text:
When should I activate Man Lands and Keyrunes in order to attack with them?
Some lands and artifacts have abilities which allow them to be animated, and turned into creatures until end of turn. Examples include Inkmoth Nexus, Blinkmoth Nexus, Azorious Keyrune, Treetop Village and several others. These abilities can be activated at any time, and  then those permanents can be used to attack that turn.
At what point during the turn should abilities that animate non-creatures be activated so that they can attack?

Question has been downvoted - can anyone tell me what I need to improve?

Doesn't look like it. You're currently at 1 upvote, 0 downvotes. Maybe someone undid an upvote?

someone undid a downvote - i guess it was intended for my answer rather than for the question

Re "and then those permanents can be used to attack that turn", I don't know why you mentioned this. It makes it sound like they aren't subject to summoning sickness, but they are. If the permanent hasn't been under your control since the beginning of your most recent turn, it can't attack (unless it has haste).

You should activate them at some point before the declare attackers step on a turn after they enter the battlefield (unless they have haste).
Here's a breakdown of the declare attackers step:

508.1. First, the active player declares attackers.
508.2. Second, any abilities that triggered on attackers being declared go on the stack.
508.3. Third, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

Clearly, during the declare attackers step, it is too late to activate the abilities (508.3) in order to make them attackers (508.1). However, you are free to do so during your upkeep, first main phase, and beginning of Combat step and it will be eligible to attack.
Note that if you cast a keyrune and turn it into a creature, it cannot attack. This is because permanents that are creatures are unable to attack or use activated abilities with the tap symbol in them unless they have been under their owners control continuously since their most recent turn began (302.6).
It could still be tapped for mana if it is not a creature but as soon as you turn it into a creature it can no longer be tapped to activate abilities the turn it comes into play.
With regards to shortcuts, according to the

A statement such as "I'm ready for combat" or "Declare attackers?" offers to keep passing priority
until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting
then unless they specify otherwise.

In other words, the following exchanges between Aaron the Attacker and Dave the Defender, officiated by Jerry the Judge, have different outcomes
Scenario 1

Aaron: Attacks? long pause
Dave: nods head
Aaron: I activate my keyrune and swing with him for 2.
Dave: Judge!
Jerry: Sorry Aaron, because you passed priority with your "Attacks?" comment, your keyrune was activated too late to be an attacker.

Scenario 2

Aaron: Attacks - I activate my keyrune. long pause
Dave: nods head
Aaron: I swing with him for 2.
Dave: I take 2, I'm at 18 life.
Jerry: I'm going to sip this margarita because I'm not needed here. sips margarita

In hindsight, judges should probably not be drinking while on active judge duty.

Update
Having discussed the below with several local judges, it has been made clear that the below would actually be a very totalitarian view for a judge to take, and as long as you state clearly your intentions you probably will still get to activate your man land.
The correct time to activate man lands is any point during your turn before the declare attackers step, as has been mentioned in other answers. As an addendum, being extremely clear about where you are in the turn when you are activating them is key in tournament play. Better safe than sorry!

The main parts of the turn relevant to this question are:
some of the sub steps are omitted, as they are not relevant.

Beginning Phase
Main Phase
Combat Phase

Beginning of Combat step
Declare Attackers step
Declare Blockers step
Damage step
End of Combat step

When you are playing a game of magic, you are playing with/against another person. This is the key to the answer to this question, as while you are entitled to animate these permanents at any point before the Declare Attackers step, in a real game of magic,
unless the active player explicitly passes priority in their main phase, to have priority in their beginning of combat step. the active player only has priority in their beginning of combat step if their opponent chooses to do something in that step.
this is due to a shortcut listed in the rules, wherein the active player declares "attacks?" or "move to attack" or "combat" or some similar statement. This shortcut, in the literal sense, translates to "Pass priority up until you have priority in the Beginning of Combat step". The result of this shortcut is, if you move into the combat phase, you are automatically giving your opponent priority just before you declare attackers. If your opponent passes priority, the game moves to the Declare Attackers step and you have missed your opportunity to animate.
The latest safe opportunity to animate your man lands, or other permanents that become creatures through activating an ability, is in the First Main Phase. if you leave it until after this point, you are in the hands of your opponent and the judge staff for whether you get to activate the man land. If you cant demonstrate a good reason (for example, to empty some mana from your opponent's mana pool), they will probably not let you activate.
Source for this shortcut:
Tournament Procedure Guide - section 4.2, Bullet point 2

A Statement such as "I'm Ready for combat", or "Declare attackers?" offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise

also covered in these articles
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=judge/article/20071109a
https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=judge/article/20050204a

I'm sceptical of the claim that "you never have priority in your beginning of combat step" - it may be true, but can you back it up further?  With reference to the comprehensive rules on shortcuts etc, I guess I mean.

Beginning of Combat Step ... 507.3. Third, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

I believe it's incorrect actually. You get priority there. For example, you declare attacks, I can detain/kill/tap your creatures with instant speed abilities and spells during that step. If I detained your creature after it attacked (i.e. in my part of the declare attackers step) the creature would still be attacking.

Your point about the shortcuts is also misleading. There are no shortcuts officially listed in the rules. Shortcuts may be suggested in the rules, but shortcuts only officially exist between two players as mutually understood by those players. Those shortcuts may or may not be the same examples given by the rules.

There are 2 articles I just found on my phone explicitly defining this shortcut and explaining exactly why this is so well defined (i googled "mtg rules shortcuts", the top non-pdf results). the only way you are not taking this shortcut, is by EXPLICITLY passing priority in your mainphase to gain priority in your beginning of combat step. my point was you as the ACTIVE PLAYER never get priority in that step, unless your opponent does something, i will clarify that point in the answer and provide source material when i am able to access it on a computer and not just my phone

@corsiKa, please see my edit (and feel free to confirm in the document and look into it yourselves), this is an established shortcut, and both wizards mothership articles, and the Tournament Procedure guide explicitly lay out how it works.

There is nothing there that would say you don't ever get priority. You can easily tell your opponent(s) that you are going to begin your combat step and transform. They then have an opportunity to react before you declare attackers, but you always have the option of having priority. Furthermore the shortcut is a way of alerting your opponents that you plan to pass priority, not that you don't get it.

@Rawrgramming I did confirm: there are no established shortcuts. "716.1a The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable."

true enough, if you explicitly pass priority in your main phase and ask if your opponent passes priority in your main phase, you can then activate your man lands in your beginning of combat step, but this serves no purpose, so the shortcut is assumed. If you try to do that in tournaments, you will get judges called, and you will get told you missed your chance 9 times out of 10. I am happy to modify my answer to make clear that activation during your mainphase is the "safest" option if that will make this a more acceptable answer.

@corsiKa, did you also check the document quoted in my answer, and read the articles i mentioned in a previous comment? note "largely" in the rule you quoted.

I feel like saying "Can I declare attackers?" might imply you want to skip the beginning of combat step, but that's a totally different thing from it being impossible for the active player ever to gain priority in the beginning of combat step...

Comments are not really a place for discussion. If you have more to say, consider moving it to chat.

@Rawrgramming maybe your opponent had floated some mana for whatever reason(like in response to you destroying a land), and you want that mana to be emptied from his pool before you animate your man-land

this is a good point, i have updated the answer to reflect that case, and to clarify that you can get priority, if you word it exactly. one of this changes the fact that you ought to as a rule activate during your mainphase in tournaments

for the record, I'll un-downvote when and only when your post no longer suggests that the first main phase is the latest point to activate your man-land

@Rawrgramming What you're saying here is that the commonly used shortcut goes to the declare attackers step. That's orthogonal to the question you actually asked, about activating these abilities. Clearly, the rules give you the choice to activate them during the beginning of combat step (for whatever reason). Yes, there are things you can say which translate to "I'm skipping over that step", but it seems you're being really eager to restate that as "you can't do anything in that step unless you can justify it to a judge."

Right, if you say "ok, I'm declaring attackers", then it's too late. If you say "Ok, at the beginning of combat step, I want to do this", then you can do it just fine.

For what it's worth, if someone said "attacks?" I would take it to mean "Let's move the game state to declare combat step and pass priority" not "Let's move the game state to declare attackers step". If they decline, it's because they want to take an action during their priority in the first main phase (or whatever phase we're on...).

i have further updated my answer to step back from the all or nothing approach i was taking, i left the majority of the text the same but made a clear update at the top. apologies for the kerfuffle!

@Rawrgramming I think your most recent info would be excellent as a new, separate answer. "Local judges said I should do this at Competitive REL, or this if I want to be absolutely safe" is great information to have. I feel like the other text confuses it, though.

@Rawrgramming After rereading your updated answer, I still find two significant errors. I addressed them in an edit to my answer containing two different scenarios, one of which happily ends with a drunk judge.

i think corsika's answer handles everything fully now. i am not sure how to word the additional answer you mentioned, as to which text is useful and which isnt. i will just leave it as is.

@corsiKa for that matter, if someone said "attacks?" A'd assume that they're probably the NAP anyway


text:
Can I sacrifice a permanent to pay an ability cost while the permanent's spell is still on the stack?
At what point does a creature/artifact/whatever become a legal candidate for being sacrificed to pay an activation cost?
For example, suppose I cast an artifact creature spell, and my opponent responds with an instant that would kill it (like a Lightning Bolt). I have an Atog that lets me sacrifice an artifact to give the Atog +2/+2. Can I use the artifact creature, even though the spell that "summoned" it has yet to resolve, to pay the Atog's ability's activation cost?

