text:
Lord Windgrace; Resolving the First Loyalty Ability
Lord Windgrace's first ability reads:

+2: Discard a card, then draw a card. If a land card is discarded this way, draw an additional card.

If a land is discarded with this ability, is the order of events with this to draw, discard, then draw again because it doesn't specify to draw an additional card—or draw two cards—"instead?"
The confused other approach would be seeing the ability as reading to draw, draw, discard; which I believe is the way I initially interpreted it.
I believe I recognize that a replacement effect is not in place here.

Neither of your interpretations are correct. The order of events is discard, draw, [draw]. Look at the way the ability is ordered "+2: Discard a card, then [...]" The very first thing you do while resolving this ability is discard a card, then you draw either one or two cards. There is no replacement effect involved, and the first draw is unconditional. This means that even if you fail to discard a card (no cards in hand) you will draw that first card, but the discard definitely happens first if possible.

Y'know, somehow I kept misreading the card every time I was trying to understand and acknowledge the ability, and even in asking the question I re-read it many, many times over believing I had it all correct before posting it. My confusion doesn't make sense here and the question doesn't make sense to be asked in the first place. My apologies.

You're right, there is no replacement effect here.  Just follow the instructions as written in the order written.  So:

Discard a card.  Any card you want, but be aware your choice has consequences.
Draw a card.  Unconditional, you just do it.
If you discarded a land card in step 1, you draw another card.

You have two options.

Discard a land card, and draw two cards.
Discard a non-land card, and draw one card.

You alert your opponent as to which option you've picked, by what you are discarding.

The rulings on gatherer may help clarify:

If you have no cards in hand as Lord Windgrace’s first ability
resolves, you’ll discard nothing then you’ll draw one card.

(emphasis mine). You discard a card before drawing any cards.


text:
Killian, Ink Duelist; Target "Creature"
Something I wondered about Killian, Ink Duelist was how this card's cost-reduction ability interacted with spells that interact with creature cards or spells and not creature permanents.
Spells like Empyrial Armor and Crib Swap can both target a creature permanent on the battlefield which allows these spells to cost less to cast if Killian is on the battlefield under your control while casting and targeting a creature with those spells.
However, something like Animate Dead targets a "creature card in a graveyard," so is it implied that with Killian on the battlefield under your control, Animate Dead costs less to cast because it targets a "creature" anyway?
How would Killian interact with Venser, Shaper Savant regarding  returning a target spell to its owner's hand if the spell targeted is a creature spell?
Does a spell targeting a creature not have to be a permanent on the battlefield for the spell to cost less with Killian out?

Killian's ability only affects spells targeting creature permanents.
Rule 109.2 says

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

Killian's ability refers to "creatures", which is a card type, without using any of the specified words, so it means creature permanents.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
When playing canasta, why would I ever want to discard a wild card rather than adding it to a meld?
New at canasta. Can’t figure out why one would ever want to discard a wild card instead of adding it to one of their melds.

The main reason is to freeze the discard pile so that you have more safe choices to discard after that.
Often in Canasta, winning vs losing comes down to who gets to pick up the discard pile. When the discard pile gets big enough, the person who eventually gets to pick it up can score huge amounts of points by melding everything in it.
Discarding a wild card helps prevent this in 2 ways:

It is a guaranteed "safe" discard that cannot be picked up, the same as a black "3".

It freezes the discard pile, which means that cards you discard after that cannot allow your opponent to pick up the discard pile unless they have two matching naturals in their hand. This means that you can generally safely discard cards that they already have melded. Of course your opponent could have 3 of a kind melded and still have two more in their hand, but your odds are better. It can also give you several guaranteed safe discards; for example if your opponent has melded four "6"s, and you are holding three "6"s in your hand, then discarding a wild card allows you to discard those "6"s over the next three turns without any risk of your opponent picking up the discard pile.

Note that this does have the same effect against you as well; so it is better for you if you have more cards in hand than your opponent, or fewer things melded.

An extreme case of this, when fighting for the discard pile, is to lock it with a wild card while holding a natural canasta in your hand. Seven rounds of absolutely risk-free discards may well be worth the sacrifice. Don't recall ever doing that but when playing  a prolonged game with friends I considered it.

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


text:
Giving an Exploding Kitten to another player's hand through Barking Kitten
Barking Kitten allows me to give cards of my own hand to another player's hand after they chose half of their own cards to give to me. Holding a Streaking Kitten together with an Exploding Kitten in my hand, this would allow me to give the other player an Exploding Kitten into their hand that would explode directly.
In the case that I was the one to successfully play Barking Kitten (either having both of the Barking Kittens or playing it while another player holds the second Barking Kitten card) I guess it is correct to say that the Exploding Kitten given to another player needs to explode.
My question is what happens if another player plays Barking Kitten(s) successfully against me while I'm holding a Streaking Kitten and an Exploding in my hand, and I give him/her my Exploding Kitten. The rules of Barking Kitten says that the player using its effect can choose which cards of the other player they want to add to their hand. Does the other player have to defuse my Exploding Kitten that he got from me, or can he directly give it back to me without adding it to his hand?

The Barking Kitten FAQ states:

must give you half their cards (rounding up). Combine them with your hand, then choose and return the same number of cards back

Whereas Streaking Kitten says:

If another player steals or receives an Exploding Kitten from your hand, they explode. They must defuse it or lose the game.

I'd interpret this as the Exploding Kitten being received from your hand, which is anyway illegal without holding a Streaking Kitten. Therefore I'd say the receiving player must Defuse the Exploding Kitten before completing the "combine them with your hand" part and moving on as usual.


text:
Is it possible to play 2 of a kind or 3 of a kind while I'm blinded by the Curse of the Cat Butt?
Curse of the cat butt from the Streaking Kitten extension blinds me and I have to randomly play cards until I draw a card successfully (unless it's an exploding kitten and I need to defuse it blindly). I know the rules when someone tries to steal from me while I'm blinded, but what happens if I want to use a special combination while blinded? Can I simply play all my cards for a special combination and discard all cards that don't add to a 2 of a kind or 3 of a kind?

When playing blind, you can only play one card at a time.
Curse of the Cat Butt is a clone/replacement of Blind as a Bat and follows the same rules.
Blind as a Bat instructions:

any cards must be played blind (pick one blindly, and place it face up on the Discard pile).

The expression of the Curse of the Cat Butt rules/instructions tried to clarify some points but ended up with this one point muddled. It's still kinda in there, though:

On their turn, if the blind player decides to play any cards, those cards must be picked randomly and played face up on the Discard Pile. If the card is playable, play as normal.

The way to reconcile the shift from plural to singular is to read it like Blind as a Bat:
Cards are played to the discard pile, and each time, if the card (singular) is playable, ...

Thanks Scott! I know this is a bit tricky as it is not 100% definite in the streaking kitten rules, but thanks to your knowledge about the Blind as a Bat card this was finally resolved :)

What is the name of the extension that includes Blind as a Bat?

It was in "Hidden Compartment" https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/232697/hidden-compartment-pack-expansion-cards-against-hu


text:
Is it possible to have a Draw in Stratego?
If both flags are blocked by bombs, and there are no miners left, The rules state that if you have no movable pieces left you lose the game.
What if each player has one moveable piece left, and the one with the lower piece simply runs away?
If the player can't be caught, he can't lose, and a draw would need to be called, correct?

Try catching a 9 with three 7s.

I've not found any reference to rules concerning draws in any of the rules pdfs on line.  The rules do say

A piece cannot move back and forth between the same two squares in
three consecutive turns

If a player had no legal move other than "moving back and forth" they would lose as unable to play.
It is possible that a piece could never be caught in a game of Stratego if they were being chased around any of the 4 empty lake spaces.  This situation doesn't seem to be covered in official rules but it does seem to be covered in the International Stratego Federation rules.   I don't know if they have any official affiliation with any Stratego publisher.  They say

It is not allowed to continuously chase one or more pieces of the
opponent endlessly. The continuous chaser may not play a chasing move
which would lead to a position on the board which has already taken
place.

Those rules also say

A match ends in draw when:

at the end of the official playing the match has not ended yet.
both players agree to a draw.
the arbiter declares the game a draw.
both players have no movable pieces anymore.
both personal clock times have run out and this is mentioned by at least one of both players.

I should stress these are the. ISF rules and not in any published version. People playing at home would be unlikely to use a clock for example.
So whilst the rules do not officially call the situation you give a draw, it seem sensible to me that both players should agree to this if the game is impossible to end otherwise.

The ISF rules extend the house rules found in the Jumbo boxes:, quote: "1.2 The ISF Game Rules are based on the Jumbo Stratego Original Game Rules (see article 5). The ISF Game Rules focus on potential conflict situations during tournaments, which are not described in detail in the Jumbo Stratego Original Game Rules"

And furthermore: "05 Jumbo Stratego Original Game Rules
The ISF Game Rules are based on the Jumbo Stratego Original Game Rules (version 2006). The Jumbo Stratego Original Game Rules which are not incorporated in any other article are listed below"

You are correct.  If a player can't be caught, he can't lose, and a draw would need to be called.
On BGG, Pursuit thread, Alejandro Lizarraga is saying:

The only scenario when I can think that a persecution can extend indefinitely is when a player has one single moving piece left in the board with his flag surrounded by bombs and the opponent has run out of bombers already. In this very particular case, the tournament rules concede a draw game, but I think only after completing two full circles around the board.

The rules specify two ways to win:

capture the flag
opponent can not make a move in his turn

If all the games me and my sister played over the years, one comes to mind. Our flags were in opposite corners and bombed in, we each had one miner, marshal, spy, and a few other pieces (no scouts) left. The game continued for two days before we realized it was unwinnable.
For those "can't repeat a position" guys; there's about 10^38 positions before repeats become a problem.

