text:
Can Lost Isle Calling's activated ability be copied effectively?
I would love some clarification on how exactly Lost Isle Calling's activated ability works.
First off, since the cost of the ability involves sacrificing LIC itself, how can the ability count how many verse counters are on it? LIC was sacrificed, so obviously it has no counters on it. Does the ability only check for the counters as it's being put on the stack (right before LIC actually disappears) and never again?
Second, if I try to copy this ability with Three Rings for the Elven-Kings (Rings of Brighthearth), will the copy count the same amount of verse counters as the original ability (and possibly generate a second extra turn), or will there be some sort of error since LIC was sacrificed to pay for the original ability?
Thanks

The copied ability should work like normal.
The ability is able to go off of the number of counters on Lost Isle Calling when it was last on the battlefield:

608.2h If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it’s no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object’s last known information.

This would apply just the same to a copy of the ability. The ability itself is not linked to the object that created it, so the only “link” is that the ability refers to “Lost Isle Calling” (which means the specific Lost Isle Calling that was sacrificed to activate the ability).
A copy of the ability also refers to “Lost Isle Calling”, and it is referring to the same one as the original ability:

707.10. To copy a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability means to put a copy of it onto the stack; a copy of a spell isn’t cast and a copy of an activated ability isn’t activated. A copy of a spell or ability copies both the characteristics of the spell or ability and all decisions made for it, including modes, targets, the value of X, and additional or alternative costs. (See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”) Choices that are normally made on resolution are not copied. If an effect of the copy refers to objects used to pay its costs, it uses the objects used to pay the costs of the original spell or ability.


text:
Can anyone help me identify this piece?

Found this in a second hand game i bought, anyone know what it is from? Already tried google image searching it and nothing came up!

This is Terra Mystica - see http://gamesoncloud.blogspot.com/2014/01/terra-mystica.html, search on "◎配件很多，克勞德用天鵝堡買的大收納盒將所有公用配件都放在裡面" - I'm just trying to find a more authoritative (and English) source.

It's a score-in-excess-of-100 token from Terra Mystica.
See upper left token on this unpunched sheet:

Or as stored on the right in this custom storage solution:

There's another example at https://thedicetroyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TheDicetroyers_TerraMysticaAllIn-07-1024x683.jpg which is perhaps clearer to make out.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Catan longest road
If player1 holds longest road card (for example 7 pieces), if player2 reaches 7 pieces, both now having 7p long road, does player1 keep the longest road card until player2 reaches 8p road or does the card go to bank because of a tie?

According to the FAQ, player1 keeps the card until another player builds a longer road:

Longest Road - What happens if a player builds a continuous road that has the same length as the road belonging to the owner of the Longest Road card?
The card stays with its current owner.

Also note that the card text explicitly states that player2 needs to build a longer road, not a road of the same length as player1's:

Another player who builds a longer road takes this card.

Yes, also recall that player2 might be able to shorten player1's road, if they can manage to build a (legal) settlement in the middle of it

Indeed.  It is theoretically possible that... say... player 1 has a length 10 road, player 2 has a length 7 road and player 3 has a length 6 road... and player 2 places a knight or builds a settlement in the middle of player 1's roads, thereby cutting it into two length 5 roads.  In such a situation the longest road card would have passed to the new road leader player 2, but if instead player 3 also had 7 roads at the time there is not an individual road leader and so it returns to the box until such a time as there is a single player with the most roads (at least 5).

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


text:
Final point count
When playing American Canasta, open with a wild card canasta and am not able to close it. Negative 2000 but do we still add up the point value of those cards either closed with 7 or still open?

You will still add up the point values of those cards. If you have completed at least 1 canasta, you will add the value of those cards. If you have not, you will subtract the value.
https://www.pagat.com/rummy/canasta.html#american-scoring

Score for melded cards

If a team has completed at least one canasta, the total value of all the cards (other than threes) melded by the team, whether forming part of a canastas or smaller combinations, is added to the team's score. The standard values of the cards are used.
If a team has not completed any canastas, then the value of all their melded cards is subtracted from their score, along with the value of the cards remaining in their hands.

https://canasta.com/rules/

Score for melded cards

– If a team has completed at least one canasta, the total value of all the cards (other than threes) melded by the team is added to the team’s score.
– If a team has not completed any canastas, then the value of all their melded cards is subtracted from their score, along with the value of the cards remaining in their hands.


text:
Is it allowed to put a single letter on the board?
If there is already the word "APPLE" on the board and I have an "S", is it allowed to make it "APPLES" or do I always have to put at least two letters on the board?

You mean like this... https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/39126/11571

Yes, that is a legal play as you are forming a new word.

Yes, you can play just a single tile. The official rules state so explicitly:

The first turn

The first word must be at least 2 letters long.
...

Every other turn

...
A single letter may be played on subsequent turns.

And the tip

Add a letter (or letters) to an existing word. And
build off it, if you can!

Further solidifies that your play can be just extending a word (you are encouraged to also build off of it "if you can").

Thank you. So Weather Vane's answer is not fully correct, as you must start with a 2-letter word. Also I knew that you can play a single letter, I just wasn't sure if you have to create a new word (e..g, adding a vertical letter to a horizontal word) or if you can really simply extend an existing word without also building a new one.

@D.R. Ah, yes. I'll add the bit from the tips section to further that point.

Not only is this legitimate, it is often an extremely good move. Not "APPLE" -> "APPLES" - that will get you at most 30 points (A 1, P 3, P 3, L 1, E 1, S 1 = 10, with S on Triple Word = 30, and a good player would be unlikely to play a word like APPLE to end just before an available Triple Word space). But if you can place Q or Z on a Triple Letter next to two good vowels you get 62 points. If one of the new words is more than just two letters then you can get even more points.


text:
Two skips after attack
If I play two skip turn cards after attack card is played against me, does it mean that the next person has to take two turns?

No. Skips don't push the current turn onto the next player, they end the current turn and move to the next player in turn order. Because of the attack card being played, the next player is still you, so a second skip card would end that turn too and go right back to the regular turn of the player next to you.


text:
Bridge bidding question as responder with one point
Partner opened bidding with 1 heart.  Opening hand was 5 and 6 of spades, KQJ97 Hearts, K83 diamonds, AQ6 clubs (15 points).  I passed.  My hand was J83 spades, 862 hearts, 9654 diamonds, 10 7 5 clubs (1 point). Opponent bid one spade and partner doubled.  What should I have bid?

For about the last 80 years, your partner's double of 1S has been played by almost all good players as takeout.  Your partner knows you are weak (since you passed already) but still wants you to bid.
Keep in mind a very important fact about bridge scoring: going down a little in your contract is better than letting the opponents make their contract.  Your partner is not doubling necessarily because they think whatever you bid will make, but rather that it will just go down for little enough that it's better than letting opponents play 1S.
In this case, you should bid 2H (even playing 4 card majors).  That is likely to be your least bad spot.  Indeed, you go down 2 in 2H (for -100 or -200 depending on vulnerability) while opponents make 4 in 1S (for -410 or -710 depending on their vulnerability).  (Note, unless your opponents are known to be incompetent, your partner's double was a good bid, because, if you are as weak as you turned out to be, competent opponents will bid to 4S (a game) in the absence of a double anyway, and if you are a bit stronger, 2H might have been a good contract.)

It's worth noting partner should have opened 1NT on that balanced hand, so isnt totally innocent! Thier (Takeout) double suggests a hand shape of 6H 3D 3C 1S so having 3 cards in the 2 unbid suits and shortage in opponents suit. - So opener is asking you to either bid one of the 3 card suits or support Hearts. In your case, raise Hearts irrespective of your strength.

@postrationalist - not everyone belongs to the church of opening 1N on all hands with a 5 card major in range, nor does everyone belong to the church of strong NTs.

Learn not the ways of the heathen, For the wages of sin are ... lower scores! - If we walk in the light, we have fellowship one with other  :)

@postrationalist: I'm playing Precision with 10-12 NT at the moment..  I open 1H on xx Qxxxx Axx Axx but 1N on Qx Axxxx Qxx Qxx

So to clarify, the bidding was 1H - pass - pass - 1S - double - all pass? What was the vulnerability, any prior agreements?
Normally in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a double of 1 of a suit is takeout, 1NT for penalties, so if the above is correct then you can't pass 1Sx with that hand, that would signal a hand willing and able to defeat 1S. Partner must know you have a really poor hand from your first pass, which makes it somewhat surprising that he's doubled for takeout. I play 5 card majors with partner and in this hole, I'd bid 2H (knowing at least we have eight trumps) as the least encouraging bid and hope partner understood we couldn't possibly have the majority of the strength.


text:
In Port Royal, if I have a jester and I bust, do I get a coin?
In Port Royal, if you draw 2 ships of the same color, you bust and "your turn ends", and you don't get the "trade and hire" phase.
If you have a jester in your tableau, do you get a coin?
In my gaming group, we have a disagreement, whether:

everyone with a jester gets a coin whenever someone busts
other players, but not the active player
nobody

If nobody gets a coin on a bust, then jesters are mostly pointless. But some people say that the first option makes them too powerful.