Worth noting that your opponent can't Bolt a creature that hasn't resolved yet for the same reason you can't sacrifice it - it's a spell while it's on the stack, not a creature.

I think this question is coming from a wrong premise. Your opponent can only target your creature if it's made it into play. And if it's made it, and they Bolt it, then you can respond by sacrificing it...

If you change your example to "suppose my opponent responds with an instant that would counter it (like a Dissipate)" then this would perhaps be a more reasonable question.

it's kinda scary how sloppy I used to play M:TG (casually, of course); I know a lot has changed since 5th edition but this sounds like we've just got it completely wrong :\

@Michael Pretty much everything has changed since 5th edition. The 6th edition rules update almost reinvented the game. (Not really, but it was a very drastic change.) See e.g. this. Although the answer to this particular question would be the same under 5th edition rules.

@DavidZaslavsky That URL is awesome, thanks a ton for it. Looks like I have some light reading to do :)

A card on the stack is not a permanent, so you may not sacrifice it.
When a card refers to a permanent type, like "artifact" or "creature," it refers only to permanents — meaning a card on the battlefield. Note that this includes the Lightning Bolt spell in your question — you can't sacrifice the creature until it is on the battlefield, but your opponent can't Bolt the creature until it is on the battlefield, either.
Cards in other zones are referred to as cards — e.g. Unburial Rites: "Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield." — or spells if they're on the stack — e.g. Essence Scatter: "Counter target creature spell." (Compare to Murder, which affects creatures on the battlefield: "Destroy target creature.")

No, but it's not a valid target for Lightning Bolt either.

If it's not a permanent, it's not a valid object for a sacrifice payment.

701.14a To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. A player can’t sacrifice something that isn’t a permanent, or something that’s a permanent he or she doesn’t control. [...]

If it's a spell, it's on the stack, it's a not on the battlefield, and it's not a permanent.

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

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

111.1a A copy of a spell is also a spell [...].

For example, suppose I cast an artifact creature spell, and my opponent responds with an instant that would kill it (like a Lightning Bolt).

He can't do this. It's not a creature until the spell resolves to become a permanent. The same reason preventing you from sacrificing it to the Atog (not a permanent yet) is preventing him from targeting it with Lightning Bolt.

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

He has to wait for your artifact creature to resolve. (In fact, it's presumed he did if he casts Lightning Bolt targeting it.) In response to him casting Lightning Bolt, you may activate your Atog's ability using your new creature as the sacrifice.
Compare Lightning Bolt with Bone to Ash.

At what point does a creature/artifact/whatever become a legal candidate for being sacrificed to pay an activation cost?

When it enters the battlefield. This happens when the spell or ability that creates (usually, "summons") it resolves. (Though note that "summon" is no longer a word with any official meaning in the rules.)
It's worth noting that a creature becomes eligible to be targeted by Lightning Bolt, or anything else that says "target creature," at the same time it becomes eligible to be sacrificed.
Also at the same time, the object switches from being a "spell" (or "creature spell"/"artifact spell"/etc.) to being a "permanent" (or "creature"/"artifact"/etc.)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Creatures with Surge as Commander
Is it possible to use a creature with a surge ability as my commander?
a creature such as Tyrant of Valakut?
If so would this allow me to bypass the cost increase by using the surge ability, or would the surge cost increase as well?
I am new to commander so I am not fully aware of the comprehensive rules on creature abilities like this.

Is it possible to use a creature with a surge ability as my commander?

Yes
Surge does not care about where your card is when you cast it, so it also works in command zone.
You still need to apply commander tax to the cost afterwards

a creature such as Tyrant of Valakut?

No
I believe your commander should be a legendary creature, which Tyrant of Valakut is not.

Ah I was not aware that a creature had to be legendary to be commander... this pretty much answers my question thanks.

@ThunderToes See http://mtgcommander.net/rules.php

There are presently no legendary creatures with surge in fact. :'(

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


text:
Do outpost siege abilities stack?
Say I ran four Outpost Sieges had two of them on the field, would the effects stack?
Moreover would the effect stack if I chose Khans/ Dragons twice?
Basically if I had two Outpost Sieges would it allow me to exile two cards and play them each upkeep/ deal two damage as opposed to one if a creature leaves the battlefield?

You can attack with two creatures with a same name at the same time, cast two instants with the same name at the same time. I'm curious what made you doubt that enchantments would work the same way.

@tsuma534 While your conclusion is correct, your analogies are quite irrelevant to the question and explain nothing, because those cases are governed by entirely different sections of the rules. Additionally, you can not cast 2 instants at the same time. You always cast spells and activate abilities one at a time.

@Hackworth Technically, yes - instants aren't cast the same time. But they can exist on the stack at the same time. I think a comment is a place that allow simplifications, as I only needed to highlight why I'm curious.

@tsuma534 While I understand your curiosity, I don't think you'll often get interesting answers - things like this are usually just about having incomplete mental models of the way the game works, with some intuition mixed in.

@Jefromi Well, it was worth trying - sometimes I do get an answer. I'm always eager to know why people don't get one rule or another. This helps me with addressing future rule concerns and with designing my own rules.

Each Outpost Siege will trigger at the beginning of each upkeep. Example:

You play Outpost Siege, naming Khans.
You play Outpost Siege, naming Dragons.
At the beginning of your upkeep, both Outpost Sieges trigger.
You stack the triggers in whatever order you choose.
You resolve the triggers in the opposite order.

As each trigger resolves, follow the instructions written on the card.

If you control three Outpost Sieges, then all three will trigger. If you control ten, then all ten will trigger. There's no rule that says, "Only one enchantment with the same name can trigger at the same time."

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she chooses. (See rule 101.4.) Then the game once again checks for and resolves state-based actions until none are performed, then abilities that triggered during this process go on the stack. This process repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no abilities trigger. Then the appropriate player gets priority.
I think this rule answers your question.
Basically you get to choose the order in which they stack.

Yes.
Each Outpost Siege will trigger and resolve separately.


text:
How does "reveal a card, play it, then return it" work with locations?
During a game of DC Comics Deckbuilding Game: Rivals, we had a strange situation (which could also happen in the base game).
The Joker's second form says the following:

Once during each of your turns, if you play a Villain and a Super Power, reveal the top card of the main deck. Play it, then return it.

The player activated this ability and drew a location, which says the following:

When you play this card, leave it in front of you for the rest of the game.

Which instruction wins? We have one effect that says we have to return the card and another that says we have to leave it in front of you for the rest of the game.

The joker's ability card would take priority. You would play the location card. Take any effect the location card gives you then return it at the end of your turn. For example Wayne Manor

When you play your first HERO on each of your turns draw a card.

So on your turn if you play a villain, you draw wayne manor and then you play a hero you get a card draw and then you put wayne manor back at the top of the deck when you're done with your turn.

What is the basis for the Joker's ability taking priority? Also, wouldn't Wayne Manor not take effect, because you didn't play a Hero Card in the brief time it was out (you were in the middle of playing a Villain or Super Power card, which triggered the Joker's ability)?


text:
Warlock Quest is to take life from another player, but I'm not allowed to attack them. Can I complete the quest?
We had a situation in Talisman 4th Edition Revised where a player got the Warlock Quest "Take One Life From Another Player".

"Seek the one with the mark of the Talisman - a mark that only you will see. When you find him, vanquish him in combat. His blood shall be your key. His suffering shall be your salvation."

The trouble was that the character wasn't allowed to attack another player. We were playing with the Lightbearers alternative ending that disallows player versus player combat, but this could also happen if, for instance, you are the Knight and all other players are Good for the time being (or worse, they are characters like the Knight who are permanently Good), since the Knight can't attack Good alignment players.
Is there any way to complete this Warlock Quest if you can't attack other players?

If the particular game scenario (such as Lightbearers) prevents any player-player combat, then the quest is never achievable, and the quest should be discarded and another one picked instead. However, if there is a possibility that a character could die and be replaced by another that could be attacked, then the quest should be retained against that possibility. That would be one of the risks of taking a Warlock Quest! Of course, your group could decide together to discard any unachievable quests and pick another.

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


text:
Does Pillar of Flame exile creatures with undying?
Let's say Pillar of Flame is used on a creature with undying, such as Butcher Ghoul, when it doesn't have any counters on it. If Pillar of Flame deals enough damage to kill it, and therefore exile it, will the creature get exiled? Or will it come back with a counter on it?
I've been playing it so that it does get exiled and doesn't return with a counter on it. Am I right in doing this?

Yes. Pillar of Flame stops undying creatures.
To explain why, let's take a look at the specific wording of the cards.
The Undying ability (e.g. on Butcher Ghoul) says:

Undying (When this creature dies, if it had no +1/+1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a +1/+1 counter on it.)

This is a triggered ability. It goes on the stack after the specified event (in this case, the creature going to the graveyard) occurs.
Pillar of Flame says:

If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead.

This is what's called a replacement effect. A replacement effect happens in place of some other event.
So, the creature never dies — when a situation would normally cause it to die, you exile it instead. This means "When this creature dies" never triggers at all. (Because of how the Pillar of Flame card is worded, this happens even if it is killed by something else, like combat damage or getting -1/-1 from Golgari Charm or whatever.)
(Note, however, that Pillar of Flame doesn't defeat regeneration. The creature never "would die" because regeneration replaces the event that would send it to the graveyard in the first place.)

