physically have printed ability text and look out of place with other basic lands (or need text on the full art copies)


text:
Who wins if player who said 'cabo' has lowest points but another player also has the same?
Game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabo_%28game%29
More reference link: https://www.wired.com/2011/01/pass-the-time-with-cabo-where-strategy-meets-quirky-fun/
We were playing this using playing cards, but logic remains same.
One action in the game play is,
Call “Cabo”, which states - If a player thinks that they have the lowest scoring hand, they can call “Cabo” to end the round. There is a penalty for performing this action if you do not actually have the lowest hand.
Now, we had a situation where 3 players (A, B, C) were in the game, and Player A called 'cabo'. Now at the end of the round, hands were as below
A: Ace (one)
B: Ace (one)
C: Queen (Twelve)
Now, C is clearly higher whereas A and B are tied. Now, does this qualify as lowest hand for player A who called the 'cabo' as he is technically having the lowest which happens to be tied with another player? Who wins that round? Does player A, gets the advantage of calling cabo?

Having looked around a bit I have not seen any rules for dealing with ties but there are two ways to handle it and personally I think the first is the best since there is some risk involved in calling cabo.
First: The player that called cabo wins as it can be risky to call it since the other players all get one more turn to play as stated in the wiki.

When a player calls cabo, the other players each get one more turn and then everyone has to turn their hidden cards face-up, and lay down the cards from their hand. The player with the lowest score wins

Second: You declare it a tie and all players with the low score share the win.

The Wired article you link has some more details

Games of Cabo are played over the course of several rounds where
  players will try to minimize the value of their 4-card hand.
  Following each round, the losers will receive penalty points based on
  the cards left in their hands. Once a player hits 100 penalty points,
  the player with the lowest score wins the game.
There’s also some opportunity to “shoot the moon”.  Any player who
  ends a round with two 12s and both 13s (a very risky feat) will
  receive 0 points while all other players receive 50. Also, if the
  player who causes the game to ends can finish with exactly 100 points,
  their score will be reduced to 50 points.

So there isn't a winner declared for an individual round. The final winner is based on total score. There aren't any tiebreak rules, so I expect multiple people with the lowest total score at the end would be considered tied winners.

Other sources show that the "winner" of a round is the player with the lowest sum of card values in hand. They receive zero points for the round.

Yes, mostly I wanted clarity on how to decide a tie breaker for that round. What will  be the difference in points awarded to the player who called 'cabo' and the player who didn't and both have same set of cards at the end.


text:
Helping without being asked, is this legal?
My brother and his friend were playing Munchkin Legends, and my brother helped him when it wasn't asked of or needed. He then stated that he was in the battle, and he tried to run away, even though he wasn't the one fighting or needed. He then played the Lemming Parade card so his friend had to run away. His friend and I thought that that was against the rules because my brother wasn't the one who had to run away. Is it against the rules?

Well, it may be against the rules, but it certainly isn't against the spirit

No, a player may not foist help upon you.
The rules state "you may ask any other player to help you" at which point the player may accept or deny the request. There is no "involuntary" help.

In addition, in your specific case, since help was not needed, even requesting help is not allowed, according to the official Munchkin FAQ:

Q. Am I allowed to ask for help if I am currently winning the fight? The rules say I can ask for help if I'm losing, but nothing about if I'm winning.
A. That's because if you're winning, you don't need help, and a true munchkin would never ask for help he doesn't need. Unless a card says otherwise (and a couple do, for their own weird reasons), you may not ask for help if you are winning a combat.

Source: Official FAQ

I think you meant to say since help was not needed instead of since help was needed.

I think that technically, there are cards that force other players to accept your help. But the base rules are indeed that you have to be asked to help.

Being able to force your help would make the elf race overpowered, since you would be able to gain levels freely on other people's turns.

Please keep in mind the pan-ultimate rule of Munchkin (which should be adopted for every game): The owner decides any unclear ruling issues.
Also, your brother couldn't have played the card, since he wasn't the one running away.

There does not appear to be any unclear ruling issues as the rules specifically cover this question.

There was dissent amon the players, so the ruling was not clear (at least to one of them).