Everyone with a jester gets a coin, official statement from the publisher. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1203814/jester-question

Yes, you get 1 coin per Jester in your personal display.
The important part of the rules is "all players with a Jester in their personal display gain 1 coin."
This has been clarified by the publisher on Board Game Geek (as well as the designer)

rule page 3 at the top of the left column:
"... but ALL players with a jester in their personal display gain 1 coin."
The same on the last page - Jester (last sentence):
"... Should a player forfeit his turn during a Phase 1 Discover and the second Phase is skipped, ALL players with a jester gain 1 coin."
All players means all players. Not just all the other players except the active player :-).
Hope you have much fun with the game
Klaus Ottmaier
Editor Pegasus Spiele


text:
Can i use assassins creed or doctor who land cards with any card?
Can i use assassins creed or doctor who land cards with any card? I want to create my own 250 card deck but I don't know if any and all land cards are allowed??

does this answer your question? https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/54037/how-does-color-identity-work-in-commander

Nope. Just really need to know if I can just use any land associated with the colour

As a general rule, dont use more cards than you need to for a format, usually you want exactly 60. It's something a lot of new players fall into, but bigger is very much not better in deck size, bigger is less consistent, less likely to give you what you need when you need it.

Yes, you can use any land in your deck, as long as it's format-legal.
Since in the comments you clarified that you play "kitchen table" Magic, meaning there are no real limitations to deck building, you can of course use any card you like in your deck.
When you start playing official formats, only cards from certain sets are allowed in your deck. However, if a card from a certain set is legal in the format you want to play, you may include it in your deck, even if that specific print of the card comes from another, illegal set. The only thing that matters here is the English name of the card.

206.4. Players may include cards from any printing in their constructed decks if those cards appear in sets allowed in that format (or those cards are specifically allowed by the Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules). See the Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules for the current definitions of the constructed formats (WPN.Wizards.com/en/resources/rules-documents).

Is it any deck? Because I don't know what I'm building. I wanted a mixture so I don't really know what makes it commander. I just know I want a 250 card deck.

I assumed you asked about Commander because the AC and Doctor Who are Commander sets. Do you play any official format? Or is it "kitchen table" magic, meaning no restrictions at all?

Kitchen table atm but I want to compete once I have learnt all the cards so I just want to know the rules. Plus we go by the rules at the Kitchen table lol

Not just land cards, you can use any card thats format legal. For example brcause Assassin's Trophy was in Murders at Karlov Manor, the Assassin's creed copy is legal in Standard.

@CaptainHades a commander deck is an exactly 100 card singleton deck, with one legendary creature (or two for partners or backgrounds) that start outside the deck and set the colors of the deck.  Any symbol or land type on cards in the rest of the deck can only be those colors. Its the most popular magic the gathering format.

Ahhh alright. So as long as the colour matches the land card you can use it?


text:
L jump at edge in Quoridor?
My friend and I got into this predicament playing quoridor. The red pawn is one space away from winning. The white pawn was backed up and needs to go the length of the board.
Can the red pawn do a legal L jump to win?  My friend says it cannot because it can only L jump if a fence is behind the pawn because that’s what the rules say. The rules don’t state that the boundary is the same as a fence. Anyone ever run into this?

I don't see how this is a duplicate. This scenario was never mentioned in the linked question, nor its answers.


text:
Tek-Hunters from Necromunda: Hive Secundus box
Couple of friends and myself bought Necromunda: Hive Secundus box and each took one faction from the starters. I got the Van Saars. I've almost gone insane assembling the gunntek with long las as my first ever mini. Then I took a break and dove into the rules. Ok, now I learned that I can take only one special at the gang creation. Then why do tek-hunters have several, aren't they supposed to be a starter gang?
We decided on a 1250 credits gang buy, but now I'm confused as to what I can even do with my current set of Tek-Hunters. Can I use them for my gang as they are now? We will be running a modified campaign and I could just write down on the cards the actual gang cast, even if stats/gear is not matching the minis exactly, but how do I even begin? Do I need to order another Van Saars' box so that we can begin our campaign?

While organized play at events like Warhammer World require each model to accurately represent its entry in your gang (WYSIWYG), it's quite common to play without this rule in casual or home settings.
It can be much more fun to play with things like a kit-bash, or practical to say something like "This Genestealer Cult Neophyte counts as an Orlock with a Boltgun" in order to fill in a missing model.
If you're playing with friends check with them about how they'd like to play and adjust accordingly, if they're happy to have you use models built for a higher credit list, or future upgrades then just make sure you have a way of telling what's what and continue building as is (really this will provide everyone else a slight advantage as they'll know which direction you gang is heading).
As for why the box would come with more options, the limitation of only one fighter with a special weapon at gang creation is specific to campaign play. In a campaign, this rule is designed to maintain balance at the start and ensure that gangs have room to grow over time.
In skirmish or one-off games (and other non-campaign games), you usually have more flexibility in how you build your gang. So, if you're playing a skirmish game for fun or practice, you can outfit multiple fighters with special weapons without worrying about the usual gang creation limitations found in campaigns.


text:
Board game where you built physical "bridges" to fish for resources from a pond
I am looking for a boardgame that I played some time between 1999 and 2005. The board was round and resembled a pond. Every player acted as a group of stone age people and you had three (maybe more) workers, that could do different things.
The main gig of the game was to build some kind of bridge out of wood (imagine something like jenga pieces) and stone (literal stones, pebbles, maybe 3cm in diameter) on wich you placed your fisherman token. Then at the end of the turn, a cardboard piece would rotate one turn that pushed resources around the pond. They would tend to migrate to the middle of the pond, so you were enouraged to build longer bridges. Whatever resources where under your bride (it had to have its base at the edge of the pond), you could take. These resources where small cardboard tokens in differnet colors and used to win the game or research (not entirely shure anymore).
There was also a wood camp and a stone camp which were used to gather the bridge building material.
The other to workers I remember were a clubman and a trader.
You could place your pieces either at your base, at the material camps or at other player bases and depending at which worker was where, different things happened.
If to clubmen where on the same space, they would just hit each other and nothing happened. If only one clubman was at a material camp it would grant one building material. If one clubman was at another players camp one could steal something from that player.
The fisherman could either fish at your own bridge or get one material at the camps.
If two traders met, player could trade (though I do not remember how). A single trader would probably also get building material from the camps.
I tried googling for it, but to no avail. There is a slight chance, that this was a self made game. But in my memory the production value of the board was to professional for that.

The game you're remembering is Burp, originally published by Heidelberger Spieleverlag in 1995 in German, and later by Mayfair Games in English.
By building docks out of planks and rocks to fish in the sea of knowledge, players collect various kinds of fruit.
They combine their fruit into specific fruit cocktails, to discover important inventions, which allow players to travel the path of knowledge. Inventions such as the wheel and fire enhance a players chances to acquire more of the fruit they need.
Fishermen, Traders and Fighters are then placed in the villages, the quarry or woods to collect materials (rock and wood), steal opponents rocks, and fish for knowledge.

It might help OP to see a picture of the board itself; https://cf.geekdo-images.com/S-1M0G8THV1qU_k39Q_sYg__imagepage/img/NsB5T_cC_QQZyeBjn-FD1EtqVYg=/fit-in/900x600/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic56959.jpg


text:
Was using an older version of a legal card from a nonlegal set ever not legal?
In Magic the Gathering, some formats only allow you to play cards printed from certain sets.
However, some cards printed into sets are reprints of older cards - the current (black-bordered) magic rules consider these cards to be functionally identical to the cards in the newer sets, and thus playing a card from a non-legal set is allowed as long as it has been reprinted in a legal set.
I was wondering if this was always the case, rules-wise, and if not, when it was changed?

No, cards with the same name have always been legal to play, regardless of the set they were printed in.
For deckbuilding purposes, the English name of a card has always been the only deciding factor for card identity. This is the only practical option anyway, considering that base sets from Beta (1993) up to and including Tenth Edition (2007) consisted of nothing but reprints.
Today's rules for card identity and deck construction are as follows:

100.2a In constructed play (a way of playing in which each player creates their own deck ahead of time), each deck has a minimum deck size of 60 cards. A constructed deck may contain any number of basic land cards and no more than four of any card with a particular English name other than basic land cards.

201.2. A card’s name is always considered to be the English version of its name, regardless of printed language.

The current Magic Tournament Rules say this:

A card may only be used in a particular format if the card is from a set that is legal in that format or has the same name as a card from a set that is legal in that format.

Petr Hudeček's blog hosts a collection of old (pre-2016) rules. I don't know if that collection is complete, but for what it's worth, the earliest version of the Comprehensive Rules (CR) it has that resembles the modern format is from 1999. On deck construction and card identity, it has this to say:

100.2. In constructed-deck play, each player needs his or her own deck of at least sixty cards with no more than four copies of any card except basic lands; small objects to represent any tokens and counters; and some way to clearly track life totals.

202.3. Two cards are considered to have the same name if the English versions of their names are identical, regardless of anything else printed on the cards.

The first tournament rules are from a 1994 usenet entry and state:

There may be no more than 4 of any individual card in
the tournament deck (including sideboard), with the exception of
the 5 basic land types (Plains, Forest, Mountain, Island, Swamp). [..]

Decks may be constructed from cards from the Limited
(black border) series and from the Unlimited (white border)
series. [..]

Even though the modern rules state the "reprints allowed" rule explicitely, it still references card names as the only deciding factor.

Well, arguably Alpha wasn't a reprint set, given that there was nothing to reprint at the time :-)

No, cards with the same name have always been legal to play, regardless of the set they were printed in. This is strictly not true. The 30th-anniversary reprints sets (The one that cost a thousand dollars for a pack) are not legal anywhere even though they have cards with legal names. The gold border World Championship decks have cards that are not legal for tournament and also the Collector's set for beta.

There is also the 93/94 format which stipulates that you can only use cards from those years and not the much cheaper newer versions

The 30th anniversary set is not legal in any sanctioned format, so the cards in it are not reprints in the sense of the question. The 93/94 format is not an official format and thus not covered by official rules, so I wouldn't have discussed it even if I had known about it.

There was at least one tournament where basic lands from unglued were not legal to play. An out of cycle rules adjustment was required to fix it.