Pillar of Flame was designed specifically to remove undying creatures in this way, both to balance Constructed games and to evoke the flavor of holy power driving back the darkness in Avacyn Restored.

One could argue that not only CAN it get rid of undying creatures, but that it was put into the set specifically to hate on undying creatures.


text:
Do other players replenish their traded cards after a trading phase in Bohnanza?
In Bohnanza say I have 5 cards during a round.
Another player is in his trading phase and I trade a card with him, I put the traded card on my trading area and then plant it on my field.
I'm now down to 4 cards so, do I have to take a card from the pile for the one I traded?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no "minimum hand size" rule in Bohnanza.
The active player draws three cards at the end of his round, but it's perfectly possible to start your round with no cards at all in hand!  As demonstrated by this line in the "1. Plant bean cards" section of the rulebook:

If the active player has no cards in his hand, he omits this step.

So, no, you don't draw to replace cards you used in trades, at least not in any variant of Bohnanza I'm familiar with.

No. There is no where in the rules to indicate that this would be the case in any situation. The rules clearly state that

The non-active players may only trade/donate cards from their
  hands.

Beyond this, there are no other actions the non-active players make to process a trade. The rule book mentions in a side note

By trading or donating cards from their hands, players get rid of cards they do not want to plant.

The point of trading is to get cards out of your hand, so replacing them with new cards by drawing would be counter-productive.

The other answers are right, only the active player draws cards. So the standard-rules make it possible that you empty your hand through trades.
The extension Ladybohn offers a rule variation. Instead of the active player drawing three cards, everyone draws one card at the end of the turn. That makes the game faster for higher numbers of players. We usually use that rule, even if we don't use Ladybohn.


text:
Can a player collect nobles after a day ends in Guillotine?
I was playing the game with two friends and there were just two cards left on the second day, when my friend decided to use the [Escape!] card which allowed him to Randomize and discard 2 cards.
After this the day ended, we drew the next 12 cards. Then, my friend collected the first noble in line, saying that his last play (from day 2) was not over because he didn´t collect a noble, which is obligatory according to the rules.
Is this allowed?

The day doesn't end when the line becomes empty.  It ends at the beginning of someone's turn if the line is empty.
After your friend plays Escape!, the line is randomized and two nobles discarded, resulting in an empty line.  Your friend tries and fails to collect the first noble in line (there no longer is one).  Then the day ends, a new day begins, and twelve new nobles are added to the line.
Your friend is out of luck, I'm afraid!  No noble for him until at least his next turn.

Your friend doesn't collect a Noble, because that is the second step after playing an action card and Escape caused those nobles to be discarded. (Note: Your friend should draw an action card, since the next day doesn't begin until the start of the next players turn.)
The order of play is:

Play an action card (optional)
Collect the first noble in line
Draw an action card (whether or not you played one)

From the rules

Play continues until there are no nobles left in line at the start of someone’s turn. That day is then over and a new day begins: deal out 12 new noble cards from the noble deck.


text:
How does the "Taken Over" event card impact buildings and zombie movement?
I played Last Night on Earth for the first time and I was playing the zombies.  I pulled the Take Over event card which states:

Roll a Random Building and place a Taken Over marker on it.
Place a Zombie from the Zombie Pool in each empty space of this
  building.  No Hero may enter this building or Search here.  If the
  building has already been Taken Over, Re-roll. Zombies placed here may
  not move this turn.

I have a couple of questions:

Does the building remain "Taken Over" even if all the zombies leave the building on subsequent moves?
How does Zombie Hunger effect the event rule of "Zombies placed here may not move this turn"?

The building remains taken over even if it has no zombies in it. The Last Night On Earth wiki covers the similar situation of drawing the My God, They've Taken the... card when all your zombies are already on the board:

with ‘My God, They've Taken the...’ the building is always Taken Over even if no new Zombies are placed.

I think the zombies you place stay put for a turn even if there's a hero in an adjacent space, the Zombie Hunger effect doesn't override the no movement rule.


text:
Why should I buy Booster Packs over Battle Packs?
While grabbing some booster packs today I saw a Booster Battle Pack.  Looked them up online to see what they were and grabbed one.  Doing the math, I determined the following:

Booster Pack - $0.26 / card
Battle Pack - $0.13 / card

So why would I ever buy a regular Booster pack?  Seems like it makes more sense to always buy the battle packs.

My thought is the Battle Packs have two "semi-randomized" decks, so the extra $2 your spending isn't really worth the extra content. The semi-random decks won't contain rares, so the extra $2 isn't going to get you extra value in the form of chances to pull money rares. It will just get you more cards. For most players, this isn't enough incentive. Spend another $2 beyond the Battle Pack, you'd get a third booster and another chance at a quality rare. However, in your situation where you're trying to teach your 12-year-old-son, this is a good way to see some color-specific mechanics and cheaply play around with color combinations.
Another thing you might consider is the Deck Builder Toolkit. Similar to the Battle Packs, for around $20 these contain 125 semi-random commons and uncommons, 4 packs from various sets, and 100 basic land (20 of each type). From a cost perspective, you'd be looking at $0.11 per card if you don't put cost on the basic land. But once again, the semi-randomized cards reduce overall value since there is no chance for money rares. The extra $4 gets you more cards, but not more value.

You may find the Gatecrash and Return to Ravnica Booster Battle Packs a little more helpful. Each of the semi-randomized packs are geared toward one of the ten guilds and include that guild's Guildgate, a land that can produce mana of either of the guild's colors. While those are not valuable cards, they can definitely help you build up a solid mana base.


text:
Can you fail to find a card in someone's hand?
If I cast Inquisition of Kozilek, and my only target is a Loxodon Smiter, do I have to make my opponent discard the Loxodon Smiter, or can I "fail to find" just as I would if i were searching my library?

Sucks that this may have happened to you. :P. Forces to help opponent to win.

@wesdfgfgd: But it's so satisfying when it happens to your opponent. There's something great about forcing your opponent into a corner with their own evil targeted discard spell.

You can "fail to find" a card, but only while explicitly searching someone's library or hand. In the case of Inquisition of Kozilek, you are not "searching" the zone, so you must choose a card if a valid choice is available.
Per the comp rules, "fail to find" is specific to searching a hidden zone:

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

While the hand is still considered a hidden zone even when it is revealed (CR 400.2: "Library and hand are hidden zones, even if all the cards in one such zone happen to be revealed"), Inquisition of Kozilek's instructions say to choose a card from it, not search for one. Thus, you must follow the normal rules: which is to carry out as much of the actions as possible.

So, you may still be wondering: why doesn't this rule come with a "fail to find" clause?
The simplest explanation is that it's part of the underlying logic of the Magic comp rules — to minimize actions that players can't "double-check" using public information. (Consider the difference between Vampiric Tutor and Mystical Tutor, for instance. What purpose does the extra "reveal" clause serve?)
Adding "fail to find" to the rules for searching guarantees that your search will result in a valid game state without forcing you to prove there are no valid choices by revealing your entire library.
Inquisition of Kozilek doesn't need a "fail to find" rule because it says "reveal" — all players get to see the targeted players' hand and verify whether there are any suitable cards in it.
If a discard spell said "Look at target layer's hand" instead of "Reveal," the rules manager would probably insist they include a "may" clause, like Vendilion Clique.


text:
Humility and +1/+1 counters
If I play a kicked Quag Vampires, and my opponent has a Humility on the battlefield, will the Quag Vampires still get his counters and be larger than a 1/1?

My combo back in the day Humility came out was to use Crovax the Cursed

Your vampire will be larger than 1/1.
The relevant rules reference is the power/toughness layer when handling continuous effects. Note that because of this layering rule, it doesn't matter whether the creature entered the battlefield first, or the Humility.

613.3. Within layer 7, apply effects in a series of sublayers in the order described below. Within each sublayer, apply effects in timestamp order. (See rule 613.6.) Note that dependency may alter the order in which effects are applied within a sublayer. (See rule 613.7.)
613.3a Layer 7a: Effects from characteristic-defining abilities that define power and/or toughness are applied. See rule 604.3.
613.3b Layer 7b: Effects that set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value are applied. (That is the Humility)
613.3c Layer 7c: Effects that modify power and/or toughness (but don’t set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value) are applied.
613.3d Layer 7d: Power and/or toughness changes from counters are applied. See rule 121, “Counters.” (the +1/+1 counters)
613.3e Layer 7e: Effects that switch a creature’s power and toughness are applied. Such effects take the value of power and apply it to the creature’s toughness, and take the value of toughness and apply it to the creature’s power.
Example: A 1/3 creature is given +0/+1 by an effect. Then another effect switches the creature’s power and toughness. Its new power and toughness is 4/1. A new effect gives the creature +5/+0. Its “unswitched” power and toughness would be 6/4, so its actual power and toughness is 4/6.
Example: A 1/3 creature is given +0/+1 by an effect. Then another effect switches the creature’s power and toughness. Its new power and toughness is 4/1. If the +0/+1 effect ends before the switch effect ends, the creature becomes 3/1.


text:
What is the Power/Toughness of a */* when it is not on the battlefield?
If a creature has a P/T of *** / ***, but is not the battlefield, What is it's P/T with regards to effects that care about P/T such as Wild Pair and Varolz, the Scar-Striped.
If I used Varolz, the Scar-Striped to scavenge a Boneyard Wurm, and I have X creatures in my graveyard, do I get 0 counters or do I get X counters?

You should accept Collin's answer. PS this also works with Tarmagoyf.

