text:
Instant theft vs activated ability
My opponent had a creature with an activated ability. He activated it to change his life total and in response I cast an instant taking control of the creature. He said the ability still resolved in his favor because it was already on the stack. I felt that it did not because it wasn't under his control for the resolution. I asked then if I cast the instant first he said that he would still be able to activate the ability due to it taking place at instant speed. Did he twist the rules to simply protect himself or is he correct that no matter what he gets to use the ability?

Please include the exact creature and ability; the wording may matter.

Your opponent is correct. Once activated, the ability has no connection to the source in terms of who controls it.

113.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability.

109.5. The words “you” and “your” on an object refer to the object’s controller, its would-be controller (if a player is attempting to play, cast, or activate it), or its owner (if it has no controller). For a static ability, this is the current controller of the object it’s on. For an activated ability, this is the player who activated the ability. For a triggered ability, this is the controller of the object when the ability triggered, unless it’s a delayed triggered ability. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.

Redundant rule:

113.8. The controller of an activated ability on the stack is the player who activated it.

Depends on the activated ability. If it is "gain 1 life", then he is correct. Once an ability is put on the stack, it exists independently of its source.
In the case you cast the instant first, he is permitted to respond before the instant resolves (barring split-second and such.)
Note that if you do lethal damage to the player before the ability resolves, the game will be over and the ability won't be able to resolve.
EDIT:
As the other answer pointed out:

113.8. The controller of an activated ability on the stack is the player who activated it.

Thus, when you say:

I felt that it did not because it wasn't under his control for the resolution.

In fact, the ability is still under their control, even though you have gained control over the creature.
In the case the ability is activated after the spell is cast:

602.2. To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Only an object’s controller (or its owner, if it doesn’t have a controller) can activate its activated ability unless the object specifically says otherwise. Activating an ability follows the steps listed below, in order. If, at any point during the activation of an ability, a player is unable to comply with any of those steps, the activation is illegal; the game returns to the moment before that ability started to be activated (see rule 728, “Handling Illegal Actions”). Announcements and payments can’t be altered after they’ve been made.
...
602.2b The remainder of the process for activating an ability is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2b–i. Those rules apply to activating an ability just as they apply to casting a spell. An activated ability’s analog to a spell’s mana cost (as referenced in rule 601.2f) is its activation cost.

Note that there is no rule against activating an ability "at instant speed". For instance, contrast rule 307, which gives permission to cast sorceries when the stack is empty:

Sorceries
307.1. A player who has priority may cast a sorcery card from their hand during a main phase of their turn when the stack is empty. Casting a sorcery as a spell uses the stack. (See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”)

Rule 602, which gives permission to activate abilities, contains no such condition that requires "when the stack is empty", which means they can activate "in response" to your ability.

What's a scenario where it wouldn't work this way? The player who activates an ability controls it, and an activated ability exists on the stack independent of its source. I can't think of a scenario where it depends on what the activated life-gain ability is, it's going to resolve even if the source changes controllers (and even if the ability references the card itself).

Since the question said "change" rather than gain life, my first thought was Tree of Redemption. It would be helpful if the question was more specific. Tree of Redemption changing controllers might cause its toughness to change, which may affect "how favourably" the ability would resolve.

Please include the rules and sources that back up this answer.

I've added some rules to back up the answer, but I don't know into how much detail the answer should go, especially because the question is so vague. The complete answer would involve the abilities being put on the stack, whatever control-changing effect being put on the stack, priority being passed, etc. Under rule 117.3, priority is given in APNAP order, but maintained when something is put on the stack (see rule 117.3c). Unfortunately, OP did not give enough detail to explain exactly how the priority passing works, but the result would be as I described.

if it depends on the ability, then what would be an example of an ability which would not work due to the controller of creature changing?

Aside from the Tree of Redemption example above, an activated ability with "gain 1 life for each creature you control" would still work, but might work less "in his favor", which is the language used in the question. I did a quick search on scryfall, and there seems to be no such creature yet. Near misses include angel of renewal, which is a triggered ability, and Immaculate Magistrate, which does +1/+1 counters. In these cases, the controller changing would not stop the ability from resolving, but will affect what it does.

Tree of Redemption isn't mentioned in the answer you wrote here

@NuclearHoagie I suppose one could come up with edge cases, such as the ability being "If you control the most creatures, gain 3 life". I'm pretty sure the game would check the number of creatures controlled by each player as of the ability resolving.


text:
Two components I’m trying to identify
I have two components I’m trying to identify.
The first is the card with no. 10 on it.
The second is a crown with numbers on it.
Sorry for the low resolution.

Welcome to [boardgames.se]! Please do not delete questions after getting an answer, that is frowned upon here.

They are from Innovation and A Feast for Odin.
You can see the 10 card from Innovation here.
You can see the crown in an image of this review of A Feast For Odin here.
As you also seem to have cards from Jaipur and Hanabi in the same photograph I hope your not using the internet to cheat at a quiz by getting answers from others!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Help me find this game from the 2000s!
It was from when I was really little, it was a stuffed white dog that I believe called out the bingo things and you had either the red or blue board and the pieces had little paw prints on them. The dog needed batteries, and (I could be wrong on this part) looked kind of like the Target dog and had blue markings on him??? My sister remembers it too but we cannot find it anywhere.

Was it more a bingo type of playing or similar to https://www.amazon.co.uk/abeec-Whos-Good-Family-Game/dp/B0C3HB1DCJ (has a red/ blue board, paws on the back, a dog on the cover with blue color - it doesnt have a talking dog and is from this year but if the play style looks familiar, it might have an earlier publisher in your year range)

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


text:
What board game is this piece from?
These little blue pieces came in baggies of 12, all identical (same color and shape). These are metal, but there were also little baggies of plastic pieces - same size and color. They are approx 1" tall, 1" wide, and 1/4" thick. There are no markings on them. What game did they come from? What are they used for? Thanks!

Do you actually know they are board game pieces?

Yes, they were on a table with only board game pieces at a board game convention.

Metal board game pieces are practically unheard of. The only pieces I've seen made of metal were coins in fancy versions.


text:
I’m trying to identify from what game a cardboard token I saw is from

I have no idea what game this might be from. Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

What country was this image/token found?
What context was this token found?  (grandma's house, found in roomate's sock?)
Every clue helps!

That appears to be the game Jekyll vs Hyde and you can find more information on it on boardgame geek.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/297129/jekyll-vs-hyde

Thank you for your assistance

There’s a photo of the game clearly showing this token here: https://boardgamegeek.com/image/6128635/jekyll-vs-hyde

Google image search brought up this game in french.  As I don't read French not sure what else to tell you.
https://paradoxetemporel.fr/31487-test-de-jekyll-vs-hyde.html
That said, as Philip Kendall states, there is more info at Board Game Geek:
Jekyll vs Hyde

More info (as always) at BGG.

Doh, of course.  I rarely use that site, so I never think of it!


text:
What is the position on compound words in German language Scrabble?
I have tried googling this and have found nothing.  Maybe it's just that I don't speak German so can't google properly.
So, I understand that in German arbitrary compound words can be created.  It is honestly not that different than forming compounds in English except that in German they are considered to be one word with no spaces.  For example, what in English is motor vehicle liability insurance in German is Kraftfahrzeughaftpflichtversicherung.
But if you google a little you find sites like this that will list "the longest word in the German language dictionary".  So I guess that implies that certain compounds are in the dictionary and some are not?
So how does this work in Scrabble?  Are only existing compound words that are in a word list allowed?  How does one possibly remember which compounds are in the lexicon and which are not?  If everything goes, then how it is decided if a compound is valid or ridiculous?

"How does one possibly remember which compounds are in the lexicon and which are not?" Required reading

@PhilipKendall:  Sure, I'm aware of Nigel.  But somehow this is more along the lines of knowing which words in English ending in -ing can take an -s.   It must be extremely confusing and largely arbitrary.

How does one possibly remember which compounds are in the lexicon and which are not? One doesn't: if you think it will be – place it and see if the word will be challenged.

Even if the word would fit on a scrabble board, you would not be able to use this one because the parts that the word is made from are too long to add in a single turn (Haftpflicht and Versicherung).
The second problem is that while compound words as a whole are making sense, you can not just use parts.
Rind(er)-kennzeichnung-s-fleisch-etikett(ierung)-s-überwachung-s-aufgabe(n)-übertragung-s-gesetz
( ) in that word marks a plurar, bold is a connecting letter and emphasis makes a verb out of the noun.
In that example you would not say: Kennzeichnungsfleisch is a german word, you can have a Kennzeichung Fleisch. The reason in the long compound word, Kennzeichnung would act as a description for Rinder and Fleisch as part of Etikett.
So it is wrong to say you can build arbitrary compound words, the parts in the word need to make sense.

You seems to be concentrating on the fact that you can't just glue words together.  OK, fine.  The ultimate questions is, assuming that the compound word you form is grammatical, then is it allowed if it's not explicitly in your lexicon?

