text:
Can I run two different dual lands that produce the same colors of mana?
I have Thornwood Falls and Simic Guildgate.
Am I allowed to run four of each of these cards in one deck?
I cannot find a ruling on this, maybe my google-fu is a bit off though...

As explained at the linked duplicate, all that matters is the name of the card, not the effect. (Also, Simic Guildgate and Thornwood Falls definitely aren't the same. The former is a gate, and the latter gains you life.)

@Jefromi Firstly thank you for answering my question! But I'm confused, the oracle text specifies that both of them, when tapped, add either a land or forest mana to my pool?

They both add blue or green mana (not "island" or "forest" mana - there is no such thing), yes. That one ability is the same. But the overall card is certainly not the same - the oracle text for both includes more than just that ability. It doesn't matter for your question (different name is all that matters for decks) but they're absolutely not identical cards even if you ignore the name.

@Jefromi oh geez I'm sorry, I don't know how I missed that. And yeah I guess I have a bad habit of calling them forest not green. Thank you for clearing up any confusion!

there are exceptions when you can run multiple cards in one deck, for example Shadowborn Apostle


text:
What counts as a counter?
Does Chief of the Edge's ability count as a +1/+0 counter? I want want to use it for other cards such as Ainok Bond-Kin's ability ("each creature you control with a +1/+1 counter gets first strike"). I cant find confirmation anywhere.

Only things that are actually referred to explicitly as counters are counters. And since Ainok Bond-Kin cares specifically about +1/+1 counters, you should be looking for cards that explicitly create +1/+1 counters.
So no, Chief of the Edge does not put counter(s) on anything, because it doesn't say the word "counter(s)". Rather, it creates a continuous effect granting +1/+0 to all your Warriors as long as it's on the battlefield, whether they entered the battlefield before or after it. If Chief of the Edge subsequently leaves the battlefield, that effect disappears and those creatures will shrink back down.
By far the most common kind of counters are +1/+1 counters, though there are plenty of others. Counters are used for things that are created at a single point in time, are associated with the permanent you place them on, and will stick around indefinitely. For example, Drana, Liberator of Malakir gives counters to your other attacking creatures, and those counters exist on those creatures independently of Drana, so they'll stick around even if Drana dies.
Side note: there are, by the way, some old cards that use +1/+0 counters, rather than a continuous +1/+0 effect like Chief of the Edge. But those cards would still not work with Ainok Bond-Kin, because it looks for +1/+1 counters.

ty for the input i was in a battle and we had be wondering so we decided it wasnt then. but i was going to dig and see if it was possibly counters with out name counter

Any card that creates counters will mention a specific number of X counters in the card text.
There are many types of counters, and most of them aren't related to power/toughness.
Here is a very comprehensive list of the different types of counters, as well as many examples of cards that create them.

No, it doesn't.  Even if it did, it wouldn't be a +1/+1 counter, so it wouldn't count.

Take a look at the top answer.  It already clearly states the same thing as your answer.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If effects happen at the same time, whose effect works?
A Graydle card's effect says when it's destroyed by battle or cards and is sent to the graveyard, it comes back as a equipment card and I take control of an opponent's face up monster. My opponent has a card that says when he destroys a monster and it goes to the graveyard, it comes back to their side of the field. So which effect works first: my card or his? Both say they happen when the Graydle card goes to the graveyard.

It would depend on whose turn it is. The turn player has priority, which means that their effect goes onto the chain first. If the turn player has a Goyo Guardian for example, and they attack a graydle, then Goyo's effect is chain 1. Then the graydle's effect goes onto chain 2. The chain is resolved backwards, which means that the graydle effect happens first, which takes control of the Goyo, and brings back the graydle from the grave, which means that Goyo Guardian's effect would not trigger due to the target no longer being in the grave.It would be reversed if it was the graydle player's turn. The graydle would get chain 1, and goyo would get chain 2 which, again, resolves backwards. Goyo would revive the graydle, forcing the graydle to be on the field instead of the grave, so the graydle's ability would not be able to trigger.You can apply the example to cards other than Goyo guardian to get whatever answer you need.

Both effects happen simultaneously so you would use the SEGOC rules. Which are turn players mandatory effects activate first, then non-turn players mandatory effects and then turn players optional effects activate and followed by non-turn players optional effects. http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Simultaneous_Effects_Go_On_Chain

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


text:
Does tapping a creature force it to attack?
I was playing with my little brother, and during my turn he used Black Oak of Odunos's ability, paying the black mana and tapping Oreskos Sun Guide so that on his turn turn he could untap Oreskos and gain two life.
Does tapping the Oreskos Sun Guide mean that it's attacking?

No. It's the other way around: attacking with a creature requires tapping it. (Unless it has vigilance!)
If you do something else that causes a creature to be tapped, it never causes it to attack. Only actually declaring it as an attacker (during the declare attackers step in the combat phase) will do that.
If you do want to force a creature to attack, you have to do it directly, using something like Shipwreck Singer.

Tapping is a cost paid to attack. Tapping by itself doesn't make a creature attack.
Some creatures have an ability that works when you tap it (e.g. Elvish Mystic), but that doesn't cause the creature to attack.

See also: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/21193


text:
Who is in charge of knowing abilities of blockers and attackers?
I was in a situation where I lost due to a combo where a creature that deals combat damage mills me due to an enchantment attached to it. I lost the game due to not knowing that ability was on the card. My opponent knew but decided not to tell me when he declared that attacker. Was it the defenders (my) job to read the card and block it, or was the attacker in the wrong for not declaring its ability when attacking. Also, if the trigger goes off as a result of the defending player not knowing, would the defending player be allowed to reassign a blocker in response?

"I forgot" is never an ok reason to undo actions unless the thing you forgot makes an action literally impossible - and even then you should probably call a judge over for the specific scenario.

Or in casual play, you just sort it out with your opponent as best you can, i.e. be your own judge. (I think there's a lot more casual games than there are games played with judges around.)

It would be interesting to play Magic this way: "I attack with these two creatures.  Check."

It's your job to read the card, no matter what the situation.
Your opponent never has to explain cards to you. You can always request to read any card, and if you don't know for sure everything that a given card does, you probably want to read it. (If it's an old card or a foreign card, you could also look up the current oracle text of the card in Gatherer.) Your opponent has no more obligation to let you know that a creature has an ability than they do to remind you that it has enough power to kill you.
Assuming that creature had a triggered ability (like Mindscour Dragon), your opponent is responsible for remembering that trigger. But they only have to do so once it triggers and needs to affect the game state, i.e. once you've already let it hit you and it's going to mill you. They don't have to warn you ahead of time.
Your opponent is certainly allowed to help you out if they wish to; in casual play you might end up doing this in order to have more fun games and not waste time on really obvious mistakes. I've certainly pointed things out sometimes when it was clear my opponent didn't realize what my cards did, in friendly kitchen table games when they'd have done the same. But there's definitely no obligation to do this under the rules.
So bottom line, you just made a mistake, and you're not allowed to go back and change a decision because of it. It's unfortunate for you, but hopefully it provides some incentive to read the cards more carefully next time.

If you want to know more details about player communication, it's covered in the tournament rules - search for "player communication". If you actually ask your opponent a question, there are some things they do have to tell you (covered under "free information"). But they don't have to volunteer anything beyond what's necessary to progress the game (e.g. "I cast this", "I attack with this", "I take 3 damage", "that creature should be dead").

Isn't your opponent supposed to volunteer information if they notice an inconsistency in the game state, to the extent necessary to fix it?

@DavidZ That was meant to be covered by "what's necessary to progress the game." I added an example in that direction.

@DavidZ - They are, but not pointing out that your opponent is making a bad move because of an effect on the field they may have forgotten about is not an inconsistency in the game state.  It would only be so if the effect was supposed to happen and didn't - or wasn't supposed to happen and did.

Right, it's "by the way you should've milled your whole library" that you have to say, not "by the way if you do that you're going to have to mill your whole library."

It is the responsibility of each player to understand the board states for each player, to include permanents in play, creature power and toughness, cards in graveyards, life totals, cards in hand, static effects, delayed triggers, etc.

@DrunkCynic True, though in the context of what you have to tell your opponent, the details vary. That's mostly free information, but I believe power/toughness is derived, so while both players need to know about everything necessary to derive it, you don't actually have a responsibility to figure it out if it's not currently relevant to the game, even if your opponent asks. (But you are still responsible for all the free information necessary to derive it, of course, like past triggered abilities and so on.)


text:
MTG Cards that interact with each other by name
So I know that Bogbrew Witch, Festering Newt and Bubbling Cauldron all name each other in their rules text and I was wondering if there are any other cards that do this as well. How can I find more cards like that? (A list would certainly be useful, but how to find them would be even more useful.)

This is basically asking for a list of cards that reference other cards by name. I don't see how such a list could be useful to anyone.

I just would like to know.. I like playing cards that interact with each other directly.

This could be a much better question if it asked for ways to search for cards that reference a different card by name. As written it's very unclear what you mean... every card in MTG "interacts" with other cards.

Clearly the guy who asked the question finds the answer he got useful?  Isn't that enough?  This is stackexchange not wikipedia

@Affe - It's not quite enough. The idea behind Stackexchange is to create a large set of useful questions and answers that can be useful to people. Not that this is necessarily the case here, but if a question is only useful to the person who asked it, it is not a good fit for the site.

@GendoIkari it's useful to anyone who wants to build a deck using cards referencing eachother directly by name.... on Stack Overflow just because someone asks a question about php doesn't mean its only useful to that person.. people who only code in java don't downvote it or put it on hold.