Since Stratego does not randomly move to any possible board position, the number of potential board layouts is irrelevant. It's those that can and do repeat which are not permitted, and repeats can and have been issues in games before.

@Nij: It was in this case. Wide open board jockying for advantage; tight loops did not occur.

In what case? The question is about rules in general, an answer based on one specific game is less than helpful.

@Nij: Question: Is is possible to have a draw?

So, how does mentioning the number of possible positions (many of which are illegal or inaccessible, and are not freely obtainable from any other position) help answer that? - It doesn't.

@Nij: Some people were attempting to argue that a draw would not occur because somebody would be unable to move due to repetitions and thus lose by being unable to move. I have produced a scenario from a real game where it would not occur within a human lifetime.

Which is perfectly true. You can be trapped in a situation where no moves are possible except for repetition. And your response was that the game state has a huge number of possibilities, without explaining why this number is either relevant or useful.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

It sounds like it should be a loss for the player who is running away. In this situation you have a case where neither player can win by capturing the flag and both players have movable pieces the victory should go to the player with the highest piece left. However there would be two situations where this would be different.

Players have 1 movable piece left of different ranks: person with lower ranked piece loses.
Players have 1 movable piece left of equal rank: game is a draw as they would eliminate each other when attacked.
Players have 1 movable piece left one is the marshal and one is the spy: game would continue until either a draw is agreed to or one player is able to capture the other piece.

In this case I don't think it is advisable to reward a player with a draw for being able to move around the board when they have no chance of winning.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c&ab_channel=klatica

@Cohensius You are right it is just my opinion but I don't see why you would reward someone in a losing position with a draw just because they are in a position from keeping the game from ever ending.

Imho this situation is similar to one of the draw reasons in Chess: "Impossibility of checkmate", for example: king and bishop versus king.   One can say that the player that have a king + bishop should win, but really it is just a draw.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_(chess)

@JoeW: "I don't see why you would reward someone in a losing position with a draw just because they are in a position from keeping the game from ever ending." Sure, but if they can force a draw, then it's not a losing position. Vice versa, I might say "I don't see why you would reward someone in a drawing position with a win just because they... um... bore easily?" I'm honestly not sure what the rationale would be for awarding a win to either of the players, given that we're assuming both players are literally unable to win, according to the rules of the game, from the present position.

@Quuxplusone Outside of games that have game/player time limits there is no indication in the rules about how to handle this. This situation is not covered in the basic game and would only be covered under rules that add some sort of time/move limit to the game such as a tournament.  In normal gameplay this could cause a game to never end until either one player declares that they lost or both players agree to a draw. In the examples I gave it is more of a case that one player can win if they catch the piece and the other player can't win no matter what.

Joe W, regarding your logic of not rewarding a player who has no chance of winning --- neither player has a chance of winning. So by your logic, both players must be awarded a loss. Number of points awarded in a match should remain constant, so best solution is a draw when neither player can win.

@PhilipSchiff My logic is that the only thing preventing one player from winning and another player from losing is an endless chain of moves that can never end. So it is possible for one player to win if the endless chain of moves was to end. In this case you have one player who doesn't want to lose/draw and one that doesn't want to draw.

The essence of your comment is that "I don't like that it awards a draw to a player who I feel deserves to lose, because he did not win". However the shortcoming with your proposed remedy is that it "awards a win to player who does not deserve it, because he did not win".

@PhilipSchiff I am not sure what that is supposed to mean.

@Cohensius In chess there are rules that govern when a draw occurs which is not the case in Stratego except in tourney play.

@JoeW it meant you say "if only the player was able to catch the other, he could use his superior piece to win" and I am saying "it doesn't matter because the if is false".

@PhilipSchiff It seems we disagree on this and the rules don't allow for a draw in normal play. Tournament play may have draws but that is because they add in additional rules to prevent an endless game like this from happening.

I would say yes.  Take this scenario:

Red has more overall pieces, however the only powerful piece it has left is the Marshall.  Included in the pieces is at least one Miner, who has not yet moved, so it looks like a bomb.  Red's flag is buried in a two lines of unmoved pieces and is likely encased behind yet to be discovered bombs.

Blue has significantly fewer pieces, but they are clearly more powerful,  For example, they may still have the Marshall, the General, and a Major. However Blue no longer possess a Miner to clear bombs.  Let's also say that Blue's bombs have been clearly determined and the flag location has been pretty much exposed so it is forced to play defensively.

Which player is leading the game?
If Red is forced to trade to the death like checkers, then Blue.
However if game is Capture the Flag, should Blue be forced to try to "discover" the flag?  Should the General be forced to try and capture an unmoved piece hoping it is not a bomb?  Blue also cannot be overly aggressive on Red's side of the board or it could expose a mad dash by Miner(s) supported by as many pieces as it needs to cause confusion.  The Red Marshall can bully both the Blue General and the Major if left unattended.  Red has options to win and shouldn't be forced to trade (or even move) pieces because they are the only player who can capture the flag.
To me this looks like a clear tie because neither side is compelled to give up its advantage in the end game.

That seems strange as players could keep a piece from moving in order to hide what it is. For example they could not move the spy until they know where it is needed.

Right and not moving a piece is a big part of causing a draw.  There is value in an unmoved piece.  There is also value in an unidentified moved piece.
What I am getting at is there is situations where one sides strength is the power of its remaining pieces.  There are also situations where one sides strength is the number of pieces (or Miner/Scout skills).  There is certainly significant power in identifying bombs and flag location.
These differences in power creates clear draws that are more complex a Marshall chasing a General around a pond.

Right but not moving a piece that could be moved shouldn't factor into the decision as players have the choice to attack the piece if they think it is a bluff. Not to mention this is a problem because there are no rules around draws.

Ok but take my scenario.  What should blue do, what should red do?  If the back two rows of red is mostly intact and complete unmoved, what should blue do?  It only has 3 pieces left keep in mind.

Play the game? Send in lower power pieces to try and find the bombs?

This was a game I had against the computer.  I was red.  There was no way I could move a piece or it would be captured.

Answering that situation is outside the bounds of this question.

I don't think this should be ruled a draw. It might develop into one as play continues.  But red can perhaps win through good play. Blue can win if all of red's mobile pieces are destroyed so that red cannot move.

So who won the game above? I was red.  I could never move my miner because blue hovered the flag.  So my choice was shuttle my Marshall and Scout forever OR lose.  Blue was in the same boat.  Either the computer exposed its flag or played to tie.

I would recommend getting a board and playing it out.  Or download an app and get in that situation.  For me, I lost a major early so I sacrificed my General and other Major to wipe out his back row.  If I played traditionally it was a guaranteed loss but I put the computer in a bad spot.

You really have to play an over the board game and lose even though you have more power to understand why quantity of pieces is important too.


text:
Going Out Concealed in Classic Canasta
I'm new to Canasta, so I've been reading a lot of rules on the internet and found out that there are many variations. Luckily, the rules to Classic Canasta seem to be pretty consistent from site to site, but I still have this question about "Going out concealed"...
Let's say that my partner has already gotten a Canasta. I haven't laid down a single card yet, and then (by some miracle), I'm able to meld everything in my hand all at once and go out, but I don't have a Canasta.
All the rules that I've read say that I have to have a Canasta, but since you only have to have one Canasta per team, and my partner already has one, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do it without one and get the extra 100-point bonus for "Going out concealed".
Also, is it true that I can't play on my partner's pile at all in order to "go out concealed"? If we're playing together, our pile is one and the same, so I don't see why I couldn't do that either.

Yes, you can do this. There are no special rules or restrictions regarding going out concealed, so you are just subject to the rules for melding normally, along with the rules for going out normally.
Melds belong to both your partner and melds by either of you can be placed in front of either of you; there is only one set of melds for your partnership.

All the melds of a partnership are placed in front of either partner.

A player may add additional cards to a meld by their side, provided that the melds remain valid (having no more than three wild cards).

A player goes out when they get rid of the last card in their hand by discarding or melding it, provided that their side has melded at least one canasta or they complete a canasta while going out. Failing this requirement, a player must keep at least one card in their hand.

A player goes out "concealed" when they meld their entire hand in one turn, including at least one canasta, without having made an earlier meld and without previously having added any card to melds that their partner has made

So it only matters if your partnership has a Canasta, not if you personally do. And you can always add cards to your partnership's melds; it makes no difference if the cards were melded previously by you or your partner. Whether you are just melding some cards or going out makes no difference there.
Source: https://bicyclecards.com/how-to-play/canasta/

Thanks Gendo. Now I know that I can try to use that trick whenever my partner has gotten a great start, and I'm acting like I'm getting nowhere, and then...Boom! I'm out, and I've got 200 bonus points for my team!

@MylesMarkson Remember to be careful with that so you don't leave your partner with to many cards in their hand.

Good point Joe. Am I allowed to ask my partner beforehand if it's alright to "go out concealed"?

You can always choose to ask your partner if you are allowed to go out; if you choose to ask then their answer is binding.


text:
Does the " Heroic " special power protects you against the Ice Witches special power?
I'm kind of confused because in the digital(steam) version you can place ice markers to territories protected by the hero tokens.(which should protect you from special powers)

From the combined almanac on BGG:

Ice Witches by Andrew Capel A SPIDER’S WEB
Race Tokens: 5 (10 Max)
Power: Ice Witches collect 1 Winter marker for each Magic Souce (or Mystic Crystal Region) they control at the end of their Redeployment phase. At the end of their Redeployment phase, Ice Witches may place their Winter markers in their own Regions or any adjacent Region (there cannot be more than 1 Winter marker per Region, though). A Winter marker permanently augments the Region’s defense by 1. It remains on the board as long as the Ice Witches are active. Regions with a Winter marker that are not controlled by an Ice Witch earn 1 less Victory coin than usual.