There's one tournament I know of in which it might not have been legal to freely use older versions of reprinted cards: the first Pro Tour in February 1996. The format for this tournament was a variant of Standard/Type II in which players were required to use at least five cards from every Standard-legal set. I don't know if this literally meant using five cards actually printed in each set, or if you would just have to submit a decklist which could be constructed using at least five cards from each set but the actual cards you used could be from other sets. And even if the five cards from each set did have to be printings from that exact set, there were only five sets in Standard/Type II at the time, so presumably any of the remaining 50 cards could be older printings. Still, this is the only situation I can think of in which it might not have been acceptable to substitute in an older printing of some card.
I checked a few sources to see if I could find any definitive statement of what the five-card-per-set rule meant: the article I linked, issues 8 and 10 of The Duelist, various wiki pages, and my copy of The Tables of Magic which includes a tournament report by one of the top 8 players, but I came up empty. I also found a YouTube video featuring coverage from the tournament but didn't have time to watch it to see if it said anything about this. However... this was from an era where a card's expansion was still meaningful, since effects like Apocalypse Chime and Golgothian Sylex, which affected all cards from a particular expansion, would look at the expansion the actual physical card came from. It wasn't until 2013 that they were errata'd to refer to "cards originally printed in ..." and Magic finally got to the point where different cards with the same name were 100% interchangeable in gameplay. Given that, I would think that if players in PT '96 were allowed to use older printings of their five cards per set, it would likely have been mentioned somewhere, and the fact that I didn't find that makes it seem plausible that the five cards from each set had to actually be printings from that set. Speculation, of course, but it may be hard to find anything more definitive.

I knew of that tournament, but the rule had nothing to do with reprints. It was about forcing players to use Homelands and other expansions: How can you ensure that Homelands cards show up in the winning Pro Tour deck when very few Homelands cards were showing up in tournaments? Just force every deck to play at least five of them.

Yeah I know why the rule was put in place, I read the article I linked to ;-) The operative question is, if a card was reprinted in Homelands, does an earlier printing of that card count as a card from Homelands for purposes of the five-from-each-set rule? (and likewise for each other set) That's what it has to do with reprints.

Homelands contains no reprints, so it could not prevent old cards being played on those grounds.

As I said in my comment, "and likewise for each other set"

I stand corrected, Ice Age was legal and it of course does have base set reprints, at least Counterspell and CIrcles of Protection. So yes, that was probably a one-off where using older cards might have been illegal, depending on how it was enforced.


text:
Cribbage pegging
We were playing 4 handed cribbage.  During the pegging we reached 28 and 3 players said Go.  The 4th player was left with 3 aces still in his hand.  Can he play an ace at a time and take points?  Play the first ace for 29 and take a go for 1 pt, play the 2nd ace for a pair and take 2 points, then the 3rd ace for 31 and take 8 points?  He laid down all 3 aces at once and took 8 points. I would like to know the correct rules.  Thank you.

29 (no score), 30 for 2 (pair), 31 for 8 (trips plus hitting 31) for a total of ten points.

He must play the aces one at time.
There isn't any pegging move where multiple cards are laid, and strictly he should announce the running total and the points for each card.

(Ace) 29
(Ace) 30 for 2
(Ace) 31 for 6
plus 2
total 10 points

Perhaps he thought it would be pedantic (knowing that nobody else can play), but his shortcut managed to get the wrong score.
In the "take" too, players should count out their points for the benefit of other players, not just show their hand and announce its score without enumerating it. And in the conventional sequence! It's all part of the game's etiquette.

Aside from that, this scores a total of 10 points, so he miscounted. Or more likely, hadn't considered that the pair gets to score separately before the three-of-a-kind.

@KarlKnechtel thanks, I had the 10 points but added more detail to clarify that.


text:
Does the Festival Lead ability let you use a TM attack twice?
Several Pokemon from the set Twilight Masquerade have the ability Festival Lead:

[Ability] Festival Lead
If Festival Grounds is in play, this Pokemon may use an attack it has twice. If the first attack Knocks Out your opponent's Active Pokemon, you may attack again after your opponent chooses a new Active Pokemon.

I'd like to know if this ability allows a Pokemon to use an attack from an attached Pokemon Tool, such as Technical Machine: Evolution:

Technical Machine: Evolution
The Pokémon this card is attached to can use the attack on this card. (You still need the necessary Energy to use this attack.) If this card is attached to 1 of your Pokémon, discard it at the end of your turn.
[C] Evolution
Choose up to two of your Benched Pokemon. For each of those Pokemon, search your deck for a card that evolves from that Pokemon and put it onto that Pokemon to evolve it. Then, shuffle your deck.

Can you use an attack from an attached Technical Machine twice in a single turn with the Festival Lead ability?

Per this Compendium ruling, the answer is no:

If I have a Technical Machine attached to a Pokemon that has the "Festival Lead" Ability, can I attack with the TM twice?

No, Festival Lead does not work with TM's; it has to be an attack that the Pokemon has printed on the card.

This is because the text refers to "an attack it has", which has been interpreted to meaning an attack printed on that card.  This is separate from the text of Cramorant (Lost Origins):

Ability Lost Provisions
If you have 4 or more cards in the Lost Zone, ignore all Energy in this Pokémon’s attack costs.

That does include TMs.  "This Pokémon's attacks" are considered to include anything the Pokémon can choose as an attack, while "Attack it has" does not.
This is self-consistent with rulings on Forest Seal Stone for example when an ability blocking effect is in place, such as Path to the Peak, Iron Thorns ex, or similar - for example, from this compendium ruling:

Can I use Forest Seal Stone's "Star Alchemy" Ability if Path to the Peak is in play?

Yes, you can. It's not an Ability the Pokemon has, but it's an Ability the Pokemon has access to.


text:
How does flashing in spells that prevent players from casting spells interact with spells already on the stack?
I've cast a creature spell, like Apocalypse Hydra, and as it is on the stack, before it resolves, my opponent activates Alchemist's Refuge to grant their nonland cards flash. They then flash in Aether Storm. Does Aether Storm prevent Apocalypse Hydra from resolving?
Similarly, what if they cast Academic Probation, naming Apocalypse Hydra? Does it resolve the first and not let me cast any further Apocalypse Hydras or does it stop with the first?

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer.

Casting a spell and eventually resolving it are different events. Cards such as Aether Storm and Academic Probation have no interaction with spells that have already been cast.
Casting a spell is the action of taking a spell from where it is, paying its cost, and putting it on the stack, nothing more. That process can't be interrupted. Once it's done, the spell has been cast; the casting event has happened and cannot be prevented retroactively. Any such cast-preventing effect has to be active before the affected player would have started casting that spell.
Resolving a spell is another matter entirely; casting a spell and resolving it are of course highly correlated, but still separate from each other. There are ways to prevent spells from resolving, the overwhelmingly most common of which is countering that spell. Aether Storm etc. say nothing about resolving the affected spells, so they don't interact with that part.


text:
Can a Silent Hallcreeper copy another Silent Hallcreeper to refresh its one-use abilities?
If I have two Silent Hallcreepers A and B out, and A has used has already used its first and second abilities, can it use its final ability to copy the B Hallcreeper, and essentially refresh those abilities by being treated as a new copy?

Yes, using one copy of Silent Hallcreeper copy another will "reset" the abilities.
When a creature becomes a copy of another, all of its original characteristics are overwritten. (except when the ability says otherwise)
So while it gets a new ability with the exact same text, it has no connection to the previous one.
It's also worth noting that it will not copy the modes already chosen by the other Silent Hallcreeper, as modes chosen aren't a copiable value.

707.2 ... 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” 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, counters, and stickers are not copied.

Since it's legally a new copy and not the original card, can you repeat indefinitely to accumulate counters?

@CristobolPolychronopolis - Don't you need to deal attack damage again somehow?

Of course, you'd have one chance per turn, but after the second you'd have 2 5/5 unblockables, and if that's not good enough, they'll be 7/7 on the third.

Yes, you can theoretically continue to accumulate an unlimited number of counters, but you need 2 combat steps per growth cycle.
You could potentially use Combat Celebrant, Hellkite Charger, or Scourge of the Throne to generate additional combat steps on the same turn if needed.

"It's also worth noting that it will not copy the modes already chosen by the other Silent Hallcreeper, as modes chosen aren't a copiable value." Even if they were, the ability refers to the modes chosen by that ability. So if [mtg:Marvin, Murderous Mimic] didn't specify "activated abilities", and you had two Hallcreepers, then Marvin would have two copies of the ability, and each time one of the copies of the abilities triggered, you could choose any mode that you haven't chosen for that copy, regardless of whether you've chosen it for another copy.


text:
Seven-Ten Card Game
Looking for rules to a card game we knew as “Seven-Ten” back in the 70’s. It’s not Sevens, Pitch, Nickels or Phase 10. We used nickels to buy discards and the winner(s) won the pot. I think the overall winner had the lowest score, but it could be split if a player finished with an exact count of 710.
I’ve included a photo of the score sheet. You play 7 hands, collecting sets - 2 sets of 3, 1 set of 4, etc. There are wildcards, I think starting with jokers, then the last three hands adds additional wildcards.
Can’t remember specific rules - number of cards dealt, how to “buy” discards, scoring, etc. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Maybe it'll help get the ball rolling, but this is almost certainly a type of Contract Rummy.
Two things that might help dig up more precise rules:

What part of the world is this from?
Do you have a completed score sheet?

I'll attempt a reconstruction, my best guess is that seven cards are dealt in the hands above the double line and ten cards are dealt in the hands after the double line. This would explain the name seven-ten and the easyness of the second and fourth contract (one 4 and one 5, respectively). These contracts would be too easy if the hand size increased by one card every round.