Just to clarify, I downvoted because I do not find the question useful. I voted to close (put on hold) because I think the question is too broad.

I've edited and voted to reopen, given that how to search for something is a perfectly fine question and the OP was clearly interested in it.

Creating a search query that returns all cards that reference other cards, without having false positives or false negatives is difficult, but I will show the kinds of things to search for to find some of them. All of these queries are using MagicCards.info

o:named

This is the most basic one, it searches for all cards with "named" in their card text. This generates a lot of false positives, mostly cards that refer to themselves like Accumulated Knowledge, cards that have someone name a card like Booby Trap, or ones that create tokens with names like Boris Devilboon.
This part is always required, and will be left out of future queries for brevity.

-o:~

This removes any cards that have their own name in the text box. This creates some false negatives from things like Diligent Farmhand, but also removes a large number of false positives (It removes about 100 cards from the results).

-o:"name a card"

This removes any cards that have the text "name a card" in the text box. I don't think this creates any false negatives, but doesn't remove that many cards from the result (less than 20).

-o:"token named"

This removes any cards that have the text "token named" in their text box. Note that this only removes things with vanilla tokens (ie ones with no abilities), ones that have abilities like Wirefly Hive will still show up. It also removes the Helm of Kaldra since it produces a Kaldra token.
Combining all of these into (with -is:silver-bordered to remove Un-cards)

o:named  -o:~ -o:"name a card" -o:"names a card" -o:"token named" -is:silver-bordered

We get a list of 18 cards, 3 are false positives, and several cards like the Helm of Kaldra that don't show up, but it gives you a starting place to work from.

The Unspeakable

Sift Through Sands
Peer Through Depths
Reach Through Mists
The Unspeakable

Kaldra

Helm of Kaldra
Shield of Kaldra
Sword of Kaldra

Nissa

Nissa Revane
Nissa's Chosen

Empire Artifacts

Crown of Empires
Scepter of Empires
Throne of Empires

Spiders

Arachnus Spinner
Arachnus Web

Scion of Darkness

Dark Supplicant
Scion of Darkness

Spirit of Night

Urborg Panther
Feral Shadow
Breathstealer
Spirit of the Night

Viashivan Dragon

Kyscu Drake
Spitting Drake
Viashivan Dragon

Alternate Timeline Weapon-makers

Renowned Weaponsmith
Heart-Piercer Bow
Vial of Dragonfire

Bant Angel

Angels' Herald
Empyrial Archangel

Esper Sphinx

Sphinx's Herald
Sphinx Sovereign

Grixis Demon

Demon's Herald
Prince of Thralls

Jund Dragon

Dragon's Herald
Hellkite Overlord

Naya Beast

Behemoth's Herald
Godsire

Bursts

Muscle Burst
Diligent Farmhand
Flame Burst
Pardic Firecat

This is a neat list, but ultimately not very helpful... is it possible to list criteria that can be used to search for such cards? (I have no idea if Gatherer has any way of searching for this).

@GendoIkari There isn't really any way to easily search for them. The best I can think of is having the Rules Test contains 'named', but that ends up with a lot of false positives.

You forgot urzatron :)

@Affe Technically the Urzatron don't care about card names, that tracks card types.

You can do this relatively easy if you just download one of the copies of the oracle database that you can easily find. I found these plus a handful more with a quick python script. (I excluded things like the Bursts, though, because if you count cards that refer to themselves there are a lot more.)

@jefromi The cards listed with three bursts refer to the other cards, the bursts, by name. Not just referring to themselves.

@GendoIkari Right, duh.

@diego Maybe I don't understand what you mean but AFAIK the urzatron refers to Urza's Mine, Tower and Powerplant which all reference eachother by name. Could you elaborate on your comment?

@AndreasHüttig They do not reference each other by name. Urza's Mine says "If you control an Urza's Power-Plant and an Urza's Tower" if it referenced the others by name it would say "If you control a land named Urza's Power Plant and a land named Urza's Tower". With the way it is written, you could copy the mine with Sakashima (assuming the mine because a creature somehow) and remove the mine from the battlefield and still have your Tower and Power Plant tap for the additional mana. Because while Sakashima doesn't have the name Urza's Mine it still has the subtypes Urza's and Mine.

Also if you look at Urza's Power Plant, the cards that reference it use Urza's Power-Plant when that is not the name of the card, but rather its subtype

I did a quick google before and only found the old cards (yes, I'm that old and I've not played magic a lot since the redesign for 8th/Mirrodin in 2003). The new cards (which I googled after not being able to match your explanation to my expectation of the card you were refering to) say "Land - Urzas Mine" as card type.
Thanks for a flawed but still helpful answer :)

@AndreasHüttig If you are ever wondering what the official text of a card is you can check Gatherer, which contains the official text of any card (and the original text so you can see if it's changed)

The search engine mtg.wtf uses the full list of card names to generate the related: parameter, so searching for related:* on mtg.wtf also shows some cards that are missing in the other answer:

Ajani's Aid refers to Ajani, Valiant Protector
Gideon's Resolve refers to Gideon, Martial Paragon
Kookus refers to Keeper of Kookus
Liberating Combustion refers to Chandra, Pyrogenius
Liu Bei, Lord of Shu refers to Guan Yu, Sainted Warrior and Zhang Fei, Fierce Warrior
Marauding Maulhorn refers to Advocate of the Beast
Peacekeeper Avatar refers to Arrest
Pious Kitsune refers to Eight-and-a-Half-Tails
Rohgahh of Kher Keep refers to Kobolds of Kher Keep
Walker of the Wastes refers to Wastes

At least in this case mtg.wtf's search engine is much better, nice answer.


text:
Does a God's own mana cost count towards its own devotion?
I'm quite new to playing MtG, and had a question about Erebos, God of the Dead. It needs five devotion (5 black mana symbols on permanents on your field) to be a creature. Does the 1 black mana symbol on that card count toward my devotion to black? My friends and I were unsure.

The answers indirectly point this out, but there's no separate notion of devotion for Erebos ("its own devotion" as you suggest in the title), just one number: your devotion to black.

To quote one of the rulings on Gatherer:

If a God enters the battlefield, your devotion to its color (including
  the mana symbols in the mana cost of the God itself) will determine if
  a creature entered the battlefield or not, for abilities that trigger
  whenever a creature enters the battlefield.

Also from the rules:

700.5. A player’s devotion to [color] is equal to the number of mana symbols of that color among the mana costs of permanents that player
  controls. A player’s devotion to [color 1] and [color 2] is equal to
  the number of mana symbols among the mana costs of permanents that
  player controls that are [color 1], [color 2], or both colors.

Since the god is a permenant, it's mana symbols in it's casting cost count towards your devotion.

As long as Erebos, God of the Dead, or any other card, is on the battlefield, it counts towards your devotion.

700.5. A player’s devotion to [color] is equal to the number of mana symbols of that color among the mana costs of permanents that player controls.

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


text:
Do spells that change power/toughness of all creatures until end of turn affect creatures played afterwards?
If I play Overrun or Infest, THEN play a creature after the prior spell resolves, is that creature affected? I assume so, but is this ever not true?

This is a good question if you want a general explanation of how this works, but the specific question is directly answered by the sole ruling on Overrun: "Overrun affects only creatures you control at the time it resolves. It won't affect creatures that come under your control later in the turn."

Uh...so....does that mean that's unique to Overrun, or it applies to all cards that say "creatures you control," or cards that say "creatures target player controls," or any cards that affect creatures without having a target?

It means it applies to effects that change power and toughness. Nothing special about Overrun in that regard. I'll write a full answer soonish if no one else does.

Actually, it turns out this is a duplicate! The accepted answer there is not terribly helpful, but the top voted one gives a full explanation.

No, it will not be affected.

The answer varies based on what created the effect, and what the effect does. The following are the three cases:

A continuous effect generated by a static ability.
This is covered by 611.3a.

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

A continuous effect generated by something other than a static ability, and it modifies the characteristics of objects. (Characteristics are defined CR 109.3, included below.)
This is covered by the first half of 611.2c.

611.2c If a continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability modifies the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects, the set of objects it affects is determined when that continuous effect begins. After that point, the set won’t change. [...]

A continuous effect generated by something other than a static ability, and it doesn't modify the characteristics of objects.
This is covered by the second half of 611.2c.

611.2c [...] A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability that doesn’t modify the characteristics or change the controller of any objects modifies the rules of the game, so it can affect objects that weren’t affected when that continuous effect began. [...]

For both Overrun and Infest, we're talking about a continuous effect generated by something other than a static ability, and it modifies the characteristics of objects. As such, only the permanents that were creatures when the spell resolved are affected by the spell.

109.3. An object’s characteristics are name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier. Objects can have some or all of these characteristics. Any other information about an object isn’t a characteristic. For example, characteristics don’t include whether a permanent is tapped, a spell’s target, an object’s owner or controller, what an Aura enchants, and so on


text:
Does guiltfeeder still cause loss of life if it's killed by an instant after attacking?
If an opponent attacks me with Guiltfeeder, and I destroy it with an Instant after it has been declared an Attacker, what happens?

Fear

Whenever Guiltfeeder attacks and isn't blocked, defending player loses 1 life for each card in his or her graveyard.

Since it has been destroyed, it's impossible to declare blockers against it, but the ability is still on the stack (I think?), so I'm not sure what the outcome is.

The ruling on Guiltfeeder makes this pretty clear:

An ability that triggers when something "attacks and isn't blocked" triggers in the declare blockers step after blockers are declared if (1) that creature is attacking and (2) no creatures are declared to block it. It will trigger even if that creature was put onto the battlefield attacking rather than having been declared as an attacker in the declare attackers step.