Heroic SMALL WORLD
Race Tokens: 5
Power: At the end of your turn, place each of your 2 Heroes in 2 different Regions you occupy. These 2 Regions are immune to enemy conquests as well as to their Racial and Special Powers until your Heroes move. Your Heroes disappear when you go In Decline.

By my reading, I would say that the Ice Witches should not be able to place their Winter markers in a region containing a Hero. I could not find any specific ruling about the two, nor could I find any discussion about either Ice Witches or the Heroic power that would suggest otherwise.


text:
Patchwork: why so many buttons?
Playing Patchwork. There seems to be so many button tokens, but we do not seem to be able to end the game with more than 10 buttons in the pocket. All the 10s, 20s just sit there, unused. Are we missing something? How to accumulate more “money”? :)

The most buttons I've ended with has been about 25. However, it would be entirely possible to end up with more if you stopped purchasing more tiles halfway through the game, and used the "Advance and receive buttons" action until the end.
I would not recommend this strategy, as you will likely be left with many holes in your board, which count as -2 buttons each.

It is certainly possible to end up with more that 25. The first few moves are often crucial.

Indeed, if you played optimally, and the choices are in your favour, I would think you could end up with at least 40 buttons


text:
What playtest or silver-bordered cards were eventually tweaked and printed in black border?
The playtest card Boneyard Aberration is being printed digitally in Jumpstart Horizons. It's a digital-only black bordered equivalent to the playtest card Bone Rattler with some minor rebalancing.
Similarly, the silver-bordered Giant Fan was later reprinted in black border as Power Conduit with some minor rules tweaking and rebalancing.
What other playtest cards from the Mystery Booster set or silver-bordered cards from the Unsets were later printed (possibly with balance or rules tweaks) in a black bordered set?

The Cheese Stands Alone → Barren Glory
Hungry Hungry Heifer ≈ Chisei, Heart of Oceans
Rocket-Powered Turbo Slug ≈ Pact cycle
The Ultimate Nightmare of Wizards of the Coast® Customer Service ≈ Comet Storm
Krark's Other Thumb ≈ Barbarian Class, Pixie Guide
Assquatch ≈ Coercive Recruiter
Super-Duper Death Ray → Flame Spill
Enchantmentize → One with the Stars
B.F.M. (Big Furry Monster) ≈ Meld mechanic
Host/Augment ≈ Mutate

I'm not sure I would count the last one, as the +1.5/+1.5 lord boost is as least as important to the card as the threaten trigger, and Recruiter doesn't have that

@ArcanistLupus I agree with that assessment - to steal a symbol from math, maybe we could use the ⫊ symbol to show that a subset of the card is approximately equal to it?

@toroid maybe, but in this case it feels misleading, because the equal portion was entirely black border legal when printed, and the part that was left out was the silverbordered component

@Arcanist Ah, I agree with that

There are probably quite a few more that I can't think of right now, so I've marked this as a Community Wiki answer.

_____ → Spy Kit
Angelic Rocket → Meteor Golem

Angelic Rocket to Meteor Golem doesn't really fit here. It's mechanically similar, but all of the parts that are the same already existed in black border at the time Angelic Rocket was printed, just not with that exact wording. The only silver bordered part of Angelic Rocket was the host/augment mechanic, and Meteor Golem doesn't have that.

The asker did not specify that they were looking  for new mechanics- just balance or rules tweaks. @toroid - what do you think please?


text:
How many Dragon Shield perfect fit sealable double sleeved cards can fit in a Boulder 100+ Deck Case?
I've been using a Quiver Card Case and I've been looking for a deck box that fits inside while holding my double sleeved cards. I'm considering purchasing a Ultimate Guard Boulder 100+ Deck Case to store my double sleeved cards in. The product description says:

Designed for 100 double-sleeved or 120 single-sleeved standard sized cards
Inner Dimensions: 68.5 x 67.5 x 93 mm

However, I've been double sleeving my cards with Dragon Shield Perfect Fit Sealable inner sleeves to really protect my expensive cards. These inner sleeves have a design where the sleeves fold in on themselves to seal the card inside the inner sleeve. This makes the thickness of the inner sleeve one extra layer thick.
Since I don't have the product on hand, I'm unable to test exactly how many of my double sleeved cards might fit inside the deck box.
These cards are for Magic: the Gathering, so typical deck sizes are 100 cards or 75 cards. I don't think I'll be able to fit in the 100 cards, but might I still be able to fit the 75 cards inside?

a double Sleeved deck with dragon shield resealable inner sleeves and Katana outer Sleeves will just fit into a boulder 100+ (air completly pushed out, difficult in the beginning, but once put in the boulder some timme, no air will go back in ;-))
On some boulder the plastic is slightly warped inwards.
On those you will need to pull outwards with some force but then your deck will fit.
Different thing you can do is put 98 cards in in the desired direction as shown on the product photos online and put the 2 missing cards in 90° rotated (see picture)

For something like KMC perfect fit, they will fit the boulder 0 problems.

If I try to measure my decks that are double sleeved and squish them really tight to get all of the air out, I get these approximate measurements:

Number of Cards in Deck
Size

100
73mm

90
67mm

75
55mm

It seems like a 75 card deck will easily fit within the 67.5mm size of the boulder case, but a 100 card deck is definitely too big. With my rough estimations, I can fit approximately 90 of these kinds of double sleeved cards inside a deckbox, which is under what I was hoping for.
These measurements were done imperfectly with a ruler, but provide a reasonable approximation.


text:
1 board, 2 chickens,3 baskets 9 positions
Small ceramic board,2 chickens,9 positions,3 nests; 2 nests with 2 eggs & one nest with one egg. Eggs non removeable. Can I send a photo?

Upload your photo to a hosting site like Imgur, edit the share link into the question, and if the software doesn't do it automatically, one of the mods will turn that into an inline image.

Oh, and welcome to B&CG Stack Exchange!  You can [edit] your question to add the photo and anything else you can recall about the game (any details of play, for instance).  If you haven't already, you should also take the [tour] and read over the [FAQ] to help clarify how Stack Exchange works.


text:
Is there any way to make a dreadnought a character OUTSIDE of iron hands
I play a custom Dark Angels successor chapter, whose chapter master is entombed in a leviathan dreadnought, and I am wondering if there is a way outside of the iron hands stratagem as I would like him to be the warlord and take appropriate warlord traits.


text:
Duplicate Preludes in Mask of Nyarlathotep differ from original
The rulebook for Masks of Nyarlathotep - Prelude Cards - Page 4 states

Four Preludes in this expansion (Beginning of the End, The
Dunwich Horror, Twin Blasphemies of the Black Goat, and
Call of Cthulhu) originally appeared in previous expansions
(Mountains of Madness, Strange Remnants, The Dreamlands,
and Under the Pyramids respectively). If playing with those
expansions, do not include the duplicate Preludes in the
Prelude deck.

However the Twin Blasphemies of the Black Goat Prelude have been corrected according to the Errata. So it's not a duplicate it's a correction and really they should have included this twice.
And The Dunwich Horror Prelude had the word Glamour removed. This change was not listed in the Errata. So again not a duplicate.

After resolving setup, each investigator gains 1 Glamour Spell. Then, if Yog-Sothoth is not the Ancient One, spawn the Dunwich Horror Epic Monster on Arkham.

What's going on?

I don't quite understand your question here but generally, when referring to duplicates Eldritch Horror means the card title specifically, not necessarily the entirety of the card's contents.

It's a duplicate in title only, that explains it. Thanks. I'm guessing Glamour was removed because MoN doesn't have Glamour spells. Curious that they choose to put a SR logo on the card as this will make it really difficult to put it back in the MoN box post game.

Generally, when Eldritch Horror refers to duplicate cards, it explicitly refers to the title of the card, not the entirety of the card's contents. Additionally, if a board game replaces a card because of a typo or explanation update, it's recommended to remove the original card entirely for the updated card.


text:
Do Preludes affect new investigators
When an Investigator is Defeated the player chooses a new investigator at the end of the Mythos Phase.
If the Otherworldly Dreams Prelude is in play

After resolving setup, if Hypnos is the Ancient One, each Investigator loses 1 Health and 1 Sanity and gains 1 Focus. Then, each investigator may spend 1 Health and 1 Sanity to gain 1 Clue.

Is the new investigator affected by this?
What about Preludes that say "Before step", like Call of Cthulhu

Before step 9 of setup ("Resolve Starting Effects), each investigator
moves to the nearest Sea space and loses 1 Sanity. If Cthulhu is the
Ancient One, each investigator places 1 Eldritch token on the nearest
Sea space that does not contain an Eldritch Token
If Cthulhu is not the Ancient One, set aside 1 Deep One Monster and
spawn the Cthylla Epic Monster on space 3.
Then, each investigator may spend 1 Sanity to gain 1 Clue.

What about Epidemic, how much of that would be resolved?

After resolving setup, if Abhoth is the Ancient One, each Investigator spawns 1 Cultist Monster on a Wilderness space that does not contain a Cultist Monster.
If Abhoth is not the Ancient One, the Lead Investigator spawn the Child of Abhoth Epic Monster on the nearest Wilderness space.
Then, each Investigator gains 1 Illness Condition and 1 Clue.

I don't think the Prelude cards would apply. The Prelude cards specified timing is either Setup or After Setup and drawing a new investigator is during gameplay.

When playing with this expansion, players draw one random Prelude card before setting up the game. These cards alter game setup and make each game feel unique.
The card’s effect is resolved immediately after drawing the card, unless it specifies different timing, such as “after resolving setup.”