It depends on the card in question. If it can't be determined use 0.

208.2a The card may have a characteristic-defining ability that sets its power and/or toughness according to some stated condition. (See
rule 604.3.) Such an ability is worded "[This creature's] [power or
toughness] is equal to . . ." or "[This creature's] power and
toughness are each equal to . . ." This ability functions everywhere,
even outside the game. If the ability needs to use a number that can't
be determined, including inside a calculation, use 0 instead of that
number. Example: Lost Order of Jarkeld has power and toughness each
equal to 1+*. It has the abilities "As Lost Order of Jarkeld enters
the battlefield, choose an opponent" and "Lost Order of Jarkeld's
power and toughness are each equal to 1 plus the number of creatures
the chosen player controls." While Lost Order of Jarkeld isn't on the
battlefield, there won't be a chosen player. Its power and toughness
will each be equal to 1 plus 0, so it's 1/1.

When you scavenge Boneyard Wurm you will get a number of +1/+1 counters equal the number of creatures in your graveyard before Boneyard Wurm is exiled. (A ruling on Varolz, the Scar-Striped reads: The number of counters that a card’s scavenge ability puts on a creature is based on the card’s power as it last existed in the graveyard.)


text:
Can I extort Launch Party with the creature I'm sacrificing?
If I control exactly 1 Basilica Screecher, and I cast Launch Party sacrificing my Basilica Screecher, can I still use Basilica Screecher to extort on Launch Party?

... Do you mean Launch Party instead of Slaughter Games?

@AlexP yes I did.  Those 4-mana rakdos spells are all the same to me

No. Basilica Screecher will no longer be on the battlefield when the spell becomes cast, so its ability will not trigger.

Casting a spell:

Placing it on the stack. [CR 601.2a]
Make choices (e.g. modes, targets) that need to be made to cast the spell. [CR 601.2b-d]
Determine the total cost to cast the spell. [CR 601.2e]
Activate mana abilities. [CR 601.2f]
Pay the total cost. [CR 601.2g]

Only once all of the above has happened is the spell cast, so only then would abilities that trigger on casting the spell trigger.

601.2h Once the steps described in 601.2a–g are completed, the spell becomes cast. Any abilities that trigger when a spell is cast or put onto the stack trigger at this time. If the spell’s controller had priority before casting it, he or she gets priority.

However, you sacrificed Basilica Screecher back in step 5 (601.2g), so it's no longer on the battlefield when you completed the casting of the spell, meaning its ability will not trigger.

Yours is better. I'll just edit yours. ;)

@Alex P, I always mean a concise answer at the top, but I forgot this time. Thanks for adding it.


text:
Why is Trade Secrets banned in EDH or Commander?
Ban list for commander
I don't see any announcement for Trade Secrets. Why has it been banned? Is there any mention of this card from Wizards, a card they made specifically for Commander?

Trade Secrets was not made specifically for Commander. TS was originally printed in Onslaught.

Commander/EDH is a community-moderated format. Its banned list is not managed by Wizards of the Coast or the DCI. Official announcements from the EDH Rules Committee an be found on mtgcommander.net.
In this case, the April 2013 banned list announcement explains (emphasis added):

Trade Secrets is much like Limited Resources in that has some issues in a multiplayer environment. It isn't a problem when one player draws four cards and another draws eight. Trade Secrets is a problem when both players decide to draw 80 cards and effectively turn a four-player game into a two-player game. It just doesn't add enough to the format to justify the games that it single-handedly ruins.

Duel Commander, also known as "French" 1-on-1 EDH, has a separate rules committee and banned list. You can find their official postings on duelcommander.com. Trade Secrets isn't banned in Duel Commander, since it's not a problem outside multiplayer formats.

I was just about to post the fact that EDH isn't WotC moderated. I think this is an important point when it comes to the ban list.

It breaks multiplayer commander.
Two players in cahoots draw as many cards as they wish (including Reliquary Tower, or some other way to extend their max hand size).
There are other things, but I believe this is the primary reason.

I agree. I think this card was too "chummy" and was causing severe unfunness when two players worked together to beat the rest of the table. Plus it was played in every blue deck just because of how good the draw was.

This card can literally just kill you and hand the win to an opponent, it never should be played.
The moment it resolves, they choose to draw 52 cards and you lose as a state based action.

When they draw 52, you draw 104 and deck out, it is on resolution so there is no chance for priority to flash out labman etc

Trade Secrets doesn't work that way. Either player isn't required to draw additional cards. The targeted player must draw at least two cards, though.

You missed the "up to" part.

When you can draw "up to" 4 cards each time, you can just choose to draw 0 over and over again, you are not forced to draw any cards at all.


text:
Can the Xxcha predict a special victory for Sol or Hakan?
The Xxcha have the ability to predict a winner (solo or from an alliance).
Can they use this ability to predict the special win conditions?
IE: Can the Xxcha player predict a Hakan victory on turn 8 (from his special condition, and not from normal strongholds?)
If so, then the Xxcha player's best choice is to do this (imho) since then all he has to do is make sure no one wins by the end of the game, and have at least 1 unit in one of Sols special win location (preventing Sol from winning, and thus giving the win to Hakan - and subsequently to themselves)

From the rulebook on page 14 (emphasis in rulebook):

Xxcha victory
At the start of the game, the Xxcha player predicts a player and a game round. He records this prediction by choosing a race prediction token and a round prediction token. He places the chosen tokens facedown next to his race sheet and returns all unchosen prediction tokens to the game box (without revealing them).
If the chosen player wins (alone or as an ally, even as the Xxcha’s ally) with any victory condition during the predicted game round, the Xxcha player wins the game instead.

Both the Sol and Hacan Special Victories count as a victory condition. The Xxcha player could predict a Hacan win on turn 8, and whether they Hacan win by stongholds or they win because no one else has, the Xxcha could snatch victory away. This seems like a doable strategy, as long as alliances aren't working to get the game done as fast as possible.


text:
Glaring Spotlight anti-hexproof work on enchantments
Does the Glaring Spotlight's anti-hexproof work on enchantments? So if a creature is not hexproof but has an enchantment such as Alpha Authority, does it still cancel the hexproof?

Glaring Spotlight affects hexproof from all sources, regardless of their type or the timestamp order of their effects.
In many cases in Magic, when two continuous effects do opposite things, we must look at their "timestamps" to figure out the final result.
Glaring Spotlight, however, doesn't remove hexproof from anything; what it does do is change the rules for hexproof. This modification applies to all instances of hexproof on creatures your opponents control, including hexproof granted by enchantments and artifacts.
From the Oracle rulings for Glaring Spotlight:

Creatures your opponents control don’t actually lose hexproof, although you will ignore hexproof for purposes of choosing targets of spells and abilities you control.

Only until Wizards releases "Target creature can no longer be the target of spells and abilities your opponents control, even if other effects have made that creature targetable" or some other crazy hullabaloo...

Well, Glaring Spotlight refers to hexproof specifically. If a creature would be untargetable for some other reason (e.g. it has shroud), that other reason would continue to apply and would not be affected by Glaring Spotlight.


text:
How can I minimize Black Market set up and clean up time?
The Black Market (promotional) card requires considerable set up time.
From description:

Before the game, make a Black Market deck out of one copy of each
  Kingdom card not in the supply.

There are a few ways to approach this:
1) Follow directions literally: take 1 of the 10 cards from each Kindom. For those with several expansions, this would involve drawing over 100 cards, and even more time consuming, putting away these cards when the game is over. Depending on the number of expansions, this could add anywhere between 3 and 15 minutes overhead per game.
2) When we first got the card we used it a lot. So to save time, we did not put away the extra card - instead we always kept a single card out for each Kingdom. This saves on put away, but when setting up the game you have to find the 10 cards for the game (whether or not Black Market is used), which adds 3-4 minutes to every game.
3) An idea we'll soon try: Use the randomizer cards for the Black Market deck, removing the 10 cards in play (which is especially easy if you randomized Kingdoms for a given game, as you already have the cards out). Then, each time a Kingdom is purchased from the Black Market, the regular card is pulled and placed into the purchaser's discard pile, while the randomizer card is removed from the play area (The back of Randomizer cards are a darker shade of blue so that's why you don't want them mixed in with the regular cards).
(1) is too tedious and we'll never do it. (2) was doable but still a bit of chore. I suspect (3) will be best though we haven't tried it yet.
On the other hand, perhaps Dominion players have come up with better methods?
Obviously this is not an issue with online or other form of electronic play, but I'd like to know about the best way to minimize Black Market set up and clean up time with regular play.

number 3 works very well

Turn number 3 into an answer and I'll vote for it. :) It's what I do most of the time.

I've always used option #3, and it works fine.  If you accidentally get a card you shouldn't, just draw another.

Here's an option used by Donald X. Vaccarino. Instead of using the normal randomizer cards, take one card from each kingdom stack and use those for randomizer cards. When you're doing normal randomization, just add the chosen cards to their respective kingdom stacks, and after the game, take one card from each stack to add back to the new randomizers.
Then, when you play Black Market games, you will have a ready-made Black Market deck! The 10 cards in the kingdom will already be out of the randomizer deck, and the backs are the normal backs so you don't have to pull cards from the box like you do with your option 3.
Donald X. Vaccarino talks about this method here.