If it's destroyed after declaring attackers but before declaring blockers (or lack thereof), there won't be any loss of life.
The ability doesn't go onto the stack until the declare blockers step (and then only if it's still attacking and unblocked). So if it's already dead by then, the ability never goes on the stack.
If for some reason someone wants it dead before combat damage, but wants the loss of life to happen, they could kill it during the declare blockers phase, after the ability triggered. At that point the ability would still resolve as normal, even with the Guiltfeeder gone.
In any case, either the ability has triggered and will cause loss of life, or it hasn't triggered at all. There's no odd in between state where it triggers then changes its mind, as your question suggests.

Guiltfeeder will not cause you to lose life because the declare blockers phase has not happened, so that trigger was never put on the stack in the first place.
If you were to kill it during the declare blockers phase, that is to declare no blockers then remove the Guiltfeeder, the trigger would have already been put on the stack and would resolve.
Basically, if the Guiltfeeder is no longer on the battlefield during the declare blockers phase, that effect will not trigger.


text:
If a card becomes cloned while another text-modifying effect is on the stack, what is the result?
Here is the scenario:

I have Shapesharer and Quicksilver Elemental in play.
I activate and resolve Artificial Evolution to make Quicksilver Elemental a Shapeshifter.
I activate Quicksilver Elemental's ability to have it gain the activated abilities of some other 3rd creature (doesn't matter which.)
While that is on the stack,  I target Quicksilver Elemental with Shapesharer's ability, making it a copy of some other 4th creature (doesn't matter which.)

Is the end result that Quicksilver Elemental becomes a copy of creature 4 with the abilities of creature 3 tacked on, as I intend?

By "use" do you mean "activate and resolve"? I'm guessing that is what you mean, but I just want to be certain, because in some places you say "use" and in some places you say "activate".

Yes, I suppose that isn't necessarily obvious but yes. I know this is a far-fetched combo...just playing around.

"Text-modifying" makes it sound like something like Glamerdye ("Change the text of target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one color word with another.") but it looks like what you're actually asking about is gaining abilities and copying copies.

For bonus style points, you could activate Quicksilver's ability targeting itself, then while on the stack, use shapesharer to change it to creature 4. You now have creature 4 with Quicksilver's ability which not only can you add creature 3's abilities afterwards, you can use it to gain other abilities later in the turn.

Your stack after step 4 is (top to bottom):

Shapesharer's activated ability
Quicksilver Elemental's activated ability

Shapesharer's ability resolves first. Quicksilver becomes a copy of Creature 4. Per rule 706.3, Quicksilver's abilities become those of Creature 4. This also means that Quicksilver loses its original ability.

706.3. The copy’s copiable values become the copied information [...]

Quicksilver's ability resolves second. Quicksilver (who is now a copy of Creature 4) gains all activated abilities of Creature 3 until end of turn. It does not lose any abilities it already had. The fact that Quicksilver changed names before the ability resolved does not matter per rule 201.4.

201.4. Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.

The result is that Quicksilver will end up a copy of Creature 4 with the abilities of both Creature 3 and Creature 4, but not its own original ability.
If Quicksilver were to become a copy of another creature, it would still retain the abilities of Creature 3. This is because the effect granting it abilities is not a copiable characteristic (per rule 706.2), and thus is not overwritten when it becomes a copy of something else.

706.2. [...] The “copiable values” are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied

The order the effects, from [mtg:Shapesharer] or [mtg:Quicksilver Elemental], are placed on the stack does not matter. Recommend citing the pertinent parts of 109 and 201.

@DrunkCynic We generally don't autocard any card more than once in a question/answer combo, which means that we generally don't autocard cards in answers if they have already been mentioned in questions.

@murgatroid99 - Is there a location where 'rules of thumb' such as that are recorded?

As far as I know, no. But you can see that pattern in almost every MTG question on the site.

@DrunkCynic Linking the first instance only is also a style guideline on Wikipedia. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#WP:REPEATLINK Additional links don't add much value and make it harder to quickly see the links that are still important.

@DrunkCynic Can you point to a specific subrule of 109? I can see how 201.4 is relevant, so I added it.

109.1 and 109.3; .1 defines what an object is, while .3 defines the characteristics of an object. The Characteristics are then affected by 706.3. 201.4 and 201.5 state why an ability on the stack is still able to affect an object, even though that object has changed since the ability was placed on the stack.

@DrunkCynic Ah, but we don't care about the characteristics. We care about the copiable characteristics, which are listed in full in rule 706.2. I'll add that part.

Seems like it would work. Abilities are independent of the source, so once the "gain abilities" ability is on the stack, it's not dependent on the Elemental.
And since the ability refers to the card name, which actually means "this card" then even if it becomes a clone the ability still has the same target and should properly resolve.
This scenario seems very similar to: Scion of the Ur-Dragon multiple transformation

"Abilities are independent of the source" doesn't seem to have much to do with this. The issue isn't the source going away, it's whether or not the added abilities get copied (and they don't).

@Jefromi The question is not about whether or not added abilities get copied as far as I can tell.

@Rainbolt Ah, gotcha, I think I misunderstood the "it" in step 4 - thought it was trying to copy the creature with the abilities tacked on.


text:
Commanders with at least four colors in their color identity
I am looking for a list of all legendary creatures with the number of colors in their color identity equal to or greater than four.
In Gatherer I can only get a list using the mana colors in the cost of the cards. For example: WUBRG spells.
I would really appreciate if someone can help me with this.

As a alternate search engine, there is http://www.cranialinsertion.com/cardsearch/
There is an option under colour to use colour identity but this is more geared towards "If I have xyz coloured commander, what cards can I use". With a bit of creative searching, I have made the following queries:
WUBRG
(Gives you all the legendary creatures you can't put in all four colour or colourless commander decks)
WUBR
UBRG
BRGW
RWUB
GWUB
(Gives you all the legendary creatures you can use in the particular four colour combo but not can't use in the other four colour combinations plus colourless commander decks)
There is also the legendary creatures with partner but you can quickly find them by searching for partner in the card text (Commanders with partner)
As with gatherer, when you conduct a search with only one result, it will redirect to that card page.

The four-color commanders in Commander 2016 were a big deal because there weren't any before. (People sometimes use the Nephilim, but they're not actually legendary.) So, there are the five-color ones you already know how to find, and the five from Commander 2016.
It's not too hard to go through all the possibilities to confirm this, but since there's only one result for each query, these searches all currently redirect right to the card:

WUBR
WUBG
WURG
WBRG
UBRG

If someday they print some more, those queries will find them! But don't hold your breath; there's not a lot of design space in four-color cards. Since they're good for commander but not for standard, if they ever do make more, there's a good chance it'd be in a commander set (but not too soon after the current one).

What those queries wont find are cards like General Tazri if they ever do four colour versions. For some reason, devoid cards are also considered colourless for searches if they ever decided to bring that back. I don't think there is a general gatherer query that will catch all edge cases though. They really need to update gatherer search engine but since comments have been broken for years now, I don't see that changing any time soon.

That is right. The filters don't consider the concept of color identity used in the commander format.

The site EDHRec has pages for each color identity with all the legal commanders (including possible partner pairs). For example the URBG pages shows:

Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder
Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Vial Smasher the Fierce
Thrasios, Triton Hero + Vial Smasher the Fierce
Glint-Eye Nephilim (Unofficial)
Ikra Shidiqi, the Usuper + Kraum, Ludevic's Opus
Silas Renn, Seeker Adept + Tana, the Sloodsower
Reyhan, Last of the Abzan + Kraum, Ludevic's Opus
Reyhan, Last of the Abzan + Ludevic, Necro-Alchemist
Ikra Shidiqi, the Usuper + Ludevic, Necro-Alchemist


text:
In Pegs and Jokers, is it legal to split a seven card between my peg and my partner's peg?
In Pegs and Jokers, there are two teams of three each. Player A has four pegs in the castle and his fifth peg is two holes away from going in to have all pegs in the castle. Player A wants to play a seven card and move his last peg two holes into the castle (he would then have all five pegs in his castle) and use the remaining five moves to advance a peg belonging to his partner to his left. Is this legal?

No one has addressed our issue. We had player one and partner right outside home. all others in. Player played a seven. She used 3 moves to get her peg home and used 3 more to move partner into home winning the game. Does the number have to be exact to move into home at the end of the game ? That was using 6 out of the seven. No other pegs left on the board.

I think it depends on the variant that you're playing. This site lists the rules that come into play here. First, the basic rules:

In the basic game, except in special circumstances described below, you may only move your own pegs.
  ...
  When playing a 7, you may either move one of your pegs forward 7 holes, or split the 7 between two of your pegs, moving them 1 and 6, 2 and 5 or 3 and 4 holes forwards. Of course the split move can only be made if you have at least two pegs in play.
  ...
  When, and only when, all five of your pegs are in the home (safe) position, occupying the five holes of your home track, you use your turn to move the pegs of your left-hand partner, if that player still has playable pegs. If left partner's pegs are also all home, you move the pegs of the next partner around the table who still has playable pegs.

As I read this, the ability to move your partner's pegs depends on the state of the game at the start of your turn. Player A still has pegs out, so he would not be able to split the 7 with his partner's peg; he only has one peg out, so he could not split the 7.
If you're using Arizona Rules, then it would be allowed:

Throughout the game, you may move any of the pegs belonging to your team (so for example any of 20 pegs in the 8-player game with 4 on each team). Therefore you may discard without moving only if you are unable to play a card (other than a joker) that moves any of your team's pegs.

and this situation is explicitly mentioned in the North Carolina Rules:

As in the basic game, you can only move your own pegs until your last peg is home. After that you move the pegs of the partner nearest to your left. You can use a split move to take your last peg home and move your left hand partner's peg with the remainder.