I'm not saying that it only needs to be grammatically correct, the word itself needs to make sense. Schwarzfahren is in Duden and everyone knows what it is (driving public transport without ticket - color black + driving). Gelbfahren is build by the same principle (yellow) but would not be valid not only because the word does not have a meaning. If a word makes sense (and is short enough to fit on a scrabble board), most likely you will find it in the duden

Regarding the first statement: Haft -> Haftpflicht / sicher -> Sicherung / -> Haftpflichtversicherung would work, if the board was wide enough

When you play Scrabble, you should first agree on what lexicon or dictionary you will use to arbitrate a challenge. Playing with German words is no different than any other language.
There is an online checker for German words at https://scrabblemania.de/ published by Deutscher Scrabble e.V.
You can't use Kraftfahrzeughaftpflichtversicherung anyway, because it won't fit on a Scrabble board.


text:
If my Red Three is not melded or in a meld then is it minus points? Canasta
By which I mean, say I have picked up and displayed a red three.
My opponent has gone out, with them having 1 Natrual 5s Canasta and myself having 1 Natrual Ace Canasta, with three 6 cards left in my hand, is my red three (100points) minus points along with the rest of my hand?

Red Three's are automatically melded and put onto the table regardless of how many, this is the case if you are dealt one at the start or draw one latter. In your case each red three you have is worth 100 points and they double in value if you have all 4
Rules

When a new hand is dealt, the hands of both players are checked to see if they contain a Red Three. If there is one, that Three is then automatically melded, and an extra card is dealt to the hand out of which it came. This procedure is repeated until neither player has any Red Threes left in his hand.

The only exception is if you have played no other cards and only have red three's displayed

If a player goes out and his opponent has melded nothing but Red Threes, the value of those Red Threes is deducted from his opponent's score.


text:
Neigh effect when playing a unicorn
If I Play a Unicorn from my hand to my stable, is it possible for another player to neigh this action?
And if it is possible will the unicorn be moved to the discard pile?

I've never played this game but looking up the card it seems clear. The text on a neigh card says :-

Play this card when any player tries to play a card. Stop that
player's card from coming into play and send it to the discard pile
instead.

So yes, it is possible for another player to 'neigh' playing a unicorn from hand to stable.
Also yes, it will be moved to the discard pile.


text:
Twilight Imperium V4: Can I bribe a player to not attack me for two turns but pay him the trade goods at the end of the second turn?
In a Twilight Imperium 4 game I was afraid of a player and proposed the following deal in my turn: You don't attack me for two turns and at the end of your second turn I give you 2 trade goods.
Then another player said that I had to give the trade goods immediately and that this had to be a non-binding deal so that he could betray me.
Is that correct?

Looking at the rules here

Frequently, players will negotiate transactions that go beyond a
simple exchange of goods. These transactions are called deals. For
example, the active player might move his ships into a system that
contains another player’s PDS, at which point the active player might
offer the owner of that PDS a trade good to refrain from using the
“Space Cannon” ability. Because the effect can be resolved
immediately, this deal is a binding deal. When a deal is binding, a
player must honor his end of the bargain. In the previous example, if
the owner of the PDS agrees to this deal and takes the trade good, he
cannot fire his PDS as this would violate their agreement.
Not all deals are binding, however. For example, a player might offer
another player a trade good to attack a specific player during a later
turn. Because the effect cannot be resolved immediately, this deal is
a non-binding deal. The player who was given the trade good, despite
the terms of the deal, is not required to honor his end of the bargain
and may fulfill or ignore the deal as he chooses.

So to clarify if both parts of a deal can be carried out immediately then a deal is binding.
You proposed giving a player goods if they don't attack you for two turns.  Looking at the example in the rules this is very similar to giving a player good to attack another player in a later turn.  The rules say this is a non binding deal as the goods are being paid straight away.
The key phrase here is "Because the effect can be resolved, immediately, this deal is a binding deal".  If you didn't have any goods and said "I have no goods now but if you dont attack me for two turns then I will offer goods in future", then that wouldn't be able to be resolved immediately.
I think if this was my friend group we would play where you both have a non-binding agreement as that seems more fun. You could promise to pay goods, and go back on this. They could decide if you wont give goods now we will either keep promise for to turns or just attack you anyway.
However the example in the rules is clear and if a part of a deal can be carried out immediately then it should be and the other part is non-binding.

I disagree that part of the deal can be carried out in this case. The offer isn’t “I give you a good,” which is something that can be carried out now. The offer is “I give you a good in 2 turns”. That offer is impossible to carry out immediately.

That’s what I felt when I read the questions. And certainty how I want to want to play this type of game.  My interpretation of the example though was that if they had goods they had to use them straight away.  I accept I may be wrong and perhaps a more authoritarian source like the designer might be needed.


text:
Who wins in Uno: Disney Parks Edition when someone wins with the Magic card?
The Disney Parks edition of Uno has a special wild card called the "Wild Disney Parks Magic Card" which has the following explanatory text:

When you play this card, all players must pass their ENTIRE hand to the player on their left. This card is also a wild card, so you choose the color that resumes play. If this card is turned up at the beginning of play, the person to the left of the dealer chooses the color that begins play.

If someone goes out by playing this card, we have a dilemma. Which is right?

The hands are rotated, thus causing the player to the left of the person who played the card to win the round
Play stops immediately, thus causing the person who played it to win the round

I don't have an official answer, but I think it's going to produce more interesting play patterns if the person playing the card loses.

According to unorules.com:

What if your last card is a Wild Swap Hands or a Wild Shuffle Hands?
This scenario may happen from time to time. If your last card is a Wild Swap Hands or Wild Shuffle Hands card, you can treat it like a normal Wild card and play it to end the game right there and then – No further action is required. This is because you would obviously not win the game if you were required to swap your hand with another player (in the case of a Wild Swap Hands card) or to receive new cards from other players (in the case of a Wild Shuffle Hands card).

I'm not sure how reputable this site is, and also it doesn't seem to be referring to the Disney Parks edition, but it is very similar.
To respond to Philip Kendall's comment, that was my first thought as well, however upon further inspection, I think it is actually less interesting that way, as you pretty much have no choice but to play the card right away if you get it, as you can never win as long as you have it. Also, this version of Uno had slightly different scoring, where you collect your opponents points if you win, as opposed to the golf-scoring method, so that meant there can't be a strategy to causing the player to your left to win when you thought you might have few points in the hand to your right. There may be rare situations where it is to your advantage to keep it, but I think they are extremely rare.

"as you pretty much have no choice but the play the card right away if you get it, as you can never win as long as you have it." Absolutely definitely not. Once you get the card, you take the option to draw cards when you can (you don't have to play a card, even if you can) and wait until your RHS opponent has a small hand. Then strike, getting a small hand while passing on a large one. Of course, other players may suspect you are doing this and start drawing cards themselves... or were you bluffing?

@PhilipKendall that is exactly the strategy i employed, before we realized the different scoring rules


text:
1 Spade Interference over Precision 1 Club
I have heard that at some point in the past, a common defence against a strong 1 club opener is:
1S: I have 13 cards.
What's the reason this defence has fallen out of favour?
Could it be that it's mechanically unsound (eg. too vulnerable to penalty doubles).
Or could it be that the defence is perfectly fine, but simply is outlawed as a "purely-destructive overcall"?
If the later, why are purely-destructive overcalls outlawed? Isn't interference part of the game, especially over greedy bids such as Strong 1C that attempt to preserve a lot of bidding space?

This treatment is illegal in the ACBL. It falls under the definition of a "Purely Destructive Initial Action":
"Purely Destructive Initial Action”: An opening bid or an overcall that satisfies
none of the following:
a. 4+ cards in a known suit.
b. 5+ cards in one of two possible suits.
c. 5+-4+ distribution in any two suits.
d. An either/or combination of any two of a, b, or c (which may be the same option
twice).
e. A Three-suited hand.
f. At least Average strength.
g. Any Natural or Quasi-Natural opening bid.

According to the ACBL convention charts, purely destructive opening bids and overcalls are forbidden at all levels.
There are a number of reasons people give that purely destructive actions are forbidden. Those in favor of the prohibitions argue that they reduce the skill aspect of the game, making it more random, or that totally unrestricted bidding rules make it impossible for pairs to prepare adequately for all possible agreements and therefore give an undesired advantage to pairs that employ agreements that are novel for the sake of being novel rather than good. Those opposed to the prohibitions argue that these rules are meant to coddle the masses who pay the vast majority of card fees and dues to the ACBL.

How about under non-ACBL rules? Is this treatment allowed there? If so, is this treatment (or a treatment that includes other bids for certain hands, but defaults to 1 Spade) even +EV to use, compared to alternative defences against strong 1 club?

I'm not really familiar with bidding regulations in other jurisdictions. I'd guess that this is probably -EV. Most strong club pairs can easily deal with 1-level interference, and your partner won't be able to use information about your hand to bid higher.

Level 4 EBU rules permit any defence to artificial or forcing opening 1 bids in second seat:
"Any partnership understandings are permitted after
(a) an artificial or forcing one-level suit opening.
Level 4 is the level most commonly defined for club or tournament play in England. https://mjbridge.info/opener/page7.html
As a former Precision player, I was very surprised to learn this. I would have assumed that random 1S overcalls were not permitted.
(b) an opening bid of 1NT or above."

Note that something close to "13 cards" is legal: "willing to play at the 2 level".  All you need is a 5 card suit.  Not "purely destructive", because d: b. once for "5+ in a major", b. again for "5+ in a minor".  And as long as it's not required - so not 1-spade "promises" a balanced hand - or you play something strange like "double is reds or blacks, 1H is majors or minors, 1S is 5+ in any suit, 1NT is two non-touching suits ('roundeds and pointeds')" if you want to play "we never pass", fine.