With this method, I would worry about differences in wear; having one card that has regularly seen more action (by randomizer shufflings) than the rest of that supply pile would (theoretically) make it stand out in the deck/hand.  (I wouldn't worry too much, mind you, but I'd still worry)

If you're worried about wear, just put a different card from the stack into the randomizer deck each time you use the card. I doubt there's much of a problem here anyway - cards get much more wear from normal game shuffling than they would from once-per-game randomizer shuffling.

You already kind of mentioned it in your question, but the randomiser cards are definitely the way to go. If you're like me, you store them together as one deck, separate from the cards that make up the kingdom supply.
I tend not to use the randomiser cards to generate the supply, but it would be pretty trivial to draw a replacement if you ever draw a card that is already in the supply. Obviously, if you do use them to set up, just don't add them back into the Black Market pile before play.
Since the randomisers also have different backs, it should go without saying that you cannot use the randomiser itself to add to your deck, but you should take a "normal" copy of the card when you decide what to buy.

Some randomizer apps have an electronic solution for this that works with tabletop play, but most of them have some lag when new expansions come out.

Another option is to just have a smaller Black Market deck. Each player picks 5 or so cards that aren't being used, and those become the deck. In a two player game you might want to pick 10 each.

With this new, free web-based program, you can create and use your Black Market deck online, only needing to fetch the physical cards when purchased, greatly simplifying game set-up and clean-up.

Do you have any affiliation with that web app? Our advertising policy permits a certain level of recommendation of one's own products, but you must disclose your affiliation. If you have no affiliation, could you make that clear?

The developer is my 12-year-old son, so my affiliation is as a proud papa who now doesn't mind including the Black Market in our Dominion kingdoms.


text:
When is it optimal to purchase a Mint on a 5/2 split?
Every now and then, what seems like a golden opportunity comes up: you start the game with five coppers, and the Mint is in play.  By purchasing this, you can instantly trash five of your starting copper.  However, this leaves you with only two copper in your deck: not enough to purchase a silver.
Say your second buy is the third copper you need for the silver.  Now there are seven cards in your deck: three copper, three estates, and a mint.  This means there is about a (correct me if my math is off) 30% chance that you'll only draw two coppers on your third draw.
If some 2 cost cards are in play, this is less of a problem.  Having a Moat or Cellar, for instance, could draw out coppers, and Secret Chamber or Lighthouse could provide the necessary money to obtain the first silver.
This has already been discussed a bit on Dominion Strategy, but there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus.
When, if ever, is buying a Mint for your first or second buy an optimal move?

Almost never. A first turn Mint wrecks your economy, and being able to buy good cards on turns 3 and 4 is really important in order to not fall behind your opponent.
Mint/Fool's Gold is an elite opening because it allows you to get a massive density of Fool's Gold in your deck quickly.
Mint/Lighthouse is acceptable, especially if there are lots of attacks, but you need a plan to transition your deck into higher value cards quickly.
Every other opening is sub-optimal, according to the Councilroom statistics (which are derived from Isotropic games).

I can verify this with firsthand experience. I once tried to mint immediately on the first turn. Losing all that copper made the next few rounds useless as I had to regain the coppers.

You might also be able to pull off a Mint/Secret Chamber opening, since you'll be able to start buying Silvers without needing to waste early buys on Coppers. Your economy shouldn't falter too much and your Mint should help you overtake Big Money in a little time.

If Mandarin is also available, buying Mandarin/Mint with you turns of 5 buy is sometimes worth it, as the +3coins from the Mandarin mean you can easily get a silver and start minting silver and gold (or other special treasures)
Now dark ages is out there is another good Mint Combo, Mint/Squire. Squire gets you cash and a silver, which is better than any other 2 cost card when you have only 2 coppers left in your deck! If there is a trasher and a good attack card as well then its even better!

I agree with philosophyguy's answer.  Additionally, in rare situations where there are no other trash/upgrade cards, I'd consider opening Mint/Embargo and then embargoing Mint.


text:
Abusing my watchtower?
In Dominion, can I play my treasure cards first, and watchtower last to gain more cards? I tried this last night, and my friend read the rule that says you only play treasure cards in your buy phase.

Your friend is correct.  You may only play treasure cards during your buy phase, at which point you are no longer able to play action cards.

Does this mean this answer is incorrect: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/5937/2133 ?

@Pureferret - you can only play treasure cards during your buy phase, but think of it as playing all of them at the start of the buy phase.  You don't play some treasure, then buy some cards, then play more treasure.  Likewise, all actions must be played before the beginning of the buy phase.  Everything in its right order and in its right place :)

Unless you are playing with Black Market. Black Market lets you play all your tresures in it's "psudo-buy phase". Then you can play more actions, after Black Market resolves.


text:
Model Decks for Game of Thrones The Card Game?
I've recently bought the game of thrones card game, and a group of friends and I enjoyed playing the core game so much we've bought all the basic house expansions.
I don't think any of our players are going to be that much into deck building, but I'd like to  make it so that we have a set of decks (Maybe two for each house) that can provide variety while being balanced.
We didn't mind playing with the decks that came with the game out of the box, but that doesn't incorporate houses Greyjoy or Martell, and when I was playing Martell last night I noticed that quite a few of the cards in the deck that comes out of the box weren't house Martell at all so I would have had to pay extra to play them. (I just unwrapped one of the 3 sets in the expansion because we wanted to get started ASAP.)
Are there any lists of Model decks for each house using the core cards and the cards in the house expansions?

I did a quick search and came up with two good resources for this. First, some general guidelines for building cohesive decks that can work from ElitistJerks.com. The article lays out quite a bit of good information about this process that will probably help in determining how to create your decks.
Second, I found a website where players can post decks they have built. Other players can then rate the decks so you could get a feel for what people think is good (although most decks seem to go unrated as of right now). Each deck page has a list of cards in it, the description and how it is suppose to play, and other statistics on deck composition. The site is divided into each of the six houses, along with a list for neutral decks. This seems to be the best list for what you're doing, since you can focus on one house list and then move to the next when you're done.

The second one sounds good. I'll wait to see if anyone else comes up with anything else and if not I'll mark you as the correct answer.


text:
Are the Goons un-fun?
At my weekly boardgames night earlier this evening I was roped into an all-expansions, 6-player game of Dominion.  A girl on the sidelines piped up: "You should take out the Goons card.  It takes all the fun out of the game."
Needless to say... one of the ten cards randomly selected was the Goons.  Those of us who hadn't played with the most recent expansions inspected the card.  Forcing everyone else to discard down to 3 did seem liable to slow the game to the crawl... but the card did cost a pricey 6.  How bad could it be?

I started with a 2-5 copper split and bought a Haven and a Trading Post.  From there I was able to whittle my deck free of Coppers and Estates until it was a pretty efficient collection of Silvers and Golds.  Even though the player who was buying up Goons was hitting me more turns than not, the three cards left in my hand tended to be worth 5-8 before too long, leaving me in a good position to keep buying Gold, Province and Duchy cards.
I ended the game with 36 points; second place.  The "Goon player" had a fairly crazy 48 points.  What annoyed me about this is that he hadn't really needed to bother scrabbling to buy Provinces with the rest of us: just playing a lot of Goons and buying stuff had allowed him to amass a stack of victory point chips that left the rest of us in the dust.
It's true that there was a pile of Secret Chambers on the table that most of us failed to buy; I could certainly have done with a few, to sculpt my hand against the Goons and dodge the Spy attacks that almost all the other players at the table seemed to be throwing around with abandon.  But it still seems to me that there may be a fair accusation to be levelled against the Goons.  For the price of a Gold, they're a much improved Silver - they can easily net you a couple of Estate's worth of free victory points every time you play them, with none of the downsides to the efficiency of your deck! And if that wasn't bad enough, they are also a really annoying attack, with, as previously mentioned, the potential to slow the whole game to half speed if they are constantly being played.
Obviously no card in Dominion is unconditionally broken: for any card, there will always be a configuration of available cards that will combat it efficiently.  But are Goons too far along the un-fun end of the spectrum?  Was the girl at my group right to propose that they should be removed from the game for its own good?

The effect of every attack is magnified hugely in 6-player Dominion. Goons, as do most attacks, points toward a slower game. Combine that with the fact that 6-player Dominion is naturally pretty slow and it's a bad combination, but I lay the blame more on the 6-player game than the Goons.

Personally, I like that goons opens up the possibility of winning without buying green cards as well as the possibility to have monstrous turns when you've stacked a few goons.
But fun is subjective, if it's not fun for a subset of the players in your group, it is simply not fun for them.
While attacks usually get meaner in Dominion games with more players, Goons isn't really one of the attacks that gets nastier in larger Dominion games.  Since being hit by 10 goons is no worse than being hit by 1, the number of players doesn't matter so much.  Contrast this with a card like witch, where the damage done scales in proportion to how many are played.
Messing with all 5 opponents isn't necessarily better than messing with a single opponent.  You still have to beat all of your opponents.  Imagine you could either get 5 points, or cost every opponent in the game 3 points.  In a 6 player game, you could theoretically cost each opponent 3 points, for a total of 3 * 5 = 15 points, but you'd still only have a relative advantage on each opponent of 3 points.  If instead you took the five point gain, you would have gained 5 points on each of your opponents.  Even though the "net damage" increases with the number of players, the "relative advantage per player" is really the important metric, which is often number of players invariant in Dominion.