The Contract Rummy Pagat page contains the common rules for games of this family.
Here's the mechanism for an ordinary turn according to Pagat.

Draw the top card of the discard pile or the top card of the stock.
Meld or lay off*
Discard.

For number 2, your initial meld must satisfy the contract for the round exactly, it cannot contain additional cards. Also, you may only lay off if you have completed your initial meld on a previous term. Pagat says You may not lay off before or on the same turn in which you meld, which strictly speaking is ambiguous and might mean that laying off is illegal on a turn in which you meld, but that is very unlike most Rummy games. I think a more reasonable interpretation is that on the turn in which you satisfy your initial meld requirement, you must do precisely that and cannot make extra melds or lay off additional cards.
The basic mechanism in the Pagat page for taking a discard out of turn is just that you ask May I? and then you get the discard, plus a penalty from the top of the stock.
This mechanism seems to vary from game to game in the family.
Here's a quote from the Caribbean Kalooki Pagat Page.

Calling
If you have not yet laid down any cards, and you want to take a card discarded by another player when it is not your turn to play next, you can call the card. The player whose turn it is to play has two options:

Allow the call. The player whose turn it is gives the top discard to the player who called it. The calling player takes the discard and must also draw one extra card from the stock, but cannot lay down any cards or discard at this time. The caller will from now on have two extra cards in their hand. The play then reverts to the player whose turn was interrupted by the call, who must draw from the stock, and continue the turn in the usual way.

Refuse the call. If the player whose turn it is has not yet laid down, they have the right to take the discard for themselves, rather than giving it to the caller and drawing from the stock; the call then has no effect.

Calling is subject to the following rules.

If several people try to call the same card, the person who calls first gets the card, assuming that the person whose turn it is allows the call. No one can call a card before it reaches the table.
There can only be one call per turn: the card underneath the called card cannot be called - anyone who wanted it should have called it when it was first discarded.
Each player is allowed a maximum of three calls per game (deal). Since each call adds two cards to a player's hand, you can check how many calls you have made by counting the cards in your hand. Calls that were not allowed by the player whose turn it was or which were unsuccessful because another player called first do not count towards the three.
A player who has laid down cards can no longer call.

The South African Kalooki Pagat Page literally features buying a card (and putting up an additional stake if you take the discard out of turn)

Buying cards
If you want a card that has been discarded, but it is not your turn to play next, you may be able to buy the card. If several people want the same discard, the player in turn always has prior right to it, and if this player does not want it, it goes to the first player in clockwise order after the player in turn who wishes to buy it. The player in turn can take the discard without payment, but if another player buys the discard the procedure is:

the player whose turn it was draws the top card of the stock;
the buyer adds 10 cents (R0.10) to the kitty;
the buyer takes the top discard and also draws the top card from the face down stock;
the buyer cannot meld or discard at this point, so will now have two extra cards;
the player whose turn it was continues their turn.

Each player can buy a maximum of four cards in each round, which would increase the size of their hands by eight cards. These extra cards can obviously be useful in forming combinations, but can also be expensive if you are caught with them when someone else goes out.

If you aren't playing for money though (which would make sense with this kind of score sheet, which seems to just track numerical scores), then putting up an additional stake to buy a card doesn't really make sense.
For scoring, maybe just use the basic scoring for Contract Rummy?

Face cards - 10 pts
Joker - 15 pts
Ace - 15 pts
T - 10 pts
2 through 9 - face value

This seems to be common to the family, I didn't see substantial variation in card values.

Excellent observations. We have been piecing it together with family members. We played this growing up in Connecticut, USA, so might be a New England variant of a rummy game. I’ve attached the scorecard.  All sets, no runs. Initially dealt 10 cards. Your ideas on buying the discard are spot on, only you also get two top cards from the deck. Scoring is Jokers -50, 2’s and aces -20, face cards -10, others -5. Only 2s are wild the first four hands. Then Jokers and aces and 2s. Low score wins. But here’s the catch. If a player ends up with an exact score of 710, they split the pot. Thanks.


text:
How do you score 5 5 5 6 7? In cribbage
Scoring a run using strips in cribbage

Fifteen-two;
Pair Royal of 6 for 8;
Triple run of three is nine for 17.
This ordering is standard, and helps both avoid confusion and omissions.
Cribbage Scoring


text:
Passing a new suit at the two level
In first seat partner opens at the one level. Partner's LHO overcalls at the one level. Responder (in third seat) bids a new suit at the two level. E.g. 1H-1S-2C. Can opener pass this 2c bid?

Which bidding agreement are you using?

SAYC Intermediate

Standard bidding in America treats this 2C bid as forcing for one round.

This is a matter of partnership agreement.
Most partnerships in North America (and I believe in other English-speaking countries as well) treat this 2C bid as forcing (and promising around 10+ high card points).
A small minority of partnerships in North America treat this as nonforcing, showing about 7-12 high card points.  In those partnerships, one needs to start with double to force to game (and then the double doesn't necessarily promise 4 of the unbid major).
I believe in continental Europe, the nonforcing treatment is more common, though this also varies by country.

Responder’s new suits are ALWAYS forcing, except for cases you have specifically agreed need not be. That’s how responder captains the bidding.


text:
Reached a stalemate - new player question
Looking for help with the rules here. Playing a 2 player game and have reached a stalemate / can’t work out the solution.
We are both in a position where we have one card left in hand, but only melds of max 4 cards.
Is it impossible here to end the game? Neither of us can add to current melds, as this would leave us with no cards after discarding but no canasta?
Also we aren’t able to pick up the discard pile because only one card in hand, despite knowing there are enough cards of a particular value in the discard pile to make new melds? Is this correct?
Appreciate the help in advance!

When playing Canasta with only 2 players, a common rule is that you draw 2 cards from the deck instead of one:

Canasta can be played by two players, with a few modifications to the rules. Each player is dealt 15 instead of 11 cards and at each turn draws two cards but discards only one. Finally, two canastas are required for going out.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/canasta/Going-out
This rule prevents this issue. If you aren’t playing with this rule, then you would just go until the deck is empty which ends the hand anyway. And you could skip over the pointless drawing and discarding to end the hand early since it doesn’t matter.
Note that if you aren’t playing the draw 2 rule, then if one player makes this mistake but the other doesn’t; the other player can draw and play every card in the deck (expect the ones already played) before going out; which would jump them over 1500 points to end the game.

Ahh that makes a lot of sense! I’m presuming with more experience you just make sure you don’t leave yourself in this position too.
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it!


text:
What are the chances of a successful hit in Mice and Mystics?
When playing Mice and Mystics, one is often faced with deciding which enemy minion to attack based on a mouse's battle and the minions' defense values which can vary widely based on the character, equipment, and minion. Melee and ranged attacks clearly have different likelihoods based on the dice.
What are the chances of successfully landing at least one hit during an attack?

Each die contains six faces: bow, bow with star, cheese, sword with star, sword with shield, and sword with shield & star.
Melee attacks hit with unblocked sword symbols (any). Ranged attacks hit with unblocked bow symbols (any). Defenders may block with any shield symbols. See Rulebook, page 11.
Probability of a Melee Hit
Probability of a Melee hit given the number of dice for each side.
Sample probability of success with n = 50,000

Attack \ Defend
0
1
2
3
4
5

1
0.50
0.33
0.22
0.15
0.10
0.07

2
0.75
0.59
0.44
0.34
0.25
0.18

3
0.87
0.75
0.63
0.51
0.41
0.32

4
0.94
0.85
0.76
0.66
0.56
0.46

5
0.97
0.92
0.85
0.77
0.68
0.59

Probability of a Ranged Hit
Probability of a Ranged hit given the number of dice for each side.
Sample probability of success with n = 50,000

Attack \ Defend
0
1
2
3
4
5

1
0.33
0.22
0.15
0.10
0.07
0.04

2
0.55
0.41
0.30
0.21
0.15
0.11

3
0.71
0.55
0.43
0.34
0.25
0.19

4
0.80
0.67
0.55
0.45
0.35
0.28

5
0.87
0.76
0.65
0.55
0.45
0.37

Of course these tables do not include any modifiers that deal extra damage based on the star symbol, but the code below can be easily modified to most game situations.

Julia code
using Statistics

# Setup
dice_face = ["bow", "bow/s", "cheese", "sword/s", "sword/shield", "sword/shield/s"]
dice_movement = [2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3]
rollh = n -> rand(1:6, n)

# Probability of Hit
Num_Trials = 50000

Num_A_range = 1:5
Num_D_range = 0:5
pHit_Melee = zeros(length(Num_A_range), length(Num_D_range))
pHit_Ranged = zeros(length(Num_A_range), length(Num_D_range))

for (ii, Num_A) in enumerate(Num_A_range)
    for (jj, Num_D) in enumerate(Num_D_range)
        Hit_Melee = zeros(Num_Trials)
        Hit_Ranged = zeros(Num_Trials)

        for kk in 1:Num_Trials
            Akk = rollh(Num_A)
            Dkk = Num_D > 0 ? rollh(Num_D) : zeros(Int, Num_A)

            Num_Meleekk = sum(Akk .>= 4)
            Num_Ranged = sum(Akk .<= 2)
            Num_Blockk = sum(Dkk .>= 5)

            Hit_Melee[kk] = Num_Meleekk > Num_Blockk
            Hit_Ranged[kk] = Num_Ranged > Num_Blockk
        end

        pHit_Melee[ii, jj] = mean(Hit_Melee)
        pHit_Ranged[ii, jj] = mean(Hit_Ranged)
    end
end

pHit_Melee
pHit_Ranged


text:
Parcheesi Board Game Rules Question Double 5’s
2 pawns on a start space. 2 pawns still at home waiting to enter. Player rolls double 5’s. What moves can he make and does he get to roll again?