Such a convention may be legal in some parts of the world (Europe is more permissive than ACBL). But, I have never heard it played here in Finland (and we are quite permissive with conventions unless playing in an event intended to onboard newbies). I don't have the mileage to say for sure, but my guess is that most players are too partnership oriented to try something like this.
My repertory vs strong clubbers consists of the usual overcalls, the pre-empts, and then selected 2-suited poisons. The point is that a random 1S won't do much against expert opponents. The gains from interference come when you can really jam their auction. To do that you need to find your own fits — you want partner to raise somewhat safely. I guess you could squeeze one such bid into a defensive system, but as (necessarily) it will be a low level call, it won't do much damage alone. I want to increase the chances of partner to continue the interference instead.
Compare the sequences:

(1C strong)-1S (random)- D (strength, but no 5 card suit)-? What can partner do safely here? Nothing much. Have the opponents been disturbed? Not much, they can start searching for their fits at the two level, and their combined strength makes it safe.
(1C strong)-2H (hearts and a minor)- D (strength, either exactly 4 spades or more strength)- 4H! What can the opening side do here? The strong clubber needs to take a view on slam hunt right away. 4S is an option, but doesn't really invite partner to continue. When their extra strength is split between the two hands, the opps have a difficult decision.

Even a more modest interference like 1C (=strong)-1D (=natural)-D (=GF strength, 4+3+ in majors or some other meaning), 3D inconveniences the opps. Is 3NT still ok? How to agree on a suit in a forcing manner? True, they now have Double and the cuebid of 4D in their arsenal, but they have been robbed quite a bit of the space to investigate.

So the downside of a random overcall like this is that partner is left equally in the dark. This may be why partnership oriented players dislike it.

There is also the following rule/ethics issue. Unless you bid 1S over an opposing strong 1C every time when you cannot take some other, systemically described action, your partner will gradually learn about your motives and tendencies. When such partnership history builds up, the meaning of the 1S bid will no longer be random, and needs to be disclosed to the opponents (even if undiscussed). This is a grey area, and gives the TD a headache. I'm no bridge lawyer, but I would say, by common sense more than anything else, that an established partnership cannot credibly claim to have "no agreement".

Actually, given that an established partnership might only see a strong club opened against them 5 times a year even playing regularly in tournaments, a 'no agreement' claim is not so hard to believe.  (I think I'm the only person regularly playing strong club within 200 miles, and that is with a partner farther than 200 miles away.)

I believe you @AlexanderWoo. But my experience is very different. 15 years ago may be 20 per cent of the pairs I would meet at the local club played some kind of a strong club. That figure has come down a bit since.  But in a matchpoint tournament (geographically wider participation) I still expect to meet several pairs playing strong club, Polish club or a system requiring similar defences.

FWIW with my nearly exclusive partner we play a "natural" 5542-system, transfer Walsh -style. 5542 is quite common in these parts, but we do tag on a lot of extras (my partner in particular enjoys tinkering with the system).

In the US/Canada, it's not uncommon to have a tournament where all 30 pairs are playing more or less sophisticated versions of Std Amer or 2/1.  Maybe you'll get a pair or two playing a different notrump range.


text:
Looking for an old card game called "Kingdom"
I know this was an uncommon game when we bought it in the late 1990s or early 2000s, and now I've tried several searches for it, and have come up dry. It's a Bible/Christian themed card game that I think has the word "Kingdom" written on the left edge of each card. I don't think there was any kind of a board associated with it. Anyone have any ideas? I've searched Google, eBay, Google images, and more, to no avail. Thanks!

What comes to mind would be https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2098/heresy - it would fit the time frame, the theme and mechanic. The full name was Heresy: Kingdom come

@Zibelas you should write that up as an answer, you can always delete it again if it turns out to be wrong

@Zibelas, thanks for the suggestion! That's not it but you're spot on about time frame and that it's discontinued. The one I'm looking for was just a card game, I'm 99% sure.


text:
Question about furiten definition regarding winning tile in riichi mahjong
relatively new riichi mahjong player here. I haven't had this situation happen to myself before, but I'm curious about how the rules apply in this situation:

Suppose I'm trying to go for tanyao (I know some rulesets don't allow tanyao in open hands - let's suppose my current ruleset does allow for it), and have already called the following melds: 6-7-8, 3-4-5, and 4-5-6 (the suits don't really matter for this hypothetical, I'm just establishing that my hand is open here)

I currently have 4 non-melded tiles in my hand: a 2 and 3 of some suit, say dots, and a pair of 8s (again, for this pair, the suits don't matter)

My discard pile currently has a 1-dot (but does NOT have a 4-dot).

My question is, according to the wiki:

From the first condition, it says a winning tile. Does this mean the tile MUST yield at least one yaku? That is, in my above situation, would I or would I not be in furiten due to the one dot in my discard pile? I cannot form a hand with a valid yaku if I were to draw or call on a 1-dot, because tanyao forbids terminals.
My assumption is that because 1-dot does not enable a hand that has at least one yaku, it does not count as a "winning tile" - therefore, my hand would not be in furiten. However, I am not sure and would like some feedback here. Also, I provided a specific situation above, but I suppose my question also extends to all furiten-related circumstances where a tile that could form a valid meld exists in my discard but which cannot provide any yaku.


text:
If the Ambassador is used to take the castle in the first move, does the player then get the castle move as well?
We had a hypothetical question come up (hypothetical because it wasn't actually tried) and we couldn't agree on the solution. If a player used the Ambassador to take the castle from the player currently holding it, would that player then get the castle 'first move" as well, or would it take over the next round? Some of us said that since the castle move had not yet been made, then yes, the Ambassador player would get both "first moves", and others said that no, they would proceed the next round with the castle as the first move. Which would be correct?

If I understand the question correctly at the start of the round the player with the Ambassador who is not currently the first player assigns the Ambassador to Castle Waterdeep, thereby taking the first player marker and we want to know who's turn it is now.
I think a strict reading of the rules would make it the Ambassador player's turn.
The Actions in a turn section states

Each player takes turns, one at a time, starting with the player who has the First Player marker and proceeding to that player’s left.

Castle Waterdeep

Action: Take the First Player marker,
and draw 1 Intrigue card.

Palace of Waterdeep

At the start of the next round, before any other player takes a turn, assign the Ambassador.

Nothing in the rules suggests the First Player marker has memory, such as the Castle saying 'you become the first player for next round.' Or the Ambassador saying before the First Player's turn. It is entirely based on the location of the Marker when you need the information.
Interestingly the Advance Rules section clarifies what happens if you have the Ambassador and the First Player Marker. Namely that you get two turns before anyone else. But does not explicitly cover using the Ambassador to take the first player marker.


text:
Does anyone remember the 2 player stacking game with a deck of cards?
Each player has a 4 pin stacking thing (like tower of Hanoi style) and then there were blocks numbered 1 to 3 in 3 colours (9 blocks total).
Deck of cards had all sorts of combos on, turned over a card and first player to get their stacks in that order won.

That sounds like Number Rumba!.


text:
Go: Why did I lose? How is territory defined?

I don't understand why I lost or how territory is defined when both players have a bid for territory.  Here I lose by 25 points (5x5 board).  But it seems to me that I have an equally valid bid for controlling the left and right halves of the board with my line down the middle.  Why does white end up getting the top half and bottom left corner instead?

If you disagreed about the result, you should have played on till it became clear. I fear, however, that you were playing a programme that did not give you a chance to do that!

A crucial notion in Go is the "Sente", meaning the advantage of the player that plays first in a given situation. In an equal situation (what you thought you have here), the first to play will gain an advantage. The black structures here are more than weak (actually lost), because even if black plays first, there is no way to capture the 2 whites on the left. Either way you try to surround them, white just can capture the bottom middle black, putting the other in "Atari". Capturing those 2 whites would be the only solution for black to have 2 eyes

An interesting fact that you might not know. In perfect play, black should win a 5x5 game by 25 points. I assume you are playing cosume here. As an exercise, don't pass on the 5x5 board until you have killed all the white stones or don't have anywhere left to move.

5x5 boards are actually harder to understand than a little bit larger board.  There are a lot of weird situations that can happen because the board is so small, so I would recommend starting with 9x9 instead.  This situation isn't too tricky, though.
In this case, the white group on the right is alive.  It can make two separate eyes in two different ways - by splitting the area on the right into two, or by surrounding the upper right corner.  Black can't stop both, so this group is safe.
The black stone that separates the white stones in the lower left is going to die.  Whatever Black does, this stone will never get more liberties than the white stones on the left, so it's going to be captured.  Once this happens, all of the white stones are effectively connected and safe.
Since the upper black group doesn't have room to make eyes, it's going to be captured eventually.

Actually 9×9 can also get surprisingly tricky! I think it makes sense for at least some beginners to move on to 13×13 once they have got the hang of the rules. But if they like the very tactical nature of 9×9 more than strategic 13×13 then that is fine too.