Good analysis, sir.  As a Magic player, I'm familiar with the principle that winning the game is much more important than slowing down the rate at which you're losing it: so any card that deals 3 damage is probably better than a card than gains 7 life.  In Dominion, gaining 5 is clearly better than costing everyone else 3!  My lingering issue with the Goons is that they both mess with your opponents and accumulate victory: no one wants to sit through an interminable game they're never going to win.  So I'd rather "spoiler" attack cards weren't efficient game-winners at the same time!

And yet I think Possession (probably the only reason some people hate Alchemy) is much, much worse by those criteria.

NO
Goons is just an upgraded Militia. Had your friend never played with Militia before? All Attack cards are designed to slow down your opponents.

Yeah, putting them side-by-side with Militia does put things into some perspective!  But the upgrade does still seem a powerful one.  Militia may slow the game down just as much as Goons, but it doesn't allow the attacking player to amass a pile of victory of points and slowly win the game by attrition while the other players are wading through the treacle of losing half their hand most turns...

The easy answer to problems like that is "There are ten of them! Everybody has a chance to get one." Goons is even more powerful when you combine it with Watchtower (buy a Copper, trash it, +1 VP), but I've played games where it wasn't worth buying. It all depends on what's in the supply.

Hmm, it could be argued that "everyone has an equal chance to get the unfun card" doesn't make it fun again.  Suppose every player plays Goons every turn, everyone's hand is effectively permanently at 3, and the game takes twice as long as usual to complete.  That's "balanced", but not "fun".  Still, I definitely agree with the last part of your comment, Dominion is a million different games depending on which cards you used, and no card (yet printed) is always a rotten apple!

I have friends who sometimes get frustrated when a game of Dominion seems to be all about Attacks, but I really enjoy brutal games. It forces me to try out new strategies: How can I ensure that, with only three cards, I still have a decent turn? How can I turn a Copper or Curse flood into an advantage for me? To me, that's fun, but I understand not everyone feels that way.

It's interesting to pull out the flipside of Goons, that is: What's left after you "subtract" the Militia from it. --- "Friendly Goons" +1 Buy.  While this card is in play, when you buy a card, gain 1 VP. (Cost: 2 coins) [Action] --- Would you buy Friendly Goons?  Is it overpowered?  I'm not sure myself.  I'm just wondering...

@invisiblejon: I think that Friendly Goons would probably be overcosted for 2.  +1 Buy, +1 Action, while in play, when you buy a card, gain 1 VP perhaps?  (The advantage of the 6-cost Goons is that you get so much synergistic stuff from 1 Action.

...Which is pretty much the point of Prosperity. I'm not sure 2 would be too much. I mean, Monument costs 4, and Goons can yield a much better payout in VP than Monument can. If you kept the +2 coins in Goons, it'd be worth at least 4, maybe 5.

Re costing of Friendly Goons: I hesitate to bring up MtG, but even though a card like "deal 3 damage to one target" might cost 1 red mana, "deal 3 damage to three targets" would have to cost way more than 3 red mana... That's why I feel like you can't just subtract the cost of Militia from Goons to get Friendly Goons.  Part of the 6 value is getting all the effects at once, no?

Your thinking agrees with the cost of Throne Room vs. King's Court or Remodel vs. Expand, but I'm not sure it should always be the case.

The fact that Goons is a Victory Point engine makes it much, much stronger than Militia. Goons decks sometimes don't even bother with Provinces.

Late to the discussion here, but... The thing about Goons is that, unless you're combining it with Watchtower or Trader, you either need big money to make it work, or risk gaining tons of low-cost bad cards (Coppers particularly).  It's also not as good for generating victory tokens as Bishop is (which is $2 cheaper to buy).

I think the real issue you're having is with attack cards in general. If you want more player interaction, a bit more competition, the necessity for on the fly adaptations, and everybody's fine with keeping attacks in, then go for it. The choose between a more or less competitive game is one we have to make every time we sit down to play.
When in doubt, ask the other people what they think. :D

I do feel like attack cards don't always scale very well to 6-player games.  Messing with 5 other players' ability to operate effectively is, almost by definition, better value than messing with 1-3 other players!  Also, it takes a lot longer to resolve each attack, especially if you have to make a decision for each other player, e.g. with the Spy...

Pirate Ship and Thief are examples of cards that can become far more beneficial to the attacking player as you add more players, in addition to affecting each other player. On the flipside, the other players' supplies of Treasures drop a lot faster too.

Agreed.  Any time any attack card comes up during setup, I evaluate it with the group I'm playing with (both whether they would enjoy it, and whether our group size would make the game too slow), and then replace it when necessary.

When Goons are on the board, you usually have a Goon-focused game. Chapel has a similar property.
If you don't like Goon-focused games, don't put them in your kingdom set. Goon games flow differently than non-Goon games, so it's understandable you'd like the rest of Dominion but not Goons
Still, if you're new to Goons, give them a few more games before you pass judgement.

It seems like you didn't really seem to have much of a problem buying cards, you were merely surprised that he was able to win using the victory tokens. So did it really make it un-fun?
Is goons broken? I mean the attack is nowhere near as ruinous as Witch/Mountebank/Pirate Ship/Sea Hag. Sure its a great card, but there are definitely ways to work around it, and it generally isn't an auto-buy unless you can make use of the +buy and/or have +actions. So I can't really justify "banning" it unless you just don't like attack cards in general.
For instance, spending time trashing cards really isn't that efficient against mass goons, because you could just keep the junk and discard it. So maybe it might have been more effective to get a different 5 cost card rather than trading post and make use of that secret chamber you mentioned.
The bottom line is, ya goons is great, but for a 6 cost card, it only gives 2 buying power, and the attack is average. It is basically a militia for 6 that trades what could have been more buying power for some victory tokens for the end game. I definitely wouldn't leave it under the card tray where pirate ship is.

Goons make for a very un-fun game, and here's why:
Goons are more than an "upgraded militia." Other attack cards are mainly attack cards, and the person buying the card understand that they mostly deter other players, but do not benefit the person as much as they could.
Goons would be a great card to have in your deck even if they didn't attack the other players. It gives you +1 buy and one free victory coin for each buy, so just buy coppers. Pairing it with a Worker's Village gives three buys, which is 3 easy points that don't clog up your deck. Other cards in Prosperity make trashing those coppers easy.
I played with three other people including my grandmother, who doesn't even fully know how to play the game. She played a worker's village and then a Kings' Court with a Goons on it, then one more Goons. This gave her 6 buys total, +8 treasures (and whatever else she had in hand), and FOUR VICTORY COINS for every card she bought. Bam. Bought one Province, 5 coppers, gained THIRTY POINTS, 24 of which were coins that did not clog up her deck. IN ONE TURN. Plus, no one could get enough more than 6 treasures in hand thanks to the discard rule of the Goons, so the game slowed to a crawl as well.
Yes, this hand was very lucky, BUT it's a broken strategy. Getting just Worker's Villages and Goons would work well enough to net you all the coins that come with the game and stop the other players from getting any footing.
I would not say Goons is broken, but I will say that it is an attack card that has too much incentive for players to get the card, so it comes into play a lot, and inevitably slows down the game just the same as if everyone bought nothing but Militias.

King's Courting a Goon doesn't give you +3VP per buy. The rules specifically clarifies that "while Goons is in play" doesnt apply to those virtual copies of Goons that you play with King's Court.

So, does that mean for example, that if you play 2 Goons then make 2 buys you still only get a total of 2VP tokens? Because that is what is sounds like. Generally doesn't King's Court make it like you played a card (Goons in this case) 3 times?

Generally, any text below a line on an action card (like Goons's "While this is in play" clause) is not multiplied by cards such as King's Court.

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


text:
Is there much strategy and planning in 7-Wonders or is mostly luck?
I have played about 15 games of Seven Wonders now.
When I ask the winning player why they won, they tend to tell me what they did rather than why they did it, and rarely does it involve anything clever.  The smartest thing I've seen a winning player do was start with the board with Glass as a resource and bury to Glass cards to build up his wonder for the first two phases of his wonder.  But winning often is related to things out of your control, such as

Your neighbor builds up lots of resources so that you can use them for trading.
No other player goes for the same strategy as you so they don't build the cards you want.
Your neighbors build up little military, so you don't need to waste resources contending with them and can still get lots of points from beating them.
Your neighbors pick the same strategy as each other, so you can get a valuable guild.
You get access to resources needed to progress through building your wonder early.

In contrast, Dominion and Race for the Galaxy, both games that I really enjoy, a skilled player can exert a lot of control over the game.  I readily admit luck is a factor in both games, but there is a lot of room for skill to influence the outcome.  Whether its from picking a better strategy from the initial board setup and picking appropriate card counters as the game progresses in Dominion, or building a tableau to mitigate advantages in probable phase selections and choosing actions to counter opponents selections in Race, there is a big return on skill for both of those games.  I just don't see the same room for planning, strategic decisions and maneuvering in Seven Wonders.
What am I missing?

I've only played one game so far, and that was the 2 player variant (and we were getting to know the rules too), so I'll have to get back to you when I've had a few more goes!  I get the impression that there's a lot of skill you can bring to bear; but that skill lies in adapting to circumstances rather than coming to the table with a fixed strategy - and even then, in a 7 player game, there may be little you can do to deal with someone on the other end of the table, other than play the best game you can.  But it only lasts 30 minutes, so no need to stress out, just have fun with it!

The simplest, but ridiculously effective, starting strategy for 3-5 players is Reds and Blues.

I think you are missing a third choice in the title.  7 Wonders is tactical. So is RFTG btw

playing teams makes the game better, that way, you actually can plan out a strategy, because you know which cards will come when.