Mountains of Madness Rules; Page 4

The Setup and After Setup Prelude cards are one-time effects that alter the beginning of the game. During gameplay, when you would draw a new investigator, is after both of these timings.


text:
Can Dream Portals spawn on other side boards
Can Dream Portals spawn on other side boards?
The dreamlands rules state:

Spawn Dream Portals

Reveal Gates from the top of the Gate stack until three Gates are revealed that each correspond to a space that is not on the Dreamlands side board. Place the three Dream Portal tokens on those spaces. Leave each revealed Gate in the Gate stack and do not randomize the Gate stack after spawning a Dream Portal.

The rules doesn't state anything about in which order side boards should be setup. It just says to spawn the Dream Portals during step 5 of the Dreamlands side board setup.
So I assume they can. Or am I missing something?

Generally, you play with a sideboard only if a Prelude Card or Ancient One requires it. Some Preludes call for specific sideboards, and some Ancient Ones specifically require certain sideboards to be playable. If you want to use multiple sideboards, you could either house rule it so that Dream Portals only spawn on the main map or spawn on any other sideboard. Do note that some sideboards also come with their own special setup rules as well.
There are no rules that explicitly state that Dream Portals wouldn't spawn on the other sideboard, so your assumption is correct. I suspect that playing with multiple sideboards will greatly increase the difficulty as investigators have more ground to cover.


text:
How to read The Rise of the Elder Things Cultists text
The Cultists for The Rise of the Elder Things Ancient One have the following text

If you pass the lore test, you free the victim's mind from the alien magic; defeat this Monster and gain 1 random Ally Asset from the deck.

Elder Things Cultists
Is the Cultists defeated if the lore test is passed?
Or do players still need to defeat the Cultists after passing the lore test to gain 1 random Ally asset? And should really be read as

If you pass the lore test, you free the victim's mind from the alien magic; defeat this Monster to gain 1 random Ally Asset from the deck.

You do not need to defeat the Cultist to gain the rewards if you pass the Horror Check.
Whenever fighting a monster, you have a Horror Check then a Strength Check. The Horror Check is usually a Will Test  but whenever fighting The Elder Things Cultists, it specifically asks for a Lore Test (-1). If you roll a success, you free the victim, defeat the Cultist, and gain a random Aly Asset from the assets deck. Thematically, this is the Ally you freed from The Elder Things grasp.
If you fail the Sanity Check, you take the difference in Sanity damage and move on to the Strenth Check  to try and defeat the Cultist by brute force. Successes you roll deal damage to cultist, but if you defeat the Cultist this way you don't gain a random Ally Asset.

The thematic explanation makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that :)


text:
Saboteur 2 - Restrictions on playing "trapped!" in the end of the round
Are there any in-game restrictions on playing the trapped! and the tool-breaking cards in the end of the round? For example, can I play the trapped card as my last one on a player who has no more cards?

In the rules there are no special restrictions for the new action cards.
In the normal gameplay:

When it is your turn, you have to take one of the four following
actions:

Place a path card in the tunnel maze then draw 1 card.
Play an action card then draw 1 card.
Discard two cards from your hand to remove a card in front of you then draw 1 card.
Pass and discard 1-3 face-down cards from your hand then draw 1-3 cards.

Then your turn is over and it's the next player's turn.

There is also no restriction mentioned for the trapped card:

Trapped! (3 in the game)
Play this card face-up in front of another player of your choice. This
player is trapped and cannot play any more path cards. If a player is
trapped when the round ends, they don't get counted as one of the
winners and don't get a cut of the treasure.

So yes you can play an trapped card on a player that has no cards in hand. It literally traps the player, but he or she can be rescued by another player using the "Free at last!" card.


text:
Arkham Horror LCD: having a card under control
I'm confused by what control is and refrence book doesn't quite clear it up. Let's take these two cards from Dunwich Legacy base box:

All-in:
on the a-side we have:

While Dr. Morgan is not controlled by a player, he gains "... If there are 1 clues/investigator on Dr. Morgan, take control of him."

and on the b-side:

If an investigator resigned with Dr. Francis Morgan under his or her control, (→R2)

Dr. Francis Morgan card: an ally.

So how do I use these cards? If I succeed at the (3) test, can I place Dr. Morgan's card into my hand first or do I have to play it right away? What if I don't have enough resources or my in-play ally slot is already occupied?
Then, to satisfy b-side condition, will I have to put Morgan's card to my play area or does having it in my hand suffice?

Dr. Morgan should go directly to your play area just like Lita Chantler. Another example of cards you control would be Cryptic Chill where the rules state cards with abilities can only interact with cards that are in play. Inversely, a card you take in your control would also go to your in-play area unless otherwise specified.


text:
MTG: Can you have a commander that has all five colors but the deck has one or more colors missing?
As a joke, me and my buddy's wanted to make decks without our favorite colors, but I wanted us to use five color commanders and just not insert our favorite colors, they agreed but I was curious if this actually could work or would the deck have to have all the colors the commander has regardless.

You do not need to use every color your commander allows (apart from the fact that your commander itself automatically uses every color it allows). Rule 903.5 details the additional rules regarding deck construction that are relevant in Commander:

903.5. Each Commander deck is subject to the following deck construction rules.

903.5a Each deck must contain exactly 100 cards, including its commander. In other words, the
minimum deck size and the maximum deck size are both 100.
903.5b Other than basic lands, each card in a Commander deck must have a different English name.
903.5c A card can be included in a Commander deck only if every color in its color identity is also
found in the color identity of the deck’s commander.
Example: Wort, the Raidmother is a legendary creature with mana cost {4}{R/G}{R/G}.
Wort’s color identity is red and green. Each card in a Wort Commander deck must be
only red, only green, both red and green, or have no color. Each mana symbol in the
mana cost or rules text of a card in this deck must be only red, only green, both red and
green, or have no color.
903.5d A card with a basic land type may be included in a Commander deck only if each color of
mana it could produce is included in the commander’s color identity.
Example: Wort, the Raidmother’s color identity is red and green. A Wort Commander
deck may include land cards with the basic land types Mountain and/or Forest. It can’t
include any land cards with the basic land types Plains, Island, or Swamp.

There is nothing here that says every color of the color identity of the commander must be used by the rest of the deck.

"apart from the fact that your commander itself automatically uses every color it allows" The commander does not necessarily use all of the colors of its color identity. For instance, Emiel the Blessed doesn't need to cost G.

@Accumulation But it has green in its color identity. So for the purposes of Commander deck construction, it uses green.

Yes, your deck can have fewer colors than your commander allows.
The commander's color identity does not mandate your deck must have any of its colors. It only says your deck can't have any colors outside its color identity. If you wish, you can make an otherwise colorless, all-artifact deck with your 5 color commander.

You can build a commander deck with as few colors as you want
Technically speaking, the commander is part of a commander deck (the 100 cards in "100 card singleton" includes the commander), so by definition any commander deck will be the same number of colors as the commander.
But there is absolutely no requirement that any other cards need to be that color, or that you include lands that can produce all the colors of your commander.


text:
Is there a standard way to number the faces of a 6-sided die?
I understand the two enantiomorphs which implement the opposite faces convention (aka the n+1 rule). I am interested in a much larger picture:

history
which market offers which enantiomorph?

casino dice
precision dice
backgammon dice
drugstore dice (US), shop dice (UK)

the 15 distinct configurations
the derivation from 6! permutations down to the two configurations
why those two?
is there a rival configuration?

What is the question? The subject line doesn't seem to match the body of your "question".

The first paragraph of my answer directly addresses the question in the subject line. Beyond that, I am hoping that those who read the remainder of my answer will be prompted to share from their knowledge additional facts related to the topics I covered.

"Tell me all about dice" isn't really a question though.

In light of the comments, I am rethinking my goal and how to make it conform with the standards of boardgames.stackexchange.

There is no industry-wide standard for mapping numbers 1...6 across the faces of a regular hexahedral (cubic) d6 die. Over the centuries, makers of dice have used nearly all of the possible configurations. Their choices appear in the historical record, and in private collections here and
here.
On the other hand, the term standard die is often used as a generic term to refer to a die which implements the opposite-faces convention: values on opposite faces sum to one more than the number of faces. In the case of the cubic d6, the sum is 7. Bosch, Fathauer, and Segerman offered a thought experiment to explain how the opposite-faces convention preserves averages for imperfectly shaped dice. In a word, they explained how the convention mitigates oblateness. Since so many modern dice makers have been using this convention, it might be considered to be the de facto standard; however, this convention says nothing about how the face pairs are distributed across the die. More precisely, the term standard d6 refers to the two-member set of cubic dice which implement the opposite-faces convention. The two configurations are mirror images. Here are their nets illustrated in the stereotypical cruciform:
                               Enantiomorphs
           -----------------------------------------------------
              left-handed                     right-handed
                 *****                           *****
                 * 3 *                           * 3 *
             *************                   *************
             * 2 * 1 * 5 *                   * 5 * 1 * 2 *
             *************                   *************
                 * 4 *                           * 4 *
                 *****                           *****
                 * 6 *                           * 6 *
                 *****                           *****

The cubic d6 has only 15 pairs of enantiomorphs. What are they? Who used them? Is there a pair with statistics which might rival the opposite-faces convention? To answer these questions, start counting configurations.
The Combinatorics
There are 6!=720 ways to map numbers 1...6 onto the faces of the cubic d6 die, but many of these configurations are rotationally equivalent. The size of the rotational symmetry group |G|=24. So, there are
                         6!/|G| = 720/24
                                = 30

rotationally distinct configurations of the cubic d6 die. This count includes mirror images. In a perfect world, dice makers may choose any one of these 30 rotationally distinct configurations; however, the world is not perfect. The opposite-faces convention helps to mitigate some of that imperfection. How many configurations implement the opposite-faces convention?