I agree that 5x5 must be very special (never played it) as the (only) San san is the middle of the board, no corner lock can work. It is also not obvious in this context that most of the space is on the sides, not the center, and that it's more efficient to play in the corners first (all the board is a corner) so traditionnal considerations don't apply

Territory is a conceptual shortcut, not fundamental
Motivation
The fundamental idea of Go is to get your stones onto the board and keep them there.
The first question you should ask yourself is: what is the greatest number of stones that one player could safely have on this 5x5 board?
Not 25: if every spot were covered, then the stones would not have any liberties, so they would be removed. (And indeed, most people play such that putting the 25th stone of the same colour on the board would be illegal.)
Not 24: if there is only one open spot, then the opponent could play there. Capture of opposing stones is considered first, before the liberties of the stone that was just played. After the opponent captures 24 stones, the stone that was played to do so will have liberties.
But if we leave two open spaces that are not adjacent, then the opponent cannot capture. Trying to place a stone on either intersection would not work (and, again, is normally considered illegal): it cannot immediately capture the opponent's stones, and then it has no liberties for itself.
So our answer is 23. But as you have noticed, on 5x5 we generally consider that the maximum margin of victory (notwithstanding komi) is 25 - i.e., all the points of the board. We could say that there are 25 points "available" to split between the players, and this is the principle of area scoring.
A rough definition
If we kept playing until neither player had a safe move (i.e., every remaining move would allow a capture that is not some kind of tactically sound sacrifice), we might simply count the stones to figure out the winner. This is not exactly right, except for some historical variations, because again we have a tradition of counting every point. But it gives us the right idea. By "territory", we mean the places that are safe moves for us, but not for the opponent. If we play there, our stone will stay indefinitely, assuming proper play afterwards; if the opponent plays there, we can eventually capture it, and the opponent can do nothing to stop us.
With even slightly skilled players, we will normally expect that an equal number of moves are played by each player (possibly one more by Black; some rulesets account for this explicitly) until the end - nobody will pass until there are no more strategic objectives left, because it would obviously be losing to do so. We similarly expect that the game will reach a state where every open space is territory for one player or the other, so it's tedious to put stones on the board to fill space whose "owner" is surely determined (and to capture stones that are powerless to resist). So at this point the players shall agree (if they are using a ruleset with this principle) to stop playing, and count territory and prisoners to find the winner and the margin of victory. This is the principle of territory scoring.
We count the prisoners because they represent stones that the opponent placed, but doesn't have on the board; thus they are a setback from the opponent's tally of already-claimed spaces during the alternating play phase. Similarly, we count "dead" stones that will be inevitably captured, as if they were prisoners; we do not bother with actually capturing them.
Refinement
To account for the fact that the board can't be completely filled, we typically instead describe territory as space that is surrounded by our "alive" stones that cannot be captured - that is to say, stones such that proper play will protect them from capture, even if we allow the opponent to move first. The idea is:

Stones get captured when their liberties are filled. Therefore, to protect them from capture, they need to be arranged so that the remaining liberties can't be filled. (Liberties, plural, because if there were only one liberty then playing there would obviously capture the stones.)

The most common, but not strictly necessary way of doing that is to have two or more separate, surrounded liberties called eyes, such that neither is a legal move for the opponent. The other ordinary way is to create seki, where an empty space is adjacent to both players' stones, and neither may play there because it allows the other to capture (without subsequently leading to a recapture).

If our stones surround a sufficient amount of space, then we should be able to find a way to split that space apart and make two separate eyes. We can do this at our leisure, only working towards that goal if the opponent strategically forces it. We don't need to make eyes explicitly in order to claim that the stones are alive; we only need to answer any challenge, by doing so before we actually get captured.

If our stones are alive, and also surround some space, then we should be able to fill the space later. If our surrounding wall cannot be captured, then the opponent could only deny those spaces to us by occupying them and then making those stones alive. But this ranges from extraordinarily difficult to utterly impossible - given that we get to play every other move in order to interfere with the attempt.

So, we should reach a point in the game where every stone is known either to be alive or to be dead, and every empty space is either "territory" that is surrounded by a living group or "dame" that is adjacent to both players' stones. (A seki will have such points where neither player wants to play, but there will usually also just be points where either player could play just to fill the space. Usually we will skip filling these, because it's obvious that they will be split equally between the two players.)
This game
The computer has determined that the Black stones are all dead and the White stones are all alive. White wins by 25 points because it is inevitable that, were the players compelled to keep going, White would be able to capture all the Black stones and fill in all the empty points (except for two), while Black would have no way to keep any stones on the board.
I will deliberately explain this without images, because it will be useful for you to train your visualization skill.
The easiest way to understand why this is, is to look at the lower-left first. Black has a single stone on the bottom edge that has only one liberty, and another there with two liberties. White's pair of stones on the left, meanwhile, has three liberties. It's easy to verify that there are no special tricks here; White can capture those stones, even assuming Black gets the next move, and by doing so, the two White stones will be protected - they will join the other White stones and easily make eyes using the space they have surrounded.
This then raises the question about the other three Black stones. Can they not survive? The answer is that they indeed cannot survive. Since White's stones will easily make eyes, there is no chance for seki against them; Black's stones will need to find their own eyes. But there is no way to do this. Even supposing that Black plays the two points above the White pair of stones (useful "forcing moves" that will threaten White and force capturing in the lower left for safety), we can see that the Black stones will simply surround an adjacent pair of spaces in the top left.
And these adjacent spaces cannot make separate eyes. If we require White to demonstrate the capture, it will be easy: after filling the "outside" spaces, White simply plays either of the points inside. If Black captures that stone, it only leaves one space behind, so White can re-capture the entire group. But if Black doesn't capture the stone, White can simply play the other empty space, which is the last liberty of the group. Catch-22.
Exercise: think about what happens if a group surrounds three adjacent empty spaces in a straight line. (For simplicity, assume that every outside space is covered by the opponent's alive stones.) If it is your move, can you play such that the group will have two separate eyes? Where? Is it necessary to do this? (Hint: If it is the opponent's move instead, can the eyes be prevented? How?) Is there the possibility of seki? (Hint: think carefully about what happens if opponent puts two adjacent stones inside this space. You could capture them by playing on the remaining point... but then what?)
Exercise: What about four spaces in a row? What about five spaces? (Hint: use the answer from the three-space case, in order to reason about seki.)
Research problem: investigate surrounded spaces that aren't all in a straight line.
General advice
As an adult learner, I strongly advise not to use a 5x5 board. Please do play a game or two on 3x3, because it's essentially the simplest viable option. (I am discounting even-sized boards on principle; but it should be noted that 2x2 is especially weird if you try to rule on what should happen if the players want to continue past the first two obvious moves. And of course, on 1x1 nobody can actually place a stone.) It actually teaches some fundamentals, while being small enough that you should be able to figure out the dominant strategy easily. 5x5 isn't big enough to explain anything to an adult that isn't already understood from 3x3 - in particular, it doesn't really teach about territory, because proper play still leads to a whole-board win for Black. But that's much harder than solving the 3x3 game, and more of an academic exercise.
After making sure you understand what to do on 3x3 (and why it's a clear whole-board win for Black), please move directly to 9x9. This is a much more "standard" board size that you'll be able to find more resources for (unless you're studying game theory at university or something like that). It's large enough that "territory" becomes a meaningful strategic concept.
However, please feel free to play games by trying to fill in all the "safe" intersections, until you feel like you have a proper intuition for territory. Make sure that you can find opponents who are amenable to this - typical rulesets will penalize you, and computer opponents won't be programmed to play along even if they're set to be very weak. This will be easier to do over a real board, assuming you know other beginners. Eventually you will find that this part becomes boring and that you "know what will happen" - that's proof of your understanding.

Honestly I would suggest just starting with 13x13. A 9x9 board still feels like a knife fight in an enclosed space, where (nearly) everything connects to everythign else, while 13x13 has enough space for multiple independently alive groups, while still being far, far less overwhelming than the full 19x19.

@ilkkachu IMO the "knife fight" property is fine. A board that normally supports only one group per player is a fine way to learn about not trying to make too many groups, and it's small enough that area counting is faster than territory counting (even for players accustomed to territory scoring) once you have learned even one or two basic tricks, which happens almost automatically without teaching. On the other hand, 5x5 doesn't even support one group for White; while 7x7 appears to offer a reasonable game, it's much less studied and harder to arrange on a real board.

Summary
It would have been clearer to you if you had played on until the boundaries between Black and White were clearly defined. “Territory” means surrounded vacant points.
Details
Easier if you finish
It was unhelpful to you that the game stopped here, whether that was done by your opponent, a computer or you yourself. The other answers give you the theory, but the easiest way to pick up the theory is by playing your games to the end until you understand what is going on.
When is it finished?
But, you may ask, what is “the end”? A fair question, and one that confuses beginners: the end is when both players agree that the ownership of all the spots on the board is settled (which also means the score is clear). In particular, both must agree which stones will end up captured. Until you agree, just go on playing.
The game is finished once you agree which stones cannot escape capture and, if you were to remove all those stones, each spot on the board would:

belong to one player because it is

occupied by one of their stones, or
vacant, but only connected (by the lines on the board) to stones of their colour, or

(occasionally) be neutral because:

neither player can safely play there (“seki”).

How to score
Once you reach that point, there are two ways of scoring:

Chinese Each player scores a point for each spot that belongs to them (their “area”), as described above.
Japanese Each player scores a point for each of their vacant points (their “territory”, as above) and for each stone they have captured.

But territory “in a seki” is not counted.
Both methods give the same answer as long as both players have played the same number of stones and there is no seki.

Your game
Your game was not completely finished because of the neutral spots (between the colours) where it was still possible for at least one player to play. I expect that the computer treated the result as obvious once both sides passed, but really you needed a chance to continue.
The trouble with your “line down the middle” is that it is not connected, and so can be picked off piece by piece.

I was hoping someone would write an answer like this; it was clear from the question if the OP understood that the scoring is based more on what would have happened than on how things were at the time.