You can move one piece forward five and then bring a piece from home to the start space. Or you can move the two pieces five each. Or move one five and then move the same piece another five.
Regardless, you get to roll again (unless you couldn't move because the space 5 ahead is blocked; although Milton Bradley rules lack this restriction).
Parker Brothers rules


text:
What does "All creatures attack if able" mean in this context?
I have the Aura Public Enemy. Its Oracle text is:

Enchant creature
All creatures attack enchanted creature's controller each combat if able.
When enchanted creature dies, draw a card.

What is meant by "All creatures"? If I enchant one of my own creatures, would my other creatures attack me? Or is it impossible that my own creatures could attack me?

Not directly relevant to the question, but mentioning it here because it comes up regularly in the context of cards like this: If there is a cost associated with attacking (for example, the defending player controls a Ghostly Prison), a creature cannot attack unless it’s controller chooses to pay the cost (that is, they are not forced to pay the cost in such cases).

"All creatures ... if able" is way more concise than "Creatures controlled by enchanted creature's controller's opponents".

@QBrute, you can't drop the "if able" part, it's rather relevant.

What is meant by "All creature[s]"?

All creatures means exactly what it says: every creature on the battlefield. The crucial point though is "if able", and you are correct in thinking that creatures controlled by a player can never attack that player (or planeswalkers that player controls). Quoting Comprehensive Rule 506.2:

During the combat phase of a two-player game, the nonactive player is the defending player; that player and planeswalkers they control may be attacked.

(my emphasis). There is similar wording in 506.2a for multiplayer games. As your creatures are not able to attack you, they do not have to and are free to attack your opponent(s) and/or their planeswalkers.

Creatures can only be declared attacking an opponent or one of that opponent's planeswalkers. Your own creatures can never be made to attack you.
Let's pretend there's a player named Alex, and it might be you or someone else. If you cast Public Enemy on one of Alex's creatures:

On each of Alex's turns, they can attack freely.
On each of Alex's opponent's turns, any creature able to attack must be declared attacking Alex.
Any creature that is already tapped, prevented from attacking with Pacifism, or so on, will not be required to attack (because it can't).

Finally, when the creature dies, you (the one who controls the aura) will draw a card.

"any creature able to attack Alex* must be declared attacking Alex." Some effects may affect which creatures are allowed to attack which player, so creatures controlled by Alex' opponents may be able to attack, but unable to attack Alex. These are unaffected by Public Enemy.


text:
What is the outcome if my board state is as follows, Bludgeon Brawl, Mycosynth Lattice, and any Planeswalker?
If I control any planeswalker, Mycosynth Lattice

All permanents are artifacts in addition to their other types.
All cards that aren't on the battlefield, spells, and permanents are colorless.

and Bludgeon Brawl

Each noncreature, non-Equipment artifact is an Equipment with equip {X} and "Equipped creature gets +X/+0," where X is that artifact's converted mana cost.

can someone attack the "equipment" planeswalker? Can I still use the loyalty abilities while the planeswalker is an equipment?

The planeswalker is a colorless artifact equipment with equip {X} and "Equipped creature gets +X/+0". It is still a planeswalker with its original planeswalker subtype and it still has its loyalty abilities. Your opponent can still attack the planeswalker and you can still activate its loyalty abilities.
Rule 306.6 says, very simply

Planeswalkers can be attacked.

This is unconditional. It doesn't matter what other types it has, or whether it's attached to something as an equipment. As long as it's a planeswalker, it can be attacked.
Rules section 606 describes loyalty abilities. There isn't really anything specific to quote here, but there aren't any restrictions on what kinds of permanents can have or activate loyalty abilities. The planeswalker in question doesn't lose its loyalty abilities, so it can still activate them.

To fully understand how Mycosynth Lattice and Bludgeon Brawl interact, we need to use the "layer system" described in rules section 613.
If we split the abilities up by the layers we effect, Mycosynth Lattice's first ability says

Layer 4: All permanents are artifacts in addition to their other types.

and its second ability says

Layer 5: All cards that aren't on the battlefield, spells, and permanents are colorless.

and Bludgeon Brawl's ability says

Layer 4: Each noncreature, non-Equipment artifact is an Equipment.
Layer 6: Those artifacts have equip {X} and "Equipped creature gets +X/+0," where X is that artifact's converted mana cost.

Putting those together, we can see that both Mycosynth Lattice and Bludgeon Brawl have an effect that applies on layer 4. The order in which they are applied is determined by timestamps and dependencies. The relevant rules about dependencies say this:

613.8. Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is sometimes done using a dependency system. If a dependency exists, it will override the timestamp system.

613.8a An effect is said to “depend on” another if (a) it’s applied in the same layer (and, if applicable, sublayer) as the other effect; (b) applying the other would change the text or the existence of the first effect, what it applies to, or what it does to any of the things it applies to; and (c) neither effect is from a characteristic-defining ability or both effects are from characteristic-defining abilities. Otherwise, the effect is considered to be independent of the other effect.

613.8b An effect dependent on one or more other effects waits to apply until just after all of those effects have been applied. If multiple dependent effects would apply simultaneously in this way, they’re applied in timestamp order relative to each other. If several dependent effects form a dependency loop, then this rule is ignored and the effects in the dependency loop are applied in timestamp order.

These two effects are in the same layer, Mycosynth Lattice's effect changes which permanents Bludgeon Brawl's effect affects, and neither one is a characteristic-defining ability. So, Bludgeon Brawl's effect depends on Mycosynth Lattice's effect, so Mycosynth Lattice's effect is applied first. The resulting sequence of effects is this:

All permanents are artifacts in addition to their other types.

Each noncreature, non-Equipment artifact is an Equipment.

All cards that aren't on the battlefield, spells, and permanents are colorless.

Each permanent previously affected by Bludgeon Brawl's effect has equip {X} and "Equipped creature gets +X/+0," where X is that permanent's converted mana cost.

One bit which isn't entirely obvious to me is that Mycosynth Lattice's effect applies before Bludgeon Brawl's. My understanding of the layer system isn't that deep but naively it looks as though they're both type-changing effects and therefore whether the planeswalker is an equipment or not would depend on timestamp order? (although this doesn't really affect the rest of the answer which depends only on it being an artefact, not an equipment).

I have added an explanation. The simple answer is that there is a dependency relation that determines the order in which the effects are applied.


text:
If you have infinite life, can your life total be set to a specific number?
Earlier in the game an Infinity Elemental was given Lifelink and dealt damage, giving me infinite life. I have a Form of the Dragon in play, so that at my end step my life total becomes 5.
Rule 119.5 states

If an effect sets a player’s life total to a specific number, the player gains or loses the necessary amount of life to end up with the new total.

The ruling on Infinity Elemental states

If an Infinity Elemental you control gains lifelink and deals damage, you’ll then have infinite life. From that point on, your life total effectively can’t change. If you lose life, you’ll still be at infinite life. You can pay any amount of life and still be at infinite life. In fact, you can be hit by an opposing Infinity Elemental and still be at infinite life.

On one hand, "the necessary amount of life to end up with the new total" seems to indicate that I must end up at 5 life, but the ruling seems to indicate that not even an infinite loss of life can change my life total (infinity minus infinity being mathematically undefined aside). Which one controls?

There is a ruling on this already in gatherer. You said it was rule 119.5 but it is also a ruling on this card. So in this situation your life becomes 5 at the end of each turn regardless of being set to infinity because of life link.

If an effect sets your life total to a specific number, it will be that number, even if you previously had infinite life.

The other gather ruling even makes reference to the ruling that is right below it which I have listed above.

If you give Infinity Elemental lifelink and it deals damage, you will gain infinite life. You might think infinite life sounds like a lot, and you’d be right. Once at infinite life, your life total mostly can’t change (see below). At infinite life and gain 2 life? You’re at infinite life. At infinite life and lose 29 life? You’re at infinite life. You can pay any amount of life and still be at infinite life. In fact, if you’re at infinite life and get with an opposing Infinity Elemental, you’d still be at infinite life.

Silly me didn't read the Gatherer rulings; I was looking at Scryfall's entry, which doesn't have that ruling.

Wouldn't this also mean that you'd lose infinite life when this occurs, potentially creating an infinite number of "whenever a player loses life" triggers?

@nick012000 No; "whenever a player loses life" refers to any amount of life loss happening in one instance. Losing 10 life as a result of being hit by a 10-power creature would just trigger your "whenever a player loses life" once, not ten times.

IMHO (we can't be sure; it's an Un- card after all), the rulings on Infinity Elemental reflect the 'common' properties of the mathematical concept of infinity (Aleph null), at least partially: infinity plus or minus a finite number is still infinity. The fact that "In fact, you can be hit by an opposing Infinity Elemental and still be at infinite life." surprises me; infinity minus infinity is usually undefined, not infinity.
It's safe to say the comprehensive rules don't have to say anything about this, but if I would need to house-rule this: I would say that Form of the Dragon trumps Infinity Elemental, since it doesn't modify your life total by adding or subtracting, but rather by setting it to a specific number.

"rather by setting it to a specific number" - Now that I think about it, rule 119.5 basically says setting is the same thing as adding or subtracting. Maybe both the rule and the ruling say the same thing.

@PurpleP In this context I read 119.5 as "Setting your life total will trigger triggered abilities and be modified by replacement effects that care about adding to or subtracting from your life total, but it is not done through addition or subtraction; the life total is simply set."