There are 6 ways to place "6" on an arbitrary face; this placement determines the placement of "1" on the opposite face.
There are 4 ways to place "5" on one of the remaining faces; this placement determines the placement of "2" on the opposite face.
Finally, there are 2 ways to place "4" on one of the remaining faces; this placement determines the placement of "3" on the opposite face.

So, there are
6!!/|G| = (642)/24
= 48/24
= 2
rotationally distinct configurations implementing the opposite-faces convention
. This count includes the two mirror images illustrated above.
The 30 configurations appear here and half of them appear here (note the correction in the Description and the silent correction in the video shortly after 10:00). Parker listed the 15 configurations in the same order as they appear in Table 1 in de Voogt et al. and with face "1" consistently appearing at the center of the cruciform. The following table is a similar listing but shows the configurations as paired mirror images.
                                    mirror image
                                    -------------

     1.          *****                  *****
                 * 5 *                  * 5 *
             *************          *************
             * 3 * 1 * 4 *          * 4 * 1 * 3 *
             *************          *************
                 * 6 *                  * 6 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 2 *                  * 2 *
                 *****                  *****

     2.          *****                  *****
                 * 4 *                  * 4 *
             *************          *************
             * 3 * 1 * 5 *          * 5 * 1 * 3 *
             *************          *************
                 * 6 *                  * 6 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 2 *                  * 2 *
                 *****                  *****

     3.          *****                  *****
                 * 4 *                  * 4 *
             *************          *************
             * 3 * 1 * 6 *          * 6 * 1 * 3 *
             *************          *************
                 * 5 *                  * 5 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 2 *                  * 2 *
                 *****                  *****

     4.          *****                  *****
                 * 5 *                  * 5 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 4 *          * 4 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 6 *                  * 6 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 3 *                  * 3 *
                 *****                  *****

     5.          *****                  *****
                 * 4 *                  * 4 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 5 *          * 5 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 6 *                  * 6 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 3 *                  * 3 *
                 *****                  *****

     6.          *****                  *****
                 * 4 *                  * 4 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 6 *          * 6 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 5 *                  * 5 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 3 *                  * 3 *
                 *****                  *****

     7.          *****                  *****
                 * 5 *                  * 5 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 3 *          * 3 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 6 *                  * 6 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 4 *                  * 4 *
                 *****                  *****

     8.          *****                  *****
                 * 3 *                  * 3 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 5 *          * 5 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 6 *                  * 6 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 4 *                  * 4 *
                 *****                  *****

     9.          *****                  *****
                 * 3 *                  * 3 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 6 *          * 6 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 5 *                  * 5 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 4 *                  * 4 *
                 *****                  *****

    10.          *****                  *****
                 * 4 *                  * 4 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 3 *          * 3 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 6 *                  * 6 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 5 *                  * 5 *
                 *****                  *****

    11.          *****                  *****
                 * 3 *                  * 3 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 4 *          * 4 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 6 *                  * 6 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 5 *                  * 5 *
                 *****                  *****

    12.          *****                  *****
                 * 3 *                  * 3 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 6 *          * 6 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 4 *                  * 4 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 5 *                  * 5 *
                 *****                  *****

    13.          *****                  *****
                 * 4 *                  * 4 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 3 *          * 3 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 5 *                  * 5 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 6 *                  * 6 *
                 *****                  *****

    14.          *****                  *****
                 * 3 *                  * 3 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 4 *          * 4 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 5 *                  * 5 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 6 *                  * 6 *
                 *****                  *****

    15.          *****                  *****
                 * 3 *                  * 3 *
             *************          *************
             * 2 * 1 * 5 *          * 5 * 1 * 2 *
             *************          *************
                 * 4 *                  * 4 *
                 *****                  *****
                 * 6 *                  * 6 *
                 *****                  *****

(Readers are invited to compare their d6s against the 15 pairs above.)
Parker asked (Question #6, 11:34), "How good are our original, normal, garden-variety, six-sided dice when it comes to the values around any one verticee(sic)?" He analyzed the 15 configurations with a proof by exhaustion and provided his results as a table of statistics in the Description. He concluded that while Configuration #15 implements the opposite-faces convention (all three pairs of opposite faces sum to 7), it is the worst in terms of numerically balanced vertices. Configuration #1 is the best in terms of numerically balanced vertices but the worst in terms of the convention; Configuration #1 has only a single pair of opposite faces summing to 7. (The configuration circled in gold in the video is the left-handed version of Configuration #15. The configuration circled in purple is Configuration #1.)
In the end there are two competing configurations. Configuration #1 mitigates air bubbles; configuration #15 mitigates oblateness. The mass market chose #15. Some manufacturers chose the right-handed version of Configuration #15; others chose the left-handed version.
But wait! There's more! The cubic d6 is not the only marketed d6:

triangular bipyramid

Pyramid d6, The Dice Lab

symmetric trigonal trapezohedron

Slant Dice, The Dice Lab
Hedron D6, Tiny Tokens
Isodie 10, Geometrix

asymmetric trigonal trapezohedron

Skew Dice, The Dice Lab

modified triangular prism (dreidel)

Top d6, Wombat

modified triangular antiprism

"Crystal" d6, The Dice Lab
Barrel Dice RPG Set, Diceforge

(any others?)

The reader is invited to discover the configurations applied to these alternate d6s.

For completeness, there's also the modified hexagonal prism D6


text:
In the 2013 version with the Fire and Ice tokens, how do I move ice if it is another color's turn?
In my game, it's yellow's turn and I draw an Ice card while one of the green pawns is using it, do one of my pawns get iced, move 1 space only without using ice or, another color of my choice gets iced?

As per the rules:

When you draw an Ice card you must move the ice token, either to one of your opponent's valid pawns, or to the center of the board, and then move one of your pawns forward 1 space.
This occurs during your turn.


text:
Phase 10: End of a turn and new phase
We are 3 players.
My 2 opponents are both in 2nd phase, I'm still in 1st phase.
Their score are: 0 and 10, mine is 60.
I finally complete the phase and end my turn.
What happens to my opponents?
All their cards are shuffled for the next turn? They have to count the points in their hands? Even if I came from a lower phase?
Somewhere I read that cards should remain in opponents hands to play next turn.
Thanks for your answers!

Just completing your phase doesn’t mean that the hand is over, you would also have to actually go out. Your opponents have until someone goes out to also complete their phase.
If you meant that you did go out, then the hand would end immediately. You move to phase 2 while your opponents stay in phase 2. They count up the points in their hands and add them to the their score. Then a new hand begins; no cards are kept from one hand to the next.
It makes no difference if the player who goes out is a phase behind the other players or not. All players have until someone goes out to make their phase.

If you successfully make a Phase, then you try to make the next Phase in the next hand. If you fail to make a Phase, you must try to make the same Phase again in the next hand. As a result, players may not all be working on the same Phase in the same hand.

After laying down a Phase, players try to “go out” as soon as possible. To go out, you must get rid of all of your cards, by discarding or hitting on an existing Phase. The player to go out first wins the hand. The winner of the hand, and any other players who also complete their Phase, will advance to the next Phase for the next hand. Players total the cards left in their hands. (The fewer cards left in your hand, the better!) All the cards are then shuffled and a new hand begins. (Remember, if you did not complete the Phase before another player went out, you must work on the same Phase again in the next hand.)

http://www.tactic.net/site/rules/FIN/03140.pdf

Thanks a lot.. it was really hard to find this info!!


text:
When, if ever, are battleships worth buying in Axis and Allies?
From watching better players than I and reading their commentary on the game, it seems that BBs would never ever be worth the purchase, even 2 HP battleships in the later versions of the game. Especially with house rules that drop the cost of DDs, and HP being so important to the game, it doesn't seem like they'd ever be worth buying.
Am I missing something? Bombardment surely isn't that valuable.

never.
24 IPC is just way too costly, even with double HP.  I think this gets along with real history: no super power build any BBs after the war had started.

Found several house rules that makes BB a better buy:

Cost 20 + Allowing battleships to transport 1 ground unit.
Cost 18 or have them defend at a 5 or have them costal bombard at a 5.
BB with 1 damage can be repaired.

Sources:

How to make battleships a more attractive purchase
Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units

If you had to suggest a house rule making BBs more worthwhile, what would you reckon?

My first suggestion is to keep with the original rules and just don't buy BBs.
After Dozens of games, I would try Cost 18 + costal bombard at a 5.

There is one case where they are useful - when you don't have enough production slots to build the more efficient units. Some examples are...

you want to build navy in India, and there are only 3 slots. So battleship is an efficient use of a production slot - you could build 1 destroyer and 2 subs for the same cost. While it is a better use of 20ipc (3 hit points,6 attack,4 defense vs 2,4,4 for battleship) you can build more if you have the income.

another reason to purchase a battleship is when your navy is doing trading - ie lots of battles, or multi-wave attacks. if you think of say a 1-2 punch on Japan's Navy (ie US attacks first, and UK second), then provided the first attack by the US doesn't win, the battleship gets its 2hp back for the second fight. So it kind of has "3 hit points" in a multi-wave attack.

As a simplistic example, consider a two wave attack of 3 bombers, then 4 bombers. If we have 64ipc, then  8 destroyers gives maximum hp. This has around a 45% chance of at least 1 destroyer surviving. If you have 3 battleships, which cost 60ipc, this has a 60% chance of at least 1 battleship surviving. However, the efficiency gain tends to be when the first attack is smaller. In the example, if you switch the order of attack, so the 4 bombers go first, then the 3 battleship defence has 45% chance, whereas the 8 destroyer chance stay about the same


text:
Tiger-Tribe Hunter and temporary power/toughness changes
I played AFR draft on MTG Arena last night and encountered something that doesn't make sense to me.
My opponent had a Zombie Ogre with a +1/+1 counter and a Death-Priest of Myrkul in play. I had a Targ Nar, Demon-Fang Gnoll and a Tiger-Tribe Hunter.
In my precombat main phase, I doubled Targ Nar's power and toughness twice, making it an 8/8. I declared both of my creatures as attackers and sacrificed him to Tiger-Tribe Hunter's triggered ability (targeting Zombie Ogre). Only 2 damage got applied to Zombie Ogre, but I was expecting it to be lethal.
Any insight would be appreciated!