You have lost because a computer arbiter has decided that all the Black stones are dead.
Therefore White controls the whole board and gets 25 points and Black gets 0 points.
If this had been a human game instead, played face-to-face, then you wouldn't have lost like that. In a human face-to-face game, after both players have passed, White would have asked you: "Do you agree that all your stones are dead?". If you agree, then you lose. If you disagree, then game resumes and you can keep playing until all 'dead' stones have been effectively removed from the board. Then the next time both players pass, all stones that are on the board are considered alive and we can count the points of both players.
Where the computer is not entirely wrong to have marked all your stones dead is that, in this position, presuming White is not a beginner and doesn't make too many mistakes, it is indeed possible for White to capture all Black stones, no matter how well Black plays.
The fact that White can capture all Black stones is due to the very few number of liberties of the two Black stones in the Southwest.
On this diagram you can see that one of the the Black stones has only 2 liberties, which I have marked "1" and "2" in blue:

On this diagram you can see that the group of two White stones has 3 liberties, which I have marked "1", "2" and "3" in red:

Because the White stones have more liberties than the Black stone, White will be able to capture the Black stone. After that, once this Black stone has been captured, the two White stones will be pretty indestructible and will be able to easily capture the three Black stones in the North.
The reason why the computer marked the Black stones as dead without requiring that White actually play out the moves required to capture the Black stones, and the reason why human players often agree that stones are dead even though they haven't been explicitly captured, is because this phase of "effectively play the moves to capture the stones" is considered boring by experienced players, who can see in advance that in this position, the Black stones don't stand a chance and will be captured eventually no matter how well Black plays.

@TimK is right about why Black lost.
How territory is defined -- a player's territory is that part of the board that the player exclusively controls, such that any opponent stones in that area will be inevitably captured because

they cannot escape to a friendly group, and
they can be prevented from forming two eyes and living independently, and
they can be prevented from forming a "seki" or "dual life" shape.

It's one of those things where it's easier to demonstrate than define. In the game you posted, the whole board is White's territory, because all of the Black stones are inescapably captured (barring some kind of astounding blunder by White).
To develop your sense of the board, I would encourage you to prove to yourself that, with Black and White taking turns as normal, none of the Black stones can live.
One advantage of the 5x5 board is that, from a position like the one shown, it will not take more than a half-hour or so to check every possible line of play.  Some hints:

The White group of 6 has two different ways to make two eyes and be invulnerable
The White group of 2 on the left can be safe by capturing a Black stone on the 2-2 point, before Black has a chance to attack.  (The White two-stone group has more liberties than the Black stone, and White is ahead in any race to capture there.)
As @TimK said, the Black three-stone group does not have enough room to make two eyes.


text:
Game Identification: Bidding/Bluffing game with royalty theme
There is a board game I played with a group a few years ago that I can't seem to find.
Aspects of the board game I think I remember correctly (of course, memory is a fickle thing and these might still be incorrect):

The main playing grid was a 4x4 or 5x5 grid of characters
The characters were thematically themed as members of a royal court (such as a queen and a spymaster).
In each round, one of the characters was the "target" (unfortunately, I can't remember exactly what was special about them).
There are clue cards facedown that help identify who the "target" is, but each player knows a different combination of clues. (e.g. player 1 knows clues A & B, player 2 knows clues B & C, and player 3 knows clues C & A).
I think there is always the same number of clues regardless of player count, but am very unsure on that. I also do not remember how many clues there are.
During each round, players would take turns (more than one turn each round) betting with chips on spots on the grid on whether the target is present there (e.g. A bet beside the first row indicates the target is in the first row, a bet on a character indicates that character is the target, or a bet in between four characters indicates the target is one of those four).
The number of bets that can be placed in a specific spot is limited (e.g. only one or two bets can be on the first row, but I don't remember what the limit is).
Since players are taking turns placing bets, players would try to use their bets to trick other players into betting in the wrong spot.

I would be very grateful of any help identifying this game, thanks.

Was it an English game, or possibly in a different language?  There's apparently some Russian Da Vinci Code game (Kod DaVinci, po sledam velikih tayn) which has a hierarchy of monks (royal court?), secret artifacts (one character is the target), and some sort of bluffing mechanics.

It was definitely English. If it is originally in another language, the version we played was an official translation.

What you're describing sounds very similar to "The Chameleon."

That is unfortunately not it. The characters were always the same in the game I am thinking of.

But your comment did push me toward looking again and I found it. Thank you!

I found the game after some more searching. I was thinking of Cursed Court. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/226213/cursed-court
So it was actually a 3x3 grid of characters, I was wrong about that.
I found the game using Board Game Geek's advanced search, filtering on games that used a "betting and bluffing" mechanic and then looking through the results until I found it.


text:
What is preventing a win here
I'm playing Yakuza Kiwami 2 which has a Mahjong parlor to play in. I would have assumed the 5 I drew completed my hand.

2, 3, 4 of numbers
triplets of 5 of numbers
6, 7, 8 of bamboo
pair of 2 of stones

what's the reason it didn't? I'm assuming it has something to do with my hand being open.

You have two Chows.  Many versions of the game only permit one Chow in a completed hand.  Have you checked the local rule?

You hand has a proper form, but it's missing a yaku, so it has no value to win with. You need at least one yaku to win with a hand.
Here are what are counted as yakus in Yakuza games.
Basically, that called triplet of 9s in numbers (which is still counted as being part of your hand), is ruining everything.
It's ruining Tanyao, or All Simples, since 9s aren't simples.
It's ruining Pinfu, or No-Points Hand, since it's a triplet and called (through, so does the triplet of 5s)
It's even ruining Tsumo, since you can only score with that, if your hand is closed, ie. no called sets.


text:
Legal meld in canasta
If a queen is on the discard pile and I have 3 queens in my hand and 2 aces and a wild card 2 can I pick up the pile and make my first meld. I need 90 to meld.

Even if you only had 2 Queens in your hand, you could do that.

Quick counting gives you 90 points without the pile. Even with a queen less in the hand you would be able to pick up the pile.

3xQ = 30
2xA = 40
2   = 20


text:
Canasta- Partner melds Wild cards 160 pts but we need 180. Penalty to 190. I meld w 3 wild cards but told I can't
Partner and I needed 180 pts to meld.  She melds 5 wild cards that only total 160 so penalty is now 190. After a few turns I now have 3 wild cards which I meld with other naturals for a total of 195.  I was told it's not legal since I saw my partner had 5 wild cards.  Is it legal?

Not a duplicate, but helpful: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/43067/canasta-melding-with-insufficent-points?rq=1


text:
Scoring multiple runs in cribbage
Can you score a run(s)within a run . Say you have in your hand a 2,3,4,5 . Can you score for both runs of 2,3,4 & 3,4,5 plus the 4 card run ?


text:
Terraforming Mars—Hellas Placement Bonus
In the Hellas board expansion, placing a tile in the middle of the bottommost row grants the player a placement bonus of 1 ocean tile at the expense of 6 MegaCredits. If all ocean tiles have been placed, would the player just lose 6 MegaCredits and not gain the bonus of placing an ocean tile?

In regards to the Hellas map, the rules for Hellas and Elysium state:

The other special bonus is on the South Pole itself, requiring you to pay 6 megacredits for placing a tile here, but giving you an ocean tile...

Since the cost is not what you pay to receive the ocean tile, and is instead the price for playing on that space, you are correct in assuming that if all the ocean tiles have already run out, a player putting something on that spot will pay 6 MC, and not receive an additional bonus.


text:
7 Wonders Duel no one can pick a card due to lack of resource
What happens if neither player can pick up one of the laid cards due to a lack of resources? Is there some kind of order based on which they must be placed because the rules of the game do not say this?

This is not quite a duplicate question but might be a similar misunderstanding of the rules.  This question was from a player who thought discarding a card for money was one that they had built rather one they built.
https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/28396/discard-a-card-to-gain-money?rq=1

On your turn, you always have three choices:

Construct the Building
Discard the card to obtain coins
Construct a Wonder

If you don't have the resources to actually construct the building or put it towards a Wonder, you can always discard it for 2 coins plus one coin for every yellow card in your city.


text:
Will Righteous Cause trigger with tapped and attacking tokens
Will i gain life if someone is attacking and they create a tapped and attack token

No.
The relevant trigger for the ability is "whenever a creature attacks", which is defined as declaring a creature as an attacker during the Declare Attackers step. Creature tokens which get put onto the battlefield "tapped and attacking" are never actually declared attackers (or get tapped for that matter) - at the time they are created, they are already attacking and tapped.
Rules for declaring attackers are defined in CR508, in particular sections .3 and .4 (emphasis mine).

508.3a An ability that reads “Whenever [a creature] attacks, . . .” triggers if that creature is declared as an attacker. Similarly,
“Whenever [a creature] attacks [a player or planeswalker], . . .”
triggers if that creature is declared as an attacker attacking that
player or planeswalker. Such abilities won’t trigger if a creature is
put onto the battlefield attacking.
508.4 ...[creatures put onto the battlefield attacking]
are “attacking” but, for the purposes of trigger events and effects,
they never “attacked.”

Cuz the judge at my card shop said yes cuz the card reads when ever a creature attacks i gain 1 doesnt matter about declare and orim prayer says when ever a creature attacks you as in declared as a attack on u u gain 1 from prayer

@KneelBe4Zodd the judge was wrong. Refer them to CR 508.3a; the creature was never declared as an attacker.