It would probably be possible to make these subtractions well-defined by taking the infinity to mean ω, the smallest infinite ordinal, rather than ℵ_0 (Aleph null), the smallest infinite cardinal. Because the ordinals are defined in such a way that a < b is well-defined for all ordinals a, b (even infinite ones), we can represent numbers like 2ω+3, whereas 2 * ℵ_0 is not meaningful. There would still be some complications (since addition of infinite ordinals isn't commutative), but it's a step in the right direction.

@Ray 2 * ℵ_0 is entirely meaningful. The result is just ℵ_0. Cardinal numbers have an arithmetic to them, with addition, multiplication and exponentiation, just like ordinal numbers. But for infinite cardinals (at least assuming the axiom of choice), addition and multiplication is rather boring, and the result is just the bigger one of them. If you want subtraction to work well with infinities, my personal suggestion is to use the surreal numbers. Just because they are so darned fun.

@Arthur Quite true. I originally had an explanation of why that was, but couldn't fit it in 600 characters. But with 600 more: The cardinal numbers represent the number of elements in a set. Two sets have the same number of elements iff we can establish a one-to-one relation between them: since there are ℵ_0 natural numbers, any set where we can uniquely label the elements as 0, 1, 2, ... has size ℵ_0. If A and B are both ℵ_0, we can number A union B as: 2i+1 -> B_i, 2i -> A_i, so A union B is size ℵ_0. The key difference with the ordinals is that ω-ω is well-defined, but ℵ_0 - ℵ_0 isn't.

@Ray On the other hand, ω-5 is nonsensical, while ℵ_0-5=ℵ_0. Using surreal numbers is the coolest way to make subtraction always work. As a bonus, you get fully functional division, square roots, and lots of other goodies.

For those who find this conversation interesting, I highly recommend John Conway's book "On Numbers and Games" in which he creates a number system that very cleanly deals with infinity, particularly in the analysis of games.

Given that there will be no official answer for rule questions about silver-bordered cards; in my opinion you should have 5 life.
It is unclear whether 119.5 is describing the mechanism by which you follow the instructions to set your life to a specific value, or whether it I’d describing a natural consequence that comes from setting your life to a specific value.
The latter is the more natural interpretation to me, and if interpreted this way, then there is no contradiction. You set your life total to 5, and 119.5 says that this counts as losing as much life as necessary for that to happen (which would be an undefined or infinite amount). It doesn’t matter whether that amount is a real number or not; 119.5 is just explaining that it counts as loss of life.


text:
Running out of cards with "Loss of Card" in Sequence
Here are the rules of Sequence.

Loss of Card
Once you have taken your turn and placed your marker chip on the game board, you must take a card from the draw deck. If you fail to take a card before the next player makes a move AND takes his/her card, you lose the right to take a card and you must finish the game with less cards than the other players – a disadvantage.

If a player losses all cards during the course of the game via "Loss of Card", then what should that player do in his/her next turn?

P.S.: I encountered this seemingly unlikely scenario and suggested that the player should draw a card and immediately end his/her turn. The alternative would seem to have that player stop playing altogether.

For one, they should pay better attention

No disagreements there @Veskah

Are you looking more for an actual, rules based answer as to what you are SUPPOSED to do in this case? Or just wondering what a balanced home rule would be to solve it?

@CollinB: I'm looking for a rules based answer but I would appreciate your input on a balanced home rule if you have something in mind.

There appears to be no rules based solution as to what happens in this scenario. Due to this lack, it seems that the player would simply be unable to play, since they have no cards. Personal house rule recommendation: nothing. Leave it as is. If someone forgets SO MUCH that they lose all of their cards, I think at that point they might deserve to lose. When you have one card, and everyone else has 5 (I think it's 5?) then it seems kind of difficult to forget that you have been losing cards to "Loss of Card," and so, easier to remember to not do it again. A player should be involved in the game enough to not be that oblivious to their turn. If there some sort of issue causing them to not pay attention, consider removing that distraction. An inattentive player is worse than no player in some cases.

I would say that you loose the game since you don't have any cards left and hence no longer are able to follow the rules.
The rules state that when it's your turn you should select a card from your hand and put it on the discard pile. It doesn't say that you are allowed to skip this and just take a card from the draw deck.

...each player selects a card of their choice from their hand and places it face up on a discard pile...

But I guess that a house rule allowing you to just draw a card is a good adjustment of the rules. All in favor of being able to finish playing the game.
SEQUENCE Rules

This was my same interpretation of the rules. However, would the player and their team lose the game too?


text:
Are there any ways to lose in a "You can't lose the game" game?
Would cards like Lich's Mastery, and Door to Nothingness effect each other at all? Or Platinum Angel for that matter?

A very similar question was asked a while back, with no clear answer:  https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/34844/if-i-cant-win-the-game-in-multiplayer-do-my-opponents-still-lose?rq=1

That question is very specific to multiplayer games and rule 104.3h.  Interestingly, it looked like two official answers were given to the same question, one from WOTC Customer Support and one from the Rules Manager.  The question was whether one Platinum Angel could save multiple players in a limited range of influence game.  This question avoids the ambiguity of that one by not involving multiplayer at all.

In general in Magic: the Gathering, "can't beats can":

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.

So Lich's Mastery and Platinum Angel prevail against Door to Nothingness. To win the game, you first need to get rid of the opponent's permanent. Or, in the case of Lich's Mastery, have a card that states that you win the game, like Battle of Wits. Lich's Mastery has a ruling below the card in Gatherer:

While you can’t lose the game, your opponents can still win the game if an effect says so.

and that's the reason why Platinum Angel separately states "your opponents can't win the game".

How does "you can't lose the game" without "your opponent can't win the game" work? If they win, but you can't lose?

@DavidHeyman good question, but I guess the answer is just "because the rules state so".

@DavidHeyman It's a causal relationship:  The game ends when either player wins or loses (or both players tie).  The other player then experiences the opposite.  So, if your opponent manages a condition whereby they win without having to (for example) reduce your live to 0 or exhaust your deck, then the game is over - and Lich's Mastery / Platinum Angel are no longer in effect.  This means you can (and do) then lose.  The normal way to win the game it to first make your opponent lose, but here you would need to reverse that order.

Gideon of the Trials

No game effect can cause you to lose the game or cause any opponent to
  win the game while Gideon’s emblem is in effect. It doesn’t matter
  whether you have 0 or less life, you’re forced to draw a card while
  your library is empty, you have ten or more poison counters, you’re at
  your Glorious End, your opponent casts a second Approach of the Second
  Sun, or so on. You keep playing. (2017-04-18)
Other circumstances can still cause you to lose the game. You will
  lose a game if you concede, if you’re penalized with a Game Loss or a
  Match Loss during a sanctioned tournament due to a DCI rules
  infraction, or if your Magic Online® game clock runs out of time.
  (2017-04-18)

So a Gideon of the Trials emblem functions like Platinum Angel and stops both winning and losing, both Door to Nothingness as well as Approach of the Second Sun.
However, Lich's Mastery doesn't stop your opponents from winning, it only prevents you from losing. So even if you have a Lich's Mastery, an opponent can still win with Approach of the Second Sun. This is simply because winning is different from losing.


text:
What is the difference between Kunoros, Hound of Athreos' graveyard abilities?
Kunoros, Hound of Athreos has the following two static abilities.

Creature cards in graveyards can't enter the battlefield.
Players can't cast spells from graveyards.

Why does he have these two static abilities?  Wouldn't it be enough to indicate only the second of the two abilities?
It is clear that it is, in the first place, a card that prevents players from using the Escape ability.

But I think there are other notable implications.
It is good to clarify the difference that this card implicitly indicates between:

"Creatures that come into play from the graveyard"
"Spells cast from the graveyard".

I think it is appropriate that at least one valid example should be included in the answer, that makes it clear why the difference we are talking about is really important.

The difference would be that not every card was a spell before it entered the battlefield.

112.1. A spell is a card on the stack. [...]

Spells are objects you put on the stack after casting them - normally from your hand, but occasionally from your graveyard, such as with Abandoned Sarcophagus. The second ability of Kunoros prevents that from happening.
Other cards, such as Emeria, the Sky Ruin, will put creature cards in play without ever putting them on the stack, meaning they will never exist as spells. Kuronos's second ability does not apply to the Sky Ruin, but the first ability does and prevents even this ability from being useful.
Note also that Kuronos's first ability does not prevent the Sky Ruin from casting cards from the graveyard, because it only explicitly defines that cards can't change from the graveyard to the battlefield zone.

In order to phrase an ability that wouldn't need two seperate conditions, you could use "Cards in graveyards can't change zones", although this is probably not done because it requires more rules knowledge from the average player than just putting two rather concise abilities, that only have the downside of sometimes appearing redundant, I would assume.

That wording would also prevent cards being exiled from the graveyard.

... or shuffled into your library from your graveyard, or returned from your graveyard to your hand (goodbye dredge).

You're right, and I didn't mean to create exactly the same ability, just an example of an ability that would (among other things) prevent both spells from being cast, and zone changes from happening. You could alter the ability to resemble what the original card does easily enough, yet of course not without elevating the level of knowledge required even higher.

Could it have been done as a single ability that says “cards in graveyards cannot be cast or enter the battlefield”?

@GendoIkari Not if you try to exactly replicate the ability, because Kuronos allows noncreate cards to enter the battlefield from the graveyard.

However,I don't agree that in general,as Accumulation says,it's not possible to exile creature cards directly from the graveyard.Why couldn't I do it with Kuronos in play?This exiling card is not entering the battlefield! I could understand what Accumulation says,if any effect would allow these "first-exiled-and-then-ETB" creatures to enter the game.This wouldn't be possible because this card may, somehow,"remember" the creature cards in a player's graveyard, and prevent them from ETB.But,if I activate Tormod's Crypt on a graveyard,f.e.,I don't see why these cards shouldn't be exiled this way.