Well, we can Munckin-ize that sentiment and allow the owner of the game to declare any rules that suit him. If anyone argues with him, he defaults to being right!


text:
When can opponents react to the lifegain from the mana ability of Pristine Talisman?
I have a Pristine Talisman on the board, alongside a Well of Lost Dreams. I activate the Talisman to add 1 mana and gain 1 life. Gatherer says

01.06.2011    Pristine Talisman has a mana ability. Its ability doesn’t use the stack and can’t be responded to.

But is this true for the lifegain, too? Or can opponents react to the lifegain and e.g. destroy the Well before I can use the mana to draw a card?

605.3b An activated mana ability doesn’t go on the stack, so it can’t be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after it is activated. (See rule 405.6c.)
405.6c Mana abilities resolve immediately. If a mana ability both produces mana and has another effect, the mana is produced and the other effect happens immediately. If a player had priority before a mana ability was activated, that player gets priority after it resolves. (See rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”)

Pristine Talisman's ability resolves immediately (including the life gain, which is part of the resolution), and triggers the Well's ability which goes on the stack. That will be the first time your opponents can do anything, and destroying the Well is too late by then; its ability will resolve even if it is destroyed (rule 112.7a).

No, assuming you have legally activated the Talisman, your opponents do not have time to stop you from drawing a card from the Well's ability by destroying the Well.
The rules define what a mana ability is (emphasis mine):

605.1. Some activated abilities and some triggered abilities are mana abilities, which are subject to special rules. Only abilities that meet either of the following two sets of criteria are mana abilities, regardless of what other effects they may generate or what timing restrictions (such as “Activate  this ability only any time you could cast an instant”) they may have.
605.1a An activated ability is a mana ability if it meets all of the following criteria: it doesn’t have a  target, it could add mana to a player’s mana pool when it resolves, and it’s not a loyalty ability. (See rule 606, “Loyalty Abilities.”)

So the fact that you gain life doesn't change the fact that the ability is a mana ability. So it doesn't use the stack. So once you activate it, the next time anyone gains priority, you have the mana, you have gained the life, and the Well has triggered and that triggered ability has been put on the stack, as detailed in

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

and

405.6c Mana abilities resolve immediately. If a mana ability both produces mana and has another effect, the mana is produced and the other effect happens immediately. If a player had priority before a mana ability was activated, that player gets priority after it resolves. (See rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”)

People can respond to the lifegain trigger and destroy the Well, but they can't stop you drawing a card.
When Gatherer says Pristine Talisman's ability “can't be responded to”, that means the ability is not ever on the stack to be countered by Stifle or to have people say “before that resolves...”. The ability simply resolves immediately as it's activated. The entire ability resolves in this way, so you'll gain life too as part of this.
Well of Lost Dreams will see the lifegain and its ability will be triggered. When people would next gain priority, its trigger would be put on the stack. (If you activated Pristine Talisman while casting a spell, it will go on the stack immediately after you're finished casting the spell. Otherwise, it'll probably go on the stack immediately after you've activated Pristine Talisman.)
At this point players have priority and one of them can destroy the Well, but it's too late: the ability is already on the stack. Removing a permanent doesn't remove its abilities from the stack. As the ability resolves, you can optionally pay {1} to draw a card.

Your opponent cannot prevent the triggered ability from entering the stack. Your opponent will never have priority in between the mana ability resolving and the triggered ability triggering and entering the stack. They can respond to the triggered ability of Well of Lost Dreams, but by then it is too late as the ability doesn't care if the Well still exists.


text:
Soul-Scar Mage and Nin, the Pain Artist with lifelink
I control a Nin, the Pain Artist (without summoning sickness) equipped with a Basilisk Collar (or anything else which gives her lifelink) and a Soul-Scar Mage.
When I activate Nin's ability and deal e.g. 3 damage to an opponents creature, will I gain life, or will the Soul-Scar Mage with his replacement effect "put that many -1/-1 counters on that creature instead" prevent me from gaining life.
Also, will the replacement effect prevent the opponent from drawing cards? (I suspect not, since the card draw isn't tied to the damage)

Your assumptions/guesses are all correct.
A replacement event completely replaces the thing it replaces with something different.
In this case, Soul-Scar Mage replaces the damage produced by Nin with -1/-1 counters.  Because Nin is no longer damaging something, lifelink from the Basilisk Collar doesn't happen.
The opponent still draws X cards, because the X is tied to the mana spent to activate the ability, not to the amount of damage dealt to the creature.