I see that but that says when attack you, that happens… my card it when a creature attacks, you gain 1

@KneelBe4Zodd There's no difference. "When a creature attacks" occurs at the time it's declared an attacker. You can't just choose to set off a "when attacks" trigger at any time while a creature is attacking.

@KneelBe4Zodd I'm not sure what point you're making: your creature has not attacked as defined by the rules of the game.

@KneelBe4Zodd Judge here, whoever was judging your event was wrong. An attack trigger happens when a creature is declared as an attacker. A creature put in tapped and attacking is never declared as an attacker and thus does not trigger any attack triggers.


text:
Was "ig" ever in the OSPD?
I used to play in Scrabble tournaments about 30 years ago, but I still kept up with developments in tournament Scrabble until about 10 years ago through friends who still competed who are no longer available to answer this question.
I seem to recall that "ig" meaning "ignore" entered the OSPD at the same time as "za" meaning "pizza" but not only is "ig" not in the current OSPD or NWL, I can find no mention online of its ever having been there.
Did I dream this?

ig v. Alternative form of igg (“to ignore”). At least to https://en.wikwik.org/ig - but only a comment since I cant tell you if it was valid at one point

Thanks. That jogged my memory. It's "igg" not "ig." It entered the OSPD same time as "za" which caused me to recall them as both 2-letter words (as well as  both questionable IMHO).

IG was not included in the Changes in OSPD4, which included the addition of ZA. That version introduced five two-letter-words: FE, KI, OI, QI, and ZA.
That version did, however, also introduce the three-letter word IGG:

IGG, IGGS, IGGED, IGGING
v to ignore


text:
scoring run of 3 being under 31 by one player
If player 2 lays down 3 consective cards with a total of 30, (king, queen, jack) with player 1 having to go, how do you count that?
Do you score 3 for the run and 1 for last card?

you use 'player 1', 'player 2' and 'you' in the question, it's not clear who is who, could you please reword? 2) the answer depends on what the next action of the player in question would be (e.g. play a card or just peg for the last card), which also is not specified in the question. A minor nit-pick, in cribbage players alternate, so a single player could not possible lay down 3 consecutive cards, they would be alternating with opponents. I'm assuming that by 3 consecutive cards you just mean a run consisting of cards from both players.

@AndrewSavinykh: If, for example, Dealer kept TQQQ while Non-Dealer kept J234, then the play could go J-T-2(go)-3-4-point Q(go)-Q-Q-point-point, with both payers in turn playing three consecutive cards. There are many other variations on this.


text:
How is Riddlemaster Sphinx's identifier greater than the number of cards in the set?
I was indexing my Magic: The Gathering inventory recently and I found a card from M19 that's identifier is 287/280.

As far as I know, the second number is the amount of cards in a set, and the first is the identifier of that specific card, but that begs the question, how can this card's identifier be greater than the number of cards in the set?
I also noticed this for the M20 version of the same card, which has the identifier 317/280.
Am I wrong about the meaning of the second number, or are the Core Sets an exception somehow?

This question I asked is similar, and has a bit more explanations about collector numbers.  https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/59341/why-are-some-cards-out-of-collector-number-sequence-in-mtglord-of-the-rings

Card numbers up to and including 280 (in M19) are those which appear in booster packs. Card numbers above 280 are those which are part of the set, but you won't get from a booster pack - in the specific case of Riddlemaster Sphinx, this is because it was in the mono-blue starter deck.
(As it so happens, this is the same for M20)

Philip's answer is historically correct, but that has changed. Now there are cards in the main set and in boosters that have numbers above the set number. Starting with Zendikar Rising all of the alternate arts and treatments of cards were given their own collector number, rather than sharing the collector number of the regular version. The regular versions of these cards were in the number for that set, ending with the last basic forest, and then the next card was the first alternate art (Jace, Mirror Mage for Zendikar Rising), they stopped printing the set size on those alternate versions of cards, just printing the new number. As of  March of the Machines, they stopped printing the set size on cards altogether and instead print a 4 digit collector number.


text:
How is the channel ability word actually implemented in the rules?
Clause 207.2c of the comprehensive rules point out that "channel" is an ability word (among many others), in that it marks a particular family of behaviors but has no rules meaning (and the word "channel" does not even appear anywhere else in the document).
If I didn't know any better, for rules purposes I would thus read (for example) Eiganjo, Seat of the Empire with the "Channel —" omitted, and would mistakenly think that it specifies an activated ability on the land which has the dual cost of some mana and discarding the card. (But I would be confused because the rules specify that a card can only be discarded from the hand.) Of course, in actual fact I'm supposed to be able to do this (pay the mana and discard the card) from my hand and only my hand.
On the other hand, (for example) Nezumi Bone-Reader has an activated ability which costs some mana and requires sacrificing a creature. Based on the previous example, it seems like I could do this from the battlefield, or my hand. But of course, the ability cannot be activated unless the card is on the battlefield.
How do the rules implement how Eiganjo is (and channel effects in general are) actually played? Are both examples of activated abilities (even from the hand)? What separates these two examples?

My first guess that it's the presence of the Discard keyword in the list of costs, but the section "Discard" (701.8) in the comprehensive rules is very short and does not address this.
My second guess is that activated abilities (in the form "[Cost]: [Effect.]") are presumed to be activatable for any card in "any zone" at all, and there is a rule (I haven't found) which implies that activated abilities on e.g. creatures can only be activated when they are on the battlefield. But this is getting complicated quickly because I'm obviously not supposed to be able to activate most abilities from exile, or my library for that matter.
In a similar vein, where do the rules actually prohibit activating creature abilities from my hand? (That doesn't seem to happen in the "602. Activating Activated Abilities" section.) Thanks for all of your help.

No mistake in thinking anything about channel. All channel abilities are activated abilities.

The rule you're missing is 113.6:

113.6 Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield
[...]
113.6b An ability that states which zones it functions in functions only from those zones
[...]
113.6j An object’s activated ability that has a cost that can’t be paid while the object is on the
battlefield functions from any zone in which its cost can be paid.

with then as you note the definition of "discard" in 701:

701.8a To discard a card, move it from its owner’s hand to that player’s graveyard.

Rule references from the 2024-04-10 Comprehensive Rules.

If I didn't know any better, for rules purposes I would thus read (for example) Eiganjo, Seat of the Empire with the "Channel —" omitted, and would mistakenly think that it specifies an activated ability on the land which has the dual cost of some mana and discarding the card.

You are reading it correctly.
There are two issues to disentangle here. First:

But I would be confused because the rules specify that a card can only be discarded from the hand.

Eiganjo's ability is an activated ability. The card lists a cost on the left-hand side of :, and an effect on the right-hand side. Per 113.3b, that makes it an activated ability.
There is nothing about the definition of an activated ability that requires the source to be a permanent. By default, activated abilities function from the battlefield; but the ability text can override that by specifying either a cost (113.6j) or effect (113.6m) that logically requires it to be in a different zone; or by explicitly saying so (113.6b).
There are many cards, for example, that have an activated ability that allows for returning it from the graveyard to your hand, or to the battlefield. For a more extreme example, consider Lightning Storm: an instant with an activated ability that functions while it's on the stack. (This actually used to be the normal finisher for Ad Nauseam decks in Modern.)
But paying mana and sacrificing a creature are both costs that can be paid regardless of what zone Nezumi Bone-Reader is in; and the effect "target player discards a card" could take place regardless what zone Nezumi Bone-Reader is in. Therefore, Nezumi Bone-Reader's ability only works from the battlefield.
Second:

"channel" is an ability word (among many others), in that it marks a particular family of behaviors but has no rules meaning (and the word "channel" does not even appear anywhere else in the document).

This is correct. More generally, anything written in italics on the card can be ignored. Such text does not change how the card works. It exists either to help you understand the card (like reminder text) or to get you more invested in the idea behind the card (like flavour text). Ability words are in between: when you see Channel you're meant to think of the card as representing a spirit in the Kamigawa realm which can gather its energy for a special effect, rather than simply manifesting itself; and you're also meant to be prepared to read an activated ability that functions from hand and has a mana cost and a "discard this card" cost.
Gatecrash featured a similar ability word Bloodrush. It describes activated abilities with the same cost, but only appearing on creatures which are red and/or green, and specifically giving a power and toughness boost to an attacking creature, equal to power and toughness of the creature that the card would otherwise represent. (Interpretation of the flavour is at your discretion.) Because it's so narrowly defined, this probably could have been written as an actual keyword ability, but it wasn't.

"There is nothing about the definition of an activated ability, that requires the source to be a permanent." The comma before "that requires the source to be a permanent" makes it a nonrestrictive clause, which means that you're saying that the source of an activated ability must be a permanent.

The comma was meant as an informal convenience, as I'd expect most speakers to pause there naturally. I don't think your interpretation makes any sense at all. But I've removed it anyway, Enjoy.


text:
Has there ever been a time or place where high-level bridge was played with no convention cards? If so, what did it look like?
I’ve been digging through the internet, working through curiosity about bridge’s requirement that all partnerships have a convention card. I’ve learned a few things:

The intuition that open conventions make the game into something other than it ought to be is pretty common for new players

Veterans respond that getting rid of convention cards would make the game random, or randomer, or at least make it into something entirely different from what it is, because bidding would become mostly destructive without open conventions

Competitive bridge has slowly tightened on how much destructive bidding it allows.

I take it that they’re probably right and the game would be worse with secret conventions. It would be so good for my brain, though, to know what that worse game actually looks like.