Because it's explicitly mentioned in the last variant, I do not think it is permitted in basic play.

We ordered a Pegs & Jokers board and it came with rules.  It does specify that the 7 or 9 can be split with your partner to the left, when moving your last peg into your castle, as long as that partner has a peg in play.

This would be legal the way we play.  Putting your last peg in the castle using say 3 of a seven and finishing your move by moving your partner's peg on the outside track the rest of the seven say 4. (or any other split of a seven combination).  Our group have agreed to use the "Basic Rules" with one variation (Don't have to use the Left Hand partner, your choice but only one at a time) AND the addition of the Arizona rule of 9 being split( part forward and the other part backwards)  We find this speeds-up the game and makes for a better game.

Yes, we allow a 7 to be split when last peg enters home with any partner. We also use a 2 to switch places with a partner. Makes an interesting game and it speeds up the game, especially when 6 are playing. IL and in FL

This sounds like a house rule and not an official one. Do you have any evidence to state that this is an official rule and not a house rule?

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


text:
Is Harvey Walters immune to the Man in Black?
Harvey Walters has an ability which lessens each sanity loss by one point, which means that single point sanity losses have no effect on him.  The Man in Black, a mythos card, causes one sanity loss per failed die roll.  Therefore, it seems that Harvey is immune to the MiB's devouring and will always gain rewards from this card.  Is this correct?
I'd like an "official" answer, because half of my gaming group was fully convinced that Harvey was immune to the MiB, and the other half was sure that Harvey could be devoured just like everyone else.

Yes, that's correct. Harvey Walter's ability applies to all losses (but not costs), as the FAQ explicitly states:

Q: Does the Strong Mind ability (reduce all Sanity loss by 1) of the
  professor, Harvey Walters, apply to the casting of spells?
A: No. The professor’s ability works on losses, not costs. The same
  distinction applies to the gangster, Michael McGlen, and his ability
  to reduce Stamina losses.

So Horror checks, Elder signs, Mythos cards, Tomes... are all covered. While it's a cool combo if you happen to draw that Mythos card, it's not a game-breaker, IMHO. You still have to hang around French Hill Streets, and the reward, while good, isn't exceptional.
I'll note that an alternative way to play this would be to add up all the sanity losses from the Man in Black, and then subtract one from the total. In fact, this is the way I normally play this interaction, since getting the clue and spell for free feels kind of lame. As far as I know, there is no official ruling one way or the other on that though. Whichever way you play it, I don't think it is going to substantively affect your games - there are many more, much more decisive random elements in a typical game of Arkham!

So the MiB's sanity losses are multiple hits (on a per-die basis) of a single point?

If you want to rationalize adding it all up and subtracting one, just note that you always roll all the dice at the same time (and the card implies this), and read it as "lose an amount of sanity equal to the number of failures", and just figure that they tried to simplify the wording and lost some precision.

@KatieK - As worded, I think it's valid to argue that, yes. I personally agree with Jefromi, that this wording is for rule simplicity, rather than intent, which is why I play it as a cumulative addition - 1. But that's just my opinion.

In case of ambiguity, always take the least favourable option. ^_~ The Elder Gods Command It So.


text:
What do the numbers in parentheses mean?
In Gosu (Goblin Supremacy), what do the numbers in parentheses on each card's description indicate?  For example:
(Justice) When Justice comes into play draw 3(+1) cards.

We had been playing that the player with the Advantage token got to do the () actions.

You get the bonus if at least one other player has more victory points than you. I'm basing that on the description at the end of this unofficial rules summary.
The official rulebook is available online, but I seem to be missing the font for the text, so I can't read it to confirm.


text:
How do I determine my monster's hit points?
I'm the traitor and I'm in control of a monster. The guide says this monster has a Speed, Might, and Sanity values of 3 each. How do I determine the monster's hit points, I.E. how much damage it can take until it's "defeated"? (This monster has a special property where it can be "defeated" instead of just getting stunned - see spoiler text.)

 This is scenario 48, Stacked Like Cordwood. Actually, the monster comes back stronger if "killed".

In general, monsters don't get defeated or take damage; they're just stunned and lose their special negative effects and next turn. See spoiler text below for detail on this specific haunt:

 The Trator's Tome states "If Crimson Jack is defeated, he is temporarily removed from the house instead of being stunned or taking damage". The bolded part is what I missed when playing - I should have reset Jack's location and added to his stats when he was stunned.

Monsters (like explorers) don't have hit points. If a scenario says that a monster can be killed instead of just being stunned, then that scenario should also say how it can be killed. It may just say that if it's defeated, then it is killed instead of stunned, or if it's defeated with a specific item, etc. You may have to be more specific in your question about which scenario you are playing, but just double check that scenario's rules; there are no general game rules to cover this.


text:
Spawning Zombies inside buildings
I have a couple of questions about the spawning of zombies inside opened buildings in Zombicide.
1) When an actor opens a door, should we draw a zombie card for every room of the building, or just one per building?
2) If the players begin the game inside a building, are there zombies in it?

1) One per room.
2) No.
Quoting rules summary:

Opening the first door in a building (except the start area) generates Zombies in each zone. For each zone, draw a Zombie card and place them accordingly.

Failing to spawn zombies for each room when opening the first door of a building is one of the major causes of the game being too easy.

From the rule book (page 8) under the Opening a Door heading, you draw one card for each room (aka Zone).

Opening the first door of a building reveals all Zombies which are inside. Point to each Zone of the building, one after the other, drawing a Zombie card each time. Place the corresponding number of Zombies on the correct Zone (see Zombie's turn).

From the FAQ (page 1), no Zombies spawn in the starting building.

Q: Should I draw a Zombie card when opening the door of the building containing the Player starting area?
No.

1) One Per Room
2) No
Keep in mind this only applies to the first time an area is revealed.  So if a player re-seals a door via the "Lock It Down" skill and you open it again later, you will not spawn more zombies.


text:
Singing and Dancing Sword - Companion, Weapon, or Upgrade?
Can a Singing & Dancing Sword be played on top of another sword, or is it equipped as your primary weapon?
For instance, would the Rapier of Unfairness become A Singing & Dancing Rapier of Unfairness?
This forum discusses the matter, stating that a Singing & Dancing Sword is a companion (that dances to "strike" enemies, needing no hands). I feel that it is a rather uncommon "companion" card, and should be applied and discarded with the weapon it was initially placed with. To keep in line with the previous example, should the player lose their Elf status, their Singing & Dancing Rapier of Unfairness would become a carried item, and the player would lose both bonuses in the process.
To counter the argument, the card does not say Singing & Dancing Weapon, so that the Chainsaw of Bloody Dismemberment would not obviously become a Singing & Dancing Chainsaw of Bloody Dismemberment.

munchkin does not have clear rules.  The rules clearly states that whoever owns the game makes all rulings

It's a separate piece of equipment that does not use a slot, meaning you still have two hands free for whatever you want to do with them. The card does not depend on you having another weapon in any way.
The concept it represents is a weapon that can just kind of float next to you and attack stuff for you without needing you to swing it ("dancing swords" from D&D and various stories).


text:
How do you score 5,5,5,5 in-hand with a non-ten, non-face card turned up?
You are dealt 6 cards and find you have four 5s plus two other cards. You put those two non-scorers in the crib. You hope for a ten on the turn-up, but it's an off card that doesn't help anything. How do you score the 5s?

You have 6 pairs (CD,CH,CS,DH,DS,HS), and 4 ways to make 15 (CDH,CDS,CHS,HDS), for a total of 20 points.

For what it's worth, you can count the pairs with the binomial coefficient: "4 choose 2" (because it takes two to make a pair). Likewise, you can count the 15's with "4 choose 3".


text:
Best way to solve vassal module version conflicts issues
Vassal is a great way to try out a game, but it seems that vassal versions and module versions frequently create trouble actually trying something out, i.e. you want to try something that requires the latest version, so you remove your older version and install the latest version. Then it will no longer open a module written for a lower version.
As vassal is Java (I think) it probably doesn't use the windows registry, but it could have some favorite directories it stores things in. If different versions use the same installed program GUID under windows, that could cause some serious pain. There are lots of ways things could go wrong with multiple installations, some of which might not be obvious right after installation.
So what is the most painless way to keep multiple versions of vassal around in windows so that they won't step on each other's toes? I don't really want to run one VM per vassal installation.
Any other way of solving problem that different modules need different vassal installations on windows is just as good, as that is the root problem.


text:
What are great gamer games that are still great for uncompetitive groups.
I play games almost exclusively with my wife and older children. They learn and enjoy playing games like Puerto Rico, Diplomacy, 7 Wonders and Dominion so I am looking for gamer games, not Apples to Apples.
However they don't play most of these games very competitively. Rather, they will often change plans just to be nice to another player.
I have read that some highly recommended gamer games, like Power Grid, really lose a lot if the group isn't playing in highly competetive mode. What are great gamer games that stay great even if the group playing is pretty generous toward each other?
Obviously all great cooperative games would qualify so I am asking about non-cooperative games.
Edit: Certainly having extra players is sometimes a factor (we have 8 children, though only our oldest 3 can play these games with us at this point - of course, that will change in time). However simplified rules is really a non-issue from what we've played so far (Puerto-Rico being the most complex so far). Also we have no qualms about editing a game for family (or for ourselves). e.g. some of the cards in 7 wonders.
Edit. I made part of the question bold just because people kept missing that part and I've noticed those that do are getting downvoted.

Closing per our policy against game rec/shopping questions.