FWIW: The latest update for JumpStart Horizons has a reputation as being quite buggy.

That is a bug. It should deal 8 damage.
Tiger-Tribe Hunter has a ruling that says

Use the sacrificed creature's power as it last existed on the battlefield to determine how much damage is dealt.

Targ Nar's power was 8 when it was last on the battlefield, so the Tiger-Tribe Hunter should deal 8 damage.
This problem with Tiger-Tribe Hunter has been reported as a bug by several other people on the official Magic: Arena bug reporting website.


text:
Aqueduct - right or duty?
Rules:

If, when the dice are rolled for production, you do not receive any resources or commodities, you may take any one resource of your choice from the bank. You may not, however, use this ability when a "7" is rolled.

But is this right or duty? May I not use this ability and not take a resource? For example, I have seven cards in my hand and I don't want to have more?

'May' is optional
It is pretty much universal among board games that if the game says you 'may' take an action, that action is optional. If the word 'may' is not present, the action is usually mandatory.

If, when the dice are rolled for production, you do not receive any resources or commodities, you MAY take any one resource of your choice from the bank. You may not, however, use this ability when a "7" is rolled.

Emphasis mine.

That's what "may" means in the common English sense too. In some other contexts, it's also codified that it means something actually optional. Board games usually don't go as far as defining words like that, but yeah, luckily they do use the word in the same sense.


text:
Empty bank and Aqueduct
Our situation:

Extension Cities&Knights
Dices gave us the number 9
All players have settlement in the corner of hexes with number 9 and both 9 hexes are grain
There are not enough grain cards in the bank to supply all players.

According to FAQ (https://web.archive.org/web/20161030152422/https://www.catan.com/faq/4622-resource-cards-what-order-are-resource-cards-distributed-if-there-are-not-enough-cards) none of the players receives grain resource on this turn.
But one of the players has city improvements Aqueduct and rules say: if, when the dice are rolled for production, you do not receive any resources or commodities, you may take any one resource of your choice from the bank.
And the question is: can the player with Aqueduct take any resource from the bank in our situation?

Not quite a duplicate, but very similar, and likely the same answer: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/11868/can-you-collect-a-resource-of-your-choice-if-you-have-no-production-due-to-the-r

"if, when the dice are rolled for production, you do not receive any resources or commodities, you may take any one resource of your choice from the bank." - this rule speaks about dice. And the dice want to give us resources. But the bank doesn't want to.

"When the dice are rolled for production" is simply the timing of when the event is happening. The event itself is "you do not receive any resources or commodities". I agree that the rule isn't as completely clear as it should be; but I believe a plain and literal reading of the rules as written gives the answer that's accepted for the other question. My answer on that other question even mentions empty piles.

if Aqueduct says "if you don't receive resources" and the general rule says essentially that no one receives the resources, then that reads clear as day to me. So, in the absence of any errata that says that Aqueduct after all wasn't supposed to work like that, I'd argue you do get the one resource. (One might argue the FAQ entry says you can't get that particular resource by any means this turn, not even with the Aqueduct, but that's maybe reading it a bit too far.)

Yes.
Sebastian Rapp of Kosmos confirms on BGG:

Cities & Knights:
If a player has an aqueduct and is entitled to claim a resource for it, he may claim a resource that was not given to the players due to a shortage. He may even do so, if he is only allowed to use the aqueduct because of the shortage.

There's also this second-hand recollection of confirmation from Teuber:

That player received no production. The roll was not a "7". Therefore, their Aqueduct works. And yes, that is the same if the reason is a robber on the hex. This was in an earlier German-language FAQ from Klaus Teuber, but I can't find it online now.

Someone else also confirmed that it was in the FAQ in this reply on BGG:

The FAQ at Klaus Teuber's website explicitly answers the original question [robber]: The Aqueduct still works in that case.
He also has a link to a more detailed FAQ at http://www.siedeln.de/faq/ which answers the other question [scarcity of resources]: A card shortage will also qualify for the Aqueduct.


text:
Pokemon TCG Starting Decks
My son and I are new to Pokemon TCG. We purchased the Pokémon Trading Card Game Battle Academy and have been enjoying it. It came with three complete decks: electric, fire, and psychic. Each one came with a powerful GX card.
We would like to purchase a starting deck for each pure energy type of approximately equal strength to one another. Searching for decks has proven to be difficult as there are many options out there which we do not yet understand.
What would we be looking for to get these beginner, pre-constructed type decks in each energy type?

Battle academy decks are excellent starter decks, but they don't exactly match up with any of the other available pre-built decks out there.  Approximately, you have:
Theme decks - these are no longer being printed new, but they existed until a few sets ago and are still available if you look around online.  Two came out with each new set.  They're the lowest level of deck; they have no GX/V "super" card, and they're usually not very consistent.  They cost very little, though, new they were MSRP around $12-13.  Typically they have 20-20-20 structure (20 Pokémon, 20 trainers, 20 energy), or close to that.
V Battle decks to some extent replaced theme decks; they no longer come out with new sets, instead just coming out periodically on their own.  They do have a "big card" in them, and might be the closest in concept to the Battle Academy decks.  They also have a 20-20-20 structure, but they do have one "big" Pokémon.
League Battle decks are the next tier up, and are generally based on a legitimate, competitive deck.  They no longer have the 20-20-20 style, but instead have a sensible amount of energy/Pokémon and far more trainers.
If I wanted to get a similar level of play, I'd probably go with the V Battle decks; there's only four of them, and unfortunately some of those types overlap, with both of the newer ones (Victini (Fire) and Gardevoir (Psychic)) overlapping, but you can get the grass (Venusaur) and water (Blastoise) if you can find them.
You also could look for "Battle Academy Supplement" decks, if you don't mind doing some extra work.  Justin Basil created several, and listed the deck lists on PokeGoldfish.  For these you'd have to buy the cards individually - which might be complicated - but you might be able to walk into a local gaming store and get some help there, as odds are most of the cards in the deck would be readily available.
Finally, you could also pick up some older Theme decks (don't pay more than $15-20 (USD) for them - anything much more than that is either ripping you off, or there are a few that are more valuable as collectors items). If you do that, you could consider buying a single "V" card of a matching type and adding it to the deck; without that bigger "V" or "GX" card, it's not going to be quite balanced right, but that might make the difference.  Just switch out one of the other Pokémon cards from the theme deck, one that doesn't evolve into anything.

If you want to evaluate decks for yourself as you see them out there, here's what you need:

Card structure.  Most competitive Pokémon decks have ~10 Pokémon, ~10 energy, and ~40 trainers (Item/Supporter/Stadium).  Not exactly these numbers, but in this ballpark - if it has less than 30 trainers, it's not going to be very consistent.  If you play a "20/20/20" deck against a deck like this, it's going to lose most of the time even if the cards are better because it won't be able to get them out.
HP and damage ability.  Even one "big" card with 200-300 HP can make a big difference here.  Evaluate whether one deck can "one hit" (do more damage in one attack than the other card has hit points) all of the cards in the other deck, once it gets set up; if one can, but the other can't, then it will be difficult for the other to win.  Each deck should have a similar number of cards with "big" hit points, and preferably neither deck can "one hit" the other deck's "big" card(s) if you want a game that is more balanced.
Complexity, particularly related to Abilities.  Abilities are pretty powerful, since they are an additional thing the card can do, sometimes when played, sometimes all the time!  If one deck has a lot of abilities, and the other doesn't, it may have an advantage.  It's also harder to play a deck with abilities, though!  Some attacks are pretty similar to abilities in that they do things other than damage, and that also leads to more complexity (and more power).

Don't be afraid to change the decks you got over time - remove Pokémon that don't work well, and add more trainers, particularly ones that let you draw more cards.  That will let you grow the decks to more effective (and more fun) decks as you play more.  You can buy a Trainer's Toolkit, if you want, which will help a lot - that gives you a bunch of trainers that are useful in nearly any deck.

"Most competitive Pokémon decks have ~10 Pokémon, ~10 energy, and ~40 trainers" Really? I'm surprised they run that few Pokémon and Energy cards. I've mostly played MtG competitively (I haven't really played the Pokémon TCG since I was a kid), but lands typically make up about 40% of a MtG deck, and they're analogous to Energy cards. Are most of the 40 trainer cards usually card draw and tutoring?

Basically, yes (though tutoring is not a common word in Pokémon lingo, outside of MtG converts, it’s called [thing] search).  Pokémon games last maybe five to eight turns for each player much of the time, and in that time you draw through maybe 40-45 cards. Maybe more.  There is ball search to pick the Pokémon you need and probably half the turns or more you’ll play a draw five to seven card supporter.  Pokémon really has nearly nothing in common with MtG nowadays it seems sometimes!


text:
XMage alternative to draft Magic the Gathering online?
I'm getting back into Magic the Gathering at the start of Innistrad Midnight Hunt. I used to use XMage for drafts online, but while the program looks alive and well, it doesn't seem like there are any active players drafting on it. Is there a newer alternative that players have moved to?
I checked out Arena and grinding 10,000 gold for every draft or paying $10 per draft are off the table for me.

Is there a newer alternative that players have moved to?

Arena; that may not be the answer you want to hear, but it is where the players are.
If you're reasonable at drafting (e.g. a 50% win rate or higher), it's much less than 10k gold per draft because of the gem rewards; 4-3 in a Bo1 draft is 1400 gems, which is close enough to the 1500 gems you need.