It's worthwhile to note that, although Soulscar Mage is a replacement effect that converts damage into -1/-1 counters, the effect it's meant to emulate -- wither -- works more like lifelink: it deals damage in the form of -1/-1 counters (for example, Everlasting Torment). Lifelink, wither, infect (although not poisonous), and so forth, all work this way, by modifying how damage is dealt rather than adding an effect to be replaced.
Thus, in this situation, Nin with both lifelink and wither would deal damage as -1/-1 counters and gain life. As other answers explain more fully, Soul-Scar Mage is not quite wither, and produces a replacement effect instead.

They could have worded it in a way to give non combat damage wither, but it would have been very complicated to word it that way vs a replacement effect and would mean bringing back a non-evergreen keyword for a single card - probably more hassle than it was worth to allow edge interactions like this one.

The replacement effect does not prevent the opponent from drawing cards. From the rulings on gatherer:

If the ability resolves, but the damage is prevented or redirected,
the controller of the targeted creature will draw X cards, regardless
of how much damage was dealt or what the damage was ultimately dealt
to.

Thats not the question.


text:
Where can I download high quality images of poker cards?
I am looking for high quality images of poker cards to download. I can use Google Images to download the images, but it would be impossible to find 53 identical cards in terms of style (52 cards + 1 joker card). Does anybody know where can I get these images from?

I all reality the look of the fronts of the cards are almost irrelevant -- you could just have a child's drawing on them. What's super important though is that the backs look exactly alike to the pixel. That won't be trivial with a home printer, for example because of alignment issues.

If you want to use these images for anything other than a personal project that you're not distributing to anyone or putting on the internet, you might also have to worry about licensing. You can't just freely reuse any image you find on the internet.

Googling for 'SVG cards' gives some results, including this one which is also featured on Wikipedia.

(created by David Bellot)

This set lacks the suicide king and has only 1 one-eyed jack (and it's the wrong one, should be hearts and spades). There are some games and rules it won't work for.

@Separatrix. Just curious : do you have some example of rules for which you'd need the cards you mention? Are those relevant to poker?

@EricDuminil they're sometimes wild in draw poker for example. Sometimes all the one eyed royals are wild. Mostly you can make them up as you go along but they're conventions.

The deck linked by @Glorfindel is for French playing cards.
Here's a link to poker playing cards, in PNG or SVG format.
Poker cards are wider than French ones. This design is used by many decks, e.g. Bicycle Playing Cards, and will typically be the one you see in movies or at the casino.

A full set of poker playing cards created using vector graphics. The
  .SVG source for each card is available as well as a high resolution
  rasterized .PNG version. These images are released into the public
  domain - attribution is appreciated but not required.

Here's the related blog post : Byron's Blog - Vector Playing Cards
As mentioned by @Dezza, there  are other alternatives:

There's also SVG sets by revk at me.uk/cards with associated blog
  posts revk.uk/search/label/Playing%20cards

What's the difference between French playing cards and poker cards here?

@ilkkachu : The design is different. Note that you can play poker with French playing cards just fine. In movies or at the casino, you'll probably see poker cards : https://youtu.be/5VC7BuWahBM?t=64

There's also SVG sets by revk at https://www.me.uk/cards/ with associated blog posts https://www.revk.uk/search/label/Playing%20cards

@Dezza: It looks good, thanks. I updated my answer.

@ilkkachu The letters on the royal cards may also be different.  "R", "D", and "V", instead of "K", "Q", and "J".  (Stands for "Roi", "Dame", and "Valet")

@DarrelHoffman & Eric, yeah, I was just wondering because apart from the art of the face cards, Glorfindel's set looks pretty much like this one :) The artwork here is the one I've most commonly seen, so perhaps more standard in a way. I thought I've also heard the "standard" cards being called French playing cards and wikipedia does seem to at least imply a connection too, mentioning "a standard 52-card deck of French playing cards". Though of course you could have shorter decks with the French suits and similar images, too.

All of these cards are French; that refers to the suits and basic design. The cards that are narrower than Poker cards are Bridge cards.

@MarkReed Thanks a lot, I didn't know that. I guess I was referring to Paris pattern, then?