At the very beginning, bridge was played with no conventions.  While this was not a codified rule, the original expectation at the very beginning of the 20th century was that all bids were natural, and this expectation was socially enforced.  It was even questionable whether partners could agree beforehand whether a bid (say a natural 2/1 change of suit) was forcing or not.
When the takeout double was introduced - clearly this is an improvement on the natural meaning - rarely does one want to double an opposition opening 1 bid for penalties - it was quite a matter of debate whether such an agreement should be legal or not.  Many bridge players didn't accept it, or allowed it but thought it unethical and refused to use it.  However, it was so clearly superior and an advance in the game that it became accepted and universally adopted.
The Vanderbilt Club was introduced in 1929 but rarely adopted, Blackwood in 1933, and Stayman in 1945.  Most players played no conventions other than Blackwood in the 1940s, and Stayman did not become widely adopted until the mid 1950s.  (The earliest Goren books did not have Stayman!)  There were simply no conventions, and hence no need for a convention card.  There was a strongly enforced social expectation that you would play exactly the same bidding systems and conventions everyone else did, though exactly what conventions those were varied somewhat by country.
Beginning in the late 1950s, once partnership agreements started diverging from each other, bridge organizations started codifying rules about when one's partner had to "Alert" one's bid.  (When you make certain conventional bids, your partner says "Alert", letting the opponents know that your bid has a meaning they might not have expected.)  As far as I can tell, there was always, even prior to this, the expectation that one could ask the opponents what their bids meant.  (Back in the 1920s, one could ask the opponents whether they played informatory doubles - as takeout doubles were then called.)  Convention cards were adopted AFTER alerts, sometime in the 1960s, and not everywhere at once, once there were enough divergent conventions that having a written document to inform the opponents in addition to verbal alerts and explanations became helpful.
As long as it's been the case that coming up with your own conventions wouldn't get you shunned, it's been expected that your opponents know your agreements with your partner.

You have completely missed the Culbertson era. Ely Culbertson's first book on Contract Bridge bidding: Edition 1 of the **Contract Bridge Blue Book - was published in 1930 and, with the second edition, "ran through eighty-five consecutive printings ... from 1930 to the end of 1932 .... " Although he didn't invent it, Culbertson was the most vocal early proponent of the **Approach Forcing principle, whereby non-jump new suit bids by Responder are a one-round force. This absolutely is a bidding convention; and I believe predates Vanderbilt's invention of the Contract Bridge rules in late 1925.

Link for the quote above on page viii of Culbertson's Contract Bridge Blue Book of 1933

Florence Irwin's 1920 book Master Auction - Auction For Those Who Know It is a complete bidding system played without the "One Double" - his name for today's Takeout Double - specifying specific sequences for, in particular, competitive auctions. This book predates Vanderbilt's Contract Bridge Rules by about 5 years. Irwin's lengthy screed against the One Double is particularly humorous, in light of subsequent development.

IIRC, Norman Squire's books (e.g. The Theory of Bidding, Bidding Today, Bidding at Bridge) had very little in the way of conventions, too.  However, the OP was asking if people ever have played bridge with "secret conventions" or no concept of "open conventions".


text:
Clarification Needed: Points Rummy Doubt on TajRummy Platform
I've been enjoying playing Points Rummy on the TajRummy platform, but I've encountered a situation that has left me a bit confused. I'm hoping some of you experienced players can offer some clarity.
In a recent game, I found myself in a position where I had completed all the necessary sequences and sets required for a valid declaration. However, I was unsure about the scoring and penalty system in a specific scenario.
Here's the situation: I had melded all my 13 cards into valid sequences and sets, including at least one pure sequence and two or more sequences overall. However, I noticed that one of my sets included more than four cards, and I had used jokers to complete it.
My question is, does having a set with more than four cards impact my score or penalty in any way? Specifically, does using jokers to create a set with more than four cards affect the calculation of points for my hand?
I've reviewed the rules provided by Taj Rummy, but I couldn't find a clear answer to this specific scenario. I want to ensure that I understand the scoring system correctly to avoid any confusion during future games.
I appreciate any insights or explanations you can provide on this matter.

Did it affect your score in that game? If so, how, exactly? Please provide complete details. (But of course the best option is to contact Taj Rummy's support directly.)

No, using jokers to create a set with more than four cards do not affect the score.
Points Rummy is a single round Indian Rummy with a Rupee-value for each point.  The rules of TajRummy:Points Rummy is identical to the rules of Pagat:Indian Rummy.

Once you have melded all 13 cards into valid sequences and sets, you
may declare for the win. To Declare successfully, you must fulfil the
following conditions:

You Must have at least 2 valid sequences
You must have at least 1 valid Pure Sequence
All cards have been melded.

Calculation of winnings at TajRummy:

Winnings = (Sum of all points that opponents receive) X (Rupee value of the point) - (Taj Rummy platform fees)


text:
Phase 10 wild card hits
1 player has a run of 4567 its hit with a wildcard. I the hit the same run with an 8. Its not allowed the wild was declared as an 8.
Is this how that rule works?

It depends on whether the wild card was played as a 3 or an 8.  From your question, it sounds like it was played as an 8.  According to the rules:

Once a Wild card has been played in a Phase, it cannot be removed from that Phase for the rest of the round.

In other words, when the wild card is played, it is treated as being the card it was played as.  If it was played as an 8, then no player may hit the run with another 8.  If it was played as a 3, then you may hit with the 8.


text:
In monopoly deal, if I have 3 black cards & one is a wild property. Can a player using a sly deal ask for the wild property or can I choose what card?
Does the person playing a sly deal card get to choose the specific card or just the group color?

The player playing the card chooses the property to steal. The card text says "Steal a property", not something like "Choose a color and an opponent. That opponent chooses a property of that color..."
This is confirmed on this page:

When using a Sly Deal or Force Deal to take an opponent’s property and they have multiple of the color you want, always choose the wild card if they have one.

They can take the wild card.
The exact wording of the card (as seen here) is as follows:

Steal a property from any other player and add it to your property collection.  You cannot steal a card from a full set of properties.  Can also be banked as money.

The only limitation is that the property may not be from a complete set.  There is nothing which mentions group colour.  Property Wild Cards are still property cards.


text:
Sorcerers in Small world
If i play sorcerers can I first roll the dice (like at the final move), capture new territory and only after it change my sorcerer for another enemy unit who became a neighbor only after this final conquest?

No you can not. The conquest in which you roll a die must be the final conquest of your turn. From the rules:

During the final conquest attempt of his turn, a player may find himself with not enough Race tokens left to conquer another Region outright. Provided he still has at least one unused Race token, the player may attempt one tinal conquest for his turn by selecting a Region that he would normally be 3 or less Race tokens short to conquer. Once the Region is selected, the player rolls the Reinforcement Die once. Note that the Region the player wishes to make his last conquest target for the turn must be selected before rolling the die. This Region does not have to be the weakest one available for attack either, provided it could still be conquered with a lucky die roll.
If the sum of the die rolled, combined with the Race token(s) left in his possession, is high enough to conquer the Region, the player deploys his remaining Race token(s) there. Otherwise, he deploys his remaining token(s) in one of the Regions he already occupied prior. Either way, his conquests for the turn end immediately thereafter.

And a sorcerer using his power is a type of conquest:

Once per turn per opponent, your sorcerers can conquer a Region by substituting one of your opponent's Active tokens with one of your own taken from the storage tray.

No.
From the FAQ:

The Sorcerers cannot use their Ability after doing a final conquest for the turn using the Reinforcement die roll.


text:
Time Stories Missing cards Prophecy of the dragon & The Marcy case
I’m looking for picture of 2 missing cards in two different time stories extansions :

card number 26, element 19 (the one we had to kept for other missions) in PoD
card 68 (Church B) in The Marcy case.

Could you help me?

I dont really think this deserves a downvote. There are older questions already asking for missing cards and unlike a normal card game, a missing card can be game critical and it is impossible to guess what it contains. Some cards are more important than others but before actually playing it, you simply don't know

I just have the german version of PoD, but here are the cards anyway.

Thank you so much!
Could you take a picture of the other side of the PoD card as well?

@Lear sure, no problem

Thank you so much!!

To possibly make things easier, here's the English version of Item 19

Interesting is, that the part for "Keep this object for future adventures. You never know" is missing. And even the flavortext is different. The german text is talking about milk colored area, the englisch one uses blue transluscent

@Zibelas perhaps I have an older version of the case? I've had these games for years, unfortunately never had a stable group to play a legacy game like them. Had to open the deck wrapping to take the picture.

I had to open the marcy case, had no time yet to play it. I must say, time stories does not take that long for a game, you can finish an extension in around 3h even with people who do not know it yet. And even though it is a legacy game, you can play the extensions as well in any order without knowledge of the others. There is an overall story, but you can enjoy just the extensions itself

@Zibelas it's less the time commitment of each case, and more the commitment of the right sized, steady play group to run through all 5 that I own

I know that feeling, currently trying to get a stable group for Arkham Horror. I played a few of the scenarios with only my wife. It turned out quite well even if we only controlled one investigator each.

Thanks a lot @andrew !


text:
Can a player cast an instant at anytime during an opponent's turn?
So I had the following situation in a very casual MtG match:

I've played Chandra, Flamecaller, a 4-loyalty planeswalker;
Then my opponent cast Boros Charm "in response to" that spell, targeting Chandra herself.