And in fact, if I understand it correctly, there is also a Gatherer ruling on Kuronos card,that allows you to do what I have indicated: - "If an effect exiles a card from a graveyard and allows a player to cast it, that player may do so . The spell is cast from exile, not a graveyard ".

@ManoFromBerlin I think all comments prior to yours were directed at the first comment, not my answer. Kuronos itself does not prevent any cards from being exiled. As for your second comment, that ruling is about cards like Covetous Urge that first exile cards from the graveyard and then allow a player to cast them.

Ah! Yes it is: Accumulation says "That wording ..." referring to your reformulation proposal. Then everything is ok ... thanks.

The are many ways for cards to enter the battlefield from the graveyard that don't involve casting the spell from the graveyard. Here are a few different effects that return creatures from the graveyard:

Targeted Reanimate and Resurrection effects. These spells are cast from your hand.
Mass-graveyard manipulation, such as Living Death
Creature abilities like Persist (Twilight Shepherd) and Undying (Mikaeus, the Unhallowed) that conditionally bring back a creature that just died.
Other effects like Journey to Eternity that preemptively resurrect a creature.
Other abilities like Unearth (Hellspark Elemental) which doesn't actually cast the card from the graveyard

As you can see, Magic has plenty of effects that bring cards back from the graveyard to the battlefield that don't involve casting a card from the graveyard.  These effects are very common in Magic's history, even if casting cards from the graveyard is more common in recent sets.

This answer is also very correct. It shows many examples of the issue, as I requested, and therefore makes it very clear why both instructions on the Kunoros card are needed


text:
When Vesuvan Shapeshifter copies turn face up replacement effects, why do they work?
Vesuvan Shapeshifter says:

As Vesuvan Shapeshifter (...) is turned face up, you may choose another creature on the battlefield. If you do, until Vesuvan Shapeshifter is turned face down, it becomes a copy of that creature (...)

My understanding is that due to the word "as", this is a replacement effect. There is a ruling for Vesuvan Shapeshifter on gatherer that says:

(...) any “[when/as] [this creature] is turned face up” abilities of the chosen creature will work if Vesuvan Shapeshifter is turned face up.

For triggered abilities such as "when this creature is turned face up..." this makes sense to me. The Shapeshifter is turned face up as a copy of the creature so the triggered ability sees that, due to 614.6.
I don't understand why replacement effects such as "as this creature is turned face up..." would also work. My understanding is that once an event has been replaced the game moves forward, and replacement effects cannot effect past events per rule 614.4.
So from my understanding, the Shapeshifter is turned face up as a special action, its controller chooses another creature, the "turn Vesuvan Shapeshifter face up" special action is replaced with a "turn Copied Creature face up except it has Vesuvan Shapeshifter's upkeep triggered ability" special action and the special action finishes. Vesuvan Shapeshifter would then have the replacement effect of the copied card, but the effect would never have had a chance to do anything because the game had already moved on.
Could someone explain why that is incorrect?

Compatible replacement effects can chain together.
Vesuvan Shapeshifter's abilities are indeed replacement effects:

614.1e Effects that read “As [this permanent] is turned face up . . . ,” are replacement effects.

Replaced events do not happen:

614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.

The event to be replaced is "Vesuvan Shapeshifter is turned face up", and is replaced with "The Vesuvan Shapeshifter is turned face up as the chosen creature". When that happens, the Shapeshifter has not yet turned face up:

707.11. If a face-down permanent would have an “As [this permanent] is turned face up . . .” ability after it’s turned face up, that ability is applied while that permanent is being turned face up, not afterward.

If the copied creature has its own replacement effect on being turned face up, it is now in effect as it is being turned face up, and it happens as well.

616.2. A replacement or prevention effect can become applicable to an event as the result of another replacement or prevention effect that modifies the event.

So the sequence of events is:

You decide to turn Vesuvan Shapeshifter face up
As you turn it face up, before it's actually turned face up, you choose another creature with a replacement effect that replaces getting turned face up.
Before the copied creature is turned face up, its own replacement effect happens and does something.
The copied creature is actually turned face up with its replacement effect applied, as if it was that creature all along.

Your expanded sequence of events (in combination with murgatroid's rules reference) has clarified the interaction for me I think. I think the intuition that I was missing is that the second replacement effect is not going back in time to apply to the creature turning face up, but that the first replacement effect is happening before the event is carried out, and another replacement effect can also replace that effect, again before it happens. Repeat for as many replacement effects as are applicable.

There is a process to applying replacement effects, and applying one effect can make another effect apply. Rules section 616 describes that process, and rule 616.2 says

A replacement or prevention effect can become applicable to an event as the result of another replacement or prevention effect that modifies the event.

So, after applying Vesuvan Shapeshifter's copy replacement effect, the copied creature's replacement effect comes into existence and becomes applicable to the event of Vesuvan Shapeshifter turning face up.

I see, I was very focused on section 614 and completely missed section 616 which very explicitly explains this interaction. Thank you for the reference.


text:
Does a cultist's on death effect trigger during it's own turn?
Somewhat similar to: Gloomhaven - are monster abilities in effect prior to their turn, but this is happening during the monster's turn.
In Gloomhaven, the cultist has an ability card that includes an on death effect. It looks something like this:

Move -1
Attack -1
On Death: Attack +2, target all hexes adjacent to the cultist.

If the cultist dies during it's move or initial attack action, (due to a trap, retaliate, or some other effect) does the on death effect get triggered?
This occurred in a game last night, and we were unsure how to proceed. We ended up ruling that the attack did not happen, as we hadn't reached that line on the ability card yet, so the on death effect wasn't yet active.

It's unusual, but you're correct. The rules on page 10 state

A monster will perform each of these abilities in the order listed (if possible) and then end its turn.

So if a Cultist has a wound and 1 HP, it will die before taking any of the actions, and thus setting up for 'on death' doesn't happen.
This is similar to how a figure with retaliate doesn't retaliate if it's killed or exhausted by an attack.
Also, remember that abilities such as disarm and stun also prevent the 'on death' ability from taking place if those status effects were in place when the cultist activated.

Re "remember that abilities such as disarm [...] also prevent the 'on death' ability from taking place if those status effects were in place when the cultist activated.", No, the attack is only prevented by Disarm if the figure has disarm when instructed to attack. It doesn't matter if it had Disarm or not on its turn. (You are right about Stun, though, as stun prevents the (triggered) ability from being setup.)

Re "This is similar to how a figure with retaliate doesn't retaliate if it's killed or exhausted by an attack.", Not at all. That has nothing to do with the order of abilities on the card. That's because of an entirely different rule. ("If the retaliating figure is killed or exhausted by the attack, then the retaliate does not activate.")


text:
Medomai's Prophecy Repeated
I have a few related questions about Medomai's Prophecy, which has the relevant Chapter abilities:

II - Choose a card name.
III - When you cast a spell with the chosen name for the first time this turn, draw two cards.

Suppose the second Chapter ability triggers twice, perhaps through clockspinning, and that I name the same card both times. Later, the third Chapter ability triggers and cast a spell with the chosen name. Do I draw two cards or four?
Same setup as question 1, except I choose different names. Later, the third Chapter ability triggers again. How many cards would I draw if I cast just a spell with the first name? Just a spell with the second name? Both?
Does copying the second Chapter ability, such as with Strionic Resonator, have the same end result as 1 and 2?
Suppose I have already named a card for Medomai's Prophecy's second ability, and then have Copy Enchantment enter as a copy of it. Does the new enchantment 'remember' the named card?

Partial answer...

Yes. There is no meaningful difference between an ability triggering twice because of Clockspinning, and a triggered ability being copied because of Strionic Resonator. Either way, the triggered ability has resolved 2 separate times. Note that the choice of card name is only made when the ability resolves, so it will not have been made yet while the ability is on the stack and being copied.
No, the chosen value is not a copyable attribute of Medomai's Prophecy:

706.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). 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.

For 1 and 2, the relevant rules are in 607, Linked Abilities. The 2 abilities are linked:

607.2d If an object has an ability printed on it that causes a player to “choose a [value]” and an ability printed on it that refers to “the chosen [value],” “the last chosen [value],” or similar, those abilities are linked. The second ability refers only to a choice made as a result of the first ability.

However, while rule 607.3 deals with what happens when an ability refers to "the exiled card", and multiple cards have been exiled; there does not seem to be a similar rule to deal with "the chosen value" when multiple values have been chosen.

I'm 100% sure that the answer to #1 is that you only draw two cards since even though you've chosen names twice, there is only one chosen name and one delayed trigger.  My hunch to #2 is that it only triggers once but will trigger on either one, but like you I don't think the rules are 100% clear.  The release notes aren't any help, either.  I get the feeling this will be clarified with the update bulletin.

1. Suppose the second Chapter ability triggers twice, perhaps through clockspinning, and that I name the same card both times. Later, the third Chapter ability triggers and cast a spell with the chosen name. Do I draw two cards or four?
2. Same setup as question 1, except I choose different names. Later, the third Chapter ability triggers again. How many cards would I draw if I cast just a spell with the first name? Just a spell with the second name? Both?

Two.
There is no difference in meaning between "the thing" and "a thing". "The" merely indicates that we are referring to a thing that was just referenced. In other words, "the chosen name" means "a name chosen for the linked ability".
Every time you cast a spell, you ask yourself if the spell has a name chosen for the linked ability. If the answer is yes, you have cast a spell with the chosen name, and you must then ask yourself if it's the first time has happened this turn. If so, the ability is placed on the stack.
As such, the ability can resolve at most once per turn (unless it gets copied somehow), so you get to draw at most two cards per turn.
(The only other remotely possible alternative would be that the spell would have to have all of the chosen names, leading to zero cards drawn if different names were picked. But that is not the case.)