I'd assert that Settlers of Catan works just fine, even if you're not being very competitive.  There's lots of trading, which can actually work better if both traders are genuinely interested in "playing nice."  Similarly, there's nothing in the building of cities and roads that mandates competition.  The nature of the board does encourage confrontation, in that you're likely to eventually conflict for space to expand, but that's not necessarily a deal-breaker in this regard.

There are some house rules that can make the game nicer still.  I think the nastiest aspects of settlers are the robber and the monopoly cards.

+1 for Settlers, and for the house rules. In my experience, house rules can really make Settlers a nice game to play if you don't want a fight (my in-laws are almost anti-competitive, I'd dare to play Settlers with them, just to illustrate ;-) ).

It really is the ultimate passive-aggressive game.

Agricola is a great game, that remains good even if you're being nice to each other.  The main interaction between players is that each action space may only be taken once per round, and so players are able to develop their farms largely independently of each other.  To be nasty towards another player requires studying their position, and deliberately taking the action that they needed.
The game comes with rules for a family version, which is much easier to pick up than the full game.

I can't help but upvote my favourite game ever!

Yeah, Agricola is the game I most enjoy losing.  The sense of building something is there even if you are behind the other players.  I think part of the magic is that you don't keep score as you go along, so it isn't in everyone's face.

Bohnanza
In our experience Bohnanza lends itself very well to being nice to each other. The fact that you are often better off with a "bad" deal than none at all opens the doors for a lot of "You owe me one" deals.
The real competition in the game does not generally come from fighting over resources but from better evaluation of what kind of beans are gonna come up (or are not going to come up) plentiful.

We've had plenty of arguments in Bohnanza of the kind "Why did you give that to him rather than me..."  Maybe that's just us though.

I didn't say that all groups play it like this. If your group likes to fight over individual deals then that's what you like. Nothing wrong with that.

This game is a lot of fun!

@tttppp if there's an argument our players often decide to give trades/donations to whatever player has less money if all other things are equal. :)

One attribute I think you should look for is non-elimination games, that is, games where all the players stay in until the end.

arkam-horror is a great gamers game and also co-operative.
axis-and-allies is team-based and although it's possible to eliminate one player in practice the game can be more fun if each side plays as a team
settlers-of-catan is another popular game where everyone's in it until the end

+1 for Arkham-Horror.  It is all the players VS the board, so cooperation is required (unless you LIKE having Cthulu eat your brain).

Scrabble
Scrabble is a nice choice because if nobody is playing defensively, then people just get to build longer/more fun words.  If your family won't cringe that Mom just opened up the triple word score for one of the kids then it can be a nice casual multi-player game.

My usual recommendations for cooperative boardgames are:

Lord of the Rings
Shadows over Camelot
Pandemic

(The first link is from board game geek- you can search for the other games there also as I couldn't post more than two links)
But really, any of the games in the cooperative category of BoardGameGeek should work for you.  Sort by ranking, and there are some good ones in the top 10.

I agree with all points, but the asker specifically said they wanted non-cooperative games. :D

You are so right!  In that case, I'd say Cutthroat Caverns.  Not cooperative, but competitive up to a point.  Infernal Contraption is also a good one.

If you're looking for games that work well when you don't feel like being competitive, what about games that are by nature cooperative? Space Alert is absolutely fantastic in this arena, and it's a great combination of analytical, communicative, and pressure-handling skills: you need to work together with the other players to craft solutions to often-difficult problems quickly. Get one of those three wrong and you all die, which honestly is half the fun anyway. The instructions are a blast to read even if you don't plan to play the game (I didn't, until I was done with the rules!), and there are several ways to adjust the difficulty to a level you're happy with.
Also worth noting in this sort of genre are Pandemic and Betrayal at House on the Hill. Both of these are good, cooperative games (though the latter generally becomes less cooperative when one of your number is randomly selected to betray the others). Personally I put Space Alert on top of the heap by a mile, but as a matter of taste you might find you prefer the others if you are really into deep analysis.
NB Betrayal was reprinted recently, and the new edition is a lot shabbier: bits tend to warp and generally aren't as nice. But I understand it's a lot cheaper, and it's still perfectly playable, so make your own decision here about whether you look for an old edition.
Edit: Apparently I completely overlooked the "only looking for competitive games" part of your question. I'll leave this here anyway, in case you aren't already aware of these.

Dominion works pretty well... just don't use any of the attack cards.
FGU's Star Explorer (I have reason to believe it's soon to be reprinted by a new company) also works extremely well; it's multi-player limited interaction, race to complete missions.
Ticket to Ride (any flavor) works pretty well as long as everyone's the same level of competitiveness.
Carcassonne also tends to do well with friendly games, at least in most flavors; Carcassonne: The City tends to be a bit more competitive.

Munchkin
Munchkin is well-loved by my more hardcore board gaming friends, but it is a very silly game that is best played non-competitively. It's often more fun to play with a goal of doing things in the most ridiculous manner (I'm going to use my Tuba of Charm to destroy that monster in spite of the Chicken On My Head!) than to try to actually win. Players can go it solo, but there is a lot of potential for collaboration - the most memorable Munchkin games that I've participated in have been won by two or more people working together at the last minute.
Fair warning: this game is PG-13. Some of the more lewd jokes will go right over the heads of any little ones ("Crabs: If this monster catches you, you will lose all your armor and any items worn beneath the waist"), but others will teach them some new language ("Sneaky Bastard Sword").
Killer Bunnies
Appealing for somewhat similar reasons to Munchkin, but it's G-rated and less likely to remind one of dungeons and dragons. The end-game is somewhat random, so playing competitively can leave you disappointed (the person who was worst off throughout the whole game still stands a chance of winning).

Death Angels is pure coop play (the aliens play "themselves" with some rules) just with cards and dice (very portable).
Castle Ravenloft is also "group of good guys only" with automatic foe movement, attacks, etc. A dungeon crawler
And as a third recommendation, Betrayal at House on the Hill is really great, but the second half of the game (when one "omen roll" is failed and the bad guy(s) are chosen) requires at least one person to become enemy/bad and a bit of competition is introduced.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
How to tell if someone is saboteur?
What are some general clues that indicate if someone is playing the role of saboteur? Obviously if player is going to put a troublesome dead end on the only path he's a saboteur. But some players are more subtle, and they come out of cover late in the game. How can I spot a saboteur early on in the game?

Obviously, if you are a digger and someone is continuously destroying your
tools, you might expect them to be a saboteur.
A less obvious
way is to detect who are diggers and use deduction. You know ahead
how many saboteurs there can be in your game so if you can eliminate
some players the chances for others to be saboteurs are getting
higher.
Look at who is an obvious digger, and look at who is
destroying their tools, or blocking their paths. Obvious diggers are
easily targeted by saboteurs, so that is another way to spot a
saboteur.
You could argue that in the end the best saboteurs are those that remain hidden
for a long time, but this could also be a weakness, if you are a
digger and you find it hard to detect whether a player is a digger or
a saboteur, maybe they are playing hard to read because they have
something to hide. Arguably diggers have no advantage having their identity hidden so a player who is hard to read is more likely to be a saboteur.

And if you still don't know, just call them a "saboteur" and see what the general reaction is. :-)

Another way not mentioned by @Bazzz is to keep an eye out for when people make rockfall spots.
As a Saboteur, it's useful to place paths in a way which you can claim to be good for the diggers, but with the real reason being that with a correctly timed and placed rockfall, the gap is harder to fill. Call out people who create these spots and encourage actual diggers not to do this.
This is something new players often have trouble grasping.
This flowchart is how a computer AI would decide(from here), but is pretty useless  to humans. I'm just putting it here because I thought it was kind of cool:


text:
How do Lazav, Dimir Mastermind and Vigor work together in Magic the Gathering?
Say I have Lazav, Dimir Mastermind and Vigor on the battlefield and Vigor dies. Lazav's ability triggers and I have him become a copy of Vigor. Does he now apply Vigor's ability to himself as well, since the ability says: "other than Vigor"?

Also incidentally, noticing the way you worded the first sentence, remember Lazav would only trigger if your opponent owns the Vigor.

Nope, when an ability on an object refers to itself by name it means "this object."

201.4b If an ability of an object refers to that object by name, and an object with a different name gains that ability, each instance of
  the first name in the gained ability that refers to the first object
  by name should be treated as the second name.
Example: Quicksilver
  Elemental says, in part, “{U}: Quicksilver Elemental gains all
  activated abilities of target creature until end of turn.” If it gains
  an ability that says “{G}: Regenerate Cudgel Troll,” activating that
  ability will regenerate Quicksilver Elemental, not the Cudgel Troll it
  gained the ability from.
Example: Glacial Ray is an instant with
  “splice onto Arcane” that says “Glacial Ray deals 2 damage to target
  creature or player.” If it’s spliced onto a Kodama’s Reach, that
  Kodama’s Reach deals 2 damage to the target creature or player.
Example: Dimir Doppelganger says “{1}{U}{B}: Exile target creature
  card from a graveyard. Dimir Doppelganger becomes a copy of that card
  and gains this ability.” Dimir Doppelganger’s ability is activated
  targeting a Runeclaw Bear card. The Doppelganger becomes a copy of
  Runeclaw Bear and gains an ability that should be treated as saying
  “{1}{U}{B}: Exile target creature card from a graveyard. Runeclaw Bear
  becomes a copy of that card and gains this ability.”

If the name were to be used literally, the text would read "a creature you control not named Vigor" instead of "a creature you control other than Vigor".

So, if two Vigors were in play they would infact only refer to themselves as objects and therefore protect each other?