I argued that it was not possible, since at that moment Chandra was not a valid target (because the spell hasn't yet resolved). So far so good.
Then my opponent argued, "Well OK, then I'll cast Boros Charm right after she's summoned".
From what I've learned playing a bit of Arena, I explained that it is also not possible -- since I have priority on my turn, and I have not done any effect yet (or moved to the next turn phase) to warrant a response, I still could (for example) use her +1 loyalty ability even before Boros Charm could be cast. The ability would bring her to +5 loyalty and effectively survive 4 points of direct damage. I still would have the priority during my turn.
He argued however that an "instant can be played anytime", such that he could cast Boros Charm before I could use her +1 loyalty ability (and since it's a slow effect, that effect would not enter the stack, and she would not survive).
Who is right? More technically, is it the case that a player can initiate a new stack by using any instant-like ability or spell, which is not a mana ability, anytime outside his turn?

Keep in mind that if you do anything else that uses the stack, your opponent will be able to target Chandra with the Boros Charm, and you could lose the opportunity to use the loyalty ability - even if that action has nothing to do with Chandra. In situations where there are strategic reasons not to use the loyalty ability immediately, this risk must sometimes be weighed carefully.

@KarlKnechtel Yes, absolutely, that's pretty much clear for me right now.

Does this answer your question? Can I kill Lurrus directly after it enters the battlefield, before it's controller gets priority to cast a permanent from their graveyard? You want to cast Boros Charm before Chandra activates her ability. They want to kill Lurrus before Lurrus activates her ability.

@KarlKnechtel That's not true, but only because you said "anything". Most things, yes, would give your opponent an opportunity to respond with Boros Charm. But if you cast a spell with "Split Second", such as Angel's Grace, then your opponent will be unable to cast Boros Charm until your split second spell eventually resolves, at which point you'll have priority again.

@Rainbolt Ah, yes, that does use the stack, fair.

Does this answer your question? Destroying a Planewalker before its ability is used (Better duplicate than proposed above)

@ryanyuyu +Rainbolt Both do, though I think the way I framed my question is better for the purpose of clarifying priority rules. The planeswalker situation was merely an example where this rule affects materially the outcome.

You are right and your opponent was wrong. A player can only use abilities (including mana abilities1) or cast spells only when that player has priority. In your specific case, because the active player (AP, you) gets priority first every time a spell or ability resolves, there is (almost2) never a time where Chandra has resolved where the non-active player(s) (NAP, your opponent) can cast a spell or activate an ability before the AP can activate one of those abilities. Priority is covered in the Comprehensive Rules under section 117. The rules for what you can do when you have priority are covered by 117.1 (emphasis mine):

117.1 Unless a spell or ability is instructing a player to take an action, which player can take actions at any given time is determined by a system of priority. The player with priority may cast spells, activate abilities, and take special actions.

117.1a A player may cast an instant spell any time they have priority. A player may cast a noninstant spell during their main phase any time they have priority and the stack is empty.
117.1b A player may activate an activated ability any time they have priority.
117.1c A player may take some special actions any time they have priority. A player may take other special actions during their main phase any time they have priority and the stack is empty. See rule 116, “Special Actions.”
117.1d A player may activate a mana ability whenever they have priority, whenever they are casting a spell or activating an ability that requires a mana payment, or whenever a rule or effect asks for a mana payment (even in the middle of casting or resolving a spell or activating or resolving an ability).

And 117.3 covers when players will have priority (emphasis mine):

117.3 Which player has priority is determined by the following rules:

117.3a The active player receives priority at the beginning of most steps and phases, after any turn-based actions (such as drawing a card during the draw step; see rule 703) have been dealt with and abilities that trigger at the beginning of that phase or step have been put on the stack. No player receives priority during the untap step. Players usually don’t get priority during the cleanup step (see rule 514.3).
117.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.
117.3c If a player has priority when they cast a spell, activate an ability, or take a special action, that player receives priority afterward.
117.3d If a player has priority and chooses not to take any actions, that player passes. If any mana is in that player’s mana pool, they announce what mana is there. Then the next player in turn order receives priority.

See 117.1d - while many people think mana abilities can be activated any time, they do have restrictions, these restrictions are just looser than they are for casting spells and activating non-mana abilities.
Because activating a planeswalker ability is sorcery speed, if the planeswalker entering the battlefield causes an ability to trigger, that trigger will go on the stack before AP can use the planeswalker's ability.

Thanks for your detailed answer; in particular the footnote 2 is very interesting in that it could backfire against me if I had such effect available.

@alecov At the moment, there aren't that many Planeswalkers with built-in ETB effects (I found [mtg: Jace, Mirror Mage], [mtg: Minsc & Boo, Timeless Heroes], [mtg: Niko Aris], and [mtg: Teyo, Geometric Tactician]). Other cards that trigger when a planewalker ETBs are not common either, and they typically care only about your planeswalkers ([mtg: Cloudstone Curio], [mtg: Yoshimaru, Ever Faithful], [mtg: Kodama of the East Tree], for example). So if you are playing any of these cards, this rule is especially important.

@bradC mostly, but there are multi-card ways to set up these triggers too, for example Mycosynth Lattice or Enchanted Evening already in play making all permanents artifacts or enchantments respectively would open up a lot more triggers off of planeswalker ETBs

@BradC Yeah, the important thing here is that the rulings apply to any similar situation, and there are many ETBs for other permanents in general :)

And of course the [basic rules] don't do such a good job at explaining this, the text says "After a spell or ability resolves, both players again get the chance to respond." but it's not really explicit about the active player getting to go first. A bit before that it says "When you have finished putting spells and abilities on the stack, priority then passes to the next player in turn order", hinting at it, but still not being too clear about it, sigh.

google found me a 2013 PDF rulebook which does have the details too, even if only in the small print in the glossary (p. 30)

Should that very last part in the answer say that the trigger goes on stack and resolves before the planeswalker's ability can be used? (Wouldn't the trigger go on the stack first even if the ability could be used at instant speed?)

One think I think trips a lot of people up is thinking about “fast effects” vs “slow effects”. This is a really bad way of thinking. Instants are not faster than sorceries or creatures. They simply have more allowed windows of time when they can be used.

@alecov The design team tends to avoid making planeswalker ETB triggers precisely because of the potential for them to backfire. For example, I remember reading that Interplanar Beacon's life gain ability was originally written to trigger on a planeswalker entering the battlefield, but they changed it to trigger on cast for the release version because playtesting found that the ETB version backfired way too much.

I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning, but one other corner case is a planeswalker getting played on your opponent's turn (like The Wandering Emperor), in which case the opponent would get priority first. Though in that case you could still respond to your opponent's Boros Charm or whatever by activating one of the planeswalker's abilities.

@ilkkachu it could be worded that way, but its more there focused on the movement of priority, not resolution of the ability

BTW, this only works because adjusting a planeswalker's loyalty is actually a cost of activating their loyalty ability, even it it's increasing its loyalty. If increasing the PW loyalty were part of the effect, then the opponent could cast a spell dealing damage to the PW, and the spell would resolve before the ability does.

@GendoIkari "One think I think trips a lot of people up is thinking about “fast effects” vs “slow effects”. " The terminology "instant speed" and "sorcery speed" can be somewhat misleading, but the concepts themselves are useful; activating abilities and instants have one set of timing rules, while sorceries and permanent spells have another.

@GendoIkari I think that confusion is mostly an issue for players who come over from yu-gi-oh where there is a spell speed system (particularly since they even use those specific words)

@Andrew Or to very old (albeit casual) Beta-era players like myself who actually never really learned the rules correctly :)

Which brings me to wonder whether this degree of precision in the rules was always there, or just came up relatively recently. I remember having read those small 4th-edition booklets which came with the decks decades ago, several and several times. Never crossed my mind anything about this priority system. On the other hand, the old term "interrupt spell" could have been preserved to help players understand that sometimes you necessarily need to "interrupt" the resolution of an effect before you could cast a given spell.

@Acccumulation a more accurate term would be "instant timing" and "sorcery timing", but I don't think the usage would change

@Andrew Interestingly, the way Ignition Effects used to be playable in response to a Summon in the Main Phase is a pretty good analogy for the long-time Yu-Gi-Oh! player!


text:
Completing Special hand in canasta
If I am going for a special hand (zip code) and I need 1 card. The tray is empty, and my opponent discards the card I need to complete my special hand. Can I pick that card to complete my special hand?

It depends on the rules your group is following; most commonly no.
Most rule sources for Modern Canasta say that a special hand can only be made after drawing from the deck:
https://www.pagat.com/rummy/canasta.html#american-special

A special hand is a combination of 14 cards which entitles you to go out by exposing your entire hand after drawing from the deck, without discarding. You are only allowed to put down a special hand if your team has not yet melded any cards. Note that a special hand may include cards matching a closed (complete) canasta melded by the opposing team - i.e. cards that would otherwise be considered 'dead'. Since a special hand cannot use cards taken from the discard pile this does not prevent dead cards from being safe to discard.

https://canasta.com/rules/

If after drawing from the deck you have the cards required for any of the special hands and your team has not yet put down its initial meld you may make the first and only meld for your team by laying down your entire hand without a discard then end the round. All special hands, without exception, contain 14 cards.

However, this site’s rules do allow for this:
https://realcanasta.com/rules

If there is only one discard in the discard pile, you may take that card in order to complete a special hand.

As with many classic card games, there isn’t one official rulebook that can be consulted; so each group will need to agree on which rules they are using.