Your strategy should be highly dependent on your particular city's special strengths and weaknesses. For example, if you're the city (I forget which one) with the "science wild card" special power, then you have some benefit to concentrating on green cards. If you're Giza, you'll need a lot of raw materials to build your wonders, so it would be risky to depend on your neighbors to do so.
The biggest factor in your strategy's success is seeing the inherent relationship between your city and your neighbors' cities.
Check to see what materials you need to build your wonder levels and how those compare to what your neighbors need to build theirs. I have seen several games in which players could not build their last level because there was one item they needed that neither they nor their neighbors supplied.
When you have a special city power that involves free buildings, or getting something from the discard pile, then timing your build is very critical. Don't build the "rifle through the discard pile" when there is no discard pile yet. Obviously the later you use this power the better.
One handy tactic with the "free building from the discard pile" power is to discard a very expensive high-value card like the Palace, turn it in for the three coins, and then build the special power level, in which case you get it right back -- a free build plus three coins.
With some cities it's best to build the levels early, and others to wait as long as possible. Don't forget to make a mental note to set aside cards to build your levels, cards that you can't use. Don't get to the end of Age III with two cards and two unbuilt levels.
As for military power, the players I've played with tend to be either/or. Very rarely do they start with a red card in age one and then add a few more over the course of the game. The benefit of being without any red cards depends a lot on the players TWO cities away from you.
It's about opportunity costs -- is building that next red card worth the VP of the cards you're passing over?

Agree with this: the interdependency on neighboring players is far bigger than it looks. We did a strategy analysis of the game recently (https://strategygamegeeks.com/2019/07/04/a-strategy-map-for-scythe-analyzing-the-game-and-a-compendium-of-tips-for-victory/) and it's that interdependency and the guild cards which drive the most interesting strategies.

7 Wonders is a very different kind of game than Race or Dominion.  Race & Dominion are both "group solitare" games.  By that I mean that there is little one can do to affect one's opponent.  The game is mostly your own strategy.
7 Wonders is strictly an "adaptive" game. You cannot go in with any kind of strategy; even choosing wonders is random according to the rules.  Every decision you make affects all other opponents, neighbors more than the others.  If you don't take that into account, by, say knowing "I'm going to pass these 6 cards, and I know my left neighbor will likely choose this card, so I should choose to do X", then yes, the game will feel random.
My biggest criticism of this type of game is that weak players give other players big advantages.  If you want to enjoy 7 wonders, play with people who know the game well, start thinking about everyone's tactics not just your own, and stop worrying about strategy.

See: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/775/whats-the-difference-between-a-tactic-and-a-strategy

Excellent insight and well said.

I've played several times now - always with six to seven players - so I have a few thoughts.
1) Go with one major strategy and one minor strategy (Ex: Primary red, secondary blue.).  Which ones to go with varies from game to game of course, but blue is often ignored and easy to go with (especially if you're focusing on building off of prerequisites instead of using resources).
Why?  Because you're spreading your risk.  Also, players tend to not have a strong strategy, and their scores suffer for this.
2) Science (green) is worth crazy points, and is often easy to sneak past your opponents. For reasons I don't understand, players tend to pay too much attention to your resources, and your warfare icons, and overlook the science icons. When in doubt, go for green as your primary strategy.  This is doubly true if your neighbors keep passing it to you.
3) The primary mechanics of the game are card drafting, followed by set collection.  If some of the players are weaker at card drafting than others, the players they're passing cards to have an advantage.  If the players receiving cards are very good at card drafting, they're going to do well.  Consequently, if you're playing in a group of unequally skilled card drafters, you should watch what everyone is laying out, make a point of pointing out players who are doing especially well (especially in green), and (however uncouth it may be) offer advice on what not to pass that player.
4) Money is worth points at the end of the game, and resources are useful during play, so it's worthwhile to have a lot of resources that you (and your neighbors) can use.  Money they give you turns into victory points later.
5) 7 Wonders is very much about assessing what you've been given, what your neighbors are ignoring, and what you'll be able to build into later.  Like I said above, it's a card-drafting game; if you understand card drafting, you'll do better.
6) Unless they fall into your lap, you can largely ignore red cards. Warfare doesn't net you massive points. On its own, a perfect warfare score will net you 18 points. Similar effort in other areas (green, blue) typically does better.  If you ignore it and fail as completely as possible, you'll net negative six points.  Typically, if you ignore it, at least one neighbor will also and you'll net negative three points.
...and that's pretty much what I have to say on it.

I was about to take issue with "on its own, a perfect warfare score will net you 18 points", but I see you did address the -6 you can also save.  In real terms, warfare can be worth 24 points, assuming your neighbours aren't completely uninterested in picking up red cards and giving you defeat tokens.  That's about the same as two sets of three science cards... and almost certainly you won't need to spend 6 plays setting it up!  I agree that science is probably underrated by players to begin with, but it seems crazy to discount warfare, especially if your group starts fighting over science!

S'truth, and I'm glad you're pointing it out.  I sincerely believe that every color has a lot to offer and presents a good path to victory.  I suspect that once I get to play with more experienced players, I'll find that Science is less easy to score big with (and I may fall into Warfare, who knows?).

Strongly disagree about ignoring warfare.  In addition to being able to net 20-24 points, often with only 4 (or even 3 with the right wonder) red cards, there is the "twist the knife" guild which gives you a point per -1 chip of your neighbors.  While I don't generally play them early in the round of turn 1, it could work as an intimidation tactic if you've already got the resource to play one.

Start by reading this "dissertation", as somebody on that forum put it: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/691370/some-complex-strategies-for-7-wonders. Nobody addressed this, but the strategy depends a lot on the number of players. With 6-7 people, your feeble attempts to build up the powerful army are only going to take points away from 2/5 = 40% or 2/6 = 33% of the players, while in the 3-player game, the wins and losses affect everybody, and you cannot afford to ignore the military. A three player game is short on brown resources -- play them when they come by, or bury them under if you can, especially if you already have it, and thus are the main provider of this material. A four player game is short on the gray resources -- same mantra.
The Pyramids of Giza give you a clear indication of what you should shoot for: 3 points per card in the first age, 5 points in the second stage, 7 points in the third age. So if you are playing a 5-point blue card in the third age, that's not the greatest achievement; and likewise if you are playing a lonely technology symbol in the third age for 1 point, that's hardly great, either -- but it's a totally different story if that green card completes your second triplet of technologies, bringing you 10 points, way better than the benchmark of 7. (The only excuse to play that lonely green card is if it is the fifth card in the third age, you see your neighbor to the left missing just that card, and the remaining two are purple guilds for which you have nothing at all, or military that won't change anything in the balance of power.)
The military aspect is probably one of the greatest and funnest aspects of the game: I rarely go for it unless I have the Rhodes (in which case I do everything humanly possible to build it up in the first era), and point fingers in the final scoring to my neighbor to the left, of whom I got +1, +3, +5 (and he got -1, -1, -1) with a single shield from the first age, and the neighbor to the right who totally won over me with 9 shields, but lost every round to the fourth player with 13 shields (and the guy with 13 shields won over my left hand neighbor with 4 cards, while I won with just one). [Well, that was in one of the less experienced players game, obviously.] The useless, costly and addictive arms race is a great feature.
All in all, there is no single winning strategy, but you need to be aware of multiple strategies, and adapt your game to whatever you can grab at the moment. Usually, by about the third card in the second era, you already know what you have to do to keep afloat -- and if you are lucky, you win.

The short answer is that the strategy part of the game is to maximize your ability to apply tactics - if you do that, you will score well.  Even the best tactician will lose if they fail to grasp the strategies for maximizing choice.
Think ahead strategically about how you are going to be affording cards in later rounds.  There are various techniques that all work.

Lots of diverse browns, use yellow cards to get greys.
All three greys, few browns, use yellow cards to get most browns.
A small, diverse set of resources (say, a couple either/or cards) plus cash/yellows
upgrades (best with wonder ability to occasionally play cards for free via your wonder.)
mostly gold cards
hoard resources of certain kinds (and build your wonder with copies of it) so you can get paid a lot of gold; use that gold to buy others.  (I haven't actually tried this one but have seen it work well.)  Best with a wonder that requires lots of one or two resources.

It's important for the strategy to be coherent.  For example, it's a bit better better to focus on brown or grey (or both) than to mix a bit of each, due to later cards that reward concentration, as well as the fact that it's easier to find complementary yellow cards when you are weak in one and strong in the other.
What you're going to buy with the resources is more tactical, and is generally based on what comes easily rather than overpaying for that perfect card.  You can win with a bit of this and a bit of that, or going whole hog in one thing.  You can mix in military or not.  You can go for 1, 2, or 3 sets of science cards.  You can build blue chains or just get expensive blues at the end with your lots of resources.