Thx for the response. A smaller community is fine, XMage was always minuscule compared to MTGO, but there were usually 2 drafts running at a time of the newest set which was great. For the Arena grind, assuming a free draft is won with gems 50% of the time, I'd still need to grind 7500 gold per draft, which is like 40 games I don't want to play.

@Koyok If you're good enough at drafting it takes a 5/3 result on the Best-Of-One Premier Drafts(1600 gem reward) or 3/0 on every other the Best-Of-Three Traditional Drafts(3000 gem reward) to earn your 1500 gem entry back and go straight into the next one. Doing better on Premier (up to 7/3 before you stop earning more prizes) or getting a win or two on the off traditional drafts give you some cushion if you fail to win enough on occasion.

@Allure 5 wins before 3 losses on premier BO1 gives 1600 gems, paying the 1500 gem cost of your next draft.

@Koyok usually when a set comes out, wizards only unlocks premier drafts. I'd advise you to wait a few more days/weeks until quick drafts are available. They cost 750Gems/5000Gold.

@bautista Ty, if it drops to 5000 that's much better. I'll give Arenas a shot a shot, but I still haven't earned my first 10,000 gold from dailies since posting.

There are programs that allow you to draft against a computer.
Forge is a fan-created program that lets you play Magic the Gathering games against an AI opponent. One of the modes you can do so in is Drafting, and after the draft is over, you'll be able to play against the AI drafted decks.
Additionally, there's the website draftsim.com. it also lets you draft against an AI, though in this case I believe that the AI's card selection is influenced by how often a card is picked by previous players. Unlike Forge, however, there isn't any option to actually play the decks you've drafted.

If you're interested in drafting old sets on XMage this Discord server might interest you: https://discord.gg/YE59Eaj They are the XMage Draft Historical Society and they run multiple drafts every week of old Magic sets.


text:
What and where are the rules that govern mixing units of different factions into one army? (AoS Chaos demons and Slaves to Darkness)
I'm starting to get into the hobby, and I wanted to make a mixed StD and Slaanesh army, so I read the rulebook and battletomes for both factions, searching for the right way to do that, and the only thing I came across with is the 1 out of 4 allied units rule (AoS Core rules, page 34.) or to make a Grand alliance army (for which I don't own the book).
A friend of mine is convinced that Allies are limited to 20% of the total points of your army (in addition to the 1 in 4 rule), but I couldn't find that written down on the actual rules.
Also, I found the following comment on the rpg.net forum:

If you're running a Slaves to Darkness army, it's just normal ally rules same as any other army. Allowable allies for an Slaves to Darkness army are: Nurgle, Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, Beast of Chaos.

If you're running an army for one of the four chaos gods, any Slave to Darkness unit that can be given a mark (it says so in their warscroll if you can) can be natively included in your army (not an ally) if you give it the appropriate mark of chaos. So if my army allegiance is "Nurgle" I can take Chaos Warriors with the mark of Nurgle as a regular part of my army, since the mark of Nurgle grants them the Nurgle keyword.

I've looked around the boardgame exchange, and related answers would indicate that both my friend and the rpg.net commenter are wrong, but I'm not 100% sure.
Can anyone point out if these are actual written rules for AoS and (if that is the case) provide a quote or the name of the book/page where I can find it?

The "General's Handbook" Page 9, pitched battles table 1, states that armies in 1000 point battles are limited to 0-200 points in allied units, while in 2000 point battles, the limit is 0-400 points for allied units. That must be the origin of the 20% idea.
As for the second statement, the (August 2021) Errata on the Hedonites of Slaanesh 2 has the following rule:
LEGIONS OF CHAOS:
A Hedonites of Slaanesh army can include coalition units (see below)
as follows:

2 in every 4 units in the army can be a coalition unit from the Slaves
to Darkness faction that has the Mark of Chaos keyword. Those
units must be given the Slaanesh Mark of Chaos keyword.
1 in every 4 units in the army can be a coalition unit from the
Beasts of Chaos faction that does not have the Tzeentch keyword.
Those units gain the Slaanesh keyword.
A Hedonites of Slaanesh army cannot include coalition units with the
Khorne keyword.

Coalition units do not count towards the number of Battleline units
in your army. However, they do count towards the maximum number
of Leader, Behemoth and Artillery units in your army. Coalition
units cannot be generals. In addition, Coalition units are ignored
when determining if the units in your army are from a single faction.
Designer’s Note: Coalition units are not allied units, so the
limitations that apply to allied units do not apply to them. This means
that coalition units can be given one of your army’s enhancements, as
long as they have the correct keywords or are of the correct unit type
needed to receive it.’


text:
How can showing the least number of fingers be used to determine who goes first?
I was reading this article about marbles and came across this line about determining who goes first.

When I played, we used a common practice of the past where each player at the count of five would display one to five fingers. The person who displayed the lowest number of fingers went first.

How does this system work? Wouldn't everyone always show 1 finger and then it would always be a tie?

maybe 5 beats 1 is the only exception?

Probably because it's one of these; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_bid_auction

I believe the crucial word that is missing is "unique":

The person who displayed the lowest unique number of fingers went first.

i.e. if two players both showed one finger, they would be "skipped" and anybody who showed two fingers would then go first - unless of course, there were two players who showed two fingers as well, when you'd move onto three fingers and so on.
This game (at least without the upper limit) is a reasonably well studied academic problem; see e.g. Beck and Bernhardsson, 2010.


text:
Mahjong Probability Graph Question

Picture from pierebean's post in In Mahjong , what is the chance to get a hand that allows a player to finish on their first turn?
I was wondering what the graph on the right meant? How does the number of mahjong hands & the mean number of draws correlate to the graphs on the left and why would they form an exponential-shaped graph?
And how does the exponential shaped graph relate to the poisson distribution at all?

I’m voting to close this question because it's not really about board games, it's about understanding how to read the graph. As such it more properly belongs on either the maths or stats SE.


text:
Write custom symbols in text
My game use boxes □ that are marked with one or more line depending on how many times they are used. They can be marked up to 3 times, first with a single line like 〼, then ☒, finally a third horizontal line over the X.
I suspect there is a "best practice" for working with custom symbols in text like this, but what is it?
As you see above some are available as unicode symbols, but not all and not in a uniform size. Handling them as images works in some cases but becomes difficult as they break up the text flow in any word-processor style text like instructions. I have looked at various symbol fonts without any luck.

Could you elaborate what issues you're having with images? An image smaller than your line height shouldn't be a problem for a text editor.

How much space is available for this "box"? You could do better using an alternative 1-2-3 counting system than a / or x or * setup.

And for what is it used in the end? Integration into a game engine might have a different solution than for printing a physical copy.

You show the empty box as  □ but this ☐ seems to be the same size as these 〼 ☒ ☑. Can't find one with a horizontal bar as mentioned. Perhaps 1, 2, and 3 lines can be these – = ≡ symbols.

I'm now thinking of things like custom emoji/symbols syntax like :box: or :box-1: but I have no idea if that's a standard for writing rules text. I know that Magic uses braces as placeholders for game symbols ({R} represents the red mana symbol).

Small images like Cadence mentions is actually a working solution, I guesss I just assumed there would be something more "elegant". A game like Magic should certainly have a good way to deal with this - whatever they do should work for me too except it could be an issue if placeholder has a different size. Symbols will be used in physical game props, cards, instructions as well as online material.

I know for web-stuff ist's common to include vectorized icons/logos/symbols in the font itself. There are many websites that help with this process. If those fonts are viable to use in a boardgame/print setting, I don't know.


text:
Re-stun monsters at Betrayal at HotH
In Betrayal at House on the Hill, you can stun monsters by attacking them, however: they do not die. The rules say a stunned monster can be attacked again.
Is a monster stunned again when attacked while it’s stunned, meaning you can stun a monster again on your next turn so it will miss its turn repeatedly?
What about two heros stun a monster in the same round, does the stun stack meaning the monster misses multiple rounds?

In this bgg thread it is explained that a monster can not be stunned twice. If the player attacking the monster has a special weapon (based on the haunt) it can damage the monster. But if your attack only stuns, stunning a stunned character does not stun it anymore.


text:
Clarification on Card Rulings on Exodia
From the Yugioh wiki, there are two rulings that contradict each other:

Suppose that both players have "Appropriate" active, and that they are
in the middle of a "loop" where both players keep drawing. If a player
completes "Exodia the Forbidden One" during that loop, then he
immediately wins the Duel and there is no more drawing.

When resolving the effect of "Pot of Greed" or "Appropriate", if the
only card left in your Deck is the last piece of "Exodia the Forbidden
One", then you lose the Duel because you cannot draw when you are
forced to draw.

Based on the 1st ruling, players can't lose by decking out once they've completed Exodia the Forbidden One, the 2nd one says otherwise.
Effectively, this boils down to the question: Which has the higher priority, Card Draw Effects or Instant Win Effects? Which ruling do I follow?

The specific case ruling overrides the general case ruling.
Each set of draws caused by Appropriate or Pot Of Greed is an atomic action. It must be completed in full before any further effects can occur.
Thus, while trapped in a loop where both players have Appropriate active, it is possible for the individual set of draws caused by one Appropriate to be complete, allowing the player who holds all five pieces of Exodia to win the game immediately (before the next set of draws is begun).
However, if the deck consists of only the fifth piece of Exodia, the set of draws must be completed. Since the deck is empty after the first draw and the player must still make a second draw, they lose the game through deck-out, despite holding a hand with all five pieces of Exodia.

So what happens in this scenario:

Both players activate Appropriate
Both already have 4 pieces in their hands.
At some point one of the players (let's say Player 1) only has the last piece of Exodia in their deck left.