In 2018, I created a W3C standard Custom Element <card-t suit=Hearts rank=Queen></card-t>
CardMeister does not load SVG, it creates SVG client-side.
All 52 cards SVG is optimized, contained in one Custom Element file:
16 KB download in the cheating version.
64 KB download in the full version, with spades and hearts one eyed jacks, hearts suicide king.
CardMeister Demo: https://cardmeister.github.io/
Github & Documentation: https://github.com/cardmeister/cardmeister.github.io
only HTML required is:
<head>
    <script src="elements.cardmeister.full.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
   <card-t suit=Hearts rank=Queen></card-t>
</body>

SVG is based on the CC0-licensed Card Generator by Adrian Kennard: https://www.me.uk/cards/

Because SVG is created client-side, there are s-loads of options to design playing-cards:

playingcards https://cardmeister.github.io/
SVG Card Web Component

Please note that if this is your work, you should make this very clear in your answer.

For those searching for playing card images, I have produced a complete pack that uses a variation on the standard design of pips. The SVG playing cards I have made are a full deck (52 cards + Jokers) and card backs.

Plus PNG images available from the article at https://tekeye.uk/playing_cards/svg-playing-cards

If you are looking in adding cards to a text that you write in LaTeX then the pst-poker package is useful, see http://web.mit.edu/foley/games/Arcadia/sr/poker/poker-doc.pdf

Here
https://www.me.uk/cards/makeadeck.cgi
I was looking for a 4-color plain poker deck and was able to generate one. Many other options for SVG playing cards.


text:
Thaumatic Compass / Spires of Orazca VS creatures with vigilance
Am I still able to target attacking creatures with Spires of Orazca's ability if they are not tapped (if they have Vigilance for example)?

Yes, you can.
Whenever you have to select a target for a spell or ability, the target has to be legal when you select it and when that spell or ability resolves. "Target attacking creature" means that the targeted object has to be a creature permanent, and it must be currently attacking. No other properties matter. To untap the targeted creature and to remove it from combat are effects of that ability. If you target an attacking creature that is untapped, for example because it has vigilance, then the Spire's ability does as much as possible when it resolves. You can't untap the targeted creature because it's already untapped, but you can remove it from combat, and that's what happens.

Yes, since the description of the target is only "target attacking creature an opponent controls", with no mention of it being tapped.
Then when the ability resolves it simply does not untap the creature if it is not tapped, as specified in the rules for effects:

609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

Yes. The conditions for targeting with Spires of Orazca are "target attacking creature an opponent controls" if you could not use spires on a vigilant creature the condition would have to be "target tapped and attacking creature an opponent controls". Because of the way it was worded, any attacking opponent creature meets the requirement, regardless of it's tapped or untapped status.
In general the only time tapped or untapped status of a card matters for abilities is when changing that status is part of the cost, not the effect. You couldn't attempt to use Gilder Bairn's untap ability while he is already untapped because it is part of the cost, and that cost needs to be paid in full, but if it had been part of the effect, that portion of the effect would just not happen and the rest would, as seen in the comprehensive rules:

609.3 If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

The reason Maze of Ith type effects untap is to effectively undo the declaration as an attacker, or as much of it as possible since any effects that go along with declaring the attacker [such as battlecry or legion] would still hit stack, and leave the opponent in the same position as they would have been had they not attacked with that creature, now it is able to tap for abilities or be used as a blocker against your attacks.


text:
Which dual lands count as having the name of their respective basic land types for certain effects?
For example, let's take a look at Arbor Elf, which has the ability "T: Untap target Forest"
Which types of dual lands count as a Forest and thus can be untapped by Arbor Elf?
Is there a comprehensive heuristic I can use for this? I've never actually seen the rule anywhere and these lands never mention that fact, nor have I seen it in errata or card rulings. But apparently it's a thing because I heard it mentioned in forums and cards that mention basic lands have worked on some dual lands before in MTGA.

There's an assumption you're making that's a bit off here, that assumption being that you are looking for something by name. Voltaic Key has the ability ", : Untap target artifact." that does not untap a card named artifact, but a card with the type artifact.
In the case of Arbor Elf, untap target forest refers to cards with the subtype forest, Dual lands such as Breeding Pool and Scattered Groves both have forest on their type line, and can be targeted. Even a few single colored non basic lands like Dryad Arbor and Sapseep Forest count, as they have forest in their type line.
We can see this method more clearly in cards like Nissa's Pilgrimage, which specifies basic forests, or Cabal Stronghold which specifies basic swamps. Specifying the supertype basic in addition to the subtype forest/swamp/etc means you can only find this info on the type line, though they could have said lands named forest or lands named swamp and got roughly the same result.
In addition to cards like this, there are effects that change the type of land, or turn things into lands, effects like Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth would make all lands swamps, so they would count for anything that looks at swamps, such as Cabal Coffers, and Life and Limb makes all creatures with the subtype saproling into forests (and vice versa) turning them all into creature land - saproling forest.
Currently there are 25 cards that are printed as forests, 2 of these are the basic lands (regular and snow covered) the other 23 are non-basics. For the other 4 basic land types, there are: 23 Plains, 23 Islands, 23 Swamps, and 23 Mountains. Generally these cards exist in cycles that have the same number of each, Dryad Arbor and Murmuring Bosk are the 2 exceptions, forests without a matching cycle in other colors.