@zo0x Yes. Rules text on a card mentioning the card name always refers to that card only. The template would have to be "other than a source named Vigor" for it not to be the case. See Blazing Effigy

I guess in the context of Vigor the template would be other than a creature named Vigor — similar to the Relentless Rats rules text.

Even if this weren't the case, Lazav always keeps the name "Lazav, Dimir Mastermind"


text:
What game mechanic can be used for evenly selecting other players but not yourself?
I am looking for a game mechanic for a game I am designing,  that would let players randomly select other players, but that by the end of the game all the players were selected equally.
My first instinct was the destiny deck from Cosmic Encounters.  In that game there is a deck with a few cards representing each player.  On their turn the player draws a card, and interacts with the selected opponent.
The limitation of this solution is that sometimes players select themselves.  Cosmic encounters solves this by having rules for how to interact with yourself, but my game lacks this.  Even if i was to simply put the card on the bottom of the deck and draw a new one, there is a chance with the last card being left of the last player who must take the last turn.  At this point selecting another player randomly would unbalance the game, giving them an extra time they are selected.
Is there any other mechanic that can be used to solve this?
(I am in no way set on using cards.  Any mechanic would be OK)

Could you remove cards instead of just putting them on the bottom?  This might help remove the potential for a player being selected "more times than is fair" - if there are only 3 red cards in the deck, and one is removed every time they are selected, there is no possibility of red being selected a fourth time...

Do you want "all the players should be selected equally" by player or for the game as a whole?" (or suggestions for both possibilities?) My answer below was by player but perhaps that's not what you meant?

Another clarification: is the selected player open information for all players or is he/she only known by the selecting player? @thesunneversets i like this idea because it's the closest to the described scenario, but this only works if the selected player is open information, hence my question.

@thesunneversets  I only put cards on the bottom if a player draws himself.  He then draws another card

@Andrey I think he was suggesting you remove every card EXCEPT when players select themselves. In that case just put the card in the bottom. In any case, this can lead to players knowing when each card is coming around.

I'd vote this question up twice if I could!

@rahzark Yes - if you draw an invalid card (ie not yourself) either put in on the bottom or reshuffle the deck, depending on your tolerance for potential multiple reshuffles.  If you draw an valid card, remove that from the game.

This question still needs clarification. You never described how the game ends. Without knowing that, how can we define a system that ensures that all players are selected equally by the end of it.

If it is acceptable that the order of the players turns is different every round, you could have a deck with a card for each player, then draw the top card and let that player have the next card as target, and then the next player takes the third card as target.
Finally the last player uses the first one as target. This way each player is the target exactly once in every round.

Use decks to indicate relative seating position instead of particular players.
So, for a four-player game, the deck would have cards saying:

The player to your left.
The player two seats to your left.
The player three seats to your left.

Since you want each player to get drawn the same number of times, you'll need a copy of this deck for each player.
The advantages of this method over a deck of absolute positions are:

You don't need to assign each player a number or color identity. For example, deep into a game of Puerto Rico, you don't want players to have to remember who was Player 3.
You don't need to make a custom deck for each player, which slightly simplifies manufacturing and setup.

Love this answer! Using relative positions is elegant and works for every different variation discussed in the comments! Simply wonderful :D

i don't think this is in any way different than Joe Golton's

Yeah, I don't think this idea was thought through. If every player has their own deck constructed separately, which selects the other players equally, relative positions are entirely equivalent to absolute positions. And if you're thinking of shuffling then dealing the relative positions, there's no longer any guarantee of equal selection.

@Jefromi You are right, and I didn't think my comment that throughly as well. :( If every player has it's deck it's the same as non-relative positions. And if the deck is shared, than there is no telling the distribution will be the same. I shouldn't be so quick to vote answers up!

@Andrey and Cascabel - the difference between relative positions ("one / two / ... N seats clockwise from you")) and absolute designations  ("blue / red / ... teal player") is that relative positions decks use the exact same cards - easier to manufacture and simpler to setup for variable number of players. While with absolute designations decks, each is missing a different player - so ensuring everyone has constructed their deck correctly is somewhat trickier.

Sounds like a good use for a bag of items - pawns colored per player, tokens, whatever you prefer. When you need to randomly select an opponent, draw one. If it's yourself, set it aside so you won't draw it again, then add it back in after you finish drawing.
...but of course, the situation you're trying to create isn't exactly ideal. If you reach the last player, and the only option left is that player, you're stuck. If you're okay with creating a little bit of inequality in player selection in this somewhat rare case, you could with it in an approximate way - if you do get stuck, just refill the bag and draw again. Otherwise, if you can handle a tiny bit of extra information (which is theoretically public to players with good memories), you could just draw the last two on the second-to-last turn, and swap the order if necessary. This isn't foolproof; the last two could both be for one of the last two players... but it might be good enough - and you could fall back to refilling the bag.
Edit: One other way to deal with potentially getting stuck: if you're okay with this kind of information, just leave the pieces out after being drawn in stacks/rows, so that you know how many are left of each in the bag. This is again something that an observant player could already know. You can then figure out if you need to do something besides draw randomly at the end.
If you don't like any of this, I'm afraid there's not much you can do besides carefully constructing a deck at the beginning of the game.

If you're happy with the way everything is working except for this edge case, you could just make it so the last 2 cards are drawn simultaneously. The second to last player gets the first card drawn unless the last player would end up with him/herself, in which case they switch.

Have one deck, with X cards for each player. When you need to select a random player draw a card from the deck. If you draw yourself, draw again. Shuffle any cards drawn for yourself back in and discard the card you drew for another player. Since each player draws from the same deck, in general everyone will get picked the same amount. The exception would be if one player is drawing from the deck more than other players the deck may eventually be JUST their cards. So you'll need to make sure that X is large enough to avoid a reshuffle unless a) everyone chooses other players evenly, or a small amount of unevenness is acceptable.

One possibility is a separate destiny deck for each player. If you make the game for 6 players, then each player would have a "destiny deck" that includes the other 5 players. In games with fewer than 6 players, then the player colors not used are removed from all the destiny decks (though even if they forget, they can be discarded when drawn during the game).
To facilitate faster game starts, it would be nice to color code each destiny deck. So the red player would have a red on the back, color of another player on the front.

Your suggestion creates a different scenario than the one described. With a deck for each player it basically means that every player will end up selecting each other at least once. With a single deck that may never happen, because I may never stumble on a certain player's card because other players keep selecting it and I keep "skipping" it. I'm not saying it is better or worse, only different :)

@rahzark I don't think the question was specific on whether "all the players should be selected equally" by player or for the game as a whole. If the intention is to do it as a whole, then I think the mechanics end up being more complicated, which is why I opted for this one.

@rahzark This would work, but i feel like it would make the game a lot more boring.  I am hoping for a solution that would let interactions be more random


text:
Is the "snake" turn order for Blokus fairer than the traditional turn order?
My friends and I play pretty much everyday.  I was wondering if a snake order is actually more fair than the traditional 1-4 with the last person being at a disadvantage.
Snake turn order would have players go in the order 1,2,3,4,4,3,2,1,1,2,3,4...

Please provide more details, maybe "snake order" is common terminology, but I don't know what it means.

@GendoIkari Short version: rather than taking turns 123412341234 etc., the turn order goes 123443211234 etc.  The idea is to even out positions so that moving first isn't the permanent advantage that it often is.  (Snake isn't perfect either, but trying to use something like a Thue-Morse sequence to determine play order is going awfully deep.)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100322145919AAoxSr8

Hi Steven - can you please elaborate on the Thue-Morse sequence? We have the debate all of the time on how to best determine the fair order. Also, do you think the Snake is better than just taking turns? Is there an inherent advantage for the people that get to go twice? Thanks!

@Zach Unfortunately, I don't have a good enough feel for Blokus to understand the specific implications of snaking in the context of this game specifically, which is why I haven't answered. :-) As for Thue-Morse, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thue–Morse_sequence#Equitable_sequencing for some explanation of why it's considered to make for a 'fair' turn order.

I would say not. The advantage to those on the ends of being able to place multiple pieces consecutively is far greater than the disadvantage of going last in this game, IME.
First, the single most successful opening strategy is to get across the board as fast as you can, so you don't end up boxed in to your corner of the board. It's been my experience that even with perfect play by the players immediately to the left and right of any one player, it is impossible to effectively "corral" a knowledgeable player attempting to do this, because even if all three other players reach the center first, they will be unable to stop a concerted effort by the player they're attempting to corral to "squeeze out" through one of the gaps left by the other players in their mad dash to the center. A player typically ends up corralled when they focus on building a compact arrangement of pieces in their own quadrant, and that's such a basic strategic mistake that the game designers saw fit to advise against it in the one-page instruction manual.
Second, the snake arrangement is typically most equitable when the style of the game is such that any player could make exactly the same move, and would want to make that move about as much as any other player, and so an arbitrary decision of who can make the most desirable move in the round or game is perceived as unjustly biased. "Draft"-style decisions, such as worker-placement games, are an obvious example that typically benefit most from a variable player order of some kind. Catan's another common example; the last player to place their first settlement is the first player to place their second, allowing them to choose a pair of locations that work well together, compensating for the disadvantage of having the worst first pick.
Blokus is not that type of game; the number of situations in which two players can make exactly the same move, and the move would be equally advantageous to either player, are sharply limited overall, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Even in those cases, it's very rare that the two players would see equal advantage from the move, as while the piece to be played might be exactly the same, the places the player could go based on that move are likely different.
Given these two points, the advantage conferred on the last player (and eventually the first player) in a snake turn order is enormous; in this game, being able to play two pieces consecutively is like being able to move two pieces on the same turn in chess. You get the opportunity to make a coordinated sequence of moves, and in this game that often creates a far larger advantage than the disadvantage you would have by going last.