Does Player 1 lose by decking out?

If they cannot draw a card when required, yes, they deck out. If they can complete Exodia between sets of required draws, no, they win immediately, the next set of draws does not occur.

So in the scenario I presented, if Player 1 had to draw because of Appropriate, then they lose. Okay, I understand, thank you.


text:
Canasta Question
If you pick up the pile of discards to meld, can you then use the entire rest of the pile in that same turn or do you have to wait until your next turn to use the rest of the pile?

Thank you!  It seems like you should have to wait a round like you do with the extra three cards you receive after your initial meld.

Welcome to [boardgames.se]! Your last comment seems to be a reply to the answer; it's better to post it as a comment there instead of under your question.

“The extra three cards you received after your initial meld”. That is not a rule I have heard of. Are you playing Classic or American Canasta?

You can always meld any cards you have available to meld on your turn; it doesn’t matter if you just picked them up from the discard pile this turn or if you already had them.
Do note that cards from the discard pile, other than the top card, cannot be included in your initial meld for determining if you meet the minimum point requirement. But after that initial meld and you pick up the rest of the pile, you can continue to meld whatever you want.

A player may meld as many cards as they please, of one rank or different ranks, forming new melds or adding cards to previous melds.

https://bicyclecards.com/how-to-play/canasta/


text:
If a Ring-bearer loses all abilities, does that include The Ring's abilities?
While playing Arena, I enchanted my opponent's Slimefoot, Thallid Transparent, which was their Ring-bearer, with Witness Protection. I expected that Witness Protection's ability removal would remove the one ability that The Ring's had at the time, "Your Ring-bearer is legendary and can't be blocked by creatures with greater power". It's a simple matter of timestamps, right? First The Ring gives Slimefoot the ability, then Witness Protection removes it. However, it did not. Here is a screenshot:

Thinking this was simply a visual bug, displaying the ability without granting it, I attacked with Dina, Soul Steeper and passed. On my opponent's turn, they attacked with Legitimate Businessperson, and I was not given the option to block it because all my untapped creatures had 3 power. This confirms that the ability was functional.
9 times out of 10 I can mull it over and prove myself wrong when I think there's a bug in Arena, but I'm stumped here.

The effect preventing you from blocking is not an ability on the creature, so Witness Protection does not remove it.
Rule 702.51c says

If a player doesn’t have an emblem named The Ring at the time the Ring tempts them, they get an emblem named The Ring before choosing a creature to be their Ring-bearer. The Ring has “Your Ring-bearer is legendary and can’t be blocked by creatures with greater power.” As long as the Ring has tempted that player two or more times, it has “Whenever your Ring-bearer attacks, draw a card, then discard a card.” As long as the Ring has tempted that player three or more times, it has “Whenever your Ring-bearer becomes blocked by a creature, the blocking creature’s controller sacrifices it at end of combat.” As long as the Ring has tempted that player four or more times, it has “Whenever your Ring-bearer deals combat damage to a player, each opponent loses 3 life.”

None of the abilities on The Ring actually grant abilities to the Ring-bearer. Instead, the effects are created by the abilities on The Ring itself. So, there's nothing here to remove from the creature.


text:
Who taps my opponent's creatures if I control my opponent?
Solitary Sanctuary is a new card from Wilds of Eldraine that reads, in part:

Whenever you tap an untapped creature an opponent controls, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature you control.

(The set has several other cards with similar trigger conditions.) Suppose I'm controlling my opponent's turn with Mindslaver. If I activate an ability of a creature they control that has {T} in its cost, does Solitary Sanctuary trigger? If I attack with one of their creatures, does it trigger?

No, it will not trigger, your opponent is still tapping their own creatures, not you. As far as the game is concerned, you are telling your opponent what to do and they are still the one doing it. If the game considered you were the one tapping their permanents, tapping their lands would give you mana not them for example. This effect triggers from effects like Freeze in Place or Three Bowls of Porridge


text:
What happens if an Aura loses all abilities?
If an Aura loses all abilities, that would mean it loses its enchant ability. Assuming it's still attached to something, what happens to it? I would expect that the rules would say that it's put into its owner's graveyard, but they are less than clear.
The state-based action that cleans up improperly attached Auras says only that an Aura is destroyed if it's attached to something "illegal", without clarifying what "illegal" means.

704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

The rules on Auras basically say the same thing.

303.4c If an Aura is enchanting an illegal object or player as defined by its enchant ability and other applicable effects, the object it was attached to no longer exists, or the player it was attached to has left the game, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

But the definition of enchant seems to offer some clarity:

702.5a Enchant is a static ability, written “Enchant [object or player].” The enchant ability restricts what an Aura spell can target and what an Aura can enchant.

The word "restricts" implies to me that by default, Auras are allowed to enchant anything and their enchant ability only limits that to whatever it says. So if an Aura had no enchant ability, it could just stay attached and not doing anything, right?

It's put into its owner's graveyard.
As excited as I was by the above rules ambiguity, a ruling on Immovable Rod settles the issue.

If you target an Aura with Immovable Rod's last ability, it will lose its enchant ability and be put into its owner's graveyard because it can't legally enchant anything. An Equipment that loses its abilities loses its equip ability, so you won't be able to move it that way, but it will stay attached to the creature it's equipping, if any.


text:
Can I meld a creature if I've mutated it?
What happens if I activate the melding ability of a creature while I both own and control it and the other half, but —

Scenario 1: I have mutated under the creature?
Scenario 2: I have mutated over the creature, then turned the merged permanent into a copy of the original creature?

The comprehensive rules for meld don't mention mutate. The rules for merging permanents say only this about meld:

726.2j A face-up merged permanent that contains a double-faced card or meld card can’t be turned face down.

Yes, you can meld using a merged permanent. The other components of the merged permanent stay in exile.
Meld effects, like on Gisela, the Broken Blade are written like this:

At the beginning of your end step, if you both own and control Gisela, the Broken Blade and a creature named Bruna, the Fading Light, exile them, then meld them into Brisela, Voice of Nightmares.

First, the effect checks if you own and control a creature with the specified name, but that is all that it requires, so the creature can be a copy, or merged, or have its name changed, and the effect will still happen. The first thing the effect does is exile the two permanents. The specific result of this is described in rule 721.3 and subrules:

721.3. If a merged permanent leaves the battlefield, one permanent leaves the battlefield and each of the individual components are put into the appropriate zone.

721.3c If an effect can find the new object that a merged permanent becomes as it leaves the battlefield, it finds all of those objects. (See rule 400.7.) If that effect causes actions to be taken upon those objects, the same actions are taken upon each of them.

Then the effect instructs you to meld the cards. Because of rule 721.3c, it actually instructs you to meld all of the exiled cards. The meld rules describe how this is handled:

701.36a Meld is a keyword action that appears in an ability on one card in a meld pair. (See rule 712, “Meld Cards.”) To meld the two cards in a meld pair, put them onto the battlefield with their back faces up and combined. The resulting permanent is a single object represented by two cards.
701.36b Only two cards belonging to the same meld pair can be melded. Tokens, cards that aren’t meld cards, or meld cards that don’t form a meld pair can’t be melded.
701.36c If an effect instructs a player to meld cards that can’t be melded, they stay in their current zone.

So, you can only actually meld the cards belonging to the meld card. In this example, that would be Gisela, the Broken Blade, and Bruna, the Fading Light. The other components of the merged permanent cannot be melded, so they stay in exile.

I don't know if I would interpret 701.36c the same way as you do. If it said "If an effect instructs a player to meld a card that can't be melded, it stays" then I would agree with you. The meldable component of the merged permanent can certainly be melded, but the combination of both cards cannot be melded with the other half. After all, 721.3c says that the action is taken on all the objects, which I would understand as meaning that both cards of the merged permanent attempt to meld as one half.

Once the components of the merged permanent are exiled, they are separate cards, no longer part of a single object. 721.3c says to take the action on "each" of the permanents, which indicates that you should consider them separately. And I think the wording difference for 701.36c doesn't matter here. Another way of looking at it is that when you apply 721.3c to the meld action, you are trying to meld each pair of the single card and each component of the merged permanent. For each pair where one component is not a meldable permanent, the cards stay in exile. For the correct pair, they meld.

@CainGoldhardt it specifies "a card" not "an object" while the melded stack is a single game object (until it is exiled) it is still made up of several individual cards, only one of which is actually reference by the meld. The rule you are quoting there is more meant to handle melding with clones or token copies of a card that would have been able to meld if it were the original card.


text:
If Storm Herald leaves the battlefield before the Auras it returns, are they still exiled?
If the following things happen in order...

I cast Storm Herald, returning an Aura from my graveyard attached to a creature
Before the next end step, Storm Herald leaves the battlefield
Before the next end step, the Aura leaves the battlefield (into a zone other than exile)

...what happens? To put it another way: is the text on Storm Herald "If those Auras would leave the battlefield, exile them instead of putting them anywhere else" a continuous effect, or rules text that applies only while the creature is on the battlefield? The card has a ruling that clarifies what happens if another effect exiles a returned Aura, but not what happens if it is destroyed or returned to its owner's hand.

It doesn't matter what happens to Storm Herald after its ability has triggered. The auras it returns will be exiled no matter what.
Since the Herald's ability is all one paragraph, it's all part of the same ability.

113.2c An object may have multiple abilities. If the object is represented by a card, then aside from certain defined abilities that may be strung together on a single line (see rule 702, “Keyword Abilities”), each paragraph break in a card’s text marks a separate ability.[..]

The triggered ability creates a delayed triggered ability. This happens even if Herald leaves the battlefield before the ability resolves.
If the auras being exiled would depend on Herald being alive, the exiling part would be its own ability with its own paragraph and wording.