I like this answer for the emphasis it puts on the difference between "Forest" as a card name and "Forest" as a subtype. One thing that might be nice to have, but is certainly not necessary, is an example of how an ability that untaps a card named "Forest" would be worded, e.g. "T: Untap target land named Forest". (I don't think there's an actual example of this, but I'm extrapolating from other abilities that reference cards with specific names.)

@DavidZ Not targeting, but Nissa's Encouragement has "Search your library and graveyard for a card named Forest [...]" versus Nature's Lore having "Search your library for a Forest card [...]".

It seems to me that if a card says "target something, something" or "a something, something", unless otherwise specified the "something, something" refers exclusively to colour or (sub)type. Common specifications are "card / permanent / spell named something, something" or "card / permanent / spell with converted mana cost something, something". You don't see "with the colour red" or "with the type basic land" (or more correctly "the supertype basic and the type land"), they just say "red" or "basic land". I wonder whether that's specified in the rules somewhere.

@DavidZ Actually most of the time cards that work that way still refer to type, they reference a "basic forest" combining the supertype basic with the subtype forest as in Nissa, Vastwood Seer's ETB effect.

@Arthur as a general rule, cards are specific if they mean to be, if they mean basic forest they will say that, so the application is to use the broadest possible set that includes cards, in this case it's subtypes. The big exception is a card referring to its own name means this copy and only this copy, and that carries over to cards that copy the ability or clones like Sakashima, the Imposter which change the name, it's still self referential.

@Andrew My point was that when they are specific about type or colour (or their own name), they don't specify that it is type or colour that they are specific about, but for basically any other characteristic they will specify what kind of characteristic they are referring to. That's why "search your library for a creature card" could never be used to find a card which has the name "Creature", but not the type (if R&D were short-sighted enough to ever print one), even though to anyone not used to the conventions of MTG wording it clearly would be a "creature card".

@Andrew (3 comments up) I don't think I understand what you're getting at. When you say "cards that work that way", what kinds of cards exactly do you mean? It sounds as if you're saying an ability "T: Untap target land named Forest" would nevertheless be able to target any land with the Forest type, and I'm pretty sure that's not the case (i.e. not true, but also presumably not what you meant).

It should be pointed out that at least the original dual lands didn't have the subtype; they had explicit text saying they count as both.

@DavidZ I believe he's saying that most cards that intend to be restricted to "cards named Forest" do so by restricting to "basic Forests", which is equivalent. This isn't quite correct, because of Snow-covered Forest, but it's usually true in standard and limited.

@DavidZ, Eyeballfrog is correct, I have never seen a card look at lands by name, always by some type set. And yes, basic forest would apply to snow covered as well, though for the most part those are functionally equivalent (not many play things in any format that will care about snow)

@Andrew There's a Zo-Zu The Punisher EDH deck that wants to run Snow-covered Mountains because it runs Extraplanar Lens, and it allows you to get extra red mana from your Mountains, likely without also giving the same benefit to any players in the game also running red.
I guess that isn't a good example because it isn't that it actually cares about snow, but rather that it's functionally a Mountain except with a different name, and it cares about the name.

@0xFFF1 i do know about lens, and tgat decks using it usually run snow, but it doesnt really invalidate anything i said, not to mention ive seen decks not using lens use snow because they could stel someone else's lense benefit.