I'll add that in a snake order, the first player will also get two consecutive moves, so the relative advantage of the 1st or 4th player is going to be hugely dependent on the odd/even parity of moves to get to the middle and start blocking people off by placing two pieces simultaneously.

"Snake Order" isn't that common in games, because getting 2 turns in a row is often a massive advantage. Usually the first player advantage is dealt with by rotating the starting player, so I'd suggest you try that.
Player order would be 1,2,3,4,2,3,4,1,3,4,1,2,4,1,2,3 then back to 1,2,3,4.

With this order in a two-sided, four-color game, there would be great advantage to the side having consecutive moves (1-3, 2-4, 3-1, 4-2), perhaps even greater than consecutive moves by the same color.


text:
What are some fun setups for Dominion for two players?
At present I only own the Dominion Base set and my girlfriend and I have only played the game a few times. I figure we'll stick to the starter layout for a few more games but after that I'm curious what are some fun initial setups for 2-person play?
As I noted in comments below I'm looking for multiple setups which will be well suited for a fun two person game. By fun I mean multiple strategies and some interaction. I'm playing with my girlfriend, when we've played random setups we have had fun but have found many that aren't as engaging as others. Cards such as Council Room (which some don't like) at least engaged the other player during a turn.
I am open to buying expansions in the future but initially I'm looking for suggestions to have fun with just the base set.

Since random setups have already been recommended, let me suggest a couple of individual card combos that can form the core of an interesting set.
Option 1: Core strategies in the base set. Choose 2 of these, and fill in the rest of the cards randomly.

Woodcutter/Workshop + Gardens (+ Cellar): obvious gardens path
Throne Roome + Remodel/Mine: TR helps the fact that these strategies are slow on their own
Chapel: trash as fast as possible and race for provinces
Witch/Militia (interesting both with and without Moats): slow down your opponent with attacks
Smithy/Moneylender: accelerate the early game to 5+ coin hands

Option 2: Interesting card interactions in the base set. Choose one and fill in the rest randomly.

Witch + Gardens strategy cards: do you curse your opponent and make his/her Gardens more valuable?
Militia + Library: you can attack to slow down your opponent, but if he/she has a Library in hand then the attack is mostly wasted. Do you go for offense or defense?
Chapel + Thief: if you trash your starting cards to accelerate your deck, you will be more vulnerable to having your few (and good) treasure cards stolen.

Finally, if player interaction is a really important criterion for you, you should seriously consider adding the Intrigue expansion. Not only is it built around the theme of interaction, but it also has lots of cards that combo well with base set cards to create interesting strategies (Duke/Duchy, Gardens/Bridge, Gardens/Ironworks, etc.).

Excellent advice!

I and a friend recently developed a set specifically for two players.
The principles we started from were:

The game should be fast.
No extra reasons to wait for the other player to shuffle.
Multiple action granting cards make turns take too long

So here's what we came up with:
Cellar, Chancellor, Market, Moat, Remodel, Smithy, Throne Room, Witch, Woodcutter, Workshop
The set has a Witch as the sole attack card, but with both the Moat and Remodel, she is more than balanced. The Witch doesn't require the other player to have a hand when played except to check if they have a moat, so if they're shuffling just set the curse aside and if they draw a moat, put it back. The Throne Room is the only way to get multiple actions (when used with either the Cellar or the Market).
I've play tested it several times and I think it's a very flexible, fun set. I like that there are multiple strategies and that you have to be able to react to how your opponent is playing.
I hope you enjoy it, and don't forget to use only eight of each victory card in the stacks when playing two-player.
Oh, and here's the set on Dominion Deck Builder, if you use that: http://dominiondeck.com/games/duel-set-made-two-players

I find most setups usually work equally well with different numbers of players, especially in the base set. Make some yourself, try an online randomizer, or look for highly rated games with just the base. Its hard to go wrong whatever you do.
Oh, but if you want to keep your relationship together you might want to leave out the witch and the militia. :D

I feel that's a bit harsh, LBT: I too find myself stymied by the question. Why NOT just play some random games, work out which cards you (as a couple) enjoy or don't enjoy, and whittle it down from there? Plus Council Room might be a GREAT card for a couple, as you get to help the other player have fun, instead of trying to cripple their game, as with the Witch and Militia that CJD cites. Some couples will prefer a cooperative style game, and there's nothing wrong with that!

We will play some random hands but as we don't have a lot of opportunities to play games and at least from what I've seen and experienced the two player Dominion is a pretty long game (1-1.5hrs?) we won't get a lot of plays in. So rather than random setups that might not be fun especially for a two player game I'm looking for some setups which are fun and competitive. Last time we played (from the stating setup) we both played militias occasionally.

If your dominion games are taking an hour each, either you haven't played enough, you are playing really slowly, or you are doing something wrong.  A quick online game between experienced players can take 3 minutes.

I think 3 minutes is a little unrealistic, but my 3 player games rarely go over a half-hour is we know the cards well. You mileage will vary, but 1-1.5 hours if you've play a few games seems a little excessive. With 2 players you are supposed to use 8 provinces, which should speed things up if you like. :D

we are following all the rules - so yes, 8 provinces (and 8 duchies, gardens when we use them, and estates) but the games are certainly not anywhere near 30 minutes

I don't want to be too pedantic/argumenatative, but the timestamp of game completion is logged in the URL here, 191417 = 19:14:17, 191723 = 19:17:23, which means the game in question took 3 minutes and 9 seconds. Game 1 and Game 2. The combo was obvious and quick (Tactician/Bank).

@Rob maybe in online play with certain card sets, but I think actual physical games with many cards that carry important decisions (a lot of the Intrigue cards) and multiple strategies will be lucky to get under 10 minutes. Its unrealistic to compare a quick online game with veterans to a more complex game with intermediate level players. :D

@LittleBobbyTables: You may think Council Room is an awful card, but other people (me included) may not.  It's an excellent card in a Big Money deck, and is also good with any +2 Actions card.

We have probably 6 different dominion games and have lumped them all together.
Randomizing is the most fun with a twist I developed. I separated all the cards (that we enjoy using) into their different categories like defense, attack, added cards, trashing cards, multiple actions and finally miscellaneous. From there we pick how many cards from which categories to use then pick randomly from the various stacks.

Sorry to add another non-answer, but I'd say that if you play several games in a row with the exact same set of cards, you'll quickly tire of it. Especially with the base set, most 10 card sets will have one or two best strategies, but often not much beyond that. Pretty soon, you're both just going to be going after the same strategy each time.
You'll learn the specific strategy of how to play those 10 cards well, but you won't really be learning the game the way you should, and will be slow to pick up on new strategies when you start mixing it up.

Sure. But as I said I'm looking for setups which will be fun for a two player game (note the plural). Tonight we played two random games which were both enjoyable but certain combinations of cards didn't really shine in a two player context. I'm looking for suggested setups that will lend themselves to multiple strategies and to a fun game night. By fun I mean both players engaged and some interaction. The last game we played had little interaction which wasn't as fun as rounds with interaction.

@Shannon Ah, you do have more qualifications than you mentioned previously. Could you edit your question examples of what you want and don't want in a card set? Specific or general is fine. That way we can get cracking on some more specific recommendations for what will and won't work. :D

Recently played
Adventurer,
Bureaucrat,
Cellar,
Chapel,
Throne Room,
Festival,
Workshop,
Remodel,
Laboratory,
Smithy
a couple of times and found it was seemed to work particularly well, kind of like the  recommended beginner set ups. It has decent cards for a number of different strategies (Cellar/Remodel for a dense small hand), Festival for chaining actions (though maybe Workshop should be replaced with Village). Throne room is nice with most of the cards present, Bureaucrat provides a mild offensive.

Personally I like to have people learn the value of chapel early, so a subset of moat+militia, cellar/village, remodel, council room could be good in my opinion (depending on how much you like chapel/militia which). One setup that is nice could be most of these plus workshop, spy/woodcutter/moneylender. The importance is to vary the game. See which cards neither of you played and replace them with others (if you don't play them either, test replacing the ones you always play to change the dynamic).

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
Information gain from discarded tiles in Mahjong
What information do you gain when another player discards a tile apart from seeing which tile it is? In particular from the position from which the tile is discarded. I neglect the timing side-channel in this context.
You can sort your tiles, but no good player will do that, since it increases the information your opponents gain while giving you no advantage.
As I understand the rules at http://mahjong-europe.org you can't regularly shuffle the tiles. In particular not between taking and discarding a tile.
From this I conclude you can find out in which turn the discarded tile was drawn(all initial tiles count as a single turn), but nothing more.
Is that correct, or did I miss a way to gain additional information, or hide information about when the discarded tile was drawn?

Can you add Mahjong to the title of this question somewhere? The game you're asking about is kind of buried in the link and the tag.

Like you said, you can't shuffle your tiles at will, but if I'm remembering correctly, you can put the tile you just drawn anywhere in your "hand", so you can't know when the discarded tile was drawn (at least not if you haven't a perfect memory ;) ).
However, each player has his own discard location, so you can easily see all tiles he has already discarded and maybe find a pattern in his discards which may prove useful to guess what he is waiting.
A player which is always discarding quickly the tile he just drawn is also a strong indicator that he is close to finish.

Although mandatory in riichi mahjong because of the furiten rule, where knowing what everyone's discarded so far is vital, not all flavours of mahjong have separate discard locations for each player.  When furiten is not an issue it's not uncommon to see tiles just tossed into the centre haphazardly.