Woah, I was totally shocked at the one person who responded about Science, Warfare and Card Drafting.
First and foremost, in response to this: "Consequently, if you're playing in a group of unequally skilled card drafters, you should watch what everyone is laying out, make a point of pointing out players who are doing especially well (especially in green), and (however uncouth it may be) offer advice on what not to pass that player", I am totally appalled.  There is certainly nothing in the rules that state you can't say anything, but trying to tell other people how to play the game not only makes you seem controlling but also lessens the fun of the game.  Save the comments for after the game is complete, and then suggest what things others might have done differently (winning the game might help your cause here).  For all you know, you are telling them to burn a card so their opponent doesn't get it, but in reality there is a card there that would net them 10 victory points.
Second, going all military is worth more than 18 points.  Depending on how many people are playing, it could be worth up to 24.  By getting 18 points, you have also reduced two opponents by 3 points each.  Put this in perspective that the majority of the games I have played (with 5 or 6 people who thrive on boardgames and boardgame strategy) winning individuals typically finished with 60 points, this is a quick and easy way to 1/3 of the total points needed.  True that you do not know how much you will need to invest into military (which is why I try to wait as much as I can into round 1 to decide), but in a normal game, 4 military cards is enough, which is one of the lowest card-to-victory point ratios in the game.  With the exception of some Guilds and Yellow Cards that give victory points for opponents resources, Military is up there.
As for Science, I don't see anyway to not make your strategy obvious.  You can get away with two rounds of going for science, but after that, everyone knows.  This does not mean that you will necessarily be halted in your strategy, but that coming across those cards then becomes increasingly more difficult.
I do agree for the most part that there isn't any one particular strategy that wins the game.  This isn't an overwhelmingly strong strategic game, but it has some elements of making the best decision for yourself at every opportunity.
I've played this game dozens of times at this point, and can honestly say that there are only a few things I have learned.
First, do not bother with cards that can get resources from your opponents for 1 less coin (unless you truly have no other better option).  This isn't worth it, as you should be avoiding borrowing resources as much as possible.  Choose a resource card over these cards and pay the 2 coins if necessary to get the resource you need in the future.  You'll spend less coins this way and have more resources for future cards.
Next, try to diversify your resources.  This will give you more flexibility in your card choices as well as give you extra income from the opponents who need to borrow the resource.  I'm particularly careful to take a resource card that I see neither of my neighboring opponents have (or their neighbors as well!).
In connection with the diversifying your resources, it is also worth the 1 coin to get the resource card with either two types or two of the same resource on it.  Don't waste two actions by getting a free brick and free wood card, when you can spend 1 action and 1 coin for a card that does both.  Actions are the most valuable thing you have (you typically only get 18 actions per game, excluding some special circumstances), and given the option, I would pay far more than 1 coin for additional actions.
Finally, do not underestimate the ability to build free cards.  This is where science can be extremely helpful.  For your first few games, just start to become familiar with them.  After you have played enough, pay special attention to them.  I can't tell you how many times I could have swept the game if only I had built a Library in the second round.  Do not confuse this strategy with only taking cards you can get for free, as you should be taking whatever cards will maximize your score, even if they cost money.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

"Don't bother with cards that get resources from your opponents for 1 less coin".  In a vacuum, perhaps these cards are underwhelming.  But Seven Wonders is never played in a vacuum.  If one of your neighbours is building up a vast array of resources, then why bother aggressively competing with them?  For the cost of one card, and a very reasonable fee thereafter, you can get all the benefits of their hard work, and spend your valuable plays doing something more interesting instead.  What I like about Seven Wonders is there are few awful strategies: just ineffective use of your neighbours!

Hi Sun, I can't argue with that.  There is certainly a time and place for any strategy or situation.  I have just found that it is better to grab a resource (which gives it to you for free) than a card which can get an opponents resource for 1 coin.
If you simply can't get resource cards because your opponent(s) are grabbing them all up, then you have to adjust accordingly ... and the yellow card is a good way to adjust.

-1 for bad advice about trading posts.  The "yellow card" strategy is fairly underappreciated.  I scored 68 once by playing no resources, only yellow cards.  Don't forget that there are cards later that get you VPs and money for every gold card you have.  What's wrong with generating cash plus buying all your resources from your neighbors?

Drew,
I see you are taking the "I once won a game when I did ..." road that so many people employ when someone else offers their opinion/advice on a game.
Let's assume your post is accurate.  You have clearly uncovered that the game is broken, and that an all card yellow strategy is the best method.  Everyone should employ this strategy at all costs.
My post was more of a strategy in general, not an end all "absolutely never buy a yellow card".  There is a time and place for all strategies.  I'm merely offering a suggestion when employing a normal strategy, not some specific situation.

I agree with you when talking about trading posts. I noticed that when player builds resources cards, he collects more points more often than playing without them. If you build resource card you can get additional money and points from your neighborhoods and from trading cards you gain nothing - just spending your money. And it is always better to build up resources earlier as you can while other users are lacking of them. P.S. @Drew Hoskins you don't need to -1 comments only if opinion is different from yours.

I also disagree about trading posts. I've only played this 5 times, so I won't claim to be an expert, but I don't think they're useless at all. The big benefit that hasn't been mentioned is the ability to play future cards for free with them. Having those flexible resource generators in the late game, especially since you don't know which Guild cards are going to be available, isn't a concept that should just be brushed away. I do agree they seem to provide less of a short term benefit, but you are gaining something in return.

Having played this for the last year and normally on a bi-weekly basis if not more, I can atest there is a lot of strategy.  But at the same time there is still the luck factor based on what is in each set, your leaders, and the board chosen.
Strength of group and knowledge of the game is by far the biggest factor in the game.  If you know what your doing more points are available to you.  As another pointed out Military is a solid 21 point difference on both sides of you if you win it all.
At the same time you have to assess what is going to help out your opponents, and I've come to the conclusion that unless your pure feeding your opponent everything that is worth points while not making any yourself, its more focusing on your own goals than opponents.  Then again my group is more of a competitive fun than anything else, as if we were a bit more hardcore I think our games would be quite a bit different.

I don't think 7 Wonders is based much on luck, it has a lot of strategy and in a very clever way because players must choose their strategy in every game according to a number of variables such as:

the number of players
his wonder
the strategy of his neighbour players

This is what makes this game interesting and unique. It's never the same game. However there are some general guidelines and usually your wonder gives a good indication of what you should go after. Check out a strategy guide I wrote.

I played a large game once, and more recently, several two player games. There are huge differences because in the two player game, by the end of turn two of each age, you've seen 14 of the 20 cards that will be played (the bottom card of the free city draft is never played.) In addition, the stack of cards (plus 1 from the draft each turn) that is used by the free city does not change for the entire age. So you are very, very much head to head with your opponent. You can look at the resources they are building, the free cards they could get, and you can manipulate the free city to buy from you, and bury cards useful to your opponent in Wonders. Before choosing my cards, I take a look at the resources currently available to my opponent, and rule out cards they would find useful. These cards might be left for use until later in the age, if I don't already find them really valuable.
So if you want more strategy in your 7 Wonders, perhaps you can try games with fewer players. While I'm eager to try larger games, the idea of playing with 6 other players and not seeing the same stack of cards to choose from for the rest of each age is slightly terrifying!

What you are missing? The same thing I was. This article helps a lot! It explains the "why" in great detail.
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/691370/some-complex-strategies-for-7-wonders

Would you please summarize some of the important bits here? If that link ever goes dead (and they frequently do), your answer will have no content.  ...also, this is exactly the same link as in another answer, that was posted last year. Your answer isn't adding anything new.

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


text:
Is Lookout usually a good pick with a Big Money strategy?
According to the Dominion Strategy wiki, Lookout doesn't go well with a Big Money strategy. Do you agree?
To clarify: I mean Big Money in a broad sense. So picking up at most a couple of cards, then focusing on money.

I certainly agree. For the hand playing it, Lookout is a dead card. Since you're considering a Big Money (BM) strategy, the natural comparison is against Silver. The first time you play it, if you're lucky, you remove a single dead card from your deck (an Estate), you're back to where you started, and you had to play with a 4-card hand that, had you had a Silver instead, could likely have bought you a good $5 or Gold! By the time you've played the Lookout twice, it's probably turn 6-8; the game is close to half over. The Silver could have catapulted you to Gold or a good $5 twice now, and you'd have a Silver in your deck too.
Lookout is fine if the BM is flavored by Cursing, and Sea Hag in particular. In this case it removes negative points, hits more dead cards, and has a longer time to work in the more drawn-out cursing environment.
I would be very surprised if Lookout/Smithy/BM beats Smithy/BM, for the same reasons as above (and because the Smithy can draw the Lookout dead!) For Lookout to be good in the absence of Curses, you need to have an engine in mind.

Lookout + Smithy would work better. There is little point using Lookout with no other action cards, as the +1 action is what makes lookout a good card. Generally "Big Money" means not buying any action cards, and Big Money + X means buying 1 of the X card, e.g. Big Money + Smithy. Big Money + Lookout and no other action cards therefore isn't a very good strategy, as the +action should be used with another action card! But if you are playing Lookout/Smithy you aren't really playing Big Money any more.

"But if you are playing Lookout/Smithy you aren't really playing Big Money any more." I don't think this is accurate. Big Money doesn't have to mean just 0 or 1 action cards in addition to money. It just means that you are much more focused on getting money than you are on other actions cards. See this article on Big Money for more details: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=6403.0


text:
Trader vs Torturer, where does the Silver go?
My opponent plays a Torturer. I have a Trader in hand. I choose to gain a Curse and then reveal the Trader and gain a Silver instead. Does the Silver go to my hand like the Curse would have?

The Silver Gained from Trader works exactly the same as any other Gain; as Trader's text doesn't specify anything to the contrary, the Gained card goes directly to your discard pile.  This situation is explicitly mentioned on page 11 of the Hinterlands instructions:

If the card you were going to gain was not going to your discard pile, the Silver still goes to your discard pile; if the card you were going to gain did not come from the Supply, the Silver still comes from the Supply.