@Arthur I think the reason for specifying things like cmc when talking about a card is they have to. Red is a color, creature is a type, but '3' is just a number, that could equally be CMC, power or toughness, so they have to specify which. Card named X gets around possible self referential confusion that could have happened with say Squadron Hawk, and possible name/type overlap, as can happens with basic land types (though here they usually don't reference name, but say basic X, to include snow covered versions)

Forest is a Subtype for the card Type "Land".
Thus, Arbor Elf can untap any land with the subtype Forest. Which include the Basic Land, Forest, its respective Snow-Covered version and some non-basic lands that include this subtype in their text line.
This Gatherer search shows a list of 17 lands with the subtype Forest:
These are all the lands that can be untapped by Arbor Elf. Note that some cards like Song of the Dryads can turn other permanent into Forests, thus allowing it to be untapped by Arbor Elf.

Worth noting that Forest is also the name of a card in addition to being a land subtype. Things that look for cards named Forest will not work on those other lands.

Also, if somehow any of those cards, including Forest, lost the Forest subtype, it would not be eligible to untap via Arbor Elf, even if it still has the T: add G to your mana. ability.

@corsiKa it's the subtype that gives those lands "T: add G"


text:
Looking for rules to "Geomag: Magnetic Challenge" (2005)
I picked up a complete set of this 2005 game, missing the ruleset though.
On BoardGameGeek there's a nomination of it, for "Worst rules ever" and some basic info, but no rules to illustrate the nomination; and no forum --- clearly too unpopular.
The commentary on BGG is that the English is incomprehensible; Geomag being Swiss I'd hope the French and/or German ruleset are better. I can do with a legible scan/photo of most of its languages --- English, German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish. Any ideas?

only thing I have been able to find is that it is a 2 page rulebook

Indeed! 2page book in English version nominated as 'worst rules ever' on BGG. Thanks for trying...  I thought many would have the thing lying around, but then BGG listing over 50K (or was it 80K? same difference!) different games makes me pessimistic.


text:
Will Kresh the Bloodbraided survive damage through his ability in a boardwide damage scenario?
Kresh the Bloodbraided is on the battlefield with another creature, let's say a 1/1.
Kresh has the following ability:

Whenever another creature dies, you may put X +1/+1 counters on Kresh the Bloodbraided, where X is that creature's power.

The opponent deals 5 damage to both of them, which should kill them both. Will Kresh's ability trigger to make him a 6/6 and save him from being killed by the 5 damage?

For clarity, I would edit the question to mention the card that is dealing the 5 damage. Also, Kresh is a 3/3, so putting a +1/+1 counter on Kresh would not make him a 6/6. Can we assume that Kresh already has a couple of counters on him?

If Kresh is a 5/5 when the damage is dealt,  he will die when the damage resolves because he will have 5 damage marked on him the next time state-based actions are checked, causing him to go to the graveyard. The check will occur before the triggered ability resolves, so he'll never have the chance to add the +1/+1 counter.

Apologies for the 5/5 mistake, not sure how that number stuck in my head instead of 3/3.
So does that mean that his ability won't trigger for the death of the other creature? Is this the case for all simultanous death triggers? For example Omnath + elemental creature dying at the same time causing Omnath to not fire for 3?

@Wooya Kresh's ability will trigger, but he will be dead when triggered ability resolves. Once he is dead, the counters cannot be placed on him. Some similarly worded abilities can work better because their effects don't inherently rely on the original creature still existing.

@wooya I realized it was a mistake, but the answer is the same and Kresh being a 5/5 isn't really that uncommon so no worries.

@wooya In the case of Omnath, all the triggers happen when he dies based on what he "sees" on the board. Spell damage happens at the same time for all affected creatures, so Omnath sees himself die and sees the elemental die, resulting in 2 triggers. If Omnath is alone, he still sees himself die, so only 1 trigger. The key takeaway here is that all damage happens at once for a Pyroclasm type spell where mass damage is dealt, so triggers that are the result of that damage occur after the spell resolves.


text:
Do I get copy of my opponents creature with Helm of the Host?
I know I can't equip Helm of the Host to my opponents creatures. The scenario I was wondering about was, if I somehow get control of my opponents Trostani Discordant, like with The Eldest Reborn, I equip it on my first main phase. At the beginning of my combat step, I get another copy. In the end step, Trostani triggers and my opponent gains control of it, still equipped with Helm. What happens next? I would think, that on my opponents combat step nothing happens (since I am the controller of the Helm), and that I get another copy on my combat step, but I am not sure.

Why do you think you can't equip the Helm onto an opponent's creature?

@John The equip ability can only target creatures you control.

Wow!  We have totally been playing that wrong....  Not sure how I missed that one.  Thanks @Gendolkari.