3. Does copying the second Chapter ability, such as with Strionic Resonator, have the same end result as 1 and 2?

It doesn't matter how you managed to get the second ability to resolve twice.

4. Suppose I have already named a card for Medomai's Prophecy's second ability, and then have Copy Enchantment enter as a copy of it. Does the new enchantment 'remember' the named card?

No, the chosen value is not a copyable attribute of Medomai's Prophecy.

706.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). 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.
706.7a If an ability causes a player to “choose a [value]” and a second, linked ability refers to that choice, the second ability is the only ability that can refer to that choice. An object doesn’t “remember” that choice and use it for other abilities it may copy later. If an object copies an ability that refers to a choice, but either (a) doesn’t copy that ability’s linked ability or (b) does copy the linked ability but no choice is made for it, then the choice is considered to be “undefined.” If an ability refers to an undefined choice, that part of the ability won’t do anything.
Example: Voice of All enters the battlefield and Unstable Shapeshifter copies it. Voice of All reads, in part, “As Voice of All enters the battlefield, choose a color.” and “Voice of All has protection from the chosen color.” Unstable Shapeshifter never had a chance for a color to be chosen for it, because it didn’t enter the battlefield as a Voice of All card, so the protection ability doesn’t protect it from anything at all.
Example: A Vesuvan Doppelganger enters the battlefield as a copy of Voice of All, and the Doppelganger’s controller chooses blue. Later, the Doppelganger copies Quirion Elves, which has the ability, “{T}: Add one mana of the chosen color.” Even though a color was chosen for the Doppelganger, it wasn’t chosen for the ability linked to the mana ability copied from the Elves. If that mana ability of the Doppelganger is activated, it will not produce mana.

The first example given by 706.7a is pertinent here.
[Partial credit to @GendoIkari for the answer to this fourth question.]

Like CALEB F, I'm pretty sure this is right; but is there any comprehensive rule that leads to the first answer? It seems very strange that 607.3 would go into specific detail about how to treat what "the exiled card" if more than one card has been exiled, but be completely silent on how to treat "the chosen name" if more than one name was chosen.

@Gendolkari, I wasn't able to find a rule, but there's no need for one. Edited my answer to improve the explanation.

@Gendolkari, According to English, "the exiled card" means "a card that was exiled by the linked ability". 607.3 is required because it changes that. It causes "the exiled card" mean "all of the cards exiled by the linked ability" in some circumstances. In the OP's case, standard English meaning applies because there are no rules to the contrary. (Clarification would have been nice, though.)


text:
Can I play a first turn Simic Growth Chamber to have 3 mana available in the second turn?
Using a card like Simic Growth Chamber (there are others for other colour combinations) in the first turn and a "normal" land in the second, can I have 3 mana available in the second turn?

Simic Growth Chamber enters the battlefield tapped.
When Simic Growth Chamber enters the battlefield, return a land you control to its owner's hand.
Tap: Add {G}{U}.

Can I really play this card without any land on the battlefield?

No. If you play Simic Growth Chamber without any other lands in play, you still must return a land you control to its owner's hand ... which happens to be the Simic Growth Chamber itself. So while it is legal, it is not useful to play it the first turn.

There are some combo decks that use the bouncelands bouncing themselves to take advantage of "land enters the battlefield" triggers. I'm not sure if any of them can go off on turn 1, though - maybe in Vintage, with Moxen and/or Black Lotuses?

If you rephrase your question to "Can I have 3 mana on turn 2 with a normal land and Simic growth chamber?" the answer is yes, but not if you played Simic Growth chamber on turn 1.
The concept of this lands is to have a land that sort of ramps (gets to a higher count of mana) and filters (gives you different colour options) so the drawback of it is that you lose a turn to play it, it doesn't really advance you on mana per turn, but what it does it ensures that with less cards you have more available mana.
Now there is a deck in modern that abuses the use of this lands by using amulet of Vigor, and this is where you would be able to get to 3 mana on turn 2 with those 2 lands. Turn 1, drop normal land, play amulet of vigor, turn 2 play this land, trigger of the land goes on the stack, trigger from vigor goes on the stack, you choose to resolve the land trigger last, so your land untaps, you tap it for mana (and possibly the other one) and then decide which land to bounce and you have 3 mana in your mana pool.
A deck called Amulet Titan, uses Amulet of Vigor to get these ramp to play Azusa, Lost but Seeking which allows you to play more lands per turn, which with the right combination would allow you to cast Primeval Titan on Turn 2/3.
So, as per Glorfindel's answer, No is the answer, but yes it is possible.

I would also like to know how you could get Primeval Titan on turn 2... That means 6  mana, not 3...

Turn 1: land + Amulet of Vigor. Turn 2: Simic Growth Chamber + Azusa. You can play Simic Growth Chamber twice again that same turn, floating the mana, but that only gives you four mana, not six.

play 1 chamber, float 2 mana, play 2 more vigors, play one more land and you get 6 mana :).....it is an exact 7 card hand. 1 growth, 1 forest, 3 amulets, 1 azusa and 1 prime. Turn 1 Play 1 forest, amulet. Turn 2 play growth, float 2 mana, play azusa, play growth (1st additional land), float 2 mana, play 2 vigors, play growth (2nd additional land), float 6 mana, play Primeval Titan...

OK, but you need to get a pretty lucky starting hand to pull that off...

@Glorfindel at no point did I say this was reliable. This is why summer bloom was banned as you would go from 4 azusas to 8/12 azusas. the deck already runs 8 primeval titans as well. having 4 summoning pacts made it very flexible and reliable and summer bloom just made the odds increadibly high to have the combo and possibly pay off.

Was amulet of vigor text changed by any chance? I'm pretty sure I remember this card having a "put it untapped instead" clause instead of a "untap it", but now I'm looking at it online and I only see the version with "untap it".

@fireshark519 Wouldn't it be more efficient to play the second turns first vigor before you play the growth?

@Taemyr you are correct, that opens play for possibly all 4 Titans to be played actually. As you turn 2 play 2nd vigor, drop growth net 4 mana, cast azusa and 3rd vigor, play 1 land cast titan, with titan triggers get tolaria west and another dual land which nets 3 blue from tolaria west and 6 mana from the other land, transmute tolaria west for summoning pact, summoning pact another titan and repeat you might even get enough mana for at least 1 of the titans to attack as well (dont want to do any more math to check the mana xD)

Yes, it is possible with a card like Arboreal Grazer (I'm uncertain off the top of my head if there are any other cards that would also work)
Turn 1:

Play a Forest
Cast Arboreal Grazer
Use Arboreal Grazer's ability to put Simic Growth Chamber into play
Return the Forest to hand

Turn 2:

Play the Forest again
Et Voila, 3 mana on turn 2

Well there's also fastbond, but that's super banned because of how broken it is.

@ryanyuyu or simply use Manabond, it is legal in legacy...


text:
Exchange keepers
I had a debate with friends based on the wording on the card. I believe because the way it is written, I can give a keeper and immediately take it back instead of taking one of theirs.

ACTION: Exchange Keepers
Give an opponent a keeper. Take a keeper from an opponent.
If only one player has a keeper or no keepers are in play do nothing.

Notes:
The wording has been revised in newer editions
I understand the intention of the card, but believe there is a loophole in the rule.

This is not address specifically in the official Fluxx FAQ
With the card as written in that edition, you should be able to do this.
It's worth noting that the word "exchange" doesn't matter here, because it's only used in the name of the card, not in the text of the effect.
Another card that has been renamed in newer editions shows that the name of a card is not important to its actual effect. After it has been played, the card "X=X+1" (later renamed "Inflation"), is actually now named "X=X+2". But the effect of that card is still to add one to each numeral, not to add two. So the fact that the card is named "X=X+2" doesn't matter.
So when you play the card, you simply follow the instructions as written, in order, which is to give a keeper to a player, and then to take a keeper from a player, who now has the keeper you gave them.
However I believe that the fact that the newer printings of the same card have changed the wording such that this interpretation is no longer possible, I don't see a good reason to choose to play with a card as written, instead of playing with the card as intended. The fact that the wording has been changed is clear indication of the intent of the card, and while Fluxx doesn't have as clear-cut rules about things like errata compared to something like Magic: The Gathering, I believe that for the sake of understanding rules in general, the most recent official version of a rule should always be considered to be the only one that matters. Playing by an older version of a rule is the same as playing by a house rule.

Thanks, I wrote the action wrong it does state the same player.

I think thats a long stretch to try and bend the rules to your favour.
The wording is "exchange".  I wont use a rules ref here as you quote the card and instead go the dictionary.com
One of the definitions of exchange as a noun.

something that is given or received in exchange or substitution for something else

That does not mean you can give a card and take the same card back as that is by definition not an exchange.

I do not believe you can make that argument because “let’s simplify” gives you the option of not doing anything and that’s not meeting the definition of simplifying. My argument is the title of the card is irrelevant and you only follow the steps written.

You don't have to accept my answer buy judging by this similarly worded question on reddit ( https://www.reddit.com/r/fluxx/comments/c7pu0v/exchange_keepers/ ) your just going to ask a question with the answer you already want to hear in mind anyway.  If you and your friends are happy to play it they way you suggest but playing games is about enjoying them, not bending tiny bits of semantics to your favour to win.

Sorry I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, just trying to lay out all the points to my argument. We were split 50/50 on how to interpret the card, but I wanted to exchange anyways so we played on.