In all types of mahjong except Riichi-mahjong, the tiles are discarded into the pool at the center, usually in no particular order. If you have a very good memory, you can remember what tiles were discarded by whom. From this, you can gain information about what kinds of hands your opponent might be going for.
For example, if your opponent discards a 5 of circles and a 6 of circles in two consecutive turns, you can assume that it is very likely that they're going for a hand consisting of few circle tiles, an outside hand (terminals and honors in every set), or something similar. However, this depends on the style of mahjong you are playing.
To get more information about your opponent's hand based on the their discards, it is usually best to familiarize yourself with the types of hands that can win, and the point values associated with each hand. Then, you can deduce the kinds of tiles in your opponent's hands based on the discards that you see.
Just keep in mind that a good opponent could also be attempting to trick you, so while the likelihood of the tiles in their hands swings one way, it's not definite.

Every mah jongg book I've read, and every game I've seen played, has separate player discard lines.

In all variants I've ever seen being played except for Japanese mahjong, everybody simply discards all the tiles into a common pool. Furthermore, nobody keeps track of who chowed or punged which tile from whom - they simply expose the set with all the tiles facing the same direction.

This is true. In other variants of mahjong, "defense" is much harder. You have to pay a lot of extra attention and memory in order to keep track of what opponents are doing.

Riichi, MCR and Zung Jung are the three varieties I know that establish orderly discards (in 3 clearly discrete and sequential lines of six, in front of each player).

Generally, most people will organize their tiles in some fashion.
By watching both were they put the drawn tile, and where they pull their discard from, you can draw inferences on what they have in hand.
By looking at their set of discards, coupled to their hand organization you can often tell if they've changed hand goal mid-hand. (For example, starting off going for a set of 3 chous and  a pung, and deciding instead to start grabbing matches, instead.
Further, you need to keep an eye on the discards to prevent yourself from trying to make pungs  from numbers which already have been discarded twice (tho' that's basic to mah jongg, many novices overlook that). Often, I've found novices will hold a couple single tiles in order to make a specific combination hand, waiting to draw a second and take the 3rd from a discard, only to show grave disappointment when someone else discards the 2nd tile; it's not uncommon for them to visibly react, then discard the same tile. The more frustrated their look, the more likely they are working some fixated strategy and/or are close to going out.


text:
What has changed in the new edition of Junta?
I have the 1985 WEG version of Junta (that I rescued from a second-hand store years ago), and while it's a favorite of mine, I'll easily admit that it's not the clearest game for explanations or text on cards.
I see that Alderac is printing a new edition - is it just a cleanup, or are there mechanical differences?

Not to be confused with the 2010 Junta: Viva el Presidente by Z-Man Games.

The 1985 version you're talking about is the 2nd edition of Junta. The 3rd edition is from 2005, here's a list of changes: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/198305/exhaustive-list-changes-third-edition

Short version: 1) First fire has been eliminated, shooting is simultaneous for everyone. 2) minor changes to retreats. 3) unit transfer during Coup Phase. 4) optional rules for longer/shorter games.

According to this review, which relied on the reviewer's memory for some details of the original, there are some functional differences:

Marxists Leninists card removed.
First Fire rule removed.

Also variants have been added to allow players to make the game longer or shorter, variants not given in the original.

These include timed rounds, modifications on who can start a coup, the foreign aid stack getting exhausted more expediently, or conversely all used bills going back into the stack. Additional house rules include players in Exile participating in coups via bribes, assassinations being blocked via assassin cards etc.

And according to this BGG post, there's also

change to the rules for going into exile


text:
Designing a Yu-Gi-Oh! like card game - the game phases
Yu-Gi-Oh! has 6 phases, of which only 4 are actually visible to a player playing in real life.
Main phase 1, battle phase, main phase 2, end.
I personally do not like the way these phases work, and am considering designing new rules that allows players to play without these phases being visible, so that there's only 1 phase where you can attack or play magic cards (and then end turn).
The one problem that my friend has pointed out to be is that this changes the effectiveness of certain cards like Call of the Haunted.
If I have no monsters on the field and the opponent has a panoply of monsters on the field, I would normally be able to save myself with Call of the Haunted. As a trap, I can activate it when the opponent attacks, and revive a strong monster to defend myself. However if the opponent has a magic card such as exiled force, they can kill my strong monster immediately, something they wouldn't be able to do in the attack phase of normal Yu-Gi-Oh! rules.
Now my solution to this is to add special exceptions to cards like Call of the Haunted, so that they or the monster they summon cannot be targeted by magic cards within the same turn as their activation.
Would that fix the problem of trap card balance? Are there any problems with my proposed system?
Some context: This is a new rule set based on Yu-Gi-Oh! rules. I don't intend to try to get anyone to play Yu-Gi-Oh! with my rules.
Thanks.
Edit:
Some more context: Not working on existing cards, I have new cards.
Here is a video demonstrating what I mean:
In this new game note that there are no attack/main phases, just one END TURN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL1KS-qQrPw

Kudos for trying to fix some of Yugioh!'s infinite problems. It has to be one of the most unbalanced games ever created, probably because the only point of the game was to make more money off of the TV show that never played by the rules and convinced thousands of kids (like me) to treat Yugioh cards as more valuable than gold.......until they discovered Magic: The Gathering and sold all of their Yugioh cards to play a REAL trading card game. ;)

Don't bother, it's likely not worth it.

My advice is: Don't! That game has existed for over ten years now. Trying to change the essential rules of the game is likely not going to be possible with your resources facing the sheer volume of material that would have to be considered and adapted.

My advice is: Do!  There's nothing wrong with taking components from old games and inventing entirely new games with them.  I'm pretty sure that's how some of the greatest classic cards games were invented.  And at the very least, it's a cool mental exercise!

Without knowing anything about Yu-Gi-Oh, your question doesn't have enough information to help you find an answer. Are you asking if a CCG with phases akin to Begin-Attack-End would work?

@MrHen yeah, check out my video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL1KS-qQrPw

@Charuru: That's a very smooth UI. Having suffered through getting used to Cockatrice (for MTG) I think you should separate from Yu-Gi-Oh entirely and make your own card game. You've got the stuff.

Why can't you just preclude casting spells during the resolution of an attack? That way you still get your surprise blocker to throw in front of an attacker, but the opponent is free to remove it afterward.

i don't understand your logic, the standby and draw phases are "invisible" to the player yet the end phase isn't? the draw phase is when you draw your card at the start of a turn and activate effects relating to that stage while the standby phase is when most player pre-turn processing for effects occur, they are just as "visible" as the end phase if not more so, main phase 2 is just about as useless as it can get as it's normally used as the phase to activate anything you absentmindedly forgot however logisticly it's just the post-attack phase which occurs after every attack

I'd advise against basing your system on oversimplified YGO rules. These phases that seem arbitrary were added precisely to avoid adding many exceptions and forcing players to remember them all. Having regular rules with such a gigantic deck is much better than writing exceptions on card and then have lots of pain trying to match them together.
BTW, historically first versions of YGO were much simpler and very close to what you describe, which can be seen from many legacy normal and fusion cards. Instead of the fun and dynamic game of today it was just a race to see who would draw or fuse a card with the highest ATK on the board first.

Very true! Here's a good illustration of what happens when you replace core functionality with "exceptions" (from MTG, because it's what I know): Mystic Denial. Special rules about when you can cast it. Special rules about what it does. 6 lines of text for a card that would only be 6 words in normal MTG language. Imagine how much harder it would be to then design "Mystic Denial but it works slightly differently," like mtg:Condescend. :o

Now my solution to this is to add special exceptions to cards like Call of the Haunted, so that they or the monster they summon cannot be targeted by magic cards within the same turn as their activation. Would that fix the problem of trap card balance? Are there any problems with my proposed system?

This is probably overpowered, it would bring many new problems since it will create quite a few interesting combo's abusing the magic-immunity.
Personally I like the phases as they are, altough I can understand that they can be a nuisance.
Another idea: Change all 'This card can only activate during Main Phase 1' cards to 'This card can only activate before an attack is declared' (of course the same for cards that say that they CANNOT activate in MP1, etc.).
Change all Attack Phase affected cards to 'Cards that can/cannot/can only/etc activate while attacks are being declared', cards affecting MP2 to 'after attacks have been declared' and cards referring the End Phase to 'At the end of your turn' or 'Before the opponent draws a card'.

That's a lot like the approach Magic took with a set called Portal, intended to teach the game to beginners. The result was fewer card types and phases but lots of weird individual templating and special exceptions to get combat effects and counterspells and stuff to work out. Overall I think it made things harder to actually understand.


text:
Are drawing an extra card and playing an extra card optional when the Party Bonus rule is in effect?
Here is the wording on my Party Bonus card...

If someone has the Party on the table, all players may Draw 1 extra card and may Play 1 extra card during their turns.

It's the word "may" that's throwing me off. With most of the other new rule cards that I've looked at, the description is very clear that you must do what it says. In this case, however, it seems to be left open to the player's discretion.
EDIT
I guess the other part that throws me off is that I read through all of the new rule cards and found that the Rich Bonus and Poor Bonus are inconsistent on the same subject. Only the Rich Bonus one says "may." The Poor Bonus is worded as though it's mandatory.

May is optional.
While I could find no direct rules citation there is this question from the Rabbit Wiki:

Q: When a card states that you "may" play 1 extra card (e.g., Rich Bonus or Party Bonus), and inflation is in play, it is treated as you may play 2 extra cards. Does this mean that you have to choose between playing 0 and playing 2, or can you also play only 1?
A: It's either zero or two. There is no one.

The answer clearly indicates that may is optional.