Yes, that all works the way you expect. You will get copies of your opponent's creature at the beginning of your combat step.
The most relevant rule here is rule 301.5d:

An Equipment’s controller is separate from the equipped creature’s controller; the two need not be the same. Changing control of the creature doesn’t change control of the Equipment, and vice versa. Only the Equipment’s controller can activate its abilities. However, if the Equipment grants an ability to the equipped creature (with “gains” or “has”), the equipped creature’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability.

So, even after you no longer control the creature, you still control the equipment and it stays attached to the creature.

You are correct, you will get a copy of the creature on your combat step, and your opponent will not get one on theirs.
Helm of the Host doesn't have any restriction that you must be the controller of the equipped creature in order to get a copy of it. You, as the controller of the Helm, are the one that creates the creature token.
It doesn't matter that the token is a copy of a creature your opponent controls; you will be the controller (and owner) of the token:

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.
110.5a The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.


text:
Solitaire game where you deal four up, four down
What is the name of this solitaire game I learned when I was a kid?
You lay out 52 cards (1 deck), dealt four up, four down.
You get 8 piles:

on the left, four face-up (arranged so you can see all of them).
on the right, face downward except for the top card on each which is face-up.

This makes 7 cards per pile on the left and 6 per pile on the right.
To play, you stack cards on top of each other according to suit, in descending order (like jack of diamonds on queen of diamonds).
You move any cards on top along with the card you're placing on a higher one of the same suit.
Kings can go into empty spaces and aces go in a row above the cards you dealt out.
You must turn up all the face-down cards and you win if you get all 4 suits from ace to king in the piles above.
I have been searching the internet and nobody has mentioned a solitaire game laid out like this.

Are you able to explain how the cards are dealt out a little more? are there 1 / 4 / 8 piles?

Could you post a picture of a game in progress?

It sounds kind of like a mix between Freecell and Spider, does anything in this video look familiar?

The game you are looking for is a mixture between the classic solitaire games Scorpion  and Yukon.
I've looked through over 700 games in both SolSuite Solitaire and Pretty Good Solitaire and I came really close to finding your game in a variation called Geoffrey (by Thomas Warfield) in Goodsol's game Pretty Good Solitaire. The only difference is that Geoffrey is played with the last 2 cards dealt face up (instead of just the last card) in the last 4 columns.

Geoffrey
https://www.goodsol.com/games/geoffrey.html
Info
 - 1 Deck.
 - Success rate - Medium (30%).
 - Mostly Skill.
Layout
 - 4 Foundation columns (on top) - Build up in suit from Ace to King.
 - 8 Tableau columns (below foundation) - Build down in suit.
 - No Stock
Object of the game
To create four suites of 13 cards each in an ascending suit sequence from Ace to King, by moving all the cards from the tableau to the foundation.
Tableau
 - 52 cards in eight columns.
 - At the start of the game 7 cards are dealt to the first 4 columns and 6 cards are dealt to the next 4 columns.
 - In the first 4 columns, all cards are dealt face up. In the next 4 columns the first 4 cards are dealt face down and last 2 cards are dealt face up.
Rules
 - Tableau columns must be built down in suit, e.g. a 10 of ♠ can only be played on a Jack of ♠.
 - Any face up card, no matter how deep it is in a column, may be moved to make a build. All covering cards are moved with it together as a unit.
 - When a face down card is uncovered, it is automatically turned face up and is available for play.
 - Nothing can be placed on an Ace. A King cannot move, except to an empty space.
 - Spaces can only be filled with a King or groups of cards headed by a King.
 - Foundation columns must be built up in suit from Ace to King.
 - The top card of each tableau column is available for play to the foundations.
 - The game is won if the entire deck in all four suites has been moved to the foundation.
Here are some other examples of similar games:
Scorpion from SolSuite Solitaire

ScorpionCell from SolSuite Solitaire

Scorpion
https://www.politaire.com/scorpion
Applegate
https://www.politaire.com/applegate
Scorpion Head
https://www.politaire.com/scorpionhead
Three Blind Mice
https://www.politaire.com/threeblindmice
Farmers Wife
https://www.politaire.com/farmerswife
Double Scorpion
https://www.politaire.com/doublescorpion
Russian Solitaire
https://www.politaire.com/russian

It sounds like the game you are looking for is Scorpion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpion_(